2016 Economic Crisis Thread - Duck and Cover?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > 2016 Economic Crisis Thread - Duck and Cover?

Will the global economy implode in 2016?
	We're hosed - I have stocked up on canned goods
	My private security guards will shoot the paupers
	We'll be good or at least coast along
	I have no earthly clue

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

View Results

Avalanche: Feb 2, 2007

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

Given that we are the only first world nation with a fully private healthcare system, and that cost inflation is worse for us by orders of magnitude than anyone else with a comparable economy, can't we can make a rational case for causation here?

Maybe it's just as simple as "Where healthcare can be driven by profit motive, it will be." Maybe not a whole lot more analysis really needs to be done, and maybe if we are able to nationalize the system and negotiate prices as a single buyer, the costs will necessarily go down, as they have for everyone else who has done this.

edit: I'm actually shocked that you would even present neonatal infant care as a case for cost inflation when we have a worse infant mortality rate than loving Slovakia.

Woah woah woah,

Slovakia isn't some podunk backwards eastern European slav shithold. It's a podunk backwards western-ish European slav shithole. They at least mix penicillin in with all of the vodka and pepper they give their little ones by the teaspoon to get them to stop screaming.

But seriously, yea. I wonder if there are any significant outlier states where infant mortality is through the roof vs. other states like Cali where a hosed up pregnancy will result in mom+kid being CareFlighted across the state to UC Davis/UCLA Mattel Children's Hospital/Childrens Hospital Orange County/Stanford/UCSF/probably like 8 other hospitals with extremely competent Pediatric units I'm not listing.

I'm guessing shitholes like Kentucky, Alaska, Nevada, Montana, Idaho, etc. significantly raise the infant mortality national average stat.

# ? Jan 9, 2017 09:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 06:00

Paradoxish: Dec 19, 2003; Will you stop going crazy in there?

Avalanche posted:

But seriously, yea. I wonder if there are any significant outlier states where infant mortality is through the roof vs. other states like Cali where a hosed up pregnancy will result in mom+kid being CareFlighted across the state to UC Davis/UCLA Mattel Children's Hospital/Childrens Hospital Orange County/Stanford/UCSF/probably like 8 other hospitals with extremely competent Pediatric units I'm not listing.

I'm guessing shitholes like Kentucky, Alaska, Nevada, Montana, Idaho, etc. significantly raise the infant mortality national average stat.

http://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/2015-annual-report/measure/IMR/state/ALL

# ? Jan 9, 2017 10:07

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

"America is special which is why our children die at higher rates than a former USSR satellite and there simply isn't anything to be done because the political capital isn't there." -Serious pundits and politicians.

# ? Jan 9, 2017 14:17

Ynglaur: Oct 9, 2013; The Malta Conference, anyone?

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

Given that we are the only first world nation with a fully private healthcare system, and that cost inflation is worse for us by orders of magnitude than anyone else with a comparable economy, can't we can make a rational case for causation here?

Maybe it's just as simple as "Where healthcare can be driven by profit motive, it will be." Maybe not a whole lot more analysis really needs to be done, and maybe if we are able to nationalize the system and negotiate prices as a single buyer, the costs will necessarily go down, as they have for everyone else who has done this.

edit: I'm actually shocked that you would even present neonatal infant care as a case for cost inflation when we have a worse infant mortality rate than loving Slovakia.

Perhaps, though keep in mind that the US effectively subsidizes the world's pharmaceutical research right now. In other words, "Yes, the US private market drives higher costs because companies are searching for higher profits," but also, "The US is the only private market, and therefore the only place to realize profits." The answer to this question may be legitimately "yes", but are we willing to dramatically slow the pace of pharmaceutical innovation in exchange for socialized healthcare?

Edit: I realize I'm oversimplifying some things for the sake of a single example.

# ? Jan 9, 2017 14:31

Rated PG-34: Jul 1, 2004

Ynglaur posted:

Perhaps, though keep in mind that the US effectively subsidizes the world's pharmaceutical research right now. In other words, "Yes, the US private market drives higher costs because companies are searching for higher profits," but also, "The US is the only private market, and therefore the only place to realize profits." The answer to this question may be legitimately "yes", but are we willing to dramatically slow the pace of pharmaceutical innovation in exchange for socialized healthcare?

Edit: I realize I'm oversimplifying some things for the sake of a single example.

