Biden's bad (and maybe bad) policies.

[Red]

I think Biden is a lot more progressive than he's given credit for, but he does have his share of policies that I'm not sure are good ideas.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... e-tracker/

I'll only do the ones I have comments to add, feel free to skim through the page to see if there's anything you might find to be bad ideas. In no particular order:
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... -and-univ/

Forgive all undergraduate tuition-related federal student debt from two- and four-year public colleges and universities and private HBCUs and MSIs for debt-holders earning up to $125,000.

I know this is a popular position for progressives, but I'm not sure if canceling it outright is a good idea in economic terms. I think a lot of moderate Democrats more just give it lip-service, so I'm not sure how likely this is to happen.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... s-slavery/

A Biden Administration will support a study of reparations.

I'm not sure how useful or significant this would be, I think it's pandering to the Progressive-left, similar to the Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill policy.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... ge-15hour/

Increase the federal minimum wage to $15 across the country and eliminate the minimum tipped wage.

I'm not really against a higher minimum wage, though from what I know it doesn't really help the people it's supposed to help, and more serves to relocate jobs abroad. But there's a bit of an issue:

Biden has criticized China for being "deeply authoritarian",[12] "stealing over 1 million" manufacturing jobs from Americans,[25] breaking international trade regulations,[11] unfairly subsidizing Chinese corporations, and stealing the intellectual property from U.S. firms and discriminating against them.[11] Tariffs imposed by Trump on China will remain in place.[26]

That's also something that's concerning.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... ate-priva/

Introduce a constitutional amendment to entirely eliminate private dollars from our federal elections. Biden believes it is long past time to end the influence of private dollars in our federal elections. As president, Biden will fight for a constitutional amendment that will require candidates for federal office to solely fund their campaigns with public dollars, and prevent outside spending from distorting the election process. This amendment will do far more than just overturn Citizens United: it will return our democracy to the people and away from the corporate interests that seek to distort it.

I know it's a huge thing right now to get money out of politics, but there's the concern about giving more power to fear mongers, and the frankly uninformed masses. I'm not counting this for or against necessarily, more of just an unknown.

[Jamie in Chile]

I'd support a $15 minimum wage for New York and California and other places with similarly high land prices, but that's a massive increase for other parts of the country. Many places are not at $10 yet. That's disruptive. I wonder if it makes more sense to say $10 now and then target $12 by end of term. Increasing the minimum wage I do think is a good policy in general because of the inequality.

As far as I know, there is little impact on job losses from higher minimum wage. The effect is small enough that studies/scientists don´t agree on what they effect is. The UK seems to have done OK as it went from no minimum wage to a fairly high one in a couple of decades.

I think I'd be in favour of reducing or eliminating corporate donations. Perhaps a limit one what any one individual can give as well so CEOs can't just give their private money. That does looks very ambitious though, I doubt it will get enough support right now?

Maybe he´s starting out high on some of these policies and expects to realistically negotiate them down with congress people.

[Jamie in Chile]

Out of democrat policies I don´t like, I am concerned most of all with giving amnesty to illegal immigrants, or a "path to citizenship". I think illegal immigrants should be found and removed or if that would be too harsh for people that have been there many years and are basically American at least heavily fined for having entered illegally or put on a higher tax rate forever. Except for people that came in as children. As a general rule, all of them should be given citizenship which I think is happening anyway.

We need a system that clearly punishes people for immigrating illegally and rewards those who tried to get in legally. It should be the case that you have a better chance of successfully entering the country by applying legally, otherwise you have an injust system that rewards law breakers. Giving amnesty is a huge win for people traffickers and pimps and other shady people offering in the border areas as well. (In the European case, amnesty causes people to die clinging on to trains and suffocating in crates and ships and lorries and drowning in the sea.)

They should allow in more people legally while cracking down on illegal immigration both on catching people entering, and turning them back.

