The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Gallup: 42 Million Latin Americans Want to Migrate to US. What's the Plan?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the Gallup polling company:

What If There Were 42 Million at the Border?
BY JIM CLIFTON

Jim Clifton is Chairman and CEO at Gallup.

Here’s a good question about caravans: How many more are coming?

Gallup asked the whole population of Latin America. There are 33 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Roughly 450 million adults live in the region. Gallup asked them, “Would you like to move to another country permanently if you could?”

A whopping 27% said “yes.”

So this means roughly 120 million would like to migrate somewhere.

The next question Gallup asked was, “Where would you like to move?”

Of those who want to leave their Latin American country permanently, 35% said they want to go to the United States.

The Gallup analytics estimate is that 42 million want to come to the U.S.

Forty-two million seekers of citizenship or asylum are watching to determine exactly when and how is the best time to make the move. This suggests that open borders could potentially attract 42 million Latin Americans. A full 5 million who are planning to move in the next 12 months say they are moving to the U.S.

Rather than find a solution for the several thousand potential migrants currently at the border, let’s start by answering the bigger, harder question — what about the 42 million who would like to come? What is the message to those millions who will seek entrance either legally or illegally? What should we tell them?

Most U.S. citizens like me just want to know the plan. What is the 10-year plan? How many, exactly whom and what skills will they bring? What do we want? Answer these questions, and the current discussion can be resolved.

The answer is: Shut up, you racist white male. You are not who we are going to be.

 
Hide 101 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The plan is FORCED LATINIZATION.

    If you’re a psychopathic globalist then the Latin American national population model looks very attractive.

    The Latinos are highly manageable by a hostile elite compared to the troublesome white tribes —-whites give leadership sleepless nights.

    • Replies: @Hail
    Your comment is correct except for two important details:

    [1] it is not "Latinization" but a true InviteTheWorld partly past the point of being managed by anyone,
    [2] It is not just about the serf class: Part of what's going on is the hostile elite is semi-consciously importing fresh blood for itself (e.g., many East Asians).

    , @Hail

    The Latinos are highly manageable by a hostile elite
     
    Hispanics have a laughably weak national-level cultural presence in the USA even though they may be past the 20.0% mark in terms of total defacto residents (depending on how many illegal Hispanics there are and how they are counted). There are several explanations for this but the diffuse nature of immigration may be one.

    Perhaps part of an implicit, national-level 'management' of Hispanics (compliance-enforcement) is to make sure they don't form a solid bloc, like White Protestant immigrants did in Mexican Texas before independence.

    That is, if "immigration" meant only a steadily rising Hispanic population, say to 50%+ Hispanic by sometime midcentury, with no other immigrants and all else static, the game might be pretty different. As is, we have a chaotic immigration problem from all corners of the world and of all types, up to and including heavy elite immigration.

    This is one thing Mr. Clifton does not mention in his essay on the 42 million Latin Americans: They're a drop in the bucket compared to Asia, and (gulp) Africa.

  2. Is Gallup doing President Trump’s job for him?

  3. • Replies: @DCThrowback
    "it's a koch brothers scheme"
  4. Rather than find a solution for the several thousand potential migrants currently at the border, let’s start by answering the bigger, harder question — what about the 42 million who would like to come?

    The solution for the migrants currently at the border is the answer to the bigger, “harder” (if you’re a proglodyte or cuckservative) question. Turn the migrant invaders back or jail them if they make it past the border. The 42 million will get the message.

    • Agree: Hail
  5. Jean Raspail said that the inspiration for his Camp of the Saints novel came to him one night as he looked out of his window and wondered “What would happen if they came?” It looks as if we’re going to find out.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    "....all at once". FIFY
  6. Anonymous[542] • Disclaimer says:

    Imperial Judeo-Yankeedom is approaching its final stage of malicious insanity: The imminent explosion of automated robot labor on the near horizon is a positive while simultaneously we import teeming millions of taciturn indios. It’s a truly revolutionary cocktail.

    Down the road after the “dust” settles the negative effects of Latin-American serf labor demographics can be countered by mass immigration of various Asian peoples.

    The planners are insane Bolsheviks, remember. They think they can construct the New New Soviet Man 4.0 right here in America. Non-elite whites will be exterminated. The small proletariat will be a docile Asian-Amerind mix. But really they are planning are killing 99% of the world’s population so any prole demo is temporary.

    If you think the above is poppycock please go read the Wired magazine article WHY THE FUTURE DOESN’T NEED US from circa 1999. That article is hard truth.

    Swamping the Deplorables with meso-americans is the key to getting The Plan back on schedule. The Plan can shift into high gear once Forced Latinization has been achieved in the USA.

  7. I have been reading the comments on Free Republic about immigration since Trump’s horrific SotU reversal and they are depressing. Boomer conservatives still don’t get it. Many Freepers strongly support increasing H1B’s. They suggest increasing legal immigration will somehow cancel out the effects of continuing illegal immigration, which they are resigned to. Lots of them think Asian immigrants, or even just legal immigrants in general vote GOP. The comments there are full of non-sequitors and bizarrely illogical evasions. Some drone on about biblical prophesy or showing the dems we aren’t racist. “We need immigrants because millenials are bad,” “we need more workers to grow our economy.”

    Boomer movement conservatives are hopeless.

    • Replies: @Hail
    Much of what you describe is pure R Team cheerleading. It might be a mistake to read too much into it beyond what it read into people cheering for the local sports team.

    We need to make a list of names of big names engaging in R Team Cheerleading, when the Trumpknife is in MAGA's back as it is right now, yet again, after the "highest legal immigration ever" betrayal. I think Sean Hannity is guilty, no surprise there. Sadly, it seems Lou Dobbs may be guilty but not sure on that. Tucker, not sure. Ann Coulter remains a rock.
    , @Guy De Champlagne
    Boomer movement conservatives are hopeless.

    It's all conservatives that are hopeless. Any intelligent person who was concerned about the things conservatives claim to be (legal and illegal immigration, a bigoted cultural elite, health care costs, etc) would realize that they are the consequences of actions by businesses and the solution lies in regulation. But conservatives can't give up their Reaganite propaganda and will never support regulation and are therefore hopeless. There are only some non hopeless former conservatives who are disgusted by the label now (and not many).

    , @IHTG
    Americans are squishes on immigration. You get what you ask for.
    , @Anonymous
    If you want to know just how massive subcon immigration will work out, just ask a Cockney*.

    Or even a Torontan.

    *Aboriginal, working-class Londoner. Now almost extinct.
  8. This is a tired yard, but Bret Stephens at the NYT on 2019-02-08:

    Israel is now the home of nearly nine million citizens, with an identity that is as distinctively and proudly Israeli as the Dutch are Dutch or the Danes Danish. Anti-Zionism proposes nothing less than the elimination of that identity and the political dispossession of those who cherish it, with no real thought of what would likely happen to the dispossessed. Do progressives expect the rights of Jews to be protected should Hamas someday assume the leadership of a reconstituted “Palestine”?

    In other words, “The Progressives will not replace us!” I broadly admire, even love, Jewish people and their culture. I dislike the Jewish individuals in the NYT and the WaPo (and somewhat Commentary Magazine) chosen to represent the political right, who are so blatantly hypocritical on this issue. Preserving our identity and nation state for me but not for thee.

    All of this is profoundly unsettling to a Jewish community that has generally seen the Democratic Party as its political home. That’s not because American Jews are unfamiliar with the radical left’s militant hostility toward the Jewish state. That’s been true for decades. Nor is it because American Jews are suddenly tilting right: Some 76 percent voted for Democrats in the midterms.

    Maybe if Jews are bothered by this deep pattern of anti-semitism from the Democratic party, they should stop supporting the Democratic party. Or maybe Jews don’t recognize the Democratic party as anti-semitic.

    I suspect many progressive American Jews cherish their progressive identity more so than their Jewish identity. That’s their choice to make.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I don't hate Israel, I hope Israel survives but I don't think the US should subsidize it. American Jews should be put on notice that their "tikkum olan" threatens them and Israel and that we won't tolerate nation wrecking from within our own borders.

    Steve is always talking about the New York Times. I think the NYT should be called "The Backward". Jews have a Jewish paper for other Jews, called "The Forward". I read the Forward fairly often online. William Pierce told me he had had a subscription for years. I figure if it was good enough for him it was good enough for me.

    If the Forward is for Jews by Jews, the Backward is for the cattle by Jews. And the term has a certain scatological appeal as it were. Someone could copy the Forward's website using the "B" as used in the title of the old "Big Butt" adult magazine. Or the Fruity B as used by Beechcraft for years. Beech, like Hewlett Packard and the SS, had special typewriters that had the Beechcraft B on one key.

    https://d1yjjnpx0p53s8.cloudfront.net/styles/logo-thumbnail/s3/0004/7308/brand.gif?itok=B57s8Xzw


    (Boeing was the "Lazy B", Beechcraft the "Fruity B".Boeing workers were famously slothful and Beech had at least one flaming pansy on its executive suite for years: Olive Ann had many gay male friends, from what I was told.)

    Bob Whitaker used to relate the story that the $PLC had spent a lot of money to find out where he lived despite the fact he was on their mailing list under his own name at his house.
    , @Rufus
    You dont recognize, the diaspora strategy, weaken the host to extract resources.
    , @dvorak

    I suspect many progressive American Jews cherish their progressive identity more so than their Jewish identity. That’s their choice to make.
     
    Lol, as if they can't have it both ways.
  9. Jim Clifton Bio
    1951: Born in Nebraska. Father: Don Clifton (1924-2003), professor of educational psychology at the University of Nebraska (Lincoln) in the 1950s and 1960s who established an independent consulting firm in the 1970s;
    1973: Jim Clifton graduates from the University of Nebraska;
    Mid 1970s to 1980s: Working for “a market research company in Lincoln [Nebraska], and used to drive to Wichita to meet with clients such as Taco Tico, Pizza Hut and Fourth National Bank;”
    1988: Jim Clifton’s father’s consulting firm acquires Gallup;
    Oct. 1988 to Present: Jim Clifton is appointed CEO of Gallup and presumably makes the move to Washington, DC about this time. In the early years of his CEO tenure, the chairmanship was held by Jim’s father Don Clifton; following the latter’s retirement, Jim has been both Chairman and CEO. (Jim Clifton’s younger sister Jane Miller is COO. Two other sisters, Mary Reckmeyer and Connie Rath, also work for Gallup in some way.)
    – As of the 2010s: Happily married with three (presumably) adult children; resident of Washington, DC. Retains strong ties to Nebraska, as much of the Gallup organization is still based in Omaha.

    From a Sept. 2013 interview with a local newspaper in Wichita, Kansas (“A Conversation with Jim Clifton”):

    What question do people ask you most frequently at parties?

    If I’m at parties, just regular parties, they tend to ask me … about the future of America, and are we OK? I’m getting that question (from) everyone. If I’m here with Washington types, they want to know which country is the next one to fall.

    But there’s one question you hear more than any other. What is it?

    People ask me everywhere I go … “How come we don’t have any jobs?”

  10. Jim Clifton is the son of Donald O Clifton, who took over Gallup when George Gallup died and George Jr was more interested in philanthropy. These people like to keep it in the family. The Cliftons are Nebraskans, though Jim now lives in DC, and is hot-to-trot on supporting HBCUs.

    Keeping ambitious Latins out might be the best thing we can to for those.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson 3

    is hot-to-trot on supporting HBCUs.
     
    If they educated their students, it would be a good thing. But they are part of the higher education echo chamber.

    If you are impervious to experience and reason, what are you?

    A proud member of the Democrat Party.
  11. @ATBOTL
    I have been reading the comments on Free Republic about immigration since Trump's horrific SotU reversal and they are depressing. Boomer conservatives still don't get it. Many Freepers strongly support increasing H1B's. They suggest increasing legal immigration will somehow cancel out the effects of continuing illegal immigration, which they are resigned to. Lots of them think Asian immigrants, or even just legal immigrants in general vote GOP. The comments there are full of non-sequitors and bizarrely illogical evasions. Some drone on about biblical prophesy or showing the dems we aren't racist. "We need immigrants because millenials are bad," "we need more workers to grow our economy."

    Boomer movement conservatives are hopeless.

    Much of what you describe is pure R Team cheerleading. It might be a mistake to read too much into it beyond what it read into people cheering for the local sports team.

    We need to make a list of names of big names engaging in R Team Cheerleading, when the Trumpknife is in MAGA’s back as it is right now, yet again, after the “highest legal immigration ever” betrayal. I think Sean Hannity is guilty, no surprise there. Sadly, it seems Lou Dobbs may be guilty but not sure on that. Tucker, not sure. Ann Coulter remains a rock.

  12. @Anonymous
    The plan is FORCED LATINIZATION.

    If you're a psychopathic globalist then the Latin American national population model looks very attractive.

    The Latinos are highly manageable by a hostile elite compared to the troublesome white tribes ----whites give leadership sleepless nights.

    Your comment is correct except for two important details:

    [1] it is not “Latinization” but a true InviteTheWorld partly past the point of being managed by anyone,
    [2] It is not just about the serf class: Part of what’s going on is the hostile elite is semi-consciously importing fresh blood for itself (e.g., many East Asians).

    • Replies: @jbwilson24
    " Part of what’s going on is the hostile elite is semi-consciously importing fresh blood for itself"

    I wouldn't be so sure about that. I can't imagine a whole lot of Rabbis telling their synagogues to go out and have mixed race kids with Asian women. If you read the Jewish press there's a whole lot of handwringing about the plunging Jewish population, and the idea of admitting converts is extremely unpopular.
  13. @ATBOTL
    I have been reading the comments on Free Republic about immigration since Trump's horrific SotU reversal and they are depressing. Boomer conservatives still don't get it. Many Freepers strongly support increasing H1B's. They suggest increasing legal immigration will somehow cancel out the effects of continuing illegal immigration, which they are resigned to. Lots of them think Asian immigrants, or even just legal immigrants in general vote GOP. The comments there are full of non-sequitors and bizarrely illogical evasions. Some drone on about biblical prophesy or showing the dems we aren't racist. "We need immigrants because millenials are bad," "we need more workers to grow our economy."

    Boomer movement conservatives are hopeless.

    Boomer movement conservatives are hopeless.

    It’s all conservatives that are hopeless. Any intelligent person who was concerned about the things conservatives claim to be (legal and illegal immigration, a bigoted cultural elite, health care costs, etc) would realize that they are the consequences of actions by businesses and the solution lies in regulation. But conservatives can’t give up their Reaganite propaganda and will never support regulation and are therefore hopeless. There are only some non hopeless former conservatives who are disgusted by the label now (and not many).

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Guy De Champlagne wrote:

    It’s all conservatives that are hopeless. Any intelligent person who was concerned about the things conservatives claim to be (legal and illegal immigration, a bigoted cultural elite, health care costs, etc) would realize that they are the consequences of actions by businesses and the solution lies in regulation
     
    Read (I mean, actually read, page by page) Robert Field's 2013 book, Mother of Invention: How the Government Created "Free-Market" Health Care.

    Field shows in fascinating historical detail that, since WW II, we have had oodles and oodles of government regulation in health care: in the hospital industry, in the medical-insurance industry, in Big Pharma, in medical education and licensing, etc.

    That's why we are in the current mess. Health care worked okay in America prior to WW II.

    (Field, by the way, treats all this government wrecking of health care as historically and politically inevitable, but he does accurately report what government has done to health care.)

    A tell-tale of what's wrong is that advances in technology have made health care more expensive. How can that be? Normally, technological advances reduce prices -- vide electronics.

    There are two major exceptions: the Pentagon and health care. Get government heavily involved and natural reductions in costs turn into huge and unsustainable cost increases.

