Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Jimmy Dore Show"
channel.
-
13
-
First: never contradict the lunatics. 2nd: talk nicely to them (I know ! - but if you hurt their ego they will never come around - see it as a way to make some Karma points - lol). . If they say: Russia stole or interfered with the elections, ask them: HOW did they do that - SPECIFICICALLY. They will not be able to answer it. (Podesta emails were either leaked or hacked, were for sure embarrassing, but likely DID not decide the elections. . see William Binney, McAfee interviews on the alledged hacking, see Craig Murray who says he got the data from a disgruntled DNC insider in a park in D.C). They talk about Trump and business interests in Russia - that may be. But while that is unsavoury, unethical and unworthy of a statesman/woman and an U.S. president - it is also the sad state of affairs - for all politicians - and it does not mean that Trump is selling out the U.S.
Not more than Obama sold out immediately to Wallstreet (see Citibank mail, they decided about his first cabinet!), or Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton sold out to the fracking industry and to the Gulf States, especially Saudi Arabia (Clinton Foundation). And then 90 % of the U.S. politicians conflate the interests of the State of Israel with the interests of the U.S. (see Larry Willkerson on The Real News - I highly recommend him, also the former CIA officers Ray McGovern or Michael Scheuer). US politicians almost unversally take great pains to not offend AIPAC and to not lose their funding. Even Sanders pussyfoots around Israel and AIPAC, he does not need their money, but he sure fears their opposition. And they are certainly an formidable enemy - so Sanders might be right not to cross them - Chose your battles wisely.) The almost slavish support of Isreal and the unchecked cooperation with KSA may prove to be much more dangerous for the U.S. than being friendly with Russia or even Trump profiting of unethical deals with them - the Russians after all have a formidable army, are still a big player and DO HAVE NUKES.
There will be no peace in the Middle East w/o considering the Russians. The Saudis on the other export and finance terrorism and extreme Islamistic ideology. (This is something that was in the leaked emails - HRC was informed about it). The Saudis still were "allowed" to donate to the Clinton "Charity".
12
-
Bill Maher is TRIBAL - and in that respect he is as irrational as the religious fundamentalists (Christian and Muslim) * Or the secular Western war mongerers. Bad shit does not count IF OUR TRIBE DOES IT. And the West (politicians and the subservient mainstream media) reserve the right to moral outrage if the other side does bad things (even though they can never match the suffering WE CREATE because of our military and economic power). Same with the "intellectual" Sam Harris BTW. -
So the divide is between the TRIBAL people (even if they come under the cover of secular, educated, pro women's right - Western woment mind you - and "liberal") On the other side are the people that took enlightenment to heart - like Noam Chomsky or also Glenn Greenwald or John Pilger or Oliver Stone.
Not that those whom the modern Western tribalists consider "our guys" are comparable to for instance ISIS.
ISIS is INDIVIDUALLY terrible and kills people for "unenlightened" reasons - the West on the other hand UNLEASHES MISERY and suffering on a large scale and since decades - and if you look closer for their motivation: for greed and out of ideological reasons. So behind the thin veneer of the First World Appearance and education you will find really ugly motivations. At least ISIS and the moderate terrorists like AlQaeda and their spin off Al Nusra in Syriais honest about it's motivations.
When Isis indivdiually beheads people it is terrible. And the West is shocked for the MOTIVATIONS for these atrocities. When we let it happen that anonymous drone strikes behead people, tear them arpart, burn them alive - 90 % of whom are unrelated CIVILIANS - it is somehow not "that" bad - it is hardly reported (the media are complicit with the war machine). It is not "personal" and these people are not killed because of "backwards" reasons, no they are killed because of seemingly "enlightened" reasons - the Western power trip and for economic gain of the ruling Western elites. Somehow that is not as evil as being killed by Isis because of being a Christian.
Nontheless, the West was fine with Isis taking over a part of Syria (John Kerry is on record saying that, Dec. 2016) - of course that resulted in atrocities against the moderate Syrian population - which were not newsworthy however.
That nuance (the Western killings and atrocities do not count) might be lost on the population of the war torn countries. The Obama Drone program is called a terrorism
The evil shit and OUR WARS OF AGGRESSION are never considered as bad as the atrocities of the other side and are never much reproted about let alone condmned.
The U.S started and nurtured international Islamic terrorism in Afghanistan in the 80s, they encouraged Saddam Hussein to START a war against Iran in 1980 (8 years, up to one million dead), they started bombing Serbia in Yugoslavia (and here the Germans helped them lying - a coalition of fake Social Democrats and the Green Party no less, makes you wonder if the US agencies could blackmail those German politicians). Later it came out the alleged widespread atrocities of Serbia were NOT true (at that time), some shit happened on all side, but by no means an attempt of the dominating Serbs to have a genozide of the other ethnicities.
Of course THEN the situation in the Yugoslavian civil war (that started because of neoliberal economic policies and the economic stress they created) got completely out of hand. The hardliners and crazies on ALL SIDES in the civil war got the upper hand, the Muslim ethnicity in YU got help by the Taliban who had run out of "terrorism work" in Afghanistan after the Soviet army had left.
Lies to start a war of aggression in Iraq in 2003, lies about atrocities of the
Libyan army to "justify" the war of aggression that took out the regular Libyan army, and then the jihadists took over. The U.S. puppet government STILL does not control the country in 2017 - they are lucky if they control the capital Tripolis.
As for the US arming and aiding ISIS: Gen. Petraeus openly proposed ! to give arms to ISIS in Syria !!!! - the state department got some resistance and could not completely cover that up and finally decided to support or even finance ISIS and the other jihadists more indirectly. Their money machine (oil sales) in Syria was never much interrupted until the Russian airforce started to go after them (the brother of Erdogan in Turkey was engaged in helping all the "rebel" forces with selling the oil).
When OUR guys do evil shit it is not as bad as when Assad does it (like bombing Mossul in Iraq - how is that different than when the Russian and the Syrian airforce kill a lot of civilians in their fight to regain government control of the country - and remember that war and the necessity for these airstrikes IS FORCED ON Syria. Assad's government cannot let the jihadists just be - they will spread the jihad if left unbothered. Spreading the jihad means occupying more territory and force sharia law on the multi-ethnic population, and they terrorize, kill, kick out every non-Sunni AND suppress the moderate Sunnis, too.
* If I remember correctly I heard that when Jimmy had Glenn Greenwald on the show - maybe Dec. 2016.
10
-
I live in a country with affordable healthcare with a public non-profit insurance agency (single payer). It is not free, but the costs are a percentage of wage (employer and employee pay the same, there is a cap), rest comes from government funding.
Mandatory if you make more than 550 USD per month, neither company nor employer need to lose a thought if and what plan to chose etc.
You earn that much - you MUST contribute to the system AND you have the same coverage like a person with a high wage.
There are provisions for the few people who are not wage earners, self-employed, retired, jobless, dependents incl. stay at home parents, housewives, students till age 26, ... one can buy insurance with the public agency.
The system is very streamlined, risk or pre existing conditions do not matter, everyone knows and pays the costs in advance (affordable),.
free at the point of delivery so no unexpected costs or unpleasant surprises when one needs treatment. And no incentive to deny treatment or to make a difference who gets what sort of treatment where.
You give them name SS number, address in the hospital - there you go. From there it is the medical situation and nothing else. The doctors not the bureaucrats or the insurance agency decide what treatment is needed or recommended.
A new innovative cancer treatment for instance is available for anyone or no one (when medically indicated). Which means it IS available. The doctors learn about those things, the agency in the negotiations with the hospitals and Big Pharma learns about new drugs of course. If there is medical value it will be adopted.
The agency of course must stay within the budet.
That said: they also can think in terms of "the common good".
if the budget would not be enough they have to shift or ask for more funds.
If it reduces sick time, increases recovery or survival rate etc. it is ALWAYS worth the expenditures.
If treatment means speedier recovery it is good for families, it is good for companies (they have to provide sick leave ) etc.
A private for-profit insurerer will look at what it costs them and not look at the big picture of the costs or benefits for society and the economy.
The agency does not have to worry about the profits of shareholders - profit is an inefficiency they do not have to deal with.
Profit is an incentive and reward for entrepreneurial endeavours. Administrating healthcare and helping to make it happen as intermediary between the players in the system is a bureaucratic task. So the entrepreneurial spirit is not necessary nor is the reward necessary.
On the contrary: the incentives of capitalism are toxic in the area of healthcare. The free market does not work for all kinds of services, healthcare is one where the "free market" on principle is not possible.
And of course the adminstration can be much more streamlined because they do not have to differentiate between plans, co-pays, or check the pre-existing conditions of people and then exclude them.
The hospitals, doctors etc. send the bills to the public non-proft agency (they have contracts, and negotiated prices).
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
That's not true - Corbyn clearly said that he will support BREXIT. On the other hand the conservatives act under the motto: Never let a good crisis go to waste - the patriotic ! goal would be of course to exit the EU and to not screw over the majority of the population (everyone apart from from wealthy and rich people, Big Biz and last but not least the financial "industry"). They could try to negotiate so bad that the population will BEG to be allowed to return. - If they do well in the upcoming election I also expect the Tories to make the attempt to ram through more austerity, to defund of public serivces that help the little guy/gal and undermining of labour rights - all under the pretext of Brexist.
They are hell-bent to "privatize" a health service that is one of the most cost-efficient (for a wealthy nation) - and it is clearly underfunded with per capita expenditures of USD 3,900 (most of it being NHS costs + of course the private upgrades citizens feel forced to spend money on) vs. 5- 5,500 in most wealthy ! European countries and Canada, 6k in Australia, and plus 9k in the U.S. (World Bank per capita expenditures, data 2014). Hungary and Poland do not count - their costs of living an wages are much lower than affects healthcare costs of course.
The Tories pretend to "solve" a problem that would not even exist if there was a little bit more funding - the next best comparable European countries have 4,2k resp. 4,6k. Most have at least 5k. - So calculate the gap (whatever country you want to compare with) - for instance Germany 5,600 - 3,900 and then multiply with around 65 million people (or whatever the number is) - there you have an idea of the ADDITIONAL budget the NHS would have (if it were in Germany).
And if the NHS THEN does not work like a charm with at least !! 4,2 - 4,5 k per capita - then and only then the Tories could announce the need for reform with some justification. Before they could go to look for more money - at the mythical place where they find the money for war, bank bailouts, Trident, .....
It's the NHS litmus test.
Defunding the NHS is reckless and motivated by greed and/or blind ideology - and everyone who does not call it what it is - an attempt to deteriorate the system to "justify" selling it out to for-profit players - will never work for the wellbeing of most of the citizens - no matter the issue - and that applies to the Tories, their opposition AND the media.
The Tories think they can play the voters for fools (sadly they may be right).
7
-
7
-
+ThinkB4utype - Larry Wilkerson (former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell) on the Real News: Obama might have risked being assassinated if he had chosen an anti-war, anti deep state stance. *
Wilkerson: ...If I call President Obama for anything it was his timidity and his lack of courage with respect to politics, and his lack of courage with respect to particularly his last three years in office. Where I know from talking with him personally, talking with him in the Roosevelt Room, that he understood, he said [to me] there was a bias in this town towards war, with his Secretary of State sitting beside him. He said quote : "There's a bias in this town towards war" unquote. Well, he went on for another 20 minutes to elaborate on that. Well, Mr. President if you knew that why didn't you start doing something about it. I mean he could have done a lot more, if he'd had the political courage to do it ...... I think it's because, first you get trapped in that environment and you want to make lots of money and you wanna to be very happy, and you wanna be very satisfied when you leave that office, especially if you're as young as he is. And you realize that if you start these fights, if you start these battles, not only might you be assassinated, you're probably going to leave without anything like the dignity, and the honor, and the emoluments, and the fortune that he left with. And I don't say that lightly, that's a very difficult decision to make, when you stand up for principle, when you stand up for the country, when you are a true patriot, you usually are punished, not rewarded.
* It is in the 2nd half of the interview more to the end. The outlet is The Real News - normally they have a transcript of their site with the youtube video embedded. In this case I recommend going to the youtube, I provided a transcript in the comments section. The video was at the end of June 2017 I believe, it was with the title (3929) Wilkerson: Practically Everyone Opposes Trump's Reversal of Obama's Cuba Opening
www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=eMO4o5nRGQs
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@samdunn717 The NHS makes it possible to have record setting low spending per person in a first world country - the U.K. has 42 % of the spending per person of the U.S. (and most of that is spent via the NHS. - Other wealthy nations have 50 - 54 % (the usual range) with outliers between 47 to 56 %. The base for that comparsion is the U.S. with USD 10,260 for every person on average - in 2017. -
THAT low budget (for the NHS) explains why there is INCREASING need to have supplemental insurance in the U.K. and people would rather go to private doctors. It may also explain why they do not have enough staff to attend to dying patients in need of pain medication. (nurses are often not allowed to give out the strong stuff and if there is no doctor available ! to sign off on it ...)
And it highlights how allowing a lot of "private for-profit" fucks up a system - see the U.S.
The Swiss rely only on private insurers. They have universal coverage (everyone must have insurance, and the Kantons = like states in the U.S. help low-income citizens).
Regulation does not work regarding costs in Switzerland - but it protects the insured / patients in other regards: no kicking out by the insurers, the government sets the minimum coverage of a basic package, and they insurers must offer that basic package at the same price for ALL in the same age group.
That means they cannot discriminate against insured with pre-existing conditions and they cannot refuse to accept someone for insurance. They cannot chose their clients by making prohibitively high offers to those they do not want - not when it comes to the basic package.
Services are good, the Swiss have higher costs of living, that means higher wages, they pay staff well - but that does not explain the difference of 22 % to wealthy neighbour Germany: 56 % (high for an European country) versus the Swiss which have 78 % of U.S. spending per person.
Also: in Germany the average age is higher, age is a major driver of spending.
So that is what regulation in a country with a very strong culture of basis democracy (referendum culture) can get you. Good care, the insurers cannot mess with the insured / patients - but they pay a steep surcharge for that.
back to the U.S.
the Tories intentionally pushed the NHS to the brink in order to "justify" a privatizaion. (hard to argue for that if the non-profit system runs like a charm on a lean budget).
Plus the NHS has never covered dental - not even basic.
Dental is expensive in the U.K. (go figure !). If the one powerful negotiator (a public non-profit insurance agency in a single payer nation - or in the U.K. the NHS) does not negotiate on behalf of the patients the dentists do demand higher rates. Why ? Because they can !
"Private for -profit" does hardly ever add to the quality when it comes to doctors. Having acceptable waiting times is not quality - for that only the single payer agency must have enough budgets, to make it interesting for enough doctors to have enough practices which are spread out over the country.
Maybe private is better if the doctor is a capacity. Or they have non-traditional treatments like accupuncture. What I notice (I live in Austria) - doctors are not allowed to advertise, marketing for everything related to medicien is either restricted or outlawed.
So if they do not get the patients thanks to being open to the "publicly insured" they rely on the patients that FIND them and are willing to pay out of pocket (or have supplemental insurance that might cover the extra). They depend on word of mouth. That requires a good track record.
There are enough doctors with a contract with the public insurance ageny available. So even the "private only" doctors tend to offer their services at affordable rates (real capacities may handle that differently).
it is not possible in a cost efficient system to have private hospitals. (except the small units for the international oligarchs in London or Paris. If they need the big medical stuff they invariably land in the hospitals that are open to the publicly insured).
With insurers (paper shufflers) private for-profit adds NOTHING and always costs more.
Back to the NHS: if a system with a lean budget THEN is defunded over the course of of 10 years (finally, finally ! the Tories thought they could attack it under cover of "austerity") it starts showing. Citizens who can afford it are practically pressured to have supplemental insurance to get good quality services.
Which the NHS could easily provide - in the same quality and at lower costs - if they were given SUFFICIENT funding.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
+budfinks - she has healthcare because she is a veteran, so she is not selfish. - I think a part was (missing) information, people had the vague feeling they were being scrwed. But had been indoctrinated for decades and since they were little that the US is the greatest country on earth, and the feeling that something was off (in a systemic manner) was never validated. And many people are not reflective to begin with. so there was no explanation easily availble that matched the uneasyness.
Regarding information about how other rich countries solve healthcare - the internet for the first time allowed to bypass MSM (which colludes with the establishment politicians to supress any meaningful discussion, healthcare, military spending, ...).
Then the Sanders campaign (also with help of social media) ignited the dry timber. Before outsourcing became so rampant a lot of good paying jobs had insurance plans - they were too expensive of course, but the workers/patients didn't know that. Then came the first wave, NAFTA, then the outsourcing to China, then the financial crisis. A lot of people did not have the jobs with the plans anymore AND treatment got more expensive. Apart from price gouging - there is better treatment available, but it is costly. (Better chemotherapy, they can save people when they have a stroke or heart attack who would have died 10 or 20 years ago. Good - but higher costs.
it is no coincidence that the "individual responsibility" and "me, me, mine" is so propagated - divide and conquer. And shame people. If they are not doing well it is their fault, almost a moral failing. Those who are unlucky can easily be ignored.
And I think people KNEW things were not right - but felt isolated. Now they know what they can do and the issue is important enough to activate them.
6
-
Donor money is used to finance campaigns. When politicians leave politics they get cushy positions as lobbyists. Or they have a "business" like a law firm, a PR agency, they are becoming board members (Hillary Clinton was on the board of Walmart, when her husband Bill was Govenor of Arkansas - would she have gotten that job without the hubby ?). They have books written in their name and "someone" buys all these books, they make personal income from speeches (again the Clintons getting 150,000 - 250,000 USD for 1 hour speeches for Big bank events - see Goldman Sachs). They find themselves in the board of an university (well paid with little to do). Or in the board of a Brazilian for profite university. Their family members are employed by Think Tanks.
They operate law firms - now that might be a legitimate business and a new career, but there is a good chance they are getting clients they would not get without the prior political career. Another money laundering scheme:
They operate an IT or marketing company and are getting contracts for overpriced webpages, or they may be allowed to conduct political campaigns (incl. ads).
Marketing, or simple giving someone advertisements, or IT solutions or PR or Consulting services are a great way to send some money to a politician as later Thank You for selling out as politician. If 100k or 1 million is paid for a marketing campaign, or for developping a "strategy" who could judge how much work really went into that project and if it is really worth that price.
On the other hand if you run a catering business or defend clients in court the service provided is very tangible. Defending someone in court has an outcome and other lawyers have a good idea of how much work and skill ! went into the service and what it would be worth on the market.
And it is important that the ex-politicians are well provided for, IF they were willing to betray their constituency. After all it would be a bad signal to those politicians who are still in office and who are still necessary to vote for the donors. The ex-politicians MUST get their reward for voting for the donor's interests in the past. The reward has to came later because of the legal requirements.
It is legally forbidden to take money directly for PERSONAL gain DURING an acitve political career.
Campaign donations are allowed, those direct donations are limited ( ? USD 2,500 - not sure but there are reasonable limits).
However, so called Super Pacs that are seen as "independent" from the campaign and party, can raise as much money as they want. Literally billions. And run TV ads and smear campaigns. Or hire internet posters and bloggers (the Clinton campaign did that: Correct the Record)
That is important because TV ads are so expensive. the organizations called Super Pacs cannot give millions or even billions directely to the party or directly support the candidate (like paying for a rally, or paying for the staff of a campaign). But they can shoulder a big chunck of the expensive advertising budget of a campagin.
Or buy a lot of the books of a candidate. Or hire their family members. (Which is personal gain).
Bill Clinton said they were broke when they left the White House. The Clintons made 150 millions in PERSONAL INCOME after ! they left the White House. Without even considering fundraising for the party or their "Clinton foundation".
Chelsey got a very high paid position in the Clinton Foundation (right after college) The foundation takes a lot of money from Big Bank, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Monsanto, Fracking and military equipment companies and last but definitely not least the oil dictatorships of the Middle east (Saudia Arabia, etc.).
Bill Clinton and Chelsey got paid to attend an event of the king of Morrocco. This was immediately before Hillary officially declared that she would run for president - her team freaked out - first Hillary planned to go to the event, but they switiched that to Bill and Chelsey because of the bad optics. I can understand the King of Morocco (a dictatorship): He knew of course she was going to run, he thought she would have a good chance to win, she has a proven history of being very pro war, and he had seen what had happened to Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Gaddafi of Libya (Hillary very actively promoted the regime change in Libya).
P.S. It goes without saying that other Democrats and Republicans are doing the same. The Clintons were really good at the game however. And because of the hacked or leaked DNC emails which got more public attention recently I could name a lot of their game.
If the justice system in the U.S. would work correctly , the FBI would investigate the Clinton Foundation (which is "declared" to be a charity).
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
+ Eric Richter - The "Unity Tour" was a smart move of Sanders. And how it unfolded, pissed off the Corporate Dems. - No one in their right mind (reasonable voters of the Democratic party) can say later that Sanders did not at least try - when he hopefully starts his own thing. And he would need at least a part of the regular Democratic voters (not the Hillbots, they detest him with a passion).
Triggered ardent Hillary fans started a petition on change(dot)org. Appeal to the party leadership: Sanders should not be given a role in the party. Looked like the DNC (or some other organization connected with the Dems) had sent out a mail or message to encourage people to sign
(....."and do comment please, it makes more impact"). *
Perez was a sideshow on the Unity Tour and even got booed. At that time they gave an interview that is more than revealing - Sanders and Perez sitting side by side: The body language, the way Perez will not even SAY the words "Single Payer" or "Medicare for All". ("Acces to healthcare for all" is the wording the spin doctors gave out as "fig leaf").
The expression on Sanders face while Perez delivers his soundbites ("values" - of course that comes alway first with those who have no platform of REAL issues, "unity", ...). And the way Sanders frames the message - he speaks after Perez and almost contradicts him.
The tour and the interview was definitely ANOTHER opportunity for Sanders to teach the public about healthcare and other issues did more for the "Sanders" brand than it did for the "Perez" brand
Remember: Sanders has profoundly and on his own ! changed the way in which healthcare is discussed in the U.S. He tells the U.S. citizens that most wealthy countries have good healthcare at much reduced costs - I know the German system: deduct 45 % of the U.S. expenditures and you land at the good, worry free German level for everyone - and they are at the higher end of the average for a wealthy Europen country.
Whatever the interview question or the context of an public appearance may be, he will deliver his elevator speech.
I have an interest in marketing - GOOD TECHNIQUE.
He was able to use the Unity Tour to increase his name recognition, raise awareness of the issues HE thinks are important , connect with his following. - I do not think it was a success for Perez. Not that Sanders maliciously stole his thunder. Tom Perez was the Corporate Candidate to torpedo the election of Keith Ellsion. He has no spine, no principles, and he is not charasmatic (that would not matter if he had integrity). Not much there for Sanders to work with.
* Sanders being villiefied by Dems on the web: Compared to the number of signatures on that change(dot)org petition there were a lot of comments, seemed to be mostly females. Many (still) PISSED OFF (this was in spring 2017 !)
In case you haven't noticed: Sanders spoilt it for Hillary Clinton. And he has been damaging the Democratic Party ever since he was too hard on Hillary in the campaign, did not concede soon enough, and impertinently tells the Dems now which issues should be important - and silly me thought the Dems manage to lose on every level of government since 2008, managed to lose even to Trump - that they don't need help in that department.
"And he is not even in the party". That must have been in the shoutout - it came so often.
The signers wanted him to leave - I could not agree more - and they would be in for a very unpleasant surprise.
I stumbled onto 2 blogs recently with anti Bernie messaging, one of them a self-described platform for "progressive Democrats", their rules suggested strict selection regarding which artciles would be allowed to be published - I did not test them (No comment section either).
A lot of articles were in the style of: "Trump is bad", some "Russia, Russia" and some carefully crafted vitriol for Sanders (including insinuations about his mysoginy, inciting of violence, and all 3 more recent articles with photos where Sanders does not look good).
Mind you: nothing about his healthcare ideas, even though there was one very recent smear attack).
"The lady/fellow doth protest too much, methinks"
At least one of the regular publishers was a staffer in in the GE in Florida, but did not sound like a higher up. So maybe these are "Correct the Record" efforts. Or some staffers and consultants were already betting on their new jobs in the D.C. bubble after Nov. 8th, 2016 - and are pissed off.
Sanders must be doing something right.
6
-
Hans Jorgen - same is true for Denmark and Sweden, these countries embody Scandinavian wealth and affinity for peace - but their "elites" are very much into selling arms (Sweden especially)and they also very willingly collude with the U.S. - Denmark recently jumped into obedience mode regarding Northstream 2. (Which is very much favored by big neighbour Germany, and also Austria).
Trade secures peace. - Many European countries are dependent of fossil fuels - either the Middle East and the rouge U.S. military machine or the Saudi dictators - or Russia.
Buying Russian gas is not a bad idea, then they have the money to buy European stuff. That raises the costs of non-cooperation, WAR and military aggression for BOTH sides.
The U.S. wants to sell liquified fracked U.S. gas to Europe or Qatari gas (if they ever succeed in destroying Syria). HOW being dependent from the U.S. and their propped up dictatorships better than the dependency of Russian fossil fuel.
I'll take Russia over Saudia Arabia and Qatar. And if anyone needs to be placated / bribed with the advantages of mutually beneficial trade - it is the military power Russia.
That is under the assumption that they are foolish enough to aspire to be an empire - which I do not even think.
The Russians want to be the regional hegemon, but I think are smart enough to realize the COSTS and Dangers of being an empire (the only empire). - (Pay attention U.S. !)
Julian Assange would have gone to Sweden years and years ago to clear the case of alleged sexual offenses - but he KNEW he was not safe from extradition to the U.S. of course as PUBLISHER he should be safe from prosecution, like the New York Times is safe, they also reported on the leaks.
U.S. media can publish - even stolen or leaked secret material. (They would be only prosecuted if they do the hacks or incite someone to steal material, but if they get files, they are free to publish) There are Supreme Court decisions on that - for instance when Daniel Ellsberg sent the Pentagon Papers to several large newspapers. The Nixon admin tried to censor, the Suprem court within a few days reversed that. And Senator Mike Gravel made sure the Pentagon Papers became congressional = public record.
Assange would be likely disappeared or end up w/o trial. He would win a public trial.(Sweden had cooperated in other cases before).
Sweden is a small country, but is not on its own, it is member of the EU - oh well .....
Anyway: Sweden was not willing to grant Assange safety from extradition when he would RETURN to Sweden to deal with Swedish "investigations"(which were dropped after years !) When UK was about to extradite him to Sweden he went to the embassy of Ecuadar. So now he is in violation of UK law - not because he did any criminal in the UK apart from not wanting to be handed over to Sweden to be handed over to the U.S. Or now after Sweden has finally dropped the more than questionable "case" - the U.K. would hand him over directly to the U.S.
There is an ODD contradiction how the population in the Scandinvian countries sees themselves (peaceful, civilized) - some unhinged NATO Europe SPEAKERS come from Denmark or Norway.
Speakers !! of NATO incl. NATO Europe are Neocon Europeans - the leaders are of course ALWAYS U.S. generals. But giving some Europeans (that go willingly along with the agenda) a role maintains the appearance of a "partnership".
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
+ Augustus Caesar Can you back up your claims regarding effects of USD 15 minimum wage ? (use the internet for research - for instance "wages vs. productivity"). - There are studies about the effects of raising the minimum wage - it has been raised before. My assessment: Right now and the next years it will NOT have a negative effect (or even a slightly positive on employment). The manufacturing jobs that CAN BE OUTSOURCED or can automatized are already gone. The service jobs are not that easy to automatize (I am talking about the next years).
Over time replacement of jobs by use of robots will be an issue of course.
However: the base of industrialized mass production are the consumers - most of them have their income by selling and using their work force (be it as workers or small entrepreneurs, rich people or people living of capital income are also consumers - but there are not enough of them and they do not consume enough).
If the low and medium income people do not have enough disposable income the system of mass production collapses (in the 80s in the US the credit card for consumers was invented for that problem, that "solution" is now maxed out).
Automatization means: cheaper production - but who will buy that production ?
1945 - 1970 high wages, high top income taxes (90 % after the war, 80 % for a long time, still 65 % under JFK) meant that a lot of the surplus went either to the workers (and then to the government in form of taxes) or directly to the government.
Today the US government invests a lot in the military. Back in the day big bad government also invested in free (or allmost free) college education, streets, social housing, infrastructure (the very infrastructure that is now crumbeling - the US is still living off that former investment), public employment - teachers, research, etc. That meant low unemployment (and that means good wages were paid) and everyone being able to buy stuff without going into debt.
Beginning with Reagan that shifted. Now the surplus goes to the rich (sharehoder value !) and they and the successful enterprises (especially the Multinationals that control 60 % of the market) avoid paying taxes.
Meaning of course that they can keep much more of the surplus (profit). And they DO NOT SPEND IT like the workers did until the 70s (keeping the money in circulation). No, these profits are parked on accounts and the idle money does nothing for the economy. There is only so much a human being can consume, if you already have more than enough, any extra money will be PUT ASIDE like the fortune you already have. (Multinationals are sitting on trillions ! of cash, which they do not invest - why should they - there are already industrial overproduction capacities. Consumers would not have enough income to pay more goods if they were produced. And the developing countries are kept poor with neoliberal policies - so no market here either).
Even industry leaders meanwhile come out for Universal Basic Income (in the First World no one talks about the majority on the planet that is poor) - they know that in the long run something like that will be needed.
If we organized our society and economy better we could work only 30 hour weeks and use some of the increased productivity for protective measures (environment, pollution, energy efficiency, transfer to renewables).
I guess that would mean a MAJOR SHIFT IN OUR MINDSET. (In a modern society "work hard and looooooooong" is not as much of a virtue as in a society where most people struggle to even survive.
Science was started by people who did not have to work for a living, they were "Gentlemen" - the British upper class contributed much. In times before some of them were monks, or they could engage rich mentors (Leonard da Vinci for instance). So being free from the necessity to earn an income can be a boost for progress.
5
-
1/2 Some POSITIVE food for thought: "Do not put your faith in any politicians on the top, the people that are attracted to politics are mediocre at best most of the time. The point is to hold them constantly accountable and to make them RESPOND to the requirements of their constituency". - Noam Chomsky paraphrased:
I do not fully agree with NC here: There are rare cases where voters have a rep with integrity who cares about the issues and feels a calling to serve. And others just ride the populare wave and think they can weasel through and the voters will stop paying attention.
It is always better to have people willing to do the right thing out of their own initiative than having to control them ALL THE TIME. Unfortunately - and especially in the current system - even if politicians start our with ideals and bright eyes - there is a good chance they will eventually and at least to some degree get corrupted. *
It seems "they" even to some degrees got John Lewis or Elizabeth Warren. On the other hand if these reps are "encouraged" or get the angry townhall treatment they are not beyond redemption. Howard Dean and Barney Frank have sold out to a larger degree but may be allies in some issues - and then there are the lot like Dianne Feinstein and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz - hardcore sell-outs.
I heard Ro Khanna took a lot of money from Silicon valley before - meaning THEN he certainly had to compromise to their wishes - or at least show tolerance for their excesses. (read tax avoidance of multinationals, visas for entry level IT jobs to put pressure on the domestic IT force and being pro TPP because it also contains patent and copyright protections in favours of these companies). It makes sense he supported TPP - some comments contradict that he even supported TPP.
The questions is: if Pence steps in as President - and make no mistake HE would be pro TPP and the Corporate Dems would be pleased to be of help - what would Ro Khanna do THEN.
A politician usually must be ambitious and must be leaning towards alpha personality (to be good in the job). So the begging for money part should not sit well with them - and I think most of them may like to GET the money, but do not like the begging for money. I guess many would sigh a breath of relief to not having to do that ANYMORE if they could be sure to win/keep their seat **.
And since Ro Khanna was really good in fundraising before, he would have chances w/o the grassroots. - OR he tries to get the grassroots support and will pander to the donors later (aka do an Obama gig) and try to play the voters for fools. Only time can tell.
It would not hurt to confront him in advance and listen to his justifications (as for support for TPP if that is true - maybe it was more a case of group think and following the usual talking points- his arguments could give clues if he is willing to change and to conform to the wishes of the voters.
* That money can buy election campaigns is only one thing. They are publicly financed in Europe and the European "Champaign Socialists" (let alone the conservatives, but even the Green Party) are pretty much sell outs or party soldiers as well.
In the US a politician gets nowhere w/o the donors. In Europe you get nowhere without the party (campaign funds are limited, and TV and radio ads are restricted, so the candidated or new parties can advertise in print and of course do live events.
So the special interests cannot take control of the election campaign, but they can get very cosy with the party leaders. Politicians may want to retire or they lose their seat - so they are always aware of the need to be in favour with the party establishment and to not offend Big Biz (that can pay off later when they want a"consulting job", become "entrepreneurs" with an "advertising agency", want to get jobs for relatives, be on the board of a large private corporation, or get a management job at a muncipality or public agency - but only if they do not cross the party leadership.
Only few members of parliament have such a strong standing and public persona that they get elected on their own (some ride a more right wing populist wave, some are persons of integrity and have been serving the public for a long time, often left leaning or green party members). They of course can act much more independently. As long as they have the backup of their constituency they can vote their conscience, and call out the party (and annoy the heck out of the party leadership ).
5
-
** Why politicians might want to get money of of politics. - Politicians spend around 30 - 40 % of their time chasing after the money. - I once saw Sanders "do a fundraiser" at the end of a speech at a large rally. Sort of: "We need money to continue, please donate, even small amounts - 27 USD - will be very much appreciated. So that was my fundraiser" - it was a 2 minute affair - at most.
A leaving congressman said that in D.C. the Dems and the GOP rent offices nearby, they are not allowed to call donors IN the House. - They go there at noon - best time to reach the donors by phone. The aides have the lists with the names and personal details to make short small talk - name of kids, dog, … - and with that info the representatives call the potential donors while the aides keep them on task. For the lists they research who gave money to the Republican Party - and then the Dems call them, too. You bet a good list (with personal details and up to date private phone numbers is worth a lot - the donations are public domain information of course). They only call people who are likely to give large donations to make good use of their time.
They may not be given the same amount as the other party- but chances are they will get SOMETHING. The donors are smart enough to not cross them - after all one nevers knows who will get into office next. Better bribe both sides. And let them know YOUR concerns - that is what the reps hear all the time - the concerns and wishes of rich people.
That does not sound like political leadership and public service to me, more like BEGGING.
They have announcement boards in those offices where the fundraising goals are marked and the "progress" of each rep is shown, and who is the fundraiser of the week/month (Sounds like multilevel marketing motivational staff management to me - Amway etc.). No stranger comes into those buildings - they did some secret filming (there is a video on youtube).
I can imagine that fancy fundraising dinners could be nice (or very stiff and awfully boring). But the callcenter duty is widely despised - they call the small offices "cubicles of fear", and the reps have to pay a monthly rent if they use them.
Until now, if a person was not good in fundraising, or just could not stomach it - it would have been almost impossible to have a political career especially at a higher level.
And the Koch brothers smartly captured the elections at the state level as well. So they throw unusual amounts of money at these races, if they see a chance to unseat either a Democrat or to primary a too moderate Republican. Meaning money becomes an issue even there.
Bernie Sanders with a combination of stubbornness, ethical principles, a small state that had an influx of progressive leaning residents and became less conservative over time, was able to survive in this little niche. Vermont has only a few hundredthousand citizens, exposure and connection with voters is easier there. A Senator or Congressman Sanders would not have been possible in a larger state with larger industries. Add to that sheer luck - after 4 races (for higher offices) he had more or less given up around 1980, when he was asked if he wanted to run for the office of mayor of Burlington - because after all he knew how to do campaigns and they were not happy with the corporate democrat. That race he won with 10 votes.
Even the Sanders' gave in to the lure of money (at a smaller scale - not to sell out all of the country like with healthcare and TPP). Jane Sanders became the director of a small private college in Vermont. Without experience she cashed in a 6-figure salary and a very geneours severance package when after some years of her leadership the college got into financial troubles and she had to step down. *
So the voters should become more "cynical" REALISTIC and MATURE - no one will save us. A GOOD ENOUGH candidate will have to suffice. Some good old fashioned a$$ kicking will have to keep them in line.
If (long-term) integrity cannot be always be expected, fear of losing the seat can to the trick as well. (Even Nixon reacted to that pressure, the Vietnam war was ended, the EPA was founded - he did not do that out of the goodness of his heart).
Jane Sanders' Presidency of a College
* like many small private colleges they tried to attract foreign students and made investments to become more high-end (concentrating on facilities and buildings). - And like many other small colleges with the same strategy they failed. The real estate deal Jane Sanders and her board initiated was way too ambitious for the financial possibilities of the college and their student body.
The fundraising capabilites and the management skills did not match the grande schemes and they never increased enrollment. Jane Sanders "left quietly" after a few years when it became obvious that the college was in financial trouble (I think she exaggerated donation pledges to even get the loan necessary to buy additional beautiful property - or that is at least what one major donor says - that her pledge was misrepresented - and files were stolen form the campus - Jane Sanders will not get into legal troubles but it does not look good).
Her severance package was something like 200k - and the mess she left could not be cleaned up in the years afterwards. They shut down the college in 2016, had to sell the real estate that was bought a few years before and that was the major source of the financial problems. I think a regional bank and even more the former vendor of the property, a Catholic institution, lost money on it. Plus now the state does not have that college anymore (even it it's modest form).
As much as I am a fan of Sen. Sanders and also liked his wife, when she appeared on TV, that was some questionable business, to put it mildly.
College management posts in general have become a cash cow for adminstrators, for people who have connections which they use to raise money to give themselves an extremely generous salary.
Had Jane asked for a much more modest wage plus some success related benefits - fine. She had no experience in reforming a college (that would have justified her good pay to begin with), so they did what many other small colleges also did at that time: invest in buildings (no so much in courses or staff) in the hope of attracting foreign wealthy students. And like many other small colleges without special reputation they failed.
Her inexperience and obvious bad performance led to the termination. They did not want her there anymore, and she had very much contributed to the troubles of the college - so what made her take (or insist on getting) the severance payment on top of the mess.
And why did Sen. Sanders not ask her to at least leave that golden parachute behind. Plus donating generously in the coming years when her successor struggled to keep the college afloat - to compensate for the high yearly salary of the years before that clearly was not justified by an excellent performance.
I know that CEOs with high wages and benefits screw up all the time and then they are getting the golden handshake on top of that. - But what made THEM play that game at a lower level - he had a good income after all - it is not like desperate need for money made them twist the ethical principles.
5
-
5
-
A financial transaction tax would have regulated and restricted the insane financial sector (at least a little bit). Did you know that British banks before the financial crisis had a loans : deposits ratio of 80 : 1. EIGHTY : One !. The banks did not create these loans for real economic activities. Part of it was for speculation, part fed the housing bubble.
Nowadays we have casinos with banks attached to them. Do not become the intellecutal hostage of the financial sector by defending their financial interests - which are damaging to almost everyone else in the country. The financial crisis of 2008 / 2009 had 2 components. A housing bubble in the US - that was a major problem for the US but certainly manageable. The international damage was done when these loans were repackaged, a lot of them sold to Europe and then the Financial sector worldwide started betting on these loan packages (Credit default swaps). The banks of Germany, French, Britain were in the middle of this - this is where it got really toxic because of the high leverage they used (and were allowed to use!).
A lot of highly educated, hard working individuals in the financial industry get very well paid to produce highly complicated bets. (Was like that before the crisis and nothing has changed). They produce NOTHING OF VALUE FOR the national economy (well almost nothing - 90 - 95 % is pure speculation). The employees spend (some) of their money in the economy - meaning they earn their money by producing nothing of value to the economy and then extract value out of the economy.
I have nothing against the lottery or playing in the casino. I would classify that as entertainment. And sure they create some jobs as side effect. However, it would be insane to declare the lottery to be the backbone of the economy.
Please note: when you buy a lottery ticket you have to pay in advance (and the full amount) same in the casino or for your deposit if you participate in a poker tournament. The speculators in the banking sector are allowed to do it as follows: they place a deposit and then they are allowed a leverage of 50 to 100. So "good" traders / institutions put down a deposit of lets say 1 Mio. Then they can place bets for 100 Mio. They are getting the 99 Mio as short term loan from the bank - or the bank itself is the speculator.
Now DO THE BANKS EVEN HAVE THAT KIND OF MONEY ?? No they don't. The banks create the money for that loan out of nothing - like they create every loan out of nothing!
Banks are legally allowed to do that - in cooperation with the central banks. The concept is called FIAT money, every modern industrialized nation does it that way. Fiat money is useful for REAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES. For example people get loans, houses are built, enterprises are started, investments in machines are made to improve the production process etc. Creation of money by issuing such "productive" loans is tied to real economic activities, real services and goods are provided. When loans are paid back to the bank the "money" goes where it came from - into nothingness (it is different with the interest for that loan but that's another story). So when the bank creates the money for the loan the bank does not "have" or "keep" the buying power that money represents. They hand over that "buying power" to whoever gets that loan. The borrower then can access / activate the potential for goods and services that lies in the economic system.
The banks were very successfull in brainwashing the public into thinking that they are doing an important and legitimate job.
They did - until the 1970s / 1980s when deregulation startet the international casino. Of course banks try to influence the media and they place enough advertisments. The politicians are bribed with cozy jobs once they leave office.
Please note that the US, Japan and Europe were prospering and rebuilt after WW2 when the financial sector was heavily ! regulated. Even in the US - the lesson of 1929 was still present then. There was just conservative, boring, simple basic banking - loans, savings and checking accounts and maybe life insurances. People in the industry had well paying and respected positions but it was all very convervative. Of course in the old days top management in that unexciting industry could not claim the extravagant compensations to which our current "financial wizards" feel entitled to.
The German Stock exchange did not amount to much from 1950 - 1980, the Austrian stock exchange was called the Sleeping Beauty - and both countries rose out of the ashes like phoenix.
Sure if speculation was restricted or more taxed, there would be some changes in London, a lot of high earners would need to learn a new trade (maybe something productive for a change). I guess house prices might fall. London based small enterprises (fashion boutiques, restaurants, maybe private schools, etc.) would need new customers - nothing the government could not take care of with a bold infrastructure and housing program to bring jobs to the middle and lower class people. People who use their houses to live in maybe needed a loan extension or lower interest rates. People who just invested into housing for investment's sake would be pissed off - maybe we needed to start a charity for those poor guys (honestly I think most of them could easily live with their losses).
Remember the banks can create money out of nothing, so the state can start reasonable investments on behalf of the citizens at whatever interest rate the central banks grants - which is a political decision. Of course that scheme needs to be applied wisely and with a lot of transparency and public oversight. It is important ! that the money stays in circulation and the goods and services that spending activates should to a large extent be produced in the UK. Forget about the lowest price and the best bidder, unless UK prices are not excessively higher it does not matter. Nothing is more costly for an economy than having a lot of it's workforce without a job. And nothing is more costly for an entrepreneur than not having enough customers - or the banks being hesistant to give you a loan because of the overall sorry state of the economy.
The usual calculation is that 1 GBP spent would result in 1,3 - 1,4 GBP in the GDP. So if you repeat that - and KEEP the money/economic transactions in the country you can nicely leverage that up (Alternate / regional currencies could help with keeping the transactions regional). The EU and the financial sector would go ballistic of course, it would show that our economy does not depend on the financial sector.
Note that it would be necessary to impose high taxes on the enterprises that are successful in the booming economy - that may sound counterintuitive - but only that grants that the money STAYS in circulation instead of being parked in a tax haven. Big Biz' all over the world are sitting on an enourmos amount of cash and don't know what to do with it and they avoid paying taxes like the plague and our politicians are very willing to help them with it.
Done that way an investment program would NOT have any negative impact on debt - on the contrary. The US had debt that was 200 % of GDP after WW2. - and the GDP was not low then (wartime economy!). They took care of the debt by spending into infrastructure so in the beginning they added to that already high debt. They CONTINUED to have HIGH taxation - the effective highest tax rate was 70 % , it was between 80 - 90 % officially but there were some loop holes so effectively around 70 %. The US economy did fabulously then. A few years later they financed the Marshall Plan, one of the best investments the US has ever made. With high taxation the money stayed in circulation because the state immediately re-injected the tax revenue into the economy.
If you let lower and middle class people make a living they tend/need to spend most of what they earn in the economy. No need for a bank account in a tax haven. We have a saying here: The Thaler must continue to roll.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
* "controlled" healthcare discussion in the U.S. mainstream media. The disinformation or mostly non-information went on for decades. The U.S. audience hardly ever heard that they were paying 60 - 100 % more for healthcare per capita than the citizens of the WEALTHY European countries. (It is the historic achievement of Senator Sanders that hte changed the discussion, he used the platform the presidential campaign gave him and of course the FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION on the internet was instrumental). Or that healthcare - on principle and you cannot fix that with legislation or regulation - is a TERRIBLE FIT for the "free market".
And the arguments why the free market cannot work in healthcare are not THAT HARD to find, it is not like one would need to do a lot of investigative work, or would need to know a LOT about the systems. (I live in Europe and the harebrained arguments also in the townhalls with people like Ted Cruz, Diane Feinstein, etc are mind boggling. Politicians and newspeople have the mission, time and resources to dig a little deeper than the superficial "discussion-ending" propaganda words like "choice" or "free market" or "socialized medicine".
On an empiric level: after WW2 former mortal enemies (like Germany, France, UK) agreed in one point, that they would install or expand non-profit healthcare systems based on the principle of mandatory universal healthcare and solidarity (your income not your risks determines your "premiums").
Usually there are a lot of ethics restrictions when it comes to marketing and advertising for pharmaceutical industry or private hospitals or private doctors who have NO CONTRACT with the public non-profit insurance agencies. These private players DO exist (but they are a minority - of course if the public non-profit system is good, why would people pay out of pocket. They are either into specialities like weight loss, TCM, laser correction of eyesight (so you do not need to wear glasses, plastic surgery (in most cases).
So the media in Europe would not SHY AWAY from a meaningful and substantial discussion about healthcare (if that was necessary) - they do not have to keep advertisers happy. So they are FREE to discuss the truth and the facts. Instead of bury them with B.S. talking points.
And politicians do not get massive donations from the industry either, so they will side - in this area ** - with their voters and not with a few shareholder who make a lot of profit in the healthcare industry.
** European politicians betray their voters of course in other areas like "free" "trade" agreements - that's another story, but in the area of healthcare the environment that was set up after WW2 encourages that they actually serve the interests of the majority of citizens.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
The non-profit system of the wealthy European countries are as follows. The NHS in Britain is "government" run, very streamlined (in a well set-up system government employees can to a good job in administration ! - we would not have them be designers, inventors or anything creative. But running a streamlined system, sure. In Britain the NHS runs the hospitals and I assume the majority of family doctors are also government employees. They are funded by taxes, UK has the 2nd lowest costs for any wealthy country (be it large or a small country that does not matter according to the data).
In 2014 (World Bank, per capita healthcare expenditures) their costs were USD 3.900 per capita
(the Japanese have below 3.800 which is impressive because of their older population). However the NHS of Britain seems to be underfunded - and it has becoome worse in the last 2 years (more patients, more demand but not more funding). My impressions is that the conservative government wants to at least partially privatize the system (if is very profitable for a few after all). Since the British like their system and are proud of it, it has to be made dysfunctional in order to give a pretext for "reform" by privatization. Methinks the conservative Tories are playing a dangerous game, that could cost them the next election.
Anyway, all other wealthy European countries - wealth matters because if the wage levels are much lower it is hard to compare the costs and rich countries tend to afford the best healthcare) have higher costs. The British defunding attempt serves as a reminder that even well liked and well working systems can be politically attacked. The other countries are spending more on the healthcare and the quality of care is good and there are no waiting lines or long waiting times for surgery that can be scheduled (like hip replacements, cataract surgery, etc.)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
She got a platform at the UN - so at least her claim that she was in Syria must be credible. She speaks the foreign names very fluently, so I am willing to believe she does speak Arab and can actually interview anyone who wants to talk (no need for an interpreter). She comes across as congruent, she gives a lot of details in passing which would require a lot of preparation. I mean it is of course possible that an intelligent person uses a made up carfully constructed comprehensive ! story and rehearsed it then very well. This is more difficult than it may seem. As the saying goes "If you tell the truth you can wing it, for lying, you need to to be perfect in the details."
(Hillary Clinton's alleged danger of coming under sniper fire at the airport in Yugoslavia was such a case of "the devil is in the details".
She mentioned not long ago how dangerous it was to arrive there - sort of highlighting her courage and qualification as POTUS - and didn't think of the small detail that there could exist footage of that arrival on the airport - proving the contrary. The footage was uploaded on youtube - Ooops).
Did you see the segment of her speech and Q and A at the UN * where the reporter from Norway asked Eva Bartlett why she would claim that most mainstream media reports are biased or dishonest and not based on facts.
She asked him in return: How many sources do the news outlets have there in Aleppo*........Silence ......Exactely, I will tell you: none. They depend on a state funded small operation in Bedford UK and on second hand reports from group like the White Helmets..... * I am not sure now if she said Aleppo or Syria, is it possible that the networks would have NO ONE in Syria ? And never mention that there sources are second hand. Well it would be scandalous - but then ....
White Helmets seem to be a evil bunch too, the Bedford operation are armchair war reporters (and possibly cosy with extremists - not sure about that)
For me she sounded convincing in that answer, very convincing. The guy wasn't impolite, felt obviously the need to defend mainstream media - and she crushed him - and even more mainstream media.
* BTW the room was almost empty, at least the newspaper from Norway SENT somebody. And I read in another comment, to another video that the Norwegian newspaper somewhat modified their reporting. Now if the BBC or the Guardian or ....gasp... the New York Times could be bothered to do that .....
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
+ rustyshack Cenk from TYT remembered a quote from Salman Rushdie, that he could not remember that the Muslims were as fundamentalistic some decades ago (when Salman grew up). Cenk heard the same from his father (who stems from an area that is now in Syria, near the Turkish border. I heard him interview his father, no, religion was not a big thing - some people went to the Mosque etc. his family didn't. And that was a rural community and people were usually not wealthy nor did they have the chance for much of an education.
The US intentionelly supported the Saudis and their Wahabism. They wanted strong and isolated allies in the Gulf region (Israel and Saudi Arabia). And since after WW2 the Arabic states wanted to take control of their own resources and get rid of colonial rule and influence, the US wanted an extreme fundamentalistic regime in Saudi Arabia. The Islamistic stance would make them "immune" against any "godless" left secular ideology and against the Soviet Union.
Well that worked. Saudi money finances thousands (19,000 not sure about the number) very fundamentalistic Islamic eductation centers. Some will be "only" fundamentalistic, some will outright promote Islamic terrorism.
I think the population in many of these Arab and African countries have given up on the Western system. Their elites and the Western elites have colllude to keep them down politically and to exploit their contries. So they turn to tradition and to the preachers who tell them about the righteous god-fearing just society (utopia) they could have under an Islamic government.
Add to that that traditional patriarchal agricultural societies are very positive about having many children (it used to be the same in Europe and the US, started changing 100 years ago). This has economic and polictal reasons. Children cared for their old parents, many children died young, there could be diseases. The king wanted disposable young men as cannon fodder, many women died because of pregnancy or while giving birth. Life was shorter so they needed more people to replace those who had died. Farming without machines needed a lot of cheap labour. Many people meant: many people desperate to work for little.
The way to turn that mindset around: have welfare programs especially for old people, raise the status of women, education, economic improvement and politcal stability. People when they live in very stressful societies (poverty, war) also procreate like there is no tomorrow - literally - must be a survival of the species instinct that kicks in. Only wealth in combination with women's rights makes people be content ! with having only 1 or 2 children (or even none). The Chinese had to harshly enforce that one-child policy. We in Europe do it voluntarily.
Societies like Egypt or Pakistan, Morocco, etc. do not even try to tackle that fertility crisis (Modern medicine and hygiene let more children and adults survive, so they absolutely need to reduce their procreation rate). Of course birth control even when accepted is expensive, condoms should not be stored in a hot place etc. So there are logistic problems on top of that.
That means that these societies have vastly grown in the last decades. They have a lot of young restless men, looking for a (higher) purpose in their life and often they have no chance to marry or get a job. The quest for a meaningful life or to serve the cause of justice (as they understand it) also shows up in the biography of wealthy Saudi jihadists, here it is not about economic frustration. Moreover there is a Macho culture and a culture about male pride that harshly clashes with the economic reality. and even worse: Neoliberalism and Western war mongering ensure that the situation is not going to improve. And they know it. In the 1960s and 70s they still might have had hope. Not anymore - so they turn to religion. The Western citizens have what they do not have. And yes, Islam can be interpreted in a way that glorifies martyrdom.
The US gave another boost to the promotion of International Islamic terrorism when they created the mujihadeen. They were celebrated as freedom fighters and used to fight the "jihad" in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. A lot of them then were foreigners, what had the Saudis to do with Afghanistan - freedom or not ? Of course they were the fiercest fighters the US could dream of. They got Stinger rockets. To shoot down helicopters of the Soviets. And other modern equipment, money training - and more importantly they learnt to know each other, networked. The international jihad still profits from the connections that were forged ath that time.
Imagine the US had left Afghanistan alone (afer all they share a border with the former Soviet Union, they certainly had more reason to intervene there than the US). Without the modern equipment and funding the Soviets would had kept order in Afghanistan at least in the larger settlements. Without much resistance the SU army would have been much better behaved (There are reports that they reacted cruelly to the terror attacks of the underground fighters).
I assume withou US/Saudi aid there would not have been much resistance - how ? No one there had cars, modern guns etc. Afghans traditionally take pride in their rifles (especially in the rural areas) but these weapons are no match to modern weaponry. Moreover the country is very tribal, and the faraway tribes do not care that much about who is on the throne / the presidents seat in Kabul.
In the cities the Soviets were good for women, they brought a more secular view to the country and encouraged girls and women's education.
As odd as it may sound: had the US - wisely - in the 80s abstained from doing anything, I do not think the Soviet or the Russian army would still be there - and if - they would have to bear the costs and the risks. And there is a good chance Afghanistan would be much better off than they are with the US "help".
4
-
+k4yser in Germany - and any other democracy in the wealthy countries - the established parties are never SAFE from political competition, and be it the AfD. Or the Green Parties that became a thing in many countries (I know they are pretty much sell outs in Germany and now with Stroebele leaving ...)
But since the elections cannot be bought in Germany as they are bought in the U.S. (where they get funding of almost 1 billion !! in one presidentail election !) the German elections do not last as long and the amount of what can be spent on TV advertising is limited, the system is not completely skewed. - if you think that Germans are not well represented in the government (one could indeed have such thoughts !) just have a look at the U.S. and the mindboggling healthcare discussion they enjoy right now. If would be funny if it wasn't that serious.
When was the last time you worried if the electronic voting machines are rigged ? (not by the Russian, they are not needed for that, that can be easily done by the established U.S. parties) - That's right in Germany - and in any other reasonable country - they do good old fashioned very hard to manipulate hand count. Or when have you ever stood in line for a long time on a WORK DAY and tried to vote ?
The problem is that politicians get nowhere w/o the donors in the U.S. and (usually) nowhere w/o the party (establishmen) in all other democracies. So the special interests capture the party leadership. Not with bribes and campaign donations. But they can provide the cushy positions if the politician gets voted out of office and for good party soldiers who wish for a change of career. And since the politicians - if they are doing their job - invest a lot of time, they cannot build another career - and they usually get into politics when other people develop their professional profile.
so I can imagine a politician even doing a solid job, not being that charismatic, maybe crossing the party establishment by voting their conscience - and in retaliation being kicked off the ballot.
This is what we have to regulate (the revolving door, which jobs a politician can take after the end of the career) when we ever want politicians to work for the citizens. And it would require citizens to follow politics more closely, not being fooled so easiyl, so that less charismatic but HONEST politicians have a chance to get elected if they do not obey the party establishment (because there are more than enough boring and uninspiring party soldiers out there, but beware if you ever cross the powers that be).
And maybe make the Members of parliament less dependent of the party (allocation of financial budgets for instance, so one can have the assistance and office independent of the party). Right now the members of Parliament usually vote exactely along the party lines and as they are told to vote - why are there even as many in Parliament if the citizens do not profit from the multitude of experiences, mindsets and opinions. Crowd intelligence ! There could be 1 member for each party who holds the percentage as won in the elections - and it would hardly change anything in the outcome when the parliament votes.
A changed system would also mean that the politicians would form coaltions based on ideas. It would matter less WHO brought up the good idea in the first place. So in some cases the Conservatives would work with the Green Party and in other cases with the Social Democrats or the Liberterians. It would be a competition of ideas. And then sell the success to the constituency - even if that means individual politicians having "strange bedfellows" on a case to case basis - I know they various fractions work together sometimes - but only when the party leadership ALLOWS it.
4
-
US "Defense" Department: We will take out 7 countries in 5 years, Iraq,
Syria and Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran. You can search
online for the Democracy Now Interview of former General Wesley Clark.
(There are several uploads, I highly recommend the longer version part 1
15 minutes, part 2 10 minutes.)
Very enlightening.
In part 1 (the 14 min. part) about 6:45 discussion of how the Bush Administration and the Saudis are pumping money for covert operations into the Middle East... including Syria.
It is breathtaking with what cavalier attitude the Bush administration was willing to unleash war and misery onto the world (here specifically the Middle East). Not that former administrations or the current one are much different.
The US set the Middle East on fire, they have the blood of thousands of innocents of their hands. And Europe is unwilling to call them out on it (or participates).
Assad is terrible - he will use every means to crush his enemies - if the Syrian civilians happen to be in the way there will be no regard or mercy for them. Still many Syrians (if they cannot flee the country ) prefer his secular rule, what would come after him would be way worse, especially for minorities like the Christians.
Islamic terrorists were funded, trained, and armed by the US and Saudi Arabia in the 1980s (Afghanistan, Taliban, Osama Bin Laden). After the Soviet Union had retracted from Afghanistan the US detected they could not control the monster they had created. So the Taliban considered the US to be the useful idiots as much as vice versa.
The Taliban could not be bribed or intimidated - they are extreme Islamic fundamentalists and these troops were brainwashed to believe in the martyr death, that made them so especially usefull as fierce underdog warriors in the proxy war with the SU.
9/11 could happen because the Bush adminstration was asleep on the wheel - and that is the begnin assumption. They were lucky the Democrats did not have the guts to blame them for not keeping the country safe (Trump had the guts recently!).
George Bush and Cheney had every reason to deflect the anger and patriotic outburst to another target. So the US started bombing Afghanistan shortly after 9/11 - still in Septemer 2001 (note how the 9/11 attackers were mostly Saudis and were probably funded by Rich Saudis).
In 2003 came the invasion of Iraq based on lies. Including the use of radioactive Uranium ammunition causing terrible disfigurations in babies now. In 2009 ! the British knew they were going to war with Syria (Roland Dumas former Foreign French Minister learned that from British Diplomats - the interview with Engl. subs is on youtube). So the Syrian regime change was in the making as well (Obama administration), finally in 2011 the Civil War in Syria "emerged".
The French and British were eager to regime change Libya, Hillary Clinton was happy to be of help to persuade the Obama administration. (see New York Times articles of end of Feb. 2016 about the role of Hillary Clinton in Libya's regime change in 2011).
Libya was a stable secular regime with a relatively high living standard for it's citizens (healthcare, education, womens rights, public housing, even visiting foreign Colleges for free etc.)
The relationship with the US and the West has always been strained for several reasons. (Multinational corporations not being allowed to plunder the country was one of them, ties with the SU/Russia another). Long before 2011 Libya supported terrorists and rebels the US did not like but Gaddafi had given up that nasty habit (he watched Iraq 2003) and later Libya became an ally and a firewall against the Islamic extremists.
Now the country is a hellhole, a safe haven for ISIS, the huge gold reserves were stolen, but they still have the oil and - equally interesting - the water aquifers. Makes you wonder why the NATO states found it possible to get along with the Saudi dictatorship but not with Gaddafi.
The US did everything they could to spread the cancer of terrorism from 2001 on. These days Erdogan of Turkey seems more interested to suppress the Turkish Kurds than to secure together with them the long Turkish/Syrian border against ISIS, "moderate rebels" and the like. Turkish investigative journalists report about the supply of weapons from Turkey to the "rebel fighters" in Syria. These "rebels"/enemies of Assad are extremists or mercenaries. The journalist are thrown into jail or die from weird car accidents - now after the attempted coup it will get worse.
Please note that Turkey is a NATO member and neither the US nor EU can be bothered to scare some sense into Erdogan. (Doesn't the NSA have something on him ?? There should be plenty.)
The Islamist extremists wreck havoc, but when it comes to body count and mistery caused they cannot compete with the US.
So it is a good thing that the US culture (and also the culture of almost all of the Nato states) is secular but somewhat Christian-influenced and not Islamic. That they are the good guys, wealthy, modern, democratic and enlightened nations - else they would be horrible human rights violators and on top of it complete fools when it comes to foreign policy or to keeping their own people safe.
4
-
Maybe the Tech workers feel safe to speak out against Trump because their Big Bosses (donors to Clinton and Obama) do not approve of Trump either. It would not have anything to do with "FREE" "TRADE" DEALS, would it ? The private "courts" installed via TPP, TTIP, TISA and CETA might help to protect their tax evasion (it threatens their profit).
Copyright protection, help with patents. Moreover these deals (nothing to do with free and little with trade) make it almost impossible for a souvereign nation to impose import restrictions and tariffs to influence the multinationals to behave more socially responsible. It is almost impossible now under NAFTA, China trade deal and WTO, but it seems the net
is not yet tight enough for the taste of Big Biz. On the other hand if a super power like the US tries to undercut the status-quo rules (states losing their power to discipline business and finance or to pass legislation that protects citizens but lessens profits) - that could have some success. Not that I think one moment Trump would have the guts, wisdom or care for the people to take on such an uphill battle.
The idea that these deals might acutally fail frightens our ruling classes (all over the world). It means people voted in Trump because they did not like those rules (who work against them) and the sleeping giant might wake up and refuse to get screwed. That is scary. Being anti "trade" deal was a signature talking point of Trump, and against all odds such a candidate becomes POTUS. UNTHINKABLE. Kurt Tucholsky a famous German satirist: If elections would change anything they would be forbidden. Sadly Trump is not the man to challenge the system and quite helpless when it comes to governance. He surrounds himself with the embodiment of privilege and establishment and pay for play. .....Well maybe after the next HUGE financial crisis.
(Apple connected to Clinton campaign, Obama "warning" the European Union (500 million citizens vs. 316 of the US) this fall to inconvenience Apple's shady tax dealings with Ireland. The EU ruled that Ireland has to demand more taxes from Apple for the last years. 13 billions - Apple pays between 0.005 and 1 % taxes (so it is between 5 Euro for 100.000 Euro Profit ! not revenue! up to a whopping 1 % = 1000 Euro for 100,000 Euro Profit.). Normalfolks pay sales tax and income tax - easily 25 - 30 % even for low income. These companies want educated workers who use and need streets, kindergardens, firemen, police, courts, schools, aircontrol, customs, EPA and what not (all around the world). Their employees and their customers (the little guys) are paying taxes and paying for the infrastructure but not big biz.
That would not be possible had not politicians in collusion with big biz made it possible (while telling their voters that these deregulations and trade deals a) were unavoidable in a modern ecnomy and b) would do wonderfull things for the working and middle class). FDR, Truman and Eisenhower would disagree.
4
-
Aaxzej Y.+ Russia is - supposedly showing aggrission behind doors " - you mean not like the US (and to some degree European allies) who do it publicly ?? Hostility against Russia was a topic to make points in US presidential races - it was quite usual (Romney - long before Crimea!, HRC, Rubio, ...). Not that I like Putin or his stance on LGBT. BUT: since when is there a WAR going on against Russia - and WHY. The Soviet Union VOLUNTARILY ! stepped down from the Cold War.* And let the satellites states go and even allowed split-offs from the Soviet Union. Not one shot was fired.
And we should TRUST the US government, the intel community when they tell us they "know" that Russia is secretly hostile - they just can't show us the proof. They would not possibly serve an agenda and make up stuff ??
Democracy is a nuisance. Some politicians and war profiteers want to start wars, but they have to consider public mood and "convince" the not so war-happy electorate. Weapons of Mass Destruction anyone ? Or the midwife and the lies about babies kicked out of incubators (First US-Iraq war). Or the lies that were made up to justify bombing of Serbia (mainly hitting Serbian civilians).
Officially Reagan was happy about the end of the Cold War - maybe he really was. No doubt the Military Industrial Complex was in full panic mode. The old reliable boogeyman quit - and without prior notice !! The intel community had not seen it coming, too. The extremely high US military budget could not be justified anymore - not only soldiers (which are government employees), no, the for-profit manufacturers of the expensive war tools (aka donors and creators of jobs that were safe from outsourcing) would suffer a severe drop of revenue and profit.
Peace was a real threat - but luckily avoided.
The Soviet Union / Russia made a lot of concessions in the 1990s maybe they even TRUSTED the US and Europe - in hindsight this was a grave mistake. The US and US dominated NATO could not think about anything but how to exploit the situation as quickly as possible. In terms of economy: establish neoliberalism in Russia and at home !, privatization: Russian companies bought by Western companies - Putin stopped the firesale to the satisfaction of the Russian citizens.
And of course military and geopolitical strategy, the US would be the sole and completely dominant world power, no one could withstand their orders - resp. what Big Biz requires the US government to do for them on a global scale.
So they exploited the perceived "weakness" of Russia. The neocons could not stop winning - it is not only about greed and war profit, it is also about ideology).
4
-
4
-
I disagree. The cycle has been broken. If people are AWAKE a progressive candidate funded by the citizens might come in (like the Justice Democrats want for instance). Right now the deal between Big Biz and politicians is as follows: The politicians care for big biz when they are in office and biz takes care of them when they leave office. Sometimes politicians oscillate between politics and "private" economy. (The revolving door). In Europe one needs the party to get into a position of political power (and they serve the party before the electorate) and in the US one needs big biz right from the beginning to finance the campaigns. (Which is why it is the worst in the US, but not much better in Europe). The cure: First get campaign money out of politics. When that weakling of Senator loses his seat, big biz might still honour the "contract" and get HIM a cushy position (consultant, lobbyist, ..). The next coming after him might come in with small donations and is much less worth for big biz (of course they can try to corrupt him/her anyway, but that is much harder to pull off when the voters watch their representatives like hawks).
The problem is that politics can be a risky business, so the politicians play safe and play nice with the future suppliers of cushy jobs for ex-politicians. This is much harder to regulate than campaign finance, there are so many ways to evade the intent of regulation (the wife or relative gets the job, the legality - can you forbid someone to have a business for some time after politics ? If these were regular businesses they might have little advantages over other entrepreneurs, that would not do much harm. Usually ex-politicians are not active in providing and creating goods and services. It is usually something about "consulting".
Like Tonly Blair providing consulting, for instancte services for cruel dictators and cashing in milllions over millions for his good "advice".
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
D Master Pay Go: either offsetting spending with cuts elsewhere OR more taxes on the top 20 %. - If it was only limited to taxes on the 1 % there would be no problem. - I got that information from the Hill - here an excerpt:
There is considerable support among Democrats for "Medicare for All," extending the Medicare program to the whole population. While many do not interpret this as meaning an immediate extension of Medicare to everyone, even lowering the qualifying age to 55 or 60 will mean additional spending.
Under Pelosi’s pay-go rule, this extension would be prohibited unless it was coupled with offsetting budget cuts and/or taxes on the top 20 percent.
There are many Democrats who would support cuts to the military, but realistically these will only go so far. The same applies to additional taxes on the wealthy.
the full article is under: https://thehill ( dot ) com/opinion/campaign/420760-pelosi-would-sabotage-progressive-agenda-with-pay-go-rules replace (dot)
Let me add:
The Corporate Democrats also see the upper middle class as their constituency (the white collar professionals). it is true that they do more for the 1 % , but the demands of the affluent are also considered.
The rest of the country is thrown under the bus. Not only by the Republican politicians - also by the Corporate Democrats (and spineless or fake "Progressives")
With the example ** of European healthcare systems with a strong emphasis on non-profit public actors (insurance agencies and at least a part of the hospitals) - the Corporate Democrats can resign themselves EASILY to ten of thousands of US citizens dying of lack of care and many more patients hit by high bills or going bankrupt despite ACA.
** European nations have single payer systems at least since the late 1940s (Germany had a major welfare reform in 1883 and 1884 that also introduced universal healthcare, I think they were the first country to have that).
The nations that did not have such provisions before WW2 got them after WW2 (like the U.K.). Australia and Canada came a little later - in the 1960s and 70s.
They all have been paying much less per capita (50 - 65 % of the U.S.), the majority of those countries is in the range of USD 5,000 - 6,000 per capita (and all residents have full coverage without a hassle).
Versus USD 9,200 per capita in the U.S. (World Bank, data 2014)
Per capita means ALL that is spent in the country on healthcare divided by number of people. So per capita includes healthy children that did not even need the doctor this year as well as middle aged people that do not have any insurance coverage and unpaid medical bills.
It is an average.
That impressively shows how inefficient and dysfunctional the U.S. systems is: expensive, a hassle AND despite the high AVERAGE costs for every person in the country (per capita = per head) still a lot of un- or underinsured people and people that do not get care in time or adequate care.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
+ James M. Campell - if I am not mistaken Marty Lives quotes the McCarthy inspired committee questions. They were not about nuance in the 1950s either. - During WW2 there were posters in U.S. post offices of "Uncle Sam" and "Uncle Joe" walking arm in arm (the latter refering to Joseph Stalin). U.S. citizens went to meetings thinking they would support the starving population of the military ally of the United States. Now that meeting might have been held by a Communist Party member (of a U.S. communist party ) - even such minor "transgresssions" could get people into trouble in the 1950s (even though such meetings were legal and by no means discouraged DURING WW2).
Apart from that I never understood why a party that was not resorting to terrorist tactics and did not fight against the constitution could be forbidden at all in a so called "democracy". - "They" could not pull off that nonsense in Italy, France, Greece where the Communist Party was traditionally strong, an established player in the political scene. Other countries had strong left parties so the Communists never got as strong there (the niche was already taken so to speak - for instance Germany or the UK, Austria, all the Scandinavian countries, Netherlands ....).
The communists were on the forefront of fighting against the fascists (in Italy) or the German occupiers during WW2 (and in Spain during the Civil War in the 1930s). So they had support from the population during the war. Underground fighters of all political and ideological backgrounds mixed and fought for their life side by side with those "scary" communists.
After the war it was hard to delegitimize them and their contribution in the public opinion. Not that the conservatives parties and also the CIA and U.S. think tanks did not try to smear them.
CIA related forces even had bomb attacks committed, which they blamed on the "Reds". See "Operation Gladio" and "Stay behind forces" - fascists, Nazi collaborators and even the mafia were engaged to fight against the "Communists" and to be there as "silent" reserve army - just in case the Soviet Union would ever invade, or the Communist party would win elections - I guess the latter was even more scary to the CIA and the U.S. government.
(A lot of former Nazi collaborators were engaged in that way, they were not held accountable, on the contrary they were groomed and got money, equipment, likely also training).
Swiss historian Daniele Ganser published a lot on Operation Gladio and "Stay behind".
4
-
People snap in other countries too (not as often) - or they are in a dark mood and consider ending their life. You do not want to have firearems around in masses in those cases and if so - let them be traditional hunting riffles. A mass killing with a knife is a lot of effort. even attacks with cars, can be stopped easier by the police when the terrorist does not have military style arms.
Also suicides can be pulled off in other ways. But they need more determination, time, effort, skills - and other ways to take your life are not as quick and reliable and may scare off the depressed/desperate.
That needed effort prevents a certain number of following through or "succeeding". With a gun around it is QUICK and easy to make an end - 100 % sure. Jumping from buildings, bridges or before the train - there are more hesistationd to overcome, because you have to do more than pull the trigger while the damage you will do to your body is on your mind.
.... Poison is hard to get, and those that are easier to get cause a painful death. Sleeping pills are not easy to get, one would need to collect them (time) and they do not always work (luckily). Hanging yourself you need some DIY skills to arrange for that.People have survived because the hanging device broke under their weight. etc. etc.
And if someone gets themselves in a fit of rage towards family or neighbours it would be a blessing for them ! and others if there is no potent weapon around (a weapon that is military style suited to kill a lot of people in quick time, like semi automatics). The crazies will end up with a charge of battery instead of manslaughter. And maybe then forced to accept treatment.
If no firearm or a firearm with a few shots only is involved, bystanders and police have a chance in case of one of the rare massacres.
You do not need a semi-automatic to hunt animals, not even large ones. If you cannot take out the bear with 2 shoots - you have no business going after it. That is even true for hunters in Africa going after lions, elephants. A few shots should suffice - or your pathetic hobby becomes even more pathetic.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@dpersonal4187 It does not matter which solution Chomsky thinks to be workable He does not push ! for a solution and has no political power to make it happen. He DOES HAVE the POWER to EDUCATE the public about the injustices and violations of international and U.S. laws that are going on.
And he can add his two cents what he thinks could work.
It is not his duty to find a solution - or to be right about it. Even the best possible solution does not work if the parties do not stick to it.
That would be the task of the U.S. Israel, the representatives of Palestine, ....
The citizens of Europe, U.S., Canada, ... need to be INFORMED about the wrongdoing of Israel - so that THEY will put pressure on their governments, media to stop covering for Israel.
The nations / groups that are affected need to SEEK a workable solution - in good faith.
Israel undermined the treaty that Carter had brokered, in a second term he could have done something about it - but Reagan let them get away with murder.
Israel helped the U.S. government / the CIA to sell the U.S. weapons to Iran in the 1980s. That financed the illegal black budgets of the CIA for the terrorists in Latin America. That - and of course the drugs that the CIA helped to import into the U.S.
Congress had forbidden to fund the death squads in Latin America so the CIA and the Reagan admin got creative. George Herbert Walker Bush was VP then - and he was a former CIA director.
The Reagan campaign had struck a deal with the new government of Iran: if they would hold back the U.S. hostages from the embassy until AFTER the election and if Reagan would win they would sell them weapons. Needless to say there were sanctions on Iran for taking U.S. diplomats as hostages. Not even civilian U.S. products could be legally sold.
The release of the hostages would have helped Carter. Sure enough, Iran announced on the inauguration day of Reagan that they would release the hostages. As a "sign of goodwill towards the new president". (More like a not too subtle reminder of the agreement.).
Israel was instrumental in secretely pulling that off. So the weapons were delivered to Israel (that was inconspicuous) and than handed over to Iran. For such little services one can let them get away with undermining the peace agreement of the former admin.
In the 1980s Reagan sen U.S. marines to Lebanon to support the attempt of Israel to grab Lebanon. There was a terror attack with more than 200 dead - at least then Reagan (after the usual grandstanding) had the good sense to pull out. And Israel was on their own. Well they could not justify a bloody dragged out war to their citizens as well, so the land grab did not happen.
Lebeanon has water, they want the land. Israel tried again in 2006 - and there are rumours that they will try again now.
Hezbollah stands between Israel and expanding their Lebensraum. That is why Israel hates them so much - the undermine the reputation of their army. Syria and Iran help Hamas and Hezbollah - so they are announced to us a major supporters of terrorism. Well when has been the last terror attack by Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran in the U.S. or Europe ?? That would be the jihadists that are supported by KSA, the U.S. !! - and yes, Israel.
Chomsky has done a splendid job in educating the public. He has done so for DECADES. it is not his fault that the citizens and the mainstream media and the bought and paid for politicans ignore him.
He is a Jew and an intellectual heavyweight. That is helpful - his knowledge is so vast that he can even deal with smart liars like Alan Dershowitz (watch the debate, Dershowitz did not look good).
4
-
4
-
@ms711x Sweden (or Germany, France, Austria, Netherlands) are meanwhile very diverse countries . They do not traditionally see themselves as immigration countries, but there has been a lot of immigration from the 1960s on, and of course esepcially during the last wave that was caused by th U.S. with help of U.K. and France (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria)
They are homogenous in the sense that the wealthy European countries were never as complacent about having poor people in the country. If you are low-income you want to live in Sweden, Austria, Netherlands, Belgium, ... not in the U.S.
And their political system is n is not as currupt (the citizens watching when companied financed political campaigns, what can one expect). Therefore most of these nations did not deindustrialize.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@EnsoEntanglements in a single payer nation the public option (opting out) would slowly undermine the system, add costs, red tape, maybe dysfunction, unfairness. In the U.S. the predators have their systems to screw the insured (and companies ! they purge companies now !) in place, they will purge the pools, will only insure the young and healthy (at seemingly reasonable rates - not when you consider the cherrypicked pool).
It is not only philosophical. In the U.S. (with the toxic culture) the public option would set up the reform for failure.
Tulsi either did not do her homework and does not understand WHY and HOW single payer nations do it (and at half the costs) - which makes it of course easy for lobbyists to come up with seemingly harmless tweaks to medicare for All. I will give her and Yang the benefit of the doubt - but there are other players who clearly shill for the industry.
Sanders is the only one who GETS IT.
(btw I live in a single payer country. Got sucked into the discussion. I always knew the system was better (fairer) but I was stunned that it cost so much less (roughly half - 54 % of spending in Austria but with an older population).
That got me thinking - obviously ALL rules of the free market, competition etc. were NOT followed - and obviously that worked much better.
So I reverse engineered what seems to be the ingredients of a cost-efficient system.
No large for profit players.
the less for-profit the better (the NHS in U.K. does it best - not even the doctor practices. usually they are small players that are independent and for-profit (the revneue pays for the practice, the surplus is the wage of the doctor so to spaek).
The NHS also runs the hospitals. In most countries they are non-profits but run by states, cities and some by churches.
Mandatory ! contribution for all that have a job and their employer (percentage of wage, often with a cap). But keep it very affordable. The rest comes from general tax revenue.
No opting out.
No duplicative coverage.
Those 2 rules ensure that the affluent will use the same system as the other people.
No 2 class medical system. (which a public option would promote especially with cuts to funding)
Comprehensive coverage (incl. dental !)
Restricting advertising and marketing for everything related to healthcare (that way media can be on the right side if there is an issue - they are not going to lose ad revenue, they never had any to begin with).
If there are private doctors (real capacities in their field, specialities like accupuncture, sports medicine, ...) they have to be good, they get patients by word of mouth.
Have a mechanism of quotas. for doctor practices and pharmacies.
Every region gets a certain number of slots for doctors. (family doctors, specialists). if the agency hires the doctors the case is clear, they determine where they will work and how many.
if the doctor practices are independent they will tend flock to the attractive regions (cities, touristic regions). The agency has a say how many set up shop in a certain region / or per 1000 residents (enough but not too many).
So the more remote or rural regions will also find candidates - doctors need the contract with the agency to have enough patients, so they will be more willing to consider the less glamorous destinations if there is an opening.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
What you may have in mind is a debt jubilee (I think Steve Keen spoke about it). Can you imagine the shitstrom following such a suggestion - by economic "experts", speakers of think tanks, corporate media and clueless bought and paid for politicians. Never mind those who exactely understand the concept. - The plebs MUST NOT UNDERSTAND MONEY. DEBT. MONEY CREATION.
See my comment outside this thread. MMT is not harmless - it is completely subversive in good way. It would shake the foundation of power. And as a side effect would undermine the argumentation for the "business model" of Big Finance (mainly speculation).
Given the last reports on Global Warming - MMT is what could save us in the 11th hour (Debt forgiveness of private debt which was your issue - is one aspect of MMT).
The argument is always: This and that is _too expensive. OR: How are we going to pay for it - of course ONLY for things that benefit the citizens, peace or the environment.
In essence: it is about money and funding. Or purports to be.
No one EVER asks that questions when it comes to insane spending for military, surveillance, the letter agencies.
The war in Iraq did not concern the deficit hawks. (Dr. Kelton coined the phrase deficit owl - sees in the dark, has 180 degree vision range, is a symbol of wisdom).
The health care costs of fracking will have to be born by the citizens, lower life expectancy, illnesses, loss of quality of life, reduced proptery value and medical costs.
How can we afford that ??
WE cannot afford it - but it does not hit the investors and rich people or the media mouthpieces, so they do not care.
4
-
If HRC only was a well intentioned technocrat. Maybe not charismatic but no nonsense, knowing the game, the people. She would have won, maybe not in a landslide, but a win. And then she could serve. Fact 1) she SERVES the donors, and the privileged. Fact 2) she serves her own vanity and her ego seems to demand that she presents herself as this noble, competent, selfless person
Fact is: Sanders is actually serving the people. - He "had to" concede, picked himself up, worked for the campaign (they did not make much use of him - afraid he would continue to steal her thunder, even if he did not meant to). After the election: touring the country, giving interviews ALWAYS mentioning the ISSUES.
4
-
4
-
4
-
+ Keith Durant part 2 of 3 The industrialist financing the Nazis from the 1920s on (because they were hostile towards the left and the unions, don't be fooled by the "Socialist" in the name NationalSocialist) KNEW that Hitler planned to go to war.
But he/they did NOT TELL that the masses. They talked about jobs, security, family values, restoring order and stability - and the minorities chosen as scapegoats as projection target for the anger.
They never talked about the role of the very rich industrialists who COULD have done something for the masses (FDR in 1933 FORCED the wealthy and rich to help out their fellow citizens with higher taxes). Not in Germany.
I know from an old distant relative that her parents were very careful not to say any critical about the regime once the dictatorship was installed. (The parents did not condone of the Nazis, they were regular farmers, simple folks without the privilege of eductation or having seen a lot of the world, but with the right instincts. They were no political activists of course, they were farmers. Likely coming from a Conservative and Catholic standpoint - and they just did not like the Nazis or expect good things from them). But the kids could have blurted something out, so they very carefully avoided anything that could get them into trouble with the local authorities loyal to the dictatorship - and there were enough people around who were enthused about the new regime.
And it was an opportunity to settle old scores (that had nothing to do with poltics) for some as well.
That farmer already had served in WW1 and was too old to be drafted (and farmers were important for maintaining food supply so they were not the first to be drafted).
He had a radio and used it in later years also to hear "enemy radio" to learn what was really going on on the front. That was dangerous. I assume the radios they sold, had the stations fixed according to the area where you used the radio, so that you could hear only the allowed and legal radio stations (all Nazi controlled of course). If you were caught to have manipulated the radio, if you were caught to listen to the "enemy" you were in trouble.
There was a snitch (a relative of the familiy ! ) who alerted the local authorites, but in the little city people knew each other. The farmer got a warning in advance from another insider that "they were coming for him" so he could either restore the allowed state of his radio or hide the radio alltogether. And the Nazis did not remove weill integrated members of those close knit communities without evidence - not when they did not belong to one of the officially prosecuted minorities (like Jewish people, or Communists, or Roma). No one that belonged to the majority. It would have been too unsettling and given the relative harmlessness of the farmer in that rural area it was not worth the trouble.
That showed when the Nazis later started to go after mentally ill or retarded people. In some close-knit communities they got backlash, even the mayors would resist the official orders (and the mayors always were membes of the NAZI party). Usually they then left these communities alone and went after easier targets.
Meaning of course: the Nazis might have been surprised HOW EASY it was to go after the Jewish people, and they went from bad to worse.
With a large ! public ORGANIZED and unified display of solidarity for minorities in 1932 - 1934 the Nazis might have decided that it was not worth the trouble and the frustration in the population to strip the Jewish people off their citizens rights.
The Nazis played the Divide and Conquer game really well.
- I read of a story of an elderly couple in Hamburg who were caught listening to the enemy on the radio - both were put into concentration camps. The woman was released after a few months, but her husband died in the camp.
4
-
Let's hope this all means that Sanders is smartly preparing his DEMEXIT. Maybe the Democrats need just MORE ROPE with which to HANG THEMSELVES. Give them some more opportunities to sell out, they should find plenty they want to continue to serve the donors. And Sanders calling them out on it in a polite way. O.K. they had 4 months since the Great Debacle. At some point the Dems could earn themselves so many bad points that it will be easier to "justify" the split. After all he tried everything and remained polite. The Dems and bitter Hillary fans would of course try to smear him (traitor, splitting the vote etc.) - but he should make the task as hard as possible for them.
IF they rely on him for some time and push him forward as the nice facade for their neoliberal game they will have a hard time discrediting him afterwards. If they wanted him to speak FOR them for some time, how wrong can he be ? Or how wrong were they to work with him ?
And of course he is now on Televions on a regular basis - will be hard for MSM to completely sweep him under the rug, if/when he breaks free.
The Republicans swore that they would repeal Obamacare. Now this election handed them enough rope to hang themselves. Before they "could not do anything about it, the Dems forced it on us".
I am being forcefully optimistic here - Anyway a grassroots movement should not rely on one leader. The advantage: he/she can galvanize the movement and give it focus and direction. The disadvantage: one person can resign, can be assassinated, blackmailed or sell out.
After the death of Dr. King the movement deflated somewhat. On the surface there were successes - enough to the pacify the masses and to take the energy out of the machine. MLK could have kept it going or revive it. The African Americans had gotten something, the progressives in the north could pat themselves on the shoulder.
When he was shot, MLK intended to have a War on Poverty, he wanted to unite POOR people no matter the ethnicity so they could better their lot. He became really dangerous. And he was right on Vietnam (which had cost him support at that time, but people would have realized later that he was ahead in the curve and also that he again was principled - what one would want of a head of state).
A presidential candidate King a few years later would have been hard to beat.
They had to take him out.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Yes and more and more Europeans are waking up to the fact and are not at all happy about the sanctions. Our spineless politicians: when the US says jump, they are: "How high?" German comedy show on publicly financed TV showed in detail the embedded German print media (the large newspapers are all courted by and cosy with the "Atlantic Bridge". The public TV station got sued by the editor and owner of one newspaper they made fun of. That lawsuit was not successful, that was all the promotion the video (it is still on youtube) needed. You do not sue a TV show that (on a regular basis) gets 1 million views (in a country with 80 million people) when they - correctly - show your ties to a foreign nation. All the leading print media are treating us to the usual (NATO) talking points, Putin baaaaaad and DANGEROUS, USA interventions for "democracy" are reported as matter of facts, no critical word to be heard. In comedy, on the web, in TV talk shows and in the commentary section of leading newspapers we get the other side of the story.
If I am in conspirational mood ;) I think in some cases the NSA might have valuable files on a lot of influencal politicians.
Anyway, while Poland and the Baltic States are much more sensitiveon the topic of Russia, that does not mean they are correct in fearing an invasion.
The austerity policy in Europe did a lot of damage especially in the former Warsaw Pact countries who were not very wealthy to begin with. Before the financial crash they enjoyed the influence of neoliberal economic policies. Unlike the now wealthy states like Germany, Netherlands, France ....) who built their countries and economies under much more regulated and "sheltered" conditions after WW2. When the economy is bad, people tend to elect fringe or more polarizing parties, often right wing and nationalistic. Poland has a very right wing government and the right wingers are also strong in the Baltic States.
Of course those politicians have an interest to promote nationalism and fear against Russia while privatizing health care, going after journalists and shredding welfare and pensions right before the eyes of the people. If you have problems domestically look for a target for deflection: jews, gypsies, immigrants, or a big, bad foreign enemy.
There is old ressentment against the Soviet Union of course. These nations have suffered so the right wingers do not need to stray far to find a good enemy.
This is all nonsense of course - Putin - whatever you think of thim - is certinaly not stupid, nor is he impulsive. He worked for the KGB. So strategic thinking should be in his tool box and he acts like it. Why would he invade Poland or the Baltic States, Finland or Norway. They are members of the EU. The important EU members UK (still), France and Germany are also very relyable NATO members
Russia wants to continue to sell gas and fossil fuel to Europe. Our corporations and farmers want to start selling to the Russians again.
3
-
3
-
@MoCa5545 In Austria and Germany the death rate is 3,9 - 4 %. Confirmed infection cases (tested positive for coronavirus) versus deaths caused by it **
** in Austria confirmed by a doctor - the number of "died WITH positive test result" is only 0,1 % lower. Theoretically a person could have tested positive and then died of something unrelated like a hear attack, or the connection is not clear, such cases stem more from the beginning, then they seem to have examined all deaths.
Good healthcare systems, mandatory sick leave, services (and testing) free at the point of service (= single payer).
Both countries have the same kind of healthcare systems, standard of living. lockdown mid of March - the death rate per 100,000 residents (this is another number, my first paragraphe was about dead among the infected) is higher in Germany than in Austria. That could have to do with number of cases, who got it.
In Austria it started with a cluster in skiing regions. So younger and healthy people for the most part. if they got it into care homes in the very early stages (before they took action and did the shutdown) that could account for the higher death rate in Germany).
3
-
3
-
@MoCa5545 In Germany, Austria, .... - or Sweden - citizens have no reason to NOT get tested, or staying home or seeking medical help if they are unclear about symptoms. There is a good chance their corona virus infections with at least some symptoms will be detected - even if their symptoms are not too bad and patients can recover at home.
Only very mild cases or asymptomatic cases will remain undetected. Following up on the infection chain of a cluster also reveals the mildest cases.
They don't do random testing in Germany or Austria (although there are a few trials now in touristic areas in Austria - to boost confidence of potential tourists, that the hotels, and B & B's and restaurants are constantly tested. The restaurants are already open, touristic attractions are open or soon will be - and hotels will follow till mid June 2020).
As for how many undetected cases there are (under conditions of partial lockdown and a lot of precautions)
They do more widespread testing if they find a cluster
The capital of Austria, Vienna did testing of persons that work in home care etc. They found a cluster, and by following the chain of infection with a lot of testing found 150 people that tested positive. It started with temps working for 2 large postal sorting center in 2 states, the temps were the links between the centers. Temps and regular staff got infected, 1 staff member was married to a teacher, another one to a childcare worker ... there you go. They found that it spread a lot via families. And temps that were refugees and lived in homes (cramped conditions, more interactions in kitchen etc).
To find those 150 they tested approx. 3,000 people (and the city of Vieann 3,000 more) They quarantined (a lot of) the staff of the postal centers and for 2 weeks used soldiers to help out.
During that mass testing they found 1 or 2 asymptomatic carriers (one of them a teacher or a mum infected by a teacher, I forgot).
If asymptomatic carriers also happen to be good spreaders (how much droplets or aerosols they produce) and / or happen to interact with a lot of people that could be enough to start a new wave. So authorities have to be aware of the dangers of mild or asymptomatic cases BUT these cases seem to be RARE - at least in the current setting (children who could be good asymptomatic spreaders had not returned to school for the most part, and the economy had not fully reopened).
And of course all these tested persons (mid to end of May) now show up in the statistics.
Despite all the precautions (and the attention that cluster got) - 2 soldiers that helped out, then also ended up testing positive.
That damn virus is very contagious.
The cluster in the postal center triggered even more preventive testing in Vienna (capital) they also tested people that work in care homes in childcare, the inhabitants in care homes etc.
So in a setting where the older teenagers had just returned to school, and the cases had gone down considerably, and retail had recently reopened - they did not even find a handful of asymptomatic cases.
"mild" cases that could pass for a cold - if there is a substantial number of them after fully reopening - are the more likely cases of going unnoticed, not the asymptomatic infected persons.
IF very mild undetected cases do happen in larger numbers (when the economy is reopened and the kids are in school) that is not necessarily good news.
If the death rate would be 10 or 50 times lower than we know from our current official statistics and scientific knowledge (what we know for sure) - then Yes. But mortality rate being drastically lower is not at all ! supported by what we have seen in New York and Italy, France, Spain or even worse U.K.
Somewhat lower mortality rate is easily undone by the virus spreading so easily and exploding ! case numbers (Spreading fast, if not caught early on).
The mortality rate (according to our current knowledge based on reported infections) is either somewhat realistic OR the virus is much more contagious if we have a lot of unreported cases. Either way: Not. Good.
The only good scenario: another mutation pops up, it is more contagious (that is what happened in early March 2020, most people that got infected globally, caught the new mutation), AND it is also much more harmless (death complications) AND it would give immunity (at least some) against the existing strains.
Then we could dare to let that spread (would take some time to find out how harmless it really is) and we could get herd immunity with little sacrifices. We could even - after some research - intentionally infect healthy and young persons with such a strain (please note that CoVid-19 continues to surprise doctors with complications. Inflammation in children, organs damaged - not only lungs. Blood clots in young persons, ...)
Vaccination is the artificial version of that scenario.
But it is not likely at all that the stars align that way with upcoming mutations (they will come). Any new mutation will have to be equally or more contgious than the current one to prevail. (A "good" strain could be mass applied by humans - but first you would need to find it and then have mass experiences how much damage it really does).
Any new mutation could also get more deadly, or causing more lasting healthcare damage or causing the need for ICU and hospital treatments.
MERS (another form of corona virus) popped up in 2012 or 2013. On the Arabic penninsula. Mortality rate in the range of 30 %. We are just lucky - it is not very contagious - so far " The individuals that get infected (it went from bats to dromedars and then to humans) are unlucky, but for the authorities that scenario is much better. With proper hygiene and precautions (that must not be extreme) spreading can be stopped.
Boris Johnson did not want at all to have the shutdown, nor did the governments of Germany, Austria, France, Italy, ... want to do it. They all dragged their feet, but most at some point resigned themselves to the inevitable and jumped into action. U.K. government was longer in denial.
There were some precautions in the U.K. (no large gatherings, like concerts, or sports events and pushing for handwashing and disinfection).
We have PROOF (in the U.K. numbers) that these precautions that would hardly impact the economy, were not nearly enough - so your theory about "low death rates" does not play out. Not to forget COMPLICATION RATES.
The infection is deadly enough, and causing too many hospital and ICU stays - considering how easily it is spread, and what the case numbers could be w/o severe precautions and restrictions.
Look where the U.K. is even now:
Highest death rate (per 100,000 residents) of any nation for which we have (at least somewhat) reliable numbers (we do not really know what is going on in Brazil and even less so in Iran, or the poor African countries).
And STILL the U.K. curve (deaths) is not flattening. The Swedish curve might be at the beginning of a flattening (at high level) - that is inconclusive - but UK death numbers are still going up straight.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson was cavalier in March in order to justify how his government handled the crisis differently than almost all other weatlhy nations - in order to reinforce the message: It isn't that bad. And promptly got himself infected. But of course he had doctors hovering over him, and recoverd.
