Covid pushes Asia to embrace big government(asia.nikkei.com)
asia.nikkei.com
Covid pushes Asia to embrace big government
https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/The-Big-Story/COVID-pushes-Asia-to-embrace-big-government
94 comments
> "Your government shouldn't have enough power to fight an epidemic, because that's too much power"
What’s enough power? A government-mandated lockdown is legally impossible in Japan but they have managed to keep COVID cases within a number that can be handled by their medical system.
What’s enough power? A government-mandated lockdown is legally impossible in Japan but they have managed to keep COVID cases within a number that can be handled by their medical system.
I feel that if you're an island like Japan, Singapore, or New Zealand, or effectively isolated like Korea (3 sea borders + 1 land border which is permanently closed, and land-mined) then maybe the amount of power your government has isn't the key factor in keeping your country safe from a pandemic.
The procedures used in NYC aren't drastically different from Singapores', but the key difference is that Manhattan cannot close its borders to the rest of the 50 US States.
When people ask for a strong government in the US, its' within that context. They want a government that could enforce quarantines between different states, locking people into one state or another till the virus burns itself out. That's the way it worked in China, but is legally impossible to do in the US.
The US can have minor quarantines (an apartment, a city block, etc.) but we can't legally quarantine a whole city, much less states.
The procedures used in NYC aren't drastically different from Singapores', but the key difference is that Manhattan cannot close its borders to the rest of the 50 US States.
When people ask for a strong government in the US, its' within that context. They want a government that could enforce quarantines between different states, locking people into one state or another till the virus burns itself out. That's the way it worked in China, but is legally impossible to do in the US.
The US can have minor quarantines (an apartment, a city block, etc.) but we can't legally quarantine a whole city, much less states.
>The procedures used in NYC aren't drastically different from Singapores'
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/nyregion/nursing-homes-de...
'A state directive sent thousands of Covid-19 patients into nursing homes'
yep, no difference at all
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/nyregion/nursing-homes-de...
'A state directive sent thousands of Covid-19 patients into nursing homes'
yep, no difference at all
The other issue with a lockdown like that is even if it were legally possible it would be a nightmare to administer.
Centuries of free travel between states has made the borders very porous and mostly just a legal concept. There are so many minor road crossings between, say, New York and Pennsylvania that it would be impossible to secure.
Centuries of free travel between states has made the borders very porous and mostly just a legal concept. There are so many minor road crossings between, say, New York and Pennsylvania that it would be impossible to secure.
> The procedures used in NYC aren't drastically different from Singapores'
Participating in an underground rave in Singapore would result in lashes.
Participating in an underground rave in Singapore would result in lashes.
I agree 100%. As an Asian American it is baffling how throughout years of propaganda, so many Americans firmly believe that personal freedom and democracy cannot co-exist with a competent and effective government that has all the tools and resources to do its job.
I think it comes from shallow interpretation of sayings such as "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". I mean it's a catchy saying, but in reality it's just a result of terrible system engineering (in this case the government system) in many places.
It is totally possible to have a powerful government and have that government supervise. In the end there is a clear distinction between "big government" and "authoritarian dictatorship". If your big government devolves into individual dictatorship it just mean the single executive position likely had too much power to begin with.
In fact, similar to companies, it's very well possible to avoid a single dictator CEO even as your company grows large and end up with a large management hierarchy.
I think it comes from shallow interpretation of sayings such as "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". I mean it's a catchy saying, but in reality it's just a result of terrible system engineering (in this case the government system) in many places.
It is totally possible to have a powerful government and have that government supervise. In the end there is a clear distinction between "big government" and "authoritarian dictatorship". If your big government devolves into individual dictatorship it just mean the single executive position likely had too much power to begin with.
In fact, similar to companies, it's very well possible to avoid a single dictator CEO even as your company grows large and end up with a large management hierarchy.
> It is totally possible to have a powerful government and have that government supervise.
Are you sure that holds for periods > 100 years?
Are you sure that holds for periods > 100 years?
> If your big government devolves into individual dictatorship it just mean the single executive position likely had too much power to begin with.
And it is.
There were nobody to put brakes on Obama's "point, and click" signature strikes, and him signing on, for all intents, and reasons, an extrajudicial assasination orders of US citizens.
And it is.
There were nobody to put brakes on Obama's "point, and click" signature strikes, and him signing on, for all intents, and reasons, an extrajudicial assasination orders of US citizens.
> I agree 100%. As an Asian American it is baffling how throughout years of propaganda, so many Americans firmly believe that personal freedom and democracy cannot co-exist with a competent and effective government that has all the tools and resources to do its job.
Propaganda? What?
> I think it comes from shallow interpretation of sayings such as "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". I mean it's a catchy saying, but in reality it's just a result of terrible system engineering (in this case the government system) in many places.
I'm pretty sure it comes from the enlightenment era and especially the American Revolutionary War. American colonists were never been big fans of the powerful churches and monarchs of Europe they were trying to escape.
> If your big government devolves into individual dictatorship it just mean the single executive position likely had too much power to begin with.
Would you believe me if I told you this very thing was happening across the world in the 1930s and 1940s? And pretty close to home too? Maybe all it takes is enough people to forget history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_dictatorship
Propaganda? What?
> I think it comes from shallow interpretation of sayings such as "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". I mean it's a catchy saying, but in reality it's just a result of terrible system engineering (in this case the government system) in many places.
I'm pretty sure it comes from the enlightenment era and especially the American Revolutionary War. American colonists were never been big fans of the powerful churches and monarchs of Europe they were trying to escape.
> If your big government devolves into individual dictatorship it just mean the single executive position likely had too much power to begin with.
Would you believe me if I told you this very thing was happening across the world in the 1930s and 1940s? And pretty close to home too? Maybe all it takes is enough people to forget history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_dictatorship
Yet American colonists hanged witches all the same, and slavery persisted for much longer than in European kingdoms those colonists had fled from.
Seems like the correct lesson to draw is that the size or power of government doesn't necessarily tell you how much systematic misery and injustice you will find there.
Seems like the correct lesson to draw is that the size or power of government doesn't necessarily tell you how much systematic misery and injustice you will find there.
I worry about responses like yours because they are based on an impressionistic and ultimately incorrect understanding of western history. This way of approaching our history is frequently used in what is effectively woke propaganda, as well as propaganda in support of Chinese authoritarian style government.
