I think Turchin's research shows that "elite overproduction" is a bad thing. Think of it like a fish tank that gets out of balance and the algae blooms start taking over and killing fish. It seems his point is you don't get equilibrium back until more elites get killed off one way or other and diminish the supply. The work presumes an inelastic, scarcity mindset, which is worth questioning. But it does seem throughout history that an oversupply of elites who can't take power only gets disrupted by war, plague, or revolution. In his research, the "new elites" -- as you put them -- become disgruntled and resentful outsiders that try to crash the gatekeepers unless other natural forces reduce their relative numbers.
Polarizing the country is an interesting strategy though. It could be a means for the outsider elites to do a power grab by associating the existing ruling elites with the demise of the general public ... which is quite a bit of the situation we have now in many countries.
You know, when you think about it, there are parallels at the elite level and the generational level, for example. Given the scarcity of housing, the finite limits of desirable real estate, and how its costs have completely outgrown inflation, it's set up a lot of high achieving millennials to be locked out of the ownership class. I've read how millennials could be economically split in the future between those who inherit from their dying boomer parents and those who don't.
And don't worry about the soapbox. I may not agree with you, but I do want to hear the rationale behind your preferences here. And how you've characterized government here -- more to its realistic flaws far short of its lofty ideas -- is a fair assessment, IMO. Btw, could we reframe rent-seeking as basically any form of passive income requiring limited to zero labor?
Where I disagree with your opinion here is that I may be too much of an optimist here, but I think it's a cop out not to expect better from governance. Yes, the conservative notion is to look at governance as the problem and to put a tourniquet on it. But by doing so I think you only stand to address the symptoms and not the source of the problem. It's a bit like having a fever and starving yourself as a means of getting healthy again. That rather than seeing if you can save the arm, you think of cutting it off and cauterizing the wound. The US has an imperfect democracy. And despite the originalists, many great nations have updated their constitution to reflect modern times ... and not just by amendments. I think there's more to gain than lose in doing so for a 250 year old document.
I know my feelings these days are wholly full of holes, but my "Flight 93" election response -- as you noted -- is to do something dramatic altogether which scarily has some things in common with Trump governance doctrine: rid us of the professional politicians and replace them with a lottery system of representative government where, like jury duty, people of different walks of life are drafted and paid a salary to represent social problems that markets alone cannot fix (or exacerbate). It eliminates the pathway for a career ruling elite class, and it destroys much of the structure behind corporate influence and money-raising -- where our election system is awash with undue financial influence.
Oh, there are plenty of problems and details to work out. Not the least of which is you draft political amateurs who need to be educated on their representing issues from zero sometimes. But I would love to see some states or even just counties experiment with this idea. It's getting to be like the losing war on drugs: the current trajectory is abject failure.
p.s.: While Russia meddled with the election, I thought the premise as framed for Trump's impeachment that he was keeping Putin's secrets was ludicrous. For one, that Putin would trust Trump's ego and blabbermouth. For another, that Trump would know how to shut up and avoid self-incrimination.
Polarizing the country is an interesting strategy though. It could be a means for the outsider elites to do a power grab by associating the existing ruling elites with the demise of the general public ... which is quite a bit of the situation we have now in many countries.
You know, when you think about it, there are parallels at the elite level and the generational level, for example. Given the scarcity of housing, the finite limits of desirable real estate, and how its costs have completely outgrown inflation, it's set up a lot of high achieving millennials to be locked out of the ownership class. I've read how millennials could be economically split in the future between those who inherit from their dying boomer parents and those who don't.
And don't worry about the soapbox. I may not agree with you, but I do want to hear the rationale behind your preferences here. And how you've characterized government here -- more to its realistic flaws far short of its lofty ideas -- is a fair assessment, IMO. Btw, could we reframe rent-seeking as basically any form of passive income requiring limited to zero labor?
Where I disagree with your opinion here is that I may be too much of an optimist here, but I think it's a cop out not to expect better from governance. Yes, the conservative notion is to look at governance as the problem and to put a tourniquet on it. But by doing so I think you only stand to address the symptoms and not the source of the problem. It's a bit like having a fever and starving yourself as a means of getting healthy again. That rather than seeing if you can save the arm, you think of cutting it off and cauterizing the wound. The US has an imperfect democracy. And despite the originalists, many great nations have updated their constitution to reflect modern times ... and not just by amendments. I think there's more to gain than lose in doing so for a 250 year old document.
I know my feelings these days are wholly full of holes, but my "Flight 93" election response -- as you noted -- is to do something dramatic altogether which scarily has some things in common with Trump governance doctrine: rid us of the professional politicians and replace them with a lottery system of representative government where, like jury duty, people of different walks of life are drafted and paid a salary to represent social problems that markets alone cannot fix (or exacerbate). It eliminates the pathway for a career ruling elite class, and it destroys much of the structure behind corporate influence and money-raising -- where our election system is awash with undue financial influence.
Oh, there are plenty of problems and details to work out. Not the least of which is you draft political amateurs who need to be educated on their representing issues from zero sometimes. But I would love to see some states or even just counties experiment with this idea. It's getting to be like the losing war on drugs: the current trajectory is abject failure.
p.s.: While Russia meddled with the election, I thought the premise as framed for Trump's impeachment that he was keeping Putin's secrets was ludicrous. For one, that Putin would trust Trump's ego and blabbermouth. For another, that Trump would know how to shut up and avoid self-incrimination.
Buy on AliExpress.com
