Debate: Government or Political Parties are the Problem

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4052
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Debate: Government or Political Parties are the Problem

Post by Kriegsspiel » Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:38 pm

I'm with doodle on this one. It's one of the reasons I do not like major immigration. If poor countries could get their fertility rates down to where developed countries are at, I'd consider that a good thing.

Also, Japan looks fantastic.
You there, Ephialtes. May you live forever.
pp4me
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1190
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2020 4:12 pm

Re: Debate: Government or Political Parties are the Problem

Post by pp4me » Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:53 pm

Kriegsspiel wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:38 pm
Also, Japan looks fantastic.
Spent a week and a half there travelling around on the Shinkansens last summer and I would have to say it is the most impressive country I've yet visited in all my world travels. My wife agrees and we are definitely planning on returning. We had planned on making our first trip to Europe this year until Covid hit so maybe when we are able to go we will find some place there to compare it favorably to but for now Japan has been our favorite.
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Debate: Government or Political Parties are the Problem

Post by Kbg » Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:00 pm

glennds wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:25 am
Kbg wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:18 am
I was on an exchange program where I got to spend two seriously difficult weeks in Paris learning about the French government and it’s approach to national security. A couple of sessions were like basic French Government 101 for us ignorant Americans.

One thing they told us about was how they do national elections...I forget the exact details so undoubtedly I’ve got some details wrong but the thrust is correct.

100% publicly financed

Something like a 3 month first round to narrow down the field (sorta primaryish but not really a primary)

Something like a 1 month final round with 2-3 candidates, done.

One of the French participants asked...how can you stand 1-2 years of presidential campaigning, doesn’t it drive you crazy?

Answer...from the US side...yes.

Personally I’d be totally on board with the French approach.

And the Paris comment was tongue in cheek...I get why Paris is considered one of the great world cities. It was an awesome two weeks.
Doesn't the French system also involve multiple rounds, in part to mitigate shock surprises like Brexit (or maybe Trump 2016)?
The idea being that in the second round more people are spurred to vote, or maybe some sober up for the second vote after getting an anger vote out of their system.
For Americans I think it’s a foreign concept...they still have party primaries...but imagine a world where once the parties chose their candidates those candidates now have the same financial base to campaign with...you know something like a libertarian would have the same finances to use as a Republican, or a Green and a Democrat. Wouldn’t that be interesting?

IIRC, the winner does have to have a majority so yeah maybe they have to go another round with only two candidates. Seems like that did happen a couple of cycles back.

I know there are some size of party requirements. I couldn’t create the kbg party of one and nominate myself...but I’ve no idea on those details.
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Debate: Government or Political Parties are the Problem

Post by Kbg » Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:20 pm

boglerdude wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:37 pm
"There are FAR stricter rules around how political parties can spend money in other countries; During the campaign for the UK’s 2017 general election, political parties, candidates, and non-party campaigners spent around £40 million in total. In the 2016 US election, presidential candidates, Senate and House candidates, political parties, and outside interest groups spent about $6.5 billion trying to influence federal elections."
https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics/c ... g/fg2nqq2/

Also the Revolving Door
This is my favorite rebuttal to Republicans when they harp on judicial activism in the Supreme Court. Some how freedom of speech became associated with money and Congressional attempts, mostly bipartisan, to limit the influence of political contributions was completely gutted.

At least this round the Rs are reaping the whirlwind of that ruling...there was an article where Bloomberg alone was dumping a $100M into Florida which is forcing Trump to cut way back on spending in the northern battleground states. Additionally, in the competitive Senate races out of state money has been in several cases 10s of millions more than the R candidate’s war chest.

The Ds are way more successful at getting online small donations (pioneered by the Obama campaign connection to Silicon Valley) and the Ds superpacs are way better funded by the big guys compared to the Rs superpacs this year.

To be completely cynical which I normally try to avoid...looks like big IT has way more money than big oil...
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Debate: Government or Political Parties are the Problem

Post by vnatale » Thu Oct 22, 2020 5:56 pm

doodle wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 12:29 pm
Meh. I'd be happy if the world's population naturally dwindled to half or even a quarter of it's present size. In that regard Japan is on the right path for me. Exponential growth is unsustainable anyways. At some point we will reach a steady state. Id rather do it where I don't have to wait in long lines, crowded and huddled together . Unlike a virus, I'd hope that our purpose lies beyond replication.
As countries become less poor their birth rates naturally decline. It's a pattern that's been repeating itself for decades (centuries?) around the world.

