Prosperity is causally prior to taxation, not the other way around. To quote the great Bryan Caplan, "It takes a colossal host to sustain colossal parasitism."
Curiously enough, the only parts of the country that have ever approached anything resembling "failure" are (heavily progressive) urban areas like NYC and Detroit.
I think we need to set some terms here. What do you consider "failing"? Not that I'm really looking to jump into the mud and wrastle on this one, this seems like a perfect point for a -citation needed-
I put the word in quotes to indicate the tendentiousness of any potential definition. I personally don't think of any part of America as having "failed," but if you force me to pick, I'd choose any area that suffered from breakdown in law and order and severe de-population. NYC in the late 70s and Detroit's long-running (but hopefully interrupted?) decline especially come to mind. A number of other urban centers could potentially fit too.
Fair enough, and I agree with your sentiment. I think I can point to some rural states economic downturns, criminal problems and terrible literacy rates and draw similar conclusions.
I think the best move here is to agree that either side (rural vs urban, left vs right, whatever vs it's opposite) could cherry pick items to point to and say "these bad things prove my point".
I'm not inclined to think that slow demographic decline constitutes failure. Even if you disagree with that, my preferred definition has the additional "law and order" requirement, and I've never seen a rural example of a "Bronx is burning"-type event.
You are playing really fast and loose with definitions so it’s hard to know what you consider a failure case but rural areas now have higher crime rates than the national average.
Incarceration rates are also now led by rural areas[0]. Anyone who has spent time in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio or West Virginian rural areas have driven through areas that easily could be called ‘failed’. And that’s just from my personal experience.
I’d say your position that only progressive places have failed I’d just your bias showing and doesn’t have any basis in fact. And that’s before you dig into whether it was progressive policies that led to the 2 failures you do mention.
I earlier acknowledged the difficulty of coming up with a reasonable definition of "failed." I will say that I don't think it's enough to be simply below-average in literacy or above-average in crime or whatever; you really want a multivariate outlier in the space of social pathologies. I suspect that most ways of operationalizing "failure" will capture primarily urban decay, like the examples I brought up.
Does rural West Virginia rise to that level? Having been there myself, I don't think so, though I could be convinced otherwise. Can you point to large-ish rural areas that match the dysfunction of, say, south-side Chicago? Preferably along with some (crude) quantitative comparisons. I'm genuinely curious here; not trying to pick on progressive policies.
Have you considered that density itself is a contributing factor? That's hardly a stretch. Perhaps certain effects will be magnified in cities compared to rural areas or states containing both. And those cities might also tend more toward the Democrat end of the political spectrum. Correlation still does not equal causation. The whole "failed cities are X" trope doesn't suggest any useful policy either, unless you think emulating China's "Down to the Countryside" movement would be a great idea.
I contend that, adjusting for density, places like Mississippi or Appalachia stand as stark counterexamples to any theory that being "blue" leads to failure. In fact, a pretty strong argument could be made that "blue" policies around things like public vs. private goods, fossil vs. renewable energy, or respect for immigrants are the only reason urban failures haven't been worse or more widespread. Believe it or not, Detroit could be worse, and I believe would be worse if certain "heartland" attitudes were more prevalent there. Literal "smoking hole in the ground" worse.
To bring this back to the original topic, the inevitable trend toward greater urbanization therefore means it's even more important to address gerrymandering now instead of kicking the can down the road. Letting the rural few dictate to the urban many will surely lead to heartbreak and pain, no matter what other beliefs are involved.
All good points. Some blue cities do very well and some do very poorly. I have to conclude that the problems are mostly exogenous to policy.
> being “blue” leads to failure
To be clear, I was never suggesting that progressive policies lead inexorably to decline—the most successful parts of the county are blue.
> a pretty strong argument could be made
I’m more skeptical here. The policies you cite are neither necessary nor sufficient for vitality. Most pointedly, progressive values were nonexistent for most of America’s history, and yet it did quite well economically.
> literal “smoking hole in the ground” worse
But my whole point is that it was a smoking hole in the ground! I started this whole thread by responding to a claim about the inevitability of red states going “third world.” To my eye, such a thing has never happened to rural areas, but has happened to urban areas (I might add, with some frequency). Be it density or whatever—there’s something that needs to be explained.
> rural few dictate to the urban many
Agreed. I think it would be equally bad for the urban many to dictate to the rural few. Federal level policy is inappropriate for most things
Really? When did Detroit burn to the ground? When I said literally, I meant literally. I've lived in Detroit, and still have family there. Sure it's bad but it's not literally an unlivable ruin.
