OT: COVID-19 thread #2

[johnnyvann840]

If someone wants to say they prefer the American system because they want to get rich, and this is the best place to do that, I can understand that, it's logical. But to say that they prefer the American system because one like Denmark's wouldn't work here, I find that just a rationalization to keep things the way they are, and to pretend there's no way correct the tremendous inequality that exists here, or to do a much better job of taking care of the less fortunate.

I don't think this is rocket science- these other nations are running the experiment right before our eyes, and have been doing so for the past 50 years or so, and the results are pretty clear.

IMO, the promotion of the Nordic countries is disingenuous.

The reason I say that is progressives in this country aren’t actually advocating for those policies.

They’re not arguing for lower corporate taxes, they’re arguing the opposite.

They’re not arguing for deregulation, they’re arguing the opposite.

They’re saying tax the rich, but everyone pays high taxes there.

They’re arguing for open borders and universal healthcare, while the Nordic countries have stricter border controls.

They’re not arguing for a VAT tax (as high as 100% on some items), which is regressive.

They’re not arguing for oil companies to provide dividends, they’re calling for divestment from fossil fuels and the Green New Deal.

IMO, people want current day Sweden with the policies of 1970s Sweden that almost crippled their economy.

Great post. Well said.

[johnnyvann840]

I'm going to have to starting blocking some users in here...
Mind-blowing...

Definitely some mind blowing opinions. I don't block anybody though. Never have and never will. I find it comical when people say things like..."this is why I had you on ignore". I mean, why put anyone on ignore? It's childish. I think it's good to hear everyone's opinion even the most asinine stances taken. Good to see where people stand on certain subjects and debate is good and what keeps things interesting. The last thing I want is a board that is just a big circle jerk where everybody agrees with each other on everything.

[Dresden]

If someone wants to say they prefer the American system because they want to get rich, and this is the best place to do that, I can understand that, it's logical. But to say that they prefer the American system because one like Denmark's wouldn't work here, I find that just a rationalization to keep things the way they are, and to pretend there's no way correct the tremendous inequality that exists here, or to do a much better job of taking care of the less fortunate.

I don't think this is rocket science- these other nations are running the experiment right before our eyes, and have been doing so for the past 50 years or so, and the results are pretty clear.

IMO, the promotion of the Nordic countries is disingenuous.

The reason I say that is progressives in this country aren’t actually advocating for those policies.

They’re not arguing for lower corporate taxes, they’re arguing the opposite.

They’re not arguing for deregulation, they’re arguing the opposite.

They’re saying tax the rich, but everyone pays high taxes there.

They’re arguing for open borders and universal healthcare, while the Nordic countries have stricter border controls.

They’re not arguing for a VAT tax (as high as 100% on some items), which is regressive.

They’re not arguing for oil companies to provide dividends, they’re calling for divestment from fossil fuels and the Green New Deal.

IMO, people want current day Sweden with the policies of 1970s Sweden that almost crippled their economy.

Progressives are absolutely arguing for social democratic policies: universal health care, paid sick leave, paid maternity leave, better childcare options, free education through college, higher taxes on the rich, less income inequality, more unionization of the workforce, etc, etc.

While everyone does pay higher taxes in Denmark, the rich pay much higher taxes than they do here, proportionally much higher. I don't know many progressives who argue for open borders. In fact, I've never heard that discussed. They do argue for amnesty programs and paths to citizenships, but not open borders. That's just a mischaracterization by the right to make progressive claims sound absurd.

As for green new deals, most Nordic countries are much farther along the path to sustainability than the US is, so yes, they are a model to learn from in that regard, too.

Deregulation? What do you mean by that?

[Shill]

Progressives are absolutely arguing for social democratic policies: universal health care, paid sick leave, paid maternity leave, better childcare options, free education through college, higher taxes on the rich, less income inequality, more unionization of the workforce, etc, etc.

While everyone does pay higher taxes in Denmark, the rich pay much higher taxes than they do here, proportionally much higher. I don't know many progressives who argue for open borders. In fact, I've never heard that discussed. They do argue for amnesty programs and paths to citizenships, but not open borders. That's just a mischaracterization by the right to make progressive claims sound absurd.

As for green new deals, most Nordic countries are much farther along the path to sustainability than the US is, so yes, they are a model to learn from in that regard, too.

Deregulation? What do you mean by that?

Yes, progressives are advocating for those things, but as I mentioned in my post, they're arguing for the opposite of the policies that fund those programs.

As for open borders, quibbling over the term is semantics.

Progressives are calling for the abolition of ICE and CBP, decriminalization of border crossings, amnesty, and universal healthcare. Some have even called for tearing down existing border barriers in El Paso and San Diego.

That may not be de jure open borders, but what's the significant difference?

And the regulatory code determines what businesses can and cannot do, and it's exhaustive in America vis-à-vis the Nordic countries. That has a downstream effect on output and other considerations.

[johnnyvann840]

If someone wants to say they prefer the American system because they want to get rich, and this is the best place to do that, I can understand that, it's logical. But to say that they prefer the American system because one like Denmark's wouldn't work here, I find that just a rationalization to keep things the way they are, and to pretend there's no way correct the tremendous inequality that exists here, or to do a much better job of taking care of the less fortunate.

