Our Next President?

[dcarrigg]

Re: Our Next President?

While the top rate is lower now, how do present-day deductions compare to the tax deductions we had when the top tax rate was 70%? We used to have a tax deduction for credit card interest paid that has since been removed. OTOH, I'm sure we have some deductions now that we didn't use to have. I wonder if looking only at past tax rates without also comparing past deductions and tax credits gives the most accurate picture.

I've got limited time at the computer or I'd search for this, but just wanted to mention it in case it has any bearing on the discussion.

Saez has a pretty good class on the effects of top rates. You're right that it's not as high as the top-line number suggests. But there were also many more brackets. The effects as a share of total US output are like this: Not as big as it sounds, but still meaningful. The effect of the Reagan tax code is obvious when you look at it like this:

[shiny!]

Re: Our Next President?

The truth of the matter is that AOC's "radical socialist" 70% top marginal tax rate is exactly the same as it was under Carter, Ford, Nixon, and Johnson & 24% lower than it was under Eisenhower, Hoover, and FDR.

While the top rate is lower now, how do present-day deductions compare to the tax deductions we had when the top tax rate was 70%? We used to have a tax deduction for credit card interest paid that has since been removed. OTOH, I'm sure we have some deductions now that we didn't use to have. I wonder if looking only at past tax rates without also comparing past deductions and tax credits gives the most accurate picture.

I've got limited time at the computer or I'd search for this, but just wanted to mention it in case it has any bearing on the discussion.

[Morgasbord]

Re: Our Next President?

I'm not sure if this meets what you're looking for in terms of a daily briefing, as it's focused on the Trump presidency, but I've found this daily aggregation site extremely helpful, https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/. I send the poor soul a few bucks a month for his trouble.

The issues of payment and exclusivity are related in my mind. It's one thing to pay a reasonable subscription to a single provider. However, if you think you need to read news from 10 different sources then are you really going to pay for all 10?

I've kicked around an idea for several years about something like Kindle Unlimited or Spotify... a 'royalty pool' I could pay into for a set monthly amount, which is metered out proportionally to all the third party news sites as I read each article. What I haven't figured out is how to ensure the system dis-incentivizes garbage Top 10 X content and similar to attract eyeballs.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Our Next President?

I really like the concept and I think there are lots of people who feel that way as well. However, this again gets at the question of what people "want" and what they "really want". First, a lot of people say/think they are willing to pay for news, but it doesn't seem like very many are. Second, many people (myself included) seem to be addicted to information. It's easy to say I'll just read/watch/listen to a quick daily briefing, but how many people would go on to spend another hour (or 3) consuming more news throughout the day?

There's some rational basis for both issues. There is a huge amount of free news available and some of it is pretty decent. So why spend money on it? I think many people (among the group who want a new solution) are reluctant to get news from just one source. Often it feels like the best way to feel like you know the truth is to somehow triangulate it from multiple sources. If you just got a quick briefing from one company, how would you know it's the real news? Is it misleading? Even if it's totally objective and factual, does it push an agenda through omission of other news?

The issues of payment and exclusivity are related in my mind. It's one thing to pay a reasonable subscription to a single provider. However, if you think you need to read news from 10 different sources then are you really going to pay for all 10?

I think you hit the nail on the head.

There's a big gap between what we want and what we need, especially when it comes to news.

I think the consumption of news would benefit from personal discipline. Much like physical fitness for most people fits into schedules.

Humans used to consume news with involuntary discipline via the morning newspaper and the evening TV news. Not so much any more.

I think Fear Of Missing Out(FOMO) plays a role.

But it is exceptionally rare for any news beyond localised emergencies(such as extreme pending weather) to compel instant consumption.

For me, I try to keep my physical wellbeing activities to as rigid a schedule as I can, and adjust only when I have to.

I try to make as many essential tasks as ritualistic as I can. I try to leave as much time as I can for reading/learning...but that's where the news rabbit holing comes into play.

Perhaps I can add news consumption and rabbit holing to that list, but I have to admit I'm pretty weak in that regard. So I recognise the problem, but still need to modify my own behaviour.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Our Next President?

Here in the UK this evening we have a news item about a 14 year old girl suicide https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-469...ll-my-daughter

Again, just search 14 year old suicide, pages of it.

We older surfers can see the chaff, but for a new generation coming to this sort of thing for the first time and having no experience to fall back upon, is deadly.

There is a very deep problem herein that is taking vulnerable teenagers into drastic solutions to what are every day social problems.

I chair a fast growing veteran support NGO.

We've recently seen an anecdotal cluster of self harm from people in shared social groups. It was truly frightening.

Which has me trying to get my head around the concept of social contagion.

Currently trying to read the research paper called: Beyond "Social Contagion": Associative Diffusion and the Emergence of Cultural Variation by Amir Goldberg and Sarah Stein at Stanford U. Dated July 16, 2018.

