Hello ; I do not know what is 'EDO' and if this really means something but I'm working on a 'radical transaction costs' project and I think that you should look at ALL Steven N. S. Cheung's work (first of all, maybe the 'contractual nature of the firm' 1983 paper), he was following Coase's (who have inspired his pal D. Black, if Coase is right, in a paper about his 1937 'nature of the firm') ;

See also and of course, Coase's 1960 'social cost' paper. 

An extreme non democratic outcome is (for me) the firm conceived in Alchian and Demsetz's  1972 paper (must see : the last part of the paper is about democracy).

One of Cheung's papers is about the 'scourge of democracy' : it's about 'representation' 

'extreme democratic outcomes' means for me : very low transaction costs, as a non capitalist society ; direct democracy is an outcome of markets. Best regards, JPJ. 

Dear Joffrin, in my coming papers I show that extreme democratic outcomes come along when the majority rule based democratic model goes into general true majority complacency leading to a true minority win, and to the after the fact widespread social discontent.

The making of EDOs requires the creation of true majority complacency through chaos; and to maintain EDO rule you need to keep chaos to the maximum.  EDO flourishes under unsustainability so we should expect EDOs to promote unsustainability......to create unsustainability....through active government intervention to max social and environmental externalities to produce even a lower costs than those that probably Adam Smith thought possible or had in mind as it creates the perfect maximizer....

EDOs have social, environmental, and economic implications from the political and market point of view of democracy.  

Your comments relate to the link between non-democratic outcomes and democratic outcomes and the market the firm and you are looking at this from the transaction cost point of view…..In recent papers I have looked at the same sustainability situation from the old dichotomy of red socialism(no individual choice) vrs capitalism(individual choice).....my ideas in these questions relate to the new dichotomy, normal democratic outcomes(NDO) vrs extreme democratic outcomes(EDO), both within the democracy range and part of the democracy based world.

If you look at the world from the point of view of EDO theory, then what is happening for example in the USA before and after the election of Pres. Trump or before and after BREXIT makes sense….chaos, unpredictability, direct government intervention to reduce the total cost of economic production/barriers to production to the max…..

And the point to make in this coming papers is: as long as you look at EDOs as NDOs you can not understand them and therefore, you can not deal with them….

Thank you for your comments.

Your ideas sound wonderful. We haven't been working on EDO's specifically from that framework, but we have been working along two independent lines to predict and understand political outcomes (that apply to EDOs): 

(1) The agreement paradox -- that is, the potential long-term backfiring of manufacturing short-term consensus.  Here's an exemplar:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317217285_Donald_trump_as_a_cultural_revolt_against_perceived_communication_restriction_Priming_political_correctness_norms_causes_more_trump_support

(2) The ecological conditions that pre-dispose different types of democratic societies for freedom (or non-freedom) based outcomes.  Here's an exemplar:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318353332_Ecological_Origins_of_Freedom_Pathogens_Heat_Stress_and_Frontier_Topography_Predict_More_Vertical_but_Less_Horizontal_Governmental_Restriction

Good luck with your interesting projects -- would love to see your work as it becomes available.

Article Donald Trump as a Cultural Revolt Against Perceived Communic...

Article Ecological Origins of Freedom: Pathogens, Heat Stress, and F...

Dear Lucian, thank you for taking the time to write.  

I was putting together ideas on extreme democratic outcomes(EDOs} since around 2015 from the general sustainability point of view and sustainability gaps to propose a theory on when we should expect EDOs to happen, to point out what to do after they happen, to point out how they can be prevented to happen, to highlight what needs to be done to push them towards normal democratic outcomes(NDOs) once they happen.

I have a friend of mind non-scholar who is very interested in my outside the box ideas and I commented to him about what I was working on as I realized that majority rule based democracy one person one vote assumes no complacency to achieve majority ruled democratic outcomes or expected normal democratic outcomes(NDOs), and I thought what happens if there was partial complacency or full complacency within that democracy affecting the democratic process/contest/outcome?....I could see the conditions for having extreme democractic outcomes(EDOs).... I could see BREXIT in 2016 coming as I saw true majority complacency growing and I told him so....I saw USEXIT in 2016 coming as I saw true majority complacency growing and I told him so....then by the end of 2016 and beginning of  2017 I wrote the final paper that explains why they happened and why standard democratic theory/polling generally missed the point and why countries/blocks with NDOs are having difficulty knowing how to approach EDOs....

