EU governments are, as are the US democrats. By promoting unlimited 3rd world immigration, as also promoted by the UN. — Nobeernolife

Who's actually promoting unlimited 3rd world immigration now? Where are your "globalist leaders" preaching that anymore, I just ask. Things can change in 5-6 years, you know.

Doesn't look so at the Greek Turkish border now.

Swine flu killed 150,000 - 575,000 people with 700 - 1,400 million infected. It had a case fatality rate of 0.01 - 0.08%. — Michael

Interesting differences in stat numbers. Of course these flues then stay around for years to come.

I actually think you're downplaying the risk of covid-19 a bit too much. The comparison with ebola isn't warranted because the incubation time of ebola is much shorter, so it's easier to contain than covid. And that's the main problem here that we're looking at a situation where enough people get infected: the disease turns endemic and we have a seasonal, highly contagious disease with an average mortality rate between 1% or 2%. Like regular flu it cannot be contained like the plague either. — Benkei

Firstly, Ebola is far more deadlier. Fatality rate is about 50%. It was the thing, before the West African Ebola outbreak of 2013-2016, that many virologists worried about. Well, that amounted to 28 600 infections and 11 000 deaths.

But think of the response already and what it would be in the case of dramatic growth in infections, Benkei.

How many infections in let's say Belgium would make the Dutch authorities to seal off the border? Or the other way around? Belgium has now I think one infection. The Netherlands I guess 10. Let's take here a comparison of a true deadly pandemic: in two weeks of it's emergence of H3N2 in Hong Kong in 1968 roughly about half a million had been infected in Hong Kong. Covid-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus was first detected last December and the infections confirmed is below 100 000 world wide.

The thing is, if infections started to rise to the level of H3N2 pandemic in let's say Netherlands (meaning hundreds of thousands of infections), I would guess that quite quickly there would be a lock-down of the entire nation. And we would know about it in minutes after the decision would be made.

Sorry, but I think that this coronavirus epidemic will at worst be perhaps in the category of Swine flu of 2009. So that's bad, but it isn't anything like what we are afraid with a pandemic. Swine flu killed a little below 20 000 people with 6 million infected. We did live past the 2009 Swine flu, just as we did live the Ebola outbreak. And I think the reasons why none of these came to be similar incidents as the Black Death, the Spanish Flu or even H3N2 is because the reasons I mentioned earlier.

I can't see anyway to avoid it becoming globally endemic. The only way we are to avoid this is through effective vaccination, which will take over a year and to administer it widely will take a long time. — Punshhh

Simple containment procedures and people washing their hands works also, actually. And a global epidemic is called a pandemic. Our interconnected World makes influenza epidemics quite easily pandemics. The lethality of these pandemics has gone down a lot.

Yes, the population imbalance created by a shrinking population is a problem. But what governments should aim at is a stable population (birthrate about 2) and not an massively growing population.

Clearer? — Nobeernolife

What government aims for massively growing population I'd ask? The last example was Ceausescu's Romania, and not only did that policy fail, but that dictatorship has long past gone.

And typically any policies implemented have the objective of just what you said above: to curb the negative population growth, have at least a stable population, if not mildly growing. Good example of this is, just to give one example, the Danish state:



Singapore might be the best example of how wrong policies using linear forcasts can be. Singapore earlier feared that it would have a population crisis and took drastic measures to curb population growth. The crisis never came and now the government implements policies to get Singaporeans to have more babies. The theory of Demographic Transition is quite old, proposed in 1929 by Warren Thompson, yet has been a good model, but not used or understood. As typically happens, the model was brushed aside with far more popular forecasts predicting out of control population growth.

Doom and gloom sells.

Only if seen from the very narrow viewpoint of manufacturers looking for a growing market. Not for the country as a whole. Otherwise, please explain why the places with the highest population growth are typically proverbial sh1tholes, while the population the most developed countries is shrinking. — Nobeernolife

A bit off the topic, but I'll try to answer. The answer is no.

