nednobbins

As near as I can tell, he has a lot of money but he's several orders of magnitude away from billionaire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Yang#Net_worth

I don't need to guess. I know from having been to China and having talked to people.

It's mostly a combination of 3 things:

1. Tons of infrastructure. If you decide to start manufacturing some random thing you can easily get all the stuff you need to get started.
2. Regulations are generally very favorable to small startups and businesses. This is partly why so much of the stuff on Temu is crap.
3. A huge population. That's the main source of ultra cheap labor. Farmers in rural China can still make as little as $1.90 per day. All a factory owner needs to offer is more than that and they'll have a line of applicants.

The thing is that it's not PURE crap.

It's kind of like going to a flea market. Most of it is crap and you can still find some decent and good stuff that's way cheaper than it should be.

I think a lot of this is that Republicans used to follow what used to be the recommendations of the most prominent main-stream economists. We can judge that as foolish in hindsight, but, "let the economics experts handle the economy" is a fairly reasonable policy.

2 big things changed. Republicans push more and more policies that economists consider dumb and economists have updated their models and recommendations based on new research. Even those old free market economists were not fans of tariffs and trade wars. It's pretty hard to find an actual economist (like with a PhD from a respected econ school) who thinks wanton deregulation is a good idea.

At the same time, Democrats still hold on to a few ideas that economists all agree are dumb. There's tons of evidence that things like rent control and home purchase credits make housing problems worse.

Democrats tend to support better economic policies than Republicans do but they support enough bad ones that it's easy for Republicans to argue that the old status quo is correct.

That was also part of Trump's platform. You can generally take whatever bad thing is happening at the moment and blame it on whoever is in charge in the moment. The only time that doesn't work is when most people agree that things are going well.

I sincerely hope that Democrats do care.

Like it or not, MAGA can currently take that attitude. They control the SC, both chambers of Congress, and the White House. If they decide to say, "Fsck it. We'll ignore the Demorcrats," they'll still have all the process in place to enact their agenda.

MAGA doesn't need to analyze what went wrong during the election. They got everything they wanted.

For at least the next 2 years, Democrats will be able to do nothing that Republicans don't approve of. The law says that they get to set the standards.

If Democrats want any chance of checking that power or reversing it at the next election, we are the ones who need to adapt.

There's an "ancient Chinese saying", "卧 薪 尝 胆". You don't do it because it's fun or because you obliged to, you do it so you can win next time.

That would be true if every one of those answers didn't also strongly support AOC, Democrats, or Bernie.

That's the whole point of this exercise. A bunch of deep red voters citing Fox is expected and doesn't tell us anything new. When a bunch of deep vlue voters do that, something is going on.

We normally expect AOC and Bernie supporters to be very Blue. If Fox is resonating with those voters we should really be asking ourselves, "Why?"
Why is it that some Democrats hear Fox News and immediately judge them as naked propaganda while other Democrats give them consideration?

edit: grammar

Laws constantly need to catch up.

I'm not sure what law would be an improvement though. The courts tend to frown on laws that are directed at specific groups of people so you probably couldn't have something as specific as, "When a man says YBMC to a woman she's allowed to consider it a rape threat and knee him in the nuts." It also wouldn't be terribly effective since those people would likely find some variation that skirts the law but carries exactly the same message. That's so common a tactic we even have a name for it, "dogwhistles".

The most general form is a "stand your ground" law. Ie we don't question the motives of the "defender", we just assume they were right. That has some obvious issues too.

There might be something between those two that would work, but I don't know what it would be.

People are confusing moral and legal rights.

Women absolutely have the moral right to nut-knee someone who says that to them. I wouldn't stop them or testify against them.

People generally don't have the legal right to do that. If someone tries that and gets sued, it will be up to them to prove that there was an imminent credible threat. If the guy is still alive, they'll be able to claim that YBMC is just a joke and it would be up to the victim to prove that it wasn't.

Women's Suffrage (and additional rights) and the Civil Rights movement both had many successes. They also used many tactics and strategies besides protests and that makes it hard to attribute their success to protests. That's why I looked at the 10 largest protests in the US on Wikipedia. There's obviously some subjectivity to which protests are the most salient but it's fair to assume that a large number of those should actually be the most important protests. The fact that we didn't see progress as a response to any of the biggest protests suggests that they don't have much of an impact.

I view the Firefly situation a bit differently too. We actually wanted them to bring Firefly back as a show. As near as I can tell Joss made the movie (which I agree was and still is awesome) because he loved the story and wanted to finish it. He may have been uplifted by the support of the fans but he didn't give in to anyone's demands. Fans kept badgering him to pick the series up after the movie and argued that the success of the movie proved that the series would make money but he told us that wasn't possible because too many of the actors where on other projects. I have to admit that Summer Glau made a pretty good terminator.

Ghandi is an interesting case. He also used many tactics and strategies beyond protest and he was dealing with a very different situation. Their oppressor was thousands of miles away and got a bit tied up with bigger problems. There is also a strong academic consensus that he likely delayed Indian independence.

It's cute that you can call me names.

Can you also articulate positive changes that have resulted from the 10 biggest protest?

The sexual revolution was the product of many changes. Cheap and effective ontraception was one of them, legal abortion was not. Roe v Wade wasn't until after the sexual revolution had already happened. Ante hoc ergo non propter hoc.