They have been adding them in waves. More to be added 'real soon now'. https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSContents.jsp .... oh rats they wont let you go directly to that page. they rediect to top level. click on 'WVS wave 8'.
An enlightening, edifying, and entertaining essay on an otherwise dry topic. Well done. Keep up the good—and important—work. (And I trust my restack of an excerpt from the essay will elicit a chuckle.)
Ivy League degrees, prestigious prizes and honors account for nothing if the supposed experts can't tell the forest from the trees (as in this case of immigration). One lesson is that smarty-pants groupthink tends to mislead, especially for an often sheltered and blinkered elite.
This should actually provide a self-correction through the system failing - but unfortunately those engaging in the mismanagement are also good at insulating themselves from bearing the costs of their policies. "Benefits for me, costs for thee" is the motto of the PMC: immigration costs/benefit split is the canonical example of this.
"The trouble with the response of mainstream economists is that they start with their Theory, use it to select what evidence they will pay attention to, and proceed from there. A much better approach is to start with history and decide which bits of Theory might be helpful in identifying and understanding the patterns we see."
So that is how you do it!! :-) But of course your above comment is only half right, as later you also add the study of evolution and evolutionary psychology to the mix. "The social is derived from the biological" or words to that effect.
I suppose as we (really you) analyze history in both the breadth and depth that you seem to have achieved (mastered?), we do see the rhyming and semi-repeating commonly remarked upon, mostly driven by our "innate" psychological proclivities.
This presents the dynamic between the biological evolution of homo sapiens with our particular mix of evolved psychology, often (but not always) in support of cooperation, vs. the evolution of cultures that disturb and distort the nature of that sociality and cooperation, especially the ingroup vs outgroup dynamic.
It appears that the Anywhere's who should know better have failed to observe the balance necessary between expanding trust to "selected" outgroups and continuing to support their respective ingroup. But you would think that the "economists" would at least recognize the economic and prosperity distinctions observable in, and achieved by, various cultures. Maybe just compare the number of automobiles per capita vs. the number of hospitals or doctors per capita?
"There is no systematic difference between politicians and voters on economic issues" I disagree - although the amplitude is different there is a clear lean toward state-ism and redistributive policies in that middle graph.
I also think that Lorenzo is overemphasizing the economic justifications for errant immigration on the left. It is clear that there is a heavy element of anticolonial "revanchism" which drives pro-mass migration support - calls-to-growth are likely to be post facto rationalisations to provide a defensible rationale. Their motive is positively hostile rather than merely a good faith mistake about economics.
On the right there are also nefarious motives such as artificial stimulation of consumer demand to provide reportable growth (hiding per capita contraction) while driving the asset bubble ever higher, hence postponing the inevitable correction till the "apres nous" part of the deluge.
Regarding conventional center-right politics: the problem with it is that it merely wags a finger at the latest outrageous left-wing initiatives. Yet once the left succeeds in implementing them, those initiatives instantly become the new status quo - the new baseline that conservatives feel compelled to defend. The left then moves on to the next outrage it wants to normalize, and the center-right simply shifts focus to opposing *that* one.
Center-right politics is therefore essentially a politics of managed, slowed defeat. Center-right conservatives still want to be percieved as "good" and "smart", and are terrified of being called any kind of -phobe or -ist; the moment the accusation lands, they apologize, explain themselves, backpedal, and fold.
By contrast, populism - from *populus*, the people - actually represents a more authentic form of representative democracy. This stands in opposition to what the left and woke-infiltrated moralizing bureaucracy like to call “our democracy” or the “rules-based order” (their rules, of course).
On the point about left and center right politicians listening to economists about immigration - I rather see it as other way around - the immigrant groups, like Jews for example, but also a number of others, were lobbying for their group interests since early 1900s. Succeeding in inflaming WASPs WEIRD guilt and eventually their self-destruction. It is akin to religious zeitgeist on the left. In the US elite institutions, a large proportion of professors, students, postdocs are from abroad - Anywheres of Anywheres - and they want ability to move to and from EU or US or anywhere else, and have no allegiance whatsoever to the local plebs and prols. The economists are stewing in the same crock, and know what writing would be met with approval - and pass a peer review. Here is another of Paul Krugman's inanities, for example: https://substack.com/@developmentalism/note/c-223646718
“The trouble with the response of mainstream economists is that they start with their Theory, use it to select what evidence they will pay attention to, and proceed from there.”
Amen. Neo-classical economics is a religion, not a science. If you’ve ever been unfortunate enough to attend an undergraduate economics course, you’ll know that even the most basic questions about the source of money, the role of taxation, or why sovereign governments need to borrow from the private sector are avoided rather than answers. Honestly, ChatGPT is a more honest and reliable source of economic education than Australia’s universities.
Very interesting read - certain countries are conspicuous in their absence from the cultural map.
They have been adding them in waves. More to be added 'real soon now'. https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSContents.jsp .... oh rats they wont let you go directly to that page. they rediect to top level. click on 'WVS wave 8'.
Perhaps choices aren’t mistakes they are choices, and some have chosen against us.
Tyrants prefer foreigners since the ancients , Aristotle wrote so.
