Coming soon, to a conference center not particularly near you

by wj 

We're overdue for another Open Thread.  And this coming week's Democratic National Convention seems likely to provide cause for comment.  So here's your chance! 

Open Thread

Comments

[JanieM]

Open thread ... with thanks to CaseyL commenting at BJ with a Time magazine article that gave this link:

https://npd.pentester.com/

for checking to see if your info was included in the recent huge data breach. If your name is found, it also gives links for the 3 major credit reporting sites (Experian, Equifax, and Transunion) -- where you can go to freeze your credit report.

The freeze is something I've meant to do for ages and haven't gotten around to until this morning. Fair warning: those sites are very overloaded today...

[nous]

Yep. Freeze credit, get a good password manager, change passwords, and use two-factor authentication on any websites that contain sensitive information.

And if you get offered credit monitoring for free as part of the security response, take it. I've got one credit card company and one credit reporting agency giving me monthly monitoring reports and weekly email alerts.

Been doing this for many years now, thanks to earlier breaches. So far nothing has managed to get through this combo of safety measures (knock on wood).

Just remember that if you do this, you will need to go in and unfreeze things before attempting to get a loan, or another credit card, or rent property, etc..

[wj]

I, too, get free monthly reports (from Experian) as a result of a data breach. It may even have been this one.

[hairshirthedonist]

I got Experian IdentityWorks for free last year after receiving a letter about a breach from some company I had no association with. I think it was because someone in the Atlanta area with a name similar to mine mistyped his email address as mine at some point. I get automotive-associated emails meant for him, some from Atlanta-area car dealers. The company that had the breach was also based in Atlanta.

My guess is they took a shotgun approach to reaching out to people who could have been affected by the breach and I was caught up in it because of the email address. I still froze my credit with all 3 agencies and signed up for the free monitoring just in case.

I think the free monitoring was only for a year, so I'll probably sign up for the free monitoring from this latest breach as well. Why not?

[CaseyL]

Thanks, JanieM!

Regarding the convention: The only part of it I'm pretty sure I'll be watching is Thursday evening, when I'm going to a meetup. Other than that, I might watch some on CSPAN online.

One story coming out of the first day is the Pro-Palestinian March was apparently a fizzle, with maybe 2000 showing up instead of the expected 10,000+.

Though more marches are planned throughout the week, and maybe the expected number will turn up - probably Thursday, if any marches are scheduled for Thursday, since that's the climactic, Harris and Walz formally accept their nominations, night.

Another story is that Trump's counter-programming is going about as well as you might expect. Vance gave a listless speech in the auditorium of a company called DiPor which, near as anyone can tell, is an industrial waste cleanup company. The jokes really do write themselves!

[wj]

One story coming out of the first day is the Pro-Palestinian March was apparently a fizzle, with maybe 2000 showing up instead of the expected 10,000+.

The fact that the DNC scheduled an official panel on Palestinian Rights today may have reduced the drawing power of the demonstration.

[Girl from the North Country]

Unfortunately, I've been out for hours so couldn't do my usual obsessive 4 newspapers + video of the convention etc - will have to try and catch up tomorrow. But from the short clips I've just seen on KamalaHQ (it's 2am and I've just got home), it looks like Project 2025 is the gift that keeps on giving. Particularly since there are now ample clips (video and audio) of Project 2025 people laying out how involved Trump has been with it.

[Donald]

Official panels are all we ask for, not anything extreme like ceasing to ship the bombs that kill children. Compromise is the lifeblood of politics.

[Cheez Whiz]

Because once we stop shipping bombs, the children will stop dying. No, its not that black-and-white, but the argument that America ending military support will reduce the death toll is an assumption that ignores all the other unintended consequences of that action.

[liberal japonicus]

I was going to make a separate post, but not sure if it would get any traction. I'm interested in Harris' attack on price gouging and the chorus of people who have said it is a bad idea. Do other folks have some links to exactly what is being suggested and why it is bad? My understanding is that it distorts market incentives, but price controls are necessary when a small number of companies control something, and this article
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2021/jul/14/food-monopoly-meals-profits-data-investigation

And a lot of these companies are recording record profits so it seems to me that the market is already distorted. It's obviously a tricky question about how you impose such controls, but it seems to me that you could impose such controls on these companies that control large swaths of the market. Anyway, any links are welcome.

[liberal japonicus]

I was going to make a separate post, but not sure if it would get any traction. I'm interested in Harris' attack on price gouging and the chorus of people who have said it is a bad idea. Do other folks have some links to exactly what is being suggested and why it is bad? My understanding is that it distorts market incentives, but price controls are necessary when a small number of companies control something, and this article
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2021/jul/14/food-monopoly-meals-profits-data-investigation

And a lot of these companies are recording record profits so it seems to me that the market is already distorted. It's obviously a tricky question about how you impose such controls, but it seems to me that you could impose such controls on these companies that control large swaths of the market. Anyway, any links are welcome.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

lj seems to have suffered from short-term 100% commenting inflation. But we'll manage to survive somehow, even at twice the price.

Kevin Drum seems to have a rational take on the issue (plus lots of graphs, astro-photos, and CATS).

link: https://jabberwocking.com/harriss-price-gouging-proposal-looks-pretty-modest/

[wj]

From the link that Snarki provides, it appears that the major point is to enforce existing anti-trust laws in the food and grocery business. Breaking up monopolies may have been de-emphasized recently. But going back to it hardly seems like a radical innovation.

It is probably worth noting that the proposed anti price gouging rules will include provisions for dealing with price increases which stem from passing thru increases in sellers' costs, such as price increases up the supply chain. If that's what's happening, it should be pretty cheap and easy for the seller to document. So the only objections would amount to "we should be able to ramp up our profits by exploiting emergency conditions".

[Tony P.]

