The Next President is...

[jazzdude]

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. ing 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. 

GPS only went public after the soviets shot down passenger airline that inadvertantly entered their airspace due to a navigation error. It wasn't originally planned for public use. And it wasn't until a decade after that US government also changed its policy on the option to shut off gps to the public for military reasons.

I don't think we'll see eye to eye on Tesla. I still believe it was good money invested to see how to create EV infrastructure, so site selection for individual charging stations, and develop technologies to rapidly charge vehicles. Sure, Tesla profited with the help of government (not unlike LM or Boeing), but the government got a roadmap on how to design the EV infrastructure, considerations when dealing with property owners, and empirical evidence to support what standards to use in the future. The alternative would've been to let DOE or DOT try to figure it out on their own.

Tax breaks/credits are incentives government uses to encourage businesses (and individuals, for that matter) to take a particular action. For example, it could be locating at a particular area, or accelerate adoption of a particular technology, or to shape their community.

Cities bid on Amazon HQ to try and get the HQ in their city. The thought seemed to be that attracting a large tech company would bring "good" jobs to the area, and would boost the local economy (housing, restaurants, entertainment, etc), or perhaps encourage other companies or industries to consider the city. I'd expect the cities bidding based their tax breaks based on the economic gain they believed they'd get, essentially offsetting the list revenue from offering the tax break.

I do think in Amazon's case you are right- of course they were going to go to DC and NYC; they need to be close to lobby for their interests. And they were able to get cities to provide free and detailed information about their city's economy. Amazon definitely took advantage of the system to gain information about the market for free.

How do you feel about cities subsidizing construction of pro sports arenas/stadiums?

I disagree with your view of a free market not accounting for government. The theoretical free market doesn't account for greed and power. There is no such thing as a "free market", never really has been, never will be. To some extent, there has always been external and internal forces affecting markets. Also, by no means does a free market have to also be fair.

Governments do shape the market, and (should) instill a sense of order, and enforce what the society deems "fair." Libertarians want less government to make the market free from government influence, but it's built on the flawed assumption that everyone participating in the market will hold identical views on what's fair, and everyone will only act in a fair and decent manner (not be affected by greed). If you got rid of government, would who stop a business or individual from taking unfair actions that benefit themselves? Unchecked, it allows monopolies to form, which then exert heavy influence on the market, and allows them to structure the market further in their favor. So who steps in? If there's no regulating authority (government) to enforce what is fair, then the only alternative is a violent overthrowing of those that are controlling the market unfairly by the people oppressed by that market.

Government in some cases does pick a winner, like in your utilities examples. Those are common infrastructure, and heavily regulated. Otherwise, how do you compete 2 electric companies, especially when one paid to hook up power to your house? Should that company be forced to share it's investment in electrical lines with it's competitors? Same with water companies. Or any essential utility. But government should also hold them accountable for providing the essential service.

Also disagree on your assessments of progressives and conservatives regarding meritocracy. Across the political spectrum, I think most forms of government support and benefit from meritocracy. Even an ideal communist society/government benefits from a meritocracy to fill supervisory/managerial/leadership roles, just like it benefits a capitalist society. Both democratic (and capitalist) and communist societies/governments get hurt when those in power fill positions using nepotism or favoritism, and can lead to that government falling apart, and governments and societies as well tend to fall short of the ideal in practice. Nepotism/favoritism is required in an authoritative government, because it reduces the risk of a coup by filling key positions with those who are loyal to those in power. Helped lead to the downfall of the USSR (party loyalty over talent). Of course, none of that would ever happen in the US, right?

[Swamp Yankee]

52 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

 

 

GPS only went public after the soviets shot down passenger airline that inadvertantly entered their airspace due to a navigation error. It wasn't originally planned for public use. And it wasn't until a decade after that US government also changed its policy on the option to shut off gps to the public for military reasons.

I don't think we'll see eye to eye on Tesla. I still believe it was good money invested to see how to create EV infrastructure, so site selection for individual charging stations, and develop technologies to rapidly charge vehicles. Sure, Tesla profited with the help of government (not unlike LM or Boeing), but the government got a roadmap on how to design the EV infrastructure, considerations when dealing with property owners, and empirical evidence to support what standards to use in the future. The alternative would've been to let DOE or DOT try to figure it out on their own.

