Hacker News Reader

Comment by danans | Hacker News Reader

> Hell, he wants to pay me $2500? I will pocket that and then vote for hopefully less obnoxious candidate.

What about the votes of the people you influenced in his direction? If just 2 other people turn to him as a result, your vote against him has been effectively negated. Perhaps the $2500 means more to you than the vote against Bloomberg? If so, that's fair. A lot of people could use that kind of money, and I don't blame them for taking it. Ironically, that speaks directly to the imbalance of political power caused by the existence of massively wealthy individuals like him.

But assuming you are OK with promoting a candidate in exchange for $, why not take money from a candidate you believe in, rather than one you plan to vote against? Is it because (just guessing) he's paying more? In which case, it seems a lot like he's just buying the primary.

View on HN

I believe people are not idiots and are capable of judging their own interest. I do not subscribe to the 'they are basically children, we have to protect them'.

To the candidate I believe in I give my donation. For someone I believe, I will spread their message for free. Him? He has to pay.

> I do not subscribe to the 'they are basically children, we have to protect them'.

He is paying you to leverage your reputation and trust networks, and you are extending your reputation and trust networks to him for a fee.

It doesn't matter that you think you don't subscribe to belief about people you posited above, because if you don't believe in Bloomberg's message, you are effectively deceiving those in your trust network.

Now, perhaps everyone in your trust network is in on your deception, but realistically the vast majority of humans, as social (vs. antisocial) beings rely on trust networks as a strong signal for forming opinions and taking actions.

I have no problem saying 'he paid me to do it you know'. Kinda undermines the message. Frankly, just the mere fact we are talking about it undermines that message. And it, oddly, seems to be mainstream consensus as well.

So maybe it is not all doom and gloom?

> I believe people are not idiots and are capable of judging their own interest.

He's buying up media and politicians. People can't decide from themselves when he's spending a billion dollars to shape the narrative.

If Bloomberg gets elected the US is done. It's not longer anything resembling democracy and the only thing that will save us from the new order will be revolution.

> He's buying up media and politicians. People can't decide from themselves when he's spending a billion dollars to shape the narrative

Companies spend billions of dollars on advertising, but plenty of people decide for themselves.

Companies spend billions of dollars on advertising _because it works_. Virtually everyone thinks they're too smart to be influenced by it. And they'd be wrong.

In reality, compelling political science evidence suggests that people do not decide for themselves, and that in the absence of concentrated outside interests, elections are essentially random functions based on arbitrary group identity. We're now pretty close to sure that voters around the world don't generally individually map candidates to issue profiles (it's likely that the influence goes the other way), and that the electorate in the large doesn't aggregate preferences to a median acceptable policy. In that landscape, the one thing that does move outcomes is large amounts of political spending.

(This is the core argument of Democracy for Realists).

> If Bloomberg gets elected the US is done. It's not longer anything resembling democracy and the only thing that will save us from the new order will be revolution.

So being extremely wealthy and successful now disqualifies you from being a good President?

Unlike our current super wealthy President, Bloomberg has more experience in government (mayor of NYC) and has a more successful track record in business.

Money shouldn't disqualify you from being a good President, poor judgement, low moral character and lack of relevant experience should.

I certainly wouldn't mind if Bill Gates ran for President and if he did I doubt he'd accept donations.

Nit: Trump being super wealthy is arguable on many grounds - definitionally ("super"), wealthy at all, debt superseding wealth, etc. Bloomberg is _actually_ super wealthy.

> Trump being super wealthy is arguable on many grounds - definitionally ("super"),

There are only about 600 billionaires in the US. Trump is obscenely wealthy.

> So being extremely wealthy and successful now disqualifies you from being a good President?

I don't believe anyone is saying this. Bloomberg, for example, is spending more on TV ads than every other candidate combined. It's not a level playing field at all. Bloomberg has a war chest nobody can compete with. His having it isn't the issue we're talking about here. The fact that he's able to use it in this manner should worry us all.

See below, people are saying this.

I have an issue with his having it. I don't believe billionaires should be allowed to exist in any healthy society.

