How well does the post-recession world scale?

The bumps we’ve seen over the past 12-18 months stem from a reality that the post-recession world we’ve built doesn’t scale beyond its current size. Consider the following:

-Chipotle wanted to be this era’s McDonald’s. Turns out scaling organic, freshly-prepared food isn’t as cheap or easy as they thought.

-Fintech lenders promised to disrupt big banks. Turns out the lending business requires a lot of capital, and that in jittery markets that capital doesn’t like funding a growing lending business. Maybe the big bank model isn’t so bad.

-The San Francisco Bay Area is the economic center of the early 21st century. But it’s finding that scaling housing and infrastructure for workers is a lot harder than scaling servers and storage. So jobs and people have to move to cheaper metros.

-On demand startups were the solution to mass unemployment and megacity renters who demand services immediately. But they’re finding that as the labor market tightens those workers are getting harder to find, and maybe the unit economics never worked to begin with.

-Tesla wants to disrupt the auto industry. But it’s never produced more than 50,000 cars in a year, and suddenly has to meet demand for as many as 500,000 cars a year. That won’t be cheap or easy, and it’s unclear how much shareholders and lenders will be willing to finance that growth. It’s not as cheap to scale atoms as it is to scale bits.

-Uber and Facebook are the 800-pound gorillas in their respective industries. But as they grow, they’re running into problems of scale. For Uber, it’s finding drivers and fighting regulation. For Facebook, it’s eating too much of the revenue pie for content, and maybe as it grows it’s going to come under greater and greater scrutiny given its media clout. Both will argue they’re not utilities, but the vision and scale they aspire to would make them exactly that.

-Conservatism is finding that the demographic groups that believe in conservatism no longer scale to form a viable national party. Trump will soon find the same to be true for his white working class coalition. The Republican Party needs a new ideology or constituency that can scale to compete with Democrats.

It’s time to let Steve Jobs and Ronald Reagan rest in peace, and find new leaders who can build the world of the 2020′s.

That is from @conorsen, link here.

Comments

Yeah, that last dig at conservatives was silly and gratuitous and not about scaling at all. Hint: scaling is 1x, 10x, 100x, 1000x, not 55% vs 45% vs 35%.

The Republican Party needs a new ideology or constituency that can scale to compete with Democrats.

Some problems have no solutions. Other problems have no palatable solutions. So long as the Democratic Party styles itself as the Anti-White Party with its smorgasbord of racial policies which come at the expense of whites, the Republican Party is destined to become the White Party, whether it wants to or not.

The incessant lashing out at American citizens as being 'Mexicans' by the putative Republican Party standard bearer means that the Democratic Party need do nothing to capture a growing (and generally social conservative) voting bloc.

A bloc that a number of Republicans had thought possible to bring into the fold. The problem here is not how the Democratic Party acts, but how the the Republican Party 'is destined to become the White Party, whether it wants to or not' due to its seeming inability to actually be anything but the white party that it is right now - no destiny involved.

Wasting my time -

Governor Susana Martinez of New Mexico and the chair of the Republican Governors Association has no desire to turn the U.S. into Mexico.

United States District Judge Gonzalo Paul Curiel is not interested in turning the U.S. into Mexico either.

The Republicans have tried people who reached out to the Hispanic community. They have put up fluent Spanish speakers. The son of someone born in Mexico. People who are related to Mexicans by marriage.

None of it works. Because racial demagoguery works even better. Many White people have money. Telling poor people that they can take money from a despised ethnic group works well.

This is not a problem with scaling up. It is a problem with the Democrats working to disenfranchise the voters. They have imported a voter base so that they can fundamentally transform the country. The solution that is not mentioned is the one that the White voters may well work their way to - that immigration was done with their consent. They were lied to. There is no particularly good moral reason why they should be bound by it.

'None of it works. Because racial demagoguery works even better.' and 'Telling poor people that they can take money from a despised ethnic group works well.'

Trump covers both points in just a couple of sentences -“The judge, who happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great, I think that’s fine,” Trump said. “You know what? I think the Mexicans are going to end up loving Donald Trump when I give all these jobs, OK?” http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/donald-trump-university-judge-gonzalo-curiel-mexican-hispanic-hater

Must be confusing keeping up with someone who is apparently both a racial demagogue and someone promising to give jobs to 'Mexicans.'

Jeb Bush (fluent Spanish speaker married to a Mexican woman), Marco Rubio (native Spanish speaker), and Ted Cruz (ethnically half Cuban; I suspect he speaks Spanish but don't recall hearing him do so) have had pretty decent political careers, so it's not like this is hopeless. Trump beat them all pretty handily in the primaries, but I suspect that has more to do with Trump being a very unusually talented politician in a very unusual time than something inherent about Republicans hating anyone who can roll their rrs. (Also, there are a lot of very different groups glopped into the "hispanic" label. Probably the biggest three are Mexican and Cuban immigrants in the US (and their kids, grandkids, etc.), as well as Puerto Ricans who are American citizens. Those groups are pretty distinct culturally, and they tend to have very different interests in terms of policy--few Mexican immigrants care much about the Cuban embargo; Puerto Ricans may have some cultural affinity for easier immigration policy, but won't be affected directly. And so on. Where I live there are a lot of Salvadorans, who have similar concerns to Mexicans but definitely aren't Mexican. And lots of Peruvians, who care about immigration policy but are culturally quite distinct from the Salvadorans and Mexicans. And so on.)

Immigration tends to split the Republican coalition--business interests tend to like relatively easy immigration and pretty lax enforcement of immigration law; most of the rest of the rank-and-file Republicans don't like mass immigration much for cultural or racial or economic reasons. And that's an issue that the mainstream Republican candidates have generally left on the table. My not-too-informed guess is that tightening immigration restrictions is good at attracting middle-class white voters, but bad at attracting donors (who often own businesses that like paying less for labor), and probably tends to put you in a bad odor with most media. Trump was able to bypass both donors and the need for friendly media for most of his campaign so far, so he could jump on the issue in a way that few previous candidates cared to.

If Rubio had made himself the leader of the Schumer amnesty bill, he would have won the 2016 GOP nomination for President. Instead, he chose to make himself the cohort of the Schumer bill, so he lost:

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/06/schumer-v-rubio-which-one-looks-smarter.html

This isn't really very complicated: Republican voters would have been grateful to a Hispanic political athlete who chose to oppose Hispanic lawbreaking. Instead, Rubio, for all his political talent, chose to support Hispanic lawbreaking, so Republican voters ended his career.

'so it’s not like this is hopeless'

Well, that was certainly the belief in many Republican circles before Trump came, saw, and conquered.

'Trump being a very unusually talented politician in a very unusual time than something inherent about Republicans hating anyone'

Well, in the age of RINOs and now the interesting attempt to determine whether Trump's supporters are/are not Republicans, one can be forgiven to think that the previous Republican attempts to attract socially conservative voters to their side was, at best, a calculation on the same cynical political level as the previous Republican generation's stunningly successful sourthern strategy.

'a lot of very different groups glopped into the “hispanic” label'

Trump prefers the term 'Mexican' in public, it seems. He has no time for such identity politics, after all.

In all seriousness - yes, it is just another display of how ignorant Trump is.

'Where I live there are a lot of Salvadorans, who have similar concerns to Mexicans but definitely aren’t Mexican'

The DC area? Well, except for the Peruvians

'so he could jump on the issue in a way that few previous candidates cared to'

And rode it to stunning success till now.

Ended Rubio's career? Like Nixon's ended in 1962?

They haven't tried very hard. But alot of that has to do with the fact that the last time they bridged the gap a bit was W. Bush and he faceplanted on foreign policy and failed to get his immigration bill through.
But I love how you're blaming the Dems for "disenfrancising voters" after all the voter ID BS that has been passed at the state level which, at least in my home state, has failed to find a single illegal foreign voter while managing to actually disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters.

The point of the law isn't to "find" illegal voters, its to prevent them. A story JUST came out about thousands of dead voters actually voting in CA but why let facts get in the way. Can you please link your source on the "thousands of disenfranchised", my understanding of all these laws is they bend over backwards to get ID's in the hands of voters or they wouldn't pass muster with the courts.

