
Too Much Dark Money in Almonds - gbear605
https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in-almonds/
======
nitwit005
> First, we should expect ordinary people to donate more to politics.

My mother donated once to some Democratic volunteer who came to her door. They
hounded her for more donations. She got mailings, phone calls, multiple people
at her door. She vowed never to give them another cent.

Perhaps an unusually bad experience, but generally you do get punished this
way for donating. I emptied my grandmother's mailbox when she became ill, and
due to her charitable giving, it was absolutely crammed with political and
charity mailings.

~~~
opportune
Yeah the Bernie campaign sends me what seems like 10 texts per week since I
donated, I honestly don’t understand it because it must really fatigue most
people. Maybe it optimized donations over some small A/B test but I will
absolutely find a way to get off this mailing list ASAP if it continues. Every
single ask for more money has some seemingly urgent reason for it but you
can’t use that repeatedly over long durations! It reminds me of the story
someone once posted here where every task was a P0 for the PM and eventually
they started calling things P-1, P-2, etc

Even once a week sounds like a lot but averaging more than one per day is just
ridiculous.

~~~
jessaustin
Same here, and I last donated to Bernie like three years ago. This time I'm
giving to Tulsi, who seems much less aggressive on this.

~~~
thephyber
To state the obvious, Bernie raises 10x what Tulsi does[1]. It's probably
partly in how the campaign harvests new pledges from prior pledgers (even if
it's aggressive).

I'm under no allusions that she has the same name recognition that he has.

[1]
[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/16/us/politics/d...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/16/us/politics/democratic-
fundraising-2020.html)

~~~
jessaustin
She's in!

[https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/tulsi-gabbard-is-
the-12...](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/tulsi-gabbard-is-the-12th-
candidate-to-make-octobers-democratic-debate/)

------
koboll
>If everyone who cared about homelessness donated $100 to the problem,
homelessness would be solved. Nobody does this, because they know that nobody
else is going to do it, and their $100 is just going to feel like a tiny drop
in the ocean that doesn’t change anything. People know that a single person
can’t make a difference, so they don’t want to spend any money, so no money
gets spent.

I wonder if something like the National Popular Vote compact could work here.

It works like this: state legislatures pass a law that says if enough states
sign onto the compact to pass 270 electoral votes, their electors are
automatically assigned to the winner of the popular vote. In this way, nothing
changes and no one has to sacrifice anything until enough states agree to
actually effect a change, and then they act together to effectively obviate
the Electoral College.

Sure, if I donate $100 to a homelessness charity, it'll feel like a drop in
the bucket. But if some charity starts an initiative to take my credit card
information and _only_ charge it once enough people donate to end
homelessness, I might be more inclined to do it. Either the threshold is
reached and homelessness ends, or I get a feeling of altruistic pride for
doing nothing. Everyone wins!

~~~
Fej
I believe this is called taxes.

Not trying to be snarky, just... there you go.

~~~
BurningFrog
But taxes is _someone else_ deciding that I should donate to something _they_
decide is worthy.

Sure, it does solve the "collective action" problem, but by removing my
consent.

------
YawningAngel
The writer is very quick to assume Exxon Mobil's own figure for political
spending is disingenuously low, but very quick to countenance the idea that
the total amount of spend on political influence is publicly available. Maybe
more money is being spent nontransparently? For example, it's a common
practice in the UK to hire former (or current!) politicians for sinecure
positions at greatly inflated salaries. I doubt anyone admits to these quasi-
bribes as being political spending.

~~~
aetherson
I'm sure they don't report such things as political spending.

But it also seems hard to me to imagine that adding up to very much. There are
what, each year maybe a few hundred politicians who leave office and might be
up for such patronage? If all of them get a million dollars, that's a few
hundred million dollars a year. The movers and shakers of Washington DC are
also... I mean, a lot of them become lobbyists or media people, and while they
probably get good deals in doing that, it's hard to argue that a former
congressional committee chairperson is going to be a _bad_ lobbyist or
whatever.

I think that actually, the people who become movers and shakers in government
tend to not have a ton of trouble getting enough money to live solidly upper-
class lifestyles, and they have self-selected as people who value having
influence more than money.

