51–60 of 222 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most money offered gets to be president. But even that doesn't work. In 2016 for the US presidency, Hillary Clinton's campaign had $790M USD versus Donald Trump's $408M USD. She had double the money 'to buy the presidency' and she still lost. https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16
Does that count the amount of free press Trump received during the campaign?
If I were the LA Times, every Disney movie review would be replaced by text saying "Disney has blacklisted us from early screenings as a retaliation for an article we published on them. When our reviewer has a chance to attend a normal screening we will place the review here, until then, please enjoy this reprint of the original article".
[edit: here's the note: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-holiday-movie-pre... ]
Curious how much headwind this will generate. Other critics and award groups already boycotting Disney screenings in solidarity: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/journalists-boycott-di... https://www.thewrap.com/critics-denounce-disney-blackout-la-...
Below I've linked a few more. It's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma: whichever media outlets don't participate in the boycott will have a competitive advantage when they put out early reviews, but it hurts all outlets if Disney is able to pull off the intimidation power play. http://flavorwire.com/611229/an-editorial-note-re-disney-and... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2017/11/06/w... https://www.avclub…
Private company does not invite random media outlet to movie screening. How is this news?
So let's assume the people who run Anaheim are not idiots. My question would be did they run the cost analysis of these tax breaks for Disney versus the expected boon to the city from other incomes? If the income from externalities is greater than the actual income would have been from Disney, it seems like it would have been a decent decision. This is of course ignoring political principles of fair taxation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most money offered gets to be president. But even that doesn't work. In 2016 for the US presidency, Hillary Clinton's campaign had $790M USD versus Donald Trump's $408M USD. She had double the money 'to buy the presidency' and she still lost. https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16
Does that count the amount of free press Trump received during the campaign?
You call it free press now, but during the election, you most likely called it "Haha! Look at this stupid buffoon! Oh please yes, reveal how dumb he is, this will totally help Hilary!"
Pride before the fall.
I feel like things like this are a fundamental social problem. How can this be prevented?
Pass a Constitutional amendment that states that corporations are not people. Then start passing laws that restrict the free speech of corporations and then pass more laws stating that money is speech. Then there can be fine tuned laws stating the max that a person can give to a candidate and start forcing all organizations that have anything to do with politics to register and state who is giving them money. Elimina…
I feel like things like this are a fundamental social problem. How can this be prevented?
Pass a Constitutional amendment that states that corporations are not people. Then start passing laws that restrict the free speech of corporations and then pass more laws stating that money is speech. Then there can be fine tuned laws stating the max that a person can give to a candidate and start forcing all organizations that have anything to do with politics to register and state who is giving them money. Elimina…
Addings more laws tends to help the people who can afford lawyers.
You could look at simplifications instead, eg change the voting system from first-past-the-post to something like range voting, and candidate behaviour (and thus reacting to incentives) would completely change.
So let's assume the people who run Anaheim are not idiots. My question would be did they run the cost analysis of these tax breaks for Disney versus the expected boon to the city from other incomes? If the income from externalities is greater than the actual income would have been from Disney, it seems like it would have been a decent decision. This is of course ignoring political principles of fair taxation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most money offered gets to be president. But even that doesn't work. In 2016 for the US presidency, Hillary Clinton's campaign had $790M USD versus Donald Trump's $408M USD. She had double the money 'to buy the presidency' and she still lost. https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16
I risk to devolve this into a flame war, but I think it would be a good idea to wait what Muellers investigation finds with regard to influences on the presidential election, so money spend by third parties to help get someone elected can be attributed to the corresponding campaign.