I write mainly about US monetary policy, US fiscal policy, trade/industrial policy, and climate change policy.
I have my opinions about which US political party is least bad and they are not hard to figure out, but I try to keep my analysis of the issues non-partisan.
Keynes said, “Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.”
Hmm. That depends on you interest among a) atmospheric CO2 optimization, b) Inflation/monetary policy, c) budget/tax/expenditures, d) trade/industrial policy.
May I say your approach in the two posts of yours that I have read feels so close to mine, I could almost be jealous that you are even MORE centrist than I. :) And your writing it admirably more aimed at the not already persuaded/less policy attuned than mine.
Off issue: I started reading Scott Aaronson long after the attempted cancellation. Is it worth understanding how what happened? It was obviously pretty bad subjectively for him as he still talks about it.
I think Scott Alexander's Untitled covers the story pretty well.
To understand what happened, hard to know if it's worth your time (but probably worth reading the Scott Alexander piece just to get a sense of the history of internet crazes). It meant a ton to me at the time, as a guy just reaching the age where he starts dating and having a rough time of it (especially the rampant feminism of the time labeling so many things I thought I was as being a "creep" and alienating me), to see that other guys were (a) going through the same thing and (b) able to publicly point out no, it's not just me, this whole social movement actually is bad and crazy. Now that I'm older, better at dating, and that movement has faded more generally (to be replaced by other social insanities), it bothers me a lot less.
Nice observations. Both. I'm not sure the first, how relative status getting things over and under talked about is mainly about scale and growth of scale over time explains the examples.
It seems the relative status. But the examples are really good.
I especially liked the HIPPA one as it is really annoying. And some think it explains a lot of the demise of single practitioner doctors. At the same time there is not intrinsic reason that The HIPPA law writers had to believe that faxes are secure and email is not.
That's a good point about there not being any specific reason for some annoying but nonsensical parts of the law. But I think this theory predicts that some such features will end up, if the law is motivated at least partly by social signalling (since the writers will care at least somewhat about looking like they want to do something rather than solving the problem effectively).
I see you are not already a subscriber.
"May I invite you to subscribe (for free) to my substack, "Radical Centrist?" https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/
I write mainly about US monetary policy, US fiscal policy, trade/industrial policy, and climate change policy.
I have my opinions about which US political party is least bad and they are not hard to figure out, but I try to keep my analysis of the issues non-partisan.
Keynes said, “Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.”
I want to be that scribbler.
Thanks,"
Thanks for the recommendation, any particular post you'd recommend reading first?
Hmm. That depends on you interest among a) atmospheric CO2 optimization, b) Inflation/monetary policy, c) budget/tax/expenditures, d) trade/industrial policy.
May I say your approach in the two posts of yours that I have read feels so close to mine, I could almost be jealous that you are even MORE centrist than I. :) And your writing it admirably more aimed at the not already persuaded/less policy attuned than mine.
Off issue: I started reading Scott Aaronson long after the attempted cancellation. Is it worth understanding how what happened? It was obviously pretty bad subjectively for him as he still talks about it.
I think Scott Alexander's Untitled covers the story pretty well.
To understand what happened, hard to know if it's worth your time (but probably worth reading the Scott Alexander piece just to get a sense of the history of internet crazes). It meant a ton to me at the time, as a guy just reaching the age where he starts dating and having a rough time of it (especially the rampant feminism of the time labeling so many things I thought I was as being a "creep" and alienating me), to see that other guys were (a) going through the same thing and (b) able to publicly point out no, it's not just me, this whole social movement actually is bad and crazy. Now that I'm older, better at dating, and that movement has faded more generally (to be replaced by other social insanities), it bothers me a lot less.
I am so privileged being a well-enough off old white married man to try to take an Olympian view of many issues.
Nice observations. Both. I'm not sure the first, how relative status getting things over and under talked about is mainly about scale and growth of scale over time explains the examples.
It seems the relative status. But the examples are really good.
I especially liked the HIPPA one as it is really annoying. And some think it explains a lot of the demise of single practitioner doctors. At the same time there is not intrinsic reason that The HIPPA law writers had to believe that faxes are secure and email is not.
That's a good point about there not being any specific reason for some annoying but nonsensical parts of the law. But I think this theory predicts that some such features will end up, if the law is motivated at least partly by social signalling (since the writers will care at least somewhat about looking like they want to do something rather than solving the problem effectively).