fusir wrote

Alright, well then you guys need to fix your branding problem because we seem to have no idea who the left is and I don't think that's our fault.

I'm refering to the acting left, as they exist now. I am a big fan of distinguishing between politicians and constituency within a political identity. It was pretty clear I was talking about the political structure and not the constituency. So it should be obvious that I wasn't calling people in unicorn communism oligarchs. Find me an applied communism without money. Soviet, Venzuela, China, and even NK all have money. Children litterally pay for their own public education in NK, with cash. It's very obvious that lobbiests and unicorn communism have never met so seeing as I'm talking about interacitions with lobbiests I'm clearly talking about within a bipartisan democratic system. Within our context of a bipartisan democratic system the "left" of it are the easier to shake down for govt money by cronyists.


fusir wrote

Nah, because all ads are really targeted to moderates. You want to both convince a moderate (which the full specrum recognizes pharma is corrupt and that includes moderates), and promote your general nerative. The two have to be aligned. The left attacking George Bush because he isn't pro-gun enough doesn't make sense. But if George Bush had signed an "assault" weapons ban the right aren't going to campaign against him on that fact in the 2004.

If Hillary had then the GOP can use geographic data to find that moderates in ohio are pro-2A and swing an election. Once they are out of the primary anything they have done against their party becomes irrelevent.


fusir wrote (edited )

Because they vote for them.

Some may have seen that I'm the capitalist opposition but I'm with you on this one. The left are the real oligarchs. The right wants market purity which is seperation of state and market. The left love interacting goverment and business. And big business loves interacting with the government too. If you are a lobbiest who do you talk to first, the person who has to answer his constituents for every dollar they authorize or the spend happy dem who can talk about cooperation with businesses for a social outcome. Both will do it but the works are a little more lubricated with the dems.

If you want corporate welfare you talk to the dems first. If you are GE and you want a environmental tax writeoff for making wind turbines which you can use to offset your whole business's taxes for all operations, you talk to the dems. If you want money for your soon to fail solar project and want to leverage your uncle's connections, thus offsetting others from the market who may have more technical merit but can't get investment in a market where someone already has a comperitive advantage because someone else is doing it with free money, you talk to the dems. If you are big pharma and you want your research subsidized but would like to keep the patents developed with the public's money, you don't talk to the right who don't want the spending, you talk to the dems.

In a way there is an advantage to going to the most ironic politician first. If a right wing guy helped big pharma, seeing as the left are hotter on fighting big pharma, it would get used as attack ads later. If Hillary is entirely funded by big pharma the left will sweep it under the rug, let's not talk about that fact. The right isn't energetic enough on the issue to bother. If you are big pharma you get what you want at less cost to the person helping you and don't have to give them as much to do it.


fusir wrote (edited )

Not a fallacy. Communism can't solve the coordination problem. An iphone would not be created outside of a capitalist system and a mixed economy is still capitalist even if also socialist. The capitalist element is necissary for that phone to exist so it's not entirely cazy to defend it somewhat. Socialism without capitalism is communism and it will not create that phone.

Marx completely did not understand R&D markets as illustrated in his fallacy attempting to illustrate base theory. In it he argued that the presence of furnices necessitates the existance of coal shovelers and therefore creates poverty so we should just get rid of furnices. Little did he recognize that someone already in a better position would not take a coal shoveling job and only people in worse positions would and that coal shovelers and furnices are coordinate goods so the goods character of a furnice depends on the presence of laborers and the second order good of a furnice design is dependent on the goods character of its lower order good and so wouldn't be developed without the presence of cheap labor niether would the capital expenditure for the making of the furnice happen without the presence of cheap labor. So it is the coal shoveler that makes the furnice and not the furnice that makes the coal shoveler. The truth is that without the ability to calculate ROI and act on it upstream firms would never design and build the equipment needed to make the tiny chips incorporated inside of the iphone upstream.

Maybe that's not an attack of socialism but it is an attack of communism. Seeing as socialism is capitalism + government intervention you still need capitalism.

So "You do not like capitalism but you are using a phone capitalism made" is accurate.