Firstly, the simple and historically quite proven fact is that with growing prosperity fertility rates plunge. In the poorest countries having a lot of children is the basic (hopeful) guarantee that at least somebody is going to take care of you when you are old and cannot work, hence you don't have to become a beggar. Not so in more prosperous countries. Hence high fertility rates show actually how poor the countries are.

Secondly, it's not just the manufacturers, it's the governments themselves. Decrease in the population is not only a genuine cause for low economic growth, but also it makes a huge problem for the present welfare system. Just look at Japan. Or basically any rural community where there are just old people around and no children going to school. And the hopes of governments that want their population to grow are quite down to Earth. The rates governments are happy about is fertility rates of 2,1+, not of 5.



Because with a perpetual fertility rate less than 2, well, you can estimate when the last humans simply die away from existence in this World. Perhaps that's the pipe-dream of the anti-natalism lunatics...

I haven't said it is a cataclysmic event, but it could well be thought of as one if it becomes established as a seasonal virus with both an infection and a mortality rate much higher than the seasonal flu and when the likely economic effects which will manifest if it becomes so are taken into account. — Janus

And this is of course the reason for there to be the media frenzy. The real question is how probable the possibility of a pandemic is.

For example, you can still get the bubonic plague in rural US and even if it can be treated by antibiotics, the overall mortality rate is something like 11% (hence the killer is still far more deadlier than the corona virus). Plague still gets sometimes into the news if there are multiple infections. But it's contained.



Malaria kills a lot of people even today, but anybody understands that going to a country with malaria without starting to eat anti-malaria pills is just stupid. We have already seen a large ebola outbreak (which a lot of medical people were worried about before it happened) and yet it didn't cause a pandemic. So hence the argument can be made that a) modern medicine, b) global cooperation in preventive measures and c) global communication in the internet age really broken the back of deadly pandemics?

Just think of the case if we would have deaths similar to the Hong Kong flu of the 1960's.

If the death toll would reach 1 million, what do you think the media response would be?

Also past economic effects at times of genuine economic growth are not reliable guides to probable future economic effects when the fact that there is no real economic growth today, but merely the semblance of growth created by burgeoning credit, is taken into account. — Janus

I think that many times these things are used as simple scapegoats to hide normal economic fluctuations. But if huge quarantines are imposed, the economic consequences are obvious.

I see this actually in a positive light. We still cherish human life so much that we do let it get in the way of business and the economy.

Numbers are names for quantities. — creativesoul

I would add a quantity precisely defined to every other quantity (with that we exclude the problem of quantity defined being a "heap" of something, for example).

That would be a great definition, but it ain't.

We don't allow the infinitesimal or infinity to be numbers. :roll:

There can be other motives of course — Nobeernolife

Like population growth is the basic and natural reason for economic growth?

And that decrease in the size of the economy (zero or negative growth) means an economic depression, which means extremely angry voters in the next elections and current politicians losing their jobs?

Not very hard to figure out.

On the plus side a great depression or collapse might contribute towards ameliorating the effects of carbon emissions. — Janus

Yes and it might sober us up a bit, from this drunken populist malaise. — Punshhh

Perhaps...hopefully...but I have no doubt humans have been through cataclysmic events in the past, and also no doubt that once life became more or less comfortable again, dogmatic slumbers were promptly resumed. — Janus

Well, the coronavirus is more of a media pandemic than any kind of actual cataclysmic event. Until the next media fear gets into high gear I suppose.

And more deadly flu epidemics haven't had an effect on GDP growth: World economy grew at a rate of something like 5% in 1968-69 when the Hong Kong flu killed 1 million people around the World.

They themselves acknowledge they would benefit from certain policies, like extending medicare, but vote for politicians that refuse to implement such policies. That's voting against one's interests. And they have their reasons, too: they're willing to stomach a candidate they don't even like for other reasons. What are these "other reasons"? Usually social issues like abortion, guns, immigration, religion, anti-liberalism, being anti-"elites," etc. This is what is seen when you talk to people, and it shows up in the polls as well. Most of it is complete nonsense, yet they vote on the basis of it. — Xtrix

So in the end your saying voters are voters are voting against their interests and say about the reasons that "most of it is complete nonsense". Couldn't be more condescending, because I assume you don't think that you yourself are voting like this.

