Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reform

  • The Economic Policy of Elizabeth Warren

    Jan 19, 2020, 1:04 PM by Tyler Cowen Jerry Taylor has made some positive noises about her on Twitter lately, as had Will Wilkinson in earlier times. I genuinely do not see the appeal here, not even for Democrats. Let’s do a quick survey of some of her core views:

    1. She wants to ban fracking through executive order. This would enrich Russia and Saudi Arabia, harm the American economy ($3.5 trillion stock market gains from fracking), make our energy supply less green, and make our foreign policy more dependent on bad regimes and the Middle East. It is perhaps the single worst policy idea I have heard this last year, and some of the worst possible politics for beating Trump in states such as Pennsylvania.

    2. Her private equity plan. Making private equity managers personally responsible for the debts of the companies they acquire probably would crush the sector. The economic evidence on private equity is mostly quite positive. Maybe she would eliminate the worst features of her plan, but can you imagine her saying on open camera that private equity is mostly good for the American economy? I can’t.

    3. Her farm plan. It seems to be more nationalistic and protectionist and also more permanent than Trump’s, read here.

    4. Her tax plan I: Some of the wealthy would see marginal rates above 100 percent.

    5. Her tax plan II: Her proposed wealth tax would over time lead to rates of taxation on capital gains of at least 60 to 70 percent, much higher than any wealthy country ever has succeeded with. And frankly no one has come close to rebutting the devastating critique from Larry Summers.

    6. Student debt forgiveness: The data-driven people I know on the left all admit this is welfare for the relatively well-off, rather than a truly egalitarian approach to poverty and opportunity. Cost is estimated at $1.6 trillion, by the way (is trillion the new billion?). Furthermore, what are the long-run effects on the higher education sector? Do banks lend like crazy next time around, expecting to be bailed out by the government? Or do banks cut bank their lending, fearing a haircut on bailout number two? I am genuinely not sure, but thinking the question through does not reassure me.

    7. College free for all: Would wreck the relatively high quality of America’s state-run colleges and universities, which cover about 78 percent of all U.S. students and are the envy of other countries worldwide and furthermore a major source of American soft power. Makes sense only if you are a Caplanian on higher ed., and furthermore like student debt forgiveness this plan isn’t that egalitarian, as many of the neediest don’t finish high school, do not wish to start college, cannot finish college, or already reject near-free local options for higher education, typically involving community colleges.

    8. Health care policy: Her various takes on this, including the $52 trillion plan, are better thought of as (vacillating) political strategy than policy per se. In any case, no matter what your view on health care policy she has botched it, and several other Dem candidates have a better track record in this area. Even Paul Krugman insists that the Democrats should move away from single-payer purity. It is hard to give her net positive points on this one, again no matter what your policy views on health care, or even no matter what her views may happen to be on a particular day.

    All of my analysis, I should note, can be derived internal to Democratic Party economics, and it does not require any dose of libertarianism.

    1. Breaking up the Big Tech companies: I am strongly opposed to this, and I view it as yet another attack/destruction on a leading and innovative American sector. I will say this, though: unlike the rest of the list above, I know smart economists (and tech experts) who favor some version of the policy. Still, I don’t see why Jerry and Will should like this promise so much.

    Those are some pretty major sectors of the U.S. economy, it is not like making a few random mistakes with the regulation of toothpicks. In fact they are the major sectors of the U.S. economy, and each and every one of them would take a big hit. More generally, she seems to be a fan of instituting policies through executive order, a big minus in my view and probably for Jerry and Will as well? Villainization and polarization are consistent themes in her rhetoric, and at this point it doesn’t seem her chances for either the nomination, or beating Trump, are strong in fact her conditional chance of victory is well below that of the other major Dem candidates. So what really are you getting for all of these outbursts? When I add all that up, she seems to have the worst economic and political policies of any candidate in my adult lifetime, with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders (whose views are often less detailed). I do readily admit this: Warren is a genius at exciting the egalitarian and anti-business mood affiliation of our coastal media and academic elites. If you would like to read defenses of Warren, here is Ezra Klein and here is Henry Farrell. I think they both plausibly point to parts of the Warren program that might be good (more good for them than for me I should add, but still I can grasp the other arguments on her behalf). They don’t much respond to the point that on #1-8, and possibly #1-9, she has the worst economic and political policies of any candidate in my adult lifetime. For Jerry and Will, I just don’t see the attraction at all. That said, on her foreign policy, which I have not spent much time with, she might be better, so of course you should consider the whole picture. And quite possibly there are other candidates who, for other reasons, are worse yet, not hard to think of some. Or you might wish to see a woman president. Or you might think she would stir up “good discourse” on the issues you care about. And I fully understand that most of the Warren agenda would not pass. So I’m not trying to talk you out of supporting her! Still, I would like to design and put into the public domain a small emoji, one that you could add to the bottom of your columns and tweets. It would stand in for: “Yes I support her, but she has the worst proposed economic policies of any candidate in the adult lifetime of Tyler Cowen.”