Voter ID laws only affect personation, turning up and voting in somebody else's name. That specific form of electoral fraud is incredibly rare. US voter turnout is about 50%; so about half the time a fraudulent vote was cast you would expect the person whose vote had been appropriated to turn up. Bogus voter registration and postal vote fraud are entirely unaffected. They deter some people entitled to vote who don't have any ID while preventing nothing as personation essentially never happens

Hispanics were never possible to bring into the fold. At least not possible if you want to be conservative, i.e. not just another "free stuff" party that tries to outbid the Dems.

The highest Hispanic % anyone ever got was GWB over a decade ago. He was the widely recognized governor of Texas, which sure helped. Also, when you dig into the numbers his big boost amongst the Hispanic vote came from Hispanics that had converted and were going to those evangelical mega churches. I doubt any of the libertarians on this board were thrilled with GWBs evangelical politicking. That moment appears to have passed anyway, evangelicals are dead as a political force.

So at an absolute height, with a favorable candidate, based on circumstances that no longer exist, GWB got 40% of the vote in one election (yes, 40% not 44%, go find Pews detailed breakdown and not a day after exit poll that got passed around the media). How many elections do you win with 40% of the vote? Not many.

Hispanic people are poor. They are genetically low IQ, they are always going to be disproportionately dependent on the government. Anyone that is dependent on the government is going to vote for the free stuff party. This isn't rocket science. If you don't agree with that logic, just look at their voting patterns back in their home countries (leftist) or any survey of Hispanic believes on the roll of government in the economy (leftist).

The plan to woo Hispanics was never a serious plan. Most smart GOP operatives never bought into it. It was just a selling point. Something to make GOP supporters feel comfortable and maybe pick up a few points of Hispanics each election to do better in a swing state. The GOP grand plan has always been to just squeeze whatever personal advantage they can out of their elected offices until demographics make anything resembling the GOP impossible. Hopefully that would take long enough that the current GOP would already be rich by then and golden parachute out of their own mess.

The entire second half of your comment could be written about rural Appalachia, but since they're white, they're somehow exempt from your diatribe.

Besides the fact that white people are "my people" and I naturally care more about them, the simple fact is that the left half of the white bell curve is more manageable then the non-white bell curve. It's left tail is smaller as a % of the overall white population, and it has less cultural and genetic distance from mainstream white society. We've had a left hand side of the white bell curve for a long time, and we managed. The issue of the white underclass is both quantitatively and qualitatively different from radically shifting our demographics to non-whites.

Second, most of Trumps support doesn't come from the white underclass. Many of them vote D, many don't vote at all. He get's his support primarily from people with jobs who are trying to stay out of the underclass. Working class. Middle class. Petite bourgeois. They don't want to become EBT dependents, and they make up a majority of white people. This class is trying to choose an alternative from Cowen's "barrios and beans" future. Trump traded the votes of upper middle class white women for the vast white center.

This is BTW a great view of white voters:
http://themonkeycage.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/incvote2012.jpg.jpg

Despite your apparently superior IQ, you managed to use the homophone "roll" instead of the correct term, "role". Well done.

You've also failed to adequately account for the historical context of current leftist dominance in Latin America. In many places throughout the Spanish-speaking Western Hemisphere, the party of "free stuff" has not been historically dominant.

Your right. Sometimes Latin America was dominated by right leaning kleptocrats instead of left leaning kleptocrats. And sometimes the state was so broke it couldn't provide public services anyway even if it wanted to. Or some dictator was in power that didn't give a fuck what the people wanted.

What South America has never had on the whole though is a well functioning government over long periods of time. In general they are corrupt regimes of various political stripes that mismanage their countries and their fortunes go up and down with natural resources prices.

I know many hispanics who voted Republican after the Reagan amnesty, and besides they tended socially conservative as well. Trump kisses that all goodbye.

It's not a matter of pandering to Latinos to win their votes. It's a matter of respecting them as human beings and equal members of American society.

When you go on message boards and call them welfare leeching retards, they're just never going to support your party.

It’s not a matter of pandering to Latinos to win their votes. It’s a matter of respecting them as human beings and equal members of American society.

Something is your comment does not compute. How can a Hispanic be an equal member of society when the child of a Hispanic judge or physician needs affirmative action for university admission compared to a better qualified child of a white roofer or white waitress?

In court on Wednesday, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. attacked the political underbelly of this system. The University of Texas argued that diversity within racial groups was also important, citing “the African-American or Hispanic child of successful professionals in Dallas.” Skeptically, Justice Alito asked the university’s lawyer, “They deserve a leg up against, let’s say, an Asian or a white applicant whose parents are absolutely average?”

It’s not a matter of pandering to Latinos to win their votes. It’s a matter of respecting them as human beings and equal members of American society.

Something in your comment does not compute. How can a Hispanic be an equal member of society when the child of a Hispanic judge or physician needs affirmative action for university admission compared to a better qualified child of a white roofer or white waitress?

In court on Wednesday, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. attacked the political underbelly of this system. The University of Texas argued that diversity within racial groups was also important, citing “the African-American or Hispanic child of successful professionals in Dallas.” Skeptically, Justice Alito asked the university’s lawyer, “They deserve a leg up against, let’s say, an Asian or a white applicant whose parents are absolutely average?”

whether it wants to or not’ due to its seeming inability to actually be anything but the white party that it is right now – no destiny involved.

The Republican Party doesn't have a single race-based policy incorporated into its platform. White voters seem to really like race-neutral policies. Democrats, on the other hand, conceptualize their role in society as being advocates for various racial groups and actively discriminating in favor of their clients.

It's impossible for Republicans to offer minorities a more enticing vision than "We're going to take wealth and opportunity from whites and give those spoils to you." They try to appeal to high mindedness, "come and join the race-neutral coalition where we base politics on principles rather than on naked racial appeals" but this seems to principally resonate with whites who are used to this style of politics because this was how politics was conducted in America before glorious multiculturalism was bestowed upon us by our betters.

Republicans can't engage in the racial bribery game and out-bid Democrats for when they target their base of white voters as the people who must be harmed in order to gain the support of Hispanic voters, their white base will rebel and put a stop to the racial bribery gambit.

The game theory aspect of all this is pretty simple to map out.

Good point conservatives need to take note that if not for the minorities the Democrats would be out there with Bernie Sanders. I think the minorities keep them from going to hard left.

The Democratic Party has, of late, been emphasizing bread-and-butter economic issues like raising the minimum wage, providing relief for student debt or mortgage holders, ensuring access to affordable health insurance, and opposing big changes in Social Security (Donald Trump is also very pro-Social Security). These aren't "anti-white" policies and so few people are likely to interpret them as such that the Democratic Party will probably stay in the 40-50% white vote share range.

Well it is true that the racial appeals are not as obvious this time around. Joe Biden is not telling Black people that the Republicans plan to reintroduce slavery. But the racial appeals are there. Every time people accuse Trump of racism they are playing a dishonest racism card.

And in the end, remember that the Democratic party is made up of people who think that telling Blacks, in a fake Black accent, that the Republicans plan to put them all back in chains is perfectly acceptable.

'Every time people accuse Trump of racism they are playing a dishonest racism card.'

Really? Because as noted in that quote above - 'What happens is the judge, who happens to be, we believe, Mexican' Trump seemingly has an extremely hard time being able to tell Americans and Mexicans apart. Particularly when it comes to federal judges, who obviously are American citizens, not Mexican, something that one would think Trump would be aware of, running as he is for the office of president of the United States of America.

Honestly, there is no need to be playing around - and Trump doesn't. He is a man who seemingly knows a Mexican when he sees them. Except for when they aren't, of course.

That is really a racist thing say, unlike many other things he has said, and maybe so is a Democrat saying we need congress/court/cabinet that looks more America. Why because you think whites are to biased to judge others fairly.

You have this trolling thing down. Kudos.

