In a war between the cognitive and socioeconomic elites, who would win?
First a suggestion: you MUST have "labor bosses/union leadership" in the definition of socioeconomic elites.even if they aren't in the top 1% financially. For all practical purposes, they are part of the elite. With that caveat...John Phileas has it almost right. It isn't overlap. It is "cognitive capture."The socioeconomic elites of an age invariably cognitively capture the cognitive elites (ironic huh?). I mean the phrase in the secondary sense of the word: buying into the views of a beneficent agent who is close in terms of social distance, but far in terms of power distance. This is a generalization of the Stockholm Syndrome.http://smallprecautions.blogspot...The mechanisms are simple: the cognitive elites so to speak, live off the beneficence of the socioeconomic elites, whether it is through direct patronage/support, employment relationships or the murky economy of speaking gigs at Davos, TED talks, etc. So in case of war, what do you think will happen? 90% of the cognitive elite will immediately turn their talents to justifying the position of their "enemies" in the conflict. The only time cognitive elites have any real power of leverage is when TWO factions of the socioeconomic elites are at war with each other with near perfect balance of power, and the cognitive elites cast the deciding vote. An example is 1900-1910 balance of power between management and labor. That fueled the rise of a new cognitive elite (the then "new media" of mass market newspapers, circulation wars, "yellow press" journalism and polemics like Ida Tarbell). Back then, the cognitive elites did not take sides as a bloc vote, so some went left, some went right.
Who should I vote for in the 2016 US presidential election?
I vote for “Nobody” for President. What has the President done for me lately? Any President. Name me one President that didn’t increase our military presence or destroy our economy in some form or other.Right now the US has a military presence in 130 countries and we are bombing six countries. Plus there are rumblings about war with Iran. Is this not the height of insanity? Is my way of life really being protected when we bomb and kill little babies elsewhere? And spend trillions of dollars that could have been spent to help the lives of people right here in the United States?Here is what the President can do according to the Constitution: he can veto bills and he can sign treaties. Two things he hardly ever does. He can also MAKE SUGGESTIONS to Congress. And he can throw parties for visiting dignitaries. I think that’s about it. Without looking, can you think of anything else he can do according to the constitution?Let’s not forget also: the Constitution was written before phones, before the Internet, before even the telegraph. So there was no way to get the issues out to the masses. Why not set up Internet balloting for vetoes and treaties and even all laws? People say, “Well then 51% of the people will vote to suppress 49% of the people.” And to that I say, “Are you crazy?” What 51%? Instead, there will actually be discussion about the issues in a way that is not controlled by Super PACS run by Sheldon Adelson or George Soros, two people who do not have the interests of most people at heart.My thoughts on the GOP Primary? A travesty. A circus run by the media and the Super-PACS. The final ticket will be Romney-Rubio and Obama-Clinton. And then an election will happen.And then hopefully, no matter who the winner is, we get Google Glasses and an I-pad 8 and some more cures for cancer that hopefully the FDA, in their infinite stupidity, doesn’t try to squash. Innovation will cure America. Not a President or a congressman, or higher or lower taxes. A society is made up of people. If each individual finds the strength inside themselves to take the next step, then that’s the only next step for a country. Note: I answer this and similar questions in http://www.jamesaltucher.com/cat...
Who won the October 22nd presidential debate?
From the gambling markets. One thing that surprised me was that "binders full of women" did no harm to Romney at all. (3) is the level a which someone goes from unelectable to a long shot. Just before the debate he was 2.96, which meant that the ultra optimistic could claim he has a chance. The markets have dropped him to 3.1, but further falls are likely. Obama also inched forward. Seeing as it was on foreign policy, I watched the debate on BBC, which gave feed from all around the world.It rated the debate as a draw. It also added that Romney came across very well, as long as he pretended to be Obama and said he would do all the things that he has been opposing for the past year. In general the more people had been following the campaign the less likely they were to vote for Romney: purely because he seems to say anything to try and get elected. He was widely predicted to tank, which did not happen. The copying Obama ploy seemed to work.If you consider this was Romney's last chance for a game changer, then he could wave goodbye this time.The last bit I will put in will be global reaction to the debate from the BBC. I will rate them pro-Obama down.In the strong Obama camp were Britain, where Romney isnt liked at all.The Canadians and Australians were continually calling him out on lies.Next up was Europe, which is solidly ObamaA surprising endorsement for Obama came from Russia, who are trying to get rid of some of their nuclear arsenal.The Chinese were re assured by Romney, in that he didn't repeat the nonsense he said before.Mexico were really annoyed not to get a mentionSouth America was marginally pro Romney with an endorsement from BrazilThe countries which were most anti-Obama if not pro-Romney were the Arab States where drone attacks are unpopular.I suspect the debate didn't have that much effect but Romney needed to win a whole lot more than Obama. What Obama did was convince people he was still passionate about politics. Romney showed he could change policies at will, which was the tactic McCain tried unsuccessfully.