tobetrained

Here's a live example to continue to price issue: Netflix to buy studio/steaming of Warner Bros Discovery, incl HBO Max. [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce91x2jm5pjo Here's the relevant snippet on how corporations, across industries chase lower prices: "Netflix estimates it will find $2-3bn in savings, mostly through eliminating overlaps in the support and technology areas of the businesses." Also know as firing people. So, what is the likely outcome? Will people say enough is enough and cancel both services as they're tired of big companies and profit and dividends? Or will they think, "Great, I can get almost 2-for-1 if Max gets combined with Netflix (or, at least, discounted)?"

What do you mean? No one, left, right, or center is under any illusion or disillusion? The sitting President's party has lost the mid-terms in 10 of the last 11 elections, since 1980. The only exception being 2002, post-9/11.

Agree to this, conceptually, as well as the detail you mention for pharma. But then "we" (a.k.a. society) fight over which social values... to abort or not to abort, for instance. Pharma, in detail, is a bit outta my comfort zone beyond what I shared in the other convo. The number you ref above, 13.8% vs 7.7% are generally in-line with that. but it's all perspective too. The difference with Pharma vs other industries is that the product lifecycle is riddled with failures, 80%-90% of tested drugs do not come to market (shared previously), and the very short time window before generic versions become available. Those two issues change relationships of acceptable profitability greatly. For instance, think what Google would have been -- or, really, Yahoo before it -- if Internet search had to be made "free" (to advertisers) or generic after something like 10 years. How much more would Google (etc) have had to charged advertisers -- or even users -- for their services in those first few years? Would they even have existed in any serious way? But you touch on something -- the scientists in the development chain -- and getting financially rewarded for their services. Absolutely agree. But that isn't just from industry. It's also from the Universities...who take the lion's share of revenue from any patented work. The last I read -- most institutions take like 75%+, but do not quote me on that number. Our higher education system is so messed up, re financing. What the scientists don't get should go back to the pot for future funding to lower taxpayer burden for new research (federal tax revenue allocation to research grants) and not to these failing institutions. I made other similar points on these topics in the "Independent" thread. No reason to repeat!

I don't have an issue with AI stories. The human guidance is what makes it good. But AI images and video are boring. It's basically just animation...and there's already animation. I like people and their flaws.

I'm far too rational and non-emotional, as I'm regularly told. I write as a speak. But in a debate or just a discussion (like this), I never direct anger at the other person nor personalize the convo. Someone willing to communicate deserves just that, communication. And, I'm always happy to be corrected when wrong and never take offense to that being pointed out. As far as Marxism, I wouldn't be able to do more than restate what I learned in school...while trying to remember that far back in doing so. You know, when we had pet dinosaurs, and the like. But Wolff describes himself as a Marxist economist. What I dislike about Marxism, socialism, and the warping of all that thinking in what communism became, is the exclusion of competition. Why socialism fails is it has no motivator for the population. Democracy was developed by the ancient Greeks as an outcome of their hyper-competitive culture. Additionally, it's hostile to commerce (markets) which, both then and now, allows average people/the masses to move beyond government dependence and its (positive or negative) coercion.

I'm gonna double-down on use of government, from property, to healthcare, to whatever. Even some Democrats are starting to see the error: [think before following links] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/30/license-plate-trackers-pushback-00670550 This came out over the holiday weekend, and I saw last night as I'm catching up on reading.