The people providing services (cooking, cleaning, adminstrative) and those who interact with the Prime Minister naturally are very carefully monitored (also health status). But he shook hands with voters to prove his point - and that backfired.
3
-
@MoCa5545 if the death rate is lower than it appears to be because there are more mild (unreported) cases that means it is much more contagious. More contagious can easily more than compensate for the lower mortality rate. IF you let the infection run its course, it will spread like a wildfire.
The Spanish Flu did have a low mortality rate but was fairly contagious. (corona virus might be worse in both respects - it is hard to say data of 1918 is not comparable to data today, and the response in 1918 / 1919 and in 2020 was so different. 50 million people died of the pandemic after WW1, if I remember correctly.
That CoVid-19 is not quite as deadly as we assume (crunching the numbers with the indentified cases, under partial lockdown conditions !) is of little help. It is a numbers game, if you have MASSES infected - sure most of them will recover, even at home.
BUT: We already KNOW that CoVid-19 leads to MORE hospital stays than the flu, and - important also to more complications that require the hospital or even ICU
Cynically said: with the flu fewer people (as percentage) land in the hospital and the flu also does not lead to so many cases that need the ICU for 1 - 5 weeks.
With the flu most people are either dead after one week (if they die at all), or on the way of getting better.
With corona after one week trouble can just start, if the virus goes deeper into your lungs. People started to feel better after 1 week - and then they got much worse, to the degree that they needed to present to a hospital.
3
-
@MoCa5545 We did have a flu PANDEMIC in 2009, many people died, and hospitals were very busy - but not overwhelmed. No first world country had to practice triage (the doctors in Italy got the official instructions by the authorities - the richest region in Italy !! had the hospitals that were 2 - 3 days away from applying those rules about who would be abandoned / left to die and who would get intense care). **
Estimates are that globally between 700 million and 1,4 billion people were infected with flu in 2009. The overwhelming majority of patients recovered at home, but with such a high number of infected persons you have a certain number of people needing the hospital. And many additional deaths despite the low mortality rate (0,1 % of cases).
These deaths were complacently accepted - by the population, by the governments. For the most part it hit the elderly.
Corona virus is more infectious than the 2009 flu, it causes MORE complications, and many more hospital stays and ICU treaments.
That is why in 2009 no shutdown, travel restrictions were even discussed (they could have done that for 2 weeks and masks and handwashing campaigns on top. That could have made a difference, with little damage to the economy).
But not even that was considered.
CoVid-19 is another beast.
** Italy may have never officially applied triage, but they were 2 - 3 days away from it becoming official policy in any hospital that had many cases - the affluent North was hit the worst. People over 80 years would not get intensive care (did not matter if they had CoVid-19 complications or something else, or persons with underlying conditions).
Inofficially that may have played out already. Plus: they had a higher death rate, because they could not provide the best possible care, many doctors and nurses were infected too, they were just too overwhelmed.
Germany and Austria later took in patients (with CoVid-19) from Italy (Germany also from France). But at the time when Italy would have needed help the most, they didn't get it from the neighbour states. I think the governments did not dare to offer the ICU beds - they were shocked about what was going on in Italy, and wanted to keep their reserves.
When it turned out they could contain the spread with the lockdowns well enough and the hospitals were never at breaking point (because they were catching corona later as a nation than unfortunate Italy) they did offer help. Italy also got doctors from Cuba.
3
-
He is not the "inventor", he did some relevant work in the early stage in 1989 and 1990 * - and people did work before and a LOT of research AFTER him. The Hungarian doctor Dr. Katalin Kariko, now co founder of BionTech (that partnered with Pfizer) found a way to deal with inflammation and to use it for humans. She had continued her work for many, many years, while he did not publish on the issue anymore.
He injected it with lipids into mice, and that worked (well they did not die as other animals before them), so that gave hope mRNA technology
could work for humans in the future.
He contributed a part of the puzzle, Kariko does not style herself the inventor of the technology only that she cracked an important part after working loooong on it. He also called himself her "mentor" and "coach" in a email, she does not share that impression. They met once in person when he asked her to hold a speech.
I hink he is desperate to become more relevant. Kariko has gotten a lot of attention since the vaccine has been approved, and with good reason. Sounds like he is pissed that he abandoned that area of research, she might get the Nobel Prize for it - and his contribution is too miniscule to put him on the list. There are many others that contributed MORE.
He does the tour on the usual outlets (anti vaxxers, incl. Steve Bannon) and let's himself be introduced as "inventor" - which shows that he lacks academic honesty, and he would not get away with it in the world of academia and of course not on any serious outlets. And Steve Bannon - really ?
Research often is a compound effort, he deserves to be mentioned (and his paper will be cited) - along with many, many others. And Dr. Kariko deserves more recognition because she continued with the work for many years and finally had a breakthrough, that helped to get funding and lead to them being ready to develop a vaccine (for which they got plenty of German funding btw).
in the 1990s she had her funding cut and she continued to do the work in her free time (after she also had to swithc to another university, at least she could use the lab). I think she had the first promising results end of the 1990s.
3
-
+racewiththefalcons excellent point. - the Dems could have done a big press conference in summer - all together. How they are all for MedicareForAll now. Vote us in, and we will make it happen. The bill is ready, we mean business. - healtchare is an issue in the races tells us CNN, they talk about ACA, the bureaucratic expensive monster. 3 persons carefully avoiding to mention MfA or Sanders - of course not. The advertiser do not like it. And the advertisers are also the donors, to the parties that spend a lot on TV ads ....
They played a clip of a GOP and a Democrat debating- two females, I forgot the state. The GOP voted to abolish the protection of preexisting conditions. Well that is bad enough (maybe the Dem or the panel mentioned the public option - I am not quite sure - would be revolutionary in that setting).
MfA polls 51 % with Republicans, plus 80 % with Democratic voters.
The Dems could have a landslide. Improve chances to win the Senate back. People would like to vote for them IF they would be perceived as fighting for the issues that matter.
Well they aren't, the donors like ACA. It protects their profits - the U.S. pays 55 - 65 % of the costs of other wealthy countries. Literally ! see World bank per capita healthcare expenditures of nations.
U.S. USD 9,200 Europe 5,000 - 6000 - Germany for instance 5,600. Austria 5,400 (both wealthy nations, 85 resp. 8 million people, they developed their own systems after WW2, their population is on average older than the U.S. so the U.S. should beat them on that alone).
Tiny Iceland with 300,000 people is in that range of 5 - 6k as well,. You bet they (their public non-profit insurance agency on their behalf) pay for instance much, much less than the U.S. citizens for medical drugs (U.S. has 325 million people).
Iceland could pool the purchasing of drugs and medical devices with other nations - or threaten to do so. They can also find out (if only in backroom talks and exchanges of data bases what European nations with 3 or 85 million people are paying. No doubt Big Pharma would rip them off - if they could).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ZIGZAG12345 Russia was in shambles, even the West was initially glad that Putin won the election in 2000. With the endorsement of Yeltsin, no doubt he was promised immunity from criminal prosecution and could run off with the loot. The strongest opponent of Putin then was far right, nationalist, crazy Shirnovsky.
The Russian contraction of the economy was worse than during the Great Depression in the U.S. - and in such times the far right does well. Putin stands for moderate economic populism.
It had gotten so bad that Yeltsin knew he had to leave, so he arranged himself with Putin. The army did not get paid, civilians did not get their pensions (what is Social security in the U.S.), the West feared there would be under the table sales of biological weapons, military grade uranium, tech, ... by disgruntled military.
And the West thought the looting would continue under Putin, that he would be a sober and more intelligent version of Yeltsin but as corrupt, or in the same way corrupt as Yeltsin. That the fmr KGB man would restore some order - and let the foreign oligarchs roam as before.
Nope. He is I think actually patriotic (much more than U.S. politicians in the sense that he would not sell out his country wholesale, think trade deals for instance). He might have needed to get along with the the Russian oligarchs (or he gladly colludes with them), but the foreign vultures had to get lost. At least those that did not bring jobs and only extracted from the Russian economy.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Lack of fathers does not cause crime in Europe - see my other comment - introducing !! crime into a community by selectively putting their males into prison and creating the necessary laws to do so (even for minor crimes and drug possession) DESTROYS communities and destroys families.
There is no scientific reason why marijuana should be classified like Heroin as schedule 1 drug (very dangerous no medical use).And later Crack (artificial Cocaine) lead to much, much harsher sentences han Cocaine. Why ? If it is about the substance - they have the same effect.
These laws and regulations make only sense if the drugs laws are not desgined to prevent the use or keep harm away from the population - no they are designed to TARGE COMMUNITIES, to create a PRETEXT to incarcerate the members of certain communities. - See what a former high ranking member of the Nixon admin said about it.
The problem is not so much the lack of the father - but that the father is in PRISON. And cannot hold even a loose contact with the children.
What is a widow supposed to do ? - well she hopefully has an intact extended familiy with grandfathers, uncles, brothers, ...). Plus that she and her children have access to good school. That they are living in a SAFE environment, in communities where men are volunteering in youth groups and churches etc.
And when their young males come out of prison they had been in contact with hardened criminals, and then had much worse ECONOMIC chances. Meaning stress, no being able to care for their children, stress also leads to more drug abuse, domestic tensions, it can make marriage fail that were not strong to begin with, etc.
Adversity and struggle does not always bring out the best in people, sometimes they just falter.
Drug crimes are of course also illegal for white people in the U.S. - but the FBI has their spies in the black communities, the police searches much more black folks - so surprise, surprise, black and white folks use drugs at the same rate, but black people go to prison much more often.
That is proven btw - and it is also proven that minorities get harsher sentences (same crime, same history, that means if they already had been in trouble, etc.).
That bias btw also shows up in the school system (more minorities especially black kids are suspended etc.). That means if you take 100 or 1000 kids and they have the same transgression, the white kids will be treated with more leniency. And if they then deal drugs and take drugs they have a much better chance of not being caught. Meaning if they get their act together a few years later - they have a chance. Their black peer (doing the exact same things and we are talking about statistics here not about some individuals) already were in prison once, and are then unable to find a good job, have troubles with colleges (because of the conviction), likely a lower credit score, etc.
Getting the males into jail under ANY pretext and under exclusive laws (only applying to them - see black code ) started in the 1830s and became only stronger after the Civil War.
That - not single parent households - is toxic.
3
-
3
-
@Amadeus8484 Activist and feminist Naomi Wolf held a talk at a libertarian event. That was in the Obama era. Laura Poitras was there as well. Her speech was not about feminism but about mass surveillance and that the constitution had been abolished.
She narrated how she (and Laura) - both perfectly law abiding citizens who use their constitutional right to free speech - got a "code" on every flight tickets. That Laura was harrassed on airports. She was always picked up for an "interview" by "security" whenever she had arrived after a flight - an op-ed of Glen Greenwald in the NewYork Times set and end to that illegal practice (after 30 or 40 such harrassments).
Wolf said she did not get that code on her flight ticket anymore ( that gets you the "looks" of staff) when the Obama admin came into power. Seems her feminist bio helped her with high ranking ladies in the party. But it got worse for Laura Poitras (She and Glen Greeenwald were the persons who Snowden trusted - they met him in Hongkong in 2013 ). Before she had made a documentary about the war in Iraq (very critical) - and is critical of the war machine no matter who is the puppet in the White House.
Wolf also strongly recommends NOT to wear masks when protesting. She says that is an invitation for the mules. If a person is caught on camera and it later comes out they are connected to police, FBI or one of the other letter agencies - that would be a scandal. If the organizers of a protest ban the wearing of masks and the participants monitor that their fellows stick to that rule - it is hard to pull off stuff anonymously.
The DAPL protesters did not bear weapons - weapons, alcohol, drugs were banned in the peace camps and during the protests on native land. But the "security" sent over a guy with a weapon and tried to start trouble. The mobil phone cameras protected them and they surrounded him and urged him to put the firearm down and to leave in peace. All while recording it. So he eventually left.
Wolf also says that she always knows when the FBI mules (assets ? or even employees) show up at her public speeches (so the FBI takes out time of their busy schedule to monitor HER ??). They do not master to dress the part obviously caught up in the idea they have to dress with a hippie vibe, which looks odd at a middle aged, often overweight, maybe conservative guy.
"It gives me the idea they take off the headband with the Rasta locks, put on the tie again and write the report." - Well, if I had to kill some time in the agency I would also rather deal with peaceful citizens like Poitras, Wolf and the crowd they attract. As opposed to the really dangerous and elusive criminal people in the mob or the white collar criminals that are protected by the politicians they buy.
The peaceful law abiding people that instigate peaceful mass protest are the enemy of the establishment. The powers that be can arrange themselves quite cozily with the mob, or even terrorism (they are protected better and how many jihadist attacks were there really ? And the occasional attack is the pretext for more mass surveillance, which is a lucrative business AND very useful to keep down their own citizens)
The woke citizens are the enemy and their leaders must be crushed.
Thom Hartman remembers one such infiltrator during the time of the Vietnam protests - he also stood out because he was trying too hard to make a case for use of force and made wild, loud and erratic comments after and often during the speeches.
He was not very subtle, in that case the relevant people in the movement knew full well that he was an agendt or asset of the FBI trying to get someone to say something that could be used against them.
Wolf: "They always stand out a little bit." Cry from the seats of the organizers of the libertarian event - "But they always pay full ticket price - so thank you." the audience was laughing. So that crowd - civil, quiet and normally dressed people were monitored as well while doing perfectly legal and law abiding rational !! things.
Mind you: that was uncer the Bush and then the Obama administration.
If need be, they will use FBI agents, undercover police and use TEARGAS to turn mass protest events chaotic.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
If the U.S. or the EU had economic policies "for the many not the few", and if the media would do a halfway decent job - the Russians could hire troll armies all they wanted.
They screwed up the unification of Germany, and the common currency (West-Marka the East-Mark) was the first common currency going completely wrong. The currency must be tailored to the needs of an economy (which is logical money represents and facilitates the exchanges of what that economy can produce). So within on year they had destroyed much of the industry and the jobs in Eastern Germany. The rich Germans did not accept homelessness - but the stress on the welfare system was enough to lead to "welfare" and labour "reforms" - read screwing the little people (like in the U.S. done by the party that allegedly is for the working people).
the EURO, the EU membership for the former Soviet satellite states has been a disappointment turning into severe problems for these weaker economies after the financial crisis. The rich European nations are somewhat holding on - but their economies are of course under constant neoliberal attack.
The Iraq lie, the endless Afghanistan war. The shady 9/11 commission, the many unsolved questions. Libya, now Syria.
the trade deals that are widely opposed in Europe and in the U.S.- but the "elites" try to ram them through anyway - including parties who used to be left and pro working people (Wel they were that back in the day, in the 70s).
The ruling class tell us that the EU, the EURO, NAFTA, TTIP, TPP, etc. are all wonderful. (same elites that did not see the Great Financial crisis coming).
Even before the crisis there was mass emigration of Polish workers to the UK: Now the well educated young people are leaving the Baltic states, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Portugal. The young in Spain and Portugal often have wealthier parents - so they hang on and stay - but of course there is high young unemployment.
In Germany they talk about the upcoming retirement mass poverty. (Germany isn't Germany anymore they are crumbling behind the facade, their decline is from a high level though, and still some social welfare. Way too little infrastructure investment for decades !!, the only thing that works is export (with the too weak currency the EURO, too weak for the strong German industry), that and wage dumping for qualified workers means stagnant domestic conscumption. Not even Germany can live off its export industry alone - and it makes them immensly vulnerable if their exports break down (for instance downturn in the U.S.)
the citizens are not THAT STUPID. They KNOW not to trust the regular politicians or the regular media anymore
Then the fuck-up with the refugee crisis. (That's another story. the UN got the funds cut from USD 30 per person to approx 11. and of course destroying the stability of Libya opened the routes for human trafficking - but the media does not bother us with that information). For the money spent in Germany one could excellently provide for double the number of people in a country with lower costs of living - but THAT did not happen, when they had the possibility to do that for years.
Austerity had been sold to the citizens.
But when huge numbers of refugees came (millions) a lot of extra government spending all of a sudden was a good thing and would do wonders for the economy (housing the refugees, social workers, etc.).
Not to pit the low-income natives against refugees - but if such Keynsian spending is so beneficial NOW how come it was not beneficial for the natives a few years earlier ?
The bank bail-out cost money, and the unemployment meant more expenditures for welfare (unemployment) and less tax revenue. So more government debt. Which was the PRETEXT for austerity.
Those who are in need of an authority go to the right. The others are left w/o an option to vote for. In the UK and the US many JUMPED to the populist candidates (people had just waiting for someone like Sanders of Corbyn to come along, the clueless "elites" and their media lapdogs just did not see it coming.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The Dems are paid by the Big Donors (who finance BOTH parties) to keep progressives AWAY from influence, they must win PRIMARIES (not the GE). And sadly in most cases they were successful. ** The money THROWN into the primaries helped the establishment candidates.
And don't think they would EVER support a progressive that does well in a purple district. They would rather have a Republican win.
on of the few exceptions:
** Crowley in New York was too complacent, Alexandria is uncommonly good, her campaign went on for 1,5 years !, and recent polling showed her 36 points behind (so it was approx. 50 points off, she activated non-voters.
That is hard to handle, pollsters rely on "same old, same old" for their predictions.
But that might have helped her, the party for sure would have used all legal and illegal means to prevent her primary win.
Some citizens in her district did not even dare to have a photo taken with her (could cost me my job) when employed as civil servant or with the city.
And many do not dare to work for the campaign that opposes the "machine". Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez confirmed it, Cynthia Nixon (who goes against heavyweight Cuomo) also said that some people do not dare to work for her campaign for fear of being shunned in future.
They could have tried to covertly activate civil servants ("encouraging" them to vote in the primaries, directly endorsing Crowley. Likely more successful - getting the unions to make their members vote for Crowley. unions - unlike the government - have no legal problem when they give such endorsements.
But with the polls showing her 36 points behind they did not bother.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Lawrence Wilkerson (he was in acquisition - later he became Chief of Staff to Colin Powell). He was told that one project he headed cost too little. He had to make it bigger and involve more states. Else it would not find the votes in Congress.
MIC jobs are not going to be outsourced and are well paying industry jobs.
The representatives are placated and bribed with such deals. They have something to show when they come home to the voters.
So even if they are not personally corrupted (often they are: campaign finance, cushy jobs for ex-politicians) - there is still a strong incentive. I think that even applies to Sen. Sanders (F35 fighters are produced in Vermont). And Senator Rand Paul rolled over with the confirmation of Mike Pompeo - he had come out strongly. Either one of the Big Donors thought otherwise - or he was bribed / strongarmed. such deals do not always come immediately - but that his state would be considered next time ....
Of course many would find it outrageous to spend the money on green energy, infrastructure, education, .... The skies would be falling, and the money could never, ever be found. (In that context: Debt and interest free money Dr. Richard Werner, short clip excellent information, easy to understand).
Bold government spending on civilian projects would have the same beneficial economic effects - actually better. I remember a story about how the Pentagon did not want certain tanks - they got them anyway. So a few citizens got jobs and now the tanks are rusting away (which is the best case scenario, if used it would mean WAR). The same money spent on childcare would employ people AND deliver useful services for the citizens.
So "war is not the source of everything else" - it is more that the powers that be cannot be bothered to make bold investements for anything less than the military and war.
Think of the Race to the Moon, the Cold War (it was one spending spree and that was one of the MAIN reasons) or the Manhattan Project.
Unfortunately only the military and war triggers such bold determination, support of the media - when it comes to the well-being of the citizens the money is impossible to find.
I think it is a matter of hierarchy and class. Imagine government spending supports employment and we would have REAL high employment. Not the fake numbers we have now, yes people have jobs but they are underemployed as well. Else we would see wages rising. Which only happened very recently.
Plus things like childcare, housing, healthcare, public transportation would be affordabe and well taken care of.
So if a person was willing to live modestly - they would have the basics covered. Could risk a disagreement with their employer or start their own thing.
It would reduce the FEAR, the ANXIETY. People do not have to put up with employment conditions, they can risk to get fired (a job that will pay the not so high bills can be found), they might chose to work less (good wages mean a part time job can be sufficent, especially when a couple works part time) and either invest more time in the family or be politically active.
A nightmare scenario: citizens active in politics and the communites who are relatively safe economically.
The military budget is funneled towards EQUIPMENT - that is funding for the contractors ! It is harder to find money for soldiers for personal equipment that would increase their safety, or the VA.
Those products are so unique that they are not very competitive.
On the other hand if money would be spent on civilian services, citizens would save on childcare or avoid the car damage because the roads are well maintained - no holes.
So they do have the JOBS and then they get a service which is useful (instead of tanks rusting away somewhere).
Civilian products and services are not THAT unique, a lot of companies of ALL SIZES from all over the country (often local) can deliver them - as opposed to special interests. Those many potential entrepreneurial beneficiaries of such government spending may not hire lobbyists, ex politicians, they will not advertise on TV and donate huge sums of money to politicians or SuperPacs.
That is also the problem with hiring teachers or soldiers or experts for the NSA instead of outsourcing to private for profit contractors.
If it is in the public sphere no one is going to MAKE A PROFIT. Nor will it provide jobs for ex-polticians.
Yes: It is an economic activity, it delivers services to the citizens, the staff costs money and the staff then has disposable consumer income - so the positive effects on the economy are there - BUT it is out of reach for "investors".
In military conctracting it is often about HUGE sums - that gives toxic incentives even in private companies never mind in the government contracting environment.
For profit companies do not automatically serve the clients as well as they can (that is only the marketing message !)
- they only do so if they are FORCED to do so. That is the case if it is easy to switch for customers and if they have competition (see broadband, also see what the "too big to fail banks" feel emboldened to do to their little customers).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@s.o.c_914 The people that WORK are productive (even IF they are not working legally !) A modern economy CAN provide healthcare for everyone when the society is so productive. the per capita (= per head) expenditures * in wealthy European countries are 50 - 65 % of that of the U.S. (even though the population in Europe is on average older - that is a major cost driver so the U.S. has a cost advantage !)
I know 2 systems in Europe very well - Germany and Austria. In these countries there is much less tolerance to have poor people. There are low income people, divorced mothers on part time - BUT the basics are covered.
The Europeans do not define themselves as migration countries - but they have been in reality since the 1960s - maybe not to the degree like the U.S. - but on the other hand if you think about the refugee crisis (caused to a large degree by the U.S. setting the Middle East on fire).
In recent years ALSO the non-productive refugees and migrants are covered by the healthcare systems. Germany has 85 million people - 1 million migrants were taken in. And unlike the migrants in the U.S. they are mostly not productive - they are often not allowed to work (until their status is clear - and even then they must be able to get a job), and get an allowance for housing and costs of living or they are housed in communal homes where everything is covered for them.
per capita healthcare expenditures That means all that is already spent !! in the country divided by number of people (in USD per year - source World Bank).
In the U.S. that includes a lot of people without or with insufficient coverage and also those with high medical debt !!
in numbers: the range in most wealthy single payer countries (in Europe, also Canada, Australia) is 5,000 - 6,000 USD (USD 5,400 in Austria, 5,600 in Germany).
Compared to 9,200 in the U.S. (again all that is already ! being spent and then the AVERAGE per person). The U.S. system is so overpriced and inefficient that there is plenty of room to cover everyone - in the long term that should still SAVE money.
Per capita costs (per person): that can be scaled up and down for the countries - indeed there is little difference between Iceland with 300,000 people and Germany with 85 million. The economy of scale does not seem to make much a difference (but being a large country does not hurt).
it makes sense. Hospitals and doctors can realistically serve a certain number of people. And they need to be spread throughout the country to be accessible and for short distance for emergencies. So that can be scaled up or down.
Iceland is not a weaker negotiation partner for Big Pharma (they could buy with other countries or get the information what other countries are paying - so no chance to rip them off even though they are tiny)
Maybe they cooperate with other nations when it comes to university training of doctors (if so likely with Denmark - because of the language). Training of nurses they can certainly do locally in a cost efficient manner as well.
In most European countries the training of medical staff, doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, ... is free. In Germany and Austria the nurses have a 3 year paid internship. The students are usually young women 16 years and older, that live in a boarding school that is run by a hospital. There they go to school, work in the departments, learn for the tests and in most cases live in the dorms.
After the costs for the dorms are deducted, they are left with a small allowance, more if they come from the same city and can live with the parents. Even though the school prefers to have them on campus. They have a lot to learn and it is lights out between 10 and 11 pm. So usually they can visit home every fortnight. Having your daughter or son make that training does not burden the family budget - on the contrary they will be left with some money for clothes. and they are kept busy - and are supervised. The hospitals that do the training are likely getting compensated to some degree by the states - on the other hand they have some labor of the "apprentices" for cheap.
In Europe per capita also means: all that is spent in the country - the average per person. But this time without hassle for the patients/unsured, everyone has coverage and the money goes into a cost-efficient, streamlined system.
Streamlined means: Everyone gets (potentially !) the same treatments in the same facilites, there are no networks that you can have with your policy or not. And there are no standard or platinum plans. When people start a new job they must be announced to the insurance agency (the comapny pays the wage decuctions once a month). That takes 5 minutes. No health questions - of course not. Privacy - and it does not matter - ONLY the wage decides the contribution.
And there are no later payments - that is what "Free" healthcare means - free at the point of delivery.
That simplictiy results in low administration costs. It also makes it impossible for hospitals and doctors to rig the system against patients. They have no reason to deny care - and they are accountable to the public. (public non-profits). It is not possible to hold the CEO of a hospital chain or large insurance company accountable - but if the system does not work for the patients in Europe the blame would be on politicians - to do something. No need to engage in a lawsuit. And since everyone would get the same good or bad treatment the citizens - and the politicians - have a stake in the game. What happens to one person concerns all.
Certain treatmens are covered on principle (or not - braces for instance are in many cases not covered) - and then the doctors decide what they think is the right treatment for a certain patient (for instance if the doctors thinks it is necessary to order a helicopter transport instead of an ambulance. Helicopter with emergency doctor is "on the menu". So is ambulance transport with or without emergency doctor.
People pay mandatory modest contributions from their wages, which must be matched by employers (all ! employers) - AND like in the U.S. the insurance ageny gets a lot of subsidies ** - but these subsidies go into a cost-efficient system where many (and especially the large) players are public non-profits = the insurance agency and many or all hospitals.
The only large and powerful for profit player is Big Pharma - but they have very standardized products so luckily that makes it easier for the public non-profit insurance agency to drive a good bargain. (And I am sure the agencies of various countries have found opportunities to "compare" prices).
** In Germany the budget for a family of 4 would be around USD 22,400 per year (5,600 x 4). Even if they are healthy - that is the AVERAGE. That is too much for low income people. So whatever the parents (or the one breadwinner) pay as percentage of their wage will be enough. And there are provisions for people w/o a job.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
9:00 The Dems can live with losing elections - the Donors that pay them assigned them to task to sheep dog and suppress progressives. That is even more important than winning. And as long as they do that the Big donations continue. - Nader (and Jill Stein a little bit) disturbed that scheme - that is why the Democrats go so furiously after the third parties. - They bank on it that the working class people have nowhere to go, that the blackmail "the Republicans are even worse than us, and will really hurt you" continues to work.
They would never, ever accept ranked choice voting - that would immediately end that blackmail, they would need to start working for the people in order to get their votes. (A lot of people would ould vote third party, voter participation would skyrocket and the D or R candidate would be the "lesser evil" plan B. Just in case the preferred third party candidate would not make it. There would be competition and choice in the policital landscape.
They STILL come up with the crap that Nader prevented Al Gore becoming president, ignoring the hundred of thousands of Democratic voters in Florida that voted for Bush. Or that the voter purge in Florida became public BEFORE the elections - it was headline news in Europe. So what did the SITTING president and his VP Al Gore - who knew he would need to win Florida - do ? They did nothing - the Big Donors did not want the boat rocked, the unwashed masses alerted and the image of a flawless election process stained. -
Al Gore after the elections was warned by the Party establishment to not to raise a stink about the lost/stolen election. Al Gore was rewarded for his compliance and the Dems kept the Big Donors.
People like Bill Maher make it look like Nader running ultimately led to 9/11 and then to the wars.
The logistics for the Afghanistan invasion was prepared in summer 2001 - the politicians in D.C. must have known that.
The Dems could have voted against the Iraq war in 2003 or blown the whistle - D.C was buzzing with rumours, Schroeder of Germany and Sarkozy of France KNEW why they declined to join the US in the war.
No doubt Clinton and her Democratic collegues ALSO had heard something - but she has never met a war she did not like, her donors and the media friendly with the Clinton machine liked the war, too.
And if the vote turned out to be a mistake - she was not going to be alone with the mistake and no one in her circles would be in combat. So it was a "safe" vote, damned be the Iraqis and the U.S. soldiers.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+ Joe Hammond - you cite the Greek city states - really ? They had slavery, no human rights, no rights for women, etc, etc. - Now that many men (not all only the "free") in theory had a say was not a bad thing. Certainly an improvement to a king having absolute power (over life and death usually).
But since the advent of agriculture society had split up in the elites, and those who serve them. The elites in ancient Greek were of course BUSY to get back all the power from the commoners. Same happened later in Rome as well. - It is not only that you CAN vote - the question is: WHO has a realistic chance to come on the ballot ? And do you have the vote - or also a good CHOICE for someone who will really represent the interests of the commoners (not the interests of the powerful and rich elites).
It seems the citizens of ancient Athens, Rome or now the U.S. have the same problem. (that is not remarkable, the problem stems from human nature and how to control power in larger societies).
And a real democray (whatever from, Republic, constitutional monarchy) must also have a working JUSTICE SYSTEM (meaning the powerful are held accountable as well, and the powerful cannot harrass and kill people who disturb their rackets as they please).
Do you think there was a long and carefully executed PUBLIC court case against Sokrates ? With lively public attendance and interest ?
We rely on the stories that were a) written down and b) made it into our time. So we have to take the story as is reported (no court case at all, if memory serves - just a bunch of people showing up, how is that the majority).
But when we go after human nature - how likely is it, Sokrates got a "fair and speedy trial" with the right to bring witness and with the right to get support.
habeus corpus has been suspended btw (by the U.S. government).
Things have gotten better over the millenia - but some mechanisms show up again, and again.
(and today people ARE STILL harrassed, killed by governments and stooges paid by big corporations, for instance Canadian or U.S. mining or oil companies. Not in the First World Countries - but FOR corporations of these countries too).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
TheZodiacz - well said - something like the litte doubt they could be held accountable saved the non violent resistance in Eastern Germany in 1988/1989. The rigid dictatorship in Eastern Germany was always very obedient to the Soviets - until Gorbachev started the Perestroika and Glasnost thing. - Then for the first time Eastern Germany did not fall in line. - Their civil resistance however sniffed morning air - and the police and army did not DARE to shoot the demonstrators (some were roughed up or arrested, or lost their job, but no one was killed).
We know that use of firearms was discussed - but the bureaucrats clinging to power were not QUITE SURE how this all would end, now that even the Soviets considered giving their citizens more freedom. And if they started a massacre and the regime would fall anyway (or in a few years time) they would be held accountable. Never mind that Western Germany would withdraw financial support (like loans), it was always upheld in Western Germany they would strive for unification, so that kind of state violence would have triggered a massive public and political reaction.
When the Berlin Wall went down, the spy agency STASI (running an extensive spy and snitch operation on their own citizens to keep them in line) tried to destroy the files. They had everything documented (incl. the clear names of the snitches, their rewards, etc. - that's a very German thing: to do the correct accounting and to have precise files.
The demonstrators just entered the building and prevented them from continuing their destruction of evidence.
The secret service guys of STASI were completly perplexed and caught off guard by that intrusion into the holy halls of spies and snitches. No one had ever stood up to them. They knew their reign was over, they had of course still armed security at their disposal, they just did not dare ordering them to shoot - and the security forces would have refused to comply.
Which is why Germans (and also citizens of other countries, they also worked West Germany etc.) still can make a Freedom of Information request and find out if a neighbour, supposed friend or coworker, or even sibling spied on them resp. reported them to the regime. Or if someone in a major Western German newspaper was a mule and STASI informant.
Of course the STASI is nothing against the modern surveillance state.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
in 1940 the 40 hour workweek was introduced for ALL industries in the U.S. - that was meant to be enough (at least for the male breadwinner, yes gender roles ....) Point being. ONE adult working in manufacturing could support a family which usually included more kids than today. HUGE progress regarding productivitiy (how much one workers creates in output of goods and services in one hour) and technology has happened since.
between 1947 till 1970 productivity rose by 1112 %, from 1970 - 2013 * it rose ONLY by 69 % more. Which is interesting in itself: New technologies were established, think DNA sequencing, computers, mobile and smartphones, the internet ..... so in the much shorter era with high taxes for the rich and profitable companies and good wages - THEN productivity increased much more in only 23 years ?? That goes contrary to claims of neoliberal economists and what politicians, and mainstream media wants us to believe.
Isn't that weird ? **
Purchasing power of wages (hourly average wages, adjusted for inflation) almost doubled in the Golden Era (until the 1970s), it was plus 97 % plus so just shy of the 100 % for doubling - but in phase 2 (neoliberalism) it only increased by 8 or 9 % (and that can be unevenely spread between the people getting hourly wages, for instance the low paying jobs not growing at all, while the better paying hourly paid jobs had very modest growth).
I know the numbers till 2013 by hear, but the same applies till 2019, the trend is intact. The wage growth achieved in 2018 and 2019 was eaten up by inflation.
What happened from 1970s on ? Two major global crises due to oilprice spikes, the rich and big biz and FINANCE used the first major unemployment crisis to hit back against the New Deal. (Paul Volckers was appointed by Carter as fed chair and he solved inflation on the back of regular people and the productive economy. He would rather send the economy into a drepression ! than invonvenience the owners of fortune with the fact that their bonds and savings accounts lost in purchasing power. Inflation even somewhat higher one CAN be managed to not harm regular people and inflation is also not the enemy of productive companies or homeonwers paying down their mortgage. But the owners of fortunes if they are not invested in a biz, or real estate are going to lose some purchasing power. Carter was not financed by big finance, but unfortunately he was misinformed and let Volkcer run amock. No wonder Reagan let him in place, he could thank Volcker for making him president, and that (then new policy) was devastating for U.S. labor and the unions.
the interest rate can be used to FINETUNE the economy, but not to steer it, it has never worked to deal with major crises (inflation was seen as one. But I would rather have higher grocery and gas bills to pay but everyone has a job. The reason for the prices spikes was wasteful use of energy and over a few years INVESTMENT (machines, gadgets, insulation, construction, research) would have solved that cost problem. Plus it would have made the U.S. immune to future oil price spikes. use of fossil fuel would have been replaced with use of human labor and technology. Yes that costs - but you get the educated, qualified workforce and the jobs as bonus.
But those investments (for home owners, and the industries) at the end of Carter's first term would have needed loans, which then cost up to 20 % interest (and still 14 - 15 % for businesses). That was insane, strangled the economy (I know of no other intentionally created depression) and the excessively high interest rates (as "cure" for inflation) was directly opposed to the NECESSARY investments into the future and even normal business and private expenditures and investments.
It his like you have funghus on your toe nails. you can and should do something about it, it takes time, but is totally doable to fix that. One could of course also amputate the foot or the leg to get rid of the funghus. The human would survive in both cases - in scenario 1 it is slightly unpleasant and then you return to good conditions. Scenario 2 ... you survived but with massive and LASTING damage.
The underlying problem of the U.S. economy ("needing" cheap oil, or product prices would go up) was not solved (Japan and Europe invested to a degree, meaning they are more independent from oil price spikes, fuel is more expensive there anyway, so everyone avoids using too much). continuing to be dependent on cheap oil also meant the U.S. continued to have military adventures to make sure oil prices stayed down. No one ever adds the military spending to the "cheap" gas in the U.S.
The federal minimum wage was at its height (purchasing power) in the late 1960s.
These things are related: R&D investment is hard to earn back, if people cannot afford to buy (or only by taking on consumer debt). Industries have consolidated (moving towards monopolies) and we have global over capacities for industrial production (even in 2019).
** Yes when you accept neoliberal gibberish.
If you do not give in to the _thought stopping clichés and think things through:
People had disposable income from good wages so it made sense to innovate companies could sell the stuff at a large scale. Also companies could ONLY avoid taxes if they invested. Which they did, as to not having to give the money to Uncle Sam.
Uncle Sam got it anyway: if a company invests they buy equipment (think machines, assembly lines, benfefits for workers, like throwing a lavish Christmas party) or they hire employees and contractors (think research). Either way someone has income or revenue. Someone is going to pay taxes or the money circulates in the economy.
Now often 2 adults work in a household and often more than 40 hours - and that is in the most technologically advanced civilzation ever.
Workers got most of productivity wins in form of more purchasing power while they continued to work 40 hours per week (often only one adult in the household). In the 1970s when the population had established some wealth (simply furnishing your home with plates, silverware, bedding, furniture) was easier in 1970 than 1947 for the majority - so it would have been time to reduce the worktime WHILE keeping the income = purchasing power the same. If you only have to work 39, 38 hours .... (as productivity will allow) and get the same (inflation adjusted) wage - it equals a pay rise.
People would have continued to have a stable income, low unemployment, all would have had a job (but spent fewer hours there). Also chances to integrate working mums w/o wearing them completely down.
Companies would have had the SAME COST and the SAME output (not more and more goods with the same staff - OR firing a part of the staff and producing the same output with fewer people. Which creates unemployment if the production processes in the whole economy get more and more efficient over a decade or two.
The U.S. had ongoing automation, computers were used more, women got into the work force and a lot of immigration happened. The 1970s crisis just accelarated the ineviatable - more unemployment.
The 40 hour workwook was a good fit - for 1940. It would have been time to adjust it after one generation that had seen massive improvement in technology.
Instead we have moved in the complete opposite direction.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+ Jones - money is easy to come by. - the "shareholders" and investment funds are NOT NEEDED to develop, create, distribute and consume goods and services. - What we need is a skilled workforce and people with management skills . Well trained scientists and engineers. Patents * Manufacturing plants or research labs.- well with MONEY those can be set up.
The most important ingredient in an economy is the knowledge, a good work ethics in general, functioning infrastructure, some kind of entrepreneurial spirit or "can do" attitude would be helpful, and a safe environemnt (with a working legal system, a working public administration, not too much corruption, no war).
** with partents there is a problems because the "haves" and Big Biz have tried to use their wealth to monopolize patents.
The U.S. military pays for a LOT of development and research. When they come up with something promising (and have done the heavy lifting cost and risk wise) politically connected Big Biz takes over. -
see the clip with Noam Chomsky The role of the military is misunderstood.
The MIT - heavily military funded - had the all the electronics companies on campus. NOW it is pharma. There is of course no logical reason why those pharma reserach results could not be handed over to non-profits, or companies that can reinvest much more because they are NOT meant to create even more income for already wealthy shareholders.
The overwhelming majority of shares are the property of rich people. The odd regular person having a fund or having them in their retirement fund - that does not make a dent.
* As for management
Example: In the co-ops the workers hire their management - To bring out the best in the people, to hold together the team and coordinate their efforts, and partially also for the expertise - although the manager must not/should not even be the best expert in the team. All of that WOULD be their job in a capitalistic run company as well. As opposed to lording over the workers. - And the "boss" is the highest ranked manager.
But in practice: in a co-op I cannot see a manager constantly bullying the workers, or sexually exploiting the females. Not giving them toilet breaks (they pee into bottles in Amazon warehouses) or making unreasonable demands for how they should dress (high heels for waitresses that were demanded in some restaurant chain, which can lead to problems with the feet over time).
Such leadership would not be accepted. The thing with the skilled and engaged workforce - they recognize a good manager/leader when they see one. So the hasty word, and a no-nonsense attitude might be tolerated. Meanness - not. And it is mobbing, bullying and abuse of hierarchial power that can lead to people getting sick because the stress at the workplace. Plus it cause constant change in the group, because those who have alternatives will leave.
Managers in such co-op settings do have some power in the everyday work - but that power is conditional. Retaliatory firing if a worker does not put up with mistreatment ? - aint gonna happen.
3
-
+ Starforge The tensions in groups can arrive in for-profit and in non-profit groups - this has nothing to do with capitalism, co-ops, schools, NGOs. Except that some forms of harrassment by management are much les likely in worker-run co-ops.
School was a mixed bag. There is group culture and there are teachers who care and shape that culture - or others that ignore obvious bullying. Or they are the bullies.
Actually I have experiences with managers and medium sized business owners (the capitalistic model) who work a lot with the carrot (and rarely with the stick). It works excellently - and effortlessly for management !! - if the boss/manager/leader knows whom NOT to hire (trouble makers, psychopaths, truly lazy and incompetent people). And if they are not so much into people pleasing or denial of conflict that they ignore serious tensions.
Modragon that huge Spanish co-op btw has a trial period. If you want to join you work as employee (which they also have), after 1 year or so a person can apply for owenership and becoming a co-worker. (they pay in an amount like 2000 USD - they get that back when they leave).
And then there were the companies where the group process was messed up, sometimes the leadership was to weak or disinterested to deal with it - or one got the impression they even fuelled the tensions - or managment was the problem.
Most people are in the middle when it comes to being competent, socially accomodating, mature, diligent. You place them in a toxic environment (police, school, NGO, army, workplace) - they will either suffer, adjust to the bad standards (silent resignation or joining in the destructive behavior) - or they will leave - if they have other options.
On the other hand if you enter a group and the rules are: we do not mob, we are polite, we don't do lazy, we are on time, we keep promises (you will get the report by ...) - then even the average people will orient towards the higher standard. - The group - much more than management - will maintain good and nurturing standards.
In human groups mobbing can happen and it can start with little things and get out of hand. Again a good leader can intervene and shape the culture. Or the group has established a good culture - often with some opinion leader within a group that has no formal power but a good standing with the peers.
(we don't do mobbing here and we also don't do gossipping beyond a certain level).
Exampel: 3 person company, then 25 - 30 persons, then they expanded beyond that. Some long-time employees feel like insiders and feel entitled to decide that they do not like some new employees - just because. (They essentially treat the workplace like it was their circle of friends. Now it is good to be identified with the company - but at the workplace you also must get along with people you would not invite to Christmas - like collegues, customers, ...).
So it is not like they would state any objections in the regular meetings - there is nothing of substance they could object to. And not everyone shares their stance.
The management (in that case identical with the owners) noticed the tensions, thought they could let it run it's course. Then they were alerted by other workers that the meanness and the backstabbing got more intense. So there was an intervention. That learning process (management, plus members of the group speaking up for someone else) was part of the growing pains.
There were later some more attempts (few) to single someone out - and that time it was immediately counteracted. The people that were prone to do "mobbing" were not bad folks, nor were they incompetent in their work. Immature or very tribal, yes.
So it is necessary to have a counterweight to that - either top down or - and that is even more effective - by a good group culture.
If the group does not tolerate the slackers or unfairness (and there are many ways to excert social pressure) then the leadership or managment does not need to deal with that shit. The group does have ways to straighten out members, and that power exceeds that of managment (except for the power to fire someone, but that can be a loss to the company as well).
Tensions WILL come up - the question is what you do about them.
In capitalistic (and other) companies or groups often such tensions are gladly ignored. The seemingly diligent and capable manager bullies the workers or drives away a lot of good people - or makes females quit because of sexual harrassment.
That causes costs too, but they are never explicitely written down, and some of the costs are on the back of the employees.
Higher management often painfully avoids "noticing" that they have unusually high rates of people leaving. And the brash attitude of a manager is taken for an no-nonsense but efficient and company serving attitude.
I worked in a company where I learned later that a manager had sexually harrassed female employees for which he was responsible. He had a falling out with higher management - for other reasons - so he went away. But not w/o making one competent and ambitious female quit. She could have been his daugther - so outside the workplace he would have to live with the fact that he does not play in her league when hitting on her.
The other woman I know that he harrassed was older and longer with the company - she hoped for the best - and was lucky. And that was in the course of 2 years so I wonder how many females he had harrassed in his maybe 15 years in the company.
That shit would not have happened in a co-op. And apart from that manager the climate was supportive and good.
3
-
3
-
3
-
+ Paul George aternative facts much ? 80 % of those who voted for Sanders in the primaries, voted for Hillary in the G.E. (which was a MUCH higher percentage than Hillary primary voters supporting Obama in the GE in 2008. (see Twiter of Dr. Brian Schaffner). There were articles end of August 2017. Those Sanders primary supporters who went to Trump showed that they WERE very unlikely Democratic voters to begin with. They voted for Sanders DESPITE the fact that he came under the Democratic ticket and despite the fact that they gave Obama low grades. (I guess they went for an economic populist message).
So Sanders had a cross over appeal that Hillary did not have at all.
See for instance - "Did enough Bernie Sanders supporters vote for Trump to cost Clinton the election?"
By John Sides August 24 - The WaPo and John Sides are not likely to be positive about Sanders, still the reporting (and the facts) contradict your claim.
As for the Sanders people "tucking their tails", well YES - they fell in line, holding their nose THIGHTLY and voted for HRC.
HRC - despite that undeserved support still managed to lose to Donald Trump. ("We are getting 2 moderate Republicans for every blue collar we lose". Chuck Schumer summer 2016 on the Rust Belt strategy. And something like: "I do not need to campaign in the Rust Belt now that the primaries are over, after all they voted for Obama" - never mind that Bill Clinton thought they should do more in those states, or that local Democratic organizations asked for funds and they were concerned - they saw the bumper stickers, yard signs, felt the mood. - At the very end the campaign must have gotten some warning pollings - Obama and I think also Michelle went there days before the election - it was too little too late. - Michael Moore sensed the shift earlier and predicted the win of Trump, Bill Clinton had enough political instinct - but not the "Annointed One" and her hoards of consultants and staffers.
Right now Sanders supporters of 2016 are not "tucking their tails" - many of them are trying to either REFORM the Democratic party or hope fervently that Sanders will declare to run as an independent (and they support Progessive candidates on every level).
Sanders would eat Trump alive (in case you haven't noticed Trump chickened out of debating him last year). And with some good preparation to go rhetorically against neocon B.S. talking points Sanders could dismantle Pence as well. Pence would of course sit well with the usual Republicans (but he is not believeable regarding economic populism - pro TPP, plus he is very hawkish).
Sanders on the other hand would massively increase turnout and activate non-voters. NOW that he has the name recognition, he polls very well also with women and minorities and crushes it with young people (all races, ethnicities). Which is important because young people are a free social media army and are notorious for their low participation in elections.
3
-
Well the members of the Syrian army (which has soldiers of all confessions) did not exactely ask to be dragged into a war. A conflict that is not a civil but a proxy war, funded from the outside, fought by mercenaries and Islamic extremists (of whom many are foreigners sent by Saudi Arabia and the US). I think many of the Syrian army soldiers see their country under threat (they are right) - and they deserve to live as well as the Syrian civilians. It also seems that the people of East Aleppo felt Aleppo was liberated (not "Aleppo has fallen"). The population is reported to be friendly with the Syrian and the Russian soldiers. They are demining East Aleppo (special teams from Syria and Russia - not sure they get help from any other nation). They found chemicals, some quite toxic, bomb building materials, stock piled food - usually in basements used by the rebesl. The rebels and their families are said to have made up 25 % of the population in occupied East Aleppo. The rest of the people were held hostage, they were prevented from leaving and when food came in THEY did not get enough of it.
In order to avoid a house to house battle and the genocide of the hostages, the government gave an amnesty to all Syrian rebels that laid down their weapons (not sure the amnesty was also granted to foreigners). They and if present their families could leave before the last part of East Aleppo was taken over by government forces. That exit was negotiated and observed by the UN - giving the rebels the security they would acutally be allowed to leave the buses drove them to Idlib (is that under fire now ?)
That meant that those of the rebels who wanted to defect could then do so - many of them may have been also some sort of hostages. Not all were religious fanatics, some might have done it for the money, even out of economic desperation. Well they sure could not leave as long as their respective group - Al Nusra, Al Qaeda, FSA = moderate terrorist etc. etc. were in control. If found out they were shot - if they were lucky. ISIS was ruthless about punishing "defectors" or "wrongdoers" from their own group.
The people that refused to leave were the most extreme, maybe also the leaders (Islamists or not). During the final fighting one escape route out of town was left open - again to give an incentive to flee rather than fight in a house to house battle till the end. Those "rebel" troops made it to Palmyra. Quite visible in the desert. No civilians around. Russian and Syrian soldiers had their hands full with Aleppo and other settlements and the US ...... was doing nothing. The US military might have for the longest time disagreed with Obama on his "Syria must be regime changed by a proxy war" - maybe because of the danger of getting into a fight with Russia. With the prospect of Trump coming in they might be able to do now, what should have been done long ago. (When ISIS was on the rise, their troops from Raqqa in Irak were allowed to move to Syria through the open desert. What did the US do ...... It is almost as if they wanted ISIS to get stronger, the civilians in Iraq and Syria be damned.
Indeed it is so. It seems there exist an audio with Kerry admitting exactely that - it is longer - until now I heard only a part.
It is discussed on the Alex Jones channel (who knew), and there you can find links. In September 2016 New York Times and CNN made fluff pieces by using parts of a leaked audio. The audio covers a meeting of Kerry meeting representatives of the Syrian "opposition" at the UN (between official meetings) who wanted a no fly zone and of course US boots on the ground. CNN made the error to embed the complete leaked audio, it got downloaded, CNN removed it meanwhile (security concerns of involved persons), the article is still online.
And the audio - in improved quality - was re-uploaded onto youtube.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Europe here, some food for thought: No, the GOVERNMENT DOES NOT TAKE OVER in a non-profit public healthcare system (as Feinstein claims. Watch the Corporate Democrats embrace RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS. (Sanders has changed the discussion and now they have to desperately grasp for any lame argument to justify their support of a healthcare system that profits first and foremost their donors). All other wealthy countries with a WELL FUNCTIONING PUBLIC NON PROFIT HEALTHCARE SYSTEM have a PUBLIC AGENCY.
It that has to obey strict privacy laws and it deals with the other players in the system (usually it is a mix of private for profit and non-profit entities). The public agency collects the contributions that fund the system, negotiates the contracts (doctors, pharma industry, hospitals, pharmacists), gets and pays the bills - the patients do not get any bills.
The government is involved in passing the laws resp. amending the laws when necessary (a few years ago in my country Austria stricter regulation regarding lobbying of the Pharmaceutical industry. Or if they need more funding - either to allocate budgets from the tax revenue or to raise the percentage employers/employees have to pay from the wages - which would be a huge political issue).
Ctizens see the ageny as "sort of government related" - while that is not exactely true in the legal sense, it is helpful for accounability. It would put a lot of political pressure on the system if it did not work well or would get too expensive.
Example: in Austria and Germany most family doctors, dentists, x-ray providers, .... are like small familiy businesses. I would not call them "entrepreneurs". They are for-profit - the profit is the income for the doctors, and it also pays for the costs of the practice , and the few employees they have.
Their revenue comes from the contract with the Public Agency. Of course all doctors have the same contract and conditions. And each town with a certain number of inhabitants will have a maximum number of doctors with a contract. The doctors do not get that much for each patient or treatment, but there is enough business for each of them to make a good living.
There are doctors without a contract who then of course have no regional restrictios or protection but they are a minority. Usually they have a speciality to offer, or they would not have enough patients to make a living (TCM, sports medicine for professional athletes, maybe hypnosis or weight loss).
That quota system is cost-efficient (every doctor has enough patients to make it economically viable), there is an element of competition (patients are free to go to their doctor of choice - usually folks have a doctor nearby where they live and stay with that doctor, but you can drive to the next town if you want.)
Same with hospitals, they are spread all over the country (there are almost no for-profit hospitals), some are run by the muncipalities, others by non-profit groups which are usually church related. Often you can go where you please (broken arm for instance). In other cases you will be refered to a hospital, that is especially the case for some planable procedures or very specialized surgery. It means the hospital will have a lot of cases, they will have a lot of experience - that means good outcomes and cost efficiency.
The car accident, the heart attack, stroke, the broken arm - here it is often about getting quick help, it will be the nearest or most convenient hospital - whereever you are. Again, the hospitals have all the same contract with the public agency. So it does not matter in which hospital you end up. Not like in the U.S. where they will hit you with a huge bill when you get treatment at a place that has no contract with YOUR healthcare insurance company.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
We do not have functioning democracy in our nations, we never had - but with the internet we are better able to know what is going on.
If our national goverments start to resemble an oligarchy the EU cannot be better - but it can be worse.
Take mass surveillance in Germany for example - how could that happen in a functioning ! democracy?
ideally the members of the national parliaments should work for the citizens but in the US the representatives are beholden to the political donors, in Europe with state funded election campaigns one does not have a political carreer without the party, so it is "party before electorate". So it is pretty easy for corporate power to get a handle on the top of the parties and then they can shape the society to their liking.
Now with the EU it is the same on steroids. Washington used to be the lobbying paradise - now it is Brussels. In the old day you had to deal with France, Germany, NL, Sweden individually, now the lobbyists have a nice leverage - and the EU has 500 mio. citizens, the US only 316.
If the politicians in Germany are detached from their voters, the persons making the decisions in Brussels are WAY more detached. There is not much accountability of national politics to the citizens and with the EU it is almost non-existent. Yes we have a EU parliament and the rules are carefully crafted to make sure they cannot really interfere with the commission. Recently the commission stated that they would not "allow" a vote of national parliaments on CETA (TTIP in disguise). Of course not, a national parliament might acutally vote in the best interest of the citizens - not big biz.
Democracy is overrated anyways.
P.S: Sometimes the EU does good. It is also obvious that our politicians hide behind the EU when they do not dare to introduce legislation on the national level. They play then the helpless victim of EU and engage in a little EU bashing to soothe the angry electorate.
2
-
2
-
2
-
10 % pro "preemptive" strike IS A START * - be prepared for some PICTURES of poor North Korean CHILDREN in the next time while they ramp up the the war rhetorics. (We will later learn they were staged and shot in South Korea, after all real footage is hard to come by because NK is so closed off)
Now with this survey the Think Tanks have something to work with. Rom wasn't built in a day - they also had to work diligently to build the war mood for both wars against Iraq (2003 and 1991).
In 1990/91 the Bush administration AND the military absolutely wanted war. The happy pretext to use the war machinery: Iraq invaded Kuwait.
They wanted to test the war equipment under real life conditions, use the power
vacuum in the Middle East since the Soviet Union had STEPPED DOWN VOLUNTARILY from the COLD WAR, they wanted to expand the influence of the U.S. empire.
You bet the spy agencies and the Pentagon and the profiteers of the Arms Race were not
pleased when the S.U. quit the arms race - and without much prior notice.
How do you justify the bloated military and spy agencies budgets without a good and relyable enemy ??
The U.S. population was not too enthusiastic about war in 1990, only 50 % supported war, and such an operation takes time to prepare. The war mongerers put the time of preparation to good use. However, a lot of the public was like: so Iraq wants control of some Kuwaiti oilfields - whatever - sure it was a precedent - but on the other hand als long as they SELL the oil, who cares WHO sells it. Let's not risk Amercian lifes for it.
So an U.S. PR firm engaged the daugther of the Kuwaiti ambassador in the U.S. for an emotional fake testimony before the UN (incubator lie, The Iraqi army allegedly ripped early born Kuwaiti babies out of the incubators and left them on the floor to die. During the testimony she claimed to be an ordinary Kuwaiti girl, her name was not given)
That helped to stir up the war mood - it was a VERY successful propaganda act. It changed public opinion dramatically - no doubt the media was as complicit then to promote the propaganda as it is today. THAT LIE helped to relieve the Bush administration from the pressure to seek a peaceful, diplomatic solution for the crisis.
There are indications that the Bush admin led Saddam Hussein into a trap anyway, letting him belief the U.S. would tolerate his taking over of some Kuwaiti oil. S.H. complained that Kuwait - with the help of Western technology of course - engaged in horizontal drilling - sucking out oil from fields ACROSS the border. Also I think the Gulf States were egging Iraq on to go to war with Iran, I think they did not live up to their promise of financial support for the slaughter that took much longer than expected and brought Iraq no gains regarding territory or more oil fields. Plus I think Iraq had major problems with oil revenue due to technical problems - a huge pipeline problem or with extraction or something. Meaning: while of course unacceptable, the Kuwaiti invasion did not come out of the blue, it was not completely irrational- or like he had gone mad and unpredictable. He was a useful - brutal - dictator, he was good for the proxy war against Iran from 1980 - 1988 - which Iraq ! started with the happy, if covert support of the West - but I think at that time - in 1991 - the U.S. wanted him gone.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Is there evidence Russia or Putin wants to destabilize the Baltic countries ? The neoliberal austerity economies enforced by the EU on these relatively weak economies hit them harder (even harder than the rich countries). All over Europe fringe parties are on the rise - in most cases they are right wing, nationalistic and also usually anti EU. The Baltic states had seen a mass exodus of the young and educated people, the Baltic states are crashing their welfare and healthcare services for those citizens who remain. Historically the Russians are not liked (too much baggage from WW2 and after). So Putin / Russia would have a hard time over there. What is more, even the more fringe parties would not likely accept Russian money or messaging, if not out of patriotism than out of the insight that they simply could not sell it to the electorate. Russia did not object to the Baltic states joining NATO. Neither did they object when Hungary, Tschechia, even Poland a neighbour state joined. And they agreed to the unification of Germany, meaning that the Soviet nukes where removed from there and that part of Germany became NATO area, too. All these states have suffered from Soviet invasion during or after WW2. So it is understandable they think being part of NATO would make them safer if ever Russia or another ex Soviet state wanted to violate the integrity of their border. Then NATO membership was offered to Georgia. This is when Russia said Njet. And then the US with the help of the EU (or more precisely some very high ranking EU officials and administrators) under guise of a so called economic agreement - with military clauses never publicly mentioned tried to alienate Ukraine from Russia.
Russia was a very important economic partner for Ukraine they sold them cheap gas (unsure how it is now), there was a lot of trade going on, cultural bonds, mixed families - they are alike but have different languages, a lot of ethnical Russians live in the Ukraine. AND Russia has a naval base on the Crimia (former Ukraine), which is very important for Russia, they had a treaty with Ukraine about it and paid well for that right.
So trying to separate Ukraine from Russia does not make sense, unless you want to stick it to the Russians (which seems to be a BIG BONUS for EVERY US government) and if you want to give US corporations access to untapped fracking sites in Ukraine (search for son of Joe Bidens if you want to dig deeper).
So when the coup in the Ukraine happened (and make no misttake, it was a coup helped by infiltrators, the US officially spent 5 billions to promote "democracy" ) Russia acted and secured Crimea. BTW the referendum result of the citizens of Crimea is plausible (and there were foreign observers there). On the Crimea live a lot of ethnic Russians and even before the crisis the right wing groups or even NAZI groups (that are now in the US sponsored government) had been very hostile against the Russian ethnicity in Ukraine. Let alone that if in doubt the Russian economy is much stronger, sanctions or not.
If I had lived on the Crimea, I would have voted pro Russia, and I am by no means a fan of Putin. This may have been the reason Russia, who had already invaded Crimea allowed an orderly (to avoid the word "fair") and open referendum (as confirmed by international observers). They knew they would win it - in a situation where war was to expect. Holding it in a way as an election should be held, gave it legitimacy.
I assume the people on the Crimea feel that they narrowly escaped a desaster (while fearing for friends and familiy on the other side).
I am getting angy as I write about it - like in the Middle East the US RUTHLESSLY undermines peace, they unleash war without any thought about the civilians or the long term consequences. Everything - EVERYTHING including supporting covertly or not so covertly Islamic fundamentalists with ambitions to create a Sharia theocracy, to make sure they can dominate all over the world.
Russia is an obstacle to complete world dominance, so is China. And the EU - especially the important EU countries Germany, France and (still) UK help with that or at least do not call them out on it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
as for a non-profit (solidarity) healthcare system with premiums based on income (or tax financed): the wealthy ! European countries who all have a good !! system for everyone with full coverage and no deductibles have per capita costs between USD 5,000 and 5,500 (vs. the US with more than USD 9,000 and that was in 2014). See "World Bank, per capita healthcarecosts, data 2014".
The British NHS (National Healthcare Service) had costs of only 3,900 - but they seem to be underfunded, in their case the allegations of lesser qualitiy or at least of waiting lines seem justified.
The NHS is different than other European systems - it is tax funded and has no private players (even the family doctor is a state employee).
But for USD 5,000 - 5,500 every First World country (small or large) should be able to organize good
healthcare for everyone. (Canada was in that range as well, Australia had costs of USD 6,000).
2
-
+ Derp Jesus - the period you describe lasted from 1921 - 1929. My assumption: in that time many people joined the high income class - I do not have numbers - but they are called it the Roaring Twenties and one thing is clear: a huge bubble developped in that time.
Of course there were people who had a lot of income from productive activities (manufacturing, retail, services - as opposed to speculation), but many advanced on the ladder partly or completely because of the bubble. Advanced to the plus 100k bracket.
As long as the party lasted, the normal economy seemed strong because a wider segment of the population felt wealthy and employed those on the bottom for services. (Same was before the housing bubble in 2007 popped - as long as it lasted it supported the economy in general, but of course that was not healthy or sustainable).
On the other hand the policies started under FDR - high taxes for the wealthy, more corporate tax AND good wages for the workers was applied between 1933 and the early 1980s. The top marginal tax rate rose to 94 % in 1944 (WW2 entry of the U.S). With some exemptions one paid 85 % of every Dollar over 2,7 million (in todays ! money). Income tax stayed high after WW2 - 80 % in the 50s - Nixon and JFK debated 74 % effective tax rate. In that time the middle class was built. Real purchasing power almost doubles between 1947 and 1970 (real wages + 97 %, productivity + 112 % - so most of the gains of productivity landed in the pockets of workers/consumers). Positive side effect: high taxation favors investing in your biz, the long term strategy regarding biz, and it encourages ethical behavior - what is the point of acting illegally when the state will take 80 % of the gains while your run the risk.
Interestingly in the 1920s there was a considerable increase in productivity that did not lead however to an increase in wages.
Real wages which were stagnant (unions had been crushed). That meant more and more output, but not more disposable income from wages paid to workers. The virtual gains of the bubble took care of the opening gap - until 1929. (Like the credit card financed consumer debt took care of the gap that opened from the 80s on).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
* In Germany there is a house heating solution with SOLAR ICE. A Solarthermie panel harvests energy = heat on any sunny day (especially in the warm season), first it is used for heating water for daily use, any surplus is sent underground into a cement water tank. It is cool in the earth (frost free depth usually 8 - 11 degree Celsius), the tank is NOT insulated, but the water can get luke warm in summer.
And in autumn one can extract heat from that reservoire (it is big but not that
huge, height like a tall man, diameter slightly less than that for a
normal home).
Water to Ice cristallizaion (and in reverse) is used for extracting/ storing energy in the cold season..
If you apply the Celsius scale fresh water freezes at zero degrees and it boils at approx. 96 degrees.
Imagine you have a certain amount of water in frozen (cristalline) form at zero degrees - just the temperature where it will start melting if more heat is added.
Actually it needs A LOT OF ENERGY to transfer that ice into liquid water with STILL ZERO degree. If you add the SAME amount of energy again, that water will become very hot (about 80 degrees Celsius - remember zero is freezing and 96 is boiling, so that is pretty hot).
That means if you switch between water in liquid resp. frozen form both at zero degree that is a possibility to store respectively extract heat - in the cold season !
You could not easily store very hot water in cool underground and preserve that temperature from summer till winter. But if you play around with the low temperatures you do not have that problem nor do you need insulation.
What happens is: in autum energy for heating the house will be taken out of the luke warm water reservoire (by a heat pump).The water gets colder. Any sunny autumn or
winter day will of course restore some of the lost heat. The roof will be rather full with panels, so that helps you use the power of the sun in spring, autum and on partially cloudy days, or with changing weather (the energy deliverd by the sun is surprisingly high even in cold weather).
At some point in late fall or winter the water in the tank will have zero degrees and when then more heat is taken out it will start to cristallize, become ice and release at once that big chunk of energy I mentioned above.
And any sunny or even partially sunny winter day will help you thaw (some) of that ice.
It also helps that some of the "lost heat" of summer will be still there in the surrounding soil and in any case the earth around the tank will be well above freezing point. So that will also somewhat "warm" up the water in the (uninsulated) tank.
The reservoire is not supposed to ever freeze through of course. Nor will a ice blanket form on the surface.
The water freezes from the bottom to the top and from the inside out (quite opposite to what happens in nature) to avoid cracking of the concrete tank or ice swimming on top.
This is achieved by how the tubes filled with cooling fluid are arranged and where the heat is taken out of the water first.
The technology is used for familiy homes but also in industrial sites (office buildings, smaller manufacturing sites etc.). It replaces fossil fuels with local technology and labour.
2
-
Peace talks are coming up, Trump lets it be known that he retracts from "Assad has to go". OF COURSE this is the time the Syrian government would use such an INEFFECTIVE and unprecise weapon as poison gas ! At a time when they are winning (in a military sense) anyway and when they are in the process of getting complete control of the country. Assad is stupid - he does not realize, that this is exactely the pretext the "international community" needs to justify a war escalation, the enforcement of a no-fly zone, and last but not least the extension of the draconian sanctions (even medical drugs supply is impacted !).
It is not like the US neocons and all the other US war mongerers, Israel, KSA, Qatar, Turkey, France UK and all the other actors who have promoted regime change in Syria for years (damned be 500.000 dead Syrians) are going nuts.
Admitted: they were proclaiming the "Fall of Aleppo" and the possibility of "genocide" in winter 2016. When the genocide did not happen and the population seemed quite relieved that the government took back control - then the hysteria immediately stopped. Aleppo (Eastern Aleppo to be precise, the gov. had control of Western Aleppo for the longest time, and the citizens were supportive of the gov. there) was immediately dropped from the front pages as soon as the defeat ! was unavoidable.
Not only the rebels were defeated - the international fans of regime change in Syria suffered a heavy blow as well. (So we were treated to an Amnesty International report in January 2017 - the regime changers seem to follow the strategy of steadily working public opinion)
2
-
2
-
2
-
EU securing peace ?? It stared to develop in it's current form in the mid 1990s.The EURO came in 1999. Austria or Sweden for example joined in 1995. As for the Euro "peace keeping": see Heiner Flassbeck video "Warum der Euro in 2017 scheitern wird" = - Why the Euro will fail in 2017 - France has elections in 2017, Marie Le Pen anyone ?)
The EU did not secure peace after WW2. The occupying Allied Forces in Germany and Austria made sure there was an orderly transition into democracy. And I think it was our good fortune that we do not have much natural resources like oil or gas.
It was the relatively protectionistic post-war economy . There were high taxes, no chance for tax evasion, limited flow of capital, strong unions meaning wages rising with economic growth, tariffs and import restrictions shielding markets, public housing projects that regulated the property market and kept prices affordable, universal not-for-profit healthcare systems, a strictly regulated banking and finance sector allowed only banking activities that were necessary and usefull in a macro economic sense.
When the economy grew the working population got their fair share (that is proven by economic data!) , so people could buy/build houses, buy consumer goods thus further strengthening the economy. I also think the relatively high energy prices were a blessing in disguise for Germany and Austria - or Japan another phoenix out of the ashes.
The elites did not take good care of the working and middle class out of the goodness of their heart. Europe went left after WW2 and there was an ideological and military capacity battle going on with the Soviet Union. So ironically the implementation of the Marshall plan, the economic miracle and post war prosperity have a lot to do with the Cold War.
After the SU split and that ideological and political obstacle was removed, the ruling classes all over Europe did not feel the need to appease the unwashed masses anymore, now it's neo liberalism on steroids.
Gregor Gysi gave an almost prophetic speech AGAINST the introduction of the EURO in the German parliament (Bundestag). It's on Youtube. He said then the Euro was prone to promote unhealthy economic inbalances, putting some European countries at disadvantage. And if the population of these countries consequently would have to endure economic hardships the EURO would not promote peace but unrest, envy and hostility between the member states. Boy was he right.
Now the same argument can be made for the whole EU project (in it's current form).
The EU - unfortunately - is a now a project of and for the neoliberal elites all over Europe and also strongly in favour of the NATO interests. No wonder the most important NATO allies of the US are also big players in the EU. The economic and military policies of the EU cannot be better than the policies of major member states of Germany, France, UK, Italy.
Neither these single nations nor the EU did anything to prevent the financial crisis of 2008/2009 - and that crisis COULD have been prevented and there were warnings. Of course they did nothing, that would have meant regulating the banks, restricting their speculation - meaning less profit and business opportunities for the financial industry, less cushy jobs for ex politicians, maybe less illegal political party financing.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 a lot of us thought it would be a repetition of the economic miracle for the countries of the Warsaw Pact. Starting with Eastern Germany of course.
Didn't turn out that way.
Why ?
In the case of Eastern Germany that was the first failed currency project (after that came the EURO). The rushed unification and the transition to the West Mark finished the industries in Eastern Germany that might have had a chance. Make a time travel and try to imagine a German industry of 1970 who would have had to compete with the German industry of 1990. Of course the 1970 version would have been crushed. Western Germany did not develop it's economic strength in one year, they needed (and had) decades in a relatevely sheltered environment.
Now the industry of Western Germany had no interest to tolerate a competitor. That would have been like having Northern Italy on your door step - with the ability to speak German ! - a capable industry and workforce who could always devalue their currency against the West Mark.
All of the economies of the former Warsaw pact - unlike the rich Western European countries directly after WW2 - had to operate under globalization, the tyranny of the highest profit and the lowest price, the myth of the so called "free markets", free flow of capital, tax evasion, beggar thy neighbour (Germany! after 1999) - all those lovely neoliberal accomplishments that make sure a tiny fraction of the population hugely benefits from the economy, a part of the population is doing fine or O.K. and a major and ever increasing part is thrown under the bus and can hardly scrap by.
When the citizens have to endure economic hardships, they are searching for the root cause and they want to blame someone. People differ in their reactions. Some turn left and want to kick the establishment (comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable).
Some - especially if they are psychologically prone to the authoritarian mindset - kick their peers or - even more likely - those they perceive to be weaker or the "other" (immigrants, other races, gays, people on welfare, ...). So they are going to the right side of the political spectrum.
Also anger is a much stronger and more "empowering" emotion that feeling helpless, depressed, deprived, hopeless. I am sure some people are sort of addicted to the kick they get out of being enraged.
The situation starts to remind me of the 1930s - and I am worried.
Then there was a lot of economic hardship (I know people were much poorer, but then look at what is going on in Greece, Portugal, Spain, the Baltic states). In the 1930s there was this battle going on between the Left and the Right in Germany and all over Europe. The Far Right became popular and very powerful - not only in Germany all over Europe! The German police and justice system willingly put a blind eye to right wing violence. The German industry generously financed the NAZI party. And industry bosses- unlike the citizens - were well aware that Hitler intended to go to war.
Unfortunately the Nazis prevailed in the end - though that was not as inevitable as it may seem from hind sight.
The EU - as it works now - will continue to undermine the prosperity, clean enviroment and the livelyhood of the majority of the European citizens. See TTIP, TISA, CETA. Either they start adopting completely different economic policies or there will be a spectacular rise of fascist movements (way more than we have today) and the far right might take over like in the 1930s. Or there will be civil unrest - well we allready have a militarized police, mass surveillance, anti riot legislation, allowing the death penalty in Europe in case of riots! So the elites on some levels seem to anticipate what might be coming.
If the system is so dysfunctional that we cannot make the economy work for everyone, how are we going to deal with the big challenges like Climate change, Peak Oil, Peak natural ressources (metals, potassium, ...)
Last but not least how are we going to deal with the refugee and immigration crisis partly caused by the insane Middle East policies of NATO, partly caused by the greedy and dysfunctional economic policies where the rich nations strongarm the developing countries.
If you sow economic greed, destruction and war, you will reap terrorism international crime and (economic) refugees.
The EURO project gives you a peek at how economic illiterate our ruling classes are. How they are caught up in their (neoliberal) ideology. So they are unable to understand the writing on the wall, didn't understand the build up for the financial crisis, could not be bothered by the increasing inbalances in the EURO community, seem unable to grasp what the rise of the far right all over Europe could mean.
I recommend the video of Heiner Flassbeck "Warum der EURO in 2017 scheitern wird" (Why the EURO will fail in 2017) - France is going to vote in 2017. The video is not long (around 15 minutes) and highly informative. Heiner Flassbeck has a lot of info in German on the web, I think he has articles and videos in English too.
I am Austrian, I chose to react to your statement in English so others might be able to understand my arguments.
Let me add that I know the export industry very well (their needs and the claims of how Austrian has profited from the EU/EURO - and to what extent that is true).
I would love to be a raving fan of the EU and the EURO - but I cannot.
I hope (but I am not very confident) that BREXIT is the strong kick in the a** the EU establishment - and we - desperately need.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sandragray4598 he can't work on mid level issues in a HISTORIC CRISIS. Other can do charities. Sanders has political leverage because he can REACH a lot of people (citizens did a car protest to suspend rent for instance) - he has to EXPLAIN what is going on. People sense that they are being ripped off, but many do not KNOW what is happening.
Needless to say no one - not even Sanders - calls a spade a spade.
The "stimulus" bill is a handout, and it is way more than 2 trillions. (the official number).
Also the Fed already has created TRILLIONS for the "market" which is the casino that poses as stock exchange.
if Sanders would have explained that the 1,5 trn on March 12th equals 18,000 USD for a family of four or 4,500 for every of the 330 millionsin the country. THAT would have gotten attention. The pundits (on behalf of the specultors, and big biz) would huff and puff and draw even MORE attention.
he could have tried a filibuster, sure the Senate CAN override that (R and D always find the votes to screw regular people), likely they would have. But then Sanders would have gotten airtime to EXPLAIN why the bill is so bad.
And of course sanders would have needed to talk to the progressives in Congress and to encourage them to NOT toe the line of Pelosi.
One of the first things Pelosi came up with: Means testing. Which means red tape, and delay.
There is means testing that is simple: Income tax in the next years.
But that would mean there would be a taxation project pending, can't have that.
Nothing is more terrible for the PR and their self-image ** than "Taxes on the "middle class" = more like taxes on the suburban upper class that have to be collected later. That is not in line with the agenda of serving the top 20 % income bracket. When such taxation is done later - the peasants could get more ideas who should pay more taxes.
** that is why Warren tied herself into a pretzel with her "plan" to finance M4A w/o "raising taxes on the middle class".
If people only sense something is wrong - plus the real world anxiety and economic stress - they WILL TURN to the FAR RIGHT.
It is always like this. Either they go decidedly to the left or to the far, nationalistic, scapegoating right, even fascism.
Nice lefties rolling over with a whimper is also historically a well know phenomen. Maybe because the genuine lefties are supposed to be nuanced, and to really CARE. In the end the right populist have the lust for power and the killer instinct and they play dirty.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Skank Hunt - corporations are ALLOWED by society to exist - we are so used to them, but they were not always around (and had special laws for them). Persons can go to jail, but corporations do not go to jail (they are a legal fiction) - and their management (real persons) do not either, at least not of the 60 % of powerful multinationals that dominate 60 % of the economy.
Corporations can exist for long time (longer than a human being can exist). They can split, reunite, etc. - in short they are nothing natural !
And the idea of incorporating was much more controversial in the old days - read what some of the founding fathers and later economists and politicians had to say on the issue.
So for the sake of making some operations possible and/or easier "incorporation" was allowed.
When a company uses that legal system, and all of societies provision and the members of society as participants, customers, advertising targets, content providers - and when those corporations become TOO powerful too dominant in the scene - then their power must be reduced by regulation. .
There are natural monopolies, too - same with them.
Regan announced that he would not enforce the anti trust laws anymore(they are now in the books since more than 100 years) .
And no president since then could be bothered either. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with Big Biz financing (bribing) the political parties ? - BOTH of the two major parties.
2
-
Before the deregulation of media in the early 80s there were much more networks, etc. And news had not the purpose to make the networks money. They were the badge with which the corporations proved their "usefulness for society". That secured them the BROADCASTING LICENCE in the next round.
Were they truly independent, unbiased ? - No, they weren't. Not even then. But still better than today. And one could call it news and not infotainement.
Instead of 30 or 40 major networks now there are 5 or 6 major FOR PROFIT news CORPORATIONS who tcontrol what news make it to the public.
How is that BETTER ? - for SOCIETY I mean !
How many large search engines are around ?
What other channels are there online ? There is youtube (again google !), facebook, twitter .... well also instagram and pinterest, but that is already less relevant and is about lifestyle, not news.
Not sure what offers Apple has, but that's it. Plus the large traditional players trying to have a presence.
You can add the very few companies that control the INFRASTRUCTURE of the internet. We are in the double digit number of relevant corporations if we are lucky - with the players that dominate the scene.
Do you feel comfortable to leave freedom of speech to THEM ? Or that they can HINDER people from using the power of the internet to organize if they want. Never mind how easy it is for GOVERNMENT to control the narrative - they do not have to collude with many people.
Turkey shut down youtube and twitter. google left China. Well of course these authoritarian governments have no use for a free internet.
Naturally THEY censor and shut down. But what about HERE ?
Society is not there to serve the corporations. It is the other way round.
The gate keepers on information and the "powers that be" now realize the danger for their power that lies in the free flow of information on the web and the possibility of people to organize and spread info w/o depending on the gate keepers. The U.S. elections 2016, Brexit, etc. were a wake up call for the elites.Silicon Valley will be glad to help out to claim back control..
It's a big club and you and I aint in it. (George Carlin).
After the deregulation mainstream media, (TV !) resorted to making money with the news portion of their program, that meant "breaking news" 24/7 - and it meant they cheered on war even more than in the past decades - war brings good ratings.
Whether you like or dislike the Trump administration: He has not exactely gotten a favourable reporting (except FOX News), as much is clear.
With one exception: When in April 2017 Trump ordered the attack on Syria and the dropping of a bomb in Afghanistan. (From a political, diplomatic, and military point it was pointless, even foolish - but it seems Trump wanted a good distraction. Well, with the current state of the media it worked.
This was the one time the TV networks treated him very kindly, no questions asked.
THEY LOVE WAR AND CONFLICT. This was the time when he was called "presidential".
(Larry Wilkerson and Ray MacGovern think differently. Seymour Hersh has an even more interesting story to tell - in the case of Hersh only anonymous sources but quite plausible. According to him the Russians were forwarned, so the Syrians knew about the U.S. missile attack, a few sacrificial lambs were "left in the open" to be bombed.
Apart from that the Russian backchannels were NOT amused. - They are already used to an erratic / short term / foolish U.S. foreign policy. GWB was a war monger, ideologue and puppet, and likely not too smart or knowledgeable.
Obama was an intelligent puppet or too weak to stand up against the machine - and Trump ... oh well.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Fairy godmother to Corporate Dems: Chose between 2 scenarios
They can win the midterms in a landslide (so they can do damage control on Trump), in 2020 they win the presidency and get a supermajority in the Houses. Then they can SHAPE policies. Undo the damage caused by Trump. They can save the country, partially even the world (Global Warming)
Getting reelected is EASY, campaigning is mostly pleasant, grassroots efforts. Their jobs, the salaries and benefits as representatives are secure.
Oh - and they MUST switch to publicly funded campaigns, and small individual donations no SuperPac Money.
MONEY OUT OF POLITICS: Important. Also restrictions on the Revolving door. It gets much harder to cash in on pro Big Biz votes after they leave office.
(Other Western "democracies" still have corruption and the politicians working for Big Biz because of THAT). So they must be content with the pay they are getting. And work for their constituency - not Big Donors.
****************************
OR 2) They can KEEP the MONEY in POLITICS.
They continue to get Big Donations for party leadership and individual campaigns. And the whole lucrative circus for ex-politicians continues (incl. them becoming part of the election game, in media, as strategists or consultants)
There are higher risks involved, one can lose a seat - therefore it is important to have served the party leadership + the Big Donors loyally. Then they will provide cushy jobs and lucrative contracts for ex politicians.
****************************
The Corporate Dems can chose only ONE scenario (with all pro and cons of the package)
What would the Dems choose ?
Well, scenario 2 - MONEY - OF COURSE.
P.S: Scenario 1) is realistic (even the super majority).
- If they would rally behind a Sanders platform in a BELIEVABLE MANNER they could win convincingly and with increasing numbers.
2
-
Josh The Prince Of The Degenerates Fink Single Payer has much lower costs per person if - IF - you argue in good faith - I KNOW single payer systems from experience, these citizens would not put up with what is going on in the U.S. (the hassle and the costs). They are used to have a good, affordable system, and reasonbly organized healthcare.
Maybe you know expats or soldiers that were at a base in Germany, Italy, Japan, ... who had contact with the locals or you come accross European, Canadian, Australia tourists. ASK them how it is to have single payer healthcare. How they like it, how it performs for them.
It is obviously in existence in OTHER countries and it is not because of the extravagant funding of their governments - No the systems work well with much lower costs per person.
EVERWHERE (in wealthy Western countries mind you) the expenditures per person are lower, Iceland, Denmark, France, Germany ... Australia, New Zealand. Small or large nations it does not matter.
There is so much money wasted in the U.S. system that it would be easy to cover everyone - and still save some. (I guess after a transition phase and taking care of the backlog).
Even cost-efficient modern healthcare is expensive so the single payer nations also have plenty of government subsidies. The individual contributions of citizens would of course not be enough: they have affordable mandatory wage deductions. Health risks do not matter.
You have a job. You pay,. You are in (plus dependent family members, no extra price for that). FULL coverage. And no bills later - that is the meaning of "Free at the point of delivery".
Threre is no dividing up between classes of patients. (basic plan versus platinum).
Citizens know in advance what they pay (wage deductions) and what they can expect - the same treatment in a First World medical system like everybody else. That is very streamlined, not much chasing after the money (of broke patients) and allows for low adminstration costs.
it also means that the doctors decide (with the patients) about the treatment.
That government funding in single payer systems (for the most part) does not go into profits or an insance bureaucraZy.
The only ! powerful large ! for-profit player in the system is Big Pharma.
Medical drugs are internationally comparable, very standardized substances. Read: it is easy for the non-profit public agencies to achieve a good price. They deliver the price list and they - with the help of politcians passing the necessary laws - organize the purchasing (the big picture, retail is left to small !! pharmacies that are regulated and have a contract with the non-profit agency).
Doctors and hospitals w/o vested interests decide when and how to use the (not overpriced !) drugs. Small pharmacies (highly regulated) distribute the drugs to the patients throughout the country. The hospitals order their own - and the prices Big Pharma can demand are standardized in all of the country.
Prescribing the meds or tests, the medical examination, is the complicated part that would be impossible to control for regulators. Because of the inherent complexity (and each case is individual) there would be countless opportunities to game the system for the for-profit players.
In single payer systems the profit motive has been eliminated in all areas where rigging realistically must be expected.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Kasie also claims that Assad just likes / wants to kill his own people. It is like the serial killer in the movie - the script does not need any plausibility, it frees the writers from the need to develop a logical story or provide a sufficient motivation if one of the characters does weird things. If Assad is just crazy like that you do not need to dig into it deeper. - Because even cruel very power-hungry dictators do not necessarily want or enjoy killing a lot of citizens.
(Not saying that Assad is a terrible cruel dictator - at the least he is an authoriatarian leader who tolerates / or makes use of some shit the security forces are doing. It looks like he leaves the dirty work to one of his brothers. When growing up he did not expect to become president. His older brother was the designated heir. When he died in a car accident, the brother got a promotion.
Before he had been a doctor in London, expecting to live a regular life there and courting the daughter of a Syrian immigrant (a wealthy surgeon I think the family had left because of Assad the father). So the eye doctor became the new president in waiting. His father (who had rule Syria for decades) saw to it that the new heir did some extra military service, that he was well established with the military (leadership).
Assad also married the lady from London, who had a good career going on in finance in London. She is an educated, well behaved, eloquent person, if she speaks it sounds like she thought before. She dresses in Western style, a very attractive woman, and is used to the Western lifestyle - at the same time she is a Sunni muslima
Comment by ? Richard Baer (former CIA): if the U.S. wants someone seriously interrogated they extradite him or her to Jordan, to Syria for being tortured and to Egypt for being disappeared. I would add that I can imagine torture or brutal interrogation methods also used in Jordan. The CIA has had free reign there for decades. I am not sure if the quote applies to Assad the father or now the son.
Libya and Syria tried to play nice with the West and the U.S. after 9/11 (likely both countries saw a chance to improve relationships and trade). Assad came into power in 2000 and toured Europe with official visits (not sure if he was in the U.S.) They also offered cooperation to fight terrorism after 9/11. Those jihadists were also trying to undermine their reign, so a cooperation seemed natural.
They may have assumed the U.S. ruling class had a problem with terrorism **. On the contrary, terrorism was the convenient pretext to undermine the constitution, install mass surveillance and it was the pretext to give more contracts to the Military Industrial Surveillance Complex.
Dictators may ruthlessly remove individuals (imprison, torture, kill them) - but they want to dominate a people remember ? Dictators / authoritarian leaders work with fear not with ACTUALLY having to do a lot of the killing. And if they have to do the killing it gets counterproductive - because there will be growing ressentment.
P.S.: I saw Assad come alive in interviews when he talked about the amnesty and the programs they have to re-integrate Syrian fighters that have fought for the opposition. Didn't sound like he enjoys having people killed.
** In the end not that many people die of terrorist attacks in the U.S. (let alone Islamic terrorism as opposed to domestic terrorists usually rightwingers) - the death toll of traffic or the inadequate healthcare system is much higher.
But these deaths get much more media attention and do not come from a "normal life risk" that the citizens feel they
can control (like driving a car). So "terrorism" incites more fear or can be used that way and it means ratings for the media.
The "elites" do not expect to be harmed by terrorism, like the regular citizens do not expect
to be harmed.
In the end the critical, ORGANIZED, freely communicating (internet !!) CITIZENS exercising peacefully their constitutional rights are dangerous for the oligarchs. Much more dangerous than terrorism.
Woke citizens could end the "free" "trade" deals that are so profitable for few (and make outsourcing of jobs safe and
lucrative). They could alter taxation and demand the end of the costly wars (costly for most, lucrative for some). They could demand a
healthcare system that serves them and not the corporations.
The insurance industry stands to lose a major part of GDP - it may be as much as the military manufacturers get - or much more.
All of healthcare is 7 - 11 % of GDP in any wealthy country with a cost-efficient single payer - around 17 % in the U.S. The additional
6 - 10 % of GDP (that is huge) funds dysfunction and profits and it does not all go to hospitals and big pharma - insurers get a good chunk of it.
2
-
* The danger of being assassinated for a president that works against the status quo - see The Real News video of spring 2017: Wilkerson: Practically Everyone Opposes Trump's Reversal of Obama's Cuba Opening https://youtu . be/eMO4o5nRGQs (delete blanks of link)
Excerpt from the transcript (see comments)
Larry Wilkerson Chief of Staff to Colin Powell: Obama might have risked being assassinated if he had chosen an anti-war, anti deep state stance.
Wilkerson: ...If I call President Obama for anything, it was his timidity, and his lack of courage. His lack of courage with respect to politics, and his lack of courage with respect to particularly his last three years in office. Where I know from talking with him personally, talking with him in the Roosevelt Room, that he understood.
He said [to me] there was a bias in this town towards war, with his Secretary of State sitting beside him. He said quote : "There's a bias in this town towards war" unquote. Well, he went on for another 20 minutes to elaborate on that.
Well, Mr. President if you knew that - why didn't you start doing something about it ? I mean, he could have done a lot more, if he'd had the political courage to do it ..... I think it's because, first you get trapped in that environment, and you want to make lots of money, and you wanna be very happy, and you wanna be very satisfied when you leave that office, especially if you're as young as he is.
And you realize that if you start these fights, if you start these battles, not only might you be assassinated, you're probably going to leave without anything like the dignity, and the honor, and the emoluments, and the fortune that he left with.
And I don't say that lightly, that's a very difficult decision to make, when you stand up for principle, when you stand up for the country, when you are a true patriot, you usually are punished, not rewarded.
the complete transcript of that comment (only) is under the video (on the youtube channel of The Real News) - usually they have a complete transcript and the youtube video embedded on their website - but in this case there is not transcript on their site.
2
-
2
-
@GoEqBro I find it hard to believe that he could compete with Truman, Eisenhower (threatened to nuke Korea, they dropped more bombs on Korea than during WW2, it was completely destroyed, even WW2 generals were schocked. Mind you: a country that had never attacked the U.S. and could not have been a threat to the U.S. if they had wanted to. Same applies to Vietnam.
Kissinger, Nixon, Reagan, John Bolton, Dick Cheney, Bush 1 or Bush 2, Teddy Roosevelt (and before and after him till FDR who was busy with domestic affairs. A lot of shit happened see Smedly Butler: "I was a gangster for Capitalism."
Andrew Jackson.
Not to forget Obama. Or Hillary Clinton.
Under Carter the murderous regime in Indonesia got weapons supplies. Else the Carter admin was much less aggressive than other admins and their body count is not as terrible.
Carter gave the Panama canal back for instance. While Brzezinski was his advisor.
2
-
2
-
I didn't hear anyone talk negatively about white people (not Jimmy, not Greg). But I hear them criticize journalistic sellouts. White privileged ivy-league educated pricks who never come out of their bubble. - If the oligarchs would fear that white low-income people would vote in a way that they do not like they no doubt would hinder them to vote as well.
but that has not been necessary so far (it might if some right or conservative areas start voting for Sanders).
Those white privileged careerists would rather maintain their comfortable (and well paid) view that minorities have a chance to vote and everything is fine with the U.S. democracy - then go out and check it for themselves (that is what journalists would do).
The election system of the U.S. resembles that of a Banana Republic. I mean the oligarchs try to take over in other democracies as well, neoliberalism hit other wealthy democracies too, The powers that be hijack the press and media - but the idea that you will be purged from the voter rolls or that people have to line up for 30 minutes, even hours to vote, is unthinkable.
The regular European voters would feel very badly treated if they had to wait longer than 15 minutes.
Of course they use only paper ballots and hand count -and they do the counting in each and every polling station. It is impossible to manipulate - but even IF one polling station would manipulate - that would not make a dent. I can only imagine that on a local level (for mayor or city council - but there the opposition is on the election board and will watch things like hawks, especially if it is a tight race).
During election day when the voters come in and then when the hand count is done - the WHOLE panel is always present, participates in the procedures. They all witness and certify the integrity of the procedures in that place. That panel that has volunteers of all parties on it, plus some civil servants.
The elections are either on a sunday/holiday or the polling places are open until 10 pm (U.K.) on a weekday. So that everyone has a chance and has it easy to cast their vote.
Of course there are enough places. Of course it is not a red tape labyrinth to get ID if that is required - it isn't everywhere. And a driver's licence issued in one part of the country will be certainly O.K. as indentification in other parts of the country.
There are enough civil servants to staff those offices that issue replicas of birth certificates, new driver's licences, and IDs. Almost all other nations have found a system to enter their citizens into a system of keeping track when they are born and they will remove them when they die. (Not in the U.K. but there it is easy to register to vote - it can be done online in a few minutes - that is the modern part of it - else it is old fashioned SAFE paper ballot and handcount (they bring the sealed boxed into large halls and volunteers count them under the eyes of the public, which has some charm).
In most countries the young adults will be put on the voter rolls automatically and they are invited to participate.
So there is no reason - or PRETEXT - for "voter roll purges". Citizens are responsible to announce when they move - if not they will have to vote at the old place, because that is where their name is still on the list.
Those elections can also function during a blackout. paper, pen, cubicles, and the election commission that crosses the voters off the list manually ! so double voting is not possible. That works with lists that are printed out a few days in advance.
It is easy to increase capacities (have another pen, desk and cardboard cubicle if that should be necessary). It is impossible to strategically defund the technical support in poor areas.
So that the machines will cause more waiting time because they "fail" - which can happen "naturally" if they are old. And that does not even account for the possibility to mess with the easily hackable machines. Either to make them malfunction (to create prohibitively long waiting lines) or to rigg the count / tabulation.
The subresults of the handcount per polling station are subject to public inquiry. They are summed up per town (if the town is tiny - more like a village they might have only one polling place). Those numbers per town are published. So citizens could do the recount if they feel inclined. And if results are implausible something like a FOIA request the public - media, citizens, NGOs and the political parties - can go one level deeper and revisit the count per polling place.
Sometimes there are recounts - for regional races for mayor for instance if it is a tight race. Else that is hardly ever necessary.
2
-
I guess the Pharma industry contacted Wallstreet and the other oligarchs (though not the healthcare insurance industry lol ) for help. They are getting desperate - they lose the battle regarding public opinion so the MUST present a FAKE solutions. PBS very oblingly does not tear holes in the whole scheme (like real journalists would do).
They are right to be worried - and it is not only about the people who have ripped of the U.S. citizens (or who now PLAN to do so). It is also an ideological battle - the idea that private (for profit) is always better.
It does not need genius to deliver healthcare - a well running machine and ADMINISTRAION will do (see Europe or Canada, or Australia). But there the systems are very suceptible to PUBLIC PRESSURE and POLITICAL ACCOUNTABILITY. If they do not run well it will be ultimately blamed on politicians. Sanders will not shut up, the last "townhall" or better online event had 1 million people watching (the country has 325 millions), but of course more people might have seen it since then.And then there are those who already KNOW and to not take the one hour AGAIN (like me I am satisfied to know it was well received).
The appearance on PBS was meant to OBFUSCATE, and to distract, not to have a meaningful debate. That is why so much is not asked, that is very obviously not plausible, wrong, etc.
When these oligarchs NOW pull off a private "single payer" this is the convenient excuse pretext to NOT implement the systems that work well in EVERY OTHER wealthy nations. The richest men of the world getting richer and exercising EVEN more power, in an area where you cannot avoid them (you can refuse to buy from Amazon, but not when Bezoes starts "dealing" in healthcare).
Single payer is PUBLIC AND !! NON PROFIT in Europe (some players like doctors or even hospitals can be private, but they have a negotiated contract, in the case of hospitals they share the "market" - or better the niche with hospitals run by public entities (like cities) - so the costs CAN BE COMPARED.