    Read the book. Learn something. Stop embarrassing yourself.

  14. @Anonymous
    The plan is FORCED LATINIZATION.

    If you're a psychopathic globalist then the Latin American national population model looks very attractive.

    The Latinos are highly manageable by a hostile elite compared to the troublesome white tribes ----whites give leadership sleepless nights.

    The Latinos are highly manageable by a hostile elite

    Hispanics have a laughably weak national-level cultural presence in the USA even though they may be past the 20.0% mark in terms of total defacto residents (depending on how many illegal Hispanics there are and how they are counted). There are several explanations for this but the diffuse nature of immigration may be one.

    Perhaps part of an implicit, national-level ‘management’ of Hispanics (compliance-enforcement) is to make sure they don’t form a solid bloc, like White Protestant immigrants did in Mexican Texas before independence.

    That is, if “immigration” meant only a steadily rising Hispanic population, say to 50%+ Hispanic by sometime midcentury, with no other immigrants and all else static, the game might be pretty different. As is, we have a chaotic immigration problem from all corners of the world and of all types, up to and including heavy elite immigration.

    This is one thing Mr. Clifton does not mention in his essay on the 42 million Latin Americans: They’re a drop in the bucket compared to Asia, and (gulp) Africa.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    ...like White Protestant immigrants did in Mexican Texas before independence.
     
    There weren't supposed to be any Protestants, white or otherwise, in Mexican Texas. The anglosajones agreed to be Roman in exchange for having their rights respected. Both sides apparently lied.
  15. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Massimo Heitor
    This is a tired yard, but Bret Stephens at the NYT on 2019-02-08:

    Israel is now the home of nearly nine million citizens, with an identity that is as distinctively and proudly Israeli as the Dutch are Dutch or the Danes Danish. Anti-Zionism proposes nothing less than the elimination of that identity and the political dispossession of those who cherish it, with no real thought of what would likely happen to the dispossessed. Do progressives expect the rights of Jews to be protected should Hamas someday assume the leadership of a reconstituted “Palestine”?
     
    In other words, "The Progressives will not replace us!" I broadly admire, even love, Jewish people and their culture. I dislike the Jewish individuals in the NYT and the WaPo (and somewhat Commentary Magazine) chosen to represent the political right, who are so blatantly hypocritical on this issue. Preserving our identity and nation state for me but not for thee.


    All of this is profoundly unsettling to a Jewish community that has generally seen the Democratic Party as its political home. That’s not because American Jews are unfamiliar with the radical left’s militant hostility toward the Jewish state. That’s been true for decades. Nor is it because American Jews are suddenly tilting right: Some 76 percent voted for Democrats in the midterms.
     
    Maybe if Jews are bothered by this deep pattern of anti-semitism from the Democratic party, they should stop supporting the Democratic party. Or maybe Jews don't recognize the Democratic party as anti-semitic.

    I suspect many progressive American Jews cherish their progressive identity more so than their Jewish identity. That's their choice to make.

    I don’t hate Israel, I hope Israel survives but I don’t think the US should subsidize it. American Jews should be put on notice that their “tikkum olan” threatens them and Israel and that we won’t tolerate nation wrecking from within our own borders.

    Steve is always talking about the New York Times. I think the NYT should be called “The Backward”. Jews have a Jewish paper for other Jews, called “The Forward”. I read the Forward fairly often online. William Pierce told me he had had a subscription for years. I figure if it was good enough for him it was good enough for me.

    If the Forward is for Jews by Jews, the Backward is for the cattle by Jews. And the term has a certain scatological appeal as it were. Someone could copy the Forward’s website using the “B” as used in the title of the old “Big Butt” adult magazine. Or the Fruity B as used by Beechcraft for years. Beech, like Hewlett Packard and the SS, had special typewriters that had the Beechcraft B on one key.

    (Boeing was the “Lazy B”, Beechcraft the “Fruity B”.Boeing workers were famously slothful and Beech had at least one flaming pansy on its executive suite for years: Olive Ann had many gay male friends, from what I was told.)

    Bob Whitaker used to relate the story that the $PLC had spent a lot of money to find out where he lived despite the fact he was on their mailing list under his own name at his house.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    I'm indifferent to Israel.

    I don't hate them. I'm happy to do business with them. I think what they do with the Palestinians is their own business. But at the end of the day, to me, they are just another foreign nation. Our policies toward them should be gauged upon their external behavior toward us and our interests. All else is insipid bilge.

    There's no such thing as love stories in geopolitics, just marriages of convenience and some serial adultery. Both of our political parties have a hard time understanding this basic reality.

    Still... I think the idea that Netanyahu can control the behavior of American Jews is a little bit of a stretch. Israeli Jews are not just culturally different from American Jews, but in recent decades, ethnically different too. From my observation, affluent, left-wing American Jews (dispensing with the neocons) tend to view the Israelis as an embarrassment more than anything else.

  16. president harris will let them in. that’s the plan.

    • Replies: @Hail

    harris
     
    Why do so many here assume she will win the D nomination?
  17. America is gone. Forget about it. We live in Mexico Norte now.

    Trump predictably betrayed the last hope. He just wanted to be President.

    It is our job to survive as a tiny oppressed and hated minority.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    Finally, you said something sensible.

    Hey, Jock, you've been a hated minority here for years, so you ought to feel at home.

    , @Hail

    t is our job to survive as a tiny oppressed and hated minority.
     
    Let us hope/aim instead for some kind of post-USA political solution.

    There is no reason present-day borders are sacrosanct.

  18. @prime noticer
    president harris will let them in. that's the plan.

    harris

    Why do so many here assume she will win the D nomination?

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Hail asked:

    Why do so many here assume [Kamala Harris] will win the D nomination?
     
    Because of all the points she gets for intersectionality -- a minimum of four (female, black, Indian, daughter of immigrants) and maybe more (e.g., if you give her one point for each immigrant parent).

    The closest competitor in the intersectionality game is Tulsi Gabbard -- maybe three points (female, Samoan, and, sort of, Hindu). But, Gabbard is already being smeared by the ruling elite because she has a half-way sane view of foreign policy.

    Booker could get two points if he chooses to play the gay card.

    Gillibrand, Beto, Bernie, Warren, et al. -- not even in the intersectionality game.

    Harris is also helped by the fact that she is ruthlessly unprincipled, a real plus to the Establishment, and pretty good at presenting herself on video.

    Not a shoo-in in such a crowded field, but currently the best bet.
  19. They should be more specific. Do these people all want to move to California?

    Imagine the Golden Bear Republic with 100 seats in the House, and 102 Electors. Better yet, don’t.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna

    Do these people all want to move to California?
     
    If the benefits are good enough, sure! Why not? But I daresay any of the 50 states is better than the hellholes they're coming from--for now.
  20. @Hail

    The Latinos are highly manageable by a hostile elite
     
    Hispanics have a laughably weak national-level cultural presence in the USA even though they may be past the 20.0% mark in terms of total defacto residents (depending on how many illegal Hispanics there are and how they are counted). There are several explanations for this but the diffuse nature of immigration may be one.

    Perhaps part of an implicit, national-level 'management' of Hispanics (compliance-enforcement) is to make sure they don't form a solid bloc, like White Protestant immigrants did in Mexican Texas before independence.

    That is, if "immigration" meant only a steadily rising Hispanic population, say to 50%+ Hispanic by sometime midcentury, with no other immigrants and all else static, the game might be pretty different. As is, we have a chaotic immigration problem from all corners of the world and of all types, up to and including heavy elite immigration.

    This is one thing Mr. Clifton does not mention in his essay on the 42 million Latin Americans: They're a drop in the bucket compared to Asia, and (gulp) Africa.

    …like White Protestant immigrants did in Mexican Texas before independence.

    There weren’t supposed to be any Protestants, white or otherwise, in Mexican Texas. The anglosajones agreed to be Roman in exchange for having their rights respected. Both sides apparently lied.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
  21. 42 Million Latin Americans Want to Migrate to US. What’s the Plan?

    What’s the plan? Let em’ in:

    • Replies: @PiltdownMan
    Paul McCartney was pretty conflicted about this issue. As I posted the other day

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0P_HKQGq730
  22. Well this particular guy is certainly asking questions Trump wouldn’t dare:

    Most U.S. citizens like me just want to know the plan.

    But this makes me wonder:

    Gallup asked the whole population of Latin America. There are 33 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Roughly 450 million adults live in the region. Gallup asked them, “Would you like to move to another country permanently if you could?”

    Gallup asked the whole population of Latin America? Jim Clifton is Chairman and CEO at Gallup and he believes they asked all 450 million of them?

    35% said they want to go to the United States.

    Sure, but about 85% of them are actually coming here, as soon as they discover it’s too hard to move to Spain or Denmark.

  23. @Whiskey
    America is gone. Forget about it. We live in Mexico Norte now.

    Trump predictably betrayed the last hope. He just wanted to be President.

    It is our job to survive as a tiny oppressed and hated minority.

    Finally, you said something sensible.

    Hey, Jock, you’ve been a hated minority here for years, so you ought to feel at home.

    • Agree: Jack Hanson
  24. @Reg Cæsar
    They should be more specific. Do these people all want to move to California?

    Imagine the Golden Bear Republic with 100 seats in the House, and 102 Electors. Better yet, don't.

    Do these people all want to move to California?

    If the benefits are good enough, sure! Why not? But I daresay any of the 50 states is better than the hellholes they’re coming from–for now.

  25. Related: the Zeroth Amendment may be getting some teeth. Proposal to pay reparations to all families separated at the border. As George Washington noted, “letting white citizens keep their money is not who we are. ”

    Rep. Jayapal: Reparations Owed to Families Separated at Border

    ttps://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/09/rep-jayapal-reparations-should-be-paid-to-families-separated-at-the-border/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    • Replies: @Corn
    She needs deported along with fellow Congresswoman Omar.
  26. @Hail
    Your comment is correct except for two important details:

    [1] it is not "Latinization" but a true InviteTheWorld partly past the point of being managed by anyone,
    [2] It is not just about the serf class: Part of what's going on is the hostile elite is semi-consciously importing fresh blood for itself (e.g., many East Asians).

    ” Part of what’s going on is the hostile elite is semi-consciously importing fresh blood for itself”

    I wouldn’t be so sure about that. I can’t imagine a whole lot of Rabbis telling their synagogues to go out and have mixed race kids with Asian women. If you read the Jewish press there’s a whole lot of handwringing about the plunging Jewish population, and the idea of admitting converts is extremely unpopular.

  27. @Guy De Champlagne
    Boomer movement conservatives are hopeless.

    It's all conservatives that are hopeless. Any intelligent person who was concerned about the things conservatives claim to be (legal and illegal immigration, a bigoted cultural elite, health care costs, etc) would realize that they are the consequences of actions by businesses and the solution lies in regulation. But conservatives can't give up their Reaganite propaganda and will never support regulation and are therefore hopeless. There are only some non hopeless former conservatives who are disgusted by the label now (and not many).

    Guy De Champlagne wrote:

    It’s all conservatives that are hopeless. Any intelligent person who was concerned about the things conservatives claim to be (legal and illegal immigration, a bigoted cultural elite, health care costs, etc) would realize that they are the consequences of actions by businesses and the solution lies in regulation

    Read (I mean, actually read, page by page) Robert Field’s 2013 book, Mother of Invention: How the Government Created “Free-Market” Health Care.

    Field shows in fascinating historical detail that, since WW II, we have had oodles and oodles of government regulation in health care: in the hospital industry, in the medical-insurance industry, in Big Pharma, in medical education and licensing, etc.

    That’s why we are in the current mess. Health care worked okay in America prior to WW II.

    (Field, by the way, treats all this government wrecking of health care as historically and politically inevitable, but he does accurately report what government has done to health care.)

    A tell-tale of what’s wrong is that advances in technology have made health care more expensive. How can that be? Normally, technological advances reduce prices — vide electronics.

    There are two major exceptions: the Pentagon and health care. Get government heavily involved and natural reductions in costs turn into huge and unsustainable cost increases.

    Read the book. Learn something. Stop embarrassing yourself.

    • Replies: @Guy De Champlagne
    Yes that's exactly what I mean by all conservatives being hopeless victims of Reaganite propaganda. Every other developed country gets similar health care (being generous to the US) for less than half the cost by regulating the industry properly with price controls. But we should just go by what someone reckons will work based on their own irrational anti government prejudice.

    You people literally ran this country off a cliff but still can't help yourselves. Gotta love it.

    , @International Jew

    advances in technology have made health care more expensive. How can that be? Normally, technological advances reduce prices
     
    That is indeed a paradox. I suspect there are legitimate (i.e. not government-genic) reasons for it, though I couldn't tell you what those are.

    One way or another, what's changed in the last 50-70 years is the difference in clinical outcomes that money will buy you. Used to be, if you had angina, all they could do for you, whether you were Andrew Carnegie or his chimney-sweep, was tell you to slow down and take it easy. Today there are a host of pharmaceutical, diagnostic and surgical options that range in cost from $10 to $200,000.
  28. @PhysicistDave
    Guy De Champlagne wrote:

    It’s all conservatives that are hopeless. Any intelligent person who was concerned about the things conservatives claim to be (legal and illegal immigration, a bigoted cultural elite, health care costs, etc) would realize that they are the consequences of actions by businesses and the solution lies in regulation
     
    Read (I mean, actually read, page by page) Robert Field's 2013 book, Mother of Invention: How the Government Created "Free-Market" Health Care.

    Field shows in fascinating historical detail that, since WW II, we have had oodles and oodles of government regulation in health care: in the hospital industry, in the medical-insurance industry, in Big Pharma, in medical education and licensing, etc.

    That's why we are in the current mess. Health care worked okay in America prior to WW II.

    (Field, by the way, treats all this government wrecking of health care as historically and politically inevitable, but he does accurately report what government has done to health care.)

    A tell-tale of what's wrong is that advances in technology have made health care more expensive. How can that be? Normally, technological advances reduce prices -- vide electronics.

    There are two major exceptions: the Pentagon and health care. Get government heavily involved and natural reductions in costs turn into huge and unsustainable cost increases.

    Read the book. Learn something. Stop embarrassing yourself.

    Yes that’s exactly what I mean by all conservatives being hopeless victims of Reaganite propaganda. Every other developed country gets similar health care (being generous to the US) for less than half the cost by regulating the industry properly with price controls. But we should just go by what someone reckons will work based on their own irrational anti government prejudice.

    You people literally ran this country off a cliff but still can’t help yourselves. Gotta love it.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Our fake Frenchman wrote to me:

    You people literally ran this country off a cliff but still can’t help yourselves. Gotta love it
     
    "You people"?? Look, ignorant one, I have never been a supporter of either political party. I am certainly not a supporter either of Conservatism, Inc. nor of elitist liberalism.

    Why on earth do you post nonsense like this?

    Our faker also wrote:

    Every other developed country gets similar health care (being generous to the US) for less than half the cost by regulating the industry properly with price controls.
     
    Okay, so we have now established that you know no economics. At all.

    Econ 101: price controls produce shortages. Simple supply-and-demand analysis. P vs. Q diagrams and all that.

    Oh, never mind. If you cared at all about understanding anything, you would already know that.

    Just go away.
    , @Redneck farmer
    Make European countries 15% African, they would have the same "problems" in health care America does.
    , @Yak-15
    Why is veterinarian care so cheap?

    A huge part is because it doesn’t have the regulations of human healthcare nor the government impetus to subsidize it.

    Ponder the other fact that healthcare is the only known industry where increases in technological innovation bring costs higher.

    It’s also worth noting that most other countries are able to achieve high level care because they piggy-back off of innovation. We pay the lions share of development costs and profits for these firms. It’s time for that to change as well.
  29. @Hail

    harris
     
    Why do so many here assume she will win the D nomination?