Lol. What a joke. Nationalize drug companies while we're at it.

Most of the real pharmaceutical innovations happen in universities as pharmaceuticals are only interested in short term profits.

# ? Jan 9, 2017 14:51

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

Aren't pharmaceuticals more reliant on buying successful start-ups these days anyways than in-house R&D?

I'm always reading about them spending more on advertising than R&D and that R&D largely going to poo poo like non-patent infringing knockoffs of competitors' existing lines

# ? Jan 9, 2017 14:54

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

Big pharma uses far more money on advertising than they do on research, and much of that research goes into developing copycat drugs for the products of their competitors. All in all this doesn't exactly seem like the best possible way of running things.

# ? Jan 9, 2017 14:57

Rated PG-34: Jul 1, 2004

Accretionist posted:

Aren't pharmaceuticals more reliant on buying successful start-ups these days anyways than in-house R&D?

I'm always reading about them spending more on advertising than R&D and that R&D largely going to poo poo like non-patent infringing knockoffs of competitors' existing lines

That and partnerships with university research labs. Publicly subsidize the costs, privatize the profits.

# ? Jan 9, 2017 15:02

Rated PG-34: Jul 1, 2004

What would we do without scandal ridden big pharma. Whatever would we do. Won't someone please think of big pharma.

# ? Jan 9, 2017 15:06

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

Ynglaur posted:

Perhaps, though keep in mind that the US effectively subsidizes the world's pharmaceutical research right now. In other words, "Yes, the US private market drives higher costs because companies are searching for higher profits," but also, "The US is the only private market, and therefore the only place to realize profits." The answer to this question may be legitimately "yes", but are we willing to dramatically slow the pace of pharmaceutical innovation in exchange for socialized healthcare?

Edit: I realize I'm oversimplifying some things for the sake of a single example.

There's no reason to believe that socializing our healthcare system would slow down pharma or biotech innovation. Nobody is suggesting nationalizing the pharmaceutical industry. It's entirely possible that our pharma research is successful despite our healthcare system, not because of it. In no other country does a pharmaceutical company need to spend three times the cost of researching a drug to market it.

# ? Jan 9, 2017 16:28

Xae: Jan 19, 2005

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

edit: I'm actually shocked that you would even present neonatal infant care as a case for cost inflation when we have a worse infant mortality rate than loving Slovakia.

Countries use differing definitions of live birth and viable birth.

The USA uses the broadest definition. Many second and third world countries use more narrow versions.

The WHO did a study on this in '06 and concluded that until everyone is using the same set of criteria it is impossible to compare across countries accurately.

# ? Jan 9, 2017 16:52

Ynglaur: Oct 9, 2013; The Malta Conference, anyone?

How much pharmaceutical research is done outside the US, compared to in the US?

The current model is interesting. Only big pharma companies can afford to run clinical trials at the level required by the FDA, but only small start-ups take on the risk of research. The result is weird: in aggreggate the pharma industry has barely broken even in the past 20 years, but this is because the vast majority of pharma startups fail. In other words, the aggregate profit of the industry is close to $0, but the profits and losses are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

This definitely creates odd incentives, especially when pharmaceutical companies are allowed to advertise direct to consumers.

# ? Jan 9, 2017 16:53

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

Xae posted:

Countries use differing definitions of live birth and viable birth.

The USA uses the broadest definition. Many second and third world countries use more narrow versions.

The WHO did a study on this in '06 and concluded that until everyone is using the same set of criteria it is impossible to compare across countries accurately.

Oh I see. So, America just has a different definition of "baby" than every other country, which is why by every measure and report it only seems to have a horrifying infant mortality rate. When in fact, we have the best babies, really the most amazing number of deaths per 1,000 live births. Everyone says that, they say "America has a really incredible rate of baby death". That's what they say, it's really incredible. The best.

edit: Did you know the WHO actually studies and publishes data on infant mortality rates? In fact, they have a whole page on the methodology and sources for their infant mortality data. Funny stuff to publish for an organization that "concluded" a decade ago that it's an inaccurate metric.

Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Jan 9, 2017

# ? Jan 9, 2017 17:17

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

Ynglaur posted:

In other words, the aggregate profit of the industry is close to $0, but the profits and losses are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

This is a heck of an assertion that I would love to see some sources for.

