Public Enterprise: Topic Not Completely Verboten

It’s hard to know what to make of such an event, which speaks volumes in several directions, not least being the patent idiocy of Donald John Trump and his many almost-all-white friends.

Nonetheless, Trump’s AG (itself a comical phrase), William Barr, is now talking about the United States purchasing controlling interests in Ericsson and Nokia.

Yahoo reports:

“American ownership of a controlling stake, either directly or through a consortium of private American and allied companies,” [Barr] said.

“Putting our large market and financial muscle behind one or both of these firms would make it a far more formidable competitor and eliminate concerns over its staying power.”

“We and our closest allies certainly need to be actively considering this approach.”

You, the loyal TCT reader, may have noticed something here: There is no mention, either in Barr’s statement or in the press coverage, of such ownership ruining the resulting endeavors.

How is it, you might wonder, that the public could possibly own and operate a competitive organization endeavoring to supply useful goods and services?

The answer, of course, is that it is possible for the public to own and operate a competitive organization endeavoring to provide useful goods and services.

The problem is that such possibilities are almost always unmentionable, due to the nature of existing power and privilege.

Every once in a while, though, an inept elitist will tip the overclass hand.

The Trump Effect

stork carrying baby One important impact of the scum-floating-to-the-top phenomenon that is the Trump Presidency is its addlepation of the political left.

Here, for example, is the meat of an email I just received from Truthout:

“We live in an age where lies can be used to justify pretty much anything: revoke a press pass, deny thousands of people asylum, change laws affecting people’s basic rights. This is somewhat ironic, considering that we live in an age of technology more sophisticated than ever before.”

The proposition here is that, with Trump’s election, we have entered an “age of lies,” with the features listed above.

This is multiply precious.

First of all, the triumph of Trump has been foreseeable, if not predictable, since at least 1987, when The Art of the Deal consolidated this megalomaniacal rentier cretin’s Reaganite fame. Certainly, the thesis that government should be run like a business has always been at the heart of the ongoing Great Restoration/Reagan Revolution.

Et voila, this knownothing TV terminator.

Meanwhile, what kind of age do Truthout‘s people think we lived in before the wonderful Electoral College seated this mentally ill, proudly ignorant election-loser?

Here at TCT, we have always been impressed with the power of this observation by the late Robert L. Heilbroner:

“At a business forum, I was once brash enough to say that I thought the main cultural impact of television advertising was to teach children that grown-ups told lies for money. How strong, deep, or sustaining can be the values of a civilization that generates a ceaseless flow of half-truths and careful deceptions?”

Heilbroner said that in 1976.

Finally, how cute is it that Truthout supposes that modern technology somehow supports, rather than clashes with, truth-telling? Has the climate for realism and democracy ever suffered a more fateful blow than the one struck by the continuing ascendancy of electronic audio-video machines? That a lefty operation with “truth” in its name can possibly miss the deep importance of the old tech of print literacy and direct human conversation is, I fear, a true sign of the times — times which did not begin in November of 2016.

ROFL of the Day

roflmfao Drumpf’s brain-du-jour (and, as ever, it ain’t much of a brain), Stephen Miller, said, in Drumpf’s war-criminal UN speech, that “In America, we do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone.”

Let’s be honest, though, shall we?

Even if this familiar and petulant howler were actually true, maybe it would be because “our way of life” is largely an amalgam of outcomes engineered by $2,000,000,000,000 worth of corporate marketing operations. In America, in other words, our way of life is imposed upon us by our one percenters.

Don Drumpf as an Object of Shame

As usual, reading the big business marketing press is more helpful than most regular journalism. Seems that the main cause of the unusually big errors in the marketing research tools used to conduct and predict the gigantic 18-month marketing operations we perceive as political elections was the fact that a significant number of Drumpf voters are ashamed of themselves:

How did so many pollsters get the presidential election so wrong? The answer may involve shame, some of which belongs to research organizations themselves.

The other part of the shame belonged to Trump voters, many of them unwilling to admit, particularly to live human beings on the other end of the phone, their plans to vote for the president-elect.

That was an effect that Trafalgar Group, a small Atlanta-based Republican-affiliated polling firm, began noticing during the Republican primaries. So it developed a system to counteract the effect. Trafalgar started asking voters not only who they planned to vote for, but also who they thought their neighbors would vote for. The latter percentage consistently came out higher number than the former, said Robert Cahaly, senior strategist.

“On a live poll, the deviation was that Trump was understated probably 6%-7%, and on an automatic poll it was probably understated 3%-4%,” Mr. Cahaly said.

Quite comical and telling that the elite hacks running Brand Klinton seem to have utterly missed this aspect of reality in their pathetic efforts to peddle an even more pathetic product.

The answer to the errors, as always, is to better reduce politics to marketing:

Political polling may be more closely watched and higher profile, but in many ways it needs to catch up with brand market research, said Simon Chadwick, founding and managing partner of Cambiar, a consulting firm for market-research agencies and their investors.

“What’s happening increasingly in marketing is that survey research is being used to complement other forms of data,” he said, be it transactional data, social-media listening, ethnography or neuroscience. “People increasingly are synthesizing those other forms of data,” he said, “but in politics it doesn’t seem to have happened.”