The Next President is...

[Homestar]

2 hours ago, Swamp Yankee said:

I've seen that most of the kids just play at being liberals for a few years. Once they graduate, 75% head off to Wall Street, med school, or law school. It's funny.  

Real life will do that to you. It truly is remarkable that some liberals are able to live their entire lives as liberals. It take some real dedication. Of course, a lot of times it's a case of "liberalism for thee, but not for me." I mean, Bernie is keeping the millions from his book I assume and not giving it to the government to distribute.

[jazzdude]

True.  Amazing how a board member at a small company can send you on a wild goose chase due to some pet project.  

Exactly (and it's a problem for large companies that have a person or entity as a majority shareholder). Or force you to sell out to a big company so they can cash out on the takeover, potentially including your intellectual property.

In our capitalist society/economy, it's not what we say we value that sets what is important, it's where we spend our money. Money is a reflection of what is really valued (and a proxy for time and resources expended) and speaks much louder than words.

[jazzdude]

Think a company has a double standard? Stop doing business with that company. That will encourage them to apply an even/fair standard.

Twitter doesn't care that the leaders in Iran are tweeting what they are- it allows them access to the Iranian market, so they tolerate it for the money. If a significant portion of their user base was offended by that and leave twitter, then twitter might take action. All they are required to do is to comply with the laws of the country they are operating in, and that standard changes based on the country you access twitter from.

Remember with social media that you, the user, are not the consumer, you and your information are the product. Sure they provide a service, but it's not really free, and the sale of your information and advertising is what keeps them in business.

I will agree, though, that we are moving in a direction where maybe some aspects of social media are becoming important. (Remember not too long ago people were ridiculed for posting their lives on a blog, which isn't too far removed from what people do on Facebook?) It's why government and industry should encourage using open standards, and support data portability (to make it easier for even possible to pull your info off a platform and move to a different platform).

But to ClearedHot's point, those large companies (and not just social media companies) can exert a lot of influence, so yes, we need to figure out how to get to what we as a country believe is right.

People have been fighting against several large tech companies and throwing up warning flags for over a decade now, but largely that debate has fallen on deaf ears, both from politicians and the general public (who generally don't care as long as it doesn't affect them directly, like it is now for a small group of people).

EFF had been a leading voice in that regard. Here's their short analysis of the whole Trump/Twitter debate:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/eff-response-social-media-companies-decision-block-president-trumps-accounts
Essentially, they support social media's right to censor and exercise their first amendment and section 230 rights, but very concerned about the transparency and fairness of the actions, and purpose a framework to ensure fairness that the platforms should self impose voluntarily as a best practice.

[Swamp Yankee]

14 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

Exactly (and it's a problem for large companies that have a person or entity as a majority shareholder). Or force you to sell out to a big company so they can cash out on the takeover, potentially including your intellectual property.

In our capitalist society/economy, it's not what we say we value that sets what is important, it's where we spend our money. Money is a reflection of what is really valued (and a proxy for time and resources expended) and speaks much louder than words.

Reminds me of Ricky Gervais comments during the Golden Globes where he lambasted Tim Cook @ Apple and the other electronic media folk.  Something to the effect of 'you say you're woke, but if ISIS started a streaming service you'd call your agent.'

[FLEA]

22 minutes ago, TheLaughingCow said:

There are certain companies which are impossible, or extremely difficult, to stop supporting.

Facebook, Google, and Amazon all fall into that category since Facebook and Google track you across the internet to steal and sell your data.  Any time you use the internet you are supporting Amazon's cloud services.

I mean, I literally, actually, very well probably couldnt survive without Amazon right now, living overseas in lockdown. I have ZERO other ways to receive products. Stores havent been open here for months and Amazon is the only delivery service for consumer goods I know of in this country. Pretty much ANYTHING I can't get at a grocery store, I've been buying off Amazon for the last year. 

[ClearedHot]

3 hours ago, jazzdude said:

Those examples have government exerting direct control on information.

Let's be real, the mainstream media, Facebook and Twitter have become extensions of the DNC.  It is one thing to openly advocate, it is another to use the power of your monopoly to control and suppress information in order to impact the outcome of an election.  Because of their monopoly status, the protections of 230 and change in society, they have become an extension of one political party.

While I agree with you on the car company examples I think there is a huge difference between buying a car and being the main supplier of information to the electorate.  Society has changed and recent surveys have shown 67% of Facebook users also use Facebook as their primary source of news.  When combined with 230 you now have a recipe for disaster.  Again...Facebook and Twitter actively suppressed negative stories about Biden and Openly championed negative stories about Trump.  The answer is not government regulation, it is to break up these monopolies and make sure there is fair access to news and information.