Because as long as the democrats can sort COVID, climate change, income equality, and getting a world with less nuclear weapons, then amnesty for immigrants isn´t something that I worry about. If the democrats could have a more centrist immigration policy like I say above I think they could win over a lot of centrists in my view, and take more power in 2022 and 2024, which would be the main benefit of the policy. Doesn´t look to be on the cards however such a policy.

[Red]

I'd support a $15 minimum wage for New York and California and other places with similarly high land prices, but that's a massive increase for other parts of the country. Many places are not at $10 yet. That's disruptive. I wonder if it makes more sense to say $10 now and then target $12 by end of term.

Here in NYC the minimum wage was raised to $15 back in 2019, so it's something the states can decide to. I just don't think a higher minimum wage is useful when it comes to providing more money to people. as I think a universal basic income makes more sense.

Increasing the minimum wage I do think is a good policy in general because of the inequality.

What type of inequality are you referring to?

As far as I know, there is little impact on job losses from higher minimum wage. The effect is small enough that studies/scientists don´t agree on what they effect is. The UK seems to have done OK as it went from no minimum wage to a fairly high one in a couple of decades.

The issue is automation. A higher minimum wage, combined with regulations and labor unions (I'm not against those mind you) ultimately will make companies choose to automate, since machines cost less in the long run. That's why I support exporting these jobs, since not only do people in developing countries need the jobs more, but the chance is much higher that someone will get the job, rather than it being automated.

I am sure there are benefits to minimum wage, and I do agree some people might exaggerate any negative effects, but given automation, we're going to need UBI and free Vocational school and University (particularly STEM and Med school).

I'm not sure when UBI will become a thing, but it has been shown to work. Libertarians support it too, but there might be a debate come around where we discuss instituting UBI and at the same time diminishing or abolishing social security and welfare. It'd be an interesting discussion, and I'm not quite sure what the answer would be. Welfare would probably be dissolved, but social security will be kept (while probably being lowered).

I think I'd be in favour of reducing or eliminating corporate donations. Perhaps a limit one what any one individual can give as well so CEOs can't just give their private money. That does looks very ambitious though, I doubt it will get enough support right now?

But would the consequences be good? It's an unknown. It's easy to think it'd be good, but I'm not sure if there's good reason to think that.

Maybe he´s starting out high on some of these policies and expects to realistically negotiate them down with congress people.

Biden does have a good track record of working with Republicans, so I think he'll be able to make some necessary compromises.

[Red]

Out of democrat policies I don´t like, I am concerned most of all with giving amnesty to illegal immigrants, or a "path to citizenship". I think illegal immigrants should be found and removed or if that would be too harsh for people that have been there many years and are basically American at least heavily fined for having entered illegally or put on a higher tax rate forever. Except for people that came in as children. As a general rule, all of them should be given citizenship which I think is happening anyway.

Why do you support this policy? I'm not asking this to be an asshole or whatever, I'm genuinely curious.

We need a system that clearly punishes people for immigrating illegally and rewards those who tried to get in legally. It should be the case that you have a better chance of successfully entering the country by applying legally, otherwise you have an injust system that rewards law breakers. Giving amnesty is a huge win for people traffickers and pimps and other shady people offering in the border areas as well. (In the European case, amnesty causes people to die clinging on to trains and suffocating in crates and ships and lorries and drowning in the sea.)

They should allow in more people legally while cracking down on illegal immigration both on catching people entering, and turning them back.

Illegal immigration is overblown as an issue anyway though. If you can I recommend watching the Adam Ruins Everything Episode on Immigration. If not, check some clips on YouTube.

Because as long as the democrats can sort COVID, climate change, income equality, and getting a world with less nuclear weapons, then amnesty for immigrants isn´t something that I worry about.

I actually don't consider income inequality an issue. We can start a new topic to discuss this (it'd be an interesting one) but put simply, income inequality isn't the issue, poverty is. In first world countries, I haven't seen any good evidence that income inequality is really a cause of this poverty, which is usually caused by poor financial decisions and lack of funding for proper social programs and healthcare.

