Ironically, I think Lichtman is right in his last paragraph about authoritarianism taking hold all over the world, and that it is due to manipulation of information. He just needs to clear up his idea of who is doing most of the manipulating.
" I think Lichtman is right in his last paragraph about authoritarianism taking hold all over the world, ..." I am glad that you qualified your statement with "I think ...". I see no evidence of it gaining in any but the "Western" states (countries) and "I think" that it has nothing to do with disinformation but with the fact that the western economic model is imploding.
”All previous attempts to base money solely on intangibles such as credit or government edict or fiat have ended in inflationary panic and disaster.”
Winston Churchill
(Sorryit is so long, but one needs the complete quote)
“Anyone who has seriously studied applied macroeconomics knows that crony capitalists hate free markets, with all the fairness and transparency that they imply. Competition is a serious drag on enormous profits and introduces significant uncertainty and risk. As soon as the game is underway, successful capitalists are constantly pushing the envelope of the rules, seeking to establish rents, monopolies, unfair advantages, and debt traps to snare the bulk of the players and stifle the profit-eroding tendency of real competition.
This is the basis of all aristocracies, which are merely the institutionalization of privilege. Once they make it they bloody well want to change the rules to hang on to it, and take the risk out of their equation. They foster a culture of two sets of books, two sets of rules, and two systems of justice.
The oligarchs are perfectly willing to destroy the lives of hundreds of millions of citizens across the globe to insure their wealth and power remains intact.
Overtaxed, sometimes homeless, unemployed, hungry, and deprived of any hope of justice, the vast majority of French citizens were not blind. They saw their own children starve while stolen riches bought velvet outfits for children of the elite. When their desperation erupted abruptly into unbridled rage, the French Revolution had arrived.
Matt Taibbi
"When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing; when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favours; when you see that men get rich more easily by graft than by work, and your laws no longer protect you against them, but protect them against you. . . you may know that your society is doomed."
Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged
-
As 'they' become more desperate to retain control of society, so the authoritarianism becomes more blatant and obvious.
It is certainly most obvious in the West, probably because they have been paying lip service to the mantras of "freedom" and "democracy" for so long that it is harder not to notice. But that being said, I don't see these things breaking out in other parts of the world where they formerly didn't exist.
Like all discussions one must first define terms. What do you mean by "freedom" and "democracy"?
The Central Asian countries by all description have both. Not necessarily Westminster "two party" farce of democracy, but like Africa real democracy where everyone has a person to whom they can voice their opinions. More like trade union committee democracy and they can be sure that the person they talk to has the duty and ability to pass the consensus up the line.
Many countries have a problem of "Law and Order" and some have areas like Mexico where bandits are if not in control they are certainly not under control. But then so does New York and London.
The westerners problem is that they conflate government and society with Westminster and treat all other systems as "wrong" and/or evil.
Africa is becoming much more free from authoritarian control, The middle East including Saudi and Iran are becoming more free, no, women and men can't flaunt their bodies and are required to be modest, but the difference to the west is only in degree not in principle.
Watch actual 'walkabout' videos of Iran shopping districts and talk to people who actually have lived and worked in Saudi or Kuwait, look at real life videos of the countries of Africa. No I don't want to live in Kinshasa or Nairobi but those cities have areas which are on a par with most UK-US towns.
I have lived in Africa and Asia and yes the allegiance and control comes primarily through the tribe and tribal chiefs, exactly the same as the US supposed allegiance to being Black or having a vagina. (How could they not vote for a black woman?) But at least the tribes and tribal structure actually supports the lowest levels of society.
Define terms.
The standard of living in the non-west is growing each year that the west does not start a war or revolution.
Lichtman is such a knob. I enjoyed reading this first thing today.
If you don't mind, there were a couple of minor typos in the 10th (or so) paragraph; the one ending in "...even AI." The last line has "too" where it ought to be "to" and a little bit before that, the word "lofical" appears. (the ol' f & g keys definitely too close to each other).
Imagine a dumb ole redneck like me getting the prediction right.
But I am no soothsayer (as Donald Jeffries called me, I'm sure, in jest or maybe even mocking me). That's ok.
Like I said, I am no genius (altho my measured IQ is 126), I am a midwit (and I know it). I am not pretending.
My stance is that it didn't take a genius to predict the POTUS outcome. It was glaringly obvious at every level that they were pushing the citizens to Trump.
Bad models are the result from violation of The Principles of Reasoning called "entropy minimax" in the construction of these models thus being avoidable by by satisfaction of these Principles but in my experience few builders of models of physical systems are aware of the existence of these Principles or their significance. They are described by the late theoretical physicist Ronald Christensen in the seven volume treatise on this topic that is titled "The Entropy Minimax Sourcebook."
Well, monkeys were wrong and Lichtman was wrong. So did Lichtman make a monkey of himself because his model (reality, in his mind) crapped out or because he chose a model that appealed to his desires and hopes, his liberalism, to use a word from the old politics.
I don't know how long Lichtman has been predicting but I would bet he back tested his model (e.g., found 13 questions that matched prior election results) then predicted going forward and got lucky a few times.
Most models (including I suspect this one) are created by deciding on the result that you desire and then finding assumptions and logical arguments to support the required outcome.
Any model that does not do this is discarded and new, different assumptions are found until a set that match the outcome is made.
Any data or facts that do not support the outcome are discarded as "Misinformation" or blatant "Disinformation".
This has been the method for at least 30,000 years.
Ironically, I think Lichtman is right in his last paragraph about authoritarianism taking hold all over the world, and that it is due to manipulation of information. He just needs to clear up his idea of who is doing most of the manipulating.
