EZRA KLEIN v MATT YGLESIAS

Would better work have been done taxing the shit out of him for the last 40 years, though?

― Joe Bombin (milo z), Tuesday, April 27, 2021 2:05 PM (six minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

The answer to that question doesn't seem very clear to me. He absolutely should be taxed to the hilt; as far as I'm concerned, we should go back to Eisenhower-era marginal tax rates. On the other hand, there are a lot of people in developing countries who have benefited from the Gates Foundation's funding of large-scale public-health initiatives.

His money could have built us some cool aircraft carriers though

If you've seen one cool aircraft carrier, you've seen 'em all.

I guess...in a universe where the US still had Eisenhower-era tax rates...the military budget would also be slashed to the bone? I mean, if we're dream-wanking and all.

don't dream, it's wanking

I guess...in a universe where the US still had Eisenhower-era tax rates...the military budget would also be slashed to the bone?

https://i.imgur.com/dfzbMN1.jpeg

a funny thing about matt and ezra as old millennials is that not long ago coming up as bloggers they were considered state of the art, but then everyone younger than them ended up taking a hard left turn and now theyre like total grandpapaws, you couldnt pay a 25 year old to take technocratic ideas, turns out they were the last of a dying breed

you couldnt pay a 25 year old to take technocratic ideas,

I'm hesitant to wade into this mess but, uh, have you met Elon Musk stans?

Musk stans can't organise their thoughts enough to pass as pundits

obviously individuals will vary but all evidence points towards a large and unprecedented in at least most peoples living memory generational shift to the left, god forbid we ever see a generation that has a substantial musk fan cohort lol

lol sic

Oh god, the thought of an entire generation in thrall to Musk is terrifying, but I don't think we can completely throw dirt on the technocrat dream (read: nightmare) just yet.

it still has a lot of institutional power but its unclear how much said institutions are aware of the ground shifting beneath their feet

Musk and Yang people aren’t really technocrats. They don’t want to turn society over to rationalized systems, they want to turn it over to “smart guys.”

yeah true

I don't know that there is a meaningful difference between those to your average Twitter Musk stan tho, wherein lies the problem imo.

The Fuehrer principle but the Fuehrer is always Joe Rogan’s most recent guest.

Musk stannery is only possible through a subsumation of your own ability to interpret things into obviously fallacious belief in a strong daddy who tells you he's great. The stans have no arguments to even make, only faith, that vigorously conflicts with existing evidence.

The failure of Trumpism, religion, and all cults show us what little chance that ideology has of gaining a substantial foothold.

There’s a huge difference to them. The appeal of Musk/Yang is that they’re asystematic (as persons and in the sense of being outside of systems like NASA or traditional car manufacturers) - they keep it real man, fly by the seat of their pants just bang bang bang good ideas everywhere.

Fwiw, I'm not advocating for Musk, his stans or any of them getting within sniffing distance of meaningful leadership, but I would argue that there is a competing (or maybe not?) definition of "technocracy" that doesn't emphasize rationalized systems so much as "we think this dude is smart so he should be a decision maker for our society". Obviously Musk isn't that smart, but my point was his fans really think he is a galactic brain genius that should make more decisions that impact our day to day lives. It's a dark, dystopic version of "technocracy" when a dumb dude hides behind a veneer of "science" to gain money and power, but isn't it still a "technocracy"?

not in the way people usually use that term, no

it means policy wonks who tinker with incentives and macroeconomic policy

The answer to that question doesn't seem very clear to me. He absolutely should be taxed to the hilt; as far as I'm concerned, we should go back to Eisenhower-era marginal tax rates. On the other hand, there are a lot of people in developing countries who have benefited from the Gates Foundation's funding of large-scale public-health initiatives.

Maybe not the best example, as Gates is currently actively making the pandemic worse in developing countries!

But let's rephrase - when you say you won't defend him personally but his organization has done 'a lot of good,' shouldn't we treat that good as a balance sheet with all the harm the acquisition of $80 billion caused in the first place?

Argh, I botched part of that in getting distracted by a work call. I'm not saying that would make us a "technocracy" by definition if Musk rose to power, but rather that his fans think it would. There seems to be a lot of use of that word among his stans, is part of what I was (badly) getting to.

they think "technocracy" means "government by tech people"

gates and musk are similar in that they are doing "good" while actively working for the long term success of the underlying bad that made the good necessary

musk has already risen to power!

xpost - Right, I'll back out of my detour here and let this thread go back to EK and Matty Y, I really shouldn't try to jump in on these when I'm distracted by work, my point was mangled and lost.

i think real technocrats would see themselves as the good guys fighting against the overweening vanity and mercurial personal ambition of yr musks or gateses (or trumps) on behalf of a better-functioning establishment

lol np xpost

My point was more that I think there is a competing vision of what a "technocracy" would look like in the US and voodoo chili's definition is the one that Musk stans embrace. It's technically incorrect, but I think it's another term that is being bastardized.

aiui, technocracy was a movement in the 1930s when there was a lot of political ferment and people searching for remedies to the massive social crash of the Great Depression. Its appeal was based more on analogical thinking than anything else. It assumed that the increasing technological complexity of the world, as typified by radio, combustion engines, airplanes, urban electrification and such, meant that society needed to be fixed by putting it in the hands of scientists and technologists, who would neutrally and objectively find and fix whatever was wrong, like an auto mechanic working on a car or truck. Its program was never sophisticated and it had some affinities with fascism.

But let's rephrase - when you say you won't defend him personally but his organization has done 'a lot of good,' shouldn't we treat that good as a balance sheet with all the harm the acquisition of $80 billion caused in the first place?

― Joe Bombin (milo z), Tuesday, April 27, 2021 5:37 PM (three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Sure, I just don't know how it's possible to assess this in any kind of meaningful quantifiable way.

Also, I get that people want to trash Gates over COVID. I haven't had time to dig into that, so I can't really speak to it. But I think it is inarguable that the Gates Foundation has done a lot to support public-health initiatives in the developing world over the past 20 years, which has helped to reduce rates of infant and maternal mortality, stop the spread of infectious diseases like polio, HIV, and malaria, etc. Should a private foundation have as much power, money, and influence as the Gates Foundation has? Probably not! But its size also enables it to make a tangible impact and not just dole out a few small grants here and there for the sake of publicity.

gates is blatantly using his foundation to support and expand the systems that cause people to need his help

and is whitewashing his reputation in the process

I can't argue about this anymore.

ABAB

They also spend a lot of money on charter school shit

They spend a lot of money on a lot of things

hes also caused a lot of chaos in the public health world making people meet his wacky non expert ideas because he thinks hes the smartest person in the world because he has the most money

OK, fine, he sucks, I don't care

(although I would like a source for that)

one down, lag∞n

should also be noted he has more money now than when he pledged to give it all away (non binding) and that most of the money he has given away hes given to his own foundation which hes used to become the single most powerful person in public health, all completely accountable to no one but his beautiful self

one down, lag∞n

― Li'l Brexit (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, April 27, 2021 7:37 PM (thirty-five seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

grimly draws a line on wall of cell

I'll quit my job tomorrow so I don't have to be associated in any capacity with such an awful man

hate to tell you its awful men all the way down

not trying to indict anyone who doesnt have the power to make governments do things fwiw

You're one of the good ones, though. I can tell.

this may be outdated info but wasn't he also a major shareholder in monsanto while trying to get african countries to implement agriculture programs that required them to buy monsanto seeds. like a one man IMF putting conditions on aid. he's bad. i don't care if people take money from him at their jobs though, whatever puts food on the table.

i at least have never blocked a temporary pause in patent enforcement on life saving drugs xp