"Just passing on my increased costs" is one thing. "I used to buy something for $100 and sell it for $110; my supplier raised his price to $120, so now I have to charge $130," seems reasonable.

It's another thing to say "I insist on my 10% profit, so I have to charge $132 for that item."

Using the same logic, the next guy up the chain was charging $121 originally, but now charges $145.20 to his customers, who let's say are the final consumers.

So: there are just 3 vendors in this "supply chain". The manufacturer's price went up $20 for whatever reason, but since I (the distributor) and my customer (the retailer) insist on -- i.e. can get away with -- making a profit on the increase, the consumer's cost went up $24.20 due to the $20 "price shock".

Yes, yes: this toy model is as oversimplified as the frictionless plane of high-school physics. But it does illustrate the point that people along the supply chain making a profit on the price shock is not same as "just passing the cost on to the consumer".

--TP

[Girl from the North Country]

Starting to catch up: terrific and inspiring speech by HRC IMO.

[Girl from the North Country]

Oh God, Joe Biden's speech. So good, and so moving. And the convention gave him so much love. I can't even...

(Also caught some of AOC's - also excellent and passionate)

[hairshirthedonist]

Sure, GftNC, but how do they top Hulk Hogan's shirt tearing?

[Girl from the North Country]

I'm a sap, I know! But still, it is very inspiring.

[wj]

It's another thing to say "I insist on my 10% profit, so I have to charge $132 for that item."

But let's face it, even allowing them to maintain the same (i.e. not increased) percentage profit would be a step forward from the current situation. Not saying that should be the way it gets implemented. Just that even this would be better.

[wj]

Sure, GftNC, but how do they top Hulk Hogan's shirt tearing?

Ummmm, by not having Hulk Hogan there at all? Seems like a significant step up to me.

[Girl from the North Country]

In fact, FWIW, I think it's my tendency to certain types of sappiness that makes me determined to balance it with a cooler, more clear-eyed approach, like the one I posted some weeks ago about Biden's stepping down, which russell to an extent, and more particularly Janie, found so offensive. I guess I just want always to be able to hold more than one opinion simultaneously, if it seems appropriate. And it very often does.

[CharlesWT]

Those greedy bastards - Retail(Grocery and Food) - and their 1.18% profit margin.

[russell]

Retail(Grocery and Food) - and their 1.18% profit margin.

I'm not sure the retail level is where the market consolidation is.

russell to an extent, ... found so offensive

I don't think I found any of the discussion offensive, I just thought the guy should be allowed to have his shot if he wanted it.

In any case, any umbrage I may have experienced is long gone. I'm more than fine with Harris and Walz.

[hairshirthedonist]

Ummmm, by not having Hulk Hogan there at all? Seems like a significant step up to me.

Oh, I see, wj. You don't think Kid Rock got enough of the spotlight. Sour grapes!

[nous]

I'm not sure the retail level is where the market consolidation is.

Beverages (Soft) 13.7%
Food processing 6%
Household products 11%
Oil/Gas Distribution 23.6%
Transportation 6%
Transportation (Railroads) 23.5%

So the people producing the groceries are making just under the mean profit along with the transportation sector, but substantially more than the grocery retailers. And the railroad, soft drinks, household goods, and fuel companies are all raking in big profits and living large.

Looks to me like grocers are just at the wrong end of the squeeze and being left with less price flexibility with all the other markups happening further up the chain.

[wj]

Looks to me like grocers are just at the wrong end of the squeeze and being left with less price flexibility with all the other markups happening further up the chain.

It would obviously be simplistic to assume that the retailer is where the price gouging occurs. It would make sense to go after the actual problem, rather than getting hung up on the tip of the iceberg.

[Michael Cain]

Open thread... Utah has asked the Supreme Court for permission to file suit against the federal government over control of the Bureau of Land Management's holdings in Utah. There's a ton of precedent against what Utah is trying to do. OTOH, this SCOTUS has overturned enough precedent that there are Constitutional law professors complaining they no longer know what to teach.

https://apnews.com/article/utah-public-lands-state-control-lawsuit-6459622b4534dcdd150731c84ed2a7b9

[GftNC]

I thought this, by Nate Silver in today's NYT, was interesting. It is headlined I Have Been Studying Poker for Years. Kamala Harris Isn’t Bluffing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/20/opinion/kamala-harris-democrats-risk.html?unlocked_article_code=1.EU4.gAR2.fpZI5Gt2C_Jk&smid=url-share

[liberal japonicus]

Those greedy bastards - Retail(Grocery and Food) - and their 1.18% profit margin.

two words: vertical integration

[Pro Bono]

Profit margin is only a small part of the picture.

If I could buy dollar bills for 99c, my profit margin on selling them would be 1%, but it would be a business anyone who wanted money would take on.

If I could plant trees which each grew on average a hundred dollar bills a year, and my costs for the year were expected to be $99 per tree, that would not be an attractive proposition.

Volume matters. Risk matters. Capital costs matter.

[Pro Bono]

Profit margin is only a small part of the picture.

If I could buy dollar bills for 99c, my profit margin on selling them would be 1%, but it would be a business anyone who wanted money would take on.

If I could plant trees which each grew on average a hundred dollar bills a year, and my costs for the year were expected to be $99 per tree, that would not be an attractive proposition.

Volume matters. Risk matters. Capital costs matter.

[Pro Bono]

Profit margin is only a small part of the picture.

If I could buy dollar bills for 99c, my profit margin on selling them would be 1%, but it would be a business anyone who wanted money would take on.

If I could plant trees which each grew on average a hundred dollar bills a year, and my costs for the year were expected to be $99 per tree, that would not be an attractive proposition.

Volume matters. Risk matters. Capital costs matter.

[Donald]

“Because once we stop shipping bombs, the children will stop dying. No, it’s not that black-and-white, but the argument that America ending military support will reduce the death toll is an assumption that ignores all the other unintended consequences of that action.”

