Here comes my favorite notion of "epistemic takeover".
A crude form: make everybody believe that you have already won.
A refined form: make everybody believe that everybody else believes that you have already won. That is, even if one has doubts about your having won, they believe that everyone else submit to you as a winner, and must act accordingly.
I don’t know how to get away from it because ultimately coordination depends on understanding what everybody believes, but I wish it would go away.
If outsiders could plausibly invest in China, some of this pressure could be dissipated for a while, but ultimately we need to order society on some basis that incentivizes dealing with practical problems instead of pushing paper around.
What if profit is dead because wealth is all concentrating in people who don't need it from a marginal consumption standpoint, which means asset prices blow up because everyone rich believes that they need to "invest" that money somewhere... but demand shrivels outside of interestingly-subsidized areas like healthcare because nobody else is making enough to even keep up with the asset price rises?
And without demand, where would innovation come from?
Rich people learn a habit that makes them consume less than their investment returns. The difference is reinvested, resulting in a net increase of their equity. Even if you say they spend 90% of their returns on consumption, the last 10% still grow in absolute terms. Since returns are paid proportionally based on the quantity of equity, you can clearly see that money is allocated from where it has high marginal utility to places where it has low marginal utility.
Of course this leads to a contradiction. If money is held by people who have a low marginal utility for consumption, why would investments pay high returns? Your equity is the latent demand that your investments need to pay you the returns in the first place. You'd increasingly be paying yourself. That is equivalent to investing into something that yields a 0% return which in turn is equivalent to doing nothing.
We need the rich to spend more money. There are plenty of cool ways to do this. Build a mile high pyramid on a Nevadan playa, a canal to the Sea of Cortez to re-flood the Salton Sea, humans on other planets, new city states a la Praxis, interstellar probes, etc.
Some billionaires are doing some of these things. Hope more do in the future.
In today's economy disease and prison camps are increasingly profitable.
How do you think the investor portfolios that hold stocks in deathcare and privatized prison labor camps can further Accelerate their returns?
In a world re-calibrated to pure problem-solving, presumably we'd ask a mime or other non-digital artist for news on what our government is doing (instead of the Fake News Media), and then an interpretive dancer, not a lobbyist, would intermediate between government and industry? The trombone players would investigate financial crimes, the bassists would monitor our airspace, and the guy currently painting a mural on a wall would be responsible for DoorDashing a cargo ship's worth of food and supplies to a disaster zone (not the bad NGOs)?
Yeah, this is just a list of jobs you don't understand and/or make you feel sad.
But they can and they do.
By 2017 teenagers were running quantitative trading algorithms and semantic analysis trading bots they found from influencers and github. Around that time private subscription fee telegram and discord "whale" insider trading groups often had multiple levels of insider trading market manipulation running pump and dump schemes. Marks would pay to join the private chat group and at a certain time of day a ticket symbol would be released for "insiders" to buy before it's promoted in public channels. The outer circle was just providing liquidity for the deeper insiders to exit with easy profit.
Most VC gambits are not much different. Sell the news. Unleash the rumors.
That sounds a lot like saying slavey is obviously bad, and simultaneously also saying everyone else naturally already believes this.
"Quiet Australians" - Scott Morrison 2019
Yes we'd have a lot of lawsuits about it, but it would hardly be a bad use of time to litigate whether a politicians statements about the electorate's beliefs are accurate.
So, obviously their claims were at least partially true – because if they'd completely misjudged the average voter, they wouldn't have won
When there are only two choices, and infinite issues, voters only have two choices: Vote for someone you don't agree with less, or vote for someone you quite hilariously imagine agrees with you.
EDIT: Not being cynical about voters. But about the centralization of parties, in number and operationally, as a steep barrier for voter choice.
Anyway, there’s a third option: spoil your vote. In the recent Irish presidential election, 13% of those polled afterwards said they spoiled their votes, due to a poor selection of candidates from which to choose.
https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2025/1101/15415...
Encourage people to vote for the candidate they dislike the least, then try to work out ways to hold government accountable.
If you’re in Australia, at least listen to what people like Tony Abbott, the IPA, and Pauline Hanson are actually saying these days.
Because now that means there's an indication of what percentage of the populace are saying "These candidates don't qualify for my vote"
At the general election, you need to be pragmatic, and decide who is the least worst and vote for that candidate, because the nominee will probably never be someone who is your ideal choice. But in a two-party system, a vote for a third candidate at that level ends up being an effective vote for candidate you _don't_ want. That's not politics, that's game theory.
