Why Governments Fail(persuasion.community)
persuasion.community
Why Governments Fail
https://www.persuasion.community/p/-why-governments-fail
127 comments
The problem is that nobody cares about corruption, or the so-called "lobbying". Big companies get their way at the expense of regular citizens meanwhile police and other agencies are busy enforcing big pharma monopoly on drugs. Most governments run until they are exposed and people are mad enough to march on the streets, or they simply run out of "their" monopoly money.
To improve that we need a ruthless agency that will remove corruption from politics once and for all.
This misses the actual mechanism by which political corruption works. Lobbying is merely any person going in to press their interests with their representatives. Where large, monied interests rig the game is because they run election campaigns and implant narratives in the media.
In other words, the mechanism by which lobbyists get their way is by weaponizing regular citizens into voting in their interests. It's marketing and mass manipulation rather than the "quid pro quo" corruption people imagine it is.
In other words, the mechanism by which lobbyists get their way is by weaponizing regular citizens into voting in their interests. It's marketing and mass manipulation rather than the "quid pro quo" corruption people imagine it is.
I think there is a lot more quid pro quo than you think. Lobbiests are NOT usually just regular people. They're usually paid agents.
I think he made a distinction between lobbying which anyone can do and a lobbyist which is a career whose sole goal is to do nothing but lobbying.
Yes and no. There are lots of public interest lobbying organizations out there as well. For example, I donate to one that's just focused on making cities more bike friendly. I used to work for one focused on improving how the Census counts people. There's a galaxy of nitpicky, nerdy stuff that's supported by very nerdy volunteers and part-time lobbying efforts (and usually a bit of pro-bono work from one of the big lobbying firms).
But even though they outnumber the "big industry" lobbys they just don't have the money, connections, or influence.
But even though they outnumber the "big industry" lobbys they just don't have the money, connections, or influence.
Put more simply, lobbyists are just the bag men. They facilitate payoffs that are laundered through junkets, book deal advances, insider trading opportunities, and who knows what else. The lobbying firms certainly have little or no idea why the proposed bill they are selling was crafted.
It’s a sobering realization that none of our elected legislators are competent to actually write laws. Occasionally you’ll see an example where they’ll have a staff attorney draft something for the purpose of political grandstanding, but that’s a sideshow compared to the amount of legislation written by the people with the real power.
The dynamic of how the sausage is made in DC is why, incidentally, Trump had to go. For all his many many faults, one thing he did right was bring buying legal privilege in the form of laws or federal regulations to a grinding halt.
It’s a sobering realization that none of our elected legislators are competent to actually write laws. Occasionally you’ll see an example where they’ll have a staff attorney draft something for the purpose of political grandstanding, but that’s a sideshow compared to the amount of legislation written by the people with the real power.
The dynamic of how the sausage is made in DC is why, incidentally, Trump had to go. For all his many many faults, one thing he did right was bring buying legal privilege in the form of laws or federal regulations to a grinding halt.
> It’s a sobering realization that none of our elected legislators are competent to actually write laws. Occasionally you’ll see an example where they’ll have a staff attorney draft something for the purpose of political grandstanding, but that’s a sideshow compared to the amount of legislation written by the people with the real power.
Even if they wanted to, they couldn't. Their staff offices don't have the payroll budgets to pay a decent analyst a living wage so their offices are staffed by the rich children of donors who can afford to be paid a pittance while living in one of the highest cost-of-living metros in the country. Smart legislative analysts are expensive, but none of them can afford to pay off student loans and raise a family at the payscales available to them. So they end up going into advocacy, big law, or lobbying once they cut their teeth on the Hill.
Even if they wanted to, they couldn't. Their staff offices don't have the payroll budgets to pay a decent analyst a living wage so their offices are staffed by the rich children of donors who can afford to be paid a pittance while living in one of the highest cost-of-living metros in the country. Smart legislative analysts are expensive, but none of them can afford to pay off student loans and raise a family at the payscales available to them. So they end up going into advocacy, big law, or lobbying once they cut their teeth on the Hill.
That’s more strong evidence that the system really doesn’t work as advertised. If it did then the people that supposedly have the power of the purse and control trillions of dollars in spending might vote themselves enough budget to do their jobs.
They might, but a significant chunk of that body (and of the electorate) is philosophically opposed to the idea of them doing their jobs.
Also fundraising, public communications, and case-work are all bigger determinants of them getting reelected than legislative acumen or policy-making skill so big surprise what kinds of people the job selects for.
Also fundraising, public communications, and case-work are all bigger determinants of them getting reelected than legislative acumen or policy-making skill so big surprise what kinds of people the job selects for.
Why do the people who control an organization that can vote trillions of dollars a year into existence need to fundraise?
Philosophically opposed, whatever that means, is an obvious fig leaf. The system observably can’t actually be functioning as advertised. Whatever the conditions of the actual operationally descriptive system are, they select for people who vote as they’re told in exchange for a minuscule fraction of the loot.
Philosophically opposed, whatever that means, is an obvious fig leaf. The system observably can’t actually be functioning as advertised. Whatever the conditions of the actual operationally descriptive system are, they select for people who vote as they’re told in exchange for a minuscule fraction of the loot.
They certainly voted themselves out of the legislative work of actually understanding technology.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Technology_Assessm...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Technology_Assessm...
Yeah - I basically agree with this framing.
I think Lessig's talk is the best summary of this: https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_...
Lobbying itself is fine - we want experts with deep domain expertise interacting with law makers. We just don't want them also funding their campaigns.
I think Lessig's talk is the best summary of this: https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_...
Lobbying itself is fine - we want experts with deep domain expertise interacting with law makers. We just don't want them also funding their campaigns.
I must have watched a different ted talk he did on the same subject. I think it was called "the green primary"
> weaponizing regular citizens into voting in their interests. It's marketing and mass manipulation
Which means there is a problem even if the money never even touches a politician's / campaign's bank account. It's too easy for a politician to say something like "If elected, I will remove burdensome regulations on airlines" as a dog whistle for "I want the airline industry to buy ads that attack my opponent".
The only obvious ways to prevent that are to somehow prove that the politician coordinated their position with the industry (which seems impossible) or banning companies from ever expressing a political opinion (which apparently some politicians would like to achieve, but only those political opinions that they disagree with).
Fortunately there does exist one slightly less obvious way of preventing this, which doesn't require nullifying all the freedom of speech principles of the First Amendment. What is needed is a law (and probably an enabling Amendment) which limits political advertisements to N dollars per person per year (with N being 1% of the median US income).
Importantly, other forms of political speech and expression wouldn't be restricted. This way the law is targeted at the specific loophole that lobbying exploits, which is that people can be bombarded with a message against their wishes, generating an "illusory truth effect". People can still go out and find information, or march in the street to spread awareness of a political cause, but having more money wouldn't give you a greater ability to get your message in front of people who aren't interested in it.
The idea above is basically the core of CFR28 which is explained more in the relevant Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_in_the...
Which means there is a problem even if the money never even touches a politician's / campaign's bank account. It's too easy for a politician to say something like "If elected, I will remove burdensome regulations on airlines" as a dog whistle for "I want the airline industry to buy ads that attack my opponent".
The only obvious ways to prevent that are to somehow prove that the politician coordinated their position with the industry (which seems impossible) or banning companies from ever expressing a political opinion (which apparently some politicians would like to achieve, but only those political opinions that they disagree with).
Fortunately there does exist one slightly less obvious way of preventing this, which doesn't require nullifying all the freedom of speech principles of the First Amendment. What is needed is a law (and probably an enabling Amendment) which limits political advertisements to N dollars per person per year (with N being 1% of the median US income).
Importantly, other forms of political speech and expression wouldn't be restricted. This way the law is targeted at the specific loophole that lobbying exploits, which is that people can be bombarded with a message against their wishes, generating an "illusory truth effect". People can still go out and find information, or march in the street to spread awareness of a political cause, but having more money wouldn't give you a greater ability to get your message in front of people who aren't interested in it.
The idea above is basically the core of CFR28 which is explained more in the relevant Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_in_the...
>a ruthless agency that will remove corruption from politics once and for all.
Used to be called a free press, until we allowed massive mergers creating single companies with control of a massive media market share, and journalism trade unions to be eliminated, leaving journalists no choice but to cover what they're told.
Used to be called a free press, until we allowed massive mergers creating single companies with control of a massive media market share, and journalism trade unions to be eliminated, leaving journalists no choice but to cover what they're told.
I think you're missing the other half of the problem, which is that people actively seek out "journalism" that confirms their world view, regardless of whether it is true.
Despite the mergers, there are still news outlets that produce accurate and in depth reporting, and of course it's possible to consume news from multiple opposing sources, but most people either don't care about the news or only care if it gives them a reason to hate the other side.
Despite the mergers, there are still news outlets that produce accurate and in depth reporting, and of course it's possible to consume news from multiple opposing sources, but most people either don't care about the news or only care if it gives them a reason to hate the other side.
This is only a problem for hype-based ad funded news. Our news is so bad today because it's ad funded, instead of subscription based. With a subscription, you read a source you trust and that source has an incentive to keep you trusting it by giving you interesting information.
By contrast, ad based news gets most of it's revenue from vitality, shares, and clicks. They create hyperbolic headlines aimed to create an emotional response (usually highly negative) in order to induce people to click in a rage.
By contrast, ad based news gets most of it's revenue from vitality, shares, and clicks. They create hyperbolic headlines aimed to create an emotional response (usually highly negative) in order to induce people to click in a rage.
