Our Next President?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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:

[Slimprofits]

Re: Our Next President?

I find it laughable that the people advising and writing Warren's Wealth Tax are employees of universities that benefit from exorbitant tuitions and student loans and they are citing student loan debt relief as a reason for creating the proposal.

I wasn't born yesterday.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Our Next President?

Here's an article that's a bit hopeful for Warren and makes some interesting points.

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/mile...next-president

Could Elizabeth Warren Be The Next President ?
first published 12/13/14
Early Friday evening Sen. Elizabeth Warren took to the Senate floor and gave a plain-spoken, barn-burning speech that could make history and put her into serious contention to be the next President of the United States.
There are only a handful of political speeches that have such historic impact....

[dcarrigg]

Re: Our Next President?

I find it laughable that the people advising and writing Warren's Wealth Tax are employees of universities that benefit from exorbitant tuitions and student loans and they are citing student loan debt relief as a reason for creating the proposal.

I wasn't born yesterday.

Well, they're from UC Berkeley, iirc. Definitely among the left-most campuses in the US. But far from among the most expensive. Tuition's like $14k per year. Average student loan debt there for graduating seniors is under $20k. In this day and age, not bad for a top-25 university.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Our Next President?

If you're not paying attention to DSA's platform and AOC, you're missing the zeitgeist. As someone of the LGBT persuasion and thus very connected to Leftist thinking and those gosh-darned "millennials", my read of the pulse is that a centrist Democrat is not electable anymore; a milquetoast democrat will just lose to Trump. A Democrat will win based on their ability synthesize enough of the DSA/AOC's Green New Deal and Stephanie Kealton explanations of "debt doesn't matter" MMT to fund it into a digestible platform that appeals to under 35's and enough red staters to flip the electoral college.

That's a pretty good observation Morgasbord. For a long time now the Democratic party has run as "Republican light".

[shiny!]

Re: Our Next President?

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:

Dang! Look at that jump after the Reagan tax cuts! Thank you, DC.

[vt]

Re: Our Next President?

Study history. The baby boomers were the millennials of the 1960's.

SDS was far more radical than Antifa. the left was strong.

What happened? Nixon was elected in 1968 and 1972.

Neither the left or right will prevail. A centrist fiscal conservative, social liberal will defeat the left and right that run both parties now.

[Polish_Silver]

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.

I think it all depends on how you measure it. People are allowing/wanting much more federal intervention in ways that would never have been accepted in the past, anywhere in the
left-right spectrum.

The fed involvement in financial markets, the massive "security justified" privacy invasions, mandatory subscription to private sector health insurance, wars to supposedly
protect us from terrorism.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Our Next President?

I think it all depends on how you measure it. People are allowing/wanting much more federal intervention in ways that would never have been accepted in the past, anywhere in the
left-right spectrum.

The fed involvement in financial markets, the massive "security justified" privacy invasions, mandatory subscription to private sector health insurance, wars to supposedly
protect us from terrorism.

It's interesting, because if you spin it around a little, the influence of the private side of those things would never have been accepted in the past either. The massive effects financial markets, tech company privacy invasions, health insurance companies, and maybe even terrorists (this one's more questionable) have on the lives of average people has greatly expanded as well. People are dependent on financial markets for retirement, dependent on tech companies for information & communications, dependent on health insurance for medical care, etc. As more and more mundane daily activities are converted from non-commercial to commercial interactions (what they call "the service economy"), dependence on intermediary firms that facilitate these things necessarily increases. As dependence increases, the matters necessarily become politicized. At least I think that's how it goes.