    Hail asked:

    Why do so many here assume [Kamala Harris] will win the D nomination?

    Because of all the points she gets for intersectionality — a minimum of four (female, black, Indian, daughter of immigrants) and maybe more (e.g., if you give her one point for each immigrant parent).

    The closest competitor in the intersectionality game is Tulsi Gabbard — maybe three points (female, Samoan, and, sort of, Hindu). But, Gabbard is already being smeared by the ruling elite because she has a half-way sane view of foreign policy.

    Booker could get two points if he chooses to play the gay card.

    Gillibrand, Beto, Bernie, Warren, et al. — not even in the intersectionality game.

    Harris is also helped by the fact that she is ruthlessly unprincipled, a real plus to the Establishment, and pretty good at presenting herself on video.

    Not a shoo-in in such a crowded field, but currently the best bet.

    • Agree: bomag
    • Replies: @Eric Novak
    Wrong. Kamala Harris has been tough on Black crime in California as AG and is facing a backlash. She's not going far.
    , @Marat
    Kamala has proven she can be “trusted” by the elite. Plus her strategic marriage doesn’t hurt as “insurance” to those who might remain skeptical of her. She’s Hillary 2.0 in a skirt suit, without any of the charm.
    , @englishmike

    Harris is also helped by the fact that she is ruthlessly unprincipled, a real plus to the Establishment, and pretty good at presenting herself on video.
     
    Also, she appears to have been "nominated" by CNN. The MSM need her as much as she will need them.

    And have you noticed how, when she hides the "ruthlessly unprincipled" persona behind a smile, she looks a bit like Obama wearing a wig? Is that an advantage?

    , @Hail

    intersectionality
     
    Here is a perhaps much more relevant question than how many 'intersectionality points' she may have:

    Is she Black enough for Black D-Team primary voters?

    Some substantial percentage of D-Team primary voters are Black. Taking a guess: 30%? This compounded with the fact that many states (afaik) are, will be, winner take all. I presume Blacks form a plurality in many Southern states' Democratic primary voter pools, potentially even an outright majority in a few. That is a lot of delegates defacto controlled by the Black bloc-vote.

    So if she wins, it may be a lot less that she is exotic ("intersectional") but that she is 'Black,' or rather will market herself as Black, as the Black champion and Black candidate. I am not convinced she will be successful in doing this, but it did work with the Maui-Indonesian Barry H. Obama.

    TLDR: Democrats as Black Party, inside baseball stuff.

    , @Hail
    I have recently learned that Harris has checked another kind of box by judiciously taking a Jewish husband. She has no children but several Jewish step-children.

    The wedding was in Aug. 2014, so just about six years before the height of the 2020 campaign, which she was perhaps already thinking about then. Did she marry Mr. Jewish solely to win points with political Jews to boost her 2020 or 2024 run(s)? To be honest, I think it's rather likely.

    Here is Harris in 2017, with her Jewish husband looking on approvingly, as she grovels at Yad Vashem, the Holocaust temple in Israel.

    https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4554/24830055418_3fbb285477.jpg

  30. ‘…Of those who want to leave their Latin American country permanently, 35% said they want to go to the United States.

    The Gallup analytics estimate is that 42 million want to come to the U.S.

    Forty-two million seekers of citizenship or asylum are watching to determine exactly when and how is the best time to make the move…’

    Meh. So ten percent of all Hispanics would like to come here.

    Forty percent of all Israeli Jews would like to leave Israel.

    I wish they would but I’m not especially confident it’ll happen unless we give them a little shove. Ever had a lousy job? You tend to just stay at it; keep getting up and going to work.

    Same thing if you live in a shithole country, I imagine.

  31. @ATBOTL
    I have been reading the comments on Free Republic about immigration since Trump's horrific SotU reversal and they are depressing. Boomer conservatives still don't get it. Many Freepers strongly support increasing H1B's. They suggest increasing legal immigration will somehow cancel out the effects of continuing illegal immigration, which they are resigned to. Lots of them think Asian immigrants, or even just legal immigrants in general vote GOP. The comments there are full of non-sequitors and bizarrely illogical evasions. Some drone on about biblical prophesy or showing the dems we aren't racist. "We need immigrants because millenials are bad," "we need more workers to grow our economy."

    Boomer movement conservatives are hopeless.

    Americans are squishes on immigration. You get what you ask for.

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    There's a lot of truth here. When we were actually separating families back in the beginning of the administration a lot of the same people who went and pulled the lever for Trump squished out because crying brown babies made them feel icky inside.

    It wasn't Javanka who rescinded that, it was the same cosetted and coddled group of Americans who couldn't stop hand wringing about what needed to be done because they got the feelbads.
  32. AOC has a plan: High Speed trains. I hope they have good hand-grips.

  33. @Guy De Champlagne
    Yes that's exactly what I mean by all conservatives being hopeless victims of Reaganite propaganda. Every other developed country gets similar health care (being generous to the US) for less than half the cost by regulating the industry properly with price controls. But we should just go by what someone reckons will work based on their own irrational anti government prejudice.

    You people literally ran this country off a cliff but still can't help yourselves. Gotta love it.

    Our fake Frenchman wrote to me:

    You people literally ran this country off a cliff but still can’t help yourselves. Gotta love it

    “You people”?? Look, ignorant one, I have never been a supporter of either political party. I am certainly not a supporter either of Conservatism, Inc. nor of elitist liberalism.

    Why on earth do you post nonsense like this?

    Our faker also wrote:

    Every other developed country gets similar health care (being generous to the US) for less than half the cost by regulating the industry properly with price controls.

    Okay, so we have now established that you know no economics. At all.

    Econ 101: price controls produce shortages. Simple supply-and-demand analysis. P vs. Q diagrams and all that.

    Oh, never mind. If you cared at all about understanding anything, you would already know that.

    Just go away.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    How many practising doctors in the 1970s? How many now? There's your shortage.
    , @Guy De Champlagne
    I took econ 101 too. Even if the economics profession hadn't completely disgraced itself by nearly universally spreading failure and plutocracy in it's wake I would still never be arrogant and insular enough to put some contrived graph over the actual policy experiences in the real world. And even Economists admit that price controls don't always lead to shortages, it just comes later than microecon 101. Other countries just regulate health care like the US regulates natural gas, electricity, and water utilities and the the most notable recent examples of shortages in those markets all stem from liberalisation efforts.
  34. 42 million?……. 420 million more like.

    Oh, and don’t get me started about the Indian subcontinent.
    As that familiar old English saying goes, it will make the Latin American influx look like the proverbial ‘Vicarage Tea Party’.

  35. @Diversity Heretic
    Jean Raspail said that the inspiration for his Camp of the Saints novel came to him one night as he looked out of his window and wondered "What would happen if they came?" It looks as if we're going to find out.

    “….all at once”. FIFY

  36. @Guy De Champlagne
    Yes that's exactly what I mean by all conservatives being hopeless victims of Reaganite propaganda. Every other developed country gets similar health care (being generous to the US) for less than half the cost by regulating the industry properly with price controls. But we should just go by what someone reckons will work based on their own irrational anti government prejudice.

    You people literally ran this country off a cliff but still can't help yourselves. Gotta love it.

    Make European countries 15% African, they would have the same “problems” in health care America does.

    • Replies: @Guy De Champlagne
    Explain how that works? Demographics certainly has a lot to do with health outcomes I don't see how it affects costs in a major way.

    You're right in that diversity undermines social cohesion and makes people do stupid, irrational things. But my whole point is that people are being stupid and irrational (and trying to pretend it's a virtue)
  37. We’ll have to just ironically quote The Clash, “There is no asylum here/ King Solomon he never live around here”

  38. @ATBOTL
    I have been reading the comments on Free Republic about immigration since Trump's horrific SotU reversal and they are depressing. Boomer conservatives still don't get it. Many Freepers strongly support increasing H1B's. They suggest increasing legal immigration will somehow cancel out the effects of continuing illegal immigration, which they are resigned to. Lots of them think Asian immigrants, or even just legal immigrants in general vote GOP. The comments there are full of non-sequitors and bizarrely illogical evasions. Some drone on about biblical prophesy or showing the dems we aren't racist. "We need immigrants because millenials are bad," "we need more workers to grow our economy."

    Boomer movement conservatives are hopeless.

    If you want to know just how massive subcon immigration will work out, just ask a Cockney*.

    Or even a Torontan.

    *Aboriginal, working-class Londoner. Now almost extinct.

    • Replies: @Perspective
    Conservatives should start to argue, at least in part, to have an immigration system based on reciprocity. If it is difficult for a White American or Danish person to immigrate to Pakistan or India, it should also be just about as equally difficult for Subcons to move permanently to the US or Denmark. It also needs to be advocated that it is immoral for the West to drain the brightest and the best from third world countries, including semi-skilled workers. Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki, for all his faults, has already discussed this previously.
  39. Gallup: 42 Million Latin Americans Want to Migrate to US. What’s the Plan?

    The Pelosi-Democrat plan is to sabotage any Trump Wall and to go semi-Open Borders. The Republicans could have gotten the Wall built when Paul Ryan was speaker but refused, so are almost as useless.

  40. The plan? Invade the world/Invite the world.

  41. @Massimo Heitor
    This is a tired yard, but Bret Stephens at the NYT on 2019-02-08:

    Israel is now the home of nearly nine million citizens, with an identity that is as distinctively and proudly Israeli as the Dutch are Dutch or the Danes Danish. Anti-Zionism proposes nothing less than the elimination of that identity and the political dispossession of those who cherish it, with no real thought of what would likely happen to the dispossessed. Do progressives expect the rights of Jews to be protected should Hamas someday assume the leadership of a reconstituted “Palestine”?
     
    In other words, "The Progressives will not replace us!" I broadly admire, even love, Jewish people and their culture. I dislike the Jewish individuals in the NYT and the WaPo (and somewhat Commentary Magazine) chosen to represent the political right, who are so blatantly hypocritical on this issue. Preserving our identity and nation state for me but not for thee.


    All of this is profoundly unsettling to a Jewish community that has generally seen the Democratic Party as its political home. That’s not because American Jews are unfamiliar with the radical left’s militant hostility toward the Jewish state. That’s been true for decades. Nor is it because American Jews are suddenly tilting right: Some 76 percent voted for Democrats in the midterms.
     
    Maybe if Jews are bothered by this deep pattern of anti-semitism from the Democratic party, they should stop supporting the Democratic party. Or maybe Jews don't recognize the Democratic party as anti-semitic.

    I suspect many progressive American Jews cherish their progressive identity more so than their Jewish identity. That's their choice to make.

    You dont recognize, the diaspora strategy, weaken the host to extract resources.

  42. “Gallup: 42 Million Latin Americans Want to Migrate to US. What’s the Plan?”

    That is the plan.

  43. @Mr. Anon

    42 Million Latin Americans Want to Migrate to US. What's the Plan?
     
    What's the plan? Let em' in:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re61B8sKQWk

    Paul McCartney was pretty conflicted about this issue. As I posted the other day

  44. Gallup: 42 Million Latin Americans Want to Migrate to US. What’s the Plan?

    The plan is to rely on the innumeracy of the American public, failing which, to observe that all 328 million of us are immigrants, after all, and 40-odd million is only a tiny fraction.

  45. @TheBoom
    Related: the Zeroth Amendment may be getting some teeth. Proposal to pay reparations to all families separated at the border. As George Washington noted, "letting white citizens keep their money is not who we are. "


    Rep. Jayapal: Reparations Owed to Families Separated at Border

    ttps://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/09/rep-jayapal-reparations-should-be-paid-to-families-separated-at-the-border/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    She needs deported along with fellow Congresswoman Omar.

  46. @IHTG
    Americans are squishes on immigration. You get what you ask for.

    There’s a lot of truth here. When we were actually separating families back in the beginning of the administration a lot of the same people who went and pulled the lever for Trump squished out because crying brown babies made them feel icky inside.

    It wasn’t Javanka who rescinded that, it was the same cosetted and coddled group of Americans who couldn’t stop hand wringing about what needed to be done because they got the feelbads.

  47. @Guy De Champlagne
    Yes that's exactly what I mean by all conservatives being hopeless victims of Reaganite propaganda. Every other developed country gets similar health care (being generous to the US) for less than half the cost by regulating the industry properly with price controls. But we should just go by what someone reckons will work based on their own irrational anti government prejudice.

    You people literally ran this country off a cliff but still can't help yourselves. Gotta love it.

    Why is veterinarian care so cheap?

    A huge part is because it doesn’t have the regulations of human healthcare nor the government impetus to subsidize it.

    Ponder the other fact that healthcare is the only known industry where increases in technological innovation bring costs higher.

    It’s also worth noting that most other countries are able to achieve high level care because they piggy-back off of innovation. We pay the lions share of development costs and profits for these firms. It’s time for that to change as well.

  48. For every person emigrating from a country to the US, forward deploy the US military to take a proportionate amount of its territory and repatriate them to that territory.

  49. @PhysicistDave
    Our fake Frenchman wrote to me:

    You people literally ran this country off a cliff but still can’t help yourselves. Gotta love it
     
    "You people"?? Look, ignorant one, I have never been a supporter of either political party. I am certainly not a supporter either of Conservatism, Inc. nor of elitist liberalism.

    Why on earth do you post nonsense like this?

    Our faker also wrote:

    Every other developed country gets similar health care (being generous to the US) for less than half the cost by regulating the industry properly with price controls.
     
    Okay, so we have now established that you know no economics. At all.

    Econ 101: price controls produce shortages. Simple supply-and-demand analysis. P vs. Q diagrams and all that.

    Oh, never mind. If you cared at all about understanding anything, you would already know that.

    Just go away.

    How many practising doctors in the 1970s? How many now? There’s your shortage.

  50. 2020…

    The last call for the Huwhites to do some serious galluping with their feet.

  51. I never thought that any State in America had a right to any sort of nationalism.

    After all America is the new world, the land of the free. And that includes all of America, not just The United States but all States.

    Just administrations who administer an area of America, but there is no real legal or moral justification for national borders because there arent really any Nations, just States…

    So its a bit odd for there to be borders immigration etc… thats just economic apartheid and nothing todo with immigration at all.

  52. @Anonymous
    I don't hate Israel, I hope Israel survives but I don't think the US should subsidize it. American Jews should be put on notice that their "tikkum olan" threatens them and Israel and that we won't tolerate nation wrecking from within our own borders.

    Steve is always talking about the New York Times. I think the NYT should be called "The Backward". Jews have a Jewish paper for other Jews, called "The Forward". I read the Forward fairly often online. William Pierce told me he had had a subscription for years. I figure if it was good enough for him it was good enough for me.

    If the Forward is for Jews by Jews, the Backward is for the cattle by Jews. And the term has a certain scatological appeal as it were. Someone could copy the Forward's website using the "B" as used in the title of the old "Big Butt" adult magazine. Or the Fruity B as used by Beechcraft for years. Beech, like Hewlett Packard and the SS, had special typewriters that had the Beechcraft B on one key.

    https://d1yjjnpx0p53s8.cloudfront.net/styles/logo-thumbnail/s3/0004/7308/brand.gif?itok=B57s8Xzw


    (Boeing was the "Lazy B", Beechcraft the "Fruity B".Boeing workers were famously slothful and Beech had at least one flaming pansy on its executive suite for years: Olive Ann had many gay male friends, from what I was told.)

    Bob Whitaker used to relate the story that the $PLC had spent a lot of money to find out where he lived despite the fact he was on their mailing list under his own name at his house.

    I’m indifferent to Israel.

    I don’t hate them. I’m happy to do business with them. I think what they do with the Palestinians is their own business. But at the end of the day, to me, they are just another foreign nation. Our policies toward them should be gauged upon their external behavior toward us and our interests. All else is insipid bilge.

