As a 'soft' environmentalist (e.g., generally support/favor pro environmental action by government and citizens, but I don't go to meetings or read mailing lists about it) I feel exhausted trying to figure out what can and can't be recycled and under what circumstances. Is there an easy button way to mostly stay onside without getting a Master's in the thousands of permutations of recycling labels? Are there certain materials that are more important to recycle than others?
I also periodically encounter right wing-ish suggestions that the whole enterprise is basically a scam (e.g., everything just goes into a landfill anyway, it gets shipped overseas to be dumped in the ocean, etc.). I assume these not true, but I don't know enough about the process to refute them conclusively and would benefit from a Slow-Boring piece detailing the intricacies of the matter.
Ilya Somin responds to Matt's defense of the left/right dimension article. Highlights:
"Let's take Yglesias' religion/hierarchy theory first. If religion is right-wing, it's hard to explain explicitly leftist religious movements such as Liberation Theology, which combines Catholicism and Marxism. Worse, it's hard to explain the position of the mainstream Catholic Church!
Pope Francis is socially conservative on issues like abortion. But he also takes positions usually considered left-wing on economic regulation, the rights of migrants, the welfare state, and environmental policy. While the present pope has taken some of the Church's "left" positions further than his recent predecessors, the general idea of combining interventionist positions on economic issues with social conservatism is one the Catholic Church has held for a long time.
If your religion-focused theory of left and right has grave difficulty accounting for the leadership of the world's largest religious denomination, that seems like a significant problem for the theory. And Catholicism is far from the only denomination that doesn't fit the theory well. Many Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim movements, for example, are also anomalies in Yglesias' framework.
The hierarchy side of the theory also has issues. Consider the fact that communist regimes feature rigid hierarchies, with power concentrated in a small elite at the apex of the ruling party. Does that make communist regimes "right wing"? Are their opponents, therefore, necessarily left-wing? What if they are conservatives or religious traditionalists, like Alexander Solzhenitsyn? A theory under which Stalin and Mao are right-wing and Solzhenitsyn left-wing seems problematic. At the very least, it's highly counterintuitive."
In addition to residence, there should be a question about nationality! Like me, I imagine there are some foreign subscribers who sign up for Slow Boring because they like to read about policy and american politics (and Matt's writing, of course).
1) It would be good to do really deep dives into federal agencies and their specific programs. Why do they work or not? We get too many 10,000 feet views but no specifics. When if ever is Congressional oversight effective? 2) More specifically, Matt never comments on one of the largest federal agencies, the Department of Veteran's Affairs. Why not? It is the closest thing we have to socialized medicine and should be relevant to any discussion of the future ofmedical insurance in this country. The commentariat generally has a low opinion of it but some aspects of that agency are considered superior to private sector by many in the medical community.
So is the official Biden position on this Iran thing actually gonna be, "No harm, no foul."? Like I'm pretty anti-interventionist, but between this and Putin it really seems like we're into full appeasement territory. Seems bad. I doubt Israel is stupid enough to play along, but we seem determined to self-deter into really bad spot.
I'm getting whiplash from the rise in talking about USMCA and Trump's impact on US trade policy. Or maybe it's outright gaslighting? Can someone else who was there from 2016 to today help me?
I remember that President Obama was pushing the TPP and was, like most Presidents, more friendly to free trade than parochial members of Congress. I know that Trump broke traditional GOP orthodox on free trade (well, modern orthodox, don't talk to Lincoln or McKinley about free trade) and pushed to renegotiate NAFTA as USMCA. So that's a big break in continuity of US trade policy.
But I also remember that this guy Bernie Sanders ran against the TPP and there was such discontent over trade policies in the Democratic primary that he got the former Secretary of State who played a role in its negotiation to disown it.
And I seem to remember that for the past 30 odd years there's been a major complain among a major Democratic constituency, labor, that President Bill Clinton's embrace of free trade was a betrayal of the party's working class base. I remember some guys like Dick Gephardt. I remember Tim Ryan and Chuck Schumer and others complaining about Chinese currency manipulation. I remember Obama struggling to convince his own party in Congress to back him on the TPP.
I remember, by and large, Democrats claiming a huge victory with USMCA as it was a classic Trump-Congressional Democratic deal: Trump gets to claim a rhetorical victory, Democrats get everything they want and force Republicans to vote for it against their interests because Trump's happy.
But I'm seeing all these commentators from the finance and trade reporting world acting as if the only change was from Obama to Trump, and Biden continuing Trump's approach to trade. Is this because that aspect of journalism is used to only talking to the executive branch and has no idea Congress exists?
You should change the open question to make sure its obvious that that is the question to input feedback on things like the book club or in person meetups (or add a specific question for that). I assumed there would be more questions afterward.
It's kind of cruel to tease us with the possibility of winning a totebag after we, you know, didn't get any totebags actually delivered as part of the pop-up store SB merch sale . . . .
Tradle: I knew it wasn't THAT one, but the "Other Animals" exports prompted me to think the geography would be different than the actual answer.
Matt, what is your view on the effectiveness of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit? It’s the largest source of subsidy for new rent-restricted housing in the US. It is often criticized for having higher development costs relative to unsubsidized housing.
What's the deal with recycling, really?
As a 'soft' environmentalist (e.g., generally support/favor pro environmental action by government and citizens, but I don't go to meetings or read mailing lists about it) I feel exhausted trying to figure out what can and can't be recycled and under what circumstances. Is there an easy button way to mostly stay onside without getting a Master's in the thousands of permutations of recycling labels? Are there certain materials that are more important to recycle than others?