Regarding your claims specifically:
Americans did not hang witches "all the time". Prosecutions for sorcery and witchcraft occurred in the USA in the late 1600s, that's true -- but they all occurred all over Europe into the late 1600s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials_in_England
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials_in_the_Netherland... (ended trials exceptionally early)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials_in_Finland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials_in_Denmark
In England, the last person prosecuted for witchcraft (thankfully not executed) was Helen Duncan in 1944:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Duncan
Most European kingdoms did not have slavery in Europe; it's in the colonies where all of them established slavery. The US was such a colony. It's perhaps unusual in being a place where slavery was abolished as a result of a war between the ruling inhabitants, as opposed to a slave revolt or something like that. The British followed a more orderly process, though, abolishing slavery in the colonies and then compensating the slave owners out of the treasury.
Slavery was abolished in the English colonies in 1833. That's 32 years before it's abolition in the United States. That might not be the "much longer" that you had in mind.
Regarding your claims specifically:
Americans did not hang witches "all the time". Prosecutions for sorcery and witchcraft occurred in the USA in the late 1600s, that's true -- but they all occurred all over Europe into the late 1600s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials_in_England
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials_in_the_Netherland... (ended trials exceptionally early)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials_in_Finland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials_in_Denmark
In England, the last person prosecuted for witchcraft (thankfully not executed) was Helen Duncan in 1944:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Duncan
Most European kingdoms did not have slavery in Europe; it's in the colonies where all of them established slavery. The US was such a colony. It's perhaps unusual in being a place where slavery was abolished as a result of a war between the ruling inhabitants, as opposed to a slave revolt or something like that. The British followed a more orderly process, though, abolishing slavery in the colonies and then compensating the slave owners out of the treasury.
Slavery was abolished in the English colonies in 1833. That's 32 years before it's abolition in the United States. That might not be the "much longer" that you had in mind.
According to Matthew Arnold, the last hanging of witches in the United Kingdom occurred in 1716. As for slavery, it was a much smaller economic interest to the European colonies. Also, "much longer" is an exaggeration: twenty-seven years longer than the English colonies, seventeen than the French colonies count for only so much over a history that began 300-odd years before that.
When did I say anything about the power of governments relative to misery/injustice? It seems you've picked a strawman to attack with little relation to what I said.
At the same time, Prescott Bush (HW's Dad) was alleged to be involved in a Fascist backed "Business Plot" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush#Business_Plot
Altough marketed differently, America was founded by wealthy landowners who wanted to pay fewer taxes to uphold some empire.
If you look at who's funding today's misinformation outfits, you'll find characters from a similar background: libertarian corporatists who implicitly believe a dollar is one vote.
It's not hard to see the continuity and how the marketing works: worship of the entrepreneur, hard work, superstarism. Leading naturally into calls for small government, temporarily embarrassed millionaire syndrome, defining fairness along lines of economic success, etc.
It's a shame we're so unaware of the marketing. It's actually not very difficult to poke through. I think the fact that so many early settlers came for religious reasons (their home states in Europe didn't look kindly on their fundamentalism and fanaticism) set the tone in terms of a people that so easily believes in stories.
If you look at who's funding today's misinformation outfits, you'll find characters from a similar background: libertarian corporatists who implicitly believe a dollar is one vote.
It's not hard to see the continuity and how the marketing works: worship of the entrepreneur, hard work, superstarism. Leading naturally into calls for small government, temporarily embarrassed millionaire syndrome, defining fairness along lines of economic success, etc.
It's a shame we're so unaware of the marketing. It's actually not very difficult to poke through. I think the fact that so many early settlers came for religious reasons (their home states in Europe didn't look kindly on their fundamentalism and fanaticism) set the tone in terms of a people that so easily believes in stories.
I think you are inferring too much from too short a period of history. Rhee's semi-monarchial military government ended only in 1960.
East Asians have long operated a comparatively strong state apparatus, a system borrowed from the Qin that goes back about 2200 years, which many scholars will argue is the first truly bureaucratic state. This is one of the central components of a developed country, and certainly of big government, but is no protection against dictators. It certainly never was for China or Japan (or Korea under Japanese rule).
Even the recent history of Korea puts your point about what happens when "...the government abandons its duty to protect people." in doubt, because Rhee was the government. What has tended to balance out the power of the state historically is (a) a sense of law as something independent of the government and binding on it and (b) mechanisms of accountability, like elections, that require large portions of the state apparatus to consider what they are doing in light of public approval.
East Asians have long operated a comparatively strong state apparatus, a system borrowed from the Qin that goes back about 2200 years, which many scholars will argue is the first truly bureaucratic state. This is one of the central components of a developed country, and certainly of big government, but is no protection against dictators. It certainly never was for China or Japan (or Korea under Japanese rule).
Even the recent history of Korea puts your point about what happens when "...the government abandons its duty to protect people." in doubt, because Rhee was the government. What has tended to balance out the power of the state historically is (a) a sense of law as something independent of the government and binding on it and (b) mechanisms of accountability, like elections, that require large portions of the state apparatus to consider what they are doing in light of public approval.
I think we might be talking past each other, so let me elaborate a bit:
That Rhee's dictatorship ended only in 1960 is precisely my point - he was soon followed by Park Chung-Hee (killed by his own aide on 1979), who was followed by Chun Doo-Hwan (stepped down on 1988). In other words, the memory of dictatorship is still fresh in many South Koreans alive now - unlike America's revolutionary war, this is too recent (and, not too mention, too inglorious) to be painted over by some kind of PG-13 foundational myth.
So the suggestion that the size of the government has something to do with dictatorship would make many Koreans politely roll their eyes. Right or wrong, our world view is shaped by our experience - and my Korean experience says having a weak government has nothing to do with avoiding tyranny, and in fact is a pretty good predictor for an incoming shitstorm (be it a foreign aggression or a domestic coup). What we need is a reasonably strong government, led by the right people. (Well of course it's not foolproof - but then again, nothing is.)
That Rhee's dictatorship ended only in 1960 is precisely my point - he was soon followed by Park Chung-Hee (killed by his own aide on 1979), who was followed by Chun Doo-Hwan (stepped down on 1988). In other words, the memory of dictatorship is still fresh in many South Koreans alive now - unlike America's revolutionary war, this is too recent (and, not too mention, too inglorious) to be painted over by some kind of PG-13 foundational myth.
So the suggestion that the size of the government has something to do with dictatorship would make many Koreans politely roll their eyes. Right or wrong, our world view is shaped by our experience - and my Korean experience says having a weak government has nothing to do with avoiding tyranny, and in fact is a pretty good predictor for an incoming shitstorm (be it a foreign aggression or a domestic coup). What we need is a reasonably strong government, led by the right people. (Well of course it's not foolproof - but then again, nothing is.)
How did the size of the government contribute to the problematic transitions you mention; or how did a strong government contribute to their solution?
The idea that a strong government, led by the right people, is a concept that actually leads to a robust system of government would make many Americans politely roll their eyes. We had a long experience with such a system. After we extricated ourselves from it, we had a long experience extricating other countries from such systems.
