Stidmatt

Here is a map of current United States governors. No governorships changed parties last year.

There is a lot of noise going around in centrist circles right now that Trump did not win the election because of Elon Musk last year. Elon Musk claims he hacked the election. Republicans also claimed that they would not cut Medicaid nor raise the deficit. Rule number 1: Republicans lie.

But that’s immaterial. Yes, if we assume a 50/50 chance Trump would win each of the 7 swing states with large majorities, without looking at any other factors, the odds are pretty low. But the problem is that every potential solution is technically a low probability. That doesn’t mean anything.

There’s another factor to the election. In order for Trump to have cheated his way to victory he would have had to successfully flip states under 5 Democratic governors last year. 5 democratic governors who did not investigate the election, and did not have sufficient evidence for fraud to start an investigation. 5 states where they have functional democratic parties, given how they won the governorships, and none of those 5 state level democratic parties found sufficient evidence to go to court or even start a recount.

Not only that, but on the same ballot as Harris, democrats actively won senate elections in Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Michigan. So if they did rig the election they rigged for the presidency but not the senate… how odd…

Plus, the governorships are held by Republicans in Virginia, Vermont, and New Hampshire. Why would the Republicans let Democrats win the election in these states if they were rigging nationwide? Why not deliver Virginia to Trump as well?

Because the truth is Harris lost. She was not a good candidate, and Biden made some obvious mistakes. He presided over a K-shaped recovery after the first Trump recession in 2020, meaning millions of Americans did not feel the economy recover. He had major foreign policy blunders in Afghanistan, Ukraine, and Israel/Palestine. He failed to pass any significant legislation. Harris is uncharismatic, but Trump is charismatic for the voters he need to win. Harris had neither the incumbency advantage nor a trifecta advantage. She had only four keys to the presidency… no primary contest, no third party, no social unrest, and no scandal. With 9/13 keys Trump easily won the election.

The problem was the election was miscoded in Lichtman’s analysis.

Biden could have governed in a way which would have worked. He could have abolished the filibuster and passed the John Lewis Voting Rights Act as soon as he became president. That would have been a major policy change. 5 true keys.

He could have chosen to send the Trump/Taliban paper to congress before enacting it where it obviously would have failed. He could have defended Ukraine, and demanded Israel sign a proper mutual protection pact before sending them military aid. These decisions would have ensured he had no major military failure and given him a major military success by defeating Putin once and for all. 7 true keys.

Protecting Ukraine would have helped the economy, ensuring the economy keys would have been flipped true. 9 true keys.

A strong defense of Ukraine in 2022 would likely have ensured Biden would have kept congress. 10 true keys.

There was a clear path to victory in the 2024 election, and Biden decided that compromising with Republicans is more important than winning elections.

So it makes sense why Harris lost using robust political science metrics, once things are properly coded.

This is why I have written already why we need a fighter as president who will not just win the next election, which will be easy, but even more importantly we need a fighter who will keep her keys true in order to win reelection in 2032.

That is why I think AOC is the obvious choice to be the next president of these United States.

Harris lost because she was uncharismatic and Biden made a lot of mistakes.

The next election is going to be a doozy.

• Party mandate: Probably False, decided next year
• No primary contest: Probably False
• Incumbent seeking re-election: False, Trump cannot run again
• No third party: Probably False
• Strong short-term economy: Probably False
• Strong long-term economy: Probably False
• Major policy change: True, BBB counts
• No social unrest: Probably False
• No scandal: False, largest airstrike on Europe since WWII
• No foreign or military failure: False, largest airstrike on Europe since WWII
• Major foreign or military success: Probably False, Trump is hurting Ukraine and is unlikely to strike a good treaty with Israel/Palestine
• Charismatic incumbent: TBD
• Uncharismatic challenger: False

The next Republican candidate will likely have at most two True keys. There hasn’t been an election which is this much in favor of one party since Ronald Reagan in 1984. We have never seen an incumbent with 11 false keys in American history. The next election will be a landslide.

This is why we need to focus on someone who will govern in a way which will keep as many keys true as possible. Moderates had their chance with Joe Biden and he failed miserably. We need a president who will have better advisors on foreign policy, and I believe AOC is the candidate who will fulfill this requirement.

Trump won the election because Biden was a mediocre president. He fumbled foreign policy leading to a K-shaped recession. This gave Trump the victory.

This here explains why Republicans gleefully falsely claim they hacked the election. They are terrified of another president like Obama. They know that if Democrats nominate a charismatic leader with good policy chops they won’t just lose 2028, but they will also lose 2032. So they need Democrats not to analyze the mistakes of the Biden administration or Harris campaign, in order to nominate someone who will continue Trump’s foreign policy again. By getting New Democrats to obsess over how they claim they hacked the election under the noses of 4 democratic governors, those democrats are not looking at the very real flaws of the Biden administration. They get blinded and don’t stop to think about why all of these democratic administrations, county level democratic parties, state level democratic parties, and the national democratic party did not demand any recounts in the election. It postpones democrats asking the important questions of where Biden’s policy went wrong. This increases the chances that the next Democratic president will be someone like Biden, who will make the same mistakes again, increasing the chances the Republicans will win in 2032.

Republicans lying about hacking the election, as they lie about everything else, is part of their strategy to keep Americans under their spell.

We cannot afford to make this mistake again.

We need to nominate AOC for president in 2028.

