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
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…
(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.
Climate & energy policy debates in the U.S. & elsewhere focus a lot on how to reduce & constrict U.S. energy use (because wind & solar can't meet current U.S. energy needs; in 2022, renewable capacity is 311 GW out of 1145 GW total).
But almost no one talks about how renewables alone are going to meet *future* U.S. energy demand. @EIAGov projects that by 2050, U.S. generating capacity will have to increase by 57% just to meet demand from population & economic growth, electric cars, etc.
In a new paper for @FREOPP, "The Urgency of Rethinking U.S. Nuclear Energy Regulation," @grantadever walks through why nuclear is the only path to a lower-carbon world with affordable, reliable, accessible energy. So what's the holdup? freopp.org/rethinking-u-s…
According to my sources, the SEC/DOJ "investigation" of @ElonMusk is timed to thwart his bid for @Twitter. Normally, in the absence of a better offer, Twitter's board is effectively obligated by its fiduciary duty to shareholders to accept Musk's offer. If true, it's scandalous.
@elonmusk@Twitter (By "if true" I mean, if true that the investigation is an effort to thwart the acquisition.)
Elon has several options if the board uses the excuse of the SEC/DOJ investigation to reject his offer. For example, he can attempt to go directly to the shareholders (which, again, works in the absence of a better offer). Not sure whether he is willing to, though.
This @bgmasters campaign ad pretty much crystallizes @FREOPP scholars' work on the rising cost of living: housing, healthcare, education are the biggest drivers.