Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
highest ever federal debt in the U.S. in 1947 (after WW2, war IS very expensive). almost 119 % of GDP - and that went down to low 30 % (debt as share of GDP) in the early 1970s. Despite the costs for several wars. How did they do it WHILE ENJOYING the GOLDEN EAR ?
92 % top marginal income tax rate (for every dollar over 2,7 million in todays ! value). That was passed in 1944 to finance the war, and it was hollowed out over time, but coporate and income taxes were still much higher than today. Nixon accused JFK of wanting to cut the taxes for the rich in a debate in 1960 (radio).
JFK begged to differ. he said the 90 % on the books were hollowed out by tax excemptions. people like me should pay more in taxes and I would rather have a 72 % EFFECTIVE top marginal income tax (no excemptions). That would bring more revenue and I plan to spend it on education. Now - JFK insinuates that the real paid top marginal income tax on high incomes was lower than his proposed 72 %, but it certainly was not as low as 40 or 50 % - and it is much lower than that today !
Income taxes after the Reagan tax cuts were higher than today !
Debt was 118 - 119 % of GDP in 1947. And bold government spending contiuned. Some still on the military, but lots on civilian INVESTMENTS. Education, public housing, interstate highyway, research. Eisenhower initially dismissed manned space travel, way too expensive. Then the Soviets gave them the Sputnik shock in 1953 - and costs did not matter.
High taxes for the incomes of rich people. Highly profitable businesses only could evade taxation if they invested. UNPRECEDENTED productivitiy growth (most comes from automation and new technoligy, new materials, also new ways to market, and of course use of electronics):
I mean "unprecedented", 1947 - 1970 plus 112 %. 1970 - 2013 only plus 69 %. Productivity means: what is created (output) in ONE workhour.
Note that the second era is much longer (43 years versus only 23 years) and this was the time when computers and other electronic technology really took off.
Growth of hourly average wages (so blue collar jobs and service sector) adjusted for inflation (reflecting purchasing power, it is called real wages).
Plus 97 % in 23 years and ONLY 9 % in the following 43 %. It is also safe to assume that the average 9 % real growth for hourly wages in the neoliberal era is not evenly distributed.
In other words: in the Golden Era (Building of the American Middle Class) the workers got the lion's share of productivity wins. Not all, but most of it. And the owners / shareholders got a small part, but from a large and growing pie. It is not as bad though - there are not that many individuals that got that slice of the pie, and the pie was growing - so they still were doing good.
Workers are also INDISPENSIBLE as consumers in our system of industrial MASS production.
Steadily rising purchasing power made sure they could KEEP UP with buying what was produced. There is a reason consumer debt on the credit card became a thing from the the mid 1970s on and increasingly so under the neoliberal economic order. For some time it bridged the gap between output and consumption.
Output MUST be SOLD / CONSUMED.
Output is steadily increasing due to higher productivity OR produced with much fewer people which means less wages that can be spent on buying things, so the manufacturers have a hard time selling the stuff.
Outsourcing put pressure on wages = disposable income.
Big biz only turned their back on the domestic workers, they still needed the domestic consumers.
Purchasing power for one hour of work almost doubled in the Golden Era of high taxes and good wages (growing almost in lockstep with producitivity), and robust and ongoing government spending that supported the high employment rate, that gave leverage to the unions to bargain for good wages.
Mind you the high employment rate before the Corona pandemic did not lead to good wages (if you factor in inflation) because now outsourcing of jobs has been made safe and lucrative. Politicians did that favor for big biz. So even in a record employment situation like 2018 / 2019 labor has not nearly as much negotiating power. And it was made possible to evade paying taxes.
The strong incentive to invest fell sideways. Owners / sharholders could pocket the profits. So that is also a reason why productivity (most coming from new and improved technology, materials and automation) did not grow anymore like in the Golden Era.
Plenty of automation (high productivity gains) happened in the Golden Era, Andrew Yang overlooks that. It is not new and it is not necessarily negative for the mass of people.
Outsourcing is the problem (when those workers are paid low wages, so tTHEY cannot build their consumer spending) and the idea that the 40 hour week (or in reality even longer, often now BOTH parents work more than 40 hours per week) is still a good fit. In the U.S. it was introduced in 1940 for all (before some companies and industries had it).
The 40 hour workweek was a good fit for the technology of 80 years ago !!
Sure people live longer, go to school longer, overall more wealth, modern medicine can do so much more but it costs more (even if delivered in a cost efficient single payer system).
On the other hand the U.S. government has accumulated investments (research, public housing, streets bridges) and there is intergenerational wealth built. Sure some of the investments like dams and bridges must now be written off they need to be replaced, but they can last for 50 or 100 years. A well built home will need some repairs after 30 years but it is not like the costs of building new. If a family does not get crazy with the remodelling bug they can live rent free in an inherited home and slowly update. Should be done within 10 years.
The U.S. military has paid for the development of malaria treatment drugs and electronics. We HAVE these things now and can build on it. There may be better drugs in the future. But the existing (with patents expired) are pretty good. Not all investments must be repeated all the time, there is accumulation.
If the neoliberals had not won the propaganda war in the 1980s we would now rely much more on renewable energy (and many people would have a job in that sector . Energy IS important) and we might work 30 days per week for what is now a fulltime salary.
That would account for the improved productivity that means that fewer people are needed to produce the same amount of stuff compared to 1980. Unemployment would constantly be lower. (almost all have a job with the lower hours). The job security also means that people can dare to take out loans (and get them) even if they pay down their home over 25 years. At some point they mortgage free and they do not pay down the mortgage of the landlord. And for young people or low income it would be public housing. ideally also for the lower middle class to avoid getting ghettos.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Or the inflation (stagflation) that was caused globally with the oil price hikes, 1973 and a few years later. Made worse by the insane interest rate policies of Paul Volcker Fed chair of Jimmy Carter (he cost him the reelection, and that cost the U.S. and the world dearly).
Workers had not gone crazy (with income increase demands that exceeded productivity gains, so they could not be financed in a good manner. That was never a thing: in the best of times they got the lion's share of productivity wins).
The higher costs of living for households, costs of business, heating, cooling, transportation in 1973 came from the sudden price shock of an important resource doubling in price (commodity prices).
