Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19) and Tinnitus

@FGG -- I first heard this from a PBS documentary during the 2016 election. I just did a quick search, and this is the first article I clicked on [from the Huffington Post]: -- In Arkansas, Hillary Clinton's Legacy Remains Potent -- Below is a snippet, with the ranking I first heard about in the PBS documentary mentioned toward the end (I bolded it). I can't say this article will definitively confirm what I wrote, but it does seem to at least somewhat support it.

I remained puzzled why Hillary Clinton is derided and despised by so many. It seems clear to me from what I've heard that she's been an almost tireless advocate for children and the less fortunate in our society since her college days. I think her single-minded focus and determination to make a positive difference was not only a strong catalyst in her life, but motivated a lot of Bill's accomplishments. Quite honestly, I don't think Bill would have ever become President without Hillary by his side.

Some people will likely shout out something like, "Well, what about those emails?" To which I would say, "What about them". I spent a number of years working in Records Management, and given my experience and insights, I have yet to see where she did anything that could be considered immoral or unethical, much less illegal. I saw a woman in a group interview once who said she had a very negative opinion of Hillary, which was in line with what most of her friends felt. But she started to get a little skeptical about certain things that didn't add up, and did her own research. Only to discover--as she put--she [Hillary] really didn't do anything wrong.

It goes to show the power of a charismatic personality (though I don't see it) to define somebody else in a negative manner, and have a large group of people (tens of millions) believe it without question. I heard that of people who disliked both Clinton and Trump in the 2016 election, 70% ended up voting for Trump. Why people would vote for a hardcore narcissist, failed businessman, and violent sexual predator over somebody who devoted their life to service still puzzles me to this day. -- Is Hillary a perfect person? No, I see her faults as well as anybody else. But I don't think her faults would have ever led us to the national crisis we face today.
..............................................................

...Clinton developed her curiosity — and ultimately her expertise — in the issues that would define her tenure as first lady of Arkansas before she moved to the state with the future president.

Following her graduation from Yale Law School in 1973, Hillary Rodham spent a year conducting postgraduate work at the Yale Child Study Center, during which time she published a widely cited article in the Harvard Educational Review examining how children were viewed under the law, and offering significant proposals for reform.

She also landed a job working for the Children's Defense Fund, where she worked to expose discrepancies between census data and school enrollment — a time she recalled at the first public event of her 2016 campaign in Monticello, Iowa, this April.

"I was knocking on doors saying, 'Is there anybody school-aged who's not in school?' and finding blind kids and deaf kids and kids in wheelchairs who were just left out," she recalled. "And I was able in Arkansas to work and try to improve education there and give more kids chances who really deserved them."

Hillary Rodham's path to improving education in Arkansas began in 1974 when she moved to Fayetteville and became just the second female faculty member at the University of Arkansas Law School. Bill Clinton lost his bid for a U.S. House seat the same year.

After she married the following year, retaining her maiden name, Bill was elected attorney general of Arkansas, and the couple moved to Little Rock. Meanwhile, Hillary's own career took off upon joining the high-powered Rose Law Firm, where she took on pro bono children's rights cases.

In 1977, Hillary co-founded and drew up the articles of incorporation for the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families — a group that for nearly four decades since has fought for expanded opportunities in early education, juvenile justice reform, increases in state funding for child health care and other major initiatives.

"She was a very forceful advocate to say the least," recalled Jim Miles, who worked with her to create the group and develop its mission. "I think Arkansas Advocates is one of the nation's premier child advocacy organization. They have tremendous peer respect."

After Bill Clinton was sworn in as governor for the first time in 1979, he appointed his wife to be the chairwoman of Arkansas' Rural Health Advisory Committee — a group that worked to expand health care access within the state's large rural population.

Around the same time, Hillary became a board member of the Arkansas Children's Hospital, where she helped establish the state's first neonatal nursery while she was pregnant with Chelsea. The facility has since expanded several times over.

Meanwhile, after reading about it during a trip to Florida, Hillary brought to Arkansas a program called Home Instruction for Parents for Preschool Youngsters, or HIPPY, which trains parents of at-risk children in early education methods.

It wasn't until after Clinton lost re-election in 1980 and then won his 1982 comeback bid that the newly minted political wife (who now made it known that she would henceforth be known as "Hillary Rodham Clinton") made what is widely regarded as her most significant and lasting contribution to public policy in Arkansas.

