What's up with the Parrots?
And why is there a key in its beak?
by the Editors
Parrots can talk but they don't really understand what they're saying.
Political parrots are similar, they get rewarded for squaking the same thing over and over and over again, and they're not necessarily your friend (and they can bite).
PolicyKeys™ is a role-playing game—we hope Key Players (like you), will like scanning, sorting, and searching through the positive and negative keys. It’s way better to be a wonk than a parrot.
PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree®, Birds of a Feather artificial intelligence is based on the following ground truth, “There’s a time to save and a time to spend, there’s a time for freedom and a time for laws, where can we agree?”
Until really learning about a particular topic and making up their own minds, most people have a knee-jerk bias for one of the Political DNA Base pairs, Abundance/Governance AG (National Government and NGOs), Abundance/Commerce AC (Big Tech and New Businesses), Thrift/Governance TG (Local Governments and Consumers), and Thrift/Commerce TC (Established Supply Chains and Jobs). Most people also have a general preference for either change or status quo. Every political parrot has a key they don’t want you find—because it ruins their argument. It’s up to us wonks to snatch away those ACGT keys
Our full gameboard is a double-tall chessboard, you can see it in the POL-ICYMI Last Week’s Answers, 128 roles painstakingly sorted evenly across all four-sides of the table and a spectrum of bias for change to status quo. Every role’s Yes or No vote counts the same. Each set of eight roles are their opposites on the gameboard, a set of rivals. The differences get less easy to spot and the sets a bit more difficult—the deeper you get into each week’s puzzle.
The game’s been designed to be a smoothie of crosswords (short clues), trivia (overall knowledge), role playing (empathy), mystery (solve the role’s motivation), poker (find each role’s tell), chess puzzles (best answers are so cool), jigsaw puzzles (how the roles fit together), and word games (sometimes there's no choice remaining but to guess).
Perhaps PolicyKeys™ will help depolarize your friends, family, town, county, country, and planet. And, maybe, just maybe, you and your crazy relative will find something to agree on. PolicyKeys™ can depolarize politics—with your help.
:: :: :: ::
You can play this week’s game at PolicyKeys.com
Congress’ approval rating is 21%, the Supreme Court’s is 40%, the media 27%, the average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ National Idea Leaderboard is 73%—Politics 4.0 is already a 2x to 3x better model of US political sentiment and direction than Politics (as usual) 3.0.
A new PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? Puzzle every Monday at 6am Eastern at PolicyKeys.com. You can read more about PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? in Politics 4.0 How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize the World. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for its innovative approach to consensus building.
Finding out where we can agree takes guts ::
PolicyKeys™ Mission, Vision, Values & Four Laws of Public Policy Formation
based on the theory & methodology of Politics 4.0
Mission:
To forecast and measure nonpartisanship
Vision:
To narrate, rate, create, and curate public policy solutions on leaderboards
Values (#1*)
To be neutral to public and/or private sector solutions
::
Purpose
To score and rank public policy solutions with a nonpartisan rating
Goal
To have an AI that can pre-rate all public policy solutions
Strategy
To first find the best solutions that solve 80% of the problem in the shortest time
:: ::
*Our Values
#1 We are neutral to public and/or private sector solutions
Passing a new law or trashing an old one is all the same to us.
#2 Talk public policy not public figures
No President Tyler this or President Buchanan that, you can find that on social media.
#3 We’re all on the same team
Good Key “Yes” reasons and good Key “No” reasons help make the puzzles believable and the scoring trustworthy. No ever-so-clever cherry-picking.
#4 Participate in policy huddles
Introverts should strive to share, and Extroverts should strive for restraint.
#5 EMIT helps find the signal in the noise
Consider the Four Key Reason Types: Emotions, Momentum, Interest, and Timespan, by referring to the Four Laws of Public Policy Formation.
#6 We’ll eventually score all solutions
But for now, score the solutions with the highest probable rank. When the AI is fully functional it will help by auto pre-scoring solutions. Each puzzle deserves respect.
