Viewing entries in
Politics and Economics
James Truslow Adams is credited with coining the phrase ‘American Dream’ in his 1931 bestseller The Epic of America. Adams provided several definitions in his book, including “a dream of a better, richer and happier life for all our citizens of every rank” and “that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement.”
And from a recent paper by real-estate economist Kholodilin, Konstantin, who has reviewed over 200 rent control studies, dating back decades and spanning six continents:
“The most prominent effects of rent control are decline of rents for controlled dwellings, reduced residential mobility, lower construction, lower quality of housing, higher rents for uncontrolled dwellings, and lower property prices.” - Kholodilin, Konstantin (2025) “The impact of governmental regulations on housing market: Findings of a meta-study of empirical literature”
Sensing danger increases vigilance and vigilant behavior discourages criminals by reducing opportunities (easy victims) and increasing costs (time, effort) relative to payoff (money, status, sex). Here are some examples of what I’m talking about…
If one wants to return to an issue in a conversation, one can simply say, “I’d like to return to subject xyz…” and then proceed to restate and elaborate the original subject. There’s no need to label the other person’s imputed intentions. And if that person keeps changing the subject, mention that and ask them why.
So, “emphasizing the absurdity and inequity of singling out a person to rake over the coals” for a common behavior is justified whataboutism? Basically, that’s the defense of pointing out double-standards and hypocrisy, which is usually condemned as just plain ole whataboutism
…That is a pattern I’ve seen for years, both in the debate club and on the internet. Does that mean accusations of whataboutism are mostly attempts to maintain partisan narratives and preempt challenges to those narratives?
The term "whataboutism" first appeared in print in 1978, but wasn’t much used until 2007-2008, when British journalist Edward Lucas popularized the term in The Economist. The use of whataboutism in American political discourse increased sharply around the 2016 US presidential election…
The whys and what-fors of whataboutism accusations are the two sides of speech motivation: belief and purpose. Behind every utterance is a felt-truth - which may or may not be conscious or expressed - but the reason we actually say something is to achieve a goal. So what felt-truths are behind accusations of whataboutism, and what do the accusers hope to accomplish?
The accusation of whataboutism often stings, because it implies a moral deficiency in the accused. It’s less about logic and evidence than the accuser’s moral convictions.
But how do we know another’s intent? What appears to be an attempt to change the subject may actually be an attempt to improve the quality of a discussion, to add proper context or examine the speaker’s assumptions. Besides, what’s wrong with trying to redirect attention (“distract”) from a topic if one takes issue with how a claim is presented or defended and wants to sort that out first? And what’s wrong with pointing out double standards or hypocrisy?
The FBI says crime rankings provide little insight into the many variables that mold crime in a particular city or other jurisdiction. However, comparing cities at the extremes of a ranking may reveal patterns that are difficult to detect in the middle range due to the multitude of factors that motivate criminal behavior. For example…
Most assault and rape offenders were known to the victim, in contrast to just a fifth of robbery offenders. That may be one reason why public safety concerns are often linked to the perceived likelihood of getting robbed. “Are the streets safe where you live” is less likely to evoke images of partner violence than of getting attacked and robbed by a stranger.
Ok, so the low-robbery cities are relatively affluent and well-educated, on average. However, Surprise, Arizona doesn’t seem to fit with this overall pattern: Surprise has a lot of children in poverty and adults with no education past high school, both factors associated with higher crime rates. What’s up with that? Is Surprise doing something that mitigates the risks of poverty and limited education? Could other cities learn from its example?
Apparently, Democrats like socialism almost as much as they like free enterprise. Which is odd, given that free enterprise is a market-driven economic system largely free of government control and socialism is an ideology that wants to increase government control over economic matters and reduce or even eliminate the role of markets. Seems like a contradiction to me.
Then again, this Gallup survey is not asking for thoughtful responses, it’s asking for gut reactions.
“Down with large businesses!” just sounds stupid. I think most people appreciate that large businesses have their advantages and uses. Large businesses contribute to a country’s economic vitality… But “Big Business” brings to mind a history of abysmal wages and working conditions, of riots violently put down, tycoons buying political influence, and governments doing their bidding.
Per Gallup 2025, a large majority of Americans like free enterprise - that is, economic systems in which “private business operates in competition and largely free of state control” (Google Dictionary) and “prices, products, and services are determined by market forces rather than government intervention” (Investopedia). …But while independents and Democrats embrace free enterprise, they’re rather critical of capitalism.
In these surveys, respondents are asked, “Just off the top of your head, would you say you have a positive or negative image of each of the following?” Their views are then solicited on capitalism, free enterprise, socialism, big business and small business. Each post in this series will focus on a subset of the 2025 survey responses. I’ll start with a comparing positive responses to capitalism and socialism. Here’s a summary of those responses, by self-reported party identity…
Notice that Democrats seemed to care much less about the issues that were most important to Republicans. But the reverse was not true.
While US studies often show a negative association, studies in Western Europe, where different labor relations systems are common, frequently find that unions do not depress innovation… An example would be in Denmark, where unions contribute to innovation and competitiveness through the cooperative "flexicurity" model. This model allows employers to hire and fire as needed to adapt to changing market conditions and adopt new technologies quickly, combined with the country’s strong social safety net that provides income security during job transitions, and government-funded training and education programs to help unemployed workers re-enter the workforce.
So people go along to get along and cultures ossify. But every once in a while, alternative perspectives break through and the whole thing crumples, sometimes very quickly. That may be happening now, in America.