Tax breaks/credits are incentives government uses to encourage businesses (and individuals, for that matter) to take a particular action. For example, it could be locating at a particular area, or accelerate adoption of a particular technology, or to shape their community.

Cities bid on Amazon HQ to try and get the HQ in their city. The thought seemed to be that attracting a large tech company would bring "good" jobs to the area, and would boost the local economy (housing, restaurants, entertainment, etc), or perhaps encourage other companies or industries to consider the city. I'd expect the cities bidding based their tax breaks based on the economic gain they believed they'd get, essentially offsetting the list revenue from offering the tax break.

I do think in Amazon's case you are right- of course they were going to go to DC and NYC; they need to be close to lobby for their interests. And they were able to get cities to provide free and detailed information about their city's economy. Amazon definitely took advantage of the system to gain information about the market for free.

How do you feel about cities subsidizing construction of pro sports arenas/stadiums?

I disagree with your view of a free market not accounting for government. The theoretical free market doesn't account for greed and power. There is no such thing as a "free market", never really has been, never will be. To some extent, there has always been external and internal forces affecting markets. Also, by no means does a free market have to also be fair.

Governments do shape the market, and (should) instill a sense of order, and enforce what the society deems "fair." Libertarians want less government to make the market free from government influence, but it's built on the flawed assumption that everyone participating in the market will hold identical views on what's fair, and everyone will only act in a fair and decent manner (not be affected by greed). If you got rid of government, would who stop a business or individual from taking unfair actions that benefit themselves? Unchecked, it allows monopolies to form, which then exert heavy influence on the market, and allows them to structure the market further in their favor. So who steps in? If there's no regulating authority (government) to enforce what is fair, then the only alternative is a violent overthrowing of those that are controlling the market unfairly by the people oppressed by that market.

Government in some cases does pick a winner, like in your utilities examples. Those are common infrastructure, and heavily regulated. Otherwise, how do you compete 2 electric companies, especially when one paid to hook up power to your house? Should that company be forced to share it's investment in electrical lines with it's competitors? Same with water companies. Or any essential utility. But government should also hold them accountable for providing the essential service.

Also disagree on your assessments of progressives and conservatives regarding meritocracy. Across the political spectrum, I think most forms of government support and benefit from meritocracy. Even an ideal communist society/government benefits from a meritocracy to fill supervisory/managerial/leadership roles, just like it benefits a capitalist society. Both democratic (and capitalist) and communist societies/governments get hurt when those in power fill positions using nepotism or favoritism, and can lead to that government falling apart, and governments and societies as well tend to fall short of the ideal in practice. Nepotism/favoritism is required in an authoritative government, because it reduces the risk of a coup by filling key positions with those who are loyal to those in power. Helped lead to the downfall of the USSR (party loyalty over talent). Of course, none of that would ever happen in the US, right?

 

"Nepotism/favoritism is required in an authoritative government, because it reduces the risk of a coup by filling key positions with those who are loyal to those in power. Helped lead to the downfall of the USSR (party loyalty over talent). Of course, none of that would ever happen in the US, right?"

Hmmm, I seem to recall some names....Ivanka, Eric, Jr, Cuck-shner.... Oh wait, maybe they were selected based on their policy experience.

[jazzdude]

"Nepotism/favoritism is required in an authoritative government, because it reduces the risk of a coup by filling key positions with those who are loyal to those in power. Helped lead to the downfall of the USSR (party loyalty over talent). Of course, none of that would ever happen in the US, right?"
Hmmm, I seem to recall some names....Ivanka, Eric, Jr, Cuck-shner.... Oh wait, maybe they were selected based on their policy experience.

Yup, and that's an easy one to point out because it's so egregious. Is it really draining the swamp if you replace said swamp with a nastier swamp?

ETA: Meritocracy often gets painted by both sides as a left vs right discussion, but it's really a discussion about how to "fairly" manage power. Both sides abuse power, and neither side "owns" the idea of a meritocracy as a means to manage power in an organization or society.

[slackline]

Is it just me, or are these guardsmen being huge, whiney babies? 

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/21/national-guard-troops-vacate-capitol-461220?cid=apn

You’re called in to do a specific job, that job is done, you’re no longer needed...  That’s a failure on the Guard Bureau if their mission is done and they haven’t redeployed them yet.  Same goes for those who requested their presence, if no longer needed, terminate the request.  Feeling butthurt because you “feel discarded” is ridiculous.  Who let young kids talk to the press?  The statement on how few bathrooms there are is not cool if true, but crying about no internet reception is garbage.  

