Hillary the Populist

The core problem with expecting "the market" to address problems is that some problems do not have profitable solutions.

tylerdurden, the market demand for a huge variety of deodorants is questionable. Marketing creates demand as much as filling them. If you don't think you're influenced by marketing, you're a fool.

author said:
I don't know. The country still thinks there is "Magic" in the Clinton name. Chelsea was paid $600.000 a year for her first job out of college. We are sliding into our third generation of the Kennedy ,Busch , Clinton autocracy.
And we elect them again and again.

I am not sure it was 600k. And she was a consultant at McKinsey with an MBA at the top of her class from Stanford. It's a great job, but it is reserved for the brightest, and hardest working graduates at the .1% of their peer group.

Steve said:

TylerDurden said:
Would one of the Bernie Sanders supporters please explain this logic to me?


"You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country." - Sen. Bernie Sanders

Here's an explanation:
http://www.demos.org/blog/5/27/15/bernie-sanders-deodorant-argument-one-most-substantive-campaign-so-far

OK. Let's talk about this. The article states:

Whenever someone argues that we should distribute the national income more evenly so as to reduce poverty and inequality (as Sanders does), the very first thing someone says in response is that doing so will reduce growth and innovation. Sanders is mocking this argument, saying he'd gladly cut poverty and inequality even if it meant a reduction in superficial product innovation.

This is a pretty superficial argument. The author seems to be saying that the only argument worth fielding with regard to "income redistribution" is that it will reduce growth and innovation. I'm not sure that is the argument I would make. The primary argument against government led income redistribution is that it may result in equal outcomes, but this is done by lowering standards for everyone(excepting the uber wealthy and connected).

The other thing he seems to be arguing is that it will only reduce superficial product innovation. My first problem with this assertion is: How does he know this? Is there going to be some other control that frees up meaningful innovation and only stifles superficial innovation? Even if this were possible, who gets to decide which innovations are meaningful and which ones are superficial?

If the company that determined there was big money to be made by innovatively telling teen boys that using a certain brand of deodorant would cause attractive women to have sex with them decided not to go through with creating Axe because taxes were too high, Bernie is saying he is OK with that. You might have less brands to choose from on the deodorant aisle, but on the plus side kids will get to eat.

That may be well and good that Bernie's, but the problem is that the taxes will have all kinds of effects other than this. Many will be hard to predict. And you can bet the very middle class that most of Bernie's constituency laments is disappearing will pay this tax.

This defense amounts to: I'm OK if someone burns down my house since people in my neighborhood are cold. After all, I don't much mind the smoke.

This is the most substantive argument in the presidential campaign so far, and may be the most substantive argument uttered in electoral politics for a long while. Few candidates are willing to wade into the murky economic debate of equality/efficiency tradeoffs, and fewer still are willing to aggressively say that: yes, in fact, cutting poverty and inequality is worth a reduction in innovation, and oh by the way, the kinds of things we call "innovation" are often little more than new marketing gimmicks with dubious social value.

It is not the most substantive argument in a long time. And for all our sakes we'd better how this tripe is not the most substantive argument this election cycle. I'd also point out that Sanders did not wade into the economic debate of equality/efficiency tradeoffs in all but the most superficial manner.

If he wants to debate this topic, let us know what the plan is. we can then talk about how that plan will achieve "equality" and what the costs are(the ones apparent at that time anyway)

The author then discusses examples of how equality does not mean you have to give up innovation or growth. Here he really attempts to draw some solid lines with pretty cursory data. These are very high level and manipulated measurements he uses and makes comparisons to vastly different countries with different cultures, priorities, resources, populations, etc.

LOST said:
If the candidates for President were Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul (or better still, Ron Paul) we might actually have this debate in public not just on MOL.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

ParticleMan said:
The core problem with expecting "the market" to address problems is that some problems do not have profitable solutions.

I'm not really sure what your point is regarding this particular discussion.

Tom_Reingold said:
tylerdurden, the market demand for a huge variety of deodorants is questionable. Marketing creates demand as much as filling them. If you don't think you're influenced by marketing, you're a fool.

What evidence is there that "the market demand for a huge variety of deodorants is questionable"? I mean there's a lot of evidence that there is demand for variety. The main one being, that it exists.

And I'm not sure why I should be bothered by the fact that these things are marketed. I fail to see the problem with this.

Should we have 1 restaurant chain for the whole country too? I mean the only reason I know about many restaurants is that they have been marketed to me. How about cars? Should we have 1 supermarket, 1 brand of ice cream, 1 brand of soda, 1 type of cereal, 1 internet provider, 1 television network, 1 commuter train option?

Where does this problem start & where does it end?

Tom_Reingold said:
There hasn't been a single character accusation. Is it possible he returned all of his VHS's on time? I don't know why I'm so nervous about this, but the economic and political climate is so bitter, and Sanders is speaking unusually plainly.

Aaaaaand we're off.....Sanders:1972 Rape Essay was Dumb Attempt at Satire

I'm not endorsing the analysis in that piece, just offered it in response to your question. As for your claim that this is not the most substantive argument of the campaign so far, what substantive arguments have been made by anyone? Are campaigns even substantive any more

Steve said:
I'm not endorsing the analysis in that piece, just offered it in response to your question. As for your claim that this is not the most substantive argument of the campaign so far, what substantive arguments have been made by anyone? Are campaigns even substantive any more

To be clear, I said it wasn't the most substantive argument in a long time. I am not sure what the most substantive argument of this campaign is. I don't pay much attention to be honest. The US Presidential campaigns are basically a pageant. They are pretty close to being meaningless. The only way they will mean something is if an outsider somehow gets through and lives up to their campaign promises.

If I still believed in this process, I would rather look at the actions of these people rather than their campaign promises. Remember the campaign promises of Barack Obama. If you were to listen to him, he said he was going to return to the Republican form of government, stop spying, pull back on Foreign Policy, return presidential powers to Congress, and blah blah blah. We've gotten the exact opposite of this.

Anyone paying attention to the actions of this individual knew that it was likely that he would back spying, extrajudicial imprisonment & murder, robbing the workers to pay the elites, etc. I would posit that if the power elites in this country did not believe this about him, there is no way he would win the White House. In fact, it was something I pointed out on this very board at the time.

Here's how Hillary treats her supporters who don't work for Goldman Sachs

TylerDurden said:
Here's how Hillary treats her supporters who don't work for Goldman Sachs

Well duh. Goldman Sachs has lots of money, which means they free speech more.