I don't think this is rocket science- these other nations are running the experiment right before our eyes, and have been doing so for the past 50 years or so, and the results are pretty clear.

IMO, the promotion of the Nordic countries is disingenuous.

The reason I say that is progressives in this country aren’t actually advocating for those policies.

They’re not arguing for lower corporate taxes, they’re arguing the opposite.

They’re not arguing for deregulation, they’re arguing the opposite.

They’re saying tax the rich, but everyone pays high taxes there.

They’re arguing for open borders and universal healthcare, while the Nordic countries have stricter border controls.

They’re not arguing for a VAT tax (as high as 100% on some items), which is regressive.

They’re not arguing for oil companies to provide dividends, they’re calling for divestment from fossil fuels and the Green New Deal.

IMO, people want current day Sweden with the policies of 1970s Sweden that almost crippled their economy.

Progressives are absolutely arguing for social democratic policies: universal health care, paid sick leave, paid maternity leave, better childcare options, free education through college, higher taxes on the rich, less income inequality, more unionization of the workforce, etc, etc.

While everyone does pay higher taxes in Denmark, the rich pay much higher taxes than they do here, proportionally much higher. I don't know many progressives who argue for open borders. In fact, I've never heard that discussed. They do argue for amnesty programs and paths to citizenships, but not open borders. That's just a mischaracterization by the right to make progressive claims sound absurd.

As for green new deals, most Nordic countries are much farther along the path to sustainability than the US is, so yes, they are a model to learn from in that regard, too.

Deregulation? What do you mean by that?

He's talking about fiscal policy, or the means to the end.... and he's 100% correct.

[moorhosj]

I tend to find extremely little value in studies where the subjects self select and self report things like that. And I'm extremely skeptical that biological and environmental differences yield the same function between reality ("happiness") and results cross culturally. People are not all the same other than differing public policy. They have different biology and different environments that can skew how they report their own feelings.

Again, though, happiness is a questionable all around metric anyways. And extremely poorly defined IMO.

Sounds like you find little value in things that challenge your pre-determined bias.

What in the world are you talking about? What bias? I'm discussing a specific methodological problem. Do you disagree that non-randomized samples are inherently problematic in studying populations?

All of the things you mention being "skeptical" about are called biases. You said yourself that you have a bias against measuring things across borders or environments. I tend to agree with people who spend their entire lives studying these types of things. I'm not an expert, so I weigh the opinions of those who are and make my own judgements.

The (very diverse) authors of the Happiness Report [1], the Corruption Index [2], and the Economic Free Index [3] all report different sets of metrics across countries. Each of those uses some form of self-reporting and are well-respected studies. In each study; the Nordic countries, Germany, Canada, Australia, UK, Ireland and New Zealand outperform the US. The CATO Institute (Libertarian think tank) has the US at 26th in personal freedom.

Either all data is slanted against the US, or maybe we can learn something from what other countries are doing.

[1] https://worldhappiness.report/
[2] https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2019/results/swe
[3] https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/human-freedom-index-files/cato-human-freedom-index-update-3.pdf

[Dresden]

Progressives are absolutely arguing for social democratic policies: universal health care, paid sick leave, paid maternity leave, better childcare options, free education through college, higher taxes on the rich, less income inequality, more unionization of the workforce, etc, etc.

While everyone does pay higher taxes in Denmark, the rich pay much higher taxes than they do here, proportionally much higher. I don't know many progressives who argue for open borders. In fact, I've never heard that discussed. They do argue for amnesty programs and paths to citizenships, but not open borders. That's just a mischaracterization by the right to make progressive claims sound absurd.

As for green new deals, most Nordic countries are much farther along the path to sustainability than the US is, so yes, they are a model to learn from in that regard, too.

Deregulation? What do you mean by that?

Yes, progressives are advocating for those things, but as I mentioned in my post, they're arguing for the opposite of the policies that fund those programs.

As for open borders, quibbling over the term is semantics.

Progressives are calling for the abolition of ICE and CBP, decriminalization of border crossings, amnesty, and universal healthcare. Some have even called for tearing down existing border barriers in El Paso and San Diego.

That may not be de jure open borders, but what's the significant difference?

And the regulatory code determines what businesses can and cannot do, and it's exhaustive in America vis-à-vis the Nordic countries. That has a downstream effect on output and other considerations.

Those programs are funded through increased taxes, with a more highly progressive tax system than we have here. So rich people would pay a higher proportion of the tax increase. As would corporations. And that's exactly what progressives in the US like Sanders and Warren are proposing, so don't know what you're referring too.

As for immigration, you're making a large jump from wanting pathways to citizenship for those already here to saying we want to just abolish the border. But I know that putting those words into the mouths of progressives has a lot of political resonance. Progressives want a sensible immigration program, that recognizes the present reality, which is that businesses rely on immigrant labor, and that there are many thousands of undocumented immigrants that have made lives here in the US and are productive, law abiding citizens. These people should not have to live in fear of ICE showing up at their workplace or front door and uprooting them.

[Shill]

Those programs are funded through increased taxes, with a more highly progressive tax system than we have here. So rich people would pay a higher proportion of the tax increase. As would corporations. And that's exactly what progressives in the US like Sanders and Warren are proposing, so don't know what you're referring too.

