Michael doesn't point out that Costa Rica has a payroll tax of 36%. Or that Norway is heavily socialized as well. He points out that prioritizing education, health and environmental sustainability as social progress.

All throughout the article Green skirts around the idea of Progress and Social change. He never really says an avenue in doing so. It's almost like he wants to maintain neutrality amongst political fields.

To me the answer is as clear as day. Socialism is the solution. But whether or not Green agrees with me is hard to recognize. He tells us to demand progress and use our wealth for the well-being of citizens.

The vagueness of it all leads someone to be able to shrug off light suggestions. You could very well make an argument that a more conservative model can accomplish the same goals through wealth being handed down from the hands of corporations rather than the government.

Michael seems to be analyzing the results. A good first step in any problem solution. But the lack of a clear opinion on policy is jarring to me.

It's undeniable that China and India have a lot of fixing to do with human rights and classism. That being said these are the most populous countries in the world with 4 times more population than the U.S. In populous countries like these infrastructure has to be made just as fast as population growth. It's easy to see how a country with over a billion people might have a sudden scarcity of toilets despite having a large GDP.

This question preps the reader into the main theme. Later points of the video that Social Progress is more linked to policy than GDP. The language here really to me feels like he's easing this idea to the audience. He presents points of data and then asks us guiding questions to lead us to his own conclusion.

This easing makes me think how he sees his audience. Is he using this to make it easy to understand for all audiences? Or is he expecting some amount of pushback?