There is a strong element of solidarity in these systems (people get the same treatment, the costs are very affordable AND you know in advance what you pay. you pay the mandatory deduction, so does the employer - that's it. No surprises when the patient needs care or expensive prodedures).
The public insurance is not directly influenced by the government, but of course there is influence - they get some money from them (part of the funding is payroll deduction, part is taxes - especially for the hospitals). - If these systems would not run well it would be seen as the responsibility of the politicians to do something about it. And the politicians KNOW it and FEAR the anger of the voters. - How are you going to hold Warren Buffet or Jeff Bezoes accountable.
It is also regulated WHERE hospitals can be built and operated, so they are spread evently - enough beds everywhere, not too long to drive for the population and a large enough case load so that they can be run efficientely (w/o having to milk the patients with a good insurance plan with unnecessary procedures and tests).
2
-
2
-
2
-
+ J.P. Those statues BTW usually were not erected directly after the war (it is not usual to celebrate the general of a war that was lost at catastrophic costs for the South, not even when he was an excellent strategist).
The memorials were erected much later to express defiance against "being ordered around" and aginst the enforced loss of the the lucrative business.
The cheap labour of course benefitted only the rich - it was styled as Southern way of living that was worth being "defended" in that bloody war (well is was certainly not worth it even for most white people - if they had been not so brainwashed).
The Germans do not have statues of General Rommel around (who was a capable military leader as well). And he was not especially vile - just uncritically serving a vile regime as military brass always does. - The Germans are well able to process their history incl. WW2, the good, the bad and the ugly w/o Rommel statues. If you want to know about him buy a book.
What does Lee stand for ? A man who might have been a decent human being, maybe not even a fan of slavery, but giving this military skills to defend the status quo nontheless. A regime that played divide an conquer between poor white people and people of color. An elite and a relatively small segment of the population who did O.K. or incredibly well with the cruel system, while the rest was kept poor or worse - enslaved.
Remember: the South had started the military action.
Stirring up the worst human emotions against the slaves - for fear the poor whites would find out the white upper class, not the slaves were the enemy. The Southern upper class was wealthy or rich, they had the estates, the fine houses, the furnitures, the fortunes and the possessions. - And it still was not enough.
The sons of the slave owners could pay their way out of military service, the poor whites (who did not even profit from the system, never mind the ethics) were (forcefully) drafted to become cannon fodder. The low income males and their dependent families paid a horrible price for the wish of the slaveowners to maximize their profits with a cruel, archaic and uncivilized practice.
This is not how they advertised the war and recruited the cannon fodder: if you want to sell possible death, disability and thus poverty because you cannot earn a living after the war, and a lot of suffering to a young poor man, you better come up with some better marketing:
Honor, the Values of the South, independence and states rights (for whose advantage ??? ), we protect our women, we defend our way of life.
Which part of that history needs public display ??
That folks still claim or think that they defend a "way of life" when they defend the display of such monuments ("parts of our identity" "our history") is a sad reminder that the Stockholm Syndrome and the old propaganda still works.
Many in the South never resigned themselves to the defeat, and true most of those states always stayed poorer. The conintued effects of slavery and the 2 class system was so dysfunctional that they never caught up, not even in the good years after WW2 until the 1970s.
Those Northeners after the war told them what to do, and the question of the removal of the statues is styled in the same way. (never mind that the local government had decided they could do without the reminder of that part of the history). And that out of state folks (of Ohio ! like the terrrorist) think that is their business.
The poor in the South suffered much more from the lost Civil War than the haves which started the trouble and for whose greed the war was fought. The poor THEN could never get themselves to realize how they were played for fools. So they became eager defenders of the narrative crafted by the upper class. They stayed poor but kept the "privilege" to look down on minorities. (a privilege that cost the elites nothing, on the contrary it assisted their ongoing wealth and top position in society).
The South never was "the South", not for the slaves and also not for most of the white folks. For most it was not that special, elegant, cultivated, relaxed place where people knew better how to live and eat well and to enjoy life and be connected with their communities.
It was aristocracy under another name - and for the top it worked great. A society that was worse and more unequal than what was going on in Europe at that time.
A memorial with the names of all those who were killed and did not even possess slaves - and all those who were able to buy themselves out of military service (wealthy and rich people could do it). Such a memorial would make sense and it would deliver a very up-to-date message
There are lessons to be learnt about how an economic system can be propped up with ideology to serve the greed of the upper class. Greed and cruelty despite all claims to being refined - it can teach you about class, about divide and conquer, about poor people acting against their best interest, about how ugly, unethical and cruel humans can behave and how they use ideology and religion to justify that.
You do not need a statue of General Lee to process those insights.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+ nash984954 The cap for income was there btw, it's called taxes and good wages plus restrictions on the international "moving" of capital aka tax flight resp. the vultures chasing the quick and speculative buck in poor countries:
in the New Deal era FDR proposed a 100 % income tax on everything over a few million USD. That was more a symbolic move, but they were high (for the wealthy and rich !!) from 1933 on , were raised several times, peaked with 94 % - around 85 effectively with some exemptions - in 1944. For everything over 2,7 million USD (todays value !) you had to give away roughly 90 cents per dollar.
Folks that had to pay those taxes were NOT soldiers - and they profited from the booming war economy - so they knew better than to complain about their tax "burden".
HIGH taxes, GOOD wages are an automatic "safety valve" against the amassement of such insane unearned wealth. Morevover it promoted more ethical practices (what's the use of violating the law when you pay 80 or 90 or 70 % on the gains).
And it made entrepreneurs INVEST and think longterm (investing was a way NOT to pay taxes). Of course then the machine builders, etc. were happy with the orders. So were their employees who had wages to spend for consumer goods. Someone always paid taxes in the end.
That means that the money OSCILLATED between businesses, workers = consumers, and the state. Businesses were also buyers and taxpayers, the state had the role of employer, tax collector and investor.
Money FACILITATES the EXHCHANGE of goods and services. IT MUST REMAIN IN CIRCULATION. That happened until the early 1980s. (Kennedy and Nixon in a presidential debate argued about 72 5 effective highest income tax. - in the 1940s it was for 2,7 million USD in todays purchasing power ! - that changed - but the highest tax rate always applied to a few million USD, it was not like that kicked in only with100 millions - on Wikipedia there is a good article income tax (or history of income tax), you must scroll down for the table.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@quekumber the "agents" (or mercenaries) do not go after rioters. they go after peaceful protesters. it is on video. If they wanted to keep the peace they would stay nearby federal property (they have no RIGHT to be elsewhere), the constitution is clear: policing is the job of the city or the state - not right of the feds to meddle.
They can investigate individual cases (think FBI) and they can do mass control ONLY to protect federal property.
They wandered off and harassed peaceful protesters in an attempt to escalate the situation.
They attacked a vet that was obviously not aggressive, stood there, arms to the side (also not nearby any federal property). Why ? because they want to provoque a violent reaction.
They teargassed the wall of mums. WHY ??? these were obviously NOT violent women. Middleaged, the soccer mum types. so let them stand at a public space (of Portland NOT federal property) as is their constitutional right. but the "agents" / mercenaries WANTED to start something they are there to escalate.
That is the Trump strategy to maybe have a chance to win.
Trump or his supporters do not like how they handle it in Portland? - none of their business. Most of those who complain about what is going on are are not in Portland.
The locals have to handle that - or the state. Not federal government. the protests are going on since 60 days or whatever ? It is still not Trump's business. If the local business community are unhappy they can seek out the protesters, the police, the mayor, the council. Addressing their grievances. It is their local government.
If biz wants to calm down the protests - they better start kicking the mayor so he will come up with some meaningful reforms. Not lip service - for real. The police is paid by the city, about time they are accountable to mayor and city council. Not the other way round.
Politicians and council are typically fearful of police unions (they fear they organize against them in elections, and they want their donations). Not sure if that is a problem in Portland but it sure is in Minneapolis or Baltimore. The police unions call the shots. Even if a scandal requires some window dressing regarding accountability. The city council kow tows before the unions. Every "reform" must be approved by the unions.
If they would do a good job to monitoring themselves there would be no major scandals. So obviously no reform is going to come from the unions, on the contrary they will stand in the way. As long as cowardly politicians / sellouts collude with them - the citizens have to annoy the heck out of them to remind them whom they work for.
Politicians also want donatons from biz - well biz usually is not harrassed by the police, so they do not mind if policing does not work for the low(er) income citizens. They better figure out that it has to work for all, if they want to have undisturbed conditions and quiet in the city (conditions as good as it is possible during a pandemic).
btw the feckless fake Democratic mayor in Portland obviously did not push for police reform. he just told the police to show restraint. That is better than nothing, but only the beginning. The protests would have gone away if they had worked on reforms. But they all thought they could let the protesters do their thing and then it will go away.
if they would make meaningful plans for accountability and shifting of budgets (social workers instead of police handling things, think wellness checks) - then people wouldn't protest. The mayor thinks he can make some gestures and the citizens will believe it and go home.
Trump wants to make political hay: he would love to have an escalation and a pretext to declare martial law or to somehow interfere with elections in November (the motto is: he better start now with stirring up shit so it will be a full blown chaos in late fall - for the upcoming election).
He does not care about the preventable corona deaths - of course he would also not mind to escalate if he thinks it could help him.
2
-
2
-
2
-
No initially, at least the Taliban paid the farmers better prices for regular crops so they would NOT grow poppies for heroin. (The Taliban were against it for religious reasons. Which COULD of course be done by Westrern governments, we grant you a better price for the regular crops (which are hard enough to grow, WATER), but if they find any poppies the field is set on fire and you get nothing at all. The farmers had a deal with the Taliban, then the heorin production dropped considerable. This has only changed after the US war of aggression - and thee are the photos on the web with U.S. soldiers PROTECTING the poppy fields, the explanation was that the farmers would side with unwanted forces and that they needed the money (well why not give them subsidies).
1000 USD go a long way in Afghanistan, and it would save a lot of indirect costs if no such hard drugs would reach the Western countries.
I asssume the CIA uses the heroin of Afghanistan to "earn" themselves some "extra budgets" (no approval of congress necessary), after all they did exactely that under Reagan in Latin America. Maybe some U.S. military leaders are making money of it. Michael Moore once saide that there is relative "stability" (that was some years ago) because the U.S. tolerates the drug trade, where the brother of the president is the big guy.
As for the war in 2001: Cheney / Bush prepared it since SUMER 2001, so 9/11 was a pretext (and that is the friendly assumption). In hindsight this is very obvious; how could we not see it: Such a large military operation needs more than 4 weeks, the U.S. was bombing there 1 month after 9/11.
2
-
+ Bonny right Poverty breeds crime. The only exception is poor communities that stick together, with intact families, faith groups etc. And no, I do not mean to slash single parent households - a 2 parent family can be completely dysfunctional while a single parent family can be healthy and nurturing (escpecially when there are friends and extended family or faith community involved who can assist the single parent. Government welfare can be very helpful too to keep such families going on reasonably well).
the wealthy Europeans do not villify single parent families as much (meaning mostly single moms). They had a lot of that after WW2, widows having to raise their children when the father had fallen. And now they provide enough welfare, public non-profit healthcare and education that the children of these single parent households are not left behind - and can join the middle class later (never mind the status of their family). And it does not matter if these kids were born out of wedlock or if the parents are divorced.
The "village" that is necessary to raise a child is no more - so "big bad" government steps in.
The access of such families to education or good childcare institutions etc. is not limited if and to what extent the father can PAY alimony. Nor will they have to live in a dangerous environment (inner cities, ghettos) when they are at the bottom of the income ladder (many single parent families are low income families - even in Germany or Sweden or France)
Unfortunately our modern lifestyle and the requirements of employment and education undermine the former close-knit family bonds (that is IF they were nurturing, some of them were dysfunctional).
In the black community additionally to the trauma of slavery there was always an assault on their families and to keep them awayy from building wealth. In the South resulting in laws that only applied to black people (black code). If slavery has been outlawed let's find another way of put them in chains - especially the men who could otherwise stand up to white supremacy.
The Clintons also helped with the effort to break up the families of People of Color (Bill as president, Hillary was all for it and advocated them publicly).
Now I do not think harming black people was their motivation. They just used some dog whistling to get the "white more conservative vote". And if it harmed POC - so what. The Clintons (and their ilk) could resign themselves quite easily to the unintended consequences. Which is the reason they never spoke up after they had left the White House to point out that their Crime Bill and their Welfare reform etc. maybe did have some unintended consequences (it is fair to lump in the former First Lady, she might not have prevented those measures - but she was all for them anyway).
Same with "free" "trade" agreements. The North where many Blacks had gone (leaving the close-knit communities of the South behind) was especially hit. The automobile and steel industry was already on the decline - and then they were hit by the Clinton assaults on the blue collar middle class (white AND minorities).
Many black people had made it to the middle class in the first generation in the 1960s. and the decline started in the mid 1970s.
So they were late to the party - their white peers had made it into the middle class since the 1950s. And before that of course white people got free land when the settlers took over from the natives - so another way to build property and wealth that would benefit future generations.
The large Northern towns are usually mentioned as having a high crime rate (meaning black crime). Well they didnt't have that problem, when there were good and enough jobs.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Her military performance is secondary (and it was up to her former superiors to assess her performance - she wasn't a public figure then, so no bonus and favors like for McCain or Bush *) - She beats most politicians and media shills - simply for having enlisted when that could have been dangerous. Plus she has SEEN war and its effect on civilians.
Tulsi Gabbard is more impacted when soldiers gets killed - or commit suicide later. For her it is not only an abstract number, name, report. She knew some of these people or feels more connected to them even if she does not know them personally.
"That could have been me" is powerful to influence your opinions. As opposed to the cheap and generic "We all support our troops"
She served in a time when there was a realistic chance to get into dangerous situations. It is easy and interesting to be a soldier in a base in Germany, France, Japan, Italy, .... you get to know another country and the army provides the base for that lifestyle.
It's another thing if you may be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan.
* Bush went AWOL. - John McCain - father and grandfather were admirals. He would never have been accepted as pilot and the influental connections spared him a military tribunal when he caused the death of at least 80 sailors.
Also: the CIA "misfiled" the audio he made for the Vietcong that they played in the POW camps.
Not that I blame him - he needed medical attention, he had a broken leg. However, it seems that fellow POW's were bitter that his cooperation got him (slightly) better treatment.
In any case that would not have warranted to pass him off as war hero after he had returned to the U.S. (I think he also got a medal). It would have been an obstacle to his political career. And maybe the young, very rich heiress - his second wife, for her he divorced the woman that had waited for him - would not have been so impressed with him either.
In short he still would have had the McCain wealth and connections and would have been better off than most Vietnam veterans - but he would have been less privileged.
Side effect: he was open for blackmail by the deep state - the media blackout about the accident he caused by reckless behavior could have been "lifted", and the misfiled audio could have been "found" and talked about.
In the veteran community the knowledge was always there - but they had no public platform. Only with the internet those informations are easy to find.
2
-
Nicholas Frechen The French healthcare is good, or you could try Sweden, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, .... In Italy it depends - the South is poor, the middle and the North can be compared to the wealthy nations.
I would not be afraid to end up in a Spanish hospital.
And would not have a problem cost-wise - the national non-profit public agencies deal with each other and accept the patients of the other nations.
Not sure about Russia - but Russia is not a wealthy country, I would compare the U.S. to Germany, Switzerland, France - not Russia.
In the U.K. the Tories have defunded over 10 years the fully public non-profit NHS (one of the most cost efficient systems in the world, they had lean but sufficient budget - and THEN they were defunded).
It is true that they are struggling NOW - but if they had only HALF of what the U.S. spends per person on healthcare * the NHS would run like a charm.
In the U.K. they have only around 43 % of the U.S. per ** capita expenditures. Most of what is spent in the country is deliverd by the National Health Service. So higher expenditures per person would mean better funding of the non-profit public service.
** U.S. USD 9,200 U.K. 3,900 most other wealthy countries in Europe or Australia or Canada are in the range of USD 5,000 - 6,000.
(and that ** average includes uninsured persons in the U.S. !)
Wage levels (determined by the average cost of living in the country) are an important factor in healthcare - that is why one cannot compare wealthy and emerging nations with each other. Hungary for instance has lower expenditures and also much lower wages.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Nicholas Frechen WE do set up the system ourselves. The cities !! run a lot of non-profit hospitals for basic care. These are towns with 5,000 - 20,000 people. (Admitted the 5,000 are in a more rural area and serve of course people outside the town).
A larger hospital might be more cost efficient BUT driving distance matters for emergencies.
The financial burden of these communities is relieved by money from the federal and state government. Which btw have all an interest that they are run as efficient as possible - given that they are small town units.
Another thing I observed. Many of these smaller city run hospitals stem from the 1960s and 1970s. (the church run hospitals are usually in the large cities and exist much longer, 100 - 200 years).
The mayors like to have them: Convenient for the population - jobs (the city gets wage related taxes from every employer and fed revenue for permanent residents. Having a stable employer like a hospital does help with both ;)
Now these country hospitals tend to have one department for plannable procedures. And they can be quite good, for eyes, for hip replacement, stripping of varicose veins .... so they attract patients from outside the region and can "fill the beds" to run the house more cost efficiently.
But of course the patients would sometimes need more specialized service or break their arm when they are elswhere. In single payer systems they are all IN the network. and there are concession made regarding the size to make sure the hospitals are evenly spread out over the country.
A hospital or a non-profit insurance ageny is like a clock work (with tasks like that government agencies can do a good and efficient job).
Once an operation is set up, and when it is reasonably funded it should happily jog on. It does not need creativity, entrepeneurship or marketing.
Good work ethics of the staff, decent treatment and leadership by middle management and common sense on top of the organizational skills that are typical for such operations - will do.
But on the other hand those systems had time to develop since the 1950s. So a citizen run hospital would need to hire experts - but be inexperienced in recruiting.
In other countries the goverment agencies are not perceived as a foreign occupying hostile force (Think Sheriff of Nottingham ;) - and when set up reasonably they can work well.
In what areas would you think you can beat the Medicare agency. Their overhead is 2 % - they beat many European agencies (while private insurers are plus 20 %)
That their budgets are kept down (they are not responsible for the medical services) they should negotiate, collect the contributions, pay the bills and be a facilitator.
That they are not even allowed to negotiate drug prices is not their fault. A private initiative would hardly be better.
But things have gotten more complicated a private initiative would need to catch up with the expertise grown in large system over decades.
2
-
2
-
Nicholas Frechen The time when inequality shrank the most (The Golden Era - after WW2) was the time with a lot of government intervention / spening. And high taxes for high incomes and profitable biz.
Companies could invest, or pay workers extra benefits if they wanted to avoid taxation
Inequality but it also shrank in the U.S. during the FDR presidency. (during laissez fair capitalism in the 1920s and after Reagan it increased.
FDR introduced SS, unemployment benefits, jobs programs - all of that was desperately needed in 1933. and he made also those pay for it who were still doing well.
The oligarchs (some) were livid, they even considerd a coup (see Gen. Semdely Butler, 1934) but they could not get rid of FDR. Or the unions and left movements that gave FDR the leverage to DO SOMETHING:
You seem to have given up on Government Of For and By the People ! (You are right the government must be held in check - and they have been getting away with murder !)
I would not waste "hate" on Trump - I did not even mention him. he is not willing to give the U.S. citizens good an reasonably set up healthcare - nor did Obama - or most politicians in both parties. (The one and only Big Donor party). They all put Big Donor interests over the interests of citizens.
The tech boom would not have happend w/o massive and long and ongoing government spending - unfortunately a lot for war and an arms race too in the 1950s - 1970s. (Ethics aside, that generates the least benefits for the population). The GI Bill (college for returning soldiers) performed well, for every USD invested the gov. got 7 USD back in tax revenue.
Electronics, computer a part of the technology for smartphones, internet, satellites - all these technologies got a LOT of government funding money.
Also: malaria research. EPi Pen for the war in Iraq in 1991.
Streets for CARS - Interstate Highway (not much use to have a car if you do not have the streets outside the city). Rich pople had cars instead of carriages from 1900 on - but that would not have been enough for mass production.
The oligarchs then urged the govenment to build streets (and they "killed" railway so they could sell more oil and more cars).
see clip Noam Chomsky: the role of the military is misuderstood.
M.I.T. - where he was professor - was 90 % military financed. They had all the electronics companies on campus. Then they left and pharma came in. Now it is likely AI.
maybe battery research too !
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@PseudoProphet What could make Medicare (the administrative middle man) "inferior" so there would be even a role for the profiteers ? To be precise: Space being created by politicans so they CAN EXTRACT PROFITS:
1)
Politicians make rules that make it harder or more complicated for Medicare. In order to undermine them and to do favors to the donors. For instance the current law is that Medicare is forbidden to negotiate drug prices. Only VA is allowed to negotiate - and sure enough they brought drug prices down by 40 % (there should be more possible).
The private insurers could negotiate. How does that work out ? What value bring the for profit middle man regarding price negotiations of a highly standardized product ? _ (Drug prices are much easier to negotiate than services in hospitals because they are so standardized. Big pharma is the only _powerful for profit player in other single payer nations that plays a big role. But the agencies can contain them in price negotioations - because the product is so standardized and internationally comparable.).
Hint: Big pharma is a supplier from the point of view of insurance companies. We know that big corporations squeeze their supply chain - but not necessarily if the supplier is ALSO large, powerful and bribes a lot of politicians, too. Then they often decide to peacefully co-ecist, to avoid the battle of giants.
After all they have the market power to squeeze the consumers and THEIR politicians * make sure that the dysfunctional expensive system gets enough subsidies to stay afloat - at double the spending per person of other wealthy nations.
* That applies more to Corporate Democrats, that was the function of ACA: to protect the profits of insurance companies and hospital chains and making sure there is enough money in the overpriced system. The Republicans now defund the system.
The private insurers in the U.S. already have a cherrypicked pool. The most costly patient group (over 65) is covered by Medicare (in its current form). That is huge: 10 % of patients cause 90 % of spending. Age is a huge spending driver.
So private insurers can really shine with the offers they make (due to the advantage of the cherry picked pool).
Nope !
If they do the purges right in the age group under 65 (driving people out by raising premiums) they can rake in the profits. - They purge now whole companies if they are not "profitable" enough (interview Wendell Potter in spring 2019). Not GM or Boeing of course - but not too large companies that provide coverage and do not have much negotiating power.
How can ANYONE think that an industry with predatory practices and THAT TRACK RECORD would provide more value for a mere administrative task (but one that makes them the gatekeepers to a life and death service, a service that is highly complex and also unfortunately costly even under the best of circumstances).
2)
Another reason Medicare would be hindered to provide excellent administrative ! services at low costs
They do not have enough budgets to pay rates that are good enough to win doctors. If ALL the 330 million citizens / residents are covered by Medicare, and coverage is for ALL that is medically necessary almost all doctors MUST have a contract and must accept many patients with Medicare coverage.
Which of course makes it impossible to discriminate. (If they did that they would lose the contract). There go the patients necessary to keep the practice economically viable.
If the budgets of Medicare are not enought so that they can PAY ENOUGH to providers (remember they do NOT provide CARE) ALL 330 millions will be impacted. that would of course create a lot of political pressure.
In the Sanders plan everyone with a wage is mandated to pay.
All single payer nations have that kind of mandate. No opt out, no public option. It is a crucial element of the system - _the whole country is in this together_. The wealthy cannot retreat to the equivalent of gated communities. The too have skin in the game (that the services for which Medicare can pay are satisfactory for all).
The mandated contribution (payroll tax as percentage of wage) must be affordable for the employer and the employee - so of course there must be extra funding by the government. (There is already a lot of funding - but all the money goes into a highly inefficient dysfunctional system).
If the affluent can escape from the negative impacts of underfunding they will show little willingness to support the system for all with their taxes. And Republicans and the Corporate media (bribed with ads) have it easy to play Divide and Conquer.
As for enough funding: Medicare should have the budgets to cover for instance basic dental. It IS a MEDICAL ISSUE. If Medicare is the big game in town when it comes to insurance of basic dental (no duplicative coverage so private insurance cannot cover basic dental) - most dentists will play along.
Or their patients must pay out of pocket every time. Private supplemental insurance could cover expensive dental - think braces (if there is no medical indication, in most cases it is about looks), ceramic implants, ....
3)
another solveable reason for Medicare to be "inferior"
That they are not well managed (that would be solveable, easier than for a normal company, Healthcare = systems, protocols, standards. There are blueprints how to set up the clockwork. That is the reason the public non-profits do an excellent job as insurers. There is no need for creativity, entrepreneurial spirit, product design, marketing, sales force.
Medicare has little overhead - even compared to other single payer agencies. They do the necessary paper shuffling at very reasonable costs.
The agency is already in place and can scale up (and they do not need to increase staff that much, a lot of it can be done with the use of software).
If Medicare offers basic dental in the future it is not as if they have to overhaul their organisation. Or if they pay for ALL of a surgery and not only a part of it (that would be a small alteration in their software and the software of the hospitals).
Adding dental:
They need to negotiate with the representation of the dentists. Enter the names of doctors that are willing to cooperate. Maybe set up a website where the patients can find doctors that accept Medicare for All in their region.
There is ONE kind of contract. The doctor has to accept all or nothing.
Medicare must alter the software accordingly - and the doctors also need alterations in their software (likely they already have Medicare in their system, so buying an update for the existing software should suffice). It is clear for the doctors what they get paid under the contract and if they go beyond that they have to tell the patient (which may or may not accept the extra). But they do not need to ask for approval in advance, it is very clear what is covered and what not.
Then Medicare has to pay the bills as they come in. The processing of billing by the providers and controlling / paying the bills can be automated.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
TheHomoludens FDR was sworn in in March 1933, and in spring 1933 the Nazis 35 % of the vote minority government completed their fascist peaceful takeover (enabled ! by the "conservative" pillars of German society). Many European countries had gone the far-right fascist route - or were soon to follow: Italy, Austria, Portugal, Spain, ... also Brazil. I think the government of Poland was quite to the right and nationalistic as well.
Hitler was well liked by the likes of Winston Churchill and the British aristocracy, he was seen as someone who could defeat the left parties and movements and was a staunch enemy of the Soviet Union and hated Communism - even more than he hated the other left movements (even if he had a strategic alliance with the Soviets to attack Poland in 1939).
If Hitler had stopped the annexations after scooping up a part of Czechia and then annexing fascist * Austria in March 1938, and would have toned it down a little bit regarding the Jews - the elites in all other countries and the industrial leaders would have been quite happy with a strongman like Hitler ruling an important industrial nation like Germany.
* Austro fascists (they oriented themselves after the Italian fascists under Mussolini) had already seized power in 1933, so THEY had suppressed the left movements, parties, unions, politicians - there was no one to oppose Hitler. The Germans first came with the tanks in March 1938 (the much smaller Austrian army did not fight them, they let the invasion happen, the Austrian fascists gave up) and then the Nazis then held a referendum to legitimize the annexation.
Hitler won that referendum (well they did the counting or monitored the frightened civil servants who did the counting) - so that gave the other nations the pretext to give Germany a pass (again a pass - after the annexation of a part of Czechia with a relevant German minority). That was the last time they could hope Hitler would give it a rest after that (that may not have been an unreasonable expectations, and why would the U.K., France ... the U.S. sacrifice their soldiers when in the annexed countries a part of the population really welcomed the Nazi annexation. With Poland it was an outright war - and the Poles fought bitterly and bravely against a crushing attack from two major military forces: the Soviets from the East and the Germans from the West.
In 1933 and the following years the U.S. had other problems than "sorting out" Europe. World War 2 started (in Europe) in September 1939. Nazi Germany had a top secret pact with the Soviets, they invaded Poland from both sides and divided it up and THEN it was clear that Nazi Germany would not stop the military attacks.
Hitler was a genuine enemy of the Soviet Union, so it shook the other countries that he had achieved such an alliance with Stalin (needless to say they did not trust each other one bit, and later the Germans attacked the Soviet Union - so then the Soviets became the allies of the U.K. the French provisory government, and later of the U.S.)
(U.K. declared war on Germany, but NOT the Soviet Unions (even though both had the war against Poland going on).
the Commonwealth nations followed or were forced into it, too. Some (I think NZ) at least had a vote in parliament if they wanted to get involved. - what had Australia and NZ or Canada to do with Europe ? Why were soldiers of India (brutally exploited by the U.K.) supposed to die in that war ?
At that time the U.S. of course expected that they likely would get more involved in the future. They did not jeopardize the lifes of American soldiers early on. They (cynically) let the Soviets do the fighting, FDR and Churchill delayed the invasion in France - to spare the U.S. / U.K. forces, very much to the anger of Stalin. (if the Germans had been busy in France, that could have spared the Soviets.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lazylady8591 The "freeloader" narrative (dual citizens "exploiting" the NHS) has been debunked. It is a "look over there" of the Tories to distract from their defunding/underfunding of the NHS.
Someone with dual citizenship could show up in every European country. considering the problems created FOR the NHS - I would go elsewhere. I am not sure if the Commonwealth membership still entitles to get care - Irish, Australians, Canadians, NZ citizens have a functioning system at home.
The occassional visitor that profits from an international treaty to mutually recognize insurance coverage does not make a dent in a country with 65 million people. (The same applies in the EU and associated countries. If a person from Spain is in Germany and happens to need treatment - they get it - the agencies send each other the bills.
the work migrants (from the EU and other countries) DO WORK and DO CONTRIBUTE. It was the decision of governments to deindustrialize (Thatcher) and to have a low-wage economy (neoliberal New Labour and the Tories). Including a gig economy, generation internship, etc. - and the laws to promote those models.
So the wage deductions that also go into the funding of the NHS are lower than in a country with lots of well paying manufacturing jobs. If a lot of migrants come (legally from the EU for instance) they are of course going to use the system. Like the retired U.K. citizens living in Spain and Portugal can use the national heathcare system there.
There are possibilities to reduce work migration - even under EU law and "free movement" rule - which neither New Labour (before Corbyn took the party back to its rots) nor the Tories used.
So they scaled up the population, the available workforce for companies. to a degree the consumer base. But not affordable housing or the NHS.
Someone PROFITS from the labour of all these people and the expanded consumer base - (modest but the effect is there).
The same class of people that extract rent (because the government decided to abandon affordable housing. The government also passed laws that give the landlords a lot of leverage over the renters. Short term contracts, they get away with neglecting repair, consumers that complain can be quickly "fired").
If they have a connection to Big Finance they benefitted from the bailouts - and rencently they got tax cuts, and after that the government declares they do not have the means (read: tax revenue) to fund the NHS.
So - some pocket the wins, they shifted the burdens of the GFC - and they do not contribute proportional to the advantages they are given.
2
-
2
-
@Danielv561 I cannot say what the EU spends - more precisely: What is spent in the EU member states and associated countries. There are for-profit companies, universities, hospitals that have talented doctors who try out things. Projects with EU grants too - at universities and elsewhere.
- I read recently read that the EU has a test run for heart surgery (reducing surgery time form 2 hours to 1). An improved method of micro surgery.
10 hospitals in different EU countries participate. It is not that revolutionary and there was a functioning procedure already.
This is not as spectacular and unique as the surgery that you talked about - but a common procedure that makes the system perform better, and more cost efficient. Slightly reduced risk, too - less anaesthesia, less stress if the patient is elderly or weak.
I know an elderly lady went to get eye surgery out of state - which was of course covered, just less convenient. (a better method, less recovery time). She had heard good things about the doctor and new method (she is a retired nurse).
Meanwhile that new better method has become the new standard.
Is this "research" ? Kind of - they had to try out the new method at some point of time. And then teach it and have it implemented.
How did you do your research for a doctor - did you have the help of specialists ? They have excellent centers in Switzerland and in Germany, too.
France, U.K. and Switzerland attract a lot of oligarchs - I would think they would have some capacities as well.
Anyway: There is no doubt there are excellent facilities (some world famous) in the U.S. but they can impossibly serve ALL 325 million people even IF costs were no issue.
For organizing a national healthcare service the big picture will be COSTS and OUTCOMES for the MASSES and the common cases. Then comes the next level to shine with outstanding performances.
The outstanding facilities are often historically grown (factors like having a lot very rich people like Switzerland or London or Paris. A famous university, an exceptional doctor is a resident and starts something.
An example: Smaller countries do not have their own car industry - they specialize in other manufacturing and BUY FROM OTHER COUNTRIES. If the surgery is rare and difficult it can make sense to have someone / an institution specialize. They would then also have more cases - improving their skills.
That may have been a reason they were so generous. Not too many cases like your relative - but when all goes well they build their reputation. And they increase their experience with the frontier cases.
I am under the impression it was an U.S insurance that refused to pay (the comment section is crowded, I did not search for your former comments).
Good thing the docs volunteered and that it went well.
The interesting question is if the insurance agency of of a single payer country would pay for such an out of country special surgery. - I do not know and countries might handle it differently.
In Canada, Australia, Germany, France, Netherlands, .... the media might pick up the story and shame the public agency into contributing or full coverage if they are unwilling.
A pregnant Canadian woman visited the U.S., got into premature labor, complications, they got a bill for 750,000 USD. (Mother and child were doing well). The media in the U.S. and especially in Canada picked up the story. The Canadian government helped them out and paid the bill.
Likewise a case like you mentioned would engage media interest and either the insurance agency would be pressured into paying for treatment outside the EU / outside the country (Canada, Australia, ....) - or a governor or minister would get active. 500,000 or 1 mio is a lot for an individual but not when it comes to the budget for the healthcare of millions of people.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@brettsears33 Minimum wage would be over USD 12 instead of 7,25 if it had kept up with inflation (based on what it was in 1970). It would be near USD 20 if they had continued to raise it in lockstep with productivity gains (as they did in the decades before). The purchasing power of average wages in the U.S. almost doubled between 1947 and 1970: plus 97 %. Productivity gains were 112 %. the charts are easy to find on the web and quite telling.
The average wages and the federal minimum wage rose in lockstep with productivity after WW2 until the 1970s. Then the U.S. had the war debt and the whole world had 2 disrupitve oil price shocks. (so the 1970s were atypical - and the oligarchs finally had their chance to hit back against the New Deal. In the U.S. the high Vietnam war debt was not helpful either). .
After WW2 automation was not nearly as sophisticated as today, no computers, marketing the old fashioned way etc. So the share of labor costs in products was higher. But the good wages incl. a relatively higher MINIMUM WAGE did not hinder economic progress or CONSUMPTION. it drove innovation.
Sure: goods were more expensive, but people still could afford them - and most was made in the U.S. or other fist world countries. There was at least an incentive to have them durable, not a throwaway culture like today.
For 25 - 30 years the model worked really well - also in Europe, Canada, NZ, Australia. Plus then taxes were high for high incomes and profitable businesses.
On the other hadn neoliberalism, austerity, wage stagnation and ever shrinking taxes from those who could easily pay them reign since the 1980s.
One era was called The Golden Era, the Economic Miracle, The Builing of The American Middle Class.
You tell me when the economy worked well for the regular people. and when major crises of the financial system and the world economy (for pure economic reasons) were unknown.
2
-
@brettsears33 I know the non-profit public healthcare systems of Germany and Austria well. These systems (like all "single payer" are much, much more cost efficient than the U.S. system (which has to do with the fact that the "free market" is on principle not possible for a product like healthcare. There is a reason all other countries went the non-profit public route. (Not Switzerland, well it shows, they system is good and everyone is insured but their costs are even higher than the U.S.costs).
per capita expenditures U.S. USD 9200.
Germany USD 5,600 Austria 5,400 (at the higher end of the average for a wealthy European country).
Which is STILL expensive, modern medicine gets a lot done, but it costs. A family of 4 accounts for at least 20k in a first world country (most nations are in the 5 - 6k range per person - that is an average for every resident, and only under the condition of having a cost efficient single payer system.
So to make it affordable the goverment must subsidize the system - like in the U.S. In the U.S. two thirds of healthcare expenditures are paid by the government. Which is not that weird: old people are expensive for the system, and Medicare (a public non-profit agency that works also very cost efficiently despite some obstacles *) covers the population over 65.
* defunding, they are not allowed to negotiate drug prices, people were medically neglected before so they arrive with illnesses that could have prevented had they gotten preventive care before, ...
A lot of the (way too high expenditures which Medicare cannot / is forbidden to influence) is covered by the U.S. government. But in the U.S. those subsidies finance not only the delivery of care and everything that is necessary for that, that funding also pays for too high medication prices. Partially the incomes of doctors are higher (not enough doctors trained and university is not free so the costs of training are prohibitive).
The private for profit circus needs a lot of adminstration: denying care, making the patients jump through hoops is a lot of work.
And of course the prices for the unnecessary treatments and tests of people with good plans (the doctors and hospitals have to chase unpaid bills and lose money if people go bankrupt so they try to make up for that with the "good" patients.
Last but not least the U.S. government funds the hefty profit of rich shareholders.
In countries with single payer the subsidies help to pay the wages of people who actually deliver healthcare plus a lean adminstration for a streamlined system. Everyone is insured, there is no discrimination who gets what treatment: if it is available on principle everyone gets it. The doctor decides together with the patient what happens.
The affordable wage deductions and the government funding pay for well negotiated services of doctors, and pharmacies (they are small businesses) non-profit hospitals run by muncipalities or church related organizations, medical drugs. Plus all that is needed (buildings, cleaning and cooking staff, medical devices, ...). Big Pharma is the only Big for profit player in the system - and they have a powerful negotiation partner that has a legal obligation to serve the common good (not the shareholders).
2
-
2
-
+Brian G your mother had much better chances to come legally 40 years ago. - the immigrants from Latin America would not even be a problem - like Canada. if not the U.S. military, CIA and the U.S. economic power (or sanctions !) would fuck them every chance they get - for ideology and for Big Biz.
The U.S. has been doing this for more than 100 years.
Surprise, surprise they never come on their feet.
Neoliberal and rightwing politics do not work for the little people and if they try even modestly left politics the U.S. comes down on them like a ton of bricks
Social Democracy had to be tolerated in Europe after WW2 (higher standard of education, cultural connection, they were needed against the Soviet Unions in the cold War and as battleground in case of a nuclear war.
But no concessions for Latin America. FDR ended the imperialism for some time and declared a "Time of good neighbourhood" around the mid 1930s
the U.S. had enough problems and the former meddling had mostly brought authoritarin regimes to power, so it kind of aligned with U.S. business interests anyway.
(The U.S. also had its imperialism going on towards the Philippines)
The Mexican elites in collusion with the U.S. sold out Mexico with NAFTA. (But I guess if unwilling their being voted out by a referendum of mistrust could have been arranged - or worse...assasination, blackmail)
Mexico got some industry jobs with mediocre pay (nothing compared to the wages/purchasing power the U.S. workers/consumers got in the 1950s and later.
So those jobs and wages cannot JUMPSTART domestic consumption in Mexico.
a couples working just about make it, modest housing, when they accept a long commute, and they can send their 1 or 2 children to university. That's it.
They undercut their peers in the U.S. (which was the whole point of those "free" "trade" deals.
Under such deals the goods made for cheap can be exported into still wealthier countries - they for sure cannot consume the stuff in Mexico because they do not have the disposable income that comes from good wages.
for THAT they get U.S. crops into Mexico which destroys small farmers, which were living modestly enough even before that. These people stream into the cities, not nearly enough industry or other jobs for them, that keeps labor costs down.
In some cities and regions organized crime are the "good guys" They are the ones that hire. Or they try to get to the U.S.
And then there are or were the refugees from Colombia (another drug war, decriminalization - not legalization - worked well for Portugal and Switzerland regarding drugs).
The coup in Honduras that the U.S. immediately regognized.
The troubles in Venezuela that are intentionally made WORSE by the U.S. They are getting refugee status btw - which is interesting because not even the U.S. can style that as civil war - although I am sure they working at it (the civil war not the styling).
These are the poor people who walk over the border. Which is dangerous btw. The U.S. border control picks up pre-teens. How bad must it get that they send their unprotected children on a journey.
The wealthier come by plane and overstay their visas.
Then there is the war on drugs - in the U.S. and in Mexico (enforced by the U.S.) the firearms sold to Mexico.
The banks helping with money laundering.
They make hundreds of millions maybe billions - one cannot handle that with cash, completely impossible. They NEED the banks, the SWIFT system likely has backdoors for the NSA - the U.S. COULD do something about the cartels.
The chaos in Mexico serves them just fine. or they do not dare to do something about it
I doubt Obama ever had any intentions, he could not even bring himself to have cannabis declared as less dangerous substance. It shares with heroin the classification as schedule 1 - dangerous, highly addictive, no medical value, therefore no reserch.
Obama had smoked weed and so had Bill Clinton - but both never bothered to change that classification. Which of course was base for harsh laws and imprisonment, and made medical research almost impossible in the U.S.
And Obama also protected the banksters that had caused the Great Financial Crisis from criminal prosecution, his attorney general went out of his way to settle out of court and with fines if there was some action - so no intention whatsoever to do something about money laundering for drug trade.
The U.S. COULD do a lot to help make thos countries safe and with some economic prospects - then much fewer people would come.
Mrs. Kirchner of Argentine recalls that she once asked GWB if the U.S. would consider a Marshall Plan for Latin America. He told ther the way to get the economy going is war.
He for sure acted on that idea in the U.S.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Anyway the old man PROFOUNDLY changed the NATIONAL discussion on healthcare, and also on how to finance campaigns, and who can aspire to run for Congress and Senate (= normal people). It has become the new normal - folks tend to blend out how revolutionary this all was in 2015, 2016 - it is testimony to how much of an impact Sanders has made - even though he is a coward and wanna be revolutionary that quietly returned to his niche of being the enternal dissenter with no real power.
Having more power may be out of his comfort zone. FDR said: I welcome their hatred. Sanders is not cut from the same cloth. (FDR likely was also an ego driven larger than life character. I assume after some generations being the member of a family that is rich and influental becomes boring. he may have liked his role as the benefactor of the masses. FDR aspired for Senate in New york and of course also planned to run for president later.
I remember Sanders saying in 2015 that he was never one of the people that tell their image in the mirror, how they are going to be president on day. That one has to be a little crazy of WANTING to be president. That is the reaction of a normal, decent person that is not a narcissist, egomaniac, careerist or psychopath. Or eager to get the power to start wars and increase the fortune.
So it is those actors that make it into the the top positions in politics and big biz - and not the people with some basic decency (that are not a good fit for the blood sport).
Truth is - he and Jeff Weaver had planned their campaign with 30 millions in small donations in early 2015 (or late 2014, Sanders waited for Elizabeth Warren to step up, most likely that cost him valuable time). Sanders and Weaver NEVER expected to get that far, they wanted to push Clinton to the left and to use the platform of a campaign in a field with only 3 or 4 D candidates to "talk about The Issues".
Everyone including Sanders and Weaver was suprised by their success. They got 230 millions in small donations and he had (almost) a shot at the nomination. (if only Hillary Clinton had dropped dead in summer, the DNC would have been forced to nominate him).
I think Sanders is split between his former more revolutionary self (that worked gigs and was poor) and the pragmatic compromises he got used to making as soon as he had some power (starting with being the mayor).
And I think he does not SEE himself as holding that much power, that he subconscioulsy self sabotaged.
With all of these weaknesses and flaws - Sanders changed American politcs.
.....Jimmy can get over his love-hate relationship, he can give the 79 year old man a rest. With all the disappointments, Sanders made a major positive impact.
The best video I have seen so far is the fan ad based on the Bob Dylan song: Times are a-changin'.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Do you KNOW that he is a bad guy ? Have you ever noticed how not even the Germans, French etc. dare to piss of the U.S. government (= muscle man for the oligarchs) ? What would happen if a not very rich or even developed country became the target of U.S. imperialism ???
Kissinger in the 1970s when the U.S. siskliked the government of Chile. We will make them scream (meaning using their influence to ruin their economy).
2002 support for the coup against Chavez.
The drone attack not long ago. More and more sanctions. It is not only the sanctions, it as a signal for other countries and companies NOT to do business.
No country in our kind of economy can withstand being cut off from international . do you think Western banks outside the U.S. would dare to do biz with Venezuela ? Or their governments would dare not to go along with the U.S. sanctions.
Remember the affair when the president of Bolivia was not allowed to land, tank or fly over vasall states of the U.S. (Poland, France).
The machine had had the route confirmed in advance, but then the towers did not let them use the airspace. The plane of Morales finally went to Vienna and anounced they had a technical problem and needed to land. A plane MUST be allowed to land under such circumstances.
The Austrian president gave a press conference with Morales the next day and tried to smooth out things and gloss over the insult. (I think the police at Vienna airport had a glance into the plane. they did not dare to force entry for an inspection, they had been told the plane was empty. This was Vienna late at night. WHO had told police at the airport to kind of inspect a presidential machine ? Vienna airport in the night is not exactely the middle of the action.
(the assumption was that Snowden could be on board, some South American leaders had met with Putin in Moscow. It may even have been discussed but Snowden was still in Moscow, the U.S. AND the vassal states of the U.S had made fools of themselves, it indirectly helped Snowden.
The embarrassed citizens of Europe had to take notice to what degree their governments were lapdogs / stooges of the U.S. (Note that during that time it came out how the U.S. had also spied on the "allies". Merkels private phone, EU buildings.
The usual suspects for terrorism.
Obama started the sanctions (on individuals I think) WHAT for ? - the Gulf states can brutally suppress protests in Bahrain never mind Saudi Arabia. No one bats an eye.
Not sure if they have seized now the gas stations in the U.S. that belong to the state of Venezuela (at least partially).
The BoE recently refused to hand out the gold reserves of Venezuela. That is unheard of.
Believe me countries like Germany or France would struggle to withstand if the U.S. would at a whim put sanctions on them - well they are part of the EU. China can help itself. Remember how China is sanctioned for humanitarian violations ? Me neither.
The count of victims of unrest in Venezueala included ALSO killed police and soldiers.
The opposition hired thugs going after dark-skinned people. At least that is a very probable scenario. The road blocks usually do not include robbery (I am sure there is, but the politcally motivated acts of sabotage and roadblocks can be easily distinguished from crime. A man drove to work on a bike and had the bad fortune of meeting a street blockade, they dragged him off and set him on fire. He died.
Another man was set on fire when he stood among a crowd.
They pop up, are violent and hinder people passing by (in the night).
They target darker people, they are very likely poor and thus more likely to be Chavistas. And if not them - then their friends an relatives.
Food storage, hospitals, public transportation units are targetted. By thugs the rich of the country would not get their hands dirty, of course not. That does not make sense - stealing food that is meant for poor people would make sense - but setting it on fire ??
The concept is not new - they did it in Iran in 1953 (guess what it was also about oil).
They put economic sanctions on Chile in the hope to alienate the population from their government - that was before the U.S. supported coup.
The humans rights violation of dictator Pinochet did not matter. he had no ideas to use the riches of Chile for the citizens and AT & T got cheap copper.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Daniel Ellsberg jeopardized his career and (financial) wellbeing, even freedom when he blew the whistle. For Woodward Watergate meant fame, it was the highlight of his career. There seems to be a profound effect on the integrity of the person - based on the underlying rewards (after the one big case) or necessary sacrifices regarding the one case.
Ellsberg was lucky that the Nixon admin had burglared his psychotherapist, they tried to get dirt on him to villify or blackmail him. - A judge threw out the case on grounds of that burglary / harrassemnt because the government was biased against him. If he had been prosectued he may have ended up in prison.
Ellsberg was willing to make a major sacrifice then - and he still has integritiy. The risk of speaking out for Assange now is much lower than the risks he took in the 1970s.
Woodward was very willing to compromise in order to HOLD ON to his success by playing nice with the sources and with the powers that be (or only going after a few power players in very few cases. Like annoying the Trump admin now or the Nixon admin back in the day).
Woodward made distinctions WHAT would be CONVENIENT to publish as early as the 1970s, and what info he would hold back Or what major stories that are in the open he would simply ignore. Like Assange now.
The man had a distinguished career, he is old, he made a lot of money, I have no doubt his books sell well. Does he fear not to be invited on the TV networks anymore to promote his books if he offends them by speaking up for Assange ?
He could start his youtube channel and kill it there. Independent media would gladly give him a major initial bump.
NOW it would be very safe and low-cost ! to do the right thing - but the bad habit to make shady compromises sticks, no matter how much privilege and protection a person has NOW.
Compromising on ethical principles does not seem to be something that a person can switch on and off (for instance understandable if cowardly safety or carrer concerns in the past).
Compromising on principles creates LASTING ROT. it looks like there is no coming back from that.
It is a slippery slope downwards, not a crossroads where you could do the right thing after you often chose to do the wrong thing in the past. (That psychological effect also showed in the Milgram experiments. Those that refused to harm another person because someone "in charge" told them to in a matter of fact way - did so early on. Those who made weak verbal protests - and then did as they were told .... continued to do so even when the victim's pleas got more and more intense and harrowing. (The victim was an actor, and they did not really get the electro shocks. Wich was good because around 90 % of the participants were willing to give him a shock that could easily have killed him. he actor only played the response from I want to stop now, to (increasingly ! intense) protest, to begging - and then silence.
Once ego driven Dereck Chauvin had decided to kneel on the neck of George Floyd and then putting his hands in the pockets of his trousers (to show the protesting bystanders how little he cared) - it was a one way. It was not like he was willing / able to stop himself after 3 minutes. To change course. people that know at some level that they do wrong - but do it anyway (ego, greed, cowardice) usually DOUBLE down.
It is a one way.
Homo sapiens usually finds excuses when violating principles and moral stances in order to maintain a good self-image - and later they feel compelled to double down, I think it is to DEFEND what they did in the past. Even if later doing the right thing would come at low cost (never mind how challenging or easy doing the right thing would have been in the past).
The "sacrifice" would be that it hits home (how they compromised in the past, and the inevitable awareness how they were wrong or weak, or just more self-interested or selfish).
Woodward said in a longer interview (when he promoted his book FEAR about the inner workings of the White House under Trump) that he KNEW that the Nixon admin had a secret bombing campaign going on against Cambodia.
Let that sink in:
Neither (most of) Congress nor the voters got that information.
We are talking about a major campaign, not just some strikes. (Which would still be against international law and consequential, but never mind).
In an alleged democracy .....Can anything be more political and in need of approval than decisions about warfare - and in a far away country that is no threat to the nation, and could not be a threat if they wanted to.
What was the point about 1776 ? About government tyranny.
Can anything be more newsworthy than a rogue government evading ALL constitutional and democratic stops and restraints ?
Woodward set himself up to be a shill then.
He likely made compromises as reporter before Watergate elevated his career. But after that he had a platform.
He very casually mentioned himself in 2018 that he held back the info about Cambodia bombing - he wanted to illustrate a point that a journalist does not go forward with ALL the information.
The interviewer asked him why he did it (although by no means giving him a hard time, but in the current state of affairs one has to be thankful that there was something like a follow up question).
I think the interviewer shared my surprise, and my opinion that this was a remarkable piece of information. Woodward is still very much O.K. with his inaction regarding the Cambodia bomging. He quietly and casually confirmed his stance (unfortunately I forgot the exact wording and "justification") - and the interviewer politely moved on and dropped the issue. Of course !
2
-
2
-
2
-
Alzheimer Reagan - the Dems can do one better ! - Reagan came into office in Jan. 1981 and was diagnosed with early Alzheimer's in March 1981. (he got life saving surgery after the assassination attempt, I guess he already was on a medication of a trusted doctor, and they had to come clean to the hospital doctors, it was a life and death situation. But the doctors kept silent)
Dude won the second term as well, so they propped him up with medication.
VP Bush was fine with the situation (8 years of Reagan, and then 8 years of Bush was the plan, no doubt, so they had nothing to win by pulling the 25th).
His wife, cabinet, the press - they all covered for him.
VP Bush, the neocons that were at large again under Bush2 and Nancy Reagan run the show - and neither Bush nor Nancy were NOT elected.
It is the question if Bush would have won against Carter. (who made a serious mistake in letting a brillant but ideological man like Paul Volcker run an experiment. How to tackle high inflation (caused by oil price spikes and a dropping USD) by extremeley high interest rates which strangled the economy. This was a self inflicted recession
The thing the actor Reagan had going for him was stage presence and being charming. That wasn't the forte of Bush.
2
-
2
-
+John Kesich - you mean Sanders held back at a time when he did not nearly have as much power as he has NOW and could not have changed the outcome anyway ? Did you notice that he NOW puts pressure on them. I admit he is still much more cautious * and polite that they deserve.
Maybe he knows something about the shark tank that we do not know. and from time to time he wants to get a share of military contracts for his little state.
I assume if HE had a say many representatives would get green investements and infrastructure budgets for their states - to have something to show for their votes. But that is not the world we live in - not now.
Never mind that he has had healthcare on the agenda since the 1990s when he came into office (and more informally since the 1970s when he campaigned with an Independent party in Vermont, but then he had no infuence at all).
The Dems are scared shitless of his influence and power and he wisely uses it in a subtle manner. FOR NOW he is invited as the outreach of the Democratic Party to MSM interviews (which he did not get when campaigning).
He does not give the Dems a pretext to launch a full fledged assault on him or remove him from that post. And he uses the time to go around in the country (union events, town halls in all kinds of states), he builds his youtube channel. Recently he did a townhall when Trump abandoned the Iran deal (it was picked up by the independent media but of course not by MSM).
Whatever the topic of a TV interview may be - he ALSO and EVERY SINGLE TIME mentions MEDICARE for All, the U.S. is the ONLY wealthy country on earth that does not guarantee healthcare for all , 15 USD minimum wage, debt-free college education (he varies the other issues, usually he mentions around 5).
Excellent marketing ! Building the brand and a CORE MESSAGE. And just in case some viewers do not yet know it - other countries have it better than the U.S. regarding health care (maternity leave, higher education, ...)
* Example for a very mild reaction
Corey Booker and Dems defected in Jan 2017 (Bill regarding imports of medical drugs from Canada. Those drugs are publicly negotiated in Canada, that would drop prices in the U.S. - his public "statement of regret" about the missing support was very mild - but the Dems knew what to think of it, they were irritated, some like Corey Booker wer eager to publicly explain themselves (likely he knew he could not afford to collect bad points when he wanted to run in 2020).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Immunity imparted by a vaccination is at a more consistent level. Infections before Delta gave adults a weak or good antibody count depending on whether they had a very mild case or if they had it at least like a bad cold (some discomfort, fever, …). Children reacted much better even with very mild infections, but for adults it was all over the place. Study in the U.S., not sure if Delta has changed that.
In Isreael (who were the first to vaccinate the population) it was initially unclear if the antibodies waned more than expected (and the performance of the vaccine were on the weaker end of the range when it comes to LONGER protection against getting no infection at all, not even a harmless case).
OR if the virus (Delta) is now better in evading immunity. Which would be the much worse news.
The new antibodies prompted by a third shot DO help (see the numbers that drop quickly) and the immune systems did not even have weeks of time to process the last trigger - so luckily it is not evasion (or not much to that effect).
It is waning antibody count. Especially among the first, most vulnerable group that goog the shots in eary 2021. They land in the ICU, or even die.
Overall many harmless infections although on recored level numbers (tested positive per million).
The good news is these people have NOW a boosted immunity (they immune system got a reminder) - which is now also taillored to Delta. And they did not get that immunity at a high cost for society and high(er) risks for them.
The negatives:
Of course we still have the case numbers, there will be vulnerable persons that cannot be protected and the damn' thing can continue to mutate.
but - if everybody that is eligible is vaccinated - it is harmless cases, even IF a surge happens - that is still good news. And it confirms the value of vaccines.
Despite the high vaccination rate, the have their anti vaxxers (orthotox Jews among them). At least one dose: 67 % of the population, and both doses 62 % (as per end of September) The share of vaccinated eligble adults is higher (or adults and teenagers over 12), but the children bring down the average.
That is not enough for herd immunity considering the virus has mutated to spread more easily. And it improved a LOT on that front.
The only safe, fast and effective way to boost the antibodies again for vulnerable people w/o exposing them to mortal risks, is the third shot. As long as vaccines are scarce I would rather have them for the developing countries, and no mass rollout of booster shots (third shot) for people with no special risks.
So IF a nation has a surge it makes sense to at least vaccinate the most vunerable for the third time. The breakthrough infections of the others are harmless, they had the shots later, so that also means better antibody count. Of course this is valid for people who are fully vaccinated. One shot should (in general) ward off the worst effects, but there is a reason they give the second booster shot with most vaccines. There are people that have no or hardly any reaction to the first shot, they need the reminder.
_Admissions to hospitals are slowly going down - the number of critical care patients has gone up - it is now a larger share. That is normal, people are transfered from normal beds to the ICU - they become worse after 1 week or 2, and intense care can last 2 - 4 weeks. So the deaths and intensive care numbers have a lag of typically 3 weeks.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The BBC is funded by U.K. CITIZENS. They have a houshold tax. In theory the government or special interests should not be able to meddle with them. In practice they can meddle with their funding by passing laws to reduce the tax, or to make it very easy to opt out. And these TV stations have become havens with excellent salaries, and a lot of money is spent. (For instance many local news stations, that costs money. One could say if they get public funding that is legit, ....).
And the Tories do not like the BBC (they used to have a center left, pro working class bias, but Thatcher scared them into submission).
they have a rabid rightwing media scene (Murdoch TV and their tabloid press is notorious), so many citizens like the red meat they are getting there and the BBC that shifted to the right is still too "left" for them. They find all they want in media owned by billionaires (which they get for free), and many are for defunding the BBC, which aligns nicely with the goals of the Tories. The neoliberals find the BBC useful, because of its excellent reputation (like PBS used to be good). Now they are a shell of their former self.
And NO public major outlet dared to be anti NATO. That was one of the reasons to give Europe the Marshall plan after WW2. To have a lot of goodwill and to have obedient vasall states. Since these were democracies the publicly funded TV stations were ideal to manufacture consent. People had not way of knowing, how much they were lied to, even in the past.
The right and far right often claims to be treated unfairly so if the right gets into power they try to undermine them. Often they appease them then - you can see that also with PBS that gets a lot of money from big donors and also the oil industry (Koch Brothers).
In case you have wondered about the hostile tone towards Sanders when they interviewed them.
The journalists that have a CONTRACT or are employed make good money, while their less fortunate collegues lose their jobs and have insecure gigs, you bet they all play nice with the powerful.
(other countries) and in the U.K. the government could even lean on them to fire people at the top or even directors (Thatcher AND Blair). Which is completly unacceptable as this is the people's TV.
But of course they were founded when TV was the. most. important. media and there was only THAT channel (for a long time in many European countries there was no private TV). For instance Germany, Austria.
They have less advertisements and none DURING a segment or movie. They have certain standards (so no trashy shows).
But of course the CIA and the governments hijacked them and used their image of respectablity and fake neutrality.
It is better in many ways because the will go after industries, and polluters. But you did not hear a lot of criticism of banksters (apart from standup comedy). One format in Germany is called The Asylum (translated). In the news (highly respected by the unsuspecting citizens) they give you the NATO talking points, also about Libya and Ukraine and regime change wars - and between 9 and 10 pm the comediens rip that apart.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+ voltarine Capitalism DOES not require the Petrodollar (USD as world reserve currency), actually we had a long time of capitalism w/o that.
(And a gold backed currency is no requirement either).
Capitalism IS a problem. - And the U.S. was on the forefront of war, military spending and neoliberalism (deepening the problems with capitalism). All of that would never have been posssible w/o the free ride the U.S. gets because of the Petrodollar.
They could never uphold the insane military spending. And of course they defend the Petrodollar with their bloated military - Iraq, Libya had at least threatened to go w/o. Not sure if they meant it or if it was just chest thumping (it did not end well).
The U.S. cannot afford to have its currency drop like a stone (as would be justified regarding the output of goods and services and the completely skewed export / import balance - much, much more imports than exports.
It is always funny to hear the snarky remarks about Venezuela (thier currency has completely devalued, very high inflation, they intend to use the USD they get for their oil exports to import necessary goods. However, the USD allocation is completely corrupted and fuels the black market - currency and goods). so the situation is dire. - The U.S. would not look good either with a realistically valued currency. So the U.S. is throwing stones sitting in the glasshouse. Of course Venezuela never let the world pay for an insanely bloated military with which it could protect a special status.
All the export industries (China, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, other European countries) cannot afford an USD dropping to its real value either.
It is like an unhealthy co-dependent relationship.
Think in terms of a loan, the borrower when he is behind with the payments is in trouble (that would be Venezuela in that analogy). But if the loan is HUGE the question arises: Who is more in trouble: the borrower - or the lender ? (That would be the US vs. the countries that send a lot of their products to the US and have grown used to the U.S. being a market).
They have propped up their export industries supplying to the U.S. on the back of their other industries (who serve the domestic market, or who sell to other countries). So the Germans get relatively worthless Dollars for good products. Of course the exporting companies can exchange the Dollars they get paid immediately into other currencies or goods (at too high rate).
Who pays for that: the German workers with stagnant wages, the corporations producing for the domestic market, the German consumers in general because their currency should have a higher value, meaning more purchasing power for imported goods.
Jobs in the export industry that sells a lot to the U.S. would be lost.
On the other hand - when you throw good products at the U.S. in return for a cheap currency - you could as well help the developing countries.
The situation is good for the owners of the export industry. On one hand the U.S. proft when they get good products for less than should be paid because of the overvalued USD. Trade with Europe, Japan it is mostly B2B, the Chinese dominate the consumer products market.
On the other hand a depreciating Dollar would have stopped outsourcing and deindustrialization in the U.S. long ago.
Domestic production becomes more attractive with a dropping currency. Imports become more expensive, so more inflation, the citizens could afford less - unless domestic production kicks in (think jobs). At some point the oligarchs would need to produce more IN the U.S. again (more manufacturing jobs which are better paid). Than means less unemployment, that means better wages overall.
Less imports, maybe more exports would eventually strenghten the weak currency.
A currency should be backed up by the amount of goods and services an economy produces. (With the Petrodollar the Australian mining products or the Saudi oil count as if the U.S. had produced them).
Another aspect is that the developing countries trade their crops, mining products, cotton in USD as well. Trading in their own currency would strenghten that currency. Imports (of technical goods) would become cheaper for them. Especially when coming from the U.S.
When a country buys goods from other countries they should export something of equal value. If that balance is skewed over longer time the currency will react - that is the safety valve.
A country exports a lot, the currency will become stronger = appreciate.
Then exporting becomes harder because the goods become more expensive for other countries - imports become cheaper, so more will be imported which will weaken the currency again, so exporting becomes easier ....
It is like a safety valve.
The U.S. undermines that mechanism with the petrodollar. The EU undermines that with the common currency the EU since 1999.
A currency should fit the economy of a country like a taillored suit - the EURO is "one size fits nobody".
Too weak for Germany (and a few other country who had traditionally a strong national currency and they are all strong export nations).
The Euro is too hard for many EURO member states.
2
-
@carlsjr7975 Oh, the 3 houses narrative. It is getting old ! One nice family home in Burlington (middle class standard !), a row house in D.C. and since 2016 a vacation home in VT. After close to 40 years of (paid) public service - and the additional income of his spouse.
Lets dissect this:
Vermont main residency in Burlington. As elected representative he must have residency in his state. Yahoo did a sort of house tour in 2016, the video is online, it is not a mansion. Solid middle class standard.
Then a row house in Washington D.C. - he needs a place to stay.
Plus the luxury - a 595,000 lake front property at Lake Champlain in convenient distance to the main VT residency. They bought it after it was clear he would not be the nominee of the Democratic party. They use it as summer house.
I've seen photos of that house as well. Log cabin style, it is fine and has heating and all of that (so it could be used as full time resicidency) - but it is not fancy. The location explains the price and it is large enough to house guests.
Since Sanders is not into wife, wine and song (or luxury cars, or expensive travel or yachts) nor does he spend a lot on dress and hairstyle - that is the only luxury he splurges on. (and no legal costs or paying hush money to mistresses or flings).
I assume, that now the extended family puts the vacation home to good use, he never stopped touring the country since the election 2016.
That house has been partially paid for by the inheritence of Jane Sanders. She sold an old holiday house in Maine. It was too far away to be of use to them.
Members of Senate currently earn 172,000 before taxes. Plus GOOD healthcare, so no financial drain in that respect. He was mayor for 8 or 9 years in the 1980s and has been in D.C. since 1991.
That's decent to well paying jobs for almost 40 years. That should get a person a solid to upper middle class life style, don't you think ? (You can add the income of Jane Sanders as well).
The constituents of Sanders think he earns his keep - they have been voting for him in ever increasing numbers for EVERY office: mayor, member of Congress and then Senate (let's hope that trend also shows - for the whole counttry - when it comes to running for president).
Unlike almost all other politicians rich donors do not buy him name recognition. It is all earned by grassroots work and a record.
True, elected representatives get a good salary and benefits. That is O.K. - when they are CONTENT with THAT and work for The People (and only for them) in exchange.
Sanders is one of the "poorest" members of Congress or Senate. Most of them either come from wealth or they find ways to turn their networks, information advantage (and doing favors to the special interests) into additional financial gain.
Knowing where to invest in real estate, cushy jobs for family members, etc. etc. - also book sales. The Super Pacs can buy the books up by the truck loads, so that is one way they can directly bribe politicians even when they still hold office.
Because of the surprising success of the 2015 / 2016 campaign Sanders sold a lot of books (he already had 2 older ones and wrote another one after the campaign, but I do not think the old ones were hits until he ran for president) - you bet the special interests did not boost sales !
BTW: Sanders and Jeff Weaver planned the 2015 campaign (grassroots / small donations only) with a budget of only 30 million USD. Sanders wanted to use the platform to raise some issues (healthcare, financial regulation, ....) - they had no idea that it would be that successful - or that it would lead to better book sales for Sanders.
The book sales alone pay for the vacation home, they would not even have needed the inheritance of Jane Sanders for that.
2
-
Political correctness is the LOW-COST LOW-EFFORT substitute for really serving The People. Both parties have the same donors from the same industries (even corporations / persons). Both use issues that do not cost the donors anything when they try to get the base to the ballot box - while giving them NOTHING of substance.
Democrats and Republicans use guns, abortion, LGBT rights to rile up the base w/o offending the Big Donors.
Examples:
Gay marriage does not cost the donors a penny.
Legalizing marijuana - THAT's another story, special interests (many of them donors) are against it. The "police" and justice system (police unions !!). Big tobacco (in the past), alcohol and last but not least the pharmaceutical industry.
Additionally the Republicans have been specializing in racism since the 1970s * and white dominance (which is a form of identity politics).
* before the Civil Rights Movement and legislation racism was equally represented in both parties).
The Democrats are supposed to be the party that stands up for the interests of the little people.
Well, that would hurt the interests of the big donors so now virtue signalling instead of virtuous action will have to suffice for the base.
Getting "offended" on behalf of minority groups about (allegedly) offensive behavior does not cost them any effort, and it is a ego-stroking exercise as well ("See how good I am, I have high ethical standards").
Especially the Democrats invoke how they are for regular people. Even with good skills in double think and psychological suppression - deep down the Corporate Democrats know they are sell outs. That applies to "liberal" media persons (to avoid the word journalists) and to most politicians.
So they DO have an urge to at least virtue signal.
The Republicans villify and "other", that is THEIR mechanism to maintain double think and to gloss over the contradictions between messaging and action. They get all enraged about welfare queens - if they are minorities. Not white people (their base) and definitely not corporate welfare.
Republicans always go on about the virtues of the job creators and they openly serve the affluent (or people that think they are only embarrassed millionaires), so they have less conflict of conscience when they work for the interest of the rich and businesses (= LARGE businesses). There is less contradiction between the messaging and the real action.
Now Democrats could also fight like hell for things like good and cost-efficient healthcare for everyone. But that would be DIFFICULT, a hassle and a lot of work. And they would need to educate themselves (more work) instead of parroting the talking points and thought stopping clichés of the lobbyists.
Most important: Serving The People (and only them) would alienate the big donors and the party leadership. Forget about cushy posts for ex-politicians. And it would require some courage, because they would need to win their elections in a different manner.
Amazon spent 1,45 million USD in the local elections in Seattle, and even though they may not succeed in unseating 4 or so progressive council members, they might get the prize, the most progressive one is Kshama Sawant. i
t is still unclear and Sawant might pull it off.
So if you step on the toes of the powerful and do not hold back there is chance to lose the seat (which means having to build a new career. Which is going to be hard if you stepped on many toes of rich and powerful people, and that is inevitable if you look out for the little guy. Good luck with getting a decent job).
2
-
2
-
2
-
Kasparov snapped, Halversson-Mendoza whitewashed - and the guy from Amnesty International Norway responded reasonably. - WHY ? Humans - as highly social beings - like to have the moral highground ("I am fighting for democracy, freedom ...") while ALSO being selfish.
Halversson-Mendoza was eagerly spouting a lot of buzzwordsy talking points - indeed - "Methinks thou protesteth too much !"
("I am for regime change in Venezuela because those damned Chavistas infringed on the privileges of my class, the white upper class. So my relatives engaged in a coup, which failed, my family has connections to the CIA . I hide that family connection by not giving my full name.
Now the U.S. neocons or the Deep state finances my cushy job which gives me prestige and a good income - and some "moral highground" on top of it").
Most people do not have the intellectual and psychological fortitude (cynicism) to be brutally honest about such conflicts to themselves.
Their willingness to be bribed or their cowardice.
Sometimes people compromise not because they are not greedy but they fear disadvantages, are people pleaser,s fear for family and livelyhood, or at least inconveniences. Their motives can be very understandable.
But they prefer to keep an impression of themselves of being much more courageous and noble and independent than they are.
The cure for such conflict of thought and self-image ? They need to use some major double think.
If Kasparov would cynically play the game he would of course take the money and never admitpublicly admit the agenda.
BUT: then there would be no need to get "emotionial". On the contrary they would all give a sleek answer - and then somehow the issue of U.S. human rights violations would never resurface, they would not find the time, other issues are more pressing, ....
There a SMART and COVERT ways to manipulate. For effective manipulation it is essential that YOU KNOW what you are doing. And that requires to be honest to yourself. Brutally honest.
The Norwegian guy was reasonable - and most likely HONEST. Even if he gets a salary from Amnesty Interantional - he is in a rich and safe country where he can get an equally well paid job (if not better paid). Norway is a small country so the CIA likely did not bother to undermine that regional org.
In short he was not (very) hypocritical, did not have to defend his self-interests, had no reason to defend the U.S. empire.
(That incident might have opened his eyes however to the Oslo Freedom Forum).
Jimmy touches the whole complex of hypocrisy and double think.
It sounds counterintuitive - but intelligence can help to maintain that. Hypocritical selfishness and being ideologically driven are IMMUNE to intelligence, knowledge, facts or education - they stem from a deeper and older level of the human brain.
Intelligence, and consiousness is a new and vulnverable evolutionary invention. It is easily overcome by the older functions of the human brain and psyche. On the contrary: intelligence and education can be helpful to "find" the "arguments", to know of which facts to stay clear, to "win" discussions, to find the spin o facts.
Double think does cost some energy, it is much more effortless to avoid any "conflicts of thought", stay in the bubble and do not expose yourself to contradictory facts.
Which is btw one of the reasons why the Clinton campaign was so clueless: Selfish interests, the desire to have the moral highground (to please their vanity) and lying to themselves about how they make money while betraying the voters.
I was done by all of them: the party establishment, the careerists/staffers hoping for their chance to climb the ladder, the consultants - often obedient ex-politicians, the sell-outs of mainstream media.
The hopeful careerists do not even dream of questioning the status quo and "common wisdom" of how to do political campaigns. And dissenters would have been immediately kicked out.
Usually one has strong group think in such environments.
They all had to suppress a part of reality, which made them incapable to make a realistic assessment of the altered political situation.
Their double think and being overly invested in their gains made them literally unable to assess the mood in the country - to read the signs on the wall.
The human brain also likes black and white scenarios. When it comes to fight/flight/freeze considering a multitude of nuanced opinions does not cut it - while you try to weigh objectively all scenarios the sabber toothed cat has already killed you - or the prey has vanished. That crowd did not make it into the gene pool. The people who made simplistic and swift judgments (jumping to conclusions) and who erred of the side of caution and who were TRIBAL surivived.
Within small groups of hunterer and gatherers group cohesions (same cultural norms and opinions) was crucial for survival. you could not just move away from your tribe 100,000 years ago if you did not fit in well with the folks of your clan.
Humans are weak and vulnerable animals - they have their brain, language and COOPERATION going for them.
So we are not wired for "freedom of speech" and tolerance for dissent. Only the safety and high survival rates granted by technology allowed us recently to indulge in such luxuries. Groupthink was not a bad thing in the old days (that does not mean people felt oppressed, they were raised a certain way, and completely adopted those mindset. They HAD to make compromises to get along with each other, and they were subject to strong group pressure which ensured good, social, responsible behavior).
Kasparow is an ideologue on top of getting paid
He likely had some experiences of political suppression in Russia (more institutional I guess). And he was a nut job even when he was a chess player.
Like running away when he made a grave mistake and defeat was inevitable. Later he tried to reinvent history during TV interviews (which is kind of hard with chess !!! - it is so predictable)
"He did not lose that badly, could have achieved an impasse if the had bothered" whatever ...... Made him look very immature, like a sore loser. Unworthy of a world class player - who can have a bad day.
Or the episode many years later when he wanted to buy the votes to become president of the chess federation (which got him banned for some time). I read reference to that - did not check it out, but it got him banned for some time, so likely he did it.
Nothing screams commitment to democracy like that.
Even if it is NOT a political organization ...... if he wanted to BUY THAT, he either wanted to make money of that presidency or he is so vain that he is willing to buy prestige. - Not a person to be trusted.
2
-
Chomsky also has the opinion that the media - the legacy newspapers (TV always has been infotainment not news or "journalism") might sometimes disagree on domestic policy with the sitting government - but they always ! support the government when it comes to war mongering.
Starting and expanding wars and of course military spending.
Ending wars ? Not so much.
No one questioned the odd timing of the Syrian government allegedly starting poison gas attacks in spring 2017 and 2018 always when peace talks were around the corner and the Syrian government had a strong position (read not many concessions to the jihadi "rebels", because the rebels were losing).
Boom - poison gas attack. (and the second time chlorine was used. I noticed that they used the word chlorine, but then the messaging changed to "poison gas")
Or NOW the claim that the Russians paid bounties - just there was the danger of peace in Afghanistan. No one showed some (justified) scepticism about that wild story. So the intel agencies had brought that up summer 2019 already. They would not put the breadcrumbs in place, would they ? After all there was some talk about peace and getting the troops out of Afghanistan in 2019 already. They may have learned from Syria (have your narrative in place, be prepared, build on that base whenever you want to derail peace talks or want to let weapons and nuclear weapons treaties expire from the
Around 1900 there was a lively debate if the U.S. should stop acting as imperialistic power and mind its own business (Mark Twain was a strong supporter of that movement). Never mind the banksters and other oligarchs who like to exploit other nations - there was one newspaper, the son had taken over from the father. And he found out that war (on a lower level, never too many losses in life or the voters get tired of it) is good for sales.
he vastly expanded sales within a few years only and became very rich - War related headlines sold. Then only wealthy people had subscriptions, they sold the copies per piece with the help of shops and newspaper boys - and of course it mattered what these boys shouted.
Business and imperialism go hand in hand beautfully (also see "I was a gangster for capitalism" quote by Smedley Butler. He has the list of all the nations that the U.S. military attacked or kept subdued for U.S. business interests.
Only when Vietnam had become untenable, the leaders of big biz (after a major setback for U.S. troops) signalled to the Nixon admin that they were not interested anymore in that war. AND the population organized against that war in an unprecedented manner (and then - unlike now - the protesters WERE ORGANIZED on a national level).
Only then the war that was started on a lie against a nation that could not have been a threat to the U.S. if they wanted to be one, was ended. Only then the legacy media found out that they were against the war continuing - it was a well intentioned effort but it had not worked out.
Also Chomsky: the public saw Vietnam as morally wrong (after the fact, the voters were not that wise right away) while journalists and politicians continued to describe it as well intentioned blunder.
There are studies on that.
Makes sense: the citizens have not direct influence on whethere there will be war. But the top income people, big biz, the ruling class, politicians, top media - those who have the power to shape public opinion - still had to defend the war and THEIR role in cheering for it. They could not defend the American ! sacrifices (no one really cared about the much higher Vietnamese toll), and they did not even get a victory to show off, to justify the loss of American lives.
So it had to be defenided as a well meaning project - that sadly did not work out.
The U.S. did not "win" but the goal to destroy Vietnam and to keep them from having their own independent government and maybe having some mild positive development (with a center left or center right populist government) was achieved.
The U.S. tried to force a right wing dictator on them that was of course corrupt and friendly to Western business interests - that heavy handed meddling - started the far left resistance.
Those poor peasants did not want an extreme government, any centrist with a populist message could have taken the reigns, and some economic aide would have done the trick - would have made them devoted allies to the U.S. - but I read that then synthetic rubber had not yet been invented and they had rubber plantations in Indochine.I guess there would have been some kind of land reform - the former French colony first shaking off the French rule and then having land reform etc. would set a very bad example. Like in Latin America the U.S. oligarchs were not having it.
France tried to keep them as colony with force and the U.S. helped them in the war against Indochine. France gave up on that, but the U.S. continued to fight for colonial power. for many many years, that started right after WW2.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@GregoryWonderwheel FIAT money. Most of the money we use, is created whenever banks give out a loan. (gov. creates cash but that is a tiny portion of the money we use, and there was direct money creation in the form of Quantitative Easing, but that is for "special occasions"). Banks only need to "have" approx. 10 % of the loan volumes.
They need to have either the money of large investors / shareholders and / or if a person deposit money at a bank it is legally now part of their "capital" which is problematic when they go under. If a bank stores valuables for a person or manages an account with bonds or shares for a client - THAT remains the property of the customer. But you pay rent for the vault or a fee for handling the bonds / stock account.
Loans are the most lucrative for a bank, but that 10 % rule forced them to also take care of little savings accounts. Which was much more of a hassle back in the day and cost the banks much more. Regular people got paid in cash and shopped with cash.
The problem where to keep the savings did not exist for many families in the 1920s and 1930s.
For a modern economy it is better to use less cash, but if the service of having a bank account would have been too expensive, citizens would not have used it.
Attracting small savings and managing checking accounts a low costs (compared to what it cost them before modern computers) made sense for the banks because that was the base for how many loans they were legally permitted to give out. (I guess they look at that ratio over longer periods of time, a few months or a year).
The concept is called FIAT money. Latin: So be it ! (when the money is "created out of thin air")
It is not only theory, it is well established in academia and reflected in the law and accounting rules, although the regular citizens are not bothered with that insight. Weirdly enough even a lot of bank employees (even if they work with loans) do not know that.
There is the fiction that we "need" the persons with huge fortunes to deposit their money with banks (and in the country - not taking it to another country pretty please). Else the banks would not be able to give out loans to productive companies and home owners. That myth is perpetuated - it serves the interests of big finance and rich persons alike. - see below
Example how FIAT money works:
Person signs loan contract, the bank is legally permitted to book that promise (to pay and with interest) as "asset" = claim (the bank may or may not have a collateral). The claim is the original amount of the loan, I think they add the interest and fees as they become due.
On the other side of the balance sheet they will open an account for you, enter the loan amount - and from then on you can use it like a savings account.
Meaning that entry gives you purchasing power and you can either withdraw cash based on that entry (that "filled" your account) or use it for transfers.
As IF you had saved it up. In many ways it is like a savings account in reverse.
The common misunderstanding is that banks collect savings, and they use that to give out loans.
Nope !
a) that would be SOMEHOW reflected in accounting.
b) this is not about "money" and the need to "have" money: If I want to lend someone money I must first "have" it. That is not how it works for banks.
They have the legal privilege to give access to the (untapped) resources of the economy. They allocate purchasing power - with an accounting exercise.
You want to open a reastaurant, but have no money. You get a loan (money that the bank created).
You spend the loan amount on equipment, rent, wages .... (accessing the resources of the economy). The recipients of the money you pay with help of the loan will (sooner or later) get other things from the economy. Like paying their rent, buying groceries, cars, ....
Even though he bank creates the money with only a few key strokes - as the gatekeepers for borrowed purchasing power it is important that they make sure that the borrower is likely to pay back
They are legally obliged to check that, although they criminally abstained from that during the buildup to the Great Fiancial Crisis in order to give out as many loans as they possibly could.
Other participants of the economy spent resources, time to provide the goods and services - that the loan money pays for.
Then you "pay back"
If we assume that the money for that comes from work (not inheritance or the lottery) ....could be revenue from the restaurant, or that does not work out and you return to a job - then it means that the borrower helps to create goods and services that other participants of the economy want to have.
So the borrower got access to goods and services (usually that is one larger chunk, loans tend to be larger amounts) - and then the borrower provides goods and services and the income makes it possible to pay back (that is typically in smaller installments over time).
The balance of taking and giving is kept.
As for the accounting side of "paying back" - when all is paid down the loan account is net zero.
The claim (asset) account too, I think they add the interest and fees to that on an ongoing base. But that evens out too as you pay principal & interest and fees.
They bank can create money (but not for themselves) and they do not get to "keep" it when the borrower pays back . At the end it vanishes out of their balance sheet, except the surplus that they have from interest, fees.
"Capital" is a shy deer that is easily spooked. It is risk averse and needs to be attracted with high(er) interest rates (or ROI). If huge fortunes are leaving the U.S. it also influences the value of the USD (making imports more costly). (That is made worse because the currency speculators now see a trend they can bet on and reinforce. The speculators need 0 - 10 % deposit (large established actors zero) so that explains how they can speculate against currencies.
The countries that receive the fortunes are not happy either, it drives up the value of their currency (plus the speculation drives it up) thus making it harder for them to export and it becomes a more expensive destintion for tourists. Was a problem for Switzerland. Or Germany (their exporters) when the USD dropped in value compared to the German Mark (in the early 1990s).
(A way to solve that would be negative interest rates on large fortunes).
So finance and "capital" has to be coddled and accomodated - even if that is bad for the economy in general or the citizens. Another version of a myth that serves big money interests is "too big to fail" banks.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
in the 1930s the U.S. had just shy of 90 million people. NOW 325 million. a lot of immigration happened until the 1980s. The country COULD absorb it - but then wages incl. minimum wages were good and the rich and profitable companies did pay taxes. Big Finance was strictly regulated. And politicians had not yet made it possible, safe, and lucrative to outsource jobs - to undermine the domestic workforce.
The U.S. ramped up their game if you will. even the undocumented people earned enough so they could spend, buy homes ... which kept the economy going.
I do not thing that immigration can continue at that rate. The solution would be a Marshall plan for Latin America, stop the regime changing efforts (for over 100 years - no wonder they never become prosperous), stop the War on Drugs, reign in the multinationals that want to exploit the workforce there. And go after the international WESTERN banks that help the cartels launder money.
People with legal residency AND others. There were always people coming from Mexico - they also could return until harsher legislation forced them to stay permanently in the U.S. (if they returned to Mexico this times they might not have a chance to make it back).
That alone did not bring the wages down. - I am sure the wage reducing effect is there in THIS economic and political environment - especially in construction.
In other areas it helps - crime decreased in low income areas - the new renters are Latinos. Catholic, family values, they can only afford the bad neighbourhood - and raise standards there. That also means income for the landlords.
They contribute to CHEAPER food. although arguably a lot is for the middle man. If Walmart etc. would demand 50 cents more for a pound of tomatoes the farm workers could get better pay. (some retailers joined such an initiative, Walmart didn't) Meaning they could contribute to the local economy.
w/o the nannies and maids (people working in landscaping and as gardeners) - what would the affluent white working women do ? The U.S. unlike other wealthy nations (Germany, France, Austria, Netherlands, Denmark Japan ....) does not offer Public Non-profit Quality Locally-run Subsidized Affordable childcare that supports working parents.
If all the 11 million undocumented would vanish - the U.S. would quickly get such childcare. True - the bargaining position of the low-income workers would go up.
it would be disruptive, though.
2
-
2
-
@PlateletRichGel The U.S. had a war by proxy against Iran you glossed over that (and the 1953 coup against the democratically elected leader) - in 1980 Saddam Hussein was still the darling of the West and foolish enough to start a war against Iran in 1980. (Revolution was in 1979), The war lasted 8 years, cost the lifes of 1 million people (never mind those who were injured, lost limbs, also civilians harmed by landmines). Then they finally gave up and neither side had won anything.
The Iranians could have ended it earlier - on the other hand I get why they did not stop when they thought they could get out with an advantage - if your neighbour country ATTACKS you on behest of another power the logic is that is should cost them dearly so that they (the population not the dictatror) hesistate the next time when they are tempted.
Well that did not work out - both countries ended up where they started - only with tragedies and the massive economic damage on top of it.
The war had cost Iraq a lot, it was supposed to be over quickly and seizing some Iranian territory near the border with oil fields would pay for the financial costs. All of that would have been graciously tolerated by the West. Plus the extremist gulf theocracies (Saudia Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, ...) were supposed to help out Iraq financially - they hated the Shia's with a passion (KSA certainly does).
Under the regime of the Shah - which was a "good" dictator = U.S. approved - KSA and the other oil rich SUNNI dictaroships could not move against the natural hegemon in the region (natural hegemon according to Larry Wilkerson - "...our decades of support of the Shah was testimony to that role of Iran in the region). And unlike KSA Iran did and does have a capable army and the economy never has been not completely dependent on a foreign skilled workforce and on serfs from other countries for the unskilled tasks.
Iran is a very old culture. KSA etc. are the noveaux riches. The over abundant natural resources in those countries would be a constant incentive to trigger coups - so military leadership and the medium ranks are occupied with a system of nepotism. Not dedication, committment, or capability.
So that neither family can seize power with help of the military without the other power brokers in the country knowing it. That has maintained the delicate pwer balance, and the West always helped them to suppress their own population, while the Western media graciously fails to mention the brutal crackdowns (Bahrain only one example, the constant prosecution in KSA. Same is true for the war against Yemen which MbS started. They are doing an awful job there - not even Western support and all the fancy military equipment lets them win the war against that poor country. (again assessment of Larry Wilkerson).
The elites of Saudia Arabia are not able to integrate the weapons they buy from the U.S. and all other important Western manufacturers (U.K. France and Germany). They are not needed for defense nor are they useful for attack (see Yemen): KSA spends more on the military than Russia. Russia however is very well to build weapons (and sophisticatd ones !) so for them it brings at least employment and they export those weapons. And they have an army that is dedicated as well.
When KSA spends fortunes on buying Western weapons - the expenditures are not necessary for the good of the COUNTRY: they are bribes of the ruling class of KSA for for the Western politicians to help them stay in power. The first target of these bribes is of course the U.S. government, bought and paid for Congress, and the U.S. M.I.C. - helping the Saudi theocrats to remain in power and rule in a totally undemocratic manner, the authoritarian secular regimes in Syria and Libya were/are benign by comparsion.
And those weapons purchases (and oil investments, or investments in social media or banks) are also the bribes for the Western mainstream media wich indirectly profits from the M.I.C. and the constant wars.
Never mind that the CIA has been infiltrating and bribing the important media in the "allied" "democratic" nations for decades. The CIA (or neoliberal or neocon think tanks) only need to find an agreement with the rich owners and they need to influence only top management. They even succeeded - to a wide extent - with publicly funded TV and radio which in theory has to serve neutrally the citizens that finance it with mandatory fees.
If not the CIA - then it will be neoliberal/neo conservative think tanks and the U.S. = NATO friendly Atlantic Bridge.
I know that that applies to the German and U.K. publicly funded TV (I heard the same about Switzerland, and would be very surpised if it would be different in France. Of course it is even easier to bribe the for-profit networks that have rich owners - lots of common interests).
In the U.K the government has undue influence (I think even by law) considering the the BBC should be a neutral player - which would of course mean that they especially hold the current government to account. In Germany the system of nepotism, cushy positions for ex-politicians, ... is undermining the elected boards that are supposed to hold the network in line with their legal obligation to provide neutral information.
When public TV was installed in the U.K. and Germany they were an incredibly powerful information tool, and had massive impact on public opinion - so OF COURSE they were hijacked by the national and international powers that be. The people passing the laws to keep them neutral were the same people that had an interest to corrupt the integrity of objective and critical TV and radio reporting.
Back to the delicate balance among the powerful families in Saudia Arabia:
Mohammad bin Salman was quite busy sucessfully upsetting that balance and was nontheless celebrated by the media as reformer. While dishing out the death penalty against peaceful acvivists, and holding the "fellow" Saudi ruling class (in KSA that means extended family !) hostage in a luxury hotel.
MbS was extorting (allegedly with torture if necessary) money from them. Before MbS all the influental families had a say in what happened, the king or crown prince accepted them as advisors. They were still a backwards and extreme theocracy suppressing their own people - but that system of nepotism added some pragmatism and caution to the foreign policy decisions.
Well, MbS sidelined all the other members of the "extended" family, or shut them up (by any means necessary, there were weird "accidents") - and followed his own reckless inclinations. See the Khashoggi killing.
Only then - when it hit one of their approved fellow collegues * - the Western media could be bothered to have a realistic look at MbS and even KSA. MbS must have severely annoyed some very powerful peopel in the U.S. by his erratic style of ruling, so that the U.S. mainstream media was all of a sudden got the green light to be so critical).
Khashoggi was no dissident, he was very well aware what would fly in the WaPo and what not. So he had one opinion in English for the U.S. outlet and one in Arabic for other audiences.The U.S. audiences (or management) cannot read Arabic so his "unbecoming" support of the Palestinans went unnoticed. Since Khashoggi had done well in the system of Saudi Arabia he knew of course how to navigate such a landscape and how to be polite to special interests.
He knew the Washington Post would have kicked him out immediately had he drawn attention on the fate of the Palestnians (who knows what he really thought about the situation, his Arabic messages may have been equally calculated and self-serving). He had always been loyal to whoever had power in KSA - but MbS did not trust him because of his Muslim Brotherhood connections - and there was the connection to Osama Bin Laden, too - so Khashoggi offering his services as advisor to MbS found himself rejected (like almost all such offers).
Khashoggi that had so skillfully navigated the scene for decades found himself allied with Saudi influencers/mentors that lost their influence (or got onto an "enemy list") during the silent coup of MbS. That is why he fled the country - he knew the system well enough, he was right to flee. Does not mean he deserved to be killed in the embassy in Turkey - although it is well possible that he actively supported that happening to other people (only done in a less cavalier and obvious manner by more savvy rulers before MbS). At the minimum Khashoggi certainly did not object to it happening to other people in a more discreet manner as long as he was in the good graces of one or the other then influental Saudis.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Gabbard was a small fish, she had no chance to become the nominee, but Sanders could have turned this around by going rogue on them for the pandemic stimulus bills. (on the leadership of both parties not only the Repubs). - Sanders was called to BE the Organizer in chief - and he dropped the ball. Returned to the safe well-known corner of being the eternal underdog, that is right (but does not have and does not WANT power).
My theory: afraid of success, has subconscious scruples to fight for, to get and to user power.
He wants to belong to The Club (not even for financial gains) being accepted not being shunned and villified.
After the strategy to turn out the young vote did not work so well - maybe he had second thoughts about winning against Trump. And he does not dare to risk it - Biden in cognitive decline WANTS the presidency more, he lies for it, and gladly risks to lose against Trump.
Or his handlers and his wife risk it.
In hindsight gives you appreciating for the backstabbing of Warren: At least she REALLY wanted the success, and she was willing to fight dirty.
Maybe Sanders could not live with himself when losing to Trump (more because he could not deal with the vicious attacks and the guilt he may feel). So Biden who is much weaker, is the gamble against Trump.
Sanders also carefully avoids that they have ANY pretext to blame him for "harming" Biden by not dropping out, endorsing Biden etc. - the smear campaign of the Hillary camp seems to have gotten to him.
2
-
2
-
I know the single payer systems of Germany and Austria very well, participation is mandatory (if your monthly salary is over approx. 500 USD). Not only is it mandatory - it also gives you the RIGHT to have FULL COVERAGE (and the same treatment like the CEO of the company that has the same % of wage deductions and will show up in the same hospitals). Coverage also includes dependent family members (till age 26 if they have a professional training).
ALL companies must match the affordable wage deduction (it is a percentage of wage with a cap). That is ALL the insured have to pay - treatment is "free at the point of delivery".
There are no healthcare questions (of course not, the risks are irrelevant, only the income determines the contributions). Signing up takes 5 minutes when you are new at a job. (Of course there are provisions for single stay at home parents, retired persons, jobless, still at college while older than 26, ....)
The public non-profit insurance agency is mandated to make cost-efficient healthcare happen and to serve the public good. "Government-run" does not really apply. The wage deductions go directly to the agency. Governments are voted in and out, the agency stays the same.
The well negotiated contracts mandate the doctors and hospitals (also non-profits usually run by cities, some larger by states) that they must treat all patients with the same care. And they get the same money for the treatment - so why wouldn't they ?
The ONLY large and powerful for-profit player in the system is Big Pharma, they have very standardized and internationally comparable substances, which makes it easy for the public non-profit agency to negotiate. You bet tiny Iceland with 300,000 people also gets good prices (much better than the U.S. consumers - 325 million people).
In the U.S. the industry had their politicans pass a law that the public agencies (Medicare) cannot negotiate drug prices (only the VA is allowed to negotiate).
The large for-profit insurers in the U.S. do not start a Battle Of The Giants with Big Pharma or the for-profit hospital chains. If only a few huge companies dominate the scene, they usually do not hurt each other. They agree to peacefully co-exist - and take it out on the consumers instead. Plus they had Obama and the Dems pass ACA - which makes sure they can extract a lot of government funding into the dysfunctional system.
Nations with single payer ALSO need to subsidize the system (of course, the very affordable mandatory contributions would not be enough) - but that funding goes into a streamlined, cost-efficient system. Meaning wealthy nations usually operate with 50 to 65 % of the PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES of the U.S.
The government funding also does not finance a lot of profits. Some of big pharma. Overhead is modest - in the range of 2 - 5 % for the public insurance agencies. The profits for pharmacies and doctor practices finance a "wage" that is appropriate for the specialists - but not beyond that. some more for dentists or specialists - but it is not extravagant.
The agency of Iceland could buy with other nations, they can have a pretty good idea what nations with 3, 30, 85 million people are paying. No doubt there is some behind the scenes cooperation of the non-profit agencies of several countries. (Why wouldn't they help out each other, they do not compete, nor do they need to make a profit or please shareholder). No chance to rip off the Vikings.
Using the meds is complicated and intransparent for the patients and the agency cannot micromanage that - but the doctors are free to use them as they see fit - and they have NO profit motive.
Healthcare is a terrible fit for the free market. The free market and the for-profit motive only work if the actors have about the same power. That is not the case with healthcare (no delaying of the purchase, an extremely complex service.
Even doctors consult specialists if they get sick - and that is only about optimal treatment not even about the cost side. No "we do not buy at all" like you can do with consumer goods. And the service can be very costly.
Government regulation - even IF well intentioned - cannot compensate for the inherent massive advantage of the big for-profit players - they will always be ahead 2 steps of the regulators or 3 steps ahead of the patients.
Countries with single payer have for the most part eliminated the profit motive from the systems. Small !! private doctor practices and pharmacies (they are not allowed to organize in chains to not even start troubles). They have a contract with the non-profit agency. So while they are independent - it is not very entrepreneurial.
The profits pay for the wage/income of the doctor. They are doing well, but they are not making money hand over fist. And they cannot strongarm the agency or the patients.
They can of course be "private" w/o a contract and bill the patients directly. Maybe 15 - 20 % of small practices do that. Either because they do not get a contract, or they have a speciality that is not covered by the public agency but attrative enough to get patients - like accupuncture. Some dentists are private too - or if the doctor is a capacity.
Per region only a certain number of doctors and pharmacies get a contract. Enough for some choice for the patients and the doctors / pharmacies all have a chance to have enough business.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Try EFT (meridian tapping) for pain and anxiety - Seriously ! - See eftuniverse(dot) com - run by Dawson Church * Meridian tapping calms down the Amygdala.
Since it works on a central part of the human brain (or the processing of information) - it has a lot of uses for medical AND psychological afflictions. So don't be astonished at the wide range of areas where people use it.
Pain is something the brain "provides" as a means to secure safety and survivial. ** Pain comes from processing information. That is why people can have pain from amputated limbs. The physical base isn't there - the patient is having pain in a non-existent bodypart.
But the brain is still running a routine of the usually physically damaged limb that used to be there.
Ongoing pain can get a life of it's own beyond the usefulness for survival. It can become a self-fuelling routine. That is why it is worth to give EFT a try with pain - it does not change any physical condition in your system of course BUT it might alter the response of the brain to the signals or sideline a pain routine.
And EFT has a good track record with anxiety (because it calms the amygdala)
** There is a very, very rare genetic condition where people are unable to feel pain and it is really dangerous for them, the parents of such kids have to guard them constantly and bad things happen to them because they are not protected by the ability to feel pain).
The motto regarding EFT / Meridian Tapping is "Try it on everything" - and as it is easy and does not cost much time and no money - so why not. (Provided that you will not neglect to seek professional medical help if a condition does not get better - using common sense and discretion)
* Dawson Church might be a good start (introduction video - for free), you can browse the archive for pain. - just stay clear of of the all too commercial sites and videos on youtube heralding EFT (and courses to pay for and what not).
I also like the crowd of the U.K., empathic and not salesy, good down to earth content: Gwyneth Moss, she is one of the organizers behind EFT Gathering U.K. (and a very experienced practicioner herself).
There are plenty of good and free resources on the web of responsible EFT practicioners. (Not to say you could not engage the paid help of a professional. Online or in person - some doctors, psychotherapists also have adopted EFT or Meridian Tapping into their toolbox. And an experienced practicioner might be of help too - even if they are legally not allowed to work directly at health issues).
But there is definitely value in having tested the method as a lay person, it is ALSO an easy to learn and easy to use self help tool (so fumbling rookies can have success right away, while not even getting it all right - while an experienced practicioner can be helpful to increase your success rate or help with those issues where the self-help approach does not work for you.)
So whatever you might do with the help of a professional - being able to do homework can boost your success.
Dawson Church has a large archive of stories of use of EFT (you can search for pain, anxiety etc. Browse the stories to get a feel how others - users or practicioners - used the methode in a specific case).
Good luck to you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Easier to order a shutdown and mandate mask wearing if it does not harm your economy that much. In Europe Iceland reacted very reasonable. Well it for sure did help, that major industries in Iceland were not hit. Tourism in February and early March in Iceland is slow. Fishing is big (no problem), and they do not have many international business travellers either. As opposed to France, Germany, Italy, U.K., Netherlands, ....
In Austria, Switzerland, Italy, France, Germany, Spain ... they had the end of winter tourism. In the Southern European counties where you have a lot of destinations for sightseeing (think Italy, but also the old cities of Spain), it was the start of spring tourism, there it can nice but not too warm in Feb, and they have the blossom of almond, orange trees, etc. Ideal for sightseeing tourists.
The winter skiing season was excellent till end of February - record numbers if this had been a regular year, and they could have gone on till March or even April depending on the altitude (good snow fall, good consumer mood, economy doing O.K. or better, so the well established middle class and above spends money on vacations).
Carnival and other folclore "let's chase out winter" mass events exist in most of these countries. They are a widespread European tradition. (in some cases they are an international touristic attraction even, like in Venice, or attracting droves of locals and some travelling within the country).
Finally the start of outdoor warm season sports in the lower altitudes, escpecially soccer (mass events that were also allowed in late February).
U.S. expats caught in the lockdown in the most hit zone in Italy (they are pastors). "When they closed down church and cancelled soccer events in Italy we knew it was serious".
Not much of that applies to Iceland (or let's say South Dakota), they were not hit early and their industries do not depend on travellers, they do not host large events like that.
Likewise some U.S. states that did not rely that much on tourism could easier justify a lockdown to their hospitality industry. Or people live rural, so they were not the first were it spread.
the situation in states and nations in March, April, May are TOO RANDOM to just throw the numbers together and say: those who mandated masks had 2 % less growth of cases (that is an average).
For ethical reasons you cannot do real live tests. Not letting people wear masks when you are convinced they give some protection and then let's see how many more (on average) are infected.
2
-
2
-
Jimmy criticizes Dr. Fauci because he went along with "wearing masks by regluar people does not help much, if anything. We do not need to mandate it" and NOW Dr. Fauci admitted, he supported that claim to prevent a run on masks which would have hit those who needed masks the most then (March, April).
It is more complicated, among other things the science was NOT clear then (nor is it settled now, but then even less insight), the novel corona virus is unchartered territory, and it is not a European / American tradition to wear masks. It is however in Asia, and they also did have the stocks and THEY produce them. They could mandate mask wearing without a run on masks and provide them at low costs and in sufficient volumes.
Neither the U.S. nor other wealthy nations prepared in Feburary (when the experts warned already) and when they should have ramped up production in a WW2 style effort. Or prepared their domestic manufacturers that they could be forced having to produce them.
It is a cultural norm to wear masks even in the cold and flu season in Asia. Even if you only have a harmless cold and a runny nose, it is the polite thing to wear a mask when meeting other people, and the social pressure exists to comply with that norm. (We should adopt that, could save lives even in normal flu season).
The West was not prepared did not have enough masks for the population, not even in countries like Germany.
Germany had a coordinated, mature response to corona virus, and fast relief packages, so the population was less TENSE about lockdown and the whole situation. There was a minor run on toilet paper, but that ended fast, and nothing like the craze in the U.S. The shelves of retail were well stocked.
Europeans do have sick leave, and healthcare free at the point of service, and it was clear, they would get testing and healthcare for free - but even in Germany some morons stole masks from open containers in hospitals (major quantities, a few missing masks would not have made the news).
If it is "everbody is on their own" like in the U.S. and I- got-mine-screw-you, and there is scarcity and a real risk to lose everything, if it is not even clear what will be with healthcare costs or relief measures during an effing PANDEMIC - then SCARCITIY MINDSET and FEAR to be the one that is left behind, becomes the dominant mindset - which leads to all kind of irrational fear based behavior.
Professional MASKS are arguably more useful / life saving, scarce, indispensable than toilet paper. consumers hoarded it for use at HOME. if no paper is to be had you can ration use and keep yourself clean at home. People still had running water, washing machines, wash clothes (or T shirts they could cut up) to keep themselves clean.
Toilet paper is already mass produced and USED by every one to the extent that the human digestions requires it.
Masks are produced outside the country. the whole population already needs and uses toilet paper (and can hardly need that much more when sick apart from some diarrhea, but that would not even increase demand by 20 %). But outside of medicine, masks are mainly used in manufacturing (food) and construction or DIY.
No ramping up of toilet paper production was necessary. But the production of masks needed MASSIVE increasing.
If the Asian plants would have produced simple masks (because the masses bought them up and at higher prices, due to the OFFICIAL recommendation) - they would not have had the capacities for the more professional masks that are necessary for medical staff and were not on stock in sufficient volumes.
Andrew Cuomo said that the STATES competed and OUTBID each other for medical equipment. That was when New York was at the height of the crisis. Because there was no FEDERAL coordinated response to make the materials available in the states that THEN needed them most and at reasonable prices.
Italy did not get help when they needed it the most - but once the neighbour countries realized they could control the situation their hospitals were not overwhelmed, enough ICU beds - Germany and Austria took in CoVid-19 patients from Italy (military transported them). Adapted trains transported patients from Paris to other regions in France where the hospitals still had capacities.
Plus invoking the Defense Production act. Not only for show like Trump did, but stepping fast and strongly on the toes of domestic manufacturers.
In an ideal world the admin would have done a dry run and planning with the industry in February already. Ready to execute the plan and jump into action at March. But the big donors had showered Trump campaign and RNC with money, so that did not happen.
Even fabric masks (cotton) are good enough for laypersons. Less investment: manufacturing chain busy making them, domestic production, self-reliance of the DIYing population, comfortable to wear, users can produce as they like them, and adjust the design). Even a loose shawl is better than nothing (for a shopping consumer), not if you are in a ventilated building for long time.
But even if a rational, capable government would have pushed for a DIY effort to sew masks for regular people in order to leave the industrial capacities for healthcare workers, it would have been taken as signal by many to BUY industrially produced masks and hoard them.
Dr. Fauci was caught between a rock and a hard place - he chose the essential workers (in medicine) over the rest of the population. That was a rational way to handle it, it was not his fault, that he had no better alternatives.
Could they have tried to activate the U.S. DIY spirit and avoid a run on masks ? Maybe. A good president could have pulled it of - and it would have triggered a spirit of the country pulling together engaging the suburban mums, that have time for sewing.
A president that settles the issue of healthcare costs, and assures voters and smaller businesses that they will not be thrown under the bus - might have been listened to, when pleading to not hoard toilet paper and leaving the professional masks for our heroes: medical staff, firefighters, ambulance drivers.
Citizens stuck at home could have CONTRIBUTED and would have felt much better. DOING something means CONTROL, and they would have felt as part of something bigger. This was the spirit in the U.K. at the beginning of and during WW2 including the bombing that hit the civilians. (Keep Calm And Carry On. Everyone has to do their bit).
Medical staff has MUCH HIGHER ongoing EXPOSURE, they need better masks. The producers could have pitted mass production for regular folks versus what the healthcare providers have to pay to make the ASIAN manufacturers produce the better masks for medical staff. Which need and deserve protection the most. Plus keeping medical workers healthy is crucial or the healthcare system will break down.
If lots of doctors and nurses and ambulance drivers are getting sick, even if they retunrn after 3 weeks, they are very much missed. And the U.S. or Western governments could not put pressure on the manufacturers because it has all been outsourced.
This was the situation Dr. Fauci had to navigate. An inept, unpreapared admin, an idiotic president in denial that cares only for his reelection and his grifting schemes. A president that had even dismantled what the former admin had put in place - prompted by the 2013 Ebola crisis. 'cause Obama. No stocks of protective equipment or preparations (that needs funding).
A run on masks and price gouging by manufacturers would have come, the idiots in the U.S. even created a run on toilet paper and THAT is produced in the U.S. and there never was a shortage (of course it will not be on the shelves when people buy all of a sudden what they need in months.
The distribution and manufacturing is geared towards the usual reasonable quantities. Most people have a few rolls at home as reserve, and you CAN make do as consumer at home and "ration" toilet paper if the shit hits the fan ;).
But medical staff cannot improvise around their PPE. And if the large (Asian) manufacturers are busy (and well paid) to prodcue the simple masks for the masses, they will not produce the masks for medical staff.
2
-
2
-
Carter had to deal with the aftermath of the oil crises. that ravaged ALL developed nations. Did not have good economic advisors (as clueless as everbody else aobut money creation).
Good wages, high employment, high taxation for the rich - had produced a complacent middle class - who thought they had pulled it off all by themselves.
They had profited from the New Deal economy - but did not realize it. The lesson were forgotten, and the "haves" eager to finally get rid of the New Deal restrictions were doing their best to shape public opinion. The only thing that kept the balance was low unemployment.
That is why the Soviet Union was immediately villified as soon as they were not needed anymore to do the heavy lifting in Europe against the German army.
(FDR died in spring 1945, and the progressive and very popular Wallace had been sidelined. Instead of that war monger Truman became President - first as VP being promoted, than winning elections).
Unemployment rose during the oil crises - and it would have anyway. The 40 hour week was introduced in 1940 in the US, since then a lot of automation had happened, computers, women joining the workforce, contintued immigration.
it would have been the time to overhaul the system - but not one leader in the West understood (their understanding of the economy was from the 19th century).
A gradual reduction of the work time would have been reasonable.
Between 1947 and 1970 productivitiy rose by 112 % (more than doubled, most of it was given to the workers in form of rising wages, so the stuff that was produced found buyers !, average wages adjusted for inflation + 97 %, so that is almost a doubled purchasing power)
after 1970 - 2013 plus productivity 69 %, wages plus 8 or 9 %.
The workers lost their negotiation power because of higher unemployment. That was caused by automation etc. - and later because the political elites colluded with Big Biz to enable outsourcing = "free" "trade" deals - pitting the workers of poor and rich countries against each other.
the alternative: another reduction of work time, the gains of productivity are given in time not in wages, so the wages stay the SAME (so same purchasing power for workers/consumers, same amount of goods produced in shorter time or with fewer people, same profit for the companies). And the developing countries would get the same deal as the citizens of the West after WW2. Wages rising with productivity (they could right away implement the technology of the West) would trigger the same boom.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Only wealthy people could afford the gamble of having a healthcare policy with high decuctbiles or a high degree of uncetaintiy. (they can come up with the out of pocket expenses). Low(er) income people cannot afford to NOT have good and full coverage. - It is a sneaky way to obfuscate that many people cannot afford appropriate insurance coverage and will not get healthcare worthy of a first world country:
If those "representatives" are honest they would admit they do not care and are not willing to bother the rich with taxation and / or cut the excessive profits.
But that is politically not possible so they offer contracts that seem to be affordable but INCREASE INTRANSPARENCY. Contracts that are NOT comparable - and kick the risks and the payments down the road.
Take 10,000 peole. Some of them will need treatment. Many (most) will be lucky and only a few will be hit by high costs.
One way to organize healthcare is to run the numbers, find out the statistical costs for the whole group * and divide it per person.
Have good contracts with the providers of care (even better let them be non profits - still with a well negotiated contract, that will bring costs down).
Add modest adminstrative fees for a non-profit insurance ageny (2 - 5 %). There you go.
Then you have the transparent, upfront costs in a streamlined system. No bad surprises later. No need for a bureacracy that decides who has what contract, which preexisting conditions and gets what coverage.
Everyone gets what is necessary - the doctors decide what is necessary and which tools of a first world medical system they are going to use.
Even such a cost-efficient system is costly: on average 5,000 - 6,000 USD for every person per year in most wealthy nations. That means for a family of four 20,000 USD per year and upwards. That is a lot of money.
If the individual contributions are intended to be affordable so that EVERYONE can participate (and gets coverage for dependent family members w/o extra costs) - there must be generous government funding. Which goes however into a cost- efficient system.
Advantage: efficient streamlined, the best for the population, no worries, no hassle
Problem: upper middle class and rich people have to help out (taxes) AND
healthcare which is a major part of the economy is mostly off-limits for the "investor class"
Plus the potential patients /the insured are UNITED. They are a political force that will not put up with b.s. and the system is so transparent / simple that they know what is going on.
Either all of them get a treatment - or no one. No games of "divide and conquer". Or that people have contracts that are not comparable and are split up by their individual risks, deductibles, the luck of having a large employer, etc.
All potentially have the risk - but only a few people get actually hit. Which is good for sneaky politician. They would rather not deal with a unified group that has a potential risk (and wants a system that deals upfront with it and be done).
Disingenuous politicinas prefer to have only to deal with the relatively few unfortunate for which the risks manifest. the complicated system / contracts makes it look like each case is individual and "everyone is on their own".
People experience the systemic problems when they are already stressed out. (the other unified group can fetch their pitchforks / get the yellow vests when they do not even as indiviudals have problems. Because of "everyone gets the same" the problem of one is the problem of all.
The politicians that do not arrange the system better also do not want to deal with the backlash of the unified and much larger group. With transparent contributions in advance for FULL coverage but too high prices or too little public funding all of the insured would have higher contributions. They either cannot afford it (or they do not like it ) - so there the political trouble starts.
Deductibles are a way for politicians who do not want to provide necessary funding and / or cut excessive profits of the industry to mask TOO high upfront premiums.
such contracts also make it easier to blame the citizens that were lured into taking the gamble and realistically could not have paid the contract with the honest price tag.
They underinsured should have been more responsble, did not read the fine print, were too dumb to understand the contract, should have gotten a better paying job, etc.
High deductibles and intransparent costs also hide the high profits and the high adminstrative costs much better than a system where people know the full costs in advance.
No one really knows WHAT the costs could be and IF the insurance will pay - until they are in the situation.
Compare that to the citizens of wealthy countries with single payer. They know the costs (affordable wage deductions) and no or insignificant bills when they need treatment.
What do they get ? whatever is the most recent / effecitve treatment at that time. the catalogue of what is covered is constantly updated to include new developments - and then the treatment is available for everyone if they need it.
it is also hard to defund the system when low-income to affluent people use the same hospitals and get the same treatments.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Spanish Flu and this virus likely have a comparable mortality rate. But CoVid-19 may have the higher complication rate (people may survive but need intense care). Cynically speaking: in most cases people survive the flu *, if not they are usually dead within a week, and not much of a hassle for the healthcare system. They do not need the ICU for 2 - 5 weeks, and then they may or may not survive.
Spanish flu was a version of the swine flu (I think so, not of the corona family), so it was somewhat different (mechanisms that spread it, symptoms, complications, typical effects on the body) than the novel corona virus. Plus it mainly hit people till the age of 40.
If an infectious disease can spread like a wildfire - if you have open society, travel, and ecomony then "less deadly as percentage than we thought" does nothing for you: It is a NUMBERS GAME.
It means it is very contagious and that easily compensates for lower death rates. - if the number of infected persons can grow exponentially you can fill the hospitals, ICU beds and morgues even with "lower" percentages the case numbers just have to be high enough.
At some point - if we would let it spread - there WILL be some base immunity. After all the Spanish Flu also run its course, 2 years and 50 million dead people later. Same with The Plague. It is not sure we will get a safe ! vaccine earlier.
SARS-Cov-2 isn't record setting contagious btw (many infectious diseases are in the same range) - more than the common flu and cold, but likely comparable to Ebola, tuberculosis, HIV. Polio might be higher. Never mind measels (much higher). It is sneakier in the way it spreads, and it is NEW, so no base immunity, no treatment drugs, and no vaccines.
There is no light asymptomatic form of Ebola. We all would much rather be infected with Sars-CoV-2 than the Ebola virus - but the authorities can control Ebola outbreaks much better. See 2013: the African nations and WHO had asked for months for help. Only when it really became a crisis to the point where it could be imported into the rich nations, the first world countries jumped into action. The poor African countries did not have the medical systems to deal with it, but with help if was possible to contain it, and that happened fast.
There is no light form of Ebola, and if modern medicine is involved they CAN follow the infection chain: quarantine, treat people and stop it, or bury the dead properly. CoVid-19 is not nearly as deadly, and has not such a high complication rate (hospitals, intensive care) but it is much more sneaky in its spread (asymptomatic spreaders, people spread it when they just develop symptoms).
That is why it is much harder to contain and why it is so much more of a headache for governments and epidemiologists.
The current strains of Ebola do not give us headaches (in countries with a modern medical system). Heaven forbid the strain would get more OR in the same way contagious as CoVid-19:
Many light cases, that spread it before they know they have it. People that might have it, but still go to work. You risk that as young person with CoVid-19 especially in the U.S. where many have no sick leave (and a lot of homeless people).
If people would suspect they have Ebola they might seek help earlier. And given how terrible the disease is, even the ruthless big donor serving U.S. government would be promted to provide that early free care, testing and sick leave as to avoid spread. But now they - in a cavalier manner - assume that the wealthy elderly can be kept safe, by buying services. And they can of course isolate much more comfortably if they have a house a garden.
Even 80 year old have a fighting chance to survive the infection if they are generally healthy so far. Good luck if Ebola would strike. So then the rich and wealthy (who need their cleaners, gardeners, cooks, people that have the usual infection risks) have an excellent reason to demand that the reasonable thing is done. Sick leave and protection from being fired, mandated quarantine (and help with that), and free treatment and testing.
I took the Trump admin quite a while to get at the point where CoVid treatment and testing would be free. That was a no brainer in most wealthy nations.
The concept of herd immunity is that 50 - 90 % of the population must have at least some immunity against the virus.
The estimate for CoVid-19 is that 70 % herd immunity would be necessary (it is higher if the disease is more contagious)
2
-
2
-
@Demodaze1 straight from the book of unreflected * right wing talking points. Republic is the opposite of monarchy. Both can be democratic (free, secret and fair elections) or dictatorships. - A democratic monarchy is a constitutional monarchy, at least they call it that in Europe.
Norway, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, U.K. They have elected governments. And a constitution. So being born into a certain family is not enough, the consitution regulates the rights of citizens and how governance is executed and how the government is formed.
Having a constituion does not mean it is a democracy. Iran has a constitution. They even have elections.
Typically most Republics have an active government that is formed after ELECTIONS (and the head is often called Chancellor or Prime Minister) and they often also have a president (see Czechia, Austria, Germany, ....) The president is then one pillar in the spearation of powers, often the head of the military and is the counterweight to the power of the government.
The active head of government of France (a Republic) is also called president.
the presidents that are more figurehaeads (in normals times) are the last stop to a coup - in normal times their role is more ceremonial (But when they refuse to sign a law they can get some attention).
In monarchies that are democracies the monarch fulfills the role of the president - as the counterweight to parliament and government.
Example: The Queen of England and the president of Austria give the order to form a government after elections. Typically that will be the party with the best result. Even if that party does not have the 50 % that you realistically need in a parliamentary democracy to be able to govern and get anything done.
A party could decide to have a minority government (it happens rarely) but usually it means they will shop for a coalition partner.
Now if the president is for some reason not O.K. with the Conservative party (let's say they got 35 %) he or she can order another party to try and form the government - for instance a coalition between a left leaning party (let's say they got 28 % and had the second best result) - but if they form a coalition with the centrist party that got 23 % they have the necessary majority for a govenment that can get things done).
The president for sure would be under pressure why he or she does not go the traditional route, they are not expected to play favors, almost always the party with the best result has the first try - but they have the authority to do that.
if the Conservatives find no party willing to work with them they might have ideas to form a minority government. It is rare but not unheard of.
The president can accept that approach OR give another party the chance to seek for coaliton partners. Sad day for the Conservatives they had the best result and end up being the opposition anyway.
For that reason there is no "wasted vote" it is the popular vote anyway and you never know. Small opposition parties can become king makers.
Former long time governing parties find themselves in the role of opposition.
Likewise the Queen could refuse to allow the party with the most votes the first try. Not sure if that has ever happened, but she could. For instance if Labour would have won the election but the leader of Labour could not convince her that they will find a coalition partner.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Obama on "Relax Mode" = charming, witty, engaging AND FLUENT. Versus Obama on "Cautious Mode" - the latter he used as POTUS when speaking about foreign affairs, the State of the Union, etc.. Very, very carefully "crafting" the message, SLOWLY releasing the words, as to not accidentally giving too much away - or saying something that he/the cabinet would regret later. (Like offending the Russians, Chinese, the U.S. Deep State or the "Israel First" crowd. Or - gasp - other Big Donors).
Nothing wrong with POTUS being careful about what he says in official statements (number 45 is woefully inadequate in that department) - but an ex-president on that "mode" because he needs to "defend" his pet project ?
Jimmy Carter does not have to "weigh" each syllable that carefully - well he has nothing to be ashamed of - and if someone wants to criticize him for some off the cuff, relatively honest, relatively unfiltered (*) statement - let them come.
* I am sure Carter still does not say everthing that he thinks (or knows) - but he can afford to communicate authentically.
Carter also mentions that he raises the money for his REAL charities by writing a book occasionally. In his communications he does not mince words however to not endanger his book deals.
Obama cannot speak his mind - he got a very good book deal (WHO is supposed to BUY all these books - because the publisher will need to sell an awful lot of them to cover Obama's contract, their costs and then some. - it is almost as if they KNEW that they would get orders and help with marketing / launching the book (which is also a huge cost).
And the 400k he got for the Wallstreet speech. He is a cheap sell-out, really. Given HOW MUCH he did for the banksters and how much they owe him. ... well maybe they want to be discreet, they can hand him some consulting contracts later, when the public is not that interested anymore.
I do not think Obama would spill the beans if they did not compensate him for his collusion - but the other opportunistic aspiring sell-outs are watching closely. If Obama does not get paid properly it would not be good for "morale".
2
-
@patrickwinn9700 I am sure the Nazis lied about the stats, but there is no doubt that Germany had a spectacular economic recovery between March 1933 and August 1939. Then WW2 started when they invaded Poland, and from then on they could seize the assets of occupied countries (which made up for the men that were drafted and in the army, occupying and invading other countries).
In countries like Poland the also kidnapped people and forced them to do unpaid labor in Germany (to replace German men and women in manufacturing, farm work etc). There was some racism going on, they did not kidnap people from the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, France for that purpose, but they subjected Eastern Europenas to that, they were considered less than. That also happened to half Jews, they were not put in the camps if they were not suspected of any resistance but were subject to forced labor.
I am sure they seized the gold of annexed "allies" Austria and Czechia in 1938, but they did not plunder these countries for instance their railway infrastructure, steel, timber, art ... They wanted to have the population on their side, so it was not like occupying France, or Netherlands, ... or worse in Poland, Ukraine.
But in the years before WW2 started they had to pull their own weight (and they built up the military, big time). Built streets, railway, some public housing.
Keynsian deficit spending. Like FDR did in the U.S. only bolder (because they prepared for war). I guess the New Deal spending of the U.S. was not bold enough, in 1940 the boom started, that was the war economy in the U.S.
for the economy it does not matter, if you build houses, tanks, cars .... actually a nation gets more bang for their buck for civilian spending. But they only ever find the big bucks for military spending and war.
If the Race to the Moon project had been swapped for affordable quality public housing for the masses (incl. middle class), they would not have "found" the money. The U.S. needed satellites that was a national security issue for sure after the Soviets had launched Sputnik.
But they did not "need" to put a human on the moon, that made things complicated and expensive.
It was an ego exercise.
They always find money for real war, but never for the war on poverty.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bernlin2000 AOC: "It is not a "takeover" - I want to bring the party HOME. Well, it will have to be a hostile takeover by the Progressives. - It looked - for some time - like Labour in U.K. would be successful in taking over the party AND ! its institutions.
But the Left wing of Labour hesistated when they had the upper hand. (there were good reasons to not do that - but in hindsight, they could as well have risked it).
The dark forces NOW are not hesistant and have no scruples. The neoliberals / Blairites try to reverse that development now.
Corbyn is less calculating and more honest and "undiplomatic" about his stance (incl. Israel) - so he was an easy target for "antisemitism" etc.
Sanders is more savvy in not giving them ammuniation (and being a Jew he is a harder target for antisemitism. In his case the enemies think "misogynist" would be a good strategy).
Of course there is the question when "Chose your battles wisely" or "Do not say all what you think about important and controversial issues" - becomes weakining compromise. He has gotten bolder on Israel (but he makes it around Netanyahu).
He calls out healthcare insurers and big pharma - but not he for-profit hospital chains. Does Sanders know they are very problematic as well ? Of course !
It is easy to bring drug prices down - you only need political will. It will not shake up the system for patients or doctros.
The insurers are glorified middle men, no one will miss them, and they do not add to the service. BUT: the doctors and hospitals ARE a necessary and limited resource. When the owners of for profit hospitals riot, that may cause real problems when implementing reform.
In the 1960s the powerful American Medical Association almost prevented Medicare. Then insurers were private NON-PROFITS, it was illegal to profit from healthcare (insurance) then. That changed under Nixon.
Sanders should criticize the make-up of the superdelegate list. Will he dare to ? Will he remind voters to CHECK if their restistration has been altered and if they are still on the voter rolls ?
I do not think Sanders is a coward or "weak" on a personal level. It would have been so tempting and easy to give in - since decades.
See Howard Dean. Or Rachel Maddow as example in the media.
Sanders is not so nice and agreeable (as many fans assume him to be) either, he said himself that he has a temper, can be grumpy. A hard worker, legendary for his energy, and very demanding towards his staff as well.
After the death of John McCain in an interview:
John and I saw that we had to do something abut the VA, his proposals for solutions were very different from mine, we had to compromise. He had a temper, I have a temper, it got loud sometimes. But in the end we found common ground and agreed on a bill.
Back to the U.K. and why Corbyn hesistated to clean house and unify the party on a message to render the media attacks pointless
The neoliberal and tabloid media (owned by rich people) joined the witch hunt. Plus of course his many enemies in the party.
The U.K. has also the Winner-per-district-takes-all system (FPTP) which results in 2 relevant parties only. (It is a little better in the U.K. because they have campaign finance laws, so not unlimited spending possible. Grassroots and new parties have a fighting chance in the uphill battle).
Corbyn never dared to kick out the backstabbers for fear of splitting the vote and handing the Tories a win even in safe Labour districts. For the same reason the backstabbers never dared to break away.
Corbyn is nice, compassionate, principled man, maybe not ruthless enough for politics.
So the backstabbers could continue to undermine him (from within the party) and collude with the media, even after Corbyn had graciously and generously glossed over their various attempts to undermine him. He did not exploit it when grassroots took over all the important committees in the party, when the result of the snap election 2017 was much better than expected.
The party never united in ONE strategy and and in shared ! soundbites against the ridiculous claims of anitsemitism. Calling it correctly a deflection strategy - and "We will not dignify that with an answer, now let's talk about the ECONOMIC issues that are really important for the voters".
The backstabbers would have gladly undermined that line of defense.
The media shills could have talked circle jerks about "anti-semitism": loyal Labour representatives just would not have played the game.
Jews are only a tiny minority among the voters (although over represented in media and politics).
you could have gotten the impression Labour would round up Jews as soon as they would be elected.
The disingenuous smear campaign was effective after they did it for years (pretty much like Russia, Russia in the U.S.) . They had Corbyn and Labour very often on the defense, (which makes you look weak even if you have good answers in most cases) and they could talk negatively about Corbyn and Labour but NOT about the popular policies.
Add the Brexit mess to it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Please consider marketing rules when sharing on social media. Information overload and too little time - if you get the first line right the people in your circle WILL read it (humans are very curious, evolution made us that way).
Catchy headlines: 1 USD to vastly improve the Democratic debates. or Attack dog for genuine We The People candidates. Or: the unlikely candidate that could let the good candidates shine (that headline needs some more work).
Or An 88 year old fool / patriot entered the race - and why I support him TOO or WHY I donate a few bucks
It is also important to let them know they should do it right away, because there is not much time left (beg. of June - see tweet of May 6th, they did not spell out an exact date).
After the catchy headline the LOW costs the urgency (as little as 1 USD, but only till beg. of May) AND your personal involvement is the next important thing - it will matter to the people who like you (you are not just flooding them with info, you already DID something).
I think many people that have sympathies for Warren, Sanders, Gabbard, Yang never have heard of Gravel. It is NOT immediatelyobvious for them WHY they would give to another campaign or an "old fool" - so it is a good idea to let them know the reason why Gravel would be so VALUABLE.
(and I think it could be fun as well).
Gravel can be fierce when telling it like it is (ruffling feathers, calling out inconsistencies, kicking some behinds - chose the language your audience can digest) - the candidates that COULD win (or position themselves for a cabinet position with a strong campaign) MUST be more CAUTIOUS.
you better spell that that argument out in the headline or the next sentence.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@William1866 The U.S. system already has a lot of subsidies from the government - in the U.S. it just funds red tape, dysfunction and plenty of profits. I come from a lower income family with many children, I cannot imagine what that would have been like in the current U.S. system.
- in single payer system people must pay a percentage of wage, there is a cap, employer (all no matter the size) must match it. That gives full coverage, risks do not matter. Dependent family members included. Full coverage of course as well.
Which means that the single high income male shoulders some of the burden of a fellow collegue who happens to be a middle aged family man maybe with pre existing conditions (which is only fair, he raises the future tax payers, voters, entrepreneurs, workers, mothers and fathers).
Signing up takes 5 minutes at your new job. (you should know the full birth date of all your kids - been there - at the adminstrative side)
couldn't be easier (read no red tape, streamlined admin).
No bills when you need treatment. (again: easy, no chasing after money by doctors and hospitals. The insurance agency collects the money and pays the doctors and hospitals and pharmacies.
Not the slightest incentive to deny care or invent fees and do "creative billing".
First world medical facilities, everyone uses the same (it helps if the affluent share the facilities with the low-income people). In most cases the patients have a choice where they show up. No "out of network" nonsense. There will be referals of course or some specialized procedures are only done in larger hospitals.
No denial : not of coverage (that comes with the job, of course provisions also for people w/o job, single stay at home parents, retired, ...)
No denial of treatment or extra payments
Doctors decide about the treatment.
The wage deductions are affordable - so like in the U.S. the government must give additional funding.
That funds a public non-profit insurance agency with 3 % overhead, and non-profit hospitals (run by cities or the large ones by the states). Pharmacies and doctor practices are SMALL companies with a contract.
The only Big for-profit actor in the system is Big Pharma - they have internationally comparable, highly standardized products.
Non-profit national insurance agencies have no reason to guard their "information advantage" - like for profit insurers would do. Read: there is some transparency about the general levels of costs for drugs - in the EU in a market with plus 530 million people.
Hospitals, insurance agency, Big Pharma - all well taken care of - these are the worst offenders in the U.S.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well Sanders may have a frugal side: If your read the article, he lived poor and did not seem to care much. Very stubbornly followed the idea to run for higher office with that small independent party in the 1970s (they never made more than a few percent, the fight against the Vietnam war had run its course, they ran out of steam in the late 1970s).. - I recall someone mentioned that when he was elected to Congress (so age 50 and older, in the 1990s and later) he picked up his laundy from the dry cleaners.
Well, elected representatives are not allowed to dial after dollars or meet with lobbyists IN the House. So during miday (which is the best time to reach people) Dems and Repubs flock to nearby offices and dial after dollars in the "cubicles of sweat" No one likes that task but they MUST raise money for their campaigns AND the party, the aides have the lists with the names and some small talk info about wealthy and rich donors. The aides keep the politicians on task.
They have lists on the black board who raised what money - it is like multilevel marketing or a callcenter.
Way to go: running for office to be one of the approx. 500 people that govern the country on the highest level (Congress has more power domestically than the president, the founders set it up that way) - just to have to do THAT.
A Republican spilled the beans when he was about to leave Congress - no doubt for a cushy position provided by a Big Donor (biz).
They also call the donors of the other party (they must be disclosed, so public information). If a person / company gave a lot to the Repubs they can be "expected" to at least give a part of that to the Dems. And the other way round. The potential donors understand the hint - you never know when you need someone influental for your interests and financial gain. (Donald Trump said that in the primaries on the stage: They call and I give, but I know where to call when I need someone).
When politicians do the hated work they are not wasting time on the measly 2,700 max donors. They go after larger prey.
Now, I assume fancy fundraising dinners (maybe with celebs) and meeting with bundlers are more pleasant and not as humiliating. But that is more for the big fish and the races that get a lot of attention.
Sanders never did fundraising THAT way (although he is known to have appeared at fundraising dinners of the Democratic party - but can you imagine him dialling after dollars ? - lol - ) - so of course he had time to pick up his laundry. Who knows ... he may have met regular people there, even gotten into a conversation with them ....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@BennyOcean By ANY metrics white people are the dominant group in the U.S. STOP WHINING. And the dominant group (white middle class Americans !) allowed the political process to be bought, beginning with Reagan and allowed Big Biz to take over.
The New Deal policies had also favoured white people, I am not sure if FDR was a racist or if he (gladly) bent to political realities. In the 80s the people that were doing quite well were unwilling to listen to Carter who told them they would have to save energy. The U.S. could be the top supplier / exporter of such technologies now - where fossil fuels are replaced by human ingenuity and labor. Read: good jobs in engineering and manufacturing.
But they ran after Reagan who continued Nixon's dog whistle policies.
Instead of lifting UP the poor minorities so that the whole country does the boring middle class gig (see Germany, Switzerland, France, Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, .... ) the covert undermining of the minority communities went on.
Reagan started a lot of bad projects- and Clinton put enthusiastically the last nails into the coffin. The white middle class voted for both of them (or shills on the other side of the aisle who would have done the exact same thing - see Mitt Romney for instance).
BTW: Germany or the Netherlands or France are NOT more homogenous than the U.S. (O.K. there may be more different groups in the U.S. What really matters is if you have at least ONE major constantly underprivileged group in the country.
With all the negative social / criminal consequences
In a society that shits on ALL poor people and everyone is on their own it is harder for those at the bottom to make their way up. Many - most - of white U.S. citizens took their chance in the Golden Era - 1950s - 70s to work their way up. So THEIR children do not have to be "exceptional" to make it. Just following the middle class script is good enough. Well, it used to be. Now the policies of the elites which they so complacently allowed to be dished out on the U.S. underclass and the poor poor people in developing countries comes back to bit them in the behind.
If people are poor there will be more crime. ONLY if the poor people have a strong community social pressure and cohesion will prevent that. Our modern life tears families and communities apart. In the case of black communities it was mass incarceration that helped to undermine the communities.
The now wealthy European nations were homogenous in the 1950s or 60s. But then came a lot of work migration. People from Greece, Italy, Yugoslavia, Turkey (poor muslim, the wealthy and well educated Turks stayed home). In the former colonies they got people from overseas (U.K, Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, France, ....)
The European nations just do not "perceive" themselves as "immigration" countries or use that term. But in practical terms they are. The process of getting citizenship is not nearly as complicated, long and expensive as in the U.S. That means that a lot of work migrants from the 70s, and later got citizenship and do not stand out in the official numbers. See Germany, where a lot of Turks have dual citizenship.
In the U.S. the dominant group complacently let deregulation of media, finance, environmental protection, oil drilling, money in campaigns happen. They also have no qualms if the U.S. government assists Big Biz to exploit and oppress the poor people in developing countries * and starts wars and regimes changes all the time.
Turns out a polical class that is vile like that also does not take good care of their OWN normal ! citizens. NOW in the last stage the system turns at most people AT HOME - even at the former white middle class - Who knew ?!
2
-
2
-
Vienna 1848, the palace of the emperor. He demands to know: "What is this noise outside, why are people assembling outside, and why are they so loud ?" - "Your majesty, they are starting a revolution" - "Are they allowed to do that ?! ......"
He was a little dumb, the royal family hastily left Vienna, The revolution was crushed (unfortunately), his nephew took over (and sooner than expected instead of his feckless uncle).
Even 18 year old Franz Joseph was narrow minded, backwards oriented - and was in charge for decades, he was the one that signed the declaration of war against Serbia in 1914 that officially started WW1 (to his defense he may have expected that war would come anyway, the UK started to prepare for a war in 1913).
He died in 1916, another one of his nephews took over the empire in decline (but only for 2 years, with the end of WW2 the winners of WW1 made sure to end monarchy in the losing countries, the German and the Austrian Hungarian empire - only there).
2
-
2
-
1
-
Costs: Canada, rich European countries 5,000 - 5,500 USD, the US plus 9,000 (WORLD RECORD) the outliers are UK with ONLY 3.900,-- and Japan around
3,800. - source World Bank 2014, per capita healthcare expenditures in USD. - UK is doing great costwise, but there are complaints about waiting times, looks like the conservative government tries to defund the NHS to ram through a partial privatization. (Defunding means the public system will not work as well anymore and that provides the pretext for the "fix").
As for claims that the rich European countries have bad healthcare
services, waiting times - no they don't ! - as I know from experience (Austria
Germany, costs USD 5,400 resp. 5,600 / 8 resp 82 million inhabitants, in both
countries the citizens are on average older than in the immigration country
U.S. - which means a cost DISADVANTAGE, older people need more care and they
get the more costly treatments).
All other wealthy nations DO have private for profit and profitable
insurance companies - and health care is just not one of their business
niches.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Jonathan C. To be fair hydrolectric is only an option if the country is lucky enough to have the topography and streams for that. And ... what marketing genius came up with the term "natural gas" as it is used in the US. Like "natural crude oil"? It is fossil fuel, mainly methane. In the US it usually means fracked gas, a highly agressive method to extract gas from shale rock. (as opposed to or instance the gas fields of Russia where they can extract the gas just like that.
The bad thing is that it is almost unavoidable that Methane before it is burnt will leak (either during extraction or because of pipeline leaks). It is clean where it is burnt and the burning process can be very well controlled (ideal for industrial processes). There is this claim that coal has a much worse carbon footprint that Methane. That is only correct if the leaked quantity of Methane is not more than 2 % (if I remember correctly). Estimates are that the losses are much higher. Not that I am a fan of coal.
Methane is a greenhous gas - like CO2 but 28 times more effective. And when it finally breaks down in the atmosphere, a part of it becomes CO2, another fairly stable greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
With fracking there are the aggressive chemicals in the water, with which they break the gas out of the rock. Extraction may release dangerous elements from deep down in the earth (like mercury or radioactive elements). There is the use of huge quantities of water - they do not or cannot recycle the water. The risk to pollute aquifers, that cannot be cleaned, that water will stay poisoned maybe for thousands of years. Some companies have the lakes of the waste water in open ponds . Volatile Organic Compounds (highly toxic, these gases are really dangerous, think cancer, brain damage, especially dangerous for children, skin damage). In the video I saw the company had a fan over the pond to help with the evaporating. Not sure - the narrative was it decreases the volume of the waste water, they are supposed to take care of. I doubt that - maybe it is to decrease the content of the really bad stuff so they are allowed to dump it somewhere ? Anyway there are special expensive cameras that make these fumes visible - I saw that on the web (maybe a teaser for gasland).
And last but not least an increased risk for earthquakes. But only low to medium intensity, so no worry. Except that the industry is allowed to pump waste water - that can be from other industrial processes - into the earth. Of course an earthquake could open leaks in layers that were supposed to hold that poisonous waste water. So it could seep through cracks into areas where you don't want it.
What could possibly go wrong with natural gas in the US ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tim Kaine maybe isn't that bad (Jimmy called him a "right winger"). In person he seems to be a very nice guy. He was a missionary abroad (that is a mixed bag) - that COULD however mean he has a heart for disadvantaged people. And he experienced people living under poverty. That can help with a sensible human - shape their worldview. So he is maybe not so much of a rightwinger (not sure about his corporate votes and where he gets money from). Of course his private view on abortion differ from that of the party. Would he have defunded Planned Parenthood ? Hell, no. Would he be open to arguments, lets improve sex-ed, access to contraception. Let's make it easier for people to HAVE the kids (even the unplanned ones). - Maybe.
I think even Tim Kaine COULD have won the presidency - he might have had some appeal to Conservative voters. Because he IS GENUINELY CONSERVATIVE (like Jimmy Carter appealed to Southern Christian folks). - Like Sanders is "forgiven" for his progressive views (gay marriage, pro-choice)in his state. Burlington under Sanders as mayor become a refuge for queer people in the 80s !!! - It was like, he didn't think they should be discriminated against. Sure Burlington was much more progressive than the rest of rural Vermont. Still - this was BEFORE it was chic, this were the 80s in a 30,000 citizen town.
- The citizens KNEW he took a stand because he thought it was the right thing, as it was his habit to stand up for what he thought was right
Oh, well.
People will tolerate you to be honest and standing up for unpopular views if the total package is O.K. - it means you will be honest with policies that will affect them much more - like gentrification, taxation, energy policy, healthcare, .....
One could see that in effect when Sanders had a speech at Liberty U (during the primaries). In the Q & A of course abortion came up - "Here we will respectfully agree to disagree". The hall packed full with young students from conservative families. He was received very well, despite being pro choice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Gen. Wesley Clark learned in 2001: We are going to war with 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Liva, Somalia, Sudan, finishing off with Iran.
..... Iran never GOT money from the US (or elsewhere). ACCOUNTS (over which the US can exert control) that belong to Iranian citizens, corporations or maybe even the state had been FROZEN. In the Atom deal it was agreed that the sanctions would be lifted (when Iran adhered to certain requirements, that would take some months) and that the US would let the people to whom the money belongs access the money. Not sure if the accounts were de-frozen, the sanctions were NOT lifted but shortly after the Iran deal extended ! even though the Iranians did hold their part of the deal (as confirmed by the other parties that co-negotiated the Iran deal, Germany, Italy the International Atomic Engergy Agency).
So the sanctions are baseless, not that the US ever bothered about that when putting sanctions in place (Cuba). When the deal was signed I thought Iran had managed to get itself off the kill list - but no. If you remember how pissed off the Israelis and the Republicans were, maybe the Obama administration or the deep state wants to placate Israel (and American Jewish donors).
Of course the Obama administration is pissed off that Iran along with Russia helped Syria withstand the US regime change attempt. And last year ISIS was stronger, and Iran helped fight ISIS. Maybe Iran seems less useful than a few months ago.
The sad thing is that president Rouhani had to defend the deal against the hardliners in Iran as well. The president is usually not that powerful in Iran, but he played his cards well. The citizens were happy about the deal (maybe they thought they did not have the target on their back anymore). The US still being hostile against Iran weakens of course the position and internal power of the relatively moderate Rouhani - as if that was the intention of the US.
If the hardliners in Iran prevail, Iran will remain rigid and theocratic. If the country would open up (and the Iranians are more than ready for it, they are very young (average age) and interestingly very friendly towards US citizens. No need to give up on them, they are hungry to participate and communicate with the world, they are not Arabs but Persians, their culture is different. Women have to wear the headscarf (even tourists) but they can drive, hold a job, teach, be a TV anchor, go to college etc. Although they are Muslim and conservative when it comes to family values, they are not as extrem as the Saudis. Well the religious hardliners are as extrem as the Saudis, but I think the majority of Iranians would be glad to have a modern state foundation not the Sharia Law forced on them by some religious extremists.
1
-
Alexander (you know the Greek conquerer who died around 360 B.C) knew better. Troops can travel through Afghanistan, but the country is a military nightmare. 10 % is more flat or low hills, the rest is middle to high altitude. Mountains, valleys, caves, more remote areas than larger settlements, lots of opportunities for an underground army. As the Soviet Union found out as well. The US had armed the foreign mercenaries (Saudis etc.) = the jihadists with stinger rockets so that took care of the SU helicopters. The US wanted the Stinger rockets back after the SU left the country without having accomplished anything. The "rebels" thought otherwise.
So the SU army under a dictatorship (which is an strategic advantage in war times) could not succeed in Afghanistan but the US under Cheney/GWB in 2001 thought they could. (GWB prepared for that war in SUMMER 2001, 9/11 was the pretext to bomb Afghanistan and that war was started in Oct. 2001). Of course once civil order is destroyed and you have the mess, you cannot just leave the country to itself (well it would return to tribal wars and more likely another group like Taliban would take over, like the situation was in 2001 when GWB thought he had to intervene. ISIS finds it also attractive since the Russians and recently even the US give them trouble.
The only solution to avoid slaughter of civilians AND another safe haven for terrorism (Libya anyone - the US never learns) would be a costly longterm UN occupation aka peace keeping mission, ALL suppliers of weapons abstaining from supplying any weapons (incl. to the Saudis and others who might want to make the middle man) AND a long term economic program to help the Afghans. Maybe in 10 years time the country would be stable enough for self governing (and for an economy that does not depend on drugs - US soldiers guard poppy fields, Michael Moore claims that the brother of the Afghan president is the boss in the drug deal).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
you watched some videos of John Bolenbaugh, did you ? (Jordan Chariton from TYT Politics interviewed him, video title DAPL's Worst Nightmare: Big Oil EXPOSED By Whistleblower TYT Politics Everybody else, it is well worth your time P.S. Watched a Thom Hartman RT segment, he had a union guy in the studio, they talked about what he thinks about the Trump administration. DAPL was mentioned and that Trump granted it. The union guy: Yes we were always for that project, so that is good, Yes we know they are only temporary, but at least they are good paying jobs. And TPP gone is good, that is good too (here I agree). John Bolenbaugh in that Jordan C. video (more to the end): I am a union guy. I am not against pipelines per se. If they were thoroughly controlled and immediately repaired if they find a leak, there would be more than enough permanent jobs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No idea if Sanders sold out or was pressured or if he chose the lesser evil and absolutely wanted to keep Trump out of office.
However, the vacation lake house they got in summer 2016 for 600k they financed (at least partially) with the sale of the house which Jane had inherited from her mother.
And yes he has 3 houses now, 1 regular home in Burlington (where he was mayor), and a row house in D.C. (seems to be a usual solution for long time representative).
As mayor and then especially in Congress and Senate he got paid good salaries, I assume his wife had good positions when he became more influental in Vermont (board of an university etc.) and I guess his books are selling well. So it is entirely plausible they can afford the last purchase on their own. Moreover there is no way 600k do not show up in the books somewhere. Do you really think Sanders or the DNC would be that stupid to make themselves vulnerable ?
If a "bribe" is intended it is delivered in POSTITIONS - positions that allow a politician to get favours from donors. That could be:
1) Campaign donations: remember 27 USD per donation ! he does not need anyone to get that money
2) Politicians are not allowed to take money for personal gain while in office. But of course familiy members can have cushy jobs or impressively paid speaking gigs, or they get jobs as consultants - see Clinton Foundation. Or speaking fees for Bill Clinton.
3) And of course the big reward of the donors is AFTER the political career: Lobbyist jobs, consulting, think tanks, maybe in television, board member. And author of books that will be sold with the help of ... whoever. I suppose some memoires ARE bestsellers and would sell like regular books but some seem to be a front for financing an ex politician.
So DID Sanders get bribed by getting a position where he can make money for himself later (with the help of donors) ?
Or would he need the influence of the Democratic party to sell his books.?
I think it was smart from him to get the position of "Outreach" in the Democratic Party while being an Independent (he switched back immediately after he endorsed HRC and dropped out as presidential candidate of the Democratic Party).
He is not part of the machine - That means he could go Third Party without being accused of defection (well at least not by reasonable people)
AND he can leverage his strength - that he was able to fire up people with his message. That is what gave him influence in the race and he is widening that influence. He is given air time now on television - they cannot sweep him under the rug like they did.
If he criticizes (very mildly but anyway) the Democrats that defected the vote for his recent amendment (allowing import of drugs from Canada to the US to lower costs) - the Dems were not pleased. At all. The amendment would have passed with 6 more votes, 12 or 13 Democrats defected, even some Republicans voted for it (free market and stuff).
And there is not much they can do in retalitation when he calls them out. He does not need them - but they need him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ Gru ber I live in a (still) wealthy country in Europe and No, Socialism has not failed - it was never implemented on this planet * (see also Richard Wolff - Socialism for Dummies). As for Socialdemocratic principles they softened capitalism for some time, served many now wealthy countries well, right now neoliberalism is eroding the progress we made after WW2.
I can state that the left leaning (usually moderate) politicians after WW2 were most of the time folks with convictions and a spine. Being to the left in the 30s was not for the faint of heart. People who were out for money, fame and a career would not bother - and it became outright dangerous when the fascists took over (Italy, Germany, Austria, Spain, I think also Poland and Hungary were very rightwing before WW2).
A post war Austrian politician came from the concentration camp directely in the provisory government (the governmental "board" allowed by the Allied Forces). Of course some Social Democrats were lucky that they had the status of "high ranking political prisoners" - they were not kept in the worst camps and had a chance to survive.
When the wall in Berlin fell and the Soviet Union gave up the control of Poland, Eastern Germany, Hungary, etc. - I thought it would be the economic miracle all over again.
These countries had a usually well educated workforce, often with technical skills, cohesion within the population, low criminality rate. They had demand in consumer goods. Their societies were stable if somewhat restricted in their economic opportunity. The wealthy countries could provide technology and capital if needed. It would be a blast.
The Economic Miracle did not happen. Neither I or my fellow citizens, nor the politicians (incl. Kohl of Germany) or the media and the economists under the neoliberal spell realized that that post war recovery was due to good wages, high taxes, a strictly regulated financial sector and only somewhat fee market conditions with a lot of quotas, import restrictions, tariffs.
My country developed a thriving export industry in that time. No tax evasion or undermining the domestic workforce with outsourcing, free movement of labour (from countries that are much poorer) etc.
In short Western Europe, the U.S. and Japan could develop under relatively sheltered conditions while the newcomers in the 90s were unprepared to be suddenly exposed to the neoliberal onslaught. And it shows in the results.
* the Soviet satellite states had dictatorships, and their economic model was STATE CAPITALIS - and Lenin called it that when assessing the "progress of the revolution". (the state OWNED and more importantly CONTROLLED the MEANS OF PRODUCTION - not the workers as would be the crucial idea in Socialism/Marxism !)
The Bolshevics and Mao used a very popular idea in their bitterly poor countries, and they implemented populist elements (public healthcare, education). So there were a lot of Socialist elements (also that no one could control large real estate or large manufacturing sites).
They did not apply the MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT - the workers control the manufacturing and agriculture = means of production (where, what to produce, sales, hiring people, salaries - incl. for top management).
This IS DEMOCRACY IN THE WORKPLACE. Examples: the Kibbuz movement or co-ops (like Mondragon in Spain with 100,000 workers/owners).
Lenin, Stalin and Mao knew what they were doing when they left that deeply democratic (almost subversive ;) ) element out - this would not be compatible with a political dictatorship.
1
-
1/4 General Wesley Clark learned in 2001 !! : We will go to WAR WITH 7 COUNTRIES IN 5 YEARS, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, FINISHING OF WITH IRAN. That was decided a few weeks after 9/11, Afghanistan was already being bombed then, so it is not even mentioned on the US WAR AND GLOBAL DOMINANCE BUCKET LIST. Gen. Clark made that speech several times, if you have got time, watch the speech from fora.tv (here he gives also explanations and insights into the power politics of the Gulf War 1991 and the role of the Soviet Union /Russia). I promise it is WELL WORTH YOUR TIME and not boring (but you might get furious!). There are shorter clips with similar statements (4-5 minutes). I recommend one of the short Democracy Now clips because of the reaction of the auditory (that was a live interview on a stage).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ goonez the Cuba Crisis was in the 1950s (1953), then Chruschtow was president of the Soviet Union, (Putin was born 1952), there was some thawing of the daily politics after the death of Stalin, for a short time there could be talk about the camps in Sibera (political dissidents). He was a heavy drinker, somewhat impulsive. I think the Cuban Crisis damaged him, the Polit bureau (a lot of them) were very suspicious of him anyway, Stalin had goverend with a "iron fist". He stood for opening, even trying out new things.
We know from Robert Kennedy (Justice minister under JFK) that JFK promised Chruschtow that the missiles from Turkey would be removed within a few months. These misssiles had made the Soviets very uneasy - they unlike JFK - assumed them to be a threat they could not counteract. JFK thought less of the potential of these weapons. Actually JFK before had asked his military adviser if it was possible to remove them, that somehow did not happen. Anyway some time later the Russians in "retaliation" got missiles to Cuba . Cuba in the beginning felt them to be their protection, they always had to envision the next attack of the US. Then the shit hit the fan.
The secret agreement after about 10 days of wold crisis was that the Soviet Union would remove their missiles from Cuba and the US would do the same some months later with the US missiles in Turkey. AND that the deal was off when the SU mentionned that they were promised something in exchange. (So JFK obviously tried to save face). And Chruschtow lost face, which might have underminded his position in the Soviet Union (in the Polit Bureau to be specific). Robert Kennedy the brother and confidant of the president said that the threat to blew the deal off if the concession of the US came out was a bluff. JFK would not have risked a nuclear war.
The US missiles were removed without much ado some months later.
Chruschtow did not remain for long president and was replaced by a more "conventional" candidate.
It seems the both leaders more or less stumbled into the crisis and desperately tried to retreat without making things worse. We know from Robert that Generals (at least some of them) advised JFK to launch the first strike ("As long as there is time"). Actually in these years many in the Pentagon believed that the US had an technological advantage, and should strike first before the Soviet Union caught up. Some (in the Pentagon) theorized or even believed in winnable nuclear warfare. JFK was not one of them, and ordered that no consequential military action could be taken without him consenting - obviously to avoid that one of the general tried to create a situation of "no return" and tried to enforce a decision towards war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ Escorpion Venenos + Cythia Johson part 2 - Nafta vs. beneficial trade
Let me tell you which KIND OF INTERNATIONAL Trade has been beneficial for decades and drove technological progress in all nations. - I live in Europe in one of the countries famous for their export industry. Whether it was in Western Europe, Commonwealth, Japan, U.S. - all these nations built the export industry (for technical parts and machines - B2B !!) beginning with the 1950s to 70s.
In that time there was only somewhat "free trade" and a LOT of regulation. Not even the WTO (that came in 1993 or 94 before it was GATTS, before it was ??) LOTS of tariffs, protectionism, import quotas and what not were in place - in all nations..
Customs controls and procedures at the borders (or the freight carrier had to do it in advance). These were extra costs (did not matter with the B2B consignments which are usually larger and happen only from time to time, at that time also no "just in time" production.
I worked in the export industry (one line of products were for for assembly line production in a neighbour country, usually weekly larger consignments / the other line were sparte parts which were sold worldwide and required a completely different kind of handling of orders (usually 1 - 4 deliveries per year to a distributor in the foreign country). Also the exchange rates for currencies were fixed (by governments not the speculators).
At that time there was no EURO, no common market, no EU in it's current form (only the E.C a loose economic cooperation), not even the WTO was in place.
- Did. Not. Matter. Business was fine (and still is for that company).
Quality products in Business to Bussiness export/import: These kind of products have a limited market (not like steel, cement, garments which are mass consumer products and/or sold in really huge quantities). That means if you supply spare parts or machine (for industrial production!) you will have to compete with only 5 - 20 corporations worldwide.
Research costs a lot of money, the niche once it is taken is very hard to break into for a newcomer, the existing companies chase each other for price and quality, if anything they buy up a competitor.
The advantage of mass productions comes with more output. If you have a specialized product you MUST export (even a large country like the U.S. would not be enough of a market) in order to have enough sales to make production and future investment and development viable. The advantage for the customers: on the international industry fairs they will learn about the new products, they could pick between a Swiss, German, Australian, Japanese ... product whatever was best. And because the manufacturers all exported (= enough sales), not only were you able to get their product at all (the best technology could offer) - it would also come at a good price.
THAT IS THE GOOD KIND OF TRADE. - And while the Europeans happily built their export industry, there were a lot of restrictions in place for OTHER KIND OF PRODUCTS. For instance dairy, steel, cement - my country produced its own cement, did import cement - or only restricted quantities (which may have been cheaper if the producers cut corners with environmental protection, also our energy costs were traditionally high). So maybe we paid a little more for cement, it did not matter - at that time a LOT was built. The advantage: that industry employed well paid workers, and for the profits at that time they paid higher taxes and they actually paid them. So the higher price for the consumers in the end did not matter much. And since the local market was LARGE ENOUGH to WARRANT COST-EFFICIENT INDUSTRIAL MASS PRODUCTION, there was enough sales WITHIN the country, it did not matter that we did not have export/import with cement. The disadvantage (like a slightly higher price) were balanced out by positive job effects and disposable income of the workers they were able to pay well.
Same with sugar, steel (I guess we exported much more steel than we imported), dairy products were not imported, some of them were exported (not in the European countries which were equally protectionist regarding agriculture).
Does it improve the life of the citizens, that we now get cheap steel, or Aluminium from China, or that Irish butter is sold here ?
I think those cheap(er) imports come at a high price. - "free" trade and globalization and all the other neoliberal buzzword phenomens are definitely not necessary to build an economy from scratch after a terrible war. As Europe proves - and Japan as well. The Japanese were really good in protectionism.
And they provided several case studies how to do GOOD COMPETITION without cutting corners (lowering the standards for environment, quality, and workforce) when they upset the markets for electronics and cars.
They won that race fair and square. But of course the other countries/manufacturers adapted. If you do not resort to cutting the pay of the workforce and cut other corners to "improve" your efficiency and performance - if you go the path of REAL TECHNICAL IMPROVEMENT there is only so much you can do.
Your competitors will learn from you and catch up. Which happened. The UK automobil industry had a hard time, but the car builders on the continent - after shortly scratching their heads - ADAPTED. The products were vastly improved thanks to the Japanese real innovations. The Japanese still have an excellent reputation but the gap of advantages has been closed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
See the inteviews when the book "Shattered" (Hillary campaign) came out. The "consultants" were all over the place with the platform (or HRC was). HRC said: "I do not understand the country anymore." like she had understood the country in the years before ?? - Chuck Schumer figured out that "we have to throw a bone to the plebs, the unwashed masses are getting restless. And they wont be placated. We really have to DO BETTER MESSAGING." (The red bow did not work and we cannot talk about the content of the parcel, so let's introduce a golden bow - all new and shiny. Surly THEN they will vote for us.).
Humans, even politicians, are very social beings, HRC and Schumer are not stupid. If you want to promote policies that benefit you (and your donors) and your people IN the bubble but are to the disadvantage of the population - then you have to use your intelligence to preserve your peace of mind, to NOT KNOW that you are a sellout, coward, unethical person who is responsible for the misery of many people. Hardly anyone has the intellectual honesty to admit it to themselves when they screw over other people, and stay aware of it.
That self dumbing down for ideological and selfish reasons cannot be selective. These people literally become unable to process information and to read the signs on the wall.
All those consultants (like in the HRC campaign) want the lucrative jobs, what does it REALLY matter if the election is won and what becomes of the country (or the world). So they cannot SEE either.
Winning elections would be a bonus point on the resume, but the donors NEED the Democratic Party - so there will be always work for well connected consultants and lobbyists.
The role of the Dems is to neutralize the Progressives - and in that function they are better than the Republicans. The Dems can tell the progressives to be "patient" or "realistic". The GOP has not influence with the Progessives anyway.
In the Spanish Civil War the revolutionaries were "supported" by Communists representing the agenda of the Soviet Untion - they held the revolutionaries back. Unlike the Stalinistic dictatorship these people really took the Marxist principles to heart (the workers, not the bosses and not the state control the means of production, democracy in the workplace, that is a very subversive idea, and the S.U. did not like it anymore than Franco).
Martin Luther King got told time and again that the president (JFK, Johnson) was sympathetic to the cause - it was "just not yet the right time". Patience was necessary, more patience.
1
-
1
-
Caring for seniors and UBI is NOT a contradiction. - But the 18th century ideas about the economy and the need to "work hard" are deeply ingrained in the American psyche. So for a start, bring back the REAL 40 hour week - and then reduce work hours (without reducing pay, the increase in productivity covers that). Undo globalization (that means help the workers in foreign countries to get a better deal - right now the workers in rich and poor countries are pitted against each other. BTW Marx got this exactely right: "Workers of all countries unite", they have all the same interests - the Chinese workers are not our enemies. They are screwed over and even more like their peers in the Western World, if they were treated better (pay, environment), they would become our future customers. More of an exchange instead of a one way street - export everything to the West (because the Chinese produce much more than they can afford to buy).
higher minimum wage, massive infrastructure programs (repair and renewables), Medicare for All. Important: end the mass incarceration. better schools, not necessarily college. But the kids from the "inner cities" must not continue to be lost to society - and that would take an extra effort plus some time - maybe 10 - 15 years.
You need mature people who possess themselves !, to build a society. Who can cooperate and and also are abe to think and to stand for themselves, are not as easily manipulated and do not need the "consolation" of materialism and the distraction of (social) media.
People who like to contribute and to create (which is human nature if not distorted)
With that kind of population you CAN implement UBI. It will become necessary anyway because of automation - that is if we do not self destroy before.
And if you have people who cannot structure their time or are prone to addictions, people COULD get into trouble without the hamster wheel they are used to.
1
-
+Neal Kaye - because they made a reasonable calculation for the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan war, didn't they ? (and Yemen, Libya, Syria came later) The media pressed them all the time. It is not like WAR and DESTRUCTION is treated as if it was free. - U.S. regular military budget 600 bn USD (it is going to be increased !), wars are extra, several trillions, the agencies (incl. VA) 1,2 trillion per year.
It is VERY EXPENSIVE to try to control the oil reserves of the world. (and frankly it does not look like a success)
They calculated that mass incarceration would be good policy (in Rikers they pay + 230k for every person - and no, not everybody is a dangerous villain there, or even a CONVICTED criminal. They have many people who are waiting for trial (right to a speedy trial anyone ?) and are too poor to pay the bail. They had a young man there for 3 - THREE - years, in single confinement, and never pressed charges. They eventually ! let him go w/o any trial. And it sure had a positive impact on his social capabilites - or his resume.
Those 3 years mean + 600k in costs - for destroying the future of a young man. It would have been cheaper to invite the guy on a regular basis to a10 hour weekly workshop and for that he gets 10 k per year. Some of them could be reached by social workers and join the ranks of productive members of society.
Under Reagan the care for the mentally ill was dismantled, that's why so many of them land in prison.
But they cannot possibly find the money for healthcare for everyone or welfare. That would be FREE SERVICES. Provided mostly by state employees. So that is not a for profit business model. BAD.
Think what you will - almost everything is cheaper than incarcerating (non violent) petty law offenders or mentally ill people. And when you offer very good schools, excellent well staffed social services you can at least bring the next generation on the right side - even IF the parents are "undeserving" wellfare recipients.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To which Europeans has Robert been listening ???? - no the Germans, the Swiss, the Austrians usually are not hostile towards Russia or Putin, and they are certainly NOT TERRIFIED. Our spineless politicians and the media play along with the US/NATO agenda. German newspapers and publicly funded TV got furious letters of their audience (online and offline) about their biased, and false reporting. Imagine a interview in Prime Time News. A fighter for the new (US friendly) government is interviewed - maybe 2 - 3 minutes. Nothing spectacular about what he says - but the guy has a NAZI emblem on his uniform, not the of the regular German army, no NAZI - the "good old WW2 logo". Let me repeat, this was on publicly (very well) funded ! German ! TV prime time news ! People used to respect that news show and it is still widely watched. Did they say ANYTHING about that scandalous uniform. No, but there there enough viewers who noted that little detail. Informed people knew from alternative media (not mainstream) that the folks that were sold as noble freedom fighters pro democracy had outright NAZIS in the new party and in parliament. Politicians of that fraction had issued threats against the Russian speaking part of the Ukrainian population. Vile threats and before Crimea was taken by the Russians.
The Nazi emblem did not fit the official narrative, and mainstream media tried to gloss over that gaffe. Well the viewers did not let them get away with this - and many other nonsense.
Many Europeans (also the French or even the UK citizens - not the politicians) are well aware of the constant US aggressions and war mongering (they may not know the details, but that much is agreed upon). 1985 Nicaragua was a topic here, not only Sandinistas were killed also Catholic priests by the US supported scum and we learned about it).
I agree - the Polish and the Finnish and the Baltic States have some historical baggage with Soviet Union. Plus due to economic troubles there are right wing parties (or other fringe parties) on the rise - and they might use scare mongering (with the former enemy) to gain political points by stirring up public opinion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Austria, Germany, NL, Belgium, France, Italy and many others have costs around 5.000 to 5.500 USD per person. Some countries are in the range between 4.500 to 6000. The US has more than USD 9.000 and not everyone is insured plus the other countries have better outcomes (life expectancy and even more telling infant mortality - tells you how the
system works for the low income people and how well prevention works).
Austria and Germany for instance have a non-profit government regulated agency, a Social Security Insucrance company. It is legally independent of the government though. The system is funded by a MANDATORY payroll deduction of the working population and a mandatory contribution of the employers as well (a percentage for a monthly wage between 400 and 4000 USD).
That means the young and high income earners subsidize the lower paid and the sick. Singles help the families out. Workers in branches that tend to pay lower wages (like restaurants) get a transfer from the branches that pay well (for instance the export industry for technical goods). Rural areas pay usually somewhat lower wages and also do not have as many high earning jobs - they get help form the urban, richer areas.
There is a deduction of the pensions from the retired , and then there is access for students (till the age of 26), stay at home mums, disabled, jobless, etc.
So everyone has insurance in the end and those who have not enough income to pay into the insurance pool get coverage.
As for cost control AND access to the latest medical innovation the broad coalition of interested people / entities seems to work well: all employers (Multinationals or small biz they all pay the same %), the workers = patients, the doctors (who ask for the latest innovation they would like to have for their patients). The hospitals are also non-profits they have their streamlined and proven range of treatments, extras - like very expensive medication or treatment has to be applied for. That can happen and if medically arguable will be paid, but it is a small part of the treatments. Usually the doctors have everything they need within the range of approved measures.
Family doctors, X-ray, dentists are usually small entrepreneurs. Their profit is their "wage", unlike as within the NHS these doctors have to take care of location, equipment, staff and subsitutes for holidays. The majority of them have a contract with the insurance company - so they know exactely what they get for every patient's treatment and the bill goes to the insurance company (again a very streamlined process). The large players deal with each other (the self-employed doctors have a Chamber - comparable to the Chamber of Commerce - which does collective bargaining with the insurance company for the "price list" for instance ). There is no incentive in the system to play games with the patient or to deny treatment.
There is a quota system for all Pharmacies and the doctors who would like to get a contract (so all regions have enough doctors and pharmacies, and those have a chance to get enough clients to make a living - the rates per appointment are not that high).
Doctors can practive without such a contract of course and then without quota - there are not so many of them, usually they offer some specialities like TCM or weight loss etc.
Private for profit hospitals are possible but rare. (Abortion , plastic surgery, weight loss, TCM etc. ). I know one for laser correction for myopia. If a person has severe myopia the public healthcare system will likely pay for it (that would be one of the cases for extra application), The rest of us who just does not like normal glasses has to pay for it out of pocket.
If the non-profit insurance company has a problem to fund something that puts a burden on their budget but help society at large (more expenisve treatment but with better survial rate, quicker recovery, less side effects or for prevention) it will be a public discussion and it is considered a political issue not the problem of an individual patient or doctor.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The NERVE and DELUSION Obama shows here - the citizens DID vote, they were desperate for change in 2008. He had a mandate to be the next FDR - if you do not have the guts, don't apply for the job in the middle of the crisis. He just wanted to satisfy his ambition - like HRC and many others. He just has the gift to appeal to the masses and used that. Plus he was not as long on the public stage so less baggage.
Fact: the voters did get more neoliberalism thanks to him (what had led to the crisis in the first place), more war, Wallstreet not Mainstreet was protected and courted (as always). The healthcare was a lukewarm, unsatisfying compromise. No wonder the GOP could attack it.
He seems to have forgotten how the Dems were slaughtered under his presidency at every other level of governance. (states, governors, Senate, Congress)
He tried to cut Social Security to pander to the GOP - well he met some resistance, not doubt Sanders was one of the dissenters - so Obama gave up the scheme * - how come thes welfare programas are ALWAYS at the table to be bargained away. Tax cuts under Bush - THAT became PERMANENT under Obama, that was not at the table to be thrown out of the window. That was not used to twist the arm of the GOP.
* Bill Clinton also had the glorious idea to get his hands on SS, to privatize SS, a secret pact with Newt Gingrich. Larry Summers was in the middle of the secretive group in the WH planing the handing over of the funds to the private for-profit industry (mandatory investment no less !)The Lewinsky scandal prevented Clinton from pursuing that scheme further . SS would have gone down in 2007/2008.
1
-
Imagine if the Soviets (who had gotten an invitation 1 year before they acutally came to Afghanistan in Dec. 1979) had been able to stay safely in Afghanistan. The country was very poor then, little resources, no modern industry, high illiteracy, a very patriarchal and frankly backwards Muslim society. They used to have a king, then they had a more or less secular government (certainly not a real democracy, no idea how it was on the range from authoritarian to cruel dictatorship). Afghanistan is hard to control for anyone (topography). So especially in the cities ! the Soviets brought better schools, education, more rights for woman. Not sure how pissed off the population was at them. In the villages far away and in the mountains the tribes did not care much what happened in Kabul (king, president, Soviet approved leader - whatever - as long as they did not bother them).
Of course Afghanistan is important for strategic reasons. So the US under Jimmy Carter decided to fund the Mujihadeen* in Summer 1979 (June or July) - in December 1979 the Soviets came to Afghanistan. The Western world especially the US (who wants to dominate the oil region and the access to it) was huffing and puffing.
* Muhihadeen = Those who fight the jihad, the religious war with the end goal of theocracy. Many of them were not even Afghans, a lot of them were Saudis, and Saudi Arabia did the recruiting on order of the US, cherry picking the religous crazies.
If we just had let them alone ! the Soviets would have kept order, it was on THEIR budget and risk. When the mujihadeen fought - and fought with all means, likely including suizide attacks - the Soviets hit back hard and cruelly and that also hurt the civilians. I assume the Soviet Army was much better behaved before getting under constant attack, especially outside the cities. I do not think the Afghans themselves would have resisted them - most wanted the economy to do better, many appreciated modern medicine and education etc., and the population had only old fashioned hunting riffles - if they were lucky.
The terrorists got stinger rockets from the US. After the Soviets left Afghanistan (their Vietnam - they allegedly lost 50,000 men) it dawned on the US that maybe it would be good NOT to have these weapons (defense to shoot down helicopoters for example) in the hands of religious extremists with the (always) declared intention to found an Islamic theocray and to EXPAND that reign in the region.
Well the mujihadeens also thought these stinger rockets were usefull - and refused to return them - go figure. I guess the US found out that it was not easy to bribe or frighten these religous fanatics into obedience.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One can observe the same with Labour Party in the UK (who got beaten badly in 2015 general elections) because they too do not watch out for their base. They became "New Labour" under Tony Blair the war mongerer. The "Establishment" Labour Party Members of Parliament decidedly dislike Jeremy Corbyn, the new party leader elected by the base.
And the British media, including the so called "liberal" non-Rupert-Murdoch media and the publicly finananced BBC play along nicely, critizing him for trivia. Like Sandes he was accused of (tolerating) racism, sexism and antisemitism. Which is as plausible as accusing Bernie Sanders of these things (Corbyn is polite, well-spoken, thoughtful - a liberal and labour man in the best sense of the word. Hardly any mentionning of Corbyn without stating that his is "unelectable" (in general elections 2020 - they know that NOW). Which is strange if your consider the masses he attracts at his rallies, and that Labour party membership grew from 100.000 to 600.000 within a few months because of him.
The unexpected Brexit vote did not stop that "unelectable" talk either, now with Trump being voted in I assume that narrative was put on the shelf. Talking about his suits (not elegant enough), if he bowed deep enough when honouring fallen WW1/WW2 soldiers. ANYTHING but the issues he brings up (healthcare, poverty, tax evasion, war ...)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
She can stay under 50 employees can't she? And with 50 people you are not a small business. I assume it is possible to make a nice living managing while leveraging the workforce of 50 people. She wants to grow and have more financial success - fine. She is totally O.K. with her employees NOT having healthcare. Since well paying businesses (small or not) usually offer benefits I assume her workforce are lower paid workers, meaning these people will have a hard time to come up with the costs for a good plan themselves..
If she has the opportunity to expand then I would assume business is good and she is making a decent profit. Which should take care of the higher costs. Or the business model is not suited to be leveraged up. Then be thankful that you are even allowed to skip the healthcare as smaller biz and leave it at that. She does not need to grow - other corporations that are willing to pay or that have a better business plan will do that.
She (and you) act as if she has a right to expand. The country does not need ANY kind of jobs NO MATTER HOW. Acutally people do NOT NEED work or employment. They work to have an INCOME, they can find themselves something worthwhile to do without a boss. So if people work to have an income it should be sufficient and healthcare is part of it. Else the business model is a DRAIN on society (see Walmart, where the employees are paid so little that many get and need food stamps. Walmart is subsidized with taxes (costs of foodstamps) and they are making profits like crazy. Same when people without healthcare delay going to the doctor and finally end up in the emergency room, this is a lose/lose situation - the patient gets only the medical care that is immediately and absolutely necessary = too little too late and it is still very expensive. Of course other insured people have to compensate for the unpaid costs, and there is the related buraucracy of finding out who has what coverage and trying to get payment from patients without coverage.
Of course it is not reasonable to establish such a hard treshold (below or over 50 employees) without fade-in. it becomes prohibitive. And a fade-in would make matters more complicated.
In European countries like Austria which I know well, the healthcare is financed with payroll deductions. Every person earning over approx. 400 USD monthly (hours do not matter) has mandatory healthcare, full coverage, it covers the employee, spouse and children up to minimum age 18 (or till 26 if they are students). It is a percentage up to a certain amount, so people with more income pay more (and subsidize the lower incomes or the people with more children. Every business pays the same percentage.
If your business does not earn enough to cover these costs you are out. You can't be a business owner, get a job.
BTW: Austria has a highly competitive export industry. And chains like McDonalds (lower paid jobs) have to insure their workers in the same way and also grant 5 weeks paid vacations etc. The costs for their product seem to be about the same as in the US.
Details vary in the countries but all wealthy European countries have their healthcare organized as non-profits and under the solidarity principle. Your health status does not matter, and there are provisions for those who have more children, or a low income to participate in the same way than all the other insured people.
The costs are between USD 4,500 - 5,500 which is much less than the + 9,000 in the US (per capita healthcare costs in 2014, source World Bank). And yes healthcare is good and no, there are not long waiting times.
Advantage: the NON-PROFIT system is very streamlined (for enterprises, the non-profit insurance company, patients, administrators and doctors). No denial of coverage bureaucracy. And the employees of small and large biz have the same coverage and at the same costs for the biz (not huge corporations can offer much better conditions to their employees and pay less for the plans because of their negotiating power).
If you want to start a business (again mandatory insurance for the self-employed), you know that you and the family will have healthcare no matter what. The new project might be a success or not. Your financial means do not determine the access to healthcare. That may be important if a family member has a pre-existing conditon or needs expensive treatment. You are not tied to your old job because it offers benefits.
1
-
+ DarklyDreaming Good luck to you ! Check out Atkins, the Atkins diet (very low carb diet). Should be helpful especially if you have Diabetes typ 2, read it carefully. (And I saw an add recently a book written by a doctor "The 8 week blood sugar diet" - seems to go in the same direction. If you eat almost no carbs (which would be broken up to sugar) there is almost no sugar in your blood for which you would need insulin (or insulin boosters). Insulin removes the surplus of sugar out of your blood stream and into the cells. We should have only a small but constant amount of sugar in our blood and too high sugar levels over longer time will do damage to your blood vessels, eyes, etc. If that is the type of medication you are quitting you are risking your eyes or an amputation of a limb (blood vessels, blood circulation)
The brain prefers sugar (and absolutely needs some fuel). We can run our brain and muscles also on Ketones *. Which come from digesting fat (including the fat reserves) and proteines.
If you do not want to eat so much meat (protein) you can substitute with soy, eggs, dairy products.
Added benefit: you will start losing weight - which often helps with Diabetes Type 2. And there is a good chance to dramatically improve you cholesterol. Sounds counterintuitive - we have heard for a long time that butter, eggs, everything that contains animal fat causes bad cholesterol levels. Not true - eating sugar and starch = carbonhydrates does that, especially sugar, honey, white flour, rice etc. Everything the body can easily and quickly transform into sugar. Everything that causes sugar spikes and Insulin spikes.
* Ketones: you will know the test sticks, Doctors are wary if their Diabetes patients have Ketones in the urine. A person that takes medication because of Diabetes and eats the normal diet with carbonhydrates/sugar should not have Ketones in the urine.
It shows that the body burns stored fat. Meaning that the medication does not work properly
If it would work the carbonhydrates you are constantly eating would be used as fuel.
And the body always uses carbonhydrates or sugar (with the help of insuline ! ) before going after the fat reserves.
you take the medication to provide your body with the necessary Insuline. If your body "ignores" your sugar/carbonhydrates intake and goes after your fat reserves instead you know that your insuline or insuline stimulating medication does not work as intended.
On the other hand if you hardly eat any carbonhydrates of course you will burn fat. And it shows in the Ketones in the urine - which in this case are harmless and do not indicate a need to adjust the medication.
Also note that when you start changing your diet, your need for Diabetes medication is likely to change. If you take the normal dose it might be too much but at the same time you should know what you are doing, not just stop taking it (using blood tests ? to determine your blood sugar levels ). If you go off the carbonhydrates there is no more (or much reduzed) need for Insuline so take that into account.
Same applies to medication that lowers blood pressure. Atkins or low carb diets can dramatically reduce = normalize blood pressure. So if one continues to take such mediciation one could end up with a too low blood pressure. Again - caution and measuring would be needed to safely adjust if adjustment is needed.
Humans can live on a diet of protein and fat or the humans in the ice age or the Inuit would never have made it.
However if a human eats only protein and fat, the body cannot use all the energy in these foods. The process is not very efficient. (even a little sugar/carbonhydrates can alter the efficiency of that process dramatically, that explains why humans very much go after sweets).
That means the Inuits needed lots and lots of food to not starve. It also means you can easily lose weight.
1
-
1
-
Wrong - the U.S. DID NOT GET RID of the Taliban - they are recovering right now. Guess who also detected Afghanistan as retreat ? ISIS !!! - They are getting in trouble in Syria, in Iraq and even in Libya (the U.S FINALLY decided to fight them for real and to cut them off their oil revenue). Afghanistan is ideal for guerilla warfare, it is a military nightmare to control. 80 or 90 % of the country are middle to higher altitude - think hills, mountains, valleys, caves - excellent for a guerilla war. Villages that have brick or stone walls around them - so approaching troops (even if they want to uphold peace and order) can never know what awaits them the next minute.
In summer 79 Jimmy Carter signed a budget to support the muJIHADeen - the then existing president of Afghanistan (no doubt authoritarian or dictator) had asked the neighbour country Soviet Union to help out against a coup he was expecting. In December ! 1979 the Soviet Army entered Afghanistan. (So the U.S. first decided to finance regime change in Afghanistan and THEN the Soviets reacted). The Western World was huffing and puffing. (sanctions, boycott the Olympic Games in the Soviet Union, morale outrage in the media). And the U.S. and Saudi Arabia continued to send a lot of extreme Islamic FOREIGN fighters to Afghanistan to fight the HOLY WAR of ISLAM - the JIHAD (hence the name). Reagan increased budgets and efforts, and the Western press pained the fight of the Islamic foreign terrorists as "fight for freedom". Osama Bin Laden (from a wealthy Saudi family) was one of those "freedom fighters". They got stinger rockets to fight against the Soviet helicopters. After the Soviet Army gave up and the Taliban (another extremist Islamic group that originated in Pakistani camps of Afghan refugees) finally took over Afghanistan they got the VIP tour in the U.S. and they met of course with Reagan in the White House. I think part of the mujihadeen merged with the Taliban, some will have returned to their home countries waiting for the next "mission" they could join.
The U.S. wanted a pipeline built through Afghanistan so democracy, secular order (as opposed to the theocracy of the Taliban) and women's rights did not matter. The Taliban eventually fell from grace (maybe the pipeline plans did not work out). And of course their theocratic rule of terror made it easy to villify them. And when in was in the interest of the Western governments to villify them, the obedient Western media outlets finally could be bothered to report the truth about the Taliban.
Of course the international community of Islamic terrorists that fought together the jihad against the godless Soviets bonded for life - they still use the networks forged in the brotherhood in the 80s.
The US jumpstarted international Islamic terrorism in the 80s.
Imagine the world would have left Afghanistan alone (for them the Soviet influence would have been positive - more technology, women's rights, education, secular ideas). Without foreign funding there could not have been much opposition to the military power of the Soviets (at least not in the larger settlements - no advanced military can control the mountains and rural areas of Afghanistan). That means the Soviets would have abstained from brutality against the civilian population because they as a "occupying force" resp. they as a foreign force that supported an authoritarian regime would not have been in danger. Once they got attacked - mostly by foreign funded terrorists in a proxy war - especially outside the larger settlements, they fought back - ruthlessly.
The Soviet Army respectively the Russian Army likely would be no more in Afghanistan - and if - it would be their problem, their costs, and their soldiers risking their life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
My kind proposal: Save that money, stay at home, mind your own business, fix that leaded water etc. Let peace break out. Thanks a lot, greetings from Europe. It must be a curse: May you be the citizen of a country with the
ambition to be an empire! (Similar to the Chinese curse: May you live in
interesting times).
The EU alone has 500 million citizens, the US around 320 - EU resp. Europe can certainly take care of itself - note ITSELF, not the US lead missions for global dominance, control of fossil fuel and multinational corporations aka "bringing democracy".
Peace Keeping Missions with an UN mandate: fine. France and UK have nukes, Germany if they ever wanted them, could easily develop them. As deterrent !! Against anyone who might have the wrong ideas - for instance Russia, China and last but not least: the US.
Have you ever heard of Zbigniew Brzezinski (Zbigniew Brzeziński - the Grand Chessboard). Advisor for two presidents - how to achieve world dominance. You can find it online as pdf. Not sure if he talks in this book about how Europe especially Germany and the Soviet Union/Russia must never join forces. Technology, skilled workforce, + natural resources - and all on one continent, so it the US naval dominance cannot disrupt the flow of goods. That would certainly reduce the dominance of the US. That would be a good thing for the US cititzens, but not for the MIC of which Eisenhower warned.
Since 2 world wars happened on our soil we are more wary about war, and are more likely to negotiate than to use brute force. Now, the elites (not the citizens) of UK and France do have imperialistic fits from time to time (Libya!! Syria !!!), without the backup of US lead NATO they would need to curb them. If France had to shoulder actions like Libya on it's own, it would have a very hard time selling that to the French (if not out of ethical reasons than because ot the sheer costs).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ SoulRippster That is not completely correct, Ukraine did not want to become a NATO member, and in the end they rejected the "economic treaty" with the EU (with some military clauses in the fine print. The EU parliament voting on that treaty were first not even aware of these clauses - who inserted these clauses ? and WHY - when the EU should be fully aware of the fact how important Russia is for the Ukraine and also what strategic military importance Ukraine has for Russia. Ukraine could stay neutral and do trade with both sides (like Sweden, Finland, Austria, Switzerland). No need to chose sides and exclude one
The old president rejected the "economic" treaty in the end - which is exactely why he had to go. Sure he was very Russia affiliated. Being friendly with Russia makes sense for Ukraine, much more sense than to give an American memer of the Obama administration and a guy from Georgia (neighbour country of Russia - hey have a warrant on him because of corruption) immediately citizenship so that they can become Ministers in the new government after the succesful coup.
Follow the money. The Ukraine has nothing to offer to the US or the EU - except unexploited fracking sites. And valuable farmland for grabs. Joe Bidens second son Hunter Biden is associated with one of the fossil fuel corporations in Ukraine. There seems to be a NY Times article who alleges that he was found in the middle of corruption.
The US meddled again with a foreign country for the benefit of a very few mulitnational corporations (Big oil). The EU foolishly carried the water of the US, the very much US-think-thank-infused mainstream media tries to sell us the usual BS.
More and more citizens are aware that we are getting one-side news. That we do not get the full picture, not even in publicly financed TV like in Germany (hardly concealed anti Putin and anti Russia messaging) or the BBC. The German TV got some backlash from the public, they are supposed to be neutral.
I assume the Russians have some trolls to influence public opinion - I would have them if I was Putin ;). This goes beyond propaganda of a foreign country, however. Reasonable and nuanced people in Germany with some standing oppose the "official" narrative "bad bad Putin invaded Ukraine, next thing he will go after Poland and the Baltic States."
The Snowden leaks and (for the better informed) the Iraq war was a watershed moment, the media is not to be trusted, they will let us down when we need them to warn us, and politicians and their statements on foreign policy are definitely not to be trusted.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MoCa5545 Vaccines are a proven scam ? Do you imply they do not give protection ? Search for Polio and Iron lung. - Never mind: Worries about getting / refusing a SARS-CoV-2 shot would be a good problem to have, we are not likely to get a vaccine anytime soon.
Sounds like you would take a free ride when others get vaccinated, people who are willing to take a little risk so that the economy can fully reopen and all (especially people with higher risks) are protected.
Likely there is room for improving existing vaccines - Efficiency, safety, compensation for the inevitable ! harmful side effects that sometimes happen.
Plus research if vitamines, nutrients etc. could improve outcomes (they will not give immunity)
Measles infections do result in deaths, and also cause deafness, heart damage, mental disability, etc. the ! side effects of measle vaccination are nothing like that (if you view the whole population !)
BUT: we have gotten used to the fairly widespread protection from measles (= also protection from the proportional ! bad outcomes). We don't see those complications because the case numbers are still low despite somewhat lower vaccination morale. BECAUSE most people are vaccinated, and we still have herd immunity.
That is a general ! public health outcome.
On the other hand tragic (suspected) cases of harm caused by vaccination are viewed and weighed on the individual level - and seen as something that could have been prevented. You cannot chose to get or avoid measles or polio. It will hit you, and in a proportional number of cases with the known bad outcomes.
But people / parents can CONTROL getting a vaccination.
Humans are not good at "getting" statistical risks at a gut level. People feel better about risks they (think they) can control, if the activity is common and if the occasional bad outcomes are a sliding range.
Traffic accidents come in all shapes from harmless to devastating consequences. Plus drivers can contribute to their safety. At least to a degree.
That is why the fear of flying is higher. The overall risk is much lower, but once a flight is in severe trouble your INDIVIDUAL chance for a not too bad outcome drastically drop. There is no such thing as a fairly harmless airplane accident. Passengers do not have the illusion of control that car drivers have (the pilots may or may save the day, but there is NOTHING passengers can DO).
So if parents / citizens have bad outcomes after vaccinations they will feel terrible and blame themselves and others, because they think they could have avoided that bad outcome.
That is true - avoidable on the individual level (if everyone but them would still vaccinate).
Of course they do not factor in the effects if ALL (or many) would not vaccinate.
Herd immunity drops even if 10 % are not vaccinated (typically only 90 % that are vaccinated aquire immunity, with others it fades). So the realistic protection level may be 80 % even if all that can, (no health problems that prevent them from getting vaccinated) get a shot.
I think with measles vaccinated and immune persons can still spread the virus.
They do not consider the bad outcomes they could witness in their extended family, neighbourhood, with collegues, at school. It might not hit their child or them - but it WILL hit someone they care about if herd immunity is seriously undermined.
Parents in the 1950s and 1960s in the wealthy nations enthusiastically embraced vaccines, they were not just uncritically following orders, they could balance the risks of vaccinations with experiences of the effects of the unchecked diseases, before there was any protection. (Their situation was the opposite: intangible risks of vaccination versus very real risks and observed bad outcomes of getting infected).
Now the harm done by vaccinations are not weighed against the tangible EXPERIENCE of the sibling, cousin that had measles with bad outcomes (or even died). The polio victim in the wheelchair (or in their grave).
Side effects of polio vaccination ? Try getting polio.
Whopping cough was called the "Strangling Angel of Death of the children" (around 1900). I had to search what diphteria and whooping cough are like. I do not know anyone who had it. Our grand grandparents were not so blissfully ignorant. They would have eagerly ! jumped at the chance to get their children IMMUNISED against those diseases.
I think people have gotten used to the high level of protection we enjoy from virus infections (and having antibiotics against bacterial infections) - and based on that, the rare complications following vaccinations (and some cases are tragic) are scrutinized.
Diptheria was also a mass killer.
Even brave mothers that were not intimidated by the likes of measels were scared of polio (it is fairly infectious). Never mind tuberculosis before they had antibiotics.
Have the healthy of the population vaccinated at good rates and vaccinate babies, toddler,s children as late as possible * and do not give them as many shots at once if that is possible - the more mature their immune system is, the lower the rate of severe complications.
Whooping cough is extra terrible with little children. (it is bad enough for healthy young adults), so there waiting with the shot is not possible. It kills in the first 3 years.
And governments should allocate the funding to improve vaccines.
Vaccinations are preventive and many of them give longer immunity. Prevention is not lucrative for the industry.
Sure, flu shots must be updated every year.
On the other hand if there would be the next flu pandemic (like in 2009):
If a vaccine is available (but many failed to get the shot in time), a short restriction of travel, wearing masks, while making extraordinary efforts to ramp up production of vaccines (forcing companies to licence out) could be plan B.
So people could take a gamble not get the flu shot but - if shit hits the fan, we all could jump into action. And for the flu there are at least TREATMENT drugs.
We do not have a plan B with the current pandemic. Once a vaccine is developed and the virus mutates there is a god chance to easier and faster to come up with a vaccine that is a good fit for the current strain. At least that applies to the flu and the kind of vaccination (mechanism of how it works).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1) Phil Donahue fired (had a good show, was an institution). 2) WHY would Boeing - or the military have TV ads - they don't have them in other countries. TV ads are supposed to adress CONSUMERS. Or they are a bribe for the network. 3) Jessie Ventura had his contract for a show THEN they detected he was against the war and was not going to shut up. He cashed the 1 million bucks but he never went on air.
5) Ed Schultz was fired from his show - he had it coming of course the was openly against TPP (the last blue collar type standing, he was not against the Iraq war so he survived that purge). Everyone thought that was the reason he was fired - acutally he thinks otherwise - he was forbidden to cover the announcement of Sanders to run in 2015 (live and a prerecorded interview). Likely he would have given more free airtime to Sanders - considering the campaign did surprisingly well that would have been appropriate and the sympathized with positions of Sanders.
6) Even the publicly funded BBC (they are supposed to serve the citizens who pay a fee directly to the BBC. The network is NOT supposed to server the government. If anything they are supposed to step especially on their toes. - That is the theory for all those networks (Germany, Switzerland, Austria - but of course they all got captured by the domestic power brokers AND the North Atlantic Bridge / CIA)
In the U.K. it is not even subtle, the prime minister or the gov. CAN fire people. War monger Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher did fire BBC upper management.
7) Afshin Rattansi worked for the BBC (he was not upper management, but considering his current work he likely was well established) - he was against the war (guess what - he now works for RT - they do not have to do a lot of recruiting. They just can pick up the good progressive people that are purged by the mainstream media. In the U.S. the right wingers and the supporters of the neoliberal status quo or the supporters of the war machine.
But for fairly left people and/or pro peace folks there is no niche in the TV market - except for RT. youtube is an option - but you have to like the adminstrative part and the setting is different. And you are at the mercy of google.
8) Piers Morgan was fired from the Mirror (I think that is supposed to be a liberal or even left paper).
9) Chris Hedges was fired by the New York Times (won the Pulitzer Prize as part of a team, long time war correspondent)
10) Cenk Ugyar was to fierce on the Obama admin (and was told so). He would have gotten a better contract at a less attractive spot (Saturday) - I guess they wanted to pay him off, transfer him to a place where ratings would naturally fall and then get rid of him alltogether after an appropriate time - so he could not publicly make the connection. Well - he did not play the game, so he was "let go" despite the good ratings. He had a successful internet show when MSM hired him - they wanted the appearance of a straight shooter to attract the young crowd - but they did not want him to be really critical.
Mainstream media filters whom they hire - but if the rare rebel emerges within the network the occasional purges make it abundantly clear to everyone else HOW the RULES are.
Noam Chomsky realized the "Manufacturing Consent" agenda and the related necessary hiring policy decades ago - the rest of us is catching up. There is an interview of a then young Andrew Marr (of BBC). Priceless. Marr likely even believed what he said about the freedom and independence of press (media) - Noam Chomsky quietly and elegantly debunked that claim.
So in case someone has half-hearted objections or knows more (think Chris Hayes) - if the circumstance were different they would dare (or bother !) to voice them. But most will be intimidated by this environment.
Humans are very social beings - and that includes that we want to reconcile our actual behavior (cowardice !!, greed, selfishness, apathy, fear of confrontations, taking the easy route) with more noble and brave ideals.
Some of them do not have any conflict of conscience - they are just enough indoctrinated, cynical, stupid, and/or selfish.
Others may be deeper thinkers with more nuance. So they are more likely to be bothered by their conscience and fits of realizing things. It helps to live in the bubble - to not stumblo onto too much discrepancies that could spoil your peace of mind. And your positive self image. almost no on has the intellectual forte / cynicism to openly admit to THEMSELVES that they will conveniently sell out for money.
Suppression works well, and self-delusion works too. Spinning a narrative how it is not that bad, or that under the given circumstances you do the best you can. - If Chris Hayes or Rachel Maddow were to quit - someone even worse might replace him or her - that is true. And occasionally they can slip in a tiny speck of truth (a few seconds per year on Yemen, Hayes can be proud of himself).
On the other hand: Both seem to have the capability for nuance- so I do not know how they master the delicate balancing of being intelligent, knowledgeable and to prevent themselves from REALIZING the truth. Intelligence makes that a challenge - but on the other hand intelligence also is useful for self-deception and how you excuse the treason **
** what Hayes and Maddow are doing borders on treason (maddow has gotten completely off the rail). Not treason in the legal sense.
But if you compare where they come from, and how they could be a force for good.
Both have already earned more money than is needed for a very !! comfortable life ever after.
So their independent youtube show would be a hit - but they could do w/o any income from that. And they could have the interns with low pay lining up to help with research.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kwakkers68 As for MMT - in the end we exchange goods and services with "money/currency" and the volume of new money should (over time) match what is produced in goods and services. - a way out is that the production of goods can lag behind * the production of money, a nation that is large and powerful can get a free ride.
* The New Deal was financed with higher taxes on the rich (income, not the fortunes) and profitable biz and those taxes rose dramatically when the U.S. entered WW2. (92 % top income tax). The U.S. had the highest ever federal debt in 1947 (so the spending then was financed in the traditional way with taxation and government debt).
No QE or MMT schemes etc.
Debt was reduced - spending continued (a lot shifted to civilian spending), taxes remained high, and wages and employment situation were good. In 1947 the debt vs. GDP ratio was 118 % and it dropped a little over 30 % in the early 1970s (33 or 34 % in that range).
So the fear mongering about debt is not necessary. And if a Green New Deal would be (partially) financed with the creation of debt and interest free money it could also match the output of goods over 2 - 3 decades".
As for MMT
There is the question of the many trillions that have already been created (detached from the real economy). A somewhat higher inflation rate would not necessarily be negative. ** Normal citizens could be compensated for the effects, but it would reduce the fortunes denominated in USD. The Chinese and Saudis that hold a lot in USD would not like it of course.
The U.S. has been taking a free ride on what other nations are producing for the longest time (see trade deficits with Germany or China). That works for the owners of the export industries there, but the Chinese and the German population are getting a bad deal.
** Inflation is another scare story of the rich. The folks that own a lot in form of "money" (bonds, savings accounts) hate inflation. A somewhat higher inflation is a side effect of a booming economy (with good wages and high employment).
If people do not need to save up for retirement, medical emergencies and higher education of the kids (because that is well covered by good public services that are financed on an ongoing base) most of them do not suffer from inflation. The wealth of the middle class is in their real estate, and their income comes from labor, not from fortunes on bank accounts or interest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@liberalsocialist9723 FDR kept the far right at bay - with economic populism. But he was an outlier, in many European countries Nationalists took over, often campaigning on economic populism, machismo, militarism - and then dismantling fragile democracies. Not only in Germany but there it was the most consequential. Now the left is somewhat revived, but the far right does better. The genuine left is crushed often with help of the establishment "liberals" / neoliberals. In the U.K. and U.S. (In Oct. 2019 one could hope for PM Corbyn and president Sanders).
But the countries would rather vote for Boris Johnson and they hardly rejected Trump in the U.S. Legacy neoliberal media, and a rabid right wing media scene helped with that.
In Brazil they had economic problems. Lula could have won, but the parliament had colluded to take his successor out (that impeachment was a joke, but enough MPs colluded, big money bought the votes).
And: Lula was imprisoned with help of the institutions (court). So the far right candidate won.
The far right is now also on the rise in Europe. they used to have strong Social Democrats in the past but the weaklings and neoliberal careerists are not able to get the votes, they either lost to other parties or the far right
Being a leftie was not for the faint of heart back in the day. They had convictions and it showed when they got into government. There may have been nepotism and personal corruption when they got at the trough - but they did not sell out the country like the neoliberals do.
Some of them had been prosecuted by the Nazis or they were engaged in the resistance when their country was occupied. After WW2 they were often voted in, and they governed for The People.
So it "only" needed 2 World Wars and 200 years of struggle of the Labor movement and unions often against brutal opposition to get there. 30 good years and then the elites orchestrated the neoliberal backlash - for 40 years. Plus that the elites had interests to have a Cold War and needed to give the masses something to justify the military spending for the supposedly better economic system.
It was much better for a few (if you look at global population) - in the U.S. not so much for minorities and never for the developing countries. Cold War gave the pretext for imperialistic wars, so the people there paid the price for it that the (white) workers in the U.S. and all workers in Western Europe could have the economic miracle after WW2.
1
-
@liberalsocialist9723 Limousine liberals would rather side with the fascists when they see their privileges even a little in jeopardy. There is a book now out how Biden "lucked" into the presidency. People of influence in the D party and connected to the Biden campaign were seriously considering whether they could vote for Sanders if he would become the nominee (that was in February when it looked like he had it almost wrapped it up, normally if a candidate does so well in the first 3 states he always ended up the nominee).
It was a haaaaaaard choice between Sanders and Trump. Because M4A and higher taxes for the rich and ending big donor money in politics is as bad as Trump.
The same "smart" people that thin they "know best" and someone like Sanders should never win, should have noticed that Trump could have easily won this if he had been only a little bit smarter, and even so BIDEN BARELE PULLED IT OFF.
43,200 votes in total in 3 states (AZ, GA, WI) determined the outcome of the election (in the electoral college).
Not that their votes would be needed in the general. But it is very telling how the mindset of these entitled people is: considering how they blackmailed the base into voting against Trump, and blue no matter who.
I guess if Sanders had won the nomination, the liberal media would have talked endlessly how impossible it is for him to win, how suburban voters can be impossibly want to vote for him, how the Latinos of Florida are sure to reject him (wink, wink).
They could not openly endorse Trump (they certainly would a Mitt Romney, or Jeb Bush).
Historically i f the economic pressure lasts longer a nation will move to the left OR the right.
More often to the right. The Fascists and white nationalists were strong in the U.S. in the 1930s. In Europe they prevailed - often running on economic populism to win elections and then seized power and ended (fragile) democracies.
FDR had enough good sense to see the writings on the wall, Unions and united left parties put a lot of pressure on hi - but he also stepped up willingly. He did not serve the interests of rich people like Biden did for decades. He was form a rich and influentla family, but maybe that get's boring after a few generations. It is possible that he was in it for the status of being a beloved president. Not for financial gain.
Plus he was willing and able to play the game of power. and once he was on board he WANTED to deliver for The People. The grassroots did not have to drag him, he got advisors that were not into "same old, same old" (that had just failed spectacularly). They tried out things and were not afraid to risk failures. His motto was: we can abandon the attempt, or revise it, just let's get moving.
Some of the most popular programs stem from that attitude.
1
-
@liberalsocialist9723 BIDEN BARELE PULLED IT OFF. 43,200 votes in total in 3 states (AZ, GA, WI) determined the outcome of the election (in the electoral college). Biden absolutely needed to win at least ONE of the 3 states that were THAT close.
Worse: the results of libertarian Jo Jorgensen were a multiple of the lead of Biden over Trump (AZ / GA / WI 10,500 / 12,000 / 20,700).
Jorgensen had 1.7 to 5 times more than that.
4 states could not be called for several days because they were too close. Those 3 and PA. Now, in PA Biden had at least 1.2 % margin = 81,000 votes more and Jorgensen only got got around 80,000.
So PA was a "safer" win. But even though PA was the largest state with the most electors of the 4 - that was not enough.
269 electors with the 20 of PA meant a tie - and then Trump would have been picked by the House * and Pence by the Senate. Biden needed at least one of the 3 states AZ, GA or WI additionally to Pennsylvania.
Or 2 out of the 4 in any combination, PA was not a must win. Even the 2 smallest (AZ 10 and WI 11 electors) would have given Biden the bare minimum to win: 270 electors (only problem if there would be 1 or 2 faithless electors).
In the end Biden won PA and also the 3 others, but that was WAY TOO CLOSE FOR COMFORT.
* Dems had the majority in the House (not yet in the Senate). But the constitution reenacts the concept of the Electoral college in the House if there is a tie.
Every state has several House Representatives, they determine ONE delegate. So California gets one. A state that has for instance 3 R and 2 D Reps. also gets ONE.
Then the delegates of the states pick the president.
That scenario favors Republicans, they would of course have ignored the 7 million margin of Biden in the popluar vote.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Please tell relatives and friends: Simple messages: Did you know that around 2005 Assad was asked in an interview about HIM being overthrown by the U.S. (CNN interview Christine Amanpour). - Or the former French foreign minister ROLAND DUMAS
He visited London in 2009: the British diplomats or government representatives told Dumas that they planned regime change in Syria - would the French like to join ? The video with English subs is on youtube.
For context: the "peaceful" demonstrations that led to a "civil" war started in 2011, so that had obviously been planned for YEARS.
Assad took over approx in the year 2000 after the death of his father, and visited in ? 2002 the UK, and other European countries - cooperation and help after 9/11 and against terrorism (Gadaffi was also cooperative !! they were his natural enemies, that did not help him). Charm offensive (Tea with the Queen). Then he was well received
Do you know that most Christians in Syria support Assad (even if they do not like him) because they fear what will be after he is gone.
Or the Christian missionaries that were in Syria and paint another picture. Foreigners infiltrated the country, they spoke Arab with with a different accent. Massacres started to happen, dead cut up bodies with signs "Beware, dirty Christian".
So the people trained and sent by Saudi Arabia and the West were already in place to make sure any civil demonstrations would escalate.
There were large peaceful PRO Assad demonstrations in 2011 in the large cities (he has strong support there. The more diverse and wealthier comunities are in the cities, incl. Christians and Alawites). The scene is different in the rural areas, people are more conservative (also regarding their Islam, usually they are Sunni Muslim, the majority in the country).
And there had been a terrible draught in the years before (hitting the farmers).
An Argentine nun told how surprised she was when she heard that the media at home relabelled that march as "opposition" demonstration (peaceful citizens continue to demonstrate against Assad ...)
She heard the slogans from the street, the convent was nearby - and she of course understands the language.
1
-
The U.S. had massive immigration after WW2. in the mid 1930s it had 90 million people now 325 * millions. If the country has space, water etc. you can do that. BUT: when the New Deal still was in effect (good wages, high taxes for the high incomes - 90 % for every dollor over 2,7 milllion in todays money, and much higher taxes for profitable businesses ** ) the government could also INVEST and provide the necessary environment and provisions.
** the only way to dodge taxes for a company was to invest, good pay for workers, give them benefits (before the IRS gets the money). It landed with the IRS anyway ;) The workers had money to spend. Or the other company that got orders when a company invested (new buildings, machines, ...)
So the money CIRCULATED much more between government, businessess and workers/consumers. Every time it changed hands it created the experience of wealth OR opportunities. (Now money is sucked away from the bottom and middle STRAIGHT UP to the TOP - and then it sits idly on the accounts. Or it is "invested" in real estate driven up prices for the regular people).
* the U.S. has 325 million people allegedly. If the number of undocumented is really much higher than the estimated 10 - 11 million that are ususually cited as maximum number - you have to add that - some claim it is more like 20 million - so that would make it approx. 335 millions.
Under New Deal conditions and during the Golden Era the government had the revenue TO INVEST (sadly they ALSO inanced an arms race and lots of wars in Asia AND Latin America - which is another major reason why Latin America never developed. The neighbours of the U.S. could be like Canada (but then the U.S. oligarchs could not have plundered them over more than 100 years ***).
The government spending / investments created jobs - disposable income. for workers / consumers. Which meant all kinds of businesses popped up (service sector follows if manufacturing and construction have enough work).
The goods and services were MORE expensive by comparsion back in the day (good wages and then also much less sophisticated automation, no computer, electronics, old fashioned communication), but peole could AFFORD to buy the goods. Made in the U.S. meant solid quality.
for a normal family housing is a major cost factor. Many citizens used to have healthcare with the manufacturing job (usually the man) so that was outsourced thanks to NAFTA AND the Chinese trade agreement (bipartisan btw). And there were publicly funded colleges that were free or cost almost nothing.
NOW: education (much higer requirements to have a degree than back in the day), childcare, healthcare and housing funnels the money of lower and middle income people up to the top. (Unless the citizens are lucky and have wealthy parents: but the country is SUPPOSED to be a meritiocracy). And the fossil fuel and car industry saw to it that not even in densely populated areas people could be without car. or with only one car per family. (which also saves costs !)
Now the international oligarchs and rich are ALLOWED TO BUY UP REAL ESTATE for "investment". The real estate developers" bribe politicians (R + D) to get their way. Pelosi got rich that way (or her husband, he was in the real estate biz), Crowley the guy that was unseated by AOC was the darling of the industry in N.Y. THAT is why he was speaker in waiting (you bet he raised a LOT of donations, which is the most important qualification for a speaker - in every party). The Rs play the same games. Money talks.
Pricing the locals out of the market could be easily forbidden (if only locals can own property). Only citizens of New Zealand can BUY. And in some regions in Europe (for instance in Austria) the mayors of communities can restrict if outsiders of the community can buy property or apartments - there are communities where not even other citizens of the nation can buy there. Buyers must have permanent residency to be allowed to own. (They can rent) - meaning some locals will own the rental property - and new projects of course are under scrutiny.
So the "scarce" space is left for those who live and WORK in the community.
1
-
it is possible to increase the number of people in a country. BUT you must provide the healthcare, school, pulbic housing, ... if that increase is INTENDED to be BENEFICIAL FOR ALL.
I heard believeable stories from people in the construction industry that their wages (or what they get for a contract job) is suppressed. Well, THAT did not happen in the days before the advent of neoliberalism. Then a plumber, electrican, painter, could make good money even though the population and workforce grew constantly and at a steep rate.
Government INVESTMENT created jobs and contributed to keep unemployment low (and they had the money because the rich and highly profitable biz were made to pay. (Nixon and JFK presidential debate in 1960. Nixon accused JFK of wanting to reduce taxes on the rich. JFK begged to differ: the 90 % on books had been undermined by a lot of loopholes since 1945. "Rich people like me should pay more taxes". So he suggested an effective !! top marginal income tax rate of 72 % - for a few million USD - and that means in TODAYS money.
Search income tax U.S. good article on Wikipedia, scroll down for the table they give the amount on the books and in todays purchasing power. - the guy was elected btw - the sky did not come tumbling down.
And politicians had not yet made it safe, plannable and lucrative to move the plants to developing countries (with "free trade agreements") In such an environment the construction workers CAN ask for good wages (or the self-employed painter). people have work and are not desperate (even undocumented workers have enough jobs). So there is no squeezing possible.
There are other factors why it might be wise to limit immigration (like overwhelming a population with - covert - racism with too many brown people. The black community should be taken care of first. There are limits to water, good land, ....
you better make sure there are GOOD SCHOOLS FOR LOW INCOME areas - so the next generation of immigrants will be fully integrated because they have a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD even though they had a modest beginning.
Then you raise the stakes and just play the bigger game - with more players.
And it would be good to spread out the new people more over the country (they want to stay in the Southern states - easier to visit home. and they often work in the local industries, meatpacking, farms) . Some areas like California or Texas are crowded.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jill Sanders was well prepared - the BBC interviewer has a more conservative (neoliberal stance, friendly to the financial class, and the status quo), but it seems this insane Corbyn smear was just too much.
Well the Tories can't really attack him on policies. Tried that for the longest time - more and more voters pay attention and they like the Labour proposals (returning to be a party of the little and average people).
At least the British KNOW that the NHS, the public healthcare system USED TO WORK. They always had the leanest budget of all wealthy European states (less than HALF of the per capita spending of the US) - and THEN the Tories have been cutting the budget for 10 years approx.
The increasing government debt because of bank bailouts was the pretext). While neoliberal "New" Labour could not be bothered to make a stink about it (they were the opposition party then). More or less the playbook like in the U.S.
Even people that are not that much into "socialism" trust the Corbyn would help - genuinely help - the NHS. and that he will do the best FOR the PEOPLE. Even if you disagree with his policies - everyone in their right mind knows that he does not favor corporations over citizens. None of that "sell off the familiy silver to the 1 %" - aka privatization of public services.
The British have a sense for fair play - and that was violated. And it is seen as insult to ALL of the country if "the leader of her Majesty's opposition" is in such a cavalier manner accused of high treason.
The BBC is publicly financed, they have however, become very cozy with the haves and the upper middle class (mostly "urban", mostly profiting of the financial "industry") forgetting about the blue collars and the regions outside London.
But they were still "too left" for the Tories even if they tried to "placate" them in order to not get their funding attacked.
But Labour under Corbyn might become the next government - time to get friendlier ! with the opposition (their reporting of J.C. was not very fair in the past, not as openly defamatory, a lot of half information, condescension and just ignoring the issues. Concentrating on superficial stuff and not mentioning the essence of the policy proposals).
The snap election PM May so foolishly called actually helped Corbyn to reach more voters with the message - they have a fairness rule for elections for TV stations in place. They must give airtime for the candidates to explain their position. Not talking ABOUT them (or misrepresenting them) - no, the candidates or a representative of the party can explain it in their own words. That helped Labour.
1
-
1
-
Can someone please recognize that the old man single handedly changed the healthcare debate in the U.S. - He is weaker than I would like him to be (or too set in his ways, he is 78 after all). - You did not waste your money. - Admitted: I cringed when Sanders talked about his friend Joe - these were his flaws and he made many.
Man, that primary sucks - I had hoped that Biden would catch corona and Sanders would be the default winner. Cuomo is busy in NYC and I wonder how the DNC would activate the other candidates that "suspended" their campaigns.
I think Sanders is not strategic enough - but that might have to do with his age. As president he still could do a good job with a well picked cabinet (I think he would have the b.s. meter to avoid the servants of the special interests). Plus not being a micro manager (I read he has that flaw - not sure if it is true).
I seem to remember that he said in 2015: I was never one of the people looking into the mirror and saying: One day I will be president.
I wonder if he was self-sabotaging (sub consciously). Sadly only the narcissists, morons, fools, liars, careerists and sociopaths have no qualms and no second thoughts. They feel entitled to the highest office.
Sanders would have needed to run a PERFECT campaign.
Considering that dementia Joe won many states on SuperTuesday (and later) with NO groundgame and not campaigning there ....
(Alabama for instance, he won in a landslide and DID nothing there - this is what decades of media propping up Credit card Joe, and a low information electorate gets you. Sanders was also long around the block - but Biden was a big fish under Bill Clinton and he always served big finance faithfully so of course he got the interview opportunities and the fawning.
Biden campaigned with half intensity in IO and NH, the only state I think he really put effort into (like a normal candidate) was South Carolina.
After that weekend (SC and Super Tuesday) the long days and the stress showed, he was malfunctioning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Obama paved the way for Trump. Biden will pave the path for a more intelligent, capable, wannabe fascist. Unless the protesters kick Biden over to the left and get in a progressive Congress and Senate. The luck so far is that Trump is so stupid, insulted the military, ...
On the other hand think about it: w/o corona it is not at all clear that Biden, an excepionally weak candidate, would win.
The Democratic "elites" incl. Obama gladly risked that, instead of having a mildly center-left platform.
When Obama pulled the strings behind the scenes after South Carolina pimary (very early March) no one expexted a pandemic to play out like that. In Europe they were eying Italy nervously, and it became clear withing 2 weeks that this would be a pandemic. But those considerations did not play a role when they elevated Biden to become the top contender.
They were willing to run with Biden, blackmail the voters into obedience and hope he could pull off a win.
Trump Must. Not. Have. A. Second. Term. is not so important after all. the Democratic establishment will not go so far as to compromise regarding the interests of the big donors.
It is the voters that have to compromise and accomodate the party and the candidate, not the other way round.
1
-
1
-
@tannerborud793 top marginal income tax rate was raised to 92 % in 1944 and stayed in the books as that for decades. It meant for over 2,7 million USD yearly income - in TODAYS money - you paid most of it in taxes. think 80 or 70 % with some exemptions (so not the full 92 %).
More and more loopholes were implemented of course. Still it financed a lot of bold government spending after WW2 (but now more on civilian investments, not only the military). And it took care of massive WW2 debt.
Highest ever federal debt of around 118 % of GDP in 1947 - that dropped to excellent low 30 % in the early 1970s. So the U.S. grew out of high debt while enjoying unprecedendet economic growth and wealth increase for a broad part of the population.
w/o the arms race and the Cold War - a pet project of the U.S. elites - and the wars in Asia and Latin America, the U.S. could have been a middle class utopia for all - incl. minorities - in the early 1970s.
But the U.S. has always had its under class, more than usual contempt for the poor, the middle class and above have always been very complacent about having a permanent underclass, and the Republic was almost always at war.
Still: this was the Golden Era. Federal minimum wage peaked in the late 1960s. (it would be close to 12 USD if they only had taken that wage and adjusted for inflation. Instead it is 7,25 USD. Or as low as 2,25 for "tipped" minimum wage in the states, that allow that.
Plus productivity
/ Plus growth of hourly average wages adjusted for inflation
/ period / duration
112 % / 97 % / 1947 - 1970 / 23 years - The golden era
69 % / 9 % / 1970 - 2013 / 43 years - Neoliberalism
I know the numbers by heart till 2013, but nothing has changed, wage increases have been eaten up by inflation. And inflation for low income people is higher: rent, healthcare, education, childcare cost explosion.
In the first era of only 23 years the purchasing power doubled (almost, 97 % is 3 % shy of double). REAL wages means adjusted for inflation. Which was higher then in general (side effect of booming economy), but that did not matter. Workers got the inflation and then some, and productivity gains paid for that. (Normally a major driver of inflation is wage increases).
The owners of companies and shareholders got to keep only a small part of productivity wins. But they are fewer people and it was a large pie, so they were still doing good.
The workers got the lion's share of productivity wins in form of higher wages (automation was a major reason for more than double productivity. What one worker produces in one hour. It was 112 %. Andrew Yang skips over that part, he is also not for raising the federal minimum wage.
Companies then paid a lot of taxes (so there was a major incentive to invest and innovate - it shows ! in productivity wins). And consumers could buy the stuff they helped to produce. later productivity did NOT rise nearly as much, 69 % is still good - but that is in 43 years.
The 69 % are on top of the new base of 1970 (after a plus of 112 % in the 23 years from 1947 - 1970). So you cannot just add 69 and 112 %, it is more.
so if you look at the whole period 1947 - 2013 you have a plus of productivity of 358 % or 3,58 times more. Real wages (adjusted for inflation) grew only by 214 % (and almost all of that growth happened between 1947 and 1970).
So of course a gap appeared between the output = what workers produced, and what they could afford to buy. for a time that was papered over with consumer debt.
Now consumers reduce discretionary spending (consumer goods, dining out, vacations, cars, a lot went into financing a home). So the new schemes to make profits is now with services where people have little choice: rent, childcare, education, healthcare.
Profitable companies even till 1980 (Reagan) paid much more of the total tax revenue than today. That burden has been shifted to individuals paying income tax (but not the very rich), the rest of government budgets comes from debt.
Nixon and JFK discussed 72 % EFFECTIVE top marginal income tax in a debate in 1960. Effective means: no exemptions, no loopholes.
Nixon accused JFK of wanting to cut the taxes for the rich.
JFK - No with an effective tax rate or 72 % we will raise more than with the 90 % but looholes. Rich people like me should pay more in taxes ...and I intend to spend it on education ....
Never mind how serious both were about it - that could be discussed in a presidential debate (I think it was on radio) and no one had seizures over it ....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thekingofthisworld2154 Some "good" inflation is driven by wage increases (that is O.K.) - but the USD 15 were delayed or completly abolished for years to come, and it would not have raised inflation significantly anyway. Another major driver of inflation: too much money is chasing too few goods. (that's a very simplified explanation).
There was not enough money in the eoconomy. The checks are only partially compensating for that.
People are going to pay down debt, the mortgages, rent, etc. (that keeps the landlord lcalls happy or saves the banks) but it will not even go towards consumption of goods and services. and they will consume more services (restaurants, hair salons, vacations).
There are not too few of them, the entrepreneurs are hoping for full house once they are open again. There is not a shortage of offers. Yes, some of them (many) have gone under, but I guess if a person had to declare bankrupcy or had to give up - they can revive that, if they see the economy booming again (especially if there are low interest loans for smaller biz).
there was not too much money and the checks and other payments (for a while) are only for catching up
And there is not too few goods and services.
And no increases of wages to be seen (which would be a driver of "good" inflation).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
These are Russian TROLLS making money !! (they are young and need it ...) Fascinating read: Registered Democrat from Los Angeles trolls right wing sites with fake news. However: it does not work with the left or liberal online sphere - they fact-check. He earns money with ads, and allegedly wants to embarrass the alt right with stories that are obviouslbe false.
We Tracked Down A Fake-News Creator In The Suburbs. Here's What We Learned
November 23, 2016
www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs
EXCERPT from the article
Jestin Coler, publisher of fake news sites (one of these sites is or was Disinfomedia)
…. Coler makes money from the ads on his websites. He wouldn't give exact figures, but he says stories about other fake-news proprietors making between $10,000 and $30,000 a month apply to him.
Late 2012, early 2013 I was spending a lot of time researching what is now being referred to as the alt-right. I identified a problem with the news that they were spreading and created Disinfomedia as a response to that.
The whole idea from the start was to build a site that could infiltrate the echo chambers of the alt-right, publish blatantly false or fictional stories and then be able to publicly denounce those stories and point out the fact that they were fiction.
During the run-up to the presidential election, fake news really took off. "…anybody with a blog can … find a big, huge Facebook group of rabid Trump supporters just waiting to eat up this red meat …"
When did you notice that fake news does best with Trump supporters?
Well, this isn't just a Trump-supporter problem. This is a right-wing issue. …The post-fact era is what I would refer to it as. …When we were coming up with headlines it's always kind of about the red meat. Trump really got into the red meat. He knew who his base was. He knew how to feed them a constant diet of this red meat.
We've tried to do similar things to liberals. It just has never worked, it never takes off. You'll get debunked within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out.
At any given time, Coler says, he has between 20 and 25 writers. And it was one of them who wrote the FBI agent story in the "Denver Guardian"
"FBI Agent Suspected In Hillary Email Leaks Found Dead In Apparent Murder-Suicide." The story is completely false, but it was shared on Facebook over half a million times.
Coler … says stories like this work because they fit into existing right-wing conspiracy theories.
"The people wanted to hear this," he says. "So all it took was to write that story. Everything about it was fictional: the town, the people, the sheriff, the FBI guy. And then ... our social media guys kind of go out and do a little dropping it throughout Trump groups and Trump forums and boy it spread like wildfire."
He was amazed at how quickly fake news could spread and how easily people believe it.
He wrote one fake story for NationalReport(dot) net about how customers in Colorado marijuana shops were using food stamps to buy pot. [that site seems to be more satirical]
"What that turned into was a state representative in the House in Colorado proposing actual legislation to prevent people from using their food stamps to buy marijuana based on something that had just never happened," Coler says.
Coler, a registered Democrat, says he has no regrets about his fake news empire.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertjohnson1681 I am not at all convinced that U.S. voters with a background of Latin America are all voting for Democrats. They are often socially conservative often (devout Catholics, abortion is a single voter issue for many). If the Republicans had halfway decent policies For The People they could kill it with those immigrant communities - also see Florida.
Also do not underestimate the selfishness of some (I am in, so close the door after me). Especialy if they do not have family members involved.
300,000 children is nothing in a country with 325,000,000 (325 million) people. 0,0923 percent.
Now multiply that with 25 years (the "fertile" years of a woman - aproximately). That would have the effect to contribute 2,3 % of the current population.
There will be a shift (slowly) - the white population will make up less of the U.S. population. The solution: have policies that allow females to join the workforce AND have children. Universal healthcare, maternity care and leave, free higher education, affordable childcare, reduction of the weekly worktime (40 hour week is from 1940 !!!! a lot of technological progress since then, if things were run for the benefit of the poeple we would all work 25 - 30 hours. - Or the man 40 and the wife 20 - being a homemaker, mother and one foot in the workplace.
also if hispanic communities are getting wealthier they tend to have LESS children (like the white population). So in case you are concerned about that the path is clear ....
My calculation is meant to give you an idea of the scope. Statisticians and people who do demographics will object to my method - do not let that distract you from the general idea - the 300,000 children are a drop in the bucket.
The reproduction rate * of white people would not be enough to keep population numbers stable without the communities that tend to have more children. Or children at all.
I think the reproduction rate is 1,7 children for every female if you want the population to be stable. Even IF you think if would be desireable to have less people in the country - you must navigate the decades of transition. Else there will not be enough young people to take care of the old ones.
"Older" societies might also be less dynamic, less innovative.
Plus: Who could be drafted / recruited for the wars of the rich ?
1
-
@puzer1 People like Sadiq Khan are a part of the British society as it is NOW (and have been for quite a while) About time someone like him got elected. (Now, that does not mean I am a fan, mind you).
The former British empire had many people from all parts of the world coming to the island. In the 1950s and 1960s (for instance they very much encouraged Jamaicans to come, most of them people of color). These people have become a well integrated part of British society - and rightly so.
You bet they should show up in the ranks of politicians, in the media, in the ranks of entrepreneurs and artists.
If you are a decent person you want neighbours, collegues, the people around you to be orderly, well educated, law abiding citiizens.
I do not know why it would matter that the teacher, neighbour, boss, client has lighter or darker skin than you.
Racism is not as widespread (and different) in the U.K. - Their people with obvious migrantion background (you can see it, the hair, facial features, the skin) are still very "British". Slavery was not an economic model lucrative for some - so the villification was not as strong and P.O.C. had a chance to become part of the community.
During WW2 U.S. troops were stationed in England. Some (from the South no doubt) objected that black people could use the same pubs as them. They wanted segregated pubs. Well, the Brits did not oblige them. They had to put up !! with other U.S. soldiers that were not white - and with the minorities in the U.K. then who were not white.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Max spouting nonsense, too ?? The SIGNAL that they are WILLING to fire them if they don't do their duty is massive. And in other states or professions the anti vaxxers have already blinked, they talk a big game, but then they fall in line. - And it is not an attack of the working class, no one hinders the nurses (or aides or adminstrative staff) to work as private caregiver or do something else. It is protection of VULNERABLE patients, and othere staff and of the relatives of those nurses.
and if they really need the job to pay bills - imagine HOW IDEOLOGICALLY indoctrinated one would have to be to refuse a safe vaccine over that - no one wants a nurse that is highly biased about medical facts.
Again if you do not like mRNA, get the J&J.
The short time effects are known, millions have gotten it, and with the conventional vaccines it is also known (from decades of experience !!) that IF you get any side effects at all they will manifest within 4 weeks. several months since approval of J & J and literally hundreds of millions of doses have been given There is no RATIONAL reason to refuse that vaccine.
Even if you err on the side of paranoia with the new mRNA platform (no relevant side effects short term, so the anti vaxxers project their belief in vague but highly negative outcomes into the distant future.)
Nurses MUST have other vaccinations, too, and if one does not want mRNA, I am sure they could arrange for J & J which is DIFFERENT, conventional adeno-virus-as-vector platform. Resp. a responsible nurse would have arranged for THAT shot already in the last months. It also needs only one shot.
The signal that the government or hospital would fire them is massive - that they are willing to follow through and fire "healthcare workers" (remember that can be admin staff, and aides that are easier to replace). Also for OTHER STATES. Also for other professions.
To the degree that qualified staff even is negligent - they will reconsider, IF they would otherwise stay (??) Are they really giving up their job and pension, healthcare insurance for the crusade and over vague scepticism. Are they really leaving their collegues behind ?
The signal that people will have to face negative consequences if they continue to endanger others or continue to prolong the pandemic is important. That goes way beyond nurses.
Yes nurses are important, but we are willing to follow through with loss of privileges for those that refuse to get the vaccines.
I am VERY sceptical about the number of 70,000. it was 20 in 10,000 that mentioned it as ONE reason in their resignation in another state (I think NJ - so after a lot of huffing and puffing they at most lost 1 in 5,000 NURSES. If that was even the real reason and not a pretext.
And you bet they lost many more in recent months because of burnout, PTSD, etc. REALLY losses of nurses that burned out - or quit before they burned out.
The profession has a high turnover rate even in normal times - and it is worse NOW because they have been worked to breaking point since March 2020 (with only a few months normalcy in between) - AND still lose a lot of the battles for the life of patients. Maybe it would be better if they would at least be rewarded with positive outcomes .... But they see a LOT of patients die. They see the signs as patients get worse - one nurse from TN described it: "We know, we recognize that signs, there is nothing we can do, we care for them, but we are almost certain we are going to lose those patients. It never leaves me. I see people w/o masks in shops and automatically assess their survival chances if they would be transferred to my critical care unit."
Age and obesity most likely - and overal appearance of health.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
6:00 the hospitals have already delayed very necessary surgeries and emergency patients already have died for lack of crtitical care beds (all filled up with antivaxxers that had CoVid-19) - and NOT because of the mandate, this is going on since July, since Delta has been spreading a lot !! ICU filled up with easily preventable COVid cases (almost all unvaccinated, and now they are younger and with no special risks). ICU at 130 % capacity, nurses and doctors have been worked into the ground for 18 months - but NOW the stress & the TRAUMA would be be totally preventable.
The REFUSAL TO VACCINATE of a stubborn, selfish, tribal and underinformed part of the population has been KILLING these last months and has put a major strain on the system. _Not the mandate which only now comes into effect.
Teachers are missing ? Well at least that is planable. As opposed to constant disruptions because of quarantines, and sending whole classes home. Or if a collegue is infected and has a longer absence (if they have preexisting conditions they can even need a hospital stay if they get a breakthrough infection).
The negative consequences for refusal of vaccination are necessary now, the signal to the population is necessary (no everyone has to get it - and no special provision for police, teachers or healthcare staff either) - because pleading and reasoning does not work on quite a number of people.
it is not reasonable to drive after drinking alcohol (more than a little). Do we rely on the reason and sense of responsibility of citizens for that ?? Sure some people would do it w/o any nudges. Others (many) react to the signal set by law makers. They might take liberties if it was left to their discretion but as it would have so negative consequences IF caught - they'd rather not.
Some people do not comply (I will not get caught, others are impaired after drinking but not me, I am so special. Or they do not think, or care, or are addicted. Well, IF caught no one reasons with them. And those negative consequences ONCE convince a another part of the population. And get their friends and relatives thinking.
Negative consequences work - and they make a sufficient number of people do the right thing.
They cannot have different rules for different people. Not even nurses. it would not hold legally and it also is not fair & would be bad messaging.
Being willing to lose a job that you like to have (except for the need to vaccinate) is a test for how serious you are about your obejections. It removes the most ideologcial & misinformed from the staff (in schools, civil service, healthcare, police ...) that is a GOOD thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Josh The Prince Of The Degenerates Fink "free market" is simply not compatible with healthcare. The complexity and urgency and inevitability of the service (life and death) means that patients are in a much, much weaker position against the for-profit players. The complexity means even well-intentioned governments and regulators cannot neutralize that massive disadvantage for the patients (and for themselves - since they subsidize).
Usually the wealthy nations pull it off at 55 - 65 percent of the U.S. expenditures - the average for every person. That average number for the U.S. includes people who do not have coverage and to not get treatment ! - just to be clear
The U.K. operates at only 44 % of the U.S. expendtitures - but that is obviously not enough for a system worthy of a first world country - the NHS is struggling.
See world bank per capita healthcare expenditures of nations in USD
That is all that is spent in the nation divided by all people. It does not matter who pays for it, if people are insured. It is the average per person, no matter the age, health, or insurance status - or whether or not they get treatment if needed.
U.K USD 3,900 U.S. USD 9,200 other wealthy nations between 5 and 6,000 (Australia, Canada, allmost all wealthy European countries). Germany 5,600 for instance.
outlier: Switzerland - 9,600 they too have (mostly) private insurance companies in the healthcare system - at least their medical services are good, they pay staff well, they have in general higher costs of living and everyone does have insurance (not only do they have insurance policies they can rely on getting treatment and getting it paid for - which is NOT the case in the U.S). I think some Kantons offer something like a public option.
1
-
1
-
Decriminializing drugs (see what Switzerland or Portugal did) would pull the rug from under the mafia, and the cartels. But also from the police and the "justice" system. - A lot of distribution of drugs (on the streets to the end consumers) happens by addicts, others steal or become burglars, they pressure their families for money, or they turn to prostitution.
All of that would vanish if there would be programs monitored by social workers and medical staff.
I recently saw a video of Shoshona Garfield (EFT practicioner, healer, not sure if she is a certified psychotherapist). When she was a little girl her mother, a drug addict, sold her to pedophiles for money. - I am not sure if that woman would have had any claim to morality and motherly feelings IF she had never turned to drugs (but then it is possible that sexual abuse happened to that woman as well. And if the way of "processing" that is suppression than such a woman can become unable to recognize that the same thing happens to her children or she is - in the claws of her addiction and the desperate need for the drug - unable to sympathize with her child.
Anyway: if a young potentially irresponsible mother had gotten her "stuff" under the watch of social workers and medical care, that might never have happened. Well funded social programs can have an eye at the children of addicts.
No overdoses, no infections with needles. Avoiding ALSO the medical costs. No people living on the streets, unable to take care of their families. They still would be dependent - but not from the cartels and the dealers, or the sex trade. So the addicts would be in contact with responsible people (who monitor the program) and a lot of stress would be lifted from their shoulders and the shoulders of their families.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Attempted Revolution in Europe in 1848. The emperor in Vienna in his residence hears noise. So he asked: "What is this, why are the citizens assembled nearby the fence of the park - and why are they that loud ?" - "Your majesty they want a Revolution." - Legend has it that the old (inept) emperor responded with : "Are they even allowed to do that ?" ..... General strikes are outlawed in many (most) countries. So is the taking down of confederate statues .........
His nephew was projected to become emperor anyway, the imperial family left Vienna, and the old emperor was forced / urged to step down and make way for the young one - which got into power faster, at age 18 only.
Unfortunatley he was quite a reactionary, these forces were stronger then, they crushed that uprising of civilians against an absolute monarch (with a LOT of spies around for decades after the Napoleonic wars - to find out if people were vocal about discontent (so that had gone on since 1815 for 30 years). Being to vocal could get you into prison. And those spies that tried to start conversations in taverns or public places of course occasionally tried to trip up people to justify their salary.
And the press was not free, they had to fawn over the monarch and could not criticize the major decisions, like war and economic polices. Some things could be discussed. It was like Poland or Hungary in the late 1980s before the Warsaw pact was dissolved. They had gotten some freedoms (more than in Eastern Germany, soviet Union or Romania) - but were not democracies.
In the U.K. they had at least a parliament (which was of course elected and in charge of the interests of middle class and above, poor people had no representation, and for the longest time could not vote. not even the males).
1
-
1
-
The European new colonists in the new colony State of Israel were on average every bit as racist as all the other European and U.S. middle class people - just minus the anti-Jewish sentiment. Golda Meir had black jews kicked out of the new State of Israel, and they were/are more than condescending towards the Arab Jews - although if anyone might be related to King David and Abraham or Moses (if those men ever lived) - it is these people. The Ashkanazi Jews (European descent and LOOKS) have no genetic ties to the region (genetic research done in Israel !). That was just a myth to better sell the colony in a time when other nations got rid of their colonial masters. That narrative would have been poinless for instance when Panama (or the Seychelles) would have been given to them.
Anti-Jewish sentiment in the wealthy nations before WW2
The European Jews in countries like Germany, France Netherlands were on average higher educated and they often were middle or upper middle class even in the bad economic situation after WW1. They were well assimilated and were in all the institutions - academia, public services, army, press, arts. Except maybe in goverment. And some were rich bankers (or banksters) or industrial leaders.
THAT - to their shock - did not help them in Germany.
And there was an undercurrent of ani-Jewish sentiment everywhere. After the enlightenment it should have gone away, and most of the Jewish people were well assimilated (often converted to Christianity or not Orthodox Jewish) - they were hard to distinguish from their fellow citizens.
So HOW could the prejudices continue ?
The age of industrialization was hard for most people. Folks that were middle class (tradespeople, or they had a little workshop, a mill, a blacksmith) lost their income (and the social status !). And held maybe more resentment that those who had never had anything.
The constant prosecution over the centuries had made the Jewish community very white collar and very internationally connected/minded. And in the old times money lending, bank services, trade and all things "educated and white collar" were the few professions that were open to Jews. - That set them up to be economically successful when trade increased, when accounting was invented, when modern banking (incl. FIAT money or fractional reserve banking) was introduced (through the backdoor and illegally then - unlike today where it is used as tool of a modern economy)
It continued to be an advantage when the economic system changed from feudalism to more trade and then CAPITALism due to the Industrial Revolution. Many traditional trade people and small businesses went under in that time. People who were good in the trading and finance game or who valued education (and already were in a good start position to afford to educate their boys - authors, lawyers, journalists, scientists) had an advantage.
All that meant that in the seemingly enlightened age the need for a scapegoat was as urgent as ever - for the many that did not well and the few that did well or extremely well.
Of course the unwashed masses were (and are !) not supposed to envy all people who had it better than them (that would have meant challenging the ideological paradigm of the system that served the few so well).
But it was not pathetic to hate on the middle class or upper middle class Jews. Finance or banking at large could not be questioned - these people profited very much - but those evil Jewish bankers were fair game (I guess they were as ruthless, greedy, profit oriented and unconcerned about the little people as their non Jewish counterparts).
Hostile sentiments were openly uttered in Austria, Germany, France, Italy, UK, U.S., Hungary, Poland, - likely also in Spain and Portugal ....and some of these nations also discussed to infringe on the civil rights of Jewish people (for instance the Austria fascists - but they did not encact it). But mostly they did not pass such laws, it was the nasty discussion and nasty remarks. The Jewish were not stripped of their cititzen rights so they could use wealth to counteract that mood by influencing law makers, the press, ....
Only the German took it to the extreme: Once the Jew prosectuing Nazis had become the (war) enemy the anti Jewish sentiment needed to go underground in the other nations. It would have been unpatriotic to say certain things loud and publicly - it made you look like a Nazi (when you were "only" a regular prejudiced Brit).
1
-
1
-
1
-
Gen. Butler did not live to comment on the murderous U.S. supported wars in the 1950s and 60s, (FDR implemented a policy of "good neighbourship and left them alone, enough troubles in the U.S. - and FDR unlike most other presidents did not work overtime for the U.S. oligarchs).
Smedly Butler also did not witness the overthrowing of a democratically elected government in 1973 - the first 9/11- in Chile to help a right wing dictator into power (for the copper interests of AT&T among other things).
Chile is small, no geostratic position, military no match for the U.S., not much economic exchange with the U.S., not a strong economy.
There was no national interest for the U.S. (even if you disregard international law). - but a few special interests.
And if they would use the revenue of the mines for The People of Chile - that would have been an advantage for the U.S. at large (a stable little country, maybe a little tourism and trade if they become wealthier). Their local elites and U.S. companies however wanted to pocket the profits.
And the U.S. oligarchs feared it would set a bad example - if Chile would successfully use the resources of the country for the good of the people not the U.S. and local oligarchs.
The libertarian economic policies enforced by the dictatorship failed.
Some U.S. "economists" were enthusiastic that they could force their idelogy on a nation that could not stand up against those policies. Chile was a guinea pig for them. Weirdly enough those "libertarians" had no objection to NO POLICAL FREEDOM for the people (and torture, mass incarceration, a coup that immediately - on 9/11 1973 killed 3000 people including the ELECTED head of state and members of government / parliament).
The only way they could implement these policies was the use of force of Chilean upper class, their military with the help of a superpower.
Dictator Pinochet eventually kicked the "free market" gurus out of the country after many years - so only in the last years of his regime Chile recoverd at least economically somewhat.
The terrible regime in Argentine.
The Reagan supported death squads in the 1980s. They got money, training, intel, equipment - and refuge in the U.S. later.
The CIA getting the black budgets to support those killers (todays cartels !!) by IMPORTING DRUGS into the U.S. (Iran Contra scandal).
Or that the U.S. (under Bush) was involved in a coup attempt against Chavez of Venezuela (he was kidnapped for a few days). That was in 2002 or 2003. The masses took it to the steet, the army was not fully supportive, so the coup failed.
The plotters - very generously - good lenient treatment (house arrest). In the U.S. that might get you prison for life or even the death penalty.
For that they revealed the connections. That was an embarrassment for the Cheney / Bush admin - and they were busy setting the Middle East on fire anyway. So no more too obvious attempts by that admin.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is also the "debate" format that is now floated, or it is already decided. a cozy sit down and with questions from the audience. In other words: attacks on Sanders, fluff for Biden. and they control how much chance Sanders has to go after Biden.
Not. a. peep. of protest from Sanders as far as I know.
There is no logical explanation for that, because the format that is right for the citizens (that they see who is mentally and physically fit enough) is also the format that would very much favor Sanders.
I think they gave Biden something for the debates (maybe it was caffeine) but it wore off, I seem to remember he did worse in the 2nd part.
They call it sundowning for a reason, and the DNC cannot move the debates to morning when he might be in better shape.
It should be: both standing and both debate each other. The moderator just setting it up with questins and they take it from there with the interactions. Like the last debates but now Biden cannot hide anymore. In the last 2 he escaped scrutiny because Bloomberg was the target, Klobuchar and pete bickered. Warren criticized all healthcare plans etc.
Biden would have to talk at least for 1 hour, and Sanders could well shape WHAT is talked about. And we all kow how that ends for Biden, when he has to talk longer in the evening.
There is a reason Biden's campaign let's him do only 7 minute speeches. The rudeness whenever he is challenged by a reporter or at a townhall. (even if asked polite and on a legitimate issue). Either that is the real Biden, or that is the only way he can deal with it and "win". By bullying
That he does not have the mental agility to deal well with it (could be deflecting or filibustering, or with a joke, whatever).
You cannot prepare and it takes more than present your usual talking points (and he slips up even on that).
Although he should have his answers ready regarding the corruption of his son and also his family that made hundreds of millions of dollars off Biden's office.
It
The dnc knows that Sanders can rip Biden apart, who does not have the physical fitness or mental agility to appear to advantage.
Standing is more exertion and if you barely can stay coherent and speak freely that physical demand takes an extra toll. Sanders is fit enough to do it even in the evening - Biden not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matthewf9500 - the invasion of Afghanistan was prepared in SUMMER 2001. That is why the U.S. could start the war only 1 month after 9/11. 9/11 "provided" the convenient pretext to sell the war to the U.S. voters. Osama Bin Laden allegedly had organized 9/11. The Taliban tolerated Bin Laden in the country - they would have considered extraditing him, if the U.S. had given them "face -saving" proof.
After all they were all Islamic extremists (OBL and his allies and the Taliban).
The Taliban had to sell an extradition of OBL to their base - that OBL meant more trouble than he was worth because he had really ! a major role in 9/11 and dragged Afghanistan into an unwanted military conflict with the U.S.
Afghanistan was only the guest country ! OBL came from a RICH Saudi family, which is friendly with the Bushes. So the U.S. providing PROOF would have been a face-saving argument for the Taliban to cooperate in THIS matter with the U.S.
Well, the U.S. did not WANT the Taliban to make compromises - Cheney / Bush WANTED war. That was the first time that NATO !! members had to help out each other in case of a "military attack" (I do not know the specific term - during the cold war everyone thought that clause of the NATO treaty would apply if the Soviet Union would ever attack a NATO member state. Instead the clause of "mutual support" was abused when the U.S. had suffered an easily preventable ! major terror attack.
The Taliban had of course lost all sympathies with their crazy religious regime (in hindsight - the Western press made a point to highlight the situation in Afghanistan. While glossing over the situation in KSA, Qatar, Dubai .... - which was almost as bad. The Saudis are better with the propaganda and much richer. So they did not destroy cultural sites. At least not openly (after all the Mujahideen and other extreme groups got plenty of Saudi money. Same with ISIS).
I think the "powers that be" had a long term plan to invade Afghanistan - and the Western press already helped to prepare the mood. Anyway: the voters in the West were under shock in fall 2001, the U.S. AND their NATO allies rammed through that war.
The war against Iraq had to be prepared and the mood had to be manipulated - but with Afghanistan they were ready to go.
According to a clip of Ryan Grim (TYT) the Taliban were quickly (after the first round !) willing to surrender and have a peace agreement. That would have needed to accomodate the different tribes in that backwards society. Instead the U.S. denied a peace agreement and started throwing around money if people ratted each other out - the people ended up in Guantanomo. We know that Taliban AND their enemies ended up there. It was a safe and LUCRATIVE opportunity for ruthless Afhans to have the U.S. military and spooks dipose of your opponents - military, tribal, personal, business. Afghanistan is a very tribal society - so there were plenty of animosities at play.
True: the Taliban were and are crazy fanatics - the U.S. likes to cooperate with such fanatics (at least for some time) provided they do as the U.S. (ruling class and business interests) want.
See Saudi Arabia. See Syria: John Kerry September2016: We wanted ISIS to become stronger (in Syria) - that would weaken Assad. The audio is on youtube.
In the 1990s the Taliban (ruling in Afghanistan after a brutal civil war followed the retreat of the Soviet army) did not go along with the plans regarding a pipeline in Afghanistan. And they were not as interested as the Saudis in money - meaning they were harder to control by the Western oligarchs. Once the Soviets had left Afghanistan their energy became soon "scary" for the U.S. - which now wanted to dispose of the former allies.
So there was a falling out with the U.S. and the West. Not because of severe human rights violations and religious extremism (all of that is fine when the Saudis do it) - but because they were not controllable and now stood in the way of business and military interests.
People like Osama Bin Laden and the other Mujahedin from Afghanistan had gotten the VIP tour in D.C. including a meeting in the Oval Office with Reagan. The Taliban are not the same as the Mujahedin (but there are crossovers and commonalities between the groups).
The Mujahedin were the Islamic fundamentalistic FOREIGNER (mostly Arab, many Saudis) who were into the "jihad" = the Holy War and who were "used" by the U.S. / Saudi Arabia as mercenaries against the Soviet army in Afghanistan.
It just turned out that the "tools" were not easy to control and had a mind of their own. And admitted: they were fierce fighters and put the U.S. / Saudi money, training, intel and equipment to good use.
You need a looooong spoon to dine with the devil.
The U.S. and KSA jumpstarted International ISLAMIC terrorism then. Connections among the brotherhood of Islamic extremists have been forged that are still at play. Some of the fighters returned to their home countries and helped to spread the movement. While the Western oligarchs helped to plunder their countries - so the economic stress, the resentment among the population makes recruitment easy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Soap RUINS the hull of the virus, it destroys it, but it needs a little time, then you can rinse of the harmless parts of the dissolved or inactivated virus. also do not forget exposed wrists, the space between the fingers, palms and outside, and the thumbs. 20 seconds gives you time and the soap can enter all the tiny folds in the skin.
If you are at thome the soap is the superpower against the virus (well ALL detergents, dish soap, washing powder and shampoo works as well, but for your hands soap is better).
Soap works better in a household than alcohol, the usual sanitizers need to be 60 % alcohol. So more costly, also not good for your skin. They are fine when you cannot wash your hands because you are on the go.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peanutdroppings6882 Smedly Butler was not alive to witness the overthrowing of a democratically elected government in 1973 - the first 9/11- in Chile to help a right wing dictator into power (for the copper interests of AT&T among other things).
Chile is small, no geostratic position, military no match for the U.S., not much economic exchange with the U.S., not an important economy anyway. There was no national interest for the U.S. to meddle with them (even if you disregard international law). - but a few special interests.
And if left leaning government in 1973 would have used the revenue of the mines for The People of Chile - that would have been an advantage for the U.S. citizens. (a stable little country, maybe some tourism and trade if they become wealthier). Their local elites and U.S. companies however wanted to pocket the profits.
The U.S. oligarchs feared it would set a bad example in all of Latin America - if Chile would get away with using the resources of the country for the good of the people not the U.S. and local oligarchs.
The libertarian economic policies enforced by the dictatorship failed (some U.S. "economists" were enthusiastic that they could force their idelogy on a nation that could not stand up against those policies. Chile was a guinea pig for them.
Weirdly enough those "libertarians" had no objection to NO POLITICAL FREEDOM. The only way they could implement these policies was the use of force by the Chilean upper class, their military, and important: the help of a superpower.
Dictator Pinochet eventually kicked the "free market" gurus out of the country after many years - so only in the last years of his regime Chile recoverd at least economically somewhat.
The terrible regime in Argentine (have you ever heard of the grandmothers that bravely assembled and demanded information about disappeared family members).
The Reagan supported death squads in the 1980s. They got money, training, intel, equipment - and refuge in the U.S. later. When they were done undermining governments, unions, left movements - they increased the drug trade and extortion practices. They became organized crime in many countries (Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Colombia)
The CIA getting the black budgets to support those killers (todays cartels !!) by IMPORTING DRUGS INTO the U.S. (Iran Contra scandal).
Or that the U.S. (under Bush) was involved in a coup attempt against Chavez of Venezuela (he was kidnapped for a few days). That was in 2002 or 2003. The masses took it to the steet, the army was not fully supportive, so the coup failed.
The plotters - very generously - good lenient treatment. For that they revealed the connections. That was an embarrassment for the Cheney / Bush admin - and they were busy setting the Middle East on fire anyway. So no more too obvious attempts - then.
Note the Mike Pence and John Bolton rhetoric. They would LOVE to start a war (covertly or openly) against Venezuela. But the countries in the region - even if they play nice with the U.S. - are vehemently against it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Almost sure it will NOT be 70,000 that they have to retire. And one should not forget that some in the profession might use that as pretext to be able to leave their contract fast or under better conditions - but would have left anyway. Jimmy should ALSO do a segment on how many have left the profession in recent months because they were worked to exhaustion and breaking point (that is a real thing). And these were QUALIFIED nurses.
If the national guard can replace them - they ARE AIDES (surveys show: the more qualified - think RN, critical care nurse, doctor - the less likely they are to refuse vaccination. Anti vaxxers among "healthcare staff" are often adminstrative staff or aides.
And school bus drivers CAN be replaced, if need be parents can form a pool to work around the shortage. Other drives work overtime (hope they like the money, it is not such a HARD job, so they should cope well). Or they lower (for the next months) the requirments for school bus drivers (certification), if a driver not steps up, they could be allowed to qualify as they go - if they want to keep the new job.
Job openings !
There should be plenty of retired or former truck drivers that would not mind making an extra buck, it is not that hard to memorize the tour, move the damn' thing (if you have driven a truck before, a bus will not be a challenge) and to remember to be cautious when the little ones enter and leave. (or the teenagers). O.K. having a look in the mirror on what is going on IN the bus.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bryanleggo3489 The fetish for paper exists in almost all nations, and the old fashioned SAFE technology CANNOT be rigged. The ballots (after filling them out) are thrown into the box by the voters, and the box stands in the middle of the room and is monitored ALL the time (by the election board and usually there are some voters in the room going into the cubicle or leaving.
The election process is administrated and monitored by people of all parties (volunteers) and civil servants who administrate the election: that means they give out the ballot to the citizens, tick them off the list. After closing they count together and sign off and report the result
People vote in person for the most part - and there are enough polling stations (15 minutes is an unusually long waiting time) and there are not technology glitches ! paper, pen, and a cubicle. And hand count by a group, that check each other. Hard to mess that up.
Not even a country wide electricity blackout would prevent the election going on.
If there are potentially invalid ballots they have to decide together. Then they announce the result of THIS polling station to the tabulation central (but the hand count result is part of public record and if citizens want to have fun they can do the math).
Newspapers and websites publish the data per town, village or city the next day(s) - In a village they have only one polling station, but more in towns and cities of course. So typically the numbers are aggregated, or it would be too much to publish and confusing for the readers.
But voters like to know how their village, town, city voted. In a village with farmers (typically conservative) - "Who are the ones that voted green or center left ?" ;)
That does not leave to feuds, but maybe some friendly teasing.
Now, they would have to bribe all the people in ONE pollling station, which is almost impossible. Because there are volunteers from every party and they have typically at least 5 parties that are represented ON LOCATION - every ! location that matters.
Now I can see how the Green party does not have people in the odd village that is a conservative stronghold anyway. In that tiny place there might be only 3 or 4 parties represented, they are not going to cheat the Greens of the few votes they are getting.
People on THAT level are not like that, they just aren't. I think typically they take their civic duty very seriously and carry out their task with pride.
And then that unlikey and criminal effort would mean shit because one polling station does not deliver enough votes to change anything.
You cannot bribe thousands and thousands of the civil servants / volunteers that handle the voting process on election day.
And the votes CAN be verified (the paper ballots are kept - per polling station) - so that is the deterent to trying to pull off anything at the higher level (of tabulation). As for destruction of ballot, which would be criminal. One polling station could claim stupidity or accident - but not thousands of them. And ONE polling station or village cannot change the outcome, but you could make yourself the joke of the nation.
The safety is built in at a very LOW level of the election process.
They also can't rig the tabulation. With an excel sheet people or journalists could correct them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bryanleggo3489 The voter rolls are printed from a central register of residency. the idea of "voter purges" or not being on the voter rolls is unconsionable. Likewise that someone can vote that is not eligible to vote.
Almost all other nations have 19th century methods to cast the ballot and to count it - but 20th century methods how to administrate the voting FILES. Automatic voter registration. - of course.
If a person is born, dies, ets citizenship they correct the register of residency (people have to submit the birth or death certificate, etc. but that is needed for other things as well, like SS for free medical services for the child, or settling inheritance, or child benefits. That means the voter rolls are automatically updated.
You just have a lag of 2 weeks or so (because then they already print the paper lists ! they will use on election day, so if you move in that time, and change residency after that, you have to vote in the old place. Or ask for a mail ballot.
Which is not quite as common: there are enough polling stations, no waiting lines. It is only if people expect the weather to be fine and they will be gone for the weekend, that they use mail ballot.
People that move have to initiate the change in the register of residency. Else you will get the invitation to vote (and the polling place) to the old address. That invitation is not necessary to bring along. But in case they have changed the location and for first time eligible adults as reminder.
Also 20th century: elections are ALWAYS on a Sunday or holiday. Yes that costs the overtime of civil servants (they get paid double), but that is worth it for one of the most important things government can spend money on.
1
-
@bryanleggo3489 On the LOWER level citizens do not DISAPPEAR ballots. First you can have legal provisions that specify how the ballot box must be monitored during election, the procedures of the count (witnesses, signing off, what to do if they feud over invalid ballots - on a local level that could decide an election. Rules who is even allowed to touch, open move the ballot box. Rules how to store them after election day, who has to sign off, how the count must be handled.
At least always four eyes. And if that is prosecuted - or at least called out (never rule out incompetence) no one will dare to tamper.
If an election is very close or if there is an usual number of contested / invalid ballots they will do the recount immediately. (At a given location. And you bet the media will be on it). The only scenario where I could see even some controversy are LOCAL elections, where a few votes can determine the win. Then they might fight whether or not a feeble stroke of a pen is a "correctly marked choice on the ballot". But people will read about it and hear about it. And there are legal provisions to settle such disputes.
If the units are smaller (less votes are counted) the risk / reward balance is completely skewed.
No one in their right mind would tamper with the votes of a community of 800 people (or polling station). or even 1000 or 5000. That's just not worth the risk of prison, ruining your reputation, the costs of a law suit - and for a civil servant losing a safe job, pension etc. - and more importantly at THAT level people are usually not that crooked.
And for the few that would be: the other witnesses are not signing off on the result. Which in itself would be a major scandal and draw a LOT of attention.
Imagine people that monitor in a Republican stronghold and there are also some of the Green party, unions, Democrats, associated with Sunrise Movement. Would they sign off if they suspect shenanigans ? More importantly they are always present, they can step in the moment someone as much as touches the ballot box or tries to transport the ballot box w/o the proper witnesses.
(ballot boxes shouldn't be transported to begin with, until the count for that location is done and signed off).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Larry WILKERSON Chief of Staff to Colin Powell: POTUS and age
Excerpt*: Wilkerson: ...If I call President Obama for anything, it was his timidity, and his lack of courage. His lack of courage with respect to politics, and his lack of courage with respect to particularly his last three years in office.
Where I know from talking with him personally, talking with him in the Roosevelt Room, that he understood. He said [to me] there was a bias in this town towards war, with his Secretary of State sitting beside him. He said quote : "There's a bias in this town towards war" unquote. Well, he went on for another 20 minutes to elaborate on that.
Well, Mr. President if you knew that - why didn't you start doing something about it ? I mean, he could have done a lot more, if he'd had the political courage to do it ..... I think it's because, first you get trapped in that environment, and you want to make lots of money, and you wanna be very happy, and you wanna be very satisfied when you leave that office, especially if you're as young as he is.
And you realize that if you start these fights, if you start these battles, not only might you be assassinated, you're probably going to leave without anything like the dignity, and the honor, and the emoluments, and the fortune that he left with.
And I don't say that lightly, that's a very difficult decision to make, when you stand up for principle, when you stand up for the country, when you are a true patriot, you usually are punished, not rewarded.
* It is in the 2nd half of the interview more to the end of the interview "Practically Everyone Opposes Trump's Reversal of Obama's Cuba Opening" by TheRealNews - see the full transcript below the youtube video window on www youtube com/watch?v=eMO4o5nRGQs - insert the missing dots
TRN usually has transcripts on their site with the embedded Youtube video, in this case they did not provide a transcript, but you will find one if you go to the video on youtube.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sanders sold his book well (it is authentic that people and not thinktanks had bought that - go to Amazon). But he did not even need that income (and they bought it in August, likely when they knew he did not have to run for president and had time for that stuff).
As future president it would have been Camp David.
Dude does not splurge on vacations, cars, isn't into wife, wine and song and does not have to pay off mistresses). He had a good income since he was 40 years old, since 1981 (the 8 years of mayor were O.K. paid, and with benefits).
Now they get around 174,000 before taxes in the Senate. He had that kind of income since 1991 when he was sworn in as member of Congress, that would put any person into upper middle class. Especially since good healthcare is included, so no bad and costly surprises from that side (if someone needed that in the family, Sanders has been healthy).
His wife held a job, too for most of the time.
And they sold an inherited vacation or family home in Maine, and her part of the sales price was part of the down payment in 2016.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
part 2 of 2 * after 1 or 2 years after the months of bombing against Serbia (killing a lot of civilians) German publicly financed TV came up with a documentary: It started with a lie. (The lie being that there was systematic ethnic cleansing going that triggered the engagement of U.S. / NATO that the Serbs ran "concentration camps" for other ethnicities and that the Serbs had a plan to make other ethnicities leave for Albania.
Those claims were the base for the "responsibility to protect" justification. The claims were based on "intel" gotten by ONE source, a shady character. It was all made up of course. The letter agencies did not fall for it of course. the guy was there to add something to the files to have plausible deniability when it came out that none of the reasons for the war did hold. After all they KNEW they would not find the claimed concentration camps.
When the U.S. / NATO started bombing Serbia the crazies in ALL ethnic groups took over. THEN the stage was set for upcoming atrocities. There had been warnings of course that the NATO bombing would make things worse and escalate the situation, and it did. Horray ! Some of the country are now poorer than they were (a Marshall plan in the early 90s could have prevented all of that - and it would not have cost more than the war). The economic troubles in a multi-ethnic state were at the beginning of the problems.
Now the mafia runs the places that the U.S. helped to separate, many (well educated) people fled the country. And the U.S. can have their bases there. Balkanization has become a word. they set the stage for tiny ethnic enclaves seceding. (and unlike Crimea not even with a referendum).
The new coalition government under Schroeder and Fischer in Germany sold out to the U.S. - Social Democrats and Green Party are supposed to be pro peace.
With strong resistance in Germany against the war (many cultural ties, the attacks were flown from U.S. bases there) the war against Yu would not have been possible. Italy did object to the war if I remember correctly - and Austria as direct neighbour (of Germany and Yugoslavia) certainly prefered diplomacy, and is a neutral state anyway. W/o the fitting propaganda the Austrian government,too could not have justified to open their airspace to the U.S. airforce to fly attacks.
The German Green party (which had just made history be being in government for the first time) had to sell it to the base (many of them were members of the 80s peace movement). The Germans had many ties to Yugoslavia (going there on holiday, people had migrated to Germany from there). All of that applied even more for Austria. So even the conservative voters were very wary about having a war in the middle of Europe.
Nothing but a "reenactment" of Auschwitz would do to "justify" that Germany made it possible that the U.S. would bomb the shit out of Serbia. The CIA has undermined the _relevant" and important press, media AND publicly financed TV in Germany (as they do in all relevant nations !!) since WW2. Smaller outlets and smaller countries are widely ignored (they usually toe the line anyway, they do not have the funding to have their own line).
So the coverage continued to report prominently on Serbian atrocities mainly. The atrocities of the other ethnic groups (which could have provided some context - "Have they all gone collectively insane ??" - were glossed over. Serbia got the negative headlines. Citizens / voters usually remember the headlines, the "quality press" did not point out the role of the militias of radical Croatians for instance who targeted other ethnic groups. Nor did they point out that the U.S. used depleted Uranium ammunition (against a small country with a not too impressive military).
Unlike with Iraq the citizens knew that the war against Yugoslavia was not "blood for oil". And the country did not seem to have strategic importance (from its location). I think Yu was a test case, an opportunity to test things like Uranium ammunition, maybe to remind Russia that it had lost all influence.
Also and more important: a pretext to get rid of some of the equipment and USE IT - and then have a pretext to order new one. A successful small war is also good for ratings - for the president AND the media.
Bush1 had his successful war after all, BOTH Clintons and also Bush2 wanted to have a war of their own as well.
The U.S. approved European mass media also did not report that the U.S. infiltrated Yugoslavia with jihadists that had become "jobless" in Afghanistan (where the mujihadeen had fought the proxy war against the Soviet Union).
One of the ethnicities of ex Yugoslavia is Muslim (Bosnia), but they are more laid back than the Muslims in the Middle East (the men often drink beer, they do not pray 5 times per day, and they do not hold the Ramadan. Nor were they that much into the pilgrimage to Mekka and Median). The Yugoslavian society tended to be more patriarchal, and also with double standards for men and females, virginity for the females, and a strong focus on having a large family and family cohesion. But they were not into religious extremism let alone into jihad.
too - but who read into it. It was so unpleasant, so the citizens did not dive into it. the name are unfamiliar to the German ear, and the situation complicated anyway. So hardly anyone saw through it.
Let me add: I do not have any heritage from one of the Yugoslavian ethnicites - and I used to believe the U.S. / NATO propaganda. It worked on me as well - like many other people I stayed at the surface level of information then. Governments lusting for war (or complicit in starting avoidable wars) can allow the truth to come out in paragraph 10 in a paper that is mainly read cover to cover by the "elites" of the country - as long as the headlines and especially the short coverage in TV goes along with the propaganda.
They will set the tone, they will shape what regular people REMEMBER who do not dive into it - which is the vast majority of voters. What people THINK THEY KNOW about a conflict. So the German government did not face public backlash. And the internet was not available then to correct the "official" story that conformed with U.S. propaganda goals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrHarpette government / judges / prosecutor / police (the power of the state !) are not supposed "to _come after those _with claims about CoVid" because it is FREE SPEECH. People are free to make up stuff that directly contradicts the facts (it is like the flu, it is not a pandemic, masks are useless, wearing masks is dangerous, it is a Chines hoax etc.) and that is covered by free speech, too.
You disagree with the numbers she communicates (as a private citizen she was fired for not going along with their requests to massage the data) and you find her numbers "exaggerated" ?
Fine, ignore her, do not follow her when she exercises her free speech.
You cannot shout "fire" in a crowded movie theater. (that is not covered by free speech, it is endangerment), but you could yell CoVid-19 is a hoax, or Long Live Trump or Lock up Biden. The private company might escort you from the property because it interferes with their biz (or at least ask you to be silent).
If you yell that at a public place you are free to do that. And the government cannot PROSECUTE and HARRASS you for making public statements.
You cannot make negative statements about persons and companies that undermine their reputation (that is grounds for a lible suit) but you can always say that the real numbers and mortality rate of CoVid-19 are higher or lower or whatever.
There is no immediate harm triggered by those statements of CoVid-19 (like starting a panic if you shout fire in a crowded room), so the government cannot come after you if they do not like your opinion and statments. (her saying the real numbers are higher would make people more cautious, so it is certainly not a public health risk. The government of Florids CAN ignore the science btw, I do not think they are legally obliged to put the well being of citizens over the interests of donors or even worried business owners. But it would have political consequences, if they say a) yes these are the real numbers and b) screw that, we keep alll businesses open anyway.
a) the citizens might consider the data. Yes businesses are open, but no one can force consumers to come if they think it is not worth the risk
b) come next election Democrats would drag De Santis for his decision and priorities.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JJerseyGirl Yep - if AOC and politicians like her get her way the U.S aristocracy - old and new money - is going to pay more in taxes. - Let me add: if the U.S. meant business they could EASILY put a wrench into the wheels of all these tax havens.
Pressuring the larger ones (not to forget the states in the U.S., U.K. - the channel islands, U.K. Ireland, Netherlands). The Bahamas, Panama, ... are easy.
As for Switzerland - apart from the power that having the money of the Western and other oligarchs (China, Russia, many dictatorships) gives them - they are also associated with the EU - so shutting down their internet will not fly.
... On the other hand the Swiss were pressured by the U.S. to open their famos bank secrecy laws. U.S. citizens that live in Switzerland must still pay taxes in the U.S. The Swiss banks (refering to the laws) refused to inform the U.S. government (the IRS) about the bank accounts of the the U.S. citizens.
As they protect all their clients. Well, the U.S. threatened to not process their USD transactions anymore. And there are plenty of Swiss banks operating in the U.S. - and they will be on average as corrupt and criminal as all the other banks (one of them was among the banks that got a slap on the wrist for laundering drug money).
We wouldn't want to have the U.S. government have an eye on what these Swiss banks are doing in the U.S. - would we ? ... So the Swiss government was forced to give in. Of course that is small change. The large volumes are not even the money of the regular wealthy people not wanting to pay tax.
It is the drug lords, the merchants of death, the dictators and oligarchs plundering their countries. Huge inherited fortunes (I do not tax avoidance for a few millions USD, EURO, whatever - I mean fortunes).
MOST of these tax havens are small, nice, safe places.
"Capital is a shy deer" we are reminded - we are not supposed to scare it by demands of taxation, good wages, a bad economy, ... well the oligarchs can try to park their money in China, Russia, Uzbekistan, Saudia Arabia !!, Iran, or some random Asian or African country.
Whether the nations are poor or wealthy - the pressure of the U.S. and preferably other first world countries with DEMOCRACIES would bring them to heel. If they want to do trade ....
Russia and China or Saudia Arabia might be able to oppose such regulations. But are they SAFE - for the money OR the owner ??
You never know what is going to happen next there. And it is easy to get yourself killed. The justice system is also less "independent".
Tax havens are also often beautiful touristic destinations. many ISLANDS: they need food, fuel, the internet, ships or airplanes must be able to reach them.
They often do not have a major industry - not when they are small (finance is not an "industry", nothing indistruous or productive about it. It is mostly an extraction scheme on the productive economy).
1
-
@JJerseyGirl / everybody: Tax havens serve the rich and enjoy protection of the U.S. government (working for Big Finance and rich persons) but they are ALSO used by the Deep State or CIA protected drug trade. - There is talk that the U.S. (NSA) has a backdoor into the S.W.I.F.T. code.
(The SWIFT system is used for international transfers of money).
That would mean that of course the U.S. could trace the drug lords, the big tax avoiders, the corrupt oligarchs - if they wanted to.
I assume if the NSA has such insights into covert huge transactions it is used for blackmail. Edward Snowden worked for the CIA in Switzerland - that was before he got involved with the spying program.
He said he did not like what he saw then, he thought it was unethical, that people were lured into traps. He did not elaborate.
I had a suspicion that employees of big finance or large companies headquartered in Switzerland (they are there to avoid paying taxes in the countries where they really do business) were blackmailed. Giving financial information (which would be useful to have a larger collection of people and politicians - in "allied" countries they can blackmail).
The most harmless trap would be illegal drug use or some mild white collare offense/crime (tax avoidance etc.) , but it could of course also be worse - like sexual crimes, pedophilia, ....
I assume the CIA uses the tax havens to fund all those coups and pay out the foreign agents.
Now I understand the necessity that the U.S. needs to pay the spies and collaborators they have in foreign countries. Or the broad and long time project to pay off journalists in countries that matter. They can hardly hand it all out as cash by the embassy. But these are not the huge amounts
As for funding illegal weapons sales and meddling with other governments by financing death squads,.. that does nothing for the good life or security of U.S. citizens, so the tax havens are not needed for THEIR advantage. The politcal damage is addiational to the damage of lost tax revenue.
......maybe the CIA is also in the drug trade.... - there is talk about Afghanistan. The Taliban were for religous reasons against drug use - so they offered the small Afghan farmers better pay for crops and they stopped growing poppies. Supply was down, so heroin was expensive. That in combination with reasonable drug rehab programs (methadone etc.) could do a lot of good.
The Afghan puppet government of the U.S. is in the middle of the drug trade now. (The brother of the president) The farmers grow poppies again (the U.S. could easily allocate a part of the war funds to pay them subsidies for regular crops. It would pay for itself in more security, stability in Afghanistan and in avoided crime and healthcare costs of the U.S.
Needless to say, if it is not for death, destruction and dysfunction they can never find the money.
So U.S. soldiers guard !! the poppy fields. So that the local farmers have an income to live from and to prevent local drug lords from attacking them - if the farmers are not "allowed" in that context to grow the poppies, they will support the rebels and Taliban out of sheer economic desperation and to get their military protection.
Of course one could let them grow barley and veggies etc. and maybe make extra points with mobile healthcare and irrigation projects and streets.
THAT would not need constant guarding by a freeign military occupier.
Which might seem like a good idea for the U.S. citizens / military families / taxpayers
Not however for the merchants of death and it would also rob the U.S. of any pretext to be in the country - if peace and stability would break out.
* The U.S. wants to stay there to be nearby with troops and material if trouble breaks out between Pakistan and India, they are going to stay there for 20 more years. (I have that from Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff of Colin Powell)
(China ALSO got into the region - India, Pakistan, Kashmir - in recent years.)
* That is what the Pentagon (and maybe the CIA) decide is going to happen. Never mind what Trump tweets out.
1
-
+J.P. - the city in violation of "state law" which "protects the memorials from removal". - How come there is even such a state law - and WHY WOULD MEMORIALS NEED MORE PROTECTION than a garden bench in a park ??
Some things like criminal law are obviously not a good fit to be decided on a city level. That is also true for environmental law (the city council might be biased towards local businesses, dependent or just being blackmailed regarding jobs. Also pollution can affect more than the city, causes costs to the healthcare system (not local), and it could start a race to the bottom between communities. Also it would be very complicated (think corporations that operate state or nation wide).
The statue of General Lee represents a part of the history - so it is claimed - but WHY would a reminder to history be so important to the STATE, that a local community is forced to see that memorial against their will (the majority of the citizens). History is important to some and irrelevant to others. And if the citizens WANT TO SEE General Lee they can let their council know.
That is one of the decicions that is a very good fit to be decided on the local level. (And the outrage about the removal was from OUTSIDERS with an ideological agenada !! ) the locals could have talked to their representatives, started marches, petitions, flea markets, vigils etc.
They did not need an "Unite the Right with the KKK and Nazi" rally for that, thank you very much. If the people of the city had the intention to keep the statue despite the decision of their elected representatives, they could have fought for that LOCAL AFFAIR on their own. Nobody else's business.
So it looks like the STATE for some weird reason wants TO PREVENT the cities from taking such autonomous decisions. It was so important to the STATE representatives that they would squander their valuable time to come up with a law violating the principle to not interfer with decisions that can be well made by the locals.
And a decision that has no physical (pollution) or economic effect ON OUTSIDERS.
A decision that reflects a way to reframe what is important or cherished enough to be on prominent display IN THE COMMUNITY. The statue was not only about remembering that there was a terrible war, and that there was a capable military leader. That would be of little consequence in itself. Nothing worth to fight about. Some places would have the statue, some would decide it is not important when they rearrange places - interests and priorities change.
What good had it done that Lee was a capable military leader - in the end it cost more life and prolonged the war.
Is it necessary in the 21st century to honor him for that (such a statue of Lee on the horse is not only a memorial like the name of fallen soldiers - it gives the historic figure a place of honor in public awareness). There is no need to villify Gen. Lee - and no need to honor him either - or to keep him that visible.
Lee's statue is important for the Republicans because he stands for the DENIAL to openly admit that slavery was cruel, that some people profited very much (and that wealth still shows up in the families, they could build on that, finance other businesses, educate the children). Others were fooled (and committed cruel acts while being fooled AND kept poor).
That the trauma, disruption of family life and communites and the discrimination that was inflicted on people of color (that continued long after the end of the war) STILL can be watched in action in their communities. It is much easer to destroy that web than to rebuild it - and white America could never be bothered to admit their role (also the North - they had slaves and profited indirectly from the Southern exports). It would take money AND community effort AND state and federal effort and organization to assist the rebuilding (it can easily take 20 years to reverse such dysfunction, same with the First Nations - these were once disciplined and functioning hunter/gatherer communites).
The statue stands for an ideology, and the Republicans (all for small government, right) wanted to make sure that ideology is HONORED and that no local community could make other decisions about the place they want to give General Lee - and all he stands for - in a modern community.
That ideology they try to defend with that law - not the facts of history. The RELEVANCE of Lee lies in the form of society he was willing to defend (no matter his personal views on slavery).
If this was just about "history" - Lee will not be forgotten, the Civil War is taught in school. - Truth is these statues were erected to show the negroes their place and to defy the Northern states - and of course the "traditonalists" dance around that issue and avoid admitting the obvious. There would be much fewer memorials and statues had it not been for the necessity to "show it to the blacks".
Every private cititzen and the state legislators are free to celebrate Lee with statues (if the citizens put up with it) and pictures in their offices and at home and what not.
It is funny how the motto of the Civil War was "States Rights" and how LOCAL = City RIGHTS are violated with that overbearing law.
Good for the city to ignore that attempt to infringe on their right.
Same with undermining the right of cities to set their own minimum wage. It goes w/o saying both infringements are a Republican agenda - when have they ever been consistent about regional before state or federal - or consistent about not wanting big bad interfering government ? Those cherished principles only ever apply when it fits their interests (and those of the donors).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joinpsye7045 If the left leaning voters had bothered to get the Greens 10 - 18 % of the vote in 2016 (following a long standing Chomsky recommendation to vote for third party in safely red or blue states ), but with no change in outcome, or even Clinton pulling off a narrow win (70,000 votes in total in MI, PA and WI !) - that would have sent a STRONG signal to the D party.
Dems would have been pissed off like hell if she lost (than the attacks on Jill Stein would at least be based on numbers).
And they would be worrying behind closed doors even if HRC had pulled it off.
Trump needed to win one of the 3 states that were so close: MI, PA, WI. But all were supposed to be safely blue ;) and were taken for granted. If HrC had won all 3 of them she would have landed at 273 electors.
Green voters could have voted in large numbers in MI, PA, WI - then HRC would have lost decisively. Ouch ! If the voters then let the party know that they will continue to do that, the Dems would be in panic mode.
I assume they had some worrying internal polling, they had some events (with the Obamas) in the last days in PA. if she had admitted that this could get close - that might have turned out the base. And signalled to potential Green voters that they had to grade MI, PA and WI as Swing states. The shock for the party would be there as well, they can see what the voters are doing and in the next election another state could become unexpectedly a win for Republicans.
The Lesser Evil, Vote Blue No Matter Who shtick would be seriously challenged.
We had a repetiton of that (kind of) in 2020.
AZ, GA, WI in total 43,200 votes more for Biden than for Trump.
And Biden needed to win at least one of them (plus PA which was a somewhat better result with 1.2 % and 81,000 votes more). If Trump would have won all 3 states HE and PENCE would have been PICKED by the House resp. by the Senate (tie at 269, PA alone was not enough to get Biden to 270, he would have fallen short of 1 elector).
They could ignore Ross Perot (but they learned), he was a Republican billionaire, who had made his fortune with implementing computer systems and software in large companies and agencies (Medicare, SS, ....) .
Naturally he would not start a grassroots movement, people from big biz, oligarchs just don't do that. They hate and fear that, an energized mass movement is the only thing that can reign in the oligarch class or force the hand of government. Labor movement, Civil Rights movement, Vote for women, anti Vietnam war movement. Also to a degree the LGBTQ and marijuana legalization movement (although that was less on the streets).
A man like Ross Perot would not hook up closely with unions, it was just foreign for him. and they did not trust him.
So Ross Perot was not going to be a long lasting, growing challenge for them. But the Greens rattling the cage, that was another thing. If they ever got 18 % - that could easily get worse next time.
The Democratic establishment does not mind as much if they lose because their potential voters stay home or cross over to the Republicans. THAT does not jeopardize the cozy Good cop / bad cop gig that they and Republicans pull off. After all the fighting they agree on serving the common donors, so the money will continue to flow in, and so that they later get the cushy posts for ex politicians.
But the voters ignoring the fear mongering and lesser evilism ? ! ? voters not deflated, resigned and apathetic - but determined and strategic, and obviously fed up ? This meant Dems are about to lose control (probably permanently) over a sizeable part of the base. if voters pulled off suchs stunts, they could be expected to do that again, as soon as any candidate would pop up that was more attractive and a little more mainstream than the Green party candidates.
Ross Perot ran again in 1996, had still a respectable result (compared to other third party runs in American electoral history) but not nearly as good as in 1992. So it was safe to ignore that astounding result of 18 %, and what that said about the opinion of the base about NAFTA. His influence faded out.
The D and R establishment serving the big biz interests - and learning from the hassle to ram NAFTA through:
The China agreement was prepared by the Clinton admin, Bush2 inherited the project, and signed it only a few months after 9/11. Jan. or Feb. 2002. No heated and looooong debate then. Outsourcing had picked up already I think. As soon as the D primaries were over the oligarchs knew China would be accepted into the WHO (Gore or GWB, did not matter) and they could start with planning the outsourcing.
They had to live with the House granting them the (much) better import tariffs on a yearly base during the Bill Clinton admin, but that was a yearly circus (it was used for horse trading). It is not possible to plan outsourcing and multi million investments based on that. (Same reason why trade deals do lead to new plants, the trade war can be over in 5 weeks, 4 months, 2 years, companies can't plan the investments based on that).
Bill Clinton took the ball from the House and signed an Executive order to give that authority to the SS. Now, that was certainly better, they were good until the end of the Clinton presidency, and it did not draw unwanted attention of voters, their interests were served in a discreet manner. But the next admin or the one after that could change that, and be on the side of workers. So they wanted their lower import tariffs to become permanent and enshrined into an international agreement.
Then they could turn their back on the domestic workforce - but still use the domestic consumers. (the foreign workers were poorly paid, they could not afford to consume what they helped create).
Kristal Ball worked for MSNBC and was told by her editor NOT to cover trade deals, "the audience is not interested". That must have been in 2013 or 2014.
Ahem .... in 2015 the Trump campaign, Sanders campaign showed how interested the voters were in trade deals. So much so that HRC had to do a very unconvincing flip flop on TPP.
Ed Schultz talked about TPP (he was against it), likely another reason they ended his contract in May 2015.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
wrecking crew are you for real ? ever heard of Stand your Ground laws ? And that is for homes where an intruder might try to steal property. Not coming close to the government and VP of a superpower. Try to intrude "peacefully" into high security locations (while the security forces do not know whether you have guns, explosives, poison - you are obviously part of a riot but they cannot know how far you will go, if you are crazy, resp. how crazy you are).
Try to get too close to the White House, CIA, Pentagon or the seat of the U.S. government (a part of it) the U.S. Capitol.
For your info, not even staff of the politicans is allowed in the chambers, at the floor unless they have special permit.
Obviously the Capitol would be target (also for terrorism) and the police must be in control of who is where. Journalists and the public might be allowed, but they will be checked out. You cannot just wander in. They have C-Span for the audience.
A glass door (door in the middle, fixed panels on both sides. Some wood, a lot of glass, it was locked) separated the group of rioters and the other side of the ward - with doors to the Senate chamber. Mike Pence and family were nearby (already evacuated from the chamber but still nearby). Senate full of politicians and staff.
The intruders had met police in soft uniform that let them roam the building. Maybe they had seen police in riot gear (especially outside). But they had not seen police waiting pressed to the wall, waiting and of them waited on the other side of a glass door with gun drawn. She was a vet - if you are outnumbered you concentrate forces at crucial points.
What did she think was going to happen ?
Her group busted one glass panel, she threw one glance over to the officer or Secret Service agent, and continued to go ahead in a determined manner. Not sure if he gave her an order, but she crawled through the hole. THEN he shot her.
He stood at the side, meaning if they came from that side of the ward they could only shoot at him if they were close.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ Unsername over 100 children under 5 years were separated, 54 are reunited (not even 50 %). The deadline of the judge for the under 5 year olds was NOT kept (it expired today or yesterday). They HAD NO PLANS to UNITE the children. (Judge: When one hands over the wallet one gets a receipt and no paperwork for the children !!).
Some were given into foster care, some to "sponsors", and some into the centers. The centers are better in the respect that the admin should be able to find them and that they should be safe from being trafficked and sexual abuse.
If an official THINKS a person is not a legitimate caregiver (relative, older sibling, parent) - the tests are not that expensive, one night costs 770 USD per child. Holding the children with the adults is easier (even when they are deported, they do not need to chase down the child) and it costs less because the parents take care.
And holding them in the detention center is still safer, and staff can watch the interactions. (if somone is suspicious).
With little children it is easy to disceren if they know someone very well. (If the mother breastfeed, it they call the person mama or papa, little children cannot fake that not even when they are pressure)
1
-
+Redacted - please watch the video I recommended in another response - the port of entries are NOT open, they do not process the people, no intention, no resources. The entry can't be the big deal - but they would need to have a plan what to do with them. Either a center or with a wristband, or they locate them somewhere and with a court date to show up. WITH legal representation many DO get asylum. And it is not just made up, the situation is very volatile in many of these countries and sadly the U.S. has contributed very much to it. Especially USING and TRAINING criminals as CIA assets and right wing terrorists. When the regime change was over and the U.S. puppet dictator in charge - the criminals had no job - most had been into drug trade anyway so the continued and used the CIA training (intelligence, military training, money, weapons).
Some leaders might still be CIA assets. And they do not need to come to the border, they come by plane with a visa and passport (all very legitimate looking).
The people that are at the border (it is dangerous) are NOT the cartels - they are very likely their victims.
They wait for DAYS in the hot sun on the "bridge" and then they are sometimes sent away. The cartels are waiting to kidnap them when they are sent away by U.S. authorities (which is against U.S. law - if they ask for asylum they have the right to be heard.) The thugs assume that there is somewhere a family (maybe in the U.S. that will pay - if not they kill them and the burnt body can be found).
Sadly the cartels ALSO are at large in Mexico, so they cannot stay in Mexico never mind the economic situation. The gangs recruit the young men if they do not agree, they or even family members are killed. Or they pay, but most cannot afford the "ransom". ). The guards at some time prevented helpers from bringing in diapers, food, water, ...
1
-
1
-
1
-
16:00 Jimmy stop misrepresenting Noam Chomsky. If people would REALLY LISTEN to him - same message for DECADES, there would be a mass movement already (not dependent on a poltician) * the Greens and other third parties would have won a LOT of votes in earlier elections (not measly 1 % for Jill Stein in 2016), and there would be a more responsive alternative to the Democrats. So the Democratic establishment would be VERY uneasy already, same with Republicans and their common donors. The unwashed masses are getting restless.
(actually if many started listen to him, some allegedly safe blue states might turn red, and the Dems would lose - would piss them off to no end. Some safely "red" states might turn marginal for the Republicans in some the R's win only with a few percent at least in presidential races, opening up a chance for progressive Democrats, but those engaged voters that take their advice from Chomsky would demand POLICIES, a Democrat would be rewarded to at least promise left populism. congress is voted for every 2 years, ....).
With such an engaged base they also would find it easier to run small dollar campaigns.
There are also plenty of red states where the Green party can harvest the votes to get to 5 % in the general which would get them some attention on election night, and federal funding. They got 1 % of the vote (doubling their result of 2012), and Johnson got 3 % of the vote.
The spoiler myth does not even bear out (even if you would accept that framing, that parties are entitled to votes of persons who can be bothered to show up and are politically slighly aligned. It is not like they tell us that the Tea Party voters let Clinton down, if only they had voted in higher numbers for her in 2016) if you look at the numbers:
In all the crucial swing states that Clinton lost - Industrial North and FL - it is at least the 1 : 3 ratio, often Johson got more than 3 times the votes of Jill Stein, the only exception is PE. There it was 146,715 versus 49,941, so just shy of 3 times.
Clinton managed to lose PE by 44,300 votes, so the plan of Chuck Schumer "to get 2 - 3 moderate Republicans in the suburbs of Philly for every blue collar we lose in West PE did not quite work out."
Btw: the party that used to be the party of working people and unions quite cynically accepting they lose their core constituency, but not to worry: our opponent is so terrible that we bank on it that the affluent educated Republicans are embarrassed and will grace us with their votes.
the elusive, mythical moderate Republican.
Gary Johnson was a Republican and an R govenor, before he run as Independent, he has a Libertarian streak (so not anti abortion, not pro religious bigottery - I think he had a crossover with the Greens regarding weed and being against the wars, as behooves a libertarian).
In the mythology how the third parties cost Clinton the election in the swing states they typically lump the votes for Johnson and Stein together (I saw several articles produced after Nov. 2016 to prop up that kind of narrative).
I reject the philosophy behind it anyway - but also from a pragmatic standpoint: what would have Clinton "entitled" to the Republican leaning votes for former Republican Johson. If the theory is that ALL Stein voters would have turned out, and also voted for Clinton - how do they not assume that at least one third of the Johnson voters would have voted for Trump under the same (flawed) logic and sense of entitlement to GET votes - from voters who clearly had OTHER preferences ?
Clinton had 2,2 % more of all votes that were cast, but her 3 million more popular votes came from a few large blue states, NY, WA, and of course CA. If the Greens would start making enough inroads to threaten the majorities in these states the Dems might make concessions to voters.
The big donors do not care if CA, NY, ... gets red again, they bribe both parties and they always win.
But for the business model of the Dems it is important to be valuable for the big donors. There are voters that are out of reach for Republicans, and if left to themselves they might organize - so Corporate Dems have to sheep dog them.
Their job is to win primaries against progressives, not to win the general. But if they lose the grip on that base ....
There is a reason it pisses them off to no end that Jill Stein got ONLY ONE PERCENT.
Noam Chomsky saw through Obama right in 2008 (just empty rhetoric, no substance). His recommendation then (and long before that): Vote D in swing states (and hold your nose firmly) and vote third party in safely blue or red states (which are most states).
When he lived in Massachusetts a blue state, he voted Green party. he also has voted for Republicans strategically (war - maybe Ron Paul ? in the primaries)
He lives now in Arizona and will vote for the D nominee, he genuinely thinks Trump is dangerous (because he lets important military treaties with Russia expire).
He thinks people should cast the vote for a slight damage control, not put their faith in a politician and then return home and continue to build movements.
Ron Placone said something similar: If Bernie would have won the presidency, I would have celebrated for 2 days - and then I would have returned to putting on my yellow vest.
The people that listen to Chomsky NOW would also know that he does not think politicians change anything. That they have to be pressured. By a strong ONGOING movement.
Chomsky calls Nixon the last "liberal" president. (which shocked me when I heard the sentence). Why does Chomsky say that ? Because he feared the grassroots enough to give them something, it is not like he ended the Vietnam war willingly.
1
-
* If people would listen to Chomsky they would have voted for Sanders in the primaries in droves. - Chomksy started to organise against Vietnam, in the beginning with a few listeners in other people's living room. At one occasion he had 2 listeners in a church, the pastor and a helper (likely asked by the pastor to attend, too - out of politeness).Chomsky then was quite successful as (assistant) professor at M.I.T. which then was almost 100 % funded by projectcts that the military paid for.
Needless to say they considered getting rid of him (they did get rid of others) but Chomsky had alreadly made his name in linguistics (internationally), maybe they thought they needed him for Artificial Intelligence related research - whatever.
He held speeches later in halls when he could draw a larger crowd - but they needed the police occasionally. Because "patriotic" citizens supportive of government and war tried to disrupt the events.
And then Chomsky was indicted as co-conspirator (I am not sure if that had to do with Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon papers or something else ,....)
He expected to be prosectuded, too. The family had prepared for him maybe going to prison as follows: His wife had returned to university to get her PhD so she could be the breadwinner (they had 2 - 3 children then, likely she was a stay at home mum).
The "justice system" never followed through with the cases against the "co-conspirators", so that plan B was never needed.
He had a nice life, was early on successful, family, kids (he stayed married to that woman, she died maybe 10 years ago, he has remarried).
And with his reputation he could have looked for another job at a foreign university. Or being silently against LBJ, Nixon (and other war mongering Democrats) but w/o creating a stir and the threat to his pleasant, safe, solidly middle class life.
Someone like Chomsky was not going to be drafted btw (worked at a higher institution of learning and research - that worked almost 100 % for military projects. HE was safe, his family was safe, he could have shut up).
The courage / conviction he showed then sets him apart from 99 % of citizens.
Would Jimmy risk his livelyhood (or part of it while the project is going very nicely) if doing actively the right thing (even when it looks like figthing against windmills uphill) could disrupt your personal GOOD life ?
Chomsky has no illusions whatsoever. He grew up in the Great Depression, he lived through the traumatic year 1968, ...
His advice (consistently)
you go vote, in swing states you hold your nose iand vote Democrats, else you vote strategically, in most cases third party, he has also voted for Republicans in some cases (war). And of course you participate in the primapries.
You invest the 10 minutes in the general for harm reduction. Then go go home and continue to work for building a movement, informing people, etc.
To be fair: 10 minutes for voting in the upper class area where Chomsky lives. But Sanders ALSO did not do well in states where mail ballot was available, the students in CA with the long lines and the supporters in TX that came out for Sanders, could have planned weeks ahead and gotten that mail ballot.
In other words, MANY young people and disaffected voters could not be bothered, OR at least they did not do research and did not prepare ahead - prepare be on the safe and time efficient side :to use a mail ballot.
One disadvantage: they have to count them so Sanders misses out on the boost of the immediate result being announced the won delegates shown. This time they at least added that CA was still being counted and more delegates to come when they compared him with the delegate count of Biden.
The Sanders campaign may have failed to realize they should educate people on using mail ballot and on changing their registration early on, at least in states where bail ballot is an option and you can rely on it to be handled correctly (so CA - maybe not Georgia).
The other side of the issue is that the Sanders campaign likely made mistakes in addressing and activating these disaffected people. Who were too lethargic or too cynical, detached to REALIZE that they NEEDED to come out, that this was the primary of their life.
Even is Sanders is much weaker than we wish him to be, he might act differently if he would be the clear frontrunner (when it comes to policies).
And as president HE would be more responisve to the grassroots than any other of the lot. Even when he is weak.
Frank Thomas (Listen Liberal): A lot of progress was made when the movements (that really bring change) had a mildly sympathetic president in the White House.
1
-
Cartel leaders were (are) very well trained RICH CIA assets. Go after the banks (international) that help them launder the money. You bet they have bought some of the police in the border states. Stop the war on drugs decriminalize drugs, when the prices go down the cartels cannot make money anymore.
MINDBOGGLING video. As Mike Pence Visits Guatemala, Jennifer Harbury Discusses the U.S. Role in the Refugee Crisis
youtube(dot) com/watch?v=fjp2q0xipFM
About the extreme violence that was seeded by the U.S.
The U.S. unleashed a slaughter in Guatemala (200,000 people killed) and El Salvado, ....
the death squads well trained in military operation, intelligence and torture went out of a job after that regime change operation was over.
Most had been involved in drug trade anyway. So they continued to do that. All over the region (Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico).
That's the reason so many people flee.
The people caught at the border are poor, it is dangerous, but so is staying.
People with money come on a plane with a tourist visa and overstay. The cartels buy airplanes, jumbo jets and visas - they do not come over the border.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Separating children from their parents was a feature, not a bug.
a) looking tough, message to voters, midterms are coming
b) we do it differently than Obama (and Bush), that is a virtue in itself
c) we hope it will scare potential other people (with children) coming - Jeff Session said that as defense on TV, and he was not the only one
d) blackmail the Dems into voting for the border wall (I read that not sure if it is true) - it sounds true to character
Last but not least: they were in a rush, and looking tough was the most important thing - no WAY they could carefully vet all the people to whom they handed out the childrens (foster parents, sponsors).
They did not set up a system to re-unite the parents and the children.
A judge: if you hand over your wallet you get a receipt, but no paperwork for the children that were taken ??
And they clearly did not waste a thought on how they would reunite the children once the decision was made (in most cases deportation I guess).
Did they want to keep the children in the foster system in the U.S. , sell them into adoption ??
As for individuals who took such children into care:
The predators sniff it when the can get their hands on a child. When a child has insufficient protection.
Little children are hard to come by in the sex trade (IN the U.S.)
but this was an opportunity ... courtesy of the U.S. government
And there were enough children that are too little to give testimony if they are molested or abused by individuals ... and no one would listen to them anyway.
The U.S. foster care system is not known to be a very good place for vulnerable children.
At least in that sense the solution of the "baby concentration camps" (admitted it is a misleading word) is better. The care may be less individual as with - good ! - foster parents (by far the bes care would come from the parents).
But at least the children are not going to end up being trafficked, abused and that incompetent admin should be able to find them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Gareth De Bruyn People are busy, their interest, emotional capacity, to PROCESS often bad or enraging news is limited. If mainstream media can FILL that space - with irrelevant breaking news, fluff pieces, half truths, fractured delivery of facts (but heaven forbid they would give CONTEXT), and with obsessing about the caravan, Trump, Russia, Ebola, Stormy Daniels, missing airplanes - or whatever the latest distraction is - they manage to occupy all the energy and space that there is for the citizens to get information.
So they try to sideline the independent outlets. If they manage to take up enough space they can hold on to their dominant position. Like they could sideline the authors of books.
Back in the day the not too many investigative journalists could be mostly ignored by the establishment. There was no need to "censor" big media (which really counts). Mainstream media has always self-censored and played nice with the powerful - they and got some ads, and their rich owners saw to it that the employees toed the line.
The few court jesters could be easily ignored. They were the token "free" journalists. Of course that tolerance had limits - so the push for the Iraq war was a reason to fire many of the dissenters (in the "free" press and by the TV stations).
The courtiers and mouthpieces of the media all fell over themselves to play nice with Bush1 when the government told them what kind of information they could get. In theory of course the free press holds the government to account - but especially when it comes to war it is the other way round.
(the oligarchs and the ruling elites learn from their mistakes, when it comes to things that undermined their power. Be it that Labor and left movements rose in the 1930s or that they had to stop the carnage in Vietanm earlier than they wanted to.
They are VERY sensitive regarding that and can of course hire the manpower to analyze and implement future LONG TERM strategies. They did not repeat what had damaged their cause in the case of the Vietnam war).
So the gatekeepers of news were easy to control for the powerful - and then came the internet. With Brexit in the U.K., other unexpected election results, and 2016 elections the ruling class started taking the free flow of information on the net seriously.
Occupy Wallstreet was the first taste - it could be crushed (with the help of "Democratic" mayors and Mr. Hope and Change in the White House. And the Tea Party movement could be co-opted by rich industrial leaders (Koch brothers).
In the 60s there was some upset, in the late 60s with whistleblowers, end of Vietnam war and the sexual revolution. BUT: the ruling class relized they were about to lose power and that the unwashed masses were about to realize their power if they united. So the progressives leaders were shot (MLK, Kennedy) and also the leaders of the black panthers (never mind if the were law abiding or not).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tjti2631 They mythical Canadian patients coming the the U.S. ... sure, sure. Either way even IF some wealthy Canadians would buy specialized services of the U.S. - this has little effect on how the system serves the whole of the country.
to say it harshly. If the Siamese twins can be separated or not will not make a dent in the statistics.
for the economy and society it matters how the normal, regular challenges - the daily occurences in healthcare are dealt with. THAT will show up in infant mortality and life expectancy.
When one can hear ageain and again that people have untreated diabetes. That is a medical nightmare. The medical costs later will be higher, the patient will live shorter and suffer before.
Diabetes, dialysis (the U.S. has terrible practices for both, which are definitely shortening the life and quality o life of U.S. citizens. Nor for wealthy ones of course).
Broken limbs, accidents, heart attack, stroke, pneumonia, ...
Care during pregnancy, giving birth,...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tjti2631 I have REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE in two wealthy European countries with single payer (and they are very comparable to Canada costwise - see World Bank per capita healthcare expenditures). - I know the costs and the way the systems provide care. No rationing to be seen - I do not see having to wait 3 or 10 days for a date with the dentist for the checkup as rationing.
considering that it is for free AND that the doctors (or the lady at the reception) will squeeze you in if you have pain - that is fine.
Whenever the bigger stuff was going on the ambulances, the helicopters and the surgery within short time was available.
But I assume you do not argue in good faith. Else the ver real rationing that happens in the for-profit U.S. system could not escape you.
healthcare is on principle not suited for the "free market" - At. All.
(Some food for thought).
With family and friends and work collegues that means experiences in everything from harmless flu, dental, regular check ups (eyes, dental, general health) to the really big stuff.
Weeks in intense care, rehab, 2 months in the hospital, helicopter transports, prematurely born babies and of course cancer, returning cancer, alzheimer, ....diabetes, childbirth with and w/o cesarian.
It is highly unlikely your scaremongering about the the Canadian system is realistic. With the costs they have they should be able to pull off a decent system, the anecdotal reports contadict your claims .
As for anectodes: The chief editor of The Real News Paul Jay, David Doel from the Rational National just to get you started - both are Canadians. Or the Canadian doctor that testified before Senate a few years ago. She dealt with claims of Republican politicians that sound like yours. You should watch it.
You offfered of course no backup or sources for any of your claims about the alleged flaws of the Canadian system.
You have never lived in Canada and used their system - have you ? Nor do you KNOW people who have and would back up your talking points.
More likely the Candians would be scared to be caught up in the U.s. system.
Which btw ALSO is no problem in Europe. The single payer agencies deal with each other. So if a French person needs treatment in Germany or Netherlands or Sweden while being there as visitor - no problem. Not cost-wise (the bill goes from one insurance agency to the other) and ALSO not regarding the quality of care.
There was the Canadian lady that had the misfortune the have a premature birth (with complications) when she visited the U.S. The amount the U.S. hospital demanded was insane. Sure she needed emergency help - but still. A hospital in a reasonably ordered system would never have such extortion prices.
The case was news in the U.S. and Canada - I think the Canadian government helped them out.
She had it coming of course - going to the U.S. when pregnant !!!
1
-
1
-
@tjti2631 tj ti How many CANADIANS have confirmed to you in person the view that the Canadian care is rationed ? or more rationed than in the U.S. (In Canada in the poor provinces that mainly means services of specialists and you CAN pay for that out of pocket if need be, it will not bankrupt you). Or who confirmed to you (in person) that Canadian services are inferior ?
because they sure beat the U.S. regarding life expectancy, and infant mortality.
Lots of money gets you good care even in developing countries - but if you have a normal or low income you certainly want to have the Canadian system (see the channel Rational National, David Doel, he is Canadian and also talked about healthcare and how that is taken for granted in his country).
Or even better you want the system of Germany, Austria, France, Denmark, Sweden, Japan, ...
I challenge you to find a real Canadian (not someone posting on the internet - that can be a paid troll) that says they think the U.S. system is better than theirs.
They have it organised in provinces so in the poorer provinces like Manitoba you can have waiting times when it comes to specialists, or elective procedures. That is less than ideal - but still WAY better than in the U.S. never mind that Canada (as a nations) spends LESS THAN HALF of the U.S. spending per person (2017) - and they life longer.
Other nations have funding set up in a better way: the federal government evens out the differences. Every country has regions that are economic powerhouses versus the regions, provinces, states that are rural, have fewer people and businesses. If the funding is mainly shouldered by the provinces the difference in wealth will make a (slight) difference.
They still profit from the cost-efficiency but it is not quite as good as it could be.
1
-
1
-
@tjti2631 I know from experience that there is no "rationing" in Austria and Germany. I know people who had ongoing / repeated costly cancer treatments, organ transplants (liver the girl friend of a former collegue), people that survived a hear attack. (Recovered, but intense care for some weeks and also quite some rehab before being well again).
And people that were in longer care, but sadly did not make it (stroke in old age, heart attack and died of the consequences within 1 year - old people, mind you).
I know of a case last holidays where the doctor very much erred on the side of caution - he wanted to have the transport done by an ambulance with a doctor on board. They are called "emergency ambulances" they are for instance called if there is an accident with serious injuries - and in general if "it doesn't look good".
There is also the option for an airlift (also always with an emergency doctor on board) or you need very fast transport (or to a specialized unit, for instance if someone cut off fingers or an arm and they want to sew it back on. There are specialized units for that and time is crucial).
But such an ambulance wasn't available immediately (busy with other transports), so the family doctor which was there quickly, ordered a helicopter because they also always have doctors on board. For a man almost 80 years, generally in good shape but they feared heart problems (no it wasn't that, it was an almost ruptured stomach). In case he would have needed reanimation during a 25 - 30 minutes drive to the hospital the family doctor wanted an experienced doctor next to him.
Normal ambulance would have been available of course - but in that case he got an upgrade, not a downgrade. That is of course free (at the point of service) - transport is part of healthcare in single payer nations.
Retired people also have to pay something for insurance if they have more than minimum pension, but it is very affordable. (a percentage). So it is not as if that man would pay a lot for that with his personal expenditures (he had to pay out of pocket for a hearing aide, or with considerable co-pay though - but at least the agency negotiates those prices).
The mandated contributions (for citizens / employees and their employers if they have one) is very affordable and the rest comes from general tax revenue.
1
-
@tjti2631 I also know that first world care is availabe in other European nations (no "rationing") - if not it would be news ! There would be warnings for people travelling, etc.
"Rationing" or less than ideal care is not the case in other European nations (except for Greece, which has been plunged into poverty by austerity being imposed on them. Plus I would have more reservations now about the NHS in the U.K. compared to former years - the Tories have been defunding it over the course of 10 years.
I would be also careful about Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria - they also are poor countries.
Or people get advice to get really good travel insurance in case they would need a hospital in Turkey (on vacations. Either to get in one of their private hospitals or to pay for airtransport back to your home country).
But there are no such warnings when going to other European countries:
the national public insurance agencies recognize the coverage of other agencies. That means if you bring your healthcare card on your holiday in Netherlands, or Sweden, Italy or France you are good. you will be treated like a citizen. Service free at the point of delivery, maybe with the modest co-pays if they are usual in the country.
Which are all affordable - there are differences in the countries. For instance in Norway there are co-pays for medication and they are a little higher than in Austria or Germany. Of course nothing like the rip-off in the U.S.
Most wealthy nations spend 50 - 54 % of the U.S. spending per person on healthcare (U.S. 10,260 USD per person per year, and not even everyone is insured. So in the U.S. "per person" includes those who do not have coverage, do not get sufficient care, go bankrupt, ...)
You have cultures / countries as different as Japan, wealthy and not so wealthy European countries, Australia, Canada, .... Almost all of them have longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality than the U.S. And the systems developed / were expanded since the end of WW2.
The Austrians like their food and booze, and likely smoke more than the U.S. citizens. So it is not that they all live so healthy.
You can see the impact of healthy lifestyle (nutrition) on medical costs in Japan. They have the oldest population on the planet (age is a huge driver of spending in healthcare). But their spending per person is comparable to the "cheapest" among the wealthy nation (except for the U.K.). They spend like France, Belgium, Canada, Australia - but have in general higher wages and a much older population.
But if the rest of the first world countries spend half it is not their fabulously healthy lifestyle - they just have the systems set up in a more reasonable manner.
And I do not think they work out more than the U.S. citizens (and driving style is more "brazen" than in the U.S. so more traffice accidents with bad outcomes I think).
Europeans travel more into other countries (in the U.S. you would simply be in another state, but in Europe you cross a border, in most cases with different language too). I would not be scared to end up in hospital in France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Iceland, Italy, Spain, ....
But I would be worried about the U.S. - because of the high costs. And because they play games with the patients even IF they have good coverage (denying to pay when it gets expensive increases their profits - an public non-profit agency has no such incentive).
These nations have all done their own thing regarding setting up a healthcare system - almost all of them directly after WW2. But considering some basic principles (mandated contributions, no one can opt out from that and the mandate constitutes also a right to have full coverage incl. for dependent family members - so even affluent people use it. Modest contributions, having no powerful for-profit actors. For instance (almots) no for-profit hopsitals and certainly no CHAINS.
They ALL do much better than the U.S. despite the cultural and national variations. That is an real life test that has been going on for more than 70 years and served approx. 1,5 billion people in wealthy countries in Asia (Japan), Europe, North America (Canada) and Australia / New Zealand.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think he is conflicted, and got scared of his own courage (maybe some subconscious self sabotage going on). Or he is not that healthy after the heart attack and / or disheartend that the young and minorities did not turn out.
Files were stolen from the small private college that his wife lead for some time. I think she did exaggerate the pledges of donors to get a loan for the college make-over (they went bankrupt, she left after the first problems became apparent, a few years later it went under. - like many private colleges that tried the same to attract international paying students. The financial crisis did not help).
The FBI investigation instigated in 2016 by a Republican in Vermont lead nowhere - but if they would have the goods on his wife .... they could put pressure on him. It was not O.K. - but I would give her a pass on that, she did not want to personally enrich herself.
I guess being an accepted member at the fringes ! of the club, somewhat accepted is very important to him.
(as opposed to Obama who wanted to be a club member and straight out lied and fooled the voters. Sanders has not lied about policies. Like M4A. He is right on the issues, and does not mislead voters, he just does not have the guts to fight for them. To be fair: not enough people could be bothered durig the primaries.
We do not know how he would carry himself if the had killed it in the primaries. I assume he would be too willing to compromize even with that leverage but we do not know.
Thomas Frank: Progress came from the grassroots, but they made the biggest strides when they had a mildly sympathetic president in the White House.
He is not that into power. Sadly the morons that have seen themselves as president since they were teenagers, the opportunistic careerists (Obama), the psychopaths, the narcissists are not hindered by self doubt - so they make it into highest office. See Trump, or GWB.
The opportunists stay in their lane, and do not even run (certainly not if they would offend the party leadership). See 2015, he and Martin O'Malley dared to run. O'Malley was forgiven, that was clearly a name recogntion campaign, he did not challenge HRC - But Sanders did.
Sanders is not as ambitious as Biden or Obama. And also not as ruthless in how to achieve his goals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Warren did a VERY good job in taking out Bloomberg, arguably a much better than Sanders could have arranged for, so she did some good as well. - I do not agree that Warren cost Sanders the win (there was some deflection about whether he had said to here a woman cannot become presdient). Well it was the job of the Snaders campaign to forcefully cut through that nonsense and steer the discussion back to the isses.
She shared a base with pete in the 2nd half of 2019, affluent, white, coastal, older, folks with a degree. They can afford to not care about the policies but they liked the Ivy league vibe of both and figured they would be good for wealthier folks in the end. - I assume after the stunt Warren pulled before Iowa a lot of people already have switched to Sanders.
Part abandoned her for Sanders, the others went to pete, so that was it.
pete and Klobuchar dropping out made more of a difference. It was so shortterm the Sanders campaign did not react, but since it was taboo to lay a finger on Biden (or centrist policies) in general that might not have makde much of a difference.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Colin Parish Those who say it is not possible are not supposed to stand in the way of those who make it happen. Iaw a speech of the former director of Fraunhofer Institute - excellent reputation regarding material research, also engaged in solar and renewables. (They are in Germany, think M.I.T. or ETH in Switzerland).
Costs for solar panels are going to drop drastically (think processor, computers, mobile phones, TV, satellites, rockets, electronics, ...), while performance will improve. And there are very interesting developments regarding batteries and storage in the pipeline.
It is not only tranportation. Heating / cooling needs a lot of energy, too.
Weight is not an issue (like with cars).
The prices and outcomes are directly related to the installed capacities. Double installed panels you can assume a certain price drop.
That means PV becomes quickly the most affordable electricity source in sunny areas (California, Texas, Australia, Latin America a lot of developing or emerging countries). Now add only SOME improvements with batteries - and it will take the cost efficiency AND reliability of new and already installed systems to the next level (I guess there would be upgrade offers for installed systems if storage becomes cheaper).
I hope it will not be the Lithium batteries that will prevail - Solid state have a lot of advantages (safety, raw materials).
1
-
Colin Parish If governments really wants technolgies they throw money at the research - and they GET results. in most cases unfortunately that dedication and sometimes long term commitment is only possible for war, military and adversity between nations.
Think penicilline (1928 - 1945) Flemming had given up on the project in 1939, the war may have contributed to secure U.K and I think also U.S. funding, other U.K. researchers continued the effort.
Malaria was tricky as well for the U.S. military, that took some time to find medication (but they DID find it).
It was not clear whether this thing nuclear fission was possible. They built a city for 50,000 people in the desert and tried.
Eisenhower saw the cost estimates for going to the moon - he considered it to be way too expensive, especially with humans.
Sputnik shock.
Money did not matter anymore - they made it happen. (Sending humans to the moon was a vanity project. Satellites were a security issue of course - but that would not have been nearly as expensive.
The U.S. afforded it anyway.
If the Western governments would throw a LOT of money at battery and storage research there would be a lot of flops (and highly educated people would have a job - there is also value in finding out what does NOT work).
And they would find a few nuggets.
The more money they invest right now the sooner they will stumble upon the nuggets - it is a numbers game.
BUT: with good battery solutions (and there is not MUCH improvement needed for sunny areas for a complete shift - or areas with a lot of wind) the energy system would be much more decentral. The grid would be needed (at least in the near future) but the large centralized providers would become less important.
Neighbourhoods and towns could do their own thing.
The problem, they are too small to pay lobbyists, or to provide cushy jobs for ex politicians. They also will not pay a lot of campaign donations.
At that local level the people that are needed to do the work are paid, people know each other, not much goes into overhead or almost nothing into marketing. Such providers could be non-profits, publicly or citizen owend, co-ops.
Politicians protect the industry interest - Big Energy foresees that they will not be able to compete - once the breakthough is there (and it is around the corner).
With so much photovoltaic installed, battery research became an issue for the for profit companies (even with the governments dragging their feets) - the companies realize some other company might find the golden nugget and then they will be left behind. So ignoring it in this stage is not an option anymore.
The Japanese car industry joined forces btw. That is something they do - the government nudges / shoves the big industry players to share developments, and patents and to co-operate. It is a different approach than in the U.S. - and it brought excellent results in the past.
They also did that when they wanted to become an important player in the car industry (inventing new quality management standards in industrial production while they were at it).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rallynavigator4940 Moore's new documentary seems to be partially incorrect (biased against bio mass, and covertly concerntrolling aobut population control). and not well researched (giving old performance data on solar panels, etc.).
He is right that the minining for the rare elements is terrible. But that is CAPITALISM - they probably could mine Cobalt, etc. with much less damge and pay the workers better - it just would cost more. does not make that much of a dent in the finished product.
And overall of course solar and wind energy will not be enough. Nor will big biz operating under the rules of capitalism (which created the problem in the first place) solve Climate Change.
And change of life style and more conversation is needed.
Politically I would push for conversation and new installments. There are enough selfish stupid people out there who are going nuts if they cannot eat much more meat than is healthy for them, and insist of driving low efficiency cars (big trucks, SUV's).
So waiting for the next few hurricanes, and wildfires, until the complacent crowd comes around - and working with the people that ARE reasonable, starting with meaningful CO2 certificate trading *, or a carbon tax - offset by benefits for the citizens. Those who insulate their homes and eat less meat, and drive efficient cars can pocket the poney.
(* not what Al Gore did it to enrich himself). Then meat gets more expensive by itself. organic producer have an advantage (because fertilizer production needs a lot of energy and organic natural solutions do not use energy).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mariaorsic120 Sanders would not undermine Venezuela. The next refugee crisis waiting to happen if the U.S. continues to undermine the country (with huge oil reserves - funny that). The Trump admin threatens to put them on the terror list. Do you remember the last terror attack committed by people from Venezuela or financed by them ? - Me neither.
The desire to start a war, a regime change is very transparent. They do not even try to come up with a good pretext to put Venezueal on the terror list - well venezuela does not do them the favor to give them the pretext to blame them with terrorism.
Sanders might end the War on Drugs (prohitibition heldped the mob, same now.
Hold banks accountable that help the cartels launder money.
See Portugal which had a roaring success with decriminalizing drugs when they had a heroin crisis.
People be coming is NOT the same as deporting them when they have been lving for years productive and peacefully in the country.
ICE going for the low hanging fruits and going after well integrated family men and women - going to work, bringing kids into school, delivering pizza to a base, or parents visiting their son at the base.
The country was able to absorb a lot of migrants - as long as wages were good and the rich paid their taxes.
Then they could SCALE UP the game (larger economy, more participants) w/o worsening conditions for regular people.
There are 4 issues:
1) drugs - come in over legal points of entry in cars - wall does not help.
2) hardened criminals - the cartels will buy an airfield and the local police if need be. Get them airplane tickets and forged papers
3) people trying to come to work - on the long run not sustainable. In THIS kind of neoliberal economy the additonal workers are used by the employers to suppress wages in some branches, construction.
It cannot be ignored, BUT it is not THAT much of an issue either.
When the desperate people that want to better their life are deported or kept out - the politicians that are so eager to undermine the workers are still there. The SYSTEM is still the same.
Automation is coming.
They would not come, had not the U.S. (the ruling class) undermined / destroyed / plundered their countries over more than 100 years. Check out General Smedley Butler's quote "I was a racketeer for Capitalism". he lists all the countries "I helped rape in Central and Latin Amercia" for Wallstreet, the banks, the business interests.
Against 1/3 of the immigrants the border might work BUT at much, much higher costs. (maybe they would switch to airplanes and an industry for forged papers would emerge). The ONLY solution that works - regarding WORK immigration - is to better the situation in their home countries.
the U.S. abstaining from meddling AND giving them a Marshall Plan. (Which would pay for itself over and over - like it did with Europe.
It is not realistic that the border wall will ever be finished - 70 billion are the more realistic costs - I do not think that includes maintainance.
If unfinished it is pretty much useless to prevent even the one third that come that way.
It does nothing to deal with the 65 % of illegal immigrants that come by plane and overstay. Now - that also includes students and au-pairs from wealthy countries (Canada, Europe) that stay longer - they are not really undermining the local work force. And they likely go home within a year or two.
I wonder if they sometimes return and the end of the stay is not correctly processed ?
4) asylum seekers - in theory the U.S. would check such claims. In reality they closed down the facilities where they LEGALLY could turn themselves IN and the still open places intentionally only process a few people. I do not know WHY. They could get them in a center and do the questioning etc. there.
When they drag their feet and send people away and away and away (they cannot even apply) - they offer them on a plater to the scumbags of the cartels. Which kidnap them and extort money (from relatives in the home country OR in the U.S. ) If they do not pay they may kill them.
If they are at least in U.S. centers OR charities were allowed to take care of them, they would be safe until border patrol can / or will processs them. Then they come into centers. Then they have the court meetings.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Elective procedures should be also in the non-profit system. you need a web of hospitals all over the country (not too many and not too few, driving time for emergencies, and they should have enough patients. They do not compete with each other, but benchmarking is possible - although if a hospital earns a good reputation for certain elective procedures, the stream of patients can change. and that can make an impact on the system The hospitals cooperate with the state, the cities and the insurance agency to find good solutions.
To fill the beds the non-profit hospitals where I live tend to have also one specialized department. you'll find a smaller hospital as they are typical in the farmland (more densely populated than the U.S. Cornbelt of course) and they are known for instance for their eye surgery. Or they do varicose vein surgery, or hip replacement. That helps them to fill the beds and it makes the whole operation more economic.With plannable surgery that also can be delayed a day or a week to even out peaks.
The hospitals are either run by the cities or they come from a centuries old tradition of church charity. either way they have a contract - the same contract - with the non-profit insurance agency (single payer) that dominates the field. (There are offers for private insurance contracts to cover the costs for having a room alone for yourself or for some dental care, or TCM etc. which is not covered by the non-profit public insurer.
But the for profit insurance companies get very little of the healthcare market. They certainly do not cover the big stuff.
Additionally to the compensation as per contract the hospitals get budgets from the city, from the state, extra money if they run the training program and schools on site for nurses (a 3 year paid internship). The nurses get the education for free, their wages also pays for board (if they need board). If they come from the same city they could live at home, most are minors. Most of them cannot commute home, and many are under 18 so no drivers licence, not yet the income for a car, never mind the time. The hospital like to have the young folks on site, they have to learn a lot. Usually they visit the parents every fortnight.
1
-
1
-
The currency should be backed up with the goods and services PRODUCED IN the country. Else it dilutes the value of the currency. That crucial principle is not negated by having a FIAT currency. Many commodities and especially Saudi oil is traded in USD, that backs up the value of the USD - as if a strong US economy would provide these commodities for other countries. Trump is (unintenionally) busy undermining that (and there was resistance building, anyway). Now Trump is pissing off Russia, China (they CAN exchange oil and gas in other currencies than the dollar and the U.S. cannot simply go to war with them).
Iran would have used the dollar if the Iran Deal had been honored - now they will use the Euro. Venezuela has been singled out for regime change, they at least consider to switch (or did it). I bet other countries are on the fence (Brazil, the neighbour states of Russia, some have oil as well).
Money volume and back up by the output of goods and service was still a good enough match until the 1970s and 1980s - even when Nixon had to take the U.S. off the gold standard in 1974 (money was "printed" to finance the Vietnam war).
The U.S. stil had a lot of manufacturing and could hold her own.
During that time the money creation that happened was done by the commercial banks * - and usually it had to do with a project based in the REAL and PRODUCTIVE economy (citizens financed a house: it had to be built, companies asked for loans: - machines, equipment, rent wages).
* Money can also be created by the government in coordination with the central bank. That happened with QE for the banks, the Bradbury Pound in WW1, the Nazis did it to some degree (covertly) to jumpstart the very weak German economy in 1933, many centuries ago English kings did it with the Talley Sticks.
The commercial banks do not like the idea - it infringes on their niche, so the concept is usually only used in times of crisis and never properly explained to the public.
If interested
Dr. Richared Werner Debt and Interest Free Money
always positivemoney(dot)com Sovereign Money, QE for The People
And the pdf by the Bank of England: Money Creation in a Modern Economy, the stop short of mentioning QE for the People - they see the world from the point of view of Big finance after all. but the pdf is still valuable and made for the layperson
Anne Petitfor - interview for TheRealNews (related to the UK elections)
Dr. Stephanie Kelton good interview with Democracy@Work about MMT, debt, defictit and alternative ways of governments spending. This source takes some more time (approx 1 hour interview)
Banks are legally required to have a certain amount of capital (usually most of it from money that is on savings accounts of customers). Not technically necessary (if they can create 90 % of he loan "out of nothing", that would be true for 95 or 97 % as well), but for practical reasons: they need some cash, and by making the requirement 10 % the banks could be incentiviced to offer savings and cheque accounts and money transfer for consumers at good condtions.
For the most part the money of the regular people which they collected was the legal base for how much money they could create for loans. With loans they made their profits - especially before the use of computers, savings account and personal service was a drain on profits.
Often the ratio was around 10 % capital (most of it from savings accounts) and 90 % of open loans
Then those banks which gave out loans and USED THE LEGAL PRIVILGE of money creation almost always held savings accounts with deposit insurance. And if they used deposit insurance they were not allowed to speculate.
First the kind of allowed speculations were much more liminted for any institution. Second investement banks and the banks doing the boring banking (savings, loans, cheque accounts) were strictly separated (Glass Steagall Act). So no money creation for speculation.
With deregulation of finance that has been completely undermined. The money volume has been massively inflated since then. We only do not have hyperinflation because all that money lands on accounts of wealthy and rich people who do not spend it. The most simplistic explanation of inflation is: Too much money chasing goods. - The money sitting idly on accounts (often tax havens) does not chase anything. Now QE for the People (We can have nice things) would create inflationary pressure - that money lands in the real economy. It would be used to finance projects for the commong good (healthcare, education, social housing). So it would be important to have the consumer goods ready that these wages will buy.
Growth of US GDP versus growth of USD volume - it is 1: 18
Growth of global gross product versus growth of money volume on the globe 1 : 13
(this means 18 resp. 13 times more than would be healthy and justified by output of goods and services.
That is the development since the 1970s. Sobank deregulation and speculation created the extra money volume. The players in the Big Casino do not have to put down any money when they place their bets (zero for the established players, up to 10 %). And the bets are called derivatives or those "financial instruments" have other fancy names. The wins are digital entries, it is all very virtual. Rinse and repeat.
QE (another accounting exercise) helped them to make the entries on the other side of the balance sheet - where the Financial crisis has left a Big Minus. All of that has nothing to do with the real productive economy.
When the volume of goods that are exchanged grows - so must the volume of money. After all that is the most important role of money. Tying money creation to loans for productive endevours made sure of that - as long as banks were strictly regulated.
Then Reagan started to deindustrialize. The GDP is now propped up (artificially) by the revenue of Big Finance. A LOOOT of that comes from speculation (whatever the fancy names may be). And their "contribution" to the GDP was estimated, unlike productive industries it is not self-evident how to calculate it.
The U.S. already has created way more money than it should. Good thing: it is on the accounts of the rich, which can never spend all of it - there would not be enough things for sale. - at some point there will be a cut needed - or letting those fortunes be devalued by zero interest and inflation to restore some sanity.
The tricky thing is that the same dollars were also given to China and Saudi Arabia - in that case not for speculation (bubble on bubble on bubble) but on real goods or oil. They are not going to like it when the "papers" (not really, it is all digital) they are holding will be devalued over time.
As for money creation for the people - yes it is possible. Preferably for good and services that can be created in the country with domestic resources and workforce. So no cheap Chinese drywalls for social housing and also no foreign cement. Or steel. Creating that purchasing power (that is what money is, whoever creates money gives acces to the recources of the economy) could be done in form of an alternative curreny that is accepted for tax payments. That way the money would be earmarked for Made in the USA, it cannot be spent outside. Acceptance for tax payment would help with circulation and acceptance. The government creates it - and get's it back. And can then issue it again into the economy.
It could promote domestic made w/o stupid trade wars.
Of course the wages for the workes resulting from such projects - for instance when building social housing - will buy goods. It would be a good thing if MORE of those goods would also be produced IN the U.S. When most of the goods are imported it adds to the imbalance and dilutes the value of the currency.
The advantage of domestic made can compensate for higher prices. The estimates are that 1 Dollar INVESTED into the economy brings 1,35 dollar in GDP. (that Dollar facilitates more than one exchange of goods and serivces). But even if the "extra" is less than the 35 % - it gives some room to use domestically made even if more expensive.
In the time after WW2 wages were good, automation was not so sophisticated - so the goods were more expensive in comparsion. but people could afford them. Has to do with that effect. Nothing is more expensive for an economy than having people unemployed or underpaid - or companies that have not enough orders to do well. We are currently under the tyranny of the lowest price and the highes profit. But there is a price range where if works really well - see 1945 - 1970. The 70s were untypical because they were disrupted by the oil crises.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wallstreet isn't "markets". If this would be a market, some would have their losses and that's it. No bailouts. Shares are a way to make good money of start ups after they have become large and successful / profitable / with the prosepct of being profitable. Once the shares are traded for the first time (IPO initial public offering), the money (and the investors, owners behind it get the money. For them it is not of that much interest what the shares are traded for LATER.
Sure if they wanted to sell a SMALL part of shares it would matter, but in a crisis they don't have to do that, they just borrow at very low prices.
So it is a psossibility to finance new enterprises that need a LOT of money that way, and the investors can make MORE money if the project turns out well, some hype, stocks are easier to sell on the stock exchange, as opposed when you legally hold a part of a company.
In that case they would have to wait for the company to actually make profit and get that as reward.
The stock exchange was overpriced - everybody knew a correction would come.
corona was a black swan event - so what ? That too, is part of the risk, (like earthquakes, like Fukushima, or 9/11) if the company is solid you just have to wait for some time, and the investments should be diversified anyway (so not only shares in hotels for instance, not one country, currency and certainly not only SHARES).
The "investors" that hold shares sit it out (it is the other side of the coin of making profits, the more hype the more profits are possible at the short term BUT the higher the risk). There was no need at all to bail them out (the money "vanished" so to speak but of course some people made less losses, the 1,5 trn are now on some accounts).
Speculators may have problems, well let them go under, that will teach them a lesson (and the rest of the "market" as well).
the U.S. GDP has between 20 - 21 trn (normally) - so that gives you an idea. reasonably set up healthcare for ALL (incl. undocumented, which are a small burden in normal times) should cost around 1,8 trn per year. Actually it costs approx. 3,3 trn.
1
-
1
-
1
-
FORMER Rep. Anton Gunn, now I think Superdelegate, works for the HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY. - "the public gets to vote once the party decides who is going to be the nominee". They called the elections in Venezuela undemocratic because one politician was excluded (he was popular, it is possible he was not allowed to run because of criminal acitvities, not sure).
The rest of the rightwing opposition did not get their act together, likely the U.S. promised them they would be supported, if they stayed out, thus giving the pretext to the Trump admin to declare the election rigged.
The Koch Brothers almost got their coup in Vz in 2002, but Chavez had the full support of the population, and the partial support of the military. The last coup attempts did not work, but now the U.S. wages economic war on Venezuela. (see Koch brothers, crude oil refinery Texas)
Only: one candidate run nontheless against Madoru (so he was not unopposed, and of course the "opposition" could have pulled together and try. He lost (he was immediately excluded from the party when he undermined the narrative.).
In Brazil the same happened for sure a sham trial against Lula who would likley have won. He was in prison until recently, but the Highes Court ruled he had to be set free after the collusion between his political enemies and the judge was leaked.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The price for a KWh produced with solar panels drops by 20 % every time the worldwide installed capacity ** doubles. That is a reliable trend since the 1980s when they were invented to power satellites. Then the price per KWh was not an issue - it was over 1 Euro per KWh. And that price drop has nothing to do with time - it is directly related to sold and installed units. - in other words when governments give enough boost to create a market for a few years, the companies will deliver.
** Doubling means the volume - max performance in KWh. I got that from a speech of Dr. Eicker Weber Fraunhofer Institute) I got the numbers therefor in Euro - does not matter, take 1 Euro = 1 Dollar for those purposes
Regular electricity production costs 5 cents per KWh if it is cheap (think coal or gas plants). Dubai solar power in 2016: 2,5 cents per KWh - maybe huge hydropower plants can compete with that price - coal, gas, nuclear can't.
Add battery / storage at reasonable prices (preferably one of the technologies that is not Lithium based) - and coal, gas, nuclear can go home in sunny regions (Australia, California, Texas, Florida, Southern Europe, …)
You can deduct the costs of Blood for Oil wars, and the health and pollution damages of fracking and coal. Never mind global warming, do you know what black lung is ? Or watch Gasland about fracking. Or the whistelblower John Bolenbaugh (Enercon oil spill) how they companies strategically WAIT until they have a LARGE leakage (ignoring the constant smaller ones as long as possible). And what that does to the environment, wildlife and the health (or lack thereof) of nearby residents. They just make sure to not be nearby the estates of rich people - and likewise even CEOS of fracking companies sue to prevent fracking nearby their property.
Countries like India and China also have regions with a lot of sunshine - and they have troubles with pollution. Even the elites in China cannot escape that pollution. So they already installed a lot - and would certainly do more when the next price drop comes (panels and/or batteries or storage).
If an U.S. initiative triggers the next round of price reductions - the use of solar power for electricity production will explode globally. .
1
-
ECONOMY OF SCALE and an explosion !! of new technologies triggered by subsidized programs. I urge you to look at former SUBSIDIZED game changing technologies (computer, electronics, part of smartphone technolgies, internet - and around 1900 electricity and cars - subisidized by cities that gave contracts to have lighting or by STREET building)
- if they get MORE government support it happens faster. see 1) below
When companies KNOW they have a market (because of gov. programs) they invent, improve and get creative. that is why we even have electronics, computers, internet, part of smartphone technology for CIVILIAN USE. The U.S. military funded a lot of basic research. The private companies would never have started to invest in electronics or even to develop them (and the technology to MASS PRODUCE) they would have been bankrupt long ago without the SECURE contracts FROM government 1)
The patent for Bakelite was registered in 1905 (but the chemical base for that is older - maybe 30 years earlier).Then some patents in the 1920s and early 30s on other plastics (Germany, France, U.S.). But the military was not interested. Consumers had things that functioned. So it took some time.
The Great Depression and WW2 hindered its introduction into the market for consumers at a large scae. So it took until 1945 that plastics and artificial fibers took off.
Penicillin: RE-detected around 1928 by Alexander Flemming and he published an article. In folclore medicine it was known long before that mouldy bread crusts could have healing porperties.
Joseph Lister a British researcher repeated (!) experiments of a collegue in 1871 and cultivated bacteria and fungus (Penicillium glaucum) in urine. He used it to heal a nurse in 1881 (applying pieces of cotton soaked in the fluid to get rid of a major abscess). But Lister could not extract and isolate the substance, let alone mass produce it.
Flemming in 1939 gave up the attempts to find a way to extract it in pure form or to produce larger quantities. Two other British researchers continued: Ernst Boris Chain und Howard Florey. They too had funding of the UK and I think the US government. Likely also because of the war.
"Fast forward" to 1945: the three men got the Nobel Prize and Penicillin was available for humans - and animals (use by veterinarians !) which was an important economic aspect.
7 years stubborn government funded research were necessary - AFTER the tremendous potential had been recognized.
It took from (before) 1871 to 1945 to get the drug that would be a MAJOR GAME CHANGER in human history. That's 74 years. And of course that could have been reduced to 10 or 20 years had Lister or collegues been given some incentives.
1) When institutions like M.I.T. (90 % military funded - read tax payer funded) get interesting results from basic research, usually Big Biz is around and takes it from there (you bet for cheap). Either for military contracts or later for civilian use.
(the many inevitable flops have to be shouldered by the taxpaypers)
That is why Big Biz is represented on the campus of M.I.T. - it used to be electronics, that switched to Pharma - I guess now it is also AI. (see the clip with Noam Chomsky: The role of the military is misunderstood. He was at M.I.T. when they had 90 % military funding and electronics was the new hot thing).
They either then got the technology for cheap (when it was no more relevant for the miliatry) or they got contracts with fixed prices. That was the case with some electronic parts, they gave the contracts to AT&T (I think) - which developed the technology for mass production. They KNEW for years what they would have in revenue and could reverse engineer how much they could spend on the assembly line and before that on inventing the machines, devices and technologies for production.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just recently an airline (Ryan Air) made an unacceptable offer to a board of workers in Austria, and employees accepted it (in a vote). The union refused to take that into consideration, and refused the "offer". Seems undemocratic .... not so fast: the employees were scared to lose their jobs, or so disheartened that they accepted straws. Ryan has been undermining airfare prices, (climate change, price pressure on traditinal airlines), they are incorporated in Ireland, where they do not pay taxes, and they did not put money aside in th good times (and maybe they were price dumping so hard they could not have built an emergency fund anyway).
The union - correctly in my view - had the eyes on the prize and on the overall situation. You cannot have qualified staff work for minimum wages - that race to the bottom sets a terrible example and helps no one. A small group of people (not used to be in a labor struggle anyway, Austria lives of the provisions implemented after WW2 that very much promote collective bargaining, but unions are in decline as well) will blink more easily if they negotiate with a multinational tax dodger.
The unions can be better to muster the nerve and to stand up against corporate world in the pocker game. (and of course Ryan Air wanted government subsidies).
1
-
repost your comments and feel free to add my insights - with greetings from Germany: I know the German and Austrian single payer system very well - and comparing it with the U.S. mess made me really think WHY the non-profit systems have reliably, in all wealthy countries *, and since the late 1940s performed so much better.
Most wealthy single payer countries (in Europe, Canada, Australia) have yearly healthcare expenditures of USD 5,000 - 6,000 per person, U.S. 9,200 USD, CH 9,600 USD. That is all that is spent in a country no matter who pays for it divided by ALL people (also uninsured if they exist in a country - so only the U.S.). source: World Bank.
Germany has 5,600 that is 61 % of what is spent per person in the U.S. (Note: in the U.S. per person includes also those who do not have insurance at all. It is the average !)
Regarding overhead Medicare beats some European agencies: only 2 %. Some in Europe have 3 % or a little more. While the private for-profit U.S. insurers found ways to work around the ACA limit of 20 - TWENTY - percent for overhead (that includes PROFITS and the bean counters and lawyers necessary to deny coverage. That is a lot of work).
Medicare already serves a lot of patients all over the country (over 65 - those who cause the most costs in ANY system). That makes them a strong candidate to help with the transition.
It might take some time or temporary, additional costs as INVESTMENTS to get these long term cost savings in the future (and to get the dysfunction out of the system. The MfA bill of Sanders and the Lite versions of Harris and Booker (not recommended) all include provisions for the people producing and handling the red tape in the system. They would need jobs trainings.
Single payer is so much more cost-efficient that it could in the future currently uninsured and underinsured people - and still be ahead cost-wise.
I assume there would be some costly backlog from the former dysfunction. Costs and treatments popping up in the new system because people did not get good care in time.
* The Swiss are one of the few developed nations that mainly uses private for-profit insurance companies. (I only know of the U.S. and Switzerland). They have no major public non-profit insurance agency (single payer) And they have even higher per capita healthcare expenditures than the U.S.
A part of the high Swiss expenditures can be explained: higher costs of living and wage levels in general. (They look better in PPP comparsions. Purchasing Power Parity - and the U.S. is leading with the highest costs in the PPP list).
They pay all healtcare staff well - even considering their generally higher wage levels. The healthcare is excellent and everyone has it - so there must be some help for low income persons. I think some Kantons offer something like a public option. And the insurers are regulated, they may be more expensive but they cannot deny coverage or kick people out, etc.
Anyway: the Swiss are usually good with direct democracy and down to earth management of their little state. If they have way higher costs than many other wealthy nations (roughly same size ! think Sweden, Austria, Belgium) - maybe it is time to give up on the idea that the usual mechanisms of the "free market" and competition can work for a service like healthcare.
1
-
1
-
@RocketmanRockyMatrix the other unusal thing with healthcare: economy of scale does not apply. it is no disadvantage to be a large country (and when something works for 30 or 60 or 85 million people you can scale up to 325 million) - but tiny Iceland with 300,000 or Denmark with 3 - 4 million have no disadvantage either.
Any country or state with a minimum number can pull it off - if they exist in a supportive environment. Vermont with 300,000 people (but in the U.S.) could not go against the trend (they are legally forbidden to negotiate drug prices ! That is federal law). Tiny Iceland has the same number of people BUT they exist in the European context - so they have of course much better prices for medical drugs and beat Germany regarding per capita healthcare expenditures.
Even though Germany has 85 million people. Other factors may play out: number of traffic accidents due to geography, average age, smoking, alcohol, exercising - but by and large size does not matter as long as the system serves at least 50,000 - 100,000 people and everyone is in the pool. (no cherrypicking).
Most of healthcare costs a nation can control AND the planning for the necessary facilites is a numbers game - it will be a multiple per 1000 or 10,000 patients. and they have to spread the doctors and hospitals out over the country.
One family doctor does not serve 50,000 people, one hospital does not serve millions - not for general care (unless regarding a few treatments that are very specialized - think organ transplants).
If the country is larger or smaller the numbers of facilities will be scaled up and down - and staff with them. They need buildings, food, heat, machines, beds, cleaning services, surgery theaters, .... it is not rocket science. Nor is the organization to run such places. A country will also need facilities to train the corresponding number of medial staff (universities and training for massage therapists etc. - and nurses. Which is usually free or in form of a paid internship - nurses.
Most of the treatments are for very common problems (gall bladders, broken limbs, cancer, strokes, heart attacks, diabetes ....)
The ONLY powerful and large for-profit actor in those systems is Big Pharma - good thing they have very standardized, internationally comparable products - that makes price negotiations easy.
Big Pharma cannot rip off Iceland for instance even though it is a tiny nation with only 300,000 people - they could either buy with other countries - or get a pretty good idea what other countries with 3, 8, 30 or 85 million people are paying in general (it is about the "discount" on the list prices).
Maybe they will accept a little mark-up - but that's it. Of course Icelanders pay much, much less for pharmaceutical products than U.S.
citizens.
That's a joke when you consider that the U.S. market has 325 million people
Family doctors, dentists, specialists and pharmacies are usually small !! private companies that have a contract with the public agency. No chains - that means they do not start lobbying politicians. They have their professional organization which is also a non-profit (think chamber of commerece). But there are no hospital chains with CEOS and shareholders trying to play games.
Hospitals are often run by cities or states (public non-profit) or they are church-run. They do not compete but complement each other. The agency will see that they are spread out and specialize enough. There is benchmarking but not fighting over patients.
They need reasonable budgets - and when they want more they better have very good arguments.
Per region and / or 1000/10000 citizens only a limited number of doctors, hospitals (they are established anyway) or pharmacies get a contract. Enough but not too many - the contracts are well negotiated so the margin is not that high - the quotas give all of them a chance to have enough business - while the population has choice where they want to go.
(with hospitals it will be often referals, in case of emergencies the doctor will likely decide, or not every hospital covers a procedure - but for standard procedures like a broken arm it does not matter where a patient shows up).
1
-
1
-
Other important characteristics of non-profit public systems / single payer:
the citizens pay the affordable mandated contribution according to wage NOT their individual risk (so not the usual "insurance" principle). Like Medicare (for the most part).
Plus the insured know exactely what they have to pay in total (long before they need treatment and have a problem) - the monthly very affordable wage deduction. (Which includes dependent family members without an extra price).
The insured / patients know what they can expect, as well:
They know they will get the same treatments (in a modern medical system of a first world country) in the same facilities like millions of their fellow insured. Of whom some may pay more than them and may be healthier.
There are no or insignificant payments when they get treatment, no bad surprises.
There is complete transparency about costs (in advance) and security about getting appropriate treatment.
It UNITES the patients - and gives them a lot of political leverage if that would ever be needed - it hasn't so for. The potential backlash discourages attempts to attack the system. (Exception: the Tories in the UK have been hostile towards the NHS since it had been founded around 1947. They try a privatization through the backdoor, and have been defuning the highly cost efficient system over the course of 10 years. The U.K. has only 41 % of the per capita healthcare expenditures of the U.S. - but the NHS is hanging on for dear life.
But in all other wealthy nations the politicians support the single payer system. Including right parties or the local versions of the "Tea party".
Of course the affordable wage deductions are not enough. Like in the U.S. there is a lot of government funding going on (from ALL levels of government) - I assume it also helps with price control that all of the country * has skin in the game. In the absence of the usual market forces these mechanisms ensure cost efficiency.
* citizens, workers, all employersno matter the size (it is a % of wage), every level of government, medical staff .... Only Big Pharma is somewhat left out of the "Social Contract. (They are powerful enough, they are doing just fine).
Those subsidies do not fund (a lot of) profits though. The profit of the small pharmacies (no chains) and small doctor practices can be equated to the appropriate wage for the owners. They do very well but no one is raking in money. And the players are small individual entities. Who cannot develop the power to rig the system.
Nor do the subsidies prop up a buraucraZy. New employees are announced by the employer to the public agency, that takes 5 minutes (Iname, address, birth date, SS number - plus for dependent family members - that's it. No medical history (of course not) not healthcare questionnaire. No comparing of plans.
The questions regarding signing up is only if you earn more or less than 500 USD monthly. (There are provision for mini-jobbers, single parents that stay at home, student at university that are older than 26… everyone that wants coverage will find an easy, hassle free way to get it. In some cases people have to self-insure - that will cost 60 - 80 USD max per month - and means then of course full coverage.
Coverage always means FULL COVERAGE. Regarding admin it couldn't be easier.
The companies pay the wage deduction of staff (which they must match) directly to the agency (so less chasing of money for the agency). The doctors, hospitals get paid on time by the agency. They have of course all the software for an automated handling.
No denial industry: Everybody is IN and with FULL coverage - it is completely clear what the patients will get - whatever is the current state of medicine for their condition. And if one patient would be denied - ALL would be denied (which all would know in advance - the doctors would leak that info because they also like to have all the tools of up-to-date medicine).
The complicated part for the doctor or hospital ? The diagnosis. Not IF that will be covered or who is going to pay for it or whether they will get the full payment (according to contract and price list) in time.
1
-
The political power of patients in the transparent single payer system. : If ONE patient would not get a certain treatment that would be appropriate to be delivered by a modern medical system - all the other millions of insured would not be getting it either.
There is no: "They have this or that indivdiual risk, contract, deductible, work for a company with better or worse plans, are old or young, forgot to mention a trivial detail of their medical history (used now as pretext to deny payment), or have a pre existing condition ...."
The result of the "diversification" in the U.S. is that every patient is on their own against hostile, greedy institutions with much more power and departments of bean counters and lawyers. Every medical situation is unique and complex - and is treated as the individual problem of the insured / patient.
DIVIDE AND CONQUER.
Deductibles and co-pays prevent transparency. Even worse: the insurers / hospitals get de facto away with denying treatment or paying for it. So no security to GET TREATMENTS fully PAID even with a good and expensive plan.
That completely obfuscates the REAL COSTS, RISKS - even more than the deductibles.
The insured / patients have no chance in the U.S. to make an informed rational decision. Which is another necessary condition to have a "free market".
Even well meaning government regulation cannot change the inherent disadvantage of the patients. That disadvantage applies also to the U.S. government that gives so much subsidies and is - willingly or unwilingly - going to be played especially by the big for-profit players in the system: Pharma, insurers, hospitals.
Complexity favors the for profit actors with much more expertise - they are always ahead of the regulators and even more so of the patients.
Almost all nations realized that fact (and pecualiar nature of healthcare) after WW2 - therefore they eliminated the profit motive and other market mechanisms.
For instance: insurance premiums are usually higher or lower according to the relevant ! risk. In cost-efficient healthcare systems that is NOT the case. the INCOME determines the payments.
It would UNDERMINE the efficient running - for a service like healthcare.
The doctors decide what kind of treatment a patient gets. Not the public non-profit agency - apart from the general list of potential treatments / drugs that reflects medical progress. Not adminstrators of the insurance agency - and certainly not the government.
It allows for a very streamlined adminstration and for very little overhead. Neither the public insurance agency nor the hospitals / doctors * are allowed to deny coverage or treatment - so they of course never built the departments for doing such "work". The doctors decide what happens.
* A doctor with a practice can of course decide to not take ANY new patients - but no discrimination.
Hospitals / insurers do not have the costs of the denial departments, nor did they develop the skill like the U.S. entities to game the system and rip off the patients. They also do not have the software solutions or could spare adminstrators for such "work".
No expenditures for marketing or lobbying.
Big Pharma and doctors or hospitals are very, very limited in advertising. That means that the media can as well be on the right side of the issue. They are not going to lose any ad revenue when they go after Big Pharma for instance.
There are ongoing talks between the non-profit public insurance ageny and the industries (pharma, medical device manufacturers, companies offering trainings for doctors), universities, representatives of the doctors, the hospitals.
Other actors "at the table": representatives of the corporations. Occasionally the nurses org, or maybe consumer protection agencies / unions (wage demands will influence costs). When the hospital doctors bargained for higher wages the governor of the state was included. The state also funds the hospitals.
The representatives of local ! and state and federal government who subsidize the system additionally to job related contributions are also negotiation partners.
1
-
1
-
Nicholas Frechen If you go to the site of Worldbank you will see that most wealthy nations have between 5,000 - 6000 USD healthcare expenditures per capita.
There are a few that do it for USD 4,300 (not sure how they handle dental, it if is not covered usually less of it is done)
healthcare is expensive. It means that a family of four realistically will amounts to 20,000 USD per year. That is a lot of money.
The whole population is in one pool, which is the most cost efficient, hassle free way to do it. Everyone - if they are lucky - gets in the older age classes - where they consume what they "missed" in treatments earlier.
So of course there need to be subsidies, else the wage deductions would need to be much higher.
people do not perceive getting healthcare reliably and w/o hassle as not being free. it adds to your freedom to have that well settled and w/o effort.
And there seems to be a general level of cost for a wealthy country (the European systems are national and independent and there are differences how they do it). although I think they "compare" to some degree pharma prices. That keeps Big Pharma in check.
I looks like a country will need around 5k per person per year minimum for good services (and dental).
A new job, starting a biz ? You can quit, you get the exact same conditions again. And it does not matter if there are pre existing conditions.
People also expect the system to be good.
They would not want to chase after the best plan (they have better things to do in their free time). Let alone having to deal with the insurers when the do not want to pay.
Deductibles ? co-pays ? The Germans and Austrians are not prone to "revolutions" but such demands would trigger a major yellow vest event.
Mind you the per capita healthcare expenditures include for instance healthy children that did not need the doctor once that year. It is an average. Most of the costs arise towards the end of life.
The cancer treatment, 2 weeks intense care after a stroke or heart attack , 2 more weeks regular, rehabilitiation and speech training. Often it is in vain - but it can also mean 15 more and good years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That is SO TYPICAL - and the neoliberal wing of Labour party did the same * - Or the DNC in the last leadership election. They create and change the rules on the fly (or have insider meetings where they alter rules to the detriment of the challengers). The establishment ALWAYS cheats, they are incensed by the idea that they would have to earn the vote internally. Once they got some connection with the upper levels and / or become part of the establisment it is THEIR PARTY.
* they made ONE major mistake after 2015 when they had unexpectedly lost the GE - they promised to let the base elect the party leader directly (that was also to limit the influence of the unions on the decision in the future, it was a gesture to increase party membership, not doubt some PR guy or gal thought this would feel good to the base. and then they offered a very reduced membership fee of 3 Pounds.
That backfired, spectacularly when Jeremby Corbyn entered the race. The hurdle before was that he hardly made it onto the ballot. For that he needed 30 elected members of parliament - establishment mostly - to endorse him.
Finally they graciously gave him the endorsement, after all the field would look more diverse if they let the blue collar type run along, he had no chance to compete with the polished candidates with the soundbites who have usually the backing of Finance (and the Israeli lobby).
Ooops !
That was a train they were unable to stop once it was started. But "procedural" shenanigans all over the place and for many years. It took them only one year to stage a coup, Corbyn did not do them the favor to step down but insisted to participate in the new election of party leader.
Now that was inconvenient. Their own rules said that the party members could vote directly for whoever was on the ballot - and hundreds of thousands had joined the party under and because of Corbyn. (The purged the rolls - of COURSE they did, shenanigans ! but they were overwhelmed by the numbers.
So it was clear: this time not putting him on the ballot and no MPs endorsing him. If he wasn't on the ballot he couldnot win - no matter how much support he had with the base (they calculated he would not risk splitting the party by walking out on them, the also have a system were a third party can easily be the spoiler in the "winner takes all of the district" general elections..
the COURTS thought otherwise, they ruled that if the party leader is CHALLENGD he or she must be given the chance to defend the seat and is therefore by default on the ballot. No endorsement of party establishment needed to get on the ballot. (the Mps cannot fire the party leader - they can of course plot to find candidates to challenge the leadership).
in the UK a party is not a private corporation (so the opposite legal situation than in the U.S.), they also get state funding and they are considered to be of public interest. They can give themselves rules by voting on them, but whatever the rules are, they are bound by them and bound by the the previously installed procedures for changing rules. Rule changes would have needed the vote of the base, ardent Corbyn fans.
So the chicken coup of the establishment imploded - within 3 weeks in early summer 2016, it was clear they would very likely not be able to dispose of him. And Corbyn campaigned over the summer to win with a slightly higher (plus 60 %) margin in September.
Meanwhile the progressives have taken over ALL the institutions of the party, and on the local level citizens become uppity and unruly as well. But there is another lesson: the neoliberals had to accept defeat - but they are just waiting for their chance, if they get their people back
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ hyp krites - do you know how LARGE the Occupy Movement was ? - the unions would not even have had the money. As for the Nazi mindset: do a web search regarding Milgram experiment, it has been repeated by the BBC (and with pretty much the same results, one would think most people would by now know about that social experiment).
The snitching system in the dictatorship of Eastern Germany was despised by the citizens (not many participated, some were blackmailed to report on family, neighbours, collegues).
At the end immediately before the "fall of the wall" in 1989, the people's revolution got their hand on the files, so they KNOW who were the snitches, the German Secret Service kept the files meticulously.
When in the end the STASI started destroying the files, the non-violent revolutionaries heard of it, they just entered the building and took over. The Secret Service guys were shocked that they dared to do it. But they assumed that the regime would likely crumble or change massively - and Gorbachev was not likely to help them either - no one wanted to give the order to shoot at the protesters. These citizens were betting on that of course - but they still were brave, it could have ended as massacre. So the files are STILL there.
The MIC appeals to the psychopathic elements in society. To the inability of many humans to show empathy for people beyond their immediate circle. Which is no problem in a hunter / gatherer society with small groups.
Considering the leverage of a highly hierarchial system (wielding the power of the U.S. military) and technology - the people that are allowed to make such impactful decisions must be better. Or and that is more realistic: there must be better control by the public and the media, so that the sell-outs, conformists, opportunists, fools, psychopaths, the power hungry, the ideologues, and those who just want to make money of war - cannot just start wars.
Cheney/Bush WANTED war, no matter what - but if the Democrats would have screamed No from the rooftops - and without a colluding media - they would not have gotten the Iraq war. HRC had to lobby Obama hard (with the UK and France) so that he went along with the regime change and the airstrikes in Libya in 2011(this was destined to be a feather in her cap for her run for the presidency. Plus likely some financial interests - I do not believe those deleted 30,000 email on her private server were private - talk about a psychopath).
Israel and the Trump admin try it now with Iran - for now all the other countries say no. The US media are mostly useless. But right now Bibi is not getting the US to go to war for the goals of Israel - he can do powerpoint presentations all he wants.
Like initiating wars that cost the lives of million of people. For ideological reasons or because their donors like it or they stand to profit financially. And interestingly these are people that are already rich (think Cheney or the Clinton's).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I recently saw a few videos about snitches in the black community. (Remember the menatlly retarded man that was groomed until he could be arrested as an Islamic terrorist ? The snitch had upset him so much that he became incontinent and his father had to give up his job taking care of him - until the retarded man was arrested that is. No REAL criminals or terrorists would have ever given that poor guy a job in any crime, one could not trust him to have the smarts, the memory, or the concentration to follow through. Unfortunately that man was sentenced by a jury anyway. And that after they had played a recording in the court room, where he said he had to ask his mother before he could join the terrorists or whatever entrapment question was posed to him. "Have to ask mummy if she allows me to join the terrorists" is not good terrorist material if you ask me.
The snitches (suppliers for the conviction chain) can live very handsomely off their "trade" if they are skillful in turning in "cases". And they will be left alone (whatever crime THEY have committed before). The problem is: if you spy on the mafia or on real terrorism suspects: First you must HAVE the contacts - never mind how DANGEROUS that can be. The real thugs can be smart, they have resources, they are wary, resourceful - and god help you if they find out about you being a snitch.
The village idiot - that's an easy and lucrative gig. The snitch can make up to 100k a year, the FBI polishes up their terrorism or crime statistics, the department has a track record of "success". The prosectur can get a "conviction".
Justice, not rigging the game against the vulnerable, really !! protecting the population of potentially dangerous people and harm - WHO CARES.
It is a self perpetuating charade for people who do not really think they will be victim of terrorism or other crime. Nor do they think THEY will be entrapped by the "Justice system" - the systems targets the "others", the poor, the minorities..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
21:57 Robert Fisk Award winning journalist ON THE GROUND is highly sceptical - the reports of the locals differ from the official narrative - the people in the video (people hosed down) were seeking help for breathing problems (they always went into underground tunnels when the government bombemd the area. This day there was a lot of dust, that caused more people to seek medical help - of course if the "rebels" would let the civilians FLEE instead of using them as "human shields" - than they would not be harmed by the bombs in the first place).
Then someone shouted "gas attack" (that happened in or around a hospital and also on the streets !), people panicked and the "friendly helpers" with the water hoses were already there to wash people down - and film it.
If you were there with your child you would err on the side of caution as well.
A little boy (6 years maybe) and his father were interviewed (the boy appears in the video where they hose people - MOSTLY children - down). Which is interesting, many children and young men, and no women (that is typical of White Helmet videos, no women because they support the Islamists - and children to trigger a response in the West).
Situation before: the citizens were hungry, children were promised cookies and dates (and they got them, all right) . And then someone started shouting "gas attack, gas attack". That happened IN the hospital. (and also on the streets, that was another interview).
The water scene actually happend in the local hospital and at least some of the people (like that little boy) are living in that area and are not faking it.
That boy was somehow separated from his father, the father found him later (after the water treatment and the video shoot) in the hospital. I think they got the sweets after the water treatment.
If you watch the video of the water treatment. Many young men and children - where are the mothers !!
The children do not have red eyes, they seem perplexed or maybe shocked, and the water treatment is somewhat rough. But not as if they are in great distress BEFORE they are getting hosed down.
I think this panic was incited to get some "authentic" looking video !! material (better than photos, video is harder to fake). And in the right locations with actual citizens - the rebels (likely the White Helmets) know their videos will be looked at critically so they just can't do it in the studio with some actors. Someone would find out that the scene does not ressemble anything in the real world, and they do not have the time or resources to build a film setting with exactely the optics of the local hospital.
The young men did not wear their signatory white helmets in THAT setting. That prop would be ridiculous - the citizens were already in a hospital, so that would have been too obvious.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A grumpy I-don't give a shit Bernie who calls out the bailout shenanigans and the crooks on both sides (and the media: millionaires shilling for billionaires) would sit vey well with voters. I think people sense how the government lets them down, they just do not know the details, and media works overtime to distract and misinform them.
The big-donor friendly handouts are just the most recent drastic proof, how craven both parties are.
Sanders could connect the dots for voters, that still think they get "news" and honest and relevant information from media. that would sharply contrast with the Biden campaign and the useless appearances of Biden.
NOW ven those voters that a few weeks ago thought that Biden was more electable might be open to reassess - with some guidance and clear information. Bernie polled well in February 2020, favorablity - and then Biden kicked his behind on Super Tuesday (and in states where Biden had done nothing).
Sanders supporters also "liked" Warren before she started backstabbing. But that did not help HER in the primaries, the voters liked someone else MORE (either Sanders or pete if they were white, affluent and with a degree).
In hindsight, I can almost appreciate now how Warren could be bothered to fight dirty. At least she really WANTED to win.
I think that effect (we like Bernie, we just like someone else more) played a role and explains the unexpected FAST shift beginning of March 2020. The Sanders campaign was confident even though S.C. was a larger than expected win for Biden. Baden had no money, no groundgame in the Super Tuesday states, and pete and Klobuchar had gotten out of the way ONLY on Sunday and Monday, the following day they had Super Tuesday. Normally it would not have caused such a dramatic shift, the establishement did not have enough time for their coup.
the "conservative", change fearing OLDER D base was just waiting for someone to give them directions, and the DNC with Obama pulling the strings behind the scene, did that by clearing the path for Biden when he won a primary state for the first time ever (in 3 presidential races: 1988, 2008, 2020).
That base suffers from the delusion that THEY were going to be fine even with Biden: - if they are older they should be concerned with SS and Medicare, and if they are working class - TPP is a given with Biden.
These people suffered fromt he impression that there was time for the nice ideas of Sanders LATER, NOW it was imperative to get Trump out and Biden was the better man for that. No one explained their fallacy to them, and why are these things considered to be mutually exclusive ?
If they are wealthy Democrats: Do they CARE about their children's future ? The nice inheritance, the good education is not going to help them, if the country is ravaged by the effects of climate change. Such times are never good for the sold / upper middle class either. The RICH can protect themselves, but the upper middle class does not have enough money for that. And if the lower income brackets do not have spending power, they will not have good paying jobs either.
The Biden idea of a climate change "plan" is going carbon neutral in 2050.
Those low information voters or misinformed voters (relying on MSM) might have a change of heart in the last days weeks. They sense that something is off, they just wait for LEADERSHIP.
Sanders did not do enough to scare them away from Biden, assure the party loyalists that he wasn't a wild radical, he should have invoked the economic agenda of Dr. King and the New Deal more.
They also did not realize that they had the engaged younger voters (18 - 40). But what they did (rallies ?) did not activate the non-voters and uninterested, detached young people. So they fell victim to their own assumptions, they did not KNOW their target group well enough (I is not what you don't know - it is what you assume and it ain't so, that gets you into trouble).
where Sanders was a well liked second best. it would have been the job of the Sanders campaign to make th sharper contrast to explain to complacent older party loyalists how their SS and medicare (for those over 65 - the current form) was not at all safe under someone like Biden. It comes with the territory, the party has embraced the big donors and big finance since the 1990s and Joe Biden is a poster child of that.
First world medicine IS expensive even in cost-efficient single payer nations. In ALL countries they spend much more on the eldely (of course more medical interventions are needed towards the end of life).
It does NOT help at all, that healthcare in the U.S. costs double what it should cost.
The U.S. already has to subsidize a LOT or the system would crash under its own weight. Other countries also subsidize generously - but NOT quite as much as the U.S. already subsidizes per person (and that was BEFORE corona virus crisis). Other countries invest those subsidies to make good first world medicine available for ALL free at the point of delivery and with modest payroll taxes (so that it is not a burden on citizens and businesses). Modest payment in advance and no later payments is what makes it universal. everyone CAN participate in such a system and because first world medicine does cost it needs of course government help to keep it affordable (at USD 5,500 per person pre corona a first world nation should pull it off. That is slightly on the higher side, most rich nations did it with that spending or less in 2017. But that means of course 22,000 USD for a family of four, year after year. That is their average share in a cost-efficient non-profit system. That is too much for many families - thus the generous help from overal government budgets).
In single payer nations the government help (and the mandatory contributions of citizens and companies) go into a cost-efficient non-profit system. In the U.S. the high subsidies prop up an overpriced for-proft, unfair, dysfunctional system. With already higher subsidies per person than in other countries
In Australia, Japan, Germany, Sweden, Canada ... they can afford the (naturallly higher) spending for their elderly, because the whole system is at least cost efficient.
The people over 65 in the U.S. are in a dysfunctional overpriced system and Biden (well his handlers) do not intend to change that (if would go contrary to the interests of big donors). Not. Even. With. The. Pandemic.
His best offer: lowering the Medicare age to 60. So HRC that offered age 55 4 years ago, beats him with that. It is a carrot for his core constituency (older voters) anyway.
1
-
Manny Santiago If the U.S. had spent MORE BOLDLY in 1933 (and following years) on things helping U.S . citizens, the recovery could have been FASTER. The good economy from 1940 on was possible because of even MORE government spending (on military), more employment programs and subsidies for export.
Pearl Harbour was only in Dec. 1941 - the U.S. was openly supportive of the U.K. but only then they declared war on Japan. Which had a pact with Germany. Nazi Germany declared then war on the U.S. (doing the U.S. the "favor").
Germany did not want the U.S. to get involved with their SOLDIERS, army and military equipment. No idea why Hitler did not hang in, it would have forced FDR to also declare war on Germany. Which of course then also got the U.S. involved in Europe and Africa.
All of that (Keynsian) government spending could have been directed towards things benefitting U.S. civilians. For the economy it does not matter if a factory produces cars, household appliances - or tanks and firearms. If they have soldiers to pay, or if they pay men to build public housing, streets, bridges - or to teach in schools or prepare to work in the healthcare secotr.
It is spending, it means wages, disposable income and the mood is good.
All of that bold CIVILIAN KEYNSIAN spending (and countries open again for import / export) happened after WW2 had endded. To a good degree it was spending for civilians then, there was still considerable military spending: the U.S. oligarchs then wanted and got the cold war arm's race. Plus there were still a lot of soldiers that needed to be paid while being in Europe or Asia, but then they had a safe and easy job.
Of all forms of government spending you get the least bang for your buck with military spending. If the nation is lucky the tanks, planes and ships are never necessary (in battles) and the soldiers that need to be paid, are never in combat.
And you do not use the expensive bombs to destroy other nations (that could potentially buy from your country, and be a touristic destination for U.S. citizens).
A nation gets a much better return from spending for schools, hospitals, research, childcare, public housing, National Parks, streets, bridges, railway, sewage systems, ....
Return of investment for the POPULATION.
War / military spending can be very lucrative for a few (especially if they can be sure THEIR children will not have to do the fighting and potially be harmed or die).
Civilian spending also has the advantage that there are no monopolies (only one or very few companies that can produce the top secret military technology). Those companies also tend to be large.
There are many (large and smaller) companies that can build public housing, streets, ... there is more competition and transparency, and voters have a better grasp what the product is supposed to be, and what it should realistically cost.
Schools and hospitals, or care for children or the elderly, or sewage plants, .... can and should be non-profits. They are in many wealthy nations (see Europe). So while (hopefully good and cost efficient) services are provided, the needs of the citizens are met, and the staff is getting paid - no one even makes a profit of that part of the economy.
There is more of a free market for civilian spending, or it is non-profit, and it is easier to avoid corruption and get the products and services at a reasonable price.
1
-
TheHomoludens yes and the Industrial leaders of the U.S. Wallstreet, IBM and the banks hated FDR (especially the Republican leaning ones, so most, only a few were rational, saw the pitch forks coming, remembered the Russian Revolution of 1917 and concluded that FDR was the lesser evil).
Some Republican oligarchs flirted with the idea of a military coup (again see Smedley Butler).
But the Republican president Hoover before had pissed off the veterans in 1932 (crushing the March of the Bonus army in 1932, good strategy in an elction year while the unions have a membership drive recruiting 1 million NEW members in a country just shy of 90 million people. As for bonus army:again Smedley Butler).
For a coup you need the population, or the army. Ideally at least a part of both - and the rich Republican wanna-be plotters had neither.
FDR had made a good impression with sorting out the banks and implementing deposit insurance (the first thing he did when he came into office), he was in negotiations with the unions - so ongoing support by the population.
Veterans and active personnel had seen HOW the Republicans treated the cannon fodder and WW1 veterans in 1932, Veterans were denied the bonus payments that were promised to them (they did not get fully paid when enlisted to fight in WW1, they were promised to get paid later with the bonus - this was to ease and distribute the burden on the economy till AFTER the war).
But then they were cheated out of it because the rich and the Republican government serving the rich had messes up the economy.
FDR was not so stupid to alienate the army and the veterans.
1
-
TheHomoludens FDR had little legal right to deny the rich Republicans their funding of German projects, and I guess the likes of Bush or Disney or the Lindberghs had their accounts in Switzerland anyway and could do it covertly. The funding of the Nazi party on the rise, or the research projects for Eugenics did not need THAT much money. And after seizing power in sping 1933 nothing of that funding was essential for the Nazi government under Chancellor Hitler (although still damning for the rich U.S. citizens who aided them).
That funding also did not change the trajectory of history. The center-right government of Germany that did not help the population (which was difficult they had no sovereignty over their currency and were crushed by repartions from WW1), the conservative pillars of society LETTING the MINORITY Nazi government seizing power in a "legal" coup is much more relevant.
Parliament VOTED to hand over its power to the Nazi minority ! government. The influental leaders, judges, politicans that could have spoken up when the elected members of parliament of the Communist party (and some Social Democrats) were illegally arrested - couldn't be bothered to defend the law, democracy and due process.
So the Nazis could get the majority vote for the bill - when parliament voted itself out of importance (before that they had already voted to change the requirements for minimum presence of MPs. The Communists illegally jailed - of course also ignoring their immunity, never mind these people were not accused of anything illegal - and the Social Democrats not showing up, would have meant parliament could not work. So no NEW bills could be passed. Or budgets confirmed.
That vote also passed with help of the right another step down towards tyranny.
The last vote (parliament giving up all its constitutional powers) needed more than the 50 % majority. And the Nazis only had 35 % of the seats in parliament anyway.
Many "conservatives" did not like Hitler, but they figured he would stick it to the left and far left, do the dirty work for them, then fail on grounds of economics. And then they - the right and center-right - could step in again and take it from there (with the left eliminated).
If pressed and fearful to lose some of their privileges the bourgoisee will always side with the fascists and help them defeat the left (even the center-left intending to have mild reforms). FDR came from a rich and politically influental family, so he was more acceptable and knew that mindset well. The American left was united and it was not possible to unleash the military on them (in that situation in the U.S.).
That is why the U.S. did not go the fascist route. if Hoover had not been THAT stupid (crushing the veteran's march in 1932) that could have ended differently for the U.S.
the Nazis got under 3 % in 1928 elections, THEN they grew FAST, they got 45 % in the summer 1932 election and when they could not form a coalition government (no one would work with them, and minority governments = under 50 % of seats in parliament have a hard time to get things done) the election had to be repeated.
In late fall 1932 the nazis got 35 % of the vote (in a field with a lot of parties, close to, there were 10 parties in 1928 and 4 of them had under 5 % each and held together 14 %).
That splitting of the vote that was typical for German politics then (they have a 5 % threshold now) helped the Nazis. They were the strongest party still with the 35 % in late 1932.
The Nazis profited from the Great Depression (Germany just had somewhat recovered a little bit and got hit again) The failing center left government, that applied austerity and made a point to crush promising experiments with complementary currencies (stamp scrip - see WAERA or also the stamp scrip project of Woergl in Austria, that was later modelled after that). Both projects drew international attention and would have been a way to bring relief FAST in desperate times.
The elites failing during a massive crisis and unable to think outside the box. and crushing any attempts of the grassroots even if they DELIVER excellent results ....
What else is new ?
1
-
TheHomoludens At that time it was not known how far the Nazis would go. Hitler seemed to be the standard far right populist strongman (not worse than in MANY countries, not even the antisemitism or having another scapegout was that out of the ordinary. Right wing populists ALWAYS have a scapegoat).
IBM should not have been allowed to export that punch card technology. FDR - and Congress and U.S. media dropped the ball on that.
On the other hand - rest assured the Germans could have recreated that. And fast.
Konrad Zuse built the first fully automatic, program controlled computer (Z3) in 1941. in 1924 at the age of 14 he built a vending machine for fruits that could return change. At age 18 he built a crane to handle coal using standard materials (and wone a prize for that).
In 1935 he built the Z1 a calculator that could be programmed).
Zuse worked for the Nazis, he never was a party member but he arranged himself with them. And that was only ONE person. The Germans could have figured out their system.
Some spying, some unique German improvements to be on the safe side of patent laws
IBM sending them the machines just allowed them to have THAT kind of technology FASTER.
To do the census faster. The Nazis did not advertise that they intended to use it to more efficiently discriminate agains German
Jews. They did not deport them right away in 1933 after the power grab, the oppression was increased slowly.
Nor did the Germans NEED U.S. help to build well performing tanks, cars, guns ...
As for planes: they were forbidden to have research, they were only allowe to have sail planes. And the French made sure to kneecap the German car manufacturing after WW1 (export restrictions).
Guess what ? that did not hinder the German engineers. Motor planes (larger ones) cannot be built - they started to work a lot with sail planes - which kept them engaged with the physics and engineering around aearonautics, how to test planes (I read the books of Hanna Reitsch she was engaged in testing). Plus they had their covert development and testing of regular planes going on. It is not easy to improve the technology of sail planes and those engineers were also able to switch to the military technolgy. Fas.t
There is a reason so many German engineers and scientists were allowed to migrate to the U.S. after WW2 (no questions asked about Nazi cooperation etc. - I think it was called operation Paperclip).
The U.S. had a huge import of German talent when the Nazis foolishly (that too !) went after German Jews (incl. many scientists) and then again after WW2.
Wernher von Braun decided he wanted to surrender to the U.S. forces (rather than to the U.K., French or Soviet forces) and arranged for that (for his whole team), well dressed, well prepared, no signs of being nervous.
The U.S. officers were astonished about his assertive sales pitch (the research team around Braun had their files stored away, that was their get-out-of-priosn card so to speak. Braun had also used forced labor and workers from concentration camps. If he had not been so useful he would have gotten a trial in Nuremberg. Likely not the death sentence but a prison sentence.
As for the U.S. to force them to hand out the drawings, and findings - If you want to pick the brain of a scientist torturing or manhandling them into compliance, or blackmailing them with threats to the family is not the way to go.
Braun got away with it, was gladly accepted as migrant into the U.S. - and delivered later in the Race to the moon.)
The rhetoric against Jews in the early Nazi reign was ugly - but not THAT much worse than in other countries. Hating on the Jews was quite common then, only because the Nazis later became the enemy, the antisemites in the U.S., U.K. France, ... had to tone it down. And in these countries it remained nasty speech, inofficial discrimination, prejudices - it never translated into the government officially discriminating and passing laws to do that.
But then: FDR detained Japanese and American Japanese (60 %) after the attack on Pearl harbour. He could do so, Congress did not stop him, the Supreme court decided that it did not violate the constitution. Amercians coming from Germany, Italy and Spain (WHITE people) were NOT detained.
In Feb. 1939 fans of Hitler and the Nazis (often migrants from Germany) marched and assembled in New York in Madison Gardens (20,000 or 25,000). FDR let them: on grounds of free speech (of course) and it is better to see who they are, and have them out in the open. In September 1939 WW2 started (in Europe), so I guess these good U.S. citizens did not display their sympathies for Hitler and the Nazi party as openly anymore.
1
-
1
-
@darren871 I know single payer systems - you are wrong. You could confuse the heck out of European rightwingers or conservatives if you tell them that they use "socialized government-run" healthcare. - The non-profit public agency is a middle man if you will. Governments come and go - the agency stays the same.
it is a "middle man" that is actually necessary, fulfills a function, and is legally required to serve the common good - as opposed to serving the shareholders in a private for-profit operation.
They have a budget (modest mandatory wage deductions and government subsidies) and are expected to stay within the budget- but they do not need to make a profit.
They fulfill their role at very reasonable costs - 3 - 5 % of the budget goes into admin (ACA unsuccessfully tried to limit overhead of the private insurance companies to 20 %. I think Medicare adminstration is also very cost-efficient they may be even lower than 3 %. (2 % if memory serves).
The rest of the budget of the non-profit public insurance agency is spent to facilitate the delivery of CARE - the agency deals with the participants in the system. They collect the wage deductions from companies = the contribution of the workers, which the companies have to match. They negotiate with doctors, pharmacies, and Big Pharma - and of course the government and the representation of doctors (also employed doctors, nurses). They update the catalogue of treatments etc. that are covered - with doctors and likely with universities.
Care is deliverd in non-profit public hospitals (usuallly run by muncipalities) or by SMALL ! doctor practices and pharmacies. Which have a contract with the insurance agency. Which negotiates the deals and pays the doctors, pharmacies and hospitals.
In Austria and Germany they also have church run hospitals. Technically they are "private" - but they come from a history of charity, are benchmarked against the other hospitals. and their niche is allocated. In large cities they co-exist - usually they specialize.
For the smaller general hospitals spread over the country it is either a city-run or a church-run hospital to avoid over capacities that would encourage dysfunctional behavior regarding billing, length of treatment, unnecessary tests, ... just to make enough revenue.
the church-run hospitals have usually existed for more than 100 years. They have the same contract with the insurance agency as the city run public hospitals and for the patients it does not matter where they get treatment.
The expenditures per CAPITA are 50 - 65 % of the U.S. (average per person). We are talking of what the U.S. is already spending (citizens in forms of premiums, co-pays AND the government subsidies) - without even covering everyone adequately or without a hassle.
you should talk to someone that knows single payer systems and the people who live with such systems (and like them and never would give them up) - of Canada, of wealthy Europen countries. Maybe soldiers that were deployed to wealthy countries like Germany and Japan (btw: what are they doing there !!) They might have had some contact with the locals and healthcare might have come up.
Or expats.
Single payer in the U.S. - once it is well introduced and the backlog has been take care of - COSTS LESS. Backlog: people that now delay getting care. or people who have currently untreated diabetes - which causes a lot of costs later, plus the suffering and shortened life.
The difference is so large (50 - 35 %) that there is plenty of room to cover everyone and still save money compared to now.
The U.K. has less than HALF of the healthcare expenditures per person of the U.S. - USD 3,900 versus the insane 9,200 of the U.S. - but the U.K. had very lean budgets for their NHS and THEN the Tories have defunded the system over the course of 10 years. So their 3,900 USD per capita is not enough, the NHS is hanging on for dear life. That explains some negative headlines from the U.K. - on the other hand if the U.K. had at least HALF of the U.S. expentitures (and most of it would go into the NHS which delivers most of the care) - the NHS would run like a charm.
A first world country it seems needs at LEAST USD 4,500 per person - most wealthy countries are in the range of 5,000 - 6,000. (data World Bank) We are talking of countries like Germany, France, Austria, Netherlands, .... Canada, Australia, .....
The U.S. government already pays for 65 % of all expenditures of the U.S. . That makes sense - people over 65 have Medicare - and old people drive the healthcare costs.
Which is one of the reasons the U.S. should beat the Europeans cost-wise - the European population is on average older.
1
-
1
-
@InternetMameluq The free market on principle cannot work for a service like healthcare. A free market with sufficent competition would require that all the participants in the system have approximately the same power.
With healthcare that is not the case - for several reasons. it is a very expensive service often deciding over live and death. Using the service usually cannot be delayed (to search for better offers or a sale) or prevented alltogether.
There are many services and products which are "nice to have, can manage without". The power to not buy at all restores a lot of power to consumers. But with healthcare the consumers do not have that power. Not if they want to live or keep their ability to work, take care of their family and live a good life.
One needs a lot of expertise to evaluate healthcare expenditures. (Even doctos get medical advice from specialists if they need treatment outside their niche).
Running hospitals leans towards natural monopoly as well (not as much as the railway - but there are strong tendencies - another reason healthcare is such a terrible fit for the "free market".)
The patients are in a much, much weaker position.
The government cannot change that disadvantage (even if they wanted to) - as long as PROFIT is a motivator in the system, it will breed dysfunction and the massive disadvantage of the patients will be used to rip them off.
And the medical decisions are too complicated - the industry would always be ahead 2 steps of well intentioned regulators and 3 steps ahead of the patients.
Single payer systems ELIMINATE the profit motive. The ONLY large and powerful FOR-PROFIT ACTOR in a single payer system is Big Pharma. They however have very standardized internationally comparable products. So that makes price negotiations for the public non-profit agency (also a powerful actor - with the legal obligation to serve the common good) a lot easier.
Small countries like Iceland with only 300,000 people can "compare" drug prices - if only behind closed doors with help of other non-profit agencies - to make sure they are not ripped off.
Running a healthcare system (an insurance agency or a hospital) does not require creativity or innovation or marketing. It needs an orderly, well managed administration that runs like a clockwork. Public services can be good at that. it is not rocket science.
Negotiating the price list is transparent. The USE of the medications and test is complicated - but that is ordered by the doctors who have no profit motive attached to the use of the drugs and the tests. So the inherent complexity is NOT leveraged against the patients OR the insurance agency that after all has to pay for the medications.
The private doctors are not very entrepreneurially engaged. They have a contract (with a low margin) - the public agency has the contracts well negotiated. The profit pays for the costs of running the practice, the wages of a few employees and the rest is the "wage" of the doctor. They are doing well - but no one is making money hand over fist.
Per region only a certain number of doctors get a contract with the public insurance agency. The "quotas" give them a chance to make enough revenue - the patients do have choice - but usually use someone nearby. (so another aspect that is not free market - but functional and reasonable).
Doctors who want to open a practice must be willing to go where a slot is open (meaning they do not all flock to the most attractive, touristic or metropolitan areas - the rural areas also have a chance to get the necessary number of doctors).
Or they can open their private practice - maybe 20 % of them have one - but then they have the challenge to get enough patients - which will pay them directly. They can demand what they want. Those who run a private practice are either capacities in their field or they offer a speciality like TCM, also some dentists. They better be good, they live of word of mouth - marketing is very restricted. That btw also applies to lawyers, no advertising for them.
There are no hospitals that are truly private - they could not compete with the hospitals that have a contract with the public insurance agency. Now, in London or Paris there might be private hospitals for the Russian, Chinese and Saudi oligarchs.
it is not that private hospitals are outlawed - they simply would not find patients among the regular population. The niche (of necessary hospitals) is taken - the church-run hospitals - and then especially in the 1950s - 1970s city-run public hospitals were added. These hospitals are good - and the patients get full coverage w/o paying extra. So why would they go into a private hospital ?
There are enough hospitals to serve the population but not so many that they cannot make enough revenue or cannot be run efficiently. The public agency sees to it that they do not compete but COMPLEMENT each other and specialize.
Doctor practices and pharmacies MUST be small (no chains allowed). They are not allowed to advertise - and also almost no ads for medical drugs. One effect is that the media does not shy away from calling out Big Pharma and they will take the side of patients - or the doctors or the nurses. They do not lose any ad revenue for doing the right thing and sticking up for the patients - or the little players in the system.
The opiode crisis would not have happened in a country with single payer system. Neither the doctors nor the public agency would have played along - and the media would have reported much earlier and much more critically. Also the consumer protection agencies would have picked it up.
1
-
@InternetMameluq In absence of the usual market forces - what keeps the healthcare system cost-efficient ? The population gets older - costs are rising - so that keeps the agency on alert. And: almost all of the country have a stake in the system (incl. companies, their employees, and all levels of government).
Everyone gets the same treatment in the same facilites. so people want it to be cost-efficient AND good.
One size fits all is a good thing in healthcare.
We have different needs (and means to finance it) with consumer products. But which cancer treatment do you want: basic, medium, or luxury ? Well, the one that helps the best and is necessary. Not more and not less. even a person with a platinum plan would not want an extra round of chemo just because the insurance would pay for it.
And for the sake of civilzation we do not want to die people on the steps of hospitals or deny life saving surgery to children of poor parents.
Saddling people later (when it turns otu they need costly treatment) with high debt becuase they have the bad fortune to get sick while being low-income is not a solution either (it is disruptive in their personal life, for employment and for the economy).
First world healthcare costs at least 4,500 USD per person per year (the average for EVERY person). That is 18k and more per year for a family of 4 (in a very cost-efficient single payer system). - usually it is 5k - 6k per person.
That is still expensive (although nothing compared to the average per person of USD 9,200 in the U.S. - that means all that is already spent divided by number of poeple - even those who do not have insurance.
Either the system is subsidized OR the country pays higher minimum wages (which however creates problems in sectors like tourism etc) OR you accept that some people incl. children are not getting adequate healthcare and are dying.
Having high co-pays etc. is just kicking the can down the road. If you take a group of 10,000 low(er) income people - a certain number of them WILL NEED costly treatments. People going bankrupt, going too late to the doctor - and then to the ER which is the most expensive place to go, going into debt, selling their homes - all of it brings economic disruption and it also disrupts the stable and safe upbringing of children.
so the best civilized possibilty is to have a single payer system that includes everyone, with modest affordable individual payments and the rest comes from government funding - and be done with it.
At least then the country can get the cost advantages of a streamlined system. The simplicity and transparency also limits the opportunities to "game the system".
And there is no chance to retreat into a "gated community" or a two-tier system. Those who have the golden plan (maybe lucky enough to work at a large company) versus those who have the standard plan. That would allow politicians with an agenda to defund the standard plan and force people to upgrade - driving a wedge between those who can afford the upgrade and those who can't.
"Everyone gets the same" gives the patients as A GROUP a lot of POLITICAL POWER. If one person is refused a certain treatment - millions of other people have the exact same situation should they ever need that treatment. Time to get the pitchforks.
In the U.S. it is the particulars of your policy, your network, you did not read the small print well enough or did not tell them that you had acne treatment as teenager (which is now the pretext of the private for-profit insurance compnay to refuse to pay for treatment of skin cancer.)
The profit motive makes insurance companies pay someone to go with a fine comb over contracts to find such things to entrap patients as soon as they really NEED the insurance coverage. In the U.S. partients / the insured have an INDIVIDUAL problem that hits them at different stages of their life.
Any differentiation also needs a bureaucracy and would introduce the profit motive into the system. With all the dysfunction and waste of resources.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You cannot win the war if you avoid to loose ANY battles - and at all costs. The mistake is that the Dem voters are pushed to look at it as: This and ONLY this election, and it is ALWAYS an emergency. The Republicans can be relied upon to come up with increasingly worse candidates. So the Democratic establishment NEVER has to compromise, only the voters have to compromise (else you get Trump, or Bush, ...)
Meanwhile the oligarch class has been eagerly and consistently working on defeating the working class since FDR went into office. They had some set backs. But they played the long game and they had spectacular success since the early 1980s. (Always in the developing countries these were also plundered in the Golden Era of the first world countries). The "Cold War" and the "danger of communism" was the pretext to have imperialistic interventions on behalf of big biz whenever a country had left leaning or even moderately left leaning ideas. Europe got a pass - for cultural reasons, the U.S. needed them as market, they could not be everywhere, and since the nations of Europe that belonged to the "West" were needed against the Soviet Union (a nuclear exchange would have been on European soil - Germany especially, NOT in the U.S.)
Following through with an agend over decades is of course is much easier when you can hire people, if you are allowed to buy and merge the media (thanks Bill Clinton). If you can bribe universities to push your agenda and can offer cushy jobs to former politicians.
The neoliberal project was decades in the making. The economic crises (and a part of voters resisting societal shifts) in the 1970s just helped them to go public big time. Reagan got the "silent majority". Plus a Nixon appointed Supreme Justice (Powell) helped to shape the 5 : 4 decision in 1978 that "money is speech". Citizens United was only the last nail in the coffin.
From then on it became increasingly important to spend more and more money on ads. The Democratic elites had not started that - but they immediately saw the opportunities of money in politics.
Later a paper came out from that judge (there is too much democracy in the U.S. Businesses and the upper class and Big biz must take back the reins). The Powell Papers.
The case was: First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 1978. ... As a result of the ruling, states could no longer impose specific regulations on donations from corporations in ballot initiative campaigns.
It was fitting that a bank started that.
Jimmy Carter was the last president that got elected with a publicly financed campaign.
1
-
Dennis Kucinic I think was eliminated by the party establishment from congress by redrawing his district. I read / heard (but w/o evidence given) that they threatened to do that to her as well after the census. Well, there WILL be a part of black / brown New York, that is poor, so she does have a constituency. She has a larger following than him and more ability to fundraise etc. - Plus she could call them out if that threat was uttered.
I know that they want those committer posts which are important in the power play. Or they get a bill to vote for, 1000 pages and have only 48 hours to read it and detect the loopholes created by the lobbyists (it was only 24 hours under Republicans so I guess that Dems controlling Congress could mean that they could EXTEND the period to PREPARE for the vote longer.
But for the shills it does not matter, they do not even have to put in the work to check the fabrication of party leadership with help of lobbyists. They will vote for it no questions asked after 12, 24, ... 72 hours.
A worthwhile goal: having ENOUGH votes as a minority fraction to deny the Corporate Dems the majority and dragging them like the tea party fraction dragged the Republican party would go a long way (the Tea partiers have become less radical - well we do not know what kind of grandstanding they would pull off, if Hillary Clinton would be president, they cannot outflank this admin to the right.)
And until then - AOC using her leverage with her platform and getting MORE progressives elected. EVERY time an establishment shill gets voted out and replaced by a progressive it will stir fear in the hearts of the servants of big donors.
I think in many cases progressives will have to run at least twice to counteract the disadvantage they have: money, the name recognition if they run against an incumbent.
Crowley had changes to the district - so that must not stem from hostility (he was number 3 or 4 in the power hierarchy, just by being a good fundraiser). But if they redraw her district other than in an organic manner (with gerrymandered borders) it is clear what they are doing and she can again start another battle in the war against them.
I can understand how AOC would rather not be at war all the times.
Well the other side is hostile as fuck, so war it will be (I do not mean the Republicans).
Or capitulation.
I think she might not be the personality type to hold out alone under severe hostility. Does not have enough asshole energy (people that can stand alone like that are often ecomaniacs).
Some of that showed in the interview with The View - I think in January 2020, where she let Whoopi lecture her, and the other hosts were also hostile (Sunny less, and Meghan Me-again a lot, of course ! She let her prop up the myth of the hostile Bernie Bro online).
I do not want to put too much importance on ONE interview. Progressives are constantly faced with hostility, b.s. / bad faith / stupid talking point. They cannot always prepare for the attacks (How are we gonna pay is an easy one, that is VERY predictable). So the millionaires doing propaganda for billionaires can outwit them. There is only ONE chance to get the answer right and the attackers have more resources and time to hone their attack.
She definitely played it "safe" and tried to be the good little girl. - Just in case she would some day need the votes of the audience uninformed enough to take The View seriously. At that time, Sanders had a chance to win the nomination (I think it was in January), and he already said after the endorsement in fall 2019 that he would like t have AOC in a role in his admin.
So Whoopi is severely "disappointed" with her for not showing more deference to the party leadership especially Pelosi ? (at one point she uttered that AOC should shut up, sit down and listen to the elders - she did not SAY that in that interview
A better answer of AOC to condescending clueless Whoopi - see next comment *
On the bright side: Pelosi is 80 years old, many Democrats in Congress and Senate are old (on average they are older than the Republicans I think). So if AOC would help to PRIMARY many of the sellouts they might lose the first race and be in a WINNING position when they drop dead, or get so sick they have to step down.
but she stopped doing that as well (after starting fundraising end of 2019 for her own superpac), they intimidated her, only in seats with Republicans, no D incumbents must be challenged.
She would not support someone like herself. But it is easier to replace a D shill, and the worst shills are those who occupy ! the "safely" blue seats. (favorites are often ushered into such seats. See Hillary Clinton. She got a seat in New York. As soon as Bill Clinton was cleared in impeachment, the female that was the logical successor had to give way and the First Lady (then still) moved to New York to have residency there so she could run for the Senate.
Why THAT seat: Senate has more clout. 6 years, so not the hassle to have to campaign every 2 years. She planned to run in 2004 or 2008. The seat was fairly safe. New Yok = big donors, real estate, Wallstreet, banks, big tech. There is a reason that Crowley was unknown to the D base outside of his district, but was the number 3 or 4 in the party. Did not even matter that he "represented" a POOR districts. With more affluent constituents he would have had more challenges from Republicans for the seat.
He lived of course OUTSIDE his district.
Crowley thought he had a seat for life (as long as he bothered to run for it).
It is also less "risky" for the population in a safely blue seat to vote for the progressive challenger in the primary, they will no unintentionally elect a rookie that can be easily beaten by a Republican in the general.
Of course Republican Lite Democrats lose to real Republicans all the time - 1000 seats lost under Obama - but the voters are brainwashed into not seeing the facts.
If ANY Democrat can win in the general in the safely blue seat, then it can as well be the more Progressive of the candidates.
Which is exactely what happened in NY 14th, which AOC won: a very establishment Democrat "represented" a poor district. Republicans do not stand a chance there. So no one that rooted for AOC in the primary had to fear to unintentionally hand the district over to Republicans (at least for 2 years, in the Trump emergency). Fearing that the bad establishment Democrat was STILL better in winning against a Republican than an inexperienced Progressive with only grassroots donations.
It is interesting that these multi millionaires that obviously have no political visions still WANT to hang in. Pelosi has more money than she can spend or need to live a wonderful lifestyle - and spends the last years of her life screwing over people. ASSISTING Republicans in doing that, even IF they get a mandate by the voters.
No wonder 40 % of eligible voters do not vote, even in high profile races (like the 2016 presidential election. Such an important race with controversial figures - Clinton was as much the boogeywoman for the right than Trump was for the rest of the country - would have at LEAST 80 % turnout in all other democracies. More likely 85 %).
If MOST voters would vote it would change the dynamic of safely "red" states. Ideally enough of the candidates would be progressives. They do not even need to be the majority in the make up of the D caucus. A strong united majority faction that uses the power of messaging and mass action - can drag the sellouts.
Sanders was right when he aspired to be the Organizer-in-chief - it just turned out he got scared of his own boldness.
1
-
A better answer of AOC to Whoopi Goldberg in the January The View interview: I was not elected by my district to show deference, my consitituents had a high ranking establishment figure for many years, and I beat him in the primary.
That kind of politics (and it stems from politicians that rose to power in the 1990s - LIKE Speaker Pelosi) did nothing for THEM to solve the MANY and URGENT problems they have.
.
You (Whoopi Goldberg) say you were initially THRILLED when I was elected (primary and then the general - the hard thing was to win the primary).
But WHY ? Because I did not campaign on being a female or a Latina - that was an important background why people voted for me, trusted me (they could see themselves in me), but the main act were the POLICIES.
Which the leadership of the D party does not even fight for - so far. Hasn't in the past, and shows no willingness now.
See M4A (Pelosi was for single payer in the 1990s, before she became an establishment politician) or the Green New Deal. Those who know best had plenty of time to do incremental from before I was born.
Scientists NOW give us 12 years to clean up our act - Nancy Pelosi calls it the "Green whatever". paying lip service to the fact of manmade Climate change is not enough - I miss the leadership on many issues (incl. CC) of Democrats that do have experience and clout.
The dismissive reaction to the GND is not rising to the challenge and it is not inspiring for the younger generation that will have to LIVE with the consquences of CC.
That might look differently to people who are so rich, that they think they can mitigate the effects of climate change. I do not think that is rational.
But anyway: According to a 2019 survey of the Fed St. Louis, 40 % of Americans cannot even cope with a 400 USD emergency, they would have to borrow. That is in the richest country that has ever existed on this planet, in an allegedly "good" economy.
The majority of Americans for sure cannot deal with the effects of CC by throwing money around - certainly not MY constituents.
It is also not true that I stand on the shoulders of policians like speaker Pelosi. It was not seeing male and female politicians that have held their seats for decades - like speaker Pelosi - that inspired me, that gave me the confidence that I too could run for office.
Senator Sanders showed us the way, by his model of fundraising and running a grassroots campaign.
I can see how the first female speaker of the house (Pelosi) was inspiring for the Democratic (female) base at THAT time - in the 1990s. Mind you, her intended replacement (Speaker-of-the-House-in-waiting) was Joe Crowley. For that role being a good fundraiser, the connections with the big donors are very important factors. Not the policies, and not the gender.
Nancy Pelosi was much less conservative in the 1990s, did you know she spoke up for Single payer = Medicare for All back in the day ?
(Neither she nor Feinstein were these progressive firebrands though, but they got much more conservative and big donor friendly over time).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 1940 !!! the U.S. got the 40 hour work week for all industries. - Since then a LOT of automation has happened, technological revoltions (electronics, or computers) and NOW often 2 adults in a houshold work and they work LONGER than 40 hours. - Until the oil crisis in the 1970s raised unemployment most of productivity wins got to the workers - real wages (adujsted for inflation) DOUBLED. - Then the oligarchs hit back and used the crises in the turbulent 1970s (and in the U.S. the drain of the Vietnam war debt) to hit back.
And they made their politicians negotiate "free" "trade" deals, they could send jobs into poor country, exploit the workforce which of course could not afford to buy the stuff. The Western oligarchs turned their back on the workers but not on the consumers of the wealthy countries. Those were needed ! and they needed the security that they would have very low import tariffs for the wealthy countries from Mexicoa and Asia, and the U.S. helping them to make their investments in foreign countries safe.
The wise thing would have been to REDUCE THE WEEKLY WORKTIME. So the automation wins from the 1970s on would have been given in MORE FREE TIME with the SAME income (= purchasing power - with adjustments for inflation).
That way everyone would still have a job but with 39, 38, 37 ... 30 .... 25 hours. Good for working parents. purchasing power like in the 1970s is not so shabby if public housing, public transportation, childcare, education healthcare is supported by GOOD and affordable public offers. Which means much lower costs of living.
Plus the luxury of TIME.
Companies would have the SAME costs of production (productivity gains paying for the workers getting the same wage for less hours). They would produce the SAME output not more and more and that output would meet the same (and fitting) consumer spending power.
Instead output got more, incomes got less and for a time that gap was bridged with consumer debt on the credit card.
And the necessities of life were handed over to the "investor class" Education, housing, healthcare, childcare, ....
Which is an extraction from the bottom to the top.
1
-
1
-
I came back after watching a video by Dr. Todd Grande on the George Floyd murder case. * He is a psychologist, and did a short video about the mindset / potential personality disorder of Chauvin and the other officers. And if that was murder or manslaughter (second or first degree murder in his opinion).
He looked at 4 traits: One is narcissism - and this moron scores high on that as well.
* Highly recommended search for the name and George Floyd murder case, the video is not long
Dr. Grande factored in what we know about the situation, andtheir behavior incl. body language:
Like Chauvin with his hands in the pockets while he had the knee on the neck and while bystanders and Floyd begged him to release pressure.
No emotions.
After they finally called an ambulance and the first responders handled the limp body all 4 officers drove away. No apparent sign of shock or regret, remorse or worry.
That indicates psychopathy.
Sadism (not necessarily in the Utah case, but very likely at play at least for Chauvin.
And narcissism - being highly offended when contradicted, even when that is accompagnied by polite and rational explanations by the nurse and backup by the hospital administration. The bystanders and George Floyd begging (for what was an obvious and reasonable action).
The nurse checked with adminstration and still had them on standy to give her legal and adminstrative support (see the phone she holds).
Jeff Payne loses it - well no: he does not lose it, he is pissed and EAGER to retaliate. Because he is denied, never mind how rational and polite the denial is.
On camera, other witnesses, nurse on duty (they usually enjoy the support and sympathy of the public) a white female in a respected helping profession, and his collegues seeing him acting out as well.
In f**g Mormon country that is into family values (and more than other evangelicals, like family is really important, to the degree that Trump did not fare very well in primaries in 2016 or even in the general (won with 45 % of the vote *).
from Wikipedia: Utah was won by Donald Trump, who won the state with 45.5 percent of the vote, the lowest percentage for any Republican since George H. W. Bush in 1992. Hillary Clinton received 27.5 percent of the vote, and Independent candidate Evan McMullin received 21.5 percent.
Naturally a white, nice looking female in a stereotypical feminine profession would get even more respect and protection in Mormon country than in other regions).
That nurse had everything going for her to be protected from police bullies - and he still did not care (malignant narcissists are not always that rational if they get angry because they get crossed. They do not always calculate correctly what they can get away with. A psychopath might be smarter in that respect. A cunning psychopath would notice that he is being filmed and chose another occasion to bully someone that does not score that high in public opinion.
They likely had overstepped their chase and the person they were after, had involved the truck driver in an accident during the chase. Liability, insurance costs, severity of outcomes of reckless chase ....
They absolutely wanted to get something on the truck driver. At this point I would not be surprised if they would have labs that would deliver fitting results and would "find" something (so the accident was not caused by the chase, the truck driver was not able to react correctly under the influence).
The only feature of the unholy 4 where they do not score high (neither Chauvin nor Payne) is machavellianism (planned calculated, strategic, levelheaded, cunning, ruthless pursuit of power).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2:56 the construction workers and many irrational anti vaxxers like him have been pleaded and reasoned with for months now. It is EASY to inform yourself on the internet (with facts). They could do "wait and see" while billions ! of shots were rolled out globally (6 billions of all kinds of vaccines and platforms. Adeno virus as vector and mRNA).
no one rushed them in Feburary, and only in June trouble with Delta started (much more contagious and not more harmless - if anything it is more aggressive - or just better in finding all the vulnverable because it spreads so well).
w/o Delta taking over they might have gotten away with taking a free ride on the herd immunity provided by others.
We do not plead with drunk drivers, and people HAVE to observe the red traffic lights, or a seat belt mandate, and they get punished if they do not pay their taxes, or are caught stealing.
No one pleads with them forever, at some point it is negative consequences.
negative consquences can be a highly effective tool to get people to comply with things that are necessary for society. I wish facts, appeals to insight and pleading with people and appealing to their sense of responsibility would be enough.
Well, it isn't.
And we know that from many othere things that are also not up for choice.
That construction worker is part of a civilization, with MASS production and densely populated areas. That comes with many advantages (safety from famines, help in emergencies, medical care, technology ...) but it also dictates thinking of othersthat are neede to run society.
Else he can go and live the trapper lifestyle in Alaska all by himself. Then he can do his thing and not care about others. But then he will not have an income as construction worker, those 2 things do not align. Nor would he have nearby MODERN science and technology based medical care or treatments. For that you also need a civilization like ours with mass settlements.
1
-
To be fair: "Money doesn't grow on trees" is a common adage (no it doesn't: banks create it all the time when giving out loans, the concept is called FIAT money. And in rare cases - usually a crisis - the nations create money directly - MMT, or QE for the banks, or the Briston Poind in WW1. Commercial banks using the privileg of FIAT MONEY has been working fairly well untill the 1970s. The U.S. government "printed" a lot of money (not really printing it is created in the books and today digitally) to finance the Vietnam war. Which forced the U.S. to go off the gold standard.
This is when the volume of money and its creation diverged from the growth of the economy. In the U.S. and globally.
International finance followed the predatory and reckless and highly profitable ! practices of the increasingly larger U.S. banks. All major banks are represented in the U.S. They see how they are allowed to act and make profits in the U.S. so with some delay they pressure their governments into allowing them the same bad practices.
The Clinton admin in the late 1990s had abolished the rest of the New Deal regulation. From then on all bets were off. Literally.
It took international finance only 8 years to mess up royally. And it was not only the U.S. subprime mortgages. Iceland, Spain, Cyprus had their own bubbles. Banks in Germany and Austria were engaged in a scandal. European banks (Germany, France, Spain) recklessly borrowed money to the Greece governmetn (Golddman Sachs had helepd them to cook the books to hide their real debt, that was massively profitable for GS and a big loss for the Greece taxpayers).
It was as if the late Clinton admin had given out the battle cry - and international big Finance listened, and they collectively went CRAZY, CRIMINAL and GREEDY. And in ALL those countries the regulators, politicians, even academia and the mainstream media completely failed to keep their countries safe. Their regulators looked the other way and stepped on no toes. It makes sense, they have cushy posts, no one held them accountable. As whistleblowers they would have been shunned.
1
-
1
-
1
-
With a Democratic Party like that - who needs a Trump ? .............Considering that Sanders WILL. NOT. SHUT. UP. and healthcare is 17 % of the U.S. GDP, the donors are likely running amok right now. the Dems maybe think they can join forces with the dark side, they were more than happy to massively increase the military budget (by more than Russia has a budget for one year). They gladly supported those insane sanctions (Iran, Russia).
You bet they would LOVE to help the Trump party pass some extra taxt cuts as well (further decreasing the money necessary to help the people of Houston, or Flint, or in the Coal region, the poor Deep South, [..... fill in region/group of choice].
I came across some rabid Hill bots at twitter.com/b_schaffner who continue to be furious about how Sanders and his Bros are responsible for Trump being president (reacting to the biased Newsweek article of August 23rd, yes 2017 "Bernie Sanders voters helped Trump win and here's proof" Dr. Schaffner analyzed data - it is clear that Sanders could attract voters in the primaries that then voted for Trump. These voters leaned much more either to the to the Republican side, and then Indepedent, only a small chunk somewhat or decidedly pro Democratic Party . They had a rather low opinion on Obama, and are MUCH more worried that white people like them could lose jobs to minorities.
So it was more that Sanders could attract such unlikely supporters for a Democratic candidate because of the populist message and they "overlooked" his stance on gay rights, abortion, the message of unity between white people and the minorities, etc. and all immigrants (and left leaning people giving him a pass on his stance on guns that differs from many liberals). In short if people think a politician would honestly fight for them and gives them an economic message of hope, they are willing to tolerate the points of disagreement. Ironically Sanders could pull off what Schumer and HRC had intended to achieve. Getting typical Republican voters or Independents (often moderately conservative) on board.
I would say the Dems are only SLIGHTLY better than the GOP and much more dangerous because they PRETEND to be for the regular people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dienekes4364 20 % price drop every time when the installed solar penels double globally. It is called economy of scale.
Germany did a lot with subsidies, after Fukushima, then prices dropped enough so that panels became economically interesting in sunny wealthy nations or states even w/op much gov. support (California, Texas, Australia, India for nice hotels, the grid was not reliable then.
More sold, more research, lower costs.
Now they became interesting for Germans that had missed out in the first round (Germany is moderate climate zone. Many countries have much better conditions to harvest solar).
More sold, more .....
Then finally, finally there was uptick in battery research (and other storage). Every solar installation becomes more economic (even in sunny regions) if you can solve storage (for homes) cheaper than it is now.
Governments drag their feet instead of pushing it - THAT would be the breakthrough and would mean a switch to decentral small electricity producers. So the large providers do not want that.
Another minus 20 % with panels and 20 % for batteries - and people in TX and Ca will produce their own because it is cheaper - never mind Gobal warming.
I am hopefull for solid state batteries (not Lithium)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
part 2 of 2: That shift of culture and the economy needed the deregulation of the banks of course, and it needed the support of mainstream media (and even of academia) to pull off the neoliberal narrative of how "indispensable" the financial "markets", the financial "industry" allegedly are for the economy.
They are not, they are leeches on the PRODUCTIVE economy, they are allowed to exploit the money system. Money = the national currency is - well it should be - be backed up by the PRODUCTIVE economy, its value should be supported by the production of goods and services. Old fashioned strictly regulated BORING banking with understandable services (loans, administrating accounts, money transfer, handling of foreign currency) is a legitimate part of a productive economy - it functioned exactely like that until the early 80s.
The "financial sector" we have now is (mostly *) neither legitimate, nor productive - on the contrary it is a danger for the productive economy. * Boring and safe banking which serves the productive economy has become a sideshow that earns too little profit, the big profits are only possible with speculation, and that (exciting and hard to grasp) field also "justifies" the insanely high salaries.
The foundation of the Great Financial Crisis was laid by U.S. banks aggressively selling house loans to subprime borrowers, the repackaged and bundled loans were sold off as "quality" loans worldwide (the fraudulent banks did not want to have them in their books for longer and as soon as disposed off one batch they gave out new insecure loans). Andthen on top of that many major financial institutions worldwide started betting on those loans (whether they would default or not = Credit Default Swaps).
The burst of the bubble would have been a major U.S. crisis anyway, but with these highly leveraged speculations finance worldwide got infected. It was highly lucrative - as long as the party lasted. (and thanks to Obama and the spineless EU politicians no one went to jail, the bankers were allowed to keep their jobs and mostly also their bonuses, they were bailed out and later supported with QE. The population was left with the damage, the costs and higher government debt and the higher unemployment. For the "elites" the crisis was the pretext to impose "austerity" on the population to dismantle the gains the low to medium income people had made after WW2 (dismantle the "welfare system" resp. Socialdemocratically inspired welfare systems).
Speculation is fine when it is done in form of the lottery or casinos. In that form it is a harmless small !! part of the "entertainment" industry - but no one in their right mind would declare that the lotteries can be the backbone of the national economy. Well, the City of London and Wallstreet thrive mainly off speculation and we are constantly bombarded with (not well thought through) talking points about how crucial they allegedly are for the functioning of the economy.
I know for a fact that the German stock exchange was a lame affair after WW2, while it was completely dormant in Austria (which had a major stock exchange in the Monarchy before WW1 and even between the World Wars). Turns out one can rebuild countries after terrible wars only with boring, safe and well regulated banking.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Blue wave in 2006: the DCCC under Emanuel Rahm saw it coming - and packed the primaries with Wallstreet Democrats - they were showered with money. Progressives and blue collar types - if they won the uphill race in the primaries - were left to fend for themselves in the GE.
Wallstreet had an inkling what was coming and that they would need their guys in the house - never mind if it was a D or R shill. (Not that they wasted their money, those bribes paid off really well, they were all kept out of prison). The D shills were voted out later - of course - no connection with the base.I assume some did "Congress as Stepstone for a Lobbying Career" anyway.
In 2008: Obama already sold out on the campaign trail (that is why the mainstream media got the green light to cover HIM - not like with Sanders !) The enthuisiasm of the fooled base was high. Mr. Hope and Change was even a better distraction than HRC and he was a loyal to the Big Money interests as Clinton or McCain would have been.
In 2009 the Dems had a problem: they had a majority in Senate and Congress and the White House - so no excuses for NOT HELPING the masses.
Republican obstructionism ? A figure like FDR would have rallied the masses and organized a March on Washington. FDR warned dissenters among Democrats that he would campaign to unseat him if they did not support what was to become the New Deal. The unions were strong then, (they had been beaten down - again ! - in the 1920s but after 1929 they came back in full force. FDR was the lesser of two evils for the oligarchs then.
The Dems could have let all the banks fail in 2009 - the Big Donors would have told the Republicans to fall in line. That is all theoretical - the Dems incl. Obama were told by the donors what to do: save the banks, save big auto, let the masses be evicted and give them a right wing healthcare plan.
If you CAN act but do not want to - you have to create obstacles - and better make them convincing. The Republicans were helpful, plus the Dems undermined enough of healthcare right in the beginning (public option) and the rest was done by the Republicans. After they had done that they still did not vote for ACA.
Funny: the Dems had a filibuster proof majority in spring 2010 THEN they passed ACA despite the tantrums of the Republicans. Then they could as well have passed a GOOD bill.
Obama had the task to diffuse the energy of the fired up base. To drag out healthcare reform, to not start a row with the Republicans in order to stop the evictions and get a jobs program (THAT and not healthcare should have been the first fierce battle. Or doing both at the same time.
A jobs program and stopping the evictions would have given Obama a lot of leverage. Voters would like to see the president kick some behinds on their behalf - that is part of the appeal of Trump, that his fans think he does that. (FDR had the same effect, the very first thing was to do a reset for the about to fail banking system. the speech after the 5 day banking holiday on Sunday 10 pm allegedly was listened to by 60 million people, total population then 90 million. Next thing he strongarmed to get some welfare, which of course made him even more popular. So after that it was hard to go totally against him.
Neither Blu Dogs nor Republicans would have dared stand in the way - the next midterms in 2010 would have erased them.
Deflating the base went quite well, so well that the 2010 midterms were a major loss for them. As always the Dems had hoped that they could pull off a narrow or half win while not giving the base anything.
In 2009 they used the pretense that that they "had" to include the Republicans in the process. I think the Dems KNEW the Rs would not give an inch. They had said so right in the beginning. to quote maya Angelou: I someone shows you who they are - you can believe them at the firs time. They had given an example during the Clinton era what they were willing to do - and they did one better und Obama.
The open racism against Obama helped him to pull the wool over the eyes of the base - it backed up the narrative of "he would like to do something but they do not let him".
The Senate hearing regarding healthcare was w/o single payer experts and nurses organization - but the industry was there of course. THAT was a Democratic decision. And Obama decided NOT to call the Senate out on that. And the Blue Dogs killed the public option right away.
1
-
@jimbowen8234 I think for well intentioned progressives to withstand the establishment / powerful pro big donor politicians, they would need more asshole energy. And if they are nice, compassionate, caring, nuanced people - they most likely do not excell in the bull-in-chinashop approach.
Not for long, it is hard to sustain an approach that does not align with your personality tpye, it gets VERY exhausting if you have to manufacture it, if it does not come naturally.
Cenk Uygur would have been a great asset, the bull in chinashop approach is a more of natural fit for him.
The progressives would likely do good in a more honest enviroment and be less likely to drift towards selling out. But their challenge is much higher.
And their personal risks are higher: if the establishement suceeds in getting rid of them - they are in the middle of nowhere regarding a career, or making a living. Not even making a lot of money, just being financially secure. The sellouts get a golden parachute it they want to leave politics or lose an election (or they have a burnout, and having to fight the establishment All. The.Time can promote that).
In the end they even got to Senator Sanders (who seems to be somewhat of a loner). Still he does not want to get the Ralph Nader treatment.
The powerful Democratic politicians (most) and Corporate media do not REALLY mind if Trump wins again - as long as Sanders (or someone with his policies) does not win the presidency. Sure they would prefer Biden or another neoliberal, but they will be fine with Trump (actually a second trump term has advantages - for THEM).
But THEY sold the base - who REALLY wants Trump gone - the narrative how Biden is more electable. They will not want to get the blame for having propped up the WRONG candidate. AGAIN. you bet they will work overtime, they already work at shifting the blame.
And if they misjudged that the progressive base will fall in line - they STILL propped up the wrong candidate. If Biden NEEDS the supporters of Sanders and cannot get them - he is not the best candidate to beat Trump.
And WHAT hinders him to make the necessary concessions to get the progressives on board ??
THAT should be the question every progressive (incl. Sanders) should raise whenever they are interviewed.
Cowards, and pushovers. At the moment beyond what is understandable from a human / psychological level.
Sadly Sanders goes along with it, to cover his behind, instead of calling the bluff of D establishment and media.
He would only need ONCE to mention that he asks himself if they REALLY think beating Trump is the most important thing - because they do not ACT like that. Citing Maya Angelou. Is someone shows you WHO they are, believe them.
The only chance to couteract the propaganda. Hit back. Hard AND RIGHT from the beginning.
And another thing: if you want to win in such an uphill battle you must be willing to lose. corbyn in the UK played nice for fear of ripping the party apart. He should have risked it, kicked out the eternal backstabbers and then have a unified message with people that are loyal to the agenda of the working people and that WANTED to win the elections. (see the current scandal in the U.K.)
Plus: he let his enemies define the narrative (anti semitism) instead of hitting back and DOUBLING down (that was hard with half of the party working against him, but he did not try. he is a decent, nice, well intentioned man, so naturally he lost against the sellouts, and backstabbers. And a vicious media.).
They all could learn something from Donald Trump, he TROLLS the media, doubles down, does not give an inch, is unapologetic. He does not mind if they howl and he gets negative coverage. If a politician strucks a chord, it does not matter what media says. He just has to convince the base that media is wrong, self-serving, disingenuous. Trump did not play nice so that they would give him nice coverage. Does not work that way. Being nice is NEVER rewarded.
TRUMP SETS the agenda, what is talked about, and they usually cannot resist the bait - and in the case of Progressives in the U.S. or the U.K. the agenda would have been policies that are attractive for voters.
Sanders should have hit HRC and the DNC HARD after the lost election in Nov. 2016, and pointed out that THEY CHOSE the LOSING candidate (with a LOT of tipping of the scales ! ).
That he - out of concern for the country - did more rallies for her than anyone but Chelsea and Bill. That he let her off the hook, that the primary 2008 was much fiercer (but no one talks about it because Obama won nontheless). Was McCain really an easier opponent than Donald Trump ?
That he AND HRC stayed in the primary until the convention. HRC was ONLY cleared by the FBI mid of June 2016.
Speaking of June: HRC could not beat Obama with earned delegates in 2008 anymore. He also had support from the Superdelegates. Never mind: the Superdelegates handing the nomination to the white female that is a powerful figure in the party hierarchy, overriding the earned delegates of the outsider a black man - that would have pissed off the black base to no end.
Her rational when asked in an interview why she stayed in the race against Obama: you never know what happens. Bobby Kennedy was assassinated as late as June.
(way to reference the traumatic year 1968: MLK shot in April, Bobby Kennedy in June, the party promoted a pro war candidate, and the police on their behest brutally crushed demonstrators outside the convention. Of COURSE they lost the election. 2 - 3 % in the popular vote, but they did worse by states, in the EC. LBJ in the end even gave the base something and had a cease fire.
Which is why Humphrey gained in October after bad polling. the party establishment and the war president LBJ could have made concessions right in August - and avoided the "riots" - likely the police provoqued incidents or had infiltrators to have a pretext to brutally crush the anti-war dissent.
Nixon undermined the peace efforts (October surprise) and LBJ knew it - but chose not to go public. THAT would have meant the loss of Nixon, but maybe LBJ prefered Nixon winning because he was aligned with the war stance of LBJ and thus gave him legitimacy (if the U.S. had "won" the war under Nixon it would have looked better for the former president that escalated the war, it would have "justified" the dead U.S. soldiers). LBJ might have gotten pressure to help Humphrey - thus the official stance to negotiate with the Vietcong, but maybe he was not too unhappy with Nixon undermining that.
How she pivoted to the right the moment the primary was over. Should have called out Chuck Schumer (for every blue collar with lose in West PA we got 2 - 3 Republicans in Philadelphia, and we can repeat that in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, ...) Voters NEEDED to hear how catastrophically wrong Schumer had been in summer 2016.
They though Trump was so bad that they could get away with giving the base almost nothing. Turns out that approach was not enough. They try the same again. you bet they cover their a$$.
If nothing is more important than beating Trump - how come the Dems do not make ANY concessions
- and HE is in a very secure position. Financially well off, they will like him in Vermont, no matter how the establishment trashed him. He is at the end of his career. If Dems win the Senate, they will need his vote, she they can't be too mean to him (on a personal level, shunning him. Literally). He was the one vote that gave Dems the majority of the Senate towards the end of the
Trump threatened to run as Independent in 2016 if the RNC would cheat him. They KNEW he would not CARE handing the victory to the other party. Not giving a damn' gave him leverage.
Sanders of course WORRIED about getting Trump elected (with the handling of corono I am officially in the Yes-HrC-would-have-been-the-lesser-evil camp). Maybe Sanders would have been bolder to organize resistance while SHE was in office (the grassroots also dragged Nixon, only in a few cases and after an epic struggle, but they did).
The people (politicians, in biz, in NGO's, movements, even neighbourhood councils) that are crazy enough to go to war with the establishment for a longer time, that want to put in the effort and time because they WANT to lead - often turn out to be egomaniacs, or divisive. (or the viciious enemies of corruption become corrupt the minute the switch the status from dissenting outsiders to getting power. quite normal for morally incensed rightwingers. Give the upright fighters against corruption the chance to have a slot at the trough and watch what happens.
If the voters (or staff, movement members) are lucky, the eternal dissenters / rebels are only charismatic larger-than-life figures with a good dose of narcicissim. In combination with good intentions and enough check by their voters (the people around them) they can do a lot of good.
I suspect FDR was like that. Some of the Social Democratic charismatic leaders in Europe in the 1970s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ Brian The economy has a lot of unskilled jobs that need to be filled by millions of people. An economy that works well (with a school and child care system in which the nation can be bothered to invests !) can integrate the rookies quickly.
If the business owner cannot make a young person or a newly hired person to perform in a MENIAL job quickly they have no business leading a team, either incompetent to hire or inccompetent to put people to good use. Or they failed to have a good team that enhances the performance of a rookie and carries them along.
If the biz needs fries and someone needs to take care of that all day long - alternating with some cleaning - that may be a simple task- but one that is necessary to run the fastfood restaurant. One week later that newcomer (which may be 15 or 50) knows how to do a lot more tasks and can rotate and help out on other positions in the team - while being productive from day one - and earn their wage.
They are quickly !! profitable for the company. So WHY should they be paid less than minimum wage ?
if a nations handles that reasonably and withoud ideology it would translate to investement in GOOD schools with well treated motivated teachers. And they would be taught practical skills.
Higher wage costs nudges employers to put their employers to good use and make efforts to train them and to have supportive teams. Else failures in that respect will be much more expensive.
I recommend to go to Walmart and look WHO works there (or MacDonalds) and you can ask them if they have minimum wage.
In the country where I live (Austria) a young person has finished mandatory school when they are 15. Many make an apprenticeship 3 years - 4 years, highly regulated (what constitutes one, and what learning experiences the young person can expect to get in that company). The pay is way below minimum wage in the 3 years.
BUT a lot of burden on the employer as well and they cannot let them go in these 3 years.
The saying is, they cost in the first year, you get even in the second year and they will benefit you in year three. Of course these are hormonal teenagers. An adult person could find agreements to "learn a trade" in shorter time and with higher pay.
When finished and after they passed their final exam (in their trade school which they visit 1 day per week) they are "learned" and have to be paid better - and it will be above minimum wage. The technical or metal working professions or construction workers pay well for instance.
Others go to a 3 year school (with some professional context - office work, or electrotechnics, IT, tourism, .... ). and then there are the schools till age 18 or 19 which also qualify for university although many also have a professional aspect and count as providing professional training.
Those graduates usually get more than minimum wage even when they decide to enter the workforce and to to go to university.
Everyone including apprentices gets the benefits (5 weeks paid vacation, sick leave, maternity leave - it can happen for apprentices ....etc. )
If you hire a 15 year old for menial work they WILL have to be paid at least the minimum wage
That mandatory wage can be in some cases the legal minimum wage - but most industries have a contract that is negotiated by collective bargaining (and is higher).
Now menial work for teenagers is usual only for summer jobs. It used to be that many young people went straight to regular work in manufacturing plants at 15.
These days almost all young people continue with some training or school after fininshing mandatory school.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bill Maher got ballistic on Wilkerson when he dared to mention that the meeting between Trump and Putin (in summer 2018 in Helsinki) was very necessary, that important treaties were about to expire. 2 months after the meeting details were leaked. It WAS about the nuclear and other treaties, Trump was not blackmailed (an U.S. interpreter was present and of course the people of Putin).
Everyone that knows a little bit about Wilkerson knows that he often slams the Trump admin and the Republican party for having him as candidate. He also added that he has not much trust in both actors but that the meeting as such was an excellent idea.
Maher has been usually respectful towards Wilkerson when he appeared on his panel (he was invited occasionally) - but then Trump derangement syndrome kicked in with full force. Never mind that Larry Wilkerson has forgotten more about foreign and military policy than Maher will ever know.
Of course Trump could have told the media screw you and could have engaged the U.S. voters to DEFEND the meeting. A knowledgeable president that wants to promote peace would know how to sideline the M.I.C. and the war lusting media. But that's the problem: Trump would do it if it was convenient. But he is not putting up a fight for THAT (as opposed to let's say the stupid wall, because he likes the applause of his hard core fans).
And Trump has fed the monster, the M.I.C. - either to get them out of his hair, or because he expects to cash in later on those favors. Congress passed the insane increase of the already insane budget - the Dems were also all for it - but that does not mean they like him now, in case he thought he could buy good press.
I suppose the Russians do HAVE something on Trump (likely he helped some oligarchs with money laundering, he didn't get any money from U.S. banks, and the government of course found out about it). The Russians (Putin) are smart enough to go ahead with a light touch only (as to not expose their "asset"). Well, Trump is too stupid to be a good asset.
He does not know enough to be consistent and to detect b.s. from his "advisors". The president cannot do and know everything himself - but an intelligent, KNOWLEDGEABLE person is much harder to fool. Knowledge and experience in an area feeds your bullshit meter *.
I think that Putin is statesman enough to put the interests of Russia first (in the relationship with the U.S.) - and another Cold War is not in the interest of the country. (The first one was also pushed by the U.S. and for the same reasons as now).
* Obama, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Bush1 were intelligent enough to have a chance - Bush1 was extremely knowledgable about foreign policy (Cheney was in that admin as well - but he had nowhere to go, with a very competent president and competent cabinet members).
That does not mean what Bush stood behind was good - but whatever it was - it happened because he wanted it to happen. And I cannot see him letting advisors get away with trying to manipulate him. If they would have tried he would have smelled it - and kicked them out. (While Cheney could easily manipulate Bush2).
Bush1 knew how to pick his cabinet AND those people did not even try to fool him. (I would also assume no one tried to fool let's say Eisenhower. Whatever happened - he wanted it to happen.
Likely they KNEW that Iraq prepared to invade Kuwait. Saddam Hussein was not useful anymore and he was stupid enough to go into the trap. The last U.S. ambassador for Iraq that had met with Saddam Hussein in person had been left without instructions for the visit and also regarding the then brewing political conflict.
Iraq accused Kuwait of vertical drilling over the borders. In hindsight - that may have been a U.S. sponsored provocation. since she had no instruction she by default was very polite to Saddam, talked about the friendship between the countries, etc. etc. That may have misled Saddam Hussein to think he could invade Kuwait, would deliver the oil without disturbances (the extra oil would pay for the Iraq/Iran war). No economic harm done to the U.S. and after all they had instigated him to do the same with Iran. - Well, the U.S. and the world did not react in the same manner. And it is possible that they let him intentionally in the dark, WHAT their reaction would be if he dared to invade Kuwait.
On the other hand when Saudia Arabia very seriously considered invading Qatar - spring / summer 2017 (the former helper of KSA to fund and arm Syrian "rebels" = foreign jihadists, incl. ISIS) - they GOT their warning. Rex Tillerson and Gen. Mattis had phone calls with their counterparts in KSA, Tillerson maybe spoke to MbS directly. (The U.S. has a very large base in Qatar. Qatar paid for a part of it - boy did that investment pay off).
1
-
1
-
1
-
Peder Hansen What Tulsi Gabbard wants is the desireable state, and technically there is nothing unrealistic about it. Many wealthy countries mind their own business military wise as long as they are not attacked - which they are not (Russia and China are not stupid enough for that AND they had terrible war, and civil war on the soil. That sobers up a nation. The U.S. population would hinder their war lusting oligarchs , media and elected "representatives" if rationing, occupation, bombing, fleeing was part of the recent collective memory of CIVILIANS (the majority of the voters).
The population in other wealthy countries - lucky guys - gets to enjoy orderly reliable elections, cost-efficient public non-profit healthcare, good public transportation, education, .... The top of society and business leaders still can make good money - even without a war machine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Peder Hansen the Cold War gave the oligarchs ALSO the pretext to start again regime changing Latin America for U.S. Big Biz interests - PLUS: _it was the pretext to go after the many, strong, united, "left" organized movements. - With the PR against unions they had to be more careful - that took a decade with higher unemployment and economic disruption because of oil price spikes (the 1970s). - But with the laws they did not wait, the first anti-union laws came in 1947 or 1948.
.... the almost instinctive hostility of the rich and powerful was impactful over DECADES.
That's the advantage of being at the top of the food chain. Consistent dislike that the unwashwed masses can DEMAND good wages and have (some) political influence will show good results even w/o a fully organized or completly consistent detailled plan to crush the regular citizens (that WORK for an income as opposed to inheriting fortunes, business empires or living from capital income).
The ideology was consistent, and the DEEP dislike. Money and being well connected to politics, the justice system (Supreme court decision 1978: Money is free speech) and the media connection (ads) or even owenership of the media outlets did the trick (and still does).
Only the unwashed masses need a bold AND very well organized movement and strategy to stand up against that.
In the mid 1930s or after WW2 it did not look like it was possible to undo most regulations on Big Finance (and the regulations that are still existing are often not enforced).
It also did not look like they could "take the butter from the bread" of the middle class. But the oligarchs consistently villified everything left, consistently worked at LAWS and PR to do damage to the unions. And they bought (up) media. Their CONSISTENT EFFORT paid off.
In the 1970s there were 2 major oil price spikes, the following global economic crises for the first time after WW2 raised unemployment significantly (in the U.S. additionally to the problems of the Vietnam war debt).
This was the chance to hit back - and the oligarchs seized it. With enormous success.
It is true that FDR was a decisive and truly POPULIST president that came to power in a time of crisis ** but it was the STRONG UNITED ORGANIZED LEFT BASE that gave him the leverage to strongarm elected "representatives" of his party. As today most were wealthy if not rich and enough of them were quite willing to resign themselves to the suffering of the masses as long as they did not think it would harm them and the people withing their bubble.
Other influental folks (especially from the oligarch class, not only politicians) were more realistic, they saw the pitchforks coming
The Russian Revolution had been in 1917, that was in memory in 1932 / 1933. Some noticed and understood what ongoing widespread misery and uncertainty did to the political landscape in Europe. Not only Germany became a fascist dictatorship then (Nazi power grab was between fall 1932 and spring 1933).
Some Republican industrial leaders looked with envy at Europe. Their considerations to get their own fascist dictatorship in 1934 (maybe with FDR as a figurehead) did not go anywhere. Also thanks to Gen. Smedley Butler - for a coup you need the masses and / or the military. It also does help if you do not alienate the veterans. (FDR was not as stupid as the former Republican admin that denied veterans their benefits and then brutally crushed their March on Washington).
** FDR was the last president that was sworn in in March, the constitutional "lame duck season" amendment made it January ever since. First thing they had to sort out banking im March 1933 - with a 5 days bank holiday and introducing deposit insurance WITH a lot of restrictions on banks. Restrictions that kept banking save from 1933 until 1980 btw).
Congress and Senate can be quick in times of emergency if they mean business.
FDR of course worked from Nov. 1932 to end of Feb. 1933 to have proposals ready and to secure the necessary votes for them - so that he could go into full action in March 1933. I think the Dems then also had the majority in Congress and Senate (but some Democratic "representatives" needed some working at as well).
And already in February 33 it became apparent that a nation wide bank run was imminent. Many banks failed (and the outgoing admin did nothing about it).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Debt free and interest free money * Prof. Werner has the gift to explain these concepts so that people can understand it that have never heard of the concept of "money creation" (be it by banks or the government). - and yes since the 1980s the privilege of money creation (mostly exerted by banks, after the crisis also by Central banks in form of QE for the banks) has been increasingly used to prop up the stock markets and speculation.
In 2011 there were 700 trillion USD open in derivatives !! contracts. - US GDP 18 trillion. Of course there is not as much money. - if we insist that money creation must be tied to the creation of products and services. Which is logical - with use money ot exchange these products and services that is the most important role of money.
The connection between money creation and the productive economy was intact until the 1970s - it really went wrong since the financial deregulation beginning with the Reagan years in the 1980s. Then boring, safe banking and finance became highly specualtive, and lucrative. In the 1990s (Clinton years) they did a lot of rehearsals for the Great Financial Crisis. The speculators always got some direct or political help. The damage happened in developing countries so the Western citizens missed out on what was going on - they were brainwashed and did not really care for the poor people having to live in an economy looted by the speculators anyway. (Asia, former Soviet states, Mexico directly after NAFTA, Brazil, Argentine,...)
the 700 trillion USD open in 2011 are not the volume of transactions traded, just the amount hat was OPEN at a certain date. Derivatives are BETS. So that is additonally to the stock market which has at least SOME connection to the real economy)
DEBT FREE and INTEREST FREE MONEY
* it is short, enlightening, out of a series of clips. also good although longer (30 minutes): Prof. Werner about the banking sector (on RT). Prof. Werner brilliantly explains how the banking system and financial sector really work. youtube . com/watch?v=EC0G7pY4wRE
Fiat Money - see Bank of England pdf Money Creation in a Modern Economy, they also explain QE - it is easy understandable, highly recommended.
Or positivemoney(dot)org). Banks create money every time they give out a loan (it vanishes from their balance sheets when the money is "paid back). That is not bad when it is used to finance an expansive productive economy. (for instance after WW2 until the 80s).
But NOW the banks are allowed to a) also speculate and b) they use the privilege of money creation to support speculation of other actors
Dr. Stephanie Kelton's interview with Democracy@Work (I think she explained MMT well there for beginners). Then you can move on to the "Angry Bird Talk" - the speech was about "The Deficit Owl" (as opposed to deficit hawks and the usual myths and pearl clutching about the horrors of government debt)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lazylady8591 per capita ! healthcare expenditures of nations, source World Bank: U.S. 9,200 USD U.K. 3,900. (or 44 % of the U.S. - not even HALF) Most WEALTHY nations 5,000 - 6,000 (that includes Canada, Australia, most European nations, Germany for instance 5,600)
Lowest costs: after the U.K. the next wealthy European nation is in the range of 4,300 - so it looks very much like a First World country needs at least that per person to have a well functioning system - the U.K is not spending enough.
wealthy is important- costs of living determine wage levels, labor is a major factor in healthcare especially in the cost-efficient single payer systems, so it is only legitimate to compare countries that play in the same league.
I have also seen PPP numbers (Purchasing Power Parity) that are a little different (I do not know them by heart) - the U.S. is always much higher, countries with high costs of living (Switzerland, Norway) look a little better. And the U.K. has always the lowest per capita expenditures.
Interestingly size does not matter. Very small and large nations have comparable costs (average age of the population, alcohol and cigarette consumption, food, ... may play a larger role than the size of the country. Or how much not absolutely necessary dental is included. For instance most braces. If it is not included, less of it will be done, that will impact the expenditures.
The economy of scale does not apply in healthcare.
Small nations can (at least inofficially) find out about the purchasing price levels of other nations for medical drugs.
Medical drugs are very standardized, internationally comparable substances. The information ripples through the market (plus 530 million citizens in EU and associated countries alone, that is not all of Europe).
So tiny Iceland cannot be ripped of by Big Pharma.
For-profit insurers guard an information advantage in order to make more profits if possible - non-profit public insurance agencies do not have that motive to hold back information.
Doctor practices, hospitals, pharmacies, the necessary number of doctors, nurses and their (usually free) training can be scaled up and down by multiple of thousand citizens. Iceland may train doctors at the universities of other Nordic countries and likely has agreements with other countries for rare and specialized procedures - that would cost them some airlifts extra.
Does not make a dent in their per capita expenditures - they and their life expectancy look good. A lot of treatments in medicine are routine cases (giving, birth, broken limbs, smaller surgery, burns, diabetes, strokes, heart attacks, ... ). These standard cases account for most of the costs in the system and can be well handled even by a small country.
The scaling up can be for 300,000 in Iceland or 85 million in Germany - or 325 in the U.S. The facilities need to be spread out over the country anyway. And the large countries usually have more than one insurance agency - it can be organized per state etc. Does not matter, they co-ordinate within the country.
A split in more "sub-divisions" also allows some bench-marking. They need to finance a few more management posts. As long as they share software solutions, it does not matter cost-wise. On the other hand: if corruption or dysfunction creeps into one of several agencies it would show in their numbers or performance.
The public NHS of the U.K. (which delivers most of the care) is massively underfunded. That is especially true for the NHS of England. (The Scottish have their own "division" - and they get extra local funding, so I think they are humming along). The Tories have been hostile towards the system since it was started in 1947.
The NHS btw is a fairly large operation, they are not only the "insurance agency" but run also the hospitals and they also employ the "family doctors". Other countries have more independent players (like small companies: pharmacies and doctor practices) who have contracts with an insurance ageny.
Austerity after the Financial Crisis and the bank bailout gave the Tories the pretext to start defunding the system that already had a lean (but still workable) budget.
The goal is of course not cost-efficiency. Healthcare delivered in singlepayer systems is for the most parts off limits for the profiteers. The only large for-profit player is Big Pharma. (which as you noted is required to make good offers). Healthcare is a major part of any economy - the Tories want to hand over at least a part of it to their buddies.
The English NHS is hanging on for dear life - yearly winter crisis and all. With cutting funds any functioning operation in any line of business can be ran into the ground. - The Brits are proud of the NHS - a well functioning NHS would give no pretext to privatize and let the "investor" class extract profits from the system. If the public system does not function well at least the wealthier part of the population can be pushed to buy extra coverage (private additional insurance, going to private doctors and paying out of pocket etc).
With per capita expenditures of only 50 % of the U.S. * - that would be USD 4,600 and most of it would be spent in the NHS - the public service would get a massive increase in funding and the system would run like a charm. And they would still be in the bottom range cost-wise for a wealthy country.
* that average also includes the persons in the U.S. that do not get necessary treatment. So if the U.S. system would be like the expensive Swiss system which also works mostly with private insurers but at least everyone has coverage and gets treatment - the per capita expenditures of the U.S. would even be higher.
It also does not matter what part of the expenditures comes from payments of citizens and what is government spending - all that is spent in the country divided by all of the people.
Your friends are right to tell you of the troubles and underperformance of the NHS - but you have to put that into context. The media in U.K. is mostly owned by rich right wing people - it shows in the reporting.
The publicly financed BBC is quite tame - they do not want to offend the Tories too much. They should be independent and neutral (and free to scream bloody murder) - but it looks like the legal framework gives the government leverage over them. Thatcher and Tony Blair had top managers of the BBC fired that were not compliant enough.
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ontoverse Michael Scheuer * think that they have their sleepers in the West and in the U.S. The Iranians are an old culture and Shia Islam, they are not that much into jihad (that is a extreme from of Sunni Islam, exported by Saudia Arabia = Wahabbism). But the thinks if provoqued that could be part of their asymmetric warfare.
And sea mines - in the Strait of Hormuz where 80 % of the global oil demand goes through. it would be terrible for Iran and the region. And the U.S. would suffer too.
* he lost his plot, recently he seemed to ask for a uprising, which bordered on iciting violence, his site non-intervention (!) was taken down, 1 or 2 days later. (Thom Harman covered the blog, I never saw it).
- the weird thing is that gives sometimes very good summaries on the ME, but he hated Obama and HRC with a passion (some borderline articles in 2013 on Obama - I mean I do not condone of his foreign policy either, but , is a Trump supporter (which is odd, because Scheuer can process detail and nuance at least in the professional field - Middle East intelligence).
Would be interesting to see what Lawrence Wilkerson has to say
1
-
1
-
1
-
trajan hercules Mexico is not going to pay directly. Trump claims that he negotiated a trade deal that gives the U.S. more and Mexico less. Well - some oligarchs on either side of the border are going to pocket that.
the U.S. oligarchs just got a massive PERMANENT tax-cut (on their already low taxes). So if they make MORE profits because of "new and shiny NAFTA" - that does not help the government revenue.
So even IF the claim of Trump is correct (which could mean more damage to the Mexican economy * so more incentive for the citizens to seek a future in the U.S.) - that advantage for the U.S. means advantage for the U.S. oligarchs.
* NAFTA was bad for the U.S. citizens (and wonderful for the U.S ., Canadian AND Mexican oligarchs). It was catastrophic for already poor small farmers in Mexico.
And the additional manufacturing jobs in Mexico did not compensate for the income losses of the small farmers. The workers are not getting paid the good U.S. wages - that was the whole point of outsourcing.
So unlike in the U.S. after WW2 those manufacturing jobs did not support the jumpstarting of other business sectors (retail, workers able to afford homes - so construction, service sector jobs like restaurants, healthcare, banking, insurances...
The U.S. Drug on War really jumpstarted the cartells in Mexico. In some provinces they run the show and are the employer of last resort. - The good people leave the country to try and build a life elsewhere. Others get hired by the cartells (or are forced to join - THAT is one of the reasons people and young males flee Honduras, El Salvador).
The U.S. supported death squads (1950s - 1990s) already were in the drug business. When the U.S. supported wars against left and center left movements were over they took up the biz full time.
They have the U.S. military training, the weapons, the know how - and often the intel provided by the CIA. The criminals leaders can have residence in the U.S. and no one bothers them (while there are international warrants on them. When that came out - whistleblower and activists - the criminal got a warning so he could leave the U.S.
Some people would rather flee and ask for asylum than have their 17 - 20 year old sons forcefully recruited by these thugs. those who flee are not the worst crowd. The real thugs stay and play nice with the cartels and former death squads.
The cartells also do not cross the border on foot are with cars. They BUY a PLANE, an AIRPORT - and the local U.S. police if necessary. you will not find them in the wild waters of the Rio Grande.
The drug mules they use are legal visitors that cross the border often - no doubt with changing vehicles - not permanent undocumented work immigrants walking thousands of miles.
Unless the U.S. has a Soviet style border and NO ECONOMIC EXCHANGE with Mexico and Latin America (and hardly any visitors from there) - the drug transports cannot be prevented. The Soviet satellite nations did have such a border, many restrictions on visitors - and true they did not have drugs.
Decriminalizing DRUGS (see Portugal and Switzerland, also consider the prohibition in the U.S. ) would be the obvious and EFFECTIVE solution.
It would pull the rug from under organized crime. Generous drug rehab, and methadone programs would cost less, there would be much less need for law enforcement, prisons, justice system.
Portugal had a lot of heroin overdoses (their country was a port of entry for Europe). A clogged up justice system. 1 % of the population took heroin. Out of desperation (and with the help of some wise politicians) they switched.
Decriminalization, offering help instead of criminal prosecution if people are caught (and the volume is not too large). Social workers bring the methadone with busses to the known problem areas. people need to take it before the eyes of the social workers - so no collecting and selling of the substance.
They have almost no overdoses. And it HURTS drug sales. They are harder to get - not as widespread as they used to be . It is harder finding new consumers and making them addicted.
Addicted persons are the sales force to distribute the drugs on the street. If the already addicted get methadone and do not need to resort to low level drug dealing, prostitution, theft or robbery (out of desperation to finance the drug) - that avoids a lot of crime and dysfunction and violence.
Additionally they are always in friendly contact with the social workers - so if they want to start over and go full rehab and abandon methadone (which you can see as a crutch) they are there to encourage them.
That part of the business (selling on the streets, new "recruitment" ) is also undermined by the reasonable Portugese policies.
They have almost no deaths by overdosing now.
Whoever pays for the wall - or any uncomplete for-show and for-profit constructions - the wealthy in the U.S. and big Biz are not going to be the ones.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaeledwards9170 the Medicare For All Bill does include improvements like dental - Medicare is "only" the AGENCY - if they have sufficient !! funding they can have the contracts that cover more services and especially ALL medical treatments in a hospital.
Non-profit public agencies in other countries (comparable to Medicare adminstration) do that. But of course these agencies are allowed to negotiate drug prices and deal (mostly) with non-profit public hospitals run by cities or states.
In short they do not have to pay (much) for profits and deal with partners that have a well negotiated contract. A situation which Big Pharma does not especially like - but they have internationally very comparable substances and the price information ripples through the European scene of non-profit agencies - they serve plus 530 million people, so that is a market power working for the interests of the patients.
The non-profit agencies have no reason to not share information to help each other out. (and if it is behind closed doors. Another thing that Big Pharma has to live with). So even small nations get a good deal - they all pay much less than the U.S.
Which explains to uncomplete unsatisfactory coverage of Medicare. Older people naturally cause the highest healthcare expenditures in ANY healthcare system, so the vastly overpriced medical drugs and the shenanigans of the hospitals extract too much of the budget.
I know the systems of Germany and Austria well. per capita healthcare expenditures * of 5,600 USD / 5400 USD versus 9,200 of the U.S. Or only 3,900 in the U.K.
(* all that is spent in the country divided by ALL people = all age groups, and it does not matter if they have insurance - only relevant for the U.S. - or who pays for the expenditures).
it cannot be compared to Medicare which only covers old people so their expenditures per person are certainly much higher.
Almost all wealthy nations are in the range of 5,000 - 6,000 USD per capita healthcare expenditures (= average for every person in the country).
Or to put it differently - other wealthy nations pay in the range of 55 - 65 % of the U..S. PER PERSON (so that can be scaled up and down). The U.K. has only 3,900 which is less than half of the U.S. per capita expenditures (but they are clearly underfunding their NHS).
Austria and Germany cover ALL costs. Now in hospitals there is a daily fee (which is modest and not for low income people anyway). But the idea that not all medical services (or dental or ambulance drives with or w/o doctor - and if necessary airlift) is covered is unthinkable.
The fee for prescription drugs is 6 or 7 USD per package (not for low income persons, they get the card, show it in the pharmacy and walk away for free. Which btw is very accepted and not shameful at all for these persons. Of course lower income people are not plagued with those costs. There is the possibility to have bulk prescription if you need a lot of one drug - which of course saves on the fees.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Never mind that "New Knowledge" created fake Russian bots to have a business model - they are not even good or careful enough to NOT be caught. Likely they were not paying their "bots" acting as if they were Russians enough money. You do not get circumspection and smartness for cheap.
People will use the the possibilities to automate or all traffic comes from one spot. (The web of Facebook is likely not hat sophisticated, but even FB detected that there was unusual activities).
Of course if you have the necessary smart diversification (to create a good illusion of Russian bots) it is not only more complex.
MORE people in more places will know about it so it is likely some of them will cash in on leaking information to the media. It is even possible some people are patriots and object to the practis of New Knowledge on principle.
(if the "work" at several places on computers all over the country (which would be the case if commenters are real people) they paid for shills can at least make screenshots. Only in an open large common office where everyone sees all the time what the collegeus are doing that can be prevente. And only in central places you can set up security and the IT that you can prevent people from copying information that would be embarrassing if it leaks out.
Didn't work with Edward Snowden - but at least CIA and contractors have some safeguards. Let me add that Booz, Allen Hamilton was sloppy with the security and background checks on the persons they hired (The Snowden revelation triggered an investigation). They needed staff, to handle all those lucrative government contracts. Snowden had worked directly for the CIA and his father had worked for the CIA as well. That was good enough for them.
And people talk about "welfare queens". These are the real welfare queen, they want to make a fortune of getting government contracts by INVENTING things.
Not that government agencies wouldn't also be busy to defend their business model (CIA, NSA and DEA, FBI come to mind). Some of them would be the most opposed if the current prohibition on drugs was ended. The first prohibition on alcohol had a lot of civic support and was a grassroots movement that unified very different groups.
But the villification of cannabis and outlawing it was a top-down political move in the 1920.
The "war on drugs" went on stereoides during the Nixon presidency, then it was seen as a possibility to target the people that were challenging the power and the lone decisions of the government.
This was against the hippies who were against the Vietnam war, or at least Nixon thought their were the main opposers, apparently he needed to suppress the knowledge that most citzens had men in the family that could not weasel out from being drafted. So more and more citiizens (that were not in the least hippies) were opposed to the war, the hippies could not have stopped the war, they did not have enough influence.
And claiming moral reasons to stop the war would not have moved the electorate, the regular citizens did not want to see their sons dying, it is as simple as that.
(So next thing the draft was not used anymore, because with it not even wealthy members of society are safe from paying the ulitimate price. It is easy for representatives and media people to lust after (lucrative) wars when they know the males in THEIR family will never be in harms way.
The crackdown on drugs that Nixon started also / especially targeted black people (their drug of choice was crack). Of course media and both parties gladly went along even after Nixon was gone.
That includes two Democratic presidents much later who had used weed - Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. They like many people had tried weed at least at some time in their life. They KNEW it was not that dangerous. But Obama had a good middle class background and Clinton was white and at an elite unversity. No one harrassed them.
But with the state has some control what WORK is allocated to them. And in theory they have to admit WHAT they use the funding and staff for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
0:35 (and before is Jimmy's explanation) - John Kerry before the House Committee: "Some nations [ read: the Gulf States and likely Israel] offered to PAY FOR the US WAR COSTS if the US alone would regime change Syria for them. - That would mean BOOTS ON THE GROUND - and conflict with Russia, Iran, Hezbollah (remember the marines that were killed - Reagan had the good sense to pull out of Lebanon after that).
Hezbollah will commit acts of terror if they are attacked IN THEIR TURF (that means Lebanon - and their lines of supply via Syria and Iran - that is why they help out in Syria now). Unlike the Saudi trained Sunni extremists they have not interest in the jihad or in BOTHERING the Western states if they leave them alone. And there is no reason for the West to bother them - except that Israel is unwilling to come to a mutually beneficial agreement with them or with anyone in the region.
US soldiers AS MERCENARIES dying for the cause of the dictatorial, fundamentalistic oil monarchies of the Middle East and Israel ???
Israel WANTS to GRAB Lebanon, especially the water of the Golan Heights (there are fossil fuels allegedly - and I read rumours that the rights for extraction are already sold - that could be fake news though!)
Hezbollah in Lebanon gave Isreal a beating, Israel tried twice (and needed U.S. support !! - to quote Larry Wilkerson: we had to haul their asses out - with the loss of life of our marines).
Syria and Iran help Hezbollah - and the other way round - Hezbollah supports the Syrian government army along with Russia, and Iran.
Never mind the genocide that would happen in Syria when Assad would be toppled and the regime change "successful".
Massacres of the different Christian confessions, Shia Muslim, Jewish people, Druze, Alawites.
An ongoing low-level intensity conflict if Syria breaks up into tribal states (see Libya) always at each other's throat (for the good areas in the country, the oil fields, rich farmland, water, access to the ocean resp. ports, the industrial cities)
1
-
1
-
Separating children from their parents was a feature, not a bug.
a) looking tough, message to voters, midterms are coming
b) we do it differently than Obama (and Bush), that is a virtue in itself
c) we hope it will scare potential other people (with children) coming - Jeff Session said that as defense on TV, and he was not the only one
d) blackmail the Dems into voting for the border wall (I read that not sure if it is true) - it sounds true to character
Last but not least: they were in a rush, and looking tough was the most important thing - no WAY they could carefully vet all the people to whom they handed out the childrens (foster parents, sponsors).
They did not set up a system to re-unite the parents and the children.
A judge: if you hand over your wallet you get a receipt, but no paperwork for the children that were taken ??
And they clearly did not waste a thought on how they would reunite the children once the decision was made (in most cases deportation I guess).
Did they want to keep the children in the foster system in the U.S. , sell them into adoption ??
As for individuals who took such children into care:
The predators sniff it when the can get their hands on a child. When a child has insufficient protection.
Little children are hard to come by in the sex trade (IN the U.S.)
but this was an opportunity ... courtesy of the U.S. government
And there were enough children that are too little to give testimony if they are molested or abused by individuals ... and no one would listen to them anyway.
The U.S. foster care system is not known to be a very good place for vulnerable children.
At least in that sense the solution of the "baby concentration camps" (admitted it is a misleading word) is better. The care may be less individual as with - good ! - foster parents (it would be the best by far from the parents).
But at least the children are not going to end up trafficked, abused and that incompetent admin should be able to find them.
##$'##!*#!+##
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
7:30 Beau Biden did the typical career moves. Started as elected prosecutor and then enlisting (also see mayor pete, his enlistment was likely for the CIA). I am very sure that the son of well connected Senator Joe Biden or VP Biden was not exposed to danger in Iraq. Everything canhappen of course, but they kept him at a safe place with a safe task.
The credentials of having been a soldier were likely meant to prop up his future political campaigns.
The U.S. has used depleted uranium ammunition in Iraq (Fallujah) the radiation showed up for instance in Germany a few days after they attacked the city. (routine measurements, at some distance to nuclear power plants, first they thought the pant had a leak and did not report it as they are obliged to do. No, the energy provider had nothing to report, a part of the radiation in Iraq had made it into the atmosphere).
The U.S. already used that kind of heavy (tank breaking) ammunition in the war against Yugoslavia. Uranium has even a higher specific weight than lead (also poisonous but nothing like uranium). Plus I guess it is a cheap way to get rid of hazardous material (which they would have to store under safe conditions if they would not spread it in the war zone, screw brown people).
Of course it is MUCH worse in Iraq, they have the highest rates of children born with defects on the planet.
I think the U.S. also have / had a rotating schedule for U.S. / NATO soldiers in ex Yugoslavian territory, so that they do not stay too long there. Could draw unwanted attention and cost the army, if many of them get cancer later.
If Beau Hunter was anywhere near those ares where so much radiactive material was unleashed, he may have increased his cancer risks. Or maybe it was just bad luck and the enlistment did not ultimately cost him his life.
1
-
1
-
@blacawi In early 2016 media ALWAYS showed the delegate count of HRC with the EARNED delegates PLUS the (overwhelming) superdelegates count lumped into it (Clinton and Sanders were tied in the early states or almost tied).
Those superdelegates had declared their support before the candidates even started campaigning on the ground (Clinton, Sanders, O'Malley and 2 other outsiders that campaigned in states later, did not create much buzz though).
The whole point of media covering the primaries would be to see how the base votes and how the mood shifts. Yes the party establishment, the people that serve the big donors prefered HRC, and right from the beginning - as far as they were concerned that was a coronation.
Got it.
But a primary / caucus is about how the base votes ! so there was no reason to show those very different numbers (that mean different things) LUMPED TOGETHER.
I mean: no GOOD reason.
At the minimum media could have shown the number with and w/o Superdelegates. (they did so after months of being called out by the Sanders supporters).
Showing the numbers separate was not good for propaganda purposes, because it would alert the viewers to the fact how much of an undemocratic influence these Superdelegates have.
So WHY were the voters supposed to bust their behind with volunteering, donating, and taking the time to vote in a primary or caucus (which can take hours).
They take the trouble, media makes a big show of it when they cover the circus - and then it is on display how one establishment person overrides the vote of ten of thousands of people. And those insiders have made up their mind before the voting and the hassle of the base even has started.
Not a good look.
With deceptively lumping earned ! delegates and superdelegates together HRC was presented as the SURE winner, and was spared the embarassing display that a complete outsider could tie her right from the beginning.
A lot of people do not follow closely, they "browse the news". So HRC was doing her thing in the early states, there were these outsiders (O'Malley was competing as well), but she obviously already killed it - see (deceptive) delegate count.
That shapes an impression.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Anti Sanders BRANDING: in 2019 / 2020 the "electability" argument (and stratetic elevating / underreporting) replaced impressive delegate lead (because of decepitve superdelegate count). - Other tactics: In 2015 Ed Schultz planned to cover live the announcement of Sanders to run for president (it was mid May in Burlington, fine day, respectable crowd of a few thousand, pretty good for an outsider).
Team HRC for sure sent an observer, who must have seen the camera team, phoned home, top Clinton people are coyz with NBC boss Phil Griffin and asked for a favor.
Ed got a call 5 minutes before start, and was ordered to stand down on the live reporting.
The Sanders campaign planned to get 30 million USD with small donations. No one - incl. Sanders or HRC - believed they had a shot at the nomination.
Sanders run to draw attention to some issues.
BUT: Sanders knew Ed Schultz (they had similar views on politics, like TPP, healthcare, bailout of banks, Ed had interviewed Sanders on his radio show several times).
This was one MSM show with some reach that likely would have given Sanders some friendly and frequent coverage - a godsend for an outsider campaign, with small budgets for advertising.
Ed did not like being ordered to stand down in the last minute, he had a discussion with Griffin on the phone. And it was not like the stories he was ordered to cover instead were so relevant. They ended his contract 40 days later.
At that time people who followed Ed Schultz thought he had it coming, he was openly against TPP. That may well have played a role to end the show, but Ed Schultz came out later 1,5 years and he connected the termination to the fact, that they hindered him then to report on the outsider Sanders.
So much for editorial freedom.
They could not pull this stunt every time he intended to have Sanders on and give him more than 2 minutes interview time. Would be a little embarassing (freedom of media and stuff) to outright deny Ed Schultz the opportunity to cover one of two important contenders in the D primaries.
It was better to replace him with a media shill that KNEW what was expected from them and did not need to be told to toe the line.
The little bit of boost from the Ed Schultz show, would have been nothing like the fawning that HRC got for free from the "liberal" networks.
BUT:
HRC had an Iowa trauma resulting from 2008 when another outsider - Obama - won in a stunning victory (with record turnout). They figured that Sanders could do well in IO (white, rural state, like his home state Vermont) and NH is a neighbour state of VT so there he had some name recognition (which is VERY important in elections).
So he could rain on her parade, and they were not having it, so they nibbed it in the bud (to the best of their ability).
Nothing screams strong, inevitable, most qualified candidate like the urge to undermine an outsider with underhanded tactics and literally from day ONE.
1
-
I should add that Sanders likely got scared of success, of getting and using power once that became a realistic option. He seems to be more comfortable in the role of the eternal underdog. In 215 he did not expect he could give HRC a run for her money, he wanted raise awarness about issues like healthcare. but in 2019 he was in this as (supposedly) serious frontrunner.
I think he subconsciously self sabotages (while also working his behind off to be successful - so both sides).
The campaign made mistakes in branding and advertising - admitted it was NOT an easy task, given how much influence the media still has, and what skillful free advertising can do for candidates they want to prop up (or bring down **).
** See Howard Dean's scream: He is quite establishment BUT he was against the Iraq war early on. And He run in 2004 in the presidential primaries. .
So he had to be eliminated as a surprisingly well performing outsider candidate. both parties and the owners of the networks are in bed with the MIC (it is not only the contractors, Wallstreet loves war too)
A few days of intense media campaign (about nothing) did the trick.
Trump is really good at flipping the table on the "liberal" networks, he baits them and they eagerly respond to his trolling. The negative coverage (by the "liberal" media) did not harm Trump. (his approval ratins went UP after the impeachment hearing had ended).
HE determined what the issue (they were huffing and puffing about) would be, and Trump struck a chord with voters, so the outrage of the elitist media did not harm him.
But he SET the agenda, he was never on the defense, he doubled down (even when wrong).
Sanders did not show that decisiveness, when confronted with a hostile media (and party establishment).
Sanders apologized when one of his surrogates had Biden and corruption in the same sentence so to speak (Zephyr teachout was correct: Biden IS corrupt. For instance the job for Hunter was blatant corruption and nepotism. Obama should never had allowed it and Biden should have had the good sense to discreetly searching for a less high profile job (which an outragously high compensation) for his son with drug problems.
A job for which he was not so obviously unqualified (some NGO with ties to the Democratic party). Hunter Biden got higher pay than people with expertise get on the boards of Chevron or Exxon Mobile. And that was only one aspect of Joe Biden's corruption.
Teachout did not even slam Biden hard - but Sanders still felt the need to apologize for her OpEd in The Guardian.
(The mildest take on it would be: _I_would not call it corruption, but the look is not good at all, and Joe Biden should not have done it.
In my presidency I would not tolerate it, and Biden did not do himself favors. This is something that makes him a WEAKER candidate against Trump. If I become the nominee, I also intend to call out Trump on his nepotism - well Joe Biden can't do that.
1
-
4:00 There was one fraudulent study that offered hope (inspired by a tiny signal * see below) - but it should have raised red flags that it was not accepted by the well known Scientific magazines (that publish for free IF an article is found to be relevant and well documented and up to standards, incl. a large enough sample size of the study). Those institutions often have been around for decades /even centuries and they sell subscriptions to universities or one can buy access to single studies).
There are obscure websites that also offe to publish studies for peer review but there the researchers have to PAY to be "published" (they do not print, it is online, and meanwhile the reputable magazines may also have switched to online publishing only).
So being featured by the outsider websites often amounts to promotional content. That is not to say that all studies are wrong, and there might be the occasional gem among them - but in general those sites do not enjoy a good reputation, if there is a scandal or studies have to be retracted, most of the time they are involved. They do not get a lot of attention - if the study would be relevant and up to standards the established magazines would be glad to have it. Seems to be a business model that allows think tanks to quote a "peer reviewed" study without lying (formally speaking). And some PHd's making money that way.
So that Ivermectin study was "up for review" for a very short time (and no one of any importance in the field really noticed because it was not in one of the important magazines for their field). After an unusually short "review time" it got the status as "peer reviewed" (the scientific community could have reviewed it and could have objected). Only when that study popped up online (among laypersons), the scientific community took notice and immediately started to replicate the studies. And looked at the published study - and tore it apart - it had to be retracted because it was so flawed. Alterations happen, that is not uncommong, but that study was not up to standards.
That was the ONLY positive study.
Nontheless, nations like India were desperate and are used to having Ivermection as antiparasitic drug. So there were mild hopes it could have an effect.
Nope !
Properly done studies found no effect or within the margin of error.
* There is a plausible explanation for a tiny positve effect. If a lot of persons in a poor country are in bad health, and their gut (important for immune system) is attacked by parasites, of course there would be a (mild) effect if an anti parasitic drug is given. The effect was hardly noticeable, and it does not exist in wealthy nations, where the population is not widely plagued by parasites.
No one said that Ivermectin does not work, but its antiparasitic capacity is not much used in the weatlhy nations for humans.
The billions of doses of proper use (for humans) come from developing countries where tropical climate and lack of water and sewage systems allow for many more parasites.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ahmedgunner15 The Civil Rights movement WON because the law still ruled and because of PUBLIC OPINION. And for that it is very, very important that the powers that be have no chance to "villify" the resistance (with reasonable people)
"They" would have loved it, had Dr. King advocated for use of force. Even if he had only asked the members to GET guns (which was a legal right, it would have freaked out people). He never did them the favor. It was not possible to sell it to the non-bigots in the population that he was lawless or that he would go after them personally. Or that he was stupid.
It was hard to dehumanize the Civil rights activists, to make people scared of them. (MLK scared people who wanted race relations to continue as they had been - but enough decent people knew better. The "let's villify him and paint him as scary" narrative just did not work with him - BECAUSE OF NON-VIOLENCE.
Civil disobedience and the pressure of public opinion for a good cause is only a tool in a society that is not at war or civil war, it does not work in times of unrest. But as long as there is order (and businesses want things to gon on smoothly) it is a very powerful tool.
However, the rich are organised, have their lobbiests and follow longterm strategies. The People on the other hand are fragmented. The elites have sold "individualism" and "everyone is on their own" very successfully. TOne of the reasons for the U.S. to start and maintain ! the Cold War was that it could be used to villify any left party that was not centrist or war mongering / imperialistic (like Truman the war monger).
Those damn parties / movements / unions had given FDR in 1933 the leverage ! to push for the New Deal.
FDR was the lesser of two evils for the oligarchs (not all saw it that way, that he saved capitalism from itself, but their musings about a coup in 1934 ended with Gen. Smedley Butler informing the White House. So the Republican industrialists could only look with envy to Europe where many countries went the fascist route).
The men returning from WW2 would not put up humbly with being jobless - so for a few decades they were accomodated (2,5 in the U.S., 3,5 to 4 in Continental Europe) - as long as technology was not sufficient to outsource production into poor countries.
There was a large pie to distribute after WW2 and even the working class got a big slice. productivity rose by 112 % between 1947 and 1970 - the workers got the lion's share of that. 97 % increase of average hourly wages (adjusted for inflation) in the same time That means doubling of purchasing power - against the backdrop of ongoing high immigration and low unemployment.
But when the oil crises (and the debt of the Vietnam war) brought economic difficulties the oligarchs used their chance to finally hit back. In the 1970s the lockstep between productivity gains and raising wages was broken - for the first time since the war unemployment rose.
Everything left had been already dismantled (even what would resemble a Social Democratic party). The oligarchs had to be more careful with the unions, they were attacked last. The rhetoric had been kept up of course - the oligarch can pay mouthpieces. Dircetly after WW2 they received the first of many blows - Taft Hartley. From 1970 on they turned on the unions.
That is important - unions CAN organize a general strike, they have the grassroots power, the infrastructure. In the U.K. Jeremy Corbyn in 2015 almost did not make it on the ballot for the internal election of the party leader After the unexpected loss in the G.E.
The party leadership thought it would be wise to give the base a few crumbs and promised more direct democracy. The party members ! would be allowed to vote directly for party leader.
Which was of course meant to increase membership for which the costs were reduced to 3 GBP. Added bonus: it would sideline the unions who before were part of the committee that selected ! a candidate. Or so they thought.
Corbyn needed around 30 recommendations of Labour members of parliament to make it on the ballot. Labour MP: Read establishment, many of them are staunch neoliberals, ushered into safe seast during the Tony Blair era, the citizens had no chance to get rid of a "representative" (They could vote for a Tory, but they were not better).
In a last minute act of grace a few more MP's gave their nod to the outsider, it made for good optics and could do no harm, no ? No doubt they curse they foolishness now.
He had always been a genuine union supporter. So next thing he got the recommendation AND HELP of some of the most important unions. From there he steamrolled towards the win of the party leadership. New (and former ex) members did indeed join the party in masses - and they obviously did so to be able to vote for Corbyn !! The party elites that were entrusted with caring for the U.K. oligarchs and the City of London were aghast. How could a genuine leftie come on top of them ?
Democracy could be so nice without the voters !
From the 1970s on the ever more efficiently produced output of goods and services was not matched by the disposable income anymore (wages are what accounts for most of consumer spending !). That was true to some degree for every industrialized wealthy country, especially in the U.S. and U.K. which were the first rich countries to implement neoliberalism.
In the U.S. for some time the widening gap between output and spending power or regular people was bridged with consumer debt on the credit card (and more and more marketing, the promotion of a throwaway culture, and planned obsolescence).
The oligarchs DESPISE large grassroots organizations. They are their most potent opposition.
The oligarchs could not withstand the power of 325 milllion people. If only 30 millions of them would refuse to buy Christmas presents this year in order to enforce good healthcare - businesses and politicians would be really scared. Big Biz would tell their politicians to pass single payer / Medicare For All (there ARE other companies than big Pharma, Big Insurance, and hospital chains etc.)
If 10 million people would shut down certain areas (business areas, airports, highways) - there would be safety in numbers. The government would not dare to legally prosecute the leaders. The U.S. would get change in the blink of an eye.
The racists lost in Selma and they lost in Birmingham. They used dogs and water hoses against the children - the pictures were headline news next day (worldwide - incl. in the Soviet Union and China of course). JFK felt compelled to make a short speech on it. (he no doubt would not have spent political capital on it without the pressure - he won the election with a very small margin).
1
-
Actually, no those fears turned out to be unjustified- the Kurds (on Syrian territory they are Syrian citizens) made peace with the Syrian government. - the government had offered help before which was turned down (that was last year) and one town was easy prey for the Turks. It serves as a warning example. - Another town recently asked the government for help. So the troops came in, planted the Syrian flag everywhere, lots of media coverage of course.
If the Turks want to attack NOW they will have to deal with the Syrian army, their airforce, ground troops, not only the Kurds and their fighters.
That means dead Turkish soldiers. Maybe even shooting down airplanes. Erdogan has to make sure to hold Turkey together, the economy is not doing well. Costly war (financially and in lives) is not helpful to strengthen his grip on the country and the electorate.
Israel tries to stir up problems all the time of course.
Assad / the government have been granting amnesties for "rebel" fighters for years now - and the Kurds were certainly not the worst of the lot. They stayed in their territory, and also did their part to defeat ISIS, Al Qaeda etc.
An amnesty was also offered to the (often young) Syrian men who dodged the draft and went to Europe as refugees - the last one was also in 2018 I think.
I do not have numbers but it is safe to assume that most of them stayed. Many are educated or from a middle class background, or found an internship, go to college or hold a regular job in Germany, Austria, France, Sweden, Netherlands ... and there are generous provisions for their livelihood if they are not yet allowed to work or cannot find work - so they prefer that over the insecurity in Syria. And they may have invested a lot of money for the human traffickers.
The problem is of course that they can build a life in Europe - but they cannot visit their home country and family pr return when it got better (On the other hand they may send money home if they have a good income).
Even if they would get an amnesty later (if Syria is ever left alone and can rebuild) - the people that lost sons who served in the army in a proxy war that was forced on Syria, will always treat them as those who avoided military service and after that they also avoided the difficult times of rebuilding the country.
1
-
It is the equivalent of talking a big game and then running to the hospital once they get infected and have severe symtoms - gobbling up all the capacities and then the ICU capacities so people who have an emergency other than CoVid-19 and did their part by getting the shots - have to be driven 100 - 200 miles, and they have to call 43 hospitals * - if they are lucky enough to even get ANY critical care bed for that patient.
Untortunately the anti vaxxers often start out in a normal bed - already needing more care and oversight (so a major drain on resources already) but it does not yet monopolize the even mor scarce critical care resources.
Then they get worse - and are in a good position to get an ICU bed If one opens up.- so people coming in with an emergency that manifests FAST and suddenly get the short end of the stick.
The people with accidents, strokes, heart attacks also wait for beds, and slot being freed up - because a person in the ICU died. Or the hospital calls around frantically to find a special care bed in other hospitals at breaking point, with a critical care station working at 130 % capacity.
A nurse that WORKS at the front - is not going to resign and IF so - she shouldn't be there. I strongly suggest it is aides - or people that resign for other reasons and use that as a pretext. Maybe they do not want to keep leave of absence, maybe the conditions for pensions are better.
The anti vaxxers do not follow through. They only talk a big game as long as they think there are no negative consequences. For them.
The people that rile them up or are incensed about taking privileges away from them for endangering others and prolonging the pandemic - do not mean it.
Jimmy does that for ratings and to please an increasingly right wing audience that likes some economic populism (or is not disgusted by it). What a sorry sight.
* August 2021: Man in Alabama who returned to hospital after his conditions worsened. He had heart problems, likely they should never have released him from "normal" care, but they needed the beds.
The hospital had to call 43 other hospitals to find one that had a free slot for him, it took a 200 mile ride. He died a few days later.
In an emergency ! (accident, heart attack, stroke) TIME is of the essence !!!
From another nurse in Tennessee in a PBS interview : She also know the fact that they have to phone around to find specail care beds for patients. They are at 130 % capacity in critical care. She normally is responsible for 1 - 2 patients, now it is 3 most of the time. Often they have to adjusts some settings every 5 minutes. Medication for the lungs but they have to very closely monitor the heart rate.
So with 3 patients to care for she has to be very, very cautiious to never ever make a mistake and of course there is little time to communicate - with collegues, doctors, to interact with patients or their family.
They are holding tablets so the patients can say goodby to their family (forever) while they wail at the other side. That is when doctors prepare them for death. They sedate them. the alternative would be too ugly. slowly suffocating and FEELING it. And they also have to sedate them before they intubate (if they do that). If they have to intubate it does not look good, it is a desperate measure and one that needs a full and carefully trained team (to place it or to remove it, if they and the patient are really lucky).
One thing the TN nurse said: There are always alarms going off. (one survivor that got better slowly also mentioned that: all the time the alarms, and realizing how the doctors did 5 attempts to resusciated per day or so. Realizing how many people died while this patient recovered.
likely means that an unvaccinated person dies from PBS. she had ONE patient so far die from CoVid-19 that was fully vaccinated, all others were not. And if they came to the station where she works - a lot of them do NOT recover.
She remembers a young person. First it looked good. But the disease is sneaky, it can get worse after a while. But then they got the very telling signs. That tell them that it gets worse, they know these signs and there is nothing they can do. The patient gets worse and almost always dies. It is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
1
-
Even Joe Biden in cognitive decline WANTS the presidency more than Sanders (he lies for it). In hindsight it makes you appreciate how Warren at least could be bothered to throw a tantrum in order to do better before Iowa. She is driven by sheer ambition, (she does not really care about the movement), she will stoop to such measures and on top it was a foolish stratgey.
But at least she FIGHTS for it.
She to WANTED the presidency more than Sanders.
The problem: what seems to make policiancs caring, nuanced - also seems to make them cowards.
They have second thouhgts (I mean who WANTS to be president).
Meanwhile the careerists, narcissists, psychopaths, sellouts have no qualms and will do whatever it takes. If they ae skillful and can present themselves nicely (Obama) or if they know to play a crowd (Trump, Boris Johnson, ..) and to leverage TV drama - then THEY will land in office and they WILL HOLD POWER.
A good dose of iedeology, stupidity, narcissism, or ruthless pursuit of power helps with not having second thoughts if THEY should really have power: Reagan, Bush 2,Trump .... or Dick Cheney. he tested the waters, but no one would finance him as presidential candidate, he hid did not have the TV personality.
Looks like Bush has the affable persona, that can dupe voters, and Cheney ran the show.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Truth Actually the Pentagon is not crazy enough to want war with Iran, and I assume the same is true for the CIA. I do not know who told Trump to get the morons, crooks, war mongers, criminals Abrams and Bolton in charge - THEY for sure want war. With Venezuela or Iran.
Mike Pompeo is hardly better, as former CIA boss he should know better. In his case it may be the bellicose talk to scare the other countries into submission.
But Bolton is a certified lunatic. There are some neocons that push for war, not sure about Netanyahu (if he is rational ! he does not want war with Iran either. Oh well ....)
The CIA might no be on board with war against Iran either.
It was interesting that a lot of Democrats came out against war with Iran, and the media was not lusting too much for war either. * In other words: their sources with the military told them how to spin it and to talk about the dangers of war with Iran.
I was pleasantly surprised.
And for once we are spared the b.s. that Iran is the worst suporter of terrorism in the region (or globally). That is Saudi Arabia, it is not even close.
The Pentagon also was very much against Obama participating openly in a war with Syria in 2013 (red flag, Sarin gas use nearby Damascus).
We know that Sarin was used then (so it is sure there has indeed been an attack, not like in 2018).
Many people were killed in 2013 - and within a few days Porton Down in the U.K. presented the lab report. The Sarin gas did not match the Syrian stocks. Obama had immediatly ! put blame on the government (which was foolish, no one could KNOW it then. Governments troops and opposition forces were in the region. The intel agencies also KNEW that jihadi groups had made attempts to get their hand on chemical weapons and precursors, and were worried about it. The sheeple were not bothered with the information, it would have contradicted the narrative of the "moderate" rebels.
As for plausibility: the government had no reason to use Sarin, but the jihadists had - drawing in the U.S. when they had come under pressure militarily.
Obama never officiallly retracted from that accusation he so hastily made, but with the help of Russia a face-saving solution was negotiated in September 2013 (the stocks of the Syrian gov. were handed over and destroyed on an U.S. ship with specialized equipment for such tasks).
Obama announed in late August 2013 that the U.S. was ready to ramp up its game against Syria. But: he would ask Congress for permission, it was the right thing to do. That bought him time, Congress was not in session, and the Republians had the majority, so Congress "denied him" the escalation with Syria (saving his face again: I was ready to defend the red line and follow through but those Republicans in Congress do not let me).
The Iranians cooperate with Hezbollah (who are from LEBANON. They are the reason Israel has not already seized Lebanon, the Israeli military could of course beat them - but only at high costs - for them AND the U.S. a) the U.S. isn't going to help Israel with the landgrab, b) any Israeli government would have to sell the sacrifices to their own citizens AND to the world (it would also endager the citizens of the West, so the generous aid for Israel might become controversial if they unleash problems that ALSO hit the West).
Now, Hezbollah is taken very seriously by the Pentagon, but the they are not like ISIS wanting to spread the caliphate and waging the jihad. As long as the U.S. leaves them alone and does not step on their toes IN THEIR REGION (Lebanon, to a degree in Iraq and Iran, especially since the U.S. took out Saddam Hussein) - they will leave the U.S. and the West alone as well.
But Hezbollah (and other actors ** allied with Iran) would spring into action if Iran is attacked.
**
Iran and their allies would unleash asymmetric warfare. Read: terrorism, attacks on Saudi oil fields, blocking the oil transports in the Strait of Hormuz, sea mines, etc. etc. - if the U.S. would be so stupid to start a war with Iran.
There is talk of former CIA analysts (like Michael Scheuer) that Iran has their "sleepers" in the U.S. They are not going rogue, and have no intention to pursue a jihad (that's more a thing of Sunni extremists, and Hezbollah and the Iranians are Shias), but if the U.S. is shopping for trouble, they can have some.
And the whole world would be affected (oil prices going through the roof).
Acts of terrorims in the U.S. would make it clear to the U.S. civilians that there is a price to pay (and unfortunately it would also be the pretext of abolishing even more civil rights ! at home)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
World Bank data 2014 - per capita healthcare expenditures of nations
U.S. USD 9,200 then (now 10k), Germany 5,600, most wealthy European countries between 5,000 and 5,500, Canada is in that range too, Australia has 6,000.
There are outliers like the U.K. (only 3,900 but they are definitely underfunded - but with only HALF the U.S. expenditures their non-profit NHS which delivers most of the services would run like a charm).
On the other hand Norway had 8,400. (High wages, likely very high standard incl. dental).
Or Switzerland 9,600 they were even higher than the U.S. - but then they pay staff very well, and everybody is insured.
Switzerland is one of the very few developed countries that do not have a non-profit public insurance agency but let the for profit private players have that niche . Well, it shows.
I do not know of any larger country (except the U.S.) which lets for profit actors handle (most) of the healthcare insurance market. Switzerland has less than 10 million people, I think Singapore might lean strongly towards a private system.
Let me add that most developed countries beat the U.S. when it comes to life expectancy and infant mortality.
Most (or all) wealthy European countries have a population that is on average older than the people in the U.S. (so that should result in LOWER expenditures for the U.S.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1 of 2 Why don't politicians use MMT ? 1) Many are caught up in old (almost medieval) ideas about money and the economy. 2) POWER - maintaining the distinction of the classes (to quote Jane Austen;) ) 3) Big Finance could not make most of their money by speculation if the banks would not be allowed to abuse their privilege of money creation.
Money creation is either done by commercial banks when they give out loans OR directly by the government with help of the central bank, that is what Dr. Kelton talks about. The mint creates some cash (coins, bank notes - but that is less than 5 % of the money in circulation - never mind the fortunes stashed away.
4) understanding MMT would end the drive and "justification" to privatize public services - which happens to be a profitable, safe niche for the haves.
5) Small government / "free market" ideologues lose the debate. Once and for all.
btw: nothing screams "free market" like central banks SETTING interest rates and the very concept of MONEY
Money is a legal and societal agreement. Money creation = purchasing power being creating "out of nothing". That legal privilege is usually exercised by the banks which operate in a niche that is given to them by the government.
The idea was that they prudently support the economic activities (and they did from 1933 - 1980 under strict regulation). The term when commercial banks create money by giving out loans is FIAT money. Which is Latin for "so be it".
The claim there could be such a thing as a "free market" can be dismissed without further discussion. The very base of our economic system is anything but "free market", it is government intervention. Considering the role of money: there can be only somewhat free markets.
Public housing is one of the areas beneficial for regular citizens that could be easily financed using MMT (also see: QE For The People). The investor class would be deprived of the opportunities to use their fortunes to "earn" even more money (sucking it away from the bottom / middle up to the top).
MMT refers to the fact that the government can directly create money - well that is only used in times of crisis (QE for the banks, or the Bradbury Pound in UK during WW1, the Nazis used it to some degree to finance the build up of army and equipment).
The banks saw to it that they dominated that niche. The Bradbury Pound was quickly ended and then not talked about publicly (until the advent of the internet).
Money creation by commercial banks was - for the most part - O.K. as long as they financed the productive economy (as long as finance was strictly regulated, until the 1980s). Although the system always favoured those who already had some wealth (capital).
Understanding MMT is a game changer for ALL views on economics, money, interest rates. "We must increase the interest rate or "capital" - [in that framing they mean money !] will flee the country." Good riddance. Money is not needed. Manufacturing plants and expertise regarding the creation of goods and services is needed.
Money is easy to come by.
"What would we ever do if the rich investors were not gracious enough to bring their money back from tax havens (provided that is tax free)."
Well - we would do JUST FINE w/o them. We need patents, manufacturing plants, management skills, machines, skilled work force, research, engineers, specialists, infrastructure, a reliable legal system, transportation and energy system, ...
Not all inflation is good, but an economy under full steam will show (slightly) higher inflation. It did not harm the regular citizens after WW2. If people can be confident that there will be good publicly funded healthcare, retirement, childcare, care for the eledery and education they do not need to build up savings account for THAT.
Inflation does not harm people who pay back their mortgage or invest in their business. Inflation that i ONLY reduces money that sits on savings accounts. People living off wages/retirement are not harmed if their money does not grow on the savings accounts (or even if they lose some purchasing power). If they are compensated with good retirement payments, affordable healthcare, public housing, free education, good care for the elederly - for THEM these are far more important financial factors for the good life.
People who do live off interest or dividends hate inflation.If they remove money out of circulation (paying low wages, not sharing the gains of productivity, not paying taxes) the money sitting idly on the accounts is going to be reduced by inflation - or the interest they can get will just neutralize inflation.
Citizen (aware of MMT) cannot be scared to make concessions to investors. It contradicts a talking point of bought and paid for politicians (capital flight).
Money is a legal and societal agreement. It can be created by passing laws and a few key strokes.
We do not need rich people for "investment". And we certainly do not need the Big Casino aka Wall Street and the derivatives "markets" or High Frequency "trading".
So a lot of investments would be made by non-profits, or with public ownership. The investments would promote the well-being of regular citizens - and reduce their costs of living.
AND: those investment niches would be lost for the investor class !
We are not supposed to know that. Once the population GRASPS the concept of MMT - it is not going to stop there.
Example: The investor class is not needed to build housing in New York. That is just a narrative which the investors with their poltical buddies maintain, they make a ton of money resp. get lots of donations and cushy jobs when they leave poltics. Congressmen Crowley was in line to become speaker for the Democrats. Why? Because his collusion with real estate developers in N.Y. no doubt made him an excellent fundraiser. Chuck Schumer is speaker because he is the boss regarding Wall Street and bank donations.
Building quality housing for regular people in New York does not need especially savvy people nor is it risky. Building houses is not rocket science, selling or renting them in N.Y. does not require marketing geniuses.
Solid professional skills, good management and honest intentions will suffice. Having the public engaged can do a lot for common sense and keeping corruption down.
The reward of high profits is not needed to get "extraordinary" entrepreneurial or unique skills. There are enough well qualified people who can deliver in a non-profit setting. Architects, construction companies, house management.
There is no reason to hand over such safe niches to the investor class. Or to give them the permission to build luxury real estate. Often no one lives in it, it is sold as "investment" to rich U.S. citizens and foreigners (pricing out the people that live and work in the city, those who make the city function for everyone).
The fig leaf for such projects - gotta sell it to the Democratic ! base somehow - is that they have a few affordable units in the building - but with a separate entrance of course so that the upper class investors are not inconvenienced by meeting members of the plebs.
The money of investors is not needed. Using MMT could result in a construction boom of affordable housing. That would create jobs, those jobs and the profits would be spread out to many companies (would be a good thing to give the contracts not only to big companies, that guarantees corruption, political collusion). The buildings could be in public ownership (in a co-op, not the city or you will get corruption and political games). The co-ops could be small groups - so the people living in the house take care of their affairs and control their management.
Not only would it result in more jobs - it would for decades reduce the costs of living for the renters. Would also inject some competition in the housing market. Well built houses can be easily used for 100 years. If they do not make the mistake to cut corners during construction. Not sure about the life span of high rises.
In Vienna there are brick buildings (a few storeys) which were built in the mid 1920s, then groundbreaking city development /social housing (so with parks, public transportation). They had to be renovated and updated of course. That said: they are in good shape, continue to provide affordable housing (and are still publicly owned).
Those appartments are very sought after of course, but in Vienna the income limit is not that low. Many people live in them. There is a mix of population, the areas are nice, middle class and safe (in Vienna anyway). Those who got one try to stay there, even if they increase their income later.
People that have housing, childcare, free education, healthcare well taken care of- are free to go on strike. To leave an unsatisfactory work situation. They CAN scale down and live more modestly.
The plebs would become too uppity. And could not be exploited under cover of "You have to work hard and long hours". They can by choice - but not in order to be able to pay the rent or medical bill or put money away for the college education of the kids (no one does that in the wealthy European countries. The miindset is t save, but not for the higher education of the children).
As for the investor class - SAFE and lucrative investments for infrastructure, schools, healthcare would be off limits. Trump had an "infrastructure" plan in 2017 - it was a privatization scheme.
That does not fly if voters understand MMT. Why hand over the family silver to the profiteers ? Money is created, then spent into projects, it creates jobs. That means financial safety for the wage earners, good results for the population (well maintained streets, good public transportion, free and good schools, ...). It creates the experience of the good life and safety = wealth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well Ralph Nader is STILL blamed for the "loss" of the GE 2000. Now if only Al Gore could at least have picked a popular VP - did he go after AIPAC money or the military contrators when he chose Lieberman (or was told to to so) ? How about chosing a woman or someone that is charming/popular ? Using Bill Clinton to campaign was tricky because of the impeachment and the Lewinsky affair, so maybe he had a point. On the other hand the economy looked good. (I do not think that Bill Clinton was good, he was just lucky, but nevertheless - he could have gone about the numbes, who cares about impeachment. - Gore did not even win his own state !!
Sanders says that Bush and his wife are the nicest people you can imagine when you meet them in person - but he should not have held power. But that likeability got him votes. (The guy to drink a beer with). How about Gore chosing someone that has also charm so to compensate for his lack. (I do not think it matters, POTUS need other qualifications, but if the sheeple fall for charm ...)
In Europe the piece of Greg Palast about the purge of voter rolls in florida was headline news (Jeb Bush acting as if they were fellons). That was BEFORE the elections. They could have tried legal an PR pressure. The European papers also wrote that Al Gore likely would need Florida to win.
Who did not raise hell in the U.S. - the sitting president and his VP (who happend to be the candidate that would be potentially damaged).
He did not care about the insult to black voters, he thought he could pull it off w/o them, screw them (Greg Palast, Republicans steal elections, Democrats steal primaries. Well, if they are in the glashouse they will not throw stones).
No doubt the donors did not want the unwashed masses to be unduly alerted. They want the illusion of democracy to be upheld. Al Gore was told after the election by the party leadership not to make a stink (the unions offered help to rally the masses). No doubt they got the marching orders from the donors.
Al Gore was a good shill, did not rock the boat and massively increased his fortune after that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
16:30 Obama references the public option - which was a campaign promise of 2008. Remember when he emulated FDR and strongamed the Republicans with a D to their name that killed the p.o. ? Me neither ! Makes you wonder if the likes of Joe Lieberman were even (unpopular) "dissenters", or if those guys traditionally take one for the team and did the dirty work, so that the other Dems have plausible deniability.
In the Senate they are voted for every 6 years, and Lieberman could get elected being a war mongering, Bush, Iraq war supporting neocon. (He was also not blamed for being one of the reasons of the defeat of Al Gore.)
So he had the freedom to be one of a few "Democrats" in the Senate that eliminated the public option that the big donors did not like.
Democrats had the majority in congress and Senate, so they could not all blame it on (tantrum throwing) Republicans, good thing they had the Republican Lite, Vote-blue-no-matter-who shills for those emergencies.
Big donors that are for predatory healthcare.
All because it would mean slightly higher taxes for all of them.
Especially he insurance industry and for profit hospitals.
PLUS: behind all predatory industries there is always Wallstreet, and the banks.
Which are MAJOR donors.
That explains why the Corporate Dems do not dare to offend the for profit healthcare industry (one would think there are enough other industries left that can bribe them, pay for their campaigns and offer the cushy jobs for ex politcians). Throwing those guys under the bus so that Dems can offer at least ONE policy that guarantees them the reelection and the win over Donald Trump.
But .... that is tricky, they ALSO would have to offend Wallstreet ....
So Obama and Biden got "things done" in 2009 / 2010 ?
NOW ten years later he wants to talk AGAIN about the public option ??
(in spring 2010 they had a filibuster proof majority then they could have passed ever healthcare bill, and other bills as well, would have done wonders for the midterms 2010, they could have expanded their majorities instead of losing badly in 2010 and 2014).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MC-wh3xm How do you think the other candidates are selected (unless they come from the Kennedy, Bush or any other clan of course). You need to have some funding, Justice Democrats did not have unlimited resources it is important that the person "wanting" to run has the stamina to follow through. You can have people applying to get funding that have "dreams" but they would fold during the exhausing primaries and general, or not have the discipline or the nerves. it is important to check out your candidates on that as well.
The DCCC can just replace one big donor puppet with the next and will always find the money if they lose a candidate midway and have to prop up an alternative unexpectedly. Of course no one of them would have challenged Joe Crowley in the first place. Aspiring candidates would not have gotten ANY money from the DCCC and careerists would not have dared to inconvenience him. Or the party.
Crowley was Speaker of the House in waiting = good fundraiser, well connected with the big donors. That is why he was awarded that safely blue seat many years ago.
the selection of who gets the nod by the party (if it is O.K. to run in a primary, certainly not if there is a D incumbent that they like) is truly cynical. The wannabe candidates need to have pledges from donors for a few hundred thousand dollars (I think 200,000 is the bare minimum, and that is for starts !). They go through their phones if they have the phone numbers of people they can call for money = larger donations. No one asks for "policy positions" (Krystal Ball run for Congress. she and others spoke about how that works).
It is understood that you cannot be negative on people of color or gay people and will not openly pledge to end abortion Being "pro life" privately but not interfering with the right to chose is good enough. - it is a reasonable position. Not completely honest because I am sure if family Biden or family Kaine, or Manchin would have had a diagnosis of a major deformation of a fetus, they too would arrange for a discreet abortion. Like many Republican voters, that also make exceptions as soon as it hits them.
On economics the aspiring candidates can be Republicans and repeat every Chamber of Commerce talking point. As for War and mass surveillance, the more they are for it the better. It is not really an issue - a person being anti war, and very much for reduced military spending would disqualify. But they can be hawkish or be middle of the road and fly under the radar, that does not matter and no one really cares.
The selection process of Justice Democrats was a reasonable undertaking. Who would get their restircted resources and in what seats made it sense to even start the uphill battle.
If lefties want to get their candidates in it makes sense to check them out. Who is good in public appearances. Who is a good speaker. A Latina or person of color might have better chances in certain districts, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+daledude22 You will not find a sizeable pool ("preselected" or not) of scientists that would contradict the claim that GW is happening and that it is manmade. There are a few outsiders, hardly anyone who a) has a scientific training and b) is trained in one of the relevant fields. c) had a good reputation and d) is active in the field
The few outsiders that are scientists ! tend to have financial ties to think tanks.
They could find psychologist to do torture for the Bush admin, and also scientists that were willing to lie for the tobacco industry … so a FEW can be found.
If there would be LEGITIMATE DOUBTS or other scenarios many scientists would be glad to explore them. They could make a name for themselves while enjoy having consisent funding. I think many scientists hate it when they have to chase funding and have to compete for budgets. Not every STEM person is good in sales !
The industry that could profit from such research has lots, and lots of MONEY - that could be very, very helpful in exploring scientific questions that happen to also fit in with their objectives.
The fossil fuel industry could heavily fund universities and let them do relevant INDEPENDENT research projects.
However, allowing research at a public institution (open for any result, else it is not science) could mean that the results do NOT point in a direction that is convenient for the fossil fuel industry.
Or it turns out to be inconclusive or a small part of the puzzle.
The self declared "Climate Change Sceptics" are usually working for a think tank or private lab. They are not employed at an university. That has nothing to do with "no one dares to contradict the narrative". For once there is tenure - and then there is funding.
There are things that are not (yet) understood or that seem contradictory (while the general trend is undeniable. TEMPERATURES are RISING: Oceans + land + atmosphere. Some years ago they found that the atmosphere is not heating up in the way as was expected by some scientists.
That did not contradict the whole body of evidence. It means the explanations and models were not yet good enough.
They went searching for the water bodies (two thirds of the planet). The currents between the deep ocean and surface waters …. There they found the heat sinks.
More research was done - so yes the oceans temporarily took in more heat than was initially assumed. Now, if the ocean currents would transport the additional heat into the depths and the heat would stay there for 100 or 200 years - that would give us some time.
Provided there are no negative side effects - fish, methane ice, species wandering, currents getting WEAKER. But no; there are side effects and the heat does not stay down there for longer.
Exploring what seemed to be a flaw of the theory led to better understanding (and some insights that are valuable but not reassuring).
Let's explore the options for smart scientists that would be GW sceptics
They would secure the READILY GIVEN budgets for the university/department (that should help with tenure as well) and could do some credible research on the yet unsolved parts of the puzzle. Which may or may not turn out to be a blow to some aspects *.
If she or he is sceptical and thinks that would go against the grain. - Well, do not state your doubts, take the money for the department and fly under the radar. The doubts are not relevant anyway.
Do the research, come up with the data or the model, publish the paper in a peer reviewed magazine. If it is substantiated it will be published. If it contradicts a respected theory (even about a detail aspect) it will get attention, will be lively discussed and disputed.
The gold standard of science is how often a scientist is quoted by his or her peers.
The fossil fuel industry could FOUND an university if they wanted to.
If they give the funding and then let the scientists do their thing w/o meddling - they should attract PLENTY of talent. (Not when they control the money - that would raise doubts about independence and neutrality and be bad for the reputation of anyone working for them.).
Most scientists will NOT tarnish their professional reputation to deliver "desired results" or being associated with an institution that is obviously set up to confirm a bias.
Funding for open-result research ? Yes please !
ALL OF THAT IS NOT HAPPENING
Which tells us that the fossil fuel industry KNOWS they have no leg to stand on.
1
-
+daledude22 The data, modelling and papers regarding Global warming come from so many disciplines, countries, institutions and for so long - there is no "debunking" of ALL of it possible. - Climate is very, very complex - It makes the reseach complicated. But once there is a WEB of evidence, where findings corrobate each other - one "hole" in the theory does not undo the whole thing (even if the flaw is real, clearing it up usually leads to better understanding - as always in science).
Changes resulting form Global warming must be expected to show up in many - often surprising - ways. And they do.
An enthusiastic amateur in the UK collecting data on butterflies over decades - unexpectedly there is a connection to Climate Change. The UK is getting warmer. Note how these people were doing research on butterflies - not the climate.
Or one scientist from Manitoba who goes to the Arctic for half a year every year since approx. 25 years: "We thought the animals would adapt to the warming. …. Ice is for the ecosystem of the Arctic what the trees are for the forest. We were surprised Everything changes: we see changes from the viruses to the whales."
He is employed (with a tenure) to do research on the ARCTIC. Not on climate change. although that turned out to be associated with it in a big way.
But if there was no GW - he would find plenty of other interesting questions to explore.
There are Baobab trees in Africa that are very old. - They are dying off. Could that be because of higher average temperatures in that already hot and dry environment ? These trees have endured a lot of change and they can take a lot. So why NOW ?
Exploring contradictions or findings that do not - yet - fit into the picture: A scientiest can make him or herself a name - either with a paper that rather confirms or contradicts the current assumptions (about details !!)
This is not the same as contradicting GW in general.
Scientist do not try to "prove" or "debunk" Global Warming - they do research on a specific issue. With finding and implications that are more or less likely. And a scientist can "win" either way.
While the deniers have an agenda !
Climatology is very complex, disagreeing with certain ideas and details does not mean to disagree with the basics: temperatures are rising, it is not an aberration, it is going to continue. Snd this time the change is caused by humans.
We can tell that even if we cannot predict with certainty the scenarios for 2050.
Another thing: the fossil fuel industry is incredibly powerful, and energy is a MAJOR concern of any modern economy (and government, even if they don't do "Blood for oil" wars).
An industry or person just wanting to make money could go with the established industries. Fossil fuel gets plenty of subsidies and so do other industries. So while green energy has grown and gotten subsidies - an investor has easier ways to make money. No need to "bribe" and "intimidate" the global scientific community. Which would not be possible anyway.
Governments do not like to tell their voters that they
a) will have to change their way of living - maybe eating less meat or downsizing with the houses and cars
and b) they do not like to be tasked to achieve a change of paradigm. Energy is MASSIVE when it comes to economic impacts.
and c) putting up with the established industries
Politicians may be spineless, corrupt, self-serving, ... but they are usually not shopping for trouble. Not with the voters, or the most powerful industries - not only energy but also steel, aluminium, ....
Nothing to win and a lot to lose. As is: they pay lip service and there is not much decisive action (it would be possible to change the system w/o too much strain on the population or the productive industries - but NOT with our neoliberal model).
so that's another bummer for the establishment shills.
In short: Even green politicians would gladly abandon the idea of Global Warming. There are enough other issues to be concerned about, like pollution, soil degradation, plastics in oceans, nuclear waste, ...
Now there are other scenarios to promote green energy: acting against pollution (China to replace coal) or not being dependent on imports (Europe, all sunny developing countries), or that we are running out of sources that are EASY and CHEAP to explore. Or in India, there are areas where they do not have a grid - they could skip that huge investment and do locally and renewables.
But those other green energy projects are comparatively harmless, could be delayed, scaled up and down.
Instead the Pentagon develops the scenarios for military conflict caused by Climate Change.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We are supposed to feel sympathetic if a "small" entrepreneur says that the will have to close down (or cannot expand - or have to raise prices). In the service sector that is a lame argument anyway there is no cheap foreign competition. - And WHO has symphaties for their workers ? Never mind that 60 % of the economy is dominated by multinationals. In a townhall a hairdresser complained to Sanders that she would need to offer a healthcare plan if she had MORE than 50 employees. They were part time - but even so: she leverages the work force of 50 people. If she cannot make a decent living of that she is unfit to have a biz or the location is not good. In which case she SHOULD close down. -
She said she wanted to expand her business and she does not want to raise prices either (why not ?? there must be chains that have more that 50 people and clearly manage to stay afloat. Or she stays small and beautiful and still makes a nice living).
a) healthcare is not legally regulated only for her and her 50 or 100 employees. It would affect millions of people (incl. their families) if not even larger businesses to offer plans (among other things the insurance companies have a harder time screwing the patients as much - the insurance company is a business - which is a little better than a single consumer on their own.
b) who says her DESIRE to grow her biz is worthy of more support of society than HER WORKERS having healthcare ? I assume they are not very highly paid. So if the hairdresser working so that SHE can make a profit is not married to a partner with more luck and a better job - the whole family will go w/o a plan - or they need the tax-subsidized version - which is currently defunded by the Trump admin.
c) that biz owner has competitors: small and larger ones (over 50 employees which already have to provide plans according to ACA rules). Size gives you an advantage in business. She wants to keep the advantage of the small biz and use economy of scale as well - on the back of her employees. And on the back of the taxpayers. "Small" government the Republican way.
d) her customers might be well be able and willing to pay the higher prices - but she sides with them instead of siding with the people with whom she works on a daily basis ! (She did not say it was impossible to raise prices - she said "Why should I have to raise prices, if I want to make a good offer to the customers".
e) in Europe businesses pay a percentage of the wage (with a cap). That is mandatory (except for the "tiny" jobs - below 500 USD per month). All of them must participate in the system no matter the size. that includes the service sector industry.
McDonalds is in business in Europe. They MUST pay the minimum wage, participate in the general funds that pay for things like maternity leave, healthcare, mandatory severance. The hairdressers in Europe have the same costs (since they pay lower wages they have a cost advantage compared to the industries that pay well - like industrial manufacturing. So there is a balancing going on: between regions (rural and touristic versus metropolitan / highly industrialized. And between the industries that (can) pay higher wages.
They ALL must grant paid sick leave, paid time to go to the doctor, and 5 weeks paid vacations. They are legally required to have planable schedules (letting workers know in advance WHEN they have to work. *
The mandatory healthcare decution of the wages goes goes to the public non-profit agency that is an important factor in the cost-efficient ! healthcare system.
Now, the U.S. system is way too expensive (average in Europe - 5,000 - 6,000 USD. Compared to the U.S. with 9,200 - souce. World Bank, per capita healthcare expenditures of nations, data of 2014).
Germany for instance had USD 5,600 - that does not hinder them at all to export like crazy - and also export a lot of stuff to the U.S. That means 2 things:
1) slap 65 % on the German expenditures and you land at U.S. level
2) per capita means EVERY person, even if healthy and even those without insurance. - so a family of four still needs an average "budget" of 22,400 per year (some families do not need the doctor all year long - but others may have costly treatments - it is an AVERAGE).
And from the World Bank data I got the impression that a Firs World country (living expenses - wage levels - healthcare needs a lot of labor) cannot do it WELL under 4,200 - 4,500 USD per capita (status 2014).
Now the U.K. had only 3,900 - they were systematically defunded over 10 years to "justify" a privatization through the backdoor. The non-profit public NHS is hanging on for dear life. On the other hand if they had 50 % of the U.S. expenditures (most of it would go towards the NHS although they do have private doctors even hospitals for the international oligarchs) - the NHS would work like a charm. They are used to operate on a lean budget - on from THERE they were cut.
That "entrepreneur" (in the townhall) could have correctly identified THE high costs as problem not only of consumers but also for businesses. But it is easier to "solve" that problem on the back of employees and the taxpayer. if the taxpyers do not subsidize healthcare you will have people dying at the steps of hospitals.
Her attitude showed that she was resentful - and she repeated the rightwing talking points and was clearly not able and also not willing to think things through.
* Plus the workday and week cannot be totally fragmented with too long breaks - so that the employers uses the control over the time of the workers to optimize the costs and to minimize their risks. Like the risk hat business is unexpectedly slow on some days. or that some work cannot be done as planned because a supplier let you down or other unexpected circumstances.
Usually - to some degree - one can PLAN to have some work to do in the "idle times" - the staff PREPARES things for the next busy time (or they clean the place). But it needs planning and for lazy, incompetent managers it is easer to HIJACK the time of employees for free (the workers are waiting to resume work when it will be paid) instead of doing some planning.
There will be some costs for idle times that cannot be avoided - all in the SAME industry have it. And it happens typically much more in the service sector (in industrial manufacturing they CAN even out the spikes).
Meaning the service sector companies have no competition from outside the country (from countries that do not protect their workforce from abuse of their time). Within the country everyone operates under the same conditions (they need to respect the time of employees and their need for a plannable schedule). Well not in the U.K.: they have zero hour contracts that allow the exploitation of the worker's time - and worse that started a race to the bottom. Businesses that do not want to exploit their workers - but which are in a niche that has some fluctuations of demand - will have higher costs than their competitors.
But in most countries there are regulations to protect workers: customers pay a little more in higher costs - to protect the workers from unreasonable demands (like having 3 hours "idle" unpaid "waiting" time and breaks they are forced to make - to get 5 hours paid worktime. PLUS the commute. Of course good planners /managers and businesses that make their customers offers to avoid slow times are rewarded. The good entrepreneurs have an edge under those rules.
Starbucks played the game with completely fragmented schedules and short time notice (driving their workers crazy - and mothers found it impossible to organize childcare) - until public outcry forced them improve the schedules for their U.S. workers. They cannnot play that game in the wealthy European countries, they would be sued (there are public agencies and non-profits that are financed by wage deductions that can and will sue on behalf of the workforce if they have a cause. They are traditionally very close to the unions.
And of course the Goliaths (like Starbucks) are a good target. Winning against them also helps to justify their existence
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pdpgb Ongoing economic hardship and a completly selfish, short shighted greedy ruling class (as they normally are, but that makes them unable to deal with a major challenge) - with the left "leadership" unable to step up when the moment asks for it = war, civil war.
The economic disruptions of Climate change will equal that of corona crisis (only spread out over a little longer)
neoliberalism and globalization make MORE pandemics likely. Almost inevitably because maximizing profits, big ag, global trade and traffick (and old traditions in China that are a 80 billion USD biz there - wet markets, breeding wild animals) is given priority over following the advice of scientists.
We were just lucky so far: and SARS CoV-2 could be worse, think the mortality rate of MERS (a SARS-CoV variety that is spread via dromedars). with only ! the potential of contagion like the current plague (there are worse out there - think Tuberculosis, polio, or measles which is one of the worst for instance. Of course we have vaccines and treatment drugs like antibiotics. So we have become cavalier, stupid and complacent).
In 2003 they did reaserach to develop a vaccine for SARS-Cov1. But it turned out they caught that JUST in time, it is not quite as contagious (there were some superspreaders, but by and large it was easier to contain)
We dodged the bullet then - or maybe not (I wonder if the Bush admin would have skipped the Iraq war if hit with a pandemic like this one, the war was started in spring 2003 exactely when the epidemic was being fought - if Bush would not have been reelected because of more inept governance). What about the build up of the real estate bubble ....
see the film Contagion, a lot of high profile actors were willing to participate, I assume they did not get a lot of money but they were motivated by the good intent. They had advice from the CDC so the scientific side of the story is accurate - instead of single persons doing jobs there would be teams - that was a concession to film making. But else it is VERY realistic. No hype - just what scientist had feared was going to happen sooner or later.
We dodged a bullet in 2003 (SARS CoV-1) and MERS of 2012 is deadly but not very contagious. The bird flu and the swine flu (that was in 2006 I think) spread among animals, in the RARE cases when they hit humans they are highly problematic (mortality and complication rate).
But there has not been a contagius mutation that hits humans - so far.
It is almost as if nature is giving up memo after memo .... and no one is acting rationally. There is no glory in successful prevention, it is UNREMARKABLE. You only see the inconveniences and the economic costs (of reigning in big biz, of shutting down borders earlier). The danger that the scientists talk about are realistic but not TANGIBLE.
In 1997 Hongkong decisively acted during a the bird flu epidemic (a H1N1 H5N1 virus strain), they culled ALL chickens and nibbed it in the bud.
In ? 2006 the Chinese government did not act swifly (they could have compensated their farmers) - that is why the virus spread among animals and caused a LOT of enonomic damage internationally.
even for organic producers, they let their chicken roam in a fenced off area, which is much healthier for the birds. But they had to keep them indoors, in the stable - for fear that wild birds spread the virus, when they drop feces during flight for instance.
That theory is not proven. Others say the mass dying of wild birds only occurs when large big ag "production" of poultry were nearby.
Runoff from manure into rivers, ponds and lakes - where the virus can survive for some time maybe ? Or manure being used on meadows and the wild birds pick it up when they land ?
We set up the breeding ground and ideal conditiions for such strains to emerge.
So more pandemics to come plus of course the crisis coming Climate change, plus the normal crisis from economic downturns and also from speculation (that has been rewarded in 2009 and again now, they are bailed out, the Fed creates TRILLIONS - that is outside the stimulus package, thanks to Frank Dood The Fed - board staffed by the large banks can do that).
1
-
In such times the pendulum in countries that are supposedly democracies swing decisively to the left (1932 FDR campaign - and then united left movements dragged him / gave him the leverage)
- OR to the FAR RIGHT and even fascism.
Historically speaking: more OFTEN to the FAR AUTHORITARIAN RIGHT.
And the "moderate" left dropping the ball is not new either. (The "conservative" forces and pillars of society are worse: they acively help fascism).
See Europe 1930s - and not only Germany. Then the Social Democrats, Labour (in all of Europe, also Germany) had more guts - but not enough or not SOON ENOUGH.
Then being a lefty or union representative was not a lucrative career, it was not for the faint of heart - but they too made historic mistakes and did not meet the moment.
Never mind the gutless "conservative pillars of society, the aristocracy in Italy and also the U.K. or Spain" who were all very eager to side with the fascists when they saw the unwashed masses organized under left or far left leadership. The plan was NOT to help the masses so they would not listen to the Socialists - the plan was to crush the left.
If pushed a little bit the bourgeoise will always side with fascists to preserve their class interests.
Now the ruling class has weapons like drones, militarized police, they have mass surveillance and people are more dependenent on the amenities of civilization. Back in the day people had a coal stove (or a wood stove and their own forest in the rural areas), they did not need electricity that much, many had their vegetable garden, etc.
The ruling class CAN control the population much more effectively NOW - once they let the mask slip and do not bother with the "democratic" pretense anymore.
And a wave of strikes and lootings would be the VERY convenient pretext. As always they would use the letter agencies to infiltrate the movements and to have instigators that show violent behavior at demonstrations. To deliver the pretext for media to side with them and for the police to crush them. Murder by police / FBI was used to assanssinate the leaders of the Black Panthers.
And conveniently only the left leaning politicians are taken out by assassination. JFK. Then a few years later in spring MLK and in June Robert Kennedy. In 1968 the Democratic party was very willing to piss off the base, the riots (then they had the fierceness to riot - not like toady's wussies) were crushed with the help of the police. The DNC ushered in an establishment candidate (since Kennedy was killed it was the question WHO would get his delegates).
Instead of having a reasonably left candidate - giving the grassroots something and enough FDR like to not scare off the more moderate base - instead of that they annointed a candidate, damned be the base. Sure they lost of course - but they did not mind risking that, in the larger scheme THEY (the establishment, and likely the Dixiecrats) won.
The 1968 Democratic convention riots won Nixon the crook the election - and the DNC gladly risked that instead of giving the base something (in the year when the base and especially the black voters had lost MLK AND Bobby Kennedy !)
3000 dead people when the Bush admin was asleep at the wheel in 2001 was the pretext to undermine the constitution, due process, warrantless searches, mass surveillance.
30,000 per year die due to lack of healthcare - no coverage, too little treatments too late (older Harvard study, or the recent Yale study says the effects were underestimated, it is more like 65,000).
At least 30,000 die per year in gun related deaths.
2000 - 3000 deaths in Puerto Rico that likely would have been preventable (after hurricane Maria).
Crickets.
9/11 was a convenient pretext. (And the people died were often highly paid Wallstreet people - not the "peasants" - so them diying is worse and they get more coverage than poor people dying)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is called the CURSE of having NATURAL RESOURCES. In Germany, Japan, Austria, Switzerland, France, the Netherlands, .... the PEOPLE are the assets of the country. These countries have little resources. Their economic model (and thus the potential profits of commerce and the riches of their elites) depend on the educated skilled workforce. The masses.
So even though these nations have their greedy "elites" like every other country - The "elites" have to treat the citizens with some minimum of decency.
When you have well educated, capable people it is only a matter of time before "uppity" sets it. Was the same with women or with black people (the white planation owners knew why they did not want the slaves to learn reading). Or the wealthy merchants in the middle ages who DARED to challenge the authority and privileges of royalty and aristocracy.
Once people have a minimum degree of safety and education they will demand more participation in government, freedom of thought and expression, and will demand that the riches of their home country benefits everyone not only a very small segment of the population.
And if you NEED the people to be well educated, creative and skilled to make any profits (like the capitalists in Germany etc. do) - you cannot avoid the unwashed masses having some minimum living standards and education.
On the other hand if you can extract wealth from a country by exploiting their mines, you can keep the masses down, even the few folks that work in the mines can be kept poor - it will not interfer with your business model.
So usually in poor countries the natural assets are controlled by very few, very rich people. They gladly collude with the elites of the Western countries (they need their technology for extraction, and then the business connections for sales). In the rare cases where they don't "cooperate" (aka sell out their fellow poor country(wo)men, they are regime changed, assassinated etc. with help of the CIA, MI6 etc.
See Chile in 1973 for instance. Or Iran in 1953.
Chile: A small unimportant country, certainly no danger to the U.S. - they did not even have oil. So WHY did the CIA help to bring about the FIRST 9/11 in 1973 and the murder of Salvador Allende ? (his "suicide" is questionable and anyways even that was forced on him by the circumstances)
It is true: Chile was not threat to the UNITED STATES and the U.S. citizens. But the MODEST proposals of Allende pissed off some mining companies that colluded with the U.S. government. And it would have set a bad example in the region if Chile got away with the crazy idea that the riches of the country should benefit everyone - not only the rich families of he country and some foreign companies.
Social democracy could not be fought in Europe after WW2 - but the U.S. elites were not having it in the sovereign nations of Latin America. In the end it would give ideas to their own population. And besides if would restrict the profits of powerful U.S. corporations. So the tax-payer funded resources of the U.S. were used to overthrow a democratically elected government in a small country.
Norway was a stable, advanced, wealthy democracy - and THEN they found ways to extract oil. So it was determined quickly that the oil money would profit ALL citizens. But for that you already NEED a well functioning ! and stable democracy.
The oil of the U.S. for instance was NOT used for the benefit of all citizens. It made a few people rich (for instance the Bush family)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elias_xp95 Capitalism has the "predatory" built into it. ** 3 - 4 decades after WW2 were the ONLY time capitalism was regulated enough that the greed of the oligarchs was somewhat restricted (and also the shenanigans of big finance and the stock exchange which have been a playing ground for the rich for centuries). We still profit from that era - while the oligarchs work at reversing every gains the unwashed masses had made then.
And THAT was ONLY in a part of the world, the U.S., major European colonies (Canada, U.S., Austrailia - so strong cultural ties with the U.S.) and a part of Europe.
The necessary conditions for the exception to the rule:
Two World Wars within 30 years. The New Deal that still had strong support in the population - so it would have been hard to argue ideologically against it. Likewise it was impossible to install a dictatorship in the U.S. (the 50s were no democratic highlight though).
another necessary ingredient: the desire of the U.S. "elites" to have a Cold War against the Soviet Union (and for that they needed the developed part of Europe, U.K. France, Italy, Germany,....) - those coincideneces of history gave us the Golden Era, the Building of the American Middle Class, the Economic Miracle.
But the oligarchs hit back as soon as they could. in the 50s and again in the 1970s (helped by two major oil price spikes that caused world wide recessions).
In the U.S. directly after the war with a war against anything "left" - the pretext was the Red Scare. After all strong and united left movements - from communists to Social Democrats plus unions had given FDR enough political leverage to push through the New Deal. There was resistance from the Democratic politicians (who were like today affluent or rich people) and even more resistance from the Republican establishment.
you have to give the oligarchs credits: they had a strategic, long-term plan to dismantle the New Deal.
The Republican industrial leaders were furious in 1933 - they however could not topple FDR. the press was mostly owned by them - but FDR circumvented them with the fireside chats on the radio to announce major policies and new ideas. He had a good start with jumpstarting the banking system after 5 days of bank holiday to sort out the system (and to decice which banks were viable and which not).
60 million out of of population of then 90 million people listened to the first fireside chat that he had as president (on late Sunday evening). He explained the measures they had passed the last 5 days and that deposit insurance would make sure that they would not lose their savings if more banks went under (in the months before he was sworn in many banks had failed, and people cashed in their savings).
The musings of the oligarch to have coup in 1934 and get a fascist regime (like their luckier fellows in many European nations) led nowhere. They contacted Gen. Smedly Butler - who it turned out was a patriot. Without the army they could not pull it off - and a lot of top military brass had made themselves a very bad name when they helped the former government in 1932 to crush the March of Veterans on Washington (people were killed, the army was used against citizens, veterans and their families no less who demanded benefits they had been promised).
MacArthur was willing to support that (maybe Eisenhower too) - General Smedley Butler took the side of the veterans. It did not help them in 1932 - but he still had a good reputation with military and ex military folks. That was why the conspirators had him contacted to "assess" the situation regarding a potential coup.
1
-
@chrisludolph348 Science - like social sciences, evolution of humans and anthropology will inform you that homo sapiens is a very SOCIAL species, generous, co-operative - and usually peaceful . - "To each according to their needs" - and those who had more or were lucky (finding honey or the hunt went well) were "required" to give to those who had less.
It is built into our DNA. It was in effect for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. Humans could not have survived without those STRONG SOCIAL INSTINCTS.
The group - not individuals - owned the "means of production". Back in the day that meant a certain hunting area, water sources, places to get wood, flintstone, salt.
There was a STRONG incentive to be at peace with neighbouring tribes (violent conflicts were a lose / lose scenario). And usually the circumstances were harsh enough that their numbers did not grow fast.
The Aborigines, Bushmen, Inuit did not go to war with each other over territory. The First nations on the North American continent that lived as gatherer / hunterers likely were much more peaceful BEFORE the European settlers started taking their land.
All of that changed with the invention of agriculture. Only then humans were able to produce considerable SURPLUS of food. That did not promote the well-being of all, however.
War and the need to defend yourself against other human groups became a thing. And INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP of land, mines, wells (everything of value - the means of production and the fruits from it.
Slavery and / or servitude. Classes within society. Having a group of warriors dedicated to combat only. Or a group of priest / scholars (which also had the task to justify and reinforce the role of the ruling class).
War is expensive - only with agriculture it was possible to have enough surplus (in food and disposable human lives) to sustain a group of men dedicated to war and to enforce the will of the ruling class. From then on society split in a small group that was rich and had political power - and the vast group that was usually poor and suppressed.
Humans still were very loayal to THEIR TRIBE - but the definition of "tribe" had changed. It was "my family" and those of my class.
The larger groups of humans could get things done and make inventions that were impossible for the gatherer / hunter societies - but that came at a price. The first settlements came in Mesopotamia and in Egypt. Fertile land - but it needed large scale irrigation systems . Which only a coordinated LARGE group of humans could build, maintain and use to produce food.
In small groups our instincts honed by evolution override the selfish impulses (and also a lot of impulses to live individualism). The well-being and cohesion of the tribe was more important than the individual pursuit of happiness.
So no free speech. The people were conditioned to accept quite naturally the customs of the clan as the only way things could be. Views on religion, how to dress, gender roles, sexual behavior, what was fit to be eaten, .... it all was accepted. There was little room to challenge those ideas (even in harmless things like garments).
Even small deviations could trigger frowning - or even social shunning - which is a harsh punishment for a social creature. COHESION within the group was THAT important. Dissenting was unthinkable - they literally could not even think of it - and they did not feel compelled or forced while falling in line. Doing things the clan-way was as natural as the effects of gravitation.
That is why we need laws to ensure freedom of speech and freedom of religion - it does not come naturally with our evolutionary background.
the impulse to compete was ONLY allowed for play, under formalized conditions (like men having wrestling matches or women "comparing" their sewing. Too much competition could have undermined peace within the group and ripped the group apart - that was a threat to survival.
so "competition" was channeled into showing off your surival skills - it got people status but not material ! benefits.
There was suble competition regading the or rituals of courtship or applying for leadership. Leaders had to convince their PEERS of their competence, maturity and skills - so that was an ongoing longterm effort. Aspiring leaders or opinion leaders had no backup to enforce a claim for leadership or for more privileges - other than those the group awarded them willingly. And those privileges consisted mostly of STATUS - an immaterial reward for their service for the benfit of the group.
Personal property versus owning land etc.
If hunter/gatherers were able to build boats - that was a group effort and the vessel belonged to more than one person. Even if it was "allocated" to one or a few persons - the benefits of having that device went to more than those persons.
They did have personal property. As behooves a social animal the embellished and well made clothes, weapons, articles of daily use like knives and dishes showed their STATUS.
One way to get more status in those societies was to be useful for the group, to have lots of children, and to be generous. That was even more important than having things that took a lot of effort and time to make or being skilled in ONE area. These material possessions were of course expression of the ability to be good a survival. Not only could you have functional clothes of leather - they were richly decorated. Meaning hunting was so successful that the women could dedicate a lot of time to "useless" embroidery. The competive urges found their outlet there. In producing such things or in having them produced by a family member !
However: being overly attached to things (even a luxurious fur, beautiful garments, decorated and carved dishes) was unbecoming for a tribe member. Such an inmature person - hoarding things - certainly was not fit to lead the group or be in the council of elders. Ridule would make sure people did not get to be too attached to material things - but would rather give some of it to other group members.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Chomsky in the past (And If I remember correctly in this very interview) recommend: Voting third party in safely blue or red states (most states are) - and holding your nose in the swing state. That IS a strategy (even for people who do not say: well let's burng it all down), if more people had done that in 2016 in CA, TX, WA, SC, NY, .... Jill Stein would have gotten not 2 % but over 5 %, easily, the Greens would be rewarded for th uphill battle and would have federal funding. That helps with running local races as well.
the Dems could not even brag about how HRC had 3 million more votes (that equals 2,2 of all cast votes, but a LOT of that came from large blue states), and cosidering how pissed they were about the 2,2 % of Jill Stein they might have understood the warning shot.
Or at least the VOTERS that really want to get rid of the [insert Republican boogeyman of this election cycle] would better understand that someone like Biden is NOT a safe choice for them. That enough of their campt (potential voters for a d president) will not go along, a politician actually promising change and having concrete plans would be the safer choice.
Sanders polled well (favorability), so I think many gullible voters switched to Biden because they like him even more, or THEN (after S.C., and the clearing of the field for Biden) thought he was the SAFER choice.
Corp. media and Sanders worked together to create that impression.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ronclark9724 Cement / steel / aluminium / glass production needs a lot of heat. - As for consumer goods, heating, transportation, subsidized air traffic - no one seems to care how much energy and raw materials are wasted - and the U.S. is especially wasteful * (or if production is harmful) - only if it is for producing renewable energy.
* using much more energy per person - even compared to other rich nations. While the U.S. has partially deindustrialized.
Fast fashion (fertilzers) need a lot of energy), cars of course - production takes up a lot of resources and raw materials.
The few remaining manufactuers industry invented planned obsolesence for consumer goods and houshold appliances (make them fail reliably but only some time after warranty).
If the device is cheap the consumers will not invest in repairing, and since the quality is not solid, a repair is often not rational anyway. And then one can make repairs HARDER.
Also: throwaway furniture and the whole consumerism driven economy.
Don't get me wrong: EVERY production should be sustainable, suited for recycling and make as little impact as possible.
But I get the impression that is used as a argument ONLY for the devices that are meant to change how we produce our energy.
solare panels are built to last 20 - 30 years. (They can last that long with good quality). On the other hand energy that goes into cars with high consumption, if no insulation o cheap construction makes a lot of heating or cooling necessary - that energy cannot be recovered.
Devices and batteries can be recycled (or will be fit for that in the future - LI - batteries certainly have to be improved.
I hope that LI battery technology will be replaced with other technology, a lot is in the pipeline.
The poblem is also that in our economic system a lot of costs are externalized. If industries want / must avoid pollution, MUST save energy (or pay a CO2 tax) they usually rise to the occasion.
A CO2 tax should be revenue neutral. Meaning it is meant to change behavior and trigger new technologies - not raise money.
Another aspect is the beneficial effects on employment when use of fossil fuels is replaced with technology and human ingenuity. (The better technology which may the stepstone to some more is an added bonsus).
It also means work for engineers and scientists and keeps those skills high within the population.
Corporations when left to their own devices will always try to burden someone else with the costs of their business activities. They will rather pollute even if the filters are already available and not that expensive. They will still pursue the highest profit and not use them - unless they are forced to do so.
They will follow a narrow, short term approach and will externalize as many costs (pollution, healt risks, effects of CO2 output) as they can. Another incentive is to sell more and more ... even if it is for rather frivolous things. (not investements for 20 years and longer)
The challenge that producing those devices ALSO uses quite some energy - which for now comes often from fossil fuels - was of course considered. Well a Carbon tax could tackle THAT - the industries would have a major incentive to make ALL processes more energy efficient. (and if everyone has cabon tax they have a level playing field).
If the price for KWh drops by 20 % every time the installed panels double. That btw has nothing to do with time. Incentives were given in form of subsidies and that jumpstarted the development.
- the extra costs for sustainable production (landing with the consumers or users of the panels) can be absorbed - it will slow the price advantages a little bit down. Over time the costs for better form of productions and recycling should drop too.
But even in the meantime it will not alter the Economy of Scale scenario.
More use will lead to new technology and to cost reductions for that technology.
(That was what happened with acid rain - the industry claimed it would cost way too much. Then they were ordered to do it. And then it turned out that it wasn't that costly. And improved quality of life in the areas around steel plants - often densely populated. (think also avoided healthcare costs).
I depends how much more energy comes from renewable sources over time. (Solar panel production pulling itself up at the bootstraps)
I read an article recently that the panels earn the energy back that was put into their production (grey energy) within 4 - 6 years. Now that was a solid article - but 2 - 3 years old (I did not dig deep, I just wanted to get an idea).
Such estimates are hard to make - the panels constantly improve performance.
Currently a lot of the silicone is produced with the "Siemens Process " - it is the standard mass production method for a certain kind of silicone (high purity, which is needed for electronics) - but overqualified for solar panels (there are different technologies) .
They will switch to a new process - producing less pure silicon but it is fine for the panels. (another price drop - I do not know the details but it is possible that use of less energy is a major part of the cost savings.
As for the chemicals used in ALL industrial manufacturing - it matters if they can be reused. Same is true for the panels. if recycling is possible that will change the impact balance (energy and raw materials).
as for Lithium there are other developments in the pipeline (solid state batteries for instance).
Lithium batteries might be the deal for cars.
I hope they find something better exactely because of the environmental impact for the raw materials. And they can lead to fires in some cases - solid state would not only use more commonly available raw materials but also be safer.
For batteries at homes other technology (than LI) could be better. They can be heavier, size is not so much an issue and they do not need to be fit for fast charging.
Producing electricity at homes with solar panels would become more viable with cheaper batteries. (20 % price drop per KWh when installed volume of panels doubles. expect the same economy of scale for batteries (for homes - less tricky than for use in cars) - and solar becomes viable. At least in sunny areas w/o subsidies.
there are attempts to assess the impact and energy need of the devices. Since the technology is disruptive (like computers, electronics, cars, electricty) were and production methods and technologies for the new product classes change all the time - the estimates are not really meaningful.
The devices can be expected to work well for at least 20 years. Recyling of Lithium batteries seems to be less than ideal. That might change of course - especially when companies get a nudge to invest in the necessary research.
In Japan the relevant car manufacturers joined forces for battery research. Last time they joined forces they rolled out the Japanese cars on a global scale.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ms711x I used to live in Austria, there is a kind of mandated union (people have mandatory wage deductions (it was written into law after WW2 in the 1950s and with good reason unions (and similar groups) were propped up.
It is 1 % of the wage with a cap of 50 USD approx. per month, and they will fund a Chamber of Labour that represents the workers in collective bargaining for different industries. That agency is also responsible for consumer protection affairs and they also respresent workers in job related law suits or consumers in general lawsuits.
Not so much in individual lawsuits, but more to speak up if they see something skewed against the consumers (contracts) and that can lead to lawsuits. Like the fine print that banks have sign you when you get a bank account or a loan where things are often slanted against consumers.
When they negotiate the collective contracts they have the unions at their side (which people join voluntarily, union dues are tax deductible). I would be very surprised if not all of the Chamber of Labour staff were with a (left or center left union ;)
The representatives of the Chamber are elected (mail ballot, by people that are in a hired position, so not the self-employed or retired people), traditionally left and center left fractions are strong, but the Green Party, the Center Right and the Equivalent of the Tea Party also run in the elections and have representatives in that Chamber.
Usually the head of the public insurance agency will come from those ranks - union & Chamber of Labour - the idea being that "looking out for the people" is their thing.
As for the unions in the U.S. being like the Mafia ? weapons sales, drug and human trafficking, murdering epeople, money laudnering ? What do you mean ???
In the Rght-to-work-for-less-states wages are lower on average and that alsp applied to what is left of industrial manufacturing). So if you object to being forced to join a union or at least to pay the dues in exchange for getting the better wages and conditions - you are free to look for a job w/o that "coertion" and negotiate all your wages and benefits on your own (I heard Walmart and McDonalds are union free places).
If you think the leadership of (some of) the U.S. unions is too detached, earns too much, too cozy with the party establishment, to meek against the neoliberal assault, that they should not donate for political candidates or parties - good points.
I heard that the construction unions in New York a re still a force that the real estate developers (like Trump for instance) have to play nice with the mob and the unions and that there may be connections. Well: no OTHER developed country had or has a connection between the mob and the unions like the U.S. had in the past. It is a sign of the brutal violence unleashed upon the U.S. labor movement - if one side (the rich industrialists with help of politicians, army and police) fights dirty as hell the other side will put their trust in leaders that are not "moderate, and mild mannered".
On a side note - check out what they did to the veterans in 1932 when the marched with their families to demand the benefits that had been promised to them (with help of the army: McDouglas and his deputy Eisenhower). It wasn't protesting workers there (at least those people showed up in the role of veterans, of course the problem was that in 1932 they lacked jobs and income like everybody else). but the CONTEMPT against the struggling little people was the same like when they unleashed police against demonstrating textile workers - women. See the origin of International women's day, March 8th 1857 in New York, and 1910, both of course met with police violence)
Found a union that is clean, set a wage limit for the leadership (better have leadership rotating, have MORE people share the burden, and keep them middleclass income-wise , then they identify with the needs of middle class and it is harder to buy them).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
psmith85 - no paper ballots cannot be manipulated (as long as the vote is secret and anonoymous) which it is in the wealthy nations * .
In the country where I live (Austria) there is automatic voter registration. You get an invitation letter to vote and it tells you where to go (and they will have you on the voter list they recently generated from the citizens/inhabitants registry).
I cannot imagine being purged from such a list. The citizens registry is used for many purposes. The letter also instructs you what to do for postal vote or if you want to vote in another polling station (for instance when on holiday). They need time and the information to get the voter lists right. Those lists are very essential and they are IN the respective polling station and they are printed out and manually crossed off.
If a person dies, a doctor will confirm the death of the person, and the death certificate will be issued. And they will update the registry - so there are no dead people on the voter rolls.
There is a board of citizens and representatives of EVERY party that is relevant in that region (even if they are a 5 % minority party) in every polling station. The committee that watches and facilitates the election in that polling station will be at least 6 people (government employees and volunteers).
The elections are always on a holiday or Sunday. The longest waiting time I have ever experienced was 15 minutes
When it is your turn to vote, you tell them name and address. They cross you off TWO lists - which are taken care of by TWO different people. And these people are not seated next to each other (maybe coincidence, but come to think of it I never saw it differently - so I guess that is intentional too - they say it loud and the 2nd persons always repeats the name and address and a number. Like with repeating commands in the navy ;) ).
The container for the ballots is in the middle of the room - and it isn't left alone for a second. There are ALWAYS several people around. They count together, they have the result written down. I do not know if they report the result of THAT station by phone or now digitally. It does not matter. if a sub-result is questionable, or unusual they have a paper trail to verify.
If you wanted to mess with the integrity of that process you needed to alter the results of many, many polling stations to make an impact. AND that would mean one of the candidates or parties would get cheated. Which they would KNOW because they are present on all the boards.
It would be impossible to keep it secret or even pull it off w/o at least one person making a stink - that is why the system is safe. It is not that our politicians would not cheat if they could - the SYSTEM makes it impossible to pull it off.
They cannot purge voters from the rolls, they cannot change the count (IF the change would amount to something it is also likely to raise suspicions, because they compare with exit polls - and there is the paper trail).
The last stations usually close at 6 pm. Then they already have a good prognosis on TV (from the exit polls).
They cannot electronically alter numbers, they MUST keep the paper ballots so any suspicious result can be verified AND it is a criminal offense to mess with the vote. There are government employees present in EVERY station. They would lose a secure job, benefits, pension privileges, plus they would have their day in court. Not. Gonna. Happen.
And last but not least it is not possible to make it harder for people to vote by closing down polling stations (or making people WAIT for hours - on a workday no less). That would just not be accepted by the population. A more than plentiful number of stations are open - they are known to the population for decades - there would be a riot if they would try to close them down or have elections on workdays.
Elderly or sick persons can ask to have a committee come to their home or the hospital. And I think they have provisions for people working shifts - at least in large manufacturing plants. And your employer is required to let you vote - that would mean for instance you come a little later or leave earlier or take a longer break.
Retail is closed here on Sunday. But cafes and restaurants are open (and some manufacturing plants) - so they need to get the opportunity to vote between 8 or 9 a.m to 4 to 5 p.m. (which are the usual open times).
In small villages where people know each other, you can vote without showing your ID (you must be known to at least 50 % of the board) - else you need to show an ID. Not sure if you can do a sworn declaration or have someone testify for you if you forgot the ID.
Having an ID is no big deal because even if your house burns down or you move to another country or state - it is possible to get a replacement birth certificate, or passport.People here do have IDs and birth certificates (even if they were born at home). That is a problem in the US especially in the South. Older poor persons were born at home and no birth certificate was issued. In most cases they were black so they were not "expected" to vote anyway.
It is not like they make you jump through hoops to get your first and a replacement ID. And the offices where you can ask for your passport or ID have reasonable opening times. including at least one longer day per week so people have a chance to get the bureaucratic stuff done before or after work hours. Folks tend to work ONE job here (40 or 50 hours with overtime) - so they will find the time. Plus there is public transportation to get to the place where they issue the cards.
Larger cities offer to apply online for a replacement or alteration. I think the pickup of the card must be done in person, not sure if they would send it by post.
1
-
+John Kesich - Sanders did NOT SPARE the Dems the discussion. And it does not REALLY matter when his Medicare Bill was ready, it was quite obvious that it would not pass THEN. - He definitely SPOKE about it in terms of Medicare for All long before it was presented (changing the wording from healthcare for everyone or single payer that he had used in 2016).
The bill is symbolic at the moment. It did not matter if he had come out in Jan. 2017 or a few months later.
And he has been promoting better healthcare - now Medicare for ALL every time he gets a chance. Townhalls, TV interviews (does not matter what is the reason for the interview - he always ! mentions healthcare, too).
Even when he supported the resistance to not have ACA abolished in spring 2017 - it is very clear to everyone who LISTENED to him that he views it as not sufficient. Still better than having NO provision and until something better is ready to pass ACA should stay.
He also said end of 2016, beginning 2017 that he would support Pres. Trump and Congress if they had the intention to pass something better than ACA.
I assume they had to sort out some details. The bill was meant to force some Dems to take a stand, to raise public awareness.
Usually the Corporate Dems could make empty promises, just co-sponsor it for show- and do a 180 should they ever have the necessary majorty.
But they KNOW NOW that the voters are watching them AND Sanders would call them out. That is why they shy away even NOW to take a stand - they could have played that game in earlier times, but not anymore.
The support might of course be shaky - then it is a case of "give them enough rope to hang themselves".
Over the months Sanders dragged a few over to co-sign.
(Which might explain the waiting, when it was officially presented, he wanted to have more co-sponsors).
He introduced the Bill regarding drug imports from Canada (well looking into the possibility) in January 2017, and it would have passed had it not been for Democratic defectors (even some "free market" Republicans like Ted Cruz supported it, so if ALL the Dems had been on board).
He called the Dems out mildly - but the Dems that want to run in 2020 got the memo nontheless (and were trashed anyway on Social media by progressive who do not have the "diplomatic" concessions to make that Sanders obviously thinks necessary.
Of course that awareness and the opportunity for Dems to show how they are sell-outs again has to do with the fact that he proposed the bill and spoke about it after the rejection.
Steady does the trick.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The CIA has been hiring, paying and influencing mainstream media journalists for DECADES. They only need to work the OWNERS - or in the case of publicly financed ! TV and radio the top management.
They have been working the relevanta outlets in important countries (so Germany, U.K., France italy, Japan Australia get mor attention than let's say Belgium or New Zealand).
Have you ever wondered why media outlets (mainstream) AGREE to never call Saudi Arabia a regime (Syria is one, Iran is called one occasionally, China never). Now, if you call Syria a regime - what about Turkey, Bahrain, Qatar, Brunei, UAE - and all the other dictatorships that the U.S. considers allies.
Or the friendly reception every new Saudi dictator gets (they are alway get laurels in advance as upcoming "reformers" - see the drivel about MbS BEFORE the Khashoggi murder - and the eulogies always mention the "cautious" attempts at reform. Right !
I can see how one outlet would have to policy to not use the term - but I challenge you to come up with ANY relevant outlet to use it. That. Is. No. Coincidence.
KSA supports the dollar (petro dollar) and buys the goodwill with a lot of weapons purchases. (That is how they buy politicians AND the media - the rich owners of the press are likely invested in those industries).
So it would not do to call a spade a spade.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oj5218 ?? the public OR the private insurers are adminstrative middle man. If the system "was not fast enough to adapt" it was not well managed or had more difficulty conditions and not enough budgets for that. - What does that even mean - fluctuating demand in the not so denseley populated areas ? Problems in regions that have tourism, with seasonal workers, and a slow season ?
I found out that Norwegians have a quite expensive system (spending per person) , which is locally organized. people get assigned to an GP where they live but they can switch (I still do not know if GPs and specialists are employed with (local) government or if they are like small comapnies that have a contract with the insurance agency / national service / local government.
Hospitals are run by the muncipalities as independent uits, but the government backs them up financially.
In the more densely populated area prediction of demand should be possible.
The cure is to set it straight if they do not use the resources well.
for profit paper shufflers solve nothing (they just adminstrate at higher costs).
It likely means that private insurers had the necessary money to pay better rates to doctors (by forcing people to buy supplemental insurance if they want good services) - else the public system would have needed to spend more money.
That need could have been justified or coming from bad managment - but either way inviting the more expensive adminstrator does noting for cost efficiency.
Waiting lines mean the PROVIDERS were the bottle neck.
Not enough hospital beds, or MRI machines or specialists ? WHAT was it ?
I understand that Norway has a challenge with remote areas. That IS more costly to service and harder to predict, either smaller underutilized units must be kept open, or the citizens have to drive longer and you need more airlifts for "emergencies" (some would be normal transport 20 minutes in densely populated areas). But then the country has also the oil funds.
"private duplicative healthcare" obviously means INSURANCE:
Later you mention in your comment providers - so obviously coctors, specialists - the hospitals are mostly government associated, but they seem tohave private clinics as well. ?
The private doctors, test laboratories etc. also must make enough revenue (usually they are like small companies in most single payer nations Public non-profits would do the same at lower cost. If demand is fluctuating (which could be a problem in some areas of Norway) that is a problem for non-profits and for for-profits alike. Of course it helps to get more per case - but paying more can be easily managed by the public insurer - if they get the budgets.
so obviously the new providers got better rates which come from private insurance which the citizens ae FORCED to buy or to pay out of pocket - because the public system was not willing or able to pay enough.
Waiting time for specialists seem to be high - so I wonder if they train enough doctors. (Waiting line = a doctor that has open capacity can take the patients)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@americanicarus3066 Nations that have thriving exports industries for quality goods do not allow undercutting of wages. Not for minimum workers or for young (underage) persons who usually have jobs in the "unskilled" department.
While the regular staff in summer enjoys 2 or 3 weeks of the total of 5 vacation weeks, the companies hire young people during summer vacations (no vacations in summer for the people working in tourism - but the companies have peak demand so they hire extras).
Legal minimum age for temporary employment is usually 14 - 16 years. And they MUST pay them the minimum wage (that an adult would get with a permanent contract), overtime, eveything like the regular staff.
Guess what, that is how manufacturing, offices, and tourism do it in July and August in Austria, in Germany, Switzerland.
Now it does help if daddy works in the company: the kids have a chance to get one of the desired high profile summer jobs in the offices, marketing, IT .... and likely they will come back (they improve over time).
If they do not perform (with some concessions to hormonal youth) daddy likely is going to hear it and will straigthen them out. I know such schemes and worked with young temps, it is a very rare thing that you need to fire them. It takes some skill from the regular staff and managers to find something worthwhile to do for them especially when they are completly new (but you plan in ahead and delay the taking of stock, working over the lists etc. to have some easy tasks for them to break them in)
But the fact that they are (to a degree ) meant to help compensate for the people on vacation and the higher costs for their wages mean that management and co-worker also have an incentive to MAKE THEM PRODUCTIVE. So the temps usually rise to the ocasion. If they got one of the sought after summer jobs in the better qualified professions there is an element of service to the community (by the companies) and it is a tradtion.
Companies can improve their ROI by having them 2 or 3 seasons, they get better, more mature and you can build on what they learnt about and in the company in the first season. Especially when they come from farms or they are required to help with the biz of the parents or they have an athletic background they are quite good.
On the other hand: in tourism, in restaurants and kitchens, selling icecream in a stand, helping out in retail, or in manufacturing they have to perform right away - and they DO.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dominiquebender3788 1968 federal minimum wage worker does a time travel. 50 years, meets his / her 2018 counterpart. They compare yearly income (1968 adjusted for inflation to compare apples with apples). The 1968 worker has 10,000 MORE.. USD 24,500 in 2018 dollars - versus 14,500 of the schmock that works for USD 7.25.
(40 hour week, 50 weeks per year, I left 2 weeks for unpaid leave of absence).
The federal (= in all 50 states, in ALL regions) minimum wage peaked in 1968 (purchasing power). ONLY adjusted for inflation it would have been USD 12.25 in 2018 already.
15 USD in 2025 is a compromise !
People in the 1960s could afford to dine out, to get beauty treatments ... the services were comparatively a little more costly - but the incomes of the lower income brackets were much, much higer ! Well situated people could afford the services anyway - but then the lower income brackets were also a customer group to tap into.
THAT BUILT THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS.
That is important: affluent and middle class families have their budgets for fun money and they have their spending habits. That will not change much if they have 10k more (before taxes). They already have more money than they can spend, and put that aside.
But if you have only the spending power of 14,500 - having 10,000 more is a BIG JUMP upwards. Sure it is 24,500 before taxes. but you can easily pay 50 cents more per burger or 5 - 10 dollar more for a hair salon appointment, if you have 10 k more.
It was so good in 1968 because ALL wages (also minimum) had gone up in lockstep with productivity wins since WW2.
If that had continued to go up with that - federal minimum wage would have been over 21.00 USD in 2018 already.
15 USD in 2025 is the compromise. (I got that data from the EPI site).
Productivity (GDP divided by paid hours of labor) is important so the companies CAN afford to pay the good and improving wages. Well, much more than inflation can be covered with that - a lot of productivity improvements after 1968 !
A higher minimum wage trickles up. Those having a little above can also expect to see a raise soon, and it trickles up to the medium incomes. But that takes a little longer so there are no surprises. And as the minimum wage is always slowly adapted - if at all and FINALLY - they never ever rushed in - they would have time to adjust.
Not that it is to be expected, but if the first phase to get to 15 USD coincides with ongoing economic drepession, they could slow down the rollout. I am sure big donor friendly Democrats would have no problem to find Republicans to amend the law, and delay implementation or finetune with relief (tax cuts) for businesses, etc.
Another important economic insight:
1947 - 1970 in the U.S. (23 years, the Building of the American Middle Class)
productivity wins + 112 %
* average ! hourly wages adjusted for inflation + 97 %
Workers got the lion's share of productivity wins in those 23 years, not all but most. The purchasing power of 1 hour of work almost doubled (just 3 % less). The rest went to the owners and shareholders (but there are not that many of them, it was from a large and growing pie, so they were doing fine).
1970 - 2013 in the U.S. (that is 43 years, 20 years longer)
productivity wins + 69 %
* average ! hourly wages adjusted for inflation + 9 %
One effect: Growing output of evermore efficiently produced / provided goods and services did not match spending power of workers anymore (wages were de facto stagnant, only plus 9 % for real wages in 43 years). It may seem "generous" that the workers had gotten most of the productivity wins in the Golden Era (then in form of more money, could have been also given in more free time).
No - it is necessary in a system with industrial mass production of goods and services.
It does not matter how good the product is and how cost-efficiently produced. People must be able to afford it. For a time consumer debt on the credit card bridged the gap caused by wage stagnation (and outsourcing of the well paying manufacturing jobs). But that "fix" is now maxed out. It is no conincidence that the credit cards for consumers became a thing in the mid 1970s.
*
Average = low and higher wages
Hourly = blue collars - but white collars were doing fine, too
Inflation adjusted - the term is also "real" wages = it means the purchasing power
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dominiquebender3788 There have been experiments with "alternative currencies" : Colonial scrip in the American colony, the British ending that and demanding that the currency must be based on silver (I think it was silver not gold) may have contributed to the American Revolution. The Greenback during the Civil War, the Brixton Pound in WW1.
In the early 1930s WAERA (Germany) and the WOERGL currency (Austria).
WÄRA and WÖRGL in German letters.
The latter two inspired by Silvio Gesell's ideas, they were highly succesful (job creation, incomes, being accepted (locally) by consumers and businesses), drew international attention - and were struck down by the Central Reserve banks. Can't have grassroots helping themselves and getting creative with the concept of "money" to combat a depression and unemployment.
They were very careful to avoid "money creation" the volume of the alternative currency was backed up by legal tender. German Mark, resp. Austrian Shilling.
In Woergl (this is a town) the community had that scrip and deposited the equivalent in the official currency (Shilling) at a bank (which made low interest loans to businesses with the money so the money did not sit idle). Then the town paid workers with the scrip to do necessary work for the community. The town had missed out on a lot of local taxes because the companies could not pay them and unemployment was high. The local businesses were hesistant, but when one shop accepted the "scrip" as payment from shopping workers, the others followed.
So the unemployed got work, they could shop, businesses got shoppers and necessary work was done.
On the first day the civil servants got more money back than they had paid out. That was no mistake, the businesses and the workers were equally wary and immediately spent it. Businesses could bring the alternative money to city hall and it would be credited towards their tax debt. (They could also ask for it to be paid out in the legal currency but then with some deductions, maybe 5 %).
That money worked more than one shift. A piece (it was paper) was paid out to a worker, brought in by the company that had received it in exchange for a purchase, and it was paid out again the same day by the civil servants. That is how they got more transaction volume.
Of course it was important that a lot of what was sold was also produced in the region. Food, services of a shoe maker, etc.
The monthly decrease of value meant that everyone rushed to pass on the hot potatoe. So people and companies were eager to FIND exchanges of goods and services. And the scrip started poppping up in the neighbour communities. (it it gets you goods and services and people TRUST the currency it will be more widely used).
Money was not a scarce resource that was hoarded. It was a FACILITATOR that made the exchange of goods and services possible and people were giving each other an income.
Banks, rich people see and use the concept of money differently.
Money is an idea, a legal and societal agreement. It has been - so far - also a tool of power for the rich. They had forms of money creation even then (since at least the 17th century - the Dutch alreadly used the concpet of FIAT money) , but that was not for the benefit of the lower classes, that was for them to increase their fortunes.
The public was not bothered then or now with an explanation of how money really works.
The experiments rubbed them the wrong way. And institutions like a federal reserve bank are of course staffed and headed by people with that mindset, from that background who take the usual theories about the economy (kitchen table economics) as gospel.
The people behind the experiments knew they would be targeted and they carefully avoided to not have any "money creation" (for instance they backed it up with legal tender = the official currency. Not like bitcoin that is not backed up by any official currency).
Well in a way the grassroots (miners in Germany, the local mayor and city council in Austria) did create money (and all of that was backed up by the real economy !): If you have the alternative money circulating that fast it is as if they would have multiplied the amount of money. If you double the circulation speed it is as if double the amount of money would be involved.
That was of course what was needed to stimulate the economy in a severe depression. Injection of some money.
I know of ITACA money in New York state (although it needs the base of the USD) so it is a defanged version of an alternative currency to get more exchanges (a company hiring people and paying them. Businesses and consumers buying from businesses)
Government could inject that into the economy. Every citizen / resident / tax payer (yes also the tax paying undocumented migrants) get a budget. Let's say 2,000 USD. They can spend it, and companies can accept that in lieu for the official currency of the country (USD).
The IRS will accept that as payment for taxes (which makes it a useful and usable currency in general. you could expect it to pop up in Canada and Mexico as well.
To give it even more of a boost the IRS will also exchange excess amounts of money into dollars BUT only to a certain limit (could be a sliding scale) and ONLY for businesses that are not digital.
So a genuine small biz on the ground (in a smaller town) can accept the alternative currency and consumers have an incentive to spend money there. Even if it is a little more expensive. They have to get rid of their budget of the alternative currency somehow - it would expire if it is not spent.
In the WAERA and WOERGL experiment they used to have a decrease, the equivalent of hefty inflation (3 % per month if I remember correctly, they had to buy marks at the end of the month to restore the value) to encourage people to spend it.
Then those who had a little spending power were scared by the depression and held on to the money together - which caused even more unemployment. Today we can have the crisis / austerity caused shrinking of consumers spending (people could spend but rather hold on to their savings).
Plus: consumers have been trained by marketing to look only at the cheapest price - which is often an advantage for big biz. It is also harder for a company that offers quality service. The price is immediately visible, the higher quality is not as tangible (think a repair service) and has to be argued and "sold". Even good plumbers, carpenters, .... can have a hard time "selling" the higher quality of their service. Disingenuous actors that cut corners to appear cheaper have an advantage here.
Amazon covers also a lot of "smaller" biz. so only going by how much revenue or employees a company has does not cut it with targeting. And companies could incorporate in the U.S. easily.
Of course there would have to be rules that do not allow for fake small businesses (that are incorporated by large companies, I guess they often do that to get subisidies or benefit from small biz rules. but the small biz is somehow controlled by larger biz).
That discrimination could be justified with supporting the existence of brick and mortar biz in the rural areas. If people order online (even from smaller shops) there will be no retail left.
1
-
Clinton also did the tsk, tsk, tsk on "irresponsible litte borrowers" - giving such highly paid speeches and being nice to the banksters results in weird insights. (When Bill was still govenor of Arkansas she got introduced into betting on the "financial market", on beef I think. Gambling with derivates with high leverage.A poker tournament is a solid endevour compared with it. Anyway: at some point she had accrued so much debt from lost gambles that it was at least the same (or even double) the declared taxable household income (Bill's salary and her income as lawyer - see article on Wikipedia).
The thing about speculative wins and losses - they do not materialize until you end the game and cash in or are stranded with the losses.
If the speculation produces that much losses you are usually asked to increase your deposit (the speculators on Wallstreet and the other "markets" especially derivates have 10 % deposit if they have bad conditions and zero !! if they are important actors if the game - that is how the vultures can bring down currencies if they agree on a trend: they do not need to HAVE the money (that is how the open derivates could be 700 TRILLION USD on 2 given days (mid year and end year) - when the US. GDP (for one years) was maybe 18 trillion USD. But I disgress.
Every normal person would not even have had the possibility to go as much into debt with speculative losses, they would have been asked much earlier to COVER their losses. (Which I guess would have meant clearing the bank account or taking out a loan, good luck with getting that).
Clinton was not even asked to do so at the height of her losses. She could eventually turn that around she was allowed to carry on with the speculation until she had a lucky streak and not only could she recover fromt he losses but she made a considerable win (I thik half of a yearly income) then she had the good sense to quit.
Later when she was First Lady there was an investigation whether she got undue favors (yes !) but she was cleared.
After 2000 the thing that kept the U.S. economy humming on was the construction boom and the real estate bubble. the little people knew it was easy to get loans, no one would scrutinize anything, the large banks all but openly advertised it and the government, regulators, academia, and both parties looked the other way. Mainstream media highlighted the boom and RISING PRICES (not mentioning that it would at some point fall flat on its face like every other bubble - only this bubble was much larger).
The banks had well honed sales tactics and scripts. How to sell higher loans to the better customers (not only the overpriced home, but also the new car on top) and how to lure in people that could not afford to take out loans. The little people thought that this was the time to seize their chance. Even if they could not hold on to the real estate they could live at least a few years rent free, the value would rise and they could sell it with profit and that gain would be the basis for their rising up the economic ladder. The banks also crafted offers with low interest rates and monthly payments in the first years. So people hoped they would improve their financial situation and could keep up in a few years. And if not - it was a good investment and they would sell it with profits.
The market offered chances and it was up to them to take them. And once a few low(er) income clients realized that the banks intentionally did not scrutinize their income situation (and on top pressured the appraisers to give inflated estimates of the value of the real estate) - of course word spread (how the "market" worked these days).
The little people did not realize the old lesson (and the experts of academia, politics, media did not warn them): the pyramid schemes and making speculative gains can only last if a small sliver of society profits. when nothing of value is produced (real estate rising in value just because, or gambling with the price of beef) it is not possible to extract wealth for ALL from it. It wasn't for the masses in 1928 - and it wasn't for the masses from 2000 - 2006.
Kostolany a famous Wallstreet investor: When my barber or taxi drivers starts to talk with me about how he wants to invest I know it is time to get out of the market.
Kostolany got 1929 right, so of course he made a fortune picking up shares for cheap (same is true for the Kennedy family). Kostolany had the "advantage" that his older brother (then a young man) had gambled a part of the family fortune away with some sure bets on raw materials during WW1, the family then was in Austria-Hungarian empire. The brother considered suicide, but his father found out and bailed him out. So Kostolany learned a very valuable lesson before he himself became a speculator.
... back to current times: Hillary Clinton glady concentrated on those irresponsible small borrowers to make herself and her Big Donors from Big Finance feel better at the height of the financial crisis - actually she prostituted herself for getting their money - after her lucky speculative gig in Arkansas decades ago (and after luckily avoiding legal consequences for accepting that form of bribery).
1
-
I did a keto diet to lose some weight (it worked, some sloppy Atkins. I understood the principles, but I am healthy) and recently saw a video about reversing diabetes with a keto diet. didn't find THAT particular video - but some other links - see below.
Now, I assume your partner has diabetes2. Diabetes1 is much more tricky. Either way I suggest you and your partner need to really understand what you are doing in case these comments convinces him to do keto (and you likely would need to support him with the cooking.
But then it could be a much better solution than getting the meds (even it it is free) - it likely would help hime to keep or lose your weight, improve the blood work (cholesterol) - and ensure a longer and healthier life.
There is a difference if a person is on an insuline production boosting medication (helping the pancreas) of if he or she already needs insuline (then they are already in the zone where the health is at risk, shooting insuline can never be as accurate as if the body regulates it, so there will be sometimes too much sugar in the blood. Too little sugar could trigger a diabetic coma which is short time danger. And erring on the other side does the long time damage on the vessels, eyes, limbs that need amputation, higher risks for stroke).
When I searched with "youtube ketogenic diet against diabetes Dr."
the following interesting links came up - I would go for the Dr. or the MD and not some blogger posts or videos
Keith Runyan, M.D.: Management of Type 1 Diabetes with a Ketogenic ...
youtube(dot)com/watch?v=qs71l7Dk7u8
Ken D Berry, MD - Posts Facebook and youtube
One Million Views on YouTube! - Diet Doctor
www.dietdoctor(dot)com/one-million-views-on-youtube
How to Cure Type 2 Diabetes with Dr Jay Wortman
Low Carb For Type 1 Diabetes with Dr. Keith Runyan MD - YouTube ...
Dr. Berg Explains Why Cholesterol Can Go High on a Ketogenic Diet ...
The Big Diabetes Lie - Understanding Alternative Sweeteners w Dr. Berg -
A Functional Approach to the Keto Diet with Mark Hyman, MD ...
Ketogenic Diets and Diabetes - Dr. Richard Feinman
youtube(dot)com/watch?v=Isag23C_Hu8
Dr. Richard Feinman Professor SUNY Downstate Medical Center www.downstate(dot)edu/cellbiology ...
Richard Feinman, PhD -- Ketogenic Diets and Diabetes - YouTube
youtube(dot)com/watch?v=A3pqYx5TYh8
I edited the links so that youtube would not identify this comment as "spam" - you can replace (dot) with .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
isn't that interesting - one of the most cost-efficient system among the wealthy nations and THEN the Tories started to defund it over the course of 10 years (or did not increase the funding compared to the increased demand due to immigration). Promoting the low pay economy also undermines funding of the NHS.
I know the numbers by heart but they are from 2014 (maybe the World Bank has more up to date numbers online meanwhile): Word bank healthcare expenditures of nations per capita and in USD:
U.K. 3,900 Germany: 5,600 Austria 5,400 Norway over 8,000 Switzerland 9,600, the U.S. 9,200
Most wealthy nations were in the range of 5,000 - 6,000 (including Canada and Australia). The next wealthy country in Europe was in the range of 4,300 - it is almost as if a first world country would need at least that to pull off a well function system.
U.K., Norway and Switzerland were the outliers in Europe.
Expenditures is ALL that is spent on healthcare in the country - per capita divided by all people.
So healthcare of a first world country is always costly - those 3,900 or 5,000 or whatever the numer is are the AVERAGE - that is the healthy 5 year old and the 90 year old on life support.
If have seen PPP stats (purchasing power parity comparison) where the numbers differ and Norway looks better (it takes the general costs of living into consideration.)
It is also necessary to compare the wealthy countries with each other (labour costs matter for healthcare).
Either way - the U.K. has very low expenditures per person (and most of the expenditures happen in the NHS).
I recommend you tell people about it. Like: "Slap 44 % on the U.K. healthcare expenditures per person - and you land at the German / Canadian levels."
Australia had even higherper capita expenditures (in case someone remarks on German wealth).
if the Brits are not completely deluded that alone should make Corbyn the next P.M.
the whole scheme is of course not about cost-efficiency. Healthcare was off-limits for the "investor class". It is 7 - 11 % of GDP in every developed nation (in the U.S. plus 18 %) so that is a major chunk of the economy. Such a shame that it should not allow for the extraction of profits......
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nonsense, I do not even think Sanders is financially motivated to roll over. One nice family home (but not extraordinay) in Burlington, the duplex in D.C. (he needs to have residency in VT and needs a place to stay in D.C. as well - the D.C. home is not big or luxurious).
The only luxury he affords is the lakefront property. It is meant for family meetings, and I guess the children and grandchildren put it to good use, while Sanders is busy in D.C. or on the campaign trail
It is not far away from Burlington (they sold a house that Jane inherited, because it was in Maine and they never had time to go there. Used that as deposit - and his books sold well in 2016 and 2017).
I have seen the pics. of the summer houses (2 buildings - so for a large family of having guests). Maybe the former owners used it for tourists, each is fitted with bath, kitchen, ...
1980s / 1990s style, rustic furniture, cabin style. It is O.K. - but the kind of summer house where you do not mind if children or dogs scratch the funiture.
It is the location that makes it special. But 595,000 USD for a man that has been in Congress since 1991 is not that extraordinary. He does not splurge on cars, and does not have to pay off mistresses. Nor does he spend that much on clothes or hair stylists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And: they will not have to defend that defintion of "encouragment" in a PUBLIC trial. There will be a jury, but 1) they know how to eliminate independent thinkers and 2) the jury can only decide based on evidence that the judge allows.
There is a certain judge in VIRGINIA that will be in charge (VA because the CIA is located there). She is a deep state hack.
It is easy to throw out evidence and all that the defense lawyers have prepared. In a Kangaroo court trial. Ask John Kiriakou. (If I remember correctly he was the only one ever sentenced over the Bush era torture. Not for committing it, but for helping to expose it).
Higher purpose, the right of the public to know, the constitution overrides laws and arrangements of the sitting government, he had tried the established routes * * * for whistleblowers ... forget about it, his defense was never allowed to make those arguments. So the jury is not allowed to consider those arguments.
* * *
Daniel Ellsberg also tried for several months to inform members of Congress and Senate (of the relevant committees and outside). They have immunity, and they could have read it on the floor thus making it public record. Not one of the cowards stepped up. They continued when Mike Gravel tried to make ALL of the Pentagon papers Congressional record. He planned a filibuster but the other side figured that out, so they found another loophole. Being Congressional record meant any publisher could print ALL of the content. No regular publisher touched it with a 10 foot pole, but a faith related outfit dared to do it and they could not harrass them with help of the law. It only took them severel more years to get it finally in print (The newspapers could only report about it but could not print all the content.
* * *
The publishing of the Podesta emails is just the event where the powers that be turned the Democratic sheeple against Wikileaks.
(Truthful information that was damning for the DNC, and the Clinton campaign and the insider circle jerk with the "liberal" big networks. I very much doubt it changed the outcome of the election. The info that got attention was about tipping the scales against Sanders campaign. The people that are into politics and were Sanders supporters were not surprised by what they heard, they had now proof for very plausible assumptions.)
The Repubs have despised Assange / Wikeleaks longer, since he exposed Bush. The war mongers and the deep state hate him, too. Naturally someone like Hillary Clinton would despise him as well. Big Finance and the tax dodgers hate him (Panama Papers).
The Democratic base used to have some sympathies because he exposed the Cheney / Bush admin. Well, they were manipulated in 2016.
It is desheartening how easy that is.
As for the alleged hacking or Russia of the DNC server
see Bill Binney fmr. technical NSA director - funny how Corporate media * NEVER had HIM on, one would assume his expert assessment counts for something).
* Dude stood also in the way of mass surveillance and the military contractors which might be the reason not even FOX had him on.
They do not need any facts to convince their Trump loving viewership (on any issue) - and the Democratic base does not watch them, anyway. So no need to offend the military contractors and the RNC by having Bill Binney on. As no proof is needed he can add nothing of value to their claims (that Russia did not decide the election for Trump - I agree with that assessment).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As a European living in a long time Nato member state I used to know that there was such a thing as the Korean War, the Vietnam war was a little bit more familiary (although no details, reasons, the long history of U.S. and French aggression). Just that the U.S. had used agent orange, and finally had to give up - I think we have to thank the hippies and the anti war movement for that little insight.
Neither during the Cold War time nor later was there any substantial discussion in Western media of the horrors the U.S. caused in Southeast Asia (to stick it to China mainly).
The horrors of WW2, yes, plenty of that (that was an permitted topic).
I am sure there was the obscure article once in a blue moon about Vietnam or Korea, but nothing remotely critical of the U.S. and their hypocrisy that could have reached the regular citizen.
If Nuremberg trial standards would apply to U.S. politicians.
Only with the Noam Chomsky videos on youtube I got more insight , and recently former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell Larry Wilkerson told pretty much the same as Jimmy. That their paranoia is understandable considering the utter destruction by the the U.S. bombings.
(See The Real News).
The European press ever since WW2 was heavily lobbied by pro U.S. and pro Nato special interests. Many European countries were thankful for the U.S. coming in (the role of the Soviet Union in doing the heavy lifting by weakening the German army is usually underreported). And I am sure the Danish, French, and Netherland citizens were glad it was NOT the Soviet army that was coming to drive out the Wehrmacht. - That appreciation morphed seamlessly into accepting the Red Scare of the cold War. And over time the important media outlets in Europe were all massively lobbied by the thinktanks - for instance Atlantic Bridge - it shows in the bias of reporting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@winger468 Public option SETS UP THE REFORM FOR FAILURE. Sadly the U.S. citizens do not care about illegal wars and regime change for the U.S. oligarchs - only when they are long and costly. On top of the economic crisis the extra spending is felt. - If Sanders (his plan is the best - it has the ingredients to succeed) gets his Medicare For All through that would give him a LOT of political leverage - even with more right leaning citizens..
FDR got sworn in in March 1933 (last time inauguration was in March, then it was January) and immediately had to sort out the banking system 5 days banking holiday. The president explained deposit insurance on Sunday night to the nation (60 millions of 90 listening) and that the banks would open on Monday (as planned). The reform worked.
So he had a good start. Then he had to twist the arm of some Democratic politicians for the first relief measures. He threatened to campaign against them if they would not support him (that was not stated publicly but it was known anyway).
Well, they gave in (at least partially, they made sure that black people were screwed. For instance no Social Security for domestic workers).
The first bills / measures brought a tangible ! improvement in the life of the citizens. So he had not just talked a good game on the campaign trail, he meant business ?
That gave him enourmous power to CONTINUE with his policies. (and of course the united front of left parties incl. Communists and the unions. That was convincing enough for many of the oligarchs. They remembered the Russian Revolution in 1917).
The longer healthcare is neglected the more the future costs will rise (untreated diabetes. harm done to the patients AND it is going to be much more costly later). I think Sanders knows well that he cannot reform healthcare, have a green new deal, etc. ..... and have the M.I.C. sucking out the money.
A lot of the military interventions are because big biz uses the U.S. military and the CIA to reach their goals in developing countries. Koch brothers have interests in Venezuela (in case you have wondered). Bolivia has lots of Lithium. Syria - part of the reason is a pipeline, same with Afghanistan (it has also lots of mining. And is the access to India / Pakistan should there be an escalation).
In 1985mayor Sanders invited Noam Chomsky to Burlington to hold a speech. Deciphering Foreign Policy Jargon. The MIC, the media covering up for the war mongers, even pushing for war, Manufacturing Consent, etc.
Sanders then had a special interest in Latin America (Nicaragua) - the Reagan admin financed the death squads.
Not sure if Sanders still is in that place (it is possible that he holds back knowing the shark tank. He got bolder in recent time Israel, Brazil Lula, Bolivia). you can listen to that speech it is on youtube (2 parts).
Sanders will have many reasons to seek better relations with Russia (stop the nuclear race and the new cold war - that is costly).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
elijah mikle Of course ! he lost, and no wonder with that healthcare "reform" One of the principles of a cost-efficient system: do not have large for profits - especially not insurance companies, which are middlemen and paper shufflers. (so are public non-profit insurance agencies - like Medicare - but they do not maximize profits for shareholder, they serve the insured and the public good and they have very low administrative overhead - under 3 % versus over 20 % for the private insurers in the U.S.).
Other countries don't rely on private insurers - the blueprint has been successfully used for decades.
But in the U.S. it was: the for-profit insurers MUST remain dominant in the system. The donors even had their shills prevent the competition by a public agency = Public Option. Medicare only gets the most costly group of patients which they do not want for full coverage - those over 65.
All other conditions of the "reform" were secondary to the requirement (of the donors) that the insurers must be protected.
So the reform was a failure. Only the high deductibles have sugarcoated that for a time. From a statistical standpoint the plans could have NO deductibles and co-pays and they would calculate the premiums accordingly.
But then ALL would have FULL cost transparency and at the same time. When the letters go out announcing the raise: Half of the country would riot because they do not want to pay the ridiculously high prices and the other half would despair because they can't afford that kind of "coverage".
They already can't afford it. For political reasons it is solved by letting the insured take a gamble for a high amount (so the opposite of what insurance should be):
People know that they pay 10,000 per year and STILL have insufficent coverage and that they will be hit by high deductibles they cannot really afford. So they have the "insurance coverage" for the catastrophically high costs. But the cases with the not quite so high but still substantial costs (10,000, 20,000, 50,000) are more common of course - and they are still screwed.
It hits people when they are already stressed out, it hits them at different times to a varying degree. So it is either ALL know the full costs = political leverage, that could be a pitchfork moment
Or: every one is on their own = DIVIDE AND CONQUER.
That helps to diffulse the political momentum, Democratic politicians can act as if ACA would be a success (no it is a complete failure, cost control does not work, the trick with high deductibles works only so long, over time the cases become more and more where
the Public Option would have been a very distand second best to single payer and even that was killed in the beginning). Obama had sold out on the campaign trail already, got lots of money from big finance, (also see city bank mail from Oct. ! 2008 with lists of names for appointments).
They too love exploitative healthcare !
As soon as the sheeple had gotten him into the White HOuse the big donors expected from Obama that he would deflate the energy of the base.
And he delivered. A drawn out healthcare reform. There was no good reason to let the Republicans participiate in it, they had sworn right in the beginning that they would make Obama a one term president. he was not naive, the Repubs provided plausible deniability.
Voters had not become too stupid to know that midterm elections matter:
2006 and that was before the crisis broke, the Dems saw a Blue Wave coming and stacked the primaries with Wallstreet Democrats, the banksters had their shills in place when they needed them. That sensational year 2006 also explains (partially) the 1000 seats lost under Obama. people saw that the Dems were also useless for them. the shills lost their seats (no harm done, the big donors rewarded them with a cushy post).
2008 sensational Obama race, AGAIN after 2006: people wanted "Hope and Change".
By 2010 they knew they wouldn't get it. Banks and big auto were saved, people lost their homes and jobs, and the dragged out healthcare reform.
The Repubs would have fought it even more - ACA is a plan of the rightwing Heritage foundation from the 1990s to coutneract the proposal of the Clintons. They fought it because even that could be mildly successful (the one's that do think and do not only have kneejerk partisan reactions).
Single payer would have been much better and the Repubs and many Democrats could have resisted. But Single payer EXISTS in many other countries, it would have been much harder to pretend it is bad. FDR had to twist the arms of D representatives (they did not need Republicans to pass the bills of the New Deal). if the president tells the voters day in day out they could be saved, they could have healthcare but Congress does not go along.
They had 60 days in spring 2010 when they had a filibuster proof majority then they could have passed ANYTHING. (the bills just would have needed to be ready, the Dems had congress and Senate until Jan. 2011).
Obama could have explained Single payer (it is easy) and I assume a certain Independent Senator would have gladly helped to tour the country.
Obama was lucky that the Repubs attacked him on race and birt certificiate, the base rallied behind him, no questions asked.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The rents going up (in all the attractive destinations) has nothing to do with the raise of minimum wages. - it is a GLOBAL phenomen that people with more money than they can ever spend price the locals out of the "market". We have global overcapacities in industrial manufacturing - so investing in manufacturing is not an option (not compared to the volumes of money floating around in search of "investment". And interest rates for bonds etc. are low too).
The stock exchange only offers a SMALL part of the total volume of shares for sale. Most of it is KEPT by whoever holds them (and the people who want to keep the voting rights that go along with the shares).
Around 60 % of the economy in the rich countries is dominated by big biz - these companies are usually public (= traded on the stock exchange). Although that percentage is too high (monopolies - and the stock exchange helps them with mergers, fusions and take-overs) - it means that 40 % are NOT open for the quick trading but only for traditional long term and more risky investments for people who KNOW an industry and a product.
So ... the global 1 % buy up real estate like crazy. And the "developers" are happy to build for them like crazy. Often real estate that is NOT used. (Prof. richard Wolff lives in N.Y. He says it is a sport of the locals to wander through the streets and count the windows with LIGHTS on. these luxury developments need more space - and it means there is not enough space to build for the locals and if - the land will be very expensive. so people have to accept longer and longer commutes and need to live outside the city.
Also: under the rule of neoliberalism the programs for public housing have been defunded - since the 1980s, in Europe since the mid 1990s. That included the fire-sale of public housing units. Many countries live off the heritage (like Vienna, they had ambitious BROAD programs in the 1920s and again from 1950 - 1970. These are well maintained brick and mortar buildings - and still provide value and affordable housing.
And they are not only for low income people . Regular people live in them (and enjoy the affordable rent and good quality). So their is a good mix of the population, no ghettos, no pockets where crime could flourish.
In the last decades the mayors (even the allegedly "left" ones) in most cases have been siding with the investor class and the praise the luxury developments. They create jobs. Yes . - but so would affordable housing.
No doubt there are direct and indirect "rewards" for the mayors to prefer the interests of the "investors". - Joe Crowley worked with the "real" estate developers /donors (that qualified him to be the speaker of house in waiting !). He did not have much time ot attention to waste for the needs of the constituents.
And there were rogue "Democrats" in the city council of New York that caucused with the Republicans.
Which the "Democratic" mayor and governor gladly "tolerated" (and no doubt secretly encouraged. So they could continue to promote the luxury "developments" - and blame it on the Republicans.)
Affordable housing was a "fig leaf". Like luxury projects with a FEW apartments for the unwashed masses - with a SEPARATE entry of course.
Some "representatives" even ran as progressives for City Council - and sold out immediately. The Republicans and the corporate Democrats agreed on that: Real estate and construction must be profitable for the haves. So it was important, that the council did not become progressive - or they would have interrupted the cozy and lucrative schemes and demanded real estate development for the masses. The Dems had and have the majority - but enough Dems went rogue to ensure a Republican majority.
Cynthia Nixon called them out on it - so I think the rogue Dems at least officially do not caucus with the Republicans anymore - it is a shame she did not win.
The mayors of Seattle, New York, London, Sydney, San Francisco, .... could prevent the foreigners from buying up the real estate. They just could not be bothered.
New Zealand NOW (after a price spike) passed a law - only New Zealanders can BUY property. Berlin did something like that in recent years. In Austria the touristic regions have the same rules (they have had it for the longest time). Not even Austrian citizens can buy real estate in some of the beautiful destinations. (some of them are quite famous). It is like you needed to have FULL residency in Aspen or San Francisco if you want to own property there.
Now, those rules are sometimes bended. A business man from Vienna still is able to buy the cottage in winter / summer wonderland. These are communities where people know each other - so there (unlike in large cities) it can be controlled !
The neighbours of the vendor - it is a person and a local not an investment fund - and also the mayor KNOW what is going on. Or they could know. A few underhanded sales are tolerated - if they are not overdoing it, and if the new owners are at least Austrians or Germans (nearby neighbours and the majority of foreign tourists. Plus cultural ties. So they are getting a pass). The tolerance for Chinese or Saudis or Russians would be waning.
so the happy buyer has to maintain the pretense that he or she has full residency. And these houses are usually at least used as holiday homes - not as pure objects of investment and speculation. Moreover they are usually existing houses. New projects that "reek" of development for foreigners are viewed very critically. (a hotel project. If the "hotel" does not work out - as can be expected they would be "forced" to remodel the interior and sell it as holiday flats. Aint gonna happen. The locals are not stupid and usually stop such projects.
Those rules at least discourage rich "investors" from China, Saudi Arabia, the U.K. ,..... to throw around their millions and the region remains affordable for the people that LIVE and WORK there.
The mayors do have some pressure from the locals to think of the locals first.
Rich foreigners can RENT (when they come as tourists !) - and the landlords will be the locals. Tourism is firmly in the hand of the locals in Austria.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dore can stop the shouting - see my comment outside (sort for latest), that MINOR COMPLICATION (treatable ! inflammation, usually not even the hospital is needed) is blown out of proportion ! (Dr. Campell can also stop twisting his knickers). - And I cannot help but think Jimmy Dore does it for clickbait. Never mind the OTHER WRONG claims he makes - in passing - about Ivermectin. (Billions of doses yes but for the APPROVED purpose, it is a usefull drug in DEVELOPING countries, where they have major problems with parasites - water / sewage systems, hygiene). There is not ONE study that surivived peer review that shows any positive effects (there was one that triggered hope and lots of research, but it was extremely sloppy / fraudulent, and had to be retracted. It was NOT published by one of the reputable magazines, so that was the first red flag. The numbers and outcomes of this study could NOT be replicated).
It is not a safe drug when people start getting the much higher doses for animals. And in the U.S. it is de facto a drug for animals, because there are not many cases where it is prescribed correctly for humans in the approved function (fighting parasites).
People have poisoned themselves. Normally Ivermectin would not have an adverse reaction if people get the dose for humans. However: since it is hardly prescribed in the rich nations they have no mass testing of any negative interaction with drugs that are common here. Obvioulsy they did the usual tests for 30,000 or 50,000 people and it seems to be safe enough for lifestock, too.
Where they have the most experiences - in developing countries - people are not in the habit of taking certain medications. For instance blood pressure medication, or if people have diabetes. Where parasite drugs are a staple - the lifesytle disease of the rich, like high blood pressure are NOT a problem.
I would never take a drug under the motto - if it does no good, it won't hurt. Especially IF the person already takes some medications you might get unwanted adverse effects that are hard to test for.
Dore's off the cuff Ivermectin remarks are straight up DECEPTION. - I knew he was never one for nuance. Some simplisticoutrage porn can be fun - of cathartic. But he better chose the causes for outrage porn wisely. Instead he has found out that outrage porn against the Sqad and against vaccines secures him an audience and good income.
Either he does not "get" it (because he did not do his homework, and seeing how lucrative it is what he is doing, he is not planning on doing his homework) - or he has become a click baiter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@terminsane If you do not want to pay for civilization and want to be free and owe nothing to society - I suggest you go to a remote area like Alaska and live like the First Nations used to live. If you are intellectually honest that is the only way to NOT OWE society (we can neglect the benefits you received so far).
Even using metals makes you part of the "system".
needless to say no helicopter will pick you up in case of a medical emergency. And no modern medicine, communication devices or technology.
Metals used to be much more expensive before internationally diversified mass production - which you cannot have unless you organize society like we do.
incl. taxation, mandates, laws, and taking care of ALL people - cynically speaking: they are needed as consumers and / or workforce / parents of