3 ms·
You share this little nugget of enticing unconventional wisdom without doing the briefest google search to find out you, too, are repeating bullshit. Most coun
by kuhewa 4y ago
You share this little nugget of enticing unconventional wisdom without doing the briefest google search to find out you, too, are repeating bullshit.
Most countries, especially the developed countries the US is otherwise most comparable to, use WHO definitions, and any independent sign of life is considered a live birth. In other words if there is any life there to save, it doesn't matter if you try to save it or not, it counts.
It is ironic, because if the US was trying much harder to save babies than other developed nations (which doesn't pass the smell test IMO), that should only result in a lower infant mortality rate, not a higher one, unless their efforts were somehow having a negative impact on survival.
You as well may be mixing up the notion that a few countries don't count births before certain gestational lengths or bodyweights as live births (see [1]), however that has been accounted for in international comparisons and doesn't explain the discrepancy between the US and other developed (and some developing) nations.
Regarding corporate income tax example, you are missing the part where the corporations [2] that 'lost money' at tax time are often highly profitable and paying no income tax was only possible through offshoring of profits and use of accelerated depreciation with some favourable corporate tax breaks and loopholes.
[1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0064869 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
[2] 55 of those on the S&P or Fortune 500 were profitable in 2020 and payed no tax https://itep.org/55-profitable-corporations-zero-corporate-tax/ https://itep.org/55-profitable-corporations-zero-corporate-t...
- WalterBright 4y ago> if the US was trying much harder to save babies than other developed nations (which doesn't pass the smell test IMO), that should only result in a lower infant mortality rate, not a higher one, unless their efforts were somehow having a negative impact on survival. Think about it some more - it will result in a higher rate because others would classify it as a miscarriage. Your own cite says: "variations in recording of births and deaths at the limits of viability compromises international comparisons." Depreciation is a legitimate business expense. You're arguing that corporations really have two sets of books - one for the IRS and then one where we use your definition of profits. They didn't make profits according to the IRS accounting rules. IRS accounting rules on what profits are are the only rules that matter.
- kuhewa 4y agoMy source supports me attempting to steelman your claim by suggesting you mistakenly are referring to live births gestational age thresholds. That's not at all the same as a difference driven by how aggressive attempts to save premee lives are across countries.
- oefnak 4y agoDo you have a source Walter, or are you just repeating something you remember reading a while ago?
- WalterBright 4y agoI read it about 10 or 15 years ago. I'd google various things like "Canadian definition of miscarriage". I did this for a sampling of various countries. There was wide variation. At the time America tried to save preemies earlier than anyone else. Of course, this had a high failure rate, and they were classified as infant mortality. Developing techniques to save them can only happen if you're pushing the envelope.