Showing posts with label glenn_loury. Show all posts
Showing posts with label glenn_loury. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 24, 2026

An economic analysis of Epstein's role as an intermediator [Glenn Loury]

Loury has written an article about this: Jeffrey Epstein as Middleman: An Economic Analysis, February 10, 2026.

From the opening:

Economic theory has always been more comfortable analyzing markets than the people who make markets possible. Textbook exchange is clean, synchronous, and explicit: a buyer meets a seller, a price clears supply and demand, and the transaction is complete. Yet much of real economic life proceeds otherwise. Buyers and sellers often do not meet directly. Information is fragmented. Trust is uneven. Transactions are staggered in time. Under such conditions, intermediaries—middlemen, brokers, fixers—emerge not as incidental features of exchange, but as central institutional actors.

The economics literature offers several ways of understanding why. In the theory of search and matching, intermediaries arise because finding a counterparty is costly and uncertain. Buyers and sellers may exist in the same economy but never meet at the same moment. A middleman, by standing ready and cultivating contacts on both sides of the market, increases the effective rate at which trades occur. In canonical models of intermediation, the middleman does not produce the good being traded; he produces access. His profit comes from reducing search frictions and exploiting his position as a node through which others must pass.

Enter, Jeffrey Epstein:

Once such a system is in place, it can become self-reinforcing. Individually, each participant may find it rational to rely on the intermediary. Collectively, the arrangement can be destructive. The intermediary becomes indispensable precisely because he sits at the intersection of multiple relationships, none of which fully sees the whole. No single actor has enough information—or incentive—to dismantle the system. Economics describes this as a norm-based equilibrium: stable, persistent, and resistant to reform, even when widely suspected to be rotten.

It is against this theoretical backdrop that the Epstein scandal acquires its deeper significance. Treated narrowly, it is a story of horrific sexual abuse and criminal failure. Treated analytically, it is also a case study in extreme relational intermediation. Jeffrey Epstein’s economic role was never easy to specify. He was not a conventional financier, nor simply a socialite. His apparent value lay in his position as a connector across domains that ordinarily remain separate: finance, philanthropy, academia, politics, and private life. He brokered access. He made introductions. He hosted, facilitated, and normalized encounters whose purpose was often left conveniently vague.

Here the reporting by DropSite News adds crucial texture. Rather than presenting Epstein as a lone operator, it reconstructs a dense web of interactions sustained over decades: repeated visits to multiple properties, overlapping social circles that included financiers, scientists, politicians, and university administrators, and philanthropic or advisory arrangements whose concrete deliverables were often ill-defined. DropSite documents how Epstein inserted himself into institutional spaces—elite universities, research initiatives, charitable projects—by offering himself as a conduit to donors, prestige, or influence, even when the precise source of his own wealth or authority remained opaque.

There's much more at the link.

Saturday, August 23, 2025

The Bloody Price of Ethno-Nationalism | Glenny Loury, Daniel Bessner & Derek Davison

The whole discussion is fascinating. Glenn Loury is a more-or-less centrist with proclivities toward both Left and Right while Bessner, his main interlocutor, is staunchly Left. They make for interesting conversation partners.

While the whole conversation is worthwhile, I was struck by their remarks about Israel as a nation-state at 53:34. The central point is that the modern nation-state was ethnically conceived as a state for a single nation (ethnos). Thus the idea of a two state solution for Israel and Palestine runs counter to the founding logic of the modern nation. Now that they've pointed this out, it's obvious. But I hadn't thought of it before.

At one point in the conversation, I forget just where, Bessner mentions what the American nation did with the people they found already living on the continent. That's a complicated story. One impulse, only partially successful, was to wipe them out. Those that weren't wiped out, however, were afforded the opportunity of living on reservations. Those reservations are interesting political constructions. The Indians living on them are full citizens of the United States. But the reservations do have some (small) autonomy, enough to support gambling casinos, for example. It's a peculiar arrangement.

YouTube:

1,499 views Aug 23, 2025
Support The Glenn Show at https://glennloury.substack.com

Go to https://ground.news/glennshow to spot media bias and become a smarter news consumer. Subscribe through my link for 40% off unlimited access this month.

This episode was originally recorded for Danny and Derek's podcast American Prestige and cross posted here. Subscribe to American Prestige at
https://americanprestige.supportingca...