Of course people have to take the whole package when the vote for one candidate. And even if they would agree on with something, some other things can make them not to go with the candidate. And just to say this would be just "complete nonsense" may not so be true.

If there's one thing that I would see as a "cautionary red light" about Bernie is that one of his economics advisors is Stephanie Kelton who is a strong proponent of MMT, Modern Monetary Theory, the view basically that government debt doesn't matter, see for example article The Economist Who Believes The Government Should just Print More Money. Personally I'm not so convinced about MMT, especially as for other countries the old rules of the game do seem to matter.

Bernie seems to be old school politician and of course she (Kelton) is just an advisor, but it may be a tempting way forward to keep the campaign promises. The GOP won't give any room for Bernie, of course. Hence likely there will be strong opposition to raising taxes and hence to pay with more debt is quite obvious answer when your advisors take the same stance of Dick Cheney that "deficits don't matter". Yes, debt doesn't matter... until it does is my view.

Overblown hysteria. The media have nothing better to report, and what better to draw attention than pretending there's a crisis. — Tzeentch

Yep.

The thing is, it simply is a no-brainer for the governments to treat an epidemic with all-out measures once the media hype has set in. Just why would they dare to say "Nah... even if it's a more potent flu epidemic than the usual seasonal flu epidemics, we won't bother." What on Earth any politician would benefit from saying that? And if there is a tiny statistical possibility that the coronavirus becomes something like the "Asian Flu" of the 1950's or the "Hong Kong Flu" of the 1960's, it would be political suicide for some politician to have said "Nah, these viruses come and go" if the death toll rises to several thousand one country.

And when epidemics can be contained with global cooperation and modern medicine, why wouldn't be contained? The fact is that actually we would have had pandemics like the "Spanish Flu" if it wasn't for modern responses. And if the media gets the chicken little's of the World to follow their reporting, why wouldn't they continue as they do?

The global economy takes a little bump, but it will recover.

Just to be clear, I believe Trump is claiming that criticisms to his administration’s actions surrounding the issue (cuts to CDC funding etc.) is a hoax, or something like that, and not that the virus itself is a hoax. — praxis

Sounded this way to me also. Trump even went on to say that even if we haven't lost anyone to the virus, it doesn't mean the US couldn't lose people to it. (Which I think has now happened)

And lets put things into perspective: normal seasonal flew epidemics kill 1 000 people or so every season around the World. Coronavirus has killed about 3 000 people. The Ebola outbreak 2014-2016 killed about 11 000.

The Hong Kong Flu 1968-69 killed 34 000 just in the US and 1 million World wide. Malaria kills roughly about 400 000+ around the World annually.

The only choices available were all against their interests.... Not sure if that can be attested to control and manipulation of information or just plain ole untrustworthy insincere political leadership. — creativesoul

Somewhat yes.

For example I happen to be in a country where the traditional right-wing liberal / libertarian political parties don't exist: all of the so-called right-wing parties are staunch defenders of the welfare state and have the objective of a strong government. American libertarianism simply doesn't exist. Yet many would be interested in it here too. Unlikely not a large group, but still. Especially many of the expats that have moved to the US are totally in love with the do-it-yourself libertarianism and the lightness of the government.

Yet about the issue of referring to what "the people" want:

One has to understand that there isn't or hasn't never been "the people" with one agenda, one World-view. Perhaps totalitarian dictatorships excluded. One part or segment of the "the people", the voters, can indeed have no representation and can have nobody talking from their viewpoint and furthering their views. Yet this doesn't mean that there wouldn't be among "the people" totally different opinions.

Every popular movement will always say they represent the "true people" who have been silenced / forgotten and they themselves know these real people. Where it becomes extremely annoying and quite condescending is when some have the view that some people are "wrong" in their views, so wrong that they "vote against their real interests". Really? they are just so stupid or what? And the person saying this isn't???

1) Bernie is a self-described Democratic Socialist. What does that mean and how is it different from "socialism"? — Xtrix

You should simply learn something from Social Democracy. The 'Democratic Socialist' is just a spin to make it new and American. Good way for example would be read a bit of history about the UK Labour party and the times when it has been in power.

