POTUS pretty much told you this is what you are getting. His great admiration for Andrew Jackson pretty much says it all. Jackson was the poster child for bullshit populism, patronage and corruption.
Sir Winston Churchill supposedly asked Lady Astor whether she would sleep with him for five million pounds. She said she supposed she would. Then he asked whether she would sleep with him for only five pounds. She answered,"What do you think I am?" His response was, "We've already established that; we're merely haggling over price."- Marcus Felson, Crime and Everyday Life, Second Edition, 1998
I think it does matter and this quote is always flaunted like it's some deep insight but it intentionally ignored nuance. An amount you can comfortably retire on is way different than $5.
We love to pretend humans have unflinching morals but they don't
> I think it does matter and this quote is always flaunted like it's some deep insight but it intentionally ignored nuance
There are people that wouldn't do it no matter the amount. Not for billions. Not for a trillion. And that's why no matter how rich the other party, there are people to whom they simply aren't rich enough.
"No" is the most powerful word in the dictionary. And when some people say no, they really mean no. And no amount of money can change that.
And most filthy, corrupt, bribed politicians and corrupt public servants out there know that fully well: they feel filthy and miserable because they know there are people out there with moral and ethics.
Additionally, there are people who honestly really don't give a fuck about money (it's not my case): so they'll say no not because of particularly high moral or high ethics, they'll say no just because they enjoy their simple life.
Honestly it's a sign of low moral and low ethics to believe that anyone can be bought out and that it's just about the amount.
> most filthy, corrupt, bribed politicians and corrupt public servants... feel filthy and miserable.
Citation most definitely needed.
I agree with your ultimate point that some people can't be bought, and I aspire to be one of them - though I don't think anyone actually knows until they face a temptation with a life-changing upside - but spare me the "evil-doers are always punished, even if it's in ways we cannot see" rhetoric. Sociopaths, at least, are just fine (in fact show happier than the average person on standard "life satisfaction" metrics), and I'll put it to you that there are a lot of ways that both you and I don't perfectly live up to our highest ideals (do you own anything that's plausibly been manufactured by slave labor? Have you bothered to check? Or, if not that one, have you sold everything you own and given it to the poor?) and we both feel pretty good about ourselves, am I right?
I'm sorry. I really didn't mean to come at you that hard, but I'm going to leave it stand - it's not truly personal - because I think moral fables (ie, "do the right thing and you'll be happy") aren't true, and thus are counter-productive. Acting morally is hard, and often (usually?) comes at a personal cost. It's more honest to tell people that.
In my view we have some unflinching morals, some more flexible ones, and some you don't adhere to at all, and which is which tends to differ between people.
I personally don't believe in non-religious ontological good because of this aspect of human nature.
I imagine the number of people who would do it if they theoretically knew they had no chance of getting caught is different than the number of people who actually do it. I don't disagree with your conclusion about how many people do, but knowing how many people would lie, cheat, steal, or murder their way to wealth but don't due to sufficient deterrent is useful knowledge in how to structure a society.
To be clear, I'm not making any claims about whether this is a large proportion or not, because I have absolutely no idea (and I have doubts this would even be possible to calculate with even a remote degree of confidence purely via philosophical discussion). If anything, some sort of study that provides evidence that this number is lower than expected would be a strong argument against typical "tough on crime" policies that are often popular with people who express concern about human nature in this regard.
Nancy Astor already had access to more than enough money to keep herself in unimaginable luxury for the rest of her life. She was substantially more wealthy than Churchill (by a factor of many thousands).
That's something that has bothered me about this entire administration, particularly the bizarre and disturbing involvement of the Diablo-cheating billionaire.
Everyone knew that a lot of politicians have been for sale, but I didn't realize how cheaply they were for sale. Musk able to buy his way into being in charge of an idiotic department with basically no regulation while still being allowed to CEO like five companies, and he did it for like $100 million. That's a lot of money, more than I'll ever be worth, but it's way less than I would think it would cost to buy the presidency, in charge of billions (and maybe trillions?) of dollars of sales and contracting.
the US is like a new born deer against battalion of ninjas when it comes to corruption.
Decades of believing we are blessed with some sort of perpetual exceptionalism has made the American people not only susceptible to corruption but actively unknowingly promote it. Propaganda has convinced them to invite it into their house and let it know where all your money is and your bank account information.
It's a loss-leader. Once the patronage system has solidly taken hold, then they raise the prices. Our only consolation is that the fascist-supporting techbros are going to be victims of their own enshittification dynamic - they think they're paying customers, but they're actually the product. The autocracy will continue to increase its meddling to maintain its own political legitimacy. Moldbug's enlightened benevolent monarch who needn't care about politics is a pipe dream.
I can't understand why denigrating someone as a prostitute or w**e is not called out as inappropriate if not fully misogynist. Its history is deeply, inescapably misogynist, it's anti-sex worker as you say, and it's just tacky. Corruption of morals for money doesn't need to be feminized to make an argument.
We're still here mostly because these are the dollar store fascists. If they were really competent this would be the fourth reich already by now and all brown people would have been exterminated in concentration camps.
Have you ever considered that they’re not fascists at all, don’t have the goals that you’re claiming they have, and don’t hold any of the views you claim they have?
They say they hold fascistic views publicly, they praise fascists in other countries, current or deceased, and they are enacting fascistic policies all over, why would I consider that?
> 25M isn’t even that much money. Not only are they whores, they’re cheap whores.
I don't know, Anthropic is providing 10K open source developers with $200 subscriptions to their bot, for up to 6 months. 200 * 10000 * 6 = $12 Million total. That's even cheaper, I'm not sure what conclusion to draw from all this.