[ClearedHot]

1 minute ago, FLEA said:

I mean, I literally, actually, very well probably couldnt survive without Amazon right now, living overseas in lockdown. I have ZERO other ways to receive products. Stores havent been open here for months and Amazon is the only delivery service for consumer goods I know of in this country. Pretty much ANYTHING I can't get at a grocery store, I've been buying off Amazon for the last year. 

And they do thus at the expense of the U.S. Tax payer.  In 2018 Amazon posted profit of $18 billion (I own a bunch, great for my portfolio), but they paid ZERO in taxes...actually it is worse than that....thanks to tax credits they got a refund of $139 Million.  While being subsidized they are flexing political muscle (no hidden secret the Bezos and Trump hate each other), and they ban a predominately conservative company from their servers under completely contrived rationale.  Amazon should be the first target of the government....but they won't be.

[slackline]

15 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

And they do thus at the expense of the U.S. Tax payer.  In 2018 Amazon posted profit of $18 billion (I own a bunch, great for my portfolio), but they paid ZERO in taxes...actually it is worse than that....thanks to tax credits they got a refund of $139 Million.  While being subsidized they are flexing political muscle (no hidden secret the Bezos and Trump hate each other), and they ban a predominately conservative company from their servers under completely contrived rationale.  Amazon should be the first target of the government....but they won't be.

I think you'd have a hard time getting anyone that they used a contrived rationale.  I'll give you the double standard, and readily admit social media is garbage, poisoning our ability to critically think, but nothing was contrived.  Ignoring the double standard, clear violations of ToS were present, warnings were given, and now they finally did what they should have been doing across the globe to left and right a long time ago.  Now they need to step up and apply this standard evenhandedly.  Here's me holding my breath...

I don't use any social media for this reason.  I agree, it's virtually impossible to not use Google or Amazon, but Facebook?  Nope, have none of it.  People value their social media more than they value their real lives, so good luck convincing people to jump ship en masse.  

[Swamp Yankee]

12 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Let's be real, the mainstream media, Facebook and Twitter have become extensions of the DNC.  It is one thing to openly advocate, it is another to use the power of your monopoly to control and suppress information in order to impact the outcome of an election.  Because of their monopoly status, the protections of 230 and change in society, they have become an extension of one political party.

While I agree with you on the car company examples I think there is a huge difference between buying a car and being the main supplier of information to the electorate.  Society has changed and recent surveys have shown 67% of Facebook users also use Facebook as their primary source of news.  When combined with 230 you now have a recipe for disaster.  Again...Facebook and Twitter actively suppressed negative stories about Biden and Openly championed negative stories about Trump.  The answer is not government regulation, it is to break up these monopolies and make sure there is fair access to news and information.

I agree Twitter has bias.  Facebook much less so.  Regardless....

The mainstream media includes Fox, Newsmax, OAN, talk radio, Wash Times, among others. Plenty of exposure for both the left and right.  Don't pretend it's 1992 with the NY Times and networks controlling the news.   You can make a stronger case for Fox being an extension of the RNC.  You can also post on Fox news comments all day - no one is stopping you - except when Fox decides to pause occasionally due to super hot and heavy openly racist comments.  Or go to 4chan if you want.  

If someone decides Facebook is their primary news source, that's on them. No one is forcing them to read "articles" about Bernie or QAnon while posting cat pics no one cares about.  Plenty of other outlets.  Try BBC (sts) for example. 

 

[ClearedHot]

1 minute ago, slackline said:

I think you'd have a hard time getting anyone that they used a contrived rationale.  I'll give you the double standard, and readily admit social media is garbage, poisoning our ability to critically think, but nothing was contrived.  Ignoring the double standard, clear violations of ToS were present, warnings were given, and now they finally did what they should have been doing across the globe to left and right a long time ago.  Now they need to step up and apply this standard evenhandedly.  Here's me holding my breath...

I don't use any social media for this reason.  I agree, it's virtually impossible to not use Google or Amazon, but Facebook?  Nope, have none of it.  People value their social media more than they value their real lives, so good luck convincing people to jump ship en masse.  

Please read contrived as double standard in my example.  They host other organizations that are doing the exact same thing so they reverted to ToS as part of the cancel culture.

