Hacker News Reader

This Mayday idea and video really have nothing to do with what you're talking about.

The focus of this video isn't the bad economy, it's the obstruction of democracy in our system of government. This is the Princeton study to which he's referring, and which likely played a role in inspiring this campaign:

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materi...

The results of the study can be summarized as "because of the role of money in politics, we are living in an oligarchy, not a democracy."

Therefore, this campaign has nothing to do with "where did the jobs go" and everything to do with how our system of government is heavily distorted in favor of the ultra-rich, rather than being reflective of popular opinion.

I'll give you that many people would probably link our current economic problems to this failure of our government, but the campaign isn't saying that they're the same thing.

How this point went sailing over your head and apparently the heads of everybody who upvoted your comment is somewhat baffling.

I think you can definitely debate whether the Congress has done a good job addressing economic inequality and malaise. But Lessig's point is about more than that. It's that because Congress has become so dependent on campaign funds from a tiny portion they have become very unresponsive and unrepresentative to the interests they should be. In the video he mentions infrastructure, education, health care, climate change, the tax system. If they're spending half their time on the phone dialing for dollars, that is going to skew their interest and their votes.

I pledged.

> It's that because Congress has become so dependent on campaign funds from a tiny portion they have become very unresponsive and unrepresentative to the interests they should be.

I think people get who they vote for. It's not like there's an exchange where you can literally buy votes for dollars.

I'm more upset with the electorate for having under-informed or unexamined political opinions.

I think the first step is for Americans to find a way to disagree about politics in a congenial way. As long as it's rude to talk about politics, people will continue to get their information from ads, talk radio, yard signs, comedy shows, and hack blogs.

I'm more upset with the electorate for having under-informed or unexamined political opinions.

This is unavoidable. Your vote doesn't matter - the probability of it altering the outcome are infinitesimally (read: too small to represent with a double) small.

Unless you derive entertainment value from informing yourself, why would you waste any time on informing yourself or thinking carefully?

> Your vote doesn't matter - the probability of it altering the outcome are infinitesimally small.

That's nice sounding cynicism, but it's not obvious that the math actually comes out that way. Consider: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/01/yes-it-can-be-r.html

They derive the "1 in 1 million" chance of your vote altering the outcome by assuming the distribution of votes is given by a uniform distribution on the possible vote outcomes.

I have no idea where this assumption comes from. To me the more natural one is to assume a binomial distribution - everyone else has a certain chance P of voting for Obama. Then do the normal approximation, and you realize the odds of your vote mattering are vastly smaller (i.e., exp(- delta^2) rather than 1/delta).

I agree that the uniform distribution is fishy. I could object to the binomial assumption too; it seems kind of question-begging. My point was just that the thesis "your vote doesn't matter" is not at all self-evident.

In Kantian ethics, there is a concept known as universalizability: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." If one subscribes to such a principle, and one believes that the world would be a worse place if everyone was willfully ignorant of important political issues, then one would hold that one has an ethical obligation to make an effort to become politically informed.

I guess I better not become a programmer, because if everyone became a programmer, there would be no one to farm the fields.

A much better rule is something like "act as if you are deciding for everyone who can be expected to make similar decisions for similar reasons". This avoids that particular pitfall, because everyone who might decide to be a programmer for similar reasons is still not too big a fraction of the total world population, while still giving the right answer re: voting

It's hard to talk about politics without challenging someone's beliefs or opinions. And then they get offended. And because we've nurtured this idea that people have some kind of right to never be offended no matter what beliefs they hold or espouse, you find that the discussion quickly turns into back and forth accusations of bigotry, homophobia, racism, or some other kind of hate-based motivation, as if hatred is the only reason anyone might disagree with you on e.g. how to improve the economy or what role government should have in health care.

> I think people get who they vote for. It's not like there's an exchange where you can literally buy votes for dollars.

People are unwilling to be the person others vote for. You can see this time and again on HN; every time someone points out, "This is a democracy; if you have a problem with it, you can run for office and do better," the response is a mindless, "Well, I can't afford it."

On Hacker News, news aggregator for people without money starting up businesses.

> I think the first step is for Americans to find a way to disagree about politics in a congenial way. As long as it's rude to talk about politics, people will continue to get their information from ads, talk radio, yard signs, comedy shows, and hack blogs.

Agreed. One of the nice deliberative democracy ideas was that we would set aside time and space for discussing politics. I'd like to see more of that, even though I don't fully agree with the entire gamut of that philosophy.

> I think people get who they vote for. It's not like there's an exchange where you can literally buy votes for dollars.

Agreed. However, whether we like it or not, the evidence is overwhelming that money is extremely effective in garnering votes and winning elections.

> I'm more upset with the electorate for having under-informed or unexamined political opinions.

