Lord Ratner

A lot to cover, but a very good conversation. GPS. The point stands, it was released in a way that was not exclusionary to certain players or industries. It's a delicate balance. If the government has instead given a bunch of money to Garmin, we'd have something closer to Tesla. If the government decided it liked a certain technology, let's say satellite radio, and started giving tax credits to anyone who buys a satellite radio, knowing damn well that only one satellite radio company stands to benefit, that would be even more like Tesla. Now Tesla is an established giant, and the subsidies are going away… but those subsidies were necessary for the formation of a viable electric car maker, so how will the competition develop? I agree with you in some ways, I love what Tesla is doing and I want that type of innovation supported and encouraged. But it has to be done in a way that doesn't undermine our belief in the fairness of the system. As you said, if the system no longer seems fair, "then the only alternative is a violent overthrowing of those that are controlling the market unfairly by the people oppressed by that market." Even if you take Tesla as a .gov success story, let's look at some examples of the more likely outcome: Affirmative action: Favoring black students provides limited benefit to some black students, but overall creates an even deeper divide in outcomes: https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-sad-irony-of-affirmative-action Get more people into home ownership: Home owners are correlated with all sorts of desirable demographic outcomes, so let's promote it at the government level, right? Along comes 2008: https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/19/how-the-government-created-a-financial-crisis/?sh=661ac0e821fb Higher education costs: In a comically stupid misreading of cause and effect, the government decided that going to college meant more success later in life. Incorrect. Being smart and joining professions that required additional education meant higher success. But that detail was ignored, so the .gov has been pushing college, which has created a wildly unsustainable student debt crisis, and made college costlier than ever: https://www.mercatus.org/publications/government-spending/government-policy-and-tuition-higher-education Not to mention the laundry list of failed companies that only lasted as long as they did based on infusions of government cheese. These aren't just ideas that fail, they often cause devastating long-term effects that are completely opposed to the original goals. The tolerance and coddling of homelessness, to include building shelters and finding supplies that make the lifestyle possible, is going to suck when we end up paying for the lifetime institutionalization of tens of thousands of people whose brains are irreparably fried from years of drug abuse. The embrace of critical race theory has resulted in the predictable rebirth of white supremacy. The American role of world police has resulted in a Europe without any form of military defense, and thus they are helpless to make even token gestures against the aggressions of Russia and China. Government, as a result of the perpetual change of power, must act quick, so instead of attacking the root causes of a problem, which is a slow process, they attack the manifestations/symptoms of the problem. Feels good, but doesn't help. Liberals are similar, but mostly because they are sensitive to the emotional toll of disparities and not inclined towards solutions that allow the impact to persist. They have almost no consideration for second and third order effects, and even less patience. Sports Arenas: Completely against it. For all the reasons listed above. Business is not stupid, they don't build arenas where there is no profit. All the subsidies in the world will not bring an arena to Columbus, MS. I understand the intent, but how many times must an intent be abused before you see it for what it inevitably is? I think the stadium for the Seattle soccer team was denied government assistance by a very tenacious city council member. Surprise surprise, the stadium went up anyways. Here's something similar, and there are plenty of studies showing the questionable returns of stadiums: https://www.insidesources.com/seattles-tale-of-two-stadiums/ Greed and power: Government by a different name. The free market struggles with monopolies in the real world. The government is the ultimate monopoly. Using that extreme monopoly to pick winners is the antithesis to a free market, no matter how much you like the technology. The challenge isn't policing private monopolies, it's using the government to police its own power. The heavy regulation of chosen winners such as utilities is indeed an example. This type of regulation is not present on the new era of chosen winners. Your power company analogy is flawed. The second power company is restricted not because the first power company won't share their power lines, but because the city won't allow the second company to construct their own. That restriction on the second (and any other) company is why the first has an advantage. Heavily regulated, this arrangement can be made close to fair (including regular rebidding for which company gets the monopoly), but it is onerous, deleterious to innovation, and should be used sparingly. Electric cars do not meet the threshold IMO. Keeping the city free of a million power lines from a dozen competitors crossing every street does. Meritocracy: you can't argue that socialism benefits from meritocracy; the two concepts are literally opposed. Of course socialism benefits from not being socialistic. In fact, progressivism is even more opposite to meritocracy than socialism. In a theoretical perfect socialism, the most capable/merited are elevated to positions of power (though it never, ever happens that way). From each according to his abilities. With progressivism, positions of authority are selected based on group-identity-based disparities. You'll get no disagreement from me on nepotism. Bad for any system. I think I hit everything. Great convo.

