Donald: we are a pretty narrow group ideologically most of the time. Wj is the token conservative and he is more centrist really.
I'd go with moderate conservative on most issues. I think that the "centerist" perception is mostly because the label "conservative" has been (successfully, to the point that liberals believe it) hijacked by the radical right and reactionaries. I am old enough to actually remember the 1950s and early 60s. For me, it was a wonderful, idyllic time. But then, I was a white kid in a small town California setting. There are some bits of that culture that I wish we hadn't lost, but I have no desire to go back to the 1950s culture overall, even that one.
Not that, here in the real world, it's possible to do anything like that. Hmmmm, an argument for rapidly developing virtually reality systems -- so the Steven Millers can sit in their parents' basement, muck up their private world, and leave the rest of us in peace.
russell: I'm sorry to say but I'm not sure it's possible to have the kind of mixture of voices that were once available. Not because anyone has any intention of excluding anybody for their point of view, but because things have become so polarized. Real harm has been, and is being, done, and people's feelings run high.
I think the challenges are twofold. The first is: how do we find those centerist/conservative voices? Does anyone here know how to do recruiting? Second is: if someone like that stumbles across us, can we refrain from assuming that someone who says she's a conservative is some sort of rabid reactionary? I note that a new chum arriving could read some comments here** and feel unwelcome before she ever moved from lurker to commenter. As you say, feelings run high on a variety of issues. I've certainly been moved to rant occasionally. ;-)
So I'd say that increasing our diversity of views is definitely a "nice to have." But I'm not sure how we might get from here to there.
**Donald leaps to mind. Not because he's wrong about how outrageous some things are. It's possible to be pretty damn conservative and agree completely on that. It's more a matter, as far as I can explain it, of tone. And an assumption (again as I perceive it) that anyone who agrees, but thinks there are other, more achievable, priorities is at best an utter moral dullard.
I hope everyone in the U.S. had a great 4th of July. Especially, I hope everyone who loves them got to see a great fireworks show. Because, going forward you can expect fewer shows and smaller ones.
The thing is, virtually all of the fireworks used in the US are made in China. Which means they will be much more expensive in the future as Trump's follies tariffs kick in. Of course, drone shows are supposed to be the latest big thing. Color me underwhelmed.
Obviously, efficiency is a good thing, but if you think of it as superseding all other things, you may miss a lot.
There is also the difficulty that "efficiency" can mean very different things to different people. And, in my observation, almost none of them are even aware that they are using the word differently.
I'm spending the day hanging out with folks who are doing the grunt work required to put on the local fireworks show. (Not the "damned amateurs" you hear making loud bangs in your neighborhood. This is a professional operation, led by a licensed pyrotechnician.)
The sort of apolitical patriotism that has been drowned out by the fanatics. But it still lives on in the real world. My sense is that these are the folks who will rise up and crush the fanatics. Rise up slowly and reluctantly, not least because fanatics are so rare in their immediate environment that they struggle to get their heads around the idea that anybody could be like that. But once the reality breaks thru? Fanatic, meet junk heap of history -- at least for a generation or two, until the memory fades again.
I don't think I quite buy the thesis that (some? many?) Western economists want to make China "just like us.". For the simple reason that we are not "just like us". At least, not like the "us" that economists typically use to describe the populations whose behavior they are modeling.
To take just one example, economics, as I understand it, has no concept of "enough". It assumes that every individual will always act in order to accumulate wealth. Regardless of whether he already has more than he could ever spend. Certainly there are such people. But they are pretty clearly a) atypical, and b) seriously psychotic. Somebody spending the weekend volunteering in a soup kitchen, rather than hustling for another million? Unthinkable.
American industry has been inflicted with a plague of MBAs.
This
I'm willing to believe that someone who has actually worked for some years, including some years as a low level manager, could find an MBA curriculum useful. But someone right out of an undergrad degree program? No. And, sadly, that seems to be what we are mostly afflicted with.
We need a W.S. Gilbert to write an analog to "I am the very model of a modern major general". It encapsulates the situation so well.
America definitely has advantages in excavating "innovation points" that have clear commercial value and market acceptance, but when it comes to those "1.1 improvements"—the continuous polishing and optimization—the gap compared to China is obvious.
Most of us here are probably old enough to remember when Kaizen, the Japanese term for continuous improvement, was a hot topic. Japanese car manufacturers, especially Toyota, (and other Japanese manufacturers) were eating American manufacturers lunch. This was the explaination. A lot of American manufacturers even made a big deal about adopting it.
Of course, if you dig deeper, the originator of the whole concept was an American (W. Edwards Deming). But until the Japanese made spectacular use of his ideas, he had trouble getting a hearing in the U.S. From the sound of it, perhaps American manufacturers have lost the thread. Again.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “An open thread on July 4th”
Donald: we are a pretty narrow group ideologically most of the time. Wj is the token conservative and he is more centrist really.
