Recent articles
1. We have decided to punish the victims of Chinese repression:
Hong Kong will formally challenge a US demand that it changes the way it labels its exports as the city grapples with the international fallout from Beijing’s imposition of a tough national security law on the territory.
The territory’s government said that new US rules — which require that products exported from Hong Kong to the US are labelled “Made in China” — breached World Trade Organization rules and that it “will take action” as a result. . . .
“US’s new rule on origin marking of Hong Kong products disregards Hong Kong’s status as a separate WTO member and violates WTO rules,” a spokesperson for Hong Kong’s commerce and economic development bureau said in this week.
In contrast, Britain is trying to help Hong Kong residents by allowing them the freedom to move to the UK.
2. Florida police are a bunch of perverts, who like to secretly watch videotapes of grandma getting a massage:
New York lawyer Joseph Tacopina, who said he represents at least 31 individuals who were taped despite receiving only legitimate massages at Orchids of Asia Day Spa, filed a class-action lawsuit in April 2019 and has been battering the surveillance actions of the authorities for more than a year. The Kraft victories have likely strengthened future class-action suits in the case, not to mention general precedent in similar cases.
“It’s a nightmare,” Tacopina told CNN last year. “It’s as if they put a camera in a bathroom and recorded people going to the bathroom. These people — ranging from 40-year-old males to 75-year-old females — [were] in a state of undress [and] getting massages. Nothing more. Legitimate massages, and wound up on a video tape that is perilously close to being put out into the public domain.”
Here are two ways that you know that the government is trying to take away your freedom:
“We are just trying to stop sex trafficing.”
“We are just trying to protect the little children.”
3. America’s doing such a great job with Covid-19 that we thought it was a good time to tell Germany how to run its affairs:
A letter sent by three US senators warning the owner of a port on the Baltic Sea of “crushing legal and economic sanctions” if it continued to provide “significant goods, services, and support” for the controversial Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline has caused outrage in Germany.
God I hope that America will someday have to pay a price for all this bullying.
4. The following is the global story of the past decade. Everything else, including Covid-19, pales in comparison:
Both Mr Modi and Mr Erdogan also aspire to be leaders of a global faith community. Digital renderings of the new temple in Ayodhya were beamed on to a giant billboard in Times Square in New York, presumably as an inspiration to expatriate Indians. Mr Erdogan has claimed that the “resurrection of the Hagia Sophia” represents the “will of Muslims all over the world”.
For two such important nations to turn their backs on secularism and liberal values is significant in itself. But the changes in India and Turkey are also part of a broader global story of the rise of identity politics at the expense of liberal universalism. This is a story that, in different ways, is also playing out in China, Russia, the US and Europe. It is closely linked to the rise of strongman leaders, who claim to be protectors of a faith, a nation or a chosen ethnic group, or some fusion of all three.
5. David Levey pointed me to a demolition of John Rawls, written by Michael Huemer:
John Rawls was far and away the most influential political philosopher of the last century. For one limited measure, try searching for “John Rawls” on Google scholar. You’ll get about 16,000 hits since 2019. He was not only widely discussed but very well respected, and he acquired many followers. Even people outside philosophy have heard of him. So he clearly had some skill in a very high degree.
Whatever that skill was, though, it wasn’t skill at reasoning. Every important step in his case for his main theory is obviously fallacious and confused.
Read the whole thing. The first time I heard about Rawls’ minimax principle I assumed I must be misunderstanding the idea. No serious philosopher would propose such an obviously flawed ethical principle. And yet, according to Huemer that’s exactly what Rawls did. Read the whole thing.
6. This Matt Yglesias tweet made me smile:
Trump wants to have things both ways:
In a tweet, Trump said members of “the deep state” at the FDA are making it hard for drug companies to “get people in order to test the vaccines and therapeutics” and “obviously” want to delay progress until after Nov. 3, Election Day.
I’m “innoculated” for this particular conspiracy theory as my wife used to work on developing vaccines and knows how long the process takes.
