TWO-BIT BARBERY:

Ideology is the Enemy of True Faith (ANTHONY ESOLEN, CERC)

There is rest in their faith, but there can be no rest in ideology. Indeed the ideologue looks upon their prayer as quaint and pointless at best, and at worst a waste of human potential, even a culpable refusal to put their shoulders to the wheel of revolutionary change. The ideologue has no use — no use, for all things must be used — for what Christopher Lasch happily called the true and only heaven. The monk knows that no matter what political regime should come to power, this world, so beautiful and so bittersweet, will always be a world of sin and death; it will always be less of a home than a wayside inn. And if the inn’s sign is hanging from a broken nail, and the bed sheets are a little musty, and the roast beef is overdone, it does not matter too much, because he himself, he considers with a smile, stoops in the shoulder, and is a little musty and overdone too.

But the ideologue has no clear sense of the pilgrimage. He believes in progress, and the imperfections of the world offend him; they must be eliminated. Fortunately for him, those imperfections are external to his person. Sometimes they are social conditions, including those that come naturally to mankind, such as the stubborn particularities of the family. Sometimes they are persons who ought to lose their jobs for a crime of least dissent; or to be re-educated by a regimen of ridicule, emotional manipulation, and threats; or, when the ideopathy is particularly virulent, to be cured by a haircut from the national barber, a purgative stay hacking at permafrost in a gulag, or a bullet in the back of the brain. Ideology does not forgive.

IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO OVERSTATE DEFLATIONARY PRESSURES:

When the Robots Take Your Job: Some Intuitions From Recent Models of Automation (MATT CLANCY, JUN 04, 2024, What’s New Under the Sun)

Economists typically think about three major inputs to making all the stuff in the economy: ideas, labor (us) and capital (machines, buildings, tools – all the non-labor stuff that doesn’t get used up in production).

As the cost of labor and of a main component of capital (energy costs) trend towards zero we can not grasp how much cheaper wealth creation is going to get.

THE SLOPE ALWAYS SLIPS:

Is the Slippery Slope ‘Fallacy’ Really a Fallacy? (CHRISTOPHER COYNE, 6/01/24, FEE)

[S]lippery slope arguments are not fallacious if you can show the initial step can improve the likelihood that the claimed effects will come about. The fallacy occurs when you claim there’s a slippery slope but then have no good reasons to expect the first step to increase the likelihood of the effects.

How much does the initial step need to increase the likelihood of claimed effects for the argument to not be fallacious? It’s unclear. Wikipedia argues the initial step should be “demonstrably likely” to result in the claimed effects, but I’d argue that if the claimed effects are bad enough, we can imagine even a slight increase in probability as being too slippery of a slope.