Israel obviously needs our bombs. They have dropped, I think 70,000 tons of bombs or so I have read. They dropped 6000 bombs in the first five or six days by their own account.

These bombs have turned Gaza into a wasteland.

I find the faux- sophisticated argument for continuing to supply bombs that we know for a certainty will be killing more children to be just a bit self contradictory. All the other unintended consequences? What about the unintended consequences of being complicit in destroying the homes of 2 million people? Has Biden thought that through? Maybe that has risks? We do know what has happened for ten months. Biden has supplied an almost unlimited supply of munitions and has said repeatedly through his apparatchiks like Vedant Patel that “ Israel has a moral and strategic imperative to minimize civilian casualties.” Netanyahu ignores him. The Biden Administration outright lies and breaks the law in supplying those bombs.

Israel does not agree that they have a moral and strategic imperative to stop killing civilians. They pay lip service to it. They have physically destroyed most of Gaza. It is quite likely many Palestinians will have to move elsewhere or live in miserable disease- ridden circumstances. One has to suspect that is the point, the moral and strategic imperative for using the bombs Biden has provided. At any time Biden could have said that we are going to stop shipping bombs if you keep using them in this obscene fashion. At every step of the way Biden has refused to do this, except for stopping the 2000 lb ones. . Bibi has had absolutely no incentive to stop bombing. He knows our commitment to supply bombs is ironclad.

And no, it isn’t just all the fuzzy- headed moralists who get all upset about dead children and don’t think about the unintended consequences of not helping Bibi destroy Gaza. Gaza is destabilizing the Mideast. And where are Gazans supposed to live when the bombs do stop falling? What exactly does our President think is going to happen? Does he look at the photos of dead children, the pictures of shattered buildings? There are before and after aerial photos of Rafah, Biden’s red line, though he decided after the fact that Israel adhered to his human rights standards when they went in. No doubt, given his standards. Does he know that polio has come back or that Israel openly debates whether it is okay to rape prisoners? Are these intended or unintended consequences of our policies? Will a new set of refugees created by American bombs possibly have unintended consequences? Or alternatively, do we have 2 million people living in squalor for many years?

How exactly did supplying bombs to destroy Gaza become the calm sensible conservative low risk option? Is this how Americans think about foreign policy? Bomb first and ask questions later. I don’t think this a cutesy cheap shot either. It is literally what we have been doing. Gaza is destroyed. Oops. Gosh, didn’t intend that.

Well, we don’t know for sure where Harris really stands, so we can hope she is better. I hope so. I hope she wins, but she will have a gigantic mess left to her by Biden.

And no, I don’t really want to say more. I am just repeating myself. ( It would depress me if people actually want to defend Biden’s policies in Gaza, for one thing). The inflation- price control thing is really interesting but I haven’t read enough to contribute, so will just lurk.

[liberal japonicus]

re: Nate Silver's piece, he's been flogging that analysis recently, but I'm not really convinced by it. His 'village' seeks to glue together people who might resort to ostracization (i.e. cancelling), people who think (like most of the world) COVID measures were justified, people who are panicked by climate change, the heads of universities that want to silence student protests over various issues and the students who are willing to disinvite or deplatform people, as well as mainstream media fit in this group. So when Fauci complains that misinformation about COVID could handicap future efforts, he's just being a villager, just like when the presidents of Harvard and Penn got dragged in front of a congressional committee.

On the other hand, the 'River' includes deceased Oceangate CEO Stockton Rush, Elon Musk, the heads of any e-commerce outfit, Billy Beane and Bill James. And Nate Silver
https://www.natesilver.net/p/welcome-to-the-river
He writes:
The place where I fit in is what I call “the River”. It’s a place for people who are very analytical but also highly competitive.

I found this paragraph telling
There are other communities in the River, though: Silicon Valley, Wall Street, sportsbetting, crypto, even effective altruism, all of which are covered extensively in the book. And I found I had a lot in common with these people too, even if I sometimes disagree with their politics. There are traits like decoupling, contrarianism and a high risk tolerance that I share with the River, for better or worse. And these seem to be correlated with extremely high-variance outcomes: tremendous success or tremendous failure (as in the case of Sam Bankman-Fried, who is sort of the antihero of the book).

It's hilarious that he identifies effective altruism as one of the branches of the River, but makes Bankman-Fried the antihero of his book.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/sam-bankman-fried-effective-altruism-and-the-question-of-complicity

It seems to me that The River is largely made up of wealthy white men who can take risks because they somehow stumbled on the capital (both social and financial) to back them. I look forward to Silver explaining the far-sightedness of the Sacklers for figuring out how to profit from the opioid crisis.

Here's an excerpt of the book
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/nate-silver-on-the-edge

It sounds to me that his River has more than its share of sociopaths who think nothing of taking risks with other people's money, health or well-being. A sociopath who loves data is pretty much still a sociopath.

[nous]

Agree with lj on Silver. Here's what I'm seeing:

He says - These people, from poker players to venture capitalists — I call them the River, and they are from Silicon Valley, Wall Street, sports betting, crypto — make decisions based not on what they know at the moment but on expected value. For them, when it is time to make a decision, the question is: Do the risks outweigh the rewards?

Meanwhile the entirety of his analysis of The Village is - The Village tends toward risk aversion - with only the mention of how The Village is good at practicing strategic empathy as any nuance to accompany that blanket assessment.

Hint - The Village isn't practicing "strategic empathy" with its game theory, it's checking its privilege, and considering moral hazard so as not to choose courses of action that have high expected value and low risk for me accompanied by lower value and higher risk for you.

I don't think that Harris was being risk averse when she picked Walz. I think she saw that his history and his story opened up a lot more grounds for making main street voters see themselves reflected in their potential leaders. It potentially puts the "we" back in "We, the people..." more strongly than does a ticket with two lawyers from either coast. It humanizes the candidates.

