WE NEED YOUR HELP!
Please donate to keep ReaderRant online to serve political discussion and its members. (Blue Ridge Photography pays the bills for RR).
Here's an interesting new approach to venture capital, one that applied to in 2016 but was rejected because the company "wasn't developed enough". I am about to apply again...
I applied again... we are setting up a time for an "introductory call".
Here is an interview with Phil Graves, CEO of Tin Shed Ventures (formerly $20 Million and Change). Long but very interesting.
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete. R. Buckminster Fuller
A very interesting article on the relationship between soil carbon, soil biology, CO2 drawdown, and water vapor.
Quote
CO2 drawdown is essential because we need to rebuild organic matter in soils in order to have the soil carbon sponge that supports the water cycle. But the only way we can safely and naturally cool the planet and prevent the climate catastrophe is by restoring these hydrological processes. We’ve been advocating, talking and educating about that for 10 years. In all of those years, not one person has ever said no, that’s wrong. They all say yes, that’s climatology 101. But in a sense it is new, because we’ve been focused on reducing CO2 emissions for so long. Of course, we have to do that, but really the solution lies in restoring these hydrological cooling balances by one percent.
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete. R. Buckminster Fuller
Externalization - how is it accounted for in the Capitalism ideology?
I was hoping that our Senator Hatrack would provide a more informed explanation, as a practicing Classical Liberal, than I can do with the more superficial knowledge that I possess. As an admittedly oversimplified summary, I understand the Classical Liberal economic model to say that unregulated free markets will provide the best outcomes because self-interest will always prevail - eventually - so negative trends, such as social and environmental decline, will be naturally mitigated. This might be possible if the self-interest was enlightened, but my speculation is that it is seldom so. We might say that a weakness of the CL economic model is that it externalizes the fact that enlightened self-interest among the human animal is as rare as hen’s teeth (notwithstanding a potentially lucrative market for chicken molars...).
Some examples of externalization might be interesting. This is following two posts above; one representing a triple-bottom-line business model (people, planet, profit), the other addressing global warming.
The Patagonia link (Tin Shed Ventures) is all about a company that is trying to acknowledge and act on a triple-bottom-line model - they would like to stop externalizing the costs of doing business. Patagonia may be as good a model for the CL economic philosophy as can be found, but they admit that enlightened self-interest is not an easy row to hoe.
The other post, which concerns global warming, is a rich vein to mine for examples of the failures of free market Capitalism to achieve the best outcomes, but I want to provide just one very interesting case of externalization - climate change denying. The Deniers are responding to just one thing. They do not want to have to account for the effects of climate change as a part of doing business, because they think that doing so will make things cost more. Their self-interest is unenlightened and they very much desire to continue to externalize the burgeoning social and environmental costs, not to mention the unavoidable economic costs.
To tie this back to another thread on Conservatism, I don’t see externalization as a conservative quality. Odd, isn’t it, that Conservatives are the primary proponents of not being conservative?
I call this the Conservative Rule of the Opposite Thang, with the acronym ConROT. Special emphasis on the “Con”.
Senator Hatrack may have a persuasive contrary opinion...
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete. R. Buckminster Fuller
Capitalist or Socialist voters... by age. Nowhere can I find this analysis... based purely on age of the actual voter.
The reason I ask, is that I live in a CCRC along with about 350 others. The area is mostly farming oriented, Catholic, and older than the average Illinois average... 47 vs. 38.
The area is predominantly Republican. In my case (CCRC), almost all Republican... but with an average age of 83 or 84, and even though they vote... almost none of them have any idea of what is going on in politics... nationally or locally. Strongly Republican, but from habit, many years ago. Those who do watch any news, (very few), are solely attached to Fox.
As much as we are generally convinced that youth is liberally inclined, the question I have, is how many people, of what age bracket are more inclined to vote for a certain party? Turn that young liberal bias around and ask how many persons of a later age group would also be liberal.
So... looking for a chart that incorporates age and party preference. Am sure we all have assumptions, but seeing real numbers could make the the future predictions more visible.
From what I've been able to glean from the internet, younger voters are only slightly more liberal than older ones. If you're raised a Baptist you're liable to stay a Baptist. If you're raised a Republican...same thing. Racism is currently on the rise among youth.
No tellin' where that came from...
People also become more conservative as they grow older, or at least that's what I've been told. I don't feel more conservative today than I was yesterday....
The topic you are interested in has this heading and is about
Quote
A wide – and growing – generational divide in partisanship
Some of the numbers are quite startling. Like 35% versus 17% identification with Democratic vrs Republican Parties among Millennials. You have to get all the way to the Silent Generation (1928-1945) to see a slight Republican advantage. But if you look at the earlier gender preferences, you can see that women are way more Democratic than Republican and women tend to outlive men by several years. This means the overall voting preferences of the Silents will change as more men die.
It is a lot to handle. If you scroll down to the topic I listed, it is pretty clear. The big confusing thing is they put R/D/I graphs on the left and put Democratic-leaning / Republican-leaning on the right. It gives you more information than you might want, but you can see how the different generations identify with a Party, and also how the Independents are leaning.
My take-away is that the Republicans are doomed unless the "growing more conservative" thing is faster than people age. When you throw in the effects of the coming non-White majority, it's obvious. Republicans are hanging on by a thread by gerrymandering, voter suppression, and packing the courts. But those won't be enough.
I don't really trust polls anymore. Most are conducted by telephone using land lines. It's a model that just doesn't work anymore. Landlines are a thing of the past and are so plagued by scam calls that most don't even answer them if they do have them.
2016 polling showed Hillary to be a shoo in to the presidency. Old folks with landlines, desperate for someone to talk to, assured pollsters that she was gonna win in a landslide. Younger people blocked those calls then didn't get out and vote because Hillary was sure to win. That's what the polls said.
Its, you could probably make up a chart, based on good common sense and your own knowledge and wisdom, and come up with a pretty accurate picture of what's going on. Have a dozen diverse friends do the same. Average them and you have an accurate poll.
We, as a society, are becoming more liberal. Not quickly and certainly not without some jumps and starts. But each generation claws its way a bit to the left.
It's more about globalization than anything else. Some fight it but it's inevitable.
I honestly didn't know how to file this thought. Where doe you post up the sheer fraud of both wings of the corporate parties? You could argue it belongs in a 'Democrats are no partie of opposition anymore. Maybe, There all in on it ? Dunno, but a picture's worth a thousand words...
That guy behind Dem. Richard Neal is Rep. Tom Reed. A proud member of the 'Problem Solvers' caucus. A group that solves nothing but loves them some centrist norms and values.
Reed's family owns a medical debt collection agency run thru his family's law firm in upstate NY. He's a great example of disaster capitalism for his own constituents while going full MAGA. Imagine getting threatening collection calls from your state's Senator....
Why do I have a feeling that there's just as many skeletons in the tax return woodpiles of the centrists Democrats?
Hey, maybe I should have posted this up in 'Profit' healthcare thread? It cuts so many ways.
