praise of primaries and Presidential plutocracy?

First, a blog post comparing Canadian and US democracy. I think he makes good points; while I hate plurality voting, given it, I think US primaries are a saving grace, while non-US political parties are closed in a way that makes sense at first ("private voluntary grouping, right of association...") but is creepy in practice ("...that gateway all access to political power.") We don't let right of free association trump anti-discrimination laws, and there's a lot more potential employers than viable parties...

Also makes me wonder if the alleged low role of money in foreign elections, due to campaign limitations and public funding, is offset by not *needing* money to influence policies when you're all buddy-buddy with the elected politicians already.

***

So, lots of our recent presidents have been rich when they ran for President; I think Obama was a multi-millionaire based on... his book sales? But how about being born rich? Somewhere out there might be a webpage of presidential family wealth, but I just plowed through Wikipedia biographies.

( Read more... )

Of the 3 rich presidents, 2 were the last two Bushes. Hard to say if that's a worrying trend or just a fluke of that family. Well, I guess it's a worrying trend; hard to say if it's an *inevitable* trend.

Fermi problem: booze

The series continues! How much money do Americans spend on alcohol?

320 million Americans, I say 3/4 of them are adults, 240 million. That probably bleeds into the 18-21 set, but hey, a bunch of them drink anyway.



How much do they drink? That's hard. People I know include teetotalers, having a beer or glass of wine every other night or 2 of 3, and dropping $20 at the bar every Sunday night, not to mention other drinking. But I note that if you drink at all regularly then it's easy to spend at least $10/week: a beer or two a night, a glass of wine a night, two $5 cocktails on the weekend, one $10 cocktail. $10/week is $500/year is $120 billion. $5/week gives $60 billion, $20/week $240 billion.

$40/week would be $6/day and is starting to feel too high to me, so $480 billion is a strong upper bound. Half of $5/week sounds like half the population not drinking at all and half drinking $5/week, which seems too low, so $30 billion is a strong lower bound.

We might try a more complex model, but e.g. if 1/3 don't drink, 1/3 drink $10, and 1/3 drink $20, that averages out to $10 for the lot and we're back at $120 billion.

Intrusion of actual data: a poll I saw a while back claimed that in fast 1/3 don't drink at all. If that's true, and if the other 2/3 drank at $10/week on average, that'd be $80 billion.

If 1/3 don't drink, 1/3 are casual at $5/week and 1/3 more serious at $15/week, that's $80 billion.

$20/week is $1000/year which is like 1/40th of the median household income though 1/20th of a two person household. Seems like people could be spending 5% of their income on booze. Check: $240 billion is less than 2% of GDP.

There's expensive wine out there, might it tilt the numbers? If 1% drink a $100 bottle of wine every night then that's $36,000/year and I don't believe this, the 1% aren't that rich. It would also be a total of $86 billion. I conclude the actual consumption of $100 wine is not going to be significant.

Okay, so we've got a wide range of $30-480 billion, a tighter one of $60-240 billion, and my gut instinct favoring upward of $120, except for that big 1/3 don't drink figure which pulls it down sharply.

That's my guesses. Care to try your own before reading further?

***
***

So, let me look stuff up.

http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxann10.pdf says $400 is spent... per "consumer unit" on alcohol. 2.5 people per unit, so $160/person. Well, 2 people over 18, so $200/adult. That gives about $50 billion.

http://money.msn.com/saving-money-tips/post.aspx?post=9113d6f5-1a32-4187-afb6-d7d5164df959 cites the same, and adds the money has shifted from retail to bars; this may simply reflect prices. Also "U.S. per capita consumption in 2009 was the equivalent of 2.3 gallons (8.7 liters) of pure alcohol, a lot less than the 2.76 gallons in 1981 but more than the 2.14 gallons in 1997."

http://www.drug-rehabs.org/alcohol-statistics.php is a lot more alarmist than the BLS and says $90 billion/year. No source is given.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-01-31/business/ct-biz-0131-liquor-export-20120131_1_liquor-sales-alcohol-sales-david-ozgo says "$59.24 billion alcohol industry. The data represents sales by manufacturers and importers, not retail sales" So consumers could be spending more at the bar and store (tax) but OTOH much of that number might be exports, too.