That's not poker, that's knowing how to connect with an audience.

Unlike poker, you don't win an election with the strongest hand (or by convincing your opponent that your hand is stronger). You win by collecting more supporters for your coalition.

That's a real crucial difference, and I don't think that Silvers has any real feeling for what that actually looks like in practice.

He thinks that the map is the territory.

[nous]

Or, to put it another way, choosing Walz is her way of rejecting the "coastal elite" framing that Silver and the RW media love so much. AOC also plays against that elite framing, as does Katie Porter (who I fully expect to get a cabinet post if they win - please make it so).

This is a shift in the Democratic party.

It's been a long time coming.

[liberal japonicus]

It's unfair of me to have listed Billy Beane and Bill James, two who used baseball analytics in interesting ways with the others listed, but I don't think Beane or James took their analysis outside of baseball. Everything was in the context and environment of the game.

[wj]

I may have just read too fast, but I didn't see anything in Silver's article that spoke to the headline of Harris not being bluffing.

As for Walz being the risk averse choice, and Shapiro would have been playing the percentages? First off, how is not playing the (supposed) percentages risk averse?

Second, there is very little evidence of a VP pick making a difference in carrying his home state. Especially if you realize that the same guy, focusing his efforts on that state (rather than campaigning across the country), would have at least as much impact.

I had been hoping that the headline (which I realize Silver may not have written) would speak to what might have been a bluff by the Harris campaign. Ah, well.

[Ufficio]

make decisions based not on what they know at the moment but on expected value

I wonder what Silver thinks the inputs to an expected value calculation are if not "what [one] knows at the moment".

Shapiro was the risk-averse VP pick. By picking Walz, Harris opened herself up to massive second-guessing if she loses the election by dint of losing Pennsylvania.

(I think Walz was the correct pick.)

[hairshirthedonist]

After reading the VF piece lj linked, I think Nate has a few bees in his bonnet and is making big deals out of things that aren't that big of deals (including himself?). Meh...

(Oh, look at me decoupling! I really liked 538 when he was still there, BUT...!)

[Girl from the North Country]

I think that the importance of the Silver analysis is that he is not making moral judgements, not about the River and not about the Village. He's describing a phenomenon of two different temperaments, and their ways of making decisions, and the sorts of people who have them - it's a way to understand an often puzzling aspect of the world. And to my mind, by his comment on not necessarily sharing politics, there is a hint that he too can make moral judgements when he feels it necessary.

I don't think that Harris was being risk averse when she picked Walz. I think she saw that his history and his story opened up a lot more grounds for making main street voters see themselves reflected in their potential leaders. It potentially puts the "we" back in "We, the people..." more strongly than does a ticket with two lawyers from either coast. It humanizes the candidates.

My own take on Harris choosing Walz is that many different aspects were in play: better personal chemistry, everything that nous lists in that excerpt and his second short comment, and some risk aversion about Shapiro for some of the reasons I (we) have discussed, as well as a suspicion that he might not take so well to the limitations of the VP role. Whatever the reasons, I for one (and I can see I am not alone) am extremely happy with the choice.

[russell]

This is a shift in the Democratic party.

It's been a long time coming.

I hope so.

The (D)'s used to be the party of working people. Not-rich people. At some point, IMO beginning with the Clintons, they began working from an analysis that told them they could win elections by focusing on large population centers - cities - and in particular (but not exclusively) coastal cities. That's where the numbers were.

And to win those, they needed to be much friendlier to folks whose professions focused on capital and how to build and use it - FIRE sector folks.

And they forgot their roots.

Biden mostly remembered, which is how he beat Trump and how he accomplished useful stuff during his term in office.

I'm hoping the lesson sunk in.

[wj]

OT, so
Just a really cool picture:
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap240821.html

[nous]

I'll second everything that russell said there.

I'd agree with you too, gftnc, if I thought that Silver was actually offering any insight into The Village, but I don't think he understands them. So what he actually offers is The River's view of The Village.

Why is The Village risk averse? That seems to be a big omission. We know why The River acts the way that they do according to Silver - they see the expected value being worth the cost of getting the bet wrong. But why does he think The Village chooses the other side of that bet? "Consensus" is a result, not a reason or a value.

I really get the sense from Silver that he thinks Harris should have gone for Shapiro because Shapiro is worth +1% for winning PA, and the model says that winning PA ups the chances of winning the EC by the greatest expected value. Choosing Walz avoids stirring up MI as much, but has less upside in terms of the electoral map. Either way, though, the game remains essentially the same for Silver.

But sometimes a new approach to a game creates strategic shifts that upend the expected value. Per what russell says above, I think we are in the process of an evolution away from the Clinton model towards a more pro-labor model that might ease some of the urban/rural polarization.

That's a different game, and it changes the map.

[Michael Cain]

But sometimes a new approach to a game creates strategic shifts that upend the expected value.

Much of my career(s) involved forecasting. It's always the regime changes, when the underlying model changes, that get you.

[Girl from the North Country]

Well, nous, you may very well be right. But for sure, if Silver thinks Harris should have gone for Shapiro, for whatever reason, I think he is dead wrong. I think the winning PA reason is old thinking, and completely outbalanced by the many advantages Walz brings to the ticket. I'm very optimistic about this campaign, and I think Michelle O was dead right: there will be snarls, and attacks, and bad stuff, but the Dems feel very optimistic and energised to me, and rightly so.

[nous]

I hope I am right. I've been wanting to see a change like the one I describe since Obama, and had been swearing a lot whenever the centrist Dems I know kept triangulating back into the safe harbor of donor/pundit overtures. 2016 should have been their warning that they were losing the rank-and-file voters that russell mentions. People don't blow stuff up like that unless they have lost faith in being seen and heard by the folks steering the ship.