Quick comparison of tax benefits of US retirement programs

• Roth IRA/401k
  • Maximum contribution: $23,500 for 401k, $7,000 for IRA
  • Tax benefit on withdrawal, tax free interest
• Traditional IRA/401k
  • Maximum contribution: $23,500 for 401k, $7,000 for IRA
  • Tax benefit on contribution, taxable interest
• Health Savings Account
  • Maximum contribution: $4,300
  • Tax benefit on contribution and withdrawal, tax free interest
• Old Age and Survivor’s Insurance
  • Maximum contribution: Maximum income $168,600, 12.4% tax, so $20,906.40 limit
  • No tax benefit
  • No balance
  • No guarantee

So let’s do the math for three individuals who make $25,000, $50,000, and $100,000 per year.

Income	$25,000.00	$50,000.00	$100,000.00
401k contribution	$1,000.00	$7,000.00	$23,500.00
IRA contribution	$1,000.00	$7,000.00	$7,000.00
Traditional tax benefit	$100.00	$841.00	$5,060.00
401k balance in 30 years	$10,062.66	$70,438.60	$236,472.44
IRA balance in 30 years	$10,062.66	$70,438.60	$70,438.60
Estimated Roth 401k tax savings	$2,515.66	$17,609.65	$59,118.11
Estimated Roth IRA tax savings	$2,515.66	$17,609.65	$17,609.65
HSA contribution	$4,300.00	$4,300.00	$4,300.00
HSA balance in 30 years	$43,269.42	$43,269.42	$43,269.42
HSA savings now	$430.00	$516.00	$946.00
HSA savings in 30 years	$10,817.36	$10,817.36	$10,817.36
Estimated HSA tax savings	$11,247.36	$11,333.36	$11,763.36
Max HSA + Roth 401k tax savings	$13,763.02	$28,943.01	$70,881.47
Max HSA + Roth 401k balance	$53,332.08	$113,708.02	$279,741.86
OASI tax	$3,100.00	$6,200.00	$12,400.00
OASI benefit	$11,664.00	$16,200.00	$25,248.00
OASI benefit taxes	$2,916.00	$4,050.00	$6,312.00
Real OASI benefit	$8,748.00	$12,150.00	$18,936.00
benefit if OASI tax put in Roth 401k over 30 years	$31,194.24	$62,388.47	$124,776.95
Max HSA + Roth 401k + OASI balance	$62,080.08	$125,858.02	$298,677.86
Max HSA + Roth 401k + OASI in 401k balance	$84,526.32	$176,096.50	$404,518.81
Potential savings if OASI tax credible	$775.00	$1,550.00	$3,100.00

The Roth 401k looks pretty good! But look at the HSA benefit for the average household! If you are able to combine the two you can save a lot of taxes, and have a lot of money in retirement for comfort.

Then there is OASI… yeah. Putting a tax credit on OASI benefits is a good idea, which is probably why Trump campaigned on it and then chose not to implement it through his Big Beautiful Bill.

The one good thing he campaigned on and he won’t even make it law.

I’m assuming benefits are taxed at 25% in all of these scenarios, and am calculating taxes using https://smartasset.com/taxes/income-taxes

OASI taxes are based on the full 12.4% tax because this idea that the employer and employee split the burden in half is hogwash because of tax wedges. OASI estimates are from https://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/benefit6.cgi

Long story short, contribute to an HSA and a Roth 401k.

Use this form to email your state legislators in order to protect your community from Medicaid Cuts.

Dear Senator ____,

I am very concerned about the impacts the “Big Beautiful Bill” will have on our community.

There is good reason to believe that the Big Beautiful Bill is going to increase poverty by stripping away health care from millions of Americans, including people here in ____. This increase in inequality is likely going to lead to an increase in homicide, based on research done by anthropologists. People are going to be killed through a lack of health care and increased violence fueled by increased inequality.

While there is little we can do at the federal level, we live in a state with a Democratic trifecta, and if we have the will, there is no reason why ______ cannot raise funds to cover the gap in Medicaid that this bill will cause. We spend too much on police as we underfund our health care services. It is time to reverse this trend and work with cities to fund services that save American lives.

I want you to propose a bill in the _____ State Senate to raise the necessary money to plug the hole in the Medicaid budget, this bill will cause to save the lives of our neighbors.

Sincerely,

_______

References:

The combination of poverty and inequality predict homicide rates in the United States

The DSA has a better statement on Israel and Palestine compared to the policy of the United States, but when you combine this with their policy on Ukraine, it becomes clear they do not care about civil rights.

DSA also opposes open borders.

So you here have an organization which simply opposes all American foreign policy, even the good parts.

What explains this? The answer is simple. They are a right-wing Russian psyop. While some good people get endorsed by them, they unendorsed AOC, the most successful politician who started as a member of their camp. She agrees with their domestic issues, but as she has been in government she has diverged from their foreign policy. I think it is clear why. As AOC has gained experience in congress she has learned that the role of the United States in foreign affairs is not as simple as always good or always bad. There are some policies we have done which have been complete successes, like NATO, the Berlin Airlift, and the immense amount of foreign aid we donate to the rest of the world. Foreign aid is incredibly important for America’s image, counter terrorism, and economic justice. There are some policies which are a mixed bag, our withholding of aid to Ukraine, and our decision to abandon Afghanistan. There are also some policies which are clearly total failures and put Americans in danger, such as our entire policy in the Middle East.

The foreign policy of the DSA is not meaningfully better or worse than the foreign policy of Biden or other moderate democrats, they just have failures in other areas. Neither is good overall.

As AOC becomes more knowledgeable I think she will eventually make the argument for why the United States should work towards loosening immigration laws with other democracies. She will start here, and then make a clear and coherent argument for why the United States and Canada should have an open border, followed up by the expansion of Schengen to the United States and Canada. This is far more left wing than the DSA, which is a Russian psyop.

