Soriek
1yr ago
Of course China did liberalize their economy some forty years ago, and they did experience growth (although much less growth than Singapore did during their own liberalization, while taking in way more immigrants with “deep roots” in weaker economies).
Still, this is Nowratesh’s whole counterargument - Jones claims deeply rooted culture is what’s supposed to determine your economy, but if you can go from Maoism to Dengism within a decade without experiencing much immigration then clearly your economy isn’t that constrained by your culture.
Soriek
3mo ago
The mantle has now passed to you to lead Transnational Thursdays.
On the other hand, fellow Islamist nations seem to be far more laissez-faire about just taking each other on, on a whim, and I can't say I really feel like Pakistan is the aggrieved party.
This latest episode of Iran just kind of attacking all its neighbors is pretty uncharacteristic at least, and is hopefully just their way of showing they won't take terrorism lightly, not a continuous thing they're going to commit to. Iraq and Syria at least aren't going to retaliate militarily. I can think of one or two downsides to a war with Pakistan! Though hopefully this won't turn into that.
Red Sea
Speaking of the Red Sea, things still look chaotic there. The US issued a “final warning” to the Houthis to stop attacking or face reprisal, which the Houthis immediately defied by attacking the next day. It’s been a week since then and it’s unclear to me if the west has escalated in any specific way.
Otherwise, tanker traffic still looks remarkably stable though the shipping behemoth Maesrk has recently put a pause on the route for their vessels though, despite the US sinking three Houthi vessels that attacked Maersk ships.
Don’t worry though, Sri Lanka has now announced they will join Operation Prosperity Guardian.
Soriek
6mo ago
At least a handful of reps said Jordan could count on their vote only for the first round, so we might see decreasing support. Then again, they're in recess so he can horse trade, cajole, threaten, whatever, so I've got no idea which direction it'll go.
Fair, but the results are drastically different if we look at GDP per Capita. Either way the Jones position is that the cultural makeup of China should entail larger growth and a higher level of development, the opposite of what we see on both accounts.
How do we assess how much of the Gazan population supports Hamas, or at least this conflict?
They won their only election with 44% of the vote and haven’t held any since. I keep hearing people say they hold supermajority support but the most recent polls I see, conducted on 500 people, show a more mixed bag:
According to the latest Washington Institute polling, conducted in July 2023, Hamas’s decision to break the ceasefire was not a popular move. While the majority of Gazans (65%) did think it likely that there would be “a large military conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza” this year, a similar percentage (62%) supported Hamas maintaining a ceasefire with Israel. Moreover, half (50%) agreed with the following proposal: “Hamas should stop calling for Israel’s destruction, and instead accept a permanent two-state solution based on the 1967 borders.” Moreover, across the region, Hamas has lost popularity over time among many Arab publics. This decline in popularity may have been one of the motivating factors behind the group’s decision to attack.
In fact, Gazan frustration with Hamas governance is clear; most Gazans expressed a preference for PA administration and security officials over Hamas—the majority of Gazans (70%) supported a proposal of the PA sending “officials and security officers to Gaza to take over the administration there, with Hamas giving up separate armed units,” including 47% who strongly agreed. Nor is this a new view—this proposal has had majority support in Gaza since first polled by The Washington Institute in 2014.
Nevertheless, there is widespread popular appeal for competing armed Palestinian factions, including those involved in the attack. Overall, 57% of Gazans express at least a somewhat positive opinion of Hamas—along with similar percentages of Palestinians in the West Bank (52%) and East Jerusalem (64%)—though this is fewer than those who support Fatah (64%).
Even the 57% positive opinion may be an overestimate, given that other polls show 75% of Gazans are afraid to criticize Hamas.
I have no idea how credible these polls are, or where other people’s numbers about supermajority support come from, this is mostly an open question.