I hope you'll excuse me for saying so, but there is something profoundly solipsistic and unreasonable about asking me to accept your Korean experience as a basis for a claim as broad as you are making. If that is really the end and the beginning of your chain of reasoning, I urge you to reconsider your approach: we can't, unfortunately, base our understanding of political development on our experience: it's a topic with a long history and a long, long cycle time. A comparative approach, and a willingness to consider like problems and like situations in other countries, nets greater understanding in this area.
The idea that a strong government, led by the right people, is a concept that actually leads to a robust system of government would make many Americans politely roll their eyes. We had a long experience with such a system. After we extricated ourselves from it, we had a long experience extricating other countries from such systems.
I hope you'll excuse me for saying so, but there is something profoundly solipsistic and unreasonable about asking me to accept your Korean experience as a basis for a claim as broad as you are making. If that is really the end and the beginning of your chain of reasoning, I urge you to reconsider your approach: we can't, unfortunately, base our understanding of political development on our experience: it's a topic with a long history and a long, long cycle time. A comparative approach, and a willingness to consider like problems and like situations in other countries, nets greater understanding in this area.
> We had a long experience with such a system.
No, your ancestors had experience with such a system. They are long dead, and the struggles they faced and lessons they learned have been abstracted and bowdlerized until all we're left with is a parable against the abstract idea of a dictator.
George Washington wasn't fighting an abstract dictator. He was fighting the British Empire, an actual existing enemy with an actual ruler, with millions of people on every sides who either supported or fought against it for their own reasons. I can't even pretend to understand the issues they faced, but I do know that you cannot summarize them into a single factor.
Consider a much simpler event, like 9/11. If anyone says, "There's one reason why 9/11 happened, which is X - this is why we must never do X ever again," how much would you trust such an analysis?
That's all I'm saying. My Korean experience tells me that anyone who says it can be reduced to a single factor, or even a major factor (the size of the government), is selling snake oil. Of course, that doesn't mean I know a universal solution to avoid tyranny. If there was such a solution, mankind didn't discover it yet.
No, your ancestors had experience with such a system. They are long dead, and the struggles they faced and lessons they learned have been abstracted and bowdlerized until all we're left with is a parable against the abstract idea of a dictator.
George Washington wasn't fighting an abstract dictator. He was fighting the British Empire, an actual existing enemy with an actual ruler, with millions of people on every sides who either supported or fought against it for their own reasons. I can't even pretend to understand the issues they faced, but I do know that you cannot summarize them into a single factor.
Consider a much simpler event, like 9/11. If anyone says, "There's one reason why 9/11 happened, which is X - this is why we must never do X ever again," how much would you trust such an analysis?
That's all I'm saying. My Korean experience tells me that anyone who says it can be reduced to a single factor, or even a major factor (the size of the government), is selling snake oil. Of course, that doesn't mean I know a universal solution to avoid tyranny. If there was such a solution, mankind didn't discover it yet.
But to come back to the points you made about Korea, what does government size have to do with any of the transitions that you mentioned?
It is not reasonable to draw only on recent, lived experience when discussing political development. There is continuity of institutions from generation to generation. In the USA we have the benefit of long experience with democratic institutions, though of course this is no substitute for offering justification for our ideas. We do, however, have to look at history fairly broadly to see how these principles come into play.
To consider this all in light of your original comment and subsequent ones, you seem very confident about the application of Korean experience to American and Americans but seem to have little interest or understanding of the application of the American experience to America or Americans. It doesn't make much sense, unless the subtext is that you do not believe in the worth of applying history or the comparative method in this area at all, and rather regard Korea as a kind of model or blueprint, applicable to any nation at any time. The way you are referencing your Korean experience, as a source for statements about the most general topics, it's just a roundabout way of saying "My opinion is...".
It is not reasonable to draw only on recent, lived experience when discussing political development. There is continuity of institutions from generation to generation. In the USA we have the benefit of long experience with democratic institutions, though of course this is no substitute for offering justification for our ideas. We do, however, have to look at history fairly broadly to see how these principles come into play.
To consider this all in light of your original comment and subsequent ones, you seem very confident about the application of Korean experience to American and Americans but seem to have little interest or understanding of the application of the American experience to America or Americans. It doesn't make much sense, unless the subtext is that you do not believe in the worth of applying history or the comparative method in this area at all, and rather regard Korea as a kind of model or blueprint, applicable to any nation at any time. The way you are referencing your Korean experience, as a source for statements about the most general topics, it's just a roundabout way of saying "My opinion is...".
> we had a long experience extricating other countries from such systems
Imperialistically rolling into some country that you want to exploit for financial gain is not something to boast about.
Imperialistically rolling into some country that you want to exploit for financial gain is not something to boast about.
It's not really relevant, either. Much of US involvement with Europe following the revolution and particularly during the World Wars was involuntary, and it was one long process of helping them devolve strong, authoritarian states.
I don't understand why you say it's not relevant and then give examples for why it is.
These are examples of what's relevant.
Yeah everyone talks about the technology and nobody talks about the Confucian foundation that many Asian countries are built on.
For anyone who wants a summary the Confucius episode of Genius of the Ancient World on Netflix has a good overview.
For anyone who wants a summary the Confucius episode of Genius of the Ancient World on Netflix has a good overview.
>For decades, leaders like Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew and Malaysia's Mahathir Mohamad spoke proudly of Asia's tradition of small, nimble public administration.
Yeah, but speaking of it was all they did. Singapore always had an entirely dominant state, they just figured out how to brand themselves correctly. State owned businesses became 'state-linked', regulatory frameworks are 'governmental disruption', and so on. The government owns the housing market, pretty much controls every piece of equipment that any hospital buys, and controls what newspaper can be printed. Imagine if the US nationalised the entire housing market, created an investment fund of the size of a third of the economy, and banned a dozen newspapers, I doubt we'd call it nimble administration.
There is no tradition of 'small government' in much of Asia. The centrality of public administration in the region, in China say, goes back thousands of years. Post-war Japan was basically the US if the New Deal had gone on for fourty more years, and South Korea developed for the most part under a military dictator.
In general 'big government' isn't a scary thing to most people outside of the US and England maybe. Not even in Europe does anyone actually complain about 'big government', so it's an entirely weird discussion.
Yeah, but speaking of it was all they did. Singapore always had an entirely dominant state, they just figured out how to brand themselves correctly. State owned businesses became 'state-linked', regulatory frameworks are 'governmental disruption', and so on. The government owns the housing market, pretty much controls every piece of equipment that any hospital buys, and controls what newspaper can be printed. Imagine if the US nationalised the entire housing market, created an investment fund of the size of a third of the economy, and banned a dozen newspapers, I doubt we'd call it nimble administration.