I favor abolishing the FDA. Trump won’t do that because it would be highly unpopular. Instead he conflates “normal bureaucratic inertia that costs many lives and has been going on for decades” with “deep state”, in order to impress his QAnon readers. BTW, Trump appointed the head of the FDA—presumably he is also a part of the deep state.
7. The WaPo has an often hilarious article discussing how Trump’s sister views the President:
Maryanne Trump Barry was serving as a federal judge when she heard her brother, President Trump, suggest on Fox News, “maybe I’ll have to put her at the border” amid a wave of refugees entering the United States. At the time, children were being separated from their parents and put in cramped quarters while court hearings dragged on.
“All he wants to do is appeal to his base,” Barry said in a conversation secretly recorded by her niece, Mary L. Trump. “He has no principles. None. None. And his base, I mean my God, if you were a religious person, you want to help people. Not do this.”
Barry, 83, was aghast at how her 74-year-old brother operated as president. “His goddamned tweet and lying, oh my God,” she said. “I’m talking too freely, but you know. The change of stories. The lack of preparation. The lying. Holy shit.”
I feel that I have a lot in common with Trump’s sister.
Read the whole thing, especially the part where Trump is incredulous that his sister doesn’t watch Fox News.
8. Back in late October 2008, Gallup polled Americans on how they viewed the economy. Only 5% rated the economy good or excellent.
Today, the economy is in even worse shape, and thus you might expect an even lower number to view conditions in a positive light. Even if voters don’t view the economy as poor (after all, stocks are doing well) it’s hard to see how anyone would view the economy as better than “fair”. And yet, Gallup reports that 28% now view the economy as good or excellent.
I have a theory about this. Americans have developed a new way of thinking. Back in 2008, voters would answer the question based on actual economic conditions. Today, the thought process is more complex. Voters start by asking who is the president. The current president is Trump. Then they ask whether they like Trump. If they do, then they conclude that the economy must be in good or excellent condition.
Evidence for this claim comes from the fact that another news story reports that Republicans overwhelming view the economy as good:
Almost 70% of Republicans said the national economy is “good” and that U.S. handling of the coronavirus is “going well,” with over half — 57% — saying that the number of U.S. deaths from the pandemic, which now number over 175,000, has been “acceptable.” About two-thirds of Republican respondents said the Covid-19 death count is lower than reported.
Further evidence for my claim comes from their views on Covid-19. Republicans believe the actual death rate is less than reported, even though it is actually more than reported, because believing it is less than reported is good for Trump. They don’t believe the US has done a poor job even though it obviously has (see graph below), because that belief would make Trump look bad.
This is why Trump has a good chance to win. In the past, voters punished the incumbent president when the country was doing poorly. Notably, it made no difference whether or not the president caused the country to be doing poorly (and almost always he had not.) All that mattered was the state of the country.
Today however, Trump supporters live in an epistemic bubble, and hence might well re-elect Trump based on false beliefs about reality. That’s good for the GOP!!
The good news for Dems is that there’s no evidence that Trump’s popularity is transferable to others. Even though Trump is objectively one of the most despicable humans that ever lived, a man with virtually no positive qualities and even hated by his sister, his supporters often adore the man. Look at their faces at campaign rallies. Another politician with exactly the same views would not engender the same degree of support. Thus the Trump Show ends in January 2025.
Tags:
23. August 2020 at 13:04
I thought Trump would likely lose before the pandemic, and so now I think he’s just more likely to lose. Granted, betting markets have the probability of a Trump win uncomfortably high, but historically, candidates down by this much in betting markets lose.
Also, Trump is in trouble in some key swing states, though the trend had moved on his direction a bit lately.
What makes you so confident Trump will win, especially since you seem to value betting markets that disagree with you? Your view is that betting markets are superior to individuals at predicting outcomes, correct?