# ? Jan 9, 2017 17:19

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Hey Britain hows that Brexit going? Oh, pound hit another multi-week low? Full speed ahead? Good job.

# ? Jan 9, 2017 17:34

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Now that we're properly into 2017 it might not be a bad idea to start a new thread that can at least act as an aggregator for whatever bad pieces of economic news is cropping up around the world.

# ? Jan 9, 2017 17:41

Xae: Jan 19, 2005

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

Oh I see. So, America just has a different definition of "baby" than every other country, which is why by every measure and report it only seems to have a horrifying infant mortality rate. When in fact, we have the best babies, really the most amazing number of deaths per 1,000 live births. Everyone says that, they say "America has a really incredible rate of baby death". That's what they say, it's really incredible. The best.

edit: Did you know the WHO actually studies and publishes data on infant mortality rates? In fact, they have a whole page on the methodology and sources for their infant mortality data. Funny stuff to publish for an organization that "concluded" a decade ago that it's an inaccurate metric.

Child mortality != Infant mortality.

quote:

The legal requirements for registration of fetal deaths and live births vary between and even
within countries. WHO recommends that, if possible, all fetuses and infants weighing at least
500 g at birth, whether alive or dead, should be included in the statistics. The inclusion in national
statistics of fetuses and infants weighing between 500 g and 1000 g is recommended both because
of its inherent value and because it improves the coverage of reporting at 1000 g and over. For
international comparison, 1000 g and/or 28 weeks gestation is recommended.
Evaluation of reporting of early deaths has shown that we may be underestimating perinatal deaths
in many countries. It is likely that the decision whether to classify a delivery long before term as a
spontaneous abortion or as a birth, which must be registered, may be affected by the circumstances
in which the birth occurred and by the cultural and religious backgrounds of the people making the
decision, as described for the past (15). For example, a stillbirth at 22 weeks of gestation must be
registered as such: at 21 weeks and six days, registration is not required.
Underestimates associated with maternal death in high-mortality settings may be as high as 5% for
stillbirths and 3% for neonatal deaths. These estimates are based on Egyptian survey data for 1993
and 2000 (18,19).
Developed-country historical data suggest that, as smaller and sicker babies survive, an increasing
number of small babies are registered. The extent to which this affects mortality rates is difficult to
assess (15).
Given these differences in recording the fact of death, it is not surprising that there are even greater
differences in the way in which causes of stillbirths and neonatal deaths are recorded. One of the
objectives of this report is to stimulate interest in improving the quality of reporting and clinical
diagnosis of causes of perinatal death.

http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43444

The TL;DR is that the US record almost all births, even premature births, as live births.

Many countries classify premature or non viable births as either stillbirths or spontaneous abortions.

While the WHO has a definition they would like everyone to follow many developing countries do not use it.

Xae fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Jan 9, 2017

# ? Jan 9, 2017 18:08

Ynglaur: Oct 9, 2013; The Malta Conference, anyone?

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

This is a heck of an assertion that I would love to see some sources for.

Let me see if I can dig up a public source. I saw a slide from a couple years ago with the information, but I don't know if it was all publicly available given it had numbers for private companies as well.

# ? Jan 9, 2017 18:13

call to action: Jun 10, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Now's the time of year I usually pad out my Roth IRA, but I'm thinking about keeping my money in cash for the time being. There's got to be some sort of reckoning between the economic situation the world's in now and DOW 20,000!

# ? Jan 9, 2017 18:22

Dawncloack: Nov 26, 2007; ECKS DEE!; Nap Ghost

^^^^ I bet it's going to be really big. The Great Depression had a second part in 1932, why would the Great Recession be less?

CommieGIR posted:

Hey Britain hows that Brexit going? Oh, pound hit another multi-week low? Full speed ahead? Good job.

The thing is, the pound falling is kinda good for the UK.

The UK was suffering a bad case of the Dutch disease, that's when one particular industry exports so much that the currency used is very much in demand, thus raising its price. This might be good for that particular industry and it certainly looks good in the news, but every other industry that exports is hosed.

Usually this happens with oil, and for instance it's one big obstacle on the way of the diversification of the Russian economy. (ONE obstacle, there are many more).

In the UK it was the banking industry. So many governments and rich assholes wanted to place/launder their money in the UK, so they bought pounds, so the pound raised. Great for the banks, awful for any other industry that exports. Of course, imports become more expensive. And that gives another push to local industry. I bet we will see a lot of imports substituted in the UK in the coming years.

