Paul Ehrlich, the most influential antinatalist, died last week. Ehrlich’s ideas were terrible for the world, and grew in popularity the more damage they did.
I love your comments on China, namely that they have been open to American ideas, just not the ones we would like. It’s almost comical. Did we export those ideas thinking it was a good thing? And if so, it explains why so many top Dems have recently praised China.
Dems praise it because (in no particular order) GOP/Trump treat China as the enemy and b) they get a lot of money from China (in particular, leftist academia gets tons of money from there), and c) today's Dem Party is partial to authoritarians.
So you have the causality of praise almost completely reversed,
Cool story about the idea that China adopted Harvard policies not Cato ones.
It's just not true.
Their economic policies in fact are closer to Cato's than Harvard's.
It’s only their policies on personal freedom that are more Harvard than Cato.
The idea that China got much of any of them from deliberate export by the State Department or even Harvard is pretty comical.
There is of course the Occam's Razor simpler explanation: the authoritarians running the Chinese Communist Party are fairly intelligent, and they adopted policies in their own short and medium term interest (and at least very plausibly in their long-run interests).
Opening up the economy was smart and in their interest.
Denying non-economic freedoms has been in their interest of holding onto power.
Some of the American culture seeped in, no doubt, because not having a closed Internet like North Korea was necessary for economic success.
It is somewhat ironic that your story denies agency to the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party.
That said, I acknowledge that Ehrlich and China's One Child policy is certainly a bit of evidence consistent with your thesis.
But it is highly selective evidence, and is still at least consistent with mine. Since it's not at all obvious that the policy was not in China's medium term interest the first 25 years of the policy’s existence, when migration of poor farmers to the cities was a much bigger issue, and the ability for the Chinese economy to absorb all of them a genuine concern.
Yarvin is certainly imperfect, I’m not sure I’d say he’s overly optimistic so much as excitable.
But I dare anyone to find me a more incisive, insightful political observer or theorist who is consistently discovering (and rediscovering) concepts that describe important moments and developments in today’s politics.
I always liked your work for similar reasons, the right could use more incisive writing. Sure, I love my long winded theories on “dinergoth” as much as the next guy, but there are actually really important things going on in the world of power, which “dinergoth” is not a party to by definition.
You’d be surprised, or maybe not, but how many people on here would consider Yarvin optimistic. I’m talking mostly extreme fascists and unrepentant libertarians, but they’re here, I guess.
Brian you’ve convinced me. I’m coming. At least for a month to see. Perhaps I will see u soon
I love your comments on China, namely that they have been open to American ideas, just not the ones we would like. It’s almost comical. Did we export those ideas thinking it was a good thing? And if so, it explains why so many top Dems have recently praised China.
Dems praise it because (in no particular order) GOP/Trump treat China as the enemy and b) they get a lot of money from China (in particular, leftist academia gets tons of money from there), and c) today's Dem Party is partial to authoritarians.
So you have the causality of praise almost completely reversed,
Cool story about the idea that China adopted Harvard policies not Cato ones.
It's just not true.
Their economic policies in fact are closer to Cato's than Harvard's.
It’s only their policies on personal freedom that are more Harvard than Cato.
The idea that China got much of any of them from deliberate export by the State Department or even Harvard is pretty comical.
There is of course the Occam's Razor simpler explanation: the authoritarians running the Chinese Communist Party are fairly intelligent, and they adopted policies in their own short and medium term interest (and at least very plausibly in their long-run interests).
Opening up the economy was smart and in their interest.
Denying non-economic freedoms has been in their interest of holding onto power.
Some of the American culture seeped in, no doubt, because not having a closed Internet like North Korea was necessary for economic success.
It is somewhat ironic that your story denies agency to the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party.
That said, I acknowledge that Ehrlich and China's One Child policy is certainly a bit of evidence consistent with your thesis.
But it is highly selective evidence, and is still at least consistent with mine. Since it's not at all obvious that the policy was not in China's medium term interest the first 25 years of the policy’s existence, when migration of poor farmers to the cities was a much bigger issue, and the ability for the Chinese economy to absorb all of them a genuine concern.
The Cato Institute doesn't think so:
https://www.cato.org/policy-report/july/august-2021/industrial-policy-bad-idea-back
https://www.cato.org/commentary/chinese-industrial-policy-anchor-not-engine
China didn’t get rich from its more Harvard-like industrial policies.
It got rich from its more Cato-like freer markets policies.
You are arguing against a strawman of my claim, not a steelman.
For a more detailed view similar to mine, see David Friedman’s recent take on this topic here: https://daviddfriedman.substack.com/p/how-china-went-capitalist
I was in no way defending Chinese economic policy as better than what Cato endorses.
My point is that it is substantially less worse than what Harvard espouses.
Perhaps it is closer to what the Harvard of 30 years ago espoused. If that’s your point, you needed to be clearer.
But the Harvard of today? The neo-Marxist policies Harvard collectively espouses today and for the last several years?
No way that what China is doing is closer to that than to what Cato espouses. At least for the most important part about relatively free markets.
The Cato Institute are shills and you're a TechNigger.
Lol, You're still an AI Worshipping Chink who partnered up with the Most Retarded Fixer From Ocean City, Jew Jersey; Patrick Shane Ryan.
Nothing Good Has Ever Happened. Freedom doesn't exist; There Is Only Eternal Misery.
SUFFAH TECHNIGGER!
https://impulseresponses.substack.com/p/addressing-the-sovietization-of-the Had a few tangential thoughts on this phenomenon earlier. I’d say America and the west by large basically adopted communism for free.
Shades of Yarvin, and to me, that is high praise indeed.
Yarvin is a smart guy, I just can't stand his rose-tinted optimism
Yarvin is certainly imperfect, I’m not sure I’d say he’s overly optimistic so much as excitable.
But I dare anyone to find me a more incisive, insightful political observer or theorist who is consistently discovering (and rediscovering) concepts that describe important moments and developments in today’s politics.
I always liked your work for similar reasons, the right could use more incisive writing. Sure, I love my long winded theories on “dinergoth” as much as the next guy, but there are actually really important things going on in the world of power, which “dinergoth” is not a party to by definition.
that was sarcastic
You’d be surprised, or maybe not, but how many people on here would consider Yarvin optimistic. I’m talking mostly extreme fascists and unrepentant libertarians, but they’re here, I guess.
Lol, Yarvin is Jewish.
You're Retarded. Curtis Yarvin is Jewish and this Chink is a minion of Patrick Shane Ryan.
Nice one Will