Don Quixote's Fried Eggs: Purpose of a System Is What It Does
population.fyi
population.fyi
> Real-world policies frequently contradict their rhetoric, as seen in various domains: .... Unemployment benefits: Benefits vary widely across states, often misaligning with political stereotypes and cost of living differences (e.g., Texas offering more generous unemployment benefits than California).
One could make the argument that Reagan, being the tip of the metaphorical spear that was the austerity movement here in the United States getting his start as Governor of California, could explain the oddity. The movement gathered it's steam in the Golden state, after all, a big part of which was the spread of the (largely completely made up) notion of the welfare queen, and how people were living large on the Government dole.
Of course, the article didn't want to be even handed. Its primary intent wasn't really to explore POSWID as a general concept that applies nearly everywhere in politics. Its purpose is what it did.
Never. The problem with debating the Laffer Curve is that tax receipts always go up, only occasionally dipping for recessions. It's not possible to correlate tax receipts to tax policy in that way without inventing your own model for what would have happened under your alternative policy (which can of course say whatever you want it to say). Taxes decreased, receipts go up. Taxes increased, receipts go up. The only thing that stops receipts from going up year-on-year are big recessions, and even then they always bounce back to higher than pre-recession levels afterwards.
Nicely done. :)
We don't have a right and left here. We have a right and less-right.
I cannot overstate this: As a leftist, I have NO representation of my ideas in American politics. None. I vote Democrat because the alternative is, again, theocratic fascism and I definitely don't want that. But that doesn't mean I have even one iota of love for the Democrats. They do not represent me or what I want for the world on the vast majority of issues.
This way to divide up politics into two sides doesnt work. Your argument here boils down to "The world sees all American politics as right wing and you dont want to be percieved as right wing now do you so you better convert." That is not a strong argument based in reason.
If you cant tell the difference between a democrat and a libertarian, and think american republicans are fascist you probably need a few new feature dimensions.
My argument is that the Democrat party largely supports conservative political ideas, the dictionary definition outlining it as:
> (in a political context) favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas.
The Democrats adhere strongly to free enterprise, private ownership, other austerity politics. They're less socially traditional than most Republicans in the US, though still very socially traditional in isolated topics, things like largely still holding to Christian values and standards, the monogamous model of marriage as a pillar of society, rugged individualism and American exceptionalism, etc. etc. I'm not saying these are necessarily bad things (though as a polyamorous person, it would be nice to enshrine both of my partners legally as I would want but that's a niche digression), I'm just saying, it's not so simple as "American politics are called all right wing" as though it's an arbitrary decision on the part of leftists. Leftists point out Democrats are centrist and even right wing on many issues because they are: because their political actions align with a conservative agenda.
> If you cant tell the difference between a democrat and a libertarian
To be perfectly blunt I think I could articulate that difference better than you, based on the way you've spoken so far on the subject.
> and think american republicans are fascist
I wouldn't say they are fascists, but I would say the conservative movement as it exists in the US is highly amenable to fascism, if it enables their political project. And given their last president quite famously got within shouting distance of an actual coup, I don't think that's an unreasonable position to hold. Now whether you want to draw a line between "fascist" and "largely okay with fascism if it does the right harms to the right people" or not is up to you personally.
So does every mainstream political party in every country in the world (except for North Korea. Even supposedly "Communist" countries like China accept that you aren't going to be a prosperous nation without them these days). Nobody is a Bolshevik any more -- everyone wants a market economy and private property. What makes the parties in other countries different than the US is that they generally support more social programs and a heavier tax burden on the rich to support it.
Not saying I agree with a physical act in consideration, but the idea that any physical defiance of your government is fascist is denying the history of this country. Think of it like an ultra riot.
Can you say more about this? An example would be interesting.
The trains, government market control, subsidies etc are not to protect humanity from capitalism, its to provide safety and convenience for Japanese people. Freedom be damned either way so calling it right wing doesn't work.
Imagine if Bidens political goal was universal healthcare for all white people. Or if trump wanted strict gun control to protect the nation.
Left right just isn't real. I see it as analogous to before the world knew about microorganisms and thought your health was determined by good and bad humors. There were experts in humors, jokes, art, writing. Im sure it seemed like a very real thing at the time.
Far more? It seems like exactly one more, and the relative sizes and qualities of the proposals are not discussed.
I think they are making the point that houston doesn't just build more market rate housing, but all forms of housing