Shortly after he reassumed office in 1982, Bill Clinton named his wife as chair of the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee, an entity with the daunting task of reforming the state's public education system, which was ranked at or near the very bottom of all 50 states in just about every measure.

To get a sense of how dire the situation had become, consider that a majority of Arkansas' 365 school districts at the time offered no art or chemistry classes, and almost half had no foreign language program to speak of. And teacher training in some districts was fourth-rate.

Don Ernst — who was a social studies teacher at Southside High School in Fort Smith, Arkansas, before joining Clinton's education policy staff — recalls walking into his school's biology lab and seeing two dozen unopened microscopes in storage. When he asked the biology teacher why the instruments weren't available to her class, she responded that she was afraid her students might break them.

Still, as Ernst recalls, school reform in Arkansas was not an easy sell.

"It was doing the right thing," he said. "But we also had to figure out how to deal with the politics of an anti-tax state and a state that has never been particularly fond of intellectuals and education."

Hillary spent months traveling the state to sell her proposals for reform — which included boosting course offerings, reducing class sizes and implementing testing requirements for both students and teachers — while soliciting ideas from parents and teachers.

In the end, the administration tied the package to an unpopular initiative to boost the state sales tax by 1 percentage point.

Though she faced heated pushback from the teachers' union and a related group, Hillary largely won over lawmakers in the end.

Political operatives in the state still laugh about the thunderstruck reaction that Rep. Lloyd George, a colorful state representative with a syrupy drawl, had to her presentation: "I think we've elected the wrong Clinton!"

Though Bill Clinton received most of the credit nationally for the reform package that he signed into law, Skip Rutherford, who has served for the last decade as the dean of the Clinton School of Public Service, said it was Hillary who "took Arkansas to a completely different level educationally."

"She was really saying, 'Look, when our students graduate now, they're going to be competing in a world economy,'" he said. "She was very visionary. She did it not for immediate gratification but for long-term success."

In recent years, Arkansas' public school system has been ranked by education groups as high as fifth in the nation and as low as 45th, as relatively low achievement levels have struggled to keep up with the high standards that Clinton implemented.

But in spite of the continued challenges, education in Arkansas is no longer the national laughingstock that it was when a common lament among self-conscious policymakers around the capitol was, "Thank God for Mississippi."...​
My problems with Clinton have nothing to do with "charisma" or her emails.

It can best be summed up as "neoliberalism is an idea that gets in the way of actual progressivism." But that is maybe too much of a tangent for this thread.

As far as Arkansas, 5th through 45th is quite a range. I would be hard pressed to interpret that.
 
My problems with Clinton have nothing to do with "charisma" or her emails.

It can best be summed up as "neoliberalism is an idea that gets in the way of actual progressivism." But that is maybe too much of a tangent for this thread.

As far as Arkansas, 5th through 45th is quite a range. I would be hard pressed to interpret that.
Well said.
 
Swedish Meatballs for my homeland the USA. History may look back at Trumps toppsy turvy approach to actually have been for the best. He has always seemed to be a lucky guy to me, a person that chance for some strange reason has smiled on.

I read an interesting article by Johan Gieseke, Sweden's ex head of science, about New Zealand or other countries trying to keep at zero for numbers of viruses and how that will play out in terms of trade and travel.
 
Of course:
On
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...0x-lower-than-estimates-that-led-to-lockdowns
there is a link to US Senate's Committee on Homeland Security's site
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/covid-19-how-new-information-should-drive-policy
Ioannidis' testimony starts at 1hour 27 minute mark. You can see the links to Ioannidis' and Atlas' testimonies at the bottom of that page, below the video of them talking.

Now you need to ask yourself why the "centrist" news sources that you have been trusting haven't been reporting this, whereas those biased far right sites had reported it.
I was expecting links to studies, not Breitbart. The Edwin Mora tweet stated multiple studies, so where are they and why weren't they cited? I found the Silverman and Washburne study that the Breitbart article heavily leans upon, and it has to be made clear that it is a preprint which means it hasn't been peer-reviewed yet. It can be found here for anyone that is interested:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.01.20050542v3.article-info

The other study from The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal states that it could have a mortality rate of between 0.66% and 1.38 (nobody knows yet). That is still 6-14 times worse than the seasonal flu and equates to what experts have been saying all along. And yet, Edwin Mora tweeted this:

9893EE7A-D8CD-41D6-BF10-24F74558B73E.jpeg


Which is actually a direct quote of Ioannidis. Why wasn't this made clear? I thought they were Mora's words. Anyway, I personally find his testimony rather conflicting. He says it is going through care homes killing many people and then says but on the other hand, it's comparable to the flu? It seems to me that he is cherry-picking areas that have lower mortality rates and is then speculating. There is no hard peer-reviewed science to back up his view that it has the same mortality rate as the flu. Also, take note of the disclaimer at the beginning of the Silverman and Washburne study: "it reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

I agree with the overall theme of the comments here and here.