    There’s no such thing as love stories in geopolitics, just marriages of convenience and some serial adultery. Both of our political parties have a hard time understanding this basic reality.

    Still… I think the idea that Netanyahu can control the behavior of American Jews is a little bit of a stretch. Israeli Jews are not just culturally different from American Jews, but in recent decades, ethnically different too. From my observation, affluent, left-wing American Jews (dispensing with the neocons) tend to view the Israelis as an embarrassment more than anything else.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    Cont:

    This attitude is not too terribly different from how upwardly mobile Southerners who go on to get graduate degrees from solid schools and end up as technocrats in places like the suburbs of DC end up viewing their relatives. Or how Singaporean Chinese tend to view FOB mainland Chinese immigrants. They don't want to be associated with them.
  53. @nebulafox
    I'm indifferent to Israel.

    I don't hate them. I'm happy to do business with them. I think what they do with the Palestinians is their own business. But at the end of the day, to me, they are just another foreign nation. Our policies toward them should be gauged upon their external behavior toward us and our interests. All else is insipid bilge.

    There's no such thing as love stories in geopolitics, just marriages of convenience and some serial adultery. Both of our political parties have a hard time understanding this basic reality.

    Still... I think the idea that Netanyahu can control the behavior of American Jews is a little bit of a stretch. Israeli Jews are not just culturally different from American Jews, but in recent decades, ethnically different too. From my observation, affluent, left-wing American Jews (dispensing with the neocons) tend to view the Israelis as an embarrassment more than anything else.

    Cont:

    This attitude is not too terribly different from how upwardly mobile Southerners who go on to get graduate degrees from solid schools and end up as technocrats in places like the suburbs of DC end up viewing their relatives. Or how Singaporean Chinese tend to view FOB mainland Chinese immigrants. They don’t want to be associated with them.

  54. Trump Pushes Mass Legal Immigration.

    Trump wants to flood the USA with foreigners from the Third World and everywhere else.

    Trump must be challenged in the 2020 GOP presidential primary.

    I hereby challenge that New York City shyster boy Trumpy to a debate on mass legal immigration, illegal immigration, American national identity and foreign policy.

    Trump has stabbed the American people in the back by pushing mass legal immigration.

    Lizzie Borden Warren and New York City Trumpy both push mass legal immigration and multicultural mayhem.

    Mass legal immigration means multicultural mayhem and cultural rot and the destruction of US national sovereignty.

    We loved candidate Trumpy, and President Trumpy stabbed us in the back!

    Many of us knew the game Trump was playing was rigged against the historic American nation.

  55. @PhysicistDave
    Hail asked:

    Why do so many here assume [Kamala Harris] will win the D nomination?
     
    Because of all the points she gets for intersectionality -- a minimum of four (female, black, Indian, daughter of immigrants) and maybe more (e.g., if you give her one point for each immigrant parent).

    The closest competitor in the intersectionality game is Tulsi Gabbard -- maybe three points (female, Samoan, and, sort of, Hindu). But, Gabbard is already being smeared by the ruling elite because she has a half-way sane view of foreign policy.

    Booker could get two points if he chooses to play the gay card.

    Gillibrand, Beto, Bernie, Warren, et al. -- not even in the intersectionality game.

    Harris is also helped by the fact that she is ruthlessly unprincipled, a real plus to the Establishment, and pretty good at presenting herself on video.

    Not a shoo-in in such a crowded field, but currently the best bet.

    Wrong. Kamala Harris has been tough on Black crime in California as AG and is facing a backlash. She’s not going far.

    • Replies: @bomag

    tough on Black crime
     
    I'm sure she'll start promising to turn the power of the office on YT to punish him for historical crimes.
    , @PhysicistDave
    Eric Novak wrote to me:

    Wrong. Kamala Harris has been tough on Black crime in California as AG and is facing a backlash. She’s not going far.
     
    Well... I'm not enough of a conspiracy-monger to say that all that is just a trick to fool middle-class/working-class voters into accepting her. Let's just say that as a Californian I don't recall much discussion of her being tough on crime until recent months.

    Anyway, the "she's too tough on crime" line seems to come from the far Left. As much fun as we all have pouncing on the far Left, the truth is they are not the ones who rule the country. The ruling elite is in charge, and they are happy with Kamala, and that should be good enough.

    But, it is a crowded field. Some back-bencher like Tulsi (!) could take off. Trump did. That's what's fun about democracy. Every now and then (but rarely) the people manage to have their say.
  56. @PhysicistDave
    Hail asked:

    Why do so many here assume [Kamala Harris] will win the D nomination?
     
    Because of all the points she gets for intersectionality -- a minimum of four (female, black, Indian, daughter of immigrants) and maybe more (e.g., if you give her one point for each immigrant parent).

    The closest competitor in the intersectionality game is Tulsi Gabbard -- maybe three points (female, Samoan, and, sort of, Hindu). But, Gabbard is already being smeared by the ruling elite because she has a half-way sane view of foreign policy.

    Booker could get two points if he chooses to play the gay card.

    Gillibrand, Beto, Bernie, Warren, et al. -- not even in the intersectionality game.

    Harris is also helped by the fact that she is ruthlessly unprincipled, a real plus to the Establishment, and pretty good at presenting herself on video.

    Not a shoo-in in such a crowded field, but currently the best bet.

    Kamala has proven she can be “trusted” by the elite. Plus her strategic marriage doesn’t hurt as “insurance” to those who might remain skeptical of her. She’s Hillary 2.0 in a skirt suit, without any of the charm.

  57. @Massimo Heitor
    This is a tired yard, but Bret Stephens at the NYT on 2019-02-08:

    Israel is now the home of nearly nine million citizens, with an identity that is as distinctively and proudly Israeli as the Dutch are Dutch or the Danes Danish. Anti-Zionism proposes nothing less than the elimination of that identity and the political dispossession of those who cherish it, with no real thought of what would likely happen to the dispossessed. Do progressives expect the rights of Jews to be protected should Hamas someday assume the leadership of a reconstituted “Palestine”?
     
    In other words, "The Progressives will not replace us!" I broadly admire, even love, Jewish people and their culture. I dislike the Jewish individuals in the NYT and the WaPo (and somewhat Commentary Magazine) chosen to represent the political right, who are so blatantly hypocritical on this issue. Preserving our identity and nation state for me but not for thee.


    All of this is profoundly unsettling to a Jewish community that has generally seen the Democratic Party as its political home. That’s not because American Jews are unfamiliar with the radical left’s militant hostility toward the Jewish state. That’s been true for decades. Nor is it because American Jews are suddenly tilting right: Some 76 percent voted for Democrats in the midterms.
     
    Maybe if Jews are bothered by this deep pattern of anti-semitism from the Democratic party, they should stop supporting the Democratic party. Or maybe Jews don't recognize the Democratic party as anti-semitic.

    I suspect many progressive American Jews cherish their progressive identity more so than their Jewish identity. That's their choice to make.

    I suspect many progressive American Jews cherish their progressive identity more so than their Jewish identity. That’s their choice to make.

    Lol, as if they can’t have it both ways.

  58. @Redneck farmer
    Make European countries 15% African, they would have the same "problems" in health care America does.

    Explain how that works? Demographics certainly has a lot to do with health outcomes I don’t see how it affects costs in a major way.

    You’re right in that diversity undermines social cohesion and makes people do stupid, irrational things. But my whole point is that people are being stupid and irrational (and trying to pretend it’s a virtue)

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
    It has to do with the economic base that supports the healthcare system; i.e., a larger percentage of deadbeats accessing healthcare and smaller percentage of productive citizens.
    , @Brutusale
    You do know that, by law, medical attention has to be rendered to all, regardless of ability to pay. Utilities just get shut off for non-payment.

    This means that my girlfriend's urban hospital, with a patient population that is 70% Medicaid (MassHealth) and many more part of the "free care pool" (read that as undocumented), is a giant sucking hole for tax dollars.

    Some of my favorite stories from her job:

    Newly-arrived illegal with a chronic condition had surgery and developed a raging post-op infection that can only be treated with one of the new antibiotics that costs $3,500 a dose. He's been there for 2 months.

    Continued treatment of a 30-year old, heroin-addicted, HIV-positive, pregnant Dominican immigrant prostitute who already has 4 kids in the state system.

    A Jamaican guy who was a patient of hers at another hospital 15 years ago when he stroked out after swallowing his drugs when the cops were chasing his drug-dealing ass. He ended up paralyzed below the waist and threatening to kill everyone at the hospital. Fast forward 15 years, and he's back at her current hospital for a MassHealth-approved penile pump!

    These are just 3 stories, stories about indigents costing the Commonwealth so much that the FY 2018 MassHealth budget is $16.6 BILLION, or 37% of the entire state budget. The Feds subsidize half that amount, so thanks for the tax dollars used to treat our illegals and crackheads, guys.
  59. @PhysicistDave
    Our fake Frenchman wrote to me:

    You people literally ran this country off a cliff but still can’t help yourselves. Gotta love it
     
    "You people"?? Look, ignorant one, I have never been a supporter of either political party. I am certainly not a supporter either of Conservatism, Inc. nor of elitist liberalism.

    Why on earth do you post nonsense like this?

    Our faker also wrote:

    Every other developed country gets similar health care (being generous to the US) for less than half the cost by regulating the industry properly with price controls.
     
    Okay, so we have now established that you know no economics. At all.

    Econ 101: price controls produce shortages. Simple supply-and-demand analysis. P vs. Q diagrams and all that.

    Oh, never mind. If you cared at all about understanding anything, you would already know that.

    Just go away.

    I took econ 101 too. Even if the economics profession hadn’t completely disgraced itself by nearly universally spreading failure and plutocracy in it’s wake I would still never be arrogant and insular enough to put some contrived graph over the actual policy experiences in the real world. And even Economists admit that price controls don’t always lead to shortages, it just comes later than microecon 101. Other countries just regulate health care like the US regulates natural gas, electricity, and water utilities and the the most notable recent examples of shortages in those markets all stem from liberalisation efforts.

    • Replies: @International Jew

    And even Economists admit that price controls don’t always lead to shortages, it just comes later than microecon 101.
     
    I went past Econ 101, and I still never reached the course where they teach that. (Unless you mean price floors, or price ceilings that are above the market-clearing price!)
    , @PhysicistDave
    Our faux Frenchman wrote to me:

    I took econ 101 too....And even Economists admit that price controls don’t always lead to shortages, it just comes later than microecon 101. Other countries just regulate health care like the US regulates natural gas, electricity, and water utilities and the the most notable recent examples of shortages in those markets all stem from liberalisation efforts.
     
    Well, if you took econ 101, you obviously did not understand it. As IJ points out, if price controls are not simply pointless, they do produce shortages.

    You seem to be enwrapped in two further fallacies. First of all, a high cost for medical care is not per se bad: a Lamborghini or Ferrari can also be a bit pricey, but those who buy them seem to think they are getting value for their money. As a country gets more affluent, it will inevitably spend a greater fraction of its income on certain items: it is plausible that health care might be one such item. There is no "natural fraction" of national income that should be spent on different categories of expenditure: food vs. housing vs. health care vs, transportation, etc.

    But, the reason you are truly making a fool of yourself is that you seem to think the USA has a free-market health-care system. We do not now have a free-market health-care system in the USA and have not had a free-market health-care system for over seventy years.

    That is the point of Robert Field's book that I mentioned to you, Mother of Invention: How the Government Created "Free-Market" Health Care. Field makes clear that he used "scare quotes" around "free-market" in his title precisely because the US health-care system is anything but a free-market system.

    Field goes into enormous historical detail; his case is conclusive.

    Read it.

    Of course, your proven MO around here is to make bizarrely arrogant claims for which you can offer no support and then decline to back down when you are conclusively shown to be wrong.

    So, you will not read the book or anything else that would inform you on this subject.

    (And did they really pass you in Econ 101: can you please tell us which professor at which university so we can file a complaint for educational malpractice?)

    Once again, you have been pwned, son. Go away and hide in mommy's basement.
  60. @PhysicistDave
    Guy De Champlagne wrote:

    It’s all conservatives that are hopeless. Any intelligent person who was concerned about the things conservatives claim to be (legal and illegal immigration, a bigoted cultural elite, health care costs, etc) would realize that they are the consequences of actions by businesses and the solution lies in regulation
     
    Read (I mean, actually read, page by page) Robert Field's 2013 book, Mother of Invention: How the Government Created "Free-Market" Health Care.

    Field shows in fascinating historical detail that, since WW II, we have had oodles and oodles of government regulation in health care: in the hospital industry, in the medical-insurance industry, in Big Pharma, in medical education and licensing, etc.

    That's why we are in the current mess. Health care worked okay in America prior to WW II.

    (Field, by the way, treats all this government wrecking of health care as historically and politically inevitable, but he does accurately report what government has done to health care.)

    A tell-tale of what's wrong is that advances in technology have made health care more expensive. How can that be? Normally, technological advances reduce prices -- vide electronics.

    There are two major exceptions: the Pentagon and health care. Get government heavily involved and natural reductions in costs turn into huge and unsustainable cost increases.

    Read the book. Learn something. Stop embarrassing yourself.

    advances in technology have made health care more expensive. How can that be? Normally, technological advances reduce prices

    That is indeed a paradox. I suspect there are legitimate (i.e. not government-genic) reasons for it, though I couldn’t tell you what those are.

    One way or another, what’s changed in the last 50-70 years is the difference in clinical outcomes that money will buy you. Used to be, if you had angina, all they could do for you, whether you were Andrew Carnegie or his chimney-sweep, was tell you to slow down and take it easy. Today there are a host of pharmaceutical, diagnostic and surgical options that range in cost from $10 to $200,000.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    (Sorry, I left off the punchline.) When high-quality health care is beyond most people's means, that's when having the gov't give it away becomes a potent political issue.
    , @bomag

    advances in technology have made health care more expensive
     
    Seems that health care runs on a sort of "war economy": a large chunk of what it does is emergencies; and like wars today, more tech means more expense.
    , @PhysicistDave
    IJ wrote to me:


    [Dave] advances in technology have made health care more expensive. How can that be? Normally, technological advances reduce prices
     
    [IJ]That is indeed a paradox. I suspect there are legitimate (i.e. not government-genic) reasons for it, though I couldn’t tell you what those are.
     
    Well, I have a close family member in the medical industry, so I actually have a lot of empirical information about this. For example, the government actively discourages competition among hospitals and, indeed, actively encourages consolidation of hospitals, because, of course, everyone knows (!) that competition raises prices.

    The physicians themselves are somehow encouraged in bizarrely anti-market ways of thinking: for example, I have tried to explain to physicians that restricting the supply of doctors raises prices. The reply I received was that, no, I had it backwards. You see, I was told, if there were more doctors, then, with fewer patients per doctor, each doctor would have to raise his charge per patient to maintain his income! QED.

    Trying to explain that supply-and-demand does not work this way turned out to be as hopeless as trying to explain anything to our faux Frenchman.

    IJ also wrote:

    One way or another, what’s changed in the last 50-70 years is the difference in clinical outcomes that money will buy you. Used to be, if you had angina, all they could do for you, whether you were Andrew Carnegie or his chimney-sweep, was tell you to slow down and take it easy. Today there are a host of pharmaceutical, diagnostic and surgical options that range in cost from $10 to $200,000.
     
    Yeah, and of course the answer is that not everyone can afford a Lamborghini or a Ferrari. But, if the high-end manufacturers do make any serious engineering breakthroughs, then eventually costs come down and the masses benefit.

    That of course is what happens in electronics. You can still spend millions on a super-computer, but a cheap desktop computer today is much more powerful than a super-computer from fifty years ago.

