text stringlengths 0 9.69k |
|---|
It is literally under previous schools in particular areas that need that extra funding compared to, let's say, general increase for teachers over the particular country. I think that on the comparative, it is much easier for people to actually lobby their own government for these particular policies. But let's give a... |
But also in general policies such as, for example, increasing the minimum wage such as such as, for example, taking place in like huge environmental. Environmental policies, this this means that huge impacts of vulnerable people are actually impacted. |
<poi> |
your case only applies in the narrow subset of instances in which corporations have a massive control over unions. If they're so powerful they likely have a similar mechanism of control over the state, which means they can exercise the same degree of power over lobbying our case applies in all contexts and rectifies im... |
</poi> |
you do not provide reasons for any of these things. I have already provided reasons that there is asymmetric power towards this in terms of lobbying the government you also need to spend a bunch of more money but you also don't have the particular information and governments need to think about multiple different polic... |
</dlo> |
<mg> |
opening opposition suggests that the lobbying power the increased lobbying power as a consequence of this promotion. It's going to lead to policies which are societally disutile. If you're able to show the opposite we're going to win over top half because opening government says these policies are stable but they did n... |
<poi> |
Seeing policies are economically viable doesn't mean that they won't be self-interested in the most optimal policy for all, such as teachers pushing for higher pay relative to other public servants or industrial unions pushing for anti-environmental. Policies knockout effects don't work because you're more affected by ... |
</poi> |
I've given you incentives why they're also going to care about negative externalities but i also think that if i can show that this self-interest congruent economic efficiency i don't care itself interested, I mean it's nice to be altruistic, i'm not sure i care about that. Second extension, we simply get the more unio... |
</mg> |
<mo> |
two contributions from closing opposition. First, we're gonna explain why this is bad for the power of unions, which is both the largest time in the debate and deletes the government ventures benefit in this debate, because if the union in this sector does not exist, they cannot exercise a veto; And second, i'm going t... |
The first thing to explain here is that you now have more of an incentive to do things like union bus that looks like anti-union laws that looks like funding campaigns to convince people not to join them that looks like funding law sets against unions in some parts of the world that looks like literally killing union ... |
are coming to fruition such that they cannot exercise a veto. First of all, because you want to have control of your ministers. And second, because at the point where a union pops up in this particular sector, that union is now is now able to bring your government to a standstill, not allow you to be able to appoint t... |
<poi> |
Yeah, if regulation affects specific sectors in a lot of instances, then your mechanism there just doesn't actually land. Think about how this happens in the real world, Sydney. Why doesn't it land? |
If you have regulation that can happen towards a specific sector, then you don't have the collective action problem mechanizing as you said, which means an individual industry won't go as far as they have to. |
</poi> |
Okay. So basically the problem with this is that it runs into the first. So obviously there's like multiple characterization, but I deal with that characterization in the first one where I explained that you will then attack this particular industry or never allow it to that industry developed in this first instance. S... |
That means that where there is a conservative party, they are likely to deliberately nuke their ability to appoint ministers of any kind in order to benefit the political party that they support, which is the biggest harm to their museum. Because it means you get gridlock. It means that governments literally cannot ha... |
</mo> |
<gw> |
I have a lot of stuff now for a variety of reasons the comparative in this debate is quiteconstraining supply chains. |
I'm just going to name the ones that were said in this debate. Firstly, the fact that we explained to you in closing government uniquely the degree to which unions care about public opinion, because regulation can directly affect them and they don't want to swing that from happening negatively. Secondly, the race to t... |
And to the degree that the industries are being are lobbying higher than individual people are in terms of voting. Therefore, those lobbying powers are going to be used. And that's the kind of thing that happens. Therefore, there's only three comparatives in this debate. Firstly, where there's on union membership. Sec... |
against their own thing means that you must become less effective. Second thing to say is a single union will go really hard because of collective action problem. Again, I POI this and they never give a response to it. Part from flight in the first part that I just responded to. So on face, they've lost that comparati... |
case doesn't land. The third thing they say is you want when you want to get a higher degree of control, you want less people within your union because you want to maintain your positional power. This only makes sense if you as one individual person within the industry are more powerful. There's three and four members... |
corollary impacts to explain to you your power decreases on net. And thirdly, because you join your trade union for a reason. And this is the thing. If you create a trade union or join a trade union in face of all the harms that CEO outlined in terms of union busting, it flags as an explicit preference that a person w... |
regulations, gloves, masks, etc. that increases the quality of life for individuals within the industry, but also doesn't have the negative externalities that are worth talking about. Second comparative then in the debate is on the disalignment of preferences in and so far as when they exist. Opening government on thi... |
