Octopus Overlords

Jaymann wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:19 pm It would actually take only $327 billion to do this. So Bezos plus Gates plus Soros plus Bloomberg and Buffett could probably do it.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:51 pm

Jaymann wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:19 pm It would actually take only $327 billion to do this. So Bezos plus Gates plus Soros plus Bloomberg and Buffett could probably do it.

Would make an interesting thought experiment. Or novel. I don't think it would go over too well.

pr0ner wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:46 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:51 pm

Jaymann wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:19 pm It would actually take only $327 billion to do this. So Bezos plus Gates plus Soros plus Bloomberg and Buffett could probably do it.

Would make an interesting thought experiment. Or novel. I don't think it would go over too well.

I imagine it'll wind up like what happens with a lot of big lottery winners - they'll not know what to do with having actual money, blow it all, and be back to broke again in no time.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 3:23 pm

pr0ner wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:46 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:51 pm

Jaymann wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:19 pm It would actually take only $327 billion to do this. So Bezos plus Gates plus Soros plus Bloomberg and Buffett could probably do it.

Would make an interesting thought experiment. Or novel. I don't think it would go over too well.

I imagine it'll wind up like what happens with a lot of big lottery winners - they'll not know what to do with having actual money, blow it all, and be back to broke again in no time.

A ton of people wild quit working and prices for everything would skyrocket due to unchecked demand and lack of production.

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 4:17 pm It isn't like they'd give people cash. If this happened it'd be wealth in the form of stocks in a company. So we'd probably see chaos as their major companies fall into in-fighting as controlling interests duke it out. There'd be intense selling driving down value of those stocks and yes the house price thing. House prices are usually tied to income but this would upend everything and underwriters wouldn't know what to do if they didn't just quit outright. And forget the insanity that'd happen at the service/production/manufacturing level. It's a fun thought experiment but it'd be potentially civilization wrecking.

Jaymann wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:19 pm It would actually take only $327 billion to do this. So Bezos plus Gates plus Soros plus Bloomberg and Buffett could probably do it.

American households held over $98 trillion of wealth in 2018.

Zarathud wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 8:41 pm If Trump is suing CNN, Times and the Post over opinion articles, then it’s time for Democrats to sue FOX News and the Republican investigations. Hillary Clinton alone could put them out of business.

Jaymann wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:19 pm It would actually take only $327 billion to do this. So Bezos plus Gates plus Soros plus Bloomberg and Buffett could probably do it.

Unagi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 8:18 pm

Jaymann wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:19 pm It would actually take only $327 billion to do this. So Bezos plus Gates plus Soros plus Bloomberg and Buffett could probably do it.

Try again.


giving 327,000,000 people $1,000,000 would take $327,000,000,000,000

$327 trillion.


so, we would need about 5,000 more philanthropist of the caliber you describe, in order to cover the experiment.

Jaymann wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 10:14 pm

Unagi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 8:18 pm

Jaymann wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:19 pm It would actually take only $327 billion to do this. So Bezos plus Gates plus Soros plus Bloomberg and Buffett could probably do it.

Try again.


giving 327,000,000 people $1,000,000 would take $327,000,000,000,000

$327 trillion.


so, we would need about 5,000 more philanthropist of the caliber you describe, in order to cover the experiment.

Coop BAM'ed you 4 posts up.

pr0ner wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 9:26 am There are no words. Way to go, MSNBC and the NYT.

James Murdoch Suggests His Dad’s Empire Has Ruined America

Fox News is doing the same thing it did in 2010 with the Tea Party

President Trump has long pinned his hopes on the powers of sunlight to defeat the Covid-19 virus. On Thursday, he returned to that theme at the daily White House coronavirus briefing, bringing in a top administration scientist to back up his assertions and eagerly theorizing — dangerously, in the view of some experts — about the powers of sunlight, ultraviolet light and household disinfectants to kill the coronavirus.

We've deleted an earlier tweet and updated a sentence in our article that implied that only "some experts" view the ingestion of household disinfectants as dangerous. To be clear, there is no debate on the danger.

“Right now the data are pointing, most likely, to early- to mid-February — but there’s certainly the possibility of cases emerging in late January,” said Stephanie Silvera, epidemiologist and professor of public health at Montclair State University.

Pinpointing exactly when the virus first emerged in New Jersey is difficult. Profound gaps in our collective knowledge remain. But experts continue to put the pieces together as they emerge.

And from those pieces, the consensus is growing: The coronavirus was here much earlier than previously thought.

“I am speculating that it was here in January,” said Dr. David Cennimo, epidemiologist at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, in an email. “That is based on the retrospective reports of deaths on the West Coast in early February.”

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 5:02 pm Knowing how fast this spreads when unrestrained by social distancing and lockdowns - where is the evidence that this was here, silently for almost two months before this guy ended up in Urgent Care?

