Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Matt Frank's avatar

W.r.t. your argument with Guthman. Let's pull back a moment. Your "Malthusian" equation for $n$ is $\beta [ y / y^{sub} - 1 ] + \epsilon_2$. Your recent book points out that after 1870 this equation doesn't fit the data for $ y >> y^{sub} $ anywhere in the world whenever $ y >> y^{sub} $. Rather there was a demographic transition. We have 150 years of strong evidence that as income increases $n$ flattens out then decreases to close to 1 as $y$ increases.

Isn't Guthman just pointing out that there's no reason to believe that the equation for $n$ changed suddenly after 1870? Why is it so hard to believe that there could have been demographic transitions In the bronze age and greek/roman efflorescences?

Expand full comment
Ziggy's avatar

Brad is being way too hard on Tim Burke. There is a big difference between claiming that really-existing democracy is worthless and claiming that really-existing democracy is far too biased toward the minoritarian desires of the wealthy and fervent. The latter claim--which is that of Tim Burke--can be made by any opponent of Citizens United, Dobbs, or Heller.

Expand full comment
8 more comments...

No posts