There are some key differences in your examples. GPS is peak government. Launch it and let anyone who wants to develop a use do so. But creating subsidies that heavily favor an existing company is easy to do and unfair. If the govt wanted to adopt a EV charging standard and install a network of charging stations across the country for any and all EVs to use, great. But increasingly the government is handing wads of cash to private companies while allowing them to continue the trend of making everything proprietary. Lets look at State and local governments that offer massive tax breaks to Amazon to open a new warehouse or data center. Sure... they might argue that anyone opening a 100,000 sq/ft+ data center could get the break, but when only one or two companies exist at the time of the tax break that can use it, that's targeted. It's also bullshit. Take a step back and think of the lunacy of providing tax breaks of any kind to a company as wildly successful as Amazon. It should be illegal for the government at any level to offer tax breaks to specific companies or industries. If you want to incentivize companies to show up, lower taxes for all business. It is absolute insanity that Amazon, one of the biggest corporations in the history of Earth, ran a beauty pageant where every major city in America handed over infrastructure and development plans while bidding for who could offer Bezos the lowest tax burden to open a new HQ. And after literally dozens of local governments prostrated themselves at the altar of Amazon for a chance to enhance their tech presence... who did Amazon pick? New York and DC. Fucking really? If you think it's just a coincidence that Amazon picked the business and government hubs as their surprise split decision, then I have a bridge to sell you. They knew from day one where they were going to build, but the data-driven company that's building a global distribution network got every city to give them their infrastructure roadmaps in the process. I'm a big free market advocate, but the theoretical perfect free market does not account for government. So we have to make changes that aren't purely free market. The modern capitalists, largely in tech but not exclusively, have mastered the art of using government to entrench their positions. Remember when Amazon suddenly supported collecting sales tax on all internet purchases because they could offer their payment services to small businesses that couldn't account for hundreds of different tax rates? Apple is pushing hard on right-to-repair laws. This is the modern version of telcoms making monopolistic agreements with city governments to lease telephone poles and prevent any other companies from competing. One electric provider, one gas, one phone, one internet and cable. Progressives (establishment, not voters) have always despised meritocracy, so their disregard for the miracles provided by the free market is no shock. But conservatives (establishment, not voters) have been blinded by the incredible wealth the new robber-barons have brought to their investment portfolios, and forgot that the free market can only function if it is perceived to be fair by the participants (voters, workers). Globalization brought us cheap clothes and TVs, but 30 years in and the cost turned out to be jobs and upward mobility for a huge swath of the country. The "democratic socialists" on the left were the first to lose faith, but they are few. Now the populists on the right, both of the Trump type, and the Tucker Carlson type are starting to lose faith too. It should scare you, because your kids, and certainly your grandkids will face a very different reality if the disenfranchisement continues to spread.

don't forget an incredible amount of government money in the form of subsidies. Tesla is, if anything, a great demonstration of exactly what's wrong with business in America. Only able to truly disrupt the system with Uncle Sam reaching into his pocket. This is a problem that the generic Democratic or Republican positions have been unable to adequately address. But it's going to get a lot worse as the fallout from 30 years of globalization and job transfer overseas starts to hit.

You're not considering what Weinstein is trying to accomplish. He doesn't feel any obligation towards the conservative party, because he's not a conservative. Much like flea, he's a moderate who sees his party departing reality. His goal is to save the Democratic party, or at least liberalism, from the progressive forces that are reshaping it. That's why almost all of his content covers the missteps of the left.