to you the degree to which that this alignment of preference is happening. We make them weak to OO's response that indeed the kinds of things that the industry will lobby for will be negative. Where do we fall into this in terms of explanation of the kinds of things that change? This is the comparative. We explained t... |
a ground mat on the floor rather than just a hard floor that was there, I'd be able to walk quicker later in the day because my legs wouldn't be broken and tired. But the companies, because they're based off of this idea of having an oppositionality between workers and their bosses, and think that the workers are just... |
to provide to us to explain that might in a lot of instances be beneficial towards the economy. The economy being good of course and in terms of general weighing is just good in general insofar as it means you have things like increased tax revenue for the people, increased wages in people's pockets, increased pay ove... |
<poi> |
Our point wasn't that a lot of teachers being religious is bad but that there are asymmetries if you become an industry leader versus a general demographic of the industry based on privilege leading to things like pushing for more seniority pay and just like more religious funding from external donors distorting priori... |
Also, the debate on the union. |
</poi> |
problem though is you never explain to us why this privilege actually transfers in a meaningful way as opposed to the way it does within general society when you can get economic privilege. For the reason of my response to closing opposition which you chose not to respond to in that poi people with the most amount of ... |
</gw> |
<ow> |
Closing opposition provides three important contributions to this debate. The first contribution that we provide is to explain why unions are just unlikely to be able to exist and function. And that argument necessarily occurs upstream of anything that opening government or closing government wish to say, because both ... |
get is on our sort of membership part of the extension. They say, well, you're unlikely to, for example, become a leader or kick people out to maintain power because there's already a pre-established hierarchy. But obviously this is untrue for the reason that unions are democratically elected, right? Like new members ... |
opening government not taking you. Unions will do good things. And they give a series of general reasons why it might be nice for unions to do good things. They say, maybe it will remove a few narratives. Note, I already respond to why this isn't going to happen. They say, well, maybe you'll capture some voter bases. ... |
will not be the actual incentive that disproportionately affects people with dingyuns to operate this way. The first thing that I will explain is that you can already vote for things like the government to represent your economic interests. The reason that you specifically join a union is because you want specific wor... |
that a lot of individuals, for example, particularly poor individuals have to engage in. But the second thing I'll say is that you're often motivated by incredibly short term incentives, right? Because if your country is experiencing recession or if your job is specifically going to be laid off, then obviously you don... |
For those reasons, it's clear that CG never proves why this is the most likely incentive that people will operate on. Now that I'm done with them, CG, go! |
<poi> |
apart from no mechanism as to why unions would lobby generally know specifically up bench has yet to provide a reason as to why states and companies would not already be at maximum incentive to scrub our unions given their own explanations of why unions are bad therefore the comparative is on capacity of unions to reta... |
</poi> |
yeah so the basic claim being made in this poi is that well you're already screwing over unions to the most extent, So therefore there's no change. I would just say that this is empirically untrue for the reason that unions often do have a lot of collecting bargaining power. People do listen to them, but all that previ... |
the second argument, which is that it will create a balance. Their only mech for this is like, you will have conversations with people and I POI this and I explained that now, obviously companies and people proposing policy come to you in the first place because now they cater their policy specifically to you. So for ... |
They're like, well, no, you're not actually setting the policy, but you might as well be. But even if that's not true, obviously people naturally tend towards these sorts of things, as I already explained. Their only other claim then is that, well, sometimes governments have a majority and they can elect anyone. Our e... |
opening opposition, we beat them in three ways. First of all, we operate, they operate the assumption that unions are probably still good in a lot of instances. We explain why those unions disappear. Secondly, we show you why if unions kick everyone else out, then that actually unlocks their corruption and policy mate... |
We win on our metric by actually recognizing this and we take the debate. |
</ow> |
<pm> |
Panel, the position of opening government today is very simple. We think tying a movement, a political movement, that is progressivism to particular individuals is bad. We think it is bad both for progressive politics and for broader society. We're going to advance four claims in the speech, first on political polariza... |
an election, a very safe democratic seat for Bernie was living in Vermont and running for president in 2016. I'll take questions, but I think there are none. Let me know if there are. So on the first argument of political polarization. I think this is quite clear. I think that there is significant over weighting that ... |
This makes it very easy for competing parties to capture moderates because they can say things like ah Bernie Sanders stands behind socialism, AOC supports things like socialism and we don't like socialism and this echoes and reverberates through elections that do not concern them because their elections in and of them... |
<poi> Nicole, with the reference to arguments on disenchantment, fracturing, polarization, just to be clear, are you against progressive politics being practiced in America or are you against progressive icons specifically? </poi> |
like I already said, we're value neutral and progressive politics. Like I said, it's a value, like it's a valuable ideology as any other is. We think that the assignment of individuals specifically who overweight the discussion with their political narrative is bad. I think that was quite clear. Third though, on, on w... |
