I find myself a bit skeptical about the 'abundance progressives'.
Apart from the general vagueness of the presentation, there are bits like this:
"Movement Progressives and Abundance Progressives want similar things, but take divergent approaches.
We think there is value in both approaches — Abundance Progressivism is too wonky, whereas MP has captured mindshare and heart strings. Abundance Progressives would also do well to adopt at least a dose of skepticism towards governmental processes that favor the rich and powerful over the poor and marginalized."
The two groups "want the same things", except that the APs don't (currently?) care about "governmental processes that favor the rich and powerful over the poor and marginalized"... if I read this correctly.
There is also the fact that his examples seem a bit off. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for example, is a Democratic Socialist, and therefore placing "under-rerpresented groups [...] front and center" only because she is a member thereof. And calling Jared Polis, formerly a member of the House Liberty Caucus, a "progressive" seems to be stretching the term beyond usefulness.
Sensible Hustle: Nothing but a tax on net CO2 and methane emissions is sensible. How to split the revenue between reducing other taxes with higher deadweight losses (taxes on business income), investments in mitigation of effects of earlier delays in enacting the net tax on CO2 and methane emissions, deficit reduction, and offsetting income effects for low income households, is debatable.
Brad wants to know why presumably smart lawyers put patently risible stuff in their briefs. A few answers, based on a few decades of lawyering:
1. A bullheaded client wants to make the argument.
2. You never know what argument will seize the fancy of a judge. (Truth!)
3. Judges--unlike any ordinary human being--try to keep parallel arguments from discrediting each other. A normal human being would take "I didn't do it and even if I did I was drunk" to mean "I dunnit." A judge is less likely to do so and is very cautious about drawing such inferences in public.
4. The risible argument may be defensive in nature. All good defenses take the form of attacks. It doesn't have to persuade the judge if it merely discredits the other side's arguments.
5. Briefwriting by committee creates monsters. IMO, the ideal briefwriting team consists of a briefwriter, an editor, and maybe a smart client who reviews the edited product. (Large teams of researchers are okay. Most briefwriters AFAIK draft the brief before doing the research.)
6. Effective advocacy relies on a form of temporary schizophrenia. The advocate has to be in a kind of berserker rage utterly convinced of the rightness of their cause. (I found that I had to make myself hate either the opposing client or counsel: preferably the client.) The advocate also has to be very sensitive to the context of the case, including its weaknesses. Both of these mental attributes must be held at the same time. This isn't hard for sociopaths, but most lawyers aren't sociopaths.
I find myself a bit skeptical about the 'abundance progressives'.
Apart from the general vagueness of the presentation, there are bits like this:
"Movement Progressives and Abundance Progressives want similar things, but take divergent approaches.
We think there is value in both approaches — Abundance Progressivism is too wonky, whereas MP has captured mindshare and heart strings. Abundance Progressives would also do well to adopt at least a dose of skepticism towards governmental processes that favor the rich and powerful over the poor and marginalized."
The two groups "want the same things", except that the APs don't (currently?) care about "governmental processes that favor the rich and powerful over the poor and marginalized"... if I read this correctly.
There is also the fact that his examples seem a bit off. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for example, is a Democratic Socialist, and therefore placing "under-rerpresented groups [...] front and center" only because she is a member thereof. And calling Jared Polis, formerly a member of the House Liberty Caucus, a "progressive" seems to be stretching the term beyond usefulness.
Sensible Hustle: Nothing but a tax on net CO2 and methane emissions is sensible. How to split the revenue between reducing other taxes with higher deadweight losses (taxes on business income), investments in mitigation of effects of earlier delays in enacting the net tax on CO2 and methane emissions, deficit reduction, and offsetting income effects for low income households, is debatable.
Brad wants to know why presumably smart lawyers put patently risible stuff in their briefs. A few answers, based on a few decades of lawyering:
1. A bullheaded client wants to make the argument.
2. You never know what argument will seize the fancy of a judge. (Truth!)
3. Judges--unlike any ordinary human being--try to keep parallel arguments from discrediting each other. A normal human being would take "I didn't do it and even if I did I was drunk" to mean "I dunnit." A judge is less likely to do so and is very cautious about drawing such inferences in public.
4. The risible argument may be defensive in nature. All good defenses take the form of attacks. It doesn't have to persuade the judge if it merely discredits the other side's arguments.
5. Briefwriting by committee creates monsters. IMO, the ideal briefwriting team consists of a briefwriter, an editor, and maybe a smart client who reviews the edited product. (Large teams of researchers are okay. Most briefwriters AFAIK draft the brief before doing the research.)
6. Effective advocacy relies on a form of temporary schizophrenia. The advocate has to be in a kind of berserker rage utterly convinced of the rightness of their cause. (I found that I had to make myself hate either the opposing client or counsel: preferably the client.) The advocate also has to be very sensitive to the context of the case, including its weaknesses. Both of these mental attributes must be held at the same time. This isn't hard for sociopaths, but most lawyers aren't sociopaths.
7. [To be filled in by other lawyers.]