“Even well-intended policies can backfire if implemented without regional coordination.”
I would broaden that statement to include consideration of secondary effects. E.g., the rent control crowd seems to be oblivious to what’s going to happen with landlord and developer investment.
The Dunning-Krueger effect, “a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities,” seems to be a real problem in many of our local elected officials. They have ideals and believe they know the answers, but have almost no ability to think beyond their noses. How do we get them to see that they can’t see?
This is a key aspect that needs to be addressed- how can Minneapolis be vibrant without a strong business base? I don’t think it can. Thanks for pointing that out and the unintended consequence of certain policies
Spot on. Do the math. The DSA is making promises they can’t deliver on. Capital flight out of Minneapolis. Workers must go back to work downtown. The DSA needs to stop demonizing developers and businesses as the only system that brings people out of poverty is capitalism.
Terry, I think you I was the 5th precinct Inspector 92-94. We had excellent relationships with all the neighborhood and business associations. The latter included Uptown, South Hennepin, Lyn-Lake, 50th & France..... Uptown was without a doubt the biggest commercial district outside of downtown. Uptown today speaks itself, it is on the ropes. The two council members for Uptown are Cashman and Chugtai. Neither has made any real effort to support the small businesses that used to flourish there. Cashman made one disingenuous attempt that made the TV news. She held an Uptown business revitalization forum. She didn't invite the Uptown Business Association. They got wind of it and showed up. On camera she was asked if she knew of the business association, she did. She was asked if she invited them. She said no and left.
Privately owned businesses and privately owned housing is what capitalism is to the DSA. So, by their own clearly stated goals, they would NOT be encouraging business development in Mpls, even if they knew how to do that, and they don't. It is not an interest for them, for the obvious reason.
Encouraging healthy business growth would be in direct opposition to their own DSA platform, which they aggressively tie themselves to, whether it is the group endorsed by the DSA, ( Wonsley, Chughtai, and Chavez, and then Sorensen, a candidate in W8, and Fateh, a candidate for mayor), or the very closely DSA aligned group, (Chowdhury, Cashman, and probably Payne.)
Key phrasing in the link below, " parasitic death drive of capitalism."
"We strive for the emancipation of all people by forging the multiracial working class into an organized, fighting force on the terms of its most oppressed members. In overcoming the old, barbaric order of capitalism, the working class will not only liberate itself from its own shackles, but all of humanity from the parasitic death-drive of capitalism. "
The real problem is that the Democratic party decided to join hands with the Socialist party in order to fight off the "evil" Republicans. Who would have thought they would have been so successful in taking over the party???? To be honest I did not understand the anti-socialist trials when I studied it in school. Even this article still describes them am Democratic Socialists, something that cannot exist, a poor example of an oxymoron. We need to start calling them plain old "Socialists" because that is what they are. Democrats are just Democrats because that is what they are, it's their core beliefs. We need to stop letting them use powerful words to their advantage. They call themselves "progressives" as apposed to us the "moderates". This while encouraging an all or none belief that anyone who compromises is "evil".
Has it occurred to anyone that the goal of the Socialist Party might be to systematically disable our society rather than to win? Most of the platforms are precursors to to that which the accuse everyone else of being, fascists, dictators and Anti-American. No police, no businesses, no guns, no independent wealth. The pattern seems to be backing several candidates with wildly different views, not really caring which specific candidate wins as long as it is a Socialist. The goal is to vote out the more popular moderate candidates that are willing to listen and consider to both sides. The City's of Minneapolis and St Paul being governed by self serving special intrest orientated officials has been quite successful in steering state legislature, much more than they should have. The state legislature has failed to slap the hands of city governments for overstepping their boundaries for several years and has often adopted many of of their ideas. The question is why does the legislature not care that someone else is dictating their agenda?
Maybe even the fraud is part of the dismantlement, the billions of dollars going to where while blaming businesses of unbelievable greed. Really is someone that allows widespread substantial theft in the name of doing good for those in great need better than someone that runs a business which fulfills a need, employs people and pays taxes?
