the main case people make for capitalism is that it gets incentives right to encourage people to act, to produce. but a capitalism under which the key to wealth is riding number-go-up by owning the right assets engenders very different incentives than to act, to produce.
am i misreading the joke, or was Trump not the first major figure to allude to genital size during this campaign? www.cnn.com/2024/08/21/p...
Obama mocks Trump about his ‘weird obsession with crowd sizes’ | CNN Politics
Link Preview: Obama mocks Trump about his ‘weird obsession with crowd sizes’ | CNN Politics: At the Democratic National Convention, former President Barack Obama mocked former President Donald Trump and said he had a “weird obsession with crowd sizes.”
slurring on about how all this is just a thimulaaaation. it might have been charming, in a sad way.
or the supreme court just legalizes his behavior ex post. no need to drag things out when you can clear the way for the next cycle.
It's arguably becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy.
maybe i am crediting him with too much, that he might game out a probability 0.5 alternative scenario in addition to his baseline scenario.
probably not. but even if Trump loses and the DOJ of course prosecutes, this may be the result. it follows pretty naturally from Citizen's United logic. unless of course we manage to reform the Court. we are a dead democracy barking unless and until we manage that.
I wonder if Musk’s game plan is to break black letter election law then run the case to the Supreme Court, so it can declare that much of that longstanding body of law is unconstitutional. 1/
Since, according to this abomination of a Court, spending is speech, paying voters to register is like encouraging voters to register. Encouraging voters to register is your protected free expression. 2/
It is also your protected free expression to restrict your encouragements to register only to people who sign your petition. So any prohibition of paying people, or even paying a restricted class of people, to register is unconstitutional. 3/
Of course it follows that since encouraging restricted classes of people to vote is also free expression, paying only people in restricted classes only if they turn out to vote would also be protected by the First Amendment. /fin
the regulatory community openly regretted prosecuting Enron because it drove Arthur Anderson out of business turning the Big Five accounting firms into the Big Four. you see, impunity for the rich and powerful was just their version of antitrust.
more collective unconsciousness.
“Elon Musk Veers Into Clearly Illegal Vote Buying, Offering $1 Million Per Day Lottery Prize Only to Registered Voters” @rickhasen.bsky.social electionlawblog.org?p=146397
there’s a lot of science fiction in which protagonists are living out exciting stories against the backdrop of masses enduring dystopian or at best banal lives. welcome to the science fiction future! who did you, my statistically sophisticated reader, imagine you would end up?
distinguish yourself in character rather than in status.
i think so! and discovers / produces all kinds of subtleties and connections.
it’s a project that materializes the collective unconsciousness.
it’s not AI. it’s Jungian engineering.
Yet he's the same guy, and has been consistently popular with most of the same people. I don't think there's some new explanation for him due to Biden economic policies. He's had ~50% willing to vote for him for eight years, and the wins and losses are at margins so tiny they're basically random.
In 2016 as well? I'd respectfully suggest your explanation of Trump's rise is not very persuasive. Trump may be like the Chinese experience in terms of autocracy, but there's no reason to think he has any understanding of China's policy portfolio. (I think even the Chinese mostly stumbled into it.)
I guess I'm living unduly in fear, here in the United States as there's a fifty percent chance a person who describes people with my values as "sick" and "the internal enemy" becomes commander-in-chief of the armed forces. I'm glad you have a cite to soothe me.
No. Not at all. China's problem is not fiscal incapacity (and the West's problems much less so). It's unwillingness to provide a welfare state, which it absolutely should. Anything we can do we can afford, says Keynes wisely. China gave itself the capacity to do very much. It can afford very much.
I don't know what "interest groups" you are taking about, but the whole point of the design is to prevent capture of subsidies by monopolies. Sure, stuff is subsidized, but producer surplus remains very hard fought as price is competed to (modified) variable cost. It's not a cushy subsidy.