Or read about Francois Mitterrand and how long he ruled France and the French Socialist Party.

Social Democrats are totally different from Marxist-(Leninists). They don't want to stop capitalism. Their idea is only to milk it a bit more and have this "socialism-lite". And if you listen to Bernie, that is exactly what he's up to.

By this time next week, Sanders will be the clear nominee. Maybe a couple of others will stick around, but it'll be essentially over. Mark my words. All of the attacks and the negative press only helps him. — Xtrix

You know who will definitely want Sanders to become the Democratic candidate?

The gun manufacturers.

Nothing gets Americans hoarding more guns than a self-declared socialist that actually does have the chance to become President. Trump nation has been poison for gun sales.

Ask a Hawaiian or a Cuban or a Fillipino or a Nicaraguan or a Guatemalan or an Iranian or an Iraqi (etcetcetc) historian what kind of beacon the United States has been. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yeah, and ask other countries about France, The UK, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Japan, Russia, Belgium, the Netherlands, Ethiopia, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Germany...etc etc etc.

But Oh no, you're the bad apple when others so innocent... As if being a Great Power (or a Super Power) itself wouldn't exactly mean that the country pushes around and gets involved with the businesses of others.

I'm impressed by the Bernie-mania right now. — fishfry

I think he has a chance to win Trump. I hope that finally the Dems can pick a good candidate, not a bad candidate like Hillary.

If Bernie wins Trump, I think he will be like Lopez Obrador. Mexico hasn’t gone the way of Venezuela, even if the President is a leftist. And likely won’t the US either, even if the GOP will portray a Sanders ”regime” putting the US on the road to Venezuela like socialism.

Overrated?

Yes!

I would argue that political leadership overrates it’s power in every system. The most whimsical examples of this are when the political leadership tries own success stories of the economy or tech & scientific advances. The influence of lawmakers is typically quite marginal.

Since it starts on the left side always in the same way, going off into infinity, it might be a pattern, if you believe in such things. — Gregory

There is no repeating pattern, yet we can instantly notice it in it's decimal form 3,14159 26535 89793.... And you have even ways to calculate it.

If it would be repeating, then it would be a rational number and then you could square the circle (if I'm correct). Transcendental numbers are interesting. In the real numbers they are the numbers that with you get an infinity that cannot be mapped 1-to-1 to the natural numbers. Algebraic numbers you still can.

Yes.

I've always thought that simulators might not train you to become a professional, but they do enlarge your understanding. Now days for example flight simulators are quite awesome and have the real physics modeled quite well. What they don't have is of course the actual feel of flying in a wobbly plane. For example when an aircraft starts to stall, you typically feel sluggishness first in the controls, then your butt feeling tells you that the plane is stalling. If it has nice or sinister spin characteristics, you'll notice quickly if you are in a spin. Now if you just have trained on a simulator, you have no idea how that downward roller coaster ride actually feels like. But you do know how to start an airplane, how the indicators work, what basically happens. And many various simulators give some kind of understanding. For example, after playing Kerbal Space Program, I understand how men went to the moon and what an apoapsis and a periapsis is.





There's even a thread about Philosophy in Games -the Talos Principle in this forum. So Philosophy and video games can go hand in hand. Check it out!

I am consistently told how awful the country is and the becons of liberty are going out around the world. — NOS4A2

Usually by Americans who believe it is their duty to do so. That the criticism they make actually makes America what it is. Classic example which makes is totally clear is the title of Noam Chomsky's first political bok from 1967: "The Resonsibility of Intellectuals". Cannot make it more clear what his agenda is.

Diagonalization does not have to be hard (but, of course, sometimes it is ...) — alcontali

EXACTLY!!!

You see, going through Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems are hard. Turings proof with a Turing Machine isn't also the most easiest thing. Even Gödel had to really think about it before he agreed that Turing's findings were equivalent with his theorems. But luckily in math things can be simplified.

But you are totally right, one should talk about in general about diagonalization. Referring to Gödel's incompleteness Theorem is confusing, because the theorems aren't easy to understand.