OK. I gave it my best to watch all of it. I got through ~30 minutes of the video -- or, one hour in real time taking notes and ranting to myself about the lies and misrepresentations. Seriously, I did give it a try. And, to be 100% clear, if any of this sounds angry it's directed at the Marxist and not at you @tallslenderguy. About 6 minutes in: I like how he described WWII and the aftermath highlighting the so-called American Empire. But he fails to put certain things together. Our middle class succeeded as, mainly, our manufacturing capacity was so strong as other nations has to rebuild. Clearly that ended. But he simplifies that to self-loathing. Part of the "end" was globalization -- our manufacturing being outsourced as corporations chased consumers chasing lower prices -- ans the other main part was that these troubled economies (past-WWII) began to recover. It has nothing to do with political or economic system. Any and all would have benefited. The misrepresentations continued. For instance: He talks about Venezuela and the (false) narrative it's America needing a military "win." This is an outdated leftist thinking re: military industrial complex and the like. For him to say Afghanistan, Iraq, and Ukraine are failures of the American military is an absolute disgusting joke relative to rationale for what's happening in Venezuela. And making that point is offensive. If you want, we can go into each. But, let's be clear at how stupid the comment is: the American military isn't in Ukraine, for starters. About 16 mins in he talks about SNAP. People on the left need to make up their mind: either it's a major part of those recipients' needs or it's not. I don't care which it is, just pick. About 21 mins he outright lies about the travel industry. Corporate travel revenue is about 35% to 40% of US total. And, since they pay higher ticket prices, a smaller share of tickets sold. But those are estimates for a number of reasons -- it's hard to detail. but he lied to make people more angry -- to make them more likely to sympathize with his coming argument. At 23:30 he outright lies and says employers set wages, his 3% argument. This isn't true. They're negotiation between individual workers and/or unions with management. Workers can leave any time for better pay -- and American workers DO...something others can't, like UK nurses who have regulated salaries which start at the poverty line -- thanks to socialism. The issue comes in as the hiring organization becomes larger. At 26 mins is his first time making the biggest lie that American elite set the price for goods sold. No, the market does. The market is people, us, consumers. Price is set by what we are willing to spend. It's not absolute one way or the other but see Soap comment at 30:30 note. At 27 mins in he outright lies about share of spend, according to UN, that should be on housing. It's 30%. Of course, he says, "20% maybe 24% on housing." This is what extremists do to make their point stronger. At 28 mins he talk about Vienna and property ownership. The idea of any government owning land is disgusting and fails to grasp history. I'm not saying there are easy solutions. But my god, for those who don't like Trump consider a world where he would have a say in land rights and your ability in where to live where you want. A viable government is not the idealized version but one which can withstand problems. Please! At 30:30 he talks about a soap ad. OK, so let's take this re: price. If Unilever or P&G execs set price and people just had to deal with it...there would be others, small, local, etc, who would come in and undercut them with lower-priced options. But they can't. Price has downward pressure because they large companies chase people. And people, consumers, chase lower prices -- even when the outcome is not what they don't want: big companies making profits and paying high executive salaries and offering shareholder dividends. And, at 32 mins with his misrepresentation of tariffs I just gave up. Tariffs can be considered like taxes, but on imports. But they are not taxes and American-made items do not get that hit. And, if he was being honest, he would talk about all the tariffs and VAT charged throughout European socialist countries. The biggest real problem with these tariffs is they were done through exec order and not via congress. To be sure, I'm not a conservative. I'm a Centrist. But this guy is just a partisan extremist.

To this comment and the earlier one referencing me, I forgot to mention, the bestest book ever published... Calvin & Hobbes: There's Treasure Everywhere Life-changing! You just gotta look! I'm part Greek... The Good Strife is an absolute motto.

@tallslenderguy I can't upvote or the like, so upvote to post above.

@Pozzible I was referring to the profit they had found by moving jobs overseas or importing cheaper alternative products to American-made. If a company saved $1.50/unit sold by moving a job overseas/producing overseas then it's fair to say it would cost them $1.50 (+inflation over the time frame difference) to bring it back here.