I generally don't like articles that politicise COVID-19 in an attempt to push an agenda. I prefer to read articles that have a more neutral tone or to read studies directly so that I can draw my own conclusions.
 
Is it because, unlike the flu, the majority of COVID-19 patients don't even know that they are sick with it?

How do we know that the majority don't know they have it? I've seen estimates of 17% reported, but haven't seen anyone say "the majority."On a personal and anecdotal level, I have never known the flu to kill as many people as I have seen die with COVID-19. As I have already stated, it killed 3 people within a single family alone that I know. It also killed a man on my street and hospitalised my mom. In total, I am now aware of around 10 deaths that were caused by COVID-19. That's a lot of people. I'm not aware of any flu-related deaths. However, this could be biased, as I said before, as flu deaths are not highlighted like COVID-19 deaths are.

We won't find out what's really going on for a long time yet as there's still a lot of data to collect and crunch. The main point to your argument is that you want the lockdown to end immediately, which is fair enough. Many would disagree with this point-of-view, but nothing is clear cut. Many governments are erring on the side of caution because they don't want to overwhelm emergency departments and have bodies building up. It's a novel virus so nobody has a clue what to do for the best. What you're saying also makes sense which is what makes this situation so complex. You cannot starve the economy for a long time without significant ramifications.
 
How do we know that the majority don't know they have it? I've seen estimates of 17% reported, but haven't seen anyone say "the majority."
Here is a study that reports that 80% are asymptomatic
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1375.short
This article reports the fraction of asymptomatic individuals to be between 25%-50%
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/50-percent-of-people-with-covid19-not-aware-have-virus
But you are right - the numbers seem to be all over the place...
Many governments are erring on the side of caution because they don't want to overwhelm emergency departments and have bodies building up.
It certainly made a lot of sense back in March. But given our experience thus far, we should update our expectations...
 
@Bill Bauer, I also forgot to mention that we don't currently know how directly linked some of the other deaths are (the unexplained higher mortality for 2020 overall). There are surely going to be knock-on effects from people avoiding hospitals for fear of catching it, and from appointments being cancelled, etc, but none of us have discussed the blood-thickening effect that COVID-19 seems to have on people. There could be a direct link to the many strokes and embolisms, etc, that people in their 30's and 40's have been experiencing.

The mystery Kawasaki-like illness that was observed in London now appears to be surfacing in other places around the world as well, and it appears to be linked with COVID-19.

https://neuronewsinternational.com/covid-19-causing-stroke/

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/86205

https://www.necn.com/news/coronavir...0rPTwnE-CDSsqzVXYMK3de36v97zZmQRe6hsa0nrIF4mo
 
It was a small sample size so I'd expect statistical variations to occur. I don't think anyone can put a confident figure on this yet.
Given the sample proportion (pbar) and the sample size ( n), the 95% confidence interval (that contains the true fraction of asymptomatic people in the population, 95% of the time) is given by
pbar + - [z_(1-.95)/2]*square root of((pbar)(1-pbar)/n) =
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_proportion#Estimation
= 0.78 + - 1.96* square root of ((0.78)(0.22)/166) = 0.78 + - .063 = between 71.7% and 84.3%

The 99% confidence interval (containing the true value 99% of the time) is given by
0.78 + - 2.33* square root of ((0.78)(0.22)/166) = 0.78 + -0.075 = between 70.5% and 85.5%
 
the blood-thickening effect that COVID-19 seems to have on people. There could be a direct link to the many strokes and embolisms, etc, that people in their 30's and 40's have been experiencing.