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/revenue-comes-selling-alcohol-34021.html says $90 billion but again gives no source... oh wait, list of references, which grounds out in this recovery site with no other references.

So, the most reliable seeming data is the BLS; unless there's a statistical mistake somewhere, we've got $50 billion, on the order of manufacturing sales, though it feels like that should be higher at the consumer level. $90 billion floats around rehab circles but has no good source.

Conclusion: $50 billion is outside my tight range though within the wide range. Americans drink a lot less than I thought, or drink much more cheaply than I thought. One of the sources repeated that only 65% say they drank in the past year, so $50 billion/160 million who drink = $312 per drinker, or $6/week. On the order of 4 bottles of beer on the weekend, or half a bottle of wine, or one cheap bottle, or 3 two-buck Chucks from Trader Joe's...

OSC, liberal Democrat?

If you're reading this, you probably know Orson Scott Card is a wee bit nuts on homosexuality, with calls for keeping it illegal so gay people are forced to be discreet, or changing the government by "any means necessary" if gay marriage passes, or talking about how only men can know what really pleases men. When it comes to the Mideast, he's not exactly any saner. He's also ranted about how Obama would abuse the Census to swing the election. He's also, I find, skeptical of global warming and blaming environmentalists for not eradicating malaria... actually he's praying for global warming so as to fight mysterious plagues. o_O Ranted about the media (and Obama) after the 2012 election.

So, kind of nutty, like a walnut orchard, and by now people tend to assume he's totally a right-wing conservative Republican who's racist and hates government and such. But they're wrong! Or at least, it's a lot more complicated than that. While most recently he sounds like a partisan Republican (though that same column criticizes the GOP for rooting out RINOs), for years he insisted he was a Democrat, just one who really cared about supporting the war on Iraq and, later, opposing gay marriage.

But hey, party identification is cheap, especially if you live in the South. Of course, he's a Mormon from Utah, so that doesn't quite work. Anyway, how about actual issues?

( Read more... )

So: pro-union as an ideal if not their current form, pro-immigration, pro-minimum wage, pro-gun control, soft on Obamacare, pro-public transit, likes trains Tokyo and Manhattan, pro-taxes... not exactly Sarah Palin. Or Mitt Romney. Hell, economically and on immigration he might be to the left of *Obama*. Just don't let him near gay rights or foreign policy or environmental issues.

Now, I'm not saying you should buy his books, or read them. I'm not. Or like him, or think he's sane. Nor, contra my clickbait title, that he's a liberal. Buuut... he's not your stereotypical Republican or conservative. On more individual issues he does seem to be liberal, though he cares enough about the other issues that he's rabid about Obama and increasingly wanting the GOP to win, whether or not he calls himself one. He certainly wouldn't pass muster with the Tea Party if he were a candidate and still expressing that range of views. Hell, he probably wouldn't pass muster with the 'RINOs'.

Presidential plutocracy, loser edition

Following up on the prior post on this topic, I thought of looking at the almost-presidents, the general election opponents. Generally won't look at primaries but I'll make an except for Hillary, since she came pretty close and is likely to run again. Related question: do rich background candidates tend to beat poor background ones?

I also realized that Truman, LBJ, and Ford all initially became president via the Vice Presidency, and Ford never won an election. Should I be looking at VPs? Meh, too much work.

( Read more... )

Conclusion: that saying about how anyone can become President? It seems to have been true that the Presidency drew from a socioeconomically diverse set of white male Christians; we have multiple elections featuring dueling obscurities, at least as late as 1984 Reagan vs. Mondale, or 1996 Clinton vs. Dole. Even the 2008 Obama vs. McCain may have lacked a candidate from a specifically rich background (compared to the Bush, Kerry, or Rodham families.)

Rich candidates basically start taking over in 1988 and 1992, with Bush I, then 2000 and 2004, with Bush II, Gore, and Kerry, then Hillary in 2008 and Romney in 2012. And it's not clear that Gore and Kerry were all that rich; Kerry's parents weren't, though he benefited from family money. Hillary's not clear either. The real background money is with the Bushes and Romney.

The last up-from-struggling candidates were Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, 1996.