> The information and knowledge that populism severely damages the economy is there and is in the public domain, but the media increasingly acts to hide that from the public or distort that information so that much of the public never gets to understand it.
Billionaires, that own newspapers and TV stations, are not trying to maximize the size of the economy of their countries. They are maximizing the percentage of that economy that they own, even at the cost of its size.
For people at the top of economic power that set as their personal goal to accumulate as much money/power as possible will tweak the system to that goal. All the economic machine of the country gets fine tuned to move money from the general economy to their own pockets.
It would make sense to set some limit to that transfer of wealth so the economy does not suffer the worst outcomes. But once all institutions are focused on wealth transfer, to grow the economy is no more in their goals.
You may have better health care, better technology, and many advantages than a King from the middle ages. But many billionaires want the absolute power of the King even if we go back to the middle ages.
Whats the difference between populism and democracy? Seems like the definition is "when people dont vote the way I like". For example I worry about socialist populism, which is subjective at best or (more practically) just judgemental - democracy means will of the people.
On the other hand, when I look at the recent history of the "elites" in the US, they seem (at a minimum) poorly selected or (more practically) flatly idiotic.
So maybe elitism and populism are just two bad choices?
Right or left wing populism have the same effect. Populism is bad. Period.
The problem lies in that populist governments essentially make irrational decisions just to stay in power (appease the public), which makes most forms of government populist in one form or another and democracy in particular extremely susceptible to it.
This usually manifests as short-term actions with negative long term effects (i.e. taking too much debt, rather than being fiscally sound).
I always wondered if a random-cracy wouldn't be better in the end, just pick anyone that cares to have a position by lottery and have a limited term and basic checks and balances.
At least it statistically makes a mediocre government more likely, not just as an upper bound.
Author danced around it but does Populism lead to reduced economic growth OR is Populism the result of economic issues that causes reduced economic growth?
You can’t rule out that worsening conditions might lead to right-wing populists being elected, which shows up in the GDP afterwards. For instance it’s often said that center-left and center-right parties in Europe have had a “austerity uber alles” policy for years and right-wing populists have been the only electorally effective [1] response.
Calling political newcomers populist is stupid. "Ah this challenger didn't come with the blessing of the DNC and other corporate sponsors, it must be a populist!"
This article is talking about protectionism not populism. It is continuing the trend of forgetting that protectionism was a core Democratic trait until they abandoned the working class and decided to become super cool technocrats.
And now that Trump, of all people, is championing protectionism, the left side is digging its heels in and cursing one of its former values.
I can’t shake the feeling that we are living through a period of growing geopolitical tension. It reminds me of Downton Abbey during the season when everyone senses the approach of World War I. The signs are there, the atmosphere is heavy with anticipation, and yet there is a sense of helplessness. Everyone can see what is coming, but no one seems able to stop it.
We are also going through an economic realignment as major powers prepare, in different ways, for the possibility of conflict. That shift is causing slowdowns, disruptions, and a chain of related effects that are creating significant economic costs around the world.
In the long run, the most important goal is to prevent war. I believe our leaders are focused on deterrence, reducing dependencies, and building contingencies to make a large-scale conflict less likely and long term economic sanctions more likely.
Ever since Russia invaded Ukraine, I have felt this unease deep down. It also helps explain why political parties that would normally prioritize growth are now making decisions that seem to go against that goal.
This is, IMO, a result of being in ecological overshoot. We've financed our growth as a species on the back of a limited supply of energy, and we're gonna go war-mode in order to win the musical chairs game that will happen as constraints on energy slow down upward economic progress. Global debt is an unfillable claim on future prosperity - We've kept kicking the can down the road until it's become feral and grown teeth. Stupid can is trying to bite our feet.
13 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 34.1 ms ] threadBillionaires, that own newspapers and TV stations, are not trying to maximize the size of the economy of their countries. They are maximizing the percentage of that economy that they own, even at the cost of its size.
For people at the top of economic power that set as their personal goal to accumulate as much money/power as possible will tweak the system to that goal. All the economic machine of the country gets fine tuned to move money from the general economy to their own pockets.
It would make sense to set some limit to that transfer of wealth so the economy does not suffer the worst outcomes. But once all institutions are focused on wealth transfer, to grow the economy is no more in their goals.
You may have better health care, better technology, and many advantages than a King from the middle ages. But many billionaires want the absolute power of the King even if we go back to the middle ages.
On the other hand, when I look at the recent history of the "elites" in the US, they seem (at a minimum) poorly selected or (more practically) flatly idiotic.
So maybe elitism and populism are just two bad choices?
The problem lies in that populist governments essentially make irrational decisions just to stay in power (appease the public), which makes most forms of government populist in one form or another and democracy in particular extremely susceptible to it.
This usually manifests as short-term actions with negative long term effects (i.e. taking too much debt, rather than being fiscally sound).
I always wondered if a random-cracy wouldn't be better in the end, just pick anyone that cares to have a position by lottery and have a limited term and basic checks and balances.
At least it statistically makes a mediocre government more likely, not just as an upper bound.
[1] if not effective in policy
This article is talking about protectionism not populism. It is continuing the trend of forgetting that protectionism was a core Democratic trait until they abandoned the working class and decided to become super cool technocrats.
And now that Trump, of all people, is championing protectionism, the left side is digging its heels in and cursing one of its former values.
Even the example of Venezuela blames populism and omits the role of sanctions.
We are also going through an economic realignment as major powers prepare, in different ways, for the possibility of conflict. That shift is causing slowdowns, disruptions, and a chain of related effects that are creating significant economic costs around the world.
In the long run, the most important goal is to prevent war. I believe our leaders are focused on deterrence, reducing dependencies, and building contingencies to make a large-scale conflict less likely and long term economic sanctions more likely.
Ever since Russia invaded Ukraine, I have felt this unease deep down. It also helps explain why political parties that would normally prioritize growth are now making decisions that seem to go against that goal.