Problem is that I realized my paper was trying to bring too many new ideas at once and needed to be cut into small but connected papers  and I needed data on other things consistent with the model such as if new election take place in other places fully knowing now the existence of EDOs and their nature and consequences, then those movements at that moment leaning towards EDOs may stay NDOs like in France 2017, the Netherlands/Dutch election 2017.....that if EDOs countries go back to the poll to prove their existence they would go towards full majority EDOs or minority EDOs like in the UK 2017...that EDOs need chaos theory to manufacture complacency and needs max chaos theory to maintain their existence AND avoid to go back to pools under no complacency....which is what we have seen in the USA as we speak....

EDOs under chaos theory may provide a link to chaos based ideas associated with Steve Bannon or Naomi Klein/Shock doctrine and their relevance to the generation,, the nurturing, sustaining, and the expansion of EDOs….

I am in the process of breaking up the original papers in smaller papers to introduce the ideas one at a time in a supporting sequence just like I have done with all my papers associated to my theory of true sustainability and sustainability gap based paradigm evolution.

I will share the papers as they come and comments will be welcome.

I think there is a need to look at democratic outcomes as NDOs and as EDOs based on a general theory to understand their differences and their nature within the democratic model....

Have a nice day;

Lucio

Dear friends, just sharing this with you unpublished the article below about extreme democratic outcomes, you can take it as food for thoughts.

Have a nice day!

Majority Rule Based True Democracy Under Complacency Theory: Pointing Out The Structure of Normal and of Extreme Democratic Outcomes Analytically and Graphically.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319743153_Majority_Rule_Based_True_Democracy_Under_Complacency_Theory_Pointing_Out_The_Structure_of_Normal_and_of_Extreme_Democratic_Outcomes_Analytically_and_Graphically

Article Majority Rule Based True Democracy Under Complacency Theory:...

Dear friends, you can now read when you have time the unpublished version of ART122 here and use it as food for thoughts, the one shared above is now published:

Upside Down Democratic Outcomes: Stating the Complacency Conditions Under Which Extreme Democratic Outcomes Such as BREXIT and USEXIT Should Be Expected to Take Place Using Qualitative Comparative Means

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320443702_Upside_Down_Democratic_Outcomes_Stating_the_Complacency_Conditions_Under_Which_Extreme_Democratic_Outcomes_Such_as_BREXIT_and_USEXIT_Should_Be_Expected_to_Take_Place_Using_Qualitative_Comparative_Mean

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

Kenneth, good day. The question is what is the structure of extreme democratic outcomes?. Any ideas you would like to share?. Your comments and questions have nothing to do with the research question posed...

Good day Kenneth, thank you for your comment....At the heart of EDO is chaos, but a special type of chaos leads to EDOs....that is the central piece in my coming article expanding previous ideas:

Moral and Amoral Liberal Democracies: How Targeted Chaos Can Affect the Democratic Process?

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Moral-and-Amoral-Liberal-Democracies-How-Targeted-Chaos-Can-Affect-the-Democratic-Process?_sg=EjtxgP6h4SdWuPVgyNfkzrCx12wE9NkIiCTFMdu6vZxWU0bWAgih1B1Kg4zSplzLqHJ3ys084-twpRIujM2vh8yAFdLpfmIqlk5J

The draft abstract and figures in this paper are shared, the introduction will be shared in the coming weeks, and the whole paper later.

Have a nice day!

According to interesting research it is the centrists who are the most hostile to democracy and the most autocratic!

Dear Barry, thanks for your comment....

I took a quick look at the information you provided and I did not find what "centrists" for him clearly means.

However, I think you can not look at extreme democratic outcome dynamics from the normal liberal democracy point of view as you will probably define groups/characteristics incorrectly....THIS VIOLATES THE THEORY-PRACTICE CONSISTENCY PRINCIPLE....

The current liberal democracy fight in europe and all western countries is between morallly based democracy and amorally based democracy....Normal liberal democracy is morally based to promote the best interest of the true majority, whether pure morality or practical morality; extreme liberal democracy is amorally based to promote the best interest of the true minority.....

So USEXIT 2016 should have been expected to work to undermine normal liberal democracy values, institutions and organizations, locally and globally, WHICH AS YOU MAY AGREE HAS DONE WITH FLYING COLORS....

