The Onrushing Collapse Of Shadow & Regional Banking (4-3-23)

01:00 FT: Shadow banks could yet cause trouble, https://www.ft.com/content/c6406773-087e-4fde-81af-28d41dcfe660
04:00 FT: US regional banks reduced cash buffers ahead of run on deposits, https://www.ft.com/content/89994a64-42af-4549-b915-faa417009f9f
18:00 Prager: Ends justify the means, https://www.youtube.com/@thedennispragershow2017
21:00 Stephen J James: Talking about Luke Ford with Claire Khaw, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWJB3YRY9dU
26:00 Tucker: In the Alvin Bragg-George Soros justice system, criminals are a protected class
32:00 CNN has lost 60% of its viewers since Trump left office
36:00 How come politicians didn’t tell George Floyd protesters to control themselves? Only Trump supporters?
39:00 NYTimes: Trump’s Prosecution Has Set a Dangerous Precedent, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/01/opinion/trump-prosecution-precedent.html
41:00 NYT: The Solution to Israel’s Crisis, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/31/opinion/israel-protests-united-states-constitution.html
45:00 WSJ: U.S. Research Scientists Are Blind to China’s Threat: Eager for collaboration, the NIH and NIAID won’t acknowledge concerns about national security, https://www.wsj.com/articles/research-scientists-cant-be-trusted-with-national-security-biosecurity-energy-department-nih-china-gene-editing-wuhan-covid-efa30391
52:00 Rising oil prices
56:00 Wignats vs Jews
1:08:50 John Fetterman’s depression
1:11:00 Media ignore black homicide
1:20:00 WSJ: The Cost of Biden’s ‘Democracy’ Fixation, https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cost-of-bidens-democracy-fixation-autocracy-summit-freedom-house-ideology-foreign-policy-middle-east-86638fc5
1:42:00 Luke: 90% chance that Biden will beat Trump in 2024

Posted in America | Comments Off on The Onrushing Collapse Of Shadow & Regional Banking (4-3-23)

Examining Hero Systems & Conservative Claims Of Cultural Oppression (4-2-23)

01:00 Do people with a 70 IQ have a hero system?
02:50 Rony Guldmann’s hero system
06:00 Typical right-wing American hero systems
07:30 Hero systems of the Left
15:00 Moving will change your hero system
18:00 Orthodox Judaism as a hero system
36:00 Rony’s memoir: The Star Chamber of Stanford: On the Secret Trial and Invisible Persecution of a Stanford Law Fellow, https://readersfavorite.com/book-review/the-star-chamber-of-stanford
38:30 The Sam Bankman-Fried connection to Rony’s memoir, https://ronyguldmann.com/faq/
40:00 Mark Latham refuses to apologise for homophobic tweet, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/apr/01/nsw-environment-minister-renews-calls-for-mark-latham-to-apologise-over-unacceptable-tweet
41:00 Mark Latham’s tweet, https://twitter.com/Wahya77/status/1641277909263609856
59:00 The more individuated you are, the weaker
1:16:00 Rony wishes he was more captivated by the news
1:20:00 How does living in a multicultural society affect the intensity of one’s hero system?

Posted in America | Comments Off on Examining Hero Systems & Conservative Claims Of Cultural Oppression (4-2-23)

Why I No Longer Listen To Dennis Prager (4-2-23)

01:00 Dennis Prager on the indictment, https://www.youtube.com/@thedennispragershow2017
05:00 Trump ceded the high ground on president indictments, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/trump-ceded-the-moral-high-ground-on-presidential-indictments-long-ago/ar-AA19mkUE
30:00 Like Many Right-Wing Pundits, Dennis Prager Has Been Consistently Awful With Regard To Covid, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=142220
45:00 William Barr on the Trump indictment
50:00 Pigger calls in with remonstrance for Luke
1:29:00 Elliott Blatt calls in, spectacle vs testicle
1:40:00 Does livestreaming enhance or detract from the host’s life?
1:43:00 Virtually You: The Dangerous Powers of the E-Personality, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=121464
1:53:00 EB: Luke goes out of his way to alienate his audience
2:22:00 Most people shouldn’t speak out on politics or anything controversial

Posted in Dennis Prager | Comments Off on Why I No Longer Listen To Dennis Prager (4-2-23)

Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust: A Narrative and Meta-Analytical Review

Here are some highlights from this 2020 paper in the Annual Review of Political Science:


* Does ethnic diversity erode social trust? Continued immigration and corresponding growing ethnic diversity have prompted this essential question for modern societies, but few clear answers have been reached in the sprawling literature. This article reviews the literature on the relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust through a narrative review and a meta-analysis of 1,001 estimates from 87 studies.

* Does ethnic diversity erode social trust? This question is the quintessential derivative of the wider debate about whether the positive interpersonal ties characteristic of socially cohesive societies can be preserved when societies’ inhabitants to a decreasing extent share a common ethnic background. The answer to this question is crucial for understanding the potential challenges that developed societies are facing from increasing ethnic diversity stemming from immigration and refugee settlement. It also provides a potential explanation for the challenges to governance in countries that have historically been ethnically heterogeneous (Alesina et al. 1999, Alesina & Glaeser 2004). Further, because social trust stimulates cooperation between individuals (Gächter
et al. 2004), the link between ethnic diversity and trust provides a plausible explanation for why ethnic diversity has been found to inhibit the enactment of redistributive welfare policies…

* One account posits that mere exposure to people of different ethnic background erodes social trust (Dinesen & Sønderskov 2015). This approach does not impose any assumptions regarding the mode or form of interaction between people in a given context. It is simply “being around” interethnic others that is proposed to influence trust, although this influence might be accentuated or mitigated by specific forms of interactions (e.g., competition or positive contact). This account builds on the assumption that people display heterogeneity—or out-group—aversion (Alesina & La Ferrara 2002, Olsson et al. 2005). That is, they trust those who are different from themselves less than those who are more similar, because similarity is an indicator of shared norms and other behavior-regulating features relevant for trust. By implication, because ethnicity is one—often highly visible—cue of similarity, social trust is predicted to be lower in ethnically diverse settings, where cues of dissimilarity are more frequent.