There's a lot more subtlety to it in a parliamentary system, and I can see some advantages to it, but at least here in the States where it's First Past The Post with a Two-Party system (which is mathematically inevitable with FPTP), sometimes you need to place strategy or ideals.
Because the US has a “hard” two party system - third party candidates have very little hope, especially at the national level; voting for a third party is indistinguishable from staying home, as far as the outcome goes, with some rather occasional exceptions
But Australia is different - Australia has a “soft” two party system - two-and-a-half major parties (I say “and-a-half” because our centre-right is a semipermanent coalition of two parties, one representing rural/regional conservatives, the other more urban in its support base). But third parties and independents are a real political force in our parliament, and sometimes even determine the outcome of national elections
This is largely due to (1) we use what Americans call instant-runoff in our federal House of Representatives, and a variation on single-transferable vote in our federal Senate; (2) the parliamentary system-in which the executive is indirectly elected by the legislature-means the choice of executive is less of a simplistic binary, and coalition negotiations involving third party/independent legislators in the lower house can be decisive in determining that outcome in close elections; (3) twelve senators per a state, six elected at a time in an ordinary election, gives more opportunities for minor parties to get into our Senate - of course, 12 senators per a state is feasible when you only have six states (plus four more to represent our two self-governing territories), with 50 states it would produce 600 Senators
It was 5% last time I cared to be informed by may be different now, and they would receive $x for each vote, or what ever it is now.
Then you automatically get paid the first $12,791, and the rest of the funding is by reimbursement of substantiated election expenses.
This is per a candidate (lower house) or per a group (upper house). And this is just federal elections - state election funding is up to each state, but I believe the states have broadly similar funding systems.
https://www.aec.gov.au/parties_and_representatives/public_fu...
https://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/public_fu...
Note the US also has public financing for presidential campaigns, which is available to minor parties once they get 5% or more of the vote. But in the 2024 election, Jill Stein (Green Party) came third on 0.56% of the popular vote. The only third party to ever qualify for general election public funding was the Reform Party due to Ross Perot getting 18.9% in the 1992 election and 8.4% in the 1996 election. There is also FEC funding for primary campaigns, and I believe that’s easier for third parties to access, but also less impactful.
Thanks!
She is the leftest left leaning leader of the Liberal party I’ve ever had the misfortune of having to live through.
She was absolutely on board with this recent Hitlerian “anti-hate” legislation that was rammed through with no public consultation.
Okay, that’s a bit uncharitable. We had 48 hours.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidentia...
18.9% as recently as 1992. I predict we will have a similar viable third party showing sometime in the next few elections due to the radical shift in the party system that AI is causing as we speak. I really hope Yang Gang can rebuild itself and try again, maybe without #MATH.
Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Minnesota_gubernatorial_e...
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man" - George Bernard Shaw
The centralization of power of each of the two dominant parties nationally at the expense of a more decentralized parties with strong state variability as in the past, makes it even more difficult for third parties to gain traction against all that coordination.
Perot had the best chance, but managed to blow it by bowing out and then back in.
I do think you are right, that times of great dissatisfaction are rare openings for third party candidates, if someone special enough appears. 2020 would have been a great election for that - but an inspiring third party candidate can't be manufactured on demand.
As a result, Australia tends to end up with governments formed by the runner up, because no one party actually ‘won’ as such.
say preferences are 1 (low) to 5 (high).
suppose 65% of the population ranked candidate A at 5 and B at 4, and the other 35% ranked A at 1 and B at 5. the majority doesn't get their favorite choice, but they do get an outcome they're happy with, and the minority doesn't have a horrible outcome. Exaggerated, but I don't think situations like this are unrealistic.
Where it fails is when one major party is saying: we will drive up energy prices with Net Zero ideology, make housing unaffordable, import foreigners at a ratio of 5 to 1 local births…
And that other party is offering the same to a higher degree.
There are other options. Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party is polling strongly. Let’s see if that results in actual votes.
South Australian state election coming up 21st March this year - I’m encouraging everyone I know who lives there to at least listen to Michelle Grattan podcast.
https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/politics-with-michelle...
Like most Australians, I’m in denial any of that episode ever happened.