There is no tradition of 'small government' in much of Asia. The centrality of public administration in the region, in China say, goes back thousands of years. Post-war Japan was basically the US if the New Deal had gone on for fourty more years, and South Korea developed for the most part under a military dictator.
In general 'big government' isn't a scary thing to most people outside of the US and England maybe. Not even in Europe does anyone actually complain about 'big government', so it's an entirely weird discussion.
Singapore sounds like a well-branded dictatorship from what I keep hearing, but Japan and South Korea have limited governments that aren’t even allowed to enforce a full lockdown.
This is a commonly misreported point—earlier this year I saw The Guardian claim that the reason Japan, SK and China are better at dealing with COVID is because “police visibly enforced lockdown”; two of the three never did! Sure, in Korea at times non-essential domestic travel and public events were suppressed, certain venues (e.g. dance halls) were instructed to close and some cafes had to become takeout-only, but you can still move (even if strongly recommended to stay at home) and police presence was never visibly heightened.
Contrast with mainland China, where whole apartment buildings with people in them were quite non-figuratively sealed from outside.
What I hear from Koreans is that the police is a service, like a plumber: you have a problem, you call. They can’t enter your home, can’t invade your privacy and spot-check, etc. Law enforcement is so restricted by citizens’ own choice, as they had to deal with the opposite extreme recently enough that people still remember; they hold the government responsible and treasure the freedom they have.
This is a commonly misreported point—earlier this year I saw The Guardian claim that the reason Japan, SK and China are better at dealing with COVID is because “police visibly enforced lockdown”; two of the three never did! Sure, in Korea at times non-essential domestic travel and public events were suppressed, certain venues (e.g. dance halls) were instructed to close and some cafes had to become takeout-only, but you can still move (even if strongly recommended to stay at home) and police presence was never visibly heightened.
Contrast with mainland China, where whole apartment buildings with people in them were quite non-figuratively sealed from outside.
What I hear from Koreans is that the police is a service, like a plumber: you have a problem, you call. They can’t enter your home, can’t invade your privacy and spot-check, etc. Law enforcement is so restricted by citizens’ own choice, as they had to deal with the opposite extreme recently enough that people still remember; they hold the government responsible and treasure the freedom they have.
Just 6 years ago South Korea let 300 schoolchildren drown because they were paralyzed by fear of what their current dictator, lady president, might say if anyone showed a shred of initiative and independent decision making skills. Instead establishing a video link for high ranking government officials was more important than actual rescue mission.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-sinking-of-the-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_MV_Sewol
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-sinking-of-the-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_MV_Sewol
Perhaps that’s part of the reason she got impeached?
(Speaking of, the masses protesting by government buildings to make that happen showed people that could hardly be paralysed by a concern about what she might say.)
(Speaking of, the masses protesting by government buildings to make that happen showed people that could hardly be paralysed by a concern about what she might say.)
https://www.aei.org/foreign-and-defense-policy/asia/south-ko...
tldr its a shitshow
tldr its a shitshow
Jailing corrupt officials is? What’s your argument—that a president must be able to act illegally and then walk free?
The continued legacy of corruption and running the place like your own little kingdom by pretty much every single leader since forever. Clearly jailing (and subsequent pardons) dont work if nothing changed in last 60 years).
Those are two orthogonal things though: 1) electing people who consistently act in good faith, and 2) noticing, acknowledging and prosecuting if elected authorities act in bad faith.
(1) is a known hard problem in a democracy. The democracy in Korea is young as you have noted and there are cultural holdovers from previous times, so perhaps having (2) happen N times first is the only way forward—otherwise all they’d get is an illusion.
Where (2) is not implemented, (1) is less likely to happen (no deterrent). If (2) is implemented and citizens learn to elect better and keep trying, (1) may happen at some point.
(1) is a known hard problem in a democracy. The democracy in Korea is young as you have noted and there are cultural holdovers from previous times, so perhaps having (2) happen N times first is the only way forward—otherwise all they’d get is an illusion.
Where (2) is not implemented, (1) is less likely to happen (no deterrent). If (2) is implemented and citizens learn to elect better and keep trying, (1) may happen at some point.
just saying. about singapore. a majority actually like what the ruling party is doing on the whole. the ruling party changes its tune to feedback. often times its just slow.
older voters might remember. issues from 2 elections ago. conditions have changed.
maybe 2 elections ago a hot issue was too many foreign workers. maybe 2 elections later businesses are unhappy about the difficulty of employing foreign workers.
my take is. its not so much a dictatorship, especially after lee kuan yew. but its pragmatic. whatever the majority wants, it will try to give.
not so much a dictatorship. but actually populist???
older voters might remember. issues from 2 elections ago. conditions have changed.
maybe 2 elections ago a hot issue was too many foreign workers. maybe 2 elections later businesses are unhappy about the difficulty of employing foreign workers.
my take is. its not so much a dictatorship, especially after lee kuan yew. but its pragmatic. whatever the majority wants, it will try to give.
not so much a dictatorship. but actually populist???
I think it's hard to say -- something that we'll have to observe. Or maybe history has given us enough analogies, even for this different age?
The same things that make the Asian peoples compliant with societal restrictions and "big government" might also leave them vulnerable to being led astray by those same governments, or tolerant of dictatorial actions. (and not just singling out Asian cultures here -- any authority-respecting people)
The same traits that make Americans uncooperative with government mandates might be a great protection against unreasonable actions of a tyrant. Or it could be a very bad weakness in a complex, connected economy.
After reading Jared Diamond's idea about the nature of cultural traits in Guns Germs Steel (though he didn't phrase it that way exactly), I think of that often when these things come up. A country's culture, ethos, political system (quite independent from individual behavior, as individuals quickly get absorbed into national behavior) determines a lot of how they survive or resist, or adapt.
The question is whether they have the right combination of traits to get them through the slew of challenges in aggregate, over time, that life throws at them randomly, to succeed in the long run.
The same things that make the Asian peoples compliant with societal restrictions and "big government" might also leave them vulnerable to being led astray by those same governments, or tolerant of dictatorial actions. (and not just singling out Asian cultures here -- any authority-respecting people)
The same traits that make Americans uncooperative with government mandates might be a great protection against unreasonable actions of a tyrant. Or it could be a very bad weakness in a complex, connected economy.
After reading Jared Diamond's idea about the nature of cultural traits in Guns Germs Steel (though he didn't phrase it that way exactly), I think of that often when these things come up. A country's culture, ethos, political system (quite independent from individual behavior, as individuals quickly get absorbed into national behavior) determines a lot of how they survive or resist, or adapt.
