The reason democracy will always be vulnerable is that, for all too many, it fails to put *the right people* in power. For this reason, proof that it's a superior system for managing our affairs is simply irrelevant to those who think that way (among whom, sadly, we must number Thucydides). Worse yet for Fukuyama, it's not clear that democracy can prevail in a world completely dominated by authoritarian regimes. Democracy arose most likely by a fortuitous chance both in Athens and in the US and without an example to seed the growth elsewhere I'm not all that confident it could return once it's gone.
Exactly. There are many people who would rather have a larger fraction of a small pie than a smaller fraction of a large pie, even if that means a smaller portion (so long as it is large enough; and if you are a billionaire, practically any portion is large enough.) Realism (in the IR sense, not the real sense) breaks down when the interests of states are not closely aligned with the interests of rulers. How many Roman emperors died peacefully of natural causes? And yet that never prevented the ambitious from seeking the purple.
Timothy Snyder's recent lecture "As Ukraine Goes, So Goes the World" put it well. For freedom to mean anything, it cannot be just the absence of constraint, it must be a positive ethic. Democracy is not the ineluctable outcome of larger structural forces; the larger structural forces are not on the side of democracy. It always requires work to maintain.
The advantages of legislative supremacy are undermined when legislative elections become little more than national referenda as is perhaps inevitable as modern transportation and communications reduce differences in regional and local material interests.
Yes, I was surprised to see Fukuyama double down on this theme. But what he says is simple: authoritarianism is not the "new" end of history; but liberal democracy, the seeming end, is perennially subject to decay. The last observation reflects his big "political order" books, not just the "End." I don't care, personally, for FF's teleological predilections, but his observations are often compelling.
Thucydides' claim is no different from that of thousands of gone-literary disappointed courtiers or over-the-hill politicians. What's different is that he wrote a book that actually backs it up. Only a handful of those!
Baratunde Thurston: Rethinking Democracy After L.A.’s Racism Scandal:
Uh...? Monarchy is looking comparatively better? Hopefully Thurston never thought that Democracy was about identifying THE good guys and giving them power. As the American political philosopher Walter Kelly had Pogo to observe, "We have met the enemy and he is us!"
Nicholas Weaver needs to understand the concept of first mover advantage. Tesla is the frost successful electric car maker in a century. They are steadily accumulating experience in mass manufacturing. The legacy automakers have over a century of mass manufacturing experience which ought to be worth something. However, how much of that experience is relevant to electrics is questionable. Three biggest that too Tesla is Elon Musk's distractabilty and superpower of generating controversy.
The problem is that "first mover advantage" really only exists if there are necessary patents, network effects, high barriers to entry, or something else that will allow the first mover to lock in that advantage.
There is no reason to think that any of these apply in the case of Tesla. There is nothing unique to Tesla about electric motors or batteries, nor in the knowledge of building electric vehicles; there may be some advantage to Tesla's charging network, but that will erode as charging becomes commonplace; and though there are costs to entering the electric vehicle market, these are nothing excessive for other large automakers.
And yet Tesla has a market capitalization three times that of the three largest automakers (by sales) in the world, combined. Which is just madness (or bezzle...).
Fair enough. However, there is also the phenomena of "Learning by Doing.". Tesla at this point has produce in excess of a million vehicles. That should drive unit costs down. The legacy manufacturers have tremendous knowledge about building chassis and bodies which will certainly help them going forward. However they are just (barely) on the learning curve for the production of electric vehicles. We'll see.
I agree that the valuation of Tesla stock is ridiculous. As competition in there electric vehicles market heats up. I would expect Tesla's valuation to fall in line with the surviving legacy automakers.
Yes, Tesla has produced a lot of cars - for a market segment that is still relatively small. For the first half of 2022 they produced 550K electric autos (an increase of almost 50% from 2021). But BYD produced over 300K fully electric autos (as well as another 300K+ plug-in-hybrids), an increase of over 300% from 2021. And GM, VW, and Hyundai all produced more than 200K fully electric autos in the same period. This is more than "just (barely) on the learning curve".
No doubt Tesla is able to keep building cars. But there is no "secret sauce" here, and as the major manufacturers (and other newer ones) move more fully into the market, there is nothing special about Tesla that will enable them to retain the current market share. I see no reason to believe they will fail completely, but they will become just another auto maker.
And if, as you expect, Tesla's valuation falls in line with others, that will mean a fall of 90% or more. I suppose one could argue that this means investors won't have lost ALL of their money, but still....
Additional note: I saw in the paper yesterday that Tesla is cutting their prices in China (one of their biggest markets), due to increasing competition there.
Rana Faroohar: Globalism Failed to Deliver the Economy We Need:
"Everything in the Economy We Need"
This framing, "question the old philosophy," makes me fear that either the author does not understand the old philosophy or does but does not want to admit open disagreement.
I really don't like the term "globalism" in this context, rather than "globalization". It implies there's a problem with cosmopolitanism or universalism overall, rather than just trade policy.
Fair enough, but even there, most of the problems of "globalization" stem from improvements in long distance transportation of goods and communications rather than changes in trade policy.