And yet, you're on to something very important. The most prominent voice on this phenomenon on the right is Tucker Carlson. He rubs a lot of people the wrong way, but he's dead-nuts-on here. Republicans, conservatives, capitalists, free market advocates, and libertarians generally stress a very hands-off approach, and usually cite creative destruction. I think the problem in the modern era is that creative destruction works exceptionally well in a closed system, and very poorly in a lopsided open system. It would be one thing if automated trucks put a few million (mostly) men into the unemployment line in a country rich with opportunity. But a phenomenal amount of labor has been sent to other countries, and while that has resulted in decades of cheaper goods (and massive economic growth for the foreign countries), eventually the accumulated wealth from previous generations runs out, and it doesn't matter how cheap your phone is if you don't have a job to pay for it. I think we are hitting the point where a few decades of outsourcing is finally coming back to bite us in the ass. And the biggest impact may very well be that it has starved our country of the necessary professions and positions to absorb the creative destruction of something like automated semi trucks. There's also an aspect to creative destruction that I don't often hear addressed, which is the pace. It's helpful in this case to use an extreme as a thought exercise. If automated trucks replaced all commercial drivers over the course of a hundred years, it's reasonable to assume that those drivers would be able to find other employment. But what if it happened in one day? Truck driving is the number one job for men in america, and many of them are single. The economic system may be well equipped to handle such destruction, but can the social system? I doubt it. Yaron Brooks (ultra libertarian, and head of the Ayn Rand club) used this metaphor for anti-competitive behavior: If there are two shoe stores, and one of those stores is able to lower their prices to absurd levels because a rich uncle is subsidizing the business, you as a consumer shouldn't care at all. As a consumer you should only care about where you get the goods for the best price, and if the other business goes under, in the long term the system will balance itself out. The subsidized company may even force the unsubsidized companies to creatively adapt and thus provide the consumer with an even better value. The problem is, while we may not care about a shoe store going out of business, if you take the metaphor and apply it on a national level, where the United States is the shoe store playing by the rules, and China is the shoe store subsidized by a rich uncle, sure, in the long run the system will stabilize, but in the short run our country goes out of business. That's unacceptable. Conservatives have long been against the cosmopolitan dream of one planetary society. Yet they are the strongest defendants of one planetary economic system. I'm not so sure you can have one without the other, and we're starting to see just how unsustainable it is for the world's most powerful country to rely on everyone else for their labor.

I wouldn't argue it's been for nothing. Automation and outsourcing have a strongly deflationary effect. Incidentally, printing trillions of dollars and dumping them into the system has a strongly inflationary effect. It may very well be that the two forces have been hiding each other for the last 20 to 30 years. However, we are approaching a point where outsourcing is no longer the free labor it used to be. Sure, it's a lot cheaper than having American workers make t-shirts, but as the third world countries we've relied on for manufacturing modernized, their workers began commanding steeper wages. Now automation is doing what outsourcing once did, providing the deflationary force to counter inflation from monetary policy. But for how long? The deflationary effect has been so strong over the years that it has also compensated for the complete stagnation in middle-class earnings. People don't make more, but the goods kept getting cheaper because of outsourcing and automation. We may be entering a period where the impact of automation and outsourcing diminishes. Given the eye watering amount of money printing, I wouldn't be surprised to see a return to '80s level inflation. Wanna guess what happens when the Federal reserve is forced to raise the interest rates that they have relied on to keep the lending markets, and as a secondary effect, the stock market afloat?

Number one way I can tell a movie/TV show is going to suck: dead characters coming back. When the producers and writers get attached to the actors instead of the story, the story inevitably crumbles. Just look at Game of Thrones. GRRM loved the world and the story, not the characters, so they died when it was best for the plot. As soon as the source material ran out, we got two seasons of steamy horse shit, because regular ass Hollywood writers and producers took over, and they just know how to stick to the formula. WW84 is just another casualty.

Exactly dude, that's a realistic view. Do you really think that's the narrative espoused by the left (political class, not voters)? You think your view led to riots?

I was specific in what I said. Election fraud and the systemic persecution of black people in the new millennium were both false narratives. 19 unarmed black people were shot by police in 2019. Are you going to pretend like that was the narrative this summer? I can spend the time quoting the many public leftists who fanned the flames with a false premise, but maybe we're just misunderstanding each other's point? If you think the protests over the summer were based on reality, spend the time and read the opposing side, you don't need me to Google it for you. Heather MacDonald has five great work on the subject. If you've done that and still buy the vision of a racist america in 2020, we'll just be stuck in different realities.

Just like anyone who thinks America is a racist country where innocent black people are being massacred by the cops is being gaslighted. That's the whole point, and the real tragedy. The Republicans now have their own false reality (election fraud) to live in. So both sides no longer know what's real. Great.

The (R) are like the gangsters in The Dark Knight who hired the Joker. They hoped for a one sided chaos they could control, but they just got chaos. Still. I think we've only seen the end of the beginning, with Trump as the catalyst for what comes next. Rational liberals who voted Democrat, and could have voted no other way because of the absurdity of Trump as president, no longer have the boogeyman to distract them from the insanity of democratic policy. Phase two is going to be the breakdown of the democratic party, a split that has been a long time coming, will once again take away the fabled supermajority of voters that Democratic politicians have been chasing for decades. Joe Manchin may be able to sell out his entire ethical foundation, but the American voters will be less pliable. The worship of race, and the now open demonization of "whiteness," wealth, and masculinity will take the many, many suburban woman who voted against Trump for the justified hated of his disgusting composure, and deliver them right back to the Republicans. Well, only if the Republican politicians learned from the last 4 years. Some have. Warnock is the continuation of the Marxism camel getting it's nose under the tent. The (D) will be hard pressed to keep it out now.

