lotsofpulp

What I meant was the 2016 Repub primaries are evidence that the common man votes for who they want, not who the large donors want. The Repub party leadership and previous decision makers were usurped, and hence the idea of MAGA supplanting the Republican Party. More evidence is Dick Cheney and the Bush family becoming quickly irrelevant.

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/trump-shrugs-off-campa...

>Trump has spent much of the race so far breaking the mould of a traditional campaign, defeating a crowded field of primary opponents who vastly outspent him in ads and staff.

>During the Republican primary race, he often told his supporters not to contribute money and ridiculed opponents for accepting cash from special interest groups and wealthy contributors.

>He has so far showed little interest in calling donors to ask for money for his general election battle. He only began holding in-person fundraisers in late May.

He still spent the least and publicly eschewed donations. His skill was being able to connect with the voters that matter (unfortunately).

As far as I can tell, donations after he was elected in 2016 are simply bribes.

He’s basically proof of the power of the common man’s vote in the US.

99.9999% of the time someone sells something, the goal is to obtain cash. Throughout all of human history.

Unless those funds were placed in an escrow account, I would have assumed that claim held no water.

Is engineering the factories that make the hardware not nuclear engineering? Even if not, considering there exists only 1 supply chain in the world capable of making them, it seems pretty revolutionary. And that moat seems pretty big, given that it hasn't been crossed for many years.

>62.8% of high school (or equivalent) graduates go on to postsecondary study.

>Enrollment among new high school graduates has declined 10.4% since its peak in 2009 (70.1%).

There are still a lot of kids that could go to those 3rd tier universities, but choose not to. The cost/benefit is not perceived to be there anymore.

Most businesses in (professional) journalism failed and many jobs were lost.

Most business in (professional) video media production failed and many jobs were (or will continue to be) lost.

Supply greatly increases relative to demand, prices go down, only highest volume sellers can remain.

Although, I think Netflix also does not directly employ the people that make media, just like Apple. They just employ the people that curate it and distribute it.

There was nothing the business leaders could have done to prevent the effect of basically an unlimited supply of video entertainment being added to the market.

You can look up all the government spending data, and wealth transfers from workers to non workers dwarfs all the billionaires’ combined net worths. The US federal government alone is 60%+ wealth transfers, not to mention state and local governments. These spending figures are measured in trillions of USD per year.

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...

Lack of unlimited time means people will need some way to choose which information to learn and which to not learn, which may well be to choose whatever is curated by Meta/Alphabet/etc, but that is a choice made by the user, not by leaders.

When I was younger, the only way information, and especially video/audio was spread is via a select few outlets.

Today, anyone can upload anything to a variety of servers and spread the information within seconds.

Maybe it would help the budget for 1 year?

Ironically, the younger people from whom to extract productivity to pay for the defined benefit pensions are being supplied by immigrants, who are also politically unpopular.

Let me expand the claim to include the caveats:

>The fact so many technical people believe that security and freedom are mutually exclusive [under current technological/financial/political constraints]

>At some point, you have to empower your users and trust them to do the right thing.

All I know is, my and my parents’ quality of life is far better after switching them to devices where they are not empowered.

Although, a 5 year investment term is too short for comparing equity returns for a long term investment.

That is all this is, a guy giving himself a pay increase, which almost everyone would if they could.

Note that there exists the same incentives for publicly owned and investor owned utilities of voters today wanting lower utility prices at the expense of future utility customers by keeping capital expenses down today.

>I am fairly confident the cohort of those who support investor owned utilities are a vocal minority.

I will be the first to support only publicly owned utilities. But that has nothing to do with using bad logic and numbers to determine outsized margins.