Soriek
5mo ago
I feel like this sort of commentary underlines just how provincial and illiterate our academic class has become. Tolkien didn't invent a new sort of hero, he was instantiating a very old (and very Catholic) sort of hero that 'most people today outside of the trad-right are simply unfamiliar with because modern culture is overwhelmingly secular and liberal. "Your will Lord, not mine, be done." Is just one of those sentiments that just doesn't compute to someone who's entire worldview/life-experiance has been filtered through multiple layers of irony, post-modernism, and their Jewish Poli-Sci Professor's theories about Freud, Nietzsche, and "the will to power". But it computed to Tolkien, and it evidently computed to a great deal of his audience.
It might be relevant that Tanner Greer himself who made the argumment is a devout Mormon. I think there's something more specific happening that I maybe did a bad job getting at, but tried to articulate downthread. It's not that Tolkien invented the reluctant hero, but that in the modern YA trope (that's taken off since then) you see a different kind of post-divine revelation, post-destiny, post-prophecy kind of relationship between purpose, power, and morality.
I think a hero who accepts their mission specifically because it was handed down from God is of a very different nature, this is someone who believes there is an absolute authority that can and will be answered to. The moderns protagonists don't believe that, which is part of why they're so uncertain about their mission and nervous about accepting. It's the very breakdown in authority and trust that partially defines their reluctance and their character. The fact that their worlds are exagerrated, disfigured pastiches of totalitarian governments and corporations is another sign their stories are reflecting the psychology of people inhabitating a highly modernized world rather than calling back more traditional themes and motifs.
Separately, surprised to see you joining the crowd here blaming modern malaise on the Jews. I thought you were pretty solidly in my camp against that kind of vulgar count-the-jew philosophy.
Soriek
6mo ago
After their internal ballot, 55 people people voted against him in what was supposed to be a secret vote. Freedom Caucus folks then published their numbers and encouraged people to call in and harass them, and most of them fell in line. According to a few sourcs, including Tim Burchett, Jordan allies were even threatening to support primaries against holdouts. So idk what's really at his disposal, but he's certainly not afraid to fight for it.
Soriek
11mo ago
You don’t have to spend a lifetime doing bjj, the rear naked choke is a move taught to beginners. The way it’s taught involves practicing it on other people, you see an instantaneous reaction from the other person the moment you apply pressure. It’s essentially impossible to learn the move without understanding what it does.
This is not to say I feel no sympathy for people defending themselves against a crazy person on the train, being a commuter myself, but the idea that someone could rear naked choke another person for two minutes and be surprised it was lethal is not realistic. The question is whether lethal force was warranted in the situation.
Soriek
2mo ago
Hey sorry, I’ve been pretty slammed the past few weeks and haven’t had time to really sit down and grind these out, they take a while.
I do have to admit my enthusiasm has been waning a little lately, here and on forum in general. I’ve never been really into the culture war side of things, but I like the userbase here and noticed a lot of people like to talk foreign policy, so this was an attempt to create a central place for that kind of discussion. The hope was for TT to develop into something more community driven / self-sustaining without me, if users were into it. But after nine months it looks likely we won’t reach that; I think last week had zero posts and today has one. Which is fine, if people’s interests just lie elsewhere, not every swing is a hit.
Soriek
3mo ago
North Korea
Kim Jong Un says he no longer wants to reunify with South Korea:
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said his country would no longer pursue reconciliation with South Korea and called for rewriting the North’s constitution to eliminate the idea of shared statehood between the war-divided countries, state media said Tuesday.
The historic step to discard a decades-long pursuit of a peaceful unification, which was based on a sense of national homogeneity shared by both Koreas, comes amid heightened tensions where the pace of both Kim’s weapons development and the South’s military exercises with the United States have intensified in a tit-for-tat.
Not that all that much progress was happening towards reunification before, but still I guess its newsworthy.
North Korea has also sent its Foreign Minister Choe Son Hui to Russia to meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. In the west this has raised suspicions on North Korea provided more weaponry for Russia in the Ukraine conflict.
Soriek
6mo ago
It should be noted this was long after PP funds were banned from being used for abortions, so moderate Republicans got smeared with trying to cut funding from all the other services PP provided to some several million low-income women. And then as now, Democrats had the Senate so there was a limit to how conservative any viable budget could be.