23. August 2020 at 13:14
@ssumner:
Some truth to your idea that how voters see the world depends on partisanship first. But there is a difference between the recession of 2008 and the one of 2020.
2008 was “normal” in the sense that it was an unforeseen and unpredictable recession, where we didn’t know how bad it would get or how it might end. 2020 was a recession caused on purpose, presumably with a specific end date (once we beat the virus, presumably with vaccines). Even without being partisan I can see how one would feel less despair about this one.
And we would have had a virus induced recession even with a better president in charge, and even if there were no government mandated shutdowns.
23. August 2020 at 13:15
Wow, Scott is my friend again. Another brilliant post. I hated John Rawls in the law school I flunked. I got called by the professor and answered: “if you are risk adverse, then Rawls makes sense, but if you’re risk loving or risk neutral he does not”. I flunked that class too. BTW the min-max algorithm is used in chess, where you assume your adversary will find the best move (the worse option for you) but as Scott says, in economics average utility is much better since the economy is not a zero-sum game, rather, it can be a win-win (which Rawls failed to see).
Scott advocates for Agia Sophia, underreported, and I agree (as a Greek, I’m a bit biased). I wouldn’t call it more important than Covid-19, though I do see how authoritarianism is a longer term threat to democracy than even Trump’s more idiotic statements or Covid-19.
I also look forward to Scott’s analysis of the economy through the lens of monetarism. (I can’t believe I just typed that)
23. August 2020 at 13:16
@Michael S:
The betting markets have tightened up a fair amount, and no longer show a massive lead for Biden. And they can of course tighten further as the viral “second wave” starts to recede (which it is) and the economy continues to heal (which it is).
Throw in continuing urban unrest that voters can blame on Democrats and you get a very good shot for Trump to win again. He would have won easily before Covid.
I say all this as someone who loathes Trump. The Dems are almost as shitty of a party and can easily blow this.
23. August 2020 at 13:25
msgkings, events matter in political campaigns but in February 2020 Trump was on a path to losing. So 2018 featured record turnout for Democrats and the 2020 primaries had very high turnout for Biden which clearly had nothing to do with Biden—so Trump successfully energized the Democrat voters and we know from 2008 that more Americans lean Democrat than Republican…it’s just Republicans are more reliable voters. Keep in mind that even without the pandemic the fracking industry was in trouble and so 2020 was looking like 2016 in which anemic but positive manufacturing job growth stalls because frackers would stop buying equipment from Rust Belt manufactures.
23. August 2020 at 13:33
msgkings,
Yes, I mentioned that there’s recent trend in Trump’s direction, but Trump has a low ceiling, though he has a high floor. He’s done nothing to expand his base of support. Demographics and the reality of Trump over nearly 4 years are working against him. Even if the election is close, I don’t think Trump wins.
23. August 2020 at 13:46
Scott,
In your view, will anything slow the rise of identity politics or is this a runaway train?
I love your blog, here and at econlog. Your book went over my head, it should come with a list of books to read to get ready to read it.
23. August 2020 at 13:54
1) When people were polled in October 2008, the DJIA was in free fall, dropping to 8,500 (down 40%) then even before hit the bottom, unemployment was shooting up and the news was full of stories about a possible second depression. This August, the DJIA is about where it was in early January, 28,000 so down 4%, unemployment has been steadily falling and most think the economy will keep improving.
2) I’m not a Republican, but it is obvious that Covid-19 deaths have been over-counted. In mid May, Colorado said it had gone over its causes of deaths to find they over counted by 24%. Britain lowered its number of deaths by 11%, but there the requirement that the person has to die within 28 days only gets at part of the over counting issue.
23. August 2020 at 14:40
For point number 1, most factories in Hong Kong have already moved to China since the 1980s. The manufacturing sector contributes to only about 1% of GDP of Hong Kong (https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/sp250.jsp?tableID=036&ID=0&productType=8).
What the rule punishes is not victims of Chinese repression, but Hong Kong-based companies that have factories in China but labeled their products “Made in Hong Kong”. And most of these companies have good relationship with the government of China and Hong Kong.