What trolling? A candidate for the office of president says he thinks a federal judge is a Mexican - this isn't open to dispute, it is part of the public record. Trump has no problem playing such cards, without any subtlety at all. And it seems as if those that support him think more highly of him after such pronouncements concerning a member of the judicial branch of the United States of America.

(As for trolling, let's try - maybe after that judge shows his birth certificate, Trump will release his tax returns - 'In 2011, when Trump was spearheading the movement questioning whether President Obama was born in the United States, Trump told ABC News that he would release his tax returns if Obama released his long-form birth certificate. “I’d love to give my tax returns,” he said.

But once Obama released his birth certificate, Trump hedged. “At the appropriate time I’m going to do it,” he said. The appropriate time never came.

Then, in 2012, Trump criticized Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney for being slow to release his tax returns. Trump was asked by Fox News whether he’d ever have a problem releasing his returns.

“No,” he said. “I actually think that it’s a great thing when you can show that you’ve been successful, and that you’ve made a lot of money, that you’ve employed a lot of people. I actually think that it’s a positive.”

But apparently, that was then. Trump now says he won’t release his taxes, citing a pending audit — not even back taxes from 2002 to 2008 that his lawyers claim have been cleared without penalty. Never mind that the first president to release his taxes, Richard Nixon, did so in the midst of an audit. (Nixon ended up owing about $500,000, the equivalent of about $2.5 million today.)' https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/12/trumps-false-claim-that-theres-nothing-to-learn-from-his-tax-returns/

And the GOP has no trouble running ads telling America that black people are criminals and welfare moms and hispanics are all "illegals" that are here to take your jobs. If you're a Dem, you've got to address that nonsense or risk losing voters.
This is going to be an ugly election. And one side or maybe both sides will be very upset by the end of it. The only good news is it's better than being an ugly riot or an ugly civil war.

ensuring access to affordable health insurance,

From the New York Times:

Obamacare shifts health care benefits and tax burdens from upper-income Americans to lower-income Americans, and from largely white constituencies to beneficiaries disproportionately made up of racial and ethnic minorities. The program increases levies on the overwhelmingly white affluent by raising taxes on households making more than $250,000.

To achieve its goals, Obamacare reduces spending on Medicare by $500 billion over 10 years, according to the Medicare board of trustees, which oversees the finances of the program. Medicare serves a population that is 77 percent white. Even as reductions in Medicare spending fall disproportionately on white voters, the savings are being used to finance Obamacare, which includes a substantial expansion of Medicaid. Medicaid recipients are overwhelmingly poor and, in 2013, were 41 percent white and 59 percent minority.

In addition to expanding Medicaid, the overall goal of Obamacare is to provide health coverage for the uninsured, a population that, in 2010 when the program was enacted, was 47 percent white, and 53 percent black, Hispanic, Asian-American and other minorities.

It’s not hard to see, then, why a majority of white midterm voters withheld support from Democrats and cast their votes for Republicans.

These aren’t “anti-white” policies and so few people are likely to interpret them as such that the Democratic Party will probably stay in the 40-50% white vote share range.

Wait until AFFH kicks in. Also, Univ. of Texas is before SCOTUS defending the granting of AA to upper class blacks and Hispanics at the expense of lower class whites. More and more the call for racial quotas in hiring is being seen.

In court on Wednesday, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. attacked the political underbelly of this system. The University of Texas argued that diversity within racial groups was also important, citing “the African-American or Hispanic child of successful professionals in Dallas.” Skeptically, Justice Alito asked the university’s lawyer, “They deserve a leg up against, let’s say, an Asian or a white applicant whose parents are absolutely average?”

Asian-American groups are ramping up to sue some Ivy League universities for not admitting enough Asians. Because admission is a zero-sum game, which group will have to take the hit to make room for more Asians? Will blacks enrollment be reduced? How about Jewish enrollment? How about Hispanic enrollment?

When society turns into tribe-based racial spoils warfare, then whites eventually get the message - "The Democrats have nothing to offer whites, they're only good to be tax-farmed."

Nothing you cite contradicts my point. The pre-PPACA uninsured and post-PPACA Medicaid-eligible are 40+% white. It is almost as if whites who have low incomes or can plausibly see themselves ending up with low-incomes due to bad luck would be better off voting for Democrats along with minorities. And, indeed, we see plenty of evidence that this is happening and that wedge issues alone are unlikely to push large numbers of additional white voters into the Republican camp. But I appreciate the tacit acknowledgement that opposing redistribution is closely linked to racial politics. Many Republicans vociferously deny this in public.

Most white people are part of the middle class. A program that steals from the middle class to give to the underclass is mostly anti-white on the whole. The majority of Trump voters are actually in the class above the underclass, people struggling to stay middle class rather then just giving up and joining the underclass. Things like Obamacare actually make this harder, they push on the middle to raise the bottom. The message of Obamacare is, "just give up."

The ACA most decidedly does not "steal" from the middle class. The taxes that fund it are levied on upper income earners, not middle class people.

There are a lot of "taxes" in the ACA. For instance, lowering funding for Medicare is a tax on middle class whites for the most part. There are also the taxes levied on employer funded health insurance, which falls hard on middle class whites. Things like the medical device tax are like a sales tax that will get passed on the healthcare consumers. While the poor will get their coinsurance on such things covered, middle class white people that make their own co-payments will see it flow through. There are also all sorts of funding mechanisms that often don't get talked about in the context of the program like the various re-insurance programs and subsidies that are keeping the exchanges afloat. Some of this gets paid for with government debt, but then again there is a good chance middle class whites will end up paying for that debt one day.

You can't just look at the headline income tax change and conclude that's all thats going on.

I give you some credit for honesty, asdf: the scare quotes you use with "taxes" is basically an admission that those things are not in fact taxes. Words have meaning after all.
Though for goodness how are white people impacted by the Medicare change and black people are not? There is no, I REPEAT NO, racial test on that! The same is true on all the other changes: race is not a consideration, only income is, which is entirely appropriate. See: means testing.

Great comment. I'm glad other people are clued in like this.

Conservatism doesn't scale up with non-white demographic trends. Much of the principles of America do not. The author advocates abandoning those principles and adopting whatever ideology is compatible with demographic trends. The alternative is for conservatism to move away from the popular vote. On a ballot, people may vote for tribal spoils against rival tribes. If people vote with their feet, many don't want to live in that type of system.

According to the most recent polls Hillary only has the support of 33% of white voters (10% are unsure, so maybe she will eventually get some of those). Her white support is mostly concentrated amongst college grad women, especially if they are unmarried. Young women with lib arts degrees working at NGOs are Hillary supporters for obvious reasons. Obama publicized this is "Life of Julia", a set of cradle to grave public assistance programs for single women fitting that profile.

"ensuring access to affordable health insurance"

The Dem platform foes no such thing. Obamacare doesn't do anything to provide affordable health insurance. Nor do all those state medicaid expansions. What it has done is provide heavily government subsidized health insurance, at expensive prices that weren't a challenge to the real structural problems in the system, to people below the poverty line. Who tends to qualify for that? Not the white working and middle classes, but generally non-whites. Obamacare is a wonderful subsidy for inner city blacks. Not so much for middle class whites with jobs. When you look down the entire line of Democrat economic programs they are designed to give maximum benefit to minorities and pay for it either by taking from the pocket of the white middle class or piling up debt.

Dems are the party of lower class dependents, unmarried women with government and quasi-government jobs, and rich elites. Reps are the party of the great middle classes struggling to stay middle class. Since the underclass is mostly made up of minorities they are de-facto the non-white party.

"Who tends to qualify for that? Not the white working and middle classes, but generally non-whites."

As noted, 40+% each of the Medicaid-eligible and previously-uninsured groups are white. Furthermore, low-income whites are Democratic-leaning. Finally, "rich elites" are most certainly not Democratic-leaning. This has been refuted so many times in so many places you can just google it.

Ricardo,

White people make up a lot more then 40% of the population, so if they are only 40% of the recipients of the program that makes them underrepresented. Stop playing semantics, the numbers speak for themselves.

