World, Writing, Wealth discussion

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but with a whimper.
- T.S. Eliot, The Hollow Men (1925)

I think Eliot might have been right. Here's why.
http://mikerobbinsnyc.blogspot.com/20...
Comments and arguments (here or on the post) very welcome.

Nice heading, review and analysis!
As economy can often be overruled by psychology, 'experts' too are not always a panacea. A never-ending, but so far futile effort to reignite European economy may evidence that: https://www.ft.com/content/ec139050-a...
A maybe over polarized America and overfed Europe can be losing their global leadership, inter alia - through unsustainable complexity. Can the 'developed world' collapse? Happened before, may happen again and the entropy factor seem to be growing. Hope the point of no return was not crossed yet. And some necessary adjustments look obvious, but given the powerful interests involved - unlikely to happen.
Stupidity and shortsightedness aren't new and they too may be on the rise. But who are we to judge who's stupid and who's smart. Results and achievements are usually more convincing than speculations.
Currently we seem to pass through a turbulent era..

Nope, stupidity and shortsightedness are not new - you're all too right about that Nik.
But I think it is possible to make objective judgments as to what is stupid or smart. Much of this turns around how one forms one's views-whether one has done it on the basis of objective facts, properly analysed; or whether one proceeds from prejudice.

Sure, once we have facts - they can be analyzed and evaluated. However, the predictions, given the complexity, become ever more challenging. Is Trump's tax reform stupid or smart? I guess if US economy flourishes or collapses or produces enough economic indices to judge we'll know in the hindsight. Likewise with Brexit - who can reliably predict how U.K. or EU will look ten years from now? A few probably can and they'll become known afterwards - like hey this dude was one of the few who foresaw exactly how it'd play out. Like in the aftermath of the 2008 financial meltdown we actually learnt that there were ppl who predicted it..

I have to say, I think we have enough objective evidence to say that both the tax reform and Brexit are pretty poor ideas. Exactly how poor might not be clear for some years.

Brexit hasn't even happened yet. What plays now - expectations of it.
They are both big gambles, not sure short term perspective is sufficient to weigh merits vs deficiencies.

Well, Hitler's invasion of Russia was quite a big gamble as well!

Honestly Nik, I don't see any potential upside of Brexit; the only possible beneficiary is Putin, and then only in the short term, as the destabilisation of the world order to which Brexit contributes will eventually swallow the people who wanted it as well as those that didn't.

My view is our real problems start with a lack of understanding of the consequences of what we do, accompanied by greed from those in a position to take advantage of what little is left. If the predicted sea level rises occur, far too many will have no home, and the planet will no longer be able to feed everyone with current technology because too much farmland will be lost. There will be a lot of moaning, but action is what is required.

Mike wrote: "Well, Hitler's invasion of Russia was quite a big gamble as well!..."
Indeed, and probably Napoleon's too. If someone evaluated hitler in 1942, s/he might thought of him as a great conqueror, but by 1945 - a loser and a monster responsible for unthinkable atrocities.
I agree that prima facie the exit looks problematic, especially in its economic aspect, but what if in 2025 EU breaks up while the UK is fully recovered by that time or if in 2050 or 2075 EU is unrecognizable from the point of view of tradition, landscape, language, religion, culture, etc, while the UK manages to preserve its unique cultural imprint? Can turn the other way around too. These are exactly the times when the outcomes of national vs global, cosmopolitan vs national identity, traditional way of life vs heterogeneous, families vs other arrangements, etc are being decided....

Nik brings up the important point that the duration of the timeframe matters.

What looks problematic or overly difficult now, may turn out to be an excellent step with 20/20 hindsight fifty years from now.

The end of society?

BRING IT ON!!!!!! YES!!!!!

I'm ready, let's go.

Hi Holly,

What do you expect such an end to look like?

I read the article Mike originally posted. Many interesting thoughts there, and it's worth reading. I'll respond to one idea: “It is ...ignorant narcissism for laypeople to believe that they can maintain a large and advanced nation without listening to the voices of those more educated and experienced than themselves.” This was directly reflected in the 2016 election result, according to Nichols. Trump’s election was, in his view, partly achieved by sneering at experts – which tapped into a long-standing American prejudice."

I think that Trump's election had nothing to do with sneering at experts. It had to do with rejecting the political status quo, with putting someone into office that wasn't part of the establishment, with making decisions based on common sense instead of making decisions bought and paid for by special interests or political quid pro quo.