I don't think he's made the point well until his recent long post, but Negatory is on to something that (R) have been blind to. The generational wealth disparity, home price increases, education cost increases, purchasing power stagnation, consumer debt increases, all coupled with the near-requirement for dual income households is a gigantic Master Warning light that we're ignoring. The government is shoveling as much fake money into the stock market as it can to stabilize the 401k accounts and underfunded state and local pensions that are heavily invested in equities to make up for their poor balances. And because the interest rates are still at zero in an effort to prop up the markets, there's nowhere else to put your money where it will grow. The boomers did a shit job of, well, everything, and now that they are finally retiring, they are collectively shitting their pants at the prospect of their houses and investment accounts losing value right when they are planning on needing them. And the government is pouring gas on the already immolated future of the millennials and Gen Z in order to save boomers from a lifetime of abdicating responsibility. Buckle up.

Well, thank you for proving my point. I didn't say mainstream, specifically. And in fact I made it pretty obvious that I don't think all Democrats are SJW lunatics. So, let's stick with what I did say. The ideological engine of the party (not the voters) is being driven by exactly these types of lunatics. That you are unaware of them is irrelevant. They are *everywhere* in academia, politics, media, and especially big tech companies. While you go on with your life, blissfully unaware, they are whispering in the ears off those making the decisions. Critical race theory, anti-racism, equity... There are a ton of pseudo-intellectual theories that are gaining traction. You shrug them off because you're a rational human, but this curriculum is being taught in classrooms and boardrooms across the nation, and many people are buying the dogma. Again, regardless of your ignorance to the philosophy. White Fragility has been a Best Seller for over a year. That's not fringe. Read it and tell me it's not the most insane shit you've ever read. Yet, it's definitely relevant on the institutional left. So, exactly like I said in my post, liberal voters don't know what their own party is espousing. There's no conservative equivalent right now. If Richard Spencer was making huge book deals and having his lectures quoted by sitting senators and presidential candidates, I'd agree with you. But that's not what's happening.

This seems to be the biggest disconnect in the conversation these days. Well-intentioned liberal voters are unaware of the the doctrine being espoused by the "intellectuals" driving their party. Makes the conversation difficult when the conservatives are more knowledgeable of what the progressives are pushing than the liberal voter engaged in the discussion. Another common retort is that such terminology and the associated arguments represent the crazy fringe of the party. But I don't think it's fair to argue that Ta'-Nehisi Coates, Robin DiAngelo, or Ibram X. Kendi are "fringe" anymore. They are thought leaders being quoted at the highest levels of power. So when a liberal cites the dictionary, it demonstrates immediately that they don't even know what "their side" is preaching.

ID verification upon delivery of the parcel, similar to certified mail. The govt can afford it. That's just one option, there are so many ways to skin the cat. The democratic pols think many of their voters are too stupid/poor/lazy to get an ID in time to vote. They are right, of course, but I suspect they are overestimating the number of that group by 10x or more, and underestimating the number of (R) voters who would not make the cut as well.

Don't forget, all this after indulging (and revering) Stacy Abrams in her fantasy of winning the Georgia election. I don't like the reaction of the Republicans, but I understand it. Just like when the left screamed that a person's race was a critical element of their identity, then were shocked that white supremacists made a comeback. Be careful the rules you make, for others may follow them.

Yeah, it's a shame to see so many republicans play the same stupid games.

I get what you're saying, but the difference is, you're a nobody. Not a slam. I'm nobody too. But Both Obama's and Biden's staff were aware and concerned about what Hunter was doing. That doesn't make it Joe's fault, but are we going to pretend he didn't know, as he claims? Nonsense. He's unfit. So is Trump. So with two unfit people running, one traditionally unfit (corrupt to the ears, but maintains an outward appearance of propriety) and one untraditionally unfit (morally bankrupt, yet proudly and loudly so). So I go for the policy. There are a lot of voters like me. Dislike Trump, like the policy. And there are a lot more people like the MAGA crowds, who don't know policy, they just see the huge contradictions in reality. Ben Shapiro's podcast from yesterday is a near-perfect encapsulation of the massive double standard that the less-knowledgeable conservatives, such as my father, can see clearly.