Soriek
1yr ago
I guess I'm not clear what your point is, that's exactly what Nowratesh is saying: if any given culture can seismically change its institutions (ex: to communism and back again) then economic outcomes aren't fixed by culture.
Soriek
2mo ago
Pretty much just paraphrasing our founder:
“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respected Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges”
-George Washington
OG approved.
Soriek
9mo ago
How many people feel strong romantic connections with their partners? I feel like I experienced this in my first few relationships but not really in the decade since then. I'm not really clear whether you're supposed to still feel a spark in adult relationships or whether those are just irrational young love feelings that don't really pop up again, and most healthy adult relationships are just based on finding someone who's compatible and nice.
(continued from OP)
The Dutch Empire
The Netherlands is the strongest example of America forcing an empire into actually decolonizing. Why? Because the Netherlands is our greatest foe and must be destroyed at all costs we were fighting a prestige battle in southeast, first against Japan and then later against both the Soviet Union and the PRC, and support for decolonization was the currency that purchased regional alliances. Public opinion on Dutch repression had soured everywhere as well, within the American public and even within the other major colonial empires, and after the Indonesian nationalists crushed a communist rebellion they cemented their reputation as a potential anti-communist bulwark within the region. The Netherlands having outlived its usefulness and dragging down public opinion everywhere, America threatened to cut off Marshall Plan funds unless the Netherlands agreed to decolonization. America allowed the Dutch to keep West New Guinea for another little while and eventually encouraged them to pull out of there as well. Don’t worry though, we coup’d Indonesia’s anti-colonial leader shortly after and helped them genocide all the leftists.
Suriname negotiated directly with the Dutch for their independence; America was not involved.
The Belgium Empire
Rwanda, Burundi, and the DRC all achieved independence without American intervention. See below comment for more detail on the DRC.
The Portuguese Empire
In 1944 the US agreed to respect Portugal’s sovereignty over its colonial possessions in Africa and even restore its control over East Timor in exchange for gaining a military base on the Azores. Following the war Harry “I have always been an anti-colonialist” Truman, focused on Soviet containment, greenlit Portugal into the Marshall Plan and NATO and “never regarded the existence of the Portuguese colonial empire as an obstacle to the establishment and maintenance of good relations with Lisbon”. When India tried to kick Portugal out of its remaining enclaves, the Eisenhower Admin formally recognized those territories as Portuguese “provinces”.
As Soviet expansion in Africa spread, and the Portuguese repression of the Angolan rebellion grew to be an international embarrassment, the Kennedy Administration stopped selling them weapons, started voting in favor of unsuccessful UN Resolutions for Portugal to “consider” reforms in Angola, and started offering support to the UPA (later the FLNA) (notably, in their fight not against Portugal, but against the Communist Soviet backed MPLA).
This was short lived, however, during the Cuban Missile Crisis America tracked Soviet submarine movements using the Azores base, which further cemented its importance. Shortly Kennedy reversed course, allowed weapons shipments to be sold to Salazar in 62 and 63, barred American officials from communicating with Angolan rebels, and even sent Portugal aid packages. The US moving forward abstained in UN resolutions or voted in Portugal’s favor. Little changed with LBJ; under Nixon’s “Tar Baby Option” of not opposing the white minority governments in Southern Africa, a treaty was concluded in 1971 reestablishing American support for Portugal and supplying generous grants, loans, free military advisory officials and new weapons sales (against the will of Congress).
The Empire eventually ended in 74 not because of the US but the Carnation Revolution, in no small part driven by a population sick of being taxed and conscripted for colonial wars. The US was not involved in the coup and rather looked upon it warily as the possible beginnings of a Communist state. In the wake of the revolution “the United States, unlike the UN and the majority of Western European governments, did not exert significant pressure for rapid decolonization,” and even encouraged a two year transition period rather than the immediate independence demanded.