23. August 2020 at 15:32
@Todd how do you explain the excess death numbers?
23. August 2020 at 15:33
Past Presidents have removed themselves from the public eye after leaving office, but there’s no way Trump is doing that. He will continue to Tweet and draw media attention, inserting himself into any and all political issues. Even still, I predict the Republican Party will continue to produce Trump-like candidates in the future and the Trump Show will very much continue.
23. August 2020 at 15:36
I don’t think it’s just strongman leaders that are espousing dangerous identity politics. The left is peddling their own destructive brand of identity politics in the US with their embrace of “anti-racism”. Sure, there are some muddled thinkers in the US calling themselves anti-racists who simply mean to say they are against racism, but that is not at all what the term means as defined by anti-racist “scholars” like Ibram Kendi. The anti-racists are explicitly racist, they have the ear of the Democratic VP candidate, and their goals are totalitarian. Kendi’s proposed Department of Anti-Racism (https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/how-to-fix-politics-in-america/inequality/pass-an-anti-racist-constitutional-amendment/), for example, is wonderfully Orwellian.
23. August 2020 at 15:42
Trump may be everything his sister says, but egads, he not even the worst postwar president—LBJ, Nixon, Bush jr.perpetrated atrocities.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program
If you have a strong stomach, read the above. SE Asia, Afghanistan, Iraq.
As for China-Hong Kong, appeasement wasn’t working. The NBA approach led to Jimmy Lai in handcuffs. The Trump Administration is at least trying.
23. August 2020 at 15:57
Michael Huemer versus John Rawls: one guy who’s not writing code against another guy who’s not writing code. BTW… I’m against plenty more people writing actual computer code the way I’m against more amortization and depreciation of the design and development and tools/fixtures/jigs of yet another model of SUV, pickup truck, sedan, Benetton sweater. If it’s just a positional good we don’t need more variants. May be if Rawls said it the way Huemer would have said it there’d be no argument. Huemer can’t talk about “it”; he can only talk about what Rawls said because that is all there is to work with. Hence… Klings “taking the most charitable view”. There is no such thing as a “veil of ignorance” anyway so why critique it. There is only the fact that people have varying amounts of concern for other people.
Ray Lopez: in repeated games there are no lovers of risk; only shades of risk aversion. Probably nobody sitting on the knife edge of risk neutrality either. A repeated game is probably a useful way to view social policy.
23. August 2020 at 16:02
Scott, you missed the most amazing poll: “Most Republicans say that 176,000 coronavirus deaths are ‘acceptable'”.
How can 176,000 deaths possibly be acceptable !!?!?!
The only explanation is essentially the one you offer: one cannot assess whether the level of deaths is acceptable without considering one’s support for the man-child we have in the White House.
So, I think this example is stronger support (or at least additional support) for your thesis.
-Ken
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/most-republicans-say-that-176000-coronavirus-deaths-are-acceptable-new-cbs-poll-shows-2020-08-23
23. August 2020 at 16:45
Within #1, the US and Britain have a strategically coherent policy in combination — retaliate against Hong Kong soil which encourages migration from Hong Kong. Allow migration
— but to Britain. This further makes use of the good-will Britain and recognizes that the US side of the policy will generate some ill-will.
It seems each is contributing to China containment according to his comparative advantage. It’s brilliant really and not the usual ham-handed direct policy seen with attempts such as the Iran Nuclear deal.
23. August 2020 at 16:49
Michael, I’m not “confident” he’ll win, I just think he’s got a pretty good chance. It should not even be close right now, but it is. And if he loses by 3%, he wins the electoral college.
msgkings, You said:
“Even without being partisan I can see how one would feel less despair about this one.”
They weren’t asked if they feel despair, they were asked how the economy is doing. It obviously sucks.
Joshua, These things are all cyclical. People used to worry about “uncivilized” and “violent” Irish immigrants. Eventually Americans will realize that Muslims do fine once they get here.