That’s the obvious explanation of who they are as an organization. America needs a real left-wing movement.

Right wing politicans want the following:

• Tight immigration in or out
• Low prices
• Low wages
• High profits

Here is why this is an impossible combination of policies.

If you pursue low immigration policies, that will reduce supply of labor, increasing wages.

If you pursue a policy of a tight monetary supply in order to reduce wages and other prices, this will cause a recession, hurting profits.

If you pursue increased productivity to increase profits this can lead to more competition for workers in the market, leading to higher wages.

The only way to make this work to have high profits and low wages is to greatly restrict the market so it is more difficult for new businesses to be created. The problem is this leads to lower economic growth for the economy as a whole.

The other issue is that if you are pursuing low emigration for your workers, and you pursue low wages you are trapping them in the country fomenting distrust of your government and feeding your opposition.

Italy has a really bad case of this. Italy is the most unequal country in the European Union when measured by Gini coefficient, and young workers struggle to get by. Since they have options they leave the country, and many never return. The Italian government wants to fix this and stop having their young people leave, but any policy fix they could implement to fix this problem would certainly anger part of their governing coalition, or cause economic destruction.

• Leave the European Union, would slow the emigration of young Italians, but kill the tourism industry.
• Clamp down on wage theft, would slow the emigration of young Italians, but anger businesses.
• Immigration from the Middle East, would fix the worker shortages, but anger social conservatives.

These are the three most obvious fixes to Italy’s economic woes. There are many other potential solutions. But the issue here is that basically any solution to Italy’s woes coming from their right wing government will hurt them politically, so they are stuck in a doom loop.

You find the same problem in the United States. If Donald Trump chooses to deport all of the illegal immigrants the way he has promised, he will basically kill the agricultural industry. Given how angry people were when eggs became more expensive because of a bird flu pandemic, imagine how angry people will be if everything on the shelves becomes more expensive!

We find the same problem with Trump’s desire for domestic manufacturing, economic growth, no foreign workers, and low inflation. If he wants to bring manufacturing home quickly using tariffs, this will be by making things more expensive. The jobs that he wants to create offer lower wages than the wages a lot of Americans already have. On-shoring manufacturing will almost certainly lead to higher prices, breaking his inflation promise. With unemployment at 4% (it was under 4% when he became president) where are the workers going to come from? We are not in the middle of an unemployment crisis right now. We haven’t been since the last time he was president. He can’t expect to tell early retirees to stop enjoying the beach life and go work at a factory in Saginaw? That’s crazy. Like Meloni’s problems and potential solutions, Trump’s plans to on-shore manufacturing without breaking one of his other promises is impossible.

We also have the standard tax cuts for everybody, lower debt, but keeping existing social programs as we see in Donald Trump’s platform. This is a basic math problem. You want to cut revenues, keep expenditure, but not borrow more money? How’s that supposed to work?

It doesn’t matter what right-wing platform you look at, you will always end up with impossible combinations of policies.

The truth is that no matter where you look, right wing politicians are grifters. There is no real similarity between right wing and left wing politicians. While right wing politicians go back and forth between policies which are of dubious value and undoubtable contradictions, left-wing and centrist politicians generally have pretty good consistency. There are still a few issues left-wing politicians marry themselves to which appear to me as being problematic, specifically the obsession with maximum benefit pensions which hardly ever produce the value they claim they will receive, but when it comes to being dedicated to quality health care, education, and good infrastructure we end up with a platform which can actually work.

The key to building an economy which actually works really does come down to building productivity. That means we need to pay for investments, like health care, infrastructure, and education. We need to consider that when building a project that the benefits outweigh the costs in the long-term. Strong Towns has an important point when saying infrastructure should pay for itself. It is right to call for the defunding of police and other wasteful programs, because their benefits do not outweigh the costs. Cities often spend the largest portion of their budget on policing in the United States, and have few results to demonstrate that money actually works to make us safer.

Centrist and left-wing politicians across the world work towards building better trade routes and expanding the ability for their citizens to travel, while also encouraging tourism in their own countries by reducing barriers for citizens from safe countries. They push for open border treaties which allows for open labor markets while also pursuing policies which improve their productivity, raising the quality of life for all. Investing in infrastructure is not just done during recessions, though it will likely be increased in counter-cylical policies, but maintaining infrastructure is simply part of the cost of having a society, as long as that infrastructure provides more benefits than its costs.

This is a system that works and is mostly internally consistent. Real left-wing politicians focus on growing productivity while ensuring the rich pay their fair share, and everyone has the opportunity to get ahead in life if they are willing to do the work. Protecting the environment is necessary for many reasons, and this is the type of government we should elect.

Vote for AOC in 2028.

The timing of Israel’s attack on Iran last night came just days before Iranian nuclear deal talks resumed.

The Hamas attack on Israel happened as Netanyahu was undergoing impeachment trials. They also occurred when congress was debating a massive military aid package for Ukraine.

The attack on Syria targeted libraries and where the records of the Assad regime were being stored.

The invasion of Iraq in 2003’s relationship with US-Israeli relations is outlined by the New Statesman. It had an awfully suspicious timing with the 2003 legislative election in Israel.

Alone, none of these seems to be that major.

But when you piece them all together, the timing of new wars and Israeli domestic politics becomes a theme.

The deeper problem is that Iran and Pakistan are allies and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. If Pakistan decides to defend Iran in face of Israeli aggression, nuclear weapons will immediately be on the table. The attack on Iran yesterday is extremely dangerous. The situation needs to deescalate immediately.

