"But steeling yourself against WHAT?" The impulse to do the same thing. Being judgemental is so human that Jesus warned against it. I don't usually quote him but...
Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Thu, Nov 12, 2020, 9:36 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > EricS, > > > > Agreed, 99 and 44/100ths, except where you say, > > > > That’s where I attach to Marcus’s rebuttal that they can be understood for > being angry and desperate, but they don’t get a pass for wallowing in it. > > > > At this point, any psychologist in the room will ask you (and/or Marcus), > What is your moral judgment of THEM doing for YOU? > > > > That’s NOT a rhetorical question. It has an answer. Presumably the answer > has something to do with steeling yourself, not in Glen’s sense of that > word. But steeling yourself against WHAT? If I never thought or felt that > particular WHAT, would I need to steel myself against it? > > > > n > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > > Clark University > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *David Eric Smith > *Sent:* Thursday, November 12, 2020 6:59 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Cc:* David Eric Smith <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Biden beats Trump > > > > All this, too, turns on things that are facts of the matter. > > > > Roger’s post is of course both excellent and empathetic, and when I read > it I wanted to just say thanks for it. > > > > Marcus’s counterpoint I also agree with. > > > > > > But at the end of the day, whether your decision is good or bad turns on > what it accomplishes in the actual world of events, relative to other > decisions you could make. > > > > Fighting public health measures because you are bitter does not get you > back to work sooner. Indeed, it does nothing materially good for anybody. > That seems to be a fairly easy fact from which to start. Taiwan never had > a shutdown. Japan never had a lockdown, and even in metropolitan Tokyo, > where infection density was probably one of the worst two areas (the other > being up around Sapporo, per million), there was about a month of business > shutdown. One time. I forget or didn’t learn details about S. Korea, but > I think they never had a broad or ongoing lockdown; maybe short local ones > at most, and some business suspensions. Those countries will have public > health costs, a period of broad-based business costs, and sector-specific > longer-term severe business costs in areas like bars or nightclubs or > karaoke parlors, etc. It will be heavy but it need not lead to a > depression. If vaccines work, the duration of the really bad sector impact > will be measured in years, but not be permanent. > > > > The US, by refusing to spend 10G$ in mitigation at the beginning, followed > by wallowing in indulgence of wounded vanities, has now spent 2.4T$ in > extra unemployment, and probably needs to spend something on that order > more. It will go on, in the best case, for a year from the start. Plus > they need to pay the public health support costs, which are much higher > than they were at the start. The ones with market power can push the > exploitation curve harder and harder, so that the stock markets remain high > while unemployment and all three of personal, business, and government debt > climb and climb, but at some point no amount of market power will > compensate for the reality that debt service has consumed all the income > workers can generate, and they are not extended any more revolving credit. > For the US government, I guess something like that will happen when foreign > lenders compute that it will be mechanistically impossible for the US to > repay any further loans they make to it by buying government debt. I have > in mind the picture of core collapse at the end of the red giant phase of > stellar lifecycles, that leads to supernovae. I don’t see anything that > escapes from just these accounting identities, which turn on what has > already been spent. > > > > To be sure, there are better and worse decisions going forward. Money on > testing is nearly money poured down a well when you have as many cases as > we now do; the return is much less because you are dabbing your eyes with a > hanky while standing out in a downpour. So some strategic and focused use, > with emphasis on very low-cost surveillance tests, combined with heavy > public health behavior pressure, is probably all that pays. All other > money in public health goes into vaccine distribution supply chains, I > guess. > > > > The other major area, I take from one of Shubik’s themes. He always > emphasized (as I have said on this list before) that the government has two > roles in an economy. One is as the setter of rules of the game; the other > is as large coordinated player in the game. So, e.g. monetary versus > fiscal policy. Monetary is setting the rate of interest for central-bank > borrowing, which doesn’t set the money in the society but affects the rates > at which private actors can choose to change it. Fiscal is government > spending, “quantitative easing” by buying troubled debt, issuing government > bonds, and so forth. > > > > Similarly, Shubik used to say repeatedly that there should