Nov
15
2024

Some Days You Just Have to Say "Wow."

Also acceptable: "Whoa." "Yikes." "Holy         !" (Fill in the blank as desired.)

But I would imagine some people are saying "Uh-oh."

The video's creator—one guy—says it took him "2-3 hours to do the whole thing" with AI assistance. Something to think about while you watch the hundreds of names roll by in the credits at the end of Hollywood movies. What career advice would you give to those people?

Also of note:

  • Choose the form of the Destructor. Roger Pielke Jr. takes a look at a report commissioned by Your Federal Government: Global Catastrophic Risk Assessment. There are classes of catastrophes:

    • The term ‘‘existential risk’’ means the potential for an outcome that would result in human extinction.

    • The term ‘‘global catastrophic risk’’ means the risk of events or incidents consequential enough to significantly harm or set back human civilization at the global scale.

    • The term ‘‘global catastrophic and existential threats’’ means threats that with varying likelihood may produce consequences severe enough to result in systemic failure or destruction of critical infrastructure or significant harm to human civilization.

    And here's Pielke's summary of how the report classifies six possible future threats:

    None of the threats are something to ignore, but let's have some proportion. And also some R&D. Ask the dinosaurs how they feel about asteroid and comet impacts… oh, wait, you can't, they're all dead.

  • A proposal unlikely to fly in Trump Part II. Nevertheless, one of Reason's modest proposals for shrinking government, from Fiona Harrigan: Abolish ICE.

    Federal agencies created in times of crisis are rarely well thought out, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is no exception. ICE's parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, was created in 2002 in reaction to the previous year's September 11 attacks. The federal body tasked with handling all things national security was empowered, via ICE, to target and deport the country's largely peaceful population of undocumented immigrants—and ICE has operated as if those missions are two sides of the same coin.

    But (given recent headlines) the Federalist's John Daniel Davidson manages to outdo Ms. Harrigan: Trump Shouldn’t Hire Kristi Noem For DHS. He Should Abolish It. He doesn't care for Noem, thanks to her transgender waffling, but:

    All that said, the debate over whether Noem or someone else should run DHS is missing the forest for the trees. No one should run DHS because the entire department should be abolished. Trump rightly pledged to abolish the Department of Education in part because it’s been a failure. Well, not only has the Department of Homeland Security been a failure, it’s been worse than a failure. DHS was created after 9/11 for the explicit purpose of making Americans safe from foreign terrorist attacks, but it has turned out to be an instrument of domestic tyranny, a giant panopticon of surveillance trained on American citizens that serves no purpose except to censor, spy, and propagandize the very people it was meant to protect.

    More abolition proposals in the pipeline. Stay tuned.

  • It was a very good year. Nate Silver's capsule review of 2024: It's 2004 all over again. Specifically, Silver lists ten reasons Trump II will get lousy reviews. Here are his first four:

    • Most incumbents are unpopular these days, especially in their second terms. The incumbent party has now lost three presidential elections in a row.

    • According to the national exit poll, Trump was elected with a tepid 48 percent favorability rating. However, he actually won 9 percent of voters who had an unfavorable view of him. These people may have seen Trump as a superior alternative to Harris but will be less tolerant now that he has no more elections to run in. In the same poll, 44 percent of voters have a very unfavorable view of Trump, so the ceiling on his popularity is likely to be fairly capped.

    • Trump’s most likely successor, vice president-elect JD Vance, is also unpopular.

    • Trump’s plan to enact tariffs may significantly increase inflation, which we know voters are highly sensitive to.

    Silver doesn't mention how likely Trump is to shoot himself in the foot with stupid cabinet picks. Turns out the probability of that is 100%. (More on that coming up tomorrow.)

  • Hope Elon and Vivek are paying attention. Chris Edwards also lists ten things, specifically: Ten Spending Cuts for President Trump. Like we did for Silver, we'll list his top four:

    1. K‑12 public school subsidies. President George W. Bush favored federal subsidies and top-down rules for the nation’s K‑12 schools. That approach failed, and Republicans now know that the future of K‑12 is state-driven school choice. The pandemic-era public school shutdowns bolstered the case for choice. The time is ripe to zero-out federal aid for public schools to save more than $30 billion a year.
    2. Urban transit subsidies. Many urban rail systems attract few riders and cost far more than promised. Locally funded bus systems are a more efficient solution for moderate-income commuters. Trump should zero out $20 billion a year in federal subsidies for urban transit.
    3. Foreign aid. The federal budget includes $47 billion for international aid programs in 2024. There is a lot of waste in foreign aid that should be cut. Poor countries grow their economies by market-based reforms, not by aid.
    4. Green subsidies. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 is costing the budget about $100 billion a year in green energy tax breaks and subsidies. The expected cost of the bill has ballooned since it passed, and we are finding out that wind power, solar power, lithium batteries, and electric vehicles themselves cause environmental harm.

    And I recommend you click over for cuts 5-10.

  • My bet is the opportunity will be wasted. But Veronique de Rugy outlines it anyway: The GOP's Gigantic Opportunity.

    Donald Trump won the election. The House and Senate are in Republican hands. That means the GOP now owns the debt and its consequences. This responsibility, while too much for past politicians, presents the opportunity of a lifetime: namely, to be the ones who put the government back on fiscal track and, among other things, save entitlement programs from long-term disaster.

    As a reminder, our debt is huge. It's the size of the annual economy and is set to reach at least 166% of GDP in 30 years. Interest rates are high and have driven interest payments on that debt to levels not seen in a long time. These payments will eat up 20% of government revenue next year. If we exclude revenue earmarked for Social Security and, hence, already committed, that number is over 27%. It grows going forward and may even explode if interest rates end up higher than projected.

    This isn't just a government problem; it's a you-and-me problem. A large body of literature shows that rising debt leads to higher interest rates and slows economic growth. The indebtedness crowds out private investment, reduces the ability of businesses to expand, innovate and hire, and ultimately harms the very people policymakers aim to protect.

    I hope we'll eventually muddle through this, as we've done in the past. But it will be painful.