  • The Economic Policy of Elizabeth Warren

    Jan 19, 2020, 1:04 PM by Tyler Cowen Jerry Taylor has made some positive noises about her on Twitter lately, as had Will Wilkinson in earlier times. I genuinely do not see the appeal here, not even for Democrats. Let’s do a quick survey of some of her core views:

    1. She wants to ban fracking through executive order. This would enrich Russia and Saudi Arabia, harm the American economy ($3.5 trillion stock market gains from fracking), make our energy supply less green, and make our foreign policy more dependent on bad regimes and the Middle East. It is perhaps the single worst policy idea I have heard this last year, and some of the worst possible politics for beating Trump in states such as Pennsylvania.

    2. Her private equity plan. Making private equity managers personally responsible for the debts of the companies they acquire probably would crush the sector. The economic evidence on private equity is mostly quite positive. Maybe she would eliminate the worst features of her plan, but can you imagine her saying on open camera that private equity is mostly good for the American economy? I can’t.

    3. Her farm plan. It seems to be more nationalistic and protectionist and also more permanent than Trump’s, read here.

    4. Her tax plan I: Some of the wealthy would see marginal rates above 100 percent.

    5. Her tax plan II: Her proposed wealth tax would over time lead to rates of taxation on capital gains of at least 60 to 70 percent, much higher than any wealthy country ever has succeeded with. And frankly no one has come close to rebutting the devastating critique from Larry Summers.

    6. Student debt forgiveness: The data-driven people I know on the left all admit this is welfare for the relatively well-off, rather than a truly egalitarian approach to poverty and opportunity. Cost is estimated at $1.6 trillion, by the way (is trillion the new billion?). Furthermore, what are the long-run effects on the higher education sector? Do banks lend like crazy next time around, expecting to be bailed out by the government? Or do banks cut bank their lending, fearing a haircut on bailout number two? I am genuinely not sure, but thinking the question through does not reassure me.

    7. College free for all: Would wreck the relatively high quality of America’s state-run colleges and universities, which cover about 78 percent of all U.S. students and are the envy of other countries worldwide and furthermore a major source of American soft power. Makes sense only if you are a Caplanian on higher ed., and furthermore like student debt forgiveness this plan isn’t that egalitarian, as many of the neediest don’t finish high school, do not wish to start college, cannot finish college, or already reject near-free local options for higher education, typically involving community colleges.

    8. Health care policy: Her various takes on this, including the $52 trillion plan, are better thought of as (vacillating) political strategy than policy per se. In any case, no matter what your view on health care policy she has botched it, and several other Dem candidates have a better track record in this area. Even Paul Krugman insists that the Democrats should move away from single-payer purity. It is hard to give her net positive points on this one, again no matter what your policy views on health care, or even no matter what her views may happen to be on a particular day.

    All of my analysis, I should note, can be derived internal to Democratic Party economics, and it does not require any dose of libertarianism.

    1. Breaking up the Big Tech companies: I am strongly opposed to this, and I view it as yet another attack/destruction on a leading and innovative American sector. I will say this, though: unlike the rest of the list above, I know smart economists (and tech experts) who favor some version of the policy. Still, I don’t see why Jerry and Will should like this promise so much.