* In his much discussed “constrict theory,” Putnam (2007) presents an argument for why ethnic diversity may erode social trust, independent of the specific target. This is premised on the idea that ethnic diversity leads to social isolation. That is—using Putnam’s famous metaphor—people “hunker down” in more ethnically diverse areas. Because ethnic diversity is expected to induce such general anomie, this mechanism predicts that ethnic diversity lowers all forms of social trust, including both out- and in-group trust. As such, constrict theory is the most daring and wideranging account suggested to link ethnic diversity and social trust.

* First, as a consequence of people’s inherent preference to interact with people like themselves (i.e., homophily) (Lazarsfeld & Merton 1954), ethnically diverse settings might be less socially integrated (e.g., in terms of density of acquaintanceship and friendship networks). This reduces both the flow of information and the potential for sanctioning freeriders, which lay the foundation for trusting others. Second, ethnic diversity might result in preference diversity (i.e., fewer shared collective goals), thereby lowering people’s expectations that collective endeavors are possible while also creating incentives to manipulate process and agenda (Page 2008). Both set people further apart. Third, ethnic diversity with its associated linguistic and cultural differences might inhibit communication—and ultimately coordination—which makes trusting others more risky. Importantly, other people who live in such disintegrated environments are considered less trustworthy,
irrespective of whether they are in- or out-group members themselves, because their behavior is not constrained by the social structure in the local environment. These inferences may—in an attenuated form—extend beyond the local area to trust in specific groups as well as to trust in other people more generally.

Posted in Diversity | Comments Off on Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust: A Narrative and Meta-Analytical Review

Diversity and Its Limits

Charles Murray writes for Claremont Review of Books:

* The crisis of American democracy demands a clear-eyed understanding of the ways in which differences in ethnic groups and some sources of political polarization are never going to be resolved.

* In The Great Experiment: Why Diverse Democracies Fall Apart and How They Can Endure, political scientist Yascha Mounk asks the most far-reaching political question of our age: can democracies that are ethnically diverse survive?

* The first disparity between America and western Europe is that whites continue to be an overwhelming majority of the population everywhere in western Europe. Ten west European countries have populations that are over 90% white. The most diverse country in west Europe by this measure is the Netherlands, with “only” 84% whites. Compare that with the United States, where whites amount to only 60% of the population and are on their way to becoming a minority. The reason this is important has nothing to do with whiteness or European culture. Rather, Europe’s white population matters because a large ethnic majority can unilaterally set the terms of assimilation by minorities. This is as true of the Chinese majority in Singapore as of the white majority in Norway. The countries of western Europe still have the option to do what the United States did throughout its history until the 1960s: energetically socialize immigrants into the culture of their new country and require, as Theodore Roosevelt famously put it for the United States, that an immigrant’s naturalization be “predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American.” Whether any west European nation will do this is an open question, but it is an option for them. It is no longer an option for the United States.

The second disparity is the size of the individual ethnic minorities. No one ethnic minority in any west European nation is large enough to be a political force on its own except France’s North African population (estimated at 10%). Everywhere else, the largest discrete ethnicity is a few percent of the population. A few percent of the population cannot become a political force on its own, and different immigrant ethnicities seldom form alliances. In contrast, the United States has two large and politically powerful minorities: Latinos (19% of the population) and blacks (12%). Asians (6%) are emerging as another.

* The problem is that ethnic diversity in a community significantly erodes social trust, not only between different ethnic groups but also among people within the same ethnic group. This ominous relationship was first documented in 2007 by Robert Putnam in “E Pluribus Unum” (Scandinavian Political Studies). By 2020, a meta-analysis of the relationship (“Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust,” Annual Review of Political Science) could call upon 87 separate studies. All 87 found a statistically significant negative correlation between ethnic diversity and social trust…

* the third sin of omission, ignoring the literature on ethnic differences in social behavior, is definitely mortal. Social behavior refers to the constellation of ways in which people act with respect to social institutions (marriage, civic activities, religious activities) and places (workplaces, schools, sidewalks, public parks, or others’ homes). The question regarding Mounk’s topic is whether social behavior varies by ethnicity, and the answer is yes on a host of behaviors. If the differences were small, the implications for sustaining a diverse democracy would also be small. For America’s East Asians and South Asians, the differences with whites are, in fact, small. For Latinos, they usually vary from small to moderate. For blacks, they usually vary from moderate to large.

To illustrate, I use one of the most important social behaviors: marriage. The following numbers refer to the percentage of adults aged 20 and over who are in heterosexual marriages with the spouse present, using data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Surveys for 2013–2020. Asians had the highest marriage rate (61%), followed by whites (54%), Latinos (44%), and blacks (28%)—a huge difference from top to bottom. Since marriage rates are known to increase along with education, it may be asked if the ethnic differences persist for people with high school diplomas, associate’s degrees, bachelor’s degrees, master’s degrees, and professional degrees. In the case of whites and Asians, the differences ranged from zero to five percentage points across those educational levels—small. In the case of Latinos and whites, the differences ranged from nine to 13 percentage points—moderate. In the case of blacks and whites, the differences ranged from 18 to 24 percentage points—large.

Posted in America, Race | Comments Off on Diversity and Its Limits