It's not just ideas that can spread virally, but emotions and states of wellbeing.

[DSpencer]

Re: Our Next President?

I recall a Silicon Valley StartUp that was producing a tech industry version of a Presidential Daily Briefing, by someone who used to curate it.

I remember thinking I would really appreciate a paid Presidential Daily Briefing type source for news. And just largely ignore the rest.

I really like the concept and I think there are lots of people who feel that way as well. However, this again gets at the question of what people "want" and what they "really want". First, a lot of people say/think they are willing to pay for news, but it doesn't seem like very many are. Second, many people (myself included) seem to be addicted to information. It's easy to say I'll just read/watch/listen to a quick daily briefing, but how many people would go on to spend another hour (or 3) consuming more news throughout the day?

There's some rational basis for both issues. There is a huge amount of free news available and some of it is pretty decent. So why spend money on it? I think many people (among the group who want a new solution) are reluctant to get news from just one source. Often it feels like the best way to feel like you know the truth is to somehow triangulate it from multiple sources. If you just got a quick briefing from one company, how would you know it's the real news? Is it misleading? Even if it's totally objective and factual, does it push an agenda through omission of other news?

The issues of payment and exclusivity are related in my mind. It's one thing to pay a reasonable subscription to a single provider. However, if you think you need to read news from 10 different sources then are you really going to pay for all 10?

[Chris Coles]

Re: Our Next President?

Here in the UK this evening we have a news item about a 14 year old girl suicide https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-469...ll-my-daughter

Again, just search 14 year old suicide, pages of it.

We older surfers can see the chaff, but for a new generation coming to this sort of thing for the first time and having no experience to fall back upon, is deadly.

There is a very deep problem herein that is taking vulnerable teenagers into drastic solutions to what are every day social problems.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Our Next President?

I hear you. I've caught myself doing it too. And I've done everything from delete apps to add URLs to the old 127.0.0.1 host database just to prevent myself from sliding down the rabbit hole when linked to them. That's something I'd never done in my life. Either I'm getting weaker in my older age, or they're getting better at suckering me into nonsense content. But I think probably that it speaks a ton to how good they're getting at getting me to click on things I wouldn't otherwise seek out. It happens with all sorts of content too. Used to be Pandora was about the only thing that did that--suggested or autoplayed what's next. Now everything does. It's all carefully geared-up for mindless (over)consumption.

There’s a great book called the Master Algorithm that I recommend for gaining a broad macro understanding of an increasingly important aspect of our lives.

Looking at the success of foreign Advanced Persistent Threats involved in shaping US domestic political/partisan behaviour it would appear some were quite successful in terms of scientific method, iterative lean startup like bang for the buck.

But at the same time, it’s also clear that algorithmic recommendations and suggestions are far from perfect.

‘One the continuum from pathetic to perfect, we are still far closer to pathetic in most cases.

One only needs to look at their own Netflix habits, where many anecdotally spend more time selecting from their “recommended for you” than actually watching anything.

Same with my old employer Amazon, recommendations are still quite weak, even after 21+ years of data on me. Although they “have my number” when it comes to Kindle deals.

What I find fascinating is a recent study showing older people far more likely to share fake news articles.

Coincidentally, I was just talking to my kids yesterday about the importance of trying to adjust for bias, particularly comformity, confirmation, sunk Cost Fallacy, and Halo Effect.

If I could change two things in education, I would add an education module on detecting and mitigating for what I can the big 4 biases and I would add an education module on the 5 most common algorithms used today.

I recall a Silicon Valley StartUp that was producing a tech industry version of a Presidential Daily Briefing, by someone who used to curate it.

I remember thinking I would really appreciate a paid Presidential Daily Briefing type source for news. And just largely ignore the rest.

I used to watch CNBC in the 90’s, then began to recognise the big picture.

Now I view it from the lens of it being a means to shape the sheep and what NOT to do.

Which may have some limited value.

[jk]

Re: Our Next President?

I disagree that they're giving people what they want. But that's a deep bone I pick with rational actor assumptions and the idea that people buy what they want or click on what they want. They don't. People buy and click on what you put in front of them, not what they want. You can control how much people eat by just shifting plate sizes so the corresponding portion looks more or less reasonable. You can make people buy more with loss leaders and other retail marketing and positioning tricks. We've known this forever.

But the computer world is taking it to new heights. They hire psychologists to run big datasets and figure out what to put in front of people to maximize their ad revenue.

casinos have been hiring psychologists for many years to design reinforcement schedules for slot machines. players have favorite machines- presumably those with a reinforcement schedule better attuned to their individual learning/reward system. a slot machine is just a skinner box, really.

so what do we TRULY "want" if we're so manipulable. what you "wanted" before being hit with the clickbait was presumably a product of earlier, less definable but more pervasive conditioning as processed by your individual nervous system.

learning about this kind of stuff should be a standard part of the high school curriculum. come to think of it, given when kids get on the social networks, learning this stuff should start in middle school. still earlier?

