ray dalio
I recommend making a habit of looking up some background on someone before dedicating a big chunk of time ingesting their ideas. Ray Dalio is a billionaire hedge fund manager. He is somewhere between the 88th and 123rd richest person on Earth, depending on whether you believe Forbes or Bloomberg. He has no formal education or experience in history, sociology, or political science.
For that reason, it is a mistake to rigidly believe that any economic or political system is always best because there will certainly be times when that system is not best for the circumstances at hand
Any 3rd year poli sci student can tell you this.
My study of history has taught me that nothing is forever other than evolution, and within evolution there are cycles that are like tides that come in and go out and that are hard to change or fight against.
Again, it's not that this is wrong, it's just a fairly simple idea, and everything he dresses it up with is made up bullshit. There's no indication he's academically qualified to generate the findings he claims, and the vagueness of his language does not indicate to me someone who has spent much time reading the kind of things he would have to read to know what he claims to know.
Over time they typically evolve from being idealistic intellectuals wanting to change the system to be fairer to brutal revolutionaries bent on winning at all costs.
People are so very predictable.
The periods of civil war are typically very brutal. Typically, early on these wars are forceful and orderly struggles for power, and as the fighting and emotions intensify and the sides do anything to win, the levels of brutality accelerate unexpectedly such that the actual levels of brutality that occur in the Stage 6 civil wars and revolutions would have been considered implausible in Stage 5. The elites and moderates generally flee, are imprisoned, or are killed.
So many generalizations, so few specifics, such broad pronouncements.
When the gaps in wealth and values
there it is again. He got there on wealth inequality (though he won't call it that) but we have to keep pairing it with values for some reason.
These categories are of course imprecise, but once again we won’t let imprecision stand in the way of seeing what we couldn’t see if we insisted on being precise.
I literally guffawed at this. I won't let a thing not being there prevent me from seeing the thing that I imagine to be there!
I chose what I believe are the 29 most significant ones
this is the social science equivalent of saying "I (who am not a doctor) chose the medicine that I think will best cure my disease"
That path requires a “strong peacemaker” who goes out of their way to bring the country together, including reaching out to the other side to involve them in the decision making and reshaping the order in a way that most people agree is fair and works well
Every Democratic President does this, every Republican President refuses. Obama loaded up the ACA with a bunch of Republican amendments to try and get any of them on board and every single one of them still voted against it.
I’m not going to dive into them here
I'm sure.
The biggest risk to democracies is that they produce such fragmented and antagonistic decision making that they can be ineffective, which leads to bad results, which leads to revolutions led by populist autocrats who represent large segments of the population who want to have a strong, capable leader get control of the chaos and make the country work well for them.
Straight out of Putin's handbook.
only have themselves to blame
this is all our own fault, really. we should have voted better.
which allows the population to do pretty much whatever it decides to do
it isn’t necessarily a worse path
for who? Remember that this is a guy who can afford a pretty nice bunker.
When in doubt, get out—if you don’t want to be in a civil war or a war, you should get out while the getting is good.
Yes, have your travel agent coordinate with your housekeeping staff to ensure that all your valuables are properly packed into your private jet.
66% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck.
When everyone has causes that they are fighting for and no one can agree on anything, the system is on the brink of civil war/revolution
Or a D&D game.
When winning becomes the only thing that matters
If it's always about winning for you, you assume it's always about winning for everyone else.
Some people are in this to do the right thing. Occasionally one of them gets elected to something.
If the competing parties are unwilling to try to be reasonable with each other and to make decisions civilly in pursuit of the well-being of the whole, which will require them to give up things that they want and might win in a fight, there will be a sort of civil war that will test the relative powers of the relevant parties.
Find me a reasonable compromise between allowing someone whos gay or trans or black or female from existing fully and freely in society and restricting their rights arbitrarily because of who they are. I'll wait.