In short, a cheaper pound is probably more in line with the economic fundamentals of the countries. That it screws over the financial types is just another added bonus.

Dawncloack fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Jan 9, 2017

# ? Jan 9, 2017 18:41

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Dawncloack posted:

The thing is, the pound falling is kinda good for the UK.

The UK was suffering a bad case of the Dutch disease, that's when one particular industry exports so much that the currency used is very much in demand, thus raising its price. This might be good for that particular industry and it certainly looks good in the news, but every other industry that exports is hosed.

Usually this happens with oil, and for instance it's one big obstacle on the way of the diversification of the Russian economy. (ONE obstacle, there are many more).

In the UK it was the banking industry. So many governments and rich assholes wanted to place/launder their money in the UK, so they bought pounds, so the pound raised. Great for the banks, awful for any other industry that exports. Of course, imports become more expensive. And that gives another push to local industry. I bet we will see a lot of imports substituted in the UK in the coming years.

In short, a cheaper pound is probably more in line with the economic fundamentals of the countries. That it screws over the financial types is just another added bonus.

Nearly every British "Export" is owned by a foreign business.

# ? Jan 9, 2017 18:47

Dawncloack: Nov 26, 2007; ECKS DEE!; Nap Ghost

CommieGIR posted:

Nearly every British "Export" is owned by a foreign business.

Where does it pay taxes? Where are their employees located?

Edit: Let me defeat my own point here.

They probably pay very little in taxes because that's EU and Tory policy for you and they probably pay their workers poverty wages.

# ? Jan 9, 2017 19:03

Peel: Dec 3, 2007

Helsing posted:

Now that we're properly into 2017 it might not be a bad idea to start a new thread that can at least act as an aggregator for whatever bad pieces of economic news is cropping up around the world.

2017 Economic Crisis? Thread

# ? Jan 9, 2017 19:08

bird food bathtub: Aug 9, 2003; College Slice

Peel posted:

2017 Economic Crisis? Thread

Surely we can do better than that. It's really not a question of "if" at this point.

# ? Jan 9, 2017 19:23

Covok: May 27, 2013; Yet where is that woman now? Tell me, in what heave does she reside? None of them. Because no God bothered to listen or care. If that is what you think it means to be a God, then you and all your teachings are welcome to do as that poor women did. And vanish from these realms forever.

Thread Title: 2017 Economic Crisis Thread - The Second Great Depression Within Our Lifetime

# ? Jan 9, 2017 19:31

Paradoxish: Dec 19, 2003; Will you stop going crazy in there?

bird food bathtub posted:

Surely we can do better than that. It's really not a question of "if" at this point.

Sure it is. It could easily be 2018 or even 2019 before the other shoe drops. Something has to actually happen to push the economy into a recession and break the trend of eternal slow growth.

# ? Jan 9, 2017 19:32

Covok: May 27, 2013; Yet where is that woman now? Tell me, in what heave does she reside? None of them. Because no God bothered to listen or care. If that is what you think it means to be a God, then you and all your teachings are welcome to do as that poor women did. And vanish from these realms forever.

Paradoxish posted:

Sure it is. It could easily be 2018 or even 2019 before the other shoe drops. Something has to actually happen to push the economy into a recession and break the trend of eternal slow growth.

The repeal of the ACA and it's ripple effect could do it.

# ? Jan 9, 2017 19:33

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

Xae posted:

Child mortality != Infant mortality.

http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43444

The TL;DR is that the US record almost all births, even premature births, as live births.

Many countries classify premature or non viable births as either stillbirths or spontaneous abortions.

While the WHO has a definition they would like everyone to follow many developing countries do not use it.

Are you arguing that the ranking data from the CDC and the WHO itself is incorrect? Both data sets show the United States around 30th down the list of developed countries for infant mortality.

If it is incorrect, by how much and why exactly? If the WHO knows the data is inaccurate because of a reporting discrepency, do they take that into account when they publish their rankings? If not, why not, and why isn't that mentioned in the otherwise extremely verbose and complete dataset? If the WHO does correct for it, why does their data correlate so closely with the CDC?

