r/SneerClub archives
newest
bestest
longest
Why the solution that exists only in my head does not solve the problem that exists only in my head? (https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/mxubc5/why_the_solution_that_exists_only_in_my_head_does/)
68

https://www.econlib.org/market-forces-vs-leftist-discrimination-a-beckerian-puzzle/

In this masterpiece, the luminary economist Bryan Caplan, who somehow got tenure despite being better known for featuring in comic books than for any publication in a respectable journal, finally summon the courage to point at a question that eludes the explanatory power of even the best models (i.e. the ones in which economists ignore every result produced by any other discipline and refuse to collect data, but start from first principles, ca va sans dire): how can the vicious and endemic discrimination of conservatives persist? We were so sure that the market and profit seeking was the panacea, we told it to any minority ad nauseam: if only you let rich white men people seek profit a little bit more freely, all your problems will disappear! And, obviously, we were right in the case of those groups: life for minority is sweller than ever in the US after all, and all because of some invisible hand! However, the mechanism that did so much to solve any problem of PoCs, LGBTQ+ and women is now failing the conservatives grimly reaped by cancel culture, #MeToo, and all those dirty tricks used by cultural marxists! How is that possible?

A long and, unless you have the same sort of intellectual coprofily I have, frankly boring list of possible explanation is given. None of these convinces Caplan, so I suppose that urgent and fascinanting questions such as ” Where, though, are the firms where Republicans don’t look over their shoulders before they say they’re pro-life?  Where are the firms where moderates don’t look over their shoulders before they declare that affirmative action has already gone far enough?  Where are the firms where males don’t look over their shoulders before they express solidarity with the latest target of #MeToo? ” will have to wait before we can answer them.

I still think that “cultural Marxist” deserves some sort of prize for, you know, just shamelessly pushing syllables together. Fuck is that supposed to mean, anyway? “Oh, my family were all religiously Marxist back in the old country, but now it’s mostly about the culture, like leaving wine out for Elijah on Labour Day.”

>Fuck is that supposed to mean, anyway? I couldn't possibly (((imagine))).
That seems like an odd take given the extremely large percentage of rationalists (and particularly rationalist leadership) who are themselves Jewish? I'll grant they're racist AF, but antisemitic? Half of them literally think Ashkenazim are the master race.
"Cultural Marxism" is [an antisemitic conspiracy theory](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory). I can't imagine Bryan Caplan is too ignorant to know that, although I assume plenty of rationalists ~~just aren't invested in history or thinking things through~~ are "high-decouplers."
when "cultural bolshevism" has too much of that old-timey feeling (and you don't know what Marxism is anyways)
[deleted]
It is almost like new languages are forming. Do you speak right wing american, or normal american english?
> Fuck is that supposed to mean, anyway? Jews.
I think that it's not supposed to make sense, it's just supposed to a) please literal, stormfront-like Nazi who used that word for decades, a good old fashioned dog whistle b) allow bigots who like to think of themselves as "classically liberal" to row against individual rights without making the inconsistency blatant: "look, I am all for individualism, but the call for individual rights for trans people is actually Marxism, so I can fuck over them"
It's a modern rebranding of Cultural Bolshevism, which was literally a classic Nazi dogwhistle.

The comments are great.

At some time that I think that the “cancel culture” is a double victory for the left (specially the ant-racist, feminist, etc. left).

First, for the obvious reason – because, apparently, it is the left that is cancelling, and the it is right that is been canceled

But also for a more deep reason – the existence of “cancel culture” is, in itself, an evidence that the markets could be, conditioned by the social environment, systematically biased against some groups (in these case, the conservatives); and, after we accept that, the logical conclusion is that famous “female wage gap” or “white privilege” are indeed plausible.

“Fine… I guess systemic discrimination could exist, but only because those damn green hairs on Twitter keep laughing at us”

"Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes? Con: LOL no...no not those views Me: So....deregulation? Con: Haha no not those views either Me: Which views, exactly? Con: Oh, you know the ones". E: reminds me of a yt gamer dude who was also complaining about he was worried he would be cancelled (big red flag btw, there are other indications he might be a big far right), and complained about being cancelled in the past. Looked it up, he was cancelled for cheating and ragequitting professional gaming matches. Which is a pretty good reason to not watch the gamer anymore.

… these days younger doctors seem like typical left-wing elites. Engineers, similarly, seem more politically apathetic than right-wing.

With these kinds of uninformed stereotypes pulled out of his ass insightful, data-supported analyses, it’s hard to see how he could possibly reach wrong conclusions.