How much work does it take to become a well informed and reasoned voter? How much value will it garner someone to change their vote? It's hard to blame someone, especially people barely scraping by, from rationally choosing to spend their time in other ways. We do need to work on helping voters be better informed. But we should also work on pragmatic approaches that recognize the current influence that money has.

> the evidence is overwhelming that money is extremely effective in garnering votes and winning elections.

I wasn't disputing whether that's true. I was disputing that it's the money's fault and not the voters'.

> How much work does it take to become a well informed and reasoned voter?

One solution is to increase the information level of voters. Another is to lower the information requirements.

At a certain point, having complex tax codes, complex regulatory systems, and complex power structures becomes a justice issue because it's not fair to expect the average voter to be informed about how carried interest works or how one qualifies for social security disability.

The average voter does not care to keep their government local, accountable, and easy to understand. And I think it's perfectly fair to say they're getting what they voted for.

> However, whether we like it or not, the evidence is overwhelming that money is extremely effective in garnering votes and winning elections.

Actually there is very little evidence that more money correlates with more electoral success. For example the Sunlight Foundation found that outside spending had no discernible impact on election outcomes in 2012. And that was after the Citizens United ruling.

In politics there is an "ante"--an amount of money necessary to run a basic credible campaign--but beyond that, more money does not necessarily get you anything.

It's rude to talk about politics because it becomes a divisive issue.

It's often worse with smart people. It's similar to my ideas on how people want to do hiring[1], since I've witnessed this pattern in person dozens of times

1. I am a smart person.

2. I have political idea X.

3. Therefore, other smart people should also have idea X.

4. If they don't, they aren't smart, or I need to spend a lot of time fixing their ignorance.

I'm not blind enough to exclude myself. I have lots of beliefs that I think are true in things like the economy, health care, and so on, but lots of smart people disagree with me. They might be right, and it's easy to lose track of that.

For lots of people, politics isn't about finding the best policy, but rather about signalling group status.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7515489

The point of this issue, campaign finance, is that it spans political issue and effects everyone. It's more about the type of government we want to have than any one particular issue.

Some people, even smart people, might disagree with your politics about campaign finance, and we're right back to square one of all political debates.

"No, this political debate is really super important!" is what you will hear from every single-issue voter.

The issue isn't campaign finance. It's regulation of speech about active political campaigns. The new money in politics does not belong to campaigns but superpacs.

Two solutions to that issue include:

1. Modify campaign finance laws so that people just give to candidates instead of third-party organizations.

2. Somehow restrict the funding levels or free speech rights of third-party organizations (and maybe campaigns too).

It's not really about what kind of government we want. It's about whether there's a right to buy a bigger megaphone.

My point above was that if people had normal conversations with normal people about politics, they would at least have more information about America and Americans outside of the giant megaphones of the world, helping to mitigate the effectiveness of cash in politics.

> I think people get who they vote for.

I don't think it's even that simple. The policies that are pitched by politicians who are voted into office are often different than the policies they end up supporting after pressure from moneyed interests is applied. Obama's 180 reversal on dozens of things is a perfect example (net neutrality being the most recent).

The reality is, it's almost impossible for politicians to do anything other than vote with the money (evidence shows this statement to be true). In such a system, the only solution is to remove the money. Lessig is attempting to do that.

I'd argue that Congress has not done a good job of anything (at least not anything that the majority of Americans would care about) because our motivations are not aligned. That's the point of this campaign - to remove the motivation for Congress to act in ways that our not in the best interest of the general public, by removing the financial incentives for them to do so.

This TED talk from Lessig gives more background: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g

I don't think de-industrialization took us to war in Iraq (and fucked up a war in Afghanistan), nor did it push through corn ethanol subsidies for years, nor did it nearly take us to war in Syria, nor did it cause hypertrophy of the national security state (especially post 9/11 NSA and "killer" form of the CIA).

Given the new facts on the ground about the relative strengths of capital and labor, a rethinking of the government-imposed incentive structure is in order. In general, we tax labor at a much higher rate than returns on investments.

My preferred solution would be to stop taxing good things (income and investment) and start taxing not-so-good things (luxuries, frivolities, dangerous but legal products, etc.).

ROI is taxed at about the same rate as labor, if you count corporate income taxes and capital gains or dividend taxes (depending on the investment). Labor is only taxed once, as it is a corporate expense.

One issue with that is that it gives government incentives to keep people in their vices. As an imperfect example, police departments that plan on funding a significant part of their budget from speed tickets aren't encouraged to educate people against speeding or fix unreasonable speed limits.

It's also not that stable of a form of government revenue. Vices tend to be inelastic, but luxury spending will often drop precipitously in a downturn.