As to elites, the data on their democratic support is well documented. Elites aren't couples making $100k/year. True elites support democrats more. Once you get the income bracket high enough to separate out true elites its obvious in the data.

A lot of the white lower middle class and underclass occupy their station in life due to the Democrats concerted efforts at uplift for blacks and Hispanics. A middle class white guy wants to be a fireman. He scores very high on the qualification test but is passed over so that a lesser qualified black or Hispanic can be hired in order to create diversity through active discrimination against whites.

Same in schooling. The child of two white high school drop-outs who are so poor that the child qualifies for free lunch performs at about the same level as a child of two black college graduates who are middle to upper class.

http://i.imgur.com/ZHPbAs3.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/aGJJALL.gif

This reality is not hidden from these people. The guy who would have a good fireman's job is now working at Starbucks while a less qualified minority is given the better job.

You trying to turn lemons into lemonade is no solace for him. What's the pitch? "Hey white guy, we're going to actively target you and keep in the lower class so that we can promote less qualified minorities into the job you were about to get, but we're going to give you access to a welfare program because you're such a loser. Aren't you happy to support Democrats for being such a good friend to you?"

What do you tell the white parents of the lower middle class who have a smart kid who want to attend the University of Texas when you deny admission to their kid so that you can free up a space for a minority kid raised in by parents who are in the upper class (by virtue of uplift programs which discriminate to boost lesser qualified minorities at the expense of better qualified whites)? Be happy that Democrats give you welfare and don't worry about the efforts to take away your kid's opportunity and transfer it to a less qualified minority.

I'm not sure if I concede everything you're saying there, but the bottom line is if they're "Middle Class" they should already have health insurance through their employer. So they don't need the government since they already have jobs.
OTOH, maybe this will all break and we'll finally join the rest of the world and get single payer. Probably take another 30 years, but who knows.

Even middle class people benefit though: the insurance regs of the ACA force all health insurance plan to meet certain standards. No risk rating, for example (which was only partly true under HIPAA before). And an end to lifetime caps, recissions and other deleterious practices.

I have to be a big voice here. The middle class to be a safe and secure place to live in .It is hard for me to really believe that as the first big bill for the Christmas season is going to be the braking for majority and then they will be rocking in the morning trying to get to the unemployment agency and the other wealthy people who are like 2 paychecks away from the streets for their home just the same as the first of the middle class. If the government has their way the world will end for anyone who is not living off their bank interest rates are subject to the human failure and will be a street sleeper by the year 2030. The only thing that is humanly possible to make it right is not questioning the unemployment and the lower class. If you don't have jobs then you are always going to have a poverty issue. The reality is a future with change is that you are to pick up the people that are doing it so hard and hope that one day when you are not well off. The help you gave out will be returned to you in your hour of need.

Can the cheap racialist shots, asdf. The ACA helps anyone, black, white or pink with purple polka dots, who is lower income and does not have health care provided at work. Two years ago I was unemployed and had only a minimal income-- I was covered by medicaid--- and yes, I am by ancestry European. Also, not just "urban" people benefit: people in the suburbs (where poverty has been growing, alarmingly) and rural people also benefit. There are no racial tests, and the only geographic ones are the ones imposed by certain GOP-dominate state governments.

Someone should do a poll. I would expect that the words "Anti-White Party" mean "bringing the crazy" for about 90% of general readers.

Of course you can seek out silos where the ratio is reversed.

Couldn't both parties become the "anti-white" party, to use your language, and force whites to either advance a third party or hold their nose and choose between the Democrat and neo-Republican?

Is this a real political analysis or a satirical flip of the real world situation?

It's so hard to tell on this blog sometimes.

Righto. The establishment (no different than democrats) GOP put up two non-conservatives; McCain and Romney. And, they lost to the worst man, best liar - backed by tens of millions of idiots.

This time, GOP primary voters are advancing a private-sector billionaire against an crook (owned by Wall Street) against an incompetent politician (highly adept at coercion and deceit) who will continue the destruction of the evil, too-white, unjust American economy, whose only qualification is the fact that she doesn't have testicles.

See Venezuela. See you in November.

Yeah, and you can just go hang out in fantasy land until the next election when you can pretend that we're all going to collapse and magically turn into Venezula because we elected someone you didn't approve of for the third time in a row.

The Democratic Party is not the anti-White party. A majority of its voters are white people.

As a white guy, try to get a job as a fireman under an affirmative action program reserved for minorities. See how far you get? See how much Democratic support you get for race-blind, merit-based, hiring programs.

As of 2012 just a hair under 80% of all firefighters were white men, down from 88% thirty years earlier. The percentage of black firefighters is unchanged.

http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports-and-statistics/the-fire-service/administration/firefighting-occupations-by-women-and-race

I'm still not seeing how Democratic efforts on this front are not an attack on white people. Explain to a white guy who wants to be a fireman that even though he scored higher on the entry test than a black applicant, the black applicant must get the job. WHY must the black applicant get the job over the better qualified white applicant? You pointing out that 80% of firemen are whites doesn't address his issue - he is better qualified and he is being passed over so that a less qualified NAM can be hired in his place.

This isn't restricted to only firemen. Disparate impact legal doctrine corrupts vast swathes of the political realm. Fire department jobs, police jobs, public school teaching jobs, banks and their lending practices, school discipline issues, private sector hiring, etc. None of this helps white voters at all, in fact, it harms the meritorious white population in order to benefit the non-meritorious minority population.

As has been chronicled at length here at CFIF, one of the hallmarks of Eric Holder’s Justice Department has been its insistence on injecting race into the public square as often as possible. And one of the areas where this has played out in department policy has been in the DOJ’s repeated threats to crack down on police and fire forces for what it claims are racially discriminatory employment practices.

In 2009, for example, the New Haven, Connecticut, Fire Department threw out the results of a standardized test aimed at measuring candidates’ suitability for promotion when the number of African-American candidates who passed was deemed insufficiently high. The department was motivated in part by fear of a Justice Department lawsuit — a fear that proved to be well-founded when the DOJ filed suit against the state of New Jersey the following year because white test-takers had a higher passage rate (89 percent) than black (73 percent) or Hispanic (77 percent) candidates in an exam for police promotions.

Neither of these cases featured allegations that the tests or the promotion processes were inherently racist. Rather, they simply rested on the DOJ’s notion that unequal outcomes are inherently unjust; that the fact of disparate results was sufficient, in and of itself, to reveal systemic injustice.

80 of firemen being white means that whites are currently *over-represented* according to their population. I think the US amount is 70% ish.

Even if there is affirmative action, it clearly isn't that big of a deal to get a job as a white man there.

Read "What's the matter with Kansas?" Same dynamic but now applied to whites who vote for the Democrats.

An anti-white party primarily comprised of whites.

Gotcha. They're full of self loathing. It is the only possibly explanation.

The Democratic party does not "style itself" as the anti-White party, that is what its detractors like to style it - who are usually the same folks who speak about having a 'white's rights' party. But people who see "don't have the state kill black people disproportionately" as "anti-white" aren't exactly natural democratic voters anyway.

I am first on this thread because Harding will be deleted, he adds no value. My 'value-add' here is to observe why does 21st century industry have to 'scale'? That's a 20th century construct. Google "Magic Kingdom in Robotics". The new wave is low volume, low price goods.

Yep - oops. Mentioning deletion is definitely not the sort of thing to do. Of course, the point about getting deleted is accurate (applying to this comment as well).

Let's see if they have that problem with interrupted commenting fixed.

They do - congratulations on making the typical user experience more seamless than it was in the past.

I agree that the future doesn't have to be specific futuristic ideas, scaled.

I take the author as talking to people who expected them to.

I think he's at least half right. Citing Google and Facebook as losers was a miss, as was the political reach. That one is not really the same thing.

Better: Can Libertarians scale?

Does it have to? Libertarianism has always been tiny and spmething of a punch line, but, on everything from deregulation and checking the growth of government to trade and immigration to liberalization of social mores, the past 40 years have kind of gone their way, no?

guns too, of course.

Immigration is political and cultural suicide for libertarians. And positive rights invented by outliers and enforced by government do not foster liberty.