If the Dems can win this, maybe we'll have a chance to see if this is what is actually going on, or if I'm projecting my own wishful thinking onto the black box uncertainty of the mood of the voting public.

[wj]

I really get the sense from Silver that he thinks Harris should have gone for Shapiro because Shapiro is worth +1% for winning PA, and the model says that winning PA ups the chances of winning the EC by the greatest expected value. Choosing Walz avoids stirring up MI as much, but has less upside in terms of the electoral map.

The problem, I think, is that Silver's worldview, and his model, includes the premise that governors are basically all the same. They have clout in their state. And perhaps a little in neighboring states. But that's about it.

The reality is different. Specifically in Walz's case, the difference starts with his resume. First, he grew up rural, did not go off to an Ivy League or other coastal elite school. So he's someone pretty much unique among national politicians -- voters look at him and say "he's one of us."**

Further, he was not only a school teacher, but a football coach. Across central Pennsylvania, across the Midwest, even across the South -- basically everywhere outside major urban areas -- high school football is a bloody religion. Not only was he a coach, he took a losing team and got them to the state championships.

Plus, he joined the military, but he was an NCO, not an officer. Again, not a member of the (officially) elite. And once more, "He's one of us."

In sum, I think we are looking at a paradigm shift. Or, as Michael put it, a regime change. Walz will do as much or more than Shapiro when it comes to picking up votes in central Pennsylvania. Likewise in non-urban areas of Michigan and Wisconsin. In fact, I won't be surprised if there are several surprises in "flyover country." Maybe not enough to carry the state, but enough to shift some Congressional races.

I anticipate some exploding heads come November. Not just on how big the win is, but on where the big changes happen.

** Being up against Vance is a bonus. Beyond his myriad other flaws, the man screams fake. Whereas Walz is the real deal.

[GftNC]

Interesting article in today's NYT, about how and why a 2nd Trump term would be much more dangerous, with comments by various legal, constitutional and political science scholars, and various other issues like this, about where the money is coming from:

In 2016, many of Trump’s top backers, according to OpenSecrets, could best be described as marginal figures in the world of campaign finance:

McMahon Ventures, a consulting firm founded by the owners of World Wrestling Entertainment, $6 million; Mountainaire, a chicken producer, $2.01 million.

In terms of money, Trump today is a very different candidate. The corporate qualms that surfaced in the wake of the Jan. 6 insurrection have been subordinated to the prospect of billions in tax breaks for business and the rich if Trump returns to office.

According to OpenSecrets, of the $472.8 million Trump and allied PACs have raised through the middle of this year, a quarter, $115.4 million, has come from the securities and investment industry, the financial core of the Republican establishment. In 2016, this industry effectively shunned Trump, giving him a paltry $20.8 million.

“The leaders of major industries’ decision to back Trump suggests that the economic benefits of staying on the team will outweigh principled concerns about democratic norms should push come to shove in a second Trump term,” Eric Schickler, a political scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote by email in response to my query.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/21/opinion/trump-second-term-2025.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Ek4.8JWz.jgtAfoUZ8YWw&smid=url-share

[liberal japonicus]

Though I'm pretty appalled by the "fact checking" that the NYT has been doing
(cf this tweet from LGM)

the Ezra Klein podcast has been quite good. They have been good, but this one discussing the two Obama speeches was really enlightening for me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj9fBpBryc8

[nous]

Even as late as 2008, Obama was saying that Ronald Reagan had transformed US politics and the way that people think about government. I think he was right. We were still in Ronald Reagan's political world right up until 2016, when Trump torched the entirety of the GOP framework that Reagan had erected.

Obama was the prophet of a new, positive view of the future, but he was still working within the institutional constraints and protocols of the Reagan Era, and it hemmed him in. And I think that his opponents sensed the danger of that sea change and precipitated exactly what came next.

Biden was excellent, but he was a brief restoration of the old order, an interruption of the attack on the very idea of liberal democracy that MAGA had launched and hoped to complete. He was excellent because he did help to build bridges between the old Dems and the new.

Let us all hope that Harris can win and get inaugurated, and start building a new era of progressive optimism, and that Trump gets stuffed back under his bridge to grumble about passing billy goats.

Or jail.

[bobbyp]

Let us all hope that Harris can win and get inaugurated, and start building a new era of progressive optimism.....

And that the Republican Party is burned to the ground (politically speaking).

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/08/on-political-war

[JanieM]

bobbyp -- thanks for that. I'm sending it to an acquaintance of mine who often says that if Sherman had finished the job, we wouldn't have the problems we have today. (I don't believe that and I don't think he does either, it's an expression of frustration.)

Would like to put it next to Michelle Obama's "the affirmative action of generational wealth" as treasures for the day -- half my half-baked economic theories encapsulated in one elegant phrase.

[wj]

bobbyp, the image I incline to is to uproot MAGA, and then sow their (political) ground with salt. But to each his own. :-)

[Bobbyp]

As they have sowed, wj, so should they reap. This country has not been so evenly divided with such a high degree of polarization since the Civil War. The GOP has banked the flames of hatred with the clear intent of cementing a hierarchy of wealth and privilege.

It cannot be allowed to stand.

[liberal japonicus]

bobbyp, great minds. I was going to point out that piece by Nussbaum. It's interesting, the whole Biden to Harris transfer has some pretty brutal discussions over there, to the point where I didn't want to open the link sometimes, but to have that coming from Nussbaum is not one of the writers I would have expected.

I feel like in the UK, Labour has to face the same challenge and do the same to the Tories. It will be interesting to see if they and the Democrats are up for the challenges.

[JanieM]

lj: Nussbaum?

At first I thought you meant Martha Nussbaum, but I couldn't figure out where she came into the discussion. Then I poked around and realized that there's a Nussbaum front-pager at LGM (which I don't normally read). So is the reference a crossing-up of Nussbaum and Cheryl Rofer? If yes, no biggie. If no, can you give the Nussbaum reference?