~~~
blackflame7000
I mean, Netflix effectively tripled Obama's net worth with one deal. I'm not
saying it's quid pro quo, but ex-politicians can command quite a lot of money
in exchange for their influence.

~~~
gwern
That Netflix _could_ so casually triple Obama's net worth kind of emphasizes
OP's point. (Note that quite aside from being the most recent two-term US
president, who is considerably more popular than the current office-holder,
Obama was a best-selling author & Nobel Laureate.)

------
whiddershins
I posted something similar on the author’s site, but I wonder if this is just
“revealed preference.”

Perhaps people don’t really care nearly as much about the outcome of elections
as they say they do.

I think most people suspect the outcome of an election won’t affect their
lives nearly as dramatically as people claim, there’s too much inertia in the
system.

Also, maybe, just maybe, people are subconsciously more intellectually humble
than they let on, and realize that predictions about the impact of policy and
elections are notoriously unreliable.

Taking a political position can serve to identify yourself with a certain
social group, or as part of your personal identity, or if you are feeling
somewhat metaphysical it can indicate the structure of your ethical system.

In all of those cases there is no need to actually spend money to achieve the
goal.

If I am an “Apple person” I need to spend $1,000 on a phone to demonstrate
this.

But if I’m a Sanders supporter I can do all this signaling by expressing
outrage on Facebook and at dinner parties without spending a dime.

If this theory is correct, a political movement that could somehow get people
to feel they have to contribute money to be a “real” supporter with associated
social status would be drowning in contributions.

------
hondo77
> The US almond industry earns $12 billion per year.

How much of that is actually from sales in the US vs. exports? In 2018,
California produced 80% of the worldwide almond crop and exported 70% of it.
Americans aren't quite as hungry for almonds as the author assumes.

Ref: [http://www.capradio.org/articles/2018/07/09/record-crop-
for-...](http://www.capradio.org/articles/2018/07/09/record-crop-for-
california-almonds-as-growers-uncertain-about-tariffs/)

~~~
bduerst
I was curious, so I looked into it - apparently the US exported $4.5 billion
worth of almonds 2017, with Spain being the largest consumer ($0.5 B). Also
learned that the US imports almost exactly as many pecans as it exports.

Seems like they may have included it based on export percentages.

------
dumbfoundded
If I had to guess why there's so little money in politics I'd guess it's
because there are more efficient ways to spend the money.

Political contributions right now seem to function mostly as a tax avoidance
strategy. These donations are effectively free. A company or wealthy
individual can either pay taxes or donate the money to a "non-political" think
tank to promote policies they'd like to see.

Convincing someone to influence elections is easy if they'd pay it in taxes
anyways. I'm guessing it's difficult to convince someone that their post tax
money is most efficiently spent influencing the political system.

One last note, there's also many other types of interactions companies have
with the government. There's state level, regulatory bodies, local and county
influences. Companies interact highly with the government at the local levels
because they're easier to manipulate than the federal government.

~~~
wahern
> These donations are effectively free. A company or wealthy individual can
> either pay taxes or donate the money to a "non-political" think tank to
> promote policies they'd like to see.

That's not how deductions work. A donation costs the donor much more than the
tax reduction. All a deduction does is reduce your adjusted gross income, not
literally offset the nominal sum you pay in taxes.

Say my top marginal tax bracket is 20%. If I donate $100 then it's costing me
precisely $100. If I don't donate then I'm on the hook for $20 ($100 * 20%) in
tax. $100 > $20. This presumes the $100 is earned income, and that the
donation is in fact tax deductible. If neither of those hold then the relation
is $100 > $0.

People have similarly mistaken ideas about so-called write-offs:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEL65gywwHQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEL65gywwHQ)

~~~
gdudeman
This isn’t how it works for the rich.

If you donate appreciated assets, you don’t pay taxes on the appreciation, so
in the best case scenario (e.g. you bought bitcoin at a penny) you donate
$100, but it is the equivalent of $80 after tax.

Additionally, you get to write that $100 donation off your income. If you’re
in the highest tax bracket, that means you’re saving $39 off your tax bill.

You’ve effectively given $100 in exchange for the cost of $41.

~~~
asciident
You just agreed with your parent post. He said "A donation costs the donor
much more than the tax reduction."

In your example, the donation cost the donor $100, which is much more than the
tax reduction of $39 + $20.

But on another point, didn't you just double count the tax? You donated $100
of bitcoin, and you write it off your taxes (so not having to pay that $39),
but you just counted another $20 somewhere.

------
dr_dshiv
This article was one sided. It never seriously considered the relative value
of almonds, particularly when roasted and salted. Sad.