    Those are some pretty major sectors of the U.S. economy, it is not like making a few random mistakes with the regulation of toothpicks. In fact they are the major sectors of the U.S. economy, and each and every one of them would take a big hit. More generally, she seems to be a fan of instituting policies through executive order, a big minus in my view and probably for Jerry and Will as well? Villainization and polarization are consistent themes in her rhetoric, and at this point it doesn’t seem her chances for either the nomination, or beating Trump, are strong in fact her conditional chance of victory is well below that of the other major Dem candidates. So what really are you getting for all of these outbursts? When I add all that up, she seems to have the worst economic and political policies of any candidate in my adult lifetime, with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders (whose views are often less detailed). I do readily admit this: Warren is a genius at exciting the egalitarian and anti-business mood affiliation of our coastal media and academic elites. If you would like to read defenses of Warren, here is Ezra Klein and here is Henry Farrell. I think they both plausibly point to parts of the Warren program that might be good (more good for them than for me I should add, but still I can grasp the other arguments on her behalf). They don’t much respond to the point that on #1-8, and possibly #1-9, she has the worst economic and political policies of any candidate in my adult lifetime. For Jerry and Will, I just don’t see the attraction at all. That said, on her foreign policy, which I have not spent much time with, she might be better, so of course you should consider the whole picture. And quite possibly there are other candidates who, for other reasons, are worse yet, not hard to think of some. Or you might wish to see a woman president. Or you might think she would stir up “good discourse” on the issues you care about. And I fully understand that most of the Warren agenda would not pass. So I’m not trying to talk you out of supporting her! Still, I would like to design and put into the public domain a small emoji, one that you could add to the bottom of your columns and tweets. It would stand in for: “Yes I support her, but she has the worst proposed economic policies of any candidate in the adult lifetime of Tyler Cowen.”

  • Criticism of P

    Jan 22, 2020, 11:51 AM 1. Lack of Vital Components: This is the correct criticism. My plan has been consistent: A moral license, a set of demands, a plan of transition and a means of insurrection. So far you can only see through the set of demands (constitution). It does not pay to release more information. The window has to move further.

    1. Lack of Reach: We have a plan. It is not useful to release it. The window has to move further.
      The window keeps moving. Unfortunately it’s started moving faster than I can…

    3. I’ll give you a warning: your conservatism (“show me, i need to understand”) is effective in resisting change only if you are in control. And it’s been a failure in resisting when you are not in control. And we lost control when women and underclasses entered the franchise. And you (we) let them into the franchise out of christian optimism during a period of windfall profits at civilizational scale – one that will never repeat again given the seizure of low hanging scientific fruits. So, I”m going to be blunt and say ‘if you need to understand to act, then you are the reason you fail.” The left just seizes a series of opportunities for incremental advancement. Your need for ‘understanding’ and ‘certainty’ is why you (conservatives) have failed. And the hand-wringing (cowards) on the right are the majority. I have studied many things not the least of which is the history of revolutions and evolutions in governance both inside the anglo european and outside it. The last time we had a political solution available to us was 1992. We have not had that solution available to us yet. it is only under extreme duress, and the inability to deny being ‘conservative and politically lazy’ that the overton window moves to the blatantly obvious. So the problem is the man in your mirror that even asks these questions rather than running to every rally, every demonstration,m every opportunity, and yes, every fight, to defend what you depend upon but really want others to solve for you so you can continue being lazy ‘conservatives’. There is no condition under which we can gain control after this next election and that is simply it. The only solution is to eliminate the optimism of the ‘white middle’ civic nationalists by evidence that they cannot contradict: the exposure of differences in groups under duress.

    1. My strategy has been to create a discussion on a proposition that serves the interest of our people regardless of disposition at the expense of the elites. It is not a ‘conservative’ strategy so much as it is a strategy neither side can envision because of their ignorance of the law, economics, and the sciences that describe the world beyond what is emotionally available to our intuitions. So, my strategy is to make a solution available and the promise of civil war so certain that it is unnecessary. But that if necessary there is the least possible resistance. This is not something new, it is the same strategy I have expressed for over a decade. And as far as I know there is no solution for engineering the operation of a government under which we can separate (and continue to speciate) yet hold this continental territory and its unique advantage in food production from competitors.

  • Criticism of P

    Jan 22, 2020, 11:51 AM 1. Lack of Vital Components: This is the correct criticism. My plan has been consistent: A moral license, a set of demands, a plan of transition and a means of insurrection. So far you can only see through the set of demands (constitution). It does not pay to release more information. The window has to move further.

    1. Lack of Reach: We have a plan. It is not useful to release it. The window has to move further.
      The window keeps moving. Unfortunately it’s started moving faster than I can…