Order Glenn's new book, Self-Censorship, here or where you get your books:

Amazon: https://tinyurl.com/683p6kk3
Barnes & Noble: https://tinyurl.com/4yvz4fta
Bookshop: https://tinyurl.com/44rznxww

0:00 The origins of Self-Censorship
4:11 Black and conservative in Reagan’s America
8:30 The social science hall of fame
12:45 Ground News ad
14:42 Jews, assimilation, and the quantitative revolution
19:53 Human universalism vs. ethno-national particularity
23:39 Historicizing “the Jew”
25:44 Danny: Larry Summers can’t see outside his own neoliberal paradigm
29:47 Are we entering a period of, as Marx wrote, “mutual ruin”?
32:43 Is capitalism leading us toward nuclear war?
39:15 What the Manhattan Institute incident taught Glenn about his own book
44:59 Glenn: “I’m rethinking everything”
48:37 Is the right reverting to a pre-New Deal political paradigm?
53:34 Is Israel a reversion to an Early Modern model of nation-building?
1:00:04 American Jews’s role in Israel’s creation and perpetuation
1:05:01 Why Glenn previously censored himself on Gaza
1:11:27 Glenn: So far, I’m disappointed in Trump

Glenn Loury (Brown University, Hoover Institution, Self-Censorship), Daniel Bessner (University of Washington, American Prestige, Democracy in Exile), and Derek Davison (American Prestige, Foreign Exchanges). Recorded August 6, 2025.

Saturday, April 26, 2025

The Rise of the Woke Right | Glenn Loury & Daniel Bessner

0:00 Intro
1:10 Glenn meets the young Marx
2:32 The new wokeness of the political right
8:30 What is the democratic counterpart of foreign policy and national security run by experts?
17:04 Russia’s motivations: Fear of NATO or imperial ambitions
21:41 Danny: Zelenskyy made a huge misstep in the Oval Office
26:12 Does China have global security ambitions?
35:09 Ending the Middle East’s post-Ottoman redefinition
39:42 Danny: It’s gotta be rough to be Peter Beinart
43:46 Why we don’t need Hitler to explain Trump’s authoritarianism
56:29 Danny: We’ve been in the midst of a constitutional crisis since the 1940s 57:58 Can the nuclear taboo hold?

Glenn Loury (Brown University, Self-Censorship) and Daniel Bessner (University of Washington, American Prestige, Democracy in Exile). Recorded April 19, 2025.

Sunday, November 24, 2024

Trump 47 and the battle for the soul of America

I was happy when Biden dropped out of the race. But why’d it take him so long? And I was pleased to see Harris rake in all the $$$ and do well in the polls, not so much because I liked her as a candidate [meh], but because it indicated that Trump might be defeated. That’s something I very much wanted to happen.

By the time I cast my vote for Harris, however, my doubts were inching ahead of my hopes. When I woke up the next morning to discover that Trump had won, clearly – but, please, don’t blather about a landslide; it was a clean win, both the popular vote and the electoral college, but no more, I was not happy. But I was not surprised.

What next?

The writing’s on the wall: Graffiti

Before I get to Trump’s victory, however, I want to talk about graffiti, perhaps the most significant development in American art in the last century. It started on the streets of New York City and Philadelphia in the late 1960s and early 1970s and two decades later it had made its way across the county and around the world. The people who started it did not go to art schools nor exhibit in galleries. It was born outside the legit art world.

In the summer of 2015 my friend Greg Edgell curated a large graffiti show covering the interior and exterior walls of a Pep Boys building in Jersey City. Forest City had acquired the property and was going to demolish the building to make way for an apartment complex. Greg contacted them and got permission to cover the walls with graffiti; he also talked them into a small budget. Since the building was slated for demolition, we called it The Demolition Exhibition.

Here's a shot of one of the exterior walls [click on photo to enlarge]:

It’s a battle scene depicting characters from the all-American comic strip Peanuts, fractured, crossed over, and messed-up. There’s Charlie Brown’s head in the center, Linus and his blanket at the right edge, and Snoopy’s in the sky in his aviator togs, pretending to be a WWI flying ace. Who’s that dark little creature to the left of Charlie Brown? Looks like Snoopy’s silhouette wandering the battlefield. Call it the soul of America.