#7 When in doubt about calling a role for or against—research the role
E.g. Part-time workers are 2/3rds under 25 and over 50, and 2/3 female. Does that help clarify the call? Is there existing polling data?
#8 Noisy Guests are interesting
When a role is difficult to call, we call those noisy guests, and working carefully through the EMIT model will usually yield a clear call. And the AI is a good second reliability filter.
#9 Each country's gameboard is a working model
While we seek continuous improvement, our gameboards need to be standardized like electrical sockets to be useful. We’ll review suggested improvements once a year, but only modify significant and substantive changes in roles. Keeping level playing fields is paramount.
#10 Compare forecasts to realities
Through polling, commentary, competing forecasts, mean reversion, wisdom of the crowds, candidates’ platforms we can measure how well the models are functioning.
:: :: ::
THE FOUR LAWS OF PUBLIC POLICY FORMATION
The First Law of Public Policy Formation is that people with short-term focus will naturally protect their wages, jobs, status, profits, and wealth. (Hopefully not with violence: Politics 1.0)
The Second Law of Public Policy Formation is that people with longer-term focus will naturally place bets to make life better, longer, easier, or different. (Politics 2.0 is usually the two -party system)
The Third Law of Public Policy Formation is that the conflict between short-term focus and long-term-focus naturally causes noise, angst, conflict, and harm. (Politics 3.0 is noise)
The Fourth Law of Public Policy Formation is that policy solutions can now be ranked with a standardized nonpartisan score derived from a level playing field. (Politics 4.0 finds the signal in the noise).
:: :: :: ::
You can play this week’s game at PolicyKeys.com
Congress’ approval rating is 21%, the Supreme Court’s is 40%, the media 27%, the average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ National Idea Leaderboard is 73%—Politics 4.0 is already a 2x to 3x better model of US political sentiment and direction than Politics (as usual) 3.0.
A new PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? Puzzle every Monday at 6am Eastern at PolicyKeys.com. You can read more about PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? in Politics 4.0 How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize the World. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for its innovative approach to consensus building.
Finding out where we can agree takes guts ::
Immigration Facts
Four by Four
by Immigration Editor Samantha “Sami” Corkern.
You can view the Local TAP Legal Immigration Box Score here.
Abundance:
The United States admits nearly 1 million immigrants into the country each year under a variety of programs, however, the number of new immigrants each year is decreasing.
Commerce:
For every H1-B visa holder admitted into the country, 1.8 new jobs are created.
Governance:
An additional 370,000 immigrants are needed each year to sustain social security by 2060.
Thrift :
Industries such as Agriculture, Logistics, and Hospitality rely heavily on an immigrant workforce. The Logistics industry alone is predicted to have a need for more than 1 million new employees from 2016 to 2026.
:: Conclusion ::
The United States depends on immigration for economic growth and security.
X
Abundance:
Individuals living in the United States under Temporary Protected Status alone contribute more than $4.5 billion to the economy pretax in addition to $6.9 billion to medicare and social security over 10 year period.
Commerce:
International students permitted in the United States, who do not have a direct path to citizenship, support more than 458,000 jobs.
Governance:
Immigrants are far less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens, this is the case for property and violent crimes.
Thrift:
Individuals with Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) contributed $23.6 billion in 2015 without the benefit of receiving Federally funded programs, such as the CAREs Act stimulus checks in 2020.
:: Conclusion ::
Immigrants regularly contribute more to the United States economy than they receive, and commit crimes at lower rates than native born citizens.
[::]
:: :: :: ::
You can play this week’s game at PolicyKeys.com
Congress’ approval rating is 21%, the Supreme Court’s is 40%, the media 27%, the average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ National Idea Leaderboard is 73%—Politics 4.0 is already a 2x to 3x better model of US political sentiment and direction than Politics (as usual) 3.0.
A new PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? Puzzle every Monday at 6am Eastern at PolicyKeys.com. You can read more about PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? in Politics 4.0 How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize the World. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for its innovative approach to consensus building.
Seeing things from all four sides of the political table takes Guts ::
Should States determine their own immigration needs?
