The article is paywalled but I think it must be saying that having populist leaders for a long period of time reduces GDP by 10% - not that electing just one populist leader reduces GDP by 10%. Because the latter is just an impossibly strong effect.
Still sobering. I am thinking that while swing voters tend to bemoan the fact that the left and right in America are so polarized and far apart, that this is not a big deal. It's okay to have a far left and a far right who compete and balance each other out. The problem in America now is that both sides are too populist.
This is what the article shows: "GDP per capita sharply and almost immediately drops. By year 15, the cumulative shortfall surpasses 10 percentage points!"
Astonishing if true and it would imply that "does this lead to populism" should be one of the biggest criteria for policymaking. Back in the late 2010s I remember people saying that we shouldn't allow much immigration because it can lead to right wing populism but I only treated it as a moderate concern because they didn't come armed with evidence of consequences of such magnitude.
A deep irony is that Călin Georgescu is or was the platonic ideal of a technocrat; a well respected academic with a PhD in agronomy and an UN official dealing with hazardous waste. He just turned out to be a total crank when he entered politics.
If you don't want populism, you have to get rid of the single thing that is making populists win across the West: mass immigration. People in the West see hordes of third worlders pouring into their countries, they see that the present elites are either doing nothing about it or actively supporting it, so they vote in populists who campaign on overturning that traitorous elite and stopping the migration. This is why Trump won. This is why the far-right is winning across Europe. Yes, rule by populists is bad. But if domestic elites could find the balls to oppose replacement migration themselves, no one would ever turn to the populists. So, if you think populism is bad, and don't want it to reign in your country, the action you need to take is obvious: support, recruit, or create elites who oppose mass immigration, and put those elites in power.
Couple this with conservative unitary executive theory, and it sure sounds like conservatism is paving the way for more populists all over the federal government.
I don't think you can isolate populism from the elites abandoning meritocracy and the legitimacy of their institutions. The populists are often worse but they are usually proceded by a damaging crisis of competence.
I think perhaps that the economic success of populist libertarian is more due to being libertarian thatn due to being populist; libertarians love to shrink government so the people in power can steal less money; compare the alledged near 1 millon that Adorni in Argentina couldnt explain vs 800 millon dollars that Kirchner & cia stole in 1 of the many corruption schemes;
Do you agree with Matt Yglesias' view that the main reason nobody seems to care about Trump's corruption is because our elite is SO leftwing that they care a lot more about Gaza, corporate power, immigration, women's rights, etc... Corruption isn't such a big deal if you already think that our society is controlled by billionnaires. By contrast, republicans don't have a lot of popular issues on their side so they beat the drums of partisan issues more (corruption, too old, etc...). On his podcast Politix, Matt frequently says that if democrats adopted more moderate social and economic views and focused on partisan anti-trump rethoric instead of socialist-vs-moderate infighting, they could have won against Trump.
What makes you doubtful? To me it seems like Hannania's book gives a perfect explanation of why republicans don't care more (less informed, low IQ, polarization) but in your review you seem to say that you feel even democrats don't care enough. What other possible explanations seem plausible to you?
Dems are also a “big tent” and the voters have more variance in the issues they care about the most. Dems lost many voters in 2024 for not caring about Gaza “enough” (see eg Michigan) or anecdotally, many young people for being “uninspiring.” The wide variance means that Dems can’t win as easily by pandering one-liners on any one issue, and it’s literally impossible to cater to a rifted base (part believe in LGBTQ rights expansion, parts don’t, both willing to ride their votes on it)
I haven’t read Yglesias’ arguments for that view so maybe I’m missing something, but it sounds wrong to me. My guess is that most of the elites are mainly split into the following categories:
1. Self-interested elites who don’t care much about any of the issues you mentioned (including Gaza or Trump’s corruption) because none of that directly affects them. Some of them may even swing the opposite direction and actively kiss Trump’s ass because they want favors.