> it would be equally bad for the urban many to dictate to the rural few
Equally bad? No, sorry, I don't believe majority and minority rule are equally just or effective. However few or many things should be decided at a federal level (nice red herring there), those things should be decided by votes and votes should be equal. Saying each member of one group should get more votes or more representation than each member of another is saying we should have a class system, and I reject that. There is a clear moral difference between majority and minority rule.
No, not literally a smoking hole (though I believe arson was a problem for a time?) But as close to one as you’re going to get in the USA.
I can’t disagree more with your majoritarian arguments. You (and I) would probably object when, e.g. California voters ban gay marriage. But you cheer when slim majorities attempt to saddle others with heavy economic burdens or interpose themselves in others’ contractual arrangements. I find most democratic decisions illegitimate; how hard is to to just keep your nose out of other people’s business?
The founders were aware of urban/rural tension from the beginning. The system was designed to make it difficult to force obligations on fellow citizens. That means majorities are being thwarted in their efforts, and that’s a good thing.
You're still conflating two things: what gets decided at a federal level, and how. How big that category is doesn't matter. It's utterly irrelevant. What matters is that, when those decision points do occur, letting the minority prevail would be worse.
> I find most democratic decisions illegitimate
Ah, the political equivalent of solipsism. Sorry, but this isn't the forum to address such fundamental fallacies. Hard pass.
You seem to be positing a world where “bad” decisions are somehow kept off the ballot, leaving only a menu of “good” options for the wise majority to enact.
Well, that’s not our world. When a CA gay marriage ban comes up for vote, it’s important to me that the majority not get their way. And unless I’ve seriously misapprehended your politics, I’m not sure why you’re advancing an argument where such a ban is just because “letting the minority prevail” would be worse.
So yeah, it’s a mistake to treat the “what” and the “how” of decision-making separately.
> When a CA gay marriage ban comes up for vote, it’s important to me that the majority not get their way
That's why we have constitutions. Minority rule doesn't solve that, and in fact makes it more likely that the evangelical minority will shove their religion down everyone else's throats. Thanks for underlining my point.
Your argument against minority rule is to invoke... the courts? "Majority rule is great. Except when it does stuff I don't like, in which case I'll lean on minority rule by an infinitesimal number of unaccountable dudes in black robes to override it."
Constitutions are not enough. This isn't an academic question. Throughout the country's history, majorities have consistently trampled the rights of minorities. To me, majority rule looks an awful lot like rampant injustice. Minority rule looks like defense.
Minority rule by whom? Do you think for one fevered second that your minority will be the one to get its way? No, you hanging from a tree in Gilead is about a thousand times more likely. Please go study the history of aristocracies, theocracies, and colonies where minority rule prevailed, and pay particular attention to how someone like you would have fared under them.
Majority rule is imperfect. Constitutional limitation is imperfect. Federalism is imperfect. That's why people have spent centuries trying to devise systems that use all of these tools in balance against one another, because the alternatives - autocracy or anarchy immediately turning into autocracy - are far worse.
It's easy to change my mind on this: just provide me a decision rule that'll put rural decay data points on the "failure" side of the classification boundary while leaving urban decay on the other.
I don't know what else you call it when you get supreme executive power despite a majority of the voters not wanting you to have it. I'm aware that it wasn't illegal, but it doesn't mean it's legitimate.
> I'm aware that it wasn't illegal, but it doesn't mean it's legitimate.
Mind you, I'm no Trump fan, but "legal" is literally the only relevant definition of legitimacy in this context.
If the process by which Trump was elected was illegitimate, then the process by which all American Presidents have been elected is illegitimate. Americans have had two centuries to change the electoral college, and have not done so, because clearly voters have no problems with it when it benefits their side. Neither the presence nor the absence of a majority vote is, or has ever been, relevant.
We went though this with Obama, and a not-insignificant segment of the population believing him to be illegitimate. Before Obama, people on the left thought George W. Bush stole the election because of the debacle that was Florida.
It's a poisonous precedent to set, particularly in the radicalized atmosphere we find ourselves in, not to recognize the legitimacy of a government just because the "wrong" candidate won under the rules. How many more of these "illegitimate" Presidents are we going to go through before the losing side just decides to start shooting?
I hate Trump as much as any reasonable person, but Americans got exactly what they wanted, and deserved, with him.
Since the Constitution expressly places the approval of judges into the hands of the Senate, that is a bit of a non-sequitur.
