11–20 of 84 posts
It seems like many now-popular movements had deep-pocketed sponsors. Can a billion dollars always push an idea into the mainstream? Or are there counterexamples of groups who poured huge amounts of money into promoting something that never caught on?
It seems like many now-popular movements had deep-pocketed sponsors. Can a billion dollars always push an idea into the mainstream? Or are there counterexamples of groups who poured huge amounts of money into promoting something that never caught on?
Money does seem to be the only way to get even a hint of policy change from Washington, but the trend line of public opinion is opposite of what you suggest. Until around 1995, immigration restriction was overwhelmingly mainstream in the United States and still commands a strong plurality. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx I'd further point out that the overwhelming majority of the moneyed interests…
The big money, big ideology people poured money into hard right conservatism. Investing in and advertising on talk radio being one key strategy. Your average blue collar worker/trucker/etc has been indoctrinated with conservative blather for 30 years.
It seems like many now-popular movements had deep-pocketed sponsors. Can a billion dollars always push an idea into the mainstream? Or are there counterexamples of groups who poured huge amounts of money into promoting something that never caught on?
Don't like to see overpopulation being conflated with immigration again, because... Overpopulation is obviously a problem; immigration maybe or maybe not (case-by-case each country decides). Overpopulation is from people being born; not from people crossing borders. No humans are created or destroyed in the act of emigration or immigration. Overpopulation, nobody wants to talk about; immigration, everybody wants to t…
How does that square with many western nations whose population would be declining due to low birthrates if not for immigration?
One of the big drivers of population growth is being a poor farmer and preserving a legacy. Once you have some wealth, the incentives change.
My grandparents grew up poor in rural Ireland, my grandmother was one of 12 children and at least 16 pregnancies, born in the WWI era. 9 of the siblings made it to adulthood. They needed people to milk cows and catch fish, and needed living sons to inherit the land and take care of the elders.
Immigration in modern western countries fills the gap between productivity gains and the dearth of workers. It keeps salaries lower to reduce inflation and preserves the status quo. Remember that behind of all of these crazy debates is a need for certain stakeholders to maintain power.
It seems like many now-popular movements had deep-pocketed sponsors. Can a billion dollars always push an idea into the mainstream? Or are there counterexamples of groups who poured huge amounts of money into promoting something that never caught on?
Money does seem to be the only way to get even a hint of policy change from Washington, but the trend line of public opinion is opposite of what you suggest. Until around 1995, immigration restriction was overwhelmingly mainstream in the United States and still commands a strong plurality. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx I'd further point out that the overwhelming majority of the moneyed interests…
Is that really true?
To me, both Soros and the Kochs seem to be somewhat close to classical liberalism. Mostly free people, mostly free markets, etc.
As such, to me, they to have more in common with one another than either has to the Trump crowd or the Sanders/Warren/AOC crowd.
My understanding of Soros and the Kochs is somewhat low resolution, so I would be happy to be corrected on whatever I am not seeing here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Money does seem to be the only way to get even a hint of policy change from Washington, but the trend line of public opinion is opposite of what you suggest. Until around 1995, immigration restriction was overwhelmingly mainstream in the United States and still commands a strong plurality. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx I'd further point out that the overwhelming majority of the moneyed interests…
The difference is that traditional chamber of commerce GOP types would hold back the anti-immigration stuff because it killed unions and made their mainstream donors happy. Your chicken slaughterhouse in the middle of Nebraska prospers with underpaid illegals who don’t get workers compensation. The big money, big ideology people poured money into hard right conservatism. Investing in and advertising on talk radio bei…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Money does seem to be the only way to get even a hint of policy change from Washington, but the trend line of public opinion is opposite of what you suggest. Until around 1995, immigration restriction was overwhelmingly mainstream in the United States and still commands a strong plurality. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx I'd further point out that the overwhelming majority of the moneyed interests…
> It's just about the only thing the Koch brothers and Soros can agree on. Is that really true? To me, both Soros and the Kochs seem to be somewhat close to classical liberalism. Mostly free people, mostly free markets, etc. As such, to me, they to have more in common with one another than either has to the Trump crowd or the Sanders/Warren/AOC crowd. My understanding of Soros and the Kochs is somewhat low resolution…
Now that US politics are going through a realignment, the two are becoming as chummy as they were always destined to be. The demonization from both sides was mostly kayfabe.
On a recent Vox Weeds episode there was mention made of the environmental movement's early connections to eugenics, sterilization and population control, and how national parks weren't so altruistic when it came to native populations and local population subsistence. I have also heard opinions in the past that environmentalism in its 20th century forms was really just a white culture concept of aesthetics. I can imag…
It’s arguable that this policy while very cruel and unjustly applied and which resulted in skewed gender demographics, had allowed China to prosper quicker than otherwise. On the other hand, in 20-30 years they will face a severe shortage of working age people. But they are autocrats so they may be able to manage that via central policies.