I read a comment last week about how if fire departments didn't exist already, there is absolutely no chance that they would get introduced in this modern era of politics.
I read a comment last week about how if fire departments didn't exist already, there is absolutely no chance that they would get introduced in this modern era of politics.
I want to support ideas that deal with issues at their source, in targeted and specific ways that have exponential payoffs later, but I'm forced to support sweeping "just give them houses and they're not homeless" solutions because at least those folks are trying to help, and anything is better than nothing.
I would guess this is likely because these positions are more based on philosophy than they are on actual economics or other evidence-based fields. This was a reasonable position when there wasn't strong evidence to either prove or disprove these arguments, but at some point the evidence becomes overwhelming, and those positions should no longer be considered serious. We're long passed that point on a number of issues, but it sure doesn't seem like anything will change anytime soon.
It's like dousing a farm field with fertilizers and herbicides to improve yields even though you couldn't sell half of last year's harvest. You end up selling your produce for less than last year even though the value of your company has gone up according to the stock market.
It doesn't take a genius to understand that things are doing better when supply and demand are balanced. You need a combination of multiple strategies.
Actually it's even worse. Too much fertilizer and herbicides will cause unintended consequences.
Note that many countries with broadly left wing governments, such as those in Europe, were also not prepared for the pandemic, and will also pay a high cost.
Sure, but not actually doing any worse than Western Europe.
Also, those same conservatives actually did invest billions in vaccine development and production capacity in the US.
Literally twice as much as the EU did, and the result is a vaccine rollout that at 5x the rate.
Similarly, one could argue that if Trump's administration hadn't gutted the cybersecurity team, we may or may not have caught the SolarWind hack much sooner. Again, there's no way to know for sure how well preventative measures work, all I know is that while those teams were in place, the hacks and the impact of viruses were much smaller.
This is true. It’s not a valid counterfactual to compare against an imagined ideal.
It’s just as possible to consider that the pandemic response team had degenerated into ineffectiveness, and by disbanding them Trump made things better.
This is why imagined counterfactuals aren’t helpful compared vs comparing with an actual benchmark.
I just think it makes no sense to reduce that to blaming the republicans or even a specific act of the Trump administration, based on pure imagination of an alternative outcome.
If ‘American republicanism’ is to blame for how bad the pandemic is, how do you explain Europe’s performance?
When they were the ones who cut off funding to the very agencies whose job it was to prevent, then it absolutely makes sense. If I cut off your house's alarm system, and the very next week there's a burglary, you would absolutely blame me for it.
> how do you explain Europe’s performance
Again, I'm not talking about the response to the pandemic, but specifically about prevention. And yes, China, Europe and other countries should've had their own agencies in charge of tracking and preventing worldwide outbreak, but this is whataboutism. What I care about is that the US cutoff it's alarm system and ended up getting attacks the next year.
People die in hospitals.
Demolishing them will make things better.