McConnell took a gamble that paid off for his party- if the voters had chosen Hilary there is a very good chance she would have nominated a more leftist judge than Obama had. In the end it was actually a very prominent campaign issue and therefore was directly a choice before the voters, which in my mind would make it more legitimate in a 'democratic' context than the usual.
> Since the Constitution expressly places the approval of judges into the hands of the senate....
> [...] if the voters had chosen Hilary there is a very good chance she would have nominated a more leftist judge than Obama had.
Under your logic, they could have just waited for a Republican to become president before they voted to confirm any judges. Granted, that would have been an even bigger gamble (what if they lose the majority in the Senate in the meantime?), and even more justices could die or retire in the meantime.
How many seats need to be open before you would say the Senate must confirm someone? (1? 2? 5? 9?) How long are they allowed to wait? (6 months? a year? 4 years? 8 years?) . How dysfunctional could our government become before your logic implies the need to act?
I disagree. Obama received more votes than Donald Trump ever will. The voters already made a choice in 2012. Forcing reaffirmation for Democratic appointees, but not Republican ones, is a clear attempt to obstruct the power of the President.
Can you point to the law McConnell violated in doing this? And if not, in what sense is the current court illegitimate? Finally, how does this in any way address my question about the president "seizing" power?
It's the Senate's Constitutional responsibility to advise and consent the President's SCOTUS nominations. What is the procedure when they abdicate that responsibility? Remember, the Senate didn't tell Obama "no, we don't like your nominee." They, meaning McConnell, refused to hold any hearings on at all.
So maybe he didn't violate the law, but he certainly didn't uphold his Constitutional responsibilities, which I believe is part of the Oath of Office he took.
That is a distinction without a difference in this context, which is about the Senate abdicating their constitutional responsibilities. They didn't hold public hearings before 1916, that is true (the history of why they even started holding public hearings is pretty controversial in itself.) However, they still held yay/nay votes on the floor for the nominees, in order to fulfill their advise and consent role. McConnell refused to hold a vote, therefore he failed in upholding the Senate's constitutional role on the SCOTUS confirmation process.
That's not how the Senate works. They are not required to hold a vote in order to declare "nay" on a nominee. Declining to vote is effectively a "nay". It's no different than declining to hold a vote on a bill which they know will not pass.
This is how Congress and the co-equal branches of government are designed to work. Congress and the President often don't get along. It's a feature, not a bug.
If we take climate change activists at their word, the answer is a resounding YES. There is a full-blown crisis brewing, one that can only be resolved with massive social changes ("if everyone does a little, we’ll achieve only a little" [1]). The NYT should be pushing much more draconian measures.
I think there is a PR war going on to push the responsibility of climate crisis fixes onto personal actions in order to avoid actual widescale industrial changes. We can create fuel from carbon and at least for the air sector it makes reasonable sense - even if that increases the cost of travel. Airlines like other corporations want to avoid specific requirements like that that as a regulation.
You can curb the consumption of anything with a tax, unfortunately getting the political capital to implement one is another thing. It looks sadly like the climate will have to change quite a bit more until that possible
>I am also incredibly tired of people banging the climate change drum every time there is a weather anomaly (or even a marginally notable event). In a dynamical system "anomalies" are normal.
linked paper (first sentence)
>We develop a theoretical approach to quantify the effect of long-term trends on the expected number of extremes in generic time series, using analytical solutions and Monte Carlo simulations
"weather anomaly/marginally notable event" signified by the "expected number of extremes"
The google scholar link/search seems broken, but I remember reading this when it came out in 2011 and covered a wide range of global heat waves in disparate parts of countries, extreme drought, extreme flooding, wild fires, etc.
You're confusing concepts. Regression to the mean doesn't depend on any IID assumption. Conditional expectations are right in the definition! In the bivariate normal case (height, intelligence, etc), it's a necessary consequence of a correlation coefficient < 1.
> It's rational for the company to try to pull them
Aren't there issues with follow-on offerings? By taking the entire IPO pot for itself, the company will probably struggle to find investors if/when it needs to come back to the capital markets--which seems like an eventuality with Lyft.
Potentially, but for high-growth unprofitable companies management is usually betting that they can either use the extra money raised to fix the fundamentals of the business in time for the next capital raise, or else they need to dump their stocks on the public market and get out because there won't be a next capital raise. I'd bet that #1 is more common in the management team's head, but #2 is more common in reality.
North Carolina is gerrymandered so that Republicans reliably win 77% of the seats despite getting only 49% of the votes, that's 2% of the House of Representatives right there.
> gerrymandering is utterly irrelevant to those outcomes.
