I find the SSC "Too much dark money in almonds" post interesting because it starts from the premise that there obviously isn't too much dark money in almonds, an argument from incredulity, and uses this (and similar) to argue that there isn't too much dark money in politics, but
One of the core mistakes of the SSC post is that it's implied that all dark money can be summed up with the number Scott comes up with, which is of course wrong: a large fraction, perhaps the vast majority, is off the books. My read is that the post has two parts, both incorrect
-
-
1. Hey, look at this innocuous industry, almonds, we spend *so much* on it compared to lobbying. 2. If we sum up all the forms of dark money I can count, it's small compared to this innocuous industry. But the "I can count" part is doing a lot of work there.
-
Rich people suing publications they dislike out of existence apparently doesn't count as influencing politics, nor does creating or buying up major publications. Nor does industry spend on offering government officials lucrative jobs in return for favorable policies, etc.pic.twitter.com/LBokcr8YjH
- 12 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.