BOX SCORE: Local TAP Legal Immigration
Puzzle Summary:
TAP allows States to Terminate (close the tap), Accelerate (tap world markets), or Pause (tap the brakes) on Local Legal Immigration. Counties will funnel immigration requests up to the State. State politics will decide what numbers to approve.
There is controversy around immigrant crime rates but legal immigration crime rates appear actually lower than US citizens'. States will work in two-year requests in off-election years to de-politicize immigration. Immigrants must stay in their host State or reciprocating State until reaching full citizenship.
ONE PARROT openly thinks national immigration policy has stopped serving our needs. THE OTHER PARROT closes with immigration should stay in the hands of the federal government.
Both Parrots make their good points over and over and over again. What did our nonpartisan scoring system say?
BOX SCORE for Local TAP Legal Immigration
Weighted-Average Forecast
:75%: ± 4% Nonpartisan Score
Sides of the Table 4/4
Wall of Information 7/8
Cultural Windows 12/16
Columns of Bias 8/8
Conclusion: LEADERBOARD WORTHY
Top Four Key Reasons in Favor of Local TAP Legal Immigration
10 million open jobs Americans don’t want
Labor supply shortages are causing inflation
Keeps US companies from offshoring
Social Security needs people paying in
Top Four Key Reasons Against Local TAP Legal Immigration
May lower wage growth
Immigrants will start competing businesses
Some States may take too many
Many immigrants don’t share our values
Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples In-Favor
Activists & Private Equity
Federal Payroll & Landlords
Sciences & Materials
Nonprofit Independents & Corporate Lobby
Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples Against
Planet First Democrats & Big Agriculture
Moralist Republicans & Civil Servants
Core Republicans & Democratic Leadership
Republican Leadership & Party Favor Democrats
Four A-hah Moments
(Yes) Labor shortages are causing product shortages hence inflation
(Yes) Helps keep companies from offshoring jobs
(No) Increased demand for housing
(No) Immigrants start competing businesses
Politics 4.0 DNA (ACGT) Conclusion
We predict an 75% vast super-majority of roles in this country to support Local TAP Legal Immigration with a typical error margin of ± 4%. Thrift (T) types point out that it will help save the Social Security fund. Abundance (A) types see more productivity for all industries. Commerce (C) types see a ready supply of labor. Governance (G) types see increased tax revenues from increased commerce.
More
:: :: :: ::
You can play this week’s game at PolicyKeys.com
Congress’ approval rating is 21%, the Supreme Court’s is 40%, the media 27%, the average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ National Idea Leaderboard is 73%—Politics 4.0 is already a 2x to 3x better model of US political sentiment and direction than Politics (as usual) 3.0.
A new PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? Puzzle every Monday at 6am Eastern at PolicyKeys.com. You can read more about PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? in Politics 4.0 How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize the World. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for its innovative approach to consensus building.
Finding out where we can agree takes guts ::
Should the US End Sugar Subsidies?
BOX SCORE: Sugar Subsidies
Puzzle Summary:
Originally from the great depression, did you know that the US still subsidizes sugar production? The US exports $1.3B of sugar each year and imports $185M. Subsidies inhibit the free market, but neither party wants to lose the votes of the sugar industry.
ONE PARROT sweetly adds that the US sugar industry needs subsidies to compete in the world market, it protects sugar producers' & processors' profits and wages. THE OTHER PARROT sours that view with the US promoting sugar gluttony which increases healthcare costs, and ironically raises the price of sugar to consumers and food manufacturers.
Both Parrots make their good points over and over and over again. What did our nonpartisan scoring system say?