As for immigration, you're making a large jump from wanting pathways to citizenship for those already here to saying we want to just abolish the border. But I know that putting those words into the mouths of progressives has a lot of political resonance. Progressives want a sensible immigration program, that recognizes the present reality, which is that businesses rely on immigrant labor, and that there are many thousands of undocumented immigrants that have made lives here in the US and are productive, law abiding citizens. These people should not have to live in fear of ICE showing up at their workplace or front door and uprooting them.

I think there's a disconnect here.

The Nordic countries have lower corporate taxes, and everyone pays higher individual taxes, not just the rich.

On immigration, I'm just going by what prominent progressives have argued. Maybe they were being insincere. Maybe they were pandering. I also know there's internal disagreement on the issue. In 2015, Bernie Sanders called open borders a "Koch brothers" scheme—although he's changed his tune since then—so progressives aren't necessarily in lockstep on the immigration issue, and neither are libertarians or any other political faction, really.

[League Circles]

Sounds like you find little value in things that challenge your pre-determined bias.

What in the world are you talking about? What bias? I'm discussing a specific methodological problem. Do you disagree that non-randomized samples are inherently problematic in studying populations?

All of the things you mention being "skeptical" about are called biases. You said yourself that you have a bias against measuring things across borders or environments. I tend to agree with people who spend their entire lives studying these types of things. I'm not an expert, so I weigh the opinions of those who are and make my own judgements.

You're either misunderstanding or mischaracterizing what I said. I did not say I'm skeptical of measuring things cross culturally. What I was getting at is that if you take non random samples of a population that YOU KNOW is different from another population from which you take non random samples, you can't have confidence that they reflect their populations equally, because of the biological and environmental differences that you know exist between the two populations. It's not a "bias". It's a reality of statistics.

The (very diverse) authors of the Happiness Report [1], the Corruption Index [2], and the Economic Free Index [3] all report different sets of metrics across countries. Each of those uses some form of self-reporting and are well-respected studies. In each study; the Nordic countries, Germany, Canada, Australia, UK, Ireland and New Zealand outperform the US. The CATO Institute (Libertarian think tank) has the US at 26th in personal freedom.

Either all data is slanted against the US, or maybe we can learn something from what other countries are doing.

[1] https://worldhappiness.report/
[2] https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2019/results/swe
[3] https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/human-freedom-index-files/cato-human-freedom-index-update-3.pdf

I think it's laughable to boil down complex concepts like happiness, economic freedom and corruption to a single metric. To me that is self evident because of blatantly obvious the many components of those concepts vary independently.

Let me give you an example of how poorly I think things like this are often done. I just checked out the human freedom report you linked. The criteria is completely subjective obviously. It's patently absurd on a 5 minute glance, because when I think of economic freedom, one of the first and primary concepts that comes to mind is, what % of someone's economic production do they get to do with as they wish vs how much do they have to share with society via taxes. So to me, tax rates are very central to the concept of economic freedom. Perhaps/probably the biggest single metric to get an understanding. So I checked how tax rates are used in this methodology. What I found was appauling, but not terribly surprising. The only element of tax rates that is included in the economic index is under "size of government", which amounts to 20% of the index. And it ONLY considers the top marginal tax rate and payroll taxes, with zero consideration or inclusion of what taxes 99% of people pay. AND the top marginal tax is only one of 5 factors mentioned that contribute to the 20% weighting. So they've basically completely ignored perhaps the single most telling metric that many would first think of when they consider economic freedom. And this is the result of their deliberate, and very subjective choices. I don't respect that. Maybe, as you say, they're well respected among those with a vested interest in patronizing them.

Btw, I specifically said in a previous post that I'm not trying to claim that the US is "happier" (what an embarassing concept to try to "measure"). I also specifically said there are things we can learn from other countries. I also said my vague belief is that the US probably isn't the best country in the world, but is probably top 5 or 10, and I specifically mentioned countries that I perceived as probably superior (Ireland, Switzerland, Singapore and Japan).

I'm not biased against the results of these studies. I laugh at the subjectivity and glaring flaws of their methodology. Am I suggesting that they're measuring happiness, corruption or freedom in a bad way and that it should be measured in a better way? No. I'm suggesting that it's absurd to try to boil them down to a single metric, just like PER is an absurd way to try to boil a player down to one metric. And that it's unecessary for public policy implications. I can support something like universal healthcare or not (I do nominally support conditional universal health care) on its own merits based on my analysis of likely impacts. I don't need to point to a flawed, subjective "study of an incredibly complex yet vaguely understood human condition in another country with vast differences and argue "look, see that country is determined to be happier and they have x, y and z policies so we should adopt those here". It's entirely unecessary and frankly, IMO, it undermines the effort to enact such policies if that's one's goal.

If it were as simple as blindly copying elements of a society that "performs better" in order to increase the performance of one's own country, which doesn't anyone advocate that we also have a king like Sweden? Maybe that's why they're so "happy"?

To restate some comments from a previous post:

Maybe happiness isn't the most important thing in life?