@Pozzible I'm not really sure what you mean? If we take outsourcing of manufacturing, for instance, the whole point was it's cheaper to produce products overseas (incl shipping those products back) than paying American workers to produce here. In terms of domestic production, the same issue -- globalism -- hit every other developed national around the world, regardless of economic or political system. But the point was companies chased profit by chasing consumers who themselves chased the lowest purchase price. Most consumer products already have domestically-produced options -- they're just more expensive. Adding more competitors to that price-point helps to drive down price (assuming a stable supply chain). And more domestic demand will increase the domestic supply chain (e.g., cotton farming for clothing), further lowering the price for the domestic price-point category. And the non-domestic products are still available, which set the price floor -- preventing price spikes and gouging from domestics. And as fewer people buy non-domestic, the basics of supply and demand kick in and their price goes down to become a more attractive option. This helps force domestics into lower prices too, for fear of losing customers to too great a price-gap. This is just how markets work. It's what Apple has been trying to do, in part, with its own processor -- as one of many examples. If the assumption is it's a problem that there is a stock market and major corporations with CEOs and bonuses and dividends, etc. Well, of course there will be. But the question is what size of company do you support now with your purchases: Do you go to Starbucks instead of an indie coffee shop? If so, how much do you really care? Do you pay with cash or do you pay with a card/digital wallet/app? If the latter set do you really care? Do you use Uber and the like or the local cab company? If the former set, do you really care? Do you use AirBnB and the like instead of hotels? If the former, do you care about the affordability problem? Nothing is perfect and everything is complex. But right now our collective choices are crap -- then we complain about the result of those choices.

I'm will watch the video to comment more rationally. But in the first two minutes I'm pulling my hair out! 😃 Can I ask, re: non partisan economy, Wolff is a stated Marxist... the modern translator of socialist and then communist thinking. What are your thoughts on that being not partisan? I might get there in the video, but it's my going-in concern. But here's the specific issue: he talks about the lefty issue of incarceration. I'm not getting into here whether (or not) it's a problem. Let's stipulate it is. But he then goes on a partisan attack of DOGE. The Federal prison and Federally-run immigration systems, at the start of 2025, were about 250k people. State and local prisons were 1.75 million. [think before following links] https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2025.html These are the problems that get over-simplified for a quick political score. Both sides do it for sure. A fair question to him, but NOT you @tallslenderguy, what does DOGE have to do with our state and local prison systems? He's not an idiot... he's knows this very well, it's intentional manipulation. Like our election system, or education system, etc., we want decentralization.

I thought this was an interesting article which challenges -- not necessarily replaces -- notions about how to view the country today as well as the topic at hand. [think before following links] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/11/23/kyrsten-sinema-maha-psychedelic-ibogaine-interview-00664454

And, if I may quadruple-down on my point. Take your comment here. Why should you feel the need to rationalize what you want to talk about? For those that don't want to see it, they can say "no mas." They can choose to view other things. They can choose to post things they want to discuss. They can ignore what they don't want to see. It's too easy to just complain without action. That complacency is another issue in a free society. I think, in a round-about way, I'm here getting back to your comment about participation in that other referenced thread.

@tallslenderguy those are AI videos, which is why those aging beauties look like beauties. I'm not saying the content is AI, necessarily -- just AI content-farms. Here's Wolff's direct site to see difference: [think before following links] https://www.democracyatwork.info/economicupdate In his latest, he talks about Capitalism as class warfare. And he points out its failure to society, which every "system" has. I wish there was more solution generation vs. problem identification in the commentary. It gets to our prior convo in "Independent" thread, in part. When are we -- the consumer -- also responsible for buying the products with the cheaper prices as opposed to American-made higher-priced items? Or, worse yet, when are we responsible for buying foreign-made sweatshop products sold by mass retailers? As employers chase their profits, when do we -- as individuals -- just say "no mas." Consider what AI will do to our society. And then see this retailer, an article I read this past week -- expecting to cut two-thirds of its workforce who already imports crap made overseas (a UK example): [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c98n28k9nz1o When will people "protest" by no longer buying? No mas. We incentivize companies everyday into making these profit-based decisions which hurt us -- by chasing the cheapest prices. For myself, if we supported domestic businesses -- esp. small businesses -- at the inevitable higher prices, all those profits would be turned back to wages paid to domestic workers, and that 'de-consolidation' would also mean fewer extremely wealthy people. That's a better solution -- not that there is only one solution -- to endless fights between a bloated government's tax system being fought with the bloated amount of super wealthy elites. And, in this last point, it's the 'average person' pocketing the wealth transfer and not either the government or super wealthy.