One could argue that subscription based news orgs are incentivesed to provide you news which would ensure that you stay subscribed. For some people these news would have to be factual, but, for IMO most people news which are either not fully factual, or omit some information would be "preferred" as long as they (the news) conform to the opinion of the subscriber.
People have their biases, and people like to be validated. I agree. I just don't believe that people satisfying their biases would have much of a market in primarily subscriber-oriented news. Even todays subscription news is driven by clicks and shares in a misguided effort to compete with free news.
There's a funny joke about that.
"Where do rich people hide their wealth in the West?"
"In tax havens."
"And where do they hide it in Eastern Europe?"
"In plain sight".
A free press won't do squat if there is no consequence for the behavior they expose. If neither the public nor the courts punish such behavior having a free press cover it will amount to very little.
"Where do rich people hide their wealth in the West?"
"In tax havens."
"And where do they hide it in Eastern Europe?"
"In plain sight".
A free press won't do squat if there is no consequence for the behavior they expose. If neither the public nor the courts punish such behavior having a free press cover it will amount to very little.
In places where press is licensed, it is not free - because they must report in a certain way to not lose license - it also includes being nice for whomever is currently on top. I've seen here in the UK where Russia Today reported a story that should have collapsed the government, but none of the other main stream media investigated the story until few months later where the party has concocted a plausible explanation why something happened. Between that RT was given a warning that they'll lose license for interference in UK affairs... Madness.
The press requires a license in the UK? Foreign press? Really?
(American here, so I don't know. But the idea seems insane to me.)
(American here, so I don't know. But the idea seems insane to me.)
Media has perhaps the most competing firms of any nationwide industry. I don't understand this take, and I see it a lot. There are probably 20 relatively trustworthy outlets through which you can consume US news.
That is a lot. Look at the competitive landscape in other industries. There are basically 4 tire companies, 4 or 5 home builders, 6 or so mobile handset manufacturers, 4 or 5 US based airlines... You get the picture. And all of those industries are still decently competitive.
That is a lot. Look at the competitive landscape in other industries. There are basically 4 tire companies, 4 or 5 home builders, 6 or so mobile handset manufacturers, 4 or 5 US based airlines... You get the picture. And all of those industries are still decently competitive.
Lobbying is a form of self-defense against the real corruption - a government that has assigned itself the power to interfere in our day-to-day lives. Most people today take it for granted that "regulations" must exist because they solve some actual problem.
Usually, the "problem" they exist to solve is that some government functionary wants to look like they're "doing something", which is itself a form of corruption. Regulations also commonly serve ideologically-motivated belief that some faction has managed to force on everyone else. Everything else that is "corrupt" about proscriptive regulations follows from the fact that the belief in proscriptive regulations is a corrupt belief (and illegal under the US Constitution as it was actually written).
Usually, the "problem" they exist to solve is that some government functionary wants to look like they're "doing something", which is itself a form of corruption. Regulations also commonly serve ideologically-motivated belief that some faction has managed to force on everyone else. Everything else that is "corrupt" about proscriptive regulations follows from the fact that the belief in proscriptive regulations is a corrupt belief (and illegal under the US Constitution as it was actually written).
Like child-labor laws? Public education? Your comment has a point, but it is quite black and white.
Governments are a service that people buy, which we have collectively voted on, agreeing that there are things that a purely corporation driven society would not do.
Governments are a service that people buy, which we have collectively voted on, agreeing that there are things that a purely corporation driven society would not do.
> Usually, the "problem" they exist to solve is that some government functionary wants to look like they're "doing something",
I tend to disagree. Most regulations address some problem, and in fact, the rules around changing regulations are strict enough that most of Trump's appointees' attempts to do away with regulations were ultimately reversed by the courts.
Sometimes, the problem no longer applies. But, I don't just want to disagree. So I'll tell you what. Throw 3 or 4 regulations out there you think are insane, and we'll see if I can explain a real problem for at least 1. I'd bet I could with a single regulation chosen at random, but your choices will be anything but random.
> serve ideologically-motivated belief that some faction has managed to force on everyone else
This one is true. Like, I believe murder is wrong and want it to be outlawed. But there are tons of other beliefs - e.g. rich people should a higher percentage of their income - that are ideological as well as pragmatic.
I tend to disagree. Most regulations address some problem, and in fact, the rules around changing regulations are strict enough that most of Trump's appointees' attempts to do away with regulations were ultimately reversed by the courts.
Sometimes, the problem no longer applies. But, I don't just want to disagree. So I'll tell you what. Throw 3 or 4 regulations out there you think are insane, and we'll see if I can explain a real problem for at least 1. I'd bet I could with a single regulation chosen at random, but your choices will be anything but random.
> serve ideologically-motivated belief that some faction has managed to force on everyone else
This one is true. Like, I believe murder is wrong and want it to be outlawed. But there are tons of other beliefs - e.g. rich people should a higher percentage of their income - that are ideological as well as pragmatic.
Just for clarity, it seems that when you say regulations, you're really talking about laws.
Specifically of the Administrative form (read: delegated to the executive in their definition by Congress)
These are the types of regulations that can change on a moments notice, and that the American citizen has no knob to turn to influence once the paper to establish the Agency in question is inked.
Executive lawmaking was never supposed to be a thing.
These are the types of regulations that can change on a moments notice, and that the American citizen has no knob to turn to influence once the paper to establish the Agency in question is inked.
Executive lawmaking was never supposed to be a thing.
While I share your concern with the legislative branch handing over its lawmaking authority to the executive branch, the rules really don't change on a moment's notice. There is a defined rule making process which all federal agencies must follow, which includes a significant public comment period. The real problem is that regular people don't have time to monitor notices of proposed rule making or submit comments in the right way. So the process ends up being dominated by lobbyists, special interest groups, and unaccountable bureaucrats who are pushing their own agendas.
It's not a problem! Maybe it is a problem but China is even more corrupt!! They're gonna fall apart any day now! We don't have to be worry about ourselves look at China!!!
And what is to stop or check that ruthless agency when it is corrupted?
It is a fundamental attribute of power that it corrupts, and any agency with the power to decide what is corrupt and enforce against other agencies /government bodies their idea of corruption - is pretty much all powerful no?
It is a fundamental attribute of power that it corrupts, and any agency with the power to decide what is corrupt and enforce against other agencies /government bodies their idea of corruption - is pretty much all powerful no?
There's a lot in here. I was going to make some quotes and comment about some of this, but it's a pretty diverse set of topics.
The main thing is that I didn't see a solid definition on how a failing government is defined or a concrete connection between that and the topics covered. It seems to be Q&A about a bunch of loosely affiliated topics.
The main thing is that I didn't see a solid definition on how a failing government is defined or a concrete connection between that and the topics covered. It seems to be Q&A about a bunch of loosely affiliated topics.
The discussion is a bit all over the place. The main points are that EU failed vaccination, and US failed covid testing (Statista disagrees https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104645/covid19-testing-...) , as well as having a decline of innovation and movement (disagrees here, people moved everywhere during covid, and US came up with tons of effective vaccines)
It's pretty hilarious both ignored discussing the current failing government: China.
- Came up with a 50% effective vaccine sinovac, and forces its citizens to take it
- Wolf warrior politics has infuriated almost every democratic countries on Earth, and alienated China. When Merkel steps down in Sept, the Green party candidate is most likely to succeed. And the newcomer will act tough against China and Russia
- Ballooning debt (they don't own global currency, unlike US), declining marriage/birth rate, middle income trap, unrest in many provinces
- The CCP is so insecure that they banned broadcast of oscars because of Chloe Zhao, because she mentioned CCP as failing one time in 2013
It's pretty hilarious both ignored discussing the current failing government: China.
- Came up with a 50% effective vaccine sinovac, and forces its citizens to take it
- Wolf warrior politics has infuriated almost every democratic countries on Earth, and alienated China. When Merkel steps down in Sept, the Green party candidate is most likely to succeed. And the newcomer will act tough against China and Russia
- Ballooning debt (they don't own global currency, unlike US), declining marriage/birth rate, middle income trap, unrest in many provinces
- The CCP is so insecure that they banned broadcast of oscars because of Chloe Zhao, because she mentioned CCP as failing one time in 2013
> Ballooning debt
What does the debt buy them? If it buys them increased growth why even care? Assuming you can grow forever, you can get into infinite debt.
What does the debt buy them? If it buys them increased growth why even care? Assuming you can grow forever, you can get into infinite debt.
> Came up with a 50% effective vaccine sinovac, and forces its citizens to take it
is this worse than not having your own capacity to manufacture vaccine and having to beg other countries for vaccines? 50% efficacy is for transmission prevention, however when you consider effectiveness against deaths and hospitalization, it's >90%
> Wolf warrior politics has infuriated almost every democratic countries on Earth, and alienated China. When Merkel steps down in Sept, the Green party candidate is most likely to succeed. And the newcomer will act tough against China and Russia
oh god forbid a country standing up for its own interest.
> Ballooning debt (they don't own global currency, unlike US), declining marriage/birth rate, middle income trap, unrest in many provinces
something that's been touted for the past 30+ years. can we just wait until it happens?