[Girl from the North Country]

I hope, and believe, that "the affirmative action of generational wealth" is destined to be a very rare thing, a phrase that changes history.

[liberal japonicus]

Hi Janie, thanks, you are right, it's Cheryl Rofer. The strange thing is that I was positive that that I looked back at who the author was and saw Abigail Nussbaum's name, but I clearly didn't.

[Pete]

Obama was the prophet of a new, positive view of the future, but he was still working within the institutional constraints and protocols of the Reagan Era, and it hemmed him in.

I might add that Clinton's Third Way dominated the Democratic Party and was also, if not equally, constraining. Biden has been, imho, a turn towards New Deal and Great Society ideology. We'll see where Harris (knocks wood) will go with it. In that sense, "Not Going Back" seems like maybe not the greatest slogan, but I guess we're stuck with it.

And that the Republican Party is burned to the ground (politically speaking).

Emphasis on "politically speaking" (some of the rhetoric in the comments over there is unsettling).

The optimist in me says red states can be won back by policy. Make things work for people. The pessimist says in order to do that, the power of corporations and financial titans needs to be whittled back to manageable size and I'm not sure that ship hasn't already sailed.

As for Trump's banishment to bridge/jail and the salting of the GOP fields, I sez, "¿Por qué no los dos?".

[Girl from the North Country]

Ha, lj, I've been following some of the Ezra Klein podcasts, but not listening, reading transcripts. If it wasn't for his interview with Nate Silver, I would have had no idea what hsh's reference to "decoupling" meant! And of course, it was of particular interest to me, as I expect you can understand...

[JanieM]

In that sense, "Not Going Back" seems like maybe not the greatest slogan, but I guess we're stuck with it.

With Dobbs, women have already been given a big shove down the road backward.

With SCOTUS's ruling on affirmative action:

In recent years, Black, Latino, Native American and Pacific Islander students have accounted for 25% of MIT’s enrolling undergraduate classes, the university said. That number has declined to about 16% for the incoming class of 2028. The profile marks the first time a selective university has released its freshman class statistics since the ruling.

I have a hunch there are very few minority people or women of any color who are confused about what "Not going back" means. All the more since we've already been given a hard shove in the backward direction.

[Girl from the North Country]

I have a hunch there are very few minority people or women of any color who are confused about what "Not going back" means.

Agreed. And LGBT people, and no doubt many more.

[Pete]

In my defense, the qualifier was "In that sense".

So, like, "Not Going Back To Pre-Civil Rights And Pre-Roe And Pre-Equality And Certainly Not TFG But Some Of The New Deal And Great Society Stuff Is Worth Revisiting!"

But that's harder to fit on a button.

[Girl from the North Country]

Jesus. I just watched Tim Walz's speech. It was fucking magnificent. I really liked her pick before based on his history etc, but by God he's a barnstorming, inspiring speaker. Hallelujah!

[CharlesWT]

"MIT's Black student enrollment drops significantly after Supreme Court affirmative action ruling"

Arguments against Affirmative Action from a black woman and former MIT student.

"1. Affirmative Action is explicit bigotry, and I'm not a bigot. If someone works hard and achieves excellent grades, extracurriculars, and test scores, they should not be discriminated against or seen as an inferior applicant based on demographic, no matter their demographic."
Kiyah Willis

[hairshirthedonist]

So why should we care that the opinion is a Black woman's?

[CharlesWT]

So why should we care that the opinion is a Black woman's?

You're right. I should have just said, "former MIT student." A person's arguments should be judged on merit, no matter their demographic.

[JanieM]

I have a novella to write in response to CharlesWT's comment, but my attention is claimed by little people today.

In the meantime, I'm not on Twitter, and maybe other people aren't either, so maybe CharlesWT could find a threadreader and give us the whole thing?

On the other hand, there's not a lot new to be said about this, so I'm not sure it's a rabbit hole I want to fall into. The woman's first Tweet is 1) extravagantly oversimplified, with a definition of "bigotry" that I doubt I share, and 2) mischaracterizes (or misunderstands) the admissions process at a school like MIT.

Not a promising start.

[CharlesWT]

Thread Reader - Kiyah Willis

[JanieM]

Thanks, CharlesWT.

[hairshirthedonist]

I have a novella to write in response to CharlesWT's comment...

On the other hand, there's not a lot new to be said about this, so I'm not sure it's a rabbit hole I want to fall into.

Ditto. This is well-worn ground. Maybe I'm losing my spunk.

[nous]

I'll leave JanieM to speak to the elite school thing, and just reiterate what I have said before. The secret to a great classroom experience is not just to stuff the room full of the highest achieving students you can find. The best learning environments are a mix of different perspectives and abilities and aptitudes. I've been fortunate to have taught at a very diverse school for 20 years and would dread the prospect of being in a classroom full of homogeneous people who are mostly concerned with their own achievements. That's a recipe for burnout.

[nous]

Meanwhile, in Shamelessville:

Donald Trump will host a "J6 Awards Gala" at Trump National Golf Club Bedminster on September 5th. Attendees will have a chance to win a plaque commemorating the MAGA community's purchase of numerous copies of Trump's "Justice for All" song, which briefly earned him a spot on the Billboard music chart.

https://meidasnews.com/news/trump-will-host-january-6th-awards-gala-in-september

I can't even.

[Girl from the North Country]

For light relief, and also to distract myself from having sunk into the depths of extreme sappiness by watching again Obama surprising Biden by giving him the (inferior) Presidential Medal of Freedom:

Maybe I'm losing my spunk.

In the category of "things you probably don't want to say in the UK" (look it up).

And in the category of English things you probably don't want to say in the US "I'd be grateful if you would knock me up in the morning".