    The other point is that if you can get some physicians to talk openly with you (this is very hard to arrange, by the way: you basically need a spouse or sib who is a physician to get the straight talk), it turns out that the efficacy of some very high-priced treatments is a bit doubtful. Unfortunately, very, very few physicians grasp probabilistic/statistical reasoning at all and so are unable to make basic judgments about efficacy. Some academics (notably John Ioannidis at Stanford) have been stressing all this, but few physicians seem to be receptive.

    It's as hard for the average person to understand the inner workings of a modern automobile as of modern medicine. Yet, in most ways -- cost, safety, consumer satisfaction -- the market for cars certainly functions much better than the market for medicine.

    That the government is much more deeply involved in medicine is not a coincidence.
  61. @Anonymous
    If you want to know just how massive subcon immigration will work out, just ask a Cockney*.

    Or even a Torontan.

    *Aboriginal, working-class Londoner. Now almost extinct.

    Conservatives should start to argue, at least in part, to have an immigration system based on reciprocity. If it is difficult for a White American or Danish person to immigrate to Pakistan or India, it should also be just about as equally difficult for Subcons to move permanently to the US or Denmark. It also needs to be advocated that it is immoral for the West to drain the brightest and the best from third world countries, including semi-skilled workers. Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki, for all his faults, has already discussed this previously.

  62. @International Jew

    advances in technology have made health care more expensive. How can that be? Normally, technological advances reduce prices
     
    That is indeed a paradox. I suspect there are legitimate (i.e. not government-genic) reasons for it, though I couldn't tell you what those are.

    One way or another, what's changed in the last 50-70 years is the difference in clinical outcomes that money will buy you. Used to be, if you had angina, all they could do for you, whether you were Andrew Carnegie or his chimney-sweep, was tell you to slow down and take it easy. Today there are a host of pharmaceutical, diagnostic and surgical options that range in cost from $10 to $200,000.

    (Sorry, I left off the punchline.) When high-quality health care is beyond most people’s means, that’s when having the gov’t give it away becomes a potent political issue.

  63. @Guy De Champlagne
    I took econ 101 too. Even if the economics profession hadn't completely disgraced itself by nearly universally spreading failure and plutocracy in it's wake I would still never be arrogant and insular enough to put some contrived graph over the actual policy experiences in the real world. And even Economists admit that price controls don't always lead to shortages, it just comes later than microecon 101. Other countries just regulate health care like the US regulates natural gas, electricity, and water utilities and the the most notable recent examples of shortages in those markets all stem from liberalisation efforts.

    And even Economists admit that price controls don’t always lead to shortages, it just comes later than microecon 101.

    I went past Econ 101, and I still never reached the course where they teach that. (Unless you mean price floors, or price ceilings that are above the market-clearing price!)

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @Guy De Champlagne
    I gave an example of price controls without shortages. All throughout the US there are price controls on natural gas, electricity, water, and sewer services and no shortages. Many if not all of the exceptions have to do with attempts to make the markets more laisez faire like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis where there are literally tapes of enron energy traders bragging about profiting from brown outs and blackouts that they've caused.

    How blinkered do you have to be where I have to point to an economics sylabus to prove that something is true and not what's right in front of everyones eyes?

  64. The plan is CHEAP LABOR UBER ALLES.

    Flood the country with more people – it really doesn’t matter who. Sinners. Saints. The smart. The stupid. Russian hockey players. Exotic dancers from Thailand. MS13 gang members. People who speak English. People who don’t speak English. Just open the floodgates, as wide as possible.

    Wages and living standards will go down. Rents and profits will go up. The overall economy will grow, and the rich will get way richer, but the average person who works for a living will be steadily squeezed into the dirt.

    That’s the plan. There is no plan other than to pack ’em in. There will be no targeted investments in additional roads or schools or industries etc. Probably the middle class will get whacked with tax hikes and benefit cuts to provide minimal health care and education for all these third-world refugees, but even that will mostly be ad-hoc and local. There will be zero consideration about what this will do to greenhouse gas emissions from the United States, because the people in charge don’t care about that: just use the boogie-man of “climate change” (which might, or might not, be a real issue) to push to slash the standard of living of the average worker, and an excuse for some nice juicy regressive taxes, but nothing at all that will actually stop the increase in net CO2 production.

    If we are lucky, we will end up like Mexico or Brazil. If we are unlucky, we will end up like India or Bangladesh.

    Because the rich have one god, and it is cheap labor.

    • Replies: @Ender
    How about just investing in the stock and bond market and stop depending on that paycheck? Plus the cgt is a lot lower than. the income tax.
  65. @Eric Novak
    Wrong. Kamala Harris has been tough on Black crime in California as AG and is facing a backlash. She's not going far.

    tough on Black crime

    I’m sure she’ll start promising to turn the power of the office on YT to punish him for historical crimes.

  66. OT:

    https://townhall.com/columnists/humbertofontova/2019/02/09/blondies-debbie-harry-calls-trump-an-idiot-but-swoons-over-fidel-castro-and-che-guevara-n2541043

    Humberto Fontova points out how the rest of the Anglosphere’s favorite little New York rock and roller has her head up her ass politically:
    Blondie’s Debbie Harry Calls Trump ‘an Idiot,’ But Swoons Over Fidel Castro and Che Guevara

  67. @Eric Novak
    Wrong. Kamala Harris has been tough on Black crime in California as AG and is facing a backlash. She's not going far.

    Eric Novak wrote to me:

    Wrong. Kamala Harris has been tough on Black crime in California as AG and is facing a backlash. She’s not going far.

    Well… I’m not enough of a conspiracy-monger to say that all that is just a trick to fool middle-class/working-class voters into accepting her. Let’s just say that as a Californian I don’t recall much discussion of her being tough on crime until recent months.

    Anyway, the “she’s too tough on crime” line seems to come from the far Left. As much fun as we all have pouncing on the far Left, the truth is they are not the ones who rule the country. The ruling elite is in charge, and they are happy with Kamala, and that should be good enough.

    But, it is a crowded field. Some back-bencher like Tulsi (!) could take off. Trump did. That’s what’s fun about democracy. Every now and then (but rarely) the people manage to have their say.

  68. @International Jew

    advances in technology have made health care more expensive. How can that be? Normally, technological advances reduce prices
     
    That is indeed a paradox. I suspect there are legitimate (i.e. not government-genic) reasons for it, though I couldn't tell you what those are.

    One way or another, what's changed in the last 50-70 years is the difference in clinical outcomes that money will buy you. Used to be, if you had angina, all they could do for you, whether you were Andrew Carnegie or his chimney-sweep, was tell you to slow down and take it easy. Today there are a host of pharmaceutical, diagnostic and surgical options that range in cost from $10 to $200,000.

    advances in technology have made health care more expensive

    Seems that health care runs on a sort of “war economy”: a large chunk of what it does is emergencies; and like wars today, more tech means more expense.

  69. @Guy De Champlagne
    I took econ 101 too. Even if the economics profession hadn't completely disgraced itself by nearly universally spreading failure and plutocracy in it's wake I would still never be arrogant and insular enough to put some contrived graph over the actual policy experiences in the real world. And even Economists admit that price controls don't always lead to shortages, it just comes later than microecon 101. Other countries just regulate health care like the US regulates natural gas, electricity, and water utilities and the the most notable recent examples of shortages in those markets all stem from liberalisation efforts.

    Our faux Frenchman wrote to me:

    I took econ 101 too….And even Economists admit that price controls don’t always lead to shortages, it just comes later than microecon 101. Other countries just regulate health care like the US regulates natural gas, electricity, and water utilities and the the most notable recent examples of shortages in those markets all stem from liberalisation efforts.

    Well, if you took econ 101, you obviously did not understand it. As IJ points out, if price controls are not simply pointless, they do produce shortages.

    You seem to be enwrapped in two further fallacies. First of all, a high cost for medical care is not per se bad: a Lamborghini or Ferrari can also be a bit pricey, but those who buy them seem to think they are getting value for their money. As a country gets more affluent, it will inevitably spend a greater fraction of its income on certain items: it is plausible that health care might be one such item. There is no “natural fraction” of national income that should be spent on different categories of expenditure: food vs. housing vs. health care vs, transportation, etc.

    But, the reason you are truly making a fool of yourself is that you seem to think the USA has a free-market health-care system. We do not now have a free-market health-care system in the USA and have not had a free-market health-care system for over seventy years.

    That is the point of Robert Field’s book that I mentioned to you, Mother of Invention: How the Government Created “Free-Market” Health Care. Field makes clear that he used “scare quotes” around “free-market” in his title precisely because the US health-care system is anything but a free-market system.

    Field goes into enormous historical detail; his case is conclusive.

    Read it.

    Of course, your proven MO around here is to make bizarrely arrogant claims for which you can offer no support and then decline to back down when you are conclusively shown to be wrong.

    So, you will not read the book or anything else that would inform you on this subject.

    (And did they really pass you in Econ 101: can you please tell us which professor at which university so we can file a complaint for educational malpractice?)

    Once again, you have been pwned, son. Go away and hide in mommy’s basement.

  70. @International Jew

    advances in technology have made health care more expensive. How can that be? Normally, technological advances reduce prices
     
    That is indeed a paradox. I suspect there are legitimate (i.e. not government-genic) reasons for it, though I couldn't tell you what those are.

    One way or another, what's changed in the last 50-70 years is the difference in clinical outcomes that money will buy you. Used to be, if you had angina, all they could do for you, whether you were Andrew Carnegie or his chimney-sweep, was tell you to slow down and take it easy. Today there are a host of pharmaceutical, diagnostic and surgical options that range in cost from $10 to $200,000.

    IJ wrote to me:

    [Dave] advances in technology have made health care more expensive. How can that be? Normally, technological advances reduce prices

    [IJ]That is indeed a paradox. I suspect there are legitimate (i.e. not government-genic) reasons for it, though I couldn’t tell you what those are.

    Well, I have a close family member in the medical industry, so I actually have a lot of empirical information about this. For example, the government actively discourages competition among hospitals and, indeed, actively encourages consolidation of hospitals, because, of course, everyone knows (!) that competition raises prices.

    The physicians themselves are somehow encouraged in bizarrely anti-market ways of thinking: for example, I have tried to explain to physicians that restricting the supply of doctors raises prices. The reply I received was that, no, I had it backwards. You see, I was told, if there were more doctors, then, with fewer patients per doctor, each doctor would have to raise his charge per patient to maintain his income! QED.

    Trying to explain that supply-and-demand does not work this way turned out to be as hopeless as trying to explain anything to our faux Frenchman.

    IJ also wrote:

    One way or another, what’s changed in the last 50-70 years is the difference in clinical outcomes that money will buy you. Used to be, if you had angina, all they could do for you, whether you were Andrew Carnegie or his chimney-sweep, was tell you to slow down and take it easy. Today there are a host of pharmaceutical, diagnostic and surgical options that range in cost from $10 to $200,000.

    Yeah, and of course the answer is that not everyone can afford a Lamborghini or a Ferrari. But, if the high-end manufacturers do make any serious engineering breakthroughs, then eventually costs come down and the masses benefit.

    That of course is what happens in electronics. You can still spend millions on a super-computer, but a cheap desktop computer today is much more powerful than a super-computer from fifty years ago.

    The other point is that if you can get some physicians to talk openly with you (this is very hard to arrange, by the way: you basically need a spouse or sib who is a physician to get the straight talk), it turns out that the efficacy of some very high-priced treatments is a bit doubtful. Unfortunately, very, very few physicians grasp probabilistic/statistical reasoning at all and so are unable to make basic judgments about efficacy. Some academics (notably John Ioannidis at Stanford) have been stressing all this, but few physicians seem to be receptive.

    It’s as hard for the average person to understand the inner workings of a modern automobile as of modern medicine. Yet, in most ways — cost, safety, consumer satisfaction — the market for cars certainly functions much better than the market for medicine.

    That the government is much more deeply involved in medicine is not a coincidence.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    Ok, I've thought about this thing you said...

    advances in technology have made health care more expensive. How can that be? Normally, technological advances reduce prices
     
    ...and I have the beginning of an answer for you: medical technology does not replace what came before it.

    Farm tractors made food cheaper because a tractor could replace a hundred men, and it cost less than (the discounted present value of) a hundred men's wages. The Intel 80386 could add numbers way faster (per dollar of processor cost) than the 80286, and replaced it.

    Now compare that to medicine. Once upon a time, all we had was doctors armed with stethoscopes, tongue depressors, and little else. Then we got CAT scanners (ok, I've skipped some steps). CAT scanners didn't replace any doctors, though. In fact, because they could reveal a developing aortal aneurism, you no longer saved money by dropping dead one fine day, you got to spend $$$ on open heart surgery!

    The modern operating room is chock-full of amazing technology. And yet AFAIK it hasn't made surgery much faster, and it certainly hasn't replaced surgeons.

    Ok, that's my theory. Do you buy it?

    Everything else you said: I don't disagree with any of it.
  71. @PhysicistDave
    Hail asked:

    Why do so many here assume [Kamala Harris] will win the D nomination?
     
    Because of all the points she gets for intersectionality -- a minimum of four (female, black, Indian, daughter of immigrants) and maybe more (e.g., if you give her one point for each immigrant parent).

    The closest competitor in the intersectionality game is Tulsi Gabbard -- maybe three points (female, Samoan, and, sort of, Hindu). But, Gabbard is already being smeared by the ruling elite because she has a half-way sane view of foreign policy.

    Booker could get two points if he chooses to play the gay card.

    Gillibrand, Beto, Bernie, Warren, et al. -- not even in the intersectionality game.

    Harris is also helped by the fact that she is ruthlessly unprincipled, a real plus to the Establishment, and pretty good at presenting herself on video.

    Not a shoo-in in such a crowded field, but currently the best bet.

    Harris is also helped by the fact that she is ruthlessly unprincipled, a real plus to the Establishment, and pretty good at presenting herself on video.

    Also, she appears to have been “nominated” by CNN. The MSM need her as much as she will need them.

    And have you noticed how, when she hides the “ruthlessly unprincipled” persona behind a smile, she looks a bit like Obama wearing a wig? Is that an advantage?

  72. @PhysicistDave
    Hail asked:

    Why do so many here assume [Kamala Harris] will win the D nomination?
     
    Because of all the points she gets for intersectionality -- a minimum of four (female, black, Indian, daughter of immigrants) and maybe more (e.g., if you give her one point for each immigrant parent).

    The closest competitor in the intersectionality game is Tulsi Gabbard -- maybe three points (female, Samoan, and, sort of, Hindu). But, Gabbard is already being smeared by the ruling elite because she has a half-way sane view of foreign policy.

    Booker could get two points if he chooses to play the gay card.

    Gillibrand, Beto, Bernie, Warren, et al. -- not even in the intersectionality game.

    Harris is also helped by the fact that she is ruthlessly unprincipled, a real plus to the Establishment, and pretty good at presenting herself on video.

    Not a shoo-in in such a crowded field, but currently the best bet.

    intersectionality

    Here is a perhaps much more relevant question than how many ‘intersectionality points’ she may have:

    Is she Black enough for Black D-Team primary voters?

    Some substantial percentage of D-Team primary voters are Black. Taking a guess: 30%? This compounded with the fact that many states (afaik) are, will be, winner take all. I presume Blacks form a plurality in many Southern states’ Democratic primary voter pools, potentially even an outright majority in a few. That is a lot of delegates defacto controlled by the Black bloc-vote.

    So if she wins, it may be a lot less that she is exotic (“intersectional”) but that she is ‘Black,’ or rather will market herself as Black, as the Black champion and Black candidate. I am not convinced she will be successful in doing this, but it did work with the Maui-Indonesian Barry H. Obama.