The Spanish Empire
The Americas won their independence from Spain with no intervention on the part of the US (who promptly took a bunch of Mexico’s newly independent territory). America fought against Spain in the 1898 war to “liberate” its colonies, and then just colonized them ourselves and ruled over them from afar for decades to come, often brutally suppressing their attempts at independence. We also later separately conquered and occupied for decades the former Spanish colonies of Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic, and otherwise coup’d any anti-colonial leader we didn’t like and frequently supported brutal dictators that would be our own puppets. In my opinion all this is near fatal to the idea that America opposed colonialism because we ideologically identified with the victims; we literally just were a colonial power ourselves.
Conclusion
Tl;dr There are two things America can’t stand in this world: anti-colonial leaders trying to deny our hegemony, and the Dutch.
America played the primary role in decolonizing Indonesia (including West New Guinea), may have played an important but uncertain role in Egyptian independence, and advocated half heartedly and unsuccessfully for the decolonization of the Portuguese Empire and British India, but mostly tolerated or supported both Empires. In situations where America supported decolonization, it looked much less driven by ideological dogmatism or anticolonial sentiment than by a desire to maintain a good reputation among other countries that could drift to the USSR and China. More frequently America continued to sustain diplomatic relations and military support for colonial empires and their successor states long after public opinon in Europe and the rest of the world had turned on them. The overwhelming majority of colonies earned their independence without American intervention but due to factors like sustained counterinsurgency, being too costly to maintain, dwindling public support, and dwindling benefit to the metropole. In other areas America literally just colonized countries ourselves.
I guess what measurement would you like, if you agree that Americans make more money? Americans have higher productivity as measured by GDP per capita than most European countries, more income by ethnic group relative to country of origin, more disposable income, etc. (though after controlling for hours worked I've seen at least one study that put Germany ahead).
[Edit: Since Ioper sourced data on productivity relative hours worked, here's the global rankings. US is in sixth place after Ireland, Norway, Switzerland, Luxemberg, and Denmark, pretty near the top. Aside from Ireland (whose numbers wrt GDP are always crazy from haven-ing so many multinationals), the US is certainly above its European countries of origin, interestingly above the UK in particular by a surprising amount]
I agree geography is an enormous advantage for the US, and argued somewhere down thread that might be what boosts America and Singapore beyond what human capital might suggest (that plus advanced finance sectors). But if we're getting to the point where we're adding factors like geography and sector specialization then we've moved beyond assuming that human capital can directly predict growth - and remember that the deep roots model assumes the US shouldn't just be poorer than Europe but also Brazil, China, and Vietnam
Soriek
6mo ago
I will strongly oppose any increase/stealth increase (raising the payroll cap/widening the tax base) in taxes. Raising the payroll cap is just kicking the can down the road as the CBO mentions
I'm referencing the second of the two options they describe:
The second alternative would apply the 12.4 percent payroll tax to earnings over $250,000 in addition to earnings below the maximum taxable amount under current law. The taxable maximum would continue to grow with average wages but the $250,000 threshold would not change, so the gap between the two would shrink. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the taxable maximum would exceed $250,000 in calendar year 2039; after that, all earnings from jobs covered by Social Security would be subject to the payroll tax. Earnings under the current-law taxable maximum would still be used for calculating benefits, so scheduled benefits would not change under this alternative.
Soriek
8mo ago
I have no idea what if anything would actually make poor and rich students equal, but here at least they'ree suggesting a more modest metric of hitting "funding required for adequate test scores," as estimated by the the Department of Education's National Education Cost Model.
Medium- and high-poverty districts are spending, respectively, $700 and $3,078 per student less than what would be required. For the highest-poverty districts, that gap is $5,135, meaning districts there are spending about 30% less than what would be required to deliver an adequate level of education to their students. (Conversely, the two low-poverty quintiles are spending more than they need to reach that benchmark, another indication that funds are being poorly allocated.)
I don't understand the cost model well enough to know if it makes sense or not.
Soriek
4mo ago
Poland
A follow up to the TT from two weeks ago on PiS PM Morawiecki being allowed to form a government as the top vote getting party. He has now (to nobody’s surprise) failed a vote of no confidence by 266 to 190, bringing an end to Pis’ long dominance.