[Pete]

A quick search shows that aside from her social media presence, Kiyah Willis is a Fellow at the Objective Standard Institute. A quick sampling of the Zoom courses available are The Virtue of Selfishness Reading Group ($347) and The Fountainhead Reading Group ($497), so... yeah.

Apparently, scholarships are available! I didn't pursue it any further* but I'm gonna take a leap here and assume no affirmative action considerations are on offer.

*farther? Clearly, I are not scholarship material.

[hairshirthedonist]

In the category of "things you probably don't want to say in the UK" (look it up).

Ha! I am familiar with that usage. I just wasn't worried about it.

("I'm spunky. I like my oatmeal lumpy." It doesn't work with "porridge.")

[nous]

I'm vicious. I like my oatmeal viscous?

[bobbyp]

The optimist in me says red states can be won back by policy.

Just about every policy to assist/support our dear red state "rurals" (going back to the AAA), has been implimented by The Democratic Party.

So I would argue that history says "no".

Look (as Joe Biden would say), the decline of "rural culture" is at root the result of runaway corporate capitalism, corporate consolidation of economic power, and the displacement of rural population by technological advancements.

But policy? As Schaller and Waldman note in their book White Rural Rage:

Unlike other interest groups, for rural whites, "Politics now is not a place of shared struggel where meaningful victories might be achieved; it's a vehicle for nothing more than the occasional grunt of rage."

[JanieM]

A quick search shows that aside from her social media presence, Kiyah Willis is a Fellow at the Objective Standard Institute.

MIT admitted Bibi and Sam Bankman-Fried too. Just goes to show, no institution or process is perfect.

*****

Relevant more to Ireland -- I remember prospective Irish visitors in a certain era being warned that it might be best not to ask, "Where's the craic?"

[Pete]

@bobbyp

I don't really disagree. I like to think that when educators and healthcare workers start leaving, power grids fail, privatization makes everything even more unaffordable if not completely broken... people might start to look around and realize whose policies those are. It happened in Kansas... sorta. It won't happen overnight if it ever does. I did mention a yang to that optimistic yin. But I haven't abandoned all hope. Yet.

[Girl from the North Country]

I remember prospective Irish visitors in a certain era being warned that it might be best not to ask, "Where's the craic?"

Oh yes, and now that I think of it, very common English slang for cigarettes was/is "fags" (causing much consternation to Americans), while in the North Country there is a regional delicacy (much loved by my late husband) called "faggots", which are sort of large meatballs made of seasoned ground pork and offal (e.g. liver and heart), and wrapped in some kind of fat (caul fat for preference, but since that's hard to get, usually something like bacon).

Also, I remember an older American couple we knew whose minds were blown when very correct older English people advised them to "keep your pecker up". It is very old fashioned now, meaning stay cheerful, and I understand it is originally a Scottish expression. I believe in that case the use of pecker originally meant nose, by a sort of analogy with the beak of a bird.

[wj]

I'm gonna take a leap here and assume no affirmative action considerations are on offer.

But you can count on legacy admissions.

[nous]

My ex once walked into a store in Manchester and asked the clerk if he could direct her to the fanny packs. A very red faced young lad walked her to the feminine hygiene aisle and practically ran to get away.

[JanieM]

I knew "fag" as meaning a cigarette from my earliest childhood and wasn't exposed to the other meaning until I learned that gay people existed (late teens at the earliest).

Whether that was because of family culture in relation to WW I or of generational or cultural changes in the US in relation to open usage of the slur, I don't know. (As to the songs, who knew that war could be so upbeat.........)

Generational changes certainly make a difference: slang words go in and out of style all the time. But local, ethnic, and family cultures differ as well.

[bobbyp]

But I haven't abandoned all hope. Yet.

Hang in there, Pete! All the best.

[Tony P.]

The Libertarian(TM) ideal seems to be Affirmative INaction. Call it AI, but don't confuse it with Artificial Intelligence -- unless "intelligence" means robotically sorting applicants by test scores. After you admit the legacies, of course.

BTW, harking back to CharlesWT's one-liner about the measly 1.18% "profit margin" in the Retail(Grocery&Food) sector: if CharlesWT meant to respond to my prior comment, he seems to have missed my original point completely. The spreadsheet he linked to explicitly says their Gross Margin is 25.54%, their COGS/Sales being 74.46%. Adapting Pro Bono's excellent analogy, they buy dollar bills for 75 cents and sell them for $1. They make a penny profit on each one because their other costs amount to 24 cents. If a supply shock (real or concocted by oligopolist suppliers) suddenly makes dollar bills cost 85 cents, the Retailers could sell them for $1.10 and make the same penny profit, but do they? That's the empirical question that CharlesWT dismisses by linking to a spreadsheet that says nothing about it.

Neither does that spreadsheet say anything about ROI, which as Pro Bono points out has to do with how fast their inventory turns over. This is a concept no Libertarian(TM) has ever acknowledged in my experience, but that's a story for another day. Anyway, I fervently hope that supermarket inventories turn over about once a week, don't you?

--TP

P.S.: Kamala Harris speaks well, doesn't she?

[nous]

lol - Rambling Man(darin) calling into Fox & Friends to complain about Harris's speech and about how the Democrats forced Biden out. He's rambling and all over the place and the hosts are clearly just trying to get him to either focus or hang up.

He's looking really peevish and needy. Hope this whole experience of being the also-ran gives him a breakdown.

[Hartmut]

In the times of Rudyard Kipling a 'fag' was a lower grade/form student at a boarding/public school who had to deliver (non-sexual!) services to those students in the forms/classes above him.

[Hartmut]

I think 'render' services is the proper term, not 'deliver'. I mean the younger kids at school had to work as servants for the older ones.

[Donald]

The Gaza portion of her speech was hypocritical BS. I deleted a long rant about it.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Re: MIT admissions
My scheme, which is mine is as follows:

Sort by (SAT scores)*0.7+(GPA)*0.2+(evaluation of essay/extracurriculars/etc)*0.1 [each suitably normalized]

Set a threshold "B" which should be met for a "reasonable" chance of success on reaching graduation, and a higher threshold "A" that is for "sure thing success".