There needs to be a serious peace talk between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, with the European Union acting as the intermediary to solve the problem of Palestinian statelessness once and for all.

There needs to be the recognition of basic human rights to everyone in the region.

But this will spell the end of Netanyahu’s political career, his trials will resume, and he will be thrown into prison.

Similar to Vladimir Putin, if either Putin or Netanyahu end the wars they have started they will face the full wrath of the law. They would rather watch the world burn rather than face the consequences for their actions.

At first I thought the Israeli strikes against Iran’s military might be a positive, reduce support for Russia, helping Ukraine win. But I was wrong. The truth is the opposite of my instincts. Attacking Iran right now is actually good for Russia because it will drive up the price of oil. Russia will then be able to sell their oil for a higher price to China and other allies of Russia. This will increase their production of military equipment, increasing the slaughter of Ukrainian civilians. The increasing conflict in the Middle East is convincing the United States to move aid which was already allocated to defend Ukraine to go to Israel to help them in their attack on Iran. Civilians will needlessly die because of this development in Israel/Palestine, Iran, and Ukraine.

It also came two days before a proposed discussion with Iran regarding their nuclear program, an undeniably good thing for peace and stability in the Middle East. Now civilians are being killed in Kyiv in retaliation for Israel’s strikes in Iran.

There is no positive to this. We need a ceasefire between Israel, Iran, and Palestine. We need Ukraine to regain all of its territory and join NATO. We need a diplomatic and democratic framework for Palestine. Then there is a chance for peace and to actually reduce instances of terrorism across the Middle East.

Yes, these charts look crazy, but the situation is crazy.

Alliances:

• European Union – Israel – United States: US has NATO with most of the European Union, both have deep relations with Israel.
• Iran – Russia: Support each other in every possible way.
• Iran – Hamas: Historically provided a significant amount of support.
• Palestine – European Union: Most of the European Union supports Palestinian statehood.
• Russia – Israel: Israel has not sanctioned Russia, nor supplied Ukraine with any assistance.

Complicated:

• Russia – Hamas: Read the Wikipedia article
• Israel – Hamas: Go between supporting them in order to undermine Palestine to total war.
• United States – Russia: Sanctions are slow and restrictions on Ukraine to strike Russia.
• European Union – Russia: Sanctions are slow and restrictions on Ukraine to strike Russia.

Every other relationship is pure hatred.

I need to state why I believe Russia is hostile to Palestine. Russia used to support Palestine in the Cold War, but Lavrov has compared Israel’s campaign in Gaza with Russia’s campaign in Ukraine, and I hate to say it, but I have to agree with Lavrov here. The goal is the same, just he wasn’t exactly honest about what their goal is. I hate saying it, but the worst person in the world told the truth for once.

The rest of the hostilities are obvious.

The only word in my vocabulary to describe the situation in the Middle East is that it is a complete and total clusterfuck.

It will remain a clusterfuck until diplomacy resumes.

 

Will Israel’s destruction of Iran’s military be beneficial in the long run? Probably not. Russia will still support the Ayatollah as long as possible, so Israel’s strikes on Iran will have no impact on the regime. Russia produces Shahed drones domestically, so striking Iran does not help Ukraine. It could even hurt Ukraine since pushing up oil prices in response to this war will improve Russia’s war chest, making it easier for them to purchase the necessary factor inputs needed to run their wartime economy. This is all according to the Kyiv Independent. There is no upside to this new conflict, only downsides.

There is no military solution to the war in the Middle East.

The Israeli strike on Iran ironically helps Russia. It will not topple the Ayatollah. As long as Putin survives the intense propaganda supporting fascists across NATO will continue. As long as Putin is alive, Ukraine and Georgia will be in danger. As long as Putin is alive he will continue to back the Ayatollah. As long as Netanyahu is in power, Israel will continue to be the preferred laundromat for Russian money.

The only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian war is diplomacy and the granting of Israeli citizenship to every Palestinian, as I have already outlined in this post.

The only solution to the Ukrainian war is complete victory with Ukraine regaining all of their territory as defined by 1991 borders. Then they must join NATO, and Putin will fall.

Once Ukraine has won the war, Georgian Dream will lose its support from Russia and Georgians will take back their country.

Once Ukraine has won the war, Iran will lose its support from Moscow, triggering a revolution.

With the lack of constant propaganda coming out of Russia the support for right-wing politicians across the democratic world will end, and we can go back to sanity.

Once Israel stops its war, Netanyahu will go to trial and certainly be arrested. If Israel signs a treaty with Palestine ending the statelessness of Palestinians, then and only then, will there be a chance for peace.

But this attack on Iran is not going to help the democratic world, as the experts at Kyiv Independent make as clear as day.

How do we select candidates for Senate elections who will likely win?

Starting with the 2024 elections:

The following seats flipped:

• Arizona (D) – Ruben Gallego was an incumbent Representative.
• Montana (R) – Tim Sheehy had no prior experience, he’s a veteran.
• Ohio (R) – Bernie Moreno had no prior experience, he is a businessman
• Pennsylvania (R) – David McCormick was a high ranking official of the Bush administration

 

Now for 2022:

• Pennsylvania (D) – John Fetterman was the incumbent Lieutenant Governor

In 2020:

• Alabama (R) – Tommy Tuberville was a football coach.
• Arizona (D) – Mark Kelly is an astronaut and husband of Gabby Giffords.
• Colorado (D) – John Hickenlooper was a former Governor
• Georgia (D) – Jon Ossoff is a journalist.
• Georgia (D) – Raphael Warnock is in Dr. King’s pulpit.