    TLDR: Democrats as Black Party, inside baseball stuff.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Hail wrote to me:

    So if [Kamala Harris] wins, it may be a lot less that she is exotic (“intersectional”) but that she is ‘Black,’ or rather will market herself as Black, as the Black champion and Black candidate.
     
    Well, she is as black as Obama! She's not as black as Cory Booker, but he comes across as (and may well be) gay, and black folks tend not to be real big on homosexuality.

    And she knows how to come across as a calm but tough grown-up, like Obama and unlike Booker (just appearances, but, alas, we live in an age of appearances).

    So, I'd still put my money on her, although the field is so huge it could be anyone.
  73. @Whiskey
    America is gone. Forget about it. We live in Mexico Norte now.

    Trump predictably betrayed the last hope. He just wanted to be President.

    It is our job to survive as a tiny oppressed and hated minority.

    t is our job to survive as a tiny oppressed and hated minority.

    Let us hope/aim instead for some kind of post-USA political solution.

    There is no reason present-day borders are sacrosanct.

  74. @Guy De Champlagne
    Explain how that works? Demographics certainly has a lot to do with health outcomes I don't see how it affects costs in a major way.

    You're right in that diversity undermines social cohesion and makes people do stupid, irrational things. But my whole point is that people are being stupid and irrational (and trying to pretend it's a virtue)

    It has to do with the economic base that supports the healthcare system; i.e., a larger percentage of deadbeats accessing healthcare and smaller percentage of productive citizens.

    • Replies: @Guy De Champlagne
    That has nothing to do with total per capita health care costs which is the primary problem in the US.
  75. Just for perspective, this is more than the total population of California, and more than the total populations of Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming COMBINED.

  76. So 65% would choose Canada or some other Latin American country. I can’t imagine many of them wold choose Europe or Asia. I’d bet on getting more than 42 million of them.

    • Replies: @stillCARealist
    Yes, as soon as they realized that the US was a viable option, we'd have more like 100 million of them wanting in.

    I understand, unfortunately, as so many South American immigrants I talk to tell me how much their former countries just suck. Specific countries referenced: Brazil, Argentina, Colombia. My Colombian friend says as bad as it was, Venezuela is even worse, and her relatives are pretty irritated that the border is being crashed by fleeing Venezuelans. Imagine. Fleeing TO Colombia.
  77. @TG
    The plan is CHEAP LABOR UBER ALLES.

    Flood the country with more people - it really doesn't matter who. Sinners. Saints. The smart. The stupid. Russian hockey players. Exotic dancers from Thailand. MS13 gang members. People who speak English. People who don't speak English. Just open the floodgates, as wide as possible.

    Wages and living standards will go down. Rents and profits will go up. The overall economy will grow, and the rich will get way richer, but the average person who works for a living will be steadily squeezed into the dirt.

    That's the plan. There is no plan other than to pack 'em in. There will be no targeted investments in additional roads or schools or industries etc. Probably the middle class will get whacked with tax hikes and benefit cuts to provide minimal health care and education for all these third-world refugees, but even that will mostly be ad-hoc and local. There will be zero consideration about what this will do to greenhouse gas emissions from the United States, because the people in charge don't care about that: just use the boogie-man of "climate change" (which might, or might not, be a real issue) to push to slash the standard of living of the average worker, and an excuse for some nice juicy regressive taxes, but nothing at all that will actually stop the increase in net CO2 production.

    If we are lucky, we will end up like Mexico or Brazil. If we are unlucky, we will end up like India or Bangladesh.

    Because the rich have one god, and it is cheap labor.

    How about just investing in the stock and bond market and stop depending on that paycheck? Plus the cgt is a lot lower than. the income tax.

  78. @PhysicistDave
    Hail asked:

    Why do so many here assume [Kamala Harris] will win the D nomination?
     
    Because of all the points she gets for intersectionality -- a minimum of four (female, black, Indian, daughter of immigrants) and maybe more (e.g., if you give her one point for each immigrant parent).

    The closest competitor in the intersectionality game is Tulsi Gabbard -- maybe three points (female, Samoan, and, sort of, Hindu). But, Gabbard is already being smeared by the ruling elite because she has a half-way sane view of foreign policy.

    Booker could get two points if he chooses to play the gay card.

    Gillibrand, Beto, Bernie, Warren, et al. -- not even in the intersectionality game.

    Harris is also helped by the fact that she is ruthlessly unprincipled, a real plus to the Establishment, and pretty good at presenting herself on video.

    Not a shoo-in in such a crowded field, but currently the best bet.

    I have recently learned that Harris has checked another kind of box by judiciously taking a Jewish husband. She has no children but several Jewish step-children.

    The wedding was in Aug. 2014, so just about six years before the height of the 2020 campaign, which she was perhaps already thinking about then. Did she marry Mr. Jewish solely to win points with political Jews to boost her 2020 or 2024 run(s)? To be honest, I think it’s rather likely.

    Here is Harris in 2017, with her Jewish husband looking on approvingly, as she grovels at Yad Vashem, the Holocaust temple in Israel.

  79. @TTSSYF
    It has to do with the economic base that supports the healthcare system; i.e., a larger percentage of deadbeats accessing healthcare and smaller percentage of productive citizens.

    That has nothing to do with total per capita health care costs which is the primary problem in the US.

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
    If you have a population of millions of people accessing healthcare and 95% of them are productive citizens (by which I mean working and paying taxes, not breaking the law, and not using healthcare resources frivolously; i.e., not going to the emergency room because the baby momma ran out of Pampers or her kid has the sniffles, which I have on good authority happens far too frequently) and suddenly take on a bunch of freeloaders who now make up 15% of your population and who are not working, are not, in the main, paying taxes or abiding by the law, and who access healthcare resources frivolously, you're going to have problems. Total per-capital healthcare costs are going to go up.
  80. @International Jew

    And even Economists admit that price controls don’t always lead to shortages, it just comes later than microecon 101.
     
    I went past Econ 101, and I still never reached the course where they teach that. (Unless you mean price floors, or price ceilings that are above the market-clearing price!)

    I gave an example of price controls without shortages. All throughout the US there are price controls on natural gas, electricity, water, and sewer services and no shortages. Many if not all of the exceptions have to do with attempts to make the markets more laisez faire like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis where there are literally tapes of enron energy traders bragging about profiting from brown outs and blackouts that they’ve caused.

    How blinkered do you have to be where I have to point to an economics sylabus to prove that something is true and not what’s right in front of everyones eyes?

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Our faux Frenchman wrote:

    I gave an example of price controls without shortages. All throughout the US there are price controls on natural gas, electricity, water, and sewer services and no shortages.
     
    Google "regulatory capture." If you believe government price controls on utilities are meant to serve the consumers, I have a bridge in Arizona to sell you.
    , @International Jew

    All throughout the US there are price controls on natural gas, electricity, water, and sewer services and no shortages.
     
    Now I see where you're coming from. In "natural monopolies", i.e. industries characterized by decreasing average costs, the government can indeed improve welfare by dictating a price that's lower than the (natural) monopolist would set on his own, and yet not create a shortage.

    You had me scratching my head there for a while because you called it "price controls", where the conventional term for what I just described is "price regulation" or "rate of return regulation". My bad, though, for not guessing your intent sooner.

    However: to take your argument forward, you'd have to persuade us that the provision of health care (in any its forms, whether surgical, pharmaceutical, diagnostic, etc) is a natural monopoly.

  81. @PhysicistDave
    IJ wrote to me:


    [Dave] advances in technology have made health care more expensive. How can that be? Normally, technological advances reduce prices
     
    [IJ]That is indeed a paradox. I suspect there are legitimate (i.e. not government-genic) reasons for it, though I couldn’t tell you what those are.
     
    Well, I have a close family member in the medical industry, so I actually have a lot of empirical information about this. For example, the government actively discourages competition among hospitals and, indeed, actively encourages consolidation of hospitals, because, of course, everyone knows (!) that competition raises prices.

    The physicians themselves are somehow encouraged in bizarrely anti-market ways of thinking: for example, I have tried to explain to physicians that restricting the supply of doctors raises prices. The reply I received was that, no, I had it backwards. You see, I was told, if there were more doctors, then, with fewer patients per doctor, each doctor would have to raise his charge per patient to maintain his income! QED.

    Trying to explain that supply-and-demand does not work this way turned out to be as hopeless as trying to explain anything to our faux Frenchman.

    IJ also wrote:

    One way or another, what’s changed in the last 50-70 years is the difference in clinical outcomes that money will buy you. Used to be, if you had angina, all they could do for you, whether you were Andrew Carnegie or his chimney-sweep, was tell you to slow down and take it easy. Today there are a host of pharmaceutical, diagnostic and surgical options that range in cost from $10 to $200,000.
     
    Yeah, and of course the answer is that not everyone can afford a Lamborghini or a Ferrari. But, if the high-end manufacturers do make any serious engineering breakthroughs, then eventually costs come down and the masses benefit.

    That of course is what happens in electronics. You can still spend millions on a super-computer, but a cheap desktop computer today is much more powerful than a super-computer from fifty years ago.

    The other point is that if you can get some physicians to talk openly with you (this is very hard to arrange, by the way: you basically need a spouse or sib who is a physician to get the straight talk), it turns out that the efficacy of some very high-priced treatments is a bit doubtful. Unfortunately, very, very few physicians grasp probabilistic/statistical reasoning at all and so are unable to make basic judgments about efficacy. Some academics (notably John Ioannidis at Stanford) have been stressing all this, but few physicians seem to be receptive.

    It's as hard for the average person to understand the inner workings of a modern automobile as of modern medicine. Yet, in most ways -- cost, safety, consumer satisfaction -- the market for cars certainly functions much better than the market for medicine.

    That the government is much more deeply involved in medicine is not a coincidence.

    Ok, I’ve thought about this thing you said…

    advances in technology have made health care more expensive. How can that be? Normally, technological advances reduce prices

    …and I have the beginning of an answer for you: medical technology does not replace what came before it.

    Farm tractors made food cheaper because a tractor could replace a hundred men, and it cost less than (the discounted present value of) a hundred men’s wages. The Intel 80386 could add numbers way faster (per dollar of processor cost) than the 80286, and replaced it.

    Now compare that to medicine. Once upon a time, all we had was doctors armed with stethoscopes, tongue depressors, and little else. Then we got CAT scanners (ok, I’ve skipped some steps). CAT scanners didn’t replace any doctors, though. In fact, because they could reveal a developing aortal aneurism, you no longer saved money by dropping dead one fine day, you got to spend $$$ on open heart surgery!

    The modern operating room is chock-full of amazing technology. And yet AFAIK it hasn’t made surgery much faster, and it certainly hasn’t replaced surgeons.

    Ok, that’s my theory. Do you buy it?

    Everything else you said: I don’t disagree with any of it.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    IJ wrote to me:


    [Dave] advances in technology have made health care more expensive. How can that be? Normally, technological advances reduce prices
     
    [IJ]…and I have the beginning of an answer for you: medical technology does not replace what came before it.
     
    Well, the problem with your theory is that personal computers did not really replace anything either. Or cell phones. Or lots of other things that got cheaper and cheaper for value provided in the market.

    When the government stays away from things, we get more and better stuff at the same or cheaper prices. When the government is heavily involved -- the Post Office, education, the Pentagon, health care -- the opposite happens.

    Education is another good example. You can get a better-than-Harvard-or-MIT education nowadays thanks to the Web, for free (edX, Coursera, etc.). Now of course, schools provide a few other benefits: mainly babysitting, but also socialization, sports, etc. But, still: how can it be that government-provided education gets more and more expensive with, to put it diplomatically, disappointing results?

    Our local faux Frenchman would of course like to ask exactly how a free market in health care would make things cheaper. The answer of course is: I don't known and I can't know. That is like being asked to predict the scientific theories of the year 2519: if I knew what those theories would be, I would already have solved those scientific problems, now, in 2019.

    The market is a discovery process. No single person can predict all the discoveries that entrepreneurs and innovators will make if they are allowed to do so. I certainly could not have predicted the Web or Post-its or Windows or even, going back to my childhood, the hula hoop or "Silly Putty."

    But, we can predict that innovations and cost-savings methods will be made, if government gets out of the way.

    Everyone really knows this: no one is surprised that the Post Office, public schools, and the Pentagon are stagnant backwaters and huge money sinks.

    But, people who want power over their fellow human beings, such as our local faux Frenchman, deny this, even though they too know it.

    So, getting back to your theory: no, I am afraid it does not work -- it is far too easy to come up with counter-examples. On the other hand, it is the easiest thing in the world to come up with other examples where government involvement stifles innovation and increases costs -- indeed, everyone knows this is true and is startled on the rare occasions when government kinda, sorta works.

    Occam's razor: the simplest explanation here is pretty clearly correct: what government touches, it turns to dross.

    Dave
  82. @Hail

    intersectionality
     
    Here is a perhaps much more relevant question than how many 'intersectionality points' she may have:

    Is she Black enough for Black D-Team primary voters?

    Some substantial percentage of D-Team primary voters are Black. Taking a guess: 30%? This compounded with the fact that many states (afaik) are, will be, winner take all. I presume Blacks form a plurality in many Southern states' Democratic primary voter pools, potentially even an outright majority in a few. That is a lot of delegates defacto controlled by the Black bloc-vote.

    So if she wins, it may be a lot less that she is exotic ("intersectional") but that she is 'Black,' or rather will market herself as Black, as the Black champion and Black candidate. I am not convinced she will be successful in doing this, but it did work with the Maui-Indonesian Barry H. Obama.

    TLDR: Democrats as Black Party, inside baseball stuff.

    Hail wrote to me:

    So if [Kamala Harris] wins, it may be a lot less that she is exotic (“intersectional”) but that she is ‘Black,’ or rather will market herself as Black, as the Black champion and Black candidate.

    Well, she is as black as Obama! She’s not as black as Cory Booker, but he comes across as (and may well be) gay, and black folks tend not to be real big on homosexuality.

    And she knows how to come across as a calm but tough grown-up, like Obama and unlike Booker (just appearances, but, alas, we live in an age of appearances).

    So, I’d still put my money on her, although the field is so huge it could be anyone.

    • Replies: @Hail

    she is as black as Obama
     
    I wonder if she will excite Hindus (or, half excite them, as it were).

    Would half-Subsaharan ancestry cancel out proxy Hindu ethnopatriotism?
  83. @Guy De Champlagne
    I gave an example of price controls without shortages. All throughout the US there are price controls on natural gas, electricity, water, and sewer services and no shortages. Many if not all of the exceptions have to do with attempts to make the markets more laisez faire like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis where there are literally tapes of enron energy traders bragging about profiting from brown outs and blackouts that they've caused.

    How blinkered do you have to be where I have to point to an economics sylabus to prove that something is true and not what's right in front of everyones eyes?

    Our faux Frenchman wrote:

    I gave an example of price controls without shortages. All throughout the US there are price controls on natural gas, electricity, water, and sewer services and no shortages.

    Google “regulatory capture.” If you believe government price controls on utilities are meant to serve the consumers, I have a bridge in Arizona to sell you.

  84. @International Jew
    Ok, I've thought about this thing you said...

    advances in technology have made health care more expensive. How can that be? Normally, technological advances reduce prices
     
    ...and I have the beginning of an answer for you: medical technology does not replace what came before it.

    Farm tractors made food cheaper because a tractor could replace a hundred men, and it cost less than (the discounted present value of) a hundred men's wages. The Intel 80386 could add numbers way faster (per dollar of processor cost) than the 80286, and replaced it.

