5 ms·

I'm not sure what you mean by "personal." I think what you meant to say is that the reasons for their preference are unknown. Yes, obviously. But it seemed t

by pg 14y ago

I'm not sure what you mean by "personal." I think what you meant to say is that the reasons for their preference are unknown. Yes, obviously. But it seemed to me telling that while Romney presents himself as a businessman who can solve our problems with growth, rather than a politician, the real growth experts have more of an affinity for his opponent. If Romney actually was what he tries to seem, he'd be more popular in the Valley. That's what makes this poll significant. The leaders of the startup community don't have the natural affinity they'd have for him if they believed his claims. Which in turn is fairly good evidence they're false.

chacham15 14y ago
> I think what you meant to say is that the reasons for their preference are unknown. Yes, obviously. > If Romney actually was what he tries to seem, he'd be more popular in the Valley. These two statements are contradictory.
- pg 14y ago
  I don't understand why you think that.
  - chacham15 14y ago
    The second statement assumes that the reason Romney is not popular with people in the valley is because he does not appear to be what he claims. This contradicts the first statement because it says that we don't know why these people prefer one candidate over another. To be more concrete, people could strongly dislike Romney's stance on abortion. In that case, it would not matter whether Romney appears or does not appear to be what he claims to be, that individual still would not like him.
    - pg 14y ago
      No it doesn't. It merely says he'd be more popular if he were what he claimed. That doesn't require the reason he's not popular to be that he's not what he claims. Suppose a restaurant is unpopular, due to bad food, bad service, high cost, whatever. There's no contradiction in expecting it would become more popular if a movie star started to hang out there every night. We're now arguing about basic logic. I've found threads are usually irrecoverable at that point, so if you don't mind, I'm done.
      - chacham15 14y ago
        I think that you are missing the heart of the matter. That is that the only piece of data that you have is popularity. Given that, how can you determine how well Romney was what he tries to seem? To put this into the context of your restaurant example, how can you differentiate between a restaurant that is unpopular otherwise but has a movie star and a restaurant with the same level of popularity but no movie star (with the movie star being analogous to Romney being what he tries to seem)? I'm sorry if you do not like these kinds of arguments as I try to involve as much base logic as I can. I think that base logic is to arguments what functions are to algorithms. Furthermore, sticking to logic results in an argument at least on the level of DH4 in your essay "How to Disagree."
ivankirigin 14y ago
Yes, there are many reasons besides growth. For example: for gay marriage, for closing gitmo, for pulling out sooner from Afghanistan, etc. These aren't small issues. They are reasons people vote the way they do. They have nothing to do with growth. Also, just because you've run a successful investment firm or company, doesn't mean you understand well the government's role in creating or hindering growth. I consider those pretty different skill sets. Also, the issues that are commonly identified as problems for growth in our industry aren't being addressed by either candidate. These include immigration reform, patent reform, copyright reform, updating regulations around privacy and health records, etc. Also, those that are already rich have a smaller marginal utility for money, and don't personally care as much about taxes. As an illustrative example, for me personally, a lower cap gains rate directly translates to more angel investing. The common mistaken opposition to low cap gains is that tax rates don't motivate people. The real reason to support low rates is how the increased return would be re-invested. This yields yet another idea no one is proposing: lowering income taxes to match cap gains rates (as opposed to the more common reverse to close the gap). Finally, presidents don't really drive growth, so the entire premiss of your question is incorrect imho.

by pg 14y ago

chacham15 14y ago

> I think what you meant to say is that the reasons for their preference are unknown. Yes, obviously. > If Romney actually was what he tries to seem, he'd be more popular in the Valley. These two statements are contradictory.

pg 14y ago
I don't understand why you think that.
- chacham15 14y ago
  The second statement assumes that the reason Romney is not popular with people in the valley is because he does not appear to be what he claims. This contradicts the first statement because it says that we don't know why these people prefer one candidate over another. To be more concrete, people could strongly dislike Romney's stance on abortion. In that case, it would not matter whether Romney appears or does not appear to be what he claims to be, that individual still would not like him.
  - pg 14y ago
    No it doesn't. It merely says he'd be more popular if he were what he claimed. That doesn't require the reason he's not popular to be that he's not what he claims. Suppose a restaurant is unpopular, due to bad food, bad service, high cost, whatever. There's no contradiction in expecting it would become more popular if a movie star started to hang out there every night. We're now arguing about basic logic. I've found threads are usually irrecoverable at that point, so if you don't mind, I'm done.
    - chacham15 14y ago
      I think that you are missing the heart of the matter. That is that the only piece of data that you have is popularity. Given that, how can you determine how well Romney was what he tries to seem? To put this into the context of your restaurant example, how can you differentiate between a restaurant that is unpopular otherwise but has a movie star and a restaurant with the same level of popularity but no movie star (with the movie star being analogous to Romney being what he tries to seem)? I'm sorry if you do not like these kinds of arguments as I try to involve as much base logic as I can. I think that base logic is to arguments what functions are to algorithms. Furthermore, sticking to logic results in an argument at least on the level of DH4 in your essay "How to Disagree."

ivankirigin 14y ago

Yes, there are many reasons besides growth. For example: for gay marriage, for closing gitmo, for pulling out sooner from Afghanistan, etc. These aren't small issues. They are reasons people vote the way they do. They have nothing to do with growth. Also, just because you've run a successful investment firm or company, doesn't mean you understand well the government's role in creating or hindering growth. I consider those pretty different skill sets. Also, the issues that are commonly identified as problems for growth in our industry aren't being addressed by either candidate. These include immigration reform, patent reform, copyright reform, updating regulations around privacy and health records, etc. Also, those that are already rich have a smaller marginal utility for money, and don't personally care as much about taxes. As an illustrative example, for me personally, a lower cap gains rate directly translates to more angel investing. The common mistaken opposition to low cap gains is that tax rates don't motivate people. The real reason to support low rates is how the increased return would be re-invested. This yields yet another idea no one is proposing: lowering income taxes to match cap gains rates (as opposed to the more common reverse to close the gap). Finally, presidents don't really drive growth, so the entire premiss of your question is incorrect imho.