People enjoying the show [click on photo to enlarge]:

Demolition in progress [click on photo to enlarge]:

Glenn Loury’s pleased as punch: A working class party

I’ve been watching these guys for years. Glenn Loury’s a distinguised economics professor at Brown and John McWhorter is a linguist at Columbia; he’s also a New York Times columnist. Their political views are complex.

John doesn’t like Trump at all, thinks he’s an idiot (his word), and dismisses him as a standup comedian. I find that a bit harsh, but boy! do I understand it. I don’t think Loury likes Trump either (& I don’t think he voted for him). But he can’t stand Obama, doesn’t like Harris, and is glad Trump won. The two share a disdain for wokeness (as do I).

Why’s Loury glad? Primarily, I believe, because he’s happy to see a working-class party in power. Imagine that, the Republicans are a working-class party! It wasn’t like that when Eisenhower was President. And the Democrats seem to have been captured by (out of touch) coastal elites; JFK’s best and brightest. The times they are changing – perhaps not in the ways Dylan had in mind when first he sang that song – but changing they are. We can’t go back.

Ross Douthat: What about those cabinet picks?

Now we have Trump’s cabinet picks. When that incendiary clown Matt Gaetz got the nod for Attorney General I lost it. Fortunately Trump listed to all the howls, took a deep breath, and decided to ditch him in favor of a woman with substantial legal experience. Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense did not make me happy either. A MAGA apologist for war crimes with no managerial experience, no way! Nor do I want a science-challenged Kennedy as Secretary of Health and Human Services. As for Tulsi Gabbard, I’m OK with her anti-war stance (I was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War) as Director of National Intelligence.

On these lines, I found Ross Douthat recent NYTimes column, Three Theories of the Trump Cabinet, quite interesting. He takes his first theory from Matthew Zeitlin, who sees Trump’s “picks as making up an American version of a European-style coalition government, where small parties join with a bigger party and receive various ministries in exchange for their support.” After taking that out for a spin he offers a view he takes from Yuval Levin: “they’re designed to stoke conflict within the different agencies rather than within the cabinet. [...] Which suggests that what Trump 2.0 is seeking is less the representation of different factions and more just disruption of all kinds.”

Douthat lands on a third interpretation:

That he’s assembling a “team of podcasters,” to use the conservative writer Ben Domenech’s formulation, a cabinet of “communicators, not administrators,” who are picked for their celebrity and their experience as faces and voices [...] In which case it’s a mistake to look too closely at either their ideological commitments or their administrative experience. Trump mostly just wants them as charismatic faces who will be public salespeople for whatever he decides to do.

But the actual administration of the cabinet agencies still needs to happen, and Trump’s policy decisions are still likely to be strongly influenced by the ideas and proposals that are surfaced from below.

Hmmmm. I like it. Independently of what I’d like to see happen, will it accomplish what Trump wants it to accomplish and will it serve the working-class people who voted for him? I don’t know. But I do find it hard to believe that he cares about those Americans, though he may well have convinced himself otherwise.

But it is suggestive, very suggestive.

A tectonic shift?

Loury frequently says we’re witnessing a tectonic shift in American politics. He’s right. The realignment that’s given us a working-class Republican party is important. But there’s also the way the whole process has worked, the social media, the showmanship, the celebrity – and don’t forget Ronald Reagan, who was governor of California before he was President, not to mention Arnie “The Governator” Schwarzenegger. I believe Douthat’s got the same thing in mind with the team of podcasters idea. The whole process, the mechanism, is changing, top-to-bottom and inside out. I don’t know how to conceptualize it, but, yes, it’s happening and it’s tectonic.