So exactly true. If I could wave a magic wand relative to government: require any program to be paid thru increased taxes with some level of voter approval, with a stated lifecycle which ends the tax. maybe with a annual first-Tuesday in Nov feedback/vote process as part of development process. get rid of these stupid-ass districts! Single-list of candidates with single-selection by voters, candidates apportioned by their vote to party threshold and available seats.

Feel better? 😃

@Pozzible Interesting this happened today -- she's my congressperson. [think before following links] https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/11/18/congress/house-rebukes-garcia-00657309 Given how much rules, etc. are being pulled and stretched, an interesting way to get statements out there -- non-binding as they would be.

Just FYI. Here's a political-left think tank on tax policy, ITEP. I try to read both sides to understand details. I spend most time on the topic with Tax Policy Center -- a non-partisan group by Brookings and Urban Institute. The link below brings you to their recent-ish report by state taxation method, from their view-point which is an arbitrary position. If you click state, you get all/most taxes the state collects by type and method, and a share of total tax by household income levels -- a sample is the second link for CA. [think before following links] https://itep.org/whopays-7th-edition/ [think before following links] https://itep.org/whopays/california-who-pays-7th-edition/ Again, just FYI if you're interested.

We'll progressive taxation is actually equal, in my book. it says, everyone get the same tax within this range. And so on up while it's a person's choice to take the higher and higher salary. It may sound like semantics, but I don't think so: Flat tax is used for state/city sales tax, for instance. To illustrate above not-semantics point, imagine -- as is suggested from time-to-time -- sales tax is based blindly on receipt total. That's wealth redistribution. But it's hard to do a true progressive tax system for sales tax, for let's say grocery: base avocado price now is what $3/small so the first $3 is 5% then organic, etc, etc, is $4.5 so the $3.01-$4.50 incremental cost is taxed at 10% etc It gets complicated quickly industry-by-industry, item-by-item. But you get the point, if you choose the options, the tax goes up for those increment(s) of the price. But here's a very VERY fun test of political fortitude when you know someone's political background, and their socialist-lefties, in a non-politics related conversation: "If you won the lottery and it's a given you live for 50 years from that date, would you take a lump sum with the high tax or take the installments?" It's amazing how many moralize wealth in terms of being wrong or even evil then, when given the option -- knowing they'll live to enjoy the $, they pick "over time" and not "lump sum" to save on taxes. It's a really really fun test. And yes, of course I throw it in their face, immediately! 😃 You literally don't even have to ask, e.g., "So every wealthy person -- except you -- should pay their 'fair share', got it. Thanks for playing." Didn't they have... what, "materializers" or something like that to get around the issue? no one had to work for income as nothing was required, it was materialized. I know that's the wrong word. In a different context, I did some stuff too. Here are (dated) links I dug out. How do these figure consider an 80%-90% failure rate? ...meaning the pharma company uses the 10%-20% of profitable drugs to offset losses? Science 2016: [think before following links] https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/only-two-out-ten-drugs-really CBO 2021: [think before following links] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57126 Pharma profitability vs other industries NIH 2020: [think before following links] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7054843/ But this also part of the misconception of wealth and it's role in spurring innovation in our economy. This doesn't mean free-reign, right to 'no tax,' for the wealthy or the like, but it's definitely not included in most thinking out there: "The success rate of venture capital investments is relatively low, with studies indicating that up to 75% of venture-backed startups do not return cash to their investors. Overall, the odds of a startup being successful after receiving venture capital funding are estimated to be around 8%, translating to a total success rate of about 1 in 2,000 for startups funded by top VC firms." In part, this is why the US and Swiss private medical systems are both more innovative and more expensive. Not all of it. And, the comment is not targeted to medical norms, either. Just a generalization. Where I was focusing was purely on people. I don't disagree on the contractors, etc. But national defense, we all indirectly and equally benefit by it's role in our society -- we're all, theoretically, safer from those Canadians on husky-driven sleds and their killer snow balls. And, it's aboot time, eh. In part, this was my question to you re a UHC is Trump would be in charge. More government means more ways our leaders can be tyrannical. How do you future-proof for tyranny while demanding more levers of potential tyranny? But I would add to this the other side, and that's using government programs to win supporters and aide your own political base, see Biden/Democrats and the attempted $1 trillion give-away. [think before following links] https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2022/8/26/biden-student-loan-forgiveness At no time in that "debate" were the actual costs of tuition, etc discussed. It was a give-away to a political base allowing colleges and universities to continue to over-charge. For instance, a relative of mine is a professor in the UC system (CA). Her take-home of student tuition is roughly 20% (in algebra terms, she make "x" and the university keeps 4x of her students' tuition). The university get a state disbursement roughly similar to their tuition revenue from the state, varying thru time. So, if she's average to other instructors, instructors get "x" while the university is now at 9x, or keeping 90% of total revenue. All that before cost-offsets from grants and the like. There is something so messed up in the administration of these institutions. And those institutions put in on the backs of students and tax payers, the latter thru state funds and federal grants. And then a double-down of that by Biden/Democrats? Still seething. Dems want to complain -- rightfully -- about Argentina and Trump... I think a mea culpa on support for student debt forgiveness needs to be the place to start. I think this starts with our political outcomes. As I stated privately, even Obama's large 2008 win wasn't even large enough to break down a classroom of 20 students. Obama's 7.3pp national win was 10.75 students to McCains 9.25. Even Reagan in 1984 wasn't even a 12-8 split of 20 students. The media, politicians, and supporters also embellish anything and everything to create a mandate. We're just divided.