And of course, from Cantor's diagonal argument we next get to the Continuum Hypothesis, which is, well, a kind of Holy Grail in Math.

However, Carnap's diagonal lemma is itself not self-referencing, and Gödel's first incompleteness theorem is neither. The entire self-referencing thing is just a hack to get the proof going. I don't understand Hawking's obsession with the "self-referencing" thing. Alan Turing uses a similar hack to get the proof for the impossibility to solve his Halting Problem going. It is not that the Halting Problem itself would be self-referencing. — alcontali

As I earlier said, many don't see the subtle difference between Russell's paradox and Gödels (or Turings) finding. Wittgenstein accused Gödel of finding the paradox again and didn't hit it so well with Turing either. It's basically indirect reference.

Just as the real number that Cantor shows cannot be in any list. Of course, we do see the relation between the real number and the list of real numbers. Same thing. Not a paradox.

Hence the issue is about the limitations of computing, modelling, giving proofs. Not that there would be a correct model or proof. And the observation that non-computable mathematical objects can be very important to us. Even if we cannot compute them, they still are mathematical.

So math rules, I guess.

The Hong Kong protesters loved Trump too. It was very interesting hearing them sing the American anthem and waving American flags. Strange world. — NOS4A2

Why? Somehow forgetting that the US has really been a beacon of the Free Wold?

That your country has had this crazy idea of being for democracy and freedom where for example my EU stays more silent. What so strange about that?

Why do the Russians like Trump so much? — Noah Te Stroete

He isn't Hillary Clinton.

Putin didn't like Hillary. Putin thought that when there were demonstrations against him in Russia, they were instigated by the Americans and especially by Hillary Clinton, who was the secretary of the State. Putin loathed the idea of Hillary becoming President. Then came along a playboy real estate developer down those escalator stairs and the rest is history, which NOS4A2 think didn't happen at all in any way or form, but is just a hoax conspiracy.

Hence inter-subjectivity? The observer effect seems to play a role here. — Wallows

Yes, the observer plays the dominant role.

The observer cannot simply observe without interaction in this case. Hence the inescapable subjectivity. When the correct answer is what the observer doesn't give, how could the observer give then the correct answer? In the end we are a part of the universe, hence the idea of a Laplace's Demon is utterly wrong: not everything can be extrapolated from all knowledge and understanding of the present, if the observer is part of the universe. And the remarkable thing here is that this isn't in conflict with determinism. There is a correct extrapolation of the future (that Laplace's demon ought to know). The basic line, which is not understood now, is that this is because of mathematics, the incompleteness results.

In 2008 a guy at NASA (now at Santa Fe Institute) called David H Wolpert showed that the "problem" (it isn't a problem, you know) was incompleteness results, or in the most simple way, Cantor's diagonalization. Wolpert had written about it even far earlier. Once the observer is part of the universe, it cannot avoid this problem. The problem is that this is not understood or it simply hasn't broken ground in the wider scientific and mathematical community.

For example, economist and game theorist like Oscar Morgenstern understood the problem in economic forecasting and gave his example of Holmes and Moriarty (in 1928), where he showed that there's no possible way for Holmes to reason what Moriarty will do. A counterargument given by another future Nobel-laureate to Morgenstern noted, quite correctly, that there had to be a correct forecast, but then didn't grasp that here was the real issue, that there is a correct answer, but it's uncomputable.

Another ignorant answer is to avoid the problem by assuming premises that give you a min-max game theoretic answer.

In all, this is really a field which should be studied and understood. Perhaps even this meager forum can do something about it.

But, that aside, I can see the point of utilizing some ideas from Godel to justify the need for us, as a species, to slow down, as there doesn't seem to be a light at the end of the tunnel. You can thank Godel for that. — Wallows

Or perhaps to speed up, improve our understanding of reality.

You see, talking about this subject gets people simply to the defensive. If you go and say: "Hey, these incompleteness result have a HUGE ROLE in things!" it comes of as anti-science or something. And the first idea is that this person is showing a problem. As if to attack against science. And science has to be defended. Hence the emphasis goes to avoid it, go past. Try to show that the "problems" can be overcome. And then what is left out is that here is an extremely profound mathematical insight that we ought to understand.