* * * * *

Let the graffiti writers have the last word. I took this in FDR skatepark in South Philadelphia in December 2018, beneath the thruway and just north of the naval yard. Built by skateboarders, who have a strong DIY culture, FDR is legendary among skateboarders. Notice the initials “FDR” on the Pabst can. [click on photo to enlarge]

Friday, July 12, 2024

Late Admissions: Lessons from Glenn Loury’s Memoir

From the webpage:

In his stunning new memoir, "Late Admissions: Confessions of a Black Conservative," economist Glenn Loury surveys the stratospheric highs and abysmal lows of a life lived in both the spotlight and the shadows. Loury tells the story of his rise from Chicago’s South Side to Harvard’s Kennedy School, his transformation from working-class factory clerk to elite economic theorist, and his emergence as a fire-breathing conservative public intellectual in Ronald Reagan’s America. Yet Loury’s public positions were often at odds with private behavior—like serial adultery and hard drug use—that threatened to derail his ascent when they were exposed. "Late Admissions" documents a unique man’s struggle to defeat “the enemy within” and explores the entanglements of race and personal identity, reason and religious belief, and tradition and generational conflict—all of which have shaped both his life and American culture since the 1960s.

Please join us for a virtual conversation featuring Glenn Loury, author of "Late Admissions: Confessions of a Black Conservative." Loury, together with Gerald Early of the Washington University of St. Louis and Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Jason Riley, will unpack the larger themes in his compelling memoir and lessons they hold for today.

Friday, July 5, 2024

Life in the billionaire bunkers after the apocalypse

Billionaires Are Prepping for Doomsday | Glenn Loury, Nikita Petrov & Mark Sussman | The Glenn Show

Timestamps:

0:00 Intro
1:28 Biden’s abysmal debate performance
5:01 Billionaire survivalists
12:53 So you made it to your luxury bunker. Now what?
16:22 The postapocalyptic war of all against all
21:29 Is the very existence of billionaires the real doomsday scenario?
26:20 The doomsday tax
32:24 Will the bunker dwellers have a reason to live?
40:39 The problem of government after nuclear holocaust
46:08 The literal bunker mentality
52:08 Was Mark responsible for Sam Bankman-Fried’s downfall? Who can say for sure?

Friday, July 7, 2023

Rethinking Covid: A COVID Dissenter Speaks Out

Glenn Loury & Jay Bhattacharya | The Glenn Show

0:00 The problem with scientific consensus
6:36 Why Jay and his colleagues were branded “fringe epidemiologists”
15:52 Jay: We need to engage with everyone—even those with mistaken beliefs
25:55 Persuading science skeptics
36:04 How do we stop COVID overreach from happening again?
46:38 Jay: Gain-of-function research is impossible to do safely v 55:03 Are some ideas too dangerous to test?
59:30 Jay: Fauci’s blunder was so catastrophic that only history can judge him

Glenn Loury and Jay Battacharya (Stanford, The Illusion of Consensus). Recorded June 23, 2023.

Friday, March 3, 2023

Glenn Loury & Oded Galor talk about cultural and economic growth and the origins of inequality [Progress]

This is a very important discussion.

0:00 Oded's new book, The Journey of Humanity: The Origins of Wealth and Inequality
7:58 How inequality and growth emerged over the course of human history
18:52 Breaking free of a 300,000-year-old stagnation cycle
27:24 Humanity's phase shift into modernity
33:39 Inequality and the formation of institutions
44:18 The deep links between geography and institutions
50:38 Africa, Asia, and the trials of diversity

Glenn Loury and Oded Galor (Brown University, The Journey of Humanity). Recorded January 21, 2023.

Thursday, September 8, 2022

Obama’s Eulogy for Clementa Pinckney 1: The Circle of Grace

Another bump to the top. I wrote several posts on Obama's Eulogy for Clementa Pinckney and gathered them into a working paper, Obama’s Eulogy for Clementa Pinckney: Technics of Power and Grace, along with some other posts on the Black church. This is the first of those posts. I argue that the eulogy exhibits ring-form composition. I conclude with the complete text of the eulogy.
* * * * *
 
Make no mistake, it was a remarkable performance. Nominally a eulogy, very much a eulogy. But also a sermon on the past and future of race relations in America.

Though Rev. Pinckney’s funeral was held on June 26, and I heard of Obama’s eulogy shortly thereafter, and heard about it again, and again, I didn’t bother to watch it until a couple of days ago when I was reflecting on some remarks the economist Glenn Loury and linguist John McWhorter made about the ‘authenticity’ of Obama’s performance. After all, Obama wasn’t raised in the church. And yet he chose to don the vestments of a black preacher, the rhetorical and oratorical style, to deliver his eulogy.