BOX SCORE for Ending Sugar Subsidies
Weighted-Average Forecast
:75%: ± 3% Nonpartisan Score
Sides of the Table 4/4
Walls of Information 7/8
Cultural Windows 14/16
Columns of Bias 7/8
Conclusion: LEADERBOARD WORTHY
Top Four Key Reasons in Favor of Ending Sugar Subsidies
Sugar subsidies cost billions
Regenerative farming needs those subsides
US pays more for sugar than the free market
Sugar production is carbon intensive
Top Four Key Reasons Against Ending Sugar Subsidies
Sugar subsides are a bargaining chip in foreign trade
Helps sugar growers and processors
Family farms depend on the subsidies
US Sugar industry employs 370,000
Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples In-Favor
Caregivers & Gun Owners
USA Made & International NGOs
Giver States & Taker States
Underrepresented & Landlords
Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples Against
Federal Payroll & Materials
Social Media & Rank and File Democrats
Free Press & Border and Order Republicans
Core Republicans & Democratic Leadership
Four A-hah Moments
(Yes) Regenerative farming needs those subsidies
(Yes) Lost US jobs because of sugar trade policy
(No) Might perversely increase sugar consumption
(No) 11K family farms grow sugar
Politics 4.0 DNA (ACGT) Conclusion
We predict a 75% vast super-majority of roles in this country to support Ending Sugar Subsidies with a low error margin of ± 3%. Thrift (T) types point out that it will lower the cost of sugar and all the products sugar is in. Abundance (A) types see more productivity and growth for other more useful industries. Commerce (C) types see less government interference in free markets. Governance (G) types see sending an important message about national priorities.
:: :: :: ::
You can play this week’s game at PolicyKeys.com
Congress’s approval rating is 21%, the Supreme Court’s is 40%, the media 27%, the average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ National Idea Leaderboard is 73%—Politics 4.0 is already a 2x to 3x better model of US political sentiment and direction than Politics (as usual) 3.0.
A new PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? Puzzle every Monday at 6am Eastern at PolicyKeys.com. You can read more about PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? in Politics 4.0 How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize the World. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for its innovative approach to consensus building.
Finding out where we can agree takes guts ::
Should the Progestin Birth Control Pill be Available OTC?
BOX SCORE: OTC Birth Control
Puzzle Summary:
There are essentially two-types of birth control pills most commonly called "the pill." The progestin-only is the safest of the two, and whether it should be made available over the counter (OTC) is the subject of this puzzle. Complicating matters is that powerful forces in politics are protecting their jobs, wages, status, profits, and wealth while women are just trying to manage their reproductive rights.
ONE PARROT pops that birth control is a human right, it should be affordable, accessible, effective, safe, since having a baby is really expensive. THE OTHER PARROT abstains that the pill isn't for everyone, that women should seek the advice of their doctors, and that abstinence is the best form of birth control. Both Parrots make their good points over and over and over again. What did our nonpartisan scoring system say?
BOX SCORE for OTC Birth Control
Weighted-Average Forecast
:84%: ± 2% Nonpartisan Score
Sides of the Table 4/4
Wall of Information 8/8
Cultural Windows 14/16
Columns of Bias 8/8
Conclusion: LEADERBOARD WORTHY
Top Four Key Reasons in Favor of OTC Birth Control
Legal in 100 other countries
Less pregnancies = Less maternal deaths
Discriminates against lower incomes
Birth control link to lower crime rates
Top Four Key Reasons Against OTC Birth Control
US Birth rates are too low
Risk of blood clots and stroke
Guessing at dosage
Commodity status will hurt manufacturers & their employees
Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples In-Favor
Caregivers & Gun Owners
Moralist Republicans & Medical Guilds
Sciences & Rust Belt Independents
Seniors & HMOs
Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples Against
Core Republicans & Hospitals
Multi/Nationals & Family Farms
Party Favor Republicans & Democratic Leadership
Landlords & Materials
Four A-hah Moments
(Yes) OTC birth control would lower maternal deaths
(Yes) Birth control is linked to lower crime rates
(No) Our population growth is too low
(No) Unmonitored side effects
Politics 4.0 DNA (ACGT) Conclusion
We predict an 84% vast super-majority of roles in this country to support OTC Birth Control with a very low error margin of ± 2%. Thrift (T) types point out that it will lower health care costs. Abundance (A) types see more affluent families through planning. Commerce (C) types see less disruptions in the workplace from unwanted pregnancies. Governance (G) types see less crime and need for family services.