Moreover, why do you want to dismiss this metric out of hand? Even if the data is as flawed as you claim, the countries above us on the list are not "developing" in any sense of the word. They are Finland, Japan, Portugal, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Norway, Korea, Spain, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Belgium, etc. All of which spend infinitely less than we do on healthcare, all of which inarguably let fewer babies die.

# ? Jan 9, 2017 19:40

Xae: Jan 19, 2005

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

Are you arguing that the ranking data from the CDC and the WHO itself is incorrect? Both data sets show the United States around 30th down the list of developed countries for infant mortality.

If it is incorrect, by how much and why exactly? If the WHO knows the data is inaccurate because of a reporting discrepency, do they take that into account when they publish their rankings? If not, why not, and why isn't that mentioned in the otherwise extremely verbose and complete dataset? If the WHO does correct for it, why does their data correlate so closely with the CDC?

Moreover, why do you want to dismiss this metric out of hand? Even if the data is as flawed as you claim, the countries above us on the list are not "developing" in any sense of the word. They are Finland, Japan, Portugal, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Norway, Korea, Spain, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Belgium, etc. All of which spend infinitely less than we do on healthcare, all of which inarguably let fewer babies die.

Most of that information is in my quote. The rest of it is in the document.

I'm not your secretary. It isn't my job to do your homework. It is your job to inform yourself, preferably before spew bullshit all over the place.

# ? Jan 9, 2017 19:49

Inferior Third Season: Jan 15, 2005

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

Oh I see. So, America just has a different definition of "baby" than every other country, which is why by every measure and report it only seems to have a horrifying infant mortality rate. When in fact, we have the best babies, really the most amazing number of deaths per 1,000 live births. Everyone says that, they say "America has a really incredible rate of baby death". That's what they say, it's really incredible. The best.

Our babies are living so much, that I'm getting sick and tired of babies living.

# ? Jan 9, 2017 19:59

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

quote:

All of your examples of problems in private industry are actually caused by government interference in the market. You just made my point for me. Healthcare and internet service are two of the BIGGEST. Government barriers to entry in both markets are the CAUSE of the higher prices and unbreakable monopolies. There's a reason large corporation don't OPPOSE higher government regulations, they SUPPORT them. Because it prices out competition.

The government has NOT built the 21st century, private industry has. The best examples are looking at the differences in private vs public sector goods. The reason cell phones have become so successful and lucrative, is because unlike landline telephones that are managed under government utility regulations, cell phones aren't as highly regulated. Consumer electronics FAR outpace ALL forms of government development technologies, because they are not burdened by the bureaucracy and politics of government contracting.

Source: 10 years of engineering experience as an employee of a private company that does TONS of government contract work. I can tell you're probably currently IN college, I'm guessing Sophomore year or lower. I took micro and macro economics my freshman year, and believed all the Keynesian crap I was fed as well. Once I starting thinking for myself and doing actual research, I realized how stupid concepts like the "business cycle" really are, because they attribute very easily identifiable consequences to "natural variation", like it's magic.

Government is nothing but bureaucracy. Politicians don't have knowledge or skill, only the monopoly on violence of the state, that allows them to steal trillions of dollars from the American people, waste 90% of it, and then blame their constant and repeated failures on not having enough money. The ACA web portal development fiasco is a wonderful example of how great government is at doing things that have literally been done by private industry for YEARS, but at 10 times the cost and 1/10th the success.

It's like, where do you even start.

# ? Jan 9, 2017 20:44

D.Ork Bimboolean: Aug 26, 2016

Covok posted:

Thread Title: 2017 Economic Crisis Thread - The Second Great Depression Within Our Lifetime

Thread Title: 2017 Economic Crisis Thread - Making 2016 Look Good in Retrospect

Thread Title: 2017 Economic Crisis Thread - No one saw THIS coming(we did)

Thread Title: 2017 Economic Crisis Thread - On a long enough timeline...

# ? Jan 9, 2017 20:48

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Xae posted:

Child mortality != Infant mortality.

http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43444

The TL;DR is that the US record almost all births, even premature births, as live births.

Many countries classify premature or non viable births as either stillbirths or spontaneous abortions.

While the WHO has a definition they would like everyone to follow many developing countries do not use it.

Here's a CDC study which specifically uses standardizing measures and the US is still among the worst ranked in the OECD.