2. The liberal elites who might care about the issues you mentioned, but also DO care about Trump’s corruption.
I just don’t think there are many super far left elites out there, so I’m not sure how if Yglesias’s hypothesis could explain the *widespread* disregard among lots of elites. I suspect the self-interestedness scenario is the main explanation.
COVID lies. Russia Collusion hoax. Biden's hiden senility. Mostly peaceful protests. Hunter Biden's laptop was Disinformation. I could go on for a week with major lies of the elites. But somehow, you only see populist danger.
Both the elites and populists make politically-motivated errors. Populists also make up crazy things. So the problems of the mainstream media are non-unique, but the pathologies of the populists are unique.
These were not errors. The evidence for that is so overwhelming I cannot believe you are taking that position.
I used to think you were an unbiased observer, someone whose philanthropic ideas were different from mine but worth considering. I no longer believe your opinions are to be trusted if you are so partisan as to identify the lies of the elites as all "errors".
It wasn't just the mainstream media; read Alex Berenson on Covid. Find me anyone in the government - or universities for that matter - who were warning about Biden's mental health. Anyone in the White House press corps who covered Biden daily, whose JOB it is to shine light on power.
You won't find 3. And the levels of incompetence in the Biden Administration were legion, despite all positions being filled by "elites". Afghanistan, for one example.
The most serious problem in our culture is the collapse of honesty. There is nothing close. From the ideas of Moral Relativity to Postmodernist ideas that all narratives are simply naked power grabs, honest admissions of error are almost extinct. And so we will never agree on solutions to any problems now, because all opinions are valid as "my truth".
I can no longer take you seriously. Sorry. I found you somewhat convincing on animal rights.
The article is paywalled but I think it must be saying that having populist leaders for a long period of time reduces GDP by 10% - not that electing just one populist leader reduces GDP by 10%. Because the latter is just an impossibly strong effect.
Still sobering. I am thinking that while swing voters tend to bemoan the fact that the left and right in America are so polarized and far apart, that this is not a big deal. It's okay to have a far left and a far right who compete and balance each other out. The problem in America now is that both sides are too populist.
This is what the article shows: "GDP per capita sharply and almost immediately drops. By year 15, the cumulative shortfall surpasses 10 percentage points!"
More here: https://statsandsociety.substack.com/p/populists-cause-lower-gdp-higher
Astonishing if true and it would imply that "does this lead to populism" should be one of the biggest criteria for policymaking. Back in the late 2010s I remember people saying that we shouldn't allow much immigration because it can lead to right wing populism but I only treated it as a moderate concern because they didn't come armed with evidence of consequences of such magnitude.
This does not read like a book review, more like going thru the main scandals of Trump and his clique.
A deep irony is that Călin Georgescu is or was the platonic ideal of a technocrat; a well respected academic with a PhD in agronomy and an UN official dealing with hazardous waste. He just turned out to be a total crank when he entered politics.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-toxics-and-human-rights/mr-calin-georgescu-former-special-rapporteur-2010-2012
If you don't want populism, you have to get rid of the single thing that is making populists win across the West: mass immigration. People in the West see hordes of third worlders pouring into their countries, they see that the present elites are either doing nothing about it or actively supporting it, so they vote in populists who campaign on overturning that traitorous elite and stopping the migration. This is why Trump won. This is why the far-right is winning across Europe. Yes, rule by populists is bad. But if domestic elites could find the balls to oppose replacement migration themselves, no one would ever turn to the populists. So, if you think populism is bad, and don't want it to reign in your country, the action you need to take is obvious: support, recruit, or create elites who oppose mass immigration, and put those elites in power.
Couple this with conservative unitary executive theory, and it sure sounds like conservatism is paving the way for more populists all over the federal government.