:: :: :: ::
You can play this week’s game at PolicyKeys.com
Congress’s approval rating is 21%, the Supreme Court’s is 40%, the media 27%, the average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ National Idea Leaderboard is 73%—Politics 4.0 is already a 2x to 3x better model of US political sentiment and direction than Politics (as usual) 3.0.
A new PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? Puzzle every Monday at 6am Eastern at PolicyKeys.com. You can read more about PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? in Politics 4.0 How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize the World. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for its innovative approach to consensus building.
Finding out Where We Can Agree? takes Guts ::
Are the Golden Rule(s) Still Golden?
BOX SCORE: Doing Unto Others
Puzzle Summary:
"Do unto others as you would have them do onto you" is the most widely known version of the Golden Rule. However, there is an inverted version that is also thousands of years old which goes, "Don't do onto others as you wouldn't have them do onto you."
ONE PARROT hopes that people would just treat other people better out of the kindness of their hearts. THE OTHER PARROT fears that other people will treat them unfairly so it's best to treat them unfairly first.
It's impossible to live a life that doesn't inevitably have friction in human interactions, family, friends, acquaintances, strangers, perceived enemies, real enemies. How we deal with those frictions defines our culture, norms, humanity, and how we get along with each other. Both Parrots make their good points over and over and over again. What did our nonpartisan scoring system say?
BOX SCORE for the Golden Rule(s)?
Weighted-Average Forecast
:67%: ± 8% Nonpartisan Score
Sides of the Table 4/4
Wall of Information 6/8
Cultural Windows 11/16
Columns of Bias 6/8
Conclusion: LEADERBOARD WORTHY
Top Four Key Reasons in Favor of the Golden Rule(s)
Don’t be rude
Live and Let Live
Service is an honorable profession
Strive to offer a living wage
Top Four Key Reasons Against the Golden Rule(s)
Young adults need automatic weapons
Discretionary late term abortions
Planetary and climate indifference
Public or private sector red tape
Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples In-Favor
Ethicists Democrats & Materials
Exporters & Importers
Underrepresented & Ag States
Rural PT & Deep Reader Independents
Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples Against
Planet First Democrats & Hawk Republicans
Activists & Corporate Lobby
Federal Payroll & Landlords
Free Press & Border and Order Republicans
Four A-hah Moments
(Yes) Don’t cut corners at work or on the road
(Yes) Creating good paying jobs
(No) Not giving service people common courtesy
(No) Not treating immigrants with respect
Politics 4.0 DNA (ACGT) Conclusion
We predict a 67% strong super-majority of roles in this country to support the Golden Rule(s), with a an above average error margin of ± 8%. Thrift (T) types point out that being nice doesn’t cost anything. Abundance (A) types see a more fulfilling life. Commerce (C) types see a more productive workplace with happier teams. Governance (G) types see less civil unrest and mass shootings.
:: :: :: ::
You can play this week’s game at PolicyKeys.com
Congress’ approval rating is 21%, the Supreme Court’s is 40%, the media 27%, the average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ National Idea Leaderboard is 73%—Politics 4.0 is already a 2x to 3x better model of US political sentiment and direction than Politics (as usual) 3.0.
A new PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? Puzzle every Monday at 6am Eastern at PolicyKeys.com. You can read more about PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? in Politics 4.0 How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize the World. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for its innovative approach to consensus building.
Finding out where we can agree takes guts ::
Should We Relax Residential Zoning Codes Near Employers?
BOX SCORE: Quick SET Housing
Puzzle Summary:
Quick Shelter, Employment, Transportation (SET) for Involuntary Homeless to get back into the mainstream would make zoning changes for transitional housing in, next to, or near industrial parks to make it easy to walk to work. It's estimated there are a 500K homeless people capable of holding down full-time (FT) work but logistics are too difficult.
ONE PARROT says it's a win-win-win-win for workers, employers, families, and communities with just two or three 72 room apartment buildings per county needed to rehouse all these folks but outdated zoning laws stand in the way. THE OTHER PARROT says once zoning laws bend communities will become chaotic and no one may want to build that housing, anyway. Both Parrots make their good points over and over and over again. What did our nonpartisan scoring system say?
