4 ms·

Thanks for the link. I think things are more complicated than what you've said. There may be good reasons to donate to a candidate who wouldn't support these i

Thanks for the link. I think things are more complicated than what you've said. There may be good reasons to donate to a candidate who wouldn't support these ideas if that donation could nevertheless help sway their views on the issue. Opposition isn't the only strategy in politics. Sometimes you need to donate a nominal amount just to keep your foot in the door and the conversation open.

save_ferris 8y ago
This makes no sense to me. Tom Cotton is one of the most fiscally conservative members of the Republican Caucus, a $5k donation by a billionaire hedge fund manager isn't going to sway his opinion on progressive tax reform. He voted to cut taxes in 2017 and has voted consistently against bills that either closely or somewhat align with what Dalio is proposing. Dalio clearly benefits financially from conservative fiscal policy, which senators like Cotton support. It's a big stretch to argue that Dalio might be trying to sway Cotton on his fiscal policy while also benefiting financially from it.
- sremani 8y ago
  Quickly glancing Dalio's article, he used the word tax once and never in tandem with progressive tax. Here is the link (original on linked in) https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-how-capitalism-needs-reformed-ray-dalio/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-how-capitalism-needs-refo...
notTyler 8y ago
That's... not how politics work in America. That course of action leads to you giving money to someone who's not going to change their policies instead of giving it to someone who is actually campaigning for change.
- alehul 8y ago
  It may not be how donations work for the average individual, where you want to donate and support those in power who you agree with. It's very different, however, for those who can donate enough to meet with politicians, and leverage their money into changing the politician's views.
  - save_ferris 8y ago
    So you're essentially arguing that Dalio's logic is this: "I'm donating money to you, fiscally conservative senator Cotton, because I disagree with your policy and think you should adopt a more progressive policy, even though it's against the fundamental tenants of your party. Despite the fact that your fiscally conservative policy greatly benefits me financially, I hope you change your position and adopt a more progressive policy, even if it hurts me financially." If this were truly his state of mind, why not back a progressive instead, that he knows is going support these reforms? This makes no sense to me.
    - greeneggs 8y ago
      I replied in a sibling comment. But I'll say it again: Dalio did not donate any money to Cotton. Two of his employees did. The OP was misinterpreting the data.
    - alehul 8y ago
      > "I'm donating money to you, fiscally conservative senator Cotton, because I disagree with your policy and think you should adopt a more progressive policy, even though it's against the fundamental tenants of your party. Despite the fact that your fiscally conservative policy greatly benefits me financially, I hope you change your position and adopt a more progressive policy, even if it hurts me financially." Precisely! It's similar to how Hillary Clinton's biggest donor was Goldman Sachs. They don't agree ideologically, but that's why it's important to donate and build favor in order to sway their views. > If this were truly his state of mind, why not back a progressive instead, that he knows is going support these reforms? This makes no sense to me. It's a good question! Imagine you align with the Democrats, and you have a lot of money to put behind your vote. When you look at the voting districts of America, you can see three types of races: Democrat-ensured, Close, Republican-ensured Democrat-ensured: Now if you want to maximize the impact of your money, there's no point in donating to Democrat-ensured races. Geoff Diehl had no way of beating Elizabeth Warren, for example, and we could argue that giving Warren a large war chest won't be that impactful for her Senate race. Close: In these districts, you should clearly back the Democrat, and offer financial support. It will have an impact, and possibly contribute to a win. Republican-ensured: In these districts, where people overwhelmingly vote Republican, you're not going to get anywhere by backing a Democrat who shares all of your views. It would be a waste. Politicians are always looking to fundraise, however, and are willing to budge on one or two issues for enough funding. In a world where Republican-ensured is a large percentage of districts, and Democrats need votes from across the aisle to get something passed, you _need_ cooperation, and a Democrat donating to a Republican is often where it can come from.

save_ferris 8y ago

This makes no sense to me. Tom Cotton is one of the most fiscally conservative members of the Republican Caucus, a $5k donation by a billionaire hedge fund manager isn't going to sway his opinion on progressive tax reform. He voted to cut taxes in 2017 and has voted consistently against bills that either closely or somewhat align with what Dalio is proposing. Dalio clearly benefits financially from conservative fiscal policy, which senators like Cotton support. It's a big stretch to argue that Dalio might be trying to sway Cotton on his fiscal policy while also benefiting financially from it.

sremani 8y ago
Quickly glancing Dalio's article, he used the word tax once and never in tandem with progressive tax. Here is the link (original on linked in) https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-how-capitalism-needs-reformed-ray-dalio/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-how-capitalism-needs-refo...

notTyler 8y ago

That's... not how politics work in America. That course of action leads to you giving money to someone who's not going to change their policies instead of giving it to someone who is actually campaigning for change.

alehul 8y ago
It may not be how donations work for the average individual, where you want to donate and support those in power who you agree with. It's very different, however, for those who can donate enough to meet with politicians, and leverage their money into changing the politician's views.
- save_ferris 8y ago
  So you're essentially arguing that Dalio's logic is this: "I'm donating money to you, fiscally conservative senator Cotton, because I disagree with your policy and think you should adopt a more progressive policy, even though it's against the fundamental tenants of your party. Despite the fact that your fiscally conservative policy greatly benefits me financially, I hope you change your position and adopt a more progressive policy, even if it hurts me financially." If this were truly his state of mind, why not back a progressive instead, that he knows is going support these reforms? This makes no sense to me.
  - greeneggs 8y ago
    I replied in a sibling comment. But I'll say it again: Dalio did not donate any money to Cotton. Two of his employees did. The OP was misinterpreting the data.
  - alehul 8y ago
    > "I'm donating money to you, fiscally conservative senator Cotton, because I disagree with your policy and think you should adopt a more progressive policy, even though it's against the fundamental tenants of your party. Despite the fact that your fiscally conservative policy greatly benefits me financially, I hope you change your position and adopt a more progressive policy, even if it hurts me financially." Precisely! It's similar to how Hillary Clinton's biggest donor was Goldman Sachs. They don't agree ideologically, but that's why it's important to donate and build favor in order to sway their views. > If this were truly his state of mind, why not back a progressive instead, that he knows is going support these reforms? This makes no sense to me. It's a good question! Imagine you align with the Democrats, and you have a lot of money to put behind your vote. When you look at the voting districts of America, you can see three types of races: Democrat-ensured, Close, Republican-ensured Democrat-ensured: Now if you want to maximize the impact of your money, there's no point in donating to Democrat-ensured races. Geoff Diehl had no way of beating Elizabeth Warren, for example, and we could argue that giving Warren a large war chest won't be that impactful for her Senate race. Close: In these districts, you should clearly back the Democrat, and offer financial support. It will have an impact, and possibly contribute to a win. Republican-ensured: In these districts, where people overwhelmingly vote Republican, you're not going to get anywhere by backing a Democrat who shares all of your views. It would be a waste. Politicians are always looking to fundraise, however, and are willing to budge on one or two issues for enough funding. In a world where Republican-ensured is a large percentage of districts, and Democrats need votes from across the aisle to get something passed, you _need_ cooperation, and a Democrat donating to a Republican is often where it can come from.