CGP Grey goes into detail about the characteristic importance of horses to the development of western society...
How we voted in 2018
- Thread starter Watu3
- Start date
Showing little advancement is a far thing from not being capable of advancement.
The native Americans arrived in the new world via Siberia in a vast migration that was ongoing after Europe was settled. Their lag was more movement related than ability.
But, I find it interesting that you still believe that no matter what it would have taken European contact for them to evolve out of the Stone Age.
Given multiple millenia they didn't accomplish anything near the achievements of the Romans, or any of the later European empires. It's not that I don't think they were capable if they were given the same starting scenarios... it's that I don't think they were able to because they started with much different natural resources and the Eurasian's were better. Horses most notably. Without horses, Native Americans never even developed the use of carts with wheels for transportation of goods. Asking them to leap into the 21st century without some of the basic necessary technologies would have been ludicrous. They would have taken eons to get to the same point. Even their best empires (the Aztecs and Incas) basically made it to the abilities of the early Egyptians and stopped for thousands of years.
The whites weren't smarter or better. They just started off with better resources which led to far faster social, economic, and military development.
Funnily enough, even the Inca Empire would probably be deemed socialist today, as the members of the empire had labor obligations to the empire.
Last edited:
The precursor condition for most developed, complex societies was agriculture which tied people to a location, gave them territory to defend and the need for a more complex social structure to deal with resource allocations and social obligations. The fertile crescent is considered the origin of our western civilization. And as you point out, Interactions between relatively developed societies also led to advancements that the individual societies would not have made on their own.
Isolated, nomadic societies largely without agriculture adapted to their environment in very different ways . But they were quick to catch on as things changed. Plains tribes for example didn't have horses until the Spanish arrived but adapted quickly to the new technology.
Anyway, I suspect we are making very different points about the subject.
North Carolina, the last I read, was considered the most gerrymandered state in the country. That should change as I believe an appeals court ordered the state to redraw district lines that made sense in terms of area. On the map I saw one of the districts has like a 50 mile lone path that is about 1 mile wide so it could connect 2 urban/more densely populated areas into one district and leave some of the suburban/rural areas in their own district. Maryland and Pennsylvania also have some pretty interestingly shaped districts. Between the court order and the fact that North Carolina's GOP super majority in their state legislature has been busted, you should start seeing a change in the HoR makeup from NC in the 2020 election and beyond.
Also, there is a lawsuit in Alabama right now about a couple of their districts which lump large numbers of minority voters into a single district connected by thin strands to keep the district "contiguous".
The NC GOP kept resubmitting redrawn districts they knew would be shot down by the courts as racially segregated so there wouldn't be time to draw a new map before election day. They effectively chewed clock like you would in basketball or football. But they won't be able to in 2020. They really are pieces of trash in that state. They openly admit to redistricting in a way that would give them partisan advantage.
When asked why they drew a map that gave them 10 seats out of 13 despite the fact that they lost the popular vote... one of their representatives said something along the lines that, "it was because we couldn't draw it where we would get 11".
Intentional gerrymandering should be outlawed in the constitution. Divide the districts into the most compact areas that can be achieved with multiple computer simulations given the population density of a state.
Last edited:
No. I've explained it a hundred times. They are not pushing for a full socialist society or economy. Healthcare and higher ed. I've already explained why they're pushing for the higher ed part and I don't completely agree. Higher Ed needs to be an investment on the part of the student. It shouldn't be free because then it is taken for granted.
Every US citizen should be absolutely taken care of with regards to healthcare. Costs have skyrocketed ridiculously because insurance companies and large health care provider networks (see Mercy in Missouri) are able to collude and drive up costs. Their goal isn't a standard of care but a minimum dividend payout to shareholders.
I'm not saying the ACA in totality is the answer, although there are many good parts contained within that law, it can be better. Right now the dysfunction in Washington isn't about that law per se, but more about the guy's name they attach to it. Both parties want to take all the credit and neither wants to give any credit to the other side which is why they are unwilling to work with one another.
