I'm rereading @DouthatNYT's "The Decadent Society" and taking notes for a long review I want to write. In the meantime, you can follow this thread for random thoughts and hot takes as I go through it.
Decadence = Economic stagnation, institutional decay, cultural and intellectual exhaustion and repetition at a high level of material prosperity and technological development.
Doesn't necessarily lead to immediate collapse — Rome survived for 400 years after Nero.
Douthat is an American conservative, Catholic, NY Times columnist — ancient and lumbering institutions that are certainly decadent. So while his diagnosis it true for the world he lives in, that's not necessarily true for Westerners outside these institutions.
The antithesis is someone like @balajis, paying pseudonymous Indians on 1729.com crypto rewards for tasks on the way to "immutable money, infinite frontier, eternal life". Or even Rationalists making their own vaccine at home:
Douthat subtly makes the case that the Apollo program was a religious project. The space age was abandoned not for mere technical difficulties but because we lost faith. On first reading I thought the religion stuff is shoehorned, but now I believe it's an important lens.
Ross wonders whether Trump will end decadence in a collapse to authoritarianism, and also tweeted on the first day of the George Floyd riots that this may be the end of decadence. Of course, both were entirely decadent — he should have had the courage of his book's conviction!
The chapter on stagnation covers Fyre Festival, Theranos, and Uber as examples of how much "innovation" is purely fantastical. Maybe that's why Doge is mooning — people want a fantasy that can't be punctured by reality because (in Doge's case) it never pretended to anything real.
A discussion of economic stagnation since the singularity was cancelled in the 1960s, a theory covered in detail by Thiel and Cowen. He talks about the US, Europe, and Japan, and it's interesting to ponder whether the same stagnation would afflict China.
Some reasons proposed by Thiel:
- Low hanging science fruit picked.
- Hyper specialized fields with small groups of experts gatekeeping.
- Education/apprenticeship are ponzi schemes.
- Politics.
Hard to see why China would necessarily escape those once it's done catching up.
"Going from 6% to 70% [high school] graduation rate in three generations had a dramatic effect on productivity... but this kind of change can happen only once."
Haha only if you believe that schools today are actually *educating* their graduates and not just *certifying* them.
Lamentation on the lack of "technological sublime", wonders that united the world in awe like the steamship or moon landing. I think a part of this is the change in the media — if we landed on the moon today the NYT would write about cis white males colonizing it. Awe is uncool.
mRNA vaccines are certainly a sublime technology with vast potential, and the media coverage of them is 5% admiration, 15% hostility (e.g. the brewing IP theft tragedy), and 80% pure bullshit. We're wondering why the FDA doesn't approve them instead of experiencing 𝘄𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿.
Good point that lack of innovation is self-reinforcing. People become bearish on the benefits and bullish on regulation (c.f. nuclear power), frauds and monopolies proliferate, smart people become investment bankers instead of inventors. It's a multi-layered vicious cycle.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
For financial decisions you should think of yourself as a stock with a market price that reflects all your future earning and spending. This number is much more important that your current income or net worth, and yet everyone focuses on the latter because they're legible.
Let's say you're 25, can write a bit and do Excel and deal with corporate culture. This gives you a 80% chance of having a $50k+ job in a given year. If you plan to work for 25 years, this set of intangible assets is worth ~$1,000,000 to you. Your net worth is peanuts next to it.
This means that if you can go to a top MBA or coding camp and double your base salary, you should be willing to take $100k in debt to do it because it will increase your "market cap" by another million at least. You get 10x payoff, or at least 5x if you discount for uncertainty.
"Our culture is sex-positive, so how come sex is so bad/hard/impossible?"
The truth is that sex-positivity, in the sense of talking about the positive aspects of good sex, is incredibly rare. Modern culture(s) is overwhelmingly sex-negative.
Conservatives are sex negative. They talk about sex as something corrupting, dangerous, sinful. Just try to talk to someone who goes on about "family values" about the importance for marriage of good, hot sex, let alone kinky one.
Progressives are sex negative. They talk about sex as harassment, grooming, exploitation. They only distinction they care about is consensual/non-consensual, but "consent" isn't close to covering the entirety of ethics surrounding sex, let alone actual eroticism.
Imagine a classic fantasy setting. Warriors start out formidable but their ceiling is limited. Wizards spend years in a tower or academy just to catch up. But the strongest wizards are much stronger than any warrior, so the strongest wizards rule the land. tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.…
Twist: it turns out that the wizard's magic depends on popular belief in their abilities. If everyone knows a wizard can cast a fireball, it explodes in a blaze. If too many people doubt it, it fizzles out in a puff of smoke. Suddenly, the people begin to doubt the wizards.
As magic begins to weaken, the wizards spend more and more years in the academies with fewer visible results. The more they fail the more people doubt. And so the mightiest wizards on the ruling council devise a strategy: they must eliminate the people's doubt to retain power.
So we mock and shame guys who say they WON'T defend women and now we've also decided to mock and shame guys who say they WILL defend women so... uh... I'm sure this Twitter meme is making women more safe in some complex way my limited guy brain can't comprehend yet.
So if I actually shared some stories of me and my friends stopping "our mates" from harassing girls I'll have a bunch of men telling me I'm a white knight simp and a bunch of women telling me I'm a lying keyboard-warrior hypocrite. So I won't. And my friends won't.
And then everyone wonders why it's not a common norm that men should be responsible for policing their fellows, when any men who says anything at all publicly on the subject get shit from all sides.
I got three smart friends on a call to try and make sense of the $GME situation. This thread is my current best model.
TL;DR: The longs are playing the short game, the shorts are playing the long game.
Who's long GME? Some combination of WSBers, FOMOists, and hedge funds. The WSBers have no fear and will sell at $0.01 or on the moon when the shorts are gone. FOMOists may panic if GME slides but they're probably a small fraction. Funds will try to get on top and may have hedges.
The interesting Q is who's short. Someone who's short for 50% of their bankroll is vulnerable to a squeeze, but at 2% they can hold on forever. Current borrowing fee is 31% APR, or 0.1% a day. It's not that bad. So if the shorts are distributed they can wait it out.