Maybe different people having different values is Ok. This relates to people preferring one system (say the US) over another system (say Sweden) because their preferences are different, in ways much more broad than "which country" are you more likely to become rich in? (Another poster IIRC suggested that that would be the only logic for preferring the US system over Nordic)

[League Circles]

Progressives are absolutely arguing for social democratic policies: universal health care, paid sick leave, paid maternity leave, better childcare options, free education through college, higher taxes on the rich, less income inequality, more unionization of the workforce, etc, etc.

While everyone does pay higher taxes in Denmark, the rich pay much higher taxes than they do here, proportionally much higher. I don't know many progressives who argue for open borders. In fact, I've never heard that discussed. They do argue for amnesty programs and paths to citizenships, but not open borders. That's just a mischaracterization by the right to make progressive claims sound absurd.

As for green new deals, most Nordic countries are much farther along the path to sustainability than the US is, so yes, they are a model to learn from in that regard, too.

Deregulation? What do you mean by that?

Yes, progressives are advocating for those things, but as I mentioned in my post, they're arguing for the opposite of the policies that fund those programs.

As for open borders, quibbling over the term is semantics.

Progressives are calling for the abolition of ICE and CBP, decriminalization of border crossings, amnesty, and universal healthcare. Some have even called for tearing down existing border barriers in El Paso and San Diego.

That may not be de jure open borders, but what's the significant difference?

And the regulatory code determines what businesses can and cannot do, and it's exhaustive in America vis-à-vis the Nordic countries. That has a downstream effect on output and other considerations.

Those programs are funded through increased taxes, with a more highly progressive tax system than we have here. So rich people would pay a higher proportion of the tax increase. As would corporations. And that's exactly what progressives in the US like Sanders and Warren are proposing, so don't know what you're referring too.

As for immigration, you're making a large jump from wanting pathways to citizenship for those already here to saying we want to just abolish the border. But I know that putting those words into the mouths of progressives has a lot of political resonance. Progressives want a sensible immigration program, that recognizes the present reality, which is that businesses rely on immigrant labor, and that there are many thousands of undocumented immigrants that have made lives here in the US and are productive, law abiding citizens. These people should not have to live in fear of ICE showing up at their workplace or front door and uprooting them.

The problem is, those on the further left don't want to follow up those ideas with a going-forward policy to counter their consequences, and then those on the further right just disregard the whole movement. Not suggesting you or anyone else specific is saying this, but what if we enacted a policy something along these lines:

1. Everyone who is here tomorrow, other than basically people with a felony arrest warrant or whatever, can get amnesty and full citizenship, immediately.
2. An enormous trumpian wall is built (or more realistically, some other border protection mechanism that is far more effective like perhaps station the 80000 troops we have in japan or whatever along the border with mexico instead.
3. Restrict immigration from mexico to only familial based visas (marriage, etc) until immigrants from the rest of the world have a chance to catch up, so to speak, including other central and south American immigrants.

Who would object to that? And why? IMO most people on both the left and right would object, which is tremendously sad, because it reveals they simply do not respect each other's legitimate concerns.

Instead of compromising solutions where law makers try as hard as possible to find the middle ground that most people could live with long term, IMO they mostly all bet on getting 51% of the vote to enact policies that a huge minority of the population will strongly object to, and which will then be overturned in a few years when the 51% is on the other side.

Just as a note about taxes, Shill was suggesting nordic corporate taxes are way lower than here (or at least lower than what many such as yourself want). Also he suggested poor and middle class people pay way higher taxes there than in the US. If that's true, I surely don't see many on the left suggesting we increase taxes on the poor or middle classes, and I definitely don't see them advocating for lower corporate taxes.

[Dresden]

Those programs are funded through increased taxes, with a more highly progressive tax system than we have here. So rich people would pay a higher proportion of the tax increase. As would corporations. And that's exactly what progressives in the US like Sanders and Warren are proposing, so don't know what you're referring too.

As for immigration, you're making a large jump from wanting pathways to citizenship for those already here to saying we want to just abolish the border. But I know that putting those words into the mouths of progressives has a lot of political resonance. Progressives want a sensible immigration program, that recognizes the present reality, which is that businesses rely on immigrant labor, and that there are many thousands of undocumented immigrants that have made lives here in the US and are productive, law abiding citizens. These people should not have to live in fear of ICE showing up at their workplace or front door and uprooting them.

I think there's a disconnect here.

The Nordic countries have lower corporate taxes, and everyone pays higher individual taxes, not just the rich.

On immigration, I'm just going by what prominent progressives have argued. Maybe they were being insincere. Maybe they were pandering. I also know there's internal disagreement on the issue. In 2015, Bernie Sanders called open borders a "Koch brothers" scheme—although he's changed his tune since then—so progressives aren't necessarily in lockstep on the immigration issue, and neither are libertarians or any other political faction, really.

Ok, so they have lower corporate taxes. I didn't know that. The net effect is the same though- the rich pay more taxes in the Nordic countries. That's why the % of rich people in those countries is about 1/4 of what it is in the US. And this is exactly what progressives here are advocating, so I don't know why your are saying progressives are arguing exactly the opposite of what Nordic countries are doing? Yes, the middle classes also pay more there, but what they get back for those taxes makes their actual income almost on par with middle class in the USA. So I think your point is completely wrong that progressives are arguing for the opposite of what Nordic countries are doing, tax wise.

