the less about me the better

United States
Joined October 2008
Capitalism has a win condition. Socialism does not. Here's why, explained so simply a 10-year-old could get it. It starts with a book written in 1944 by an Austrian economist named Friedrich Hayek: The Road to Serfdom. Imagine a classroom of 30 kids. One day the teacher says: "From now on, I decide what everyone eats for lunch, which games you play at recess, and who sits next to whom. It's fairer that way." First problem: the teacher doesn't know what you like. You hate carrots. Your friend is allergic to peanuts. Lucas wants to play football, Emma wants to draw. 30 kids, 30 different wishes. Nobody can know all of that, not even the smartest teacher on Earth. Hayek called this the knowledge problem. The information needed to run an economy is scattered across millions of heads, and it can't be gathered in one office. Second problem: the kids start fighting. "Why does he get the window seat?" "Why football again?" Before, everyone just chose for themselves. Now every choice is a fight, because every choice is made for everyone. Third problem: the class can't agree on a plan, so someone says "we need one person in charge who just decides." This is Hayek's key insight. Planning doesn't fail because planners are evil. A plan needs everyone to agree on the same goals, and free people never agree on everything. So the plan needs force to work. Fourth problem, and it's the scariest one: who wants that job? The kind kid doesn't want it, because the kind kid doesn't want to force 29 people to eat carrots. The job attracts the one who likes giving orders and doesn't mind punishing those who disobey. Hayek wrote a whole chapter on this, called "Why the Worst Get on Top." It doesn't happen by accident. It happens by selection. Here's the trap. When the person who controls your lunch also controls your job, your home, your shop and your newspaper, they control your whole life. You can't say no, because there's nowhere else to go. Controlling the economy doesn't mean controlling one part of life. It means controlling the means to every goal you have. That's the road to serfdom. Nobody votes for a dictator. People vote for "someone should fix this," then for "give them more power to fix it," and one day they wake up with no one left to say no to. The USSR, Maoist China, Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela. These are different countries with different cultures and languages, and the story has the same ending every time. When a script produces the same ending every time, it isn't bad luck. It's the script. Now capitalism. Back to the classroom. Instead of one teacher deciding everything, every kid can trade. You give me your carrots, I give you my apple, and we both walk away happier. Nobody needs to know what everyone wants, because prices do that job. A price is a message telling millions of strangers what's scarce and what's wanted, with no one in charge. That's the win condition. In capitalism, you get rich by making something other people freely choose to buy, so your success depends on serving others. In a planned system, you get ahead by pleasing whoever holds power. One rewards usefulness. The other rewards obedience. And this isn't theory. Two centuries ago, almost every human being was extremely poor. In 1990, about 38% of humanity still lived in extreme poverty. Today it's under 10%. More than a billion people escaped it in a single generation. It happened when China, India, Vietnam and South Korea opened up to markets, trade and private enterprise. The largest reduction in poverty in human history came from letting people trade. So why do so many people hate capitalism? Because what they hate usually isn't capitalism. They hate the bank that got bailed out with their taxes while they lost their house. They hate the giant company that writes the regulations so no startup can compete with it. They hate rent they can't afford because building new homes has been made nearly impossible. They hate the lobbyist who gets a subsidy while the small business owner drowns in paperwork. Look closely at each one, and you'll find a state handing out privileges. A bailout is not the market. The market would have let the bank fail. A regulation written by incumbents is not competition. It's protection from competition. None of this is capitalism. It's cronyism, which is what happens when businesses stop competing for customers and start competing for politicians. People see the symptom and blame the wrong cause. They say "capitalism failed" and ask for more state. That gives more power to the same people who created the problem, and it puts us right back on Hayek's road. The answer to bad capitalism isn't less freedom. It's less privilege. That means fewer bailouts, fewer protected incumbents, fewer permits, and more people allowed to build, compete and trade. Capitalism has a win condition: make things people want. Socialism has an end condition: someone has to be in charge. And history keeps showing us who ends up in that chair.
Capitalism has a win condition. Socialism does not.
98
1,093
102
3,781
119,318
Hammer retweeted
That was without a doubt one of the most incredible launches I have ever seen.
58
344
27
3,460
55,001
If they just keep voting blue I'm sure those governance problems will get resolved.
🚨 NEW @ManhattanInst CALIFORNIA POLL CA Governor: 🟦 Xavier Becerra: 55% 🟥 Steve Hilton: 38% LA Mayor: 🟪 Nithya Raman: 38% 🟦 Karen Bass (inc): 32% Prop 40 (billionaire wealth tax): 🟥 Oppose: 50% 🟩 Support: 35% Blue ballots, but frustration with blue governance. Californians favor Democrats while opposing the billionaire wealth tax and racial preferences, supporting compulsory addiction treatment, and backing limits on public-sector union power to improve services. More details on our findings below. 🧵
1
1
43
LOL - add it to my wall right next to Tom Nichols.
14
Which way Western man?