I also periodically encounter right wing-ish suggestions that the whole enterprise is basically a scam (e.g., everything just goes into a landfill anyway, it gets shipped overseas to be dumped in the ocean, etc.). I assume these not true, but I don't know enough about the process to refute them conclusively and would benefit from a Slow-Boring piece detailing the intricacies of the matter.
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/04/14/what-differentiates-political-left-and-right/
Ilya Somin responds to Matt's defense of the left/right dimension article. Highlights:
"Let's take Yglesias' religion/hierarchy theory first. If religion is right-wing, it's hard to explain explicitly leftist religious movements such as Liberation Theology, which combines Catholicism and Marxism. Worse, it's hard to explain the position of the mainstream Catholic Church!
Pope Francis is socially conservative on issues like abortion. But he also takes positions usually considered left-wing on economic regulation, the rights of migrants, the welfare state, and environmental policy. While the present pope has taken some of the Church's "left" positions further than his recent predecessors, the general idea of combining interventionist positions on economic issues with social conservatism is one the Catholic Church has held for a long time.
If your religion-focused theory of left and right has grave difficulty accounting for the leadership of the world's largest religious denomination, that seems like a significant problem for the theory. And Catholicism is far from the only denomination that doesn't fit the theory well. Many Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim movements, for example, are also anomalies in Yglesias' framework.
The hierarchy side of the theory also has issues. Consider the fact that communist regimes feature rigid hierarchies, with power concentrated in a small elite at the apex of the ruling party. Does that make communist regimes "right wing"? Are their opponents, therefore, necessarily left-wing? What if they are conservatives or religious traditionalists, like Alexander Solzhenitsyn? A theory under which Stalin and Mao are right-wing and Solzhenitsyn left-wing seems problematic. At the very least, it's highly counterintuitive."
Probably not the best idea to take on a ton of debt to attend a non-elite private university:
https://x.com/MattBruenig/status/1779528204476387561
Are rowhouses/townhouses/brownstones urbanist?
https://x.com/alanthefisher/status/1779241450770714790
The long-awaited reader survey is finally here!!
In addition to residence, there should be a question about nationality! Like me, I imagine there are some foreign subscribers who sign up for Slow Boring because they like to read about policy and american politics (and Matt's writing, of course).
1) It would be good to do really deep dives into federal agencies and their specific programs. Why do they work or not? We get too many 10,000 feet views but no specifics. When if ever is Congressional oversight effective? 2) More specifically, Matt never comments on one of the largest federal agencies, the Department of Veteran's Affairs. Why not? It is the closest thing we have to socialized medicine and should be relevant to any discussion of the future ofmedical insurance in this country. The commentariat generally has a low opinion of it but some aspects of that agency are considered superior to private sector by many in the medical community.
So is the official Biden position on this Iran thing actually gonna be, "No harm, no foul."? Like I'm pretty anti-interventionist, but between this and Putin it really seems like we're into full appeasement territory. Seems bad. I doubt Israel is stupid enough to play along, but we seem determined to self-deter into really bad spot.
Really good snapshot of the decline of religiosity in America during the 21st Century: https://twitter.com/AlecMacGillis/status/1779873944033501288
I'm getting whiplash from the rise in talking about USMCA and Trump's impact on US trade policy. Or maybe it's outright gaslighting? Can someone else who was there from 2016 to today help me?
I remember that President Obama was pushing the TPP and was, like most Presidents, more friendly to free trade than parochial members of Congress. I know that Trump broke traditional GOP orthodox on free trade (well, modern orthodox, don't talk to Lincoln or McKinley about free trade) and pushed to renegotiate NAFTA as USMCA. So that's a big break in continuity of US trade policy.
But I also remember that this guy Bernie Sanders ran against the TPP and there was such discontent over trade policies in the Democratic primary that he got the former Secretary of State who played a role in its negotiation to disown it.
And I seem to remember that for the past 30 odd years there's been a major complain among a major Democratic constituency, labor, that President Bill Clinton's embrace of free trade was a betrayal of the party's working class base. I remember some guys like Dick Gephardt. I remember Tim Ryan and Chuck Schumer and others complaining about Chinese currency manipulation. I remember Obama struggling to convince his own party in Congress to back him on the TPP.
I remember, by and large, Democrats claiming a huge victory with USMCA as it was a classic Trump-Congressional Democratic deal: Trump gets to claim a rhetorical victory, Democrats get everything they want and force Republicans to vote for it against their interests because Trump's happy.
But I'm seeing all these commentators from the finance and trade reporting world acting as if the only change was from Obama to Trump, and Biden continuing Trump's approach to trade. Is this because that aspect of journalism is used to only talking to the executive branch and has no idea Congress exists?
You should change the open question to make sure its obvious that that is the question to input feedback on things like the book club or in person meetups (or add a specific question for that). I assumed there would be more questions afterward.
Trump: a weak dollar. A weak America.
It's kind of cruel to tease us with the possibility of winning a totebag after we, you know, didn't get any totebags actually delivered as part of the pop-up store SB merch sale . . . .
Tradle: I knew it wasn't THAT one, but the "Other Animals" exports prompted me to think the geography would be different than the actual answer.
#Tradle #771 2/6
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
https://games.oec.world/en/tradle
Matt, what is your view on the effectiveness of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit? It’s the largest source of subsidy for new rent-restricted housing in the US. It is often criticized for having higher development costs relative to unsubsidized housing.
Might want to advertise the reader survey in the major posts too if you want to reach non-commenters too