There are so many errors of logic (and science) in this article, its difficult to know where to begin. But for starters...
1) "Actual communism is bad for your health".
Using the term 'communism' to describe the widely varying socio-economic systems in socialist block betrays a lack of rigor. Soviets used the more accurate term for their common social system, "socialism", not "communism". The parties were Communist, not the societies.
2) Socialism only began in 1950
The data proffered is from 1950 until today. Excluding socialist countries health history prior to 1950 and concluding "Communism is bad for your health" boarders on prevarication. Here's the actual history of health in Russia during socialism, compared to capitalism:
Millions of lives were saved by socialism, despite the 27,000,000 Soviet lives destroyed by capitalism of Nazi Germany. One wonders how the impact of capitalism's WWII impact on "health" and life expectancy could have escaped the notice of an objective observer.
3) "Bad for your health"
If one is trying to evaluate "health" of a population, life expectancy is not the best measure. Especially for measuring the change in overall health over time. Infant mortality can rise, while mortality of older people decreases, while life expectancy could remain flat.
In general, infant mortality is the gold standard of population health, rather than life expectancy: "The infant mortality rate (IMR) is often regarded as a barometer for overall welfare of a community or country." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6681443/)
4) Infant mortality since 1920
One more indicator of the superior health status of populations under socialism:
I do appreciate your criticisms (really!), but they come across as a poor read of the mood of the article. From the very start you're objecting to the *mood* of the article - Is it not OK to joke about political or economic systems you hate? Or do modern communists simply lack a sense of humor?
No, take your own advice and take the square root to find r; the fit scarcely changes. I'm no fan of communism, but ultimately this dataset doesn't show what you seem to want it to; the year 2000 is the primary turning point.
Capitalism or Communism, both require that you first win the 'birth lottery', if you be the son of Musk, or son of Xi, you win, and your life is splendid;
If you don't win the birth-lottery in say USA or CHINA, then your life sucks
....
Yep, there are just too many layers of 'obfuscation' for any moron to even fathom, but all is certainly hopeless, for the simple fact that its hard enough to get rich to even play the 'great game', let alone keep your money which a JP-Morgan said "It's not what you make, its what you keep"
Little people are fucked by birth may 2-3% become wealth&aware, maybe 0.01% keep their wealth generation2generation into perpetuity; Maybe 0.001% even get 'real education'.
It's not so much 'globalists' like I always say most can't even define the 'enemy'
...
Problem is like Casey so well defined, "When all the public believes is a LIE", where do you even fucking begin in terms of an organized revolution???
...
The PLAN was explained long ago to me by a patriarch in a family, one of my family's married into, at some point the billionaire patriarch took me aside and said 'would you like to ivest in a fund that would ensure your children are rich forever', I said no thanks, I would prefer my children be born poor and have work for their wealth forever;
But I did dig deeper, it turns out there are these 'actuarial' companys in London that for an 'investment' will guarantee that all offspring get say $1M USD/year for life from 18 to death; Forever for all spawn; This family in particular made its wealth in Shipping from Seattle to the Yukon the 1898 gold-rush, they had invested in these UK wealth-funds and now 4th generation 100's of grand-kids were all getting $1M/USD year, and $5M USD at 21 to do as they wished; Forever;
Now to make this all happen, one must plan out 2-4 generations, this is why we say "All wars are banker wars", but that is not true the Bankers are not the planners, or the actuarial investors; But these men do plan the wars, and decide which countrys land collapse in value (ukraine today), and which don't, the old BUY-LOW, SELL-HIGH scam, and they always win every bet;
Very interesting thanks. I note that qualitatively the increase after 1990 is similar, but delayed (it seems that it takes ten years for the effect to come into place. )
This suggests to me:
1. There is SOME hope for western countries and policies of support for natality. ON the other hand, that is the effect of a dramatic change like the fall of communism
2. I find the comparison of the speed of change for LE and TFR interesting. I have seen the drastic change in LE in Bosnia Herzegovina in the graph uploaded by John Rawls and that tells me that the measurement of LE allows to pick up a change across age cohorts (more than 15 years occurring in a span of 3-5 years around the period of the war of 1992-1995).
Now think of the change in the figure in the introduction of the post. If you are a middle age old person that has spent a lifetime of drinking and smoking the change of regime is not going to help you much. So now I wonder whether the change we see is due in some or perhaps large part to a change of mortality at younger age, infant mortality and so on. It would be interesting to compare the mortality rate by age in 1980 and 2000 and see what produced the overall change. No need to do it (smile), just curious.
Notice the immediate dip in the Russia graph? (and many of the other countries) The introduction of "capitalism" to Russia saw state assets sold off to western billionaires causing insane hyperinflation in the double digits for two consecutive years. People couldn't afford their own homes and turned to drugs. This is why fertility in many of these countries is so low despite them being so conservative. This neo-liberal "shock therapy" killed an estimated 1 million Russians.