> The CCP is so insecure that they banned broadcast of oscars because of Chloe Zhao, because she mentioned CCP as failing one time in 2013
funny that indian government asked twitter to remove anything critical of its handling over COVID, with 350k daily cases, but they are democratic so they get a pass. no this isn't whataboutism, this is pointing out the double standard.
is this worse than not having your own capacity to manufacture vaccine and having to beg other countries for vaccines? 50% efficacy is for transmission prevention, however when you consider effectiveness against deaths and hospitalization, it's >90%
> Wolf warrior politics has infuriated almost every democratic countries on Earth, and alienated China. When Merkel steps down in Sept, the Green party candidate is most likely to succeed. And the newcomer will act tough against China and Russia
oh god forbid a country standing up for its own interest.
> Ballooning debt (they don't own global currency, unlike US), declining marriage/birth rate, middle income trap, unrest in many provinces
something that's been touted for the past 30+ years. can we just wait until it happens?
> The CCP is so insecure that they banned broadcast of oscars because of Chloe Zhao, because she mentioned CCP as failing one time in 2013
funny that indian government asked twitter to remove anything critical of its handling over COVID, with 350k daily cases, but they are democratic so they get a pass. no this isn't whataboutism, this is pointing out the double standard.
The Indian government hasn't gotten a pass, they are being widely criticized in international news and social media. But there are significant difference in degree. China clearly is far worse on censorship and punishes dissent more harshly.
> funny that indian government asked twitter to remove anything critical of its handling over COVID, with 350k daily cases, but they are democratic so they get a pass. no this isn't whataboutism, this is pointing out the double standard.
a. as the other comment pointed out - they aren't getting a pass on this. b. Multiple news agencies reporting on failures of the government's response to the second wave of COVID (and as usual the government is reacting by clamping down on the louder voices - as they did with the farmer protests) c. the religious nationalism that embodies the current right-wing government of India has been a subject of op-eds for the past couple of years (not criticised loudly enough IMO)
a. as the other comment pointed out - they aren't getting a pass on this. b. Multiple news agencies reporting on failures of the government's response to the second wave of COVID (and as usual the government is reacting by clamping down on the louder voices - as they did with the farmer protests) c. the religious nationalism that embodies the current right-wing government of India has been a subject of op-eds for the past couple of years (not criticised loudly enough IMO)
> "The CCP is so insecure that they banned broadcast of oscars because of Chloe Zhao, because she mentioned CCP as failing one time in 2013"
They're even here downvoting you.
When they're willing to censor pooh bear there's nothing that doesn't cross that insecurity threshold.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh#Censorship_in_...
They're even here downvoting you.
When they're willing to censor pooh bear there's nothing that doesn't cross that insecurity threshold.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh#Censorship_in_...
People have been predicting China's government to fail since 1948. If Mao couldn't do it with his disastrous communist nonsense it's going to take a lot. The CCP has cleverly pivoted to Chinese nationalism (the wolf warrior diplomacy is for internal consumption).
I think it would be best to have a backup plan for what happens if China doesn't implode.
I think it would be best to have a backup plan for what happens if China doesn't implode.
> I didn't see a solid definition on how a failing government is defined
I was going to say the same thing!
I would be interested in breaking down the question into much more comprehensible chunks such as, "What does a Government do that they are unable to do effectively by definition?"; "Is there a balance between public and private sector providing services to the taxpayer and how do we decide the balance?"; "If a Government is necessarily slow-moving, what is the correct way to achieve fast-acting and tactical solutions that will be accepted by the public when the time comes to do them?"
I think a really common issue is that Governments are seen as a single entity, when in fact they are more like an ever-changing combination of ideals, abilities and pragmatism. The UK Government is not the same now as it was even 6 months ago, so learning lessons never really works. Any retired Politicians going to face the music for a decision made 10 years ago?
I was going to say the same thing!
I would be interested in breaking down the question into much more comprehensible chunks such as, "What does a Government do that they are unable to do effectively by definition?"; "Is there a balance between public and private sector providing services to the taxpayer and how do we decide the balance?"; "If a Government is necessarily slow-moving, what is the correct way to achieve fast-acting and tactical solutions that will be accepted by the public when the time comes to do them?"
I think a really common issue is that Governments are seen as a single entity, when in fact they are more like an ever-changing combination of ideals, abilities and pragmatism. The UK Government is not the same now as it was even 6 months ago, so learning lessons never really works. Any retired Politicians going to face the music for a decision made 10 years ago?
CGP Grey's "Rules for rulers" is worth a watch. (like everything he posts, favorite YouTuber by far)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
Thanks for the recommendation!
Something about the statement 'So inequality is not the problem, poverty is the problem' is wrong. I can't quite put my finger on it -- it sounds along the lines of 'So falling from the 20th floor is not the problem, hitting the sidewalk is the problem'.
Can someone explain me to myself?
Can someone explain me to myself?
Inequality is the water balloon argument - that for one side to go up, the other side has to go down. It's fixed amount thinking.
Poverty is the water source argument - let's just have more water flow so that those that want to keep it in buckets can do so without affecting anybody's ability to drink. That's floating amount thinking.
Money is a floating concept not a fixed one. The fixed amount is the amount of hours a person has in a day.
Poverty is solved by distributing needs by hours and relegating money to the distribution of wants.
Poverty is the water source argument - let's just have more water flow so that those that want to keep it in buckets can do so without affecting anybody's ability to drink. That's floating amount thinking.
Money is a floating concept not a fixed one. The fixed amount is the amount of hours a person has in a day.
Poverty is solved by distributing needs by hours and relegating money to the distribution of wants.
Your analogy implies that inequality creates poverty or that there is some casual relationship. This is what many people intuitively believe. It is not true.
As a rule, when people try to remove inequality everybody gets poorer, not richer. Countries are more successful at reducing poverty when they focus on lifting all boats. India and China were communist countries in the mid 20th century. As a result of them abandoning that approach, we have seen the greatest poverty reduction in human history. Check the GINI coefficients of those countries, it isn't great. Ask Chinese/Indian citizens if they are wealthier now than 60 years ago and its not even a question.
As a rule, when people try to remove inequality everybody gets poorer, not richer. Countries are more successful at reducing poverty when they focus on lifting all boats. India and China were communist countries in the mid 20th century. As a result of them abandoning that approach, we have seen the greatest poverty reduction in human history. Check the GINI coefficients of those countries, it isn't great. Ask Chinese/Indian citizens if they are wealthier now than 60 years ago and its not even a question.
Since India was never what many would call a communist country (the communist party was outlawed less than 5 years after independence), I would question the veracity of everything else you say.
Nice analogy. I think that Tyler Cowen statement is a symptom of Procrustean thinking from someone who starts reasoning not with an understanding of how humans are, but starts “logically” from the principles of economics and how humans ought to be per the economics rule book.
IMHO, (too much) inequality is fundamentally a problem because respective people’s power/influence in a market society (which we’re tending to) is proportional to their wealth — and that is intrinsically incompatible with the notion of participative democracy.
IMHO, (too much) inequality is fundamentally a problem because respective people’s power/influence in a market society (which we’re tending to) is proportional to their wealth — and that is intrinsically incompatible with the notion of participative democracy.
I don't think that's a good analogy for the statement given. I think a better analogy would be "the difference between your floor and the top floor isn't the problem, falling out the window is the problem."
Inequality as some level of uneven distribution is not a problem iff that distribution keeps the lowest percentile above poverty. In the real world this doesn't happen, because not only is the distribution not bounded for minimal fairness, it has been shifting by those who have capital to further push value upwards - so it's a problem that never self corrects.
Imho Cowen makes obscure arguments to inequality not being a problem because he is paid from the Koch empire (for at least a significant portion of his career w/ George Mason University) which has put in significant resources into developing multiple Economic arguments their their wealth and influence are not a problem.
Imho Cowen makes obscure arguments to inequality not being a problem because he is paid from the Koch empire (for at least a significant portion of his career w/ George Mason University) which has put in significant resources into developing multiple Economic arguments their their wealth and influence are not a problem.
You implicitly (and are not alone in this) place negative value on the “wrong people” or even on other people in general having more, even if you are no worse off. It stems from the human brain being very perceptive of hierarchy and wanting to move up the totem pole by any means necessary.
Every organisation has 3 major stages: newborn, mature, and old. When competition is present, old organizations are eaten by newborn organizations. Government is monopoly, so no competition, thus old organization must die first.
> old organizations are eaten by newborn organizations
I would argue that what happens in practice is newborn organizations are eaten by old organizations. In fact, startups are being born these days with the express purpose of being eaten by a multinational.
There is no competition whatsoever between the old mammoths and the new things, and in fact it is the exception rather than the rule to see an "old mammoth company" disappear, fail, or be eaten.
I would argue that what happens in practice is newborn organizations are eaten by old organizations. In fact, startups are being born these days with the express purpose of being eaten by a multinational.
There is no competition whatsoever between the old mammoths and the new things, and in fact it is the exception rather than the rule to see an "old mammoth company" disappear, fail, or be eaten.
Are you saying that we should have competitive governments? Interesting idea!
Unfortauntely, I think the states are too high at government level. Nothing too bad will happen when one trash company takes over from another trash company but what would happen if some random group took over the defence policy for a country because the current government didn't seem to be doing very well at it?
Unfortauntely, I think the states are too high at government level. Nothing too bad will happen when one trash company takes over from another trash company but what would happen if some random group took over the defence policy for a country because the current government didn't seem to be doing very well at it?
This is what federalism is!
(Competing state and local governments, federated together and governed by a centralized federal government, which grows over time as citizens of the states agree on what laws they want to enforce).
Most laws passed by the federal government were first experimented with at the local or state level, until a majority of the peoples’ representatives believed they should be applied universally with a centralized implementation. Of course there are many loopholes and exceptions in the US’s system, but this was one of the foundational ideas of the current constitution.