[Swamp Yankee]

26 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

And they do thus at the expense of the U.S. Tax payer.  In 2018 Amazon posted profit of $18 billion (I own a bunch, great for my portfolio), but they paid ZERO in taxes...actually it is worse than that....thanks to tax credits they got a refund of $139 Million.  While being subsidized they are flexing political muscle (no hidden secret the Bezos and Trump hate each other), and they ban a predominately conservative company from their servers under completely contrived rationale.  Amazon should be the first target of the government....but they won't be.

Ah yes, tax advantages for big companies.  Who supports those? 

[ClearedHot]

1 minute ago, Swamp Yankee said:

I agree Twitter has bias.  Facebook much less so.  Regardless....

The mainstream media includes Fox, Newsmax, OAN, talk radio, Wash Times, among others. Plenty of exposure for both the left and right.  Don't pretend it's 1992 with the NY Times and networks controlling the news.   You can make a stronger case for Fox being an extension of the RNC.  You can also post on Fox news comments all day - no one is stopping you - except when Fox decides to pause occasionally due to super hot and heavy openly racist comments.  Or go to 4chan if you want.  

If someone decides Facebook is their primary news source, that's on them. No one is forcing them to read "articles" about Bernie or QAnon while posting cat pics no one cares about.  Plenty of other outlets.  Try BBC (sts) for example. 

 

Facebook has a subtle bias that in someways is more dangerous.  The content they have elected to remove or suppress is often not reported.  Go look at political donation totals by Facebook and their leadership to political parties.

Foxnews certainly expresses the opinions of the RNC and lately Newsmax has jumped on the same bandwagon, but that absolutely pales in comparison to the major networks while ALL parrot the DNC.  Aside from hiring all the former DNC operatives they have openly called for Foxnews to be shut down...CNN in particular has completely jumped the shark and become unwatchable.  I sued to rotate between Fox, BBC, and CNN...MSNBC being a complete farce.  These days I watch a little Fox but mostly BBC.

[ClearedHot]

3 minutes ago, Swamp Yankee said:

Ah yes, tax advantages for big companies.  Who supports those? 

Both sides...

[slackline]

Just now, ClearedHot said:

Both sides...

One side significantly more...  Guess which

[jazzdude]

There are certain companies which are impossible, or extremely difficult, to stop supporting.
Facebook, Google, and Amazon all fall into that category since Facebook and Google track you across the internet to steal and sell your data.  Any time you use the internet you are supporting Amazon's cloud services.

True, and is a separate but somewhat related issue concerning what is private information and what is public information. Used to have a degree of privacy because it was hard to collect and correlate public personal data, allowing for privacy because it was time and labor intensive to invade someone's privacy, but technology has drastically lowered that bar. So Facebook or Google tracking your public movements across the internet is a privacy problem, but it's arguably "public" information. It's the same as credit card companies, they track and sell your info to this parties as well. Non digital example would be a private detective following someone around and watching what you do and buy in public.

Related, ask those people who signed the Capitol are about to find out the hard way just how much information about who they are and where they go is created just by physically having their cellphone on them even if they didn't use it.

Saying anytime you use internet you are using Amazon is hyperbole. They do have a good share of the market, but it's by no means a monopoly, with strong competition. Amazon just had the benefit of being one of the earlier entrants into cloud services.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-top-cloud-providers-of-2021-aws-microsoft-azure-google-cloud-hybrid-saas/
Sure, you may not be able to cut all ties with Amazon, any more than cutting ties with Qualcomm. Both are providers to businesses, and don't have to sell to the general public (though AWS does). It's difficult as a consumer to boycott subcontractors, but if it's something you truly believe in, you'll find a way.

Unlike ISPs, I don't think servers are quite to the point of needing to be regulated as common infrastructure. This is mainly because as long as you can connect to the physically connect to the internet, you still have your choice (as a website or data owner) of what service you use to host your content.

[Swamp Yankee]

37 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Facebook has a subtle bias that in someways is more dangerous.  The content they have elected to remove or suppress is often not reported.  Go look at political donation totals by Facebook and their leadership to political parties.

Foxnews certainly expresses the opinions of the RNC and lately Newsmax has jumped on the same bandwagon, but that absolutely pales in comparison to the major networks while ALL parrot the DNC.  Aside from hiring all the former DNC operatives they have openly called for Foxnews to be shut down...CNN in particular has completely jumped the shark and become unwatchable.  I sued to rotate between Fox, BBC, and CNN...MSNBC being a complete farce.  These days I watch a little Fox but mostly BBC.