Score .gt. A: auto-admit
Score .lt. B: auto-deny
Between A and B: random number for admit/deny.

And make sure the students and counselors know that everyone that can succeed has a chance.

Why, yes, I do like random numbers, why do you ask?

[Girl from the North Country]

Hartmut, the fagging system at English boys' public schools was still in use in the 1960-1980s, depending on the school. Eton, for example, only banned it in its entirety (it depended on house up til then) in 1980. Which might explain why some boys turned out like e.g. BoJo or Cameron i.e. Tory bastards, while others reacted like a friend of mine, who became a Utopian Marxist and went to volunteer and build houses for the Sandinistas.

Donald, I wondered how you were reacting to the speech. I know this will cut little ice with you, but let's see what she does if elected, not what she says to get elected. It may not be that different, but at the moment her laser focus must be on beating Trump.

[nous]

If I had to pick one book that has done more to rewire my thinking than any other it would probably be Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling. The opening of that book, where Kierkegaard goes through the story of Abraham kinda like it is a choose-your-own-adventure story and plays out the alternate scenarios to their failure points lit a fire in my brain and still continues to inform my scholarly methodology three decades later.

So when I look at Harris's speech from last night and see her comments about Israel/Palestine, I automatically start to run through the other permutations of what could have been in my head, and imagine what would come of each alteration.

The rhetorical strategy she chose is - let's get this out of the way first - inadequate to represent the full measure of injustice and human suffering in Gaza. She could certainly have said and done more to take a moral stand there.

But is there a strategy that does do justice to that suffering that also leads to an end where she is also elected? Could she add any further words or promises of action to what she expressed there and not have those words lead to a worse scenario overall than the one that we have?

I can invent scenarios in my head where she chooses to say more, and all the complex things work out in ways that resolve all of the difficulties and lead to a better world, but let us be clear, all of those scenarios involve outside, providential circumstances that are beyond her control. They are leaps of faith.

I don't have that sort of faith.

I think she did the best she could under the circumstances, and the only way that she gets a window of opportunity to make a greater difference comes after winning the election, and probably after being inaugurated. I think adding anything more to her statement leads to even greater political turbulence, and greater human suffering for Israel/Palesine, than is inevitable as things stand.

Given that, I find it hard to cast judgment on her choices in that moment. Truth was not spoken to power, but truth doesn't always have the winning hand.

[Ufficio]

In the times of Rudyard Kipling a 'fag' was a lower grade/form student at a boarding/public school who had to deliver (non-sexual!) services to those students in the forms/classes above him

I encountered the usage in Roald Dahl (maybe in "Lucky Break") when I was around 10 years old. It was quite confusing at the time.

[wonkie]

I wish she had expressed more empathy for the people of Gaza and put more emphasis on the urgency of stopping the ethnic cleansing going on there. As far a policy, support for a ceasefire and a two state solution is pretty much the only choice. I mean what else is there? Support for Isreal's goal of ethnic cleansing? DO the reverse and support eliminating Israel?

I'd like to see a push for a ceasefire back up with some withdrawal of support of some kind, military or economic.

[nous]

I'd like to see a push for a ceasefire back up with some withdrawal of support of some kind, military or economic.

Me too, but I don't see anything like that coming before the end of the year at the earliest. The election is just too subject to outside influence for anything before then.

And I wouldn't expect anything like that sort of pressure unless the Democrats had a full majority incoming. And for it to work, I'd think they would need to have it be after everyone gets sworn in.

[Hartmut]

While I can fully empathize with Donald, there is also another risk. Although the yahoo from Netanja personally despises His Orangeness, he knows very well that he is better served with the latter in the WH. If Harris made any actionable statements, that would be a further incentive for that self-serving digestive rear exit to do all he can to sabotage and torpedo any positive results, both because it extends his hold on power and because it would make Harris look weak when she can least afford it. And I contemplate in horror what nasty October surprises he could try to spring on her.

[Girl from the North Country]

I'm totally with nous x 2 on this (also Hartmut at 04.58pm). Given everything we are hearing about voters being thrown off the rolls, and operatives being trained about how to throw doubt on counts, and refuse to certify the results, I can only thank the God in whom I do not believe that she raised $500,0000,000 last month (half a billion dollars!) because she'll need every penny, and every volunteer, to deal with what's about to come down.

[wj]

To inject a bit of optimism here (who me???), a lot of the effort from the Trump people seems to revolve around blocking the routine certification of results.

If I've understood correctly, in at least some states, the Secretary of State (or whoever) cannot vertify the state's results until each county has certified theirs. Even if the population of the county not yet certified is so small that it is impossible it could change the statewide result. Georgia seems to be trying for that. In other states, the idea seems to be to block certification at the state level.

In either case, the underlying idea is that, by blocking certification, there will then be no Electors to vote in the Electoral College vote. (Which is true.) And thereby, if they block the right state(s), nobody would get 270 Elector Votes and this would put the election to the House, where the process is one vote per state. (Which is flat wrong.)

The thing is, victory at the Electoral College is a majority of the votes actually cast. If a state doesn't certify its slate of Electors, that just lowers the number required to get a majority. Oops. The only way to dump the election to the House is a) a flat out tie, or b) a third party getting enough votes to nobody has a majority.

So, yes there is reason for serious concern over targetted vote suppression. But messing with certification is almost certainly a waste of energy and resources on the part of the Trump campaign (or the Republican party, which these days is pretty much the same thing). But then, incompetent staff work, specifically failure to look at the clear text of the 14th Amendment, and the even clearer text of the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 (intended to block exactly these sorts of shenanigans) would be entirely expectable from these folks. Heck, they can't even organize a photo op in a doughnut shop.