The question is whether they have the right combination of traits to get them through the slew of challenges in aggregate, over time, that life throws at them randomly, to succeed in the long run.
The 1918 flu pandemic along with the end of World War I, introduced the roaring 20s, a period of economic prosperity, a new cultural idea and in some sense decadence.
Will the idea of big spending government also delivers the same outcome? If yes, how do we manage those so that we will not arrive at the great depression of 1929?
Will the idea of big spending government also delivers the same outcome? If yes, how do we manage those so that we will not arrive at the great depression of 1929?
What will happen is that people will just get poorer in general, than they would be without all this COVID mess.
Where I live we get 10x the gov. budget deficit than the previous year and the government is reducing and eliminating taxes at the same time. So the "taxes" will come in the form of reduced value of money, or taxes in the future. Level of taxation is pretty much equivalent to the level of government spending. There's, no way around it.
On top of that, general population's savings are being depleted. So yeah, future is bleak. Anyway, I hope the gov spending will get to sane levels soon.
It doesn't help that this is the global phenomenon, so economy/currency is not crashing as much compared to the surrounding countries. But there are still wild swings of ~10% or so compared to USD or EUR.
Where I live we get 10x the gov. budget deficit than the previous year and the government is reducing and eliminating taxes at the same time. So the "taxes" will come in the form of reduced value of money, or taxes in the future. Level of taxation is pretty much equivalent to the level of government spending. There's, no way around it.
On top of that, general population's savings are being depleted. So yeah, future is bleak. Anyway, I hope the gov spending will get to sane levels soon.
It doesn't help that this is the global phenomenon, so economy/currency is not crashing as much compared to the surrounding countries. But there are still wild swings of ~10% or so compared to USD or EUR.
Anyway, I hope the gov spending will get to sane levels soon.
Honest question, what mechanisms do you think will make this happen? Or is it more of a general hope-it-happens?
In my experience, getting anyone to spend less after they are used to spending a lot (be it a government, a company, a business unit, or even just your kids) simply doesn't happen, barring a fundamental change in circumstances whereby the alternate of continuing to spend a lot results in immediate ruin.
Honest question, what mechanisms do you think will make this happen? Or is it more of a general hope-it-happens?
In my experience, getting anyone to spend less after they are used to spending a lot (be it a government, a company, a business unit, or even just your kids) simply doesn't happen, barring a fundamental change in circumstances whereby the alternate of continuing to spend a lot results in immediate ruin.
> But there are still wild swings of ~10% or so compared to USD or EUR.
Time so switch to a better currency!
Time so switch to a better currency!
Or, the automobile, the industrial revolution, and a booming population through agriculture and medical improvements led to economic prosperity, despite a deadly plague.
It's a pretty hard case to make that a disease which disproportionately killed health 20-30 year-olds led to mass prosperity.
Given all the advancements which were happening in the early 20th century, I'm inclined to say that prosperity happened in SPITE of WWI and the Spanish Flu. Who knows where we would be, had we avoided two huge human catastrophes.
It's a pretty hard case to make that a disease which disproportionately killed health 20-30 year-olds led to mass prosperity.
Given all the advancements which were happening in the early 20th century, I'm inclined to say that prosperity happened in SPITE of WWI and the Spanish Flu. Who knows where we would be, had we avoided two huge human catastrophes.
> It's a pretty hard case to make that a disease which disproportionately killed health 20-30 year-olds led to mass prosperity.
That's exactly what happened during the black plague. It lead to the end of feudalism. A shortage of labor will absolutely boost the value of labor.
That's exactly what happened during the black plague. It lead to the end of feudalism. A shortage of labor will absolutely boost the value of labor.
I think this is questionable logic, the last statement I mean. The Black Death killed nearly half the total population of Europe across all age groups (in some regions and whole cities, it even wiped out 70% or more of their inhabitants. That level of life destruction creates an immense, definitive shortage of labor for the urgent needs of a devastated society. The 1918 pandemic killed tens of millions, but proportionally, this was a comparatively miniscule fraction of the world population and of the working population in the industrialized world of 1919 onward. Certainly not enough to heavily affect labor supply or cause massive changes in how working populations relate to their employers
I understand there's a pretty solid consensus that it did. In some places, serfdom effectively ended. But we don't have to guess. We can just look it up and find that people who know a lot more about it than us have come to those conclusions.
I think you misunderstood my previous comment. I don't at all question that the Black Death ended serfdom, or at least weakened it severely after so many dead. As I stated, I was questioning the application of this same chain of events and logic to the 1918 pandemic, for the population proportion reasons I already mentioned above.
Which is not what's happening with covid, if anything the opposite, with locked up and made all those young healthy people unemployed causing an increase in available labour
In modern terms - it might have caused a drop in total GDP - but it achieved growth in GDP per capita.
Not sure that's worth the cost of course.
Not sure that's worth the cost of course.
> Will the idea of big spending government also delivers the same outcome?
I don't know if that is the right lesson to learn. The great depression was largely caused by a stock market crash related to lack of regulation, and a drought (hello climate change). It was largely solved by big government wartime spending.
I don't know if that is the right lesson to learn. The great depression was largely caused by a stock market crash related to lack of regulation, and a drought (hello climate change). It was largely solved by big government wartime spending.
This might have been the case if the original Imperial College reports of several million deaths in the US and UK were accurate, highly concentrated among the aged which would have lead to large savings on healthcare and pension costs, as well as freeing up of large amounts of real estate for younger generations.
However in reality the deathtoll from COVID is scarcely distinguishable from regular influenza seasons. Only 0.06% of Sweden's population succumbed to COVID and their annual deaths are shaping up to be the same as prior years, for example. Similar situation in Germany.
However in reality the deathtoll from COVID is scarcely distinguishable from regular influenza seasons. Only 0.06% of Sweden's population succumbed to COVID and their annual deaths are shaping up to be the same as prior years, for example. Similar situation in Germany.
I have bad news for you all. This isn't just a phenomenon occurring in those far-off Asian countries...
It's sad to see such a history blind piece. Asian people have long accepted a strong state apparatus. The idea that this is something new for Asian people is pure propaganda. The current governments of Japan, Korea, China, &c were preceded by governments ultimately rooted in the Qin bureaucracy of 2200 years ago, which many scholars will argue is the first bureaucratic, impersonal state.
A strong state apparatus without accountability or a principle of transcendent law -- that is a far "bigger" government than any in Asia currently. Really, people in Asia are still getting used to a smaller government.
A strong state apparatus without accountability or a principle of transcendent law -- that is a far "bigger" government than any in Asia currently. Really, people in Asia are still getting used to a smaller government.