International Comparisons of Infant Mortality and Related Factors: United States and Europe, 2010, pg. 2 posted:

In the United States and most European countries, no gestational
age or birthweight lower limit is placed on the reporting of live births
or infant deaths, although a few countries do have lower limits for birth
registration or reporting (7,8,10). Some studies have found variations
between countries in the distribution of births and infant deaths at
22�23 weeks of gestation, suggesting the possibility of variations in
reporting at these early gestational ages (11�13). Thus, events at less
than 24 weeks of gestation were excluded from the analysis (except
for Figure 1) to ensure international comparability. This is not meant to
minimize the importance of these early infant deaths, which contribute
substantially to the United States� overall infant mortality rate; rather,
the approach recognizes that accurate international comparisons may
not be possible for events at less than 24 weeks of gestation.

The Kitagawa method is a further development of direct standardization
that more precisely quantifies the relative contribution of
changes in variable-specific rates and in population composition to the
total changes in rates in cases where both are changing simultaneously
(14). In this report, the Kitagawa method is used to estimate the percent
contribution of differences in the distribution of births by gestational age,
and in gestational age-specific infant mortality rates to the overall
difference in infant mortality rates between countries. It is also used to
estimate the infant mortality rate that would have occurred, and the
number of infant deaths that could have been averted, had different
conditions been present

# ? Jan 9, 2017 20:50

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

Helsing posted:

Here's a CDC study which specifically uses standardizing measures and the US is still among the worst ranked in the OECD.

Well, this deepens the well. Why the gently caress does America have nearly twice as many preterm births as the UK?

# ? Jan 9, 2017 21:12

rkajdi: Sep 11, 2001; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

Well, this deepens the well. Why the gently caress does America have nearly twice as many preterm births as the UK?

Incredibly poor pre-natal care, plus the idea that many mothers have work even harder than usual to prove they shouldn't be fired for getting pregnant.

# ? Jan 9, 2017 21:14

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

We're now at the point in the argument when the defender of America's private healthcare system will start implying that the American population is uniquely unhealthy and a lack of personal responsibility is the primary driver of the difference in health outcomes.

# ? Jan 9, 2017 21:18

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

Xae posted:

Most of that information is in my quote. The rest of it is in the document.

I'm not your secretary. It isn't my job to do your homework. It is your job to inform yourself, preferably before spew bullshit all over the place.

According to the document you've linked, the WHO does in fact apply their corrections to the country rankings they publish. And guess what? It tracks almost identically with the data that the CDC publishes.

You're the one claiming that all the published data is wrong, and that the United States infant mortality rate is better than all the research seems to indicate. Where do you think it should rank instead, and why?

# ? Jan 9, 2017 21:18

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

Nobody is suggesting nationalizing the pharmaceutical industry.

I am.

Also all public transport, energy and insurance companies and banks, for a start.

Covok posted:

Thread Title: 2017 Economic Crisis Thread - The Second Great Depression Within Our Lifetime

Thread Title: 2017 Economic Crisis Thread - A Second Great Depression Has Hit The Economy

Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Jan 9, 2017

# ? Jan 9, 2017 21:37

call to action: Jun 10, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

All you need to do is unskew the data a bit and the US is A #1

# ? Jan 9, 2017 21:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 06:00

Xae: Jan 19, 2005

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

According to the document you've linked, the WHO does in fact apply their corrections to the country rankings they publish. And guess what? It tracks almost identically with the data that the CDC publishes.

You're the one claiming that all the published data is wrong, and that the United States infant mortality rate is better than all the research seems to indicate. Where do you think it should rank instead, and why?

Reread it.

The report corrects for missing data, aggregation mismatch and countries using different formulas.

It explicitly calls out that it did not adjust for live/still born definition differences.

It also says because of that not to use the data to compare different countries

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

Well, this deepens the well. Why the gently caress does America have nearly twice as many preterm births as the UK?

Obesity is currently the largest known factor, but it doesn't account for all differences. Lack of pre-natal care is another issue, but the USA has higher premature birth rate even with people getting pre-natal care. And since this is 'murica there is also a racial discrepancy as well.

The first studies aren't expected for a couple more years. Working through the differences in how countries collect stats and define terms has slowed the research. Until those come out it is anyone's guess. Or anyone's blank screen to project what they want it to be.

# ? Jan 9, 2017 22:46

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > 2016 Economic Crisis Thread - Duck and Cover?

«‹›55 »