(Competing state and local governments, federated together and governed by a centralized federal government, which grows over time as citizens of the states agree on what laws they want to enforce).
Most laws passed by the federal government were first experimented with at the local or state level, until a majority of the peoples’ representatives believed they should be applied universally with a centralized implementation. Of course there are many loopholes and exceptions in the US’s system, but this was one of the foundational ideas of the current constitution.
I can't help but wonder how the American political system would look if an amendment passed which gave the individual states the ability to decide for themselves:
1. What constitutes a well regulated militia
2. Whether certain drugs should be legal to consume
3. At what stage of development human life begins
Moreover, I can't help wondering how popular such an amendment would be with voters, and with the two main parties.
1. What constitutes a well regulated militia
2. Whether certain drugs should be legal to consume
3. At what stage of development human life begins
Moreover, I can't help wondering how popular such an amendment would be with voters, and with the two main parties.
This was tried with Slavery, it was very popular with the two political parties, and it led to a civil war, whose conclusion was: no, states do not get to decide on slavery, and additionally they do not get to secede if they disagree with the federal government.
That being said, I don’t think any of these three particular things would become the underpinning of a society or an economy, to the extent that slavery was in the antebellum South. So, there probably wouldn’t be another Civil War fought over it.
I think the 2nd amendment one is the most interesting one to me, since our interpretation of it has become so distorted with the passage of time, and since we don’t seem to be converging over time on a consensus (unlike the other two, which were basically contrived for political purposes in the last generation). It’s almost impossible to imagine what the founding fathers would think about its application today.
That being said, I don’t think any of these three particular things would become the underpinning of a society or an economy, to the extent that slavery was in the antebellum South. So, there probably wouldn’t be another Civil War fought over it.
I think the 2nd amendment one is the most interesting one to me, since our interpretation of it has become so distorted with the passage of time, and since we don’t seem to be converging over time on a consensus (unlike the other two, which were basically contrived for political purposes in the last generation). It’s almost impossible to imagine what the founding fathers would think about its application today.
From a US perspective, how would you deal with interstate commerce? Would the federal government be able to interfere as a result?
Would companies State A (where drugs are legal) be able to trade freely with citizens in State B (where drugs are illegal) without an inspection at the border? Would citizens from State B (where guns are legal) be able to travel freely to State A (where they are heavily restricted) without an inspection at the border?
What laws could State B (where abortion is illegal) create to punish its residents for travelling to State A (where abortions are legal) to get an abortion? How would this disparately impact people based on wealth (i.e someone who could freely afford to fly to State A, vs someone who lives on a min-wage job)
Would companies State A (where drugs are legal) be able to trade freely with citizens in State B (where drugs are illegal) without an inspection at the border? Would citizens from State B (where guns are legal) be able to travel freely to State A (where they are heavily restricted) without an inspection at the border?
What laws could State B (where abortion is illegal) create to punish its residents for travelling to State A (where abortions are legal) to get an abortion? How would this disparately impact people based on wealth (i.e someone who could freely afford to fly to State A, vs someone who lives on a min-wage job)
My understanding is that US states aren't able to pass extraterritorial laws or claim personal jurisdiction based on someone being normally resident within their state. That should prevent states from punishing residents for travelling to carry out acts which are legal at their destination.
Similarly it should be implicit from the existence and intent of the amendment that the Interstate Commerce Clause doesn't allow the federal government to render it null and void. I think it is a common legal principle that earlier, more general laws are overridden by later, more specific laws.
Finally, I don't think there is anything unique about this hypothetical amendment from the perspective of wealth inequality. There are plenty of things that wealthier people are able to take advantage of, including travelling to countries where the drinking age is lower, for example.
Similarly it should be implicit from the existence and intent of the amendment that the Interstate Commerce Clause doesn't allow the federal government to render it null and void. I think it is a common legal principle that earlier, more general laws are overridden by later, more specific laws.
Finally, I don't think there is anything unique about this hypothetical amendment from the perspective of wealth inequality. There are plenty of things that wealthier people are able to take advantage of, including travelling to countries where the drinking age is lower, for example.
You'd have drug and gun smuggling between states, and abortion tourism between states.
So in practice there'd be little difference between what people do now and what they would do if this amendment was accepted.
What would change, however, is the temperature of debates about federal politics, and it would become harder for the two main parties to distinguish themselves and divide the population.
What would change, however, is the temperature of debates about federal politics, and it would become harder for the two main parties to distinguish themselves and divide the population.
> Are you saying that we should have competitive governments?
If you have multiple different policies (i.e. laws) with no clear indication of what is legal/illegal, you have neither law nor government
If you have multiple different policies (i.e. laws) with no clear indication of what is legal/illegal, you have neither law nor government
Some form of competition is nice to have. For example, it's better to have a parliament than a dictator, because parties will compete with each other to fit people needs (or oligarch needs, if democracy is broken).
In Canada, police forces are compete. For example, municipality can sign contract with one of provincial police force or municipal police force, or create their own police force. This competition creates a positive feeback loop.
In Canada, police forces are compete. For example, municipality can sign contract with one of provincial police force or municipal police force, or create their own police force. This competition creates a positive feeback loop.
I have to agree.
Governments seem like legacy code bases. Technically the laws are a form of code. People and institutions are the hardware the code runs on.
Changing requirements of the environment the machine runs in (reality) mean we must refactor and maintain the code.
If the environment changes too quickly and the code is too fragile to change at the required rate then some part of the system will crash. Enough crashes and the whole thing collapses.
Then we have to rewrite the thing from scratch with the lessons we learned from the previous version. Unfortunately some governments make use of dark patterns that are bad for users but good for a few.
I'm done ranting...
Governments seem like legacy code bases. Technically the laws are a form of code. People and institutions are the hardware the code runs on.
Changing requirements of the environment the machine runs in (reality) mean we must refactor and maintain the code.
If the environment changes too quickly and the code is too fragile to change at the required rate then some part of the system will crash. Enough crashes and the whole thing collapses.
Then we have to rewrite the thing from scratch with the lessons we learned from the previous version. Unfortunately some governments make use of dark patterns that are bad for users but good for a few.
I'm done ranting...
This doesn't seem in agreement with the parent comment, and is a much better analogy than a mere 'government as something that will eventually die'.
Sure, governments are organizations that will eventually 'die' in some form, but how is that a useful observation? The British government has a lot of 'legacy code' going back to the deep middle ages, and yet (in its current 'state of the codebase', which can improve or worsen over time) it is much further away from 'death' than many newcomers in the third world who had no codebase to speak of 60 years ago. Theirs are badly maintained forks and occasionally the whole thing blows up and needs to be monkey-patched to keep creaking on in some fashion.
Age is thus no impediment at all to having a well-functioning, efficient government, and 'startups' are often in the most disadvantageous position of all. So even the software analogy fails us at some point, and cannot be taken any further.
Sure, governments are organizations that will eventually 'die' in some form, but how is that a useful observation? The British government has a lot of 'legacy code' going back to the deep middle ages, and yet (in its current 'state of the codebase', which can improve or worsen over time) it is much further away from 'death' than many newcomers in the third world who had no codebase to speak of 60 years ago. Theirs are badly maintained forks and occasionally the whole thing blows up and needs to be monkey-patched to keep creaking on in some fashion.
Age is thus no impediment at all to having a well-functioning, efficient government, and 'startups' are often in the most disadvantageous position of all. So even the software analogy fails us at some point, and cannot be taken any further.
Yes I agree. It's difficult to switch to a new code base (government) because the legacy system (current government) also has authority (most citizens recognize government with the most enforcement), incentive (lawmakers want to keep their power), and power (military) to keep itself there indefinitely.
When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
I appreciate the honesty when it comes to the naming of this group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasion
Here's the rationale[0] for the naming of the group:
>“Persuasion” stands for:
>1) A commitment to a free society in which everyone gets to pursue a dignified life.
>2) A belief in the social practice of persuasion, which necessitates free speech.
>3) A determination to persuade, not to mock or troll, those who disagree with us.
In my view, they are succeeding admirably in meeting these 3 goals.
[0] https://twitter.com/Yascha_Mounk/status/1278707858188664832
>“Persuasion” stands for:
>1) A commitment to a free society in which everyone gets to pursue a dignified life.
>2) A belief in the social practice of persuasion, which necessitates free speech.
>3) A determination to persuade, not to mock or troll, those who disagree with us.
In my view, they are succeeding admirably in meeting these 3 goals.
[0] https://twitter.com/Yascha_Mounk/status/1278707858188664832
Personally, I'm a little less convinced of the 1st bullet point.
In particular, I see many obstacles to a "free society in which everyone gets to pursue a dignified life": healthcare costs, ongoing climate disaster, erosion of labor rights, rising nativism and authoritarianism on the far-right, etc. chief among them. To be as monomaniacally focused on "cancel culture" as Mounk (and many others on the center/right of the American political spectrum) strikes me as misguided at best and disingenuously self-serving at worst.
Persuasion seems to me a massive over-reaction to the minor injustice that is "cancel culture" wrapped in some self-important and grandiose rhetoric.
In particular, I see many obstacles to a "free society in which everyone gets to pursue a dignified life": healthcare costs, ongoing climate disaster, erosion of labor rights, rising nativism and authoritarianism on the far-right, etc. chief among them. To be as monomaniacally focused on "cancel culture" as Mounk (and many others on the center/right of the American political spectrum) strikes me as misguided at best and disingenuously self-serving at worst.