I'm not worried about any nuclear wars happening, but I do think having all that uranium sit in Nuclear weapons is pretty idiotic when it could be used for energy (which is something we're doing); You only need a few hundred nuclear warheads for a MAD (probably even less), not to mention we have tons of non-nuclear WMDs that are just as destructive.

If the democrats could have a more centrist immigration policy like I say above I think they could win over a lot of centrists in my view, and take more power in 2022 and 2024, which would be the main benefit of the policy. Doesn´t look to be on the cards however such a policy.

I'm not sure about that, since it might inspire a lot of the Democratic vote to sit out. Biden says he has a plan to prevent Republicans taking Congress:
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/1 ... ing-458316

[Jamie in Chile]

We can't have a situation where people who break the law are rewarded more than those who don't, that is bad incentives, bad for society, bad for law.
However, for children, it's generally unjust to remove them (in most cases) and they themselves did not commit an offence, being bought here by parents or other family, so that is different.

There seems to be more than one episode that fits your description, do you mean: Why a Wall Won't Stop Immigration | Adam Ruins Everything https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_P9PR5ckFk

I do not so far have a strong opinion on UBI. If you have opinions/sources, I'd be happy to learn more from you.

I am not convinced about your thoughts on income inequality, they don't look well thought out. But I recommend you learn more about this from expert sources rather than debating with me. Sam Harris podcast (paid) is covering this, https://samharris.org/podcasts/232-ineq ... evolution/ One of the problems is wealth in the form of stocks and shares and property seems to make more wealth on its own, it seems unfair to see the gap widening for this reason in part.

A significant part of the problem with wealth inequality is not just that it's a fundamental problem but that it seems to cause society to decay (making the streets less enjoyable places for all) and even collapse in revolution. This is more due to inequality than poverty. The above podcast covers it well. Income inequality does not cover poverty, I agree. It's the feeling that others are moving ahead further and faster than you.

The type of inequalities I refer to are earnings (so salary per month) and wealth (so assets or the amount you have in savings account or stocks at any given time).

I do think that corporate money is having too great an influence on US politics and causing too much free market capitalism in general as well as specific problems like fossil fuel money being one of the reasons we don't see action on climate change. More fundamentally, democracy should give everyone the same voice, not more power to the richer which is the current situation.

I am worried about nuclear wars. You have to balance the low risk of it happening with the high damage it it did occur. Also it's debatable that the risk is low when you look at all the many near misses over the years. Some policy change ideas for the US:
1. Reduce the weapons from thousands to hundreds for now (possibly conditional on Russia agreeing to do the same).
2 Take missiles off hair trigger alert.
3 Make it illegal to launch nuclear weapons in retaliation until there are visuals of mushroom clouds, not just blips on a radar screen.
4 No first use policy (US does not have).

[Red]

We can't have a situation where people who break the law are rewarded more than those who don't, that is bad incentives, bad for society, bad for law.

I don't think there's much reason to think that having strict punishments on that will be effective. Like, we have a culture of strong punishment here in the US against criminals (and even people committing victimless crimes), and that doesn't do a very good job considering our incarceration rate. People just think that they won't be caught or they don't understand the magnitude of the punishments.

There seems to be more than one episode that fits your description, do you mean: Why a Wall Won't Stop Immigration | Adam Ruins Everything

That's one clip from the episode, I recommend watching as many videos from it as you can. Do you have Netflix?
These are the ones I can find on YT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_P9PR5ckFk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIUHZUTJNOQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCUW9H3rt_A
Just ignore the cringy humour, he makes some very good points. Most notably, he points out how illegal immigration INTO the US has declined dramatically to the point where more people are actually LEAVING the US.

I do not so far have a strong opinion on UBI. If you have opinions/sources, I'd be happy to learn more from you.

This is a quick summary:
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1704 ... 20diabetes.