What does that mean? First, it means that the individual accountability of those members becomes kind of thrown up in the air. Two reasons. First, the Democratic establishment can't immediately hold these people accountable because it will make it look bad. It looks like it's cracking down on its own base, on its own ... |
</pm> |
<lo> |
So we think like a lot of problems, proposition side exists on this side of house comparative world anyway, like polarization, as long as there's like progressive proposals there will always be like defamination will always be accusation of these people anyway, so we don't know like what is the comparative benefits fro... |
<poi> Yes, Bernie Sanders mobilized some young voters to vote for him, but he also mobilized equally if not more of them to vote against Hillary the general election, which got us four years of Trump. |
</poi> |
Alright, So the comparative in that, in your world here is, those people who vote for, like those people who vote for Donald Trump will vote for them anyway, and as we see like Donald Trump has already won because based on mobilizing those extreme voters. But the comparison here is like without Bernie Sanders, you won'... |
</lo> |
<dpm> |
opening opposition is correct. Progressive politics is going to exist either way because there are people who want progressive politicians. What we've identified for you though is a lot of reasons as to why the specific idea that you tie the movement to individual livelihoods or individual people or personalities is sp... |
policy change arguments that is advancing, as that becomes far harder to unify or pass on the baton, even within the progressive movement. That is, the easy example of this is that Bernie and Warren, for example, during the 2020 election, while being very ideologically similar, had supporters who were frequently clashi... |
The broad thrust of the ideas that we get is that you can progressive icons are able to use their image to advance certain ideologies that would otherwise not necessarily be as popular. Obviously, we've told you reasons as to why these images are likely not to be nearly as popular as I think they think they are. But t... |
<poi> This is a this house that regrets debate, not a this house opposed this debate. Give me the counterfactual so you have a chance. |
</poi> |
Yes, the counterfactual we envision is a world where progressive politics still exists, but it is not tied to the fate of individual politicians. That is, we are happy for perhaps as politicians to exist on either side. We just think that you should not be like AOC is the progressive movement. Rather, we think it shoul... |
</dpm> |
<dlo> |
The first thing we're going to talk about is polarization. What would have changed on both sides and what would have stayed constant because that was the burden opening government needed to win this debate. The second thing we're going to talk about are political barriers where they would have changed and where they wo... |
<poi> The green new deal is expected to cost 10 trillion dollars which is 10 times the average expenditure of the state under the status quo Why are progressive policies good? |
</poi> |
I think this is a check and balance, some people support the green new deal, some people don't vote and most people feel like they're choosing the best of both worlds. We think that progressivism is good in so far as it's giving people options and insofar as it's moving democrats away from the statsis where they agree ... |
It means that they are more likeable in a post-fact era where people are able to believe in random facts on both sides and random policies. It is trust in politicians which is going to determine who people vote for. That is the comparative. That is why OO is winning top half. </dlo> |
<mg> |
The democratic party is going to be less progressive under our side of the house. That is, one, as per opening oppositions's analysis, that is, you have a presumption for the establishment which has a vast amount of money in the party that can fund people's campaigns and set the agenda that is only checked by icons who... |
The thing that is important here is under our side of the House, we will still have progressive people because large numbers of voters will still be relatively progressive and still probably in primaries, pushed for better policies than apparently no healthcare, which I don't think has ever been the standard that the ... |
Most of the time from the most radical college-educated people who haven't really had a job or have any experience of the world, but think that the more radical you are, the more woke you are, and therefore fund these people under their side of the house. Why is advocating for this stuff bad? One, we think that these ... |
<poi> Logically extending your argument on electability and polarization. Do you think the Democrat Center should move further to the right? |
</poi> |
I'm not sure that's what we're committed to, right? Because what we're not saying is that there is some optimum policy, although plausibly they should move to the right, but that the kinds of policies that icons are going to frontline will be so radical and so extreme that they're unreasonable. Let's talk about campai... |
That is when Trump asks Biden, do you stand behind AOC or not? Biden just doesn't answer the question. Two reasons why this is down to the success of progressive politics and which is down to icons. The first is that these people represent a significant voter base that Biden doesn't want to upset, which means that thi... |
That means people who genuinely want some hope about some feasible change in their lives never get any sign that the party is going to account for that. That is far more important than the college educated radicals who want extreme party who are to a significant extent already accounts for or moderates who to a large ... |
very easy for Republicans to have the same empty rhetoric and never actually have policies which improve the lives of these people for the foreseeable future under their side of the House. What are the impacts of the arguments? The first is I think we should be relatively agnostic about what policies matter and say th... |
but instead of people that are neglected by virtue of the fact that in presidential elections, the Democrats never take substantive policy commitments. The third is that whether or not the Democrats win, we're likely to have significantly better policy for the vast majority of people because actually talking about pol... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.