    3. I’ll give you a warning: your conservatism (“show me, i need to understand”) is effective in resisting change only if you are in control. And it’s been a failure in resisting when you are not in control. And we lost control when women and underclasses entered the franchise. And you (we) let them into the franchise out of christian optimism during a period of windfall profits at civilizational scale – one that will never repeat again given the seizure of low hanging scientific fruits. So, I”m going to be blunt and say ‘if you need to understand to act, then you are the reason you fail.” The left just seizes a series of opportunities for incremental advancement. Your need for ‘understanding’ and ‘certainty’ is why you (conservatives) have failed. And the hand-wringing (cowards) on the right are the majority. I have studied many things not the least of which is the history of revolutions and evolutions in governance both inside the anglo european and outside it. The last time we had a political solution available to us was 1992. We have not had that solution available to us yet. it is only under extreme duress, and the inability to deny being ‘conservative and politically lazy’ that the overton window moves to the blatantly obvious. So the problem is the man in your mirror that even asks these questions rather than running to every rally, every demonstration,m every opportunity, and yes, every fight, to defend what you depend upon but really want others to solve for you so you can continue being lazy ‘conservatives’. There is no condition under which we can gain control after this next election and that is simply it. The only solution is to eliminate the optimism of the ‘white middle’ civic nationalists by evidence that they cannot contradict: the exposure of differences in groups under duress.

    1. My strategy has been to create a discussion on a proposition that serves the interest of our people regardless of disposition at the expense of the elites. It is not a ‘conservative’ strategy so much as it is a strategy neither side can envision because of their ignorance of the law, economics, and the sciences that describe the world beyond what is emotionally available to our intuitions. So, my strategy is to make a solution available and the promise of civil war so certain that it is unnecessary. But that if necessary there is the least possible resistance. This is not something new, it is the same strategy I have expressed for over a decade. And as far as I know there is no solution for engineering the operation of a government under which we can separate (and continue to speciate) yet hold this continental territory and its unique advantage in food production from competitors.

  • Man up. Show up. Fight.

    Jan 23, 2020, 2:47 PM The Propertarian Institute (a) I have been in the states for three years working on “the project” – and I don’t see much in the way of other options. (b) I was in Richmond. (I didn’t go to C’ville because I saw the cluster-f-k coming and ‘leadership’ told me to avoid it. (c) The only option is indeed civil war – you are welcome to argue otherwise. Man up. Show up. Fight. And stop pretending you’re other than a gutless free riding coward on the risks and labors of better men.

  • That the People Have an Indubitable, Unalienable, and Indefeasible Right to Refo

    That the People Have an Indubitable, Unalienable, and Indefeasible Right to Reform or Change Their Government, https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/that-the-people-have-an-indubitable-unalienable-and-indefeasible-right-to-reform-or-change-their-government/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 18:21:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264985008432910339

  • That the People Have an Indubitable, Unalienable, and Indefeasible Right to Reform or Change Their Government,

    Jan 26, 2020, 8:42 AM

    —-“That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.”—- James Madison, Amendments

  • That the People Have an Indubitable, Unalienable, and Indefeasible Right to Reform or Change Their Government,

    Jan 26, 2020, 8:42 AM

    —-“That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.”—- James Madison, Amendments

  • Educational Reform

    Educational Reform https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/educational-reform/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 18:16:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264983581270695937

  • Education Reform

    Jan 26, 2020, 11:54 AM

    1. Restore Grammar(imitating), Logic(understanding), Rhetoric(Speaking) – Add Propertarianism (truth, ethics, morality) as well as the grammars and lying.
    2. Restore the Epic Cycle (the indo european expansion, the matter of Greece and Rome, the matter of Germanics),
      Add the and the Evolution of our Religions
    3. Restore Art History – Add scientific, Technological, and Economic, political, and military History (repeating)
    4. Add money, accounting, banking, interest, and investing, micro and macro economics as early as possible.
    5. Convert the teaching of math from symbolic an sets to operational so that far more people are able to grasp it. Restore high repetition work loads in mathematics (asian method)
    6. Restore competitive teaching and separate the boys and girls.
    7. Restore overlapping age groups so students are subject to repetition. (one room method)
    8. Restore divisions of classes into students of similar abilities learning at similar rates.
    9. Add teachers following students through the years (Finnish method)
    10. Restore the combination of physical, verbal, and recitation in groups as technique during the grammar years. (Simon says method)
    11. Restore competitive physical activity as a daily requirement.
    12. Restore military discipline and corporal punishment until high school (zero tolerance). Add parental punishment and parental classrooms. Add forcible sterilization for failure.
    13. Reform the dietary recommendations to limit carbohydrates and sugars to the absolute minimum.
    14. Privatize all schools under the ownership of teachers. Restore catholic and protestant schools.
    15. Develop standardized tests that measure progress in the above including personality, intelligence, and current state of knowledge.
    16. Restore the German method of apprenticeship throughout.
    17. Seek to reduce school hours, especially morning hours, beginning at age 14, and split between working (apprenticeship) and schooling.
    18. Eliminate homework wherever possible.

    (tag: education )