Oil / fossil fuel had been squandered so far - and now caused a new form of inflation. In combination with (then) unusually high rates of unemployment. Typically if you have higher inflation rates it means more money out there chasing too few goods and services.
That was not what happened during the oil price shocks with stagflation.
Policital leaders were ill equipped to UNDERSTAND what was going on, their ideas of the economy were mostly to compare it with a household (that economic illteracy did not matter as long as the principles of the New Deal were applied and they presided over boom times).
The shock of unemployment was used by the oligarchs to hit back against the New Deal and unions. Finally ! they got their chance, big time since the 1930s.
Unemployment rates that were unusually high for the time THEN, the first time for longer times after WW2, and it was unnerving for workers and undermined their sense of security. And then there was the much higher than usual inflation.
It had been somewhat higher in the Golden Era anyway, this is an inevitable side effect of a booming economy, that bounces back fast after insignificant downturns. And workers (and companies) had coped well with that kind of good inflation. between 1947 and 1970 the hourly average wages adjusted for inflation ("real" wages, that means purchasing power) almost doubled. Plus 97 % - versus 112 % productivity wins during that time.
A population that has still full employment and financial stability can manage to pay (grumbling) the higher prices due to an oil price shock for a few years until the problem is solved at the roots (no, not wars in the Middle East and colluding with tyrannical Saudis. Becoming more independent of use of fossil fuels. Low income persons could have gotten a cash benefit to soften the blow until they too got the benefits of better insulated (rental) homes, more efficient vehicles. The company they worked for most likely was investing big time.
so companies hiring and new kind of jobs emerging.
Politcians later made sure to keep some residue unemployment even during boom times, and the recovery after a downturn. When they made outsourcing lucrative and safe for big biz. so they could put pressure on domestic workforce even if employment situation was good again. See end of second Obama Term and the first Trump years).
1
-
The cure for too much dependency on CHEAP OIL causing the 1970s unusual stagflation (and in general the indirect costs of wars for oil and cheap oil prices !) would have been INVESTMENT with LOW not HIGH interest rates: human labor, technology and innovation (all things that are independent of outside influnces and sudden price spikes) replacing the use of the resource OIL (and other fossil fuels that also rise when oil price goes up).
But for that you need LOW interest rates (at least for the sectors that directly heal the oil dependency), not insanely HIGH ones (like under Volcker - and they were not low between 1973 and 1976 either).
Paul Volcker was said to have been a brilliant man - well if those get something wrong or have ideological blind spots, they really get it wrong.
If you have a fungal infection of your toes or toe nails, it is a nuisance (does not hurt much) and you need to do something about it, and it will take a while and consistent effort to heal it.
But in the large scheme of things it is no big deal, if you have the right tools and keep up the regular treatment.
You could of course also amputate the foot or the leg. Technically speaking that too gets rid of the infection. (that was the Volcker strategy or at least it had that effect, it do not think he planned to trigger a depression, he just would not give up but double down on the bad ideas).
Jimmy Carter's sense of duty made him support the highly unpopular measures = drastically increased interest rates for longer time (which he considered to be necessary although harsh cure). Even as they became a threat for his reelection. Reagan kept Volcker as Fed chair, but leaned on him to change course for his reelection, and he also did not mind to have high deficits as side effect of his tax cuts (that benefitted his buddies, and of course himself).
If the share of fossil fuel in costs of living or costs of doing business goes down - even a 50 % price increase at the user side (commodity prices for petroleum doubled or more in 1973) does not drive up cost of living and cost of biz as much.
Let's say the direct and indirect share of energy in your cost of living / doing biz is 1000 USD per month (also the energy that is in food prices, products, production of appliances etc).
after the 50 % increase you are at 1,500 (so 500 USD more, but your total expenditures are of course higher than 1,000 or 1,500 later, so the additional 500 are unpleasant but not crushing.
The same scenario when energy has a higher share of the whole package.
You start with 2000 USD - and after the 50 % increase you are at 3,000 USD.
Scale that up across that nation: That is the difference between annoying but manageable OR recession / depression, with insecurity for the workers.
Spending on fossil fuels (especially oil that is imported) does not create domestic jobs (not many). And with domestic fossil fuel production (especially oil and gas) a lot is funneled to the top (the owners of the wells).
Construction work (incl. insulation) done by small and large companies. More of that spending goes into the pockets of workers, who will spend most of it. That means that money does extra shifts in facilitating the exchange of goods and services.
But the national economy does get a major bonus when it funnels a part of the "energy budgets" into more labor and innovation in order to avoid spending on fossil fuels in the long run.
The reward is: Jobs right away, security for the population, but also planning security for companies. Stable tax revenue. Banks can continue to grant loans (the S & L schemes were also the attempt to make good on the missed out revenue and profits aftere the 1970s).
couples can plan to buy a home.
Resilience, independence, good jobs that give spending power and financial stability for all (consumers would have needed to cut some consumer spending in exchange for investments into energy inefficiency and independency. It would have been a bump in the road with the right economic strategy.)
If a house is well built and insulated, if the vehicles driving around are increasingly energy efficient, the affluent and long distance drivers upgard first, after 4 years that becomes noticeable, if the companies have already developed the innovative processes, so now they HAVE it and even generic products are much more energy efficient by default compared to a few years before - you reap the longterm rewards for your investments after a few years (instead of continuing to SPEND on a resource that is burned and gone).
Cities and towns get money for insulating existing affordable housing and to deploy quality mass transportation.
Also more skills new skills for the workforce, higher demand for engineering (never a bad idea to be a nation with lots of engineers, they usually can translate their skills to other areas).
The country becomes more independent from outside influences. Workforce has new skills. (Or DIY efforts to insulate your home became standard).
1
-
Outside influence can be war in the Middle East or OPEC negotiation tactics driving up oil prices. The LONG TERM investments and wins in technology are here to stay, the nation controls its own workforce and the costs for it (no sudden price hikes that cause BAD INFLATION).
Many of the workers being busy insulating homes, or developing or producing better car motors, or working in recyling ..... or with all things renewable energy.
In the mid 1970s thermic solar panels to produce hot water and to support heating were already well functioning. The oil price shock boosted that more simple technology. Photovoltaic did exist (since the 1950s for satellites), but was not nearly as developed and it is the more sophisticated technology.