There has been a dream that Libertarianism would scale beyond protest vote. If not now, when? This seems the prime opportunity, when the Republican nominee is least about what the Libertarians are.

It is certainly easier for this independent to like a moderate Libertarian than a shape-shifting populist.

I think you are the only one having this dream. Ralph Nader polled 2.9 million votes in 2000 for the Green Party. Do you dream about that dream too?

Gary Johnson polled 1,275,971 votes in 2012 (that last one was me), a record, but still less than 1% of votes cast. Perhaps there are Libertarians dreaming of setting a new record this year- 2%? They probably will. I'll probably vote for Johnson again. Perhaps the dream you are talking about is mostly being had by Hillary supporters right now.

Fox has Johnson at 10%, which would seem a breakout percentage.

https://twitter.com/GovGaryJohnson/status/737046941754855425

The main problem for libertarians is that libertarianism is an appealing intellectual set of beliefs that has almost no emotional resonance for most people. Appeals to identity and group outrage and fear work better than appeals to intellectual arguments, both because the bell curve has a left tail, and more importantly, because even most smart people don't actually like elaborate intellectual arguments. Among those who might be swayed by intellectual arguments, many don't buy libertarian ideas, of course. But that's pretty much the entire market for them.

To scale they would have to go big tent, of course.

Could that mean "less" rather than "much less" government?

@anon, albatross is correct. Libertarianism is bloodless and will only ever appeal to a sliver of the population. It's ok, though, because, as a philosophy, it punches well above its numerical weight.

'Big tent' libertarianism is oxymoronic.

Libertarianism has always suffered that contradiction.

If they want to break out they have to realize that a 2% share does not signal correctness.

Libertarianism isn't all that appealing to the majority of people. It mainly appeals to young, single affluent (or planning to be) men.

"the past 40 years have kind of gone their way, no?"

The answer is rather sensitive to which issues you choose to look at and how you define "libertarianism." PPACA is the law of the land and things like subsidizing higher education and raising the minimum wage remain politically popular. Bush's attempt to make Social Security more libertarian along Cato/Heritage lines was such a failure it is difficult to imagine another mainstream politician trying again soon. Bernie Sanders openly calls himself a "socialist" and enjoys favorability ratings in the 40-50% range. Etc.

I think a lot of Sanders' favourability ratings have more to do with not being and ass and not being full of baloney than support for his policies (which also exists).

'Chipotle wanted to be this era’s McDonald’s'

With the interesting detail of McDonald's funding Chipotle - 'In 1998, McDonald's made an initial minority investment in the company. By 2001, the company had grown to be Chipotle's largest investor. The investment from McDonald's allowed the firm to quickly expand, from 16 restaurants in 1998 to over 500 by 2005. On January 26, 2006, Chipotle made its initial public offering (IPO) after increasing the share price twice due to high pre-IPO demand. In its first day as a public company, the stock rose exactly 100%, resulting in the best U.S.-based IPO in six years, and the second-best IPO for a restaurant after Boston Market. The money from the offering was then used to fund new store growth.

In October 2006, McDonald's fully divested from Chipotle. This was part of a larger initiative for McDonald's to divest all of its non-core business restaurants — Chipotle, Donatos Pizza, and Boston Market — so that it could focus on the main McDonald's chain. McDonald's invested approximately $360 million into Chipotle, and took out $1.5 billion. McDonald's had attempted to get Chipotle to add drive-through windows and a breakfast menu, which Ells resisted.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chipotle_Mexican_Grill#History

CMG is holding up pretty well though? Still not that far from its highs. CMG--> a play on "OMG" the teen SMS text?

Yes, I don't understand why CMG stock held up as well as it did. I was hoping for a big drop to become an investor but it just didn't happen. Their stock is still valued extremely expensively even though their brand has been damaged badly.

fwiw, I think there's some low % probability that what happened at Chipotle was some form of sabotage.

Isn't this the "long tail" argument restated? The examples given, even if they are challenged to operate at scale (Uber and seems pretty big and I believe Facebook are already at a significant percentage penetration of the entire human race) would be examples where more minor preferences can now be supported. In other words, previously you could have had only Macdonalds or local diners. Now you can have a range of quality vs volume in between. Scale still works in today's economy, perhaps better than ever - one good example is shale oil. This only works at scale which is why it struggled for a long time to get going (the technology has been around for ever). It was only when manufacturing techniques were applied to shale that it became viable.

Scaling up housing and infrastructure is a lot easier without all the NIMBYism and building restrictions of San Francisco. Scaling isn't the problem, the artificial restrictions preventing scaling are.

Houston and San Francisco complement. Choose your city.

(In the short term people who want an exciting tech scene will have to pay the freight .. er, rent.)

Who could have imagined that a small city on a mountainous peninsiula along a fault line would have more issues building housing than an enormous inland city surrounded by flat land?

Certainly, I was just thinking that since America is big we actually have a lot of options.

Most of America is not within reasonable commuting range of San Francisco. Hence, demand is localized.

And if 2/3rds of the city wasn't zoned for single-family housing, you'd have a point.

The problem is not that there aren't enough houses, the problem is that there's not enough bedrooms period. Even if they're 10 stories in the air as part of some condo high-rise development.

Your neighbors are what make your housing valuable. Large tracts of all our major cities have cheap rents in desirable geographical locations...they are just in poor minority communities. We are only allowed to choose our neighbors on the basis of price, so prices go up. If you truly built "affordable housing" you'll be in danger of minorities moving in, and then the value of the land would collapse.

If anything, additional NIMBY-ism would help. If you could clear the underclass out of all these cities it would dramatically increase the available land and housing stock. Telling someone to build affordable housing in their neighborhood so that the underclass can move in is a mistake, and you'll never get people to buy into their own suicide. I watched what section 8 did to one of my co-workers neighborhoods once and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

Re: We are only allowed to choose our neighbors on the basis of price, so prices go up.

Since no one can read your mind when you are choosing where to live the above statement is nonsense.

In my experience, holding offensive attitudes towards people is not generally conducive to good social relations.

Who will serve your coffee, cook your takeaway, mow your lawn, bag your groceries, or God forbid teach your children foreign languages, if you drive out everyone who is different?

1. It's really labor-intensive if you want to get high productivity similar to conventional farms. I'll bet Chipotle was really feeling cost-pressure on that one, and of course there's the coordination issues in managing a newly expanded organization.

3. Steve Randy Waldman had a self-serving but still smart post on this, talking about how there's land nearby that could be organized along denser lines in the form of satellite communities Singapore style. I think it would just be easier if you eased up restrictions in the entire area, so it was easier to put up apartments and no city has to bear the disproportionate pressure of it all.

4. That's probably understating it. How many times has Uber slashed the rates drivers get, despite the fact that it may be losing money? How is it ever going to get higher rates, unless (and I suspect they'll try this down the line) they get a regulatory "moat" drawn up behind them at some point?

5. Where are they going to get the Lithium? 500,000 cars/year will be drawing heavily on the world production supply of Lithium, at the same time as other competitors (AKA Chinese firms) are stepping up their demand as well. Musk will have to go down and negotiate deals with Bolivia over it, or find a different kind of battery for his cars.

1. But the coordination issues were and are McDonald's value added. That is the basis of their business model and success. When McDonalds went to Russia they had to set up the farms that produced the potatoes to quality and quantity needed. It may be that Chipotle just doesn't know how to do it and have failed.

Lithium prices tripled from 2005 to 2015. That's a nice incentive to mining companies.

Also, 500K electric cars a year is not a crazy thing. In 2015, 300K electric cars were sold. Tesla has approx 16% of global battery only car market. If disruption is more important than profitability, perhaps Mr. Musk would have a happier career in research in university, a military contractor, or US DOE labs.....

"It may be that Chipotle just doesn’t know how to do it and have failed"

It seems premature to say they've failed. In its 23rd year, Chipotle has 2010 restaurants. McDonald's hit 2000 locations in it's 20th year. Not bad compared to the most successful restaurant of all time.

Trump peaked last week.