Notice how the arguments against aren't really arguments (just an example of a balance-fallacy), like how "I don't wanna pay for someone else!!" and the other counter-arguments I have not seen any good evidence for. There are more in depth sites to read about this on, this is just a summary. I actually don't know much about it to be honest, I only support it because the growing consensus amongst economists is that UBI will be needed in the coming decades due to automation. I will look more into it though.

I am not convinced about your thoughts on income inequality, they don't look well thought out.

We can split this topic, it'll be an interesting discussion. If you want a summary of my position, read this column by Steven Pinker:
https://bigthink.com/big-think-books/st ... -happiness

It's all taken from his book Enlightenment Now, (which is an amazing read, check it out if you can).

But I recommend you learn more about this from expert sources rather than debating with me. Sam Harris podcast (paid) is covering this, https://samharris.org/podcasts/232-ineq ... evolution/ One of the problems is wealth in the form of stocks and shares and property seems to make more wealth on its own, it seems unfair to see the gap widening for this reason in part.

A significant part of the problem with wealth inequality is not just that it's a fundamental problem but that it seems to cause society to decay (making the streets less enjoyable places for all) and even collapse in revolution. This is more due to inequality than poverty. The above podcast covers it well. Income inequality does not cover poverty, I agree. It's the feeling that others are moving ahead further and faster than you.

The type of inequalities I refer to are earnings (so salary per month) and wealth (so assets or the amount you have in savings account or stocks at any given time).

I actually overall agree with most of what Goldstone said (I listened to it on 2x speed, so I may have missed some things). I think when he talks about inequality, he's referring to when the rich don't pay their fair share at all, meaning the working class have to fend for themselves and not have access to healthcare and stuff. However, given our Democracy, people are able to voice this opinion peacefully without the need to riot, now with the Democrats more or less being the party that supports higher taxes for the rich and more social programs (some people say that the Democrats are also just another 'corporate party,' a sentiment I strongly disagree with). As far as the rich are paying their fair share as far as government goes (and that money goes to programs that benefit everybody, like roads and infrastructure), life will be better for the country.

I think it's almost important to note that a lot of the super-rich give a lot to effective charities, which tend to be more effective and useful than government social programs (not saying we shouldn't have social programs, they just need to be reevaluated), though I will concede they usually don't give as much as they could or should.

I definitely agree with closing tax loopholes though, and I think Biden will be able to do that.

It's also important to note that the salaries of the working class have been rising:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 955329001/

Even with the US's insane income inequality, even the poor enjoy high standards of living, and the streets are very safe places to go. I think saying it'll lead to a collapse I believe is a slippery-slope fallacy; Not only do we have the ability to put higher taxes on the rich, but people are too damn comfortable to want to risk anything. A lot of these Marxists online who say they want a revolution don't really understand what would be at stake, and will just assume after the revolution everything's gonna be all happy times and titties (I'm not saying you're one of these people ). Since people enjoy such standards of living, the next steps would be increasing the taxes on rich and redistributing wealth, and focusing on teaching people to give what they can, not focus on the material things others have. We can have all that while still having insane income inequality.

The only reason why it feels unfair is the proximity. Seeing your neighbor or even someone in your country make tens or even hundreds of thousands of times the amount you do makes it feel unfair, sure, but not only does that not really say anything about YOUR quality of life, it disregards the fact that first-worlders and other people who live in high-income countries are in the top 5% income bracket in the world (and if you only look at middle-class, it's more like the top 2%). Why does the income inequality in your country matter, but not worldwide? What makes the elite we're in not as concerning?

Again though, read the column I linked, it does a better job of explaining my position. If you have any other questions, I can answer them.

I do think that corporate money is having too great an influence on US politics and causing too much free market capitalism in general as well as specific problems like fossil fuel money being one of the reasons we don't see action on climate change. More fundamentally, democracy should give everyone the same voice, not more power to the richer which is the current situation.

