I'm no expert (I have a twitter account but haven't used it in forever), but the argument by Yglesias seems mistaken.
"If you read the conservative media, they don’t use the n-word or call gay men and lesbians “faggots” and “dykes,” so a space that censors those kinds of slurs won’t be seen as violating conservatives’ own community norms."
The problem, of course, is that, even if "conservative media" do not use such terminology, the right-wing consumers of that media do use it. Which means that, if they are not allowed to use such terminology on Twitter, then they will object to their being censored.
Thanks for the pointer to Irma Edelson. In the old days, I would have haunted the used bookstores, but this is now, so I've already ordered a few of her books online for delivery next week. I always had a sense that economic growth is risky business for a society's rulers. Letting those ruled get too wealthy or too powerful jeopardizes the position of those at the top. If one wants to stay on top, one has to run one's society like a colonizer, and that puts an implicit limit on economic growth.
This seems to be a universal problem. We see it ongoing in China. Growth was all well and good, but once the CCP had its control threatened by corporations and celebrities, the party had no choice but political repression even at the cost of growth. We see it in red-state / blue-state policies and economics in the US. We saw it in Europe in the 19th century with its balancing act between political repression and the economic growth necessary to remain a Great Power. It was that warfare and its need for citizen soldiers that enabled the modern welfare state.
I think demand side economics is vastly understudied.
I pretty much agree with the list of necessary conditions except that the "protective" or "Infant industry tariffs" needed to be aimed at export markets. Tariffs aiming at nothing more than import substitution really were a dead end.
The failure of LA elites to create these conditions is sure enough, but I'm not sure that an "internal colonization" mentality is the best diagnosis. I'd say is more related to post -independence "culture wars."
I'm no expert (I have a twitter account but haven't used it in forever), but the argument by Yglesias seems mistaken.
"If you read the conservative media, they don’t use the n-word or call gay men and lesbians “faggots” and “dykes,” so a space that censors those kinds of slurs won’t be seen as violating conservatives’ own community norms."
The problem, of course, is that, even if "conservative media" do not use such terminology, the right-wing consumers of that media do use it. Which means that, if they are not allowed to use such terminology on Twitter, then they will object to their being censored.
Re development etc, as my neighbor said the other day: It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the past.
Thanks for the pointer to Irma Edelson. In the old days, I would have haunted the used bookstores, but this is now, so I've already ordered a few of her books online for delivery next week. I always had a sense that economic growth is risky business for a society's rulers. Letting those ruled get too wealthy or too powerful jeopardizes the position of those at the top. If one wants to stay on top, one has to run one's society like a colonizer, and that puts an implicit limit on economic growth.
This seems to be a universal problem. We see it ongoing in China. Growth was all well and good, but once the CCP had its control threatened by corporations and celebrities, the party had no choice but political repression even at the cost of growth. We see it in red-state / blue-state policies and economics in the US. We saw it in Europe in the 19th century with its balancing act between political repression and the economic growth necessary to remain a Great Power. It was that warfare and its need for citizen soldiers that enabled the modern welfare state.
I think demand side economics is vastly understudied.
I pretty much agree with the list of necessary conditions except that the "protective" or "Infant industry tariffs" needed to be aimed at export markets. Tariffs aiming at nothing more than import substitution really were a dead end.
The failure of LA elites to create these conditions is sure enough, but I'm not sure that an "internal colonization" mentality is the best diagnosis. I'd say is more related to post -independence "culture wars."
Very interesting image. I would not have guessed so much heating over Labrador & northern Quebec, nor so much cooling over northwestern north america.