It's funny how you can see a poll on the popularity of the ACA vs the popularity of "Obamacare" taken in the same areas with similar demographics surveyed and you end up with positive feelings about the Affordable Care Act and an overwhelming negative impression of "Obamacare". People value the intent of the Affordable Care Act, they just don't like that a black man was the driving force behind it.
Several states, including Michigan, Missouri and Colorado, took redistricting out of the hands of the legislature by setting up independent, bipartisan commissions. People are catching on.
QUOTE="astonmartin708, post: 237286, member: 852"]The NC GOP kept resubmitting redrawn districts they knew would be shot down by the courts as racially segregated so there wouldn't be time to draw a new map before election day. They effectively chewed clock like you would in basketball or football. But they won't be able to in 2020. They really are pieces of trash in that state. They openly admit to redistricting in a way that would give them partisan advantage.
When asked why they drew a map that gave them 10 seats out of 13 despite the fact that they lost the popular vote... one of their representatives said something along the lines that, "it was because we couldn't draw it where we would get 11".
Intentional gerrymandering should be outlawed in the constitution. Divide the districts into the most compact areas that can be achieved with multiple computer simulations given the population density of a state.[/QUOTE]
QUOTE="astonmartin708, post: 237286, member: 852"]The NC GOP kept resubmitting redrawn districts they knew would be shot down by the courts as racially segregated so there wouldn't be time to draw a new map before election day. They effectively chewed clock like you would in basketball or football. But they won't be able to in 2020. They really are pieces of trash in that state. They openly admit to redistricting in a way that would give them partisan advantage.
When asked why they drew a map that gave them 10 seats out of 13 despite the fact that they lost the popular vote... one of their representatives said something along the lines that, "it was because we couldn't draw it where we would get 11".
Intentional gerrymandering should be outlawed in the constitution. Divide the districts into the most compact areas that can be achieved with multiple computer simulations given the population density of a state.[/QUOTE]
To one side its gerrymandering ,
to the other it is proportional district redisdristbution balancing.
to the other it is proportional district redisdristbution balancing.
Redistricting is tricky. Suppose the voters in your state are variable by density, but not much by party or ideology. In that case, a party that wins 53% of the statewide vote might very well take ALL of the districts.
It's a question of how a state wants to have their districts biased. That is, what is the desired outcome? One desired outcome is to maximize victory for a particular party, which is often maligned and referred to as "gerrymandering". But there is really not a truly neutral way to do it. Do you want to prioritize the redistricting in such a way that you get as close as possible to a representation that reflects the state popular vote? That is, a 60/40 vote split generates close to a 60/40 split in the overall representation? That sounds nice, but it depends on how the population density is distributed, as well as how the partisan lean of the voters is distributed. It may produce some pretty tortured looking districts and may not even be possible if the voters are relatively uniform. See example above. It would also have the effect of a very popular representative in one district skewing the results elsewhere. That is, just because there is a popular, unopposed 12 term D or R somewhere in the state doesn't mean you should allocate representation proportionately as if that were a competitive race.
Or maybe you want to maximize the number of competitive districts? Then you are effectively going to pack a couple districts completely full of Ds and a couple completely full of Rs, and divy up the rest of the state so that there is party parity. That also sounds nice, but it will virtually guarantee a bias toward a 50/50 split in representation, which may not be considered fair if your state has an overall voter distribution of 65/35.
You can also try to produce geographically compact districts, which are centered more around communities, but this may have the effect of packing urban voters into one or two districts, and would probably generally favor the GOP if one district around a metro area is 70/30 D, and all the outlying ones in the rest of the state are 55/45 GOP.
There are of course maps that are obviously gerrymandered to produce victories for a particular party, but it's not really clear to me what the best solution is.