If you make a model of reality, then you are engaged in an empirical discipline (such as science). — alcontali

Or social sciences, like economics.

Such model cannot possibly be an exercise in mathematics any more, because the model-theoretic model for a theory in mathematics is NEVER the real world. — alcontali

Uh, the math used in the models have to be correct. Yes, math used as a tool (as you point yourself also), but just as all tools, you have to use it correctly.

Furthermore, such empirical discipline always requires its own regulatory framework that duly constrains what exactly it is willing to talk about. They do not use just mathematics either. There is always also a completely native bureaucracy of rules. — alcontali

Say that to an economist.

No really, math is a very useful tool. It really is. We have to be logical in every field of study. Math has a huge advantage in being logical. Something like statistics, which one can argue isn't pure math, is truly an inherent part of many fields of study. Think about how much we use a thing called a mean average.

I think that something as profound like the incompleteness results of Gödel (and others) has also huge implications to math as a tool and our use of mathematical models in picturing reality. Put it another way, if you have problems to mathematically model some phenomenon, some event, and cannot make a mathematical function y=f(x) out of it, perhaps the problem lies is that the correct model would be something that falls into the category of the incompleteness results, in a way is a Gödel number the Gödels incompleteness theorem (is it the first theorem?) talks about.

This might be confusing to understand, but what I mean that there would be something that we have extreme difficulties in modelling with a mathematical formula. Then what would we do?

We do have an unmathematical method. And what is that?

We use narrative: "First happened this, which then lead to that". How we got from this to that and onward cannot be explained by a variable and made into a function (used in it's broadest definition possible). We tell a story. Best example of this is the field of History. There hasn't been much use of math, except statistics, in history and the field of cliometrics hasn't given much to the field. And many don't even consider history as a science. Yet history is one of the most important things for social sciences and our understanding of ourselves and our societies is firmly based on history.

So I personally believe that the incompleteness results have far more to give to our understanding of the World than now is thought.

Oh, Just be yourself.

And don't get banned.

The normal response is quietism. I mean with the above logical preponderance, then what's the point of continuing research? Does it all boil down to psychologism? — Wallows

When we don't have the answers, it can be so.

You know, it's been a burning thought of mine as to why Wittgenstein called Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems as "logical tricks", and I believe the above is the answer why. — Wallows

Sometimes brilliant minds don't get the point of the other. I don't remember where I read it, but I remember Wittgenstein accusing Gödel of simply finding again the paradox. Yet Russell's paradox is different and Gödel doesn't fall into it. Perhaps someone could view them as "logical tricks". And as one teacher in the university said to me over twenty years ago "from time to time someone attacks Gödel on the basis that it has 'circular reasoning'.

Please elaborate. — Wallows

We make models of reality, for example mathematical formulas that portray some aspect of the complex reality around us. Fine, but the problem of subjectivity comes with when that model itself has an impact on what it's modelling. Then it has to model itself into the model. Now you might argue that this can be still modeled and in many cases it surely can be, but not when the 'correct' answer is something that the model doesn't give.

This isn't a small difficulty. In the social sciences it has been understood for a long time that when studying economics or sociology, the theories themselves have an effect how we picture the World and thus effects our actions, hence theories are also subjective, not only objective. An needless to say how things change in physics when the measurement has an effect on what is measured.

Let's get "negative self reference" clarified sufficiently first. A set can cover itself infinitely and still have control of the procedure — Gregory

Negative self reference is different from ordinary self reference.

Example:

Try writing a response that you never will write.

Are there such responses? Yes. As we have a finite life we surely cannot write all responses, hence there exists those responses. I or Wallows of Fishfry can write responses that you don't write. But for you to write something that you don't write is impossible. Hope you notice the negative self reference.

You promised me an analysis about my right-wing extreme views and how I am a danger to democracy. — NOS4A2

I bet you want to hear that.

Would reinforce your thoughts about those who are critical about Trump or what?

People are usually smarter than you think. If they listen to you and you listen to them.
.

One can always expand Gödel's alphabet to account for more than previously hoped for.