Neo-liberal capitalism also destroyed Yugoslavia and tanked public health in those countries as well. Living standards and health care access plummeted which is responsible for the immediate decrease in life expectancy after the fall of communism. The rest seems rather linear after these countries recovered from the American organized looting operation.
Not saying communism is ideal, but financializing public resources like housing and health care is extremely destructive and killed a lot of people at the expense of a few western billionaires.
Fun fact: there are less drug addicted, homeless and obese in China than in America with about 1/4 the population. They have a higher life expectancy too ;)
"one in eight Vietnamese and Chinese Americans had obesity"
Huh. This is about twice the the national obesity rate for China, but less than a third of the rate for the rest of America. Huh. But never mind that; the point of this post was life expectancy. So let's see...
"As the fastest growing racial group in the United States, understanding the health patterns of Asians is important to addressing health gaps in American society... Chinese had the highest life expectancy (males e0 = 86.8; females e0 = 91.3)"
That's strange; even though they're fatter here, they're living a decade *longer* than in mainland China. But how - how could they be fatter here and still longer living? It's almost as though they're less healthy, and yet somehow survive anyway living out their old age in a Western country than they would under the weird pseudo-Communist environment of their native China.
One can model change in life expectancy as function of political regime, which will show the contrast for communism vs. capitalism. Here it was enough to show the USSR alone because life expectancy is already known to increase in the West in that time period.
There are so many errors of logic (and science) in this article, its difficult to know where to begin. But for starters...
1) "Actual communism is bad for your health".
Using the term 'communism' to describe the widely varying socio-economic systems in socialist block betrays a lack of rigor. Soviets used the more accurate term for their common social system, "socialism", not "communism". The parties were Communist, not the societies.
2) Socialism only began in 1950
The data proffered is from 1950 until today. Excluding socialist countries health history prior to 1950 and concluding "Communism is bad for your health" boarders on prevarication. Here's the actual history of health in Russia during socialism, compared to capitalism:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy?time=1920..latest&country=~RUS
Millions of lives were saved by socialism, despite the 27,000,000 Soviet lives destroyed by capitalism of Nazi Germany. One wonders how the impact of capitalism's WWII impact on "health" and life expectancy could have escaped the notice of an objective observer.
3) "Bad for your health"
If one is trying to evaluate "health" of a population, life expectancy is not the best measure. Especially for measuring the change in overall health over time. Infant mortality can rise, while mortality of older people decreases, while life expectancy could remain flat.
In general, infant mortality is the gold standard of population health, rather than life expectancy: "The infant mortality rate (IMR) is often regarded as a barometer for overall welfare of a community or country." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6681443/)
4) Infant mortality since 1920
One more indicator of the superior health status of populations under socialism:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1042801/russia-all-time-infant-mortality-rate/
Holy cringe, are communists really still using the "but it wasn't true communism" meme?
I do appreciate your criticisms (really!), but they come across as a poor read of the mood of the article. From the very start you're objecting to the *mood* of the article - Is it not OK to joke about political or economic systems you hate? Or do modern communists simply lack a sense of humor?
>Much better fit (R²=.69).
No, take your own advice and take the square root to find r; the fit scarcely changes. I'm no fan of communism, but ultimately this dataset doesn't show what you seem to want it to; the year 2000 is the primary turning point.
I recommend adding in capitalist nations or aggregates like "Europe" with the same level of analysis. What does that tell us.
That was based on a small sample size. China has a larger population and after liberated by communist party in 1949, our life exp has increased two fold https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041350/life-expectancy-china-all-time/#:~:text=Life%20expectancy%20in%20China%201850%2D2020&text=Life%20expectancy%20in%20China%20was,to%2076.6%20years%20in%202020. .Actual Capitalism is bad for your health
What difference does it make?
Capitalism or Communism, both require that you first win the 'birth lottery', if you be the son of Musk, or son of Xi, you win, and your life is splendid;
If you don't win the birth-lottery in say USA or CHINA, then your life sucks
....
Yep, there are just too many layers of 'obfuscation' for any moron to even fathom, but all is certainly hopeless, for the simple fact that its hard enough to get rich to even play the 'great game', let alone keep your money which a JP-Morgan said "It's not what you make, its what you keep"
Little people are fucked by birth may 2-3% become wealth&aware, maybe 0.01% keep their wealth generation2generation into perpetuity; Maybe 0.001% even get 'real education'.
It's not so much 'globalists' like I always say most can't even define the 'enemy'
...
Problem is like Casey so well defined, "When all the public believes is a LIE", where do you even fucking begin in terms of an organized revolution???
...
