Why does Facebook want us to vote?

Landing page for a recent Facebook alert:

Assuming that I am not special, why does Facebook the Company care whether or not we all vote? (as it happens, the ballot in our suburb is mostly taken up with candidates running unopposed; in the general election, it is nearly all unopposed Democrats)

If this is about general virtue, why not encourage Americans to quit smoking, eat less, study and work harder? Those are much more important and useful messages in all but a handful of swing states.

Full post, including comments

Joe Biden: et tu, Google?

Top of my Gmail, day after the New Hampshire primary:

How do folks think the Nevada caucuses will shake out today? Are there enough government workers and people on the traditional welfare system in Nevada to appreciate an old-school Democrat like Uncle Joe? Enough Californians who moved there to escape taxes to appreciate the idea of yet higher taxes under President Sanders? Enough Native Americans to give Elizabeth Warren a boost?

Per https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2019/07/02/why-isnt-pete-buttigieg-the-front-runner-among-democrats/ , my money is on Mayor Pete! (except that I am not energetic enough to drive down to our local casino and place an actual bet)

Full post, including comments

Some kind words from Texas about Michael Bloomberg

A Facebook friend in Dallas pointed out that it isn’t reasonable to complain that Michael Bloomberg is trying to buy the election. In his view, so are the other [tax-more-and-spend-more] Democrats, but they’re trying to buy the election with our money. “At least Bloomie is spending his own.”

(this guy can’t be dismissed as a hater/Deplorable because he doesn’t refer to Mr. Bloomberg as “Mini Mike”)

How is the Bloomberg campaign going? The ads that I’ve seen on Facebook seem targeted at coastal elites who want to feel better about themselves via Trump-hatred and the hatred of Trump voters. Trump and his fans are stupid, racist, etc. Usually there will be a quote from Trump that set the New York Times and its readers on fire, but that Trump voters interpreted in a different way. It is tough to imagine these ads persuading anyone who voted for Trump in 2016 to switch allegiance. But maybe that is the point? It is primary season so the only people who need to see the ads and be persuaded are Democrats?

Separately, I heard that the latest debate among the Democrats involved some sharp exchanges. If the real enemy is Trump, shouldn’t the opposition candidates all be at least as polite as tennis competitors at Wimbledon? The message is that any Democrat is far better than Trump, right? If true, why say something harsh about a fellow Democrat? It would be a personal disappointment to lose the primary round, but saving the country from a Hitler-style dictator is surely more important.

Related:

  • “The Radicalism of Warren’s Unapologetic Aggression” (New Republic); Warren is part of the tribe, so to speak, of Democrats saying we’ll all be infinitely better off if Trump is defeated. Why wouldn’t she at least appear to celebrate the possibility of Mayor Pete or Michael Bloomberg winning in November?
Full post, including comments

Wall Street billionaire thinks Hillary Clinton was going to deliver precisely the correct amount of social justice

Lloyd Blankfein, who amassed a fortune of more than $1 billion while working at Goldman Sachs, was a supporter of Hillary Clinton, and therefore justice, back in 2016 (Business Insider). It made sense to Mr. Blankfein to have higher income tax rates, at least for individuals and corporations that did not push activities offshore (with help from Goldman?), to fund a larger welfare state.

If helping 50 percent of Americans with fatter government paychecks and welfare checks (Hillary) is good, then helping 80 percent (Bernie) has to be better, right?

Wrong! Apparently one can have too much social justice. “Bernie Sanders Would ‘Ruin Our Economy,’ Says Ex-Goldman Sachs Boss” (NYT, February 12):

Lloyd Blankfein warned on Twitter that Mr. Sanders was “just as polarizing” as President Trump.

Bernie Sanders has proposed a wealth tax on the richest Americans, blasted big businesses for turning huge profits while paying little in taxes and said he believed billionaires should not exist.

“If I’m Russian, I go with Sanders this time around,” he wrote, referencing that country’s efforts to support Mr. Trump in 2016.

(i.e., to discourage working class Americans from referring to The International Jew, a Wall Street billionaire Jew says that U.S. election outcomes are determined from a foreign capital; nobody would ever make the leap in reasoning from “The most important things in the U.S. are controlled by Putin and his buddies” to ” The most important things in the U.S. are controlled by international Jewish financiers”)

Related:

Full post, including comments

Given that Donald Trump is our President, what products should be on sale for Presidents’ Day?

Happy Washington’s Birthday to everyone who wants to celebrate slaveholding, locating the capital city on the same river where you have a plantation and where you’ve invested in a canal, profiting from land stolen from the Native Americans, etc. For the rest of us, Wikipedia says

Colloquially, the day is also now widely known as Presidents’ Day and is often an occasion to honor the incumbent president and all who have served as president, not just George Washington.