[moorhosj]

Maybe happiness isn't the most important thing in life?

This is an interesting argument, never really heard it before. We could absolutely look at other things (maybe Freedom and Corruption?) to get an understanding of how people live in different countries. Oh wait, I just did that and it showed very similar results. Maybe there is something to these studies if they keep measuring different things and getting the same result.

OR. Do your own analysis. Provide us with studies that prove otherwise. None of these indices uses a single metric in their analysis. The headline number you read is a weighted aggregation of lots of data. The Economic Freedom portion of the Human Freedom Index is based on 43 metrics. You can pull out those individual metrics if you think it tells a different story. **** on the work someone else did, without presenting anything yourself, doesn't move the discussion forward.

So they've basically completely ignored perhaps the single most telling metric that many would first think of when they consider economic freedom. And this is the result of their deliberate, and very subjective choices. I don't respect that. Maybe, as you say, they're well respected among those with a vested interest in patronizing them.

The Cato Institute is the most well-known libertarian think-tank in America. the idea that they would overlook taxes deliberately and subjectively is laughable. Their entire existence is fighting for limited government, low taxes, and civil liberties. I've worked for multiple consulting agencies who use these exact reports to help clients determine where to spend investment dollars.

Maybe they are just well-respected by people who know what they are talking about.

According to the 2017 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report (Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program, University of Pennsylvania), Cato is number 15 in the "Top Think Tanks Worldwide" and number 10 in the "Top Think Tanks in the United States".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute

The criteria is completely subjective obviously. It's patently absurd on a 5 minute glance, because when I think of economic freedom, one of the first and primary concepts that comes to mind is, what % of someone's economic production do they get to do with as they wish vs how much do they have to share with society via taxes. So to me, tax rates are very central to the concept of economic freedom. Perhaps/probably the biggest single metric to get an understanding. So I checked how tax rates are used in this methodology. What I found was appauling, but not terribly surprising. The only element of tax rates that is included in the economic index is under "size of government", which amounts to 20% of the index.

"The criteria is too subjective! Please ignore that my proposed solution is far more subjective." If you find another way to measure these things, please present it. In the case of this report, you are wrong on how much they measure taxes.

There are 5 categories in the Economic Freedom section and at least 3 directly measure taxes.

1. Size of Government - directly related to taxes as you mention
2. Legal System and Property Rights - long an important right in a capitalist society
3. Sound Money - related to the growth of money, which is directly tied to government costs and revenue (tax receipts)
4. Freedom to Trade Internationally - A section on tariffs (aka taxes) another section on movement of capital
5. Regulation - labor market regulations and business regulations, which includes a tax component.

If it were as simple as blindly copying elements of a society that "performs better" in order to increase the performance of one's own country, which doesn't anyone advocate that we also have a king like Sweden? Maybe that's why they're so "happy"?

Build that straw man and knock it down. This is the "why not just make minimum wage $1,000,000/hour?" argument. It deftly dispatches an argument nobody has made. Who has suggested that we blindly copy anything? I do think lots of people in the US believe we could learn some things from other countries. That concept seems to rub you the wrong way for whatever reason.

Maybe different people having different values is Ok.

Nobody suggested otherwise.

[Dresden]

Those programs are funded through increased taxes, with a more highly progressive tax system than we have here. So rich people would pay a higher proportion of the tax increase. As would corporations. And that's exactly what progressives in the US like Sanders and Warren are proposing, so don't know what you're referring too.

As for immigration, you're making a large jump from wanting pathways to citizenship for those already here to saying we want to just abolish the border. But I know that putting those words into the mouths of progressives has a lot of political resonance. Progressives want a sensible immigration program, that recognizes the present reality, which is that businesses rely on immigrant labor, and that there are many thousands of undocumented immigrants that have made lives here in the US and are productive, law abiding citizens. These people should not have to live in fear of ICE showing up at their workplace or front door and uprooting them.

I think there's a disconnect here.

The Nordic countries have lower corporate taxes, and everyone pays higher individual taxes, not just the rich.

On immigration, I'm just going by what prominent progressives have argued. Maybe they were being insincere. Maybe they were pandering. I also know there's internal disagreement on the issue. In 2015, Bernie Sanders called open borders a "Koch brothers" scheme—although he's changed his tune since then—so progressives aren't necessarily in lockstep on the immigration issue, and neither are libertarians or any other political faction, really.

About immigration, I wish democrats would come out with a unified proposal on immigration reform that would deal with all it's facets- a pathway for those here already, how to regulate future immigration and how to enforce the border, and how to integrate those that are here into society, with things like work permits and guarantees that they won't be needlessly hounded or rounded up.

But instead they talk too much about the abuses of ICE or the need for sanctuary or abuses at the border. There has to be some form of regulation of the border- you can't let everyone in. But democrats are loath to come out and say what that would look like, which is why they leave themselves open to the mud slinging claims that they want to see the borders opened completely.

On the other hand, the anti-immigrant crowd has to come to grips with the fact that we aren't going to be deporting everyone who is here illegally, and it is in the best interest of all concerned to come up with a solution which will allow some sort of amnesty and pathway to at least permanent status for those who have become productive, law abiding members of society, even though they are undocumented.