The PLAN was explained long ago to me by a patriarch in a family, one of my family's married into, at some point the billionaire patriarch took me aside and said 'would you like to ivest in a fund that would ensure your children are rich forever', I said no thanks, I would prefer my children be born poor and have work for their wealth forever;
But I did dig deeper, it turns out there are these 'actuarial' companys in London that for an 'investment' will guarantee that all offspring get say $1M USD/year for life from 18 to death; Forever for all spawn; This family in particular made its wealth in Shipping from Seattle to the Yukon the 1898 gold-rush, they had invested in these UK wealth-funds and now 4th generation 100's of grand-kids were all getting $1M/USD year, and $5M USD at 21 to do as they wished; Forever;
Now to make this all happen, one must plan out 2-4 generations, this is why we say "All wars are banker wars", but that is not true the Bankers are not the planners, or the actuarial investors; But these men do plan the wars, and decide which countrys land collapse in value (ukraine today), and which don't, the old BUY-LOW, SELL-HIGH scam, and they always win every bet;
It seems there is different model in caucasus, yugoslavia and central asia. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy?time=1970..2001&country=SVN~ALB~ARM~AZE~BIH~KAZ~KGZ~MNE~TJK~TKM~UZB
Big ethnic difference, hence why I only used the Europeans.
How do the same graphs look like for TFR? Maybe also adding a comparison group, say western europe.
Looks the same. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-born-per-woman?tab=chart&time=1950..latest&country=RUS~UKR~POL~LVA~LTU~EST~CZE~SVN~Slovak+Republic~SRB~HRV~ROU~BGR~BLR
Very interesting thanks. I note that qualitatively the increase after 1990 is similar, but delayed (it seems that it takes ten years for the effect to come into place. )
This suggests to me:
1. There is SOME hope for western countries and policies of support for natality. ON the other hand, that is the effect of a dramatic change like the fall of communism
2. I find the comparison of the speed of change for LE and TFR interesting. I have seen the drastic change in LE in Bosnia Herzegovina in the graph uploaded by John Rawls and that tells me that the measurement of LE allows to pick up a change across age cohorts (more than 15 years occurring in a span of 3-5 years around the period of the war of 1992-1995).
Now think of the change in the figure in the introduction of the post. If you are a middle age old person that has spent a lifetime of drinking and smoking the change of regime is not going to help you much. So now I wonder whether the change we see is due in some or perhaps large part to a change of mortality at younger age, infant mortality and so on. It would be interesting to compare the mortality rate by age in 1980 and 2000 and see what produced the overall change. No need to do it (smile), just curious.
Notice the immediate dip in the Russia graph? (and many of the other countries) The introduction of "capitalism" to Russia saw state assets sold off to western billionaires causing insane hyperinflation in the double digits for two consecutive years. People couldn't afford their own homes and turned to drugs. This is why fertility in many of these countries is so low despite them being so conservative. This neo-liberal "shock therapy" killed an estimated 1 million Russians.
Neo-liberal capitalism also destroyed Yugoslavia and tanked public health in those countries as well. Living standards and health care access plummeted which is responsible for the immediate decrease in life expectancy after the fall of communism. The rest seems rather linear after these countries recovered from the American organized looting operation.
Not saying communism is ideal, but financializing public resources like housing and health care is extremely destructive and killed a lot of people at the expense of a few western billionaires.
Fun fact: there are less drug addicted, homeless and obese in China than in America with about 1/4 the population. They have a higher life expectancy too ;)
> Fun fact: there are less drug addicted, homeless and obese in China than
> in America with about 1/4 the population. They have a higher life expectancy too
Fun suggestion: Let's try breaking down this comparison by ethnicity. What about ethnic Chinese living in the US? How are they doing?
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/2022/variations-exist-among-asian-american-adults-obesity
"one in eight Vietnamese and Chinese Americans had obesity"
Huh. This is about twice the the national obesity rate for China, but less than a third of the rate for the rest of America. Huh. But never mind that; the point of this post was life expectancy. So let's see...
https://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article/58/5/1631/178726/Examining-Ethnic-Variation-in-Life-Expectancy
"As the fastest growing racial group in the United States, understanding the health patterns of Asians is important to addressing health gaps in American society... Chinese had the highest life expectancy (males e0 = 86.8; females e0 = 91.3)"
That's strange; even though they're fatter here, they're living a decade *longer* than in mainland China. But how - how could they be fatter here and still longer living? It's almost as though they're less healthy, and yet somehow survive anyway living out their old age in a Western country than they would under the weird pseudo-Communist environment of their native China.
Welp, I'm confused. No way to explain this! ;)
Where is the control group?
You can look up academic studies of this. First I found. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953612008453
One can model change in life expectancy as function of political regime, which will show the contrast for communism vs. capitalism. Here it was enough to show the USSR alone because life expectancy is already known to increase in the West in that time period.
https://twitter.com/KirkegaardEmil/status/1653477680258400276/photo/1
😅😅