The reason democracy will always be vulnerable is that, for all too many, it fails to put *the right people* in power. For this reason, proof that it's a superior system for managing our affairs is simply irrelevant to those who think that way (among whom, sadly, we must number Thucydides). Worse yet for Fukuyama, it's not clear that democracy can prevail in a world completely dominated by authoritarian regimes. Democracy arose most likely by a fortuitous chance both in Athens and in the US and without an example to seed the growth elsewhere I'm not all that confident it could return once it's gone.
Exactly. There are many people who would rather have a larger fraction of a small pie than a smaller fraction of a large pie, even if that means a smaller portion (so long as it is large enough; and if you are a billionaire, practically any portion is large enough.) Realism (in the IR sense, not the real sense) breaks down when the interests of states are not closely aligned with the interests of rulers. How many Roman emperors died peacefully of natural causes? And yet that never prevented the ambitious from seeking the purple.
Timothy Snyder's recent lecture "As Ukraine Goes, So Goes the World" put it well. For freedom to mean anything, it cannot be just the absence of constraint, it must be a positive ethic. Democracy is not the ineluctable outcome of larger structural forces; the larger structural forces are not on the side of democracy. It always requires work to maintain.
Link: https://twitter.com/TimothyDSnyder/status/1581271710346907649?s=20&t=jqLEfNBCBHGK4wGWPpDbeg
The advantages of legislative supremacy are undermined when legislative elections become little more than national referenda as is perhaps inevitable as modern transportation and communications reduce differences in regional and local material interests.
Yes, I was surprised to see Fukuyama double down on this theme. But what he says is simple: authoritarianism is not the "new" end of history; but liberal democracy, the seeming end, is perennially subject to decay. The last observation reflects his big "political order" books, not just the "End." I don't care, personally, for FF's teleological predilections, but his observations are often compelling.
Thucydides' claim is no different from that of thousands of gone-literary disappointed courtiers or over-the-hill politicians. What's different is that he wrote a book that actually backs it up. Only a handful of those!
Yes: I think the political order books are very very good indeed
Baratunde Thurston: Rethinking Democracy After L.A.’s Racism Scandal:
Uh...? Monarchy is looking comparatively better? Hopefully Thurston never thought that Democracy was about identifying THE good guys and giving them power. As the American political philosopher Walter Kelly had Pogo to observe, "We have met the enemy and he is us!"
"‘I was feeling pretty good about the story of my own newly-adopted city, Los Angeles,"
Someone has a great deal to learn. File under "Things one never expected to hear."
Nicholas Weaver needs to understand the concept of first mover advantage. Tesla is the frost successful electric car maker in a century. They are steadily accumulating experience in mass manufacturing. The legacy automakers have over a century of mass manufacturing experience which ought to be worth something. However, how much of that experience is relevant to electrics is questionable. Three biggest that too Tesla is Elon Musk's distractabilty and superpower of generating controversy.
The problem is that "first mover advantage" really only exists if there are necessary patents, network effects, high barriers to entry, or something else that will allow the first mover to lock in that advantage.
There is no reason to think that any of these apply in the case of Tesla. There is nothing unique to Tesla about electric motors or batteries, nor in the knowledge of building electric vehicles; there may be some advantage to Tesla's charging network, but that will erode as charging becomes commonplace; and though there are costs to entering the electric vehicle market, these are nothing excessive for other large automakers.
And yet Tesla has a market capitalization three times that of the three largest automakers (by sales) in the world, combined. Which is just madness (or bezzle...).
Fair enough. However, there is also the phenomena of "Learning by Doing.". Tesla at this point has produce in excess of a million vehicles. That should drive unit costs down. The legacy manufacturers have tremendous knowledge about building chassis and bodies which will certainly help them going forward. However they are just (barely) on the learning curve for the production of electric vehicles. We'll see.
I agree that the valuation of Tesla stock is ridiculous. As competition in there electric vehicles market heats up. I would expect Tesla's valuation to fall in line with the surviving legacy automakers.
Yes...
Yes, Tesla has produced a lot of cars - for a market segment that is still relatively small. For the first half of 2022 they produced 550K electric autos (an increase of almost 50% from 2021). But BYD produced over 300K fully electric autos (as well as another 300K+ plug-in-hybrids), an increase of over 300% from 2021. And GM, VW, and Hyundai all produced more than 200K fully electric autos in the same period. This is more than "just (barely) on the learning curve".
No doubt Tesla is able to keep building cars. But there is no "secret sauce" here, and as the major manufacturers (and other newer ones) move more fully into the market, there is nothing special about Tesla that will enable them to retain the current market share. I see no reason to believe they will fail completely, but they will become just another auto maker.
And if, as you expect, Tesla's valuation falls in line with others, that will mean a fall of 90% or more. I suppose one could argue that this means investors won't have lost ALL of their money, but still....
Additional note: I saw in the paper yesterday that Tesla is cutting their prices in China (one of their biggest markets), due to increasing competition there.
Rana Faroohar: Globalism Failed to Deliver the Economy We Need:
"Everything in the Economy We Need"
This framing, "question the old philosophy," makes me fear that either the author does not understand the old philosophy or does but does not want to admit open disagreement.
I really don't like the term "globalism" in this context, rather than "globalization". It implies there's a problem with cosmopolitanism or universalism overall, rather than just trade policy.
Fair enough, but even there, most of the problems of "globalization" stem from improvements in long distance transportation of goods and communications rather than changes in trade policy.