Or Unitary Executive is putting Congress in a position to legislate and take that away from the branch that's been doing it for the last 20 years
I don't think you can isolate populism from the elites abandoning meritocracy and the legitimacy of their institutions. The populists are often worse but they are usually proceded by a damaging crisis of competence.
https://spectator.com/article/revealed-how-the-treasury-abandoned-numeracy-to-boost-diversity/
I think perhaps that the economic success of populist libertarian is more due to being libertarian thatn due to being populist; libertarians love to shrink government so the people in power can steal less money; compare the alledged near 1 millon that Adorni in Argentina couldnt explain vs 800 millon dollars that Kirchner & cia stole in 1 of the many corruption schemes;
It’s Frankie ism and it runs on the power of the chairman of the board ; Sinatra 😎
Do you agree with Matt Yglesias' view that the main reason nobody seems to care about Trump's corruption is because our elite is SO leftwing that they care a lot more about Gaza, corporate power, immigration, women's rights, etc... Corruption isn't such a big deal if you already think that our society is controlled by billionnaires. By contrast, republicans don't have a lot of popular issues on their side so they beat the drums of partisan issues more (corruption, too old, etc...). On his podcast Politix, Matt frequently says that if democrats adopted more moderate social and economic views and focused on partisan anti-trump rethoric instead of socialist-vs-moderate infighting, they could have won against Trump.
Not sure.
What makes you doubtful? To me it seems like Hannania's book gives a perfect explanation of why republicans don't care more (less informed, low IQ, polarization) but in your review you seem to say that you feel even democrats don't care enough. What other possible explanations seem plausible to you?
Dems are also a “big tent” and the voters have more variance in the issues they care about the most. Dems lost many voters in 2024 for not caring about Gaza “enough” (see eg Michigan) or anecdotally, many young people for being “uninspiring.” The wide variance means that Dems can’t win as easily by pandering one-liners on any one issue, and it’s literally impossible to cater to a rifted base (part believe in LGBTQ rights expansion, parts don’t, both willing to ride their votes on it)
I haven’t read Yglesias’ arguments for that view so maybe I’m missing something, but it sounds wrong to me. My guess is that most of the elites are mainly split into the following categories:
1. Self-interested elites who don’t care much about any of the issues you mentioned (including Gaza or Trump’s corruption) because none of that directly affects them. Some of them may even swing the opposite direction and actively kiss Trump’s ass because they want favors.
2. The liberal elites who might care about the issues you mentioned, but also DO care about Trump’s corruption.
I just don’t think there are many super far left elites out there, so I’m not sure how if Yglesias’s hypothesis could explain the *widespread* disregard among lots of elites. I suspect the self-interestedness scenario is the main explanation.
COVID lies. Russia Collusion hoax. Biden's hiden senility. Mostly peaceful protests. Hunter Biden's laptop was Disinformation. I could go on for a week with major lies of the elites. But somehow, you only see populist danger.
Both the elites and populists make politically-motivated errors. Populists also make up crazy things. So the problems of the mainstream media are non-unique, but the pathologies of the populists are unique.
These were not errors. The evidence for that is so overwhelming I cannot believe you are taking that position.
I used to think you were an unbiased observer, someone whose philanthropic ideas were different from mine but worth considering. I no longer believe your opinions are to be trusted if you are so partisan as to identify the lies of the elites as all "errors".
It wasn't just the mainstream media; read Alex Berenson on Covid. Find me anyone in the government - or universities for that matter - who were warning about Biden's mental health. Anyone in the White House press corps who covered Biden daily, whose JOB it is to shine light on power.
You won't find 3. And the levels of incompetence in the Biden Administration were legion, despite all positions being filled by "elites". Afghanistan, for one example.
The most serious problem in our culture is the collapse of honesty. There is nothing close. From the ideas of Moral Relativity to Postmodernist ideas that all narratives are simply naked power grabs, honest admissions of error are almost extinct. And so we will never agree on solutions to any problems now, because all opinions are valid as "my truth".
I can no longer take you seriously. Sorry. I found you somewhat convincing on animal rights.