~~~
andrewflnr
I think he just assumed they were more valuable than politicians, regardless
of preparation.

~~~
jessaustin
Roasted and salted politicians, don't knock 'em 'til you've tried 'em.

------
baddox
Isn't this just a way of saying that effective governance in a representative
democracy is a public good, and that thus we should expect it to be
underproduced?

------
gnodar
> Most research (plus the 2016 results) confirms that money has little effect
> on victory

Maybe money in the form of "contributions", okay. But _having_ money is still
the largest predictor for policy direction.

"The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and
organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent
impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and
average citizens have little or no independent influence"[0]

[0]
[https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...](https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf)

------
foobar_
One of the ideas that I cherish is radical transparency. It would be better to
see exactly what each company wants to donate to and how money is being spent.

Money is a form of voting.

~~~
aetherson
You basically do get that, but it's hard to work around indirections. If I'm
in company A and I give money to an industry lobbying group X (and so do
companies B, C, D, and E), and then industry lobbying group X gives money to
super-PAC alpha, and then super-PAC alpha donates to politicians Bob and Fred,
then... how does that become digestible to the public? Some amount of "Company
A's" money went to Fred, but it's gone through several fungible buckets since
then, and you can't necessarily draw a clean link.

Informally, it may (or may not!) be that Fred was told by someone that his
continuing to get these kinds of checks was dependent on him doing a specific
favor for company A, but probably not everyone who receives some money that
was originally sourced at company A did.

~~~
foobar_
Makes sense. How about git log for money?

~~~
setzer22
This looks like a perfect use case for blockchain... oh wait

------
EdwardDiego
The biggest problem with almonds is the unsustainable farming practices used
to grow them.

~~~
OrgNet
let's grow them where no water is sustainably available...

~~~
s1artibartfast
That depends on your definition of sustainable. Most almonds are/were grown
using sacramento river, which can provide a self replenishing source of water.

It is more of a water use issue than a sustainability issue.

~~~
EdwardDiego
Was also thinking about the massive issue they have with the large monoculture
meaning they can't really support self-sustaining populations of bees.

Of course, it's not just almonds that have this issue, wine regions in my
country (NZ) have the exact same problem which they're belatedly trying to
fix.

------
SubiculumCode
This why I like Democracy Dollar proposal, giving each voter $100 to give to
candidates.

------
jessaustin
_Think tanks may be more talent-limited..._

Zing!

------
psvj
More money would not generate better outcomes. period.

------
psvj
more money would not generate "better" outcomes. period.

------
buboard
Thats very un-democratic, it implies that people with more money should have
more votes. This would quickly dissolve a democracy

------
jamisteven
This has seriously got to be the dumbest, most uneducated piece of writing I
have ever read. Yes, lets all just throw money at a broken problem, that'll
make it better. "Politics" as the author refers to it as, needs the opposite
of funding, it needs to be cut off entirely from donors to see who still
stands. The US Government, will have a fund where it gives a set number to
each candidate for campaigning purposes and that is ALL that can be used.
Already own a private jet? Tough shit, cant use it for campaigning! Already a
millionaire with lots of millionaire friends? Sorry charlie! That is the only
way we will get back to grass roots form of electing. Simply throwing money at
something rarely fixes a problem.

~~~
sixstringtheory
Maybe you missed this statement:

> I don’t want more money in politics. But the same factors that keep money
> out of politics keep it out of charity too.

And if "throwing money at something rarely fixes a problem" then what is a
better way? Relying on volunteers? What are you donating all your time to day
after day for no money? How do you think you incentivize people to spend the
majority of their waking hours on something you think is important?

I don't think we should necessarily put more money into politics. I know that
will only further consolidate power in a given country. But I'm not sure that
was the point of the article either. It points out that it _seems_ like the
rational thing to do would be for those with money, especially corporations
with vast sums of it, to spend more on their candidate of choice. Yet they
don't, at least not as much as the author expects, or expects us to expect. I
didn't get the feeling it was saying the only way to save things is to throw
more money at it, I think it's asking what is the underlying force that's
keeping everyone from doing that? If we can figure that out, maybe we can
understand some latent properties of the system we're in with regards to the
charity parts.

