Howard Marks - Winds of Change

Post Reply
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2215
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Howard Marks - Winds of Change

Post by Kbg » Wed Nov 24, 2021 9:24 am

I think this is just excellent...pg 7-12 is what I'm posting here. His letters always tend to be very good reads

https://www.oaktreecapital.com/docs/def ... change.pdf
boglerdude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 813
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:40 am
Contact:

Re: Howard Marks - Winds of Change

Post by boglerdude » Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:49 pm

tldr? How do we fix the country
User avatar
Benko
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1895
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:40 am

Re: Howard Marks - Winds of Change

Post by Benko » Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:20 am

Kbg wrote:
Wed Nov 24, 2021 9:24 am
I think this is just excellent...pg 7-12 is what I'm posting here. His letters always tend to be very good reads

https://www.oaktreecapital.com/docs/def ... change.pdf
He makes some good points e.g. new sources stoking division and using alternative facts. OTOH:

"These things complicate life in our so-called democracy"
Our country is not a democracy because our founders knew better than to create one. Best I can tell, the only people who refer to our country as a democracy are the left because they can then point out things they don't like e.g. electoral college.

"California, with 39 million people, has the same clout in the Senate as Wyoming with its 578,000"
This is a feature, not a bug, and if in 2021 given the state of California you think it should have more influence in our country I can only think you aren't paying attention.

"Serious potential threats to our democracy exist"
I agree, but I'm thinking of e.g. groups of people who burn down cities (without much pushback or legal consequence) in service of one party.

Bipartisan legislation was one thing in the ERA of JFK live and let live liberals and another today in the era of AOC.
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Howard Marks - Winds of Change

Post by I Shrugged » Thu Nov 25, 2021 5:14 pm

Yes, it seems like he doesn't understand the downsides of a direct democracy.
boglerdude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 813
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:40 am
Contact:

Re: Howard Marks - Winds of Change

Post by boglerdude » Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:49 pm

He should be talking about Ranked Choice Voting and what to do about gerrymandering
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY

Apparently we need to keep the filibuster, if the last two years have taught us anything, its that we need MUCH LESS government.

But I suppose hes a better billionaire than Putin.
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2215
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Howard Marks - Winds of Change

Post by Kbg » Sat Nov 27, 2021 2:15 pm

Benko wrote:
Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:20 am
tive.
Bipartisan legislation was one thing in the ERA of JFK live and let live liberals and another today in the era of AOC.
Or the “distinguished” MTG from Florida.

It’s amazing what our two political parties serve up for us.
flyingpylon
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 905
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Howard Marks - Winds of Change

Post by flyingpylon » Sat Nov 27, 2021 2:22 pm

Kbg wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 2:15 pm
Benko wrote:
Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:20 am
tive.
Bipartisan legislation was one thing in the ERA of JFK live and let live liberals and another today in the era of AOC.
Or the “distinguished” MTG from Florida.

It’s amazing what our two political parties serve up for us.
MTG is from Georgia.
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2215
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Howard Marks - Winds of Change

Post by Kbg » Sat Nov 27, 2021 2:33 pm

I stand corrected, nut job regardless.

Having said the above, if I were the next Republican speaker I’d find a couple of democrats who made some outrageous statements and strip them of their committee assignments. I’d probably keep doing it until several were out. Then I’d ask the dems, when does this stop?

The people of their district should determine if they serve or not, not the opposite party unless convicted of a crime.
D1984
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 624
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:23 pm

Re: Howard Marks - Winds of Change

Post by D1984 » Sun Nov 28, 2021 6:04 am

Kbg wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 2:33 pm
I stand corrected, nut job regardless.

Having said the above, if I were the next Republican speaker I’d find a couple of democrats who made some outrageous statements and strip them of their committee assignments. I’d probably keep doing it until several were out. Then I’d ask the dems, when does this stop?

The people of their district should determine if they serve or not, not the opposite party unless convicted of a crime.
Why did they (the Democratic House leadership) strip her of her committe assignments? That was just dumb. If you are Pelosi you WANT someone like MTG (and for that matter Cawthorne, Gaetz, Boebert, etc) to be as visible as possible and to be the face of the GOP...stripping her of her committee assignments actually goes against that in a way.