With the formalities out of the way, this paves the way for Donald Tusk to be sworn into power, with 248 votes in favor vs 201 opposed in his first vote.
Besides rebuilding bridges with Brussels, Tusk’s campaign pledges included promising to allow abortion – subject to a near-total ban under PiS – until 12 weeks, declaring termination, IVF and contraception fundamental rights, and allowing civil partnerships for same-sex couples…
Brussels has withheld billions of euros in Covid-19 recovery funds in an increasingly bitter row over Poland’s rule of law, and has required reform on issues such as judicial independence and green energy.
Tusk has now officially been sworn into office with his cabinet:
Tusk’s Cabinet includes a former foreign minister, Radek Sikorski, taking up that role again. Adam Bodnar, a respected human rights lawyer and former ombudsman, was tapped as justice minister, tasked with reversing the previous administration’s actions that gave it more control of the judiciary.
Tusk named Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz, an experienced politician and agrarian party leader, as his defense minister. For Kosiniak-Kamysz, 42, Poland’s security is safeguarded by its membership in NATO and the EU. In the face of war across Poland’s border, he has vowed to focus on strengthening the defense potential of the armed forces.
The new culture minister is Bartlomiej Sienkiewicz, a former interior minister under Tusk and the great grandson of “Quo Vadis” author Henryk Sienkiewicz, a winner of the Nobel Prize for literature. His first task will be to free state media from political control that the previous government exerted.
Also
The confidence vote was delayed when a far-right lawmaker, Grzegorz Braun, used a fire extinguisher to put out the candles of a menorah during a Hanukkah celebration dedicated to Poland’s Jewish lawmakers of the 1920s and 1930s.
what?
The guys who authored the paper testified before a maximally hostile Congress last week. I was ready for them to get torn apart and surprisingly it left me less convinced of the criticisms against them.
The pangolin thing, as covered by the Public Substack and other places I've seen it repeated, seems to be misframed. The scientists never claimed that it was the actual origin of Covid; they explicitly says it's a different virus, just similar in structure. The argument is that no one (including any of the lab leak proponents, to my knowledge) seems to think the pangolin coronavirus variant, 600 miles away from the Wuhan lab, was also man-made, which raises the odds that a virus very similar to Covid-19 could arise naturally.
The distance in time between the scientists saying they weren't certain about how something like the Receptor Binding Domain in Covid-19 could manifest in nature, and them changing their minds and publicly supporting a natural origin theory, wasn't an abrupt turn around of a few days, as alleged, but rather forty five days. During that timeframe the pangolin samples with similar RBDs were discovered, raising odds that this kind of thing could be naturally evolved. In contrast, the site being studied in the EcoHealth proposal was genuinely different than that in Covid-19.
Beyond that, the main thrust of their argument is that the first samples were found in the Hanan market and the first cases in the area surrounding the market, not in the areas surrounding the Wuhan Virology Center. As far as I know nobody has contradicted this, though I don't really follow it and could be wrong.
I think the concerns about how the process was politicized, especially by bueaucrats worried about conflict with China, are still valid - welcome to government though. Claims of a vast Orwellian conspiracy on part of our neoliberal overlords I think are a little unconvincing given that our government has also argued that it probably was a lab leak. In fact, right now six agencies have weighed in and none agree - the DOE and FBI think a lab leak was most plausible, four other agencies plus the NSC suspect natural origins. Almost all of them have framed their results with "low confidence," but you can pick whichever result you like and still say the government agrees with you.
I personally consider the lab leak somewhere between possible and likely, but don't really care where Covid came from. Even if it was caused by research conducted by China and America, the two most powerful countries on earth are obviously not going to pay any kind of penalty.
Transnational Thursdays 6
I generally won’t cover Europe here, mostly because I don’t follow it that closely, so input from our European/Europe-follower user base would definitely add value.