It's not really relevant to the argument. I have an issue with what Steyer was doing as well, but at least he followed the rules.

Bloomberg got the rules changed to suit him, by spending money with the DNC. He's been blanketing the airwaves and buying endorsements.

It's plutocracy.

> So being extremely wealthy and successful now disqualifies you from being a good President?

Almost certainly yes. These people have out of control egos and little relevant experience. Bloomberg would be no different than Trump.

Gates too.

So where do you draw the line? At what net worth are you saying someone can't possibly help the country?

To say anyone with $X shouldn't be President sounds like profiling. Why not just disagree with his policies or actions?

As far as relevant experience, Bloomberg was the Mayor of NYC and has managed a large organization. That's a lot more government and leadership experience than Trump or Obama had.

Plenty of other things to not like about him but being Mayor of NYC or running a successful business shouldn't disqualify him by any means. So now no one who wants to be President should be a Mayor first or start a successful business? Maybe we should throw out senators while we're at it. Pretty soon we'll be left with armchair economists and self described philosophers who truly don't have any relevant experience.

> So where do you draw the line?

It's flippant, but here's a simple test.

> has managed a large organization

If that's your justification for why you should be president, then you aren't actually qualified to be president. There is no business on earth that would adequately prepare someone to be president.

> Obama

Obama was a US senator for 4 years and a state senator 7 more.

> Trump

Is a disaster. Bloomberg would also be a disaster.

Yeah I agree. Being mayor of NYC isn't relevant at all. He might as well have been peddling cocaine

Can you decide for yourself still? Or is it just other people who can't decide?

> I believe people are not idiots and are capable of judging their own interest...

I feel like this is often the crux of the argument against any kind of government regulation. "The people are smart enough to not be duped!" And in many cases it's easier to create chaos / scam people than it is to defend yourself against it. Just because some people seem capable of defending themselves / cutting through the fraud doesn't mean everyone who can't are idiots or children.

I'll give you an example. There used to be a ton of "Anti-Virus" apps on the iOS App Store. Due to how iOS is built, these apps literally weren't even able to do anything—they were all pure scams. But... people purchased them, not knowing about it. Many of us on HN would recognize immediately that these were scams, because technology like this is in our wheelhouse, so to speak. But it's likely someone in your family (a non-idiot) who's used antivirus software on computers before, and was comfortable with that arrangement, would easily be duped into buying one of these apps. Your analogy would have you advertise or endorse these products, then turn around and mock any "idiot" who purchased them. That's, to me, classic unethical behavior. I can't fathom how this is defensible to anyone with a modicum of empathy.

You do have a point, but I think your analogy does not hold.

US schools do have educational system focused on presenting how US election system is supposed to work under ideal circumstances. By default, citizen should know wtf they are voting for. It may be a system issue, but that is a separate conversation.

Apps, otoh, are relatively new. There is no class out there on avoiding scams ( though there probably should be ).

I also disagree with unethical part. He is spending his own money. How is that unethical?

> He is spending his own money. How is that unethical?

1. I was referring to your example scenario where you're taking his money and disingenuously working to support his campaign.

2. I'm not sure why you're suggesting "spending your own money" absolves you from unethical behavior. If I bought a bunch of worn-out tires and hired some kids around the neighborhood to start a tire fire in the nearest park, that'd be absolutely unethical (and probably illegal as well), despite the fact that I funded the operation myself.

1. My bad. I genuinely misunderstood your stance. Are you suggesting that by taking money from him in a manner that is not sincere is not ethical? Is it unethical, because I am taking money under false pretenses, sway opinion of a few, or some other reason?

2. I never claimed to be absolved. Then again I do not believe I committed a sin either. You may be pushing your analogies too far. Lets stick to the facts available to us.

> I believe people are not idiots and are capable of judging their own interest.

Just because you're able, and many people in your left or right coast region may be, doesn't mean everyone is.

I agree with your sentiment, free will and less protectionism...

but, no - consumers/voters are not educated, or even given the tools they need to become so. Literally more is spent every year on the opposite.

Snap and media conglomerates alone ads so much noise, for no profit, to do just this - distract, and fuzz.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com