Comedy!
There’s a huge literature on productivity and some weird empirical results economists have tried to explain, eg, around mass adoption of computers. I think I’ve listened to at least one podcast with Krugman (Ezra Klein show?) where he discusses some odd results and various theories to account for them.
Regardless, assuming some economic growth, the immediate question is how the fruits are distributed. Our current system is basically “winner” (owner) take all. Warren has put a lot of effort into a plan where workers and broader society would be entitled to a larger share of the pie (and board seats, as in Germany). No matter what happens with productivity, I think distribution of the results of growth need to be addressed at the level of legislation and law. A winner take all society is bad news, even for the winners. At the same time, you don’t want to killed the golden goose when she lays a egg. As with most things, the messy balancing of many competing factors is key.
1 Like
That Bernie/Obama ad somebody posted above is pretty interesting. Have to wonder how things would have gone if Bernie had transitioned to a unity message like that earlier, rather than continuing to mash the insurgency button.
Not easy, obviously, because the anti-establishment shtick is a core part of his appeal. But man, it’s really tough to go it alone in politics. The visuals last weekend with Pete/Klob/Beto all on stage with Biden teaming up against the lone wolf in Bernie were striking.
1 Like
I agree with all that and you may have seen me repeatedly mention the German rules on board seats as the kind of reform I think would help and moreso than federal jobs guarantees or minimum wage law.
OK. I’m not sure how that makes me wrong. You realize that you need votes to win right? As cool as it is to get votes from a wider range of demographics if you’re not getting enough in raw numbers it’s a problem. When it’s a predictable problem and you do nothing to address it, that’s on you.
To point 1: I don’t know wtf you’re talking about. I said you should not be mad if a candidate doesn’t drop out. The opposite doesn’t logically follow. Also there’s a pretty big implied caveat that Warren staying in in particular is not something to be upset about when her votes wouldn’t have been enough to give Bernie a win. If results were more along the lines of Bernie: 40, Biden: 41, Warren: 19 I would not be defending her.
To point 2: Democratic elections should select the most broadly preferable candidate. Although there is no way to structure election rules to ensure that outcome every time, and although there are systems that would be far more democratic than allowing private parties to nominate their preference using their own rules, running the final election with 3 viable candidates is the worst possible outcome.
Also I’m temp blocking you now because your argument here is that fucking stupid, I honestly don’t know at this point if you’re posting disingenuously or if you actually thought you were making some kind of point but either way there’s no reason to continue discussing anything with you.
1 Like
This is only a joke to non mathematicians. The word “obvious” in articles means it can be deduced by a researcher in that area in under an hour or so.
1 Like
She scribbled in her notebook for 2 hours then.
4 Likes
Including the OP I quoted, my post used the term “50%” 3 times
Or “broad coalition” is exactly what I meant but you’re hung up on a coalition of demographics when the clear implication was a coalition of voters from other campaigns.
I like how the only normative statements d10 entertains are those that justify his support of Liz.
And like, can you motherfuckers at least pretend like the earlier bullshit about Liz and Bernie being basically the same was not bullshit? Remember, if that was true, you’d be upset about the suffering and death tuesday kicked off! It’s not like your favorite sports team lost!
3 Likes
The only normative statements I’ve made recently were that politicians need to build a broad coalition of support (of voters from other campaigns) and that democratic elections should select the most broadly preferable candidate. I don’t see how either of these statements support Warren. I mean to be clear, neither of those statements do support Warren, so I’m more just confused where you got that idea from.
If nothing else Bernie supporters should be commended for having to deal with at least three candidates who were only in the race to troll leftists.
Hell, no. Sanders responsibility is to his supporters who want him as the nominee and he still has a shot. Simply being the underdog does not oblige him to drop out.
He stayed in until the end against Clinton so I expect him to do the same against Biden.
2 Likes
And the argument that he hurts Bidenin the general by staying in is speculative. It’s not at all like splitting the vote by running. The Bernie->Trump arguments are without rigor. No one knows what those people would have done if Bernie never ran. There way well be factors that work in the other direction like people who were apathetic and became voters.
this is a garbage take
realizing and pointing out that biden is going to lose to trump isn’t a “never biden” take, it’s not an expression of privledge. It’s knowing that the plane is crashing into the mountain.
3 Likes
I think you have me confused with someone else. My post was in response to jbro, riverman, crunchyblack, tabs, and a couple others saying the literal words, “I will never vote for Biden.” A few had caveats in there, but yeah, it had nothing to do with electability.
Should be pretty easy for you to quote my post from yesterday saying I’d never vote for Biden. Right?
1 Like
It borders the USA.
5 Likes