@Ed209 -- I've researched DMSO fairly extensively, and have successfully used it for several years, mostly applying it topically. I started a thread here entitled, "DMSO & Magnesium Oil for Tonic Tensor Tympani Syndrome (TTTS). DMSO is a natural solvent (comes from trees), and has long been known to be able to dissolve blood clots, and is extremely beneficial for any kind of clotting issues. Below is a link to a study. -- BTW, I've long thought that if DMSO could be patented, it could likely become the best selling "drug" of all time. It's ability to reduce pain and inflammation, and improve circulation are almost unparalleled.

"Ischemic stroke in elderly patients treated with a free radical scavenger - glycolytic intermediate solution: A preliminary pilot trial "
Mustafa Karaça, Erol Kiliç, Betül Yazici, Sedat Demir and Jack de la Torre

Here's a bit on Dr. Stanley Jacobs and Jack de la Torre about benefits of DMSO for Strokes

... If given soon after a stroke, DMSO, one of the world's greatest solvents, has been shown to dissolve the clot that causes the stroke, thus restoring circulation and avoiding paralysis. -- How soon? Dr. Stanley Jacob says within the first few hours is best and intravenously is better than oral, but oral works too. Once DMSO gets into the body either daubed on the skin, given I.V., or by mouth, it permeates the body and crosses the brain barricr, so even taken orally it can improve circulation...

Neurosurgeon Dr. Jack de Ia Torre is professor of physiology and neurosurgery at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque. He and Dr. Jacob believe that DMSO should be in every ambulance and emergency room so as to start giving it intravenously to stroke victims in the ambulance as soon as picked up or, at the latest, as soon as the patient arrives at an emergency room. If such were the established practice, the number of people dying or incapacitated from strokes would plummet.​
 
I was expecting links to studies, not Breitbart.
It was a link to Breitbart, that had a link to the testimony to a US Senate Committee. The people testifying were experts who mentioned "multiple studies".
Which is actually a direct quote of Ioannidis. Why wasn't this made clear?
It was a quote from Dr. Atlas from Hoover, and the tweet Made it clear by mentioning "@SWAtlasHoover to @SHGAC" in the tweet, just before the direct quote. Here @SWAtlasHoover is Tweeter handle for Dr. Atlas, and @SHGAC is the Tweeter handle for that Senate Committee.
He says it is going through care homes killing many people and then says but on the other hand, it's comparable to the flu?
The flu has been going through care homes and killing people. Last year, during the few months of the flu season, between 60,000 and 80,000 Americans died as a result of the flu,, many of them residing in care homes.
I generally don't like articles that politicise COVID-19 in an attempt to push an agenda.
This covers pretty much every single news report made on this and most other topics, right?
 
I've seen several references to interferon the past few weeks, and how it might be helpful for combatting COVID-19. I was doing some researching on DMSO's antiviral activity, and came across the following at THIS LINK:

Various pieces of research had shown DMSO to be effective against viruses and an important clue as to why this happened was given in 1971 by Dr. M. Kunze and associates in Vienna. Their study checked the production of interferon in mice following infection of the mice by the scientists with certain viruses.

They reported that when DMSO was injected 10 minutes after the mice were infected with viruses, "the animals produced anywhere from 2 to 16 times as much interferon as they would have, had no DMSO been given after their being infected".​
 
I was told from a hospital nurse in my area, that more of their newer admissions are from older people over 50 who have been sheltering at home for weeks and many said that they were not exposed to outsiders without masks. Many older had food bought to them. Food and it's packaging may be more of a concern as well as the bottom of shoes from those entering their homes. Some may not been washing fruit well enough. Some also have pets that go outside. The second highest admission rate is from nursing homes.

Found a CNBC article published today with data from a 100 New York Hospitals. 66% of new admissions are from those who have been sheltering at home and not venturing much outside. Most are also over 50. New York nursing home admissions are also high at 18%.

@Ed209 @Bill Bauer I can't understand why world stock markets are going strongly back up so quickly.
 
It was a quote from Dr.

Atlas from Hoover, and the tweet Made it clear by mentioning "@SWAtlasHoover to @SHGAC" in the tweet, just before the direct quote. Here @SWAtlasHoover is Tweeter handle for Dr. Atlas, and @SHGAC is the Tweeter handle for that Senate Committee.

You're right, I got the two mixed up. My bad.
Here is a study that reports that 80% are asymptomatic

It was a small sample size so I'd expect statistical variations to occur. I don't think anyone can put a confident figure on this yet.