"Yes, Minister, but I didn’t expect you to do anything about it. You’ve never done anything before!" -- Sir Humphrey
Our Government (in Eastern Europe) has used the virus (COVID-19) to get loads amount of money from the EU and its citizens. Set price controls to push out private businesses, made health care workers lie[1] about cause of death because those hospitals have received financial aid from the EU (if the patients died from COVID-19), and so forth. You know the deal. The Government is benefiting a lot from this.
[1] Facebook is full of nurses coming forward with this, and I know some people working at the hospital.
[1] Facebook is full of nurses coming forward with this, and I know some people working at the hospital.
I don't usually go off on the deep end with conspiracies, and I don't believe COVID-19 was intentionally spread, but I do think the needed response to fully control the spread of a virus creates perverse incentives for governments. Especially governments that would like to disrupt other countries which have cultures that don't like to be told what to do by their own government.
COVID-19 didn't cause such trouble, but I imagine a more deadly virus could, and it could be very hard to trace the source. At the same time, I doubt this would be possible to fully control for the government that spread it, so it seems improbable too.
COVID-19 didn't cause such trouble, but I imagine a more deadly virus could, and it could be very hard to trace the source. At the same time, I doubt this would be possible to fully control for the government that spread it, so it seems improbable too.
> but I do think the needed response to fully control the spread of a virus creates perverse incentives for governments. Especially governments that would like to disrupt other countries which have cultures that don't like to be told what to do by their own government.
China, Russia and every other country has been given a wonderful blueprint for absolutely disrupting the US and really entire western order. The fact nobody seems to be talking about the national security implications of this virus and what our rivals or enemies have learned is frightening.
Can you imagine how fucked things would get if another virus struck the US right after we deal with Covid?
China, Russia and every other country has been given a wonderful blueprint for absolutely disrupting the US and really entire western order. The fact nobody seems to be talking about the national security implications of this virus and what our rivals or enemies have learned is frightening.
Can you imagine how fucked things would get if another virus struck the US right after we deal with Covid?
> China, Russia and every other country has been given a wonderful blueprint for absolutely disrupting the US and really entire western order.
Probably not. Notice something interesting about COVID - countries that were scared of SARS did fine, countries that weren't scared of SARS suffered.
If you chart out the response to COVID in the West it is probably something like disease growing exponentially, response growing linearly. The mobilisation of resources over the last 11 months has been staggering. If another virus appeared now it would get demolished because everyone is already on high alert. The regulatory paths for emergency tests would be exercised recently, and it seems likely that the stupid issue where the US government basically banned private testing in the first month of the response is resolved.
If it is contained early, COVID is experienced quite differently to if it is allowed to become endemic. Really, if we replayed this pandemic but people understood the risk of air travel w.r.t. disease it would go completely differently. It'll be decades before people relax again.
Probably not. Notice something interesting about COVID - countries that were scared of SARS did fine, countries that weren't scared of SARS suffered.
If you chart out the response to COVID in the West it is probably something like disease growing exponentially, response growing linearly. The mobilisation of resources over the last 11 months has been staggering. If another virus appeared now it would get demolished because everyone is already on high alert. The regulatory paths for emergency tests would be exercised recently, and it seems likely that the stupid issue where the US government basically banned private testing in the first month of the response is resolved.
If it is contained early, COVID is experienced quite differently to if it is allowed to become endemic. Really, if we replayed this pandemic but people understood the risk of air travel w.r.t. disease it would go completely differently. It'll be decades before people relax again.
What I've learned is the game theory of this. Isolating early just means you are lonely longer, because many will defect and air travel and live it up, until the flights stop going.
If the government doesn't take decisive action early, then I will chose camp defector rather than camp sucker.
If the government doesn't take decisive action early, then I will chose camp defector rather than camp sucker.
I don’t see it. What is the blueprint? Release a deadly virus? I think we have always known how bad that would be and there are international laws against it.
the international laws can't contain a virus outbreak, people still get murdered by guns when there's laws against using guns, the scale of the damage to economy and security to enemy nation has made this too lucrative to pass for any strategist
What I’m trying to say is that this isn’t a new strategy people have not considered before. Biological warfare is a well known term.
Smart governments would be using this pandemic as a natural experiment on their biowarfare preparations.
guram11(1)
Yes - while we have to be careful of making sure not to support the anti-mask/'covid is fake' hysteria because it really is a time to act in unison ... there is a 100% chance governments around the world are going to use this time to do things they might not otherwise do and we have to be careful.
And I mean good and bad governments, with good and bad ideas.
It's hard being in government, you never get to do the things you want, it's a long, compromising grind. There's no money for anything so either you raise taxes (scary), take on more debt (also scary) or print money (scary).
The conservative government in the UK and liberal government in Canada have made major green announcements, a lot of this is opportunistic politiking.
The 'Modern Monetary Theorists' ('debts don't matter' people) are definitely pushing hard at this time.
Because every central bank and government is going into full on Keynsian spending, they're likely going to want to keep on doing that, and not reverting to the 'regular economy'. Power is hard to reliquish.
In Canada, pre-covid, we saw the average house price increase in value more than the average wage in the country. That is point blank crazy. That is a weird financialisation of the economy that we don't yet understand - inflation in a fixed asset that doesn't increase productivity.
Even the US Fed said just a few days ago 'It's a New World Orders'.
People should be spooked because with all the flux and the rules being re-written there will be power grabs, and just because people think they are benevolent, doesn't mean they are. Surely, a common denominator in humanity is the propensity for people to make power grabs when they can.
And I mean good and bad governments, with good and bad ideas.
It's hard being in government, you never get to do the things you want, it's a long, compromising grind. There's no money for anything so either you raise taxes (scary), take on more debt (also scary) or print money (scary).
The conservative government in the UK and liberal government in Canada have made major green announcements, a lot of this is opportunistic politiking.
The 'Modern Monetary Theorists' ('debts don't matter' people) are definitely pushing hard at this time.
Because every central bank and government is going into full on Keynsian spending, they're likely going to want to keep on doing that, and not reverting to the 'regular economy'. Power is hard to reliquish.
In Canada, pre-covid, we saw the average house price increase in value more than the average wage in the country. That is point blank crazy. That is a weird financialisation of the economy that we don't yet understand - inflation in a fixed asset that doesn't increase productivity.
Even the US Fed said just a few days ago 'It's a New World Orders'.
People should be spooked because with all the flux and the rules being re-written there will be power grabs, and just because people think they are benevolent, doesn't mean they are. Surely, a common denominator in humanity is the propensity for people to make power grabs when they can.
> In Canada, pre-covid, we saw the average house price increase in value more than the average wage in the country. That is point blank crazy. That is a weird financialisation of the economy that we don't yet understand - inflation in a fixed asset that doesn't increase productivity.