@tallslenderguy, you stated yesterday: “Is it class warfare to tax the person making $48k 12% but the person making $49k 22%? At what point does it become class warfare? While i do not believe there is a perfect answer, a straight percentage paid by all seems more equal. Maybe one step considering a ‘living wage?’” You and @Pozzible got thru progressive tax. But it’s very interesting you state that, flat tax (i.e., “straight percentage”). That’s very Republican of you! I don’t mind a progressive tax system with deductions. You said, “There are problems that cannot be fixed by us as individuals, collectively or by experts. Goes back to (i think need for) things like "grace," …“ Yes, and I added ”leadership” to that. Real leaders don’t offer simple solutions…which was my contention when discussing income inequality/disparity. On the Left, many gloss over the cause of that and go to “tax the rich” as a simple solution to their political outlook. That’s not leadership. It’s being a demagogue. But, sorry to repeat myself, we should be the first step in fixing a problem we create. Sometimes, we don’t need to go to the doctor, so to speak. You said, “i think that there was a time when "conservative" meant "dislike [of] all tax, in general." Both sides of our political parties approve of taxes because both want to spend, the distinctions are where the money is spent and who pays for it. But, at least in current times, the "conservative" assertion of being anti tax is disingenuous at best.“ Well, I’m not the defender of conservatives. But small-c conservatives generally want low taxes believing people can make the choices for themselves Ultimately, what broke the power of the nobility and Monarchy across Western societies, first by personal finance and then by thought -- the market. At a not –so-distant time, the ‘lord of the manor’ would have disciplined you and I for this very convo in his fiefdom. This being a market of thought where time spent is the currency. We would have been branded "trouble-makers." You said, “To me, the bigger consideration is social. At what point does one reach the stage of "no financial worries." …To me, a question would be, what constitutes "extreme," and some would argue that even asking the question is unfair…” I fight against these ideas somewhat vehemently, with words like fair/unfair, and others. I do not believe in moralizing wealth or lack of same. No one deserves either. I despise demagogue politicians who use these notions for popular support, populism. I challenge those who think this way to reposition the question to a global perspective. How would you feel if you personally had to pay $5k/yr into some sort of global wealth tax since the US is so wealthy. Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, is well over 1billion people with a median income ~$10k/yr. In a (fictitious) Global Congress, they could join with others - through populist popular vote -- to make that happen. From their perspective, does any American deserve $80k/yr or even $40k/yr. Probably not. From their perspective, are they right? Probably. That’s not to say those with more shouldn’t pay more. But I don’t accept the idea where we “take from these people” to “give to these people.” And that’s why I jumped to “cause of the problem” and not purely “problem identification” in the context of income disparity. You posed the Q: “What are the social questions/ramifications in a social system that relies on taxation? I’d suggest this needs to be broadened before it can be answered. The concept has been around since the advent of democracy: What are our individual responsibilities to our society and what should government do to support and enforce? Government support and enforcement costs money. You posed the Q: “Whose standard of living is most impacted by taxes? This needs context. The wealthiest pay the most in absolute value per household but need government the least. The poorest pay the least to government per household but need the most from it. That plots out to some kind of “X” with an intersection that changes over time, balance – changing for better or for worse. but there’s no right answer. You posed the Qs: "Do social systems that rely on taxation benefit all equally? What constitutes benefit? “ All rely on taxation. Benefit is referential – national defense: everyone indirectly, a food program: the poorest of us directly, etc. None of these issues, though, have an absolute answer. So, is there a direction you’re going? For instance, should the government have programs dedicated to one group of people? If so, how can that be used for tyranny? Here’s are questions for you: How does a government remain solvent? Isn’t volume of taxation driven by the activities of the government, what it takes on? Regardless of needs, how do you manage capability?