Todd, No, Covid-19 deaths have been undercounted by 10% to 15%, according to studies.
HKer, Why punish Hong Kong based companies? Why not punish Chinese officials responsible for repression? Why not punish China by allowing more immigration from HK?
Dale, There are no Trump like candidates, there is only Trump. Most of his supporters pay no attention to the issues, they like the personality.
Carl, You said:
“The left is peddling their own destructive brand of identity politics in the US with their embrace of “anti-racism”.”
Agreed, there are excesses on the left too. But right now the global threat from the extreme right is far greater than the threat from the extreme left. Perhaps that will change. Even the Chinese “communists” are basically fascist. China is full of billionaires.
Ken, Yes, that’s another example—there are so many examples . . .
23. August 2020 at 16:50
Laura, You call it “brilliant”; I call trying to hurt Hong Kong “evil”. I guess we have different values.
23. August 2020 at 17:01
5. Is good. Rawls’ original position is a great thought experiment but I always thought of it as a defense of utilitarianism and not a criticism. The answer to that thought experiment to me was utilitarianism and not minimax. After all, when people actually make decisions in their own lives (which is in a way making a decision in the original position for various future versions of yourself), people typically maximize expected utility instead of doing minimax.
The more interesting questions about the thought experiment have to do with who is included, like what about animals? And how do you account for the greater total utility of having more people—should we posit a fixed number of “souls” in the original position such that if there aren’t enough people some souls don’t get to live at all?
23. August 2020 at 17:45
One major difference between this and other US recessions is the sizable, but temporary real component. “Temporary” is the key word here. That could be part of the reason Trump isn’t held to as much account as prior Presidents.
Of course, most voters don’t understand that the nominal cause of slower growth is far bigger than the real component since it’s not so short-term.
23. August 2020 at 18:04
Neither here nor there, but it is historically interesting how the British Empire is again coalescing, this time to counter CCP/Beijing aggression and atrocities.
Australia, Hong Kong, Canada, the US, India and the UK are lining up.
On the other side, the CCP/Beijing and the NBA.
There is something in the development of the Anglosphere–it beat the Nazis and Tojo too (yes, the Russkies beat Hitler too—but for self-preservation, not to make a better world).
I don’t know about John Rawls, but Lou Rawls had a wonderful voice, the kind of relaxed singer who seems to have disappeared from the American scene
23. August 2020 at 18:23
I am surprised to see Ken Duda and Scott Sumner, both smart guys, so easily dismissing the idea that 178,000 C19 deaths is acceptable.
Surely, there has to be some sort of cost-benefit analysis.
Any modern nation can, say, build safer highways, or safer cars, or spend more on advanced medicine, or require minimum quality for ladders, better fire prevention, and thus save lives.
But at some point you reach diminishing returns.
This leads to perfectly wretched and soul-less but necessary discussions balancing human lives against costs.
The AEA put out a study that held that a six-week lockdown would be “worth it” if every life saved was valued at $10 million. That was six months ago and we are still in lockdowns.
Vote for Biden, Trump is an ogre. Fine.
But is 178,000 C19 deaths (mostly elderly with co-morbidities) acceptable?
Don’t we have think about costs, no matter who is president, or how heartfelt Biden makes his public postures?
About 600,000 people in the US will die this year from cancer, easily dwarfing C19, and often triggered by carcinogens. Is that acceptable?
Do Biden supporters not care about cancer victims?
23. August 2020 at 19:30
Scott: “Todd, No, Covid-19 deaths have been undercounted by 10% to 15%, according to studies.”
“According to studies” and no links. Okay….. How do you explain Colorado and the UK?
23. August 2020 at 20:47
Scott,
I am not arguing it is retributive nor supporting that. You are a utilitarian, right? If the goal is rehabilitation is this evil?