[jmajew]

About immigration, I wish democrats would come out with a unified proposal on immigration reform that would deal with all it's facets- a pathway for those here already, how to regulate future immigration and how to enforce the border, and how to integrate those that are here into society, with things like work permits and guarantees that they won't be needlessly hounded or rounded up.

But instead they talk too much about the abuses of ICE or the need for sanctuary or abuses at the border. There has to be some form of regulation of the border- you can't let everyone in. But democrats are loath to come out and say what that would look like, which is why they leave themselves open to the mud slinging claims that they want to see the borders opened completely.

On the other hand, the anti-immigrant crowd has to come to grips with the fact that we aren't going to be deporting everyone who is here illegally, and it is in the best interest of all concerned to come up with a solution which will allow some sort of amnesty and pathway to at least permanent status for those who have become productive, law abiding members of society, even though they are undocumented.

This is one of the best points that has been brought up. The problem with the democrats and republicans is clarity in their stances. Both parties are stuck pandering to the edges of the party to get votes and that is why nothing gets done. It would be great if either the democrats or republicans had a simple plan. Everyone who is here can stay and get a path to citizenship, we tighten up crossings going forward, we put in place a merit system like Canada, and for those that come in illegally after we create a universal punishment for it. Then be done with it. To me it is really a simple issue.

[jmajew]

Good news...Today in Illinois we tested 17,688 people and of that we got 1,677 positive tests. This is the first time I have seen the percentage of positive tests below 10% in the state.

more available testing means that the symptoms don't have to be as bad in order for a person to get tested, though. it's difficult to suss out what's actually going on right now in terms of infection rates

Actually if the percent of positive tests goes down with more testing that means the infection rate is probably going down.

[League Circles]

This is an interesting argument, never really heard it before. We could absolutely look at other things (maybe Freedom and Corruption?) to get an understanding of how people live in different countries. Oh wait, I just did that and it showed very similar results. Maybe there is something to these studies if they keep measuring different things and getting the same result.

Huh? You've never heard of a notion that something is more important than happiness? Morality? Dignity? Peace? Etc?

What same result? All I looked at was the human freedom index, and within in, countries were ranked differently by economic vs personal freedom. For example the US was IIRC 5th in economic freedom and 26th in personal freedom.

OR. Do your own analysis. Provide us with studies that prove otherwise. None of these indices uses a single metric in their analysis. The headline number you read is a weighted aggregation of lots of data.

You're confused. I'm not arguing against the findings of these studies I'm saying that their very existence is, IMO, very stupid, and shouldn't be referenced when arguing for particular policies.

The Economic Freedom portion of the Human Freedom Index is based on 43 metrics. You can pull out those individual metrics if you think it tells a different story. **** on the work someone else did, without presenting anything yourself, doesn't move the discussion forward.

I did! I pointed out that they ignored income tax rates, which are a huge part of a coherent understanding of economic freedom. And they did ignore them.

So they've basically completely ignored perhaps the single most telling metric that many would first think of when they consider economic freedom. And this is the result of their deliberate, and very subjective choices. I don't respect that. Maybe, as you say, they're well respected among those with a vested interest in patronizing them.

The Cato Institute is the most well-known libertarian think-tank in America. the idea that they would overlook taxes deliberately and subjectively is laughable. Their entire existence is fighting for limited government, low taxes, and civil liberties. I've worked for multiple consulting agencies who use these exact reports to help clients determine where to spend investment dollars.

I think they ignored it because it's probably extremely difficult to collect and standardize that data due to varying tax structures. I don't understand the significance of your personal anecdote. People make wise and unwise use of all sorts of data to make investment decisions, and have all sorts of results with it.

Maybe they are just well-respected by people who know what they are talking about.

According to the 2017 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report (Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program, University of Pennsylvania), Cato is number 15 in the "Top Think Tanks Worldwide" and number 10 in the "Top Think Tanks in the United States".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute

Appeals to vague intellectual authority aren't interesting to me. I only like to discuss issues, not punt to people because I presume they know more than me (when it helps my presuppositions).

The criteria is completely subjective obviously. It's patently absurd on a 5 minute glance, because when I think of economic freedom, one of the first and primary concepts that comes to mind is, what % of someone's economic production do they get to do with as they wish vs how much do they have to share with society via taxes. So to me, tax rates are very central to the concept of economic freedom. Perhaps/probably the biggest single metric to get an understanding. So I checked how tax rates are used in this methodology. What I found was appauling, but not terribly surprising. The only element of tax rates that is included in the economic index is under "size of government", which amounts to 20% of the index.

"The criteria is too subjective! Please ignore that my proposed solution is far more subjective." If you find another way to measure these things, please present it.

What proposed solution do you think I'm advocating???

You're still not getting it. It's YOU that is making the claim that something is knowable and trying to argue for who knows it. I'm simply sitting in the absence of such a claim. It's not like I'm suggesting that the US is "happier", "less corrupt", or "freer" than any other particular places. I'm saying that there's nothing to be gained, no helpful function in inventing a metric for freedom and then reporting how real or inferred numbers impact your made up, and more importantly unnecessary definition. We don't need an index for freedom, happiness, etc. All we need to do is determine public policy.