In 2018:

• Arizona (D) – Kyrsten Sinema was a US representative.
• Florida (R) – Rick Scott was a former governor.
• Indiana (R) – Mike Braun was a state representative.
• Missouri (R) – Josh Hawley was the attorney general.
• Nevada (D) – Jacky Rosen was a US representative
• North Dakota (R) – Kevin Cramer was a US representative

In 2016:

• Illinois (D) – Tammy Duckworth was a US representative
• New Hampshire (D) – Maggie Hassan was the governor

In 2014:

• Alaska (R) – Dan Sullivan was the State Natural Resources Commissioner
• Arkansas (R) – Tom Cotton was a US representative
• Colorado (R) – Cory Gardner was a US representative
• Iowa (R) – Joni Ernst was a State Senator
• Louisiana (R) – Bill Cassidy was a US representative
• Montana (R) – Steve Daines was a US Representative, his opponent was a state representative
• North Carolina (R) – Thom Tillis was the speaker of the State House
• South Dakota (R) – Mike Rounds was a former governor
• West Virginia (R) – Shelley Moore Capito was a US representative running against the Secretary of State

Basically, if you want to flip a seat, you want someone with experience.

Three main issues are going to be heavily debated in the next election:

• Immigration
• relationship with Israel
• Ukraine War

We need senators who are going to reset our relationship with Israel, support Ukraine completely, and are in favor of immigration reform.

There are at least six open senate seats next year, here are the candidates I want to see run in the seats which are currently held by Democrats, all of whom are incumbent US representatives:

• Illinois – Robin Kelly, incumbent US representative
• Michigan – Rashida Tlaib, incumbent US representative
• Minnesota – Peggy Flanagan, incumbent US representative
• New Hampshire – Chris Pappas, incumbent US representative

In terms of the seats I think we can flip, here is who I want to see run:

• Alaska – Mary Peltola, former US representative
• Iowa – Zach Wahls, incumbent state senator
• Kansas – Laura Kelly, former governor
• Maine – Ryan Fecteau, incumbent US representative
• Minnesota – Peggy Flanagan, incumbent US representative
• North Carolina – Valerie Foushee, incumbent US representative
• Ohio – Joyce Beatty, incumbent US representative
• Texas – Joaquin Castro, incumbent US representative

With this slate of candidates I believe we can retake the Senate next year with excellent candidates.

Playing with my dataset today, I’m wondering about countries which are the most likely to improve rapidly in the near future.

Note: I usually use the UN definition of country but for the purpose of visa-free travel when I say “country” I am referring to every place which has their own separate visa policy, including places like Palestine, American Samoa, and Hong Kong. For purposes of visa-policies these places are effectively their own sovereign countries because they have their own visa policy. It just makes it easier.

I am first going to identify countries which are relatively democratic, low income, restrictive visa policies, and have weak passports.

Bhutan stands out in this category, it is the only country with a GDP per capita under $10,000, a positive Voice and Accountability Score, a restrictive visa policy with fewer than 100 who can enter visa free, and a weak passport offering visa-free access to only 43 countries. They have been rapidly opening up their society but still have a restrictive visa policy. The liberalization of Bhutan’s visa policy leading to their citizens having more travel freedom will improve the country. It was delisted as a least developed country in 2023. Continue clamping down on corruption and open up your visa policy. You are on the right track! The future for Bhutan is bright.

{'100+ visa free to enter': {'100+ visa free for passport': {'negative va': {'GDP per capita over 10000': 2,
                                                                             'GDP per capita under 10000': 3},
                                                             'positive va': {'GDP per capita over 10000': 43,
                                                                             'GDP per capita under 10000': 16}},
                             'Under 100 visa free for passport': {'negative va': {'GDP per capita over 10000': 1,
                                                                                  'GDP per capita under 10000': 9},
                                                                  'positive va': {'GDP per capita over 10000': 0,
                                                                                  'GDP per capita under 10000': 7}}},
 'Under 100 visa free to enter': {'100+ visa free for passport': {'negative va': {'GDP per capita over 10000': 4,
                                                                                  'GDP per capita under 10000': 6},
                                                                  'positive va': {'GDP per capita over 10000': 11,
                                                                                  'GDP per capita under 10000': 8}},
                                  'Under 100 visa free for passport': {'negative va': {'GDP per capita over 10000': 6,
                                                                                       'GDP per capita under 10000': 64},
                                                                       'positive va': {'GDP per capita over 10000': 0,
                                                                                       'GDP per capita under 10000': 18}}}}

Using GNI per capita, PPP instead:
{'100+ visa free to enter': {'100+ visa free for passport': {'negative va': {'GNI per capita, PPP over 10000': 4,
                                                                             'GNI per capita, PPP under 10000': 1},
                                                             'positive va': {'GNI per capita, PPP over 10000': 49,
                                                                             'GNI per capita, PPP under 10000': 5}},
                             'Under 100 visa free for passport': {'negative va': {'GNI per capita, PPP over 10000': 2,
                                                                                  'GNI per capita, PPP under 10000': 6},
                                                                  'positive va': {'GNI per capita, PPP over 10000': 4,
                                                                                  'GNI per capita, PPP under 10000': 3}}},
 'Under 100 visa free to enter': {'100+ visa free for passport': {'negative va': {'GNI per capita, PPP over 10000': 5,
                                                                                  'GNI per capita, PPP under 10000': 4},
                                                                  'positive va': {'GNI per capita, PPP over 10000': 14,
                                                                                  'GNI per capita, PPP under 10000': 5}},
                                  'Under 100 visa free for passport': {'negative va': {'GNI per capita, PPP over 10000': 19,
                                                                                       'GNI per capita, PPP under 10000': 45},
                                                                       'positive va': {'GNI per capita, PPP over 10000': 4,
                                                                                       'GNI per capita, PPP under 10000': 13}}}}

There are 16 of countries which offer visa-free travel to over a hundred countries, can travel to over a hundred countries visa free, and have a positive Voice and Accountability Score, but have a GDP per capita under $10,000.