Utterly unacceptable situation playing out in France right now, with rioting and arson at schools. I thought this was being exaggerated online until I actually got an email today from my child’s school reporting matter of factly, “students sought to express their anger and voice their demands by blocking access to the school. Consequently, classes could not be held for the remainder of the day. Tensions ran high at times, particularly due to numerous arson attempts by individuals from outside the school.” To say I was unimpressed by the conclusion the principal came to after acknowledging all that—and holding out the possibility this may continue to disrupt our children’s education—is an understatement: “ The students' demands deserve to be heard,” she said. Say, what? The right to speech is one thing, but no one has the right to keep another child from learning. This is insane.
1
1
38
Elementary IB programs and their cheap knockoffs across the country are holding their breath.
31
Really love the content. Really annoyed that Matty confused cueing with queuing.
People have heard about the phonics vs triple-queuing fiasco but there is a similar issue in math where ed school ideologues have stigmatized the normal and necessary work of drilling novice students in the fundamentals. slowboring.com/p/math-needs-…
1
130
All of this is why NHJ's article was not "stunning and brave", no matter what the chattering classes said about it. It was a calculated and narrow.
A week later, I'm still thinking about NHJ's article on NYC schools. It was courageous but a huge missed opportunity to call for real reform. She blames school choice, inequality, segregation, the wealthy and herself. But she seems reluctant to criticize the actors and policies implicated by the failures she documents, perhaps because those conclusions would be uncomfortable for many of her ideological allies. - She describes absentee teachers, poor instruction, unresponsive administrators, and students who graduate without mastering the material. But she never calls for greater accountability at the district, school, principal, and teacher levels. - She documents teachers failing to fulfill basic responsibilities but doesn't explore whether tenure and other employment protections allow chronic teacher absenteeism and poor performance to persist. - She laments the concentration of disadvantaged students but doesn't consider whether NYCPS should consolidate under-enrolled schools, thus allowing more resources towards instruction and increasing socioeconomic diversity. - She describes her daughter earning As in honors classes despite substantial gaps in her knowledge. Yet she doesn't consider the value of standardized testing as a check on grade inflation and identifying learning gaps before they compound. - She describes how experienced teachers choose to work in better schools but doesn't salute the districts that have had “reform superintendents” like DC, Dallas, Denver, and Houston that have used cash bonuses to incentivize the best teachers to work in the most disadvantaged schools. - She notes that eliminating homework harmed her daughter, but doesn't examine how the movement against homework is largely driven by equity advocates who argue that it can turn unequal home circumstances into unequal academic outcomes. - She condemns school choice yet uses it to secure a better school fit for her daughter, without noting it’s the only realistic escape valve for families who can’t move or afford private school. - She describes the “impossible balancing act” of teaching students at vastly different levels but doesn't explore how academic tracking can help students at both ends of the academic spectrum. - She describes disruptive students who harm the classroom environment but doesn’t ask for stronger disciplinary actions to protect other students. - She documents a school that lowered academic expectations in pursuit of equity but doesn't acknowledge how doing so perpetuates the very achievement gaps those policies seek to eliminate. Hannah-Jones’ story was powerful. She supplied the evidence for a broad examination of why schools are failing disadvantaged students. It could have been the strongest call in a generation for urban school district reform. Segregation and poverty are real obstacles. But they cannot become explanations that absolve everyone else of responsibility. We can’t wait to solve all societal issues before demanding higher performing schools.
1
1
56
I have many thoughts on the Nikole Hannah-Jones story, especially having attended the kind of schools she sent her daughter to, but if we're looking for takeaways, here's a simple one. When an expert in education so thoroughly demonstrates a jarring and near complete lack of expertise in the act of getting an education for her own daughter, we should stop taking advice from her on curriculum, instruction, and all other fads disguised as wisdom she offers. That seems like the least we could do. Her daughter's personal struggle, which is indeed sympathetic, wasn't much of a teachable moment for her, as she doesn't seem to have updated any of her priors (and actually fudges funding facts, so as not to disrupt the narrative of under-resourced schools). But it should be a teachable moment for us, about the outsized influence of a scholar who claims to know better than anyone what her daughter would be up against in the school to which she chose to send her, but was inexplicably surprised and left her daughter completely unprepared for it.
217
1,057
75
7,378
306,444
Seems... Unhealthy.
Replying to @StratPolitics
We polled five routes for Trump to leave office before the end of his term. A plurality of Dems support four of them, including a military coup and death by natural causes. The only one underwater, an assassination, is still supported by 29%.
1
35
What's funny about this whole NHJ saga is that her kid would have probably been totally fine if Nikki had just DONE👏🏻THE 👏🏻WORK👏🏻 (of being a good parent).
I notice none of Nikole Hannah-Jones' critics try to answer to the basic question she wrestled with, which is: Why should my daughter get to go to a better school than other people's kids just because I work for the New York Times?
