The Onion buys Infowars

[The Original Happy Goat]

OK. But doesn’t it say something that this is the only example of an unfair outcome anybody can name?

Do you think this is what Obama had in mind when he was chiding entrepreneurs for not properly recognizing the contributions of other people in the success of their enterprises? I don’t.

In fact, I don’t even think he was even really talking to the entrepreneurs themselves. I think he was stoking resentment against them among people who might be persuaded that rich people have screwed them…and that justice can be served by some form or another of increased redistribution.

I don't think he was doing any of that. I think he was reminding people that American enterprise made use of publicly funded infrastructure.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

I'm really hoping he does buy it.

Me too, but only for the shock value and to initially upright the ship.

But I am shortly there after, like always (other than cooler snark) in the camp that too much power in too few hands, is not an optimum scenario.

(Other than my portfolio, then you all can go eff yourselves, of course)...

 

[VanPastorMan]

The Onion bought Infowars in a bankruptcy auction. Their plans:

The Onion plans to relaunch Infowars in January as a parody of itself, he said, mocking “weird internet personalities” like Mr. Jones who traffic in misinformation and health supplements.​

​

“We thought this would be a hilarious joke,” Mr. Collins said. “This is going to be our answer to this no-guardrails world where there are no gatekeepers and everything’s kind of insane.”​

​

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/14/business/media/alex-jones-infowars-the-onion.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawGi5yZleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHel-KJPVvtuET_geZGoj3VM1eLoa8IuEyhoPCg0C1or-zow5ZuK_Rf5qzg_aem_cLzOpfIe0jAb0QjuL-y0Sw

A federal judge has said that the sale of info wars did not happen. It has to do with the highest bidder not getting the bid. I checked Alex's website and he still is doing his info wars show. It will be interesting to see how this all turns out.

 

[BradStevens]

I’ve read this post several times and thought about while out and about. I still can’t figure out what you mean by free market failures or unfair results. I fully understand that people have different skills, abilities, and attitudes about work and achievement. Those differences certainly show up in a free market environment but I wouldn’t call differences in results unfairness. Obviously some who have disabilities, should have assistance. Also the adverse results stemming from skin color, sex or other forms of discrimination need to be eliminated. In general though, I think differences are healthy for a vibrant society and economy because of the social and economic mobility it provides.

The differences between individualism and collectivism is not very troublesome for me. I think any vibrant economic and social system must begin with the notion that all of us are entitled to keep, use, and enjoy the fruits of our labor and talents. This is rule #1 for me. That is individualism. This is a reason slavery is so abhorrent and comes before racism because not all slaves have been racial minorities. Collectives operate on the principle that a separate entity owns your labor and it is to be used for the common good. I’m thinking the Virginia Colonies, Soviet Collective farms and feudalism here. That system is destined to fail.

The problems obviously arise when we decide how much and for whose benefit do we impinge on rule #1 for those who can’t make a life in the free market environment. I think I can safely say that we all agree that some impingement is necessary and just. The scope of this I think is for a different thread.

Along these lines, I don’t believe government, taxes, and providing for the general common good, is a problem nor is it collectivism. Police, fire roads, military, and other spending for the general common good is universally accepted. The problems arise when we spend for the specific benefit of a select few (EV subsidies) or target others for special burdens or benefits.

Relating all of this back to Obama’s remarks. There is no doubt in my mind that he was extolling the benefits of collective government which “allows” free market entrepreneurs to operate. He wasn’t focused on Rule #1 and the idea that government exists and should be limited to what free market participants need.

I think this is a measured approach and post, with one exception. To claim feudalism and slavery were destined to fail is short sighted in light of a discussion about capitalism. Feudalism existed for 6 or 7 hundred years, before it started to wane in the 15th Century and was still going strong in Russia and China into the 20th century. Slavery ended not 200 years ago and existed for thousands of years before that. Capitalism, meanwhile, is what, 200-250 years old?

Re Obama, again, for the umpteenth time: it's a spectrum. Just because someone is justifying moving the slider on the scale closer to what they consider the common good ( you might not, I get that) doesn't mean they don't understand or value the individualist value on the other side. For example, it would be wrong for Milton Friedman to call you a collectivist if you wanted antidiscrimination laws and he did not. And it would be wrong of you to call Friedman a collectivist because he wrote and spoke in terms of freedom of families vs. freedom of individuals sometimes.

Wanting to move in the direction of the common good doesn't mean Obama wants to move the slider all the way over to the other pole. In that very speech, he acknowledges the value of individualism JUST LIKE Trump called out neo-Nazis in his "very fine people" speech.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I don't think he was doing any of that. I think he was reminding people that American enterprise made use of publicly funded infrastructure.

In part, yes. But he also referenced teachers. So I don't think he was only talking about infrastructure.

And he began the comment with "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help." And that's undeniably true, on its face. I can't imagine anybody denying this. But, then, everybody had teachers, roads, parents, mentors, pastors, coaches, etc. Yet even people from the similar environments and origins reach varying levels of economic success.

The outcomes people have in life are not entirely determined by things they have or haven't done, choices they have or haven't made. But they're determined by these at some level -- and, I'd guess in most cases, moreso than the external influences that played a role. It's certainly true that a lot of people were born on third base without hitting a triple. But it's not uncommon for those guys to get picked off. And it's also not uncommon for 9th batters to come up and hit dingers.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I don't think he was doing any of that. I think he was reminding people that American enterprise made use of publicly funded infrastructure.

Also, my general gripe about what he said -- which might sound nitpicky, but I would push back against that -- is that he used the term "somebody along the line gave you some help."

I would argue that most of the people we interact with for our own benefit aren't giving us anything. And most of them didn't do whatever they did...to help us -- even if it did help us achieve our goals. I'm certainly not saying that doesn't happen. But think about the thousands of people we may engage with in a professional career. Let's not kid ourselves into denying that, in most cases, their motivation in engaging with us was for their own benefit...not for ours.

And, after all, mutual benefit is the entire idea behind commerce in all its forms. It's a good thing! But it's not an altruistic thing, as I believe he was presenting it.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Also, my general gripe about what he said -- which might sound nitpicky, but I would push back against that -- is that he used the term "somebody along the line gave you some help."

I would argue that most of the people we interact with for our own benefit aren't giving us anything. And most of them didn't do whatever they did...to help us -- even if it did help us achieve our goals. I'm certainly not saying that doesn't happen. But think about the thousands of people we may engage with in a professional career. Let's not kid ourselves into denying that, in most cases, their motivation in engaging with us was for their own benefit...not for ours.

And, after all, mutual benefit is the entire idea behind commerce in all its forms. It's a good thing! But it's not an altruistic thing, as I believe he was presenting it.

At least at any painful level. People are generous with guidance. Fairly generous with their time. Stingy with their money. Stingy with attaching their business. Any partnerships we seek we only do so from the standpoint of hey I think we can help you, and in turn it’ll benefit us