Rules and laws work only when they are crystal clear
I have some bad news for him about how laws are written.
had just left government service, we explored what he would do next. I asked him what he was most passionate about. He said, “Of course helping my country.”
He was so passionate about helping his country that he quit his government job?
I’m crazy to speak so openly about controversial things
are there super controversial things in the other parts of the book? I'd much rather read those.
it is dangerous to be a high-profile, vocal person who fights for truth and justice
Superman is invulnerable, I wouldn't sweat it. Unless you were talking about yourself.
This dynamic is impeding free speech since people are afraid to speak up because of how they will be attacked in both traditional and social media by distortions that are meant to bring them down.
Again, who is doing the undermining of the media and who is arguing for transparency, press access, and rights and protections for reporters? He keeps making this argument for the Democratic party but refuses to acknowledge they are largely for the things he says he wants.
Most of the media folks I speak with
Wonder which ones those are?
mainstream media
drink!
A common move among 1930s populists of the left (communists) and of the right (fascists) was to take control of the media and establish “ministers of propaganda” to guide them.
Both Stalin and Hitler were fascists. This is a common thing on the right to equate "communism" with Stalinist Russia. Stalinist Russia was dressed in communism in the same way that Nazi Germany was dressed in socialism. Fascists take over existing organizations, just like they're doing with the Republican party.
Not knowing what is true because of distortions in the media and propaganda increases as people become more polarized, emotional, and politically motivated.
See here's the thing: yes, a lot of what he's talking about is happening but the issue is that he's trying to tie various random elements together based on this framework that he invented in his garage.
Demonizing and scapegoating are a classic symptom and problem that we must keep an eye on
The worst cases of demonizaton in history, in order:
1) Jews in Nazi Germany 2) Chinese in, uh, everywhere? 3) Catholics, of course 4) Rich people
A classic marker in Stage 5
It's a classic marker. I see it in all my Stage 5 cases. Once, I had a Stage 4 walk in my door and I said, baby, you just ain't got it...
In Stage 6, they cease to exist.
First they came for the moderates. And I didn't care because moderates don't exist, as I already pointed out.
More recently, in the United States, the election of Donald Trump in 2016 was a move to populism of the right while the popularity of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez reflects the popularity of populism of the left.
Again this guy is all about equating the left and the right. The oldest, most sad-looking saw in political journalism. Look at what each of these people support and tell me they're the same. Look at their core supporters and tell me they're the same. Show me the studies of how many people will live or die based on the things they propose. There is no comparison.
over irreconcilable differences
different irreconcilable differences than the earlier ones, presumably.
Populism is a political and social phenomenon that appeals to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are not being addressed by the elites.
A definition!
While early in the cycle there is typically more spending of time and money on productive things, later in the cycle time and money go more toward indulgent things (e.g., the finer things, like expensive residences, art, jewelry, and clothes). This begins in Stage 4 when such spending is fashionable, but by Stage 5 it begins to appear grotesque. Often, that decadent spending is debt-financed, which worsens the financial conditions. The change in psychology that typically goes along with these changes is understandable. The haves feel that they have earned their money so they can spend it on luxuries if they like, while the have-nots view such spending at the same time they are suffering as unfair and selfish. Besides increasing resentments, decadent spending (as distinct from saving and investing) reduces productivity.
Ray Dalio is worth $15.4 billion.
History shows and logic dictates that investing well in education at all levels (including job training), infrastructure, and research that yields productive discoveries works very well.
Ok fully agree. But again, we were originally talking about how both parties are extremists, but one party does invest in education, job training, infrastructure, and research on the regular when given power. You'll never guess which one!
An essential ingredient for success is that the debt and money that are created are used to produce productivity gains and favorable returns on investment, rather than just being given away without yielding productivity and income gains.
Giving money away is antithetical to success, got it.
Those who favor policies that are good for the whole—e.g., free trade, globalization, advances in technology that replace people—without thinking about what happens if the whole is not divided in a way that benefits most people are missing the fact that the whole is at risk.
