Agreed, given that if you care solely about the performance of the economy, you vote for the Democratic party. There are far too many people who have regressive opinions about abortion and vote against their economic best interests and voted for Republicans.

Source for the evidence that Democrats give a better return on investment in the stock market than Republicans, going back to 1946.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/stock-market-election-democratic-republican-presidents-better-performance-economy-gdp-2020-8-1029528932?op=1

Kinda surprised to see Sweden in the company of the USA. Scandinavian politics and media don't seem that conducive to the kinds of toxic forces that drive polarization.

The note in the corner is interesting, "Countries in this zone are very divided and doubtful that their differences can be overcome." Columbia is in that group and is 14th of 28 (from low to high) on the scale of "I do not feel these divisions can be overcome", putting them in the lower half of countries for doubt and below some countries even in the Moderately Polarized tier. The US sits at 17th, putting them also below countries in the Moderately Polarized tier.

On the other axis, Sweden has high doubt, but sits pretty close to the middle at 13th for degree of polarization, below some Moderately Polarized countires.

That might suggest that there should be a different way to group the countries when 1/2 of the severely polarized countries might not really represent the description of severely polarized?

[removed]

I think light estimates say that china's GDP rn is around 12 trillion usd which is still a really high amount but nowhere near the official figures

Is everyone gunna ignore the fact that philidelphia's population tripled in 10 years

[removed]

I agree with you intuitively, and I do think you would get similar results if you were to use decent measures. People do usually have a good idea of polarisation in their country. I'm just saying, as far as science goes, this is such a poor measure. Note, I was just using Argentina and USA as an example off top of my head.

Lulz, now that's beautiful data, no surprise whatsoever on China leading the pack. It's plenty clear on the ground that while there is plenty economical growth there, it's not anywhere as astronomical as official stats claim.

Countries where dissent is literally illegal are less likely to openly dissent. Who would've thought?

What a shit measurement. Almos as if it was done by a PR firm working for Saudi Arabia. Oh wait, it is!

I get your point but in this case the divide is for similar reasons as that of the US, so it is a fair comparison

Illuminating, even

Oh, and 4 of the 10 states with the highest percentage of the population receiving federal benefits are blue states.

A higher percentage of the population in Oregon, Illinois, New York, and Rhode Island receive welfare benefits than in the state of Texas.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/welfare-recipients-by-state

But states like Illinois and New York have a huge wealth gap. They have a lot of poor people receiving benefits but they also have a disproportionate number of really wealthy people paying a lot of taxes.

So it's not a blue state sending money to a red state, it's a small minority of the population of the blue state that is insanely wealthy sending money to red states. Which is precisely how Democrats designed the federal budget, tax the wealthy at a higher rate and redistribute that money to the less wealthy.

interesting and <cough> Brilliant use for an odd data set to prove -ish a point... neat.

Polarization is measured on a scale, it's not black or white, obviously not polarized means with no particular/ with low polarization, the same way one would say something is not expensive or someone is not smart, it doesn't mean they are free or 0 IQ

The same prediction market has a Fed forecast here: kalshi.com/forecasts/fed

or that economic development and prosperity looks different under those dictatorships than where we got our data from, not necessarily that its different from what they said.

There is a problem here which is that the measure was actually asking citizens their opinion on polarisation. This is an issue, for example, Americans might say their country is more polarised because they have Fox and CNN (based on media), but maybe an Argentinian would say the same thing based on some type of geographic polarisation. (Essentially this just measures citizens' perception of polarisation in their country. Well-established measures on polarisation can be found in "Working paper

Conceptualizing and measuring polarization: A review" (Bauer,2019).

i honestly find it hilarious that people think the US is extremely polarized

less than 0.1% of the population on either political extreme goes a little nuts and they suddenly don't think there's still 350m+ mentally stable and productive individuals existing there

its just gaslighting

And that is exactly what Democrats vote for with social welfare.

If you want the poorer states to stop receiving federal money, there's an easy solution. You don't have to send money to Red States.

But you are disingenuous even using that statistic because you know as well as I do there is so much that goes into that that it isn't simple red versus blue. Do you want a lot of the states That supply agricultural and food products for the rest of the country to stop doing that in search of bringing in a big IT sector? Start getting rid of farming and move to health care or insurance?

Small scale farming is not profitable, but the country depends on it. If you're going to start a culture war by telling poorer states they're sucking federal resources, you might not like how that turns out. Ranching is another one that isn't particularly profitable unless you're a large-scale commercial operation.

But let's do that, let's transition all the rural agricultural heavy red states in the south to something like IT or insurance. Let's destroy the generally lower paying manual labor jobs in the rural communities that represent half the country. Let's move all those people to the cities to get better higher paying jobs. All those blue states can depend on their own agricultural production and watch prices skyrocket. It's what the red states produce that keep prices reasonable in blue states.

https://commodity.com/blog/state-economies-agriculture/

I don't think the Sikhs would agree with this.

You realize the chart has Argentina at #1 right?

Not polarized =/= Less polarized. The graph doesn't say not polarized, but less polarized. It's relative...

Do the squiggly vertical lines indicate where cities were renamed or subsumed into other cities?

Easily USA #1 here. Basically have been 2 separate countries since 2016. 2 different peoples with different thoughts of what America should be. One has been dominating the other more or less non-stop since 2008 and it breeds huge resentment and paranoia by both sides.