Every time you double the globally installed capacities for solar electricity production (Photovoltaic) you get a price drop of 20 % for the costs of the kWh. (has been like that since the 1970s).
The phenomen is called economy of scale, it exist for ALL mass production although to varying degrees.
It is massive with electronics.
With wind turbines it is 14 % (also long term). With wind power more mature technology is involved so the economy of scale effects are not quite like with solar - and both have nothing on electronics.
Mature technology involved with wind power is steel, concrete and construction work and transportion of the huge parts. If you double steel output globally they are going to find some improvements still - but as it is already mass produced and in huge volumes it is not as easy to DOUBLE global output.
The most gains of a new technology are made in its infancy as it is mass deployed. More often than not that needs government subsidies (in the beginning to start the beneficial technology). Like for electricity (rural areas were not interesting for for-profits). Cars and trucks for long distant transportation of persons and goods - outside of cities and towns these vehicles were not as useful until the government built the Interstate highway.
Railway and telegraphe lines (the army needed to subdue and displace the Native Americans first. After discouraging the British, French, Spanish, Portugese from even trying. you cannot have a railway or telegraph line in areas that you do not fully control or where you have (potential) combat and sabotage.
Electronics, computers, internet, WiFi, touchscreens, PV - all developed with massive military budgets. That took decades.
Antibiotics. (that took quite a while, from the mid 1920s till end of WW2 when they were mass produced for the troops already. Civilians got it after WW2. Veternarians too !).
Malaria drugs (the U.S. military wanted them because of the wars in Asia. Took them a while, but they wanted them continued to do reasearch - until they found it).
Nucelar fission.
Nuclear fusion (maybe), but they are getting plenty of subsidies.
In the mid 1970s the technology of PV existed, but could not compete with thermic production of electricity (which is a relatively primitive technology, heat / steam engines have been around since the early 19th century - 1826 in the British Empire).
Some bold government spending could have boosted the niche (military) technology PV in the 1970s already, there was no reason why we had to wait till after 2000 to get the massive price drops. It was not the passing of time that made it possible, government spending triggered and sustained the positive feedback loop until it became an avalanche.
Some low key ongoing spending had gone on between 1970s and 2000 for PV. The modest higher deployment brought modest improvements.
Chinese oligarchs also have to live with the pollution caused by coal - and China went big taking it from where some actors in the U.S., Germany and and other innovators had gotten so far.
That brought a massive price drop (first dramatic ! effects of economy of scale, then based on low volumes !). The panels became viable in sunny countries (states) that had relatively high electricity prices and high demand for A/C (California, Australia). Peak demand met peak production so technology and costs for storage (the other part of the equation when it comes to renewables) was not as important - as in the temperate climate zone.
Or the users had an inreliable grid (luxury hotels in cities in India that wanted to make do without diesel generator if the grid let them down). Sunny islands with luxury resorts.
So a doubling of output. More installations since it had become more viable - another doubling of output. With some government subsidies (a lot in China, they go big if they do something). But not as much as would have been needed in the past. Situation became a positive feedback loop.
With battery / storage solutions we are only at the beginning of new technologies and massive price drops.
1
-
The cure for bad inflation in the 1970s (they really botched that especially in the U.S. to a degree in all other nations): LOW not HIGH interest rates (at least for all investments that would reduce the cost of production for biz and cost of living for citizens LATER. So all things energy efficiency, research, insulation and construction. Recyling and mass transportation.
Insulating homes, better windows. What helps against the cold also helps agains heat.
More energy efficient cars, trucks.
Fertilizer production, steel, aluminium, glass, paper need a lot of energy to produce. Farming closer to organic farming and recycling help to conserve the energy (and minerals) that initially went into the smelting etc.
Technology and human labor replacing fossil fuel use.
Repairing things (more qualified jobs with skills that are transferable) also help conserve energy.
If you make the washing machine last 4 years more, the initial amount of energy to mine all the metals, produce the materials, components, to produce, transport, stock, sell the machine and get it into the shop and then to the consumer - is not lost.
You need energy to get the repair worker moving around, and to produce and stock the spare parts - but it is more energy efficient than producing cheap machines that fail after 6 years and the rather large investment to repair it seems to be a gamble (pump is a classic, and leaking seals) when you compare it with the costs of another cheap new machine.
See planned obsolescence.
Over 20 - 25 years good initial quality and repair can be the difference between 2 - 4 washing machines. Of course IF the machine is known to have a longer life cycle, repairs are less of a gamble for consumers. So they can give a fellow human work instead of using energy and natural resources (and some inevitable pollution. Even with high standards of environmental production like in Germany or Sweden, there is some damage done. So using less and repairing is better overall.
1
-
1
-
Bad - and undercounted inflation: Extraction schemes from the bottom to the top with exploding real estate prices and rent (speculation on scarce resources is supported *). For profit insanely expensive healthcare. Exploding costs of higher education. High costs of childcare.
* Trade deals kill manufacturing jobs in more rural areas. People are driven into the cities, densely populated areas, where space is a rare resource.
At the same time the spending on affordable public housing went down and / or existing public housing was privatized (almost alway with some corruption).
And the international and domestic landlord class buys up the scarce resource. New yorkers take walks in the good areas with the high priced real estate. Not a light on at night.
That is a problem in all the attractive, safe, metropolitan or touristc regions on the globe. Unless politicians can be bothered to do something about it. Syndey, Melbourne, Auckland, Paris, London, Brussels, San Francisco, .... Berlin.
In New Zealand you have to be a citizen to buy real estate. But they did that only after the worst price hikes.
I think Berlin did something to protect citzens from being priced out.
In Austria and Switzerland (I think) there are touristic regions where everyone (citizen or foreigner) must have main residency or they cannot purchase real estate there.
A company buying commercially used property might get a waiver. A little cheating here and there is possible. But it is not like affluent Chinese, American, French or Saudi real estate investors could get their foot in.
In case a mayor has a mind of colluding with local real estate developers: think: Some touristic project in pristine location, and it is obvious the "hotel" will not be viable, so they would become high end vacation apartments later (with a little remodelling they can have floor plans that are good fit for a "switch" - the population typically straighten out their "leaders".
