Local Knowledge Problem

The data required for rational economic planning are distributed among individual actors and thus unavoidably exist outside the knowledge of a central authority

[Local Knowledge Problem @MaxUtilitarian]

@cafreiman Sorta like Abigail Spanberger didn't with Jay Jones.

[Local Knowledge Problem @MaxUtilitarian]

@ironick @tomhyde_ They use prices, natch.

[Local Knowledge Problem @MaxUtilitarian]

@TrishtheSkeptic @Tara_lyn1 @tetheredtoed1 @pmarca

[Local Knowledge Problem @MaxUtilitarian]

@bohumilo @CommunityNotes Just wow.

[Local Knowledge Problem @MaxUtilitarian]

@Tara_lyn1 @TrishtheSkeptic @tetheredtoed1 @pmarca What else could he do since they closed his school, filled in his skate park with sand and blocked the park's basketball hoops with 2x4's?

[Local Knowledge Problem @MaxUtilitarian]

@tetheredtoed1 @pmarca IFR for the non-elderly was 0.034% among the vaccine naive (unvaccinated). IFR for infants, children and teens was 0.0003%.

The response? The most profound public health fiasco in history.

https://t.co/vjCATRaDqJ

[Local Knowledge Problem @MaxUtilitarian]

@JimWhit48972251 @MichaelAArouet P&L is to a leftist as cross is to a vampire.

(But we can forgive them for not knowing the relationship since the SAT eliminated the analogy section, and few colleges care about the SAT, anyway.)

[Local Knowledge Problem @MaxUtilitarian]

Spending is the fundamental crisis of our time. From 1925 to today, US spending relative to GDP has grown approximately 10-fold. Tax receipts, however, as a percent of GDP have remained virtuality constant at about 18% (no matter what marginal rates are.)

When spending relentlessly rises > 2% per year relative to GDP, but taxes remain constant (no matter the marginal rate) it clearly demonstrates SPENDING IS THE PROBLEM.

[Local Knowledge Problem @MaxUtilitarian]

@tomselliott @grok: describe four reasons the Saez/Zucman wealth tax proposal will likely generate less than $3T in the years.

[Local Knowledge Problem @MaxUtilitarian]

@Y40IFRQTTING Reject the premise, outright.

Growth ≠ consumption.

[Local Knowledge Problem @MaxUtilitarian]

@MadAvalanche @WesternLensman @HughEverett Lol!

[Local Knowledge Problem @MaxUtilitarian]

@ErnestBoehm @PaulPortesi TIL!

[Local Knowledge Problem @MaxUtilitarian]

@DennyAdams1944 @DrJMarine A fish in a bowl doesn't know water is wet. The inevitable open range insane asylum would be perfectly ok with them.

[Local Knowledge Problem @MaxUtilitarian]

@flapprdotnet

[Local Knowledge Problem @MaxUtilitarian]

@mungowitz "Dollar per high valuation point" shows this very clearly

[Local Knowledge Problem @MaxUtilitarian]

It's worse than it looks. The average published cost of attendance (in-state, public 4-year, living on-campus) has risen ~55% since 2010.

A simple “dollars per very important point” ratio quantifies the worsening mismatch between what colleges charge and how much the public values them at the highest level.

That ratio has more than tripled (+232%).

Public 4-year in-state cost of attendance (on-campus), per year:

• 2010–11: ~$20,035 (NCES)
• 2025–26: ~$31,000–$31,880 (College Board)

“Very important” rating (Gallup):
• 2010: 75%
• 2025: 35%

Dollars per “very important” point:
• 2010: $20,035 / 75 ≈ $267
• 2025: $31,000 / 35 ≈ $886 (or $31,880 / 35 ≈ $911)

[Local Knowledge Problem @MaxUtilitarian]

@avneet842 @tonyannett Indeed.

[Local Knowledge Problem @MaxUtilitarian]

@archer_rs Where on the RCP8.5 did climate touch you?

[Local Knowledge Problem @MaxUtilitarian]

@GlennAndTonic @DrunkRepub Julian Simon smiles.

[Local Knowledge Problem @MaxUtilitarian]

Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5. One of 4 "scenarios" for CO2 concentrations over time modeled by the IPCC. The "8.5" scenario has often been called the "Doomsday" scenario, because, in it, CO2 concentrations rise dramatically with large scale warming.

The scenario was assumed to be the baseline case by many scientists (even in the field) and some journalists.

HOWEVER, in the foundational paper which introduced the scenarios, it was made clear that NONE of the scenarios was meant to be "policy prescriptive" and "no likelihood or preference is attached to any of the individual scenarios".

This paper was largely unread or ignored even though it provided essential context.