Persuasion seems to me a massive over-reaction to the minor injustice that is "cancel culture" wrapped in some self-important and grandiose rhetoric.
Listen to the podcast and read some more articles on Persuasion. Mounk is not "monomaniacally focused on cancel culture". He's monomaniacally focused on defending liberalism from populism - there's a lot on his podcast about nativism, authoritarianism and the populist right (the whole damn podcast started as a way to explore how the populism of Trump, Orban etc can be defeated in the realm of ideas).
And generally, I find him to be the most prepared interviewer with the most thoughtful questions that I ever encountered in podcasting.
And generally, I find him to be the most prepared interviewer with the most thoughtful questions that I ever encountered in podcasting.
Thanks, I'll dig in some more. Perhaps I'm unfairly projecting onto Mounk and conflating his work with that of other "intellectual dark web" types and their fakakta cancel-culture takes. I haven't followed him closely since the flurry of discussion/debate when the project launched last summer.
A quick glance at the contributing authors makes it obvious as to what one is being persuaded of.
Clickbait title is clickbait. Not a single mention of why government fails from the past 5,000 years of history. The entire discussion is US-centric. And they don't conclude why governments fail.
>. I'm just saying the observed increase in wealth inequality in these nations goes away when you abstract from land. So capital is not the problem. Let's deregulate building.
Yeah cuz the fortune 500 list is dominated by land-owners such as Facebook, Microsoft, and Google. Wealth inequality arises from capital concentration, of which land is just one of several forms of concentration. But the ability of large, powerful companies to protect intellectual property and harness network effects to derive large, reliable recurring revenues, which are passed on to shareholders, are other contributing factors. Tyler is a smart guy but is he like a fire hydrant at time that spews out things that are wrong or incomplete.
Yeah cuz the fortune 500 list is dominated by land-owners such as Facebook, Microsoft, and Google. Wealth inequality arises from capital concentration, of which land is just one of several forms of concentration. But the ability of large, powerful companies to protect intellectual property and harness network effects to derive large, reliable recurring revenues, which are passed on to shareholders, are other contributing factors. Tyler is a smart guy but is he like a fire hydrant at time that spews out things that are wrong or incomplete.
The work Tyler cites demonstrates that inequality in the US is almost entirely a function of real estate. Let that sink in. This implies that the vast majority of inequality comes from owning land.
Big Tech companies are not a real estate business. To believe that they are indicates extreme confusion about what a company like Netflix does. To shoehorn them into culpability for rent seeking in the housing market is to substantially miss the point.
Big Tech companies are not a real estate business. To believe that they are indicates extreme confusion about what a company like Netflix does. To shoehorn them into culpability for rent seeking in the housing market is to substantially miss the point.
Yeah, that explanation calls on its face because it cannot explain low interest rates. If land owners have excess savings that drag the interest rates down why aren't they spending them to buy more land until interest rates rise? If they don't have excess savings why aren't they borrowing more money to buy land until interest rates rise?
The weird part is that if we assume that land owners are the only ones with the inequality, this is a self reinforcing cycle that keeps growing stronger to take over the entire country but yet somehow balances itself to keep interest rates and inflation low. They somehow control the entire economy and yet they don't have any effect on it at the same time.
If land owners are taking over the economy how come corporations were increasing their savings since 2000? https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/B057RC1Q027SBEA
The weird part is that if we assume that land owners are the only ones with the inequality, this is a self reinforcing cycle that keeps growing stronger to take over the entire country but yet somehow balances itself to keep interest rates and inflation low. They somehow control the entire economy and yet they don't have any effect on it at the same time.
If land owners are taking over the economy how come corporations were increasing their savings since 2000? https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/B057RC1Q027SBEA
> Wealth inequality arises from capital concentration
No. Wealth inequality is capital concentration. What you're saying is that rain causes rain. In actuality what causes wealth inequality is corruption. The financial sector has been extracting wealth from the people since the 70s. That's what causes wealth inequality.
No. Wealth inequality is capital concentration. What you're saying is that rain causes rain. In actuality what causes wealth inequality is corruption. The financial sector has been extracting wealth from the people since the 70s. That's what causes wealth inequality.
> What you're saying is that rain causes rain.
It's a little ironic to use that as an example, because rain actually does cause rain. Falling water droplets induce a down draft which causes other water droplets to fall out of the sky as well. This is why water precipitates rather suddenly rather than as a constant gradual drip.
It's a little ironic to use that as an example, because rain actually does cause rain. Falling water droplets induce a down draft which causes other water droplets to fall out of the sky as well. This is why water precipitates rather suddenly rather than as a constant gradual drip.
Well, that's interesting to know. I still wouldn't say rain causes rain. Rain may be self-reinforcing, but there is generally some other far more significant catalyst. Regardless, I hope you got my point.
I would say wealth inequality is comparable to rain in that regard, as it seems to be reinforcing itself. Wealth inequality leads to more wealth inequality as the rich are able to highly leverage their wealth to get richer?
> In actuality what causes wealth inequality is corruption.
wealth inequality -> corruption -> more wealth inequality and so on.
I can't really say what is the root cause - but corruption IMO is a function of wealth inequality in action. Rich and powerful exerting influence to get more wealth and power.
> In actuality what causes wealth inequality is corruption.
wealth inequality -> corruption -> more wealth inequality and so on.
I can't really say what is the root cause - but corruption IMO is a function of wealth inequality in action. Rich and powerful exerting influence to get more wealth and power.
>Cowen: There's been a decline in entrepreneurship, a decline in the rate of innovation, a decline in people moving across the country. People are bringing up their children in highly paranoid ways. Just general risk aversion is going up quite strongly.
yeah it's hard to be risk-taking when you aren't a tenured professor, I suppose. Moving is expensive and time consuming. Tyler says this same line in every interview, about how people need to move more and how people are too averse to risk and complacent. But there is plenty of risk-taking though. Look at all the speculation in crypto, or young people making huge, speculative options bets on r/wallstreetbets, or the web 2.0 tech scene. Coinbase went public a few weeks ago. To say there is stagnation or aversion to risk taking , goes against the empirical evidence otherwise. Also, entrepreneurship has a high failure rate and is very expensive on an inflationary-adjusted basis (insurance,eadvertising, rent, marketing, etc all very expensive). Unless the VC bears the risk by writing the check, I cannot blame people for choosing to not start businesses.
yeah it's hard to be risk-taking when you aren't a tenured professor, I suppose. Moving is expensive and time consuming. Tyler says this same line in every interview, about how people need to move more and how people are too averse to risk and complacent. But there is plenty of risk-taking though. Look at all the speculation in crypto, or young people making huge, speculative options bets on r/wallstreetbets, or the web 2.0 tech scene. Coinbase went public a few weeks ago. To say there is stagnation or aversion to risk taking , goes against the empirical evidence otherwise. Also, entrepreneurship has a high failure rate and is very expensive on an inflationary-adjusted basis (insurance,eadvertising, rent, marketing, etc all very expensive). Unless the VC bears the risk by writing the check, I cannot blame people for choosing to not start businesses.
Still need money to own stock. Huge % of Americans are food insecure let alone able to put money into Robinhood.
I do think there is some underlying insight here in terms of risk ability.
From my view a lack of safety net, healthcare specifically tied to employment, is a big reason people can't afford to take those risks like you mention.
I wonder if there is further research? hard to control..
One counter argument I found this pdf has some hard stat examples despite our failings US still leads entrepreneurship:
- expect to start new business US 16.4, UK 11.1, France 17.2 - 3 Month new business US 8.9, UK 5.1, France 3.1 - France slightly wins survival .8, UK US tied .7
Towards the end of the article, he seems to argue GDP lifts all boats?
But the Fed seems to acknowledge that they specifically took their 'foot off the gas' because inflation was #1 priority, and that black and brown Americans were not actually 'lifted.'
Monetary policy alone isn't enough because so many Americans don't own the means (stock) nor the land (seems basically free infinite money driving up housing and valuations).
But good news Fed seems to have changed, will now use race and income equity as a policy factor for the future.
https://www.enterpriseresearch.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017...
I do think there is some underlying insight here in terms of risk ability.
From my view a lack of safety net, healthcare specifically tied to employment, is a big reason people can't afford to take those risks like you mention.
I wonder if there is further research? hard to control..
One counter argument I found this pdf has some hard stat examples despite our failings US still leads entrepreneurship:
- expect to start new business US 16.4, UK 11.1, France 17.2 - 3 Month new business US 8.9, UK 5.1, France 3.1 - France slightly wins survival .8, UK US tied .7
Towards the end of the article, he seems to argue GDP lifts all boats?
But the Fed seems to acknowledge that they specifically took their 'foot off the gas' because inflation was #1 priority, and that black and brown Americans were not actually 'lifted.'
Monetary policy alone isn't enough because so many Americans don't own the means (stock) nor the land (seems basically free infinite money driving up housing and valuations).
But good news Fed seems to have changed, will now use race and income equity as a policy factor for the future.
https://www.enterpriseresearch.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017...
The crypto/wallstreetbets world shows there is some extreme risk-taking at the margins. But this is not the sort that's important, I think. The rate of entrepreneurship is declining in the US, perhaps due to higher corporate concentration or the cost of not having regular benefits (healthcare primarily). The effect of such a decline is much more pronounced when multiplied by the hundreds of thousands of communities that small businesses like restaurants impact.