@tallslenderguy I saw your last post before I have to do a a bunch of stuff today. Two quick-hits to respond before something more thorough: Re: "just blow it up" no issue from me. agree on all points. It happened, can't change the past, move on...it's a great opportunity in the future. You asked: "Would you go into some detail about what you see as "the left [getting] their way previously" that would have resulted in "Trump being in charge of so much more!" " Let's say Biden had been able to create UHC, for example. How would you feel with Trump and RFK Jr leading our national healthcare system... not just the payment of it via ACA.

I should be clearer on this part: in 80s-90s, liberals (as the the Left was then called) said the same thing re: Walmart that I am saying on Amazon (as a case study, but can be applied elsewhere). The Republican trickledown response: their cheaper prices are better for consumers and justify the loss of jobs, local-ism, and more corporate consolidation. This, in part, is what gave rise to the liberal-driven farmers' market boom of the early 90s.

@tallslenderguy you said, “ i'll be vulnerable a guess that we agree that trickledown economics doesn't work the way its proponents assert?” Trickledown economics is absolute hokum. Conceptually, to me, it has an echo of the Great Chain of Being, suggesting people “have their place” and that are “betters” created by a god. I’ll leave it to Wikipedia to describe both that "concept" and trickledown. But I don’t believe wealthy are better positioned to know how/where to innovate. Regulation and taxation can harm development and innovation, sure, but sometimes that’s perfectly fine -- if not preferred outright. The reason why I said “it’s the opposite” of what I was describing is the implication of trickledown that lower prices justify consumer spending – in fact, that was kinda your point!. 😃 My point, we should use our collective demand to DO SOMETHING about things we don’t like STARTING with their causes, NOT drift to lower prices as justification. But if those creating the problem and care about the problem aren't moved to DO something that problem by their own actions, I'm out. It's the "stop hitting yourself" argument. 😃 Everything starts with the individual in a free society. As far as the Amazon example. I wasn’t trying to personalize like it may have come across, just make it relatable. But yes, we make a vote everyday with our purchasing decisions. This is why boycotts have worked in the past, in varying contexts. In an electoral context, it’s why they say, “every vote counts.” That’s either true or false. I think it's true, collective effort can make an impact. Your right, the trail is endless. But the question is, where do you start in terms of solving a problem: by your own actions or demand someone else fix things for you? you said, “…but the smallest and richest group of people is benefiting many times more than the majority middle and lower wage earners. But it was not always that way.” Now I know where you were going. Yes, part of that is reduced manufacturing/blue collar jobs due to automation and trade, women in the workforce leading to greater separation in household incomes (dual- vs single-income homes) which has elongated household-level disparity, among others. So much in this space to discuss, …the middle 60% are at 73% of prior wealth (if memory serves) in the trend while lower and higher wealth groups have grown by ~135% or better. I think I got that right and where you were going?? Can you elaborate on your thoughts? you said, “What are the social questions/ramifications in a social system that relies on taxation? A few questions: Whose standard of living is most impacted by taxes? Do social systems that rely on taxation benefit all equally? What constitutes benefit? “ Taxation is a massive topic with varying types that hit different groups more than others. Our political parties align to whichever system/type benefits their supporters more / costs them the least. E.g., conservatives opt for consumption taxes – sales taxes, if they had to choose a type (but dislike all tax, in general). And so on. But your questions need more detail – are you assuming some type of government spending plan created by the revenue from taxes. That is, no one benefits from taxes more than others, if say, that revenue is spent on national defense – except the contractors. But I'm opposed to a targeted tax on one group or class of people to pay for a program for another group or class. It's the definition of economic class warfare... and, through history, has been used by despots, oligarchs, and monarchs to get people on their side, including ending democracy. That starts with Ancient Greece and through modern times. What flummoxes me about our politics today, if the Left had got their way previously, Trump would be in charge of so much more! And yet, no seems to stop and think about that. Or the problems a different despot-in-training could create. To paraphrase Blanche Devereaux, "I'm flummoxed, just flummoxed. Flummoxed is the only way to describe how...flummoxed I am!" As far as the election topic, we traded info on data privately. Is there a follow-up?

