The pattern is quite clear: at the country level, higher support for emancipative values is associated with greater trust of people of other nationalities. And the lack of trust of other nationalities is associated with lower support for emancipative values. I’m not claiming a causal relation, though the pattern does make sense: if you distrust most of humanity, you probably don’t care much about human rights in general.
The World Value Survey (WVS) has recently completed its seventh wave of data collection, covering 58 countries over the period of 2017-2022. This series of posts will highlight some of the findings. I’ll use the same subset of countries in each post. In this post, I’ll focus on what the WVS calls “emancipative” values, as in emancipation from authority. Emancipative values emphasize freedom of choice and "involve priorities for lifestyle liberty, gender equality, personal autonomy and the voice of the people." (World Values Survey, 2022).
And then there’s the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 as “a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected”. Per the Declaration’s own preamble: “… the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world…human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people…[and] it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law”.
The problem with broad statements about rent control is that rent control laws vary greatly and so their effects are likely to vary greatly. Details matter.
Whataboutism (as in "what about…?") is the practice of responding to an assertion by raising a point or question that expresses a counter-example, which appears to delegitimize the initial assertion. Some examples…
In this post, I’m using Wikipedia’s definition of robot: “a machine—especially one programmable by a computer—capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically”. In this sense, a self-driving truck may be considered a robot, as may smaller machines within the truck, including those that look vaguely humanoid.
Of course, with additional tinkering Optimus may eventually be able to handle office plants, assuming their watering needs are predictable and programmable. But why must a plant-watering robot look humanoid? Ideally, form follows function and it’s hard to see what function is served by making a robot cute. Except to get people to fork out $20,000 because they just must have one.
Small scale subsistence farming is a lose-lose proposition. It perpetuates poverty and degrades the environment. Smallholders cannot afford to be stewards of their environments. Between the vagaries of growing conditions and food prices, they can’t count on a stable income year to year, so they have little incentive to forego additional income or food now for better returns later. Larger farms are in a better position to ride out price fluctuations and to maintain the long-term vitality of their land.
“This is the belief that although the majority population of any place might be intimidated and silenced by an oppressive force—capitalism or special interests or the Church—they would, given the chance, sing ding-dong in unison and celebrate their liberation. They just need a house dropped on their witch.” - Adam Gopnik, Can’t We Come Up with Something Better Than Liberal Democracy? September 12, 2022 Issue of The New Yorker.
If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then, we are up for grabs for the next charlatan (political or religious) who comes rambling along.”
- Carl Sagan (Quote from 1996 interview with Charlie Rose
Effort Heuristic 3: The more effort you invest in something, the more likely you will continue investing effort. This heuristic is more likely to be used when there is no clear endpoint to signal a goal has been reached.
In mindfulness discourse, the central problem is suffering. Life is full of unavoidable suffering: we can’t hold onto happiness, everything changes, nothing lasts, everybody dies, pain in inevitable, we are endlessly seeking and desiring without lasting satisfaction; an inner emptiness haunts our every moment….
Per the above chart, around 76% of the extra healthcare spending goes to inpatient and outpatient services, which mostly boils down to hospitals and physicians. US Hospitals are expensive because most have near-monopoly pricing power. And US physicians are expensive because they have supply-based pricing power. Check it out…
Mikhail Gorbachev died on the 30th of August this year. I always admired the man, who somehow managed to break the chains of fear and ideology under a system “penetrated by the spirit of bootlicking, persecution of dissidents, clannishness, [and] window-dressing.” As a homage to Mr. Gorbachev, here’s a post he inspired a couple years ago…
Post-tax corporate profits reached 12.1% of GDP in the second quarter of 2022, their highest since at least the 1940s…Why are companies doing so well? And is it a problem?
These barriers to development are “individually justifiable, yet collectively intolerable”, as is often the case with systemic barriers to progress. Yet because they are individually justifiable, they are individually resistant to reform. There will always be anti-development groups willing to fight tooth-and-nail for their cause, which is often a good cause.
Now contrast the California prison per inmate cost for security ($44,918) with the per inmate cost for education and training - just $2230, or less than $200 per month). No wonder California’s recidivism rate is so high. Unfortunately, the situation is just as bad in the rest of the country. To quote…
“Policy is pointless without power…Putting the wishes of wonks before the desires of voters is the quickest way to ensure defeat. It might not be sensible. But trying to be sensible is sometimes politically rather silly.” - Bagehot/The Economist,
To simplify a bit, budget deficits turn into government debt. Then the question becomes whether a country can afford to service its debt at a level that does not exceed economic growth. If the answer is yes, and the country in question is achieving its policy goals, then I’d say it has a pretty good tax system. If the answer is no, then it doesn’t.