3 of these countries have a positive score on every World Governance Indicator. These countries are Dominica, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Saint Lucia. Mauritius has a GDP per capita under $10k, but a much higher GNI per capita, PPP. These countries will likely see their economies grow with the right moves as they continue to develop. The main issue they have is they are all island nations with small populations. But they are free democracies. Their futures are bright.

The other 12 countries are Grenada, Kiribati, Albania, Moldova, Georgia, Bulgaria, Romania, Peru, Colombia, and Brazil. All of these countries are developing rapidly. Grenada and Kiribati are small island nations which makes development more difficult but not impossible. Preserve your democracies, grow your economies, root out remaining corruption, educate your population, and grow.

Many of these countries suffer from their mean years of schooling being under 10 years. Georgia has the highest mean years of schooling in this group. If Georgia is able to remove their illegitimate government and join NATO they will be able to again work on the reforms which are necessary to join the European Union and their economy will continue to grow. For the other countries, continue to ensure teenagers stay in school and life will improve.

There are 6 countries which allow over 100 countries to travel to their country visa-free, have a positive Voice and Accountability score, but cannot travel to 100 countries or more without some sort of visa. All of these countries have a GDP per capita over $10,000. They are Belize, Botswana, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Jamaica, Namibia, and Suriname. The answer is quite simple… increase mean years of schooling. This will improve your economy. With a stronger economy you will likely be able to get visa free access to more countries. Botswana has a positive score on every World Governance Indicator, and their mean years of schooling is about 10 years. As more teenagers in Botswana finish high school and continue on to college, their institutions will further improve, their economy will improve, and their travel freedom will expand.

There are 5 countries where the mean years of schooling is at least 11 years, with a positive voice and accountability score, a positive control of corruption score, and a GDP per capita under $10,000. These countries are, Romania, Georgia, Armenia, and Samoa. Malaysia is positive on every World Governance Indicator. These five countries are poised to continue to be quickly growing economies. Romania in particular because they are a member of the European Union.

But in terms of the country which I am most optimistic about becoming an officially developed country right now, that would be Botswana. Botswana is quickly developing, their mean years of schooling is over 10 years, and is very democratic.

The other two countries to look at are Armenia and Georgia. These two countries do poorly on political violence, and Armenia is struggling at government efficiency and rule of law as well, but these are the only two countries whose economies are growing rapidly, have an Economist Democracy Score over 5 and stand out as having immense economic potential. They are very well educated and will continue to grow economically, as long as their political environment is healthy.

 

Now, in terms of countries which are the least likely to develop in the near future.

72 countries have a negative score on every World Governance Indicator. Two of these countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina and Nicaragua) have over 100 countries they can travel to visa free and allow over 100 nationalities to travel to their country visa free. Afghanistan and Syria allow 1 and 17 countries to enter respectively and can travel to only 29 countries without a visa, because those countries do not have visas and allow anyone to travel there visa-free. I think Bosnia and Nicaragua have a great chance of improving soon, they just need to continue to boost their mean years of schooling which is around 10 years each. Aim for the average person to have a high school diploma.

In terms of countries which I am the most pessimistic about, I’m going to filter the world in a few ways. First let’s grab countries which have a score under -1 for every World Governance Indicator. These are Somalia, Chad, Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Haiti, Yemen, Myanmar, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iran, Venezuela, Libya, South Sudan, and Sudan. Syria appears but they just went through a major government transition and these scores are for the Assad regime. Of these the ones I am most pessimistic about are Somalia, Chad, Yemen, and Afghanistan, for obvious reasons.

South Sudan is particularly a bad case. It has a score under -2 for government effectiveness, political violence, regulatory quality, and rule of law. This is on top of a GDP per capita under $1000 and a literacy rate which was only 36% in 2008, the latest year for which I can find data. Chad and Central African Republic have the lowest rates in the world at 30% and 36% respectively. It’s impossible to compete with such low literacy. They are in a really bad place, corruption, poverty, and low literacy means they are dependent on foreign teachers to educate their children on the basics. Niger, Guinea, Liberia, and Mali are the only other countries with a literacy rate below 50% as far as I can tell. It will be a long time before these countries develop. Former French colonies in Sub-Saharan Africa dominate the list of the countries with the most severe social and political problems in the world.

 

We are likely to see a continued divergence between countries in the future. Countries with effective and democratic governments will continue to improve, while countries which do not have those factors will not. Without a significant domestic upheaval the ability for authoritarian regimes to collapse is very small. If an authoritarian regime is supported by an external factor, like how Russia props up the governments of Iran and used to prop up the government of Syria, it becomes near impossible for the people to replace their dictator.

Once a country has transitioned to a democracy, the most important factor for their economic growth is their education level. We have seen massive economic growth in Eastern Europe because they have high levels of education and only recently democratized. Latin America saw a wave of democratization in the second half of the twentieth century, but decades of Catholic influence meant the average person was not very well educated. This has prevented their economies from reaching their true potential. Governments in Latin America know this and they are working hard to educate their citizens sufficiently.

