It's silly to think money is literally the only form of power and persuasion.
As Alvin Toffler wrote in Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth and Violence at the Edge of the 21st Century, and as evidenced by GOOG and FB, information and attention are the new money.
>Hillary Clinton outspent Donald Trump by 2x in the 2016 election, and still lost. In fact, she had far more corporate backing than Donald Trump, and still lost.
Those statistics dont factor in the absurd amount of attention liberal media paid to Trump throughout the election. His antics, and the attention it garners among their target market, are great for their bottom line
> Those statistics dont factor in the absurd amount of attention liberal media paid to Trump throughout the election. His antics, and the attention it garners among their target market, are great for their bottom line
Yes, this has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with the free press (or in your words "liberal media"). That's entirely my point.
You also seem to keep citing books as though they are somehow equivalent to peer-reviewed academic research. Books aren't peer-reviewed, anyone can publish their opinions. Publishing houses are not staffed by true peers of the author, and are ill-equipped to check information. While books are good and important, they are not authoritative for the discussion at hand.
I provided more than enough academic research, statistical results, and empirical results in recent history. Unless you can do the same, your entire argument is based on your personal perception of the world.
>> Those statistics dont factor in the absurd amount of attention liberal media paid to Trump throughout the election. His antics, and the attention it garners among their target market, are great for their bottom line
>Yes, this has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with the free press (or in your words "liberal media"). That's entirely my point.
Nahhh; corporate media is very much concerned with money. No amount of academic research, statistical results, or empirical results can help you make sense of the world if you can't make assumptions based on common sense perception.
> No amount of academic research, statistical results, or empirical results can help you make sense of the world if you can't make assumptions based on common sense perception
You have that COMPLETELY backwards. "Common sense" perception is extremely flawed because the perception of individual humans is limited by their own experiences and forms an incomplete picture of the truth. If your argument is that "common sense" (common according to who?) beats empirical data, it's no better than religion.
As Alvin Toffler wrote in Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth and Violence at the Edge of the 21st Century, and as evidenced by GOOG and FB, information and attention are the new money.
>Hillary Clinton outspent Donald Trump by 2x in the 2016 election, and still lost. In fact, she had far more corporate backing than Donald Trump, and still lost.
Those statistics dont factor in the absurd amount of attention liberal media paid to Trump throughout the election. His antics, and the attention it garners among their target market, are great for their bottom line
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powershift_(book)