In the case of this report, you are wrong on how much they measure taxes.

There are 5 categories in the Economic Freedom section and at least 3 directly measure taxes.

1. Size of Government - directly related to taxes as you mention
2. Legal System and Property Rights - long an important right in a capitalist society
3. Sound Money - related to the growth of money, which is directly tied to government costs and revenue (tax receipts)
4. Freedom to Trade Internationally - A section on tariffs (aka taxes) another section on movement of capital
5. Regulation - labor market regulations and business regulations, which includes a tax component.

I was not wrong in my central complaint that income taxes are a huge component of economic freedom and were completely ignored by this metric.

If it were as simple as blindly copying elements of a society that "performs better" in order to increase the performance of one's own country, which doesn't anyone advocate that we also have a king like Sweden? Maybe that's why they're so "happy"?

Build that straw man and knock it down. This is the "why not just make minimum wage $1,000,000/hour?" argument. It deftly dispatches an argument nobody has made. Who has suggested that we blindly copy anything?

People have absolutely made the argument that because certain countries are happier, we should adopt certain carefully cherry picked policy examples from them, while ignoring attributes we don't like. Why appeal to their system being responsible for positive outcomes without appealing to the whole thing? Why not just appeal to the merits of what one is advocating instead of appealing to the implied overall superiority of a different country with countless differences?

I do think lots of people in the US believe we could learn some things from other countries. That concept seems to rub you the wrong way for whatever reason.

For the third time, I very much agree we can learn from other countries. I volunteered that comment in this thread before we started this exchange. We just need to be careful to not conclude we've learned something before it's clear we have. We can learn from nordic health care models or whatever, and implement some of what we've learned, without appealing to ridiculous "studies" on their happiness, freedom, or corruption. Those are unnecessarily vague and overly broad.

Maybe different people having different values is Ok.

Nobody suggested otherwise.

True. To be more precise, I'll say that it is implied by many that populations of people are virtually identical (everyone agrees individuals vary plenty) other than socially or politically constructed differences. I think that notion is anti-science. I'm not saying you feel that way, just saying that it wouldn't be unusual to find that even at a population level, citizens of one nation may value freedom more than happiness or vice versa. Sometimes I feel like what is bring implied is more along the lines of "of course everyone wants happiness the same relative to other things." So even if happiness could be measured, and even if random samples were taken, and even if cause and effect could be established, we're still left with the issues of value differentiation as a reason why people might not want to adopt the same policies as other nations, and why should they not pursue what they value more?

[MrSparkle]

I don't think hard liberals like AOC or Sanders have/had solutions at the Federal/Executive level. I think college loan forgiveness, rent forgiveness, all these extreme policy suggestions are capable of de-stabilizing the economy and causing major unrest in at least 30 states. Part of me wants a radical economic revolution, but the other part of me doesn't think today's status quo needs to be nuked - yes it's relatively bad and certainly unfair (for a country that considers itself "the best" at everything... except it's kind of a military and economic tyrant), but things can be a lot worse. That said, I think the GOP party is so far right, that any compromise met with hard left economics would be something close to moderate. Also, a lot of people particularly 30-50, they are 'hurting' - 2030-2060 is going to be a big mess unless radical, tech-savvy changes are made. So I'm honestly "moderate" as far as economic policy goes. I'm more worried about everything else.

We have by far the most criss-crossed and nonsensical coalitions that have formed in government, and I think it's entirely because money and religion influence our politics so much. You have Evangelical Christians and Zionist Jewish factions unified in right-wing lobbying. Rural Democrats are more like rural Republicans than urban Democrats. Chicago/Illinois Democrats for a long time were basically the Mafia.

I think I speak for most "anti-Trump/GOP" voters - the things that bother us the most are low ethical and judicial standards (Barr, the lies, the low-blow/vile personal attacks, the low academic intelligence, the megalomania, the attack on media and banning journalists from his press conference that "cross the line" with him), anti-Science, propaganda/Nationalistic rally approach, anti-immigrant/minority sentiments, and the manipulative pandering to the religious voters. If Trump didn't have a polling interest in right-wing voters, he would renounce pro-Christian and pro-life policies in an instant. I think Hilary, Pelosi and Biden are a hell of a lot more Christian than Trump, FWIW (and I personally don't care at all what their religion is - I simply don't want to see it affect any political or economic policy, which I guess makes me an American liberal as opposed to completely neutral on religion itself, which is the absurdity we've accepted with in American politics).

As far as economic policy goes, I ere with the argument that policies should be state-to-state and city-to-city discussion. However, not in a Libertarian sense, where apparently the Federal government should be a little shack that allows 50 children to do whatever they want. It takes a lot of power to run a 50-state operation.

To me, GOP/Fox has very clearly taken a stance to lock in their voting base, with economic policy as a completely illogical knot in the whole campaign. Can they give us a break? Every 4-years, different tax policies and regulations are passed. They really don't mean much at the day-to-day level for most Americans. Making a big deal about these negligible tax returns, balancing the deficit, repealing Obamacare, deregulating environmental policies. Honestly - to me it's a big "whatever" - corporations are lobbying CONSTANTLY to repeal laws that allow them to pursue projects that benefit their short and long-term fiscal earnings. That's the reality. Either you have people atleast half-accountable, pretending to put up a fight, or you have politicians who simply give them everything they want.

