Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 533273)

What's happening is those folks are becoming perhaps the most important part of the Republican party because they are highly motivated and well financed; remember, Republican primaries in 2020, a high-turnout year, totaled about 18 million voters. Now revisit the "maybe 10 million" number you had - that's a number that, with high motivation, can dominate that process.

Today, I suspect you can count on one hand the Republicans who can be elected without enthusiastic backing from that constituency. Certainly here in Massachusetts, they chased an otherwise popular Republican governor from oiffice.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 533272)

If those asshats vote, yes, they vote Trump. But how many of those clowns are out there? A few million wingnuts? Maybe ten? (And how many are barred felons?)

I don't see any responsible statistical basis for the assertion Trump was overwhelmingly elected by racists.

Your argument that racists provided the little bit needed to win is true. Trump needed every group he that voted for him to win in 2016 as his margin was so thin. But that would mean that if he somehow lost, say, the military vote, or the tax voters, he would not have won. Every group he had was essential. Racists were one slice of a big, very strange pizza.

I'd totally agree with articles that said, "But for the Racists, No Trump." I think the math to support that is out there (with the caveat I just noted).

OTOH, articles saying, "It's Not the Economic Anxiety; It's the Racism," are stretching the point. It's both, among a lot of other shit. Much of it bizarre.

ETA: And the sexists! Fuck, how did I forget the sexists. Shit, that's a huge part of Trump's vote. In fact, how did racism become the favored narrative explaining Trump's win when clearly, however much of that was involved, sexism was a far larger - possibly by multiples - component? I guess people assume all sexists are racists? That's not true by a long shot. Equally loathsome crowds, but the Venn there looks far more like a sideways 8 than a 0.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 533263)

Sensitivity? I just described them as clueless and credulous.

I also noted that they are not the most downtrodden in borrowing the descriptive “Upper Precariat.”

If you’re in constant fear of being downsized, you’re in a bad place. Pick an adjective.

You just want to call them all racists. I actually agree many of them are. But as I noted earlier, the interplay between economic anxiety and racist attitudes is complex. You’d rather see it bluntly, call them all racists and being done with it. This of course allows you to avoid the discussion of how neoliberalism is one of the biggest causes of Trumpism.

Your version of capitalism is, “Fuck the middle; charity for the bottom.” That’s fine. I don’t really give a fuck because I don’t think the situation is solvable. But at least I own that corner. You want to be an apologist for monopolies and neoliberal polices that fuck the poor and the middle and absolve yourself of being selfish by saying “I’m in favor of greater redistribution…”. That’s crumbs for the desperate. And your bullshit in that regard is the definition of transparent.

You’re as selfish as any of the rest of us, including me.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 533215)

Someone with your track record should be very careful about typing those words. You only think you're correct because of your incorrect stereotype of who the Trump backers are.

They are not the economically downtrodden. They are just white people.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 533275)

One: Trump was not elected by racists. Millions of racists voted for him, but he was elected by people who voted third party.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 533264)

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 533266)

But since Ty insists, consider this. If the best gauge of racist sentiment on this list is immigration, which is true, it still ranks 14 percent below the economy. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics...2016-election/

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 533268)

And this is probably the most significant hole in Ty's argument. It is necessarily based on a set of assumptions. Most notably, the unsupported and unsupportable assumption that because Trump voters aren't uniquely destitute, they must be racist.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 533276)

Stop changing the subject. Here's Adder's post that you and Hank objected to:



Adder was right. Trump's supporters are not "the economically downtrodden." Do they have grievances? Sure? Plenty of people have grievances and aren't the economically downtrodden. Elon Musk for example. Might they feel economically vulnerable? Sure, who doesn't? It is very clear that support for Trump generally correlates with income, not the reverse. If you look at the population and try to figure out where Trump's support is, it is exactly *not* the economically downtrodden.

Among other things, I think it's hysterical that you think I'm an apologist for monopolies. But that's a whole different conversation.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 533279)

I don't believe I've said that Trump voters are racists in this thread, and it seems like you are bringing it up in order to change the subject. Whatever else is true, Trump voters are white and more affluent than Biden or Clinton voters, in general.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 533282)

My response to you was regarding your assertion I’ve no love for the dirt poor. Neither of us does. Your charity is largely performative. For us to make real redistributions that would help the truly poor and middle, people like us would have to seriously downgrade our lifestyles. The economy would have to be radically altered.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 533281)

You defended certain of the FAANGS in prior conversations about them being monopolies.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 533284)

Amazon -- not sure they are a monopolist, and tend to think that the things they do are generally consistent with consumer welfare

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 533285)

Why/how does it help human welfare?

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 533286)

They deliver all kinds of goods to your door. I certainly have many books on my shelf that I've never seen in a bookstore. In their core business, they compete by giving people what they want. When are you forced to transact with them for lack of options?

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 533285)

Why/how does it help human welfare?

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 533284)

Facebook -- not clear to me that they are a monopoly because I'm not sure how to define the relevant market, but it is an enormously harmful company that I have no interest in defending

Apple -- not sure whether they are a monopolist or a duopolist (with Android), but not sure it should matter

Amazon -- not sure they are a monopolist, and tend to think that the things they do are generally consistent with consumer welfare

Netflix -- not a monopolist by any stretch of the imagination, shouldn't be grouped with the others here IMO

Google -- clearly has been a monopolist for a long time, with harms for everyone else

As to which of these am I an apologist for a monopoly?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 533287)

“Cheap shit is all that matters. Competition is a concern for the horse and buggy crowd.”

Somewhere, Bork smiles on you.

Perhaps from… Hell?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 533289)

Amazon. I think you defended FB, but I can’t recall why. Might’ve been unrelated to monopoly concerns.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 533290)

I truly do not understand your point. Do you think Amazon has a monopoly? In what market?

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 533284)

Facebook -- not clear to me that they are a monopoly because I'm not sure how to define the relevant market, but it is an enormously harmful company that I have no interest in defending

Apple -- not sure whether they are a monopolist or a duopolist (with Android), but not sure it should matter

Amazon -- not sure they are a monopolist, and tend to think that the things they do are generally consistent with consumer welfare

Netflix -- not a monopolist by any stretch of the imagination, shouldn't be grouped with the others here IMO

Google -- clearly has been a monopolist for a long time, with harms for everyone else

As to which of these am I an apologist for a monopoly?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 533292)

It is the most anticompetitive company out there. Bork made same argument as you. Consumer benefit is only concern, not anticompetitive actions.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 533293)

Everybody talks about tech monopolies, no one talks about Bayer/Monsanto or Sinclair.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 533292)

It is the most anticompetitive company out there. Bork made same argument as you. Consumer benefit is only concern, not anticompetitive actions.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 533295)

What does Bayer monopolize?

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 533295)

What does Bayer monopolize?

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 533295)

What does Bayer monopolize?

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 533299)

Bayer was a sizable player in Agri-business and Agri-tech and bought Monsanto, which was already the biggest player in a lot of Agri-business and -tech. It has a huge impact on agriculture.

Other aspects of Ag have also been rapidly consolidating - tractors, feed, etc.

I suspect the last decade has seen more consolidation in ag-related businesses centered in rural areas than in tech. It's true on the buy-side as well, where meat and vegetable packing and distribution businesses have been rapidly consolidating, and on the production side, where there are now a lot of players consolidating agricultural land into ever bigger entities.

Red, rural America is going to kill off a big chunk of its economy shipping all the ag profits out to blue state urban finance centers.

That said, one of my clients made a killing on Brazilian ag land when Trump put in his tariffs. Since the US soy business was dead in the water for 6 months, the land flipped quickly at a multiple. He had a couple parcels each slightly bigger than Rhode Island.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 533300)

Right after I posted I realized you meant the Monsanto stuff. And yeah, it is scary.

David Chang did a series last year about the Future of Food. Scary stuff. But entertaining and with some hopeful bits.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sbyoZ2KetYo

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 533301)

I've got a whole bunch of heirloom tomatoes in this year and one of the things you discover is that there used to be a lot more variety and more depth of flavor. Sure, yields are up, and the old very thin profits are being replaced by much bigger profits, but, damn, those old-timey tomatoes taste good.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 533302)

I blame Ty and his army of Amazon apologists.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 533303)

Last summer, Whole Foods had the best tomatos near us.

eta: Still waiting for someone to explain Amazon's putative monopoly to me. FWIW, they clearly did not have a monopoly on the retail sale of tomatos in Santa Clara County last summer, but they were outcompeting their rivals on quality.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 533303)

Last summer, Whole Foods had the best tomatos near us.

eta: Still waiting for someone to explain Amazon's putative monopoly to me. FWIW, they clearly did not have a monopoly on the retail sale of tomatos in Santa Clara County last summer, but they were outcompeting their rivals on quality.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 533305)

I don't know about the tomato market, but when it comes to packages on our doorstep about 70% of them have been amazon through the pandemic. 70% is a lot of market concentration, and our doorstep is a pretty significant market.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 533306)

70% market share is a monopoly in my book;
I do not believe that Amazon has anything close to 70% of stuff shipped in packages, which is to say that your house must be atypical;* and
Most of what Amazon can ship to you can also be bought in a store.

* Half of the cars in our driveway are VWs, but that doesn't mean that VW has 50% of the auto market.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 533306)

70% market share is a monopoly in my book;
I do not believe that Amazon has anything close to 70% of stuff shipped in packages, which is to say that your house must be atypical;* and
Most of what Amazon can ship to you can also be bought in a store.

* Half of the cars in our driveway are VWs, but that doesn't mean that VW has 50% of the auto market.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 533307)

Yeah, their share of packages delivered to us is pretty high, but was significantly lower back peak pandemic when I was ordering groceries. And I pretty much completely stopped buying from them without significantly altering my consumption (wife on the other hand can't stop).

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 533308)

For purposes of antitrust laws, I think our house forms a separate geographic market for boxes on the step. It's likely a larger market than, for example, Rhode Island, which is just next door.

Also, do stores still actually exist? Huh. I thought they'd gone the way of the fax machine.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 533310)

I clearly do not understand antitrust. My biggest client was gunshy about antitrust because a former firm had sued a small service company for patent infringement of a method of repair patent. Within a year that flipped into defending antitrust counterclaims.

So when we wanted to sue another big auto supplier for patent infringement of a transfer case patent HQ flew out DC antitrust counsel to bless the filing. I thought it routine, and no big deal. To get the patent we had to avoid a dozen prior systems that anyone could use.

DC guy says “no no no, if we define the market as the exact transfer cases covered by your patent this lawsuit is an attempt to monopolize,” or whatever the fuck it was we weren’t supposed to be doing.

Finally I just said “dude that would mean you should never file a patent lawsuit, and we should advise HQ to stop even getting parents.”

He kind of looked at the ground for a second then flew back home after blessing my case!

Define the market right (say Guernica posts) and I have a monopoly here. It is stuff and nonsense.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 533305)

I don't know about the tomato market, but when it comes to packages on our doorstep about 70% of them have been amazon through the pandemic. 70% is a lot of market concentration, and our doorstep is a pretty significant market.

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 533312)

It's not as bad now, but the month before and the month after Kanan was born I think Amazon stopped at least twice a day.