Fox and MSNBC are just mirror images of each other.  Same level of partisan BS except one is an acid and the other a base (dim recollection of HS chem)  Although I find it interesting that when Fox momentarily pointed out a lack of evidence for election fraud they were immediately branded as unworthy "fake news!" by Trump and many of his supporters.  

Network news is becoming irrelevant. 

I also browse BBC frequently. 

In terms of #consumers, Fox+Newsmax+OAN+talk radio = CNN+MSNBC+networks. The difference is demographics.  Conservative viewers tend to be older, liberal younger.  

My biggest pet peeve is that the mainstream outlets like Fox and MSNBC reduce everything to 30 sec soundbites.  They're taking us for ADHD simpletons.  

The wildcard is the podcast world, which is becoming more and more popular. Decent mix of left and right viewpoints. 

 

 

[Sua Sponte]

6 minutes ago, Swamp Yankee said:

I also browse BBC frequently. 

 

 

 

[Swamp Yankee]

8 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

 

Forgot the (sts).  Let's change the subject.  I should have just wrote it out: British Broadcasting Corporation. 

Funny story: there's a restaurant chain in New England called British Beer Company.  Great place for a first date, "I'll take you to BBC"

 

Edited January 21, 2021 by Swamp Yankee

[jrizzell]

Forgot the (sts).  Let's change the subject.  I should have just wrote it out: British Broadcasting Corporation. 
Funny story: there's a restaurant chain in New England called British Beer Company.  Great place for a first date, "I'll take you to BBC"
 

 
The ol’ BBC...how did I end up on this website

[slackline]

Fox and MSNBC are just mirror images of each other.  Same level of partisan BS except one is an acid and the other a base (dim recollection of HS chem)  Although I find it interesting that when Fox momentarily pointed out a lack of evidence for election fraud they were immediately branded as unworthy "fake news!" by Trump and many of his supporters.  
Network news is becoming irrelevant. 
I also browse BBC frequently. 
In terms of #consumers, Fox+Newsmax+OAN+talk radio = CNN+MSNBC+networks. The difference is demographics.  Conservative viewers tend to be older, liberal younger.  
My biggest pet peeve is that the mainstream outlets like Fox and MSNBC reduce everything to 30 sec soundbites.  They're taking us for ADHD simpletons.  
The wildcard is the podcast world, which is becoming more and more popular. Decent mix of left and right viewpoints. 
 
 

Just read an article this morning that Apple is contemplating making podcasts a subscription/pay based service as opposed to providing a platform for content. Gotta ring every last penny out...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ClearedHot]

1 hour ago, slackline said:

Just read an article this morning that Apple is contemplating making podcasts a subscription/pay based service as opposed to providing a platform for content. Gotta ring every last penny out...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Apple is the Devil.  I really hope the Right to Repair cases humble them.

[Lord Ratner]

On 1/20/2021 at 1:47 PM, Swamp Yankee said:

Understood.  However, since Weinsteins' content is consistently 95%+ complaining about democrats and agreeing with conservative positions then perhaps they aren't democrats as they claim.  My cynical side thinks that Brett and Eric, as well as Tulsi and Rogan are not liberal (classical or otherwise). They may say so to help maximize their audience, but then why are they always sympathetic to the right?  They should just state that they are conservatives and own it.

Out of curiosity, as a moderate, what DO you support on the democratic side?  How about the republican side?  I hate that there are "sides" but it's just a reality under the current political structure. 

I consider myself a left-leaning moderate, working in tech for the past 20 yrs after transitioning to the Guard.  By Massachusetts standards, I'm a conservative.  By USAF standards, I'm a raging liberal. Individual liberty (including 2nd Amendment), strong military/diplomacy ("...provide for the common defense..."), broad individual liberty, limited-use safety net ("...promote the general welfare...").  As a developed country, we should be able to provide healthcare not tied to employment.  Investment in public education as it is a key means to beat China with whom we are at economic war.   

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.

[Lord Ratner]

7 hours ago, jazzdude said:

 

 

Tesla's an interesting case. Yes, they are to newer to market, and had to compete against the legacy car manufacturers. But they also had a lot of capital injected into their business by a wealthy person (Elon Musk) who took interest in their business and their vision, that actually allowed them to compete.

So yeah, the small guy can succeed, but only if they can get the right investors.

The problem with taking investors is you lose control. Money buys influence, piss off your investors and they pull their money.

 

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.

[jazzdude]

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.

I'm not sure if it's necessarily what's wrong with America. Making investments solely to help out donors is wrong, and you're right, both sides do that.