This is a result of an overly conservative investment landscape and out of control immigration quotas. Housing is used as a way to park money in a jurisdiction that has more predictable laws.
This is a result of an overly conservative investment landscape and out of control immigration quotas. Housing is used as a way to park money in a jurisdiction that has more predictable laws.
It's mostly very low interest rates, longer term mortgages, aggressive selling on the part of banks, and the 'belief' that housing 'cannot go down'.
Just like when interest rates are higher in one country than the next, money flows there.
ROI is higher in housing than other sectors, money flows there.
Foreign buyers and mass immigration are driving factors, but I don't think the primary issue.
Another way of putting it, is that real productivity is way down, and the real economy is in deflation - stuff is getting cheaper, and the opportunities to create value are fewer and far between, the only places left are the stock market and housing etc..
Just like when interest rates are higher in one country than the next, money flows there.
ROI is higher in housing than other sectors, money flows there.
Foreign buyers and mass immigration are driving factors, but I don't think the primary issue.
Another way of putting it, is that real productivity is way down, and the real economy is in deflation - stuff is getting cheaper, and the opportunities to create value are fewer and far between, the only places left are the stock market and housing etc..
> longer term mortgages
These exist because prices have jumped up so much relative to income, so it's a side effect of speculation really.
> Another way of putting it, is that real productivity is way down, and the real economy is in deflation - stuff is getting cheaper, and the opportunities to create value are fewer and far between, the only places left are the stock market and housing etc..
That worries me.
I'd rather prefer growth to come from new IP than magic assets that can never go down.
These exist because prices have jumped up so much relative to income, so it's a side effect of speculation really.
> Another way of putting it, is that real productivity is way down, and the real economy is in deflation - stuff is getting cheaper, and the opportunities to create value are fewer and far between, the only places left are the stock market and housing etc..
That worries me.
I'd rather prefer growth to come from new IP than magic assets that can never go down.
> That is point blank crazy. That is a weird financialisation of the economy that we don't yet understand - inflation in a fixed asset that doesn't increase productivity.
This isn’t weird, it’s simple supply and demand. Nobody wants to build housing and people still need a place to live so they have to sacrifice more and more of their income to fight over the limited good space.
This isn’t weird, it’s simple supply and demand. Nobody wants to build housing and people still need a place to live so they have to sacrifice more and more of their income to fight over the limited good space.
"Nobody wants to build housing "
Construction is 11% of the Canadian economy, and it's not just a function of housing shortage.
"It's supply and demand"
Technically, but that's not the best way to describe it.
This is not 'more people fewer homes'
It's mostly due to low interest rates, and, the very strong expectation there will be increased value. This leads to explosive valuations. Add in some foreign interest, banks making loans for ever longer periods, and it gets into an ugly cycle.
It's very, very bad for the economy to get into this state because money pours into assets that don't increase productivity.
Construction is 11% of the Canadian economy, and it's not just a function of housing shortage.
"It's supply and demand"
Technically, but that's not the best way to describe it.
This is not 'more people fewer homes'
It's mostly due to low interest rates, and, the very strong expectation there will be increased value. This leads to explosive valuations. Add in some foreign interest, banks making loans for ever longer periods, and it gets into an ugly cycle.
It's very, very bad for the economy to get into this state because money pours into assets that don't increase productivity.
Allowing non citizens to own real estate in your country is a grave strategic error that has not yet revealed itself. In essence you open yourself up to foreign powers manipulating the price of your housing and industry markets and thus the rest of the economy as well. The fools!
I don't think that the people buying property in Van are at all interested in manipulating anything - they just want to get their money out and into a safe harbour.
It's a 'mistake' because of how it affects property prices.
There is a war between the middle class and the working class that nobody wants to talk about because it's ultra-unpopulist.
The middle class are the most likely to vote, but the working class deserve are sympathy?
Not at the cost of my massively increasing home!
It's a 'mistake' because of how it affects property prices.
There is a war between the middle class and the working class that nobody wants to talk about because it's ultra-unpopulist.
The middle class are the most likely to vote, but the working class deserve are sympathy?
Not at the cost of my massively increasing home!
> Allowing non citizens to own real estate in your country is a grave strategic error that has not yet revealed itself.
It's not so much owning real estate but real estate with the sole purpose of investing/using it as a way to park assets.
It's not so much owning real estate but real estate with the sole purpose of investing/using it as a way to park assets.
Don't forget, we just went through the same thing back in 2001, as it relates to governmental power grabs, and it is pretty much why we are where we are today.
Right, there is opportunistic behavior, always.
Conspiracy theorists misconstrue independent opportunist agents as centrally planned competence.
They heavily overweigh competence.
Conspiracy theorists misconstrue independent opportunist agents as centrally planned competence.
They heavily overweigh competence.
"Never let a good crisis go to waste”
~ Winston Churchill
~ Winston Churchill
I think if that were to happen it would require a secret virus that there is already a vaccine for that could be used by the chosen few to protect themselves.
Its interesting to me when Chinese govt told everyone in Jan/Feb they have the virus under control, much of the world relaxed, but its neighbours Korea/Vietnam/Taiwan/Japan all knew to ramp up response and not believe them.
The US and several other European countries banned all travelers from China during that time.
South Korea and Singapore didn’t ban Chinese travelers at all. And I think Japan and Vietnam only banned travelers from specific provinces.
South Korea and Singapore didn’t ban Chinese travelers at all. And I think Japan and Vietnam only banned travelers from specific provinces.
What do you have in mind by "telling everyone they have the virus under control"? I don't recall any such communication from China.
If you mean the cover-up or data fudging accusations, I highly recommend the four part series in Quillette that examines the merit of these charges. It's very long, however.
https://quillette.com/category/covid-19/china-syndrome-serie...
Here's the Twitter thread where the author introduced the series and gave some helpful backgrounds:
https://twitter.com/phl43/status/1298053847844368386
As he says:
"Again, I know that many of you are skeptical, but this essay has required a ridiculous amount of work and I'm really confident about the conclusions I reach, so I hope you will read it with an open-mind. I will post the other parts in this thread as they are published."
If you mean the cover-up or data fudging accusations, I highly recommend the four part series in Quillette that examines the merit of these charges. It's very long, however.
https://quillette.com/category/covid-19/china-syndrome-serie...
Here's the Twitter thread where the author introduced the series and gave some helpful backgrounds:
https://twitter.com/phl43/status/1298053847844368386
As he says:
"Again, I know that many of you are skeptical, but this essay has required a ridiculous amount of work and I'm really confident about the conclusions I reach, so I hope you will read it with an open-mind. I will post the other parts in this thread as they are published."