1
20
Learning her daughter got As without ever knowing anything is an incredible metaphor for Nikole Hannah-Jones' own celebrated career as conspiracy theorist and publisher of gross falsehoods. I assume she's not self-aware enough to realize this.
98
671
18
6,681
91,946
Absolute lunacy. The people responsible for this should be charged with fraud waste and abuse.
You know what could help UC admissions officers deal with the flood of 4.0s? Standardized tests. But they are not allowed to look at them.
1
38
This is the sentiment that gets me more as I get older. When I was 26 ( ~2005 *and* in the Army), September 11th was still raw and angry but now, 20 years later, I've got a family and a life full of memories. Things like this make my heart hurt more as time passes.
This was the bit that got me at the 9/11 Museum.
1
3
226
For all the people whose lives were cut short. For all the memories they didn't get to have. And for those who loved them and they lost the chance to make those memories with the fallen. This is why we still grieve.
9
44% of students scoring below 1000 on the SAT say they get all or mostly A’s in school
64
124
41
915
362,240
Completely predictable actually. The Arday/Cofnas thing is an existential threat to an embarrassingly high percent of academia. Of course it wasn't over. Until the rot is removed, this will continue.
Kafkaesque: People who oppose punishing scholars for their opinions are being punished for opposing the punishment of scholars for their opinions.
1
86
Replying to @Isaac_E_SK
You have to ignore an enormous amount of reality to conclude that e.g. John von Neumann had no more genius than someone who struggles with basic arithmetic. The fact that some people think cognitive ability doesn't vary between individuals basically proves that it does.
14
127
8
3,522
193,021
Regret the tone of my post on data centers yesterday. What I should have said: There were reasonable concerns about data centers 18ish months ago: water, taxes, jobs, electricity prices, the environment and what they would do to small towns. Well-structured data center projects have largely addressed these concerns today and we should be celebrating this. On balance, data centers are awesome for America in every way. On water: U.S. data centers use a fraction of what golf courses use. A lot of the numbers from 18 months ago were off by over 1000x. Newer data centers use closed-loop systems or recycled water. Should be required by every town approving a data center project. On taxes: looking only at sales-tax exemptions, as Ronan Farrow did, is the wrong way to evaluate this. Data centers pay significant property taxes. Loudoun County, which is the wealthiest county in America, now collects on the order of $1 billion a year from data centers. In Quincy, WA, data centers are more than half the property-tax roll. Over time, property taxes can go to zero while government spending increases in these towns. On jobs: this has been unambiguously awesome for blue collar Americans. Demand for electricians, plumbers, welders, HVAC techs, and contractors has gone vertical, and it is not a one-time construction job. These buildings get upgraded and expanded over time. That is why the building trades are fighting for them, and why some unions are now treating opposition to data centers as a reason not to endorse politicians. On power: the original fear was that households would pay for the incremental electricity demand in the form of higher prices. That is why the ratepayer-protection deals and the new large-load tariffs exist. The right structure is: the data center brings or pays for new generation and signs a contract long enough that existing customers are protected. Where that is happening, utilities are cutting or freezing residential rates and saying so on the record. Where it is not, people are right to object. Electricity prices are going down *today* in a number of large states because of data centers. 
On the environment: data centers overwhelming use natural gas today, which is the cleanest power source outside of nuclear, solar and wind. And the companies that are building the data centers are committed to carbon neutrality such that an equivalent amount of solar will likely be built. Maybe more importantly, the data centers need batteries to function effectively and these batteries can also sell energy back into the grid (which recently prevented blackouts in Texas). Over time, data centers will run on solar plus batteries. On the towns: Poverty in Quincy, WA fell from 29% to 6%. Data center taxes paid for a new high school, a hospital, a library, police and fire stations. This is happening in many left for dead former mill and farm towns that had no other bidder for the land. Data centers are actually reindustrializing parts of America and creating the kind of working-class jobs both parties have spent decades claiming to support. That should not be a partisan issue. Data centers can and should be awesome for America and they increasingly, overwhelmingly are. Supporting the outsourcing of data centers to China will likely age just as well as support for the outsourcing of high quality, blue collar manufacturing jobs to China has aged. When the facts change, I change my mind. I hope that reasonable people who had good faith reasons to oppose data centers at least consider updating their beliefs given the change in the facts over the last 18 months. This really matters for America. I will say I also think the idea of making data centers beautiful is a good one that has yet to be implemented. Data centers should be just as beautiful as Grand Central Station. We can learn a lot from the railroad buildout. Neoclassical revival ftw. Might write up open-weight AI tomorrow as this is equally essential to America.
895
2,418
470
14,082
4,077,518
This tweet is a good illustration of how open borders advocates conflate systems processing with the obligation to remove illegal residents.
The graph is a good illustration of how, when ICE arrests increase, nearly all of the increase comes from people without criminal charges or convictions. Why are taxpayers paying all this money to round up people who aren't a threat to us? It's textbook government waste.
1
28