And this process, could, in theory, go on forever. — Wallows

Honestly, there is something really incredible in the negative self reference, which you find in all incompleteness results. Gödel's incompleteness theorems, Turing's answer to the Entscheidungsproblem, at the most simple version in Cantor's diagonal argument. We simply cannot make the connection to the larger picture, but there surely is one.

We simply don't understand what it actually means. I think this is the most important thing to be discovered (if you can use that word) in mathematics and logic.

In my view, negative self reference shows what limitations subjectivity gives.

Some people wonder to themselves, why did mathematics and science continue despite the findings of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. — Wallows

This is the absurd thing with people.

Anything that shows a possible limit or is seen as a limit is thought to be wrong, fatal, an end. As an obstacle.

As if a mathematical/logical theorem would doom science and scientific research.

The same way we have approached paradoxes or antinomies, people have desperately looked for a way to brush them under the carpet and declare them solved.

This is truly the problem.

This crisis is real, it's deep and they can't see a way to avoid it. The younger generation is saddled with student debt and can't buy their own houses. They have become financially disenfranchised from the older, baby boomers, who benefited from the good times in the 1980's and 90's and the big increases in house prices. Not only this, but they have seen through the capitalism promised by the Tory's and can see how they represent the greedy and privileged. They look at the crises in public services and the lack of management of them by the Tory's. What is in it for them if they vote Tory? — Punshhh

Then the talk ought to be about the issues they face.

I'm starting to think that all the wokeness is noise to distract the left. An evil conspiracy to get the people entangled into some culture war and not to face real issues. And it might be working.

The demographic is changing though now. — Punshhh

Yes, there is the demographic transition. British (as Europeans) aren't having many babies anymore with the fertility rate being 1,8 so only immigration is making the population grow.

There is little support for the Tory's in the young and they have no strategy to win their support. — Punshhh

This is something similar to the US. Simply put it, as nobody under 29 has lived when there was the Soviet Union, the 20th Century left is only a vague history, which every older leftist can now brush aside. When you listen to Bernie Sanders or even Zizek, they aren't your classic marxist-leninists. What you people have experienced from the "left" has been is basically been a centrist agenda done by leftist parties. For young people, Thatcher and Blair seem to be quite same: both have been part of the establishment.

There is an existential crisis around the corner for the Tory's and they know this. — Punshhh

Two things. People grow old and change their views and voter can be dismayed by poor performance. Only a few hippies stayed hippies. A lot of the radicalized youths later came yuppies and middle class. And that existential panic is actually good for any political party. One shouldn't rest on one's laurels.

I am a vet...served in SAC during the 1950's. We were major league bad-asses...the most bad-ass military force ever on planet Earth at that time. — Frank Apisa

I'll add that you had as your commander the most badd-ass American general in US history during 1948-1957. Or at least equivalent to some bad-ass generals like Patton, Sherman or Stonewall Jackson.

(I'll bet the Air Force will reinstate SAC in the future, just like the Russians noticed that they needed more umph to their land forces made up from brigades and formed the 1st Guards Tank Army in 2014 again.)

I think Trump has done more damage to our Republic in the last three years than all our foreign enemies combined have over the 250+ years of our existence. I consider him an existential threat to our survival...and, unfortunately, I think he will be re-elected. — Frank Apisa

Your not made from paper, so I guess the Republic will survive Trump.

But the global leadership role of the US is gone or is going. Nobody can trust that the US will take the leadership role. It is withdrawing everywhere. And many Americans cheer this. As if all that the US has done is bad and absolutely nothing good has come from the leadership role. As if that prosperity that the US enjoys wasn't based on the post-WW2 international institutions made in the interest of the US itself.

I think "globalism" is the only decent way for intelligent beings to go. Parochialism sucks like a black hole. — Frank Apisa

The basic problem is that the criticism against globalism, just like against US foreign policy, has overwhelmed the discussion and totally dominates the discourse over the issues. Our way of life actually depends on globalization and even if there are excesses, the positive surely outweighs the negative. In public discourse, not so. The positive aspects globalism are just taken as a given and perhaps not even understood to be part of globalism / globalization. The focus is on the excesses. That global povetry has been dramatically reduced doesn't mean anything. It's not the facts people want to hear.