I wasn't advocating for funding the government through fines. There are ways to broadly tax undesirable things.

And, yes, governments should budget with shifting revenue levels in mind. But I think we already have that problem at the state and local level, and I'm certain that our current taxes on income and capital gains are not the only way to mitigate those risks.

Is technology really responsible for the woes of the middle and lower class, or is it the discretion of corporations that, after having saved capital with technology, choose to spend their profits elsewhere?

> Is campaign finance really responsible for the woes of the middle and lower class, or is it technology (and other factors that make Americans of average skill more fungible)?

If you're looking for but-for causation then they're obviously both responsible, as is the capitalist economic model, world geography and natural resource distribution, biological evolution, etc. Which is why that isn't an interesting question.

The better question is, would fixing campaign finance improve the situation? Which it probably would. For example, there is no rational reason why we shouldn't spend less on defense and more on non-fossil energy research grants, but the campaign finance related reasons are so obvious they don't even need to be described.

> What causes that Congressman to vote against raising taxes? The money that was spent, or the message that was communicated with that money?

The flaw in this logic is it assumes that ability to contribute meaningful amounts to a friendly politician correlates strongly with the objective merit of the politician's policy positions.

> For example, there is no rational reason why we shouldn't spend less on defense and more on non-fossil energy research grants, but the campaign finance related reasons are so obvious they don't even need to be described.

I strongly disagree. I support defense spending for a number of reasons: 1) I don't think Americans really want to live in a world where America doesn't have an overwhelming military advantage over everyone else; 2) Historically, defense spending has been the core of our public R&D spending; 3) Defense spending creates jobs in the U.S. that are difficult to outsource.

I think these are "rational" reasons.

> The flaw in this logic is it assumes that ability to contribute meaningful amounts to a friendly politician correlates strongly with the objective merit of the politician's policy positions.

No, it doesn't assume that at all. Go back to the defense spending example above. Would it be objectively meritorious to spend less on defense and more on alternative energy? Maybe. Would it be politically advantageous to spend less on defense and more on alternative energy? Not if you're a politician in Maryland or Georgia or Texas or Alabama whose constituents depend on the jobs created by that spending.

The point I'm trying to make is that people interpret contributions as rich people using money as leverage, when in fact they are often rich people using money to remind politicians they have leverage. The Senator from Georgia doesn't vote in favor of more defense spending because Lockheed-Martin's CEO made a big donation. The Senator from Georgia votes in favor of more defense spending because Lockheed-Martin CEO reminded him, using donations and lobbying, that he employs thousands of middle class people in his state.

> I don't think Americans really want to live in a world where America doesn't have an overwhelming military advantage over everyone else

There is a lot of defense spending which doesn't actually contribute to that at all. It's just pork that can't be cut because defense spending is a sacred cow, because defense contractors are huge campaign contributors. Otherwise we could cut the fat and leave the meat.

> Historically, defense spending has been the core of our public R&D spending

I don't see how this is an argument for defense spending. There is no requirement that R&D be done under the auspices of the military. And at a given level of R&D spending, classifying it as defense spending leads to more funding for extravagant weapons systems and less funding for fusion power and solar thermal and other actually useful things.

> Defense spending creates jobs in the U.S. that are difficult to outsource.

This is similarly not an argument for defense spending, it's an argument for federal programs that employ Americans. Why not pay people the same money to repair the infrastructure at home instead of blowing up the infrastructure in the middle east?

> Would it be politically advantageous to spend less on defense and more on alternative energy? Not if you're a politician in Maryland or Georgia or Texas or Alabama whose constituents depend on the jobs created by that spending.

But you're not spending less money, you're just spending it on different things. Why should a Senator from Texas prefer allocating a billion dollars to a defense contractor in Texas over allocating the same billion dollars and hiring the same number of people for alternative energy research also in Texas, except that the defense contractor has more money to donate to his campaign than the university?

Obviously a Senator from one state will be unhappy to see money moved from that state to a different one, but that comes out in the wash. Either the Senator from Texas loses a defense contract and gains an experimental fusion reactor site, or the money goes from e.g. Texas to California and the bill passes with the vote of the Senator from California instead of the Senator from Texas.

> The Senator from Georgia votes in favor of more defense spending because Lockheed-Martin CEO reminded him, using donations and lobbying, that he employs thousands of middle class people in his state.

Do you not see how that can distort the policies adopted? The effects of some policies are diffuse and affect people not naturally organized to defend their interests. Allowing campaign contributions to determine policy creates a preference for organized special interests over the general public and for large organizations over smaller ones.