What should merchants put on sale today in order to honor Mr. Trump?

My friends on Facebook refer to him as “Cheeto” so perhaps Cheetos should be on sale? (always a happy day for me!) On the other hand, The Donald is not on record as being partial to this ultimate snack food. Diet Coke, on the other hand, is high on the list.

The Boeing 757 and Citation X aircraft that Trump owns are no longer in production so they can’t be put on sale in a special Trump Edition. Sikorsky may not want to feature the S-76 so soon after the Kobe Bryant tragedy.

What non-food product would be Trump-related and fun for a Presidents’ Day sale?

Full post, including comments

Michael Avenatti, as my friends saw him

Some posts from my Facebook friends, many of whom have coastal elite jobs (e.g., university professor), regarding Michael Avenatti:

And, in case you missed it, Avenatti has released a sworn declaration from an eyewitness who knows both Dr. Blasey Ford, Julie Swetnick and Brett Kavanaugh, ready to testify to the sordid behavior Kavanaugh engaged in.

It’s good that the GOP left time this week for the can of worms to crack open. Kavanaugh’s freshman year roommate at Yale believes her (Debbie Ramirez). Meanwhile, Kavanaugh has taken to campaigning on Fox News (as one does?). Avenatti has a fourth victim. Dr. Ford is not alone: her courage allowed others to come forward. And since probabilities multiply, the chances of all of them being actors in a Democratic plot to torpedo this nominee are roughly zero.

Are Trump and his cronies sleazy thugs? Yep. Would Avenatti, a canny lawyer, make a baseless allegation? Not a chance.

I’m watching history being made … Not only did we all—most of us—hear the audio of a sobbing child who had been separated from her parents and relatives. Tonight, according to the tough-talking attorney, Michael Avenatti, I heard that some of those kids and parents were told that the kid was just going to be taken for a bath. The parent told her child it would be all right. Then the child didn’t see her parent again. Let’s hope that’s fake news. Resist!

Avenatti was not idly boasting when he said Trump would not serve out his term.

Related:

Full post, including comments

Why are people calling Michael Bloomberg a “racist”?

“The Notorious Michael R. Bloomberg: His racist stop-and-frisk policy as New York mayor can’t be forgotten.” (NYT):

“Ninety-five percent of your murders — murderers and murder victims — fit one M.O.,” Bloomberg said. “You can just take the description, Xerox it and pass it out to all the cops. They are male, minorities, 16 to 25. That’s true in New York. That’s true in virtually every city.”

That could be considered a sexist (“male”) or ageist (“16-25”) statement just as easily as “racist” (“minorities”; but actually a “minority” race in NYC was white at the time).

CommonDreams:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Thursday that Democratic presidential candidate and businessman Michael Bloomberg is “just a billionaire trying to cover up authoritarian and racist policy” if he does not commit to providing relief to those ensnared by the racist stop and frisk policy he supported as mayor of New York City.

Why isn’t Mr. Bloomberg’s (“Mini Mike’s”?) identification of a gender ID and age category objectionable to anyone?

[Loosely related: My own definition of “racist”: someone who disagrees with me.]

Full post, including comments

Price-fixing in the U.S. healthcare system, by the numbers

A bill arrived for a (routine and negative) medical test today. Due to the artificially restricted supply, the provider attempted to fix the price at $150 (ask a physician who #resists Trump and welcomes migrants if European doctors should be able to come to the U.S. and start offering medical services!). Via the miracle of monopsony, however, Blue Cross dictated to them a price of $47.08 (why the .08?) and thus a paper-in-the-mail process was initiated to collect the cost of a local restaurant meal (annual deductible not yet met so this $47.08 has to be paid on top of the $10,000-ish cost of the policy).

My favorite thing about Bernie Sanders is that he is the only politician with the courage to say “this is dumb; we should try something else.”

Sanders seems to have done well in Iowa (though not as well as the politician that I thought, six months ago, should be #1 among the Democrats). Maybe the enthusiasm for Sanders is partly driven by consumer rage on receiving explicit disclosures like this of how the U.S. health care system is not representative of an ordinary market (you can’t buy food insurance and get 2/3rds off your next McDonald’s bill; McDonald’s doesn’t make that much profit at its headline prices).

I wonder if Sanders’s opponents from all parties (Socialist, Green, Libertarian, Democrat, and Republican) would be wise to start their fight against Sanders by proposing a law that forbids providers to charge a higher price to individuals than to insurers.

Full post, including comments