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Debate: Government or Political Parties are the Problem

Post by glennds » Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:58 pm

Kriegsspiel wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:38 pm

Also, Japan looks fantastic.
In what respect?
boglerdude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1313
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:40 am
Contact:

Re: Debate: Government or Political Parties are the Problem

Post by boglerdude » Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:04 am

Standard of living.
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4052
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Debate: Government or Political Parties are the Problem

Post by Kriegsspiel » Fri Oct 23, 2020 6:50 am

glennds wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:58 pm
Kriegsspiel wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:38 pm

Also, Japan looks fantastic.
In what respect?
High cultural & technological development, quality of life, free housing in their "ghost towns", nice big cities, nearly nonexistent crime, cohesive society, low obesity, pretty countryside... There are just so many positives Japan has going for it I think it's strange to use THEM as a cautionary tale. I get that Japan was pretty much the first country to start dropping pop, but still.
You there, Ephialtes. May you live forever.
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4052
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Debate: Government or Political Parties are the Problem

Post by Kriegsspiel » Fri Oct 23, 2020 7:10 am

tomfoolery wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 2:15 am
As countries become less poor their birth rates naturally decline. It's a pattern that's been repeating itself for decades (centuries?) around the world.

Vinny
This sounds more like a correlation than a causation. Although I haven’t studied this issue, so if you can explain the suggested pathway, I’m curious to learn more.
Something I've noticed is that what seems to happen is that as countries become more developed, a gap opens between achieved fertility and desired fertility. Meaning women in developed countries do not have as many kids as they desire; something is thwarting them. I can't help but wonder if this is related to the downward trend of female happiness (at least in America) in the past half century. So maybe it's incorrect to chalk it up as an unqualified "good thing."
I would assume the opposite, because looking at a single family unit, we see people having less kids when they are poor because they can’t afford them. At least in the last 30 years.

But in general, if we’re talking a middle class family, they use more birth control, and have less sex, and delay having kids to later in life when they can afford it.

So I’d assume the poorer the country, the fewer the kids.
I think it depends on the culture. Kenya (wealthy have less kids) and Rwanda (poor have less kids) apparently support it, but the poor Muslim countries have "virtually uncontrolled fertility." I just used this source but I've seen this mentioned before when I was looking into it.
You there, Ephialtes. May you live forever.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Debate: Government or Political Parties are the Problem

Post by vnatale » Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:40 am

tomfoolery wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 2:15 am
vnatale wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 5:56 pm
doodle wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 12:29 pm
Meh. I'd be happy if the world's population naturally dwindled to half or even a quarter of it's present size. In that regard Japan is on the right path for me. Exponential growth is unsustainable anyways. At some point we will reach a steady state. Id rather do it where I don't have to wait in long lines, crowded and huddled together . Unlike a virus, I'd hope that our purpose lies beyond replication.
As countries become less poor their birth rates naturally decline. It's a pattern that's been repeating itself for decades (centuries?) around the world.

Vinny
This sounds more like a correlation than a causation. Although I haven’t studied this issue, so if you can explain the suggested pathway, I’m curious to learn more.

I would assume the opposite, because looking at a single family unit, we see people having less kids when they are poor because they can’t afford them. At least in the last 30 years.

Maybe 100 years ago, if you were poor, you had multiple kids because you were so poor, you needed to make additional workers for your family and send them to the coal mines. But with child labor laws, that’s no longer the case.

I suppose, we could say the poorer you are in America, if you’re really poor, you have more kids to qualify for higher welfare benefits. Before the liberals prepare the “racist” flags to throw down at me, I’m not saying all poor people do this, but there’s at least some poor people who have more kids and see them as 18 year paycheck programs.

But in general, if we’re talking a middle class family, they use more birth control, and have less sex, and delay having kids to later in life when they can afford it.

So I’d assume the poorer the country, the fewer the kids.
My statement was not directed towards the current (or near-current) United States but to what is and has been occurring in other countries throughout the world. I first read it in a book but, at this time, am forgetting all the reasons why. I just did a Bing search and was unable to offer you. Time permitting I will later get back to it and provide it to you.

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Debate: Government or Political Parties are the Problem

Post by vnatale » Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:01 am

vnatale wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:40 am
tomfoolery wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 2:15 am
vnatale wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 5:56 pm
doodle wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 12:29 pm
Meh. I'd be happy if the world's population naturally dwindled to half or even a quarter of it's present size. In that regard Japan is on the right path for me. Exponential growth is unsustainable anyways. At some point we will reach a steady state. Id rather do it where I don't have to wait in long lines, crowded and huddled together . Unlike a virus, I'd hope that our purpose lies beyond replication.
As countries become less poor their birth rates naturally decline. It's a pattern that's been repeating itself for decades (centuries?) around the world.