I was just reiterating what Tom Jefferson stated when I said the sample size was small:

He told The BMJ, "The sample is small, and more data will become available. Also, it's not clear exactly how these cases were identified. But let's just say they are generalisable. And even if they are 10% out, then this suggests the virus is everywhere. If—and I stress, if—the results are representative, then we have to ask, 'What the hell are we locking down for?'"

I'm not a statistical analyst in any way shape or form; I have a basic knowledge. However, I'd like to see this corroborated with more data. In any case, you could be correct as the information on this is constantly evolving and/or changing. The WHO state that 80% are either mild or asymptotic. It's not clear how much of that 80% is for those who have mild symptoms, though.

While the range of symptoms for the two viruses is similar, the fraction with severe disease appears to be different. For COVID-19, data to date suggest that 80% of infections are mild or asymptomatic, 15% are severe infection, requiring oxygen and 5% are critical infections, requiring ventilation. These fractions of severe and critical infection would be higher than what is observed for influenza infection.

https://www.who.int/docs/default-so...0306-sitrep-46-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=96b04adf_4
This covers pretty much every single news report made on this and most other topics, right?

True. But some are more heavily politicised than others. I prefer facts and figures.
I can't understand why world stock markets are going strongly back up so quickly.

I've been keeping a very close eye on the markets. I used to day trade (and invest longterm) for years. Since I bought my house and got married and had a kid, etc, it kind of got relegated. I made good money back in the day and used to attend investor shows where'd I get the chance to speak to the board of directors of companies I was invested in.
 
Further to my post above, this gives one an idea of the various figures being reported when it comes to asymptomatic cases:

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2020/05/09/1161521/22-of-new-zealand-covid-19-cases-asymptomatic

2.2 percent of NZ Covid-19 cases asymptomatic

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-what-proportion-are-asymptomatic/

That between 5% and 80% of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 may be asymptomatic (this analysis also involves Tom Jefferson).

The Chinese figures in the BMJ study were published on April 2nd. The article above was published on April 6th. This demonstrates the wide margin of possibilities which is why more data are required for a better understanding.

There is a table in the link above giving percentages for different situations. For example, on the Diamond Princess cruise ship, 18% were asymptomatic.

http://med.stanford.edu/content/dam/sm/id/documents/COVID/AsymptCOVID_TransmissionShip.pdf

The estimated asymptomatic proportion was 17.9% (95% credible interval (CrI): 15.5–20.2%). Most infections occurred before the quarantine start.
 
The estimated asymptomatic proportion was 17.9% (95% credible interval (CrI): 15.5–20.2%). Most infections occurred before the quarantine start.
That makes sense as 66% of new admissions are from those who have been sheltering at home and not venturing outside.
 
Given the sample proportion (pbar) and the sample size ( n), the 95% confidence interval (that contains the true fraction of asymptomatic people in the population, 95% of the time) is given by
pbar + - [z_(1-.95)/2]*square root of((pbar)(1-pbar)/n) =
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_proportion#Estimation
= 0.78 + - 1.96* square root of ((0.78)(0.22)/166) = 0.78 + - .063 = between 71.7% and 84.3%

The 99% confidence interval (containing the true value 99% of the time) is given by
0.78 + - 2.33* square root of ((0.78)(0.22)/166) = 0.78 + -0.075 = between 70.5% and 85.5%

I don't think a study of 166 cases in China, taken over a 24 hour period, is reflective of how the world population may deal with COVID-19. That's just my humble opinion. I'm not an expert. It's also possible that people developed symptoms after they were tested. There are potential flaws to the data.

Also, just thinking out loud here, is there a chance that some of the candidates being tested may have already had COVID-19? And had a level of immunity to it making them appear asymptomatic?

I find it interesting that the asymptomatic rate was so low in New Zealand (an Island which implemented a complete lockdown) and yet so high in China - the place where it had been spreading for a while.
 
@Ed209 @Bill Bauer I can't understand why world stock markets are going strongly back up so quickly.

@Greg Sacramento -- My understanding is the Federal Reserve is buying up stocks for the first time in history. They bought up junk bonds during the 2008 financial crisis, and I think some other financial instruments as well. But they've "apparently" taken this kind of activity to a new level now by buying stocks.