> Look at all the speculation in crypto, or young people making huge, speculative options bets on r/wallstreetbets, or the web 2.0 tech scene. Coinbase went public a few weeks ago. To say there is stagnation or aversion to risk taking , goes against the empirical evidence otherwise
Is this really representative? What %-age of each age-cohort engage in speculation on WSB or play around with crypto? I'm just assuming as well here - but i think that WSB speculation is being done by a extreme minority with a lot of people just looking at them for entertainment. Is there any data you would be able to share?
Is this really representative? What %-age of each age-cohort engage in speculation on WSB or play around with crypto? I'm just assuming as well here - but i think that WSB speculation is being done by a extreme minority with a lot of people just looking at them for entertainment. Is there any data you would be able to share?
People have gotten poorer in the last 40 years in the US. Quality of everything has gone down, the most expensive things in life (housing, health care, transportation) have all gotten more expensive in comparison to incomes and more difficult.
People want to take lucrative risks, but they don't have the money to do it right, and the opportunities just aren't out there. It's not that people need to move more or take more risks, it's that there is demonstrably less opportunity out there today because our governments are corrupt and have destroyed the economy.
People want to take lucrative risks, but they don't have the money to do it right, and the opportunities just aren't out there. It's not that people need to move more or take more risks, it's that there is demonstrably less opportunity out there today because our governments are corrupt and have destroyed the economy.
These are all reasons why governments fail to do anything useful. But we have numerous modern examples of dysfunctional kleptocracies persisting for generations. Governments fail, as in, stop functioning entirely, for only one reason: they go broke. If the money keeps flowing, they don’t care about any of this stuff. Sure, go ahead and vote. If that had worked in those countries, they wouldn’t have become dysfunctional kleptocracies in the first place. Just watch; they’ll all go broke before even considering reform, and then only in exchange for more money.
Persuasion is mind manipulation. It seems like the intentions of this group are good, but you know what they say about the road to hell. In any case, governments fail because they are founded on corruption, that is, the belief in authority outside of the individual. Which is basically slavery. Such a corrupt system that goes against the universal right to life will always fail.
Eh. Not be disrespectful of the talk but the US excelled in the one thing it excels at more than most. Money. Raising enough money to buy vaccines en-masse. That was to be expected. The parts that didn't need money, ie closing down key sectors of public life, restricting freedoms of civilians in state of crisis, wearing masks, social distancing led to one of the most atrocious response to a pandemic this side of the past century. Even Central African ebola outbreaks are generally well contained (Reasonably) and those governments really don't have the money to invest in science and medicine as the US. Other than that tid bit I disagree with, the talk really doesnt talk about state-craft how I imagined they would, more focused on specific examples and instances. Trees in the forest if you will but a great talk to listen to while doing some work!
Really enjoyed it.
Really enjoyed it.
If otherwise young, healthy ppl were dropping dead in droves because of this, then I think there would have been more more mobilization, cooperation, and compliance, but the later data showed Covid only being slightly more deadly than the flu for young and middle-aged people instead of 40x as deadly as originally feared.So the urgency and concern began to dissipate by mid-2020 when the studies came about affirming a much lower IFR than originally feared. Second, many of these European counties, which early on seemed to have contained the virus owing to superior policy decisions and praised by the media while Trump was heavily criticized, had major second, third and even forth wages by late 2020 and 2021. This show the difficulty of ascribing blame either way due to the inherent unpredictability and virulence of Covid.
> Covid only being slightly more deadly than the flu for young and middle-aged people
That is not true. Flu is significantly less deadly for the same age bracket. You have to compare young healthy people dying from flu with young heathy people dying from covid.
That is not true. Flu is significantly less deadly for the same age bracket. You have to compare young healthy people dying from flu with young heathy people dying from covid.
Do you have the numbers? I would specifically be interested in the 09 swine flu, which is one of the strains which affected younger people more than normal.
I did some digging (not the parent poster) - here seems to be a decently thorough meta analysis of IFR and CFR from the swine flu outbreak. It appears to be clearly and dramatically less lethal to all age ranges than COVID [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809029/#!po=0....], with the highest risk group (>64 yrs old), having a roughly 1% chance of death per symptomatic case, and children (lowest risk) roughly three orders of magnitude less risk (1 per 100,000 symptomatic cases vs 1 in 100 for elderly).
Here is a more direct link to the graph [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809029/figure/...].
Covid is too new, and we’re too unclear on how widely it is spread to have solid CFR or IFR data at this point. NYC did a decent study post outbreak early last year however using antibody tests that is probably not complete junk. You can read one of the many studies here [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...]. The pertinent quote is probably - “ City. Our estimated infection-fatality risk for the two oldest age groups (65–74 and ≥75 years) was much higher than the younger age groups, with a cumulative estimated infection-fatality risk of 0·116% (0·0729–0·148) for those aged 25–44 years and 0·939% (0·729–1·19) for those aged 45–64 years versus 4·87% (3·37–6·89) for those aged 65–74 years and 14·2% (10·2–18·1) for those aged 75 years and older. In particular, weekly infection-fatality risk was estimated to be as high as 6·72% (5·52–8·01) for those aged 65–74 years and 19·1% (14·7–21·9) for those aged 75 years and older.”
Here is a more direct link to the graph [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809029/figure/...].
Covid is too new, and we’re too unclear on how widely it is spread to have solid CFR or IFR data at this point. NYC did a decent study post outbreak early last year however using antibody tests that is probably not complete junk. You can read one of the many studies here [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...]. The pertinent quote is probably - “ City. Our estimated infection-fatality risk for the two oldest age groups (65–74 and ≥75 years) was much higher than the younger age groups, with a cumulative estimated infection-fatality risk of 0·116% (0·0729–0·148) for those aged 25–44 years and 0·939% (0·729–1·19) for those aged 45–64 years versus 4·87% (3·37–6·89) for those aged 65–74 years and 14·2% (10·2–18·1) for those aged 75 years and older. In particular, weekly infection-fatality risk was estimated to be as high as 6·72% (5·52–8·01) for those aged 65–74 years and 19·1% (14·7–21·9) for those aged 75 years and older.”
So comparing young and middle aged (based on watwut's comment) it seems the IFR was 1% for swine flu and 1% (overall according to Fauci) for covid. Granted seasonal flu is about .1% (overall). So it seems like it could be similar for watwut's stated age groups, with some strains of flu being higher and most (likely) being lower. The real issues/ discrepancy emerge with the elderly.
I do see the wild differences in the estimates. This one is interesting. https://www.nbc26.com/news/coronavirus/cdc-estimates-covid-1...
I do see the wild differences in the estimates. This one is interesting. https://www.nbc26.com/news/coronavirus/cdc-estimates-covid-1...
I don’t think so? It was 1% CFR for the absolute highest risk group in swine flu.
Population wide, across all risk groups (including very low risk), it appears IFR (a typically lower end number anyway) for COVID is .9-1.5%.
Which is anywhere from 50-100x higher in real crude fatalities, if I’m squinting correctly.
Population wide, across all risk groups (including very low risk), it appears IFR (a typically lower end number anyway) for COVID is .9-1.5%.
Which is anywhere from 50-100x higher in real crude fatalities, if I’m squinting correctly.
Did the government fail?
I don't know. We got a vaccine remarkably quickly and the governments (federal and state) distributed it efficiently. I don't blame the government for not taking the virus seriously to start with. SARS and MERS didn't pan out and people, on the left and right (including me), figured COVID would be the same. Some people predicted COVID would be bad but it wasn't crazy to think COVID wouldn't turn into a pandemic.
The countries that did well with COVID are mostly islands and East Asian countries. I doubt the "Chinese and Japanese are really obedient"-type expanations. I wonder if some East Asian countries had antibodies from similar viruses that flew under the radar and granted partial immunity. That's pure speculuation...but even if those countries suceeded due to law and order, that's a double-edged sword. Do we really want to build our society to survive viruses with the fewest causalities or are there perhaps higher ideals (freedom, self determiniation) that we should aspire to? And of course there's no freedom without the freedom to be wrong.
> And where the world needs to head is to establish new means of producing credibility and good reputation that are robust to current technologies. What we’re now calling “populism” might turn out to be the least of our problems.
In terms of populism stuff, I think there's some truth to the idea here that the internet has led to the unmasking of leaders/government as incompetent. To some degree, modern populism consists of people recoiling in horror after realizing just how dumb you can be while holding power. But it's easy to notice other people being wrong and quite hard to do any better yourself. Mostly, these populist movements seem bereft of ideas and are just expressing incoherent outrage.
It will be interesting to see if the internet makes it possible to have better, more accountable governments. I don't discount the possibility. The thing that worries me is that, in my opinion, more transparency is in some sense the problem. We learn about governmental incompetence via the internet but the internet also turns politicians into influencers, and that's a signiciant part of the problem too.
I don't know. We got a vaccine remarkably quickly and the governments (federal and state) distributed it efficiently. I don't blame the government for not taking the virus seriously to start with. SARS and MERS didn't pan out and people, on the left and right (including me), figured COVID would be the same. Some people predicted COVID would be bad but it wasn't crazy to think COVID wouldn't turn into a pandemic.
The countries that did well with COVID are mostly islands and East Asian countries. I doubt the "Chinese and Japanese are really obedient"-type expanations. I wonder if some East Asian countries had antibodies from similar viruses that flew under the radar and granted partial immunity. That's pure speculuation...but even if those countries suceeded due to law and order, that's a double-edged sword. Do we really want to build our society to survive viruses with the fewest causalities or are there perhaps higher ideals (freedom, self determiniation) that we should aspire to? And of course there's no freedom without the freedom to be wrong.
