3 ms·

>>Are we missing something? Yes H.L.Menken: For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. Populism is about revenge of the

by toss1 3y ago

>>Are we missing something? Yes H.L.Menken: For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. Populism is about revenge of the narcissistic dullards who are sick of the experts getting to say how things run and what to do. Just because experts also get it wrong sometimes doesn't mean that they should be thrown out, yet the populists are happy to do it (usually backed by behind-the-scenes moneyed interests who want to destroy regulations preventing them from externalizing costs) Their populist leaders throw out or disregard the experts, and start letting the moneyed interests externalize costs in thousands of frankly stupider (but popular) decisions. It also popularizes things like bigotry and anti-science aggression, which increases friction and bad decisions in the private sphere. These bad decisions seem great at first, but eventually accumulate to a far poorer performing economy & society. Populism literally corrodes the foundations of a complex & successful society.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
> narcissistic dullards who are sick of the experts getting to say how things run and what to do. I'm not picking on a easy whipping boy, but isn't that a rather good description of Mark Zuckerberg, his well documented disdain for the establishment, authority and traditional structure? Might it also encompass more of us "entrepreneurs" and hackers than we care to admit? All of us who regularly feel "all these so-called experts...they're doing it wrong! Let me show you" Challengers to the incumbents aren't necessarily always destructive, simply iconoclastic. They're part of a dynamic [0]. Perhaps "populism" is a more complex concept than we, and the linked paper, are giving credit for (in a narrow political frame of "economics". Whose economics? [0] A complex dynamic between "elites" and "masses" that is well analysed by Adam Curtis in many documetray projects.
- toss1 3y ago
  >>Might it also encompass more of us "entrepreneurs" and hackers than we care to admit? Maybe. But there are two polar opposites to the "doesn't like existing solutions" approach. Beyond that superficial similarity of conclusions, there is no similarity between a populist follower vs an upstart entrepreneur, scientist, etc. who puts in the massive amount of work required to gain the insight, and create a new and actually better solution to a complex problem. Conflating the two is a critical error.
inglor_cz 3y ago
Your argument somewhat hinges on supposed existence of experts who know how things run and what to do. Are there even such experts with regard to the economy? The economic academia is full of competing schools of thought which prescribe completely incompatible recipes how to run things. Which of those are experts and which are fakes? Which one of those schools would you choose to run things in your country? There was an interesting example of Pinochet choosing the Chicagoans to run the economy in Chile. Chile certainly grew in GDP, but it also grew a bunch of societal problems coming from inequality, and once Pinochet was gone, the Left resurged, though arguably not to the levels seen before.
- toss1 3y ago
  There certainly ARE experts in how to implement regulations such as safety of work, airplane, railroad, highway, food, etc. etc. etc. Throwing away their advice endangers everyone and increases costs on everyone. And again, just because the experts are sometimes wrong does not mean that you should bet against them. The point is that when intelligent and motivated people put in massive effort to try to figure out how to understand the complexities and get it right, they are a LOT more likely to consistently produce better solutions than random opinion-holders. It you have a software problem to fix, do you go to one of the developers, or just pick the loudest Karen/Kevin on the customer service line and have them fix it? That is really the choice. Of course developers made the error that put the bug there in the first place, but that does not mean that the complainer has an actual fix.
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    "work, airplane, railroad, highway, food ... software problem to fix" Narrow fields like these are usually non-controversial. Populists don't run around screaming about abolishing the traffic lights or veterinarian checks on meat. There are exceptions like "chlorinated chicken", but these are the exceptions that prove the rule. The controversy usually involves the macro stuff where value of expert judgment becomes questionable. Like "how many soldiers and bases worldwide do we need"? "Should we confront China/Russia or appease it?" "Is mass immigration from the Islamic world desirable and how should it be managed?" etc. These are the real flashpoints of modern politics.

by toss1 3y ago

nonrandomstring 3y ago

> narcissistic dullards who are sick of the experts getting to say how things run and what to do. I'm not picking on a easy whipping boy, but isn't that a rather good description of Mark Zuckerberg, his well documented disdain for the establishment, authority and traditional structure? Might it also encompass more of us "entrepreneurs" and hackers than we care to admit? All of us who regularly feel "all these so-called experts...they're doing it wrong! Let me show you" Challengers to the incumbents aren't necessarily always destructive, simply iconoclastic. They're part of a dynamic [0]. Perhaps "populism" is a more complex concept than we, and the linked paper, are giving credit for (in a narrow political frame of "economics". Whose economics? [0] A complex dynamic between "elites" and "masses" that is well analysed by Adam Curtis in many documetray projects.

toss1 3y ago
>>Might it also encompass more of us "entrepreneurs" and hackers than we care to admit? Maybe. But there are two polar opposites to the "doesn't like existing solutions" approach. Beyond that superficial similarity of conclusions, there is no similarity between a populist follower vs an upstart entrepreneur, scientist, etc. who puts in the massive amount of work required to gain the insight, and create a new and actually better solution to a complex problem. Conflating the two is a critical error.

inglor_cz 3y ago

Your argument somewhat hinges on supposed existence of experts who know how things run and what to do. Are there even such experts with regard to the economy? The economic academia is full of competing schools of thought which prescribe completely incompatible recipes how to run things. Which of those are experts and which are fakes? Which one of those schools would you choose to run things in your country? There was an interesting example of Pinochet choosing the Chicagoans to run the economy in Chile. Chile certainly grew in GDP, but it also grew a bunch of societal problems coming from inequality, and once Pinochet was gone, the Left resurged, though arguably not to the levels seen before.

toss1 3y ago
There certainly ARE experts in how to implement regulations such as safety of work, airplane, railroad, highway, food, etc. etc. etc. Throwing away their advice endangers everyone and increases costs on everyone. And again, just because the experts are sometimes wrong does not mean that you should bet against them. The point is that when intelligent and motivated people put in massive effort to try to figure out how to understand the complexities and get it right, they are a LOT more likely to consistently produce better solutions than random opinion-holders. It you have a software problem to fix, do you go to one of the developers, or just pick the loudest Karen/Kevin on the customer service line and have them fix it? That is really the choice. Of course developers made the error that put the bug there in the first place, but that does not mean that the complainer has an actual fix.
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  "work, airplane, railroad, highway, food ... software problem to fix" Narrow fields like these are usually non-controversial. Populists don't run around screaming about abolishing the traffic lights or veterinarian checks on meat. There are exceptions like "chlorinated chicken", but these are the exceptions that prove the rule. The controversy usually involves the macro stuff where value of expert judgment becomes questionable. Like "how many soldiers and bases worldwide do we need"? "Should we confront China/Russia or appease it?" "Is mass immigration from the Islamic world desirable and how should it be managed?" etc. These are the real flashpoints of modern politics.