Remember when the news outlets dutifully ignored the story about Donald Trump and some Russian hookers engaging in piss-play in a hotel? I don't believe the election was "stolen." But Victor Davis Hanson puts it best when he explains how it was "rigged" through a concerted effort to suppress negative information about Joe Biden. If you have an hour, this is a great look into the pro-Trump perspective. If you don't have the time, watch from 4:45 - 8:15. Do I think it means the SCOTUS saves the day? No. The media problem isn't something the government can solve. But everyone laughing and scorning the Trump team for making bold claims in public that never materialize in court sure seem to be forgetting the Adam Schiff (D) show on CNN for several years assuring us that Donald Trump was a Russian puppet, and using his position on the Intelligence Committee as standing to back up the claim. Yet nothing was every taken to court. There is no honest way to argue that the same standard has been used on Joe Biden as has been used on Donald Trump. That hypocrisy is very, very visible to conservatives. And whenever (D) voters get into a conversation with (R) voters, there is a general refusal to admit the clearly obvious difference in treatment between the two. And when that is pointed out, inevitably it's some variation of but Donald Trump is so much more offensive. He cheats on his wives! His businesses fail! His kids are only doing well because of Daddy! But to say these things in such a manner completely ignores the reality of politics. Bill Clinton was getting his dick sucked by a 22 year old in the oval office, while very much married. Kennedy was flying 19 year-olds around the world for drug-fueled orgies, also married. Sanford, Gingrich, and plenty of other republicans too. John Edwards had a love child while his wife was dying of cancer. Hillary Clinton literally ran a server in a bathroom that she had destroyed when it was discovered. Then lied about having the emails from the server. These people are monsters. And going back before Trump, George Bush, by every account a decent man, was called a Nazi. Mitt Romney was maybe the most charitable politician in history, and he too was smeared as an evil monster. And don't even get me started on Brett Kavanaugh. So is Trump a horrible person? Yup. But not one fucking percent more horrible than the parade of Democrats and Republicans who hate him so furiously. And now Joe Biden is getting a pass for his kid clearly and obviously using the family name for profit, and kids are off limits? Didn't seem so for the Trump kids. And when evidence (yes, first hand testimony is evidence) comes out that Joe Biden was aware, well that's just one guy saying some stuff. If photos of Tiffany Trump snorting coke while she worked for a Russian company making $50k/month in an industry where she had zero experience or skill were to make it public, the whole world would erupt, and we all know it. I wish both side would be more honest about their candidates and their beliefs. But we're human, we don't like to admit any shortcomings of our own team. I'm just as tired of my god-fearing Christian airline captains acting like Trump is a good man as I am of democrats or centrists pretending like their preferred politicians are somehow less corrupt or less dishonest than Trump. Bullshit.

That's fair

I took that to mean that Kamala would have to come up with a reason to quit, just like he would have under Obama. But as usual, the man is incapable of putting a clear thought together. After 4 years of Trump doing the same thing, we should be used to it.

Why? Unless she was born into the wrongly gendered body, we all know exactly how it will play out.

Is this the part where we pretend, regardless of the intentional or unintentional nature of the squib kick, that this makes sense. Take the top male kickers and pit them against the top female kickers. There will be no surprises. The fact they had to put a female into the weakest position on the weakest team does more damage to the cause. Absurd. There are plenty of sports where gender is irrelevant. Why pick one where it's most relevant? Remember this gem? https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/australian-womens-national-team-lose-70-to-team-of-15yearold-boys-a3257266.html

And that's exactly why the American system works. Because if people are left to pursue their self-interests, their fundamentally good nature will be freed to impact those around them. But we will suppress that good nature if required in order to protect our self-interest. Thus the failure of communism over capitalism. Even the best mannered dog will bite you if provoked enough. Doesn't mean it's not a good dog. One of the most unfortunate results of the era of limitless and instant communication is the proliferation of bad news over good news, even though the latter exceeds the former in every way. Can you even name a movie or TV show that is set in the future that doesn't have some sort of dystopian hellscape as the backdrop? For some reason we are fascinated with the idea that the future, even the immediate future, is doom on our doorstep. Yet overwhelmingly the evidence is that across the globe it has only gotten better for humanity over time. Anyone who's interested in the data supporting this concept should read "Enlightenment Now" by Stephen Pinker. Great book.

If people were fundamentally evil, society would trend downward. It hasn't. There are evil people. There are more good people. Over time the good have beaten the evil. Our system protects the good from the evil to allow the good to flourish and continue doing good. If you've seen little evidence of altruism, you've been limiting your view to a TV screen. Look around, it's literally everywhere.