[dcarrigg]

Re: Our Next President?

When I said "want", I really just meant "want to click on" or maybe even more precisely "click on the most".



I agree that it's getting worse. I started using the Apple News app because, hey it's there and reading the news is good, right? At first it was just a few stories from sources I selected. Next thing you know it starts filling up with celebrity gossip from People or whatever. Even if I kept saying I didn't like them, it didn't stop more from being fed to me. But the worst thing was that I sometimes clicked them. Not all at the time and usually just to read the first couple lines, but still. I was mindlessly consuming content that I wouldn't take home from a grocery store checkout even if it was free. I recently just deleted the whole app because of crap like that.

I hear you. I've caught myself doing it too. And I've done everything from delete apps to add URLs to the old 127.0.0.1 host database just to prevent myself from sliding down the rabbit hole when linked to them. That's something I'd never done in my life. Either I'm getting weaker in my older age, or they're getting better at suckering me into nonsense content. But I think probably that it speaks a ton to how good they're getting at getting me to click on things I wouldn't otherwise seek out. It happens with all sorts of content too. Used to be Pandora was about the only thing that did that--suggested or autoplayed what's next. Now everything does. It's all carefully geared-up for mindless (over)consumption.

[DSpencer]

Re: Our Next President?

I agree that the search engines are just trying to make money. I disagree that they're giving people what they want. But that's a deep bone I pick with rational actor assumptions and the idea that people buy what they want or click on what they want. They don't. People buy and click on what you put in front of them, not what they want. You can control how much people eat by just shifting plate sizes so the corresponding portion looks more or less reasonable. You can make people buy more with loss leaders and other retail marketing and positioning tricks. We've known this forever.

When I said "want", I really just meant "want to click on" or maybe even more precisely "click on the most".

I really mean it. Google search was far better 10 years ago. Reader was far better than the news aggregators too. You could set the content you want on your homepage where you want, include RSS feeds from relevant non-news sources, and have an informationally-useful home page. Like a home cooked meal. All that is gone now. You just get junk food. Prepackaged, processed, junk food. I mean, literally, the results for the simplest things you type into google look like they'd fit better in the pages of the Weekly World News at the end of a supermarket checkout lane than in the library. It's all Batboy and You'll Never Guess Which Celebrity Lost 30lbs now.

I agree that it's getting worse. I started using the Apple News app because, hey it's there and reading the news is good, right? At first it was just a few stories from sources I selected. Next thing you know it starts filling up with celebrity gossip from People or whatever. Even if I kept saying I didn't like them, it didn't stop more from being fed to me. But the worst thing was that I sometimes clicked them. Not all at the time and usually just to read the first couple lines, but still. I was mindlessly consuming content that I wouldn't take home from a grocery store checkout even if it was free. I recently just deleted the whole app because of crap like that.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Our Next President?

Right. I am basically referring to the whole system as an echo chamber. Some of it is from "the bubble" where your searches return results that are catered to you which means they steer you to sites you'll agree with. And news sources themselves have decided it's best to just pick a side/audience and cater exclusively to them. Then the comment sections create an effect that "everyone thinks/knows/agrees with this" and people with extreme views feel the most need to shout them on the internet. All of it preys on the human tendency to seek out confirmation in the first place and it's become trivially easy to just shut out views you don't like by closing the window, pressing mute, etc.

What's scary, but interesting, is how much of it isn't necessarily malicious in purpose. I don't think search engines purposefully tried to create information bubbles for nefarious purposes. They just tried to make money and they (their algorithms) learned that's what people want, even if they didn't realize it themselves.

We've basically hijacked our own brains. Maybe I'm too dramatic, but I find the whole situation pretty disturbing and dystopian. I have young kids and I guess teaching them how to have a healthy relationship with technology is now just part of life. Don't take candy from strangers, don't smoke crack, don't become obsessed with social media likes, don't send nude selfies, don't get tricked by fake news, etc. Only they can't "just say no". They have to learn to use all this stuff without getting hooked.

I agree that the search engines are just trying to make money. I disagree that they're giving people what they want. But that's a deep bone I pick with rational actor assumptions and the idea that people buy what they want or click on what they want. They don't. People buy and click on what you put in front of them, not what they want. You can control how much people eat by just shifting plate sizes so the corresponding portion looks more or less reasonable. You can make people buy more with loss leaders and other retail marketing and positioning tricks. We've known this forever.