As for the people in her district who voted for her....yeah, that's quite near why I used to live and it's blood red Trump country; there are some small purplish or reddish-purple parts in Rome and in Berry College and Shorter University (Christian schools they both are but Patrick Henry College they aren't) but most of that district might as well be in rural Alabama or West Virginia, politically speaking. I think MTG got 3/4 or more of the vote there in the 2020 election. I don't begrudge the people in her district the right to choose her to serve as their representative if they wish (although I personally think she is an embarrassment to the US, to the state of Georgia, to the GOP, and to her district); I do, however, think a system that simply ignores the wishes of the minority party voters in most districts (whether ones like MTG's or their 180 degrees opposite political counterpart in SF or NYC) is unfair, is an inducement to "cheating" via gerrymandering, and desperately cries out for the following remedies:

1. RCV Voting, or Condorcet, or lottery voting, or MMPR with voting for a party instead of a candidate and then the winning party/s gets to choose the representative/s, or anything besides single member first-past-the-post (SMFTP).

2. Ban gerrymandering.

3. Either:

3A. Split each state in several larger multi-member districts (with said districts perhaps using some form of non SMFPTP voting) rather than quite so many smaller ones (just by way of example I'll use Goergia since that's where both MTG and I are from; today it has 14 districts each with one person representing it in Congress; under a Multi-Member District system these would be redrawn into several larger districts--say, two or three or four--that each elected more than one person to represent them proportion to the votes each party got in that district; if, say, District 1 has five representatives allotted to it and Party A gets 80% of the vote and Party B gets 20% then Party A gets 4 of the representatives and Party B gets 1...under our current system Party B would get 0; the current system thus incentivizes packing as many of the opposing party's voters into lopsided super-safe 80/20 or 90/10 districts and drawing as many of your own party's voters into districts that are more like 55/45 or 57/43 and thus you can theoretically win more representatives even with a minority of the vote....like I said, a perfect incitement to gerrymandering. Under a MMPR system this incentive is greatly diminished or gone altogether).

or

3B. Massively enlarge the House of Representatives and thus give each state (every state, no matter how red or blue) a LOT more representatives. The drafters of the Constitution originally wanted and envisioned one representative in Congress for every 30,000 or at most 50,000 people. That would require over 11,000 Representatives (at 30K per rep) or at least over 6,600 Representatives (at 50K per rep). Even if that's a little too much we could still maybe go to either 4,350 (a nice even ten times what we have now so Wyoming or Vermont would get 10 reps and California would get 520 and every other state would get something in between) or at the very least an even 3,000 (why 3,000, you ask?....because dammit, Communist China has 2,980 people in its legislative assembly--the largest one in the world currently--and I'll be damned if Xi Jinping is going to look at his legislature, look over at ours, look back at his again, and brag that "mine is bigger" ). Having this many smaller districts would have the effect (when combined with RCV and with outlawing gerrymandering) of giving voters a much fairer chance at electing a representative that agrees with their beliefs.

or (the best of all perhaps)

3C. Do both of the above. With each (now MMPR) large district in a decently mid-large sized state like Georgia or Virginia or Arizona (and the effect would be even more pronounced in population giants like California or Texas or New York or Florida) now having, say, 25 or 30 Representatives, it means that third parties (or nonpartisan independents...or for that matter partisans but ones that aren't as extreme as MTG) finally have a chance. Yay! No more "wasted votes"! No more "voting for the lesser of two evils just to keep the greater of two evils from winning"!



Or maybe just do nothing different regarding representation per se, let things continue as they are, and split the country (hopefully peacefully) into five or six or seven different nations and give everybody, say, four or five years to move to the one that bets fits their political leanings. The current system is simply not working for the American people.
User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: Howard Marks - Winds of Change

Post by pugchief » Sun Nov 28, 2021 12:42 pm

D1984 wrote:
Sun Nov 28, 2021 6:04 am
The current system is simply not working for the American people.
No, it's not. But it works reeeeally well for the politicians, so don't expect things to ever change.
Post Reply