We have had a real breakdown of globalization earlier in history. The refer to it as the "Antique Times" ending and turning into "the Dark Ages". The names are quite telling what happened.

I'm afraid I blame the blinkered left-wingers in the Labour party for this catastrophic dereliction of duty. In the '80s Labour swung left and spent a decade in the wildnerness. Now they've done it again under Corbyn. What is the definition of a fool? Someone who does the same thing twice and expects different results. (Or is that 'insanity'? I forget). If there's one thing to be said for populism it's that its politicians do listen to the voters. Boris has won on that simple realisation.. — Tim3003

And do notice how much hatred there is for Blair. Centrism is abhorred, yet centrism has gotten the left to power. From the graph below you can see that UK has been dominated by conservative governments and the labour governments have been the exception:



The real problem is that political parties are stubborn to realize when they have gone wrong, because there is constantly a power struggle going on. If the leadership would accept that it has made serious mistakes, then naturally it couldn't continue (there isn't so much forgiveness in politics). So it's easier just to blame the media, the Russians, whatever,... than to admit that the course of the party hasn't been the optimal one.

That these problems are noted in leftist circles and debated can be seen for example from this interview:

What is the root cause of all of these right wing party takeovers of Western democracies? — Noah Te Stroete

People are getting smarter about the left? :smirk:

The left is in a bad place. It's losing it's traditional supporters in the working class by going woke, leaving the immigration issue only to the right as it condemns the discussion on immigration to be racist and xenophobic. With a condemnation you won't get far in a debate, especially if the issue is important to the voters. And if any criticism of EU is also portrayed to be nativist/xenophobic/racist, then again you are leaving the field to the right. Here also the right has had it's problems, but it has been far better in engaging the issue. Hence if you have only the old rhetoric added with silly wokeness, there's not much you are giving. And of course, not many people work in the factories and the coal mines anymore.

And if you ever have noticed, right wing parties have been in power. I think Sweden is one of those examples of where the left has been in power for a long time in a Western democracy. Sweden is the perfect example of what a genuine leftist non-Soviet style pro-free market social democracy looks like. Yes, the last sentence sounds like an oxymoron, but it really isn't.

What is totally amazing is that after a long time in power in the UK, the conservatives could get such a huge victory in the elections. They'll surely be now happy with Boris.

If you ask me, Trump is definitely throwing a wrench in the system to say the least. — Noah Te Stroete

Many of his voters love that. They don't care so much how otherwise Trump does, as long as the economy is going well, and are happy with the giving the middle finger to the establishment. Even that Trump basically has been part of the elite, but not very popular among them, doesn't matter. What works now days is portraying the politician to being the target of the establishment, the "deep state" etc.

Trump is populist and obviously doesn't have in mind to approach new voter segments. Populism of course divides people and causes juxtaposition in the political landscape. Basically the GOP strategy would be to portray the Democrat candidate as even worse than Trump. They know how historically low the approval ratings of the President are, so there are few other ways out of it. Hence my view that the fall election will be as bad as the 2016 election. Hard to see that Trump would change his antics.

People weren’t happy. That’s why Trump. — Noah Te Stroete

Showing your unhappiness in the voting booth means that things are OK. That's just how Republics ought to work.

Totally another thing is to overthrow the whole system by violence and put your life on the line when doing it. Unhappiness comes in different levels.

I recently saw a movie called, The Men Who State at Goats (2009). — Wallows

The movie is one thing (typo 'stare')

What you should see is the documentary they based the story on!!!

Part of the story angle behind Grant Heslov‘s directorial effort The Men Who Stare at Goats is that the film is based on a true story. Usually I ignore that sort of background when first approaching a movie — I want a film to work on its own merits, rather than as an adaptation or recounting of history — but after the fact it’s always fun to look at the real material that inspired a story. In this case, there is a Channel 4 documentary called The Crazy Rulers of the World, the first episode of which is actually called The Men Who Stare at Goats, which leads to the book of the same name that, in turn, inspired the film.