Guatemala
Guatemalan elections will be going to a runoff between the establishment center left and the progressive left. Former First Lady Sandra Torres has come in second place in the previous two elections and will be squaring up against the anti-corruption progressive Bernardo Arevalo, son of the famous Juan Jose Arevalo, the first democratically elected leader of Guatemala. Their parties only received respectively 15% and 12.2% among the 20+ other contenders, so it’s hard to predict how the final tallies will shake out, though polls favor Arevalo (Torres is unpopular in the populous Guatemala City) which would be a major upset. Notably, Zury Ríos, daughter of the former dictator Efrían Ríos Montt and previous frontrunner, did not make it to the runoff. Corruption and fraud accusations have abounded, as well as frustration with the government’s decision to bar popular anti-establishment candidates in the lead up to the election:
with nearly one in four ballots either spoiled or left blank, Guatemalans expressed discontent at the electoral process and the decision to bar early front-runner, businessman Carlos Pineda. Pineda urged supporters to spoil their ballots after he was ruled ineligible.
Interestingly, his exclusion (he was previously the frontrunner) will likely mean that Guatemala will have some flavor of left leaning government no matter who wins, which is probably not what the current conservative ruling party was hoping for.
El Salvador
Bukele is officially running for reelection, against the law of El Salvadoran constitution. This is not much of a surprise from a leader who sent the military into the legislature after they voted against him and has frequently ignored his own Supreme Court. A court packed with his allies has ruled that it’s cool though, and his substantial popularity renders the legal technicalities kind of irrelevant. He will be going against a big tent coalition of the former mainstream right and left wing parties.
Honduras
Related, Bukele’s crackdown on the gangs has attracted supporters across Central America (the now failed Zury Ríos in Guatemala ran on copying his security approach) and Honduras is one glimpse at what that looks like. They have declared a state of Emergency which suspends some constitutional rights and deployed the military in their war against the gangs. Escalating violence in the conflict has also led to curfews being declared in two cities. Left wing President Xiomara Castro originally actually ran on a policy of demilitarizing the police, but following a deadly gang-driven prison riot she has officially handed over control of the prison system to the military.
Sierra Leone
The reigning President Maada Bio won another term with 56%, narrowly passing the 55% threshold needed to avoid a runoff election. Watchdogs have called the count out for fraudulence and the “US, UK, Ireland, Germany France and EU Delegation” have acknowledged irregularities but seem to be tacitly supporting the outcome. Violence has been scattered but not severe.
Mali
Mali’s military junta held a referendum for a new constitution, supposedly to restore the democratic process. The referendum passed with 97% in favor; Observers are unimpressed:
The election observer group MODELE said that participation at midday had only been about 21% of eligible voters. The mission also cited dozens of polling stations that were closed due to security problems, disenfranchising people. The referendum also did not include Mali’s entire northern Kidal region.
Also, the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) is one of the longest standing and most dangerous UN Missions. Originally deployed in 2013 to help the government with the Taureg rebels in the northeast, relationships have deteriorated with the government following the 2020 military coup. The junta government famously forced France to leave last year and earlier this month demanded that MINUSMA leave as well. However, the sudden departure has now been delayed. While I can’t find anyone saying it specifically, I feel like the government has to be hedging their bets till they see how the situation falls out with the Wagner Group, who have largely come to supplant France and even now control many of the Uranium mines the French previously guarded so closely. Following the events of Saturday every host country is curious to see if Wagner will remain a stable partner, (you know, stable-ish), especially in the Central African Republic where the ruling regime largely owes their survival to Wagner.
Pakistan
Pakistan draws nearer to securing a $6 billion bailout from the IMF after passing a budget mostly in accordance with IMF recommendations. They have been in economic turmoil since the coup, of course worsened by the floods, and have been kept afloat by assistance from “ China, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates”.
The crackdown on Imran Khan’s party, PTI, continues, with many arrested or driven to switch sides. You can hear him speak about it if you want.
