So @YouTube just took down a June 23 interview that Scott Atlas (@SWAtlasHoover) did with his employer, Stanford's @HooverInst, because it "contradicts the World Health Organization or local health authorities' medical information about COVID-19." hoover.org/research/docto…
Antitrust jurisprudence and regulation in the U.S. needs to be modernized on many fronts, especially to tackle the problem of multinational technology companies that attempt to impose a monopoly on information.
Fortunately, in this case, @HooverInst has published the transcript of the interview, so you can see for yourself what Scott Atlas had to say, and why @YouTube felt the need to censor it. hoover.org/research/docto…
Aside from the antitrust issues: Science is about constantly questioning established dogmas, and about having an open debate among people with different takes on the available evidence. To suppress that debate, as @YouTube did, is to oppose science.
Will @YouTube disclose the name of the person (or the person programming the algorithm) responsible? Is he/she/it more knowledgable, or less, about #COVID19 than @SWAtlasHoover? What specifically about Atlas' remarks did @YouTube find so dangerous for the public to consume?
Scott Atlas and I don't agree on everything—for example, our @FREOPP report on reopening schools is more nuanced than his position—but he has every right to his views, and contributes positively to the debate about lockdowns and reopening society. freopp.org/reopening-amer…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
(1/x) In advance of tonight's #VPDebate, I thought I'd comment on a @crampell piece falsely claiming that @JDVance wants to "destroy the health-care system." I know more about JD's views on health care than pretty much anyone outside of his team, due to firsthand interactions.
@crampell @JDVance (2/x) The @crampell piece is here: . It's full of misrepresentations of @JDVance's views. JD was against the GOP's repeal-and-replace efforts, because JD believes in universal coverage, as do I (though I supported AHCA/BCRA). washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/… nytimes.com/2017/07/21/opi…
@crampell @JDVance (3/x) @crampell makes an actuarially illiterate argument that it is *necessary* to overcharge young and healthy people for health insurance in order to have a functioning insurance system. This is the opposite of the truth. Overcharging the healthy blows up insurance markets.
🧵(1/x): I want to extend my sincerest congratulations to @JDVance1 for nomination as the GOP VP candidate. I have great respect for JD. There are things we disagree on (e.g. ) but many essential things we *do* agree on, as I will explain in this thread.
@JDVance1 (2/x) JD and I first got to know each other a few years after he graduated from law school. He shared my view that free-market alternatives to Obamacare should strive to achieve universal coverage, and that there was a role for government in doing so. nytimes.com/2017/07/21/opi…
@JDVance1 (3/x) The biggest obstacle to health reform isn't the left-right debate, but the contest between reformers and economic elites, the latter of whom benefit from high-cost health care. JD is absolutely right that economic elites, in many sectors of our economy, are self-serving.
A week ago, popular Substacker @HC_Richardson reiterated the widely held—but factually flawed—view of most on the left that wealthy Americans don't pay their "fair share" of taxes, and that we can fix this problem by adopting European tax policies. (1/x)
@HC_Richardson (2/x) It's true that OECD countries generally have higher tax burdens than the U.S. does. But they don't do it by taxing the rich more—but by taxing the *middle class* more through payroll & consumption taxes. U.S. depends much *more* on progressive income taxes.
@HC_Richardson (3/x) In your typical EU country, the VAT tax (somewhat comparable to US sales taxes) is 21%. That's what pays for EU welfare states. The lowest standard VAT rate in Europe is Luxembourg's, at 16%. taxfoundation.org/data/all/globa…
THREAD: I'm honored to announce today the publication of the Freedom Conservatism Statement of Principles, signed by over 80 leaders of the liberty movement. Its core idea is this: the thing that has made America great is *freedom*. freedomconservatism.org/p/freedom-cons…
As you know, more and more people on the left and the right reject the importance of liberty. Some of these people call themselves "national conservatives" even though they reject the American political tradition in favor of...Hungary's? Forget that.
The Freedom Conservatism statement of takes inspiration from the Sharon Statement, signed by a group of young conservatives at the home of William F. Buckley, Jr., in 1960. (Buckley, the founder @NRO, built the postwar American conservative movement.) yaf.org/news/the-sharo…
@JDVance1 The @JDVance1 I know has the potential to be a good, even great, senator someday. So I'll leave the ad hominem alone and stick to data and economics. (1) 1 million Ukrainian refugees don't live in Hungary. 2.12MM have crossed the border into Hungary; 2.08MM (98.4%) then left.
@JDVance1 ...Those 2.08 million Ukrainians who crossed into Hungary apparently believed that their families would face better prospects outside of Hungary than inside of it. (2) Hungary has a population of 9.7 million; it isn't plausible that a pop. increase of 0.3% caused 25% inflation.
@JDVance1 (3) The anti-immigration argument natcons usually supply is that immigration is *deflationary*; i.e., that immigrants drive down wages (and thereby prices) by competing with native-born labor. But in Hungary, natcons make the opposite argument: that immigration is inflationary.
(1/x) Natcons claim to speak for The People™, and not the "cocktail-party class," on all issues but especially immigration. Strangely, however, the views expressed by natcons at cocktail parties don't reflect those of the American public, especially wrt legal immigration.
(2/x) Natcons are not only critics of illegal immigration, but of *legal* immigration, seeking "much more restrictive policies" and even a "moratorium." But only 33% of *Rs* support reducing legal immigration. 61% say it should stay the same or increase. pewresearch.org/politics/2018/…
(3/x) And, as a reminder, Republicans are a minority of the voting public. Overall, only 24% of Americans support reducing legal immigration. 32% support increasing it, and 38% want it to stay the same. Reducing legal immigration is, in fact, an anti-populist position.