24. August 2020 at 00:15
“2008 was “normal” in the sense that it was an unforeseen and unpredictable recession, . . . ”
‘The widely believed proposition that this financial crisis was “a tsunami that no-one saw coming”, and that could not have been predicted, has been given the lie to by an excellent survey of economic models by Dirk Bezemer, a Professor of Economics at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands.
Bezemer did an extensive survey of research by economists or financial market commentators, looking for papers that met four criteria:
“Only analysts were included who:
1. provide some account on how they arrived at their conclusions.
2. went beyond predicting a real estate crisis, also making the link to real-sector recessionary implications, including an analytical account of those links.
3. the actual prediction must have been made by the analyst and available in the public domain, rather than being asserted by others.
4. the prediction had to have some timing attached to it.”
On that basis, Bezemer found eleven researchers who qualified:’
http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/07/15/no-one-saw-this-coming-balderdash/
24. August 2020 at 03:56
OT but a pure monetary policy question.
OK, there is a growth industry in digital tokens, aka tokenized securities. This is a digital token that represents a share in any tradable asset, such as land, a business, fine art.
So, there are Golem tokens which allow users units of time on supercomputers or other computer networks. These tokens trade freely in secondary markets.
Now, for sake of argument, let us suppose Golem tokens start surging in value. People start paying for products and services in Golem tokens. Suppose the equivalent value of trillions of dollars of Golem tokens start flowing around. People work for Golem tokens, sell products for Golem tokens.
So what is the money supply? What is monetary policy?
Sure, the Fed can target 2% inflation or 4% NGDPLT but what if a parallel economy exits, metered in tokens?
Deloitte says tokens are much superior to ordinary IPOs, venture cap etc. Reduce frictions.
24. August 2020 at 08:08
Mark, That’s my view as well, and those are interesting (and difficult) questions.
Ben, You said:
“I am surprised to see Ken Duda and Scott Sumner, both smart guys, so easily dismissing the idea that 178,000 C19 deaths is acceptable.
Surely, there has to be some sort of cost-benefit analysis.”
I am not surprised to see you misrepresent my views. I’ve often discussed the costs and benefits.
Todd, If you are so uninformed that you don’t even know about these studies, then what business do you have commenting here? Just look at all the excess deaths studies.
Laura, How does punishing a victim cause rehabilitation?
24. August 2020 at 11:09
“Todd, If you are so uninformed that you don’t even know about these studies, then what business do you have commenting here? Just look at all the excess deaths studies.”
Again, no links, Scott. The excess deaths “study” by the NY Times? Are you serious? There have been excess deaths from people not going to the hospital for heart attacks and strokes, of course.
24. August 2020 at 13:19
@Ben Cole -thanks for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientist post on how C-19 type viruses can be made and were made by Shi Zhengli without the usual ligase/lyase markers and signatures, very eye opening! Wow, blows away the argument that “C-19 virus looks natural” (Kristen Andersen et al)
@Brian: “Ray Lopez: in repeated games there are no lovers of risk; only shades of risk aversion. Probably nobody sitting on the knife edge of risk neutrality either. A repeated game is probably a useful way to view social policy.” – why? I get your point, because in a chained or repeated game, the risk lover will eventually be burnt (the so-called Gamblers’ Ruin problem) but did Rawls say his hypothetical was meant as a repeated game? I don’t recall this being a condition. And life arguably is not a repeated game, unless you are in a time loop like the movie Groundhog Day.