The Federal Reserve balance sheet (which I think was normally kept under $1T) ballooned to over $4T after their bond buying spree which began in 2008-09. There were concerns this was unprecendented activity, and nobody knew what kind of fallout there might be (excessive inflation the most likely). It now looks like this new buying will likely take the balance sheet up to $10T or more. Totally uncharted territory.

It seems companies that were benefitting immensely from lower corporate tax rates and super low interest rates the past 10-12 years took out unprecendented levels of debt (highly irresponsible), primarily to goose their stock price (greedy move by executives who get compensated by stock price). So, it looks like highly irresponsible behavior--just as in 2009--is again being bailed out by the Federal Reserve, which I think certainly qualifies for the "moral hazard" category.
 
I've seen several references to interferon the past few weeks, and how it might be helpful for combatting COVID-19. I was doing some researching on DMSO's antiviral activity, and came across the following at THIS LINK:

Various pieces of research had shown DMSO to be effective against viruses and an important clue as to why this happened was given in 1971 by Dr. M. Kunze and associates in Vienna. Their study checked the production of interferon in mice following infection of the mice by the scientists with certain viruses.

They reported that when DMSO was injected 10 minutes after the mice were infected with viruses, "the animals produced anywhere from 2 to 16 times as much interferon as they would have, had no DMSO been given after their being infected".​
welp, you just made me feel marginally better about the bottle of USP DMSO that I've owned and done nothing with for ~6 years just because it seems like one of those chemicals that's good to have around, not unlike food-grade sodium hydroxide, USP 200proof ethanol or harmaline HCL ;)
 
I was just reiterating what Tom Jefferson stated when I said the sample size was small:

He told The BMJ, "The sample is small, and more data will become available. Also, it's not clear exactly how these cases were identified. But let's just say they are generalisable. And even if they are 10% out, then this suggests the virus is everywhere. If—and I stress, if—the results are representative, then we have to ask, 'What the hell are we locking down for?'"

I'm not a statistical analyst in any way shape or form; I have a basic knowledge. However, I'd like to see this corroborated with more data.
You can change the sample size n in my formula above to see the impact it would have on the 99% confidence interval (the interval containing the true proportion 99% of the time). As the sample size increases, the confidence interval will get narrower. But the point I was making is that currently the sample size is large enough to give us a sense of where the true proportion is likely to be (assuming the sample was selected in such a way that it would be likely representative of the population).
That IS incredible for it to be so different from the other study which found this to be 78%. The authors of one of the two studies must not have selected their sample the right way (that avoids a biased sample).
I don't think a study of 166 cases in China, taken over a 24 hour period, is reflective of how the world population may deal with COVID-19.
What is the alternative, though? It seems to me that this study should have motivated a new study attempting to replicate those results. It didn't have to have a particularly large sample (a sample size of over 100 people should have provided confidence intervals that would have been narrow enough), provided the observations were to be selected truly at random.
Food and it's packaging may be more of a concern as well as the bottom of shoes from those entering their homes.
I try to wash my hands the first few days after I handle the packaging of newly bought food. After a week or so I think it is safe to assume that the virus on the packaging is dead.
 
No. Democratic socialism is not considered "Marxism" anywhere but the US.
I am curious, may I ask you to outline what's, in your opinion, the difference between Democratic socialism and Marxism? In other words, if you like "democratic socialism", then what is it about Marxism that you would consider to be "too much"?
 
I can tell you that it is considered Marxism by many the people who had actually lived under socialism - many of the people from Eastern Europe and Cuba.
Well, my best friend was a Croatian national (US citizen now) who grew up under Yugoslavian communism and she disagrees so that's obviously not a universal opinion.
 
I am curious, may I ask you to outline what's, in your opinion, the difference between Democratic socialism and Marxism? In other words, if you like "democratic socialism", then what is it about Marxism that you would consider to be "too much"?
Scandinavia vs China.
 
Well, my best friend was a Croatian national (US citizen now) who grew up under Yugoslavian communism and she disagrees so that's obviously not a universal opinion.
I used the word "many". Also, back in Soviet union, Yugoslavia was considered to be semi-capitalist - they had the least centralized planning of all of the countries behind the Iron Curtain.
Scandinavia vs China.
First of all, check out
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffre...-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-socialist/

The author forgot to mention that Sweden is benefiting from technologies developed in countries that are more free, where people have a greater incentive to innovate, like the US.