This feels like something I want to agree with, but I don't concede that free trade, globalization, or technology that replaces people are necessarily "good for the whole". But I do agree that people that push those things without considering their distribution impact are pretty dumb!
have-nots
This is such a weird phrase. Like I'm reading Oliver Twist or something.
I see these cycles transpiring in my personal interactions
"My conversation at the grocery store explains why society is going to collapse" is a perfect title for a David Brooks column.
But when the haves realize that they will be taxed to pay for debt service and to reduce the deficits, they typically leave, causing the hollowing-out process.
Rich people don't want to pay taxes, we know.
Those places (cities, states, and countries) that have the largest wealth gaps, the largest debts, and the worst declines in incomes are most likely to have the greatest conflicts. Interestingly, those states and cities in the US that have the highest per capita income and wealth levels tend to be the states and cities that are the most indebted and have the largest wealth gaps—e.g., cities like San Francisco, Chicago, and New York City and states like Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey.
People are moving into cities in huge numbers, and infrastructure investments have been short-changed for decades. Population growth + degrading infrastructure means that things cost more. Metro areas also account for 90% of the economic activity in the United States, so I'd say worth investing in.
That has helped the federal government and those it is trying to help, though it has also cost those who are holding dollars and dollar debt a lot in real purchasing power.
Government spending doesn't drive inflation.
So, at the time of this writing
and for decades preceding it
If these entities that can’t print money have large wealth gaps among their constituents, these moves typically lead to some form of civil war/revolution.
I assume what he's talking about here is runaway inflation which yeah probably would happen anytime there's a political revolution, but again correlation is not causation. We would need to see data here: when is the "start" of the revolution and is that preceded by an inflation spike? He just says this stuff as if that makes it true.
but it leads investors to run out of the money and debt that is being printed
I have read this four times and I don't know what it means. Governments are always tweaking the amount of money in circulation. That is what the Fed does in the US. What is he saying here?
It is out of power
From studying 50-plus civil wars and revolutions, it became clear that the single most reliable leading indicator of civil war or revolution is bankrupt government finances combined with big wealth gaps.
Ok but how though? This is a massive social science research project that would take months or years for an expert in political science and history. As I understand it, they do not teach that in finance or business school. What was your data set? What factors did you consider? What were your proxy variables and what did your regressions show?
Because governments will never let the private sector’s financial problems sink the entire system
Private sector does keep trying though!
The sizes of the gaps in incomes, wealth, and values
There it is! Finally.
But notice how now the gap in "values" is equated with the gaps in income and wealth. Poor people are apparently bereft of values as well as wealth.
many reasons
Still none of them distributional!
The classic toxic mix of forces that brings about big internal conflicts consists of 1) the country and the people in the country (or state or city) being in bad financial shape (e.g., having big debt and non-debt obligations), 2) large income, wealth, and values gaps within that entity, and 3) a severe negative economic shock.
"Values gaps" is doing a lot of work here.
Strangely, no mention of income inequality or any distrubutional issues at all. And of course disorders, civil wars, etc are never caused by something as simple as good old fashioned racism or bigotry. Doesn't seem to be included in the model.
You can see signs of this happening now in a number of countries. Those that have adequate financial conditions (i.e., have incomes that are greater than their expenses and assets that are greater than their liabilities) are in relatively good shape. Those that do not are in relatively bad shape. They want money from the others. The problem is that there are many more who are in bad shape relative to those that are in good shape.
some are good. some are bad. the good ones are better off than the bad ones.
I mean, come on. Never any specifics, citations, details.
when the entity runs out of money and there is typically terrible conflict in the form of revolution or civil war
I don't have the research on hand, but this is a correlation/causation error. Civil wars are not caused by running out of money.