24. August 2020 at 23:36
“ . . . natural viruses and lab
18:13 engineered viruses are completely
18:15 different because when research is a
18:17 bioengineering of virus they usually
18:19 don’t build the entire thing from
18:21 scratch what they’re interested in is
18:23 the business end of the virus called the
18:26 spiked proteins they house the receptor
18:29 binding domain the RBD where the virus
18:31 attaches itself to the host cell and the
18:34 cleavage sites where it breaks in and
18:36 enters the cell so except in exceptional
18:40 circumstances they build the spike
18:42 proteins onto the structure of an
18:44 existing infectious virus I suppose the
18:47 best analogy is graffiti artists they
18:50 usually don’t spend lots of time and
18:52 money building an entire wall from
18:54 scratch in order to spray-paint their
18:56 art they find an existing wall and use
18:59 that when researchers at the Scripps
19:02 Institute examined the genetic makeup of
19:04 the new corona virus they discovered
19:06 that the whole thing was new not only
19:09 that there was clear evidence that the
19:11 virus had evolved it had genetic
19:13 sequences that could only be obtained in
19:16 the presence of a complete immune system
19:18 battle scars if you like showing that it
19:21 had been forced to evolve by adapting
19:23 and trying to overcome immune responses
19:26 you don’t get that by artificially
19:28 growing a virus in the presence of
19:30 isolated cells The Scripps Institute
19:33 researchers published their findings in
19:35 Nature Medicine with the clear
19:37 conclusion that it wasn’t a laboratory
19:39 construct one of the researchers told
19:42 ScienceDaily these two features of the
19:44 virus the mutations in the RB d portion
19:47 of the spike protein and it’s distinct
19:50 backbone rules out laboratory
19:52 manipulation as a potential origin for
19:55 SARS cough to the fact that this virus
19:58 wasn’t engineered rules out another
20:01 rumor in the English language
20:02 which blogosphere that it was a bio
20:04 weapon developed by the Chinese and the
20:07 rumor on the Chinese blogosphere that it
20:09 was bio engineered by the US Army
20:12 analysis of the viruses ruled that out
20:15 the Australian tabloid this youtuber and
20:18 many others are copying from claims it
20:20 got all its information from a leaked
20:22 dossier compiled by governments but it
20:25 won’t show it or tell us who wrote it a
20:27 secret leaked dossier does sound more
20:30 reliable than bloggers youtubers and
20:32 tabloid newspapers but it doesn’t
20:35 contain a single piece of information
20:36 that couldn’t have been found on the
20:38 internet with a simple Google search . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab-r0capbzk
25. August 2020 at 12:35
Scott,
You’re in favor of abolishing the FDA?
One of the things I like about living in a high income country is that I can buy food anywhere in the country and have a reasonable level of confidence that I won’t get poisoned. You don’t like meat inspectors?
25. August 2020 at 13:58
@Postkey – you are quite ignorant, please see the Yuri Deigen Medium article on the issue of C-19 virus as lab made. You do realize that Shi Zhengli made SARS-COV in 2015 in a lab? So she did not ‘start from scratch’ but used DNA from three such viruses (or at least two, some dispute that the natural pangolin DNA is needed). You’d do better if you avoided YouTube and stuck to written text, there’s more information there. See, https://tinyurl.com/ybt2cv8w and
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4797993/
25. August 2020 at 16:47
Great post! I disagree with the simplistic analysis of voting behavior though. Aside from his core base, I think some are afraid of excesses on the left, others want school choice (the one truly good thing of Trump’s presidency), some don’t want their health insurance to change, some want single family zoning, etc. In that regard, the RNC was very smart, although the personality cultishness was appalling to me. Also I think it’s worth baring in mind that many more are suffering from the economic fallout of covid than the virus itself–I would think many would see Trump as fighting (against the establishment) for their right to work. All combined, I give Trump very good odds.
25. August 2020 at 16:47
Todd, The studies take that into account, by looking state by state. You need to get up to speed. I can’t spoon feed every commenter—start educating yourself.
bb, If there’s a demand for meat inspection then the market will provide meat inspection. You need to have more confidence in the market.
Having said that, I’d be happen if the FDA just made everything voluntary. I.e., the FDA could say “We reject this drug and this meat, but feel free to take your chances if you feel lucky”. Is that compromise OK with you?
25. August 2020 at 16:50
Cartesian, You said:
“I would think many would see Trump as fighting (against the establishment) for their right to work.”