Some of the vast fortunes we are observing these days are the result of monopolies and oligopolies cornering the market. It is interesting that instead of advocating policies that promote competition (that would break up monopolies and oligopolies) - policies that would promote equality of opportunity - you are advocating policies that promote equality of outcome. Let's put aside the likely Increase in exploitation (defined as treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work) where as a result of these policies people have the fruits of their labour taken away from them against their will, and let's focus on the Long Run.

[Aside, I love how you use the word "progressive" to refer to serfdom - a system that is anything but progressive. Under serfdom the serf had to work his master's lands 3 days a week.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Russia#Labor_and_obligations
This is 50% if we assume a 6-day workweek. The average Swede pays 44% of her income to the state,
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&sxsrf=ALeKk02CmDpT0UrO58n_SeHeIwi6M5faew:1589157473871&source=hp&ei=YZ64XvHHMu6a_QaE5L6ACA&q=sweden+tax+to+gdp+ratio
compared to tax to GDP ratio for the US of 24%
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&sxsrf=ALeKk01_brMqdvIjVA3XvM9NmLkScNuL2Q:1589157485163&ei=bZ64XoCxCeSk_QbJ37uQCw&q=us+tax+to+gdp+ratio&oq=us+tax+to+gdp+ratio

A serf's master would take care of the serf (e.g., free healthcare, free education [i.e., learn what there is to know about farming, which happened to be the mode of production back then]). The only thing that's different now is the kind of education one needs to be productive.]

Let's use 40 years as our long run horizon. This is an interval that can actually fit into one's life. One can advocate for certain policies when one is 20 or 30 and then have those policies impact one's life when one is 60 or 70. Another reason to use 40 years is that this is the duration of an experiment when the East and West Germanies had a similar culture, but had different attitude about providing incentives to work/enforcing equality in outcome.

The redistribution of wealth that you are advocating will lead to a reduction in incentives to work. People respond to incentives, and so economic growth will have to be lower. You might argue that you prefer a more equal outcome and that it would be worth it to you to pay to achieve that outcome. Suppose you increase the taxes in the US so that now instead of 24% of their output in taxes, Americans pay 44%, like they they do in Sweden. What is your guess about how much this reduce economic growth? Hopefully we can both agree that it will be at least 5%-10% a year, and likely a lot more.

Now the question is what will happen to the economy after 40 years. Without the change the economy would grow 5% a year faster, so after 40 years the total size will be (1.05)^40 = 7. What does this mean? Well, it means that the country will be 7 TIMES wealthier. If the difference in growth is 10%, the country would be (1.1)^40 = 45 TIMES wealthier.

[If you think Sweden is doing well now, imagine how well it Could have been doing if back during 1970s they were to not abandon the policies that made them wealthy in the first place.]

This is the reason why the some of the wealthiest USSR citizens (who were not members of the Communist Party) were poorer than unemployed people and people working the minimum wage in the West. This had been the case for my family. Most people's salary in USSR in 1980s was between 70 and 150 rubles per month. My grandfather was a physicist at a research institute. His salary was over 300 rubles per month, and my grandma's salary was over 200 rubles per month (she was a doctor with a high rank at a major hospital(she was helping to manage the hospital)). So together they were earning more than twice the average salary, making them part of the top 1% (if we don't count Communist Party members who were paid not in salaries but in free benefits). When my family moved to the West, the quality of our food, our apartment, and the quality of recreational activities we could take part in were better than all of those things enjoyed by my grandparents. Also soon after our arrival we bought a car, whereas my grandparents could never afford a car.

I think people should be paid in accordance to their merit. Not only is this fair, but it also provides the most incentives to work and results in the fastest economic growth (which adds up and makes a huge difference in the long run). The best way to achieve these nice outcomes is to adopt policies promoting competition and freedom.
 
I am curious, may I ask you to outline what's, in your opinion, the difference between Democratic socialism and Marxism?

I assume you're already well versed in the generally understood definitions of these terms, so you already have a strong understanding on what a typical ~3rd year poli sci student would instantly explain as "Marxism vs democratic socialism", and you are fishing for FGG's personal opinion on this?

Why would that matter? It's like me asking you why you think a grapefruit is different than an orange. A grapefruit isn't an orange, your opinion doesn't matter. Entire books have been written about the Marx, modern democratic socialism various places, etc. These are hardly groundbreaking ideas.
 

Log in or register to get the full forum benefits!

Register

Register on Tinnitus Talk for free!

Register Now