Latin American countries will continue to improve the education of their citizens which will lead them to a point where their economies will suddenly start to boom once they have enough people who are competitive on the global market.

Undeveloped African countries and Afghanistan require revolution to improve, which must come from the people. External invasion for democracy can end up in a failed Iraq situation. Tunisia is the prime example of a country which improved not because of foreign support but due to the people simply having enough of the nonsense.

 

For countries at risk of democratic backsliding, the United States and Georgia are the most at risk in the world. Neither countries are members of open border treaties, and both have radical governments at the moment. Hungary and Slovakia have membership in Schengen, so they are safe. We must protect our democracies in solidarity with each other. We are under attack.

 

But if Georgia manages to overthrow the Georgian dream, Georgia is the country most likely to develop in the near future. Malaysia is rapidly developing and I expect this trend will continue as they become a high income economy over the next decade. This is my current projection for the next decade.

Canada is flirting with joining the European Union, though they are more likely to just join the European Economic Area in my opinion. I think this is an excellent step forward, and while the catalyst is Donald Trump, this is similar to the catalyst which formed the European Union.

Historical context

In order to understand why the expansion of free travel across continents is happening now, one must understand history.

The European Union of course is the latest step in a long evolution of relationships which started arguably with the Roman Empire. During the Middle Ages there were other forms of c0mplex European alliances, such as the Holy Roman Empire, the Hanaseatic League, and more. Alliances are nothing new, Portugal and England have the oldest alliance in history, starting in 1373. This was preceded by Ye Auld Alliance between France and Scotland from 1295, which arguably lasted until 1560, though this is debated.

Using Old Maps Online, it quickly becomes apparent why the oldest alliances are based in Europe. The Americas had developed trade networks between the various peoples inhabiting the continent. Some of these empires grew in size, and the longest lasting was of course the Mayan empire, lasting over 1400 years. You also had organizations like the Iroquois in modern-day Quebec and the northeastern United States. The political structure of these is vast and complicated. However, one should not interpret the borders of the Americas before 1500 as empires the same way we do for Europe, but more as cultural spheres, as explained in detail in this post on Reddit. Australia was in a similar organization.

Africa had a few major empires which came and went, particularly Mali, Ethiopia, and Bomu, but most of the continent remained unorganized from a political standpoint until European colonization. The lack of political organization makes it easy to understand why Europeans had a relatively easy time invading the continent with their large organized armies versus disorganized and extremely diverse people with many different levels of political organization. It makes sense why Ethiopia was the last to be colonized, and relatively briefly.

There were complex empires across Eurasia however which evolved into complex relationships after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Empires dominated most of the areas of Eurasia which are not subarctic for over 2000 years, allowing for a unique level of political evolution and consolidation of power.

Asia was dominated by a unified China in the east and many different states coming and going in India and Indochina over thousands of years. The Buddhist sphere of influence was deeply disrupted by colonialism in the 1800s.

On top of this, a globally interconnected world only really emerged in the 19th century after the invention of the telephone. The rapid spread of information from millions of sources is only in the last few decades. We can now get opinions on events from anyone in the world with an internet connection, with less of a need for gatekeepers. It’s a very different world today, leading to questions about borders.

The reason why the future of global integration is likely to stem out of the European Union is colonialism. Europe has simply had more time to evolve these institutions compared to the rest of the world. Latin America was very unstable until the last 50 years with the rise of democracy in the region, and we have seen immense steps towards regional integration in the region following democratization, with Mercosur (1991), the Andean Community (2007), and Central America-4 Border Control Agreement (2006) being formed across the region.

From https://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity1.htm

Since the end of the Cold War, the number of democracies in the world has soared as the number of autocracies has plummeted. With this we finally have a world where there are clear reasons to expand travel and trade beyond continental boundaries.

The current situation

A lot of countries are going backwards in my opinion with the implementation of visas which will slow down this evolution, but I doubt these will last forever. At some point the policies pushed by these protectionists will show their major downsides and people will choose another path. We are starting to see evidence that European tech is unable to compete given massively increasing regulation without considering its impacts. This is coming through with a wave of protectionist policies from the last decade.

As the negative consequences of these regulations become more and more clear, there will be a reversal and damaging policies will have to be reversed in time to avoid economic destruction.

I think Donald Trump is sowing the seeds of his own destruction as his policies cause economic damage. This will cause people to see the damage that mercantilism does to the economy, and the system will self-correct as long as democracy prevails.

The question then becomes who are we going to have to replace the current trend of closing borders? This is where Canada’s discussion with the European Union is critical to the future of the world.

First of all, I do not see Canada joining the European Union.

I view integration in stages.

Stage 0 is a lack of free travel, so any form, fee, or other legal barrier to tourism is a stage of non-integration.

1. Visa-free travel, no eVisas, “Electronic travel authorizations” or any other form of pre-clearance or fees will be paid for tourism.
2. Free trade agreement. Some restrictions remain, borders still have customs. ASEAN, NAFTA.
3. Streamlined immigration process, such as between the United States and Canada for knowledge workers.
4. Free movement of goods. European Union Customs Union.
5. Free movement of people. Trans-Tasman Agreement for example. Free movement of goods included.
6. Single market. European Economic Area. This combines the free movement of people and goods with an open border.
7. Monetary Union. CFA Franc. Does not include a Single Market.
8. Political and Economic Union. European Union is the only true example. Includes open borders, a monetary union, and a single market.

There are pros and cons to each of these stages.

