The ultimate pro-labour policy is trust busting. Do you see any chance of monopolies like Google/Facebook/Amazon or even Walmart being broken up by the justice department?
I had high hopes - especially for Lina Khan - but it looks like they have been outsmarted... to be fair, they have stopped big tech from buying smaller companies for the time being. Meta should be broken up, as they have merged the three messaging systems, when they expressly said they wouldn't. lets see
It's a hard question because there is an argument, called aggregation theory, that the internet is a natural monopoly. It is a winner-take-all market for whoever manages to aggregate a category; videos [youtube, netflix], search [google], business software [microsoft], pictures [instagram], people [facebook], physical product [amazon]. Since each category lends itself to network effects every additional piece of content attracts more users, and every extra user makes a company more valuable thus every user attracts more content in an aggregator.
At the same time, there is no reason to allow aggregation of BOTH video and search [Google], people and pictures [Facebook].
This is a very subjective comment but a couple of the effects of monopolies are reduced product choices, reduced amount of products on the market and higher prices. In my personal life I do feel like there is less content on Netflix today, less product on Amazon, search quality has seriously declined on Google and Facebook compared to 10-years-ago.
Not sure what you are saying here. If you are talking about the middle of Team R, my sense is that there is not much "middle" to win.
If you are talking about winning the middle of the nation as a whole, any Team R candidate first has to get the nomination. Biden has it easier in that regard.
That said, whichever party manages to nominate a socially moderate, fiscally moderate non-interventionist candidate not obviously beholden to the crazies on either wing or to the neocons has the potential to create a dynasty. The donors, however, would have a fit.
Which is why I don't see labor getting an edge over capital any time soon. The donor class would not stand for it.
In the case of Obama, he quickly got on board with what the donor class wanted. You may recall his cabinet might as well have been appointed by Citi.
How Trump got the 2016 nomination in the first place is interesting. In part, this was because, whatever his other faults, he did say things that nobody on Team R was willing to say out loud. In addition, Team R was unable to unite behind a single NeverTrump candidate. Was it Jeb!? Kasich? Cruz? Rubio? As a result, Trump was able to win enough pluralities in winner takes all states to secure the nomination. Also, while the RNC tried to rig the nomination to keep Trump out, they did not have the MSM to carry their water.
As to how Trump won the general election in 2016 - it helped that he was running against someone so utterly unlikeable and entitled, someone who could barely be bothered to conceal her disdain for ordinary people. Team D could have grabbed a random woman waiting for the city bus, coached her to recite Team D talking points and nominated her, and that random would have performed better than HRC.
n.b., I am not a Trumper. Among other things, the man proved weak, stupid and easily manipulated. A Huey P. Long would have been far more effective.
Agreed. Pippa Malmgren thinks RFK could be that guy. I have no strong view on him yet but he has an interesting background which could unite different parts of the electorate behind him... Green, anti-big pharma, his family's legacy, MSM hates him, etc.
Is that the same guy all over social media showing his ripped body? I might have to pay more attention to him! The push ups made me think he was a big odd...
He definitely seems a bit odd... pre-Trump I would have dismissed the idea that he might have a chance, but since Trump got elected I had to reassess my priors about how Americans choose their leaders... and it's not like the competition is stellar. Probably a long shot but who knows.
https://www.phenomenalworld.org/analysis/repressing-labor-empowering-china/
Will AI and Robotics at some point affect the pro labor model?
I doubt it. Its all about how productivity gains are split - not what drives the productivity gains.
The ultimate pro-labour policy is trust busting. Do you see any chance of monopolies like Google/Facebook/Amazon or even Walmart being broken up by the justice department?
I had high hopes - especially for Lina Khan - but it looks like they have been outsmarted... to be fair, they have stopped big tech from buying smaller companies for the time being. Meta should be broken up, as they have merged the three messaging systems, when they expressly said they wouldn't. lets see
It's a hard question because there is an argument, called aggregation theory, that the internet is a natural monopoly. It is a winner-take-all market for whoever manages to aggregate a category; videos [youtube, netflix], search [google], business software [microsoft], pictures [instagram], people [facebook], physical product [amazon]. Since each category lends itself to network effects every additional piece of content attracts more users, and every extra user makes a company more valuable thus every user attracts more content in an aggregator.
At the same time, there is no reason to allow aggregation of BOTH video and search [Google], people and pictures [Facebook].
This is a very subjective comment but a couple of the effects of monopolies are reduced product choices, reduced amount of products on the market and higher prices. In my personal life I do feel like there is less content on Netflix today, less product on Amazon, search quality has seriously declined on Google and Facebook compared to 10-years-ago.
An interesting read:
https://stratechery.com/2015/aggregation-theory/
https://stratechery.com/concept/aggregation-theory/
Search quality on google has declined - and ads on youtube are awful. I tend to search on tiktok first now, as I can skip the ads.
Competition is always good
The Florida governor is hostile to Disney because thr Florida governor has national ambitions that force a conflict with Disney's agenda.
Exactly my point - being anti-big business does not hurt Republican candidates anymore. Also see Boris Johnson and his "fuck business" remarks.
It is no longer a secret that the Team R leadership and the Team R voter do not exactly have much in common any more.
The right politician now.has huge scope to win the middle... the question is who will it be...
Not sure what you are saying here. If you are talking about the middle of Team R, my sense is that there is not much "middle" to win.
If you are talking about winning the middle of the nation as a whole, any Team R candidate first has to get the nomination. Biden has it easier in that regard.
That said, whichever party manages to nominate a socially moderate, fiscally moderate non-interventionist candidate not obviously beholden to the crazies on either wing or to the neocons has the potential to create a dynasty. The donors, however, would have a fit.
Which is why I don't see labor getting an edge over capital any time soon. The donor class would not stand for it.
Obama and Trump were first funded by small donors... so anything is possible.
In the case of Obama, he quickly got on board with what the donor class wanted. You may recall his cabinet might as well have been appointed by Citi.
How Trump got the 2016 nomination in the first place is interesting. In part, this was because, whatever his other faults, he did say things that nobody on Team R was willing to say out loud. In addition, Team R was unable to unite behind a single NeverTrump candidate. Was it Jeb!? Kasich? Cruz? Rubio? As a result, Trump was able to win enough pluralities in winner takes all states to secure the nomination. Also, while the RNC tried to rig the nomination to keep Trump out, they did not have the MSM to carry their water.
As to how Trump won the general election in 2016 - it helped that he was running against someone so utterly unlikeable and entitled, someone who could barely be bothered to conceal her disdain for ordinary people. Team D could have grabbed a random woman waiting for the city bus, coached her to recite Team D talking points and nominated her, and that random would have performed better than HRC.
n.b., I am not a Trumper. Among other things, the man proved weak, stupid and easily manipulated. A Huey P. Long would have been far more effective.
Agreed. Pippa Malmgren thinks RFK could be that guy. I have no strong view on him yet but he has an interesting background which could unite different parts of the electorate behind him... Green, anti-big pharma, his family's legacy, MSM hates him, etc.
Is that the same guy all over social media showing his ripped body? I might have to pay more attention to him! The push ups made me think he was a big odd...
He definitely seems a bit odd... pre-Trump I would have dismissed the idea that he might have a chance, but since Trump got elected I had to reassess my priors about how Americans choose their leaders... and it's not like the competition is stellar. Probably a long shot but who knows.
Pippa:
1.comes out of deep state
2.never wants to show he doesn't now something
3. She's obviously more interested in being interesting than right/factual