Yup, I believe there are many voters that are so delusional that they think Trump is fighting for them, and don’t know that Trump recommended the lockdown.
They probably also think that Trump making fun of people wearing masks gets them back to work more quickly.
It’s great having a president “fighting the establishment”.
25. August 2020 at 22:02
The quote from Ray Lopez… “did Rawls say his hypothetical was meant as a repeated game? I don’t recall this being a condition”.
I am reluctant to consider Rawls’ “veil of ignorance” game because it is imaginary and it seems to me to be unimportant. However if pressed I would say that Rawls’ suggestion does sound like a one shot game.
A social policy that seems to apply to a repeated game is unemployment benefits. An employee + employer match has a certain probability of involuntary break up. There might be very few examples. Auto insurance (if mandatory is a social policy) is renewed every year but that does not seem like a repeated game because you’re still the same driver.
25. August 2020 at 23:06
“Coronavirus strains are maintained in quasi-species pools circulating in bat populations. (a,b) Traditional SARS-CoV emergence theories posit that host-range mutants (red circle) represent random and rare occurrences that permit infection of alternative hosts. The secondary-host paradigm (a) argues that a nonhuman host is infected by a bat progenitor virus and, through adaptation, facilitates transmission to humans; subsequent replication in humans leads to the epidemic viral strain. The direct paradigm (b) suggests that transmission occurs between bats and humans without the requirement of an intermediate host; . . . ”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4797993/
25. August 2020 at 23:49
Scott,
I agree. I’m afraid the simplest explanation for everything we’re seeing is that the US is essentially a third world country now.
26. August 2020 at 10:41
Scott,
– “If there’s a demand for meat inspection then the market will provide meat inspection. You need to have more confidence in the market.”
I’ll give you credit for being consistent. I think it would be naive to have confidence that the market would solve the problem of food safety, without having an example of a country that successfully implemented such a plan, of which I think there are none? We have a lot of useless regulations but we have a lot of regulations that arose out of the markets failure to solve those problem. Beyond food safety, I think building codes is a good example. I think supplements is a good example of what happens without regulations, although there are several folks on this thread ready to tell me that Alex Jones provides excellent supplements.
27. August 2020 at 15:18
“HKer, Why punish Hong Kong based companies? Why not punish Chinese officials responsible for repression? Why not punish China by allowing more immigration from HK?”
I agree that punishing Chinese officials is a fairer action, but the problem is how. The US sanctions on 11 Hong Kong officials (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/08/08/faq-us-sanctions-hong-kong-officials/) is one possible direction, but the effectiveness remains a question. Some officials on the list even claimed that their everyday lives remain the same, because they don’t use any stuff or service from the US.
People in Hong Kong are of course welcome to the idea of allowing more immigration, but we also aware that the large influx of migrants from Hong Kong can result in local discontent in the host country. That’s why we are very careful in lobbying such idea.
Also, Chinese government is not afraid of, if not welcome to, brain drain in Hong Kong. For Chinese officials, human capital is far less important than sovereignty and “security” of Hong Kong.
28. August 2020 at 07:59
bb, I’m not an expert in this area, but people who are can point to many examples of effective private sector regulation. (Sorry, my memory is gone now—google some free market studies of how the private sector can regulate health and safety.)
HKer, You said:
“Also, Chinese government is not afraid of, if not welcome to, brain drain in Hong Kong. For Chinese officials, human capital is far less important than sovereignty and “security” of Hong Kong.”
Hundreds of millions of Chinese have said they’d like to move to the US, disproportionately the most successful. The Chinese government would not like that to occur, but we should encourage it, as should Canada, Australia, etc.
One Billion Americans!
29. August 2020 at 07:06
Since you have been blowing the bugle multiple times on India as anti-Muslim slant
https://twitter.com/SanjeevSanskrit/status/1120481554785026050
2018 of course is when Congress wasn’t the ruling party, since 2014 actually. The Assamese detention centers came up as a mechanism due to legal long process and were put up during Congress regime.