The bumps we've seen over the past 12-18 months, or any historical 12-18 months, are probably just noise with no particular meaning.

The thesis is interesting, but some of these examples are definitely shoe-horned.

Some businesses thrive in an economy with a surplus of labor, certainly Uber and Facebook: what's the alternative to driving for Uber in one's spare time or writing content for free when there are no jobs. Something similar can be said about businesses that thrive in the global economy: what's the alternative to assembling i-phones in China for low wages. An economist would argue that it isn't so much the result of a surplus of labor but a more efficient use of labor. More efficient for whom, labor might ask. Cowen identifies "scale" as the problem for some businesses, but isn't "scale" a euphemism for the absorption of the surplus of labor as the economy improves. Good times for many turn out to be bad times for few.

Are the people assembling iPhones getting low wages for China? My guess is that those are pretty good jobs by local standards.

The San Francisco Bay Area is the economic center of the early 21st century.

It is nothing of the kind. Production and aggregate income in greater New York is nearly 3x that of San Francisco - San Jose - Oakland and the population of the former is more than 3x that of the latter. Greater London, greater Paris, greater Tokyo, greater Los Angeles, and greater Chicago also have more economic activity and more people.

FWIW if you add the SF and San Jose MSAs together then the combination of the two passes Chicago and takes the #3 spot in the U.S. behind NYC and LA. It also has stronger growth than NYC, LA or Chicago, meaning it would project to pass LA in ~10-15 years and take the #2 spot.

Maybe what he meant to say is that the Bay Area is the economic center for growth in the 21st century.

The Bay Area is certainly not the of the same influence if merely speaking of the magnitude of wealth that is pushed around by offices in NYC and London, but it's influence on progress and the positive aspects of our future is many magnitudes of that of all other cities collectively.

The Bay Area now generates more patents than New York City.

It's gone from 5% to 15% of national patents over the last three decades. New York's share fell from 15% to 8%.

http://www.citylab.com/tech/2016/05/san-franciscos-increasing-dominance-over-us-innovation/484199/

Art Deco,

You offered the stupidest comment EVER in the history of MR and, in fact, the Internet.

ALL innovation and ALL progress comes from the SF Bay Area. It's been that way for 40 years now, and continues ever more so. The size of NY, London, Tokyo, et. al. merely reflects churn, not contribution.

I'm with Art Deco for different reasons: Houston has completely upended the global energy market through the invention of Fracking, halving the cost of energy in the long term and destabilizing a dozen nations from Russia to Venezuela. It's an impact easily as big as 'social media'. St. Louis with an assist from Des Moines through GMO innovation has led the massive increase in agricultural productivity that the world relies on to sustain it's demand for iphones. Likewise, iphones wouldn't be worth nearly as much if the financial transaction infrastructure designed in New York (and oddly enough, St. Louis) hadn't been in place to facilitate cash transactions (you know, credit and debit cards). And of course the Bay area's "geniuses" are resolutely opposed to the energy, food and financial innovations that their rather evanescent prosperity rests on. Oh and about that 'prosperity': the residents of the San Francisco bay area aren't even benefiting from their Boffin status: because they've rigged their real estate, energy and other markets so that the cost of living is rising faster than their productivity. Attaboy, boy geniuses, you guys rock!

Clarification: Houston didn't invent 'fracking' because it's existed since 1948 - before Houston was the oil capital of the world. Modern fracking with supercomputed seismic data, robotic drilling and environmentally benign fracking chemicals that can exploit the trillions of barrels of oil equivalent of hydrocarbons locked in shale around the world is what Houston companies and scientists invented.

I think there are two trends converging, and are the root of the stagnation.

First is the inability of large organizations to innovate. They can and do build processes, very efficient ones and can set up complex supply chains with low costs. But they depend on economies of scale, they find it more profitable to narrow their operations all the while expanding them. They grow by buying competitors and market share while shedding product lines, essentially trying to own a very large proportion of a narrow segment of the market. But innovation outside of those internal things is beyond them.

Second is that the efficiencies and processes are in house. Canada has seen a number of retailers either fail (Target) or implement and abandon IT systems (Sobeys, Westfair). Systems built in house organically a la Walmart are amazingly good, off the shelf solutions may and do put you out of business. This makes it very difficult for smaller companies to scale; they have to build the systems from scratch, or almost from scratch. But this is where the innovation happens. Small firms creating a market.

What I find interesting is that Japanese firms with the financial weight, the systems and the propensity to thrive in narrow market segments by serving the market are buying up US companies not for their technology or systems but for their place in the market. Panasonic bought Hussmann, who has a good portion of the supermarket refrigeration market. Daikin has bought up a bunch of US manufacturers over the last few years, McQuay, and more recently a smaller hvac manufacturer in a different market segment. First they clean up the products, get some quality control, then expand the distribution and marketing. Then we start seeing innovation in the sector from the Japanese engineers.

There is something wrong with the US, seriously wrong, and it isn't lack of money. There seems to be as studious and concerted effort to avoid doing anything real that requires investment. A silly example. There is a product that has been on the market in North America that I've been using for 20 years. It works, but it is awful and expensive to install, and has serious flaws. If you have air conditioning you have it, the foam insulation that surrounds the piping. Everyone in the industry has been complaining about it and looking for alternatives. Someone in Italy came up with a process that insulates piping with a hard coat on the outside and softer foam inside. A local trade supplier got in a container of the stuff, to see if it would sell, and they are selling it faster than they can bring it in, and getting other sales along with it; you need it for an installation, so you buy all the equipment there including the piping.

There are dozens of similar simple things that I know of that someone could go after. The big companies are shedding this stuff because there seems more money to be made in shaving costs and sucking up to government. A big US firm came up with a piping system that is 10x more expensive and solves one problem; the impossibility of lighting a torch to braze in some buildings. Fine and great, and the only places I've run into that are government buildings.

Then smart Japanese business people buy up major distributors and manufacturers one after another and actually grow their markets.

I blame two things. First the monoculture of US business education. Second, the financial system that should have disappeared and re-emerged much smarter after 2008 but essentially got all their stupidity subsidized. Institutional stupidity reigns.

Yes, there are industrial companies that innovate and are growing and profitable and are targets of larger industrial companies, the acquiring companies often non-US; the low country where I have a home is filled with industrial and chemical businesses many of which are owned by foreign companies. Meanwhile, the action is in Silicon Valley, which attracts lots of capital and almost all of the publicity while defying the standards for business valuations, more of a crap shoot than business investment. The "platform economy" (and the "network effects" it produces) has become the American economy. If something seems too good to be true, it likely isn't.

I wonder how much is the social phenomenon of smart people mostly believing that working with their hands is beneath them, and the finance and software industries drawing the smartest and most ambitious people. Some aspects of common US middle class belief make me think a bit of old slave societies, where being seen to do hard work with your own hands would be embarrassing and would lower your social position.

This is true and very evident in many of the zoning regulations that are smothering growth in our cities. It is extremely bad taste to make productive use out of your property, so it has to be banned.

Come to Texas. We like people who make productive use out of their property. It's the cornerstone of our prosperity: unlocking the value of that capital to increase wealth for everyone. Blue dystopias want to lock up the capital embedded in land and property, freezing its use. We don't think that's very bright and the migration flows tell us we're right.

Bill,

Texas can do much of what it does simply because it still has a lot of internal room to expand. Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, et al aren't geographically hemmed in the way places like NYC, San Francisco, and LA are. Therefore, Texas metro areas can continue to sprawl without their population densities increasing to coastal levels. This prevents a lot of NIMBY-driven demand for regulation, in turn enabling a freer land use environment. Steve Sailer has described this as "the dirt gap."

The real stress test will come decades from now if/when Texas's population grows to the point that the wet, green eastern third of the state is as developed and densely populated as the Northeast Corridor and coastal SoCal. Texas is to America today what California was 30+ years ago, and it's in you Texans' best interest to learn from California's mistakes.

Conservatism is finding that the demographic groups that believe in conservatism no longer scale to form a viable national party. Trump will soon find the same to be true for his white working class coalition. The Republican Party needs a new ideology or constituency that can scale to compete with Democrats.