But, using the current circumstances as an example, Australia has a voting system that enables a party to form government even though 65% of voting Australia’s didn’t vote for that party as their first preference.
If the other party and some of the smaller parties could have got their shit together Australia could have a slightly different flavour of complete fucking disaster of a Government, rather than whatever the fuck Anthony Albanese thinks he’s trying to be.
Then there’s Susan Ley. The least preferred leader of the two major parties in a generation.
Susan Ley is Anthony Albanese in a skirt.
I would have preferred Potato Head, to be honest.
Really it just ought to be a thing that we identify as a thought-terminating cliche. No laws needed, let’s just not fall for a lazy trick. Whether or not it is true that lots of people agreed, that isn’t a good argument that they are right.
The case of Nixon really brings that out. The “Silent Majority” was used to refer to people who didn’t protest the Vietnam War. Of course, in retrospect the Vietnam War was pretty bad. Arguing that it was secretly popular should have not been accepted as a substitute for an argument that it was good.
Except that assumes polls are a good and accurate way to learn the "beliefs of the electorate," which is not true. Not everyone takes polls, not every belief can be expressed in a multiple-choice form, little subtleties in phrasing and order can greatly bias the outcome of a poll, etc.
I don't think it's a good idea to require speech be filtered through such an expensive and imperfect technology.
We really need a rule against proposing unenforceable rules.
The classic situation is the two lovers who both want to do what they think makes their partner happy, to the extent that they don't tell what they actually want, and end up doing something neither wants.
I think the goal of all sorts of cooperative planning should be to avoid such situations like the plague.
I believe that is solvable.
Bitcoin is actually kind of useful for some niche use cases - namely illegal transactions, like buying drugs online (Silk Road, for example), and occasionally for international money transfers - my French father once paid an Argentinian architect in Bitcoin, because it was the easiest way to transfer the money due to details about money transfer between those countries which I am completely unaware of.
The Bitcoin bubble, like all bubbles since the Dutch tulip bubble in the 1600s, did follow a somewhat similar "well everyone things this thing is much more valuable than it is worth, if I buy some now the price will keep going on and I can dump it on some sucker" path, however.
For the record - the illegal transactions were thought to be advantaged by crypto like BTC because it was assumed to be impossible to trace the people engaged in the transaction, however the opposite is true, public blockchains register every transaction a given wallet has made, which has been used by Law Enforcement Agencies(LEA) to prosecute people (and made it easier in some cases).
> and occasionally for international money transfers - my French father once paid an Argentinian architect in Bitcoin, because it was the easiest way to transfer the money due to details about money transfer between those countries which I am completely unaware of.
There are remittance companies that deal in local currencies that tend to make this "easier" - crypto works for this WHEN you can exchange the crypto for the currencies you have and want, which is, in effect, the same.
Sending money to a "grey market counterparty" has had workarounds for some time, and continues to have workarounds.
People were fooled into thinking crypto offered anonymity, and were surprised when they realised every single one of their transactions was sitting in the public chain available for anyone to read.
Digital wallets provide LEA's with clear evidence of transactions with a given party when that party's anonymity is unmasked, and it's there in perpetuity.
Had Epstein being using BTC to do business, every single one of his clients would be known.
> had Epstein used BTC every single one of his clients would be known
Had Epstein used BTC And we discovered his BTC address(es) we would know what BTC addresses he sent BTC to. Simply by knowing his BTC address(es) alone we would not know anything about who he sent BTC to except the addresses he sent to. And if we know only one of Epstein's addresses and only one of the people associated with one of the recipient addresses, this would not necessarily give us any information about any of the other parties involved. With opsec BTC retains the quality of pseudoanonymity (a technical term). Epstein, who is known for laundering money, likely could have converted cash to BTC without connecting his identity to the addresses many times over.
I would be very surprised to learn that pre-BTC online black markets had equivalent volume as modern cryptocurrency markets.
Bitcoin was always a dead end. It might survive for a while longer but its demise is inevitable.
Because other networks don't have this problem.
Crude form: winning is metaphysically guaranteed because it probably happened or probably will
Refined: It's metaphysically impossible to tell whether or not it has or will have happened, so the distinction is meaningless, it has happened.
So... I guess Weir's Egg falls out of that particular line of thought?
The system that persists in practice is where everybody knows how things are, but still everybody pleads to a fictional status quo, because if they did not, the others would obliterate them.
The Internet died on a Tuesday.