> And where the world needs to head is to establish new means of producing credibility and good reputation that are robust to current technologies. What we’re now calling “populism” might turn out to be the least of our problems.
In terms of populism stuff, I think there's some truth to the idea here that the internet has led to the unmasking of leaders/government as incompetent. To some degree, modern populism consists of people recoiling in horror after realizing just how dumb you can be while holding power. But it's easy to notice other people being wrong and quite hard to do any better yourself. Mostly, these populist movements seem bereft of ideas and are just expressing incoherent outrage.
It will be interesting to see if the internet makes it possible to have better, more accountable governments. I don't discount the possibility. The thing that worries me is that, in my opinion, more transparency is in some sense the problem. We learn about governmental incompetence via the internet but the internet also turns politicians into influencers, and that's a signiciant part of the problem too.
Also didn’t they change the definition of a pandemic in 2009 such that it wouldn’t have even been a pandemic prior? I read that somewhere standby... https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/7/11-086173.pdf
I think the Internet (in particular, the social media a lot of people are consuming their news from) is really good at providing anecdata, but really bad at giving perspective to determine context and how to fit the anecdotes into a bigger picture. Because of, for example, correlation algorithms determining what someone reads in their Facebook feed and trying to maximize the topic for engagement, a person chasing a few threads of stories of incompetence can quickly end up with a wall that is nothing but such stories. And even if one doesn't use Facebook, other spaces are vulnerable to the same effects... Chasing Reddit karma involves posting stories that the majority will upvote, posting controversial-but-true content in many topic-specific fora will result in some form of moderation or loss of karma-equivalent, and so on.
The unmasking of incompetence is real, but much less clear is the degree to which it occurs and whether it's the exception or the norm. But it's very easy to assume it's the norm from what one sees on a Facebook wall (and on a different Facebook wall, or in a different group, it's very easy to assume it never happens or all reports of it are overblown).
The unmasking of incompetence is real, but much less clear is the degree to which it occurs and whether it's the exception or the norm. But it's very easy to assume it's the norm from what one sees on a Facebook wall (and on a different Facebook wall, or in a different group, it's very easy to assume it never happens or all reports of it are overblown).
"To some degree, modern populism consists of people recoiling in horror after realizing just how dumb you can be while holding power. But it's easy to notice other people being wrong and quite hard to do any better yourself." italics for emphasis
I think this is true in some cases, but not necessarily in all the issues we today. We're all just human and we all make mistakes. I think the part where it is ok to think we can do better is in how we handle those mistakes. It seems that most leaders tend to be hypocritical, blame the 'other side' for failures, and even ignore failings. Of course, it seems that's the way people get to be in power in the first place in the current political environment, so the people who act differently rarely stand a chance at the federal level.
I think this is true in some cases, but not necessarily in all the issues we today. We're all just human and we all make mistakes. I think the part where it is ok to think we can do better is in how we handle those mistakes. It seems that most leaders tend to be hypocritical, blame the 'other side' for failures, and even ignore failings. Of course, it seems that's the way people get to be in power in the first place in the current political environment, so the people who act differently rarely stand a chance at the federal level.
> Do we really want to build our society to survive viruses with the fewest causalities or are there perhaps higher ideals (freedom, self determiniation) that we should aspire to?
I don't see why these have to be mutually exclusive goals. Arguably, there are better ways to get an entire society to cooperate toward a goal without resorting to authoritarianism. This sort of societal engineering is demonstrated in religions, cults, and political tribes all the time. If we can harness it at the scale of an entire country, or even a majority of the world, we could accomplish quite a lot. It's been done before, and today's technology could theoretically enable it at a level that's never been seen in human history. Though we currently seem to be experiencing more of the dark side of the whole phenomenon.
I don't see why these have to be mutually exclusive goals. Arguably, there are better ways to get an entire society to cooperate toward a goal without resorting to authoritarianism. This sort of societal engineering is demonstrated in religions, cults, and political tribes all the time. If we can harness it at the scale of an entire country, or even a majority of the world, we could accomplish quite a lot. It's been done before, and today's technology could theoretically enable it at a level that's never been seen in human history. Though we currently seem to be experiencing more of the dark side of the whole phenomenon.
I don't understand the whole "freedom" argument against basic public health and safety guidance. Almost everyone wears their seatbelt in a car and doesn't complain about how their freedoms are being taken away in the name of safety. So why is this not the same with masks and distancing? Why is it that people think refusing to wear a mask transforms them into Braveheart, fighting for freedom against oppression? Sensible precautions against an airborne deadly pandemic are not attacks on self determination.
> Why is it that people think refusing to wear a mask transforms them into Braveheart, fighting for freedom against oppression?
1) In my country, some of the same scientific advisors to the government on the COVID response, are also criticizing the government for requiring masks to be worn outdoors in deserted streets, even though the science says that the risk of transmission there is negligible. They say that this kind of "hygiene theatre" can ultimately diminish the state's authority to mount efforts that truly matter to stopping the spread. A problem is that the outdoor mask law also appears to discourage outdoor exercise (even if people could exercise in a mask, the psychological barrier is real), and exercise is something public-health experts naturally want to encourage, even during the pandemic.
2) In some countries, the authorities have eased up on restrictions, or kept them on the books but ceased enforcing them, after the broad population flaunted them. Ruling parties are sensitive to what the population is willing to accept, lest unpopular restrictions cost them the next election.
Now put those two facts together, and people refusing en masse to wear a mask outdoors (while continuing to responsibly wear masks in crowded open areas and in indoor spaces like shops and other people’s homes) might be effective in ending a measure that even actual public-health experts say is pointless and oppressive.
1) In my country, some of the same scientific advisors to the government on the COVID response, are also criticizing the government for requiring masks to be worn outdoors in deserted streets, even though the science says that the risk of transmission there is negligible. They say that this kind of "hygiene theatre" can ultimately diminish the state's authority to mount efforts that truly matter to stopping the spread. A problem is that the outdoor mask law also appears to discourage outdoor exercise (even if people could exercise in a mask, the psychological barrier is real), and exercise is something public-health experts naturally want to encourage, even during the pandemic.
2) In some countries, the authorities have eased up on restrictions, or kept them on the books but ceased enforcing them, after the broad population flaunted them. Ruling parties are sensitive to what the population is willing to accept, lest unpopular restrictions cost them the next election.
Now put those two facts together, and people refusing en masse to wear a mask outdoors (while continuing to responsibly wear masks in crowded open areas and in indoor spaces like shops and other people’s homes) might be effective in ending a measure that even actual public-health experts say is pointless and oppressive.
It's just because masks are new. People had the same negative reaction to seatbelts when they were first introduced, citing inane things like "it might wrinkle my shirt" as a reason not to wear them.
https://www.businessinsider.com/seatbelt-car-habit-obligatio...
https://www.businessinsider.com/seatbelt-car-habit-obligatio...
>Why is it that people think refusing to wear a mask transforms them into Braveheart
Because that was the message in the echo chamber they didn't know they were in.
Because that was the message in the echo chamber they didn't know they were in.
Because masks were promoted as protecting others, not the wearer. This didn't recognize that people put their own needs ahead of others. Seat belts can protect me in an accident. So I wear them. With masks, (especially if I am young and not at much risk) I think "if someone is afraid of the virus, they can just stay home, why do I need to change what I do?"
It seems clear to me that "religions, cults, and political tribes" that enforce uniform behavior are by definition restricting freedom.
Which is not to say that freedom is never worth restricting. My general point was that I prefer American notions of freedom to East Asian notions of freedom.
Which is not to say that freedom is never worth restricting. My general point was that I prefer American notions of freedom to East Asian notions of freedom.
Plato's famous works were about this. One of his ideas was to create the perfect state in which good behavior didn't have to be enforced by laws, by instilling people with an internal sense of morality that they willingly want to follow. Early Judeo-Christian societies were built around this idea. If people are doing what they want to do, and that aligns with what society needs them to do, then their freedom doesn't have to be restricted.
Yes, The Republic, and Plato's last dialogue is called Laws and it describes a state governed by laws. Judeo-Christian societies were and are based on deontology i.e. the ten commandments.
What you're talking about is the harmonization of all interests around a single ideal, something that never ends well (including Plato's attempt in Syracuse). It's been criticized to death by liberal philosophers, in my opinion rightly.
What you're talking about is the harmonization of all interests around a single ideal, something that never ends well (including Plato's attempt in Syracuse). It's been criticized to death by liberal philosophers, in my opinion rightly.
This is a false dichotomy. We don't have only U.S. apathy and East Asian collectivism as our choices. We could invest in public health infrastructure. We won't, but that is another topic.
Yes, the U.S. government failed.
We should have implemented testing at scale immediately, found the infected, and paid them to stay home. While this would have cost a lot of money, it would have been less than the PPP and stimulus efforts.
We should have implemented testing at scale immediately, found the infected, and paid them to stay home. While this would have cost a lot of money, it would have been less than the PPP and stimulus efforts.
I think this implies a historicist perspective. In other words, you tacitly demand that the government tell the future and act accordingly. Well obviously the government can't do that.
I think "failure" should be a question of incompetent administration. That is, once a policy is decided, how well or poorly was it carried out? It may be that the government failed at carrying out mass testing.
I think "failure" should be a question of incompetent administration. That is, once a policy is decided, how well or poorly was it carried out? It may be that the government failed at carrying out mass testing.