[ryleypav]

What's this deal about the oval office being a fake/set I just heard about? Can't find anything online about it except one weird reddit post. Which was debunked to show that whatever picture they had up was a german TV show set for election coverage this past year. 

[jazzdude]

The US holds individualism and meritocracy up as a pretty central tenets on what it means to be American, so it can be jarring when we see things happen counter to that.

For a highly individualistic minded person, they'll see their attaining power as a reflection of their actions, and will be less inclined to surround themselves with those from their group/tribe/family. This helps to enable meritocracy, but still can be abused (they could surround themselves with people who would increase their personal gain as the leader, rather than the best person for the job)

For a collectivism minded person, they may see their attaining power not as themselves alone attaining power, but their group/tribe/family attaining power, and would be more inclined to place people from their group in positions of power. Sometimes it might actually be the best (or at least acceptable) person for a job at sometimes not.

But we see disconnects between our stated ideals and actual execution of those ideals all the time in politics, and at best it creates some unease, but many times it causes anger and frustration. Political parties replace committee chairs and makeup when they take a majority in Congress, often along political lines. Politicians voting along party lines, and not what they personally feel is best for their constituency (their tribe is not the constituency, but their political party). And the public isn't guilt free in this either, and there seems to be at least some support for "political dynasties"; Bush then Bush2 then Jeb's failed primary run, Bill Clinton then Hillary's gov service and run for president.

Trump is probably the best example. Probably felt his rise to power was also his family's/inner circle's rise to power, which would be my guess as why he was so unapologetic about filling key positions around him with family. It also helps that doing so also increases his personal gain, whether material or just plain ego. But he also did that in his businesses, so in hindsight it shouldn't have been a surprise. Still wrong, and feels wrong because it's contrary to the American story of individualism and meritocracy.

Biden so far hasn't been much better, but in a different manner. He's filled many key positions with women and minorites. Are they the best picks for the job, or did his team artificially restrict their search to perceived disadvantaged groups to sell a political narrative using those positions? Even if you support removing barriers for those disadvantaged groups, it can still feel wrong because those appointments, taken as a whole, seem to again run contrary to the American story of individualism and meritocracy.

[Swamp Yankee]

13 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

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.

That's a reasonable point...he may have started out that way.  The IDW-podcast left is much more willing to self-examine.  That imbalance is a problem because political discussion is rapidly moving to the podcast world.  It would be great if folks like Crowder, Shapiro, and Peterson truly cast a critical eye on the right. But that rarely, if ever, happens. I may be wrong on that; feel free to share examples to the contrary.  While they are fond of saying (correctly) that you can't ignore the 70+ million that voted for Trump, there are legitimate reasons Biden won the electoral college and received 80+ million votes. Georgia went blue. Texas was closer than expected. Those reasons should be discussed, not dismissed.  

[slackline]

14 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

Biden so far hasn't been much better, but in a different manner. He's filled many key positions with women and minorites. Are they the best picks for the job, or did his team artificially restrict their search to perceived disadvantaged groups to sell a political narrative using those positions? Even if you support removing barriers for those disadvantaged groups, it can still feel wrong because those appointments, taken as a whole, seem to again run contrary to the American story of individualism and meritocracy.

So here’s my take on it.  If there are people far and above more qualified that would clearly do the job way better than those he has nominated it is incredibly bad and simple pandering.  If the people he’s nominated are close enough in quality/performance to those that are “better” than them, where’s the harm in giving those people that typically haven’t ever even been considered for those types of positions a shot?  

If there will be no discernible difference in how well the job is being done, I think it is beneficial to add some flavor to what is typically incredibly homogeneous.  I’m not married to this idea, and could be talked out of it by sound arguments, but I can see more benefits by going with different over same old, same old when the end product is so close that it doesn’t matter.  That other person is still going to be successful.  Commence spear throwing.

[Swamp Yankee]

7 minutes ago, slackline said:

So here’s my take on it.  If there are people far and above more qualified that would clearly do the job way better than those he has nominated it is incredibly bad and simple pandering.  If the people he’s nominated are close enough in quality/performance to those that are “better” than them, where’s the harm in giving those people that typically haven’t ever even been considered for those types of positions a shot?  