Vinny
This sounds more like a correlation than a causation. Although I haven’t studied this issue, so if you can explain the suggested pathway, I’m curious to learn more.

I would assume the opposite, because looking at a single family unit, we see people having less kids when they are poor because they can’t afford them. At least in the last 30 years.

Maybe 100 years ago, if you were poor, you had multiple kids because you were so poor, you needed to make additional workers for your family and send them to the coal mines. But with child labor laws, that’s no longer the case.

I suppose, we could say the poorer you are in America, if you’re really poor, you have more kids to qualify for higher welfare benefits. Before the liberals prepare the “racist” flags to throw down at me, I’m not saying all poor people do this, but there’s at least some poor people who have more kids and see them as 18 year paycheck programs.

But in general, if we’re talking a middle class family, they use more birth control, and have less sex, and delay having kids to later in life when they can afford it.

So I’d assume the poorer the country, the fewer the kids.
My statement was not directed towards the current (or near-current) United States but to what is and has been occurring in other countries throughout the world. I first read it in a book but, at this time, am forgetting all the reasons why. I just did a Bing search and was unable to offer you. Time permitting I will later get back to it and provide it to you.

Vinny
I just did more searching. I thought I'd originally learned it from Hans Rosling's Factfulness book. But after scanning here twice: https://www.shortform.com/summary-v2/fa ... ns-rosling ......I did not find it.

However, I do recommend all reading this summary as it DOES address many of the postures many take here regarding facts and positions.

I will continue to search regarding the higher incomes leads to smaller families and why.

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Debate: Government or Political Parties are the Problem

Post by glennds » Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:28 pm

Kriegsspiel wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 6:50 am
glennds wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:58 pm
Kriegsspiel wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:38 pm

Also, Japan looks fantastic.
In what respect?
High cultural & technological development, quality of life, free housing in their "ghost towns", nice big cities, nearly nonexistent crime, cohesive society, low obesity, pretty countryside... There are just so many positives Japan has going for it I think it's strange to use THEM as a cautionary tale. I get that Japan was pretty much the first country to start dropping pop, but still.
I lived in Japan for most of 2018 and I can echo all the positive things you list, and more. The hardest thing for me leaving Japan was the shock of re-integrating into the United States where the environment is so unbelievably rude and inconsiderate. Most all of us, myself included, don't notice it on a daily basis because it's just normalized deviancy. But go to a country like Japan and come back, and I promise the same kind of shock you get when you jump into a pool and think it's freezing until your body normalizes to it.

Setting this aside, I will tell you there are storm clouds on the horizon for Japan of gigantic proportions that are not obvious to a tourist, but you come to learn about them as you get to know people there including both Japanese and gaijin. It is a country that is living way beyond it's economic means because the post 80's correction/crash has never really resolved. The hope was that it was a cyclical downturn, but it has proven to be a massive reset. However people's standard of living has not changed and this is because the government has basically deficit financed a false prosperity by taking ZIRP and QE to extreme levels, more than any other industrialized country. Add to this a declining AND aging population. The trend they are seeing has never been seen in history. Add to this a deep resistance to looking to immigration as an economic engine. Add to this that Japan is in no position to compete with China on nearly any level for dominance of the Trans Pacific.

It is a fantastic place and culture, but how the storm clouds will play out is the big question. I have gamed it out in my mind dozens of times, and it's tough to find a good ending to the conundrum.
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Debate: Government or Political Parties are the Problem

Post by Tortoise » Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:28 pm

Simonjester wrote: i think the number of kids is more correlated with child mortality than poverty (poverty and child mortality are also often correlated) so poor places with low child mortality have less kids, higher mortality have more... just a theory for consideration..

the sexual revolution and the state taking over replacing fathers seems to have had an effect as well
Right, and I think you can generalize that statement to say feminism, which actually seems like the biggest factor in a society's reproduction rate.

It's really quite simple. If a woman is attending college and pursuing a career, she tends not to be having kids. If she's still focused on her career in her mid-30s, her biological chances of bearing children begin to plummet exponentially until reaching nearly zero in her early- to mid-40s.

So to the extent that feminism involves not only giving women equal rights, but also encouraging women to have careers instead of getting married and having kids, it tends to lower the reproduction rate of the society embracing it.

Some of the fastest-growing populations on the planet right now are Muslim. Why? Because to say that Muslims aren't feminist would be a bit of an understatement.
boglerdude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1313
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:40 am
Contact:

Re: Debate: Government or Political Parties are the Problem

Post by boglerdude » Sat Oct 24, 2020 4:09 am

> the United States where the environment is so unbelievably rude and inconsiderate

examples?
Post Reply