There's actually some evidence against this:
https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/g ... rchy-study (sorry for bombarding you with so many links, read them at your own pace)

I don't think there's any good evidence of this type of influence. The main reason why we aren't seeing any actions on climate change is not because politicians are being bribed to do that, but because they're mostly scientifically illiterate boobs. If Republicans are being bribed to deny climate change, why do they also strongly support nuclear power, the greatest threat against fossil fuels? When corps lobby, they lobby to make bullshit studies to mislead the public and the politicians in office. Politicians already support fossil fuels, or at least are already inclined to do so, since good energy, despite environmental harms (which they already deny as I mentioned) is good for the country, which is also why they support Nuclear power, and tend to only support very limited use of renewables.

The rich don't just support policies that benefit themselves, the rich are almost always more intelligent people and do support progressive causes that benefit society wholesale as it relates to politics.

I am worried about nuclear wars.

Don't be, there's no reason to be. As hard as it is to believe, world leaders are rational enough to know that a nuclear war would just screw themselves over too. Trump didn't start a nuclear war (which TBH I was half-expecting he'd do after he officially lost the election as a last-ditch effort to stay in office), and if North Korea strikes any country, they'll certainly lose China's support, which is the only thing they have.

You have to balance the low risk of it happening with the high damage it it did occur. Also it's debatable that the risk is low when you look at all the many near misses over the years.

I've heard the stories, they were mostly during the Cold War. Nowadays it wouldn't make any sense for a country to want to start a nuclear war, and as far as I know governments operate under that premise unless there is absolute proof otherwise.

If this were the middle of October 1962 you'd definitely have a point.

Some policy change ideas for the US:
1. Reduce the weapons from thousands to hundreds for now (possibly conditional on Russia agreeing to do the same).
2 Take missiles off hair trigger alert.
3 Make it illegal to launch nuclear weapons in retaliation until there are visuals of mushroom clouds, not just blips on a radar screen.
4 No first use policy (US does not have).

These are good ideas.

BTW, I hope none of this is making me come across as an asshole or me thinking you're an idiot, you're a very intelligent person, and I greatly enjoy discussing with you. I just strongly disagree with a lot of what you said here.

[Jamie in Chile]

You’re not coming across as an asshole. Robust debate and firm disagreement is fine.

It’s not just about whether punishments work, it’s about the systemic injustice felt by someone who legally applied for immigration, was rejected, and their friends/neighbours colleagues illegally cross into the US, and later go on to have a much better life as a result. It’s not fair.

If you were to argue against punishing illegal immigration on the base that punishments don’t work, do you also want to abandon all punishments for other crimes, murder, sexual assault, robbery for instance? Or only selectively immigration?

Punishment doesn’t work on an individual as a general rule, but it may have deterrent value and societal benefit in there being a sense of justice.
I don’t find “Adam RuinsEverything” on Netflix (maybe not available in Chile), I watched the first two of the links, this is just the typical left-wing viewpoint. I am not in agreement with a wall specifically though (except for certain cases like a big town right next to the border).

I think tentatively I am against introducing UBI right now. I think people get satisfaction out of working and I don’t the like the idea of people cashing the cheques and staying at home. But I am really pretty much on the fence. I think larger trials are needed for longer periods. I could be in favour if the results are good. I don’t have a strong enough fundamental objection to it.

It’s true that the rate of known accidents has declined since the cold war if you look at the list, but that could be because of the fact that more recent accidents are still classified. A lot of the 1960s incidents were not known for decades later. The risk of deliberate nuclear war does seem much lower, but the risk of accidental nuclear war? I am not sure.

I am less concerned about North Korea, because I think unless you live in Korea or maybe Japan or maybe US major cities, you are probably not in the line of fire and the number of deaths from such a war would be similar to some non-nuclear wars that happened in the past. However, it’s the US-Russia scenario leading to nuclear winter that’s more of a concern to me.

[Red]

It’s not just about whether punishments work, it’s about the systemic injustice felt by someone who legally applied for immigration, was rejected, and their friends/neighbours colleagues illegally cross into the US, and later go on to have a much better life as a result. It’s not fair.