LordMortis wrote:I need you to post on all a lot of walls in FB. I feel like screaming that at every person who says they haven't been tested it went through their family in January.

About 35 years ago I was sitting at lunch next to Jeane Kirkpatrick, a onetime Democrat who became a foreign-policy adviser to President Reagan and later U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. She was lamenting what she called the “liberal leaning” media. As the president of CBS News, I assured her it was only a “liberal tilt” and could be corrected.

“You don’t understand,“ she scolded. “It’s too late.”

Kirkpatrick was prophetic. The highly influential daily newspapers in New York, Washington, Los Angeles and Boston are now decidedly liberal. On the home screen, the three broadcast network divisions still have their liberal tilt. Two of the three leading cable news sources are unrelentingly liberal in their fear and loathing of President Trump.

News organizations that claim to be neutral have long been creeping leftward, and their loathing of Mr. Trump has accelerated the pace. The news media is catching up with the liberalism of the professoriate, the entertainment industry, upscale magazines and the literary world. Recent arrivals are the late-night TV hosts who have broken the boundaries of what was considered acceptable political humor for networks.

About 35 years ago I was sitting at lunch next to Jeane Kirkpatrick, a onetime Democrat who became a foreign-policy adviser to President Reagan and later U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. She was lamenting what she called the “liberal leaning” media. As the president of CBS News, I assured her it was only a “liberal tilt” and could be corrected.

“You don’t understand,“ she scolded. “It’s too late.”

Kirkpatrick was prophetic. The highly influential daily newspapers in New York, Washington, Los Angeles and Boston are now decidedly liberal. On the home screen, the three broadcast network divisions still have their liberal tilt. Two of the three leading cable news sources are unrelentingly liberal in their fear and loathing of President Trump.

News organizations that claim to be neutral have long been creeping leftward, and their loathing of Mr. Trump has accelerated the pace. The news media is catching up with the liberalism of the professoriate, the entertainment industry, upscale magazines and the literary world. Recent arrivals are the late-night TV hosts who have broken the boundaries of what was considered acceptable political humor for networks.

To many journalists, objectivity, balance and fairness—once the gold standard of reporting—are not mandatory in a divided political era and in a country they believe to be severely flawed. That assumption folds neatly into their assessment of the president. To the journalists, including more than a few Republicans, he is a blatant vulgarian, an incessant prevaricator, and a dangerous leader who should be ousted next January, if not sooner. Much of journalism has become the clarion voice of the “resistance,” dedicated to ousting the president, even though he was legally elected and, according to the polls, enjoys the support of about 44% of likely 2020 voters.

This poses significant problems not only for Mr. Trump but for the media’s own standing. If Mr. Trump prevails in November, what’s the next act, if any, for journalists and the resistance? They will likely find Mr. Trump more dangerous and offensive in a second term than in the first.

More important, how will a large segment of the public ever put stock in journalism it considers hostile to the country’s best interests? Unfortunately, dominant media organizations have bonded with another large segment of the public—one that embraces its new approach. Pulling back from anti-Trump activism could prove commercially harmful.

On the other hand, how would the media respond to a Joe Biden victory (beyond exhilaration)? Will Mr. Biden be subjected to the rigor and skepticism imposed on Mr. Trump? Will he get a pass because he is a liberal and “not Trump”? The media’s protective coverage of the sexual-assault allegation against Mr. Biden is perhaps a clear and concerning preview to how his presidency would be covered.

The media seems uninterested in these issues of bias. But wouldn’t a softening of its editorial orientation bring new readers or viewers? Probably not. The growth of new customers would be more than offset by the defection of outraged members of the current audience. The news media seems very comfortable with its product and ability to sell it.

There’s probably no way to seal the gap between the media and a large segment of the public. The media likes what it is doing. Admires it. Celebrates it. There is no personal, professional or financial reason to change. If anything, the gap will expand. Ultimately, the media finds the “deplorables” deplorable.

Dan Abrams, ABC’s chief legal-affairs anchor and founder of the website Mediaite, has a novel but valuable idea for the media—candor. Speaking to the matter at February’s Rancho Mirage Writers Festival, Mr. Abrams said “I think the first thing that would help . . . is to admit . . . that the people in the media are left of center.”

It would be delightful if a publisher, an editor, a reporter, would just say: Yes, I am left of center! I’m proud of it. I think our reporting is accurate. It best serves the public. And the credibility of the media. So there!

Publications open about their bias might feel freer to focus on the specifics: story selection, presentation, facts, fairness, balance. Not devoid of subtlety for sure, but manageable.

Journalism affects social cohesion. Convinced of its role and its legitimacy, however, the media doesn’t seem to much care. And the other side can certainly enjoy throwing rotten tomatoes at distant targets.

But America won’t reunite until far more people can look at a news story in print or on the screen and, of all things, believe it.

Mr. Sauter was president of CBS News, 1982-83 and 1986.