Partisan Democrats belong to a minority party which they persistently fancy is a majority party, serial election losses over a generation notwithstanding. What's the Mercatus crew's excuse for buying into this delusion?

Yes, last I checked, Republicans held the majority in both houses of Congress and the legislatures of 31 states.

But it's ok, he also patronized big banks, as though they aren't aware that their business model "isn't so bad".

As I say above, I think tying big party politics to scaling seems wrong. They are operating at scale. Libertarians attempt to scale.

That said, voter identification is the more honest measure of who has the people.

Independents win.

Yet, strangely, rank-and-file Republicans feel that they are "losing the war". The last 8 years have seen Obamacare, same-sex marriage normalized, the end of don't-ask-don't-tell, the beginning of marijuana legalization, women cleared for combat and the selective service, and the executive branch pseudo-legalizing a bunch of "illegal" immigrants. It's impossible to know what will happen in November, but they're looking down the barrel of 8 more years of the same. Or more, if demographic trends continue and racial minorities continue to shun the GOP.

More to point, the rising tide of independents was evidence in plain sight that polarization was harmful to big party politics. Becoming more extreme was causing the two parties to lose people.

And the bigger loser is by that measure the party that most overshot their position.

Have you actually paid attention to the national GOP in the past 4-6 years? They haven't been able to get a single thing done because they've been too busy infighting and trying to label their internal opponents as RINO or whatever. If you've got majorities in both houses and you still can't keep elements in your own party from shutting down the government multiple times because they need to prove they're "conservative" enough, then you've got issues.
Can you even name one actual policy idea that they've wanted to pass that has gotten through both houses? And they had a huge field of seasoned politicians, all "conservative" who have lost badly in their own primary to a pro-choice eccentric billionare. It's not the Dems shutting them down, it's their own party not keeping it together.

Loosening oil export rules. It seemed they were willing to give quite a lot to extract that concession.

Perhaps they should be renamed as The Oil Party?

It’s time to let Steve Jobs and Ronald Reagan rest in peace, and find new leaders who can build the world of the 2020′s.

Jobs produced gizmos whose utility was evanescent. Reagan articulated principles of political action which are abiding.

'Reagan articulated principles of political action which are abiding.'

August 11, 1984 - "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." The joke was a parody of the opening line of that day's speech: "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you that today I signed legislation that will allow student religious groups to begin enjoying a right they've too long been denied — the freedom to meet in public high schools during nonschool hours, just as other student groups are allowed to do."' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_begin_bombing_in_five_minutes

So, which is the abiding principle of political action - joking about starting a global nuclear war, or helping sectarianism?

Do you have any non-trivial remarks to make?

What, you don't find Reagan's jokes funny?

Reagan may have been the right man for his time, but it's not 1980 any more. And there are no "abiding" answers in politics, Reagan is getting to be as outdated as FDR and the New Deal were by the 1970s.

On its face, 'scaling' doesn't mean the same thing for major political conceptions and for manufacturing industries.

-Conservatism is finding that the demographic groups that believe in conservatism no longer scale to form a viable national party. Trump will soon find the same to be true for his white working class coalition. The Republican Party needs a new ideology or constituency that can scale to compete with Democrats.

This is wrong-headed. Obviously wrong-headed.

20th century politics was based on ideology. Thus the 2 parties clustered to toward the center and fought over the middle of the electorate.

21th century politics is based on identity. The Democrats have the minorities and the rootless cosmopolitans, and the Republicans have the middle- and working-class whites.

So conservatives can either try to make politics about ideology again. Or else they can work on the identity thing ie. halt immigration.

Incorrect.

Republicans have an advantage among white lower middle class voters.

Democrats have an 8 - 14 pt advantage for college educated voters and a 2 to 4 pt advantage with middle class voters.

See data from Pew survey: http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-detailed_tables/Detailed%20tables%20for%20Party%20ID.pdf

The table actually shows that whites who earn under $30,000 per year lean Democratic -- which is consistent with just about every other source out there. The table also shows that whites who hold a college degree but no graduate degree lean Republican.

Ricardo, You must be looking at 2004 or some other data.

Here is the data for 2012 by education:

College Post Grad; D + 14

College D +3

Some college D+2

High School or less D +8

Here is the data by middle class income:

$100- 149k D+2

$75- 99K D+2

$50-74K D+2

No, you have to go to page 4 to look at the breakdown among white voters. The $20k-30k income bracket among whites was split evenly between R and D in 2012 but was Democratic-leaning in earlier years.

Please don't use bolding or other custom formatting. It's going to make the comment section even worse.

Ricardo, you are desperately changing the subject and picking a new category "leaning", and even there your claim does not stand.

You will recall, Ricardo, that Zeitgeisty claimed that Democrats have the "rootless cosmopolitans and minorities" and the Republicans have the middle class whites.

That was refuted. Democrats in fact had the middle class, minorities, and higher educated. You came back and said: Oh, No, we should look at the registered voters and the "leaning" voters and confine that to White.

So, here are the same categories for registered and leaning voters

College Post Grad: Total Population: D+15

College: Total Population D +3

Some College: Total Population Even

High School or Less: Total Pop D+5

Here is the Data by Middle Class Income Registered and Leaning:

$100-149K Total Population R+1

$75-99K Total Population Even

$50-74K Total Population Even

As to White label, you have to look at the tables showing Southern and Rural compositions. Not many farmers are black. Except for some part of the South, I doubt that it is race in the Rural category so much as it is that Rural participants are White in the Midwest and Mountain West; as to the South, there are probably some who vote based on white racial identity alone, but if you look at White urban in Mid Atlantic that pattern doesn't hold.

Also, Ricardo, the classification of White as the mover overlooks the role that religion and social issues play in white lower class or lower middle class households. It's not so much white as it is the social wars and church attendance that drives the demographic.

Bill: look again about that. Church attendance and even religious belief have been falling off for low income white people for years now. The white working class is largely secular nowadays. And, really, the Culture Wars stuff was always more of an upper middle class thing. You don't worry about stuff like that unless your own immediate needs are taken care of.

John, Don't you wish. What was the "base" that both Trump and Cruz courted in Iowa: Evangelicals. Trump even went to Liberty University to get their blessing. If you want to offer evidence to the contrary, please do. But, stick to evidence. If you want evidence of my position, look at the Pew data (in the same materials above) and voting patterns for Evangelicals and Mormons.

Bill,
Those evangelicals supporting Trump are more likely to be solidly middle class, or even upper middle class. As I noted, religious observance has been falling off among lower income white people (and that's only a trend among white people) for well over a generation.

The Republican Party currently holds 31 governorships, 33 state houses, the US House, and the US Senate.

Are these 'liberal' Republicans? Or is this just a circuitous anti-Trump comment from you?

Weird narrative you've glommed on to there. And I'm not even a Republican.

"currently"

The average voter probably says "try the other guys" much more often than ideological outliers believe.

Tyler said: "The Republican Party needs a new ideology or constituency that can scale to compete with Democrats."

He is talking like a sausage, as are you. Currently.

That was @conorsen, with whom I have disagreed.

My framing above was that while polarization was good for polarizers, for a time, it is less good for parties.

Yes, all those actual offices held. Even IF there's a Hillary landslide the Republican party will be in a much stronger grass-roots position than it was after the 1964 election. And yet the Republicans won the presidency in 1968, 1972, were competitive in 1976 despite Watergate (48% of the vote vs 50.1% for Carter), 1980, 1984 and 1988.

Those people were elected etc. 18% of the adult citizenry (in the remarkably low turnout election of 2014). Under no possible system of mathematics is 18% a majority .

The Republican Party needs a new ideology or constituency that can scale to compete with Democrats.

No ideology, no matter how pure or rigorous, can compete with Free Stuff. So white people will jettison their idealism and adopt the identity politics of their ethnic and cultural rivals or they will lose everything they have.

Let me guess, keeping a military base for a conservative district is not "free stuff." Nor a weapons program with suppliers carefully apportioned by district. Nor a giveaway of timber on Federal land. Nor below market grazing rights.