be a Federal > Jobs Program, which is not equally activated all the time, but is a source > of emergency employment stability during down-cycles. One could pick > things like discretionary infrastructure repair, which is not the highest > priority during boom times, when some of that can be done through private > companies, but is a useful thing to pay people to do during employment > crises because it gives predictable income and gets something done that was > needed anyway. I would put retooling to non-fossil energy storage and > distribution systems, with worker re-training to do it, in that category > too. Two birds with one stone. > > > > To me, where that fits in is in parallel to the rules/player distinction. > Supporting re-formation of collective bargaining to try to rein in the > productivity-pay gap, or minimum wage laws, are regulatory roles. On the > long term, they are necessary, but they are too slow to save this > administration from being swamped again in a backlash midterm, and then > getting replaced by the true antichrist in the next presidential. Direct > hiring with a federal jobs program is the only thing I can see where the > government can act fast enough, on large enough scale, to deliver to the > blue-collar formerly-democratic voting bloc a real reason to support that > administration. > > > > Similarly, I have head complaining, but not done the work to know how much > of it is true, that business loan-support is getting in significant part > siphoned off by people who don’t really need it, to the exclusion of many > who do. There is some new micro-data modeling consortium involving some > Harvard professors and somebody else (heard in a snippet on NPR) to try to > micro-target the next round of bailout money (unemployment and business > support) to where it is really needed. But one could say that one way to > avoid the overhead of skimming that comes with giving it to the private > sector, is to try to identify areas where the government can just directly > employ the privately unemployed. It then controls the wages and is sue > they end up with the workers. That’s not a great solution, because it > leaves the private business that employed them in the lurch, so some other > layer would be needed to tide those people over in a sort of dormant or tun > state. But in terms of cost per output, it seems that it recovers certain > losses that have been major leakages in the style of spending done so far. > > > > Not to claim that any of this is easy or that I see what should be done (I > don’t have either the knowledge or the expertise). But it does seem that > there are more mechanisms available than those being used. It also seems > that distinguishing the timescales between the government’s impact as > setter of rules of the game, versus as player in the game, gives a starting > point when trying to figure out how to regain some electoral stability and > give the Dems enough of a footprint in rural areas to be allowed to > actually do work that would help anybody. > > > > What I say above may or may not be correct. I put it forth as an example > of a kind of argument that one can try to make, because SOMETHING is > actually correct, and one can try to figure out what that is. > > > > If the battleground or red-stater’s way of life is to be permanently > angry, support the abusers who make their situations even worse, then get > angrier as a result and support even worse abusers, they may be sincere, > but I think it is a completely non-ideological thing to argue that they are > not pursuing the best course of action that exists. And the existence of > other countries (which one can read about on the internet!) is sufficient > evidence that something is possible, that an ordinary person ought to be > capable of knowing it is not a law of physics that things have to be > exactly as bad as they currently are here. That’s where I attach to > Marcus’s rebuttal that they can be understood for being angry and > desperate, but they don’t get a pass for wallowing in it. > > > > Anyway, > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > On Nov 11, 2020, at 1:35 PM, Marcus Daniels <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Roger writes: > > > > < These people weren't voting for rascism, misogyny, narcissism, > authoritarianism, xenophobia, gimp shaming, science denialism, or all that > other baggage, they were overlooking it for reasons. > > > > > Many of those that could not work due to COVID restrictions are often in > battleground or red states. That’s the only way I can possibly begin to > rationalize the 71 million. To me, overlooking those things is > unacceptable. It’s not useful to exercise any empathy for them. They > made a deal with the devil. It should have been a win by 50 million, not > 5 million. > > > > Marcus > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,wjVEBshOpH5o72EmW-nJcLhxrORGr_4A2ErGOFw-M_rVESbBoJHOL_Huc6xRwAFPvFXQYPz1LCQeeBFBJe-j-n_4ngtbX8KRRwyVtQRUwzeXjUVWy_5LKQI,&typo=1 > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,R_U2rUA_1INoxr0xulD14Z9537bx-m_oMq7OANnEo3u9toqWvlcxL2sLTMQLq2Mhft6HUNt5_FuvV-xUNzyeekz5xLv_rGN9nX-UuaLZ8nqmZSI8iWb_gyRHJg,,&typo=1 > > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