Let's now focus on how the internal conflict dynamic typically works and apply that template to what's happening to internal politics with this excerpt from Chapter Five of Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order.
ok, so to be clear, what we are about to read is not an argument for his entire theoretical framework, just on step in isolation
there is a much higher probability of some type of civil war (including a non-violent one)
the more broadly you define civil war, the easier it is to find one. He repeatedly violates the first rule of research and law: define your terms.
I believe there are now and have always been five big, interrelated forces that drive how domestic and world orders change. They are the 1) the big debt/credit/money cycle, 2) the big internal order/disorder cycle 3) the big external order/disorder cycle, 4) acts of nature (i.e., droughts, floods, and pandemics), and 5) human innovation that leads to advances in technology.
Just noting up-front that this is not a particularly revolutionary or novel concept. Peter Turchin has a much more sophisticated version of it in his book Ages of Discord. Other academics have called it cliodynamics. There are a lot of social historians looking at this stuff.
But that is a subject for another day
is there anything he's not an expert in?
studying history
he has a finance degree and an MBA. I assume he means he's read Jared Diamond.
If things get bad enough, some Americans will flee to other countries and foreigners will choose not to be here
probably not the 66% of people who live paycheck to paycheck, but yeah some people.
hard left
everyone else
hard right
fascists
In the recent past, leading Democrats have also expressed support for rule changes that would swing power their way (i.e., making Puerto Rico and Washington DC states so they could get control of the Senate, adding to the number of Supreme Court justices to get control of it, removing of the filibuster, etc.
Supporting statehood and full citizenship for territories we occupied a century ago might be - and I'm just throwing this out there - the right thing to do. Sorry not sorry that it happens to be good politics.
And the filibuster is a procedural loophole created by segregationists to obstruct civil rights laws, not some sacrosanct constitutional canon.
It's always projection with these guys. They can't imagine someone
there is a higher than 50 percent chance that democracy as we know it won't run smoothly through the election and beyond
My guy, it is not running smoothly NOW. SCOTUS overturned the VRA, states are purging voter rolls, restricting early voting and VBM, not to mention one party is churning out election deniers and installing them as county clerks.
“corrupt” seems to mean what those on the other side of the political divide decide is corrupt
No it still means the same thing: dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.
Why are you trying to make it more ambiguous?
1) what is the definition of corruption, 2) if it is corruption, why don't those who are corrupt get prosecuted and convicted, and 3) if the judicial system and the judges don't make these decisions, how will they be made?
Critics of the Supreme Court or Aileen Cannon have stated very specifically their issues, and they don't get prosecuted because the Supreme Court justices have lifetime appointments and police themselves. And yes, we should be asking if the courts won't police themselves, then who should?
we should pay attention to Maureen Dowd
We should absolutely not pay attention to Maureen Dowd of the NYT.
I urge you to get schooled
does this phrase make me more or less interested in learning from this person? 
fascism is (a dictatorship of the hard right) and what communism really is (a dictatorship of the hard left)
these words have definitions. you don't get to just invent your own.
winning for their constituents at all costs
This is not a principle that anyone on the left or the right is committed to. Again, the parties have different compositions and those coalitions have very nuanced agendas. This is the kind of rhetoric you hear from idiots like Musk who have a third grade understanding of politics.
logical
????
hard right and the hard left
Undefined terms.
differences are becoming too irreconcilable for this to happen
It's true, the difference between "deport 12 million people" and "do not do that" is irreconcilable.
fights against the extremists to bring the country together and makes major reforms to improve the system
My dude, there IS a political party that has a lot of people interested in fighting extremists and making major reforms to improve the system. I'll give you one guess. Hint: they also want to crack down on monopolies and prosecute white collar crime. I'll give you another hint: it's the Democrats.
People like me who had a long shot hope for the emergence of strong middle
Immediately identified yourself as someone who without a grounding in political science. The "middle" basically doesn't exist: it is comprised of a small number of unreliable, low-information voters. Large numbers of people identify as "independent" or "moderate" depending on how you ask the question, but based on their behavior they reliably mimic partisan patterns.