BOX SCORE for the Quick SET Housing
Weighted-Average Forecast
:71%: ± 4% Nonpartisan Score
Sides of the Table 4/4
Wall of Information 7/8
Cultural Windows 13/16
Columns of Bias 8/8
Conclusion: LEADERBOARD WORTHY
Top Four Key Reasons in Favor of the Quick SET Housing
Rapid rehousing is effective
Walkable jobs is the key
Gives immediate self-respect
Less homeless need less services
Top Four Key Reasons Against Quick SET Housing
Not in My Back Yard (NIMBY)
There’s higher and best use for the land
Housing could turn into flop or drug houses
May drive up the cost of building materials
Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples In-Favor
Activists & Materials
Moralist Republicans & Rank & File Democrats
Unions & Business Groups
Underrepresented & Energy States
Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples Against
Planet First Democrats & Hawk Republicans
Urban Part Time & Corporate Lobby
Suburban Full Time & Landlords
Urban Full Time & Border and Order Republicans
Four A-hah Moments
(Yes) More workers means more consumers
(Yes) Workers can save up and move up
(No) No one wants to deal with the red tape
(No) These folks need too much supervision
Politics 4.0 DNA (ACGT) Conclusion
We predict a 71% vast super-majority of roles in this country to support the Quick SET Housing with an average error margin of ± 4%. Thrift (T) types point out that rents will cover the costs. Abundance (A) types see more people and companies with economic mobility. Commerce (C) types see a more productive workplace with less unfilled jobs. Governance (G) types see less misery and difficult populations to deal with.
:: :: :: ::
You can play this week’s game at PolicyKeys.com
Congress’ approval rating is 21%, the Supreme Court’s is 40%, the media 27%, the average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ National Idea Leaderboard is 73%—Politics 4.0 is already a 2x to 3x better model of US political sentiment and direction than Politics (as usual) 3.0.
A new PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? Puzzle every Monday at 6am Eastern at PolicyKeys.com. You can read more about PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? in Politics 4.0 How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize the World. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for its innovative approach to consensus building.
Finding out where we can agree takes guts ::
Should Healthy Lifestyles Be Taught As School Curriculum?
BOX SCORE: Health as Curriculum
Puzzle Summary:
Health covers nutrition, physical activity, and social-emotional learning, and these three aspects lend themselves perfectly as a vehicle to teach math, science, art, and technology. Each school will then share their results in a national database to find out what works best, why and where.
ONE PARROT pushes promoting healthy lifestyles to limit the inflow of illness into the healthcare system, and wholesome but ugly food can be channeled back into school lunches. THE OTHER PARROT pulls that it's a collectivist dream that will just waste tax dollars and impinge on liberty.
However, education reduces teen birth rates, improves health and nutrition, promotes other behavioral changes that drive economic development, and lower crime rates. Both Parrots make their good points over and over and over again. What did our nonpartisan scoring system say?
BOX SCORE for Health as Curriculum?
Weighted-Average Forecast
:69%: ± 6% Nonpartisan Score
Sides of the Table 4/4
Wall of Information 7/8
Cultural Windows 12/16
Columns of Bias 8/8
Conclusion: LEADERBOARD WORTHY
Top Four Key Reasons in Favor of Health as Curriculum
Youth obesity is an epidemic
Low sugar schools have lower disciplinary problems
Lower lifetime healthcare costs
Healthier workers are more productive
Top Four Key Reasons Against Health as Curriculum
Processed foods are a $150B US Industry
Students don’t like to eat their veggies
Hospitals need a steady supply of sick people
May cause complaints about food at home
Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples In-Favor
Activists & Private Equity
Caregivers & Gun Owners
Rural PT & Deep Reader Independents
Planet First Democrats & Hawk Republicans
Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples Against
Rural FT & Corporate Lobby
Local Chains & National Lenders
Liberty Republicans & Democratic Leadership
Entertainment & Landlords
Four A-hah Moments
(Yes) STEM fields will be supported
(Yes) Schools are already showing positive results
(No) Gluttony is good for profits and wages
(No) One size doesn’t fit all healthwise
Politics 4.0 DNA (ACGT) Conclusion
We predict a 69% strong super-majority of roles in this country to support Health as Curriculum, with a an above average error margin of ± 6%. Thrift (T) types point out that local food overabundance can be channeled to schools. Abundance (A) types see more productive and happier workers and selection. Commerce (C) types see a more productive workplace with lower healthcare costs. Governance (G) types see less rowdy school, healthier people, and healthier families.