But the computer world is taking it to new heights. They hire psychologists to run big datasets and figure out what to put in front of people to maximize their ad revenue. So people who might never have typed in "anti-semetic conspiracy" because they weren't interested in that might be curious about famous Americans who were Jewish, and BAM! They get the anti-semetic conspiracy anyways. Even though they didn't ask for it. And morbid curiosity, like rubberneckers at a car accident, forces the click. It's not what people want. The best thing I can think to tell kids is to show them how bad it is and drive home the idea that 1) internet companies are not your friend helping you learn, they're grifters just out to make money, and 2) so they lie to you, and lots of information you see is lies or junk.

Go to a public library and ask for information about Democracy, and you're not going to get Laura Ingram followed by alien Nazi conspiracies. Or whatever visa-versa weird stuff happens in other search bars for other political persuasions. I really think in an age where this much of life is required to be online that the primary platforms should be better regulated so that they have at least to show they put minimal effort into actually providing relevant information and not just poisoning the information stream with the nonsense that generates the most clicks. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. They know much more much more dangerous information about all of us. I'm not even saying they shouldn't be able to advertise or anything. But they probably shouldn't be able to use the chokehold gateway monopoly of search to dictate what everyone sees with impunity like this. There is almost no competition anymore. So we're not getting a sense of how much worse google has gotten over time. And everyone else just licenses the old Yahoo or Bing or whatever.

The results are absurd now. Not even always in an obviously political way. I mean, in what universe do reasonable educated people think the search results should look like this? It's more like a tabloid than a bona-fide information retrieval service. Lowest. Common. Denominator.

Notice that if there's anything relevant at all, it's usually in the right bar, and usually just an excerpt from the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article. You're literally better off just using Wikipedia's search bar. You won't get so much trash. Google search just keeps presenting you with menu after menu of junk food. People don't realize how bad it really is because on one hand, at one time, it was actually better and they've been slow boiled. But on the other hand, look at the crap it throws at you, it's designed to be full of celebrities and aliens and other garbage that people will just mindlessly click on the same way they'll mindlessly eat french fries or potato chips. And I don't really think it's an accident. But I think it can and does have shitty consequences.

I really mean it. Google search was far better 10 years ago. Reader was far better than the news aggregators too. You could set the content you want on your homepage where you want, include RSS feeds from relevant non-news sources, and have an informationally-useful home page. Like a home cooked meal. All that is gone now. You just get junk food. Prepackaged, processed, junk food. I mean, literally, the results for the simplest things you type into google look like they'd fit better in the pages of the Weekly World News at the end of a supermarket checkout lane than in the library. It's all Batboy and You'll Never Guess Which Celebrity Lost 30lbs now.

[DSpencer]

Re: Our Next President?

I think the echo chamber's a huge part of it. So's the search bar and predictive content. So's the way online & mobile content works: caters to the extreme and unreasonable for the clicks.

But on a secondary level, I do think another part of it is baked into real institutions and culture and physical space too. I can, about down to the county, predict something about how Ohio will vote based off the old borders of the Connecticut Western Reserve.

Right. I am basically referring to the whole system as an echo chamber. Some of it is from "the bubble" where your searches return results that are catered to you which means they steer you to sites you'll agree with. And news sources themselves have decided it's best to just pick a side/audience and cater exclusively to them. Then the comment sections create an effect that "everyone thinks/knows/agrees with this" and people with extreme views feel the most need to shout them on the internet. All of it preys on the human tendency to seek out confirmation in the first place and it's become trivially easy to just shut out views you don't like by closing the window, pressing mute, etc.

What's scary, but interesting, is how much of it isn't necessarily malicious in purpose. I don't think search engines purposefully tried to create information bubbles for nefarious purposes. They just tried to make money and they (their algorithms) learned that's what people want, even if they didn't realize it themselves.

We've basically hijacked our own brains. Maybe I'm too dramatic, but I find the whole situation pretty disturbing and dystopian. I have young kids and I guess teaching them how to have a healthy relationship with technology is now just part of life. Don't take candy from strangers, don't smoke crack, don't become obsessed with social media likes, don't send nude selfies, don't get tricked by fake news, etc. Only they can't "just say no". They have to learn to use all this stuff without getting hooked.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Our Next President?

The Overton window has been shifted significantly since about 1980. An Eisenhower Republican set of policies is now considered radical leftist by many.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Our Next President?

Yeah, those are the kind of questions I hate. Maybe they still serve the intended purpose, but it seems to only reinforce the idea that you have to pick a side and there are only two options. You either hate the government or love the government, there's no in between. I'm curious how much of the drift apart has to do with the digital echo chamber that serves to reinforce everyone's pre-existing beliefs.

I think the echo chamber's a huge part of it. So's the search bar and predictive content. So's the way online & mobile content works: caters to the extreme and unreasonable for the clicks.

But on a secondary level, I do think another part of it is baked into real institutions and culture and physical space too. I can, about down to the county, predict something about how Ohio will vote based off the old borders of the Connecticut Western Reserve.