@Pozzible But: re money and tradition, that's what I mean by motivation. There's MORE motivation to join the two main parties...as Sanders and Trump stated in 2016. And that was intentional by the founders -- by creating a President and not allowing the Prime Minister to be head of state, re populism and checks-and-balances. If the PM were head of state, there would be motivation for splintering. You wrote: "But I’d be willing to bet that the Republican house would have been dissolved during their 8 week tantrum and absence from DC" Why? There wouldn't have been a 'no confidence' vote brought by Reps in the House... they wouldn't have voted themselves out. And Dems don't have a majority. If a faction of a "Rep-like coalition" broke away, it depends. Canada and the UK, for example, allow minority rule. In that case, Reps would have to call snap elections on themselves...which I don't think would have happened. And what would likely happen first would have been a change in leadership (which can happen here too, and did with McCarthy). But even in a change of leader scenario, not even 10% of the remaining "Rep-like coalition" group would have called on Johnson to step down from within. So, I don't see any possible change. And, even if he could have done so in a what-if scenario, why would Trump have called for it? Let's stick with the UK to articulate: Careful What You Wish For Labour has tanked since their 2024 win. Reform (MAGA-equivalent) has gained so much to not only be the leading party but, in seat estimates, are breaking outright majority rule in simulations of "if the election were held today" tests. Turn-over of government -- if that's your thing -- works both ways. Over time, Republicans would gain by it just as much as Democrats. But, like I said above, most parliamentary governments are 5 or more year terms. The average of Germany, France, and the UK is 3.5 years (thanks AI, so I didn't have to calc!!) including snap elections over last 25 years. Our House election is 2 years with Presidential, obviously, 4 years. So things are just as fast or faster, broadly. You said, "If you had a small faction of Greens, the majority wouldn’t be able to automatically prevent bringing legislation to the floor." I've never understood this argument. In my view, if the far-left can't get the moderate/center-left support on something, why would anyone on the R-side of the isle support? And the same in reverse. This argument is usually pushed by populists politicians of both left and right extremes -- it's like the 'tell'. By "bringing to the floor" and, assuming you force a vote, it's used to force others on YOUR side to vote for it or face a backlash -- and possible primary challenge. And it breaks down trust. On top of that, Pelosi brought many bills to the floor and passed them -- which just died in the Senate even with Dems leading that body as they weren't bi-partisan with ability to break 60-vote threshold/filibuster. I asked AI this Q as I remembered the Dem-on-Dem fights: In 2014, Pelosi fully passed 340 bills while the Dem-led Senate passed only 38 of them due to above reason... and Obama was in WH! I claim no correctness to the counts -- just remember the fights.