I’ll get around to Loury and McWhorter in a later post. In this one I want to look at the eulogy itself, which pretty much took the form of a sermon addressed to the nation. In my preliminary analysis that sermon has five basic parts as follows:
1. Prologue: Address to his audience, quoting of a passage from the Bible.

2. Phase 1: Moves from the Clementa Pinckney’s life to the significance of the black church in history.

3. Phase 2: The murder itself and presence of God’s grace.

4. Phase 3: Looks to the nation, the role racism has played, and the need to move beyond it.

5. Closing: Amazing Grace.
In the course of this analysis I will be referring to specific paragraphs by number. I have appended the entire text to this post and have numbered the paragraphs. Furthermore, I have uploaded an analytical table I am using as I think about the text. Each paragraph appears in the table along with comments here and there. You may view or download this document here:

* * * * *

I want to begin by quoting from an article Michiko Kakutani published on July 4, Obama’s Eulogy, Which Found Its Place in History:
A draft of the Charleston eulogy was given to the president around 5 p.m. on June 25 and, according to Mr. Keenan, Mr. Obama spent some five hours revising it that evening, not merely jotting notes in the margins, but whipping out the yellow legal pads he likes to write on — only the second time he’s done so for a speech in the last two years. He would rewrite large swaths of the text.

Mr. Obama expanded on a short riff in the draft about the idea of grace, and made it the central theme of the eulogy: the grace family members of the shooting victims embodied in the forgiveness they expressed toward the killer; the grace the city of Charleston and the state of South Carolina manifested in coming together in the wake of the massacre; the grace God bestowed in transforming a tragedy into an occasion for renewal, sorrow into hope.
First, I would love to be able to compare Keenan’s draft with the eulogy that Obama delivered. Did that draft open with “Giving all praise and honor to God”? Did it quote Scripture at the beginning (Hebrews 11:13), as is typical of sermons? That is to say, did Keenan know he was drafting a sermon, or did that happen as Obama devoted five hours and who knows how many pieces of 8.5 by 14 lined yellow paper to the rewrite?
 
Kakutani is quite right to single out grace as the sermon’s theme. But Obama did more than use the word a lot – 35 times by my count. The word didn’t appear until about 1300 words in to this 3000 word sermon, that is, a bit before the mid-point. Roughly speaking, then, we can divide the sermon into two movements, 1) before “grace” and 2) after “grace”. Once we’ve done that the eulogy’s overall logic begins to reveal itself.

Let’s set the prelude and closing aside for a moment. Each is short and both are formulaic. The bulk of the sermon is in between, roughly 2700 words.

Let’s skip to the middle, the part that I’ve called the transition. It starts with paragraph 21:
We do not know whether the killer of Reverend Pinckney and eight others knew all of this history. But he surely sensed the meaning of his violent act. It was an act that drew on a long history of bombs and arson and shots fired at churches, not random, but as a means of control, a way to terrorize and oppress. (Applause.) An act that he imagined would incite fear and recrimination; violence and suspicion. An act that he presumed would deepen divisions that trace back to our nation's original sin.
This is the first time that Dylann Storm Roof is mentioned, but not by name, never by name. Obama establishes that this action was not a personal one. It was not aimed at individuals as individuals. In the killer’s mind it was a symbolic act. He was attacking a group of people and an institution. The paragraph ends by referencing “our nation's original sin”, by which, I assume, Obama meant slavery, but/and of course the phrase “original sin” has deep Biblical resonance.

In paragraph 22 Obama says, “God works in mysterious ways”. Utterly standard, a cliché. But in this context, in this eulogy, we ARE immersed deep in mystery, that of the violent willful senseless deaths of nine people. The next paragraph, 23, has the first use of “grace” and references the “alleged killer” twice.

We are now poised at the mid-point of our trajectory, our oratorical and ritual journey.

Let us skip to paragraph 28, which begins: “As a nation, out of this terrible tragedy, God has visited grace upon us, for he has allowed us to see where we've been blind.” At this point we’ve moved through grace and are now prepared to contemplate that original sin – “allowed us to see where we've been blind” – and what we must set out to do.

What’s astonishing is how Obama got us there. Let us look at the opening of paragraph 23: “He [the alleged killer] didn't know he was being used by God. (Applause.)” Repeat: “He didn't know he was being used by God.”

Didn’t know he was being used by God.