" I think Lichtman is right in his last paragraph about authoritarianism taking hold all over the world, ..." I am glad that you qualified your statement with "I think ...". I see no evidence of it gaining in any but the "Western" states (countries) and "I think" that it has nothing to do with disinformation but with the fact that the western economic model is imploding.
”All previous attempts to base money solely on intangibles such as credit or government edict or fiat have ended in inflationary panic and disaster.”
Winston Churchill
(Sorryit is so long, but one needs the complete quote)
“Anyone who has seriously studied applied macroeconomics knows that crony capitalists hate free markets, with all the fairness and transparency that they imply. Competition is a serious drag on enormous profits and introduces significant uncertainty and risk. As soon as the game is underway, successful capitalists are constantly pushing the envelope of the rules, seeking to establish rents, monopolies, unfair advantages, and debt traps to snare the bulk of the players and stifle the profit-eroding tendency of real competition.
This is the basis of all aristocracies, which are merely the institutionalization of privilege. Once they make it they bloody well want to change the rules to hang on to it, and take the risk out of their equation. They foster a culture of two sets of books, two sets of rules, and two systems of justice.
The oligarchs are perfectly willing to destroy the lives of hundreds of millions of citizens across the globe to insure their wealth and power remains intact.
Overtaxed, sometimes homeless, unemployed, hungry, and deprived of any hope of justice, the vast majority of French citizens were not blind. They saw their own children starve while stolen riches bought velvet outfits for children of the elite. When their desperation erupted abruptly into unbridled rage, the French Revolution had arrived.
Matt Taibbi
"When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing; when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favours; when you see that men get rich more easily by graft than by work, and your laws no longer protect you against them, but protect them against you. . . you may know that your society is doomed."
Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged
-
As 'they' become more desperate to retain control of society, so the authoritarianism becomes more blatant and obvious.
It is certainly most obvious in the West, probably because they have been paying lip service to the mantras of "freedom" and "democracy" for so long that it is harder not to notice. But that being said, I don't see these things breaking out in other parts of the world where they formerly didn't exist.
Like all discussions one must first define terms. What do you mean by "freedom" and "democracy"?
The Central Asian countries by all description have both. Not necessarily Westminster "two party" farce of democracy, but like Africa real democracy where everyone has a person to whom they can voice their opinions. More like trade union committee democracy and they can be sure that the person they talk to has the duty and ability to pass the consensus up the line.
Many countries have a problem of "Law and Order" and some have areas like Mexico where bandits are if not in control they are certainly not under control. But then so does New York and London.
The westerners problem is that they conflate government and society with Westminster and treat all other systems as "wrong" and/or evil.
Africa is becoming much more free from authoritarian control, The middle East including Saudi and Iran are becoming more free, no, women and men can't flaunt their bodies and are required to be modest, but the difference to the west is only in degree not in principle.
Watch actual 'walkabout' videos of Iran shopping districts and talk to people who actually have lived and worked in Saudi or Kuwait, look at real life videos of the countries of Africa. No I don't want to live in Kinshasa or Nairobi but those cities have areas which are on a par with most UK-US towns.
I have lived in Africa and Asia and yes the allegiance and control comes primarily through the tribe and tribal chiefs, exactly the same as the US supposed allegiance to being Black or having a vagina. (How could they not vote for a black woman?) But at least the tribes and tribal structure actually supports the lowest levels of society.
Define terms.
The standard of living in the non-west is growing each year that the west does not start a war or revolution.
God laughs at "if".
Lichtman is such a knob. I enjoyed reading this first thing today.
If you don't mind, there were a couple of minor typos in the 10th (or so) paragraph; the one ending in "...even AI." The last line has "too" where it ought to be "to" and a little bit before that, the word "lofical" appears. (the ol' f & g keys definitely too close to each other).
In all events, another banger, good sir.
Thank you for clearing up my naïve ideas about models and experts. Bursting bubbles is not just for kids.
With his head so far up his butt, I hope Lichtman, at least, takes the time to perform a self-examination for polyps.
William you are too kind and polite. Tell us how you really feel please.
Imagine a dumb ole redneck like me getting the prediction right.
But I am no soothsayer (as Donald Jeffries called me, I'm sure, in jest or maybe even mocking me). That's ok.
Like I said, I am no genius (altho my measured IQ is 126), I am a midwit (and I know it). I am not pretending.
My stance is that it didn't take a genius to predict the POTUS outcome. It was glaringly obvious at every level that they were pushing the citizens to Trump.
Bad models are the result from violation of The Principles of Reasoning called "entropy minimax" in the construction of these models thus being avoidable by by satisfaction of these Principles but in my experience few builders of models of physical systems are aware of the existence of these Principles or their significance. They are described by the late theoretical physicist Ronald Christensen in the seven volume treatise on this topic that is titled "The Entropy Minimax Sourcebook."
Well, monkeys were wrong and Lichtman was wrong. So did Lichtman make a monkey of himself because his model (reality, in his mind) crapped out or because he chose a model that appealed to his desires and hopes, his liberalism, to use a word from the old politics.
I don't know how long Lichtman has been predicting but I would bet he back tested his model (e.g., found 13 questions that matched prior election results) then predicted going forward and got lucky a few times.
After all, that is how most models are built.
I doubt he tested it at all.
Most models (including I suspect this one) are created by deciding on the result that you desire and then finding assumptions and logical arguments to support the required outcome.
Any model that does not do this is discarded and new, different assumptions are found until a set that match the outcome is made.
Any data or facts that do not support the outcome are discarded as "Misinformation" or blatant "Disinformation".
This has been the method for at least 30,000 years.
"The opposition won." I wonder, perhaps foolishly I admit, because if that debt clock is real, why does it keep spinning in only one direction?