But that doesn't mean good investments aren't made by the government. Think of it as a strategic investment in new technologies for the common good for all Americans.

What Tesla did for electric cars isn't design good electric cars (they are decent, but have issues that legacy car manufacturers have worked out, from manufacturing issues, to just keeping their displays working because they went cheap on flash memory in the car, leading to a safety recall). What Tesla did to make electric cars really viable in practice is to design and implement their super charger infrastructure. And building infrastructure generally isn't profitable, especially up front without some degree of government backing. Would you rather have had government try to figure out how to create a network of electric car charging stations, or to invest seed money in a few companies with promising ideas on how to do it and see where it goes? The latter seems like a very American approach, leveraging resources pooled by the nation to invest in a companies with good ideas from private industry to benefit everyone. Alternative fuel cars aren't popular because the infrastructure to fuel them is extremely limited, making them inconvenient to use in practice, whereas gas stations are everywhere and relatively convenient. And the investment in Tesla seemed to turn out well, with them showing that building the infrastructure for electric cars can be done and be profitable.

This plays into a national goal to reduce dependence on fossil fuels to ensure our security. https://www.energy.gov/fe/articles/3-ways-fossil-energy-ensures-us-energy-security

The federal government has had a long history in making strategic investments, and guiding research and development in multiple fields of study. GPS and Internet are two major examples of the fruits of that investment that have a major impact in how we live our lives now. But government also invested in advanced aeronautics, space flight, medicine, nuclear energy, clothing, human factors/ergonomics, human physiology, to name a few. Federal grants/loans/contacts are made to research institutions/colleges and private companies to do basic research, or to take scientific theories from basic research and mature into practical technologies for industry to take advantage of.

Just because you have a brilliant idea doesn't mean you'll change the world, or even make enough to live on. You generally need someone to invest in your great idea to bring it to market. Why shouldn't the federal government also make investments in ideas it thinks will be beneficial for the country (or world) as a whole? It doesn't stop private entities from doing research on their own, they generally aren't competing directly with another organization that got a federal grants, because the government typically will own the IP since they funded the research, and the government usually doesn't charge to licence out that IP to industry since public funds were used.

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, jazzdude said:

 

I'm not sure if it's necessarily what's wrong with America. Making investments solely to help out donors is wrong, and you're right, both sides do that.

But that doesn't mean good investments aren't made by the government. Think of it as a strategic investment in new technologies for the common good for all Americans.

What Tesla did for electric cars isn't design good electric cars (they are decent, but have issues that legacy car manufacturers have worked out, from manufacturing issues, to just keeping their displays working because they went cheap on flash memory in the car, leading to a safety recall). What Tesla did to make electric cars really viable in practice is to design and implement their super charger infrastructure. And building infrastructure generally isn't profitable, especially up front without some degree of government backing. Would you rather have had government try to figure out how to create a network of electric car charging stations, or to invest seed money in a few companies with promising ideas on how to do it and see where it goes? The latter seems like a very American approach, leveraging resources pooled by the nation to invest in a companies with good ideas from private industry to benefit everyone. Alternative fuel cars aren't popular because the infrastructure to fuel them is extremely limited, making them inconvenient to use in practice, whereas gas stations are everywhere and relatively convenient. And the investment in Tesla seemed to turn out well, with them showing that building the infrastructure for electric cars can be done and be profitable.

This plays into a national goal to reduce dependence on fossil fuels to ensure our security. https://www.energy.gov/fe/articles/3-ways-fossil-energy-ensures-us-energy-security

The federal government has had a long history in making strategic investments, and guiding research and development in multiple fields of study. GPS and Internet are two major examples of the fruits of that investment that have a major impact in how we live our lives now. But government also invested in advanced aeronautics, space flight, medicine, nuclear energy, clothing, human factors/ergonomics, human physiology, to name a few. Federal grants/loans/contacts are made to research institutions/colleges and private companies to do basic research, or to take scientific theories from basic research and mature into practical technologies for industry to take advantage of.

Just because you have a brilliant idea doesn't mean you'll change the world, or even make enough to live on. You generally need someone to invest in your great idea to bring it to market. Why shouldn't the federal government also make investments in ideas it thinks will be beneficial for the country (or world) as a whole? It doesn't stop private entities from doing research on their own, they generally aren't competing directly with another organization that got a federal grants, because the government typically will own the IP since they funded the research, and the government usually doesn't charge to licence out that IP to industry since public funds were used.

 

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.