You're correct that at the first order gerrymandering is irrelevant to the Senate and Presidency. Gerrymandering comes into play as a second-order effect, though; when used at the state level, it can cause state legislatures to effectively lock to a party. These state legislatures can then make changes to the way voting is organized in their state, enfranchising and disenfranchising voters in ways that support their party, and funding/defunding polling districts per the same. This has an effect that can be plenty large enough to swing statewide elections: see the last election's shenanigans in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida if you're in doubt.
The Democrats won the largest popular vote margin of any party in American history in 2018, but only the 53rd largest congressional majority in history, mostly because of Democratic voters in North Carolina, Ohio, and Wisconsin who were "packed and cracked" so that their votes counted far less.
Suppose they had in fact won the largest House majority in history. What exactly would it change? How would NN be faring right now? Moral grandstanding aside, I don't see the relevance of any of this.
The relevance to this is that you asserted that Republicans haven't given themselves any electoral advantage at all or that, if they did, it accounted for less than 1% of their success, when that cannot be further from the truth.
You said "explain your reasoning", and that's what I did.
No need to get defensive over it and try to pretend like it's irrelevant to the discussion. This is literally the discussion you explicitly asked for. If you don't like the fact that the Republican party has acted in a decades-long effort to guarantee their own power in perpetuity with or without public support, don't get mad at me, get mad at them.
I’m not mad at anyone, you simply haven’t explained anything. You just keep repeating the standard litany of Republican sins.
I never disputed Republicans’ attempt to give themselves an electoral advantage. I just disagree that this is consequential, much less decisive. As you yourself argued elsewhere in the thread, NC Republicans’ chicanery could mean a 2% swing in the House. Not to put too fine a point on it, but you’re telling me that by attributing 100% of R success to trickery, in a state that’s the worst of the worst in this regard and so yields the biggest effect size, you can create a counterfactual where Democrats have 2% more seats in just one half of Congress?
Your smoking gun is a rounding error. So I’m asking again: how do these sorts of numbers lead you to believe what you apparently believe?
Gerrymandering is utterly irrelevant to the Senate and the Presidency... in the sense that, if you lift the restriction for representative districts to have comparable populations, the resulting distortions of the popular will no longer count as mere "gerrymandering".
You asked how "these things explain >1% of Republican electoral success", but have now moved the goalposts to "It's still not enough to control the entire house".
I'm really not trying to move the goalposts. It just seems weird to use the House to argue about the incredible effectiveness of the Republican's underhanded tactics--when they don't even control the one body where those tactics should help!
In any event, the House sits beside the Senate and the Executive. As another commenter pointed out, this case at best explains ~2% of the dynamics of one out of three legislative bodies offices. And sure, other states might contribute a bit more. Fine, maybe it clears my 1% threshold; but just barely.
You did though, and when faced with the evidence you shifted the burden of proof to maintain your opinion that gerrymandering by Republicans isn't a problem. The fact you continue to minimize it and ignore the other problematic Republican behavior shows confirmation bias.
You're unnecessarily fixated on the 1% threshold I set out earlier. While nothing you said has changed my mind (my estimate is still <1%), I'm not really interested in the exact number. My point is that your concerns are qualitatively irrelevant (practically, not morally). So what if, in the absence of gerrymandering, there would be 100 fewer Republican congressmen? The Senate still isn't passing NN, and Trump is still stacking the judiciary with conservatives.
I'm not here to defend Republicans (I think they're pretty bad) or the practices you described (I also think those are bad). But that doesn't change the fact that gerrymandering and power grabs and Fox News are nearly completely inconsequential in explaining the world in front of us. Quit with the liberal wishcasting. People don't vote Republican because they've been misled by some sinister conspiracy. They just don't want what you're selling.
The articles I listed do a good job of explaining that, especially the NYT one and how they cling to control in states they lose votes in. It's much more than the 1% or 2% which you keep repeating to minimize it.
Your article explains the House of Representatives makeup in what the NYT concedes is the single most gerrymandered state in the country. Should we really be generalizing from that?
Regardless. The biggest obstacle to NN is currently the Senate and the Presidency. Two out of your three points are completely irrelevant to those offices. Is it all just Fox News? The Russians?
Dude, you're just hand-waving at this point. Add up all the gerrymandering you want. Maybe it gets you to 2%. Maybe 5%. Heck, let's say it accounts for 100% of Republican House members!
Wave your wand and make it disappear. The House is now... still Democratic. And the Senate is now... oh dang, still Republican! And the Trumpenfuhrer... still there!
Sounds to me like your electoral boogeymen don't have that much explanatory power.