    Now compare that to medicine. Once upon a time, all we had was doctors armed with stethoscopes, tongue depressors, and little else. Then we got CAT scanners (ok, I've skipped some steps). CAT scanners didn't replace any doctors, though. In fact, because they could reveal a developing aortal aneurism, you no longer saved money by dropping dead one fine day, you got to spend $$$ on open heart surgery!

    The modern operating room is chock-full of amazing technology. And yet AFAIK it hasn't made surgery much faster, and it certainly hasn't replaced surgeons.

    Ok, that's my theory. Do you buy it?

    Everything else you said: I don't disagree with any of it.

    IJ wrote to me:

    [Dave] advances in technology have made health care more expensive. How can that be? Normally, technological advances reduce prices

    [IJ]…and I have the beginning of an answer for you: medical technology does not replace what came before it.

    Well, the problem with your theory is that personal computers did not really replace anything either. Or cell phones. Or lots of other things that got cheaper and cheaper for value provided in the market.

    When the government stays away from things, we get more and better stuff at the same or cheaper prices. When the government is heavily involved — the Post Office, education, the Pentagon, health care — the opposite happens.

    Education is another good example. You can get a better-than-Harvard-or-MIT education nowadays thanks to the Web, for free (edX, Coursera, etc.). Now of course, schools provide a few other benefits: mainly babysitting, but also socialization, sports, etc. But, still: how can it be that government-provided education gets more and more expensive with, to put it diplomatically, disappointing results?

    Our local faux Frenchman would of course like to ask exactly how a free market in health care would make things cheaper. The answer of course is: I don’t known and I can’t know. That is like being asked to predict the scientific theories of the year 2519: if I knew what those theories would be, I would already have solved those scientific problems, now, in 2019.

    The market is a discovery process. No single person can predict all the discoveries that entrepreneurs and innovators will make if they are allowed to do so. I certainly could not have predicted the Web or Post-its or Windows or even, going back to my childhood, the hula hoop or “Silly Putty.”

    But, we can predict that innovations and cost-savings methods will be made, if government gets out of the way.

    Everyone really knows this: no one is surprised that the Post Office, public schools, and the Pentagon are stagnant backwaters and huge money sinks.

    But, people who want power over their fellow human beings, such as our local faux Frenchman, deny this, even though they too know it.

    So, getting back to your theory: no, I am afraid it does not work — it is far too easy to come up with counter-examples. On the other hand, it is the easiest thing in the world to come up with other examples where government involvement stifles innovation and increases costs — indeed, everyone knows this is true and is startled on the rare occasions when government kinda, sorta works.

    Occam’s razor: the simplest explanation here is pretty clearly correct: what government touches, it turns to dross.

    Dave

    • Replies: @International Jew

    Well, the problem with your theory is that personal computers did not really replace anything either. Or cell phones. Or lots of other things that got cheaper and cheaper for value provided in the market.
     
    No doubt about it: we've witnessed an amazing drop in the cost (per "transistor") of integrated circuits (ICs). But ICs aren't an end in themselves; they aren't analogous to doing medicine. What's analogous to doing medicine is the tasks that ICs facilitate: office work, making a deal over the telephone, flying airplanes and driving cars (and, of course, hi-tech medicine itself). I wouldn't say any of those have become dramatically cheaper (if at all).

    Moreover, as technology goes, ICs are an extreme case. If you look at other technology in our lives — oil refining, road building, internal combustion engines, wings — there's been progress for sure, but not 5-order-of-magnitude progress.

  85. @Guy De Champlagne
    That has nothing to do with total per capita health care costs which is the primary problem in the US.

    If you have a population of millions of people accessing healthcare and 95% of them are productive citizens (by which I mean working and paying taxes, not breaking the law, and not using healthcare resources frivolously; i.e., not going to the emergency room because the baby momma ran out of Pampers or her kid has the sniffles, which I have on good authority happens far too frequently) and suddenly take on a bunch of freeloaders who now make up 15% of your population and who are not working, are not, in the main, paying taxes or abiding by the law, and who access healthcare resources frivolously, you’re going to have problems. Total per-capital healthcare costs are going to go up.

  86. @MBlanc46
    So 65% would choose Canada or some other Latin American country. I can’t imagine many of them wold choose Europe or Asia. I’d bet on getting more than 42 million of them.

    Yes, as soon as they realized that the US was a viable option, we’d have more like 100 million of them wanting in.

    I understand, unfortunately, as so many South American immigrants I talk to tell me how much their former countries just suck. Specific countries referenced: Brazil, Argentina, Colombia. My Colombian friend says as bad as it was, Venezuela is even worse, and her relatives are pretty irritated that the border is being crashed by fleeing Venezuelans. Imagine. Fleeing TO Colombia.

  87. @PhysicistDave
    IJ wrote to me:


    [Dave] advances in technology have made health care more expensive. How can that be? Normally, technological advances reduce prices
     
    [IJ]…and I have the beginning of an answer for you: medical technology does not replace what came before it.
     
    Well, the problem with your theory is that personal computers did not really replace anything either. Or cell phones. Or lots of other things that got cheaper and cheaper for value provided in the market.

    When the government stays away from things, we get more and better stuff at the same or cheaper prices. When the government is heavily involved -- the Post Office, education, the Pentagon, health care -- the opposite happens.

    Education is another good example. You can get a better-than-Harvard-or-MIT education nowadays thanks to the Web, for free (edX, Coursera, etc.). Now of course, schools provide a few other benefits: mainly babysitting, but also socialization, sports, etc. But, still: how can it be that government-provided education gets more and more expensive with, to put it diplomatically, disappointing results?

    Our local faux Frenchman would of course like to ask exactly how a free market in health care would make things cheaper. The answer of course is: I don't known and I can't know. That is like being asked to predict the scientific theories of the year 2519: if I knew what those theories would be, I would already have solved those scientific problems, now, in 2019.

    The market is a discovery process. No single person can predict all the discoveries that entrepreneurs and innovators will make if they are allowed to do so. I certainly could not have predicted the Web or Post-its or Windows or even, going back to my childhood, the hula hoop or "Silly Putty."

    But, we can predict that innovations and cost-savings methods will be made, if government gets out of the way.

    Everyone really knows this: no one is surprised that the Post Office, public schools, and the Pentagon are stagnant backwaters and huge money sinks.

    But, people who want power over their fellow human beings, such as our local faux Frenchman, deny this, even though they too know it.

    So, getting back to your theory: no, I am afraid it does not work -- it is far too easy to come up with counter-examples. On the other hand, it is the easiest thing in the world to come up with other examples where government involvement stifles innovation and increases costs -- indeed, everyone knows this is true and is startled on the rare occasions when government kinda, sorta works.

    Occam's razor: the simplest explanation here is pretty clearly correct: what government touches, it turns to dross.

    Dave

    Well, the problem with your theory is that personal computers did not really replace anything either. Or cell phones. Or lots of other things that got cheaper and cheaper for value provided in the market.

    No doubt about it: we’ve witnessed an amazing drop in the cost (per “transistor”) of integrated circuits (ICs). But ICs aren’t an end in themselves; they aren’t analogous to doing medicine. What’s analogous to doing medicine is the tasks that ICs facilitate: office work, making a deal over the telephone, flying airplanes and driving cars (and, of course, hi-tech medicine itself). I wouldn’t say any of those have become dramatically cheaper (if at all).

    Moreover, as technology goes, ICs are an extreme case. If you look at other technology in our lives — oil refining, road building, internal combustion engines, wings — there’s been progress for sure, but not 5-order-of-magnitude progress.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    IJ wrote to me:

    Moreover, as technology goes, ICs are an extreme case. If you look at other technology in our lives — oil refining, road building, internal combustion engines, wings — there’s been progress for sure, but not 5-order-of-magnitude progress.
     
    Obviously, that's true, but the technologies you mention, such as road building or internal combustion engines, are largely "mature" technologies: indeed, to the degree they advance it is largely direct or indirect results of advances in electronics.

    IJ also wrote:

    No doubt about it: we’ve witnessed an amazing drop in the cost (per “transistor”) of integrated circuits (ICs). But ICs aren’t an end in themselves; they aren’t analogous to doing medicine. What’s analogous to doing medicine is the tasks that ICs facilitate: office work, making a deal over the telephone, flying airplanes and driving cars (and, of course, hi-tech medicine itself). I wouldn’t say any of those have become dramatically cheaper (if at all).
     
    The problem is that that argument would explain why medicine was not getting cheaper, or at least just rising in cost along with labor costs.

    But, the problem is that medicine is getting much more expensive. And, in fact, almost everyone explains that as connected to technology. And that makes no sense.

    Much of that medical technology is in fact essentially electronics -- not just CT scans and MRI but also the lab equipment that runs all of your lab tests. And, the other areas of medical technology that have changed dramatically -- gene sequencing, monoclonal antibodies, etc. -- have indeed seen an explosion in our technological capabilities analogous to the tech explosion in ICs.

    Furthermore, information is the core of medicine: how do the clinical exam, the lab results, the past medical history, etc. fit together with all the information available in the medical literature. Again, modern electronics should dramatically improve the cost/performance ratio. Walmart makes good use of modern information technology; the American medical system, not so much.

    As I've said, I have a close family member in the medical industry, and we have discussed all these issues in excruciating depth. In all respects, tech should have driven down the cost of medical care. But it hasn't.

    Talk to the people who actually do the work and who you know well enough that they will actually "spill the beans." There are suffocating government paperwork and regulations. The hospitals do not have even the most rudimentary sort of real cost-accounting systems: it's all a joke because all they care about is somehow extorting enough money from the "third-party providers" (largely Medicare and Medicaid) to keep everyone financially comfy. Big Pharma abuses the federal patent system.

    Technology, ultimately electronics or biotech, permeates modern medicine, but it is not making medical care cheaper in the way it makes most things cheaper..

    There is one difference: government is dominant in the American health-care system, from doctor and medical-school licensure, to insurance regulations, to direct government payments, to detailed controls over the hospitals, etc.

    Governments are pretty good at killing people, breaking things, and stealing money, but not so good at anything else. That the American medical-care system is about as efficient as the Pentagon is just what one should expect.

    Occam's razor: when a simple explanation explains pretty much all the data, one need not look for more complex explanations that have little explanatory power.

    Dave
  88. @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/ColumbiaBugle/status/1094392276992778240

    “it’s a koch brothers scheme”

  89. @Guy De Champlagne
    I gave an example of price controls without shortages. All throughout the US there are price controls on natural gas, electricity, water, and sewer services and no shortages. Many if not all of the exceptions have to do with attempts to make the markets more laisez faire like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis where there are literally tapes of enron energy traders bragging about profiting from brown outs and blackouts that they've caused.

    How blinkered do you have to be where I have to point to an economics sylabus to prove that something is true and not what's right in front of everyones eyes?

    All throughout the US there are price controls on natural gas, electricity, water, and sewer services and no shortages.

    Now I see where you’re coming from. In “natural monopolies”, i.e. industries characterized by decreasing average costs, the government can indeed improve welfare by dictating a price that’s lower than the (natural) monopolist would set on his own, and yet not create a shortage.

    You had me scratching my head there for a while because you called it “price controls”, where the conventional term for what I just described is “price regulation” or “rate of return regulation”. My bad, though, for not guessing your intent sooner.

    However: to take your argument forward, you’d have to persuade us that the provision of health care (in any its forms, whether surgical, pharmaceutical, diagnostic, etc) is a natural monopoly.

    • Replies: @Guy De Champlagne
    However: to take your argument forward, you’d have to persuade us that the provision of health care (in any its forms, whether surgical, pharmaceutical, diagnostic, etc) is a natural monopoly.

    It's not an unambiguous natural monopoly but health care is regulated with price controls in every other developed country. You clearly don't have an even basic understanding of the issue. And health care is the only industry even in the US where spending is mediated through insurance companies to the degree that it is so there is not even any reason to think insurance companies are capable of keeping down costs in the long term. And, while you could argue theres a place for a regular market (shopping around and paying out of pocket) for certain health care services, anyone with half a brain and a basic understanding of how health care works would understand that not everyone who needs healthcare is capable of doing that.

    I really feel sorry for both of you that you've been so effectively propagandized to the degree that you have.
    , @PhysicistDave
    IJ wrote to our faux Frenchman:

    You had me scratching my head there for a while because you called it “price controls”, where the conventional term for what I just described is “price regulation” or “rate of return regulation”. My bad, though, for not guessing your intent sooner.

    However: to take your argument forward, you’d have to persuade us that the provision of health care (in any its forms, whether surgical, pharmaceutical, diagnostic, etc) is a natural monopoly.
     
    What our faux Frenchman is implicitly arguing is that some (non-US) countries in which the government heavily regulates and controls medical care (and which have very different demographics than the US) aren't quite as bad as the US system, in which the government heavily regulates and controls medical care.

    His logic to back up his position is of course economic twaddle, as you and I have shown to anyone who legitimately passed any econ course.

    But, it is impossible to judge the matter empirically because of the demographic differences and because the different ways that government wrecks medical care in different countries makes the different systems difficult to compare (e.g., how do you trade off longer waiting times vs. lower costs, in the absence of market signals?).

    In any case, in the case of the US, the detailed history as shown in Field's book does show that government has wrecked health care in the US (and Feilds himself is not a free-market advocate, but he is an honest historian).

    And, that is what Americans need to know.

    By the way, want to bet on whether our faux Frenchmen gets his earnings directly or indirectly from the State? It is surprisingly hard for someone to concede the truth when doing so interferes with their making a living.
  90. @PhysicistDave
    Hail wrote to me:

    So if [Kamala Harris] wins, it may be a lot less that she is exotic (“intersectional”) but that she is ‘Black,’ or rather will market herself as Black, as the Black champion and Black candidate.
     
    Well, she is as black as Obama! She's not as black as Cory Booker, but he comes across as (and may well be) gay, and black folks tend not to be real big on homosexuality.

    And she knows how to come across as a calm but tough grown-up, like Obama and unlike Booker (just appearances, but, alas, we live in an age of appearances).

    So, I'd still put my money on her, although the field is so huge it could be anyone.

    she is as black as Obama

    I wonder if she will excite Hindus (or, half excite them, as it were).

    Would half-Subsaharan ancestry cancel out proxy Hindu ethnopatriotism?

  91. @Guy De Champlagne
    Explain how that works? Demographics certainly has a lot to do with health outcomes I don't see how it affects costs in a major way.

    You're right in that diversity undermines social cohesion and makes people do stupid, irrational things. But my whole point is that people are being stupid and irrational (and trying to pretend it's a virtue)

    You do know that, by law, medical attention has to be rendered to all, regardless of ability to pay. Utilities just get shut off for non-payment.

    This means that my girlfriend’s urban hospital, with a patient population that is 70% Medicaid (MassHealth) and many more part of the “free care pool” (read that as undocumented), is a giant sucking hole for tax dollars.

    Some of my favorite stories from her job:

    Newly-arrived illegal with a chronic condition had surgery and developed a raging post-op infection that can only be treated with one of the new antibiotics that costs $3,500 a dose. He’s been there for 2 months.

    Continued treatment of a 30-year old, heroin-addicted, HIV-positive, pregnant Dominican immigrant prostitute who already has 4 kids in the state system.

    A Jamaican guy who was a patient of hers at another hospital 15 years ago when he stroked out after swallowing his drugs when the cops were chasing his drug-dealing ass. He ended up paralyzed below the waist and threatening to kill everyone at the hospital. Fast forward 15 years, and he’s back at her current hospital for a MassHealth-approved penile pump!

    These are just 3 stories, stories about indigents costing the Commonwealth so much that the FY 2018 MassHealth budget is $16.6 BILLION, or 37% of the entire state budget. The Feds subsidize half that amount, so thanks for the tax dollars used to treat our illegals and crackheads, guys.