What does that say; what does it imply? Was Dylann Roof’s murderous act willed by God? That’s what Obama’s words can be taken to imply, but it’s not quite what Obama is actually saying. His formulation – “being used by” – distances him and us from that implication – and remember, this is being delivered and comprehended in real time during which there is no time (nor inclination to) reflective second guessing. Roof does something and God takes it up and uses it.

And now we must take it up and use it. That’s what this sermon is about, taking it up and using it.

God works in mysterious ways.

We are deep in the thicket of what I’ve elsewhere termed “myth-logic.” Myth logic is rigorous in its own way, but those ways are not those of science. They are the ways of the heart.

Obama’s job is to say something that will be uplifting, that will allow people to leave the service feeling good about themselves and the world they live in, feeling ready to go out and change things. And he has to do that in the middle of terrible tragedy, when people are grieving for their lost husbands, wives, sons and daughters, relatives and friends, and for their nation. How do you create joy from grief? That’s a job for myth logic, not for rational deduction.

* * * * *

There’s much more to be said about this text, and perhaps I’ll devote another post to analysis. But I’ll close with some remarks about the prelude and the closing.

In the third paragraph Obama quotes Scripture:
"They were still living by faith when they died," Scripture tells us. "They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on Earth."
That sets up a template for the rest of the sermon. We are those who “did not receive the things promised” and yet we are too live by faith until we die, as those nine others did. And it sets up the theme of not being able to see (God’s mysterious ways) that is central to “Amazing Grace”. Divine grace itself is a mystery, coming as it does through no act or will of our own. That word “grace” pervades the second half of the eulogy, which ends in that hymn.

Thus Obama, in choosing his Scripture at the beginning, was also setting us up for the end. It is the song, which everyone sang along with him, that provided the salving grace people sought in that funeral.

* * * * *

Those who have been following New Savanna for awhile know that I have a particular interest a kind of textual symmetry known as ring-composition or ring-form. Such texts unfold as follows:

A, B, C … X … C’, B’, A’

A’ echoes A, B’ echoes B and so forth, with X being structurally central. Is Obama’s eulogy/sermon a ring-form text? Perhaps it is, and perhaps I’ll make an explicit argument in a later post. For now I note only that its structural center is that section where Obama talks about the murder, the only place he does so, and where he first invokes God’s grace.

Friday, June 11, 2021

The complete conversation, Brother Cornel West and Brother Glenn Loury

Bloggingheads.tv
56.9K subscribers

Support the Glenn Show on Substack: www.glennloury.substack.com

0:00 Teodros's new book, Conversations with Cornel West
1:04 Cornel offers spiritual counsel to Glenn
11:06 Between commercialization and democratic decay
20:52 Glenn: “The glass is way more than half-full” for Black Americans
29:26 The centrality of Black music to Black experience
36:03 Cornel’s Chekhovian Christianity
43:40 What system, if any, can replace American capitalism?
56:42 The meaning of 1776

Glenn Loury (Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University), Cornel West (Union Theological Seminary), Teodros Kiros (Berklee College of Music). Recorded May 25, 2021.

Intro by Kevin Zych

Wednesday, June 9, 2021

Glenn Loury and Cornel West! Do I have an "Amen!" brothers and sisters?

Glenn Loury, Cornel West, and Teodros Kiros discuss the global cultural impact of Black Americans and the problems of internalized despair that they still confront.

Friday, March 12, 2021

Daniel Bessner offers an interesting take on cancel culture [in conversation with Glenn Loury]

Bessner's remarks on cancel culture bear comparison with Mark Blyth's various remarks on the rise of reactionary movements all over (e.g. Trumpism, Brexit).

Addendum: This conversation has now been transcribed. You can find the transcription here.

Friday, January 22, 2021

1/6 is an unmistakable sign that the tectonic plates of American society are shifting beneath our feet

00:00 Glenn Show 2.0 and reactions to the storming of the Capitol
06:42 What if it was BLM protesters that stormed the Capitol?
19:57 Glenn: I was wrong about the threat Trump posed to democracy
30:07 The tectonic plates shifting beneath American society and politics
46:12 Glenn and John debate the merits of impeachment

I've set the video to start with the "tectonic plates" segment, but feel free to view it from the beginning. 

Trump's personality is a second order issue...All of this ad hominem about Trump misses the point that large forces are at play in American democracy. The tectonic plates are shifting.
– Glenn Loury

Sunday, December 6, 2020

Glenn Loury & James Heckman discuss parenting, schooling, race, and inequality

As you may know, Glenn Loury is an economist at Brown. Heckman is a Nobel Laureate in economics at the University of Chicago. The first 19 minutes consists of chitchat about Chicago; Glenn grew up there and Heckman's spent most of his life there. It's interesting, but skippable. The rest of the discussion is fascinating:

19:32 How do you improve a human being?
27:29 What "The Bell Curve" missed about human development
36:12 How teaching and empowering parents positively impacts children
44:00 The taboo of family-focused anti-poverty efforts
54:17 What is the source of implicit bias?
1:03:55 James: Politicians on both sides cultivate and exploit racial turmoil

Tuesday, November 3, 2020

Glenn Loury has an excellent discussion about Obama Democrats who went for Trump in 2016

The good stuff, about honor culture, starts at about 19:16 and continues to the end.

Glenn Loury talks with Jon Shields, co-author, with Stephanie Muravchik, of Trump's Democrats, Brookings Institute Press, 2020. From the publisher's blurb:

Looking for answers, Muravchik and Shields lived in three such “flipped” blue communities, finding that these voters still like the Democratic Party, but it’s not the party many of this book’s readers will recognize.

In these communities, some of the most beloved and longest-serving Democratic leaders are themselves Trumpian—grandiose, combative, thin-skinned, nepotistic. Indifferent to ideology, they promise to take care of “their people” by cutting deals—and corners if needed. Stressing loyalty, they often turn to family to fill critical political roles. Trump strikes a familiar figure to these communities, resembling an old-style Democratic boss.

Although Trump’s Democrats have often been pictured as racists, Muravchik and Shields find that their primary political allegiances are to their town or county—not racial identity. They will spend an extra dollar to patronize local businesses, and they think local jobs should go to their neighbors, not “foreigners” from neighboring counties—who are just as likely to be white and native-born.

When these citizens turn their attention to the nation and their place in it, their thinking is informed by their sense of belonging in their town. Thus, “America first” nationalism is largely localism writ large.

For another look at this kind of culture, see the Netflix series The Ranch, which I recently blogged about. In terms of the ranks-theory of long-term cultural evolution that David Hays and I have developed, honor culture is basically a Rank 2 formation. It's not something specifically discussed in anything I've posted here at New Savanna or in anything we've published, either individually or jointly, but this post on political organization and legitimacy should give you a feel; note, in particular, the early remarks on  corruption.

Wednesday, April 15, 2020

Glenn Loury and John McWhorter on Race and the Pandemic


  • John on being at Covid ground zero in Queens 1:07
  • The many racial disparities the pandemic has made plain 3:18
  • But after the disparities are acknowledged, now what? 11:44
  • Differences in life expectancy, health, and diet 19:18
  • Does the pandemic make the case for universal healthcare? 25:38
  • Racial discrimination by health care providers 33:41

Wednesday, October 10, 2018

How do we know that climate change is real and happening now?



Glenn Loury (Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University) discusses climate change with Patrick T. Brown (Stanford University). Early on in the conversation Brown makes that point that climate models are simulations of physical processes, not statistical extensions of past activity into the future. Somewhat later in the conversation Glenn asks how we know climate change is implicated in the year to year changes in climate and weather events. 

Brown responds (c. 40:27):
Essentially the one degree [Celsius] of warming that we've seen so far has not caused any huge signals to emerge from the noise of natural variability when it comes to a lot of these weather events. So when it comes to global average temperature, like I said before, the signal to noise ratio is much larger. We basically see a hockey-stick. We see a situation where global average temperature is far outside the envelope of natural variability.

But when you start getting down to weather events like, say, hurricanes, or landfalling hurricanes, or most intense hurricanes, then you have a situation where there's decade to decade variability and year to year variability. And that variability so far is larger than any climate change signal.

So you don't see any long-term huge trends. But the models that project increases in hurricane activity, they tell us that we shouldn't see the trend yet. So they're not yet being proved wrong. They accurately simulate this year to year variability and this decade to decade variability. They say the signal will emerge from the noise later in the century. But it shouldn't be observable yet necessarily.