I'd go with moderate conservative on most issues. I think that the "centerist" perception is mostly because the label "conservative" has been (successfully, to the point that liberals believe it) hijacked by the radical right and reactionaries. I am old enough to actually remember the 1950s and early 60s. For me, it was a wonderful, idyllic time. But then, I was a white kid in a small town California setting. There are some bits of that culture that I wish we hadn't lost, but I have no desire to go back to the 1950s culture overall, even that one.
Not that, here in the real world, it's possible to do anything like that. Hmmmm, an argument for rapidly developing virtually reality systems -- so the Steven Millers can sit in their parents' basement, muck up their private world, and leave the rest of us in peace.
russell: I'm sorry to say but I'm not sure it's possible to have the kind of mixture of voices that were once available. Not because anyone has any intention of excluding anybody for their point of view, but because things have become so polarized. Real harm has been, and is being, done, and people's feelings run high.
I think the challenges are twofold. The first is: how do we find those centerist/conservative voices? Does anyone here know how to do recruiting? Second is: if someone like that stumbles across us, can we refrain from assuming that someone who says she's a conservative is some sort of rabid reactionary? I note that a new chum arriving could read some comments here** and feel unwelcome before she ever moved from lurker to commenter. As you say, feelings run high on a variety of issues. I've certainly been moved to rant occasionally. ;-)
So I'd say that increasing our diversity of views is definitely a "nice to have." But I'm not sure how we might get from here to there.
**Donald leaps to mind. Not because he's wrong about how outrageous some things are. It's possible to be pretty damn conservative and agree completely on that. It's more a matter, as far as I can explain it, of tone. And an assumption (again as I perceive it) that anyone who agrees, but thinks there are other, more achievable, priorities is at best an utter moral dullard.
"
I hope everyone in the U.S. had a great 4th of July. Especially, I hope everyone who loves them got to see a great fireworks show. Because, going forward you can expect fewer shows and smaller ones.
The thing is, virtually all of the fireworks used in the US are made in China. Which means they will be much more expensive in the future as Trump's
folliestariffs kick in. Of course, drone shows are supposed to be the latest big thing. Color me underwhelmed.On “From the Chinatalk substack”
Obviously, efficiency is a good thing, but if you think of it as superseding all other things, you may miss a lot.
There is also the difficulty that "efficiency" can mean very different things to different people. And, in my observation, almost none of them are even aware that they are using the word differently.
On “An open thread on July 4th”
I'm spending the day hanging out with folks who are doing the grunt work required to put on the local fireworks show. (Not the "damned amateurs" you hear making loud bangs in your neighborhood. This is a professional operation, led by a licensed pyrotechnician.)
The sort of apolitical patriotism that has been drowned out by the fanatics. But it still lives on in the real world. My sense is that these are the folks who will rise up and crush the fanatics. Rise up slowly and reluctantly, not least because fanatics are so rare in their immediate environment that they struggle to get their heads around the idea that anybody could be like that. But once the reality breaks thru? Fanatic, meet junk heap of history -- at least for a generation or two, until the memory fades again.
On “From the Chinatalk substack”
I don't think I quite buy the thesis that (some? many?) Western economists want to make China "just like us.". For the simple reason that we are not "just like us". At least, not like the "us" that economists typically use to describe the populations whose behavior they are modeling.
To take just one example, economics, as I understand it, has no concept of "enough". It assumes that every individual will always act in order to accumulate wealth. Regardless of whether he already has more than he could ever spend. Certainly there are such people. But they are pretty clearly a) atypical, and b) seriously psychotic. Somebody spending the weekend volunteering in a soup kitchen, rather than hustling for another million? Unthinkable.
"
American industry has been inflicted with a plague of MBAs.
This
I'm willing to believe that someone who has actually worked for some years, including some years as a low level manager, could find an MBA curriculum useful. But someone right out of an undergrad degree program? No. And, sadly, that seems to be what we are mostly afflicted with.
We need a W.S. Gilbert to write an analog to "I am the very model of a modern major general". It encapsulates the situation so well.
"
America definitely has advantages in excavating "innovation points" that have clear commercial value and market acceptance, but when it comes to those "1.1 improvements"—the continuous polishing and optimization—the gap compared to China is obvious.
Most of us here are probably old enough to remember when Kaizen, the Japanese term for continuous improvement, was a hot topic. Japanese car manufacturers, especially Toyota, (and other Japanese manufacturers) were eating American manufacturers lunch. This was the explaination. A lot of American manufacturers even made a big deal about adopting it.
Of course, if you dig deeper, the originator of the whole concept was an American (W. Edwards Deming). But until the Japanese made spectacular use of his ideas, he had trouble getting a hearing in the U.S. From the sound of it, perhaps American manufacturers have lost the thread. Again.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.