If there will be no discernible difference in how well the job is being done, I think it is beneficial to add some flavor to what is typically incredibly homogeneous.  I’m not married to this idea, and could be talked out of it by sound arguments, but I can see more benefits by going with different over same old, same old when the end product is so close that it doesn’t matter.  That other person is still going to be successful.  Commence spear throwing.

I agree. Meritocracy should be the overarching criterion.  As we all know, however, when it comes to complex roles requiring leadership, intelligence, relationship-building, relationship-leveraging, knowledge, experience, and "street sense" you can't always identify a singular "best candidate".   Different people bring different combinations of attributes.  In his autobiography Colin Powell writes about the "charm school" he had to attend as a new one-star.  The instructor said there were so many good candidates that everyone in the class could be killed and their replacements would be equally qualified.  So given that, slackline's comment about adding flavor makes sense. It can also be helpful in getting voter support.  

[Lord Ratner]

4 hours ago, jazzdude said:

 

 

GPS only went public after the soviets shot down passenger airline that inadvertantly entered their airspace due to a navigation error. It wasn't originally planned for public use. And it wasn't until a decade after that US government also changed its policy on the option to shut off gps to the public for military reasons.

I don't think we'll see eye to eye on Tesla. I still believe it was good money invested to see how to create EV infrastructure, so site selection for individual charging stations, and develop technologies to rapidly charge vehicles. Sure, Tesla profited with the help of government (not unlike LM or Boeing), but the government got a roadmap on how to design the EV infrastructure, considerations when dealing with property owners, and empirical evidence to support what standards to use in the future. The alternative would've been to let DOE or DOT try to figure it out on their own.

Tax breaks/credits are incentives government uses to encourage businesses (and individuals, for that matter) to take a particular action. For example, it could be locating at a particular area, or accelerate adoption of a particular technology, or to shape their community.

Cities bid on Amazon HQ to try and get the HQ in their city. The thought seemed to be that attracting a large tech company would bring "good" jobs to the area, and would boost the local economy (housing, restaurants, entertainment, etc), or perhaps encourage other companies or industries to consider the city. I'd expect the cities bidding based their tax breaks based on the economic gain they believed they'd get, essentially offsetting the list revenue from offering the tax break.

I do think in Amazon's case you are right- of course they were going to go to DC and NYC; they need to be close to lobby for their interests. And they were able to get cities to provide free and detailed information about their city's economy. Amazon definitely took advantage of the system to gain information about the market for free.

How do you feel about cities subsidizing construction of pro sports arenas/stadiums?

I disagree with your view of a free market not accounting for government. The theoretical free market doesn't account for greed and power. There is no such thing as a "free market", never really has been, never will be. To some extent, there has always been external and internal forces affecting markets. Also, by no means does a free market have to also be fair.

Governments do shape the market, and (should) instill a sense of order, and enforce what the society deems "fair." Libertarians want less government to make the market free from government influence, but it's built on the flawed assumption that everyone participating in the market will hold identical views on what's fair, and everyone will only act in a fair and decent manner (not be affected by greed). If you got rid of government, would who stop a business or individual from taking unfair actions that benefit themselves? Unchecked, it allows monopolies to form, which then exert heavy influence on the market, and allows them to structure the market further in their favor. So who steps in? If there's no regulating authority (government) to enforce what is fair, then the only alternative is a violent overthrowing of those that are controlling the market unfairly by the people oppressed by that market.

Government in some cases does pick a winner, like in your utilities examples. Those are common infrastructure, and heavily regulated. Otherwise, how do you compete 2 electric companies, especially when one paid to hook up power to your house? Should that company be forced to share it's investment in electrical lines with it's competitors? Same with water companies. Or any essential utility. But government should also hold them accountable for providing the essential service.

Also disagree on your assessments of progressives and conservatives regarding meritocracy. Across the political spectrum, I think most forms of government support and benefit from meritocracy. Even an ideal communist society/government benefits from a meritocracy to fill supervisory/managerial/leadership roles, just like it benefits a capitalist society. Both democratic (and capitalist) and communist societies/governments get hurt when those in power fill positions using nepotism or favoritism, and can lead to that government falling apart, and governments and societies as well tend to fall short of the ideal in practice. Nepotism/favoritism is required in an authoritative government, because it reduces the risk of a coup by filling key positions with those who are loyal to those in power. Helped lead to the downfall of the USSR (party loyalty over talent). Of course, none of that would ever happen in the US, right?