You're proving my point. Pluralistic democracy inevitably becomes an inter-ethnic spoils fight. When the place was 88% WASP, nobody gave much thought to who got the paving contracts. Now, there are huge binders of regulations designed to spread the green around and try to keep everybody happy.

I thought your point was that Democrats had an unfair advantage, because Republicans don't play that.

If it has been the political backdrop for a hundred years or so, it becomes less a difference, and less an emergency.

The first "pork barrel" bill funded interstate roads. The horror.

I'm far less concerned with districts lobbying for a revenue stream from one of the few things that everyone agrees government should actually provide than people being paid just to exist and vote for the right candidates. The Democrats have been the party of pure transfer payments and grievance/identity politics since the 1960s. So nervous whites are voting for Trump; this is the future we chose.

While Republicans consistently pretend Social Security and Medicare are not transfers?

If your position is just "transfer to my group" you have become what you hate.

++ to what anon says on Medicare.

Of course they're transfers, but if Uncle Sugar is going to deduct from my paycheck and tell me he'll take care of things, then I am going to hold him to it.

The idea that these programs are uneconomic and unjust and government should be limited to providing the few truly public goods is a distinctly "white" one, btw.

Programs like SS and Medicare have their issues and I can even buy opposition to them, but when white people defend them they aren't defending "give me free stuff" so much as "pay back the money I paid in over my adult lifetime". They view these programs the way they view a DB pension or their 401k. We can complain that the actuarial math doesn't quite work out (that's true for a lot of private DB pensions), but there has been a largely unchallenged decades long campaign to convince people SS/Medicare were basically retirement programs they already payed for, so it's not surprising people view them that way.

All they know is that after getting a huge deduction from their paycheck for forty years, they want some of it back.

This attitude of, "I want back what I paid in," is fundamentally different from, "I don't pay in but I want free shit from someone else anyway." That's the difference between a social insurance program and a straight up welfare program. "Keep the government hands off my Medicare" is a lot like "keep the government hands off my 401k". When they come for your 401k one day you'll feel the same way.

Anti-Gnostic - there's a big difference between agreement on the principle that the government should provide national defense and the reality of 1000 overseas bases and significant streams of money to keep them stocked with alleged partisan orientations in which areas win the bids.

Even the Pentagon wants to close down many overseas bases, thinking they are making costs too high.

Libertarians, for example, agree that the government should supply national defense, but are generally offended by the notion that freedom can be upheld by the upkeep of a global military empire where most of the "subjects" have precisely zero say in anything related to those military entities.

'Pluralistic democracy inevitably becomes an inter-ethnic spoils fight.'

Switzerland certainly demonstrates that.

Yes. Among decentralized Alpine nations with 101 average IQ, strict border controls and citizenship requirements the Swiss manage their linguistic diversity very well.

Not just linguistic diversity - the Swiss see themselves of made up of multiple distinct groups, with language being a superficial aspect of that.

Also, traditionally at least religious diversity was a big factor in Switzerland with Catholics, Calvinists, Lutherans and assorted Anabaptist groups somehow managing not to slaughter one another back when religion was often a blood sport.

Among those earning over $100,000 in last election, 54 percent voted GOP 44 percent Democratic in 2012. In 2008, those earning over $100,000 split their vote between both parties.

Obviously, a large chunk of people are not voting for free stuff - they are voting for higher taxes and services.

I am one - top bracket, and I would prefer higher taxes and more services.

Why would you seek more services from a government that has a weak record of delivering services efficiently: ie, DMV, TSA, VA, education, renewables, etc.

Chip, We count on Congress to do its job to appropriate the money the Administration requests to do the job. You can't cut TSA, or not fund the VA to the amount they need, and then turn around and say that they are not providing the services demanded.

It's not clear that the companies that make physical things can scale efficiently with population growth, or let's say global demand. If individual companies can't scale you need more companies able to make physical things efficiently. To do that requires talent to run these companies. Since IT driven, cheaply scalable industries (banking/trading, software) have absorbed most of the top talent for the last 30 yrs, talent to manage the physical, manufacturing based companies may not exist in sufficient quantities. Even the zero cost of manufacturing companies like Facebook are eventually finding that people wont spend their leisure and get nothing in return - ie they have to generate content. It's much harder to build manufacturing businesses than ones that prey on human weaknesses like online trading and online dating or ones that flatter the ego and build false impressions of self-importance like Facebook.

I think Facebook has ALREADY scaled. Nothing grows to the sky forever. In retail (Walmart, McDonalds) saturation is more easily visible, but in Facebook's case there's only so much time to waste in a day, and only so many times you want to see the same jokes before they become lame. But when you look at that scale that's been achieved, it's pretty impressive.

Well, the article does describe them as 800 pound gorillas. I think the focus here is on handling the success, so to speak, in a way that locks them a long term, profitable, self sustaining, market leader, as opposed to hitting a peak and then falling under the various problems alluded to.

It is really shameful to exploit race and gender the way the Democrats do. But it works. Promise people special treatment and money based on race and it appeals to their inherent racism. The Democrat party today is the party of racists and sexists. Ironically that was true in 1865 when the Democrats formed the KKK. This is a sad and shameful ploy which works for the Democrats.

Hm..is that why today's KKK leaders endorsed Trump, implicitly and explicitly? BTW, Trump is not nominee of democratic party -to be clear. He sure won GOP through support from tea partiers and tea party leaders like Palin, Ann Coulter, Jeff Sessions, etc.

Almost all the states with the highest percentage of black population consistently vote with the GOP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_African-American_population

So what, according to your theory, do the Democrats gain from "exploiting race"?

Maybe your want to question your theory.

It’s time to let Steve Jobs and Ronald Reagan rest in peace, and find new leaders who can build the world of the 2020′s.

Nah...Reagan's optimistic, pragmatic, inclusive rhetoric and solutions are still good. Its just that the tea party, which has infested today's GOP, cares for only power and its own subsidies. We sure need a new leader who can shove the tea partiers - either diplomatically or even forcefully.

I'd be happier if anyone outside of econoblogs and MBA programs ever gave a moment's thought to the effects of scale. This goofy idea that everything is better if it's artisinal and local and limited in scale is frustratingly widespread. That is, man has Walmart done a lot to improve living standards of poor people in rural areas and the desire to poo on low cost large scale operations is the desire to see poor people functionally worse off in most cases. I love scale.

Fair point. Lots and lots of advantages from scale. Also not all "small, local, artisinal" is good. I have had countless bad meals & bad service on various so called local establishments.

Walmart still gets bad rap for their poor treatment of employees. Direct result of this is the indifferent attitude you see of most Walmart workers in any store.

Reflect on just how wealthy a people must be to have the luxury of affording local, artisanal" production. It is a clear sign that portions of American society are in a post-scarcity world.

I would like linguists to weigh in on when "store bought" went from being a compliment to an insult; and the contrary for "home made."

Sen has a bit of David Brooks disease. Not everything he says has to define a trend.

Democrats who are funded by conservatives/workers/taxpayers. How long before they wise up?

Texas scales just fine and at a cost far, far below that of CA, NY or London. It is more accurate to say that post modern progressivism doesn't scale worth a damn. But progressivism's failure seems due to rapidly declining returns to academic intelligence as opposed to basic common sense with which it seems inversely correlated.

Woah! I'm really loving the template/theme of this website.

It's simple, yet effective. A lot of times it's very difficult
to get that "perfect balance" between superb usability and appearance.

I must say that you've done a excellent job with this.
Also, the blog loads very fast for me on Internet explorer.
Exceptional Blog!

Maybe we should be pursuing policies to encourage "scaling" the Republican voter base. Or at least stop digging the demographic hole we find ourselves in.

Tesla will go they way of ethanol and Solyndra without government subsidies.

Could you please spring for Discus? I find your system to be maddening and a disincentive to investing time in serious responses...perhaps the occasional rancid gesture excepted. I constantly find that comments i've made in response to other comments can't be found. Which even if it's due to my ignorance, stinks. Please go with the industry standard. They call it industry standard for a reason.

Comments for this post are closed