Japan
Japan has reestablished Korea as a most favored nation trading partner, hopefully finally ending their last four years of tension. The source is Japanese reparations for Korean workers and particularly for Korean comfort women during the Empire. Japan’s position is that they already paid reparations during the Park Chung-Hee era; Korea’s position is the money went to the ruling class rather than the victims (though supposedly a lot was invested into the economy); Japan’s counter-position is, well, you shouldn’t have done that. The current nationalist party in Korea is ironically more pro-Japan and has worked towards reestablishing their relationships; security collaboration will increase as well.
Japan is famous for dropping Prime Ministers at the drop of a hat, making the Italian government look like a beacon of stability in comparison (in fairness, in Japan it’s mostly the same party), but astoundingly PM Fumio Kishida has survived both the assassination of Abe and the attempt on his own life, and looks poised to become one of the more important post-war leaders for his security policy. Kishida in his role of Foreign Minister and Defense Minister was known as a dove, but has ironically presided over the largest military buildup in post war history, with a projected 67% increase by 2027. His ability to push this through is of course shaped by general rising fear of China, but imo is also partially because his historical aversion to conflict has left normal critics reassured he won’t abuse a larger military. He has also strengthened ties with the QUAD and as mentioned, is heading towards security reconciliation with Korea as well.
Saudi Arabia
The Yemeni War is not yet over, but both Saudi Arabia and the Houthis have largely honored their ceasefire, and for the first time in seven years Saudi Arabia partially relaxed its blockade to allow a few Yemenis to make the Hajj. The Foreign Ministers of Saudi Arabia and Iran also met again recently and affirmed their desire to continue diplomatic relations. China brokered the deal and Saudi Arabia also recently completed a“$5.6bn deal with a Chinese company to manufacture electric vehicles” and is trying to boost Chinese tourism, along with its larger push to become a sports hub. Relations with other countries seem mostly positive-ish lately, as these things go for the House of Al-Saud, with Riyadh even reversing its previous stance and allowing the ascension of Syria back to the Arab League.
I've had a sort of secondary theory about the Argentinian economy for a while that he seems to agree with, that Argentinians are so traumatized by past crises that they'll bank run at the slightest sign things are weakening, making their currency way more fragile to any shock than a normal county's would be. Macri did implement reforms after all, he cut quotas, tariffs, currency controls, FDI restrictions, price controls, and subsidies, and things did get better for a while, then everyone freaked out the moment the US raised interest rates and things deteriorated again.
Soriek
5mo ago
Was the idea of raising wages discussed?
Yeah, this was the crux of the side debate, where Democrats pointed out in the past they've tried to pass greater funding to allow for raises, but Republicans have been opposed. The rule that 80% of federal funds must go to direct workforce is also an atetmpt to ensure that wages are prioritized, if not having raises literally mandated.
If there truly are not enough workers who meet the legal requirements, then maybe the law should be changed to stop limiting supply. The federal government could make a "shall issue" style law for getting qualified as a caregiver.
I think this would be ideal, but both Democrats and Republicans are less likely to pass laws that are seen as targeting state level regulations in absence of a very compelling reason. It happens of course, but getting a serious majority on board with removing a masters degree requirements for specific industries for twenty seven states or whatever is a harder legislative sell than just passing funding laws or regulations that aren't directly challenging state govs. Significantly, this wasn't even discussed by either party in the hearing, I've just happened to hear Senator Cassidy say it in another context.
Or leave it up to facilities and customers to negotiate the level of training they require.
Training and cert requirements are also mostly handled by state law so unfortunately there isn't a ton of room to directly negotiate for providers.
OSHA Effectiveness: MMTYWTK
In the thread about unions @vorpal_potato linked an excellent Roots of Progress piece on the history of worker’s compensation law. That got me thinking about the history of workplace safety since then, chiefly the top down reform since no-fault compensation: OSHA.
Did OSHA make workers safer?
Since OSHA was founded in 1970 fatal workplace incidents have decreased by 60% according to the Environmental Law Institute (admittedly somewhat confounded by manufacturing employment decreasing by 65%...).