 

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.

 

[Lord Ratner]

38 minutes ago, Swamp Yankee said:

That's a reasonable point...he may have started out that way.  The IDW-podcast left is much more willing to self-examine.  That imbalance is a problem because political discussion is rapidly moving to the podcast world.  It would be great if folks like Crowder, Shapiro, and Peterson truly cast a critical eye on the right. But that rarely, if ever, happens. I may be wrong on that; feel free to share examples to the contrary.  While they are fond of saying (correctly) that you can't ignore the 70+ million that voted for Trump, there are legitimate reasons Biden won the electoral college and received 80+ million votes. Georgia went blue. Texas was closer than expected. Those reasons should be discussed, not dismissed.  

You'd have to listen to Shapiro's podcast to know that. He regularly and repeatedly calls out the right. He's the most honest and consistent voice on the right by far, and if you only listened to one conservative, it should be him.

 

Tucker Carlson is second on the list, but a distant second. Not because he represents the intellectual justification for conservatism, but because he is the best voice for the populist/conservative hybrid that is growing within the right. Unfortunately most of his work is on cable news, which is a garbage format. But he does appear on podcasts where his views are far more digestible. Check out him and Shapiro talking about self driving trucks. It's an eye opening exchange to a self-driving-car-evangelist like myself.

[jazzdude]

So here’s my take on it.  If there are people far and above more qualified that would clearly do the job way better than those he has nominated it is incredibly bad and simple pandering.  If the people he’s nominated are close enough in quality/performance to those that are “better” than them, where’s the harm in giving those people that typically haven’t ever even been considered for those types of positions a shot?  
If there will be no discernible difference in how well the job is being done, I think it is beneficial to add some flavor to what is typically incredibly homogeneous.  I’m not married to this idea, and could be talked out of it by sound arguments, but I can see more benefits by going with different over same old, same old when the end product is so close that it doesn’t matter.  That other person is still going to be successful.  Commence spear throwing.

No spears here, agree with you.

"Best" is a nebulous term, especially with people, since you get there after trading off and considering several variables.

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, slackline said:

So here’s my take on it.  If there are people far and above more qualified that would clearly do the job way better than those he has nominated it is incredibly bad and simple pandering.  If the people he’s nominated are close enough in quality/performance to those that are “better” than them, where’s the harm in giving those people that typically haven’t ever even been considered for those types of positions a shot?  

If there will be no discernible difference in how well the job is being done, I think it is beneficial to add some flavor to what is typically incredibly homogeneous.  I’m not married to this idea, and could be talked out of it by sound arguments, but I can see more benefits by going with different over same old, same old when the end product is so close that it doesn’t matter.  That other person is still going to be successful.  Commence spear throwing.

This is the same shit logic that represents why the Air Force can't discern two officers apart. "Well, they both completed PME and got their masters done. How do we pick?" Honestly, your argument largely relies on the idea that there are non-discernable differences in candidates for these positions. The reality is in fact, especially at this level, there are heavily discernable characteristics. From the jobs they held prior to the approach they see on the world. This is in fact the wrong logic to go about appointments.

To that note though, the counter argument is also true. There is no such thing as "more qualified" as qualifications for these positions is largely the opinion of the POTUS to begin with. There is certainly a threshold of qualifications congress likes to see before making confirmations but the rest is largely discretionary. 

The reality is, the President should be picking the "best" people for the jobs but "best" might not mean "best" performing or most qualified. It means the most suited for that position, at that time, with the contemporary challenges that department faces and the particular skillset the President needs access to. This has a lot of connotations. If the President has certain knowledge gaps he may pick a person that fills them. If he recognizes there are certain challenges a less experienced candidate is better prepared for than a more experienced candidate, he may pick the less experienced candidate. Its largely discretionary. You could argue Gender/Race make an important part of that decision if you believe there is a significant challenge having to do with gender or race involved. But if you are making that challenge up in a vain effort to appease voters you are probably 1.) ignoring candidates that are better suits and 2.) being seen through by the voters who can smell bullshit. 