I do not demand that the government successfully predict the future. In March 2020, it was obvious what was happening in other countries. We were informed by the past and the present to determine how to respond.
> While this would have cost a lot of money, it would have been less than the PPP and stimulus efforts.
This quote is demanding that the government has access to future numbers, isn't it?
I don't agree that it was obvious what was happening in March. It's only obvious in retrospect.
This quote is demanding that the government has access to future numbers, isn't it?
I don't agree that it was obvious what was happening in March. It's only obvious in retrospect.
It was obvious to me and many others. I posted on March 11, 2020 that we should get our shit together and test at scale, as South Korea and other countries with effective government were doing. I was not demanding supernatural prognostication, just competence.
Now we pay the price.
Now we pay the price.
It was obvious to the government what was happening.
They got rich off it
They got rich off it
> In other words, you tacitly demand that the government tell the future and act accordingly.
This is a common excuse about every bad plan after the fact; that the critics are expecting decisionmakers to have been psychic. It scrupulously ignores that the critics were offering the same critique at the time.
It scrupulously ignores anything specific to the problem being discussed. It's the "no one could have known" or the "it's easy to be a backseat driver" defense.
> I think "failure" should be a question of incompetent administration. That is, once a policy is decided, how well or poorly was it carried out?
All people with responsibility agree with you, which is why they carefully avoid formulating a policy.
This is a common excuse about every bad plan after the fact; that the critics are expecting decisionmakers to have been psychic. It scrupulously ignores that the critics were offering the same critique at the time.
It scrupulously ignores anything specific to the problem being discussed. It's the "no one could have known" or the "it's easy to be a backseat driver" defense.
> I think "failure" should be a question of incompetent administration. That is, once a policy is decided, how well or poorly was it carried out?
All people with responsibility agree with you, which is why they carefully avoid formulating a policy.
Doing nothing is a perfectly fine policy. In medicine they say "first, do no harm".
This is the most contrived apology for incompetence that I have read. I am quite amazed.
It would be different if we had never before experienced a pandemic. It would be different if we did not have the examples of countries and cultures with effective implementation of testing at scale while we did nothing.
This defense of inaction is like leaving potholes alone because doing the obvious thing might cause harm somehow.
It would be different if we had never before experienced a pandemic. It would be different if we did not have the examples of countries and cultures with effective implementation of testing at scale while we did nothing.
This defense of inaction is like leaving potholes alone because doing the obvious thing might cause harm somehow.
I'm arguing for a distinction between being wrong and failure. I don't see anything from you (or the other poster) besides rhetoric. Apparently we should have "just known" that this virus was going to be a disaster. And evidence of this was "I knew" or "other countries knew". Great, and half of HN "knows" there is imminent hyperinflation.
It may be fair to describe the lack of available tests a failure. All the PCR testing sites near me were 100% booked whenever I checked and the state did nothing (as far as I know) to tell us where we could get tested. Perhaps that could be described as a failure. But the rhetoric from you and the other poster is post-hoc silliness. Neither of you seem to be aware that you're expecting the government to tell the future or what the drawbacks of that might be.
For a taste, consider that citizens blaming the government for 9/11 plausibly led to a years-long illegal wire-tapping and at least one clearly unnecessary war.
It may be fair to describe the lack of available tests a failure. All the PCR testing sites near me were 100% booked whenever I checked and the state did nothing (as far as I know) to tell us where we could get tested. Perhaps that could be described as a failure. But the rhetoric from you and the other poster is post-hoc silliness. Neither of you seem to be aware that you're expecting the government to tell the future or what the drawbacks of that might be.
For a taste, consider that citizens blaming the government for 9/11 plausibly led to a years-long illegal wire-tapping and at least one clearly unnecessary war.
"post-hoc silliness"? In March, we had seen what had happened in China and Italy already. We were watching how other countries were investing. We chose not to invest.
When a government fails to do something about an entirely predictable outcome, that is not just an error, it is also a failure.
You have a really surprising way to view things: All governments can be excused for inaction or even the wrong action with this logic.
When a government fails to do something about an entirely predictable outcome, that is not just an error, it is also a failure.
You have a really surprising way to view things: All governments can be excused for inaction or even the wrong action with this logic.
Not excused but forgiven.
Out of all the comments here, I'm glad to see so many bring up the one and only reason any governments ever fail on their own - corruption.
I spent three years with my company selling into the Trump administration. I had a solution to the American energy crisis. After my company closed, because I couldn't get a call back to save my life, I learned that there were no people at the offices I was calling. Trump left 35% of the renewable energies offices unappointed.
I'm bringing this up because no one here is mentioning the elephant in the room. Trump completely eviscerated the CDC epidemic watchdog groups, the CDC funding allocated for emergency response, and the FEMA funding for epidemic response. Our government didn't fail. We lacked infrastructure to chase the answer we needed in a timely fashion.
Looking back at all we've lost, this grave time will actually spur a much larger scope of growth over the next 20-30 years. We will have another roaring twenties. Yet, here in the US, people walk around talking about how little the government works or how incompetent lawmakers are. Well, it's not all of them. Just enough of them that they keep the system gummed up.
Term limits are the singular answer the US needs, now more than ever. It could beat back the corruption we see from the likes of McConnell and Pelosi, two people more concerned with their grip on power than actual for-goodness changes. But as long as Trump remains relevant, we will see a vast division among lawmakers, which will destroy infrastructure built by the government to help people. The voting rights laws being rolled back in Georgia are a fantastic example. However, on the grand stage, those same supporters can never win any real gains. This boils down to the fact that his backers do so based on a lie. As long as that lie exists McConnell and Cruz, and their like, can never engage in any advancements for fear of being killed by Trump's base.
If Trump had followed his supporters to the Capital on Jan. 6th, our government would have failed. We were close. It's a good thing he's more interested in tv ratings than reality.
I spent three years with my company selling into the Trump administration. I had a solution to the American energy crisis. After my company closed, because I couldn't get a call back to save my life, I learned that there were no people at the offices I was calling. Trump left 35% of the renewable energies offices unappointed.
I'm bringing this up because no one here is mentioning the elephant in the room. Trump completely eviscerated the CDC epidemic watchdog groups, the CDC funding allocated for emergency response, and the FEMA funding for epidemic response. Our government didn't fail. We lacked infrastructure to chase the answer we needed in a timely fashion.
Looking back at all we've lost, this grave time will actually spur a much larger scope of growth over the next 20-30 years. We will have another roaring twenties. Yet, here in the US, people walk around talking about how little the government works or how incompetent lawmakers are. Well, it's not all of them. Just enough of them that they keep the system gummed up.
Term limits are the singular answer the US needs, now more than ever. It could beat back the corruption we see from the likes of McConnell and Pelosi, two people more concerned with their grip on power than actual for-goodness changes. But as long as Trump remains relevant, we will see a vast division among lawmakers, which will destroy infrastructure built by the government to help people. The voting rights laws being rolled back in Georgia are a fantastic example. However, on the grand stage, those same supporters can never win any real gains. This boils down to the fact that his backers do so based on a lie. As long as that lie exists McConnell and Cruz, and their like, can never engage in any advancements for fear of being killed by Trump's base.
If Trump had followed his supporters to the Capital on Jan. 6th, our government would have failed. We were close. It's a good thing he's more interested in tv ratings than reality.
Is it a problem when a government fails? Is it an ultimate goal to have "good" government that doesn't fail? What if "failed" government is sometimes a feature and not a bug?
We have some examples of "failed states" where the average people still live better than in many of the states with "good and responsible" government.
Some examples from Europe, which may have been controversial:
- Italy & Greece - big country debt, corrupt government, but average people still own more property ("richer") than people in north European countries like Germany with "better" and "more competent" governments.
- Russia, Belorusia, Serbia - corrupt government that tends to suppress human rights of its citizens, but still during the covid pandemic the restrictions of basic human freedoms were much less than in countries where human rights are most important, without significant impact on the corona casualties.
We have some examples of "failed states" where the average people still live better than in many of the states with "good and responsible" government.
Some examples from Europe, which may have been controversial:
- Italy & Greece - big country debt, corrupt government, but average people still own more property ("richer") than people in north European countries like Germany with "better" and "more competent" governments.
- Russia, Belorusia, Serbia - corrupt government that tends to suppress human rights of its citizens, but still during the covid pandemic the restrictions of basic human freedoms were much less than in countries where human rights are most important, without significant impact on the corona casualties.
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4975
> Covid-19: Russia admits to understating deaths by more than two thirds
> Russia’s true death toll from the novel coronavirus pandemic is not about 57 000, as official figures claim, but more than 180 000, the country’s deputy prime minister, Tatiana Golikova, conceded at a press conference.
> The figures mean Russia ranks third in the world in terms of deaths from covid-19, behind only the US and Brazil. It would also give Russia the fourth highest per capita death rate, about 1273 deaths per million population, behind only San Marino, Belgium, and Slovenia.
Maybe good government matters more than you thought.
> Covid-19: Russia admits to understating deaths by more than two thirds
> Russia’s true death toll from the novel coronavirus pandemic is not about 57 000, as official figures claim, but more than 180 000, the country’s deputy prime minister, Tatiana Golikova, conceded at a press conference.
> The figures mean Russia ranks third in the world in terms of deaths from covid-19, behind only the US and Brazil. It would also give Russia the fourth highest per capita death rate, about 1273 deaths per million population, behind only San Marino, Belgium, and Slovenia.
Maybe good government matters more than you thought.