I think everybody but the Trump voter base is worried about the economy. What I'm seeing on Facebook, most Trumpers/Christians are preparing for the "end of days" and content with a trip to heaven. Can we just look at the practical situation at hand? The economy is in serious trouble (it was in trouble before COVID, except people don't like to accept the negative consequences of an unsustainable bull market), and the virus is a serious medical threat. Instead , there is a large debate about fake intel claiming the virus isn't a medical threat. You don't really know where to begin.

[moorhosj]

[quote="League Circles"]Huh? You've never heard of a notion that something is more important than happiness? Morality? Dignity? Peace? Etc?[quote]

Happiness is downstream effect of living a life of morality, dignity, peace, etc. The relationship between morality and happiness has been studied for centuries (ask Aristotle:https://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/aristotle/).

Things don't make you feel moral, you act morally (or with dignity) and it increases your happiness. That you have a problem with the idea of measuring happiness is clear, but it isn't some foreign notion. Neither is the idea that we can measure economic freedom or corruption.

[quote="League Circles"]We don't need an index for freedom, happiness, etc. All we need to do is determine public policy.[quote]

And how will we measure it's effectiveness? Maybe through metrics? Maybe the kind of metrics you'd find in a report like this?

[quote="League Circles"]I was not wrong in my central complaint that income taxes are a huge component of economic freedom and were completely ignored by this metric. [quote]

Income taxes are accounted for in the index, as you have acknowledged. You said that they should be calculated differently and more-heavily weighted. That it is a "huge component of economic freedom" is your own subjective analysis, which you have assured us is a bad thing to add into analysis like this.

[quote="League Circles"]Appeals to vague intellectual authority aren't interesting to me. I only like to discuss issues, not punt to people because I presume they know more than me (when it helps my presuppositions).[quote]

All you needed to say. Could have saved all the big words. The real reason you don't need to listen to experts is because you presume to know more than everyone else. Especially when it helps your presuppositions.

[Shill]

Ok, so they have lower corporate taxes. I didn't know that. The net effect is the same though- the rich pay more taxes in the Nordic countries. That's why the % of rich people in those countries is about 1/4 of what it is in the US. And this is exactly what progressives here are advocating, so I don't know why your are saying progressives are arguing exactly the opposite of what Nordic countries are doing? Yes, the middle classes also pay more there, but what they get back for those taxes makes their actual income almost on par with middle class in the USA. So I think your point is completely wrong that progressives are arguing for the opposite of what Nordic countries are doing, tax wise.

The point I'm making is that progressives want the output of the Nordic countries without the input.

If you want to fund such a robust social safety net, you need tax receipts.

What those countries learned (as well as many other countries in Europe) is that high corporate taxes, burdensome regulations, and wealth taxes actually reduce your tax receipts because businesses and wealthy individuals are either crushed, or they simply leave, then the system collapses.

Side note: this is why economists like Thomas Piketty advocate for countries colluding in terms of banking information so that people can't freely move capital. That sounds nightmarish and authoritarian to me, but that's a digression.

I'm saying that progressives want it both ways.

They want Nordic-style outputs without advocating for lower corporate taxes, less burdensome regulation, regressive VAT taxes, etc...

It's a harder sell when you tell people that everything they buy will be taxed at 20%, and if they want a car, it will be taxed at 100%.

If progressives want that system, they gotta pay for it, and simply "making the millionaires and billionaires pay" isn't gonna cut it.

[Shill]

About immigration, I wish democrats would come out with a unified proposal on immigration reform that would deal with all it's facets- a pathway for those here already, how to regulate future immigration and how to enforce the border, and how to integrate those that are here into society, with things like work permits and guarantees that they won't be needlessly hounded or rounded up.

But instead they talk too much about the abuses of ICE or the need for sanctuary or abuses at the border. There has to be some form of regulation of the border- you can't let everyone in. But democrats are loath to come out and say what that would look like, which is why they leave themselves open to the mud slinging claims that they want to see the borders opened completely.

On the other hand, the anti-immigrant crowd has to come to grips with the fact that we aren't going to be deporting everyone who is here illegally, and it is in the best interest of all concerned to come up with a solution which will allow some sort of amnesty and pathway to at least permanent status for those who have become productive, law abiding members of society, even though they are undocumented.

This is one of the best points that has been brought up. The problem with the democrats and republicans is clarity in their stances. Both parties are stuck pandering to the edges of the party to get votes and that is why nothing gets done. It would be great if either the democrats or republicans had a simple plan. Everyone who is here can stay and get a path to citizenship, we tighten up crossings going forward, we put in place a merit system like Canada, and for those that come in illegally after we create a universal punishment for it. Then be done with it. To me it is really a simple issue.

People understand incentives in business, but there are also incentives in government, which people sometimes have difficulty wrapping their heads around.

Government doesn't fix immigration because they're incentivized not to do so.

That might be a cynical take, but there are a lot of factors why immigration isn't solved, and it's more complex than catering to the poles of either major party.