Refuting it shouldn’t require 4 essays though unless there are a bunch of mental gymnastics involved that the author has to sell you on?
What is the tldr? China didn’t do it on purpose and they were just grossly incompetent? They didn’t share data because it was all in word perfect files and they couldn’t convert it?
What is the tldr? China didn’t do it on purpose and they were just grossly incompetent? They didn’t share data because it was all in word perfect files and they couldn’t convert it?
I strongly recommend giving that Twitter thread a look (click the "see more tweets" to expand it), where author also explains why he had to write so many words. By "mental gymnastics" I assume you mean "needlessly drawn out argumentation/reasoning". The essays contain very little of that and are densely packed with arguments and links. Only exception is in Past IV where he gets technical explaining why China's data does not violate Benford's law as some have suggested. The tldr is that there is little evidence to support the charge of "deliberate cover-up" during initial outbreak or subsequent data fudging.
I've long said a surveillance state is the largest possible government.
meanwhile asians think white people are nuts to be willing to die from covid because "freedom"...
you're entitled to your opinion too, eh?
you're entitled to your opinion too, eh?
Meanwhile, elsewhere, there is discussion of the genetic factors and Asians are apparently more likely to be genetically vulnerable.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25222164
"Different strokes for different folks" often grows out of differences in their personal reality that make different choices make more sense to them.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25222164
"Different strokes for different folks" often grows out of differences in their personal reality that make different choices make more sense to them.
The idea of a "big government" is a spook. In my country, "big government" is a bad word meaning taxes on corporations, any sort of industry regulation and breaking up monopolies.
When I think of "big government", I imagine a militarized police force, lack of access to medical care, pervasive surveillance, unchecked imperialism, billionaires writing their own rules and to tie a bow on the top: a propaganda wing to manufacture the consent of the governed.
If you think what I wrote about above can only happen in "authoritarian" or, gasp, "communist" countries, you are certainly mistaken.
When I think of "big government", I imagine a militarized police force, lack of access to medical care, pervasive surveillance, unchecked imperialism, billionaires writing their own rules and to tie a bow on the top: a propaganda wing to manufacture the consent of the governed.
If you think what I wrote about above can only happen in "authoritarian" or, gasp, "communist" countries, you are certainly mistaken.
I think a few of your boogeyman are out of date.
The militarized police force was bested by a couple hundred anarchists and no charges even filed.
The lack of access to medical care just spent $6 billion buy vaccines for everyone in the country.
The unchecked imperialism just drew down all their troops and is achieving real progress towards normalized peaceful relations.
A few of the others are quite on point though.
The militarized police force was bested by a couple hundred anarchists and no charges even filed.
The lack of access to medical care just spent $6 billion buy vaccines for everyone in the country.
The unchecked imperialism just drew down all their troops and is achieving real progress towards normalized peaceful relations.
A few of the others are quite on point though.
> The militarized police force was bested by a couple hundred anarchists and no charges even filed.
Source? A couple hundred anarchists were not there to "best" Officers Jonathan Mattingly, Brett Hankison and Myles Cosgrove when they shot 32 times at Breonna Taylor in her own home.[1] It is not just a few "bad apples" when the whole tree was planted to enforce and uphold slavery.[2]
> The lack of access to medical care just spent $6 billion buy vaccines for everyone in the country.
We funded the development of these vaccine candidates, yet it seems like we are going to have pay to out of pocket if we actually want to use them. If we already payed for it, under what circumstance should we not already have it guaranteed for everyone?
On another note: losing a job should not mean losing access to healthcare. Healthcare is a human right.
> The unchecked imperialism just drew down all their troops and is achieving real progress towards normalized peaceful relations.
Really? All their troops? This one really puzzles me, especially since my country currently has its hands deep in at least two South-American country's democratic processes.[3][4]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Breonna_Taylor
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_patrol
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gideon_(2020)
[4] https://theintercept.com/2020/07/23/the-u-s-supported-coup-i...
Source? A couple hundred anarchists were not there to "best" Officers Jonathan Mattingly, Brett Hankison and Myles Cosgrove when they shot 32 times at Breonna Taylor in her own home.[1] It is not just a few "bad apples" when the whole tree was planted to enforce and uphold slavery.[2]
> The lack of access to medical care just spent $6 billion buy vaccines for everyone in the country.
We funded the development of these vaccine candidates, yet it seems like we are going to have pay to out of pocket if we actually want to use them. If we already payed for it, under what circumstance should we not already have it guaranteed for everyone?
On another note: losing a job should not mean losing access to healthcare. Healthcare is a human right.
> The unchecked imperialism just drew down all their troops and is achieving real progress towards normalized peaceful relations.
Really? All their troops? This one really puzzles me, especially since my country currently has its hands deep in at least two South-American country's democratic processes.[3][4]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Breonna_Taylor
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_patrol
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gideon_(2020)
[4] https://theintercept.com/2020/07/23/the-u-s-supported-coup-i...
> The militarized police force was bested by a couple hundred anarchists and no charges even filed.
The police funding was increased instead of decreased as the movement demanded. The policy goals of people in the streets were absolutely thwarted and the police continue to do whatever they want.
> The lack of access to medical care just spent $6 billion buy vaccines for everyone in the country.
Congrats, you get one (1) vaccine so they can keep making money off your labor. If you have a stroke or an accident, that's on you.
> The unchecked imperialism just drew down all their troops and is achieving real progress towards normalized peaceful relations.
The US military has "lily pads" in over a hundred (and maybe over two hundred) places in the world and patrols the high seas. The oil supply is secured and various coups are funded or otherwise supported, for example in Bolivia which has just defeated the latest attempt to secure private control of the lithium fields.
The police funding was increased instead of decreased as the movement demanded. The policy goals of people in the streets were absolutely thwarted and the police continue to do whatever they want.
> The lack of access to medical care just spent $6 billion buy vaccines for everyone in the country.
Congrats, you get one (1) vaccine so they can keep making money off your labor. If you have a stroke or an accident, that's on you.
> The unchecked imperialism just drew down all their troops and is achieving real progress towards normalized peaceful relations.
The US military has "lily pads" in over a hundred (and maybe over two hundred) places in the world and patrols the high seas. The oil supply is secured and various coups are funded or otherwise supported, for example in Bolivia which has just defeated the latest attempt to secure private control of the lithium fields.
As a side note, South Korea was having fairly good success with it's UBI programs before the pandemic hit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbWv_1NbWyw
To put it other way, "Your government shouldn't have enough power to fight an epidemic, because that's too much power" has never been an actual argument in Korea, and (I believe) most of Asia as well. We don't want a small, underpowered government. We want a properly supervised government that uses its power to protect people.