Visa-free travel does not have the advantages of freedom to live and work in another country. The increased labor friction slows down economic growth.

Free trade agreements do not eliminate all tariffs and non-tariff barriers. This increases prices for consumers compared to deeper integration.

Streamlined immigration processes still restrict immigration for many purposes. They tend to only be for professionals, so you still won’t be capturing the full human rights benefit of freedom of movement.

Free movement of goods does not give you the benefits of labor market flexibility.

Free movement of people always includes a free trade agreement, and customs checks still exist.

Single markets have few downsides. They can include unified regulations for goods and services which can be sold in the bloc. They have a fully open border without customs checks in normal circumstances. As long as the regulations are limited to the necessary rules in order to maintain smooth trade between countries this hits the sweet spot. The powers of the organizing body of the single market are limited to core functions, but the open borders puts heavy pressure on countries to adopt best practices. I believe an open border with free movement of people is the ideal level of integration to defend democracy. The world’s single market regions today look like this:

Monetary unions start to introduce significant downsides which I have already explored.

Political and Economic Unions take the downsides of monetary unions and extend them to all levels of policy. Often they include the ability for countries to block policies and use them for political leverage. These sorts of unions can easily get to a point where they can’t grow beyond a certain level. The European Union is the only true political union in the world today.

The future

What will the future hold?

It’s easy to imagine a world where we go backwards. It’s the world we had in the interwar period of the 20th century. More countries leave the European Union, Mercosur is disbanded along with other open border agreements. Visas become necessary for crossing any border. eVisas are turned into visits to the embassy. Free trade agreements shredded.

But we have already been there, and we know where it led us.

Moving forward, there are more free and democratic countries today than ever before. As I wrote above, I think the first step is abolishing all forms of visas between democracies. Without this first step, I do not see how we can realistically proceed further.

I do not think deeper political unions are the answer. It makes the temptation to capture the government of a political union too tempting, and too easy. We want to keep local control, while extending freedom of movement.

The first step is the creation of free trade areas between free and democratic countries. The European Union already has treaties in force with every non-Anglo wealthy democracy in the world. They are currently negotiating treaties with lots of regions globally. As these free trade agreements continue to come into force, only the United States, Australia, and Malaysia will be left as the only developed democratic countries with over a million people without a free trade agreement with the European Union. Australia is currently negotiating their agreement however.

As these free trade agreements are finalized, the next step is for them to rollback the implementation of eVisas between democratic countries and the European Union.

Once this is completed, the next step is for countries to start discussing more open border treaties.

There are only a handful of borders between countries which pass every World Governance Indicator with a score greater than 0 which are closed. These are between Andorra and France and Spain, Namibia and Botswana, the United States and Canada, and between the UK and Cyprus and Spain. This is easily fixed by adding Andorra to the Schengen Area, turning the Southern African Customs Union into an open border treaty, the US and Canada signing an open border treaty, and the United Kingdom rejoining the European Union and then joining the Schengen Area with Ireland.

The world’s open border treaties will then look like this:

This however has one problem. I think it is more likely that Canada will join the Schengen Area first, and Greenland will then as well.

There is no real reason for Canada not to talk with the European Union, complete their free trade agreement, and then move towards freedom of movement. It will be mutually beneficial and very popular once implemented. Brexit took years of social engineering with near unanimous consent in the British media to pass, and as soon as withdrawal was completed its popularity plummeted. I do not believe this will be repeated. Once Canada is in Schengen it will be a permanent member.

I think this will lead to further developments. Assuming ceterus paribus in regards to regime change, which I know is a horrible assumption, but bear with me here, I think the Andean Community and Mercosur will merge.

Andorra is negotiating an agreement with the Schengen Area now, and Cyprus will join by the end of the year.

I believe the United Kingdom will rejoin the European Union first, leading to a merger of the Common Travel Area into the Schengen Area.

Now regarding the US and Canadian border, if the United States elects a Democratic government and we fix our relations with the rest of the world, having Canada in the Schengen Area already will be of immense value to us in the long run. After the United States fixes our relationship with Canada and the European Union, joining the Schengen Area will ensure that if we elect another president like Donald Trump that it will be far more difficult for them to undo the progress made once freedom of movement is in place. It is to our social and economic benefit, as well as those of our allies to be part of such an arrangement.

That will lead to an open border treaty including both sides of the Atlantic. It will be the first intercontinental international open border in history, and I believe an important step forward towards a more prosperous and peaceful world.

The next two countries to add to this international arrangement are Australia and New Zealand, as the wealthiest democratic countries outside of Europe and North America. Once Schengen is trans-continental, it will not be that radical to ask why Australia and New Zealand should be excluded.

The only other wealthy democratic countries which pass every metric in the World Governance Indicators and are not already in a free travel area are Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.

In the very long run I see Caricom and South America growing closer ties to this Schengen Area. Caricom will be the first to establish freedom of movement, and South America in the far distant future. Chile, Costa Rica, and Uruguay are the only South American countries which pass every World Governance Indicator. But this will change as more countries in South America develop politically and economically.

The Andean Community will merge with Mercosur.

Chile will then have a choice, either join freedom of movement with Schengen or with Mercosur. Chilean citizens already have freedom of movement with the rest of Union of South American Nations, so they might as well form an open border regime with their neighbors.

This brings us to our most probable future for open border regimes in the world. Schengen will become a multicontinental treaty, spreading across North America, East Asia, and Oceania. USAN will become a free travel area with a unified visa policy. This will likely take around 50 years, but assuming democratic backsliding remains rare, I think this is the future we have to look forward to.

As long as we work to make it happen.