    • Replies: @Guy De Champlagne
    That in no way explains why per capita health care expenses in the US are 2.5 times average of the rest of the OECD (where the standard of mandatory care is even higher because of universal coverage at least among citizens where in the US they are only obliged to provide life saving care)

    You're allowed to dislike the health care system and dislike immigrants. There's nothing fixed or special about the alliances of the two major US political parties circa 2019. Pick and choose.

  92. @International Jew

    All throughout the US there are price controls on natural gas, electricity, water, and sewer services and no shortages.
     
    Now I see where you're coming from. In "natural monopolies", i.e. industries characterized by decreasing average costs, the government can indeed improve welfare by dictating a price that's lower than the (natural) monopolist would set on his own, and yet not create a shortage.

    You had me scratching my head there for a while because you called it "price controls", where the conventional term for what I just described is "price regulation" or "rate of return regulation". My bad, though, for not guessing your intent sooner.

    However: to take your argument forward, you'd have to persuade us that the provision of health care (in any its forms, whether surgical, pharmaceutical, diagnostic, etc) is a natural monopoly.

    However: to take your argument forward, you’d have to persuade us that the provision of health care (in any its forms, whether surgical, pharmaceutical, diagnostic, etc) is a natural monopoly.

    It’s not an unambiguous natural monopoly but health care is regulated with price controls in every other developed country. You clearly don’t have an even basic understanding of the issue. And health care is the only industry even in the US where spending is mediated through insurance companies to the degree that it is so there is not even any reason to think insurance companies are capable of keeping down costs in the long term. And, while you could argue theres a place for a regular market (shopping around and paying out of pocket) for certain health care services, anyone with half a brain and a basic understanding of how health care works would understand that not everyone who needs healthcare is capable of doing that.

    I really feel sorry for both of you that you’ve been so effectively propagandized to the degree that you have.

    • Troll: PhysicistDave
  93. @Brutusale
    You do know that, by law, medical attention has to be rendered to all, regardless of ability to pay. Utilities just get shut off for non-payment.

    This means that my girlfriend's urban hospital, with a patient population that is 70% Medicaid (MassHealth) and many more part of the "free care pool" (read that as undocumented), is a giant sucking hole for tax dollars.

    Some of my favorite stories from her job:

    Newly-arrived illegal with a chronic condition had surgery and developed a raging post-op infection that can only be treated with one of the new antibiotics that costs $3,500 a dose. He's been there for 2 months.

    Continued treatment of a 30-year old, heroin-addicted, HIV-positive, pregnant Dominican immigrant prostitute who already has 4 kids in the state system.

    A Jamaican guy who was a patient of hers at another hospital 15 years ago when he stroked out after swallowing his drugs when the cops were chasing his drug-dealing ass. He ended up paralyzed below the waist and threatening to kill everyone at the hospital. Fast forward 15 years, and he's back at her current hospital for a MassHealth-approved penile pump!

    These are just 3 stories, stories about indigents costing the Commonwealth so much that the FY 2018 MassHealth budget is $16.6 BILLION, or 37% of the entire state budget. The Feds subsidize half that amount, so thanks for the tax dollars used to treat our illegals and crackheads, guys.

    That in no way explains why per capita health care expenses in the US are 2.5 times average of the rest of the OECD (where the standard of mandatory care is even higher because of universal coverage at least among citizens where in the US they are only obliged to provide life saving care)

    You’re allowed to dislike the health care system and dislike immigrants. There’s nothing fixed or special about the alliances of the two major US political parties circa 2019. Pick and choose.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson 3

    That in no way explains why per capita health care expenses in the US are 2.5 times average of the rest of the OECD (where the standard of mandatory care is even higher because of universal coverage at least among citizens where in the US they are only obliged to provide life saving care)
     
    You ignore demographics and those who present, and you ignore the parasitic nature of the (non-USA) OECD. We pay their way, because of globalists.

    Keep it up Guy; it will be a great challenge, but we all know that you will kill the Golden Goose.
  94. @Reg Cæsar
    Jim Clifton is the son of Donald O Clifton, who took over Gallup when George Gallup died and George Jr was more interested in philanthropy. These people like to keep it in the family. The Cliftons are Nebraskans, though Jim now lives in DC, and is hot-to-trot on supporting HBCUs.

    Keeping ambitious Latins out might be the best thing we can to for those.

    is hot-to-trot on supporting HBCUs.

    If they educated their students, it would be a good thing. But they are part of the higher education echo chamber.

    If you are impervious to experience and reason, what are you?

    A proud member of the Democrat Party.

  95. @Guy De Champlagne
    That in no way explains why per capita health care expenses in the US are 2.5 times average of the rest of the OECD (where the standard of mandatory care is even higher because of universal coverage at least among citizens where in the US they are only obliged to provide life saving care)

    You're allowed to dislike the health care system and dislike immigrants. There's nothing fixed or special about the alliances of the two major US political parties circa 2019. Pick and choose.

    That in no way explains why per capita health care expenses in the US are 2.5 times average of the rest of the OECD (where the standard of mandatory care is even higher because of universal coverage at least among citizens where in the US they are only obliged to provide life saving care)

    You ignore demographics and those who present, and you ignore the parasitic nature of the (non-USA) OECD. We pay their way, because of globalists.

    Keep it up Guy; it will be a great challenge, but we all know that you will kill the Golden Goose.

  96. @International Jew

    Well, the problem with your theory is that personal computers did not really replace anything either. Or cell phones. Or lots of other things that got cheaper and cheaper for value provided in the market.
     
    No doubt about it: we've witnessed an amazing drop in the cost (per "transistor") of integrated circuits (ICs). But ICs aren't an end in themselves; they aren't analogous to doing medicine. What's analogous to doing medicine is the tasks that ICs facilitate: office work, making a deal over the telephone, flying airplanes and driving cars (and, of course, hi-tech medicine itself). I wouldn't say any of those have become dramatically cheaper (if at all).

    Moreover, as technology goes, ICs are an extreme case. If you look at other technology in our lives — oil refining, road building, internal combustion engines, wings — there's been progress for sure, but not 5-order-of-magnitude progress.

    IJ wrote to me:

    Moreover, as technology goes, ICs are an extreme case. If you look at other technology in our lives — oil refining, road building, internal combustion engines, wings — there’s been progress for sure, but not 5-order-of-magnitude progress.

    Obviously, that’s true, but the technologies you mention, such as road building or internal combustion engines, are largely “mature” technologies: indeed, to the degree they advance it is largely direct or indirect results of advances in electronics.

    IJ also wrote:

    No doubt about it: we’ve witnessed an amazing drop in the cost (per “transistor”) of integrated circuits (ICs). But ICs aren’t an end in themselves; they aren’t analogous to doing medicine. What’s analogous to doing medicine is the tasks that ICs facilitate: office work, making a deal over the telephone, flying airplanes and driving cars (and, of course, hi-tech medicine itself). I wouldn’t say any of those have become dramatically cheaper (if at all).

    The problem is that that argument would explain why medicine was not getting cheaper, or at least just rising in cost along with labor costs.

    But, the problem is that medicine is getting much more expensive. And, in fact, almost everyone explains that as connected to technology. And that makes no sense.

    Much of that medical technology is in fact essentially electronics — not just CT scans and MRI but also the lab equipment that runs all of your lab tests. And, the other areas of medical technology that have changed dramatically — gene sequencing, monoclonal antibodies, etc. — have indeed seen an explosion in our technological capabilities analogous to the tech explosion in ICs.

    Furthermore, information is the core of medicine: how do the clinical exam, the lab results, the past medical history, etc. fit together with all the information available in the medical literature. Again, modern electronics should dramatically improve the cost/performance ratio. Walmart makes good use of modern information technology; the American medical system, not so much.

    As I’ve said, I have a close family member in the medical industry, and we have discussed all these issues in excruciating depth. In all respects, tech should have driven down the cost of medical care. But it hasn’t.

    Talk to the people who actually do the work and who you know well enough that they will actually “spill the beans.” There are suffocating government paperwork and regulations. The hospitals do not have even the most rudimentary sort of real cost-accounting systems: it’s all a joke because all they care about is somehow extorting enough money from the “third-party providers” (largely Medicare and Medicaid) to keep everyone financially comfy. Big Pharma abuses the federal patent system.

    Technology, ultimately electronics or biotech, permeates modern medicine, but it is not making medical care cheaper in the way it makes most things cheaper..

    There is one difference: government is dominant in the American health-care system, from doctor and medical-school licensure, to insurance regulations, to direct government payments, to detailed controls over the hospitals, etc.

    Governments are pretty good at killing people, breaking things, and stealing money, but not so good at anything else. That the American medical-care system is about as efficient as the Pentagon is just what one should expect.

    Occam’s razor: when a simple explanation explains pretty much all the data, one need not look for more complex explanations that have little explanatory power.

    Dave

    • Replies: @International Jew
    I realize now that I accidentally stepped into a pissing contest between you and Guy de Champlagne.
  97. @International Jew

    All throughout the US there are price controls on natural gas, electricity, water, and sewer services and no shortages.
     
    Now I see where you're coming from. In "natural monopolies", i.e. industries characterized by decreasing average costs, the government can indeed improve welfare by dictating a price that's lower than the (natural) monopolist would set on his own, and yet not create a shortage.

    You had me scratching my head there for a while because you called it "price controls", where the conventional term for what I just described is "price regulation" or "rate of return regulation". My bad, though, for not guessing your intent sooner.

    However: to take your argument forward, you'd have to persuade us that the provision of health care (in any its forms, whether surgical, pharmaceutical, diagnostic, etc) is a natural monopoly.

    IJ wrote to our faux Frenchman:

    You had me scratching my head there for a while because you called it “price controls”, where the conventional term for what I just described is “price regulation” or “rate of return regulation”. My bad, though, for not guessing your intent sooner.

    However: to take your argument forward, you’d have to persuade us that the provision of health care (in any its forms, whether surgical, pharmaceutical, diagnostic, etc) is a natural monopoly.

    What our faux Frenchman is implicitly arguing is that some (non-US) countries in which the government heavily regulates and controls medical care (and which have very different demographics than the US) aren’t quite as bad as the US system, in which the government heavily regulates and controls medical care.

    His logic to back up his position is of course economic twaddle, as you and I have shown to anyone who legitimately passed any econ course.

    But, it is impossible to judge the matter empirically because of the demographic differences and because the different ways that government wrecks medical care in different countries makes the different systems difficult to compare (e.g., how do you trade off longer waiting times vs. lower costs, in the absence of market signals?).

    In any case, in the case of the US, the detailed history as shown in Field’s book does show that government has wrecked health care in the US (and Feilds himself is not a free-market advocate, but he is an honest historian).

    And, that is what Americans need to know.

    By the way, want to bet on whether our faux Frenchmen gets his earnings directly or indirectly from the State? It is surprisingly hard for someone to concede the truth when doing so interferes with their making a living.

  98. @PhysicistDave
    IJ wrote to me:

    Moreover, as technology goes, ICs are an extreme case. If you look at other technology in our lives — oil refining, road building, internal combustion engines, wings — there’s been progress for sure, but not 5-order-of-magnitude progress.
     
    Obviously, that's true, but the technologies you mention, such as road building or internal combustion engines, are largely "mature" technologies: indeed, to the degree they advance it is largely direct or indirect results of advances in electronics.

    IJ also wrote:

    No doubt about it: we’ve witnessed an amazing drop in the cost (per “transistor”) of integrated circuits (ICs). But ICs aren’t an end in themselves; they aren’t analogous to doing medicine. What’s analogous to doing medicine is the tasks that ICs facilitate: office work, making a deal over the telephone, flying airplanes and driving cars (and, of course, hi-tech medicine itself). I wouldn’t say any of those have become dramatically cheaper (if at all).
     
    The problem is that that argument would explain why medicine was not getting cheaper, or at least just rising in cost along with labor costs.

    But, the problem is that medicine is getting much more expensive. And, in fact, almost everyone explains that as connected to technology. And that makes no sense.

    Much of that medical technology is in fact essentially electronics -- not just CT scans and MRI but also the lab equipment that runs all of your lab tests. And, the other areas of medical technology that have changed dramatically -- gene sequencing, monoclonal antibodies, etc. -- have indeed seen an explosion in our technological capabilities analogous to the tech explosion in ICs.

    Furthermore, information is the core of medicine: how do the clinical exam, the lab results, the past medical history, etc. fit together with all the information available in the medical literature. Again, modern electronics should dramatically improve the cost/performance ratio. Walmart makes good use of modern information technology; the American medical system, not so much.

    As I've said, I have a close family member in the medical industry, and we have discussed all these issues in excruciating depth. In all respects, tech should have driven down the cost of medical care. But it hasn't.

    Talk to the people who actually do the work and who you know well enough that they will actually "spill the beans." There are suffocating government paperwork and regulations. The hospitals do not have even the most rudimentary sort of real cost-accounting systems: it's all a joke because all they care about is somehow extorting enough money from the "third-party providers" (largely Medicare and Medicaid) to keep everyone financially comfy. Big Pharma abuses the federal patent system.

    Technology, ultimately electronics or biotech, permeates modern medicine, but it is not making medical care cheaper in the way it makes most things cheaper..

    There is one difference: government is dominant in the American health-care system, from doctor and medical-school licensure, to insurance regulations, to direct government payments, to detailed controls over the hospitals, etc.

    Governments are pretty good at killing people, breaking things, and stealing money, but not so good at anything else. That the American medical-care system is about as efficient as the Pentagon is just what one should expect.

    Occam's razor: when a simple explanation explains pretty much all the data, one need not look for more complex explanations that have little explanatory power.

    Dave

    I realize now that I accidentally stepped into a pissing contest between you and Guy de Champlagne.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    IJ wrote to me:

    I realize now that I accidentally stepped into a pissing contest between you and Guy de Champlagne.
     
    Nope. No contest at all. As you may have noticed, you and I proved he is a liar and a jerk. I despise "white nationalists," as all sane people do.
  99. @International Jew
    I realize now that I accidentally stepped into a pissing contest between you and Guy de Champlagne.

    IJ wrote to me:

    I realize now that I accidentally stepped into a pissing contest between you and Guy de Champlagne.

    Nope. No contest at all. As you may have noticed, you and I proved he is a liar and a jerk. I despise “white nationalists,” as all sane people do.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    In a pissing contest, there are no winners.
  100. @PhysicistDave
    IJ wrote to me:

    I realize now that I accidentally stepped into a pissing contest between you and Guy de Champlagne.
     
    Nope. No contest at all. As you may have noticed, you and I proved he is a liar and a jerk. I despise "white nationalists," as all sane people do.

    In a pissing contest, there are no winners.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    IJ wrote to me:

    In a pissing contest, there are no winners.
     
    Perhaps. But, you see, I don't care about winning. I just care about the bad guys losing. That perspective entirely changes the strategic balance.

    There was an interesting "Star Trek: The Next Generation" episode for which that was a major theme. I had figured out the idea for myself decades before, and I can assure you that it proved very useful to me more than once in business environments!

    Amazing how you can confound your opponents when they cannot grasp that you do not care about "winning" by conventional measures but merely want to make sure they lose.

    Do watch the link: it's very educational.
  101. @International Jew
    In a pissing contest, there are no winners.

    IJ wrote to me:

    In a pissing contest, there are no winners.

    Perhaps. But, you see, I don’t care about winning. I just care about the bad guys losing. That perspective entirely changes the strategic balance.

    There was an interesting “Star Trek: The Next Generation” episode for which that was a major theme. I had figured out the idea for myself decades before, and I can assure you that it proved very useful to me more than once in business environments!

    Amazing how you can confound your opponents when they cannot grasp that you do not care about “winning” by conventional measures but merely want to make sure they lose.

    Do watch the link: it’s very educational.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution