You reminded me of a thought I had a long time ago. I had thought that the party conventions should be held before the primaries. The party would create its platform and the candidates would speak on their visions to achieve the goals of the platform, then the primaries would be held in say September. Or the conventions could be in February or March with primaries in April, May, or June.
Given the reality of how a party’s platform is created, clearly shows political parties aren’t an organization in Hayek’s definition .
I've wondered if the Biden debacle was intentional to get Harris into the nomination without her going through the primary process. It's a pretty elegant ploy - Biden runs so nobody else can; he then shows himself to be infirm once the primary season is over, and gives his delegates to Harris. She doesn't have to go through a fight - which historically have often bloodied Democrat contenders, and it isn't clear she could have won on her own.
Looks bad to bypass the sitting VP when the P pulls out of the race. Just not done in polite circles. That's partly why I like the revenge-on-Obama theory, regardless of how true it is. They had waited too long to get rid of Biden.
I do think someone months before had decided it was better to gamble they could pump Biden full of drugs and time his naps so he could bluff all the way through election day than risk another primary loss by Harris to someone worse, like Bernie or Liz Warren. But I have no insider knowledge, it's mostly just fun conspiracy theories.
Well, Harris and Biden, I would think. And if Biden would like the basic policies continued, there might not be a better choice, even if he could reasonably choose someone besides the VP.
I have no idea if that's what happened, of course. It's more that Biden seriously running for a second term seemed like a stupid play on his part, which I don't automatically subscribe to.
"I think a more plausible explanation is that Biden, at least, did not believe the catastrophist rhetoric..."
Problem is, that seems to be the case for most of the politicians that the catastrophist rhetoric is telling us to vote for. At this point it just feels like, "Nice country you got there, it'd be a shame if Trump happened to it..."
It's entirely possible that none of them believe it, as I think I suggested with "The conclusion may well be true." But my point was that one cannot reason directly from the behavior of the party to the beliefs of its members. That's an important point outside this particular context.
I see the Democratic Party as more of an emergent order built on top of a layer of organizations which are in turn an emergent order built on top of weaknesses in legislation and our Constitutional documents.
The article I know it's by and I did a few research if Reagan wasn't power the time Obama is we would have four more trillion dollars in our economy and we would have had 20 million jobs instead of 10 million so he shouldn't really get credit
I wasn't talking about presidential primaries this time but about the primaries that the current Democratic senators and representatives had to win in order to get nominated for their present positions.
> A design that slowed both species down would free up resources to let each better achieve reproductive success or any other plausible objective
How are you determining which objectives are plausible here? There’s an assumption which has been smuggled in, and it must be declared in order to be used. Evolution seems to be optimizing for having all ecosystems as alive as possible, with as many different kinds of life, using energy as efficiently as possible. The arms race between predators and prey ensures that evolution selects for energy efficient organisms. Predator prey relationships are only “wasting” energy if we ignore the effect they have on selecting for organisms that use energy as efficiently as possible. It’s only “wasted” if we imagine a subset of goals that ultimately cares less about the _total_ diversity and complexity of the ecosystem, for a given budget of energy.
This act of epistemic smuggling reminds me of another argument for tariffs. You can’t implement tariffs without a secure border. Since the whole function of the government is to secure property rights, doing all taxation at the border means you’ll be able to defend your borders., as an externality of tax enforcement. With income or other taxes, you incentivize the creation of a surveillance and control apparatus that poses additional costs on the people’s liberties. Tariffs impose no such externalities on our liberties, by only providing stronger incentives for the government to do its main job.
I mostly agree, but I would say that both parties are also a amorphous group of power centers, some of which are clearly defined and some of which are loose. We can talk about how Obama or Clinton or Pelosi have power and influence, even though none of them currently have any official positions or any actual government power. In fact, it was likely a decision made by or influenced by those three that got Biden to drop out of the campaign. They represent clearly defined power centers. Loose power centers would be something like union membership (as opposed to union leadership) or non-college rural workers.
If enough of those power centers coordinate together, then a political party can act like it's a coherent organization. That's what I believe happened with Biden, and then also with Harris being his replacement.
Trump is very interesting in this regard, as he appears to have used several large but very loose power centers to intentionally and explicitly topple the clearly defined power centers. Most notably how he took out Jeb very early in the process, despite the obvious preference of the donors and historical Republican leadership.
> Democratic politicians are not employees acting on orders from a superior but individuals acting for their own objectives.
One good example of how this results into bad second order effects is how Harris ended up becoming the Dem party candidate. Biden chose Harris probably for her race and gender and also the fact that she was unpopular otherwise (hence could not exploit his own declining mental health).
But it is precisely how she ended up becoming Democratic nominee in the end and is likely to lose to Trump.
How Kamala Harris became presidential contender from Yes, Minister, Christmas 1984:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI9Ip0GLUJ0&t=821s
You reminded me of a thought I had a long time ago. I had thought that the party conventions should be held before the primaries. The party would create its platform and the candidates would speak on their visions to achieve the goals of the platform, then the primaries would be held in say September. Or the conventions could be in February or March with primaries in April, May, or June.
Given the reality of how a party’s platform is created, clearly shows political parties aren’t an organization in Hayek’s definition .