I mean, that's the secret sauce of Rationalism/libertarianism: telling people that the half-backed ideas that roam in their brain are completely correct with authoritative voice and/or just-so stories. It is impressive how much these "free thinkers" will gladly eat everything from the hands of somebody with a PhD telling them nothing they did not have heard elsewhere, but said by a PhD!

Whoo boy! Those comments on there. So many people just talking out of their asses.

The left-wing, feminist HR conspiracy must keep them up at night. Can you imagine how horrific it must be for a conservative to read an email from their CEO that talks about Earth Day, or even, shudder, expresses support for Black Lives Matter? That’s clearly 1984 or white genocide (/s).

Trump’s America is low-economic-output America. If there is a conspiracy it is to keep those parts of the country uneducated and afraid.

My dad tried to pull similar shit recently, and I immediately shut him down. "Oh, it's so hard to be a middle-class aging white guy in publishing, I really feel like my race and gender are making it harder for me" "Hey dad, how many publishing companies are run by straight white aging men? It's only like almost all of them, right?"

Clearly, liberals are just better at business than conservatives (statistically!) whether due to a correlated in born trait or as a consequence of superior education.

how did the author not realize this??

I am not racist! My interest for PBD (Political Bio-Diversity) comes uniquely from a deep attachment to free speech and pursuit of the truth! Sure, maybe it is false that liberals are inherently smarter and better, but how do we know unless we start to seriously ask the question? Your discomfort is not a good reason to shut down Science!

Rest assured, whatever he settles on as the answer, it will be sure to cast conservatives as hapless victims of liberals’ coldly self-interested quest for power.

I mean, that’s what his audience wants to hear at least. Nothing soothes the libertarian-capitalist’s soul like being assured that progressives are just as psychotically self-interested and egotistical as they are, and that progressive’s talk of morality and philosophy is just virtue-signalling fluff.

Fuck yeah, this is my type of sneer.

better known for featuring in comic books than for any publication in a respectable journal

Caplan made his splash in the econ world over a decade before the comic book. He’s still a think-tanker asshole, but this is more you showing your arse a bit than a quality sneer.

You’ve also missed his point. He’s referring specifically to the insights - such as they are - of Gary Becker, who as he summarises at the top made much of his career discussing how policy design could result in government failure when tackling issues like discrimination. It isn’t about the “invisible hand” of the market, which describes how government non-intervention in the market would permit under ideal conditions the market to produce more optimal results than government interference in the market.

If anything Caplan is arguing the opposite of what you’re saying: he thinks that the reason right wing businesses are (allegedly) simply not interested in either incentivising or de-incentivising discrimination when it comes to their public-facing view on politics. Your interpretation comes out better in his last few paragraphs, but he isn’t making a normative judgement or pearl-clutching about cultural Marxism: He just thinks “right wing firms” have less to gain by publicly espousing a political viewpoint the way a “left wing firm” does.

He’s wrong, but…

Honestly, looking at his publication history, it ranges from "ok nice, as a young postdoc I'd love to be pusblished here! Wait a minute, are you telling me you have been a tenured professor for a decade?!" (*Southern Economic Journal*) to "bulletin of religious cult" (*Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics*) or to "barely disguised punditry" (Cato and the likes). Saying he is more known for the comic book is a bit of stretch for comedy purposes, but it is not that far from the truth I am familiar with the work of Becker, but the specific idea he is referring to here ("there is money to be made in discrimination") is usually the classical argument of the people who oppose the title VII because "muh firms are profit maximizing so why should they discriminate? And even if they discriminate somebody else will take up the arbitrage opportunity and progressively close the gap of opportunities". This obviously ignore (on a theoretical level) the fact that productivity is endogenous (if customers and coworkers dislike somebody, he will be less productive, so even a perfectly unbiased employer will pay him less), that employers are people with biased, that any firm of minimum size will have some problem of incentives and moral hazard, so that the person in charge of hiring might not be the one paying for the inefficiency of discrimination, etc. On the empirical level, *discrimination is still fucking and provably there*, and keep holding up deduction against evidence is the worst vice of the descendants of the grandchildren Austrians, and something that Caplan does *all the time*
My point is you can and should separate your account of Caplan’s argument and his standing (which I think are wrong), and your counter-argument that he misses key facts in that argument (which I don’t object to). And I don’t think you do that.

lmao, eat shit caplan. too stupid to figure out that everyone who has been screaming at him his point of view is self-defeating illiterate garbage was right about him from day one.

Those companies exist where pro-life people can be bold and call a spade a spade.

However, they don’t really exist in big cities. You know, anywhere there might be some diversity.