The best solution if you want proportional representation is to simply make the representative election a state-wide election . You vote for a slate of potential reps, and then the state allocates representation proportional to the vote. No need for any districts at all if that is your goal.
It's a question of how a state wants to have their districts biased. That is, what is the desired outcome? One desired outcome is to maximize victory for a particular party, which is often maligned and referred to as "gerrymandering". But there is really not a truly neutral way to do it. Do you want to prioritize the redistricting in such a way that you get as close as possible to a representation that reflects the state popular vote? That is, a 60/40 vote split generates close to a 60/40 split in the overall representation? That sounds nice, but it depends on how the population density is distributed, as well as how the partisan lean of the voters is distributed. It may produce some pretty tortured looking districts and may not even be possible if the voters are relatively uniform. See example above. It would also have the effect of a very popular representative in one district skewing the results elsewhere. That is, just because there is a popular, unopposed 12 term D or R somewhere in the state doesn't mean you should allocate representation proportionately as if that were a competitive race.
Or maybe you want to maximize the number of competitive districts? Then you are effectively going to pack a couple districts completely full of Ds and a couple completely full of Rs, and divy up the rest of the state so that there is party parity. That also sounds nice, but it will virtually guarantee a bias toward a 50/50 split in representation, which may not be considered fair if your state has an overall voter distribution of 65/35.
You can also try to produce geographically compact districts, which are centered more around communities, but this may have the effect of packing urban voters into one or two districts, and would probably generally favor the GOP if one district around a metro area is 70/30 D, and all the outlying ones in the rest of the state are 55/45 GOP.
There are of course maps that are obviously gerrymandered to produce victories for a particular party, but it's not really clear to me what the best solution is.
The best solution if you want proportional representation is to simply make the representative election a state-wide election . You vote for a slate of potential reps, and then the state allocates representation proportional to the vote. No need for any districts at all if that is your goal.
I would love for everyone’s health care to be taken care of but I just don’t see how it is realistically possible for the US. Both the CBO and Tax Policy Center state it would introduce a ~$40 trillion shortfall over the next decade, see Vox, who is even left of CNN, saying the same thing: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/20...-cost-medicare-college-sanders-deficits-taxes.
For the same period they estimate the federal government will collect $44 trillion and there’s papers, that I can link but don’t have currently available, that state this is only possible by doubling taxes on EVERYONE and corporations plus requiring those in the medical field to reduce costs/salaries by ~40%.
I fully agree there is much to improve our current health care system but it is an area with no easy answers. Despite the fact that the media consistently portrays it as one party just being against caring for the US citizens.
Perhaps the reason they stopped advancing was their innate socialist nature.
How can you disenfranchise a minority when they are given an unfettered opportunity to vote?
How does the method of the vote disenfranchise them?
Then how do most other industrialized countries accomplish the following?
--cover everyone, not just some
--spend about half of the amount the US does (% of GDP)
--achieve better health outcomes than the US (US ranks 34th in international indices of health outcomes)
Are other countries just smarter than we are?
About 10 years ago a Harvard Business School study pointed out that our system wastes $200B a year on duplicative overheads and profits from our complex system of competing health insurance companies. It's certainly higher now.
BTW the article cited says $40T over 30 years, not 10.
--cover everyone, not just some
--spend about half of the amount the US does (% of GDP)
--achieve better health outcomes than the US (US ranks 34th in international indices of health outcomes)
Are other countries just smarter than we are?
About 10 years ago a Harvard Business School study pointed out that our system wastes $200B a year on duplicative overheads and profits from our complex system of competing health insurance companies. It's certainly higher now.
BTW the article cited says $40T over 30 years, not 10.
Yes the article says this, despite the CBO report they reference stating over a decade.
You can ask your own party, the CBO and Tax Policy Center both explain the differences between the US and other countries.
Let's say the $200B figure is now $400B per year (it isn't) that is only $4 trillion, that gets us to covering 10% of the entire country over a decade, not 100% of the population.
