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
Almond spend has increased drastically over the past few decades. Why? I doubt we value almonds much more. Maybe it's due to a curious set of under the table deals and not demand. So maybe we don't value almonds, but we still spend a lot on them because of a kind of lobbying.
-
-
This arguably doesn't matter, maybe it's still a small amount, but if the above is true, it's an awfully ironic example. Unfortunately, this isn't as straightforward as the story that diamond ads created demand for diamonds, the increase almond spend is basically all
-
almonds that are bundled in as filler, replacing other fillers. But tracking these deals and making the case that, in a large fraction of cases, changing the filler didn't improve the product, and the increase was due to a kind of almond lobbying is non trivial.
- 1 more reply
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.