Think of inverse opposite situations with morality at the top and amorality at the bottom, normal liberal democracy is at the top, morality based; then you flip it, to get extreme liberal democracy at the top, amorality based.

Have a nice day!

Lucio

Lucio

Judging by the comparative nature of the study (right-centre-left) he means simply the neither hard right or hard left.

I think he has a point, I often find people from educated liberal backgrounds saying very undemocratic things. Many do not believe in consulting the electorate and even think that the Brexit referendum should not have been implemented as policy. Many are demanding a second referendum and even though they call it a 'people's vote'. they are only interested in one outcome.

It is quite alarming that significant numbers among the 'moderates', those neither left or right wing think that democracy is not necessarily a good thing.

Barry, good day. As I said, looking at extreme democratic outcome/extreme liberal democracy dynamics from the lens of normal democratic outcomes/normal liberal democracy as the author is doing and you are doing can lead you to the wrong conclusion or understanding, complicating the need to take corrective action or advise...but explains why the UK and the USA has had difficulty first understanding what happened in 2016, and then difficulty on figuring out what to do,,,,.

To look at what you shared from the extreme democratic outcome point of view, we need to inverse the statements you made:

1) Study (right-centre-left) ---->> Study (right-extreme-left)

2) He means simply the neither hard right or hard left---->> He means then only extreme right or extreme left....

3) The centrist liberals are the most autocratic of all.---->> The extreme liberals are the most democratic of all.

Obviously statement 3 is not true and you can see that the inverse statements tell you that to UNDERSTAND EXTREME DEMOCRATIC OUTCOME DYNAMICS you must look at the situation from the extreme lens point of view....

In the case of BREXIT and USEXIT the EXTREME LIBERALS ARE THE EXTREME RIGHT/extreme conservatives, a true minority who managed to fool a true majority, a true majority wishing after the fact they could vote again to undo the past.....

As I have indicated in my papers, an extreme democratic outcome, decision or office holder, can only take place when there is full true majority complacency or protest behaviour especially under targeted chaos aimed at tricking a true majority into voting in ways that will work later against them.

Barry I am about to finish the introduction on my next article linking targeted chaos to extreme democratic outcomes.

Have a nice day!

Good day Kenneth, if we understand what a normal democratic outcome is; and what an extreme democratic outcome is and understand their internal structures,....

then we will be able to see that a normal liberal democracy beats the alternatives when seeking the best interest of the true majority; and that an extreme liberal democracy will tend to approximate the alternatives to maximize the benefits of the true minority it seeks to benefit.....

Which democracy you think is closer to the thinking and acting of the alternatives you mentioned above, Canada or the USA?

"an extreme democratic outcome, decision or office holder, can only take place when there is full true majority complacency or protest behaviour especially under targeted chaos aimed at tricking a true majority into voting in ways that will work later against them".

In large part I agree with this statement but it needs further analysis. There is no doubt that the Brexit vote and the election of Trump included significant 'protest behaviour', we saw it during the campaigns. We must of course ask who the protests were aimed at.

The incumbents at the time were a centrist liberal Conservative party in the UK and a similar centrist president but increasingly right wing congress in the US. It was their form of liberalism that the populations of both states voted against.

It is rather difficult to maintain the argument that they were tricked into protesting. Serious and deep seated disaffection with liberalism existed within both the UK and US. That liberalism saw the real value of wages reduced and the standard of living for very many continually decline.

I tend to agree that the end result of Brexit and Trumpism will work against those who supported both politics but the alternative was never a bed of roses either.

Most serious political commentators consider that this episode of Alt Right 'extremism' will be short lived. When it fails to deliver the outlandish promises disillusionment will step in much quicker than before. Lets ee what happens in November.

Barry, no tricked into protesting, tricked into voting in ways contrary to their best interest, the majority rule best interest...

targeted chaos is used to direct true majority anger in ways that will work against themselves, and this opens space for minority rule outcomes as when we reach true majority complacency, what is not expected to happen happens....

and when this happened as we saw in BREXIT and USEXIT the true majority went into loud social discontent.....

Did you see the far right in the UK/extreme conservatives and in the USA/Trump GOP protesting against BREXIT and USEXIT, unhappy about the outcome? I do not think so, they were THRILLED....

Barry, when you have time, take a look at the four papers I have shared in researchgate on the subject and you can use them as food for thoughts