Here's the naked extreme example: Paul wants the government to tax a hundred million people one dollar each and give it all to Paul. Absent campaign contributions, no representatives pay any attention to Paul because that's a ridiculous policy. Enter campaign contributions, Paul pays a couple million dollars to several representatives in exchange for a hundred million dollar return, and the people being fleeced are too busy to concern themselves with such a small amount of money at the individual level, so the representatives benefit from passing Paul's policy. Repeat thousands of times with various degrees of rationalization for the corruption and you get the Federal budget.

Because this is HN I can say "It's both!" and, hopefully, people won't bat an eye at that.

But let's talk about where you're spot on. Lessig sucks at rhetoric. Most liberals do. It's the one point where I feel shame at being a liberal.

If you take a look at his blog post, it's all about money. The only words that talk about the problem are "fundamental change." And while "change" can work as a rhetorical grounding, it is overplayed, and he's not using it well.

No he needs to demonize the opposition and create a sense of unity in his community of supporters. To one degree or another this is how all political change happens.

Here's what I'd do.

Buying our Freedom.

Abraham Lincoln, when faced with the impossible evil of Slavery, sought not war, but peace. He sought to buy the freedom of slaves, to pay fair for the freedom of men. Today we are faced with the equally impossible evil of democracy bought and sold in the halls of washington. Corporations hold enslaved our senators and congressmen and they do it through money. Campaign contributions, superpacs, the corruption of greed grips our government, and government for the people has become degrading servitude to big money.

Lincoln and the good people who believed in freedom and unity for this country were eventually forced into war, but first there was the attempt at reason, at working with those who purchased and survived on evil. Today we are on the same path. The evil of money entwined with politics cannot stand. It divides this nation into have's and have nots. It deprives the average man of his vote and gives it to the rich man. History will judge the evil of this time as a sad chapter in American history, just as we judge the period of slavery, but before History can pass judgment we must act.

Today we will attempt reason, and the language the corrupt understand. We will raise money. We will spend money. And we will do this in defense of democracy, not to control it, but to free it, and give it back to the people.

The men and women in washington do not want to be slaves to big money. No one does. But they have no champions, they have no defense. We will be their champions and we will rise up to protect them. We will raise money, and we spend money as a hammer large enough to smash their chains.

In the next month we will raise such money and spend such money as to show "big" money where power in America really lies. It is in the hands of the people, and the hands of the people are reaching out to take their government back.

In one month we will raise $1 million dollars. Donate now to show them. In 5 months we will raise $5 million dollars. Donate now to free our democracy. And in two years we will raise an army of dollars such that Congress can once and for all throw off its chains. We will buy our freedom, we will have our freedom, or, if forced to it by greed of rich men, we will fight.

Donate now.

The other route I'd go is more libertarian (not not particularly partisan) -- "commerce is too important to allow it to get corrupted by politics" level-playing-field of American myth, and talk about the arms race where once one business interest resorts to seeking political influence for business advantage, all of them have to, even if they don't want to individually.

Then maybe temper that with something about how people need to be able to stand for their own moral compass/conscience on issues of politics, and only by keeping huge and loud monetary interests out can we hear their individual voices.

This line of argument is weak because in real dollars spending money to buy a politician is cheap. It's actually a very well leveraged dollar to contribute to a politician who can regulate your rival. Maybe if you brought in an analogy to nukes? Sure there's this great weapon out there called "regulation" but we don't want corps wielding it against each other, it's just too dangerous. If they must fight they should fight with conventional weapons in the consumer market. ... Not great but I think that's in line with what you're saying.

> The cause of the current economic malaise is a factual issue, not a matter of public opinion.

It also has to do with the popular feeling that the rich got rich at the expense of their labor and sweat (and hey, it's the truth - it's this way thanks to modern day rentier capitalism). I have this theory that if equality in wealth and income got slightly more even across the board - even if there was no marked improvement in quality of life, people would feel better -- they wouldn't feel powerless, they wouldn't feel they lost the game because it was rigged.

>"if equality in wealth and income got slightly more even throughout the board - even if there was no marked improvement in quality of life, people would feel better"

It has been demonstrated that people feel better if they are closer to the top, even if it means impoverishing everyone.[1][2] I do not think this is the type of base urge which people should use the power of the government to indulge in.

[1] http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic212792.files/Indi...

[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3315638/Rela...

Since labor is the majority of the voting population, the government should mainly be looking out for the interests of labor. But it has consistently put the interests of a few rich people over the needs of the rest of the people. Specifically, money buys elections.

Labor for labor's sake isn't good. Investing in new ideas is good. Replacing mind-numbing or back-breaking work with cheaper alternatives is nearly always a good thing. Likewise, investing in new ideas should be encouraged.

If the problem is that people don't have enough to live on, attack that problem (I like earned income tax credits). Don't make new ones by discouraging progress.

I didn't say anything about technology, or progress, or the quality of labor.