Even if it would not drive up costs of rent for them (even though the community has to finance water, sewage, streets for apartments that are rarely used). The main objection is often to buildings in areas that the people living there want to remain in their natural state. Especially if it only benefits a few people. They will be positive about investments into skiing, fun parks etc. - but that does not help only 20 or 50 families that are hardly ever in the region.
All the mayors do have the powers - and in the smaller close knit communities the population forces them to use it. So that the people living and working there are not PRICED OUT. Cheating will become apparent, so there is not much leeway for fake main residents. (and they will have to blend in with town / village folks, and will need to come often to maintain appearances).
Politicians have colluded with real estate developers and the landlord class all over the globe (which allows for the price explosion).
But in the rich nations the citizens are at least spared the high costs and steep price increases for healthcare, childcare, and higher education. They get a good deal to begin with, and the price increases are moderate and justified.
They are public non-profit services - and it would therefore come up in elections if the voters are not treated well.
But you cannot vote out a price gouging CEO.
1
-
Inflation is not necessarily the enemy of people working for an income OR for productive companies. But the owners of fortunes in money (not investments in the real economy) HATE inflation. For them it is always bad (the value of their bonds, savings accounts, life insurances, ....) goes down.
That explains the propaganda pro Wallstreet, that regular people need to "invest" to have a secure income in their old age, and the fear mongering regarding inflation.
all of that helps the oligarchs and harms (or does not benefit) regular people.
It makes regular people hostages (at least regarindg their assumptions of how things work, and what regulations they demand their politicians to pass). They have to uncritically let everything pass that goes on on the stock exchange because they are lead to believe they need the stock exchange to save up for a pension (in form of a 401k or whatever). And if they can't do that (only a small part of the population has a 401k, or shares - max 30 - 35 %, and the large sharholdes are in the 0.1 % income bracket) - at least they should be neutral or positive about the idea and wishing that they could do what is generally talked about positively: investing.
So the highly lucrative schemes for the big fish go unchallenged by conventional wisdom and kitchen table economics insights. No regulations whatsoever. The go to move if speculatos ever need a bailout after reckless gambling: "middle class folks would lose their pensions, too".
The same mind games also apply for the "too big to fail banks"
It used to be that banks with deposit insurance were restricted to boring and safe banking. Investment banks had more leeway what they legally could do, but no deposit insurance, and for that reason alone they had no "normal" customers. Nor were these banks interested in normal customers.
if they gambled away the money of rich investors, or gave imprudent loans, no one could declare them "too big to fail". They never got big enough for that anyway. And rich people do not like it if managment gambles with their money WHILE they cannot hope for a bailout. Safer practices restrict how much profit they can make, so if they could have a bailout they would be all for gambling short term.
Glass Steagal (deposit insurance only for boring bank activities, and those activities had to be kept separated, if a bank had an "investment" department that was a separate legal entity, in case they went under it had no impact on the other part of their normal banking biz.)
That kept the U.S. banking system safe for almost 50 years. I am sure here and there a small, exclusive, private bank went under ... Oh well. (Those managers also could not hope for lenient treatment by the law, rich people are usually pissed if they lose a lot of money and use their good political contacts to get them prosecuted. So that kept management cautious as well.)
Voters did not even know the names IF an investment bank went under. They did not have a lot of volume compared to the whole banking sector.
Regular people or normal companies having savings or money on accounts, or loans could not be taken hostage, if the investments of rich people and crazy management had failed.
1
-
The hostage situation also applies to glorifying the stock exchange, or fear mongering about inflation.
The voters must be kept from demanding a return to the New Deal policies (also in the areas of finance, living well with somewhat higher inflation, interest rates) that were better for most of the population - and not so good for the rich. (they did very well, but it is never enough).
Losing purchasing power for fortunes sitting on accounts or invested into bonds is an indirect "tax" for rich people - and a redistrubtion of wealth if those circumstances benefit the lower 80 % income brackets.
They not not lose because they have less money on the accounts to begin with. For a regular person having 1,500 USD in Social security is some money they can count on.
If they happen to reach the age of 90 or 95 - they still get it. From age 65 on you need a lot of savings to make sure you have money later when you cannot work.
Could be that you reach age 70 or age 95, no one knows.
1500 for 12 months and for 30 years equals 540,000 in numbers only. Haven not even included the adjustement necessary, because purchasing powre of 1,500 means the number must be higher 30 years later. Living in public housing (better than what is the norm in the U.S.) and with mass tranportation, and no extra medical costs (or very little), you get around. A couple can save up some. If they have some savings aside and real estate to sell or can live in a multignerational home, they are even in a better financial situation.
Inflation adjusted social security (paid for by by the current workforce that has low unemployment, plus taxes on the rich and highly profitable biz) gives regular working age and older people (and their heirs) a much better deal.
Especially if they live in their paid off home, can sell that, get healthcare free at the point of delivery.
and there are generous provisions up to solid middle class for the care of the elderly
In combination with generous care provisions, and well funded public non-profit care homes for the elderly, and benefits for people that are in need of more care to get it at home. That compensates relatives, or pays for mobile care. They do that in countries like Germany, Austria, ....
There goes the carte blance for Wallstreet and making low inflation so important that they tolerate and create ! high unemployment for a longer time (that is what Paul Volcker did). Good employment created the tax revenue and SS contributions that pay for SS, and care homes.
For a multi millionaire one paid off home and SS or care homes are not relevant, they want the interests on the bonds and savings (interest that are at least as high as low inflation). Plus gambling being promoted and glorified.
They need a climate where regular people THINK inflation is (always) bad, interest rates for savings that are below inflation rate are bad (not if consumers and small biz can actually get the corresponding cheap loans for investments), and Wallstreet is fabulous.
During a crisis the Fed routinely lowers interest rates. Only - smaller biz, biz in trouble, regular people do not get that cheap money. That cheap money does create inflation - in real estate and on the stock exchange.
Low interest loans (especially since the pandemic started, and during the GFC) but only for big biz and the already affluent (and they CAN make a killing in real estate, some of that money lands in an unregulated hyped up stock exchange with companies buying back their own stocks. So the low
interest rates on savings do not disturb them as much.
But inflation MUST be kept down.
If everyone is on their own with saving up or "investing" for their old age, that of course would need to have some ongoing inflation compensation in form of interest. Resp. the demand to have LOW inflation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
7:00 WHAT was that about ?- yes Warren also flip-flopped, not only Harris. Warren's "Medicare for All" is also the public option now - only with more complicated packaging (true to form). She would need to have one epic battle to get the public option and 3 years later (when she might have lost Congress and / or Senate if the Dems manage to win the Senate in 2020) she would need to have another epic battle.
That is a possibility: the next cyclic downturn is overdue, Trump had already bullied the Fed into not raising interest rates (in this allegedly wonderful economy - if you need to have low interest rates the economy is NOT doing great). Trump (or better his advisors) wants to delay the outbreak of that until after the 2020 election.
Normally a president with a (seemingly) good economy and low unemployment wins the reelection, but because this is Trump the Democrats might have a shot. When Sanders or Warren come in and the investment plan is not fast tracked (expect massive shenanigans by the Corporate Dems, never mind the Republicans) it might hit that candidate.
The ideal scenario would be of course that the cyclic downturn would already manifest in early 2020 - when Trump is still in office, then he would lose the election for sure (he wouldn't take responsibility for that economy, and I wonder if his fans would come up with excuses) - but the admin will of course do everything to prevent that.
But it is also possible that the economy hangs on, Trump loses nontheless, and then the downturn manifests under a progressive president. Needless to say that will be blamed on "socialism" - so it is by no means clear the midterms 2022 will have a blue wave.
Nothing screams "I am no really serious about MfA" like such a plan for the rollout . (And I thought the same about her plan 2 weeks befor that to finance Mfa. It was either massive signalling to the Party "leadership", the donors and the superdelegates - or the interns dreamed both "plans" up !).
Warren does not have the guts - or insight - to educate the public why the public option has the potential to undermine the whole reform. (And Sanders is the one who has all the right ingredients in place and stands firmly, but he does a poor job explaining it so far WHY "giving choice" is not just a little tweak).
The lobbyists have been busy - public option is plan B now. The arguments that are spouted now (the Americans do not like to be told what to do - yeah right, that applies to war does it) is cirulated and the Sanders campaign BETTER ramp up before that idea is firmly planted into the minds of voters. Like I said: superficially it sounds plausible and the level of "discussion" is abyssmal and most Americans do not know a single payer system from experience - so it is easy to deceive them.
and all candidates but Sanders have backpaddeled and while they take a piggy ride on the name (which stands for 2 specific bills that are genuine single payer proposals) - they all have a public option. But that does not mean the profiteers and their politicians would give in easily to that either. It will be a fight and they will of course sneak in everything to make sure the competitor - the public agency - has a massive disadvantage.
Ways to arrange for that: If the private insurers can have deductibles co-pays and different prices for different risks they WILL keep only the lucrative = healthy and young. They might make some deceptive offers to the slightly less desireable clients (with high deductibles) - and will kick out all that have higher risks or costs already to the public pool.
90 % of the costs are caused by 10 % of the insured - so they just have to do the purges right, and the U.S. insurance companies excel in that. Sorting out relatively few (unfortunate souls) among the younger age groups can make a huge difference cost-wise.
Divide and conquer.
So that means especially among the young most can get offers that seem to be reasonably priced (not when you factor in the costs that were externalized). Those packages might worsen of course - but the insurers will be able to hang on and influence public opinion for a few years - and they only need a few years to sabotage the public offer.
Plus the public option undermines solidarity among the insured = less political leverage.
The chance to streamline the admin is wasted (it will be Medicare AND countless different packages so the billing stays complicated and the doctors will have to ask for pre-approval like they do now. Out of network remains at thing.
BUT: there are MORE privately insured which means in areas where there are large companies (think GM etc.)
1
-
1
-
Tell them that Trump is dumb but good on the stage a bully and will run circles around Biden during the debate. That you wish Biden well and hope he will enjoy quietly his retirement. That he cannot cope with a lot of STRESS and also not when he is challenged by reporters or in townhalls - and his campaign KNOWS it: they have a very LIGHT schedule for him. Currently they arrange for "easy" debates, a sit down town hall format.
he did a campaign event the last day: 7 SEVEN minutes speech. Does that mean that he cannot stand longer, or does he has no message, or are they afraid that he is going to slip up AGAIN. he is busy doing the hello and the good bye and not much in between, no names, facts, or other dangerous stuff.
Now not everyone does 40 minute events (standing with not much looking at notes and w/o stumbling) like Sanders. but if you count in the time needed to GET there, security etc. what is the point of only speaking 7 minutes. That is the intro and warm up act not the main act.
O.K. the did campaign in South Carolina. It seems to have taken a toll though he already slipped up 3 times after S.C. and Tuesday. And these were not minor gaffes.
I think it is a general decline, in stamina and being quick witted. He may have to compensate for his stutter, that takes up some processing power. Then he can't do a vigorous ! campaign schedule and that tires him out. So more mistakes.
After Super Tuesday he should have been pumped, but it was LATE in the evening. and again he slipped up big time - and likely he had exerted himself when he had been busy in South Carolina..
Conflating Chris wallace with Chuck Todd. The stumble with the attempted quote of the Declaration of Independence (that was embarrassing). Mixing up sister and wife standing behind him on the stage and he needed a few seconds (with the head shakes) to process his failure.
, and somewhat in Iowa and New Hampshire (not as hard as most other candidates) but not in many of the Super Tuesday states. He won them (Alabama for instance) on name recognition and friendly media coverage, and the last minute scramble with many clearing the path for him (I can see that Klobuchar could have gotten some support in the South for instance). But
Now the DNC and CORPORATE media to arrange for a townhall meeting - not a DEBATE between Sanders and Biden IN WHICH both candidates stand the whole evenig. Biden would have half the time to talk.
Why is it that they set it up to be an EASIER environment for Biden ?
Why is his campaign giving him a list with talking points on tricky issues (social security or the Iraq war vote) so that he does not talk to reporters (that was in January ! If he is challenged and does not have the agility to respond - and that could be a filibuster or a skillful deflection - he gets RUDE.
They obviously wanted to avoid that.
That's O.K.
and HE LIKES CAMPAIGNING. That he will run circles around Biden. That there are lots of things that Biden canot hit Trump with - but Sanders can mop the floor. The biden relatives have gotten multi million contracts while Biden was VP (and before).
Now, it likely will not be possible to prove that Biden knew about it - they might not even be able to prosecute Biden's relatives on it (not only his son Hunter).
But it looks AS BAD as what Trump does for HIS family.
Sanders can attack Trump on it. Trump will attack Biden on NAFTA, China, and TPP support (he got the footage and receipts). Rustbelt states anyone.
Sanders will attack Trump on the window dressing of NAFTA 2.0 (he even included some parts of TPP in it).
The private insurers got their chance under Obama / Biden. The prerequisite for ACA was: they stay fully in business, not even a public option (a weak second best
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sam: You forget the part where the investigations (of Comey) regarding Hillary Clinton SHOULD HAVE CONTINUED. (Which would have set up Bernie Sanders as Democratic candidate, the Dems could hardly have avoided it. Which would mean the country NOW would have a level headed, intelligent president capable and willing to process nuance, who actually cares about the people. ...... The private server was (on the surface) not the most evil thing Clinton did.
But then - WHAT did she INTEND to HIDE ? There was a lot of (clandestine, private) email traffic going on before Libya was attacked (on behest of HRC, and the governments of UK, France) and then - when the country after the regime change spiralled out of control - the EMAIL TRAFFIC regarding Libya DROPPED CONSIDERABLY.
Scenario 1 - and that's the positive assumption: Madame Secretary of State had lost interest in her pet project and did not have the guts to fight for the resources to make Libya a success story.
That would have been extremely difficult, anyway. They had NO IDEA what was really going on the country (tribalism for instance) nor did they care.
Anyway: She did not even try, she and her aides certainly did not engage their brain cells or explore possibilities or make plans, once Libya started to go awry.
At the minimum she joins the ranks of incompetent, war mongering, foolish, short shighted, corrupt, vile and opportunistic politicians. She is not exceptional in that respect - but that certainly does not qualify her to run the U.S. presidency
Scenario 2: Libya was a prize - maybe Clinton et al were negotiating the distribution of the spoils in advance. Plus of course they had to organize the collusion with Saudi Arabia who no doubt helped with recruitment of extremists to fight for Nato in Libya. There were a lot of things that could have leaked if it was processed through the official channels, and it begs the question if Obama knew all about relevant "agreements".
Also there was likely some collusion with the UK government (then with Prime Minister David Cameron). The UK started sending over known sympathizers of terrorism to wreck havoc in Libya once the regime change has started.
Some of the "Manchester Boys" celebrated during the regime change had to hand in their passports when they resided in the UK. The government allowed them to stay in the UK (they lived often long there after having fled for instance from Libya).
But the authorities considered them enough of a security risk to not let them travel freely. Well that changed in 2011 (and that was maybe the reason those folks were tolerated by the UKgovernment in the first place. - see John Pilger's article of 2017 - What did the Prime Minister know ? - Theresa May now PM was then Minister of interior (so responsible for MI5 who monitored the potential jihadists).
One of them was the suicide bomber of Manchester, Salman Abdi (the concert massacre last year). A jihadi / ISIS fan family (living in the UK for a long time) if there ever was one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Political internships (or in that case with school) are for the INSIDERS. The children of the well connected. If she was wealthy her parents likely were donors. - Now if your experience would be the worst thing Biden has ever done / has been neglectful about ....
Delaware is a tax haven, Biden always served Wallstreet, banks, Big Finance. That INCLUDES being pro miltary contractors being pro a huge budget, being pro war, pro big healthcare, and pro big biz in general (see "free" trade deals).
Biden shored up the Democratic votes for the Iraq war and likely was in place at the side of Obama * to make sure that the interest of the Big Donors were served well, just in case that Obama would try to make good on some promises from the campaign.
Likely Biden also made sure that single payer (the system that the other countries have - most of them and for decades and a half the spending per person) was not even considered (in the 2009 Senate hearing the industry was invited, but no groups of nurses/doctors pro single payer or other experts).
Wallstreet loves the stocks of Big Pharma and the insurance companies.
* citigroup mail October ! 2008 with lists of names - proposals for cabinet positions (grouped regarding "diversity" races ethnicities religions, gay, military service, even disabled, - the author went to extra mile and included a list of females although that was not asked for. I think the only group that was missing was "determined to serve the constituency".
And yes, the cabinet appointments could all be found in that list.
1
-
1
-
1
-
ACA is very weak, it protects the prfits of the industry and gives a few crumbs to the citizens - at a high cost - premiums for consumers AND extracting a lot of funding out of government. The self-serving donation chasing Democrats are very complacent about it - NoW, they take a risky gamble whether they will take back BOTH houses, to reign in Trump. The Senate is needed to prevent more righttwing Supreme Court appointments!
Democrats could have gotten together in summer, press conference, maybe Sanders in the front row, Medicare for All, vote for us in the midterms, the bill is ready. We. Mean. Business.
The Senate would be a safe bet, they could have a landslide
MfA polls 51 % favorable with Republicans and plus 80 or 90 % with Democrats. Even the Blue Dogs would look good to the voters in conservative states.
That would make sure they can take back Congress AND Senate. Then they CAN prevent more SCOTUS appointments and make Trump a lame duck.
BUT: their Big Donors (the same that also finance the Republicans) would not like it. And keeping MONEY of big donors is more important than anything else.
It is more important than winning elections (the donors will provide for good shills that lose their seat).
Screw the citizens !
The Democrats are already throwing the citizens under the bus. They have no problem with 40,000 people dying due to lack of healthcare - that was under Obama and ACA (Havard study). The number will be higher now.
1
-
When Obama the Democratic party started out with the "healthcare reform, single payer was not even discussed, public option (a weak improvement) was killed right in the beginning - by Blue Dogs !
ACA is good for the industry and throws some bones to the citizens - at excessive costs. Protecting the industry profits over the well being of citizens.*
They had a Senate hearing in 2009 where the industry was invited, single payer advocats / experts or the nurses organisation NOT - single payer was not even discussed. completely ignoring the success story of other countries !
Then they tried to placate the Republicans, who weakened the bill even more (price controls) but did not vote for it later anyway.
The Dems finally passed it despite a lot of GOP tantrums in spring 2010 when they had for 60 days a filibuster proof majority. THEN they could have passed every good law regarding healthcare provided they had it ready (also gun reform btw).
Obama talked a good game in 2008 - and sold out to the special interests already during the campaign. it showed in his cabinets picks, how he protected Big Finance, (but no help for the citizens) and in the way he and the Corporate Democrats started out with the healthcare "reform".
All European countries introduced or expanded their single payer / universal healthcare systems AFTER the end of WW2, even before the full recovery set in. That's more than 70 years and hundreds of millions of people (you can add Canada, Australia, Japan, ...) - nothing the Democrats thought they should consider in that Senate hearing - they had the majority THEN (with Sanders).
These nations in the late 1940s realized the obvious:
Healthcare is a terrible fit for the "free" market !
The patients are by far the weakest participants in the system and WILL be exploited by profiteers if they find a possibility (and there are plenty). There can never be competition that would protect the interests of the patients / insured.
The titans of an industry usually do not bother each other - instead they have a cozy policy of non-aggressions (every one has their turf), they extract their profits from the weakest part the customers, and in the case of healthcare the influental players that represent hospitals and Big Pharma also lobby politicians to give them as much government funding as possible.
An oligopoly is annoying for the consumers when it comes to the internet/phone providers and cable TV. But because the service is so costly AND so important it has tragic results when there is the inevitable oligopoly for for-profit healthcare.
Therefore all other (now) wealthy nations did not play the game at all.
The government or the regulators cannot control the insurerers / providers in a system that has a lot of LARGE for profit actors.
Not, when the service is so complex that it can only be assessed by experts (even doctors defer to other specialists if THEY get sick). Often it is a life and death issue, or at least about quality of future life and being able to work and take care of yourself. Also the service cannot be put off for some time. Plus it is costly even when delivered cost-efficiently - it can exceed the price of a house.
There are too many incentives for the profiteers and they have COUNTLESS possibilities to add costs to transactions.The profiteers would always be ahead 2 steps of even well intentioned regulators and 4 steps ahead of the patients.
It would be excessively burdensome for lawmakers / regulatory agencies to monitor every transaction between the system and patients to make sure they are not ripped off, never mind privacy.
Therefore: wise governments allowed very little "private for profit" in their systems (or as little as possible) when they set up Healthcare For Everyone. *
They did not engage in a game where they or the citizens can only lose.
1
-
setting up good, cost-efficient Healthcare For Everyone: These countries often have doctors with their own practice which are like small ! businesses. Most of them (70 - 80 %) have a contract and work at the fees of the non-profit public insurance agency *.
Hospitals always have a contract with the public agency, that means negotiated fees, and no denial of services for financial / insurance reasons allowed.
Truly "private" hospitals"would not have enough patients and could not compete with the hospitals that are part of normal healthcare system. These hospitals are good AND the patients do not get a bill (= free at the point of delivery).
Maybe there are some in London or Switzerland (the tax haven also for drug lords and dictators) or in London for the Russian oligarchs, and the oil princes - but they are very rare.
It is very unusual that persons would not have insurance (mandatory for persons who have a job, very affordable wage deductions. That amount must be matched by company. The size of company, number of hours does not matter.
Risks, gender, age do not matter either, ONLY the income decides the costs. And no LATER costs (or almost no, certainly nothing significant). There is a cap for the wage deductions, so even people with a high wage pay less than they would in the U.S.
They and profitable businesses contribute indirectly more. The wage related insurance contributionas are not enough of course. So there is additional government funding.
Of course provisions to get insurance for jobless, retired, persons, people in a professional training or at university, stay at home parents etc. Either they have insurence for free, or it is the automatic low deduction from the pension, or can "self"-insure at very reasonable rates, maximal 75 USD per month. That would be the stay at home wife but never had a child. Students above the age of 26. If they would work in a job with at least 500 USD per month they would have claim to their own insurance (with full coverage) - but if they don't do it for whatever reason, they still can have coverage.
Within the EU and association nations the agencies of the countries deal with each other. A French tourist will be treated like a German with insurance when in a German hospital. Provided he or she has whatever is the normal "insurance" in France they will be fully covered.
That means it is really rare that the providers have to deal with an uninsured person.
And once certain treatments, medications got the green light by the public agency it is the decision of the doctors what "tools" they will use for the patients. Doctors have the authority to order a helicopter transport in an emergency for instance.
That is available on principle, it is upon them to use that tool to improve the chances for the patients - w/o abusing it. Which is not likely, they do not profit from those costly services. If anything they might order it too often because they err on the side of caution.
That is why ambulance staff were not allowed to order airlift anymore - they misjudged the serverity or could not weigh to options correctly. Get the patients into the nearest hospital by ambulance (they can be moved from there by car or airlift to the next hospital after having been stabilized if that is necessary) versus flying them to a specialized hospital right away.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
George Bernard Shaw said “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” - Charlie Kirk missed that one. And things were so wonderful - for all - in the 1960s, weren't they ?
Weird - why would some people not be content and point out the need for ongoing and determined struggle - and yes that means conflict because the people that profit from the unfair status quo will not give one inch voluntarily.
In the 1960s they had the well established traditions to lock out minorities from the good jobs, good education, they could not buy real estate or start buisinesses in certain areas (the good areas). ALSO in the Northern states. There were laws that one could not sell property to a non-white person. Such zoning was not only tolerated by the law, the laws spelled that out. In the NORTH.
They were denied education opportunities and the best jobs (then manufacturing) were meant for white persons.
The backlash against a strictly peaceful movement showed how much some people hated the idea to have fair conditions for all. (and they now went nuts over taking a knee. That by the way is a gesture of humility. I do not know where that comes from, maybe to show that the black people were treated like serfs that had to kneel before nobility).
Some did not mind to murder children in a church (a terrorist bomb attack) and others kidnapped and killed law abiding civil rights activists (with the help of local law enforcement, mind you). Prince Edward county in Virginia would rather close down ALL public schools than to follow (with years of delay anyway !) the ruling of the Supreme court to integrate public schools. Of course the lower income white families got subsidies (from the tax payer) to send their kids to the private schools. That continued to lock out children of color. It took 5 years to do away with the unconstitutional discrimination and sneaky favoring of white private schools.
So how come black people and those to the left embraced struggle / conflict (which can mean non-violent conflict) in the 1960s ?
The entitlement and willfull ignorance of some white right wingers !!
University of Chicago had real estate and discriminated against black couples (not officially mind you, they were just told there were no free apartments for rent. then came a white couple to test that and they were shown the free apartments).
The city of Chicago had FREE class rooms or capacities. But those were for WHITE children. so the minority children were put into overcrowded metal containers. Hot in summer, cold in winter, not enough resources, too large classes, no running water, who knows where the toilets were.
The children got the sublimal message that they counted less. There parents picked up that message too.
It is something else if every child has to make do with such conditions (after a natural disaster for instance), but at some point these kids realized (if only at a subconscious level) that the authorities made much better arrangements for other kids. Not all kids had classes and crowded, uncomfortable conditions like they had.
Sanders engaged against these practices in 1963.
So WHY would anyone have wanted profound change, and not been content - I ask myself.
1
-
Single payer offers choices for the DOCTORS regarding the treatments they can use for the patients - and the patients never have to pay when they get that ("free at the point of delivery"). Only the affordable contribution in advance - in most European countries it as a percentage of the wage . Matched by the company. Risk does not matter at all. That is not enough funding so like in the U.S. a lot of the budgets for the public non-profit insuarnce ageny comes form the government. Their job is to serve the patients and make healthcare happen. Not to make a profit.
_ If a treatment is available at all (will be paid for on principle) - everyone can have it if the doctor thinks it is medically necessary. For instance if the doctor arrives at the scene after an accident and orders an airlift to get you quicker in a far away specialized hospital.
The doctors with their own practice (80 % of them) and all the hospitals have a contract with the public non-profit insurance agency, There is a pool of a certain drugs or treatments that will be paid for - if the providers of care decide to use that tool. That could be expensive chemotherapie, and organ transplant, or mammography or x-ray, ...
Everthing that is usual in modern medicine - and the database is constantly adjusted to include new treatments , devices or drugs - to some degree they might purge old ones. That is agreed upo between the representation of the hospitals, doctors and the non-profit insurance company.
The doctor will make the choice what is warranted. Resp. send you to the specialists.
Hospitals do have their own x-ray and MR machines and staff they could not do their work w/o having these services in house. (and dentists have x-ray suited for the jaw / mouth area as well).
Practical doctors send you elsewhere "for the pictures" to avoid conflicts of interest. They do not make money of it when they prescribe such an examination. A doctor who invests in the machines and the staff would have an incentive to find many such examinations necessary. (the service is expensive to run, the more he or she would use the machines the easier they can earn back the investment. and then a profit. A family docor would never have enough case load to begin with).
That conflict of interest is avoided when they send you to another doctor. Usually they have the practices they work with - but if you would prefer another one (it is nearby where you work and more convenient the referal will accomodate your wishes).
The specialized doctors who runs such practices get all their patients by referal.
So the reason to have those examinations will be but medical necessity (leaning on the side of caution of course). The incentive to overprescribe them is removed.
There are only a certain number of doctors (GP and specialists) and hospitals that will get a contract with the non-profit public agency in an area (per 1000 or 10,000 inhabitants). So those who have a contract will have enough patients, while allowing some choice for the patients and the family doctors when they make referals.
If you do not like your dentist you go to another one. If you break your arm, you show up in the hospital of your choice. If you cut off a limb when using a circular saw or motor saw - the choice will be made for you. Some hospitals specialize in sewing fingers, even limbs back on - and there is a good chance there will be an airlift. Their is a window of time when that can be done before the tissue deteriorates.
Practices that offer x-ray and MR etc. are run like clockworks. They have a large case load. Up to date machines, pay the staff well. A relative works in the profession as assistant - operating the machines and taking the "images". Which requires a 2 or 3 year education after highschool. Free education of course. They have to pass an exam to be accepted into the school and they should have good grades. Lots of stuff to learn in the school about anatomy, etc.).
1
-
John Kerry testified in a hearing that Arab nations (read mostly KSA) had offered significant amounts of money "if the U.S. would intervene in Syria like they did on other occassions in the Middle East." Then he chuckled and said: "Actually they would pay for the full operation." (Obama did not take that offer)
Translation: the U.S. military functioning as mercenaries for the Saudis to achieve their aggressive foreign policy goals.
Because the Nouvaux insanely rich in Saudi Arabia do not have the guts, capability, willingness to sacrifice - that would be needed to go openly to war with Syria (as opposed to finance a proxy war, recruit radicalized, economically desperate young men from poor Arab countries, plus the limited number of religious fanatics from KSA, former Soviet Republics and even from Western democracies.
But the radicals that will die for the jihad out of conviction are not enough to make successvul regime changes. There are enough young men (or fired soldies and officers who served in the Saddam Hussein era - who are somewhat fundamentalistic and joined one of the groups of moderate terrorists, al Qaeda or ISIS. These men are for sure pissed off at the West and they are on the quest for some success story in their life and for their culture.
They were more motiavted by the money not by the jihad.
This hearing where Kerry was interviewed (it was televised on C-Span) may have been before the Russian airforce and army showed up. In which case they would have had to confront "only" the dedicated people's armies of Syria, Iran and Hezbollah.
Hint: Hezbollah defeated israel in 2006, and the IDF is certainly much more capable than the Saudi army.
Hint: with the Russian military present, even the U.S. military warned Obama in 2013 to get involved.
But the Israelis would have needed to sell the deaths to the voters - for the mission to invade and annex Lebanaon (which they would like to do of course, water, fossil fuel). They could not pull it off in 1980 either - Lawrence Wilkerson: We had to haul out their asses at the cost of losing most marines on one day since WW2.
(After that Reagan said some belligerent things - and had the good sense to pull the U.S. military out)
On the other hand the Saudi absolute monarchs keep the country under the thumb by giving a good part of the poulation at least SOME money to live on. Plus they use extreme religion to make people fall in line *.
Dying and suffering because of war is not part of the deal, not for most Saudis.
* Some of those princes are into wild orgies abroad - makes you wonder if they really believe the religous b.s. - the rules do not apply to them, to they think Allah cares about their privileges when judging them ?
- others are fundamentalists (like Osama Bin Laden who came from a rich family. He was a combatant out of conviction - and a CIA asset as long as he was useful as fierce jihadist fighting against the Soviets in Afghanistan. The U.S. thought they could control such people.
1