Perhaps this is more "sideshow" than a comment on your main point(s) here, but since you invoked the Echelon Insights model of the electorate, I thought I'd mention an aspect of that kind of analysis that you didn't. There are actually quite a few of these "four-square" models out there, each one based on a spectrum of progressive-to-conservative (broken into a binary) on a duality of issue types (usually expressed as "Economics" on one axis and some label like "Social Justice" or perhaps "Culture Wars" type issues on the other). [As an aside, there are also three-axis or "eight-box" models that add a foreign policy dimension, again progressive-to-conservative.] Echelon Insights is as good a four-square model as any of them. Of course, each model-builder team has to decide for themselves where to place the "axis" that divides Progressive from Conservative on each of the continua, and where the axes are placed determines how many voters are "in" each of the four squares. Regardless, it is very common for these models to conclude that "conservative-conservative" has something like a quarter of the population, and "progressive-progressive" also has about a quarter. What I find interesting is that the "Economics Progressive - Cutural Conservative" box in almost every such model has the largest population, and the Economics Conservative - Cultural Progressive" box is almost always the smallest. In some models the difference is pretty large - I've seen 35%-40% vs. 10%-15%, though I can't remember in whose model. I've also seen models where all four quadrants are real near to 25% apiece.
The big take-homes are two: First, there is no such thing as a "typical Moderate voter" - there are two distinct FLAVORS of Moderates, and they disagree with EACH OTHER more than they do with either of the two sets of "purists". Second, if you think about POLITICIANS who are viewed by pundits as Moderates - whether they are being lauded or criticized for their moderation by the pundit in question - they are almost always "Economics Conservative - Cultural Progressive". For many, Hillary Clinton was practically the archetype of this kind of "Wall Street Democrat". The opposite, though, is RARE in a politician. Back in his pre-Presidential-run days, and certainly in his Mayor of Burlington VT days, Bernie was an "Economics Progressive - Cultural Conservative" type. To the delight of some, and the chagrin of others, he shuffled gradually into the "Progressive-Progressive" square as his national profile grew - and he practically sprinted to that corner in '15-'16 as he ran for Prez. Anyway, what these two things mean, put together, is that not only are there TWO DISTINCT TYPES of Moderates, but that almost all politicians who actively court the "non-purist" crowd actually represent the SMALLER of those two populations. The most populated (by voters) square in this analysis goes begging for candidates to support!
What I have NOT seen from any of the modelers is a convincing explanation for WHY that is true. But I have to admit that it DOES appear to be the case...
“Even well-intended policies can backfire if implemented without regional coordination.”
I would broaden that statement to include consideration of secondary effects. E.g., the rent control crowd seems to be oblivious to what’s going to happen with landlord and developer investment.
The Dunning-Krueger effect, “a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities,” seems to be a real problem in many of our local elected officials. They have ideals and believe they know the answers, but have almost no ability to think beyond their noses. How do we get them to see that they can’t see?
This is a key aspect that needs to be addressed- how can Minneapolis be vibrant without a strong business base? I don’t think it can. Thanks for pointing that out and the unintended consequence of certain policies
Spot on. Do the math. The DSA is making promises they can’t deliver on. Capital flight out of Minneapolis. Workers must go back to work downtown. The DSA needs to stop demonizing developers and businesses as the only system that brings people out of poverty is capitalism.
Terry, I think you I was the 5th precinct Inspector 92-94. We had excellent relationships with all the neighborhood and business associations. The latter included Uptown, South Hennepin, Lyn-Lake, 50th & France..... Uptown was without a doubt the biggest commercial district outside of downtown. Uptown today speaks itself, it is on the ropes. The two council members for Uptown are Cashman and Chugtai. Neither has made any real effort to support the small businesses that used to flourish there. Cashman made one disingenuous attempt that made the TV news. She held an Uptown business revitalization forum. She didn't invite the Uptown Business Association. They got wind of it and showed up. On camera she was asked if she knew of the business association, she did. She was asked if she invited them. She said no and left.
Privately owned businesses and privately owned housing is what capitalism is to the DSA. So, by their own clearly stated goals, they would NOT be encouraging business development in Mpls, even if they knew how to do that, and they don't. It is not an interest for them, for the obvious reason.
Encouraging healthy business growth would be in direct opposition to their own DSA platform, which they aggressively tie themselves to, whether it is the group endorsed by the DSA, ( Wonsley, Chughtai, and Chavez, and then Sorensen, a candidate in W8, and Fateh, a candidate for mayor), or the very closely DSA aligned group, (Chowdhury, Cashman, and probably Payne.)
Key phrasing in the link below, " parasitic death drive of capitalism."
https://www.dsausa.org/dsa-political-platform-from-2021-convention/
From their preamble..
