…trade and immigration haven’t been so costless for everyone. Those things provide the most benefit to cosmopolitan people who enjoy global travel (and have the means — professional or personal — to do a lot of it), who can hire nannies and landscapers to do work that other people have to do themselves, who have a taste for strange foreign foods, who are not directly competing with immigrants for jobs, because their jobs tend to be highly language-intensive, or rely on U.S.-specific social capital, in a way that’s hard to outsource. Immigration and trade have been worse for people who compete with immigrants, or tradeable goods and services, and who value a particular community and place over novelty.
Elites, then, tend to give themselves too much moral credit for their position, overlooking the fact that it is always easier to be in favor of enhancing the welfare of others if those enhancements do not cost you anything. But I think that’s not the only thing they overlook.
For one thing, they often seem oblivious to the fact that people care more about their role as workers than they do as consumers. If you go from having a relatively high status and secure job to lower status, lower-paid, and less secure work, the psychological stress of worrying about your future and feeling that you have lost ground may not exceed the psychological benefits of cheaper stuff.
Want to get more Trump? That’s how you get more Trump.
They’re not the only ones. Senators should too. As well as members of what passes for the press. None of them seem to understand the roles and responsibilities of the various branches of the federal government.
It’s very clear that this wasn’t caused by overbooking per se, and all of the outraged economic ignorance about it would be astounding if I didn’t see so much economic ignorance in general.
It’s gotten to the point that it’s worse than useless, and has become an active shield against actual scientific inquiry:
…according to you, the NAS committee was right to ignore these official documents because they were not “peer reviewed.” What does it even mean to “peer review” official EPA documents?
You have similarly dismissed the evidence presented of clear and present conflicts of interest between EPA and the NAS board (BEST) that sponsored and organized the review. What does it mean to have evidence of conflicts of interest “peer reviewed”?
Is it a “violation of [NAS] policy” to consider official EPA documents and other documented evidence of potential NAS/EPA wrongdoing in a review of a controversy borne out of acknowledged EPA wrongdoing?
The other chief witnesses (Drs. John Dunn & Stan Young) at the August 24, 2016 public hearing (which was held for the specific purpose of taking our testimony) cited specific EPA documents and peer-reviewed literature in their testimony.
The other two commenters at the hearing (Dr. James Enstrom and Albert Donnay) also cited peer-reviewed literature.
But the NAS committee inexplicably ignored everything we presented. And now you have as well.
Although the NAS has a conflict of interest policy, you have not even bothered to consider my request in the context of this policy. So why have the policy if it will not be applied?
The entire federally funded scientific establishment seems to be rotting at the core.
A long but useful and interesting essay from someone of the left who recognizes the problem and wants to fix it. Unfortunately for her, it’s intrinsic in the ideology, which fails of its own internal contradictions. And everyone should read Haidt’s work.
The underlying truth — the one that many didn’t want to admit to themselves — was the person ultimately responsible for these decisions, the one whose name was on the ticket, hadn’t corrected these problems, all of which had been brought to her attention before primary day. She’d stuck with the plan, and it had cost her.
While the campaign projected a drama-free tenor, it was reminiscent of other moments of frustration.
Months earlier, Hillary Clinton turned her fury on her consultants and campaign aides, blaming them for a failure to focus the media on her platform.
In her ear the whole time, spurring her on to cast blame on others and never admit to anything, was her husband. Neither Clinton could accept the simple fact that Hillary had hamstrung her own campaign and dealt the most serious blow to her own presidential aspirations.
She is a corrupt incompetent hack, who no one would have ever heard of if she hadn’t married Bill Clinton.