Our tyrants are weak, their feral pets aren’t strong enough without the traitors license.
An enlightening, edifying, and entertaining essay on an otherwise dry topic. Well done. Keep up the good—and important—work. (And I trust my restack of an excerpt from the essay will elicit a chuckle.)
Ivy League degrees, prestigious prizes and honors account for nothing if the supposed experts can't tell the forest from the trees (as in this case of immigration). One lesson is that smarty-pants groupthink tends to mislead, especially for an often sheltered and blinkered elite.
This should actually provide a self-correction through the system failing - but unfortunately those engaging in the mismanagement are also good at insulating themselves from bearing the costs of their policies. "Benefits for me, costs for thee" is the motto of the PMC: immigration costs/benefit split is the canonical example of this.
And it is in just who bears the costs and pays the price which is the tell. It isn’t the PMC.
"The trouble with the response of mainstream economists is that they start with their Theory, use it to select what evidence they will pay attention to, and proceed from there. A much better approach is to start with history and decide which bits of Theory might be helpful in identifying and understanding the patterns we see."
So that is how you do it!! :-) But of course your above comment is only half right, as later you also add the study of evolution and evolutionary psychology to the mix. "The social is derived from the biological" or words to that effect.
I suppose as we (really you) analyze history in both the breadth and depth that you seem to have achieved (mastered?), we do see the rhyming and semi-repeating commonly remarked upon, mostly driven by our "innate" psychological proclivities.
This presents the dynamic between the biological evolution of homo sapiens with our particular mix of evolved psychology, often (but not always) in support of cooperation, vs. the evolution of cultures that disturb and distort the nature of that sociality and cooperation, especially the ingroup vs outgroup dynamic.
It appears that the Anywhere's who should know better have failed to observe the balance necessary between expanding trust to "selected" outgroups and continuing to support their respective ingroup. But you would think that the "economists" would at least recognize the economic and prosperity distinctions observable in, and achieved by, various cultures. Maybe just compare the number of automobiles per capita vs. the number of hospitals or doctors per capita?
"There is no systematic difference between politicians and voters on economic issues" I disagree - although the amplitude is different there is a clear lean toward state-ism and redistributive policies in that middle graph.
I also think that Lorenzo is overemphasizing the economic justifications for errant immigration on the left. It is clear that there is a heavy element of anticolonial "revanchism" which drives pro-mass migration support - calls-to-growth are likely to be post facto rationalisations to provide a defensible rationale. Their motive is positively hostile rather than merely a good faith mistake about economics.
On the right there are also nefarious motives such as artificial stimulation of consumer demand to provide reportable growth (hiding per capita contraction) while driving the asset bubble ever higher, hence postponing the inevitable correction till the "apres nous" part of the deluge.
Incisive as always. Just a couple of clips to illustrate:
https://x.com/theblaze/status/2032097212331704476
https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/2032080033188077577?s=20
Regarding conventional center-right politics: the problem with it is that it merely wags a finger at the latest outrageous left-wing initiatives. Yet once the left succeeds in implementing them, those initiatives instantly become the new status quo - the new baseline that conservatives feel compelled to defend. The left then moves on to the next outrage it wants to normalize, and the center-right simply shifts focus to opposing *that* one.
Center-right politics is therefore essentially a politics of managed, slowed defeat. Center-right conservatives still want to be percieved as "good" and "smart", and are terrified of being called any kind of -phobe or -ist; the moment the accusation lands, they apologize, explain themselves, backpedal, and fold.
By contrast, populism - from *populus*, the people - actually represents a more authentic form of representative democracy. This stands in opposition to what the left and woke-infiltrated moralizing bureaucracy like to call “our democracy” or the “rules-based order” (their rules, of course).
On the point about left and center right politicians listening to economists about immigration - I rather see it as other way around - the immigrant groups, like Jews for example, but also a number of others, were lobbying for their group interests since early 1900s. Succeeding in inflaming WASPs WEIRD guilt and eventually their self-destruction. It is akin to religious zeitgeist on the left. In the US elite institutions, a large proportion of professors, students, postdocs are from abroad - Anywheres of Anywheres - and they want ability to move to and from EU or US or anywhere else, and have no allegiance whatsoever to the local plebs and prols. The economists are stewing in the same crock, and know what writing would be met with approval - and pass a peer review. Here is another of Paul Krugman's inanities, for example: https://substack.com/@developmentalism/note/c-223646718
https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/europe-v-america-whos-really-winning
And regarding the graphs in Krugman above - there is more wrong than just ideology:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-187371804
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-09-16/draghi-warns-about-eu-inaction-a-year-after-report
Oh, yes, confirmation on economists vs other academics: diminishing view diversity https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11186-026-09690-2
TLDR
“The trouble with the response of mainstream economists is that they start with their Theory, use it to select what evidence they will pay attention to, and proceed from there.”
Amen. Neo-classical economics is a religion, not a science. If you’ve ever been unfortunate enough to attend an undergraduate economics course, you’ll know that even the most basic questions about the source of money, the role of taxation, or why sovereign governments need to borrow from the private sector are avoided rather than answers. Honestly, ChatGPT is a more honest and reliable source of economic education than Australia’s universities.