Again, I'd love for it to be realistic but due to the size of our country, the services we expect, and the amount of innovation our country expects out of our medical industry (an area we GREATLY outpace every other country in), no economists have been able to reach a realistic solution that could ever be acceptable to a level that would be passed as law.
Healthcare costs track very closely with consumption regardless of country or system. We generally don't lead all that healthy lives and we go to the doctor even when it's unnecessary....so extremely high consumption and extremely high cost. Single payer won't change that
It will increase consumption as everyone then has the ability to go to the doctor even when unnecessary.
And no, I'm not saying that to say those without insurance shouldn't get to do that, only adding yet another reason on how it is different here and why the costs are so much higher for us.
Other countries have free universal health care.
Maybe that is why we have to supply them with foreign aid to pay for it.
Maybe that is why we have to supply them with foreign aid to pay for it.
I think you would have to increase the taxes on everyone but it would be much better than everyone having to pay the premiums they are currently paying.
Again look at the numbers from the CBO and Tax Policy Center. Per their reports doubling taxes across the board still wouldn’t cover the short fall, unless there were cuts to pay in the medical industry or the care provided was reduced.
The Tax Policy Center was only gauging Bernie's plan from 2016. His plan didn't call for appropriate funding of his idea. He just intended to tax the rich. In reality, everyone would have to pay more taxes... but in the grand scheme of things they (combined with their employers) would likely end up paying less than they currently do in premiums and deductibles.
There is no reason anyone should pay more if you blew up all the insurance companies right now and replaced them with a government run agency. In fact, it would be more likely that a government agency that had no requirement for continual profit (like an insurance company has) would actually save people money. Add that to the fact that the government is a much better bargainer with medical companies and they have regulatory power to assure fairer and more readily disclosed pricing (no more $500 bags of saline solution) and you have the best option.
How much should health care cost?
How much should health insurance cost?
How much should individuals pay?
How much should health insurance cost?
How much should individuals pay?
Yet other sophisticated, modern countries manage to cover everyone at half the cost with better outcomes. What is so unique about the US that we spend twice what others do and leave tens of millions without coverage for worse overall outcomes?
My expat friends who live in Europe and Canada claim their care is better than here. They say there is no drop in quality (quite the reverse) or access.
Last edited:
I guess it's a good thing I never said anything about what Americans have or don't have then. It was only a statement about what you can ever realistically expect to get out of a product or service. If there were not regulations mandating a standard of care/coverage there would certainly be cheap, fast healthcare options for poor people that were of a relatively lesser quality. I'm not saying that's desirable (my libertarianism only goes so far) but it's the reality of trade offs and trade offs are unavoidable.
What I'm saying is that in reality, a lot (I'd almost be willing to say a majority of) Americans can't expect their healthcare to be fast, cheap, or good at the moment. The only time you get any of those combinations is if you have the $$$ to shell out for treatment.
Hmm. It's terrible and there's nothing we can do about it?
Probably true without some sort of revolution or radical sea change. The healthcare/big pharma lobby is too rich and in control of Congress to make the kinds of changes that other countries have.
Probably true without some sort of revolution or radical sea change. The healthcare/big pharma lobby is too rich and in control of Congress to make the kinds of changes that other countries have.
+++++++++Then how do most other industrialized countries accomplish the following?
++++++++++--cover everyone, not just some
++++++++++++--spend about half of the amount the US does (% of GDP)
they believe in government Reliance
we believe in Individual Liberty, Freedom, and Responsibility.
++++++++++--cover everyone, not just some
++++++++++++--spend about half of the amount the US does (% of GDP)
they believe in government Reliance
we believe in Individual Liberty, Freedom, and Responsibility.
EVERY American has 1 of them whether it be fast or good. Never is it cheap though.
I challenge you to go see a GP when you get a case of bronchitis. "We can get you in two weeks from now" then when they do get you in, you don't even get to see a doctor, you see a nurse practitioner. That's not Fast or Good service.