 

Edited January 22, 2021 by FLEA

[slackline]

7 minutes ago, FLEA said:

This is the same shit logic that represents why the Air Force can't discern two officers apart. "Well, they both completed PME and got their masters done. How do we pick?" Honestly, your argument largely relies on the idea that there are non-discernable differences in candidates for these positions. The reality is in fact, especially at this level, there are heavily discernable characteristics. From the jobs they held prior to the approach they see on the world. This is in fact the wrong logic to go about appointments.

To that note though, the counter argument is also true. There is no such thing as "more qualified" as qualifications for these positions is largely the opinion of the POTUS to begin with. There is certainly a threshold of qualifications congress likes to see before making confirmations but the rest is largely discretionary. 

The reality is, the President should be picking the "best" people for the jobs but "best" might not mean "best" performing or most qualified. It means the most suited for that position, at that time, with the contemporary challenges that department faces and the particular skillset the President needs access to. This has a lot of connotations. If the President has certain knowledge gaps he may pick a person that fills them. If he recognizes there are certain challenges a less experienced candidate is better prepared for than a more experienced candidate, he may pick the less experienced candidate. Its largely discretionary. You could argue Gender/Race make an important part of that decision if you believe there is a significant challenge having to do with gender or race involved. But if you are making that challenge up in a vain effort to appease voters you are probably 1.) ignoring candidates that are better suits and 2.) being seen through by the voters who can smell bullshit. 

 

I think we’re on the same page, I just didn’t go into the detail you did.  You made the crazy apples to oranges comparison with the AF.  The military is 10x more cut and dry and measurable than political appointments.  I’ll disagree with you on the idea that “there are highly discernible characteristics” in that arena.  Basic qualifications are it, then it all goes into what you discussed, subjective decisions by the one making the call.  If it’s a choice between super awesome candidate a vs super awesome candidate b who would be the first whatever to do it, give yourself the win and the headline.  If it’s between the win/headline with a clearly less qualified candidate, you’re wrong.

BL: all things being equal (to the extent that there is no real difference in the quality of the candidate, the end-product you’ll get) I don’t see the harm in giving a group that has traditionally been excluded a shot over a group that is always in power.  

[Swamp Yankee]

42 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

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.

 

Interesting article on Affirmative Action in higher education.   It can be a lazy way of dealing with a very real problem of inequality.   Jordan Peterson talks about equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome.  The former is more important than the latter.  In fact, equality of outcome is irrelevant, since people make choices as individuals.  However, creating true equality of opportunity is really hard work.  Municipalities need to carefully examine the resources available to young students and try to level the playing field through careful investment and accountability.  That's often too hard so they just throw money at the school system and call it good.  By the end of secondary education, those from disadvantaged backgrounds are substantially behind academically.  Trying to correct the situation through favorable admissions can backfire.  It's often just too late to address the problem. 

However, favoritism in college admissions also includes athletes and legacies.  Legacies = "My granddad went to BC, my dad went to BC and I'm going to BC"  This often provides more of an advantage than affirmative action.  The only places where legacy status doesn't help are hardcore schools like MIT.  At D1 schools, the academic averages for athletes as a whole are often lower than the overall student body.  You have to confront all favorability factors, not just one. 

 

[ClearedHot]

 

And how nice that once the photo op was over Biden had the National Guard sent to sleep in a parking garage.

[SurelySerious]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-bidens-first-day-began-the-end-of-girls-sports-11611341066

I don’t think this was a good move. There should probably be a separate category for trans, because biologically male to female transitions are still going to have a lot of the physiology of the biologically male body. 

[ClearedHot]

4 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-bidens-first-day-began-the-end-of-girls-sports-11611341066

I don’t think this was a good move. There should probably be a separate category for trans, because biologically male to female transitions are still going to have a lot of the physiology of the biologically male body. 

[Lord Ratner]

3 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-bidens-first-day-began-the-end-of-girls-sports-11611341066

I don’t think this was a good move. There should probably be a separate category for trans, because biologically male to female transitions are still going to have a lot of the physiology of the biologically male body. 

This problem will solve itself. It's a bridge too far for many, and will illicit a response from more people than there are trans athletes. Politicians take the path of least resistance. This move will flip the resistance equation. It's also an obvious States-rights domain.

[slackline]

12 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

 

And how nice that once the photo op was over Biden had the National Guard sent to sleep in a parking garage.