"We strive for the emancipation of all people by forging the multiracial working class into an organized, fighting force on the terms of its most oppressed members. In overcoming the old, barbaric order of capitalism, the working class will not only liberate itself from its own shackles, but all of humanity from the parasitic death-drive of capitalism. "
The real problem is that the Democratic party decided to join hands with the Socialist party in order to fight off the "evil" Republicans. Who would have thought they would have been so successful in taking over the party???? To be honest I did not understand the anti-socialist trials when I studied it in school. Even this article still describes them am Democratic Socialists, something that cannot exist, a poor example of an oxymoron. We need to start calling them plain old "Socialists" because that is what they are. Democrats are just Democrats because that is what they are, it's their core beliefs. We need to stop letting them use powerful words to their advantage. They call themselves "progressives" as apposed to us the "moderates". This while encouraging an all or none belief that anyone who compromises is "evil".
Has it occurred to anyone that the goal of the Socialist Party might be to systematically disable our society rather than to win? Most of the platforms are precursors to to that which the accuse everyone else of being, fascists, dictators and Anti-American. No police, no businesses, no guns, no independent wealth. The pattern seems to be backing several candidates with wildly different views, not really caring which specific candidate wins as long as it is a Socialist. The goal is to vote out the more popular moderate candidates that are willing to listen and consider to both sides. The City's of Minneapolis and St Paul being governed by self serving special intrest orientated officials has been quite successful in steering state legislature, much more than they should have. The state legislature has failed to slap the hands of city governments for overstepping their boundaries for several years and has often adopted many of of their ideas. The question is why does the legislature not care that someone else is dictating their agenda?
Maybe even the fraud is part of the dismantlement, the billions of dollars going to where while blaming businesses of unbelievable greed. Really is someone that allows widespread substantial theft in the name of doing good for those in great need better than someone that runs a business which fulfills a need, employs people and pays taxes?
Terry,
Perhaps this is more "sideshow" than a comment on your main point(s) here, but since you invoked the Echelon Insights model of the electorate, I thought I'd mention an aspect of that kind of analysis that you didn't. There are actually quite a few of these "four-square" models out there, each one based on a spectrum of progressive-to-conservative (broken into a binary) on a duality of issue types (usually expressed as "Economics" on one axis and some label like "Social Justice" or perhaps "Culture Wars" type issues on the other). [As an aside, there are also three-axis or "eight-box" models that add a foreign policy dimension, again progressive-to-conservative.] Echelon Insights is as good a four-square model as any of them. Of course, each model-builder team has to decide for themselves where to place the "axis" that divides Progressive from Conservative on each of the continua, and where the axes are placed determines how many voters are "in" each of the four squares. Regardless, it is very common for these models to conclude that "conservative-conservative" has something like a quarter of the population, and "progressive-progressive" also has about a quarter. What I find interesting is that the "Economics Progressive - Cutural Conservative" box in almost every such model has the largest population, and the Economics Conservative - Cultural Progressive" box is almost always the smallest. In some models the difference is pretty large - I've seen 35%-40% vs. 10%-15%, though I can't remember in whose model. I've also seen models where all four quadrants are real near to 25% apiece.
The big take-homes are two: First, there is no such thing as a "typical Moderate voter" - there are two distinct FLAVORS of Moderates, and they disagree with EACH OTHER more than they do with either of the two sets of "purists". Second, if you think about POLITICIANS who are viewed by pundits as Moderates - whether they are being lauded or criticized for their moderation by the pundit in question - they are almost always "Economics Conservative - Cultural Progressive". For many, Hillary Clinton was practically the archetype of this kind of "Wall Street Democrat". The opposite, though, is RARE in a politician. Back in his pre-Presidential-run days, and certainly in his Mayor of Burlington VT days, Bernie was an "Economics Progressive - Cultural Conservative" type. To the delight of some, and the chagrin of others, he shuffled gradually into the "Progressive-Progressive" square as his national profile grew - and he practically sprinted to that corner in '15-'16 as he ran for Prez. Anyway, what these two things mean, put together, is that not only are there TWO DISTINCT TYPES of Moderates, but that almost all politicians who actively court the "non-purist" crowd actually represent the SMALLER of those two populations. The most populated (by voters) square in this analysis goes begging for candidates to support!
What I have NOT seen from any of the modelers is a convincing explanation for WHY that is true. But I have to admit that it DOES appear to be the case...