I've wondered if the Biden debacle was intentional to get Harris into the nomination without her going through the primary process. It's a pretty elegant ploy - Biden runs so nobody else can; he then shows himself to be infirm once the primary season is over, and gives his delegates to Harris. She doesn't have to go through a fight - which historically have often bloodied Democrat contenders, and it isn't clear she could have won on her own.
Who are you assuming is responsible on that scenario? Harris doesn't look like a very strong candidate, couldn't they have found someone else?
Looks bad to bypass the sitting VP when the P pulls out of the race. Just not done in polite circles. That's partly why I like the revenge-on-Obama theory, regardless of how true it is. They had waited too long to get rid of Biden.
I do think someone months before had decided it was better to gamble they could pump Biden full of drugs and time his naps so he could bluff all the way through election day than risk another primary loss by Harris to someone worse, like Bernie or Liz Warren. But I have no insider knowledge, it's mostly just fun conspiracy theories.
Well, Harris and Biden, I would think. And if Biden would like the basic policies continued, there might not be a better choice, even if he could reasonably choose someone besides the VP.
I have no idea if that's what happened, of course. It's more that Biden seriously running for a second term seemed like a stupid play on his part, which I don't automatically subscribe to.
There was a different theory for a while. Biden didn't like Obama pushing him out, so he preemptively endorsed Kamala to get revenge on Obama.
My main take on all this was that politicians suck.
"I think a more plausible explanation is that Biden, at least, did not believe the catastrophist rhetoric..."
Problem is, that seems to be the case for most of the politicians that the catastrophist rhetoric is telling us to vote for. At this point it just feels like, "Nice country you got there, it'd be a shame if Trump happened to it..."
It's entirely possible that none of them believe it, as I think I suggested with "The conclusion may well be true." But my point was that one cannot reason directly from the behavior of the party to the beliefs of its members. That's an important point outside this particular context.
I see the Democratic Party as more of an emergent order built on top of a layer of organizations which are in turn an emergent order built on top of weaknesses in legislation and our Constitutional documents.
David Friedman I have a question this person claims that Trump destroyed Obama's economic legacy is this true https://theconversation.com/the-truth-about-obamas-economic-legacy-and-trumps-inheritance-73889
From the article:
> While you wouldn’t know it from the way the Trump team has been talking about it, the economy is actually in pretty good shape.
I stopped reading after that part. Yes the economy is in good shape if you discount the fact that ordinary people have trouble affording groceries.
The article I know it's by and I did a few research if Reagan wasn't power the time Obama is we would have four more trillion dollars in our economy and we would have had 20 million jobs instead of 10 million so he shouldn't really get credit
> The candidates in a primary are not acting for the benefit of the party
...but also there wasn't a primary; which is some weak form of feedback or testing.
I wasn't talking about presidential primaries this time but about the primaries that the current Democratic senators and representatives had to win in order to get nominated for their present positions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUctFu46_c
What's the value of an old man who acts exactly as a young man does?
> A design that slowed both species down would free up resources to let each better achieve reproductive success or any other plausible objective
How are you determining which objectives are plausible here? There’s an assumption which has been smuggled in, and it must be declared in order to be used. Evolution seems to be optimizing for having all ecosystems as alive as possible, with as many different kinds of life, using energy as efficiently as possible. The arms race between predators and prey ensures that evolution selects for energy efficient organisms. Predator prey relationships are only “wasting” energy if we ignore the effect they have on selecting for organisms that use energy as efficiently as possible. It’s only “wasted” if we imagine a subset of goals that ultimately cares less about the _total_ diversity and complexity of the ecosystem, for a given budget of energy.
This act of epistemic smuggling reminds me of another argument for tariffs. You can’t implement tariffs without a secure border. Since the whole function of the government is to secure property rights, doing all taxation at the border means you’ll be able to defend your borders., as an externality of tax enforcement. With income or other taxes, you incentivize the creation of a surveillance and control apparatus that poses additional costs on the people’s liberties. Tariffs impose no such externalities on our liberties, by only providing stronger incentives for the government to do its main job.
I mostly agree, but I would say that both parties are also a amorphous group of power centers, some of which are clearly defined and some of which are loose. We can talk about how Obama or Clinton or Pelosi have power and influence, even though none of them currently have any official positions or any actual government power. In fact, it was likely a decision made by or influenced by those three that got Biden to drop out of the campaign. They represent clearly defined power centers. Loose power centers would be something like union membership (as opposed to union leadership) or non-college rural workers.
If enough of those power centers coordinate together, then a political party can act like it's a coherent organization. That's what I believe happened with Biden, and then also with Harris being his replacement.
Trump is very interesting in this regard, as he appears to have used several large but very loose power centers to intentionally and explicitly topple the clearly defined power centers. Most notably how he took out Jeb very early in the process, despite the obvious preference of the donors and historical Republican leadership.
> Democratic politicians are not employees acting on orders from a superior but individuals acting for their own objectives.
One good example of how this results into bad second order effects is how Harris ended up becoming the Dem party candidate. Biden chose Harris probably for her race and gender and also the fact that she was unpopular otherwise (hence could not exploit his own declining mental health).
But it is precisely how she ended up becoming Democratic nominee in the end and is likely to lose to Trump.