You can play this week’s game at PolicyKeys.com
Congress’ approval rating is 21%, the Supreme Court’s is 40%, the media 27%, the average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ National Idea Leaderboard is 73%—Politics 4.0 is already a 2x to 3x better model of US political sentiment and direction than Politics (as usual) 3.0.
A new PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? Puzzle every Monday at 6am Eastern at PolicyKeys.com. You can read more about PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? in Politics 4.0 How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize the World. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for its innovative approach to consensus building.
Finding out where we can agree takes guts ::
Should We End the Penny to Harvest the Zinc?
BOX SCORE: End the Penny? #Pendy
Puzzle Summary:
More pennies are minted every year, and there are already six hundred billion pennies in circulation which amounts to 1.5M metric tons of zinc at $3300/ton or $5B worth of metal but the penny costs 1.8¢ to mint. Minerals for coins are in high demand to make goods that people want but we need a way to give people change in increments of less than a nickel.
ONE PARROT mints we need pennies to pay sales tax, and to keep an economy with sufficient pocket money. THE OTHER PARROT melts most pennies just live in jars anyway, and we're a net importer of zinc so we'll be more zinc secure by discontinuing pennies.
There is a secondary issue of whether ending the penny might bring us closer to a digital-only currency. Both Parrots make their good points over and over and over again. What did our nonpartisan scoring system say?
BOX SCORE for Ending the Penny
Weighted-Average Forecast
:86%: ± 2% Nonpartisan Score
Sides of the Table 4/4
Wall of Information 8/8
Cultural Windows 16/16
Columns of Bias 8/8
Conclusion: LEADERBOARD WORTHY
Top Four Key Reasons in Favor of Ending the Penny
Mining zinc to put in penny jars is useless
The mint loses money on every penny
Canada ended the penny in 2012
Zinc soil supplements could save 200,000 lives
Top Four Key Reasons Against Ending the Penny
May lead to a digital currency
Some nonprofits need the change
Alaskan zinc miners could be harmed
Businesses will need rounding software
Where Can We Agree?®
Four Odd Couples In-Favor: Gun Owners & Caregivers
Hawk Republicans & Urban Full-Time
Renewables & Utilities
Family Farms & Big Tech
Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples Against
Materials & Under-represented
Urban PT & Republican Leadership
Moralist Republicans & Democratic Doves
Billionaires & Seniors
Four A-hah Moments
(Yes) A zinc glut would lower product costs
(Yes) Rounding up to the nickel helps workers
(No) Zinc mining and lithium mining are linked
(No) Rounding up to the nickel hurts consumers
Politics 4.0 DNA (ACGT) Conclusion
Other than companies and employees that directly benefit from the continued minting of the penny there is almost no support for keeping the penny. Thrift (T) types point out that the penny cost double its face value to make. Abundance (A) types want to use the zinc for useful purposes not useless purposes. Commerce (C) types want less dumb government solutions. Governance (G) types want to stop the waste to fund more important programs.
At the time of this printing Ending the Penny is the #1 Idea on the PolicyKeys™ USA National Idea Leaderboard.
:: :: :: ::
You can play this week’s game at PolicyKeys.com
Congress’ approval rating is 21%, the Supreme Court’s is 40%, the media 27%, the average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ National Idea Leaderboard is 73%—Politics 4.0 is already a 2x to 3x better model of US political sentiment and direction than Politics (as usual) 3.0.
A new PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? Puzzle every Monday at 6am Eastern at PolicyKeys.com. You can read more about PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? in Politics 4.0 How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize the World. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for its innovative approach to consensus building.
Finding out where we can agree takes guts ::