How sad that you believe Biden was involved in that call...

You keep coming with those catchy, but baseless memes though.

[slackline]

1 minute ago, Lord Ratner said:

This problem will solve itself. It's a bridge too far for many, and will illicit a response from more people than there are trans athletes. Politicians take the path of least resistance. This move will flip the resistance equation. It's also an obvious States-rights domain.

Agreed

[Swamp Yankee]

20 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

 

And how nice that once the photo op was over Biden had the National Guard sent to sleep in a parking garage.

It was well-lit and clean for a parking garage.  Of course, in the Air Guard the worst I had to deal with was passing out in the old Balboa Yacht Club in Panama.  

[kaputt]

6 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-bidens-first-day-began-the-end-of-girls-sports-11611341066

I don’t think this was a good move. There should probably be a separate category for trans, because biologically male to female transitions are still going to have a lot of the physiology of the biologically male body. 

I actually came here to post about this. As a former college athlete and someone who hopes to have kids that will participate in sports, this absolutely pisses me off to no end. “The party of science and women’s rights” conveniently ignores biological differences between men and women and then signs an EO allowing biological men to compete in women’s sports. What kind of message does that send to young women athletes in this country!?

Connecticut has actually already shown what a complete cluster this is. 15 girls state track titles have been won by biological boys. A large portion of the girls state records are owned by individuals with a penis. That’s up to a potential of 15 young women that have had their state championship dreams taken away from them by a man. 
 

“Guess what girls, yeah we fought for decades to even give you the chance to compete in athletics, but now we’re going to wipe our ass with the whole Title IX thing and let guys who feel like girls come beat you.” 

Does anyone with half a brain in the Democrat party think through this garbage before they move forward with it? Does anyone remember how angry the world got when the East Germans were sending roided out women who were basically men to the Olympics, because guess what, it was completely unfair to real female athletes.

Transgender athletes need to either compete within their biological gender (“follow the science”) or you need to create a transgender division for them to compete in. 

[ClearedHot]

29 minutes ago, slackline said:

How sad that you believe Biden was involved in that call...

You keep coming with those catchy, but baseless memes though.

Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for taking the bait.  Of course Biden had nothing to with that decision.  However, for the last four years the left and the mainstream press blamed EVERY single thing that went wrong on Trump.  Have the intellectual honestly to apply the same standard to Biden... Oh I can hear you know...But But But.

Not my meme but it certainly holds true.  I have yet to see the grand reach across the political aisle, instead it has been a slew of executive orders and a complete dodge on the question of impeaching Trump.  He has the opportunity to push the Trump thing aside...appease and calm the GOP faithful and focus on COVID-19 relief, but he doesn't have the backbone to stand up to Pelosi and her requirement for revenge...he doesn't even have the stones to voice an opinion.  #Sad

[Lord Ratner]

21 minutes ago, kaputt said:

I actually came here to post about this. As a former college athlete and someone who hopes to have kids that will participate in sports, this absolutely pisses me off to no end. “The party of science and women’s rights” conveniently ignores biological differences between men and women and then signs an EO allowing biological men to compete in women’s sports. What kind of message does that send to young women athletes in this country!?

Connecticut has actually already shown what a complete cluster this is. 15 girls state track titles have been won by biological boys. A large portion of the girls state records are owned by individuals with a penis. That’s up to a potential of 15 young women that have had their state championship dreams taken away from them by a man. 
 

“Guess what girls, yeah we fought for decades to even give you the chance to compete in athletics, but now we’re going to wipe our ass with the whole Title IX thing and let guys who feel like girls come beat you.” 

Does anyone with half a brain in the Democrat party think through this garbage before they move forward with it? Does anyone remember how angry the world got when the East Germans were sending roided out women who were basically men to the Olympics, because guess what, it was completely unfair to real female athletes.

Transgender athletes need to either compete within their biological gender (“follow the science”) or you need to create a transgender division for them to compete in. 

This is what happens when the party, and to a large extent, the voters don't know what they believe anymore. The activists with very clear, but very niche goals take over.

 

I'm amazed by how many democrat voters I talk to don't know what their party is pushing. This topic is literally one of the examples I'm thinking of.

Americans are spending more time than ever attacking their political opponents and defending their allies, yet almost no time thinking and discussing what they actually believe. This is not by happenstance.