On the other hand, the Mercatus Center has assembled a graph on workplace fatalities from 1933 to 2010 using data from the National Safety Council and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The results show that while fatalities certainly dropped after 1970, they had been falling long before and the trendline did not change following the creation of OSHA.
But prior to 1970 fatalities weren’t falling in some kind of regulatory no man’s land. In the entire period on the graph we had continuously evolving workplace safety rules emerging from the Bureau of Labor Standards founded in 1934. The BLS regularly met with organized labor to help establish new safety rules under State Labor Departments and played an important role in the passage of labor legislation like the Walsh–Healey Public Contracts Act or the Fair Labor Standards Act. And all of this doesn’t even capture all the state level workplace safety legislation that happened in the following decades (look up New York).
Without this context, Mercatus leaves you to imagine workplace safety incidents prior to 1970 were dropping entirely due to capitalist technological progress, as opposed to OSHA being another in a series of many steps of gradually increasing safety regulations.
And when you drill down into the details of specific OSHA policies, they often do show results. A few examples:
There has especially made progress for those concerns that won’t be reflected in raw safety incidents, such as long term exposure to lead, asbestos, and other toxic chemicals “OSHA standards have virtually eliminated some occupational diseases such as “brown lung” disease in the textile industry, and accidental transmission of HIV and hepatitis in healthcare workers”.
What are the economic benefits vs costs of OSHA?
I have no idea why, but I can’t seem to find any present day studies on the compliance costs of OSHA. A number of very out-of-date studies from the 1990s find costs between $10 and $40 billion. Studies on their benefits seem totally clouded by your base assumptions - CATO assumes extremely small benefits because they attribute almost none of the post-1970 drop to OSHA; OSHA itself assumes high benefits because it takes credit for the whole drop. For long term exposure we would also want some way to calculate healthcare costs from ex: respiratory problems. In general I wasn’t able to find a ton useful here but maybe it doesn't matter that much either way; it’s okay if OSHA costs more than it brings in, in terms of dollars and cents, if it plays a large role in reducing human suffering.
Why has OSHA declined in stature?
This piece has a decent quick write up on what works well and not so well about OSHA. Broadly summarized, OSHA has some really well-tailored standards it’s created since the 90s, mixed with a bunch of woefully out-of-date standards from the 60s. The actual inspection trainings are insufficient, and obsolete standards means that sometimes unimportant things are flagged while serious safety hazards are ignored. Why does OSHA use so many out of date standards? It sounds like the same bipartisan dysfunction that’s slowed every agency down since the 70s:
Also, everyone from Mercatus to the AFL-CIO agrees that OSHA’s present day fines are actually too small to encourage much behavior change from companies, at least relative to things like worker’s comp and lawsuits.
Would More Funding Help?
Mercatus Center and CATO claim (without a source) that Quebec funds its equivalent workplace safety agency four times more per staff and gets similar results. I glanced at a few other countries: in France and Britain they both spend less than us; the UK gets much better results and France gets much worse, so make of that what you will! I just divided budgets by staff whereas the Quebec comparison is supposedly measuring “dollars spent on workplace prevention”, which I don’t know how to check for other agencies, but I could easily believe their numbers are better than ours because we waste a ton on administration or paperwork.
Still, whether we do it by spending our funds more effectively or by raising funds, there does seem to be a strong argument that OSHA needs more staff - the UK has about double our inspectors for a country about a fifth of the size, for instance.
tl;dr
Workplace fatalities have fallen by 60% since the passage of OSHA. The rate of workplace fatalities did not fall any faster after OSHA, but it’s hard to disentangle the pre-1970 trendline from the safety regulation and legislation in decades prior, and there’s no reason to assume the trendline would have continued if our standards didn’t continue evolving as well.
OSHA definitely coincided with significant changes in worker pathogen exposure.
OSHA could be improved by:
Simplifying the procedural rules around creating new standards so they take <10 years.
Hiring more inspectors so they’re stretched less thin, and training those inspectors better
Probably increasing OSHA’s ability to levy greater financial fines.
More options
Context Copy link