IMam more or less in agreement with Scout - my one big difference of opinion is I think a lot of [people specifically did not like Hillary.

To me, Nichols's analysis of how Trump got elected is at least partly correct. He wasn't offering anything better than the status quo, though he may have made people persuade themselves that he was.

But Ian is right that there was a problem with Hillary. She wasn't a good candidate on a couple of levels. I don't think many people will have voted against her as such, more that a lot of marginal voters simply couldn't be bothered to turn out for her. Dems need to think very carefully about the lessons of 2016 before they vote in the primaries.

Holly wrote: "The end of society?

BRING IT ON!!!!!! YES!!!!!

I'm ready, let's go."

I'm OK with that provided we do it the way this guy says...

Nik wrote: "Nice heading, review and analysis!
As economy can often be overruled by psychology, 'experts' too are not always a panacea. A never-ending, but so far futile effort to reignite European economy may..."

Nik, quite right to question whether experts always have it right; they don't - in fact Nichols is very good on this.

I suppose he would argue that it is one thing to question experts as individuals (good) and another to doubt the value of expertise as a commodity (bad).

The difficulty with trusting expertise is that you have experts on both sides of an issue, and those experts truly believe that they're right. One has to look at their evidence and come to a conclusion based on one's intellect and experience. Blindly trusting expertise isn't smart. Here's my question: What exactly is "expertise as a commodity"?

In my opinion, expertise involves the experience to be able to be right much of the time, and the ability to know when you might be wrong.

That sounds good. I'd still like to hear from Mike: What exactly is "expertise as a commodity"?

Mike wrote: "I suppose he would argue that it is one thing to question experts as individuals (good) and another to doubt the value of expertise as a commodity (bad)...."

Yes, expertise is important, sometimes - critical.
Agree with Nichols (if that what he claims) that in politics 'inexperienced' is now sometimes viewed as better than 'vintage' politicians. As often the opposition to win over enough votes pronounce some kind of 'change' some may believe a contender should be the outsider to be able to deliver...

Scout wrote: "That sounds good. I'd still like to hear from Mike: What exactly is "expertise as a commodity"?"

Expertise is knowing stuff and being able to apply it. An expert may be more or less proficient in his field.

My air conditioning just went wrong. The expertise required to fix it is measurable (a new condenser pump must be fitted); the expert I get in to do it may or may not have that expertise, but the expertise needed, and the extent to which they possess it, are two different measurements.

Nik, the problem with change is that the consequences are often unintended, and the inexperienced have much less ability to perceive the worst of these consequences. The point for conservatives is that when you don't make changes, at least things don't get worse. Changes need Mike's version of expertise - knowing what will work, and knowing how to make it work. A classic example is going on here right now. The Labour government came in facing a housing shortage. Answer - policy to build more houses. Simple? Not quite, because you have to ask why are they not being built anyway. The government has found it cannot get anywhere near its target because it does not know how to get it done with all the countervailing interests.

Ian wrote: "Nik, the problem with change is that the consequences are often unintended, and the inexperienced have much less ability to perceive the worst of these consequences. The point for conservatives is ..."

Ian, you're making a point that is important and often neglected: If something is not happening, work out why before you promise to do it. In fact this was one of the themes of my PhD thesis; I wanted to know why farmers do not use sustainable practices when those practices are well-known and available. It would not surprise me that the same applied to housing.

Mike, I agree that "Expertise is knowing stuff and being able to apply it. An expert may be more or less proficient in his field." You said of Nichols: "I suppose he would argue that it is one thing to question experts as individuals (good) and another to doubt the value of expertise as a commodity (bad)." What is expertise as a commodity? And why shouldn't its value be doubted as applies to politics?

Scout wrote: "Mike, I agree that "Expertise is knowing stuff and being able to apply it. An expert may be more or less proficient in his field." You said of Nichols: "I suppose he would argue that it is one thin..."

As to what expertise as a commodity is, I answered this above really, Scout - see the comment in which I mentioned my aircon! (Fixed now, thank goodness.)

The value of expertise in itself should not be questioned. (Think about the implications of doing so. Can you take out your own appendix?) But as I understand it, you're saying that the value of expertise in politics can legitimately be questioned, is that correct? Because if so, yes, I am sure you have an argument. Politics is subjective so in a sense, there is no such thing as expertise in it anyway. What there is, is good judgment, values and dignity - but they are not measurable commodities.