How many of the people who came in illegally came in because they were rejected for legal immigration?

I agree, it's kinda bullshit, but how people FEEL does not necessarily mean that should influence what we do. It's important to note that just because something isn't fair, that doesn't automatically mean it's bad. I know that's counterintuitive as hell.

If you were to argue against punishing illegal immigration on the base that punishments don’t work, do you also want to abandon all punishments for other crimes, murder, sexual assault, robbery for instance? Or only selectively immigration?

Punishment doesn’t work on an individual as a general rule, but it may have deterrent value and societal benefit in there being a sense of justice.

I'm basically against punishment across the board; The problem with having punishment as a deterrent is that, while it does sound like it should work on paper, it only really stops rational people from committing the crime. Almost all criminals are not rational (and frankly, not very intelligent), and as I've said, they don't think they'll get caught. I'm not sure if you've ever seen any forensic shows like the Forensic Files (which is on Netflix last I checked), but I just remember so many times watching that show thinking 'How could anyone with an iota of intelligence leave behind such a crucial piece of evidence?' and if you watch it, you'll probably think the same thing. These people just can't comprehend the fact that they are not exceptions to the norm.

They don't understand that it's easy to commit a crime, the hard part is getting away with it.

A lot of proponents of the prison system say that the current system of punishment does serve as rehabilitation in some ways, which I think is demonstrably false. People who go through prison tend to be worse when they come out, and during the time they're in there, they're more likely thinking of how they could have gotten away with it rather than reflecting on why what they did was wrong. Also by the time they leave prison, their lives are basically fucked, since not only do they have a criminal record, being in prison is viewed as a terrible thing when it comes to finding work and housing (which I already explained). Hell, if I were an employer or landlord, even I'd be reluctant to hire or lease an apartment to someone who has been to prison.

I'm sure there are some instances where punishment would go further than having rehabilitation, but in the vast majority of cases, a prison system that focuses on rehabilitating criminals with therapy and vocational training would do much more for society, much like the system in Norway. By the time their inmates leave prison, not only have they changed on a psychological level, but they also have a skill they can use to contribute to society. If I were an employer in Norway, if someone who went to prison applied for a job I'd be all like 'Oh, this person went to prison, but he/she is rehabilitated now and has learned a relevant skill. Hired!'

I understand that society at large may be upset that criminals aren't being punished, but satisfying their psychological desires has nothing to do with morality. We have to start shifting society in the direction of seeing how the idea of justice is useless and does much more harm than good. There already is a small yet notable movement in the West focusing on this type of idea. We can't have most of society follow this idea of justice, for the sake of social and moral progress.

Even a lot of progressives are willing to support punishment over rehabilitation when emotional stuff gets in the way, like with the murder of George Floyd. Yeah, don't get me wrong, Derek Chauvin and the others involved are total pieces of shit, but they shouldn't be exempt from the proper rehabilitation I support for all other criminals. I mean even if Chauvin were to be rehabilitated in the proper way, his life is basically ruined since it's universally associated with police brutality (going to prison is just the icing on the punishment cake). He'd be lucky if he gets a job as a prison janitor.

Then we can get into a discussion on the death penalty which is similar to the whole thing. I think that it should only be reserved for people who have absolutely no chance of being rehabilitated because they're sadistic psychopaths (like Ted Bundy), but that represents a very, very, very, very tiny percentage of criminals.

I don’t find “Adam RuinsEverything” on Netflix (maybe not available in Chile), I watched the first two of the links, this is just the typical left-wing viewpoint. I am not in agreement with a wall specifically though (except for certain cases like a big town right next to the border).

That's unfortunate, when I get a chance I'll watch the episode again and tell you important points.

I know you aren't calling for a border wall, but there are some other arguments in there that deal with the topic we're discussing.

I think tentatively I am against introducing UBI right now. I think people get satisfaction out of working and I don’t the like the idea of people cashing the cheques and staying at home. But I am really pretty much on the fence. I think larger trials are needed for longer periods. I could be in favour if the results are good. I don’t have a strong enough fundamental objection to it.

This might be a good place to start:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/16/wh ... -flat-tax/

It’s true that the rate of known accidents has declined since the cold war if you look at the list, but that could be because of the fact that more recent accidents are still classified. A lot of the 1960s incidents were not known for decades later. The risk of deliberate nuclear war does seem much lower, but the risk of accidental nuclear war? I am not sure.

I am less concerned about North Korea, because I think unless you live in Korea or maybe Japan or maybe US major cities, you are probably not in the line of fire and the number of deaths from such a war would be similar to some non-nuclear wars that happened in the past. However, it’s the US-Russia scenario leading to nuclear winter that’s more of a concern to me.

The fact that we've had so many close calls and yet no nuclear war broke out in over 75 years I think is pretty reassuring.

On an unrelated note regarding North Korea, @brimstoneSalad proposes opening up trade with them, like we did with China. That's probably the only way to free all those people and add another country to the world economy, since once the leaders get a taste of wealth, they're gonna want more and more of it. There'll still be authoritarian rule, but it'll be much more relaxed, though maybe South Korea will take over (sort of like what happened with Germany). The leaders of North Korea will likely need to create a new narrative about how the US is now begging to be friends with North Korea, or something about North Korea influencing the US enough so it's actually a good place to live in full of people who love North Koreans. They've come up with so many outrageous lies to tell their people, they'll make up something.

As it stands, as long as North Korea has support from China, they aren't really anything to worry about.

[Jamie in Chile]

With regard “against punishment across the board” what do you propose should be done once police catch a serial killer who has killed many people and raped and tortured each of them? Or are you saying the Norway prison system isn’t really a punishment? (I did see a TV program once showing their very soft “jail” system.)

I agree with you on the low intelligence of criminals.….many news reports about criminals being caught reveal obvious mistakes…..
You decided to fix the currency rates illegally, and you openly said you would do this in an email? Really couldn’t just meet up in the conference room for that one?
You sent threatening messages to your ex-girlfriend by whatsapp? Really couldn’t find a way to do that in person or at least over the phone?
You sent poison in the mail from the nearest mailbox to your own house and used the same exact mailbox every time? Really?
You kept incriminating evidence of your crimes on a laptop in your own house? Months after you committed the crimes? Really? Didn’t even have a two-laptop strategy with a hiding place?

However of course it may be that there are many intelligent criminals, but we don’t hear about their crimes because they don’t get caught. The cases you hear about are going to be disproportionately dumb criminals.

With regards nuclear war you can’t be reassured that there has been no nuclear war in 75 years if we only need one to kill billions. When you need something to happen zero times per millenia, and once is a disaster, you can’t infer much from the past statistics. You have to act before the disaster comes.

I actually disagree with opening up trade to North Korea. I think the exact opposite. I think keep it all shut down while trying to persuade China to shut theirs down also. This may not be a short term benefit for the people of North Korea – it may cause more misery in fact. But it will likely weaken the regime. Also (and this is my main argument) I think it sends a message to the world that you lose trade – and hence money – if you have poor human rights – and thus makes it less likely for other countries to follow or maintain a similar route. Trading with a country I think gives power to the country and to the regime: I wrote about how I see it here: viewtopic.php?t=3880 – although it wasn’t well received.

Does North Korea have support from China? I think China is fairly neutral. I doubt the leadership in Beijing really respect or care about North Korea or think about them all that much. They would probably oppose a war of Western powers with North Korea because they don't want western military on their doorstep or a nuclear war on their border but that doesn’t make them pro Pyongyang.

I read a few books on China that slightly covered the period of China opening up trade (so 1980s and onwards) and I think it was more of a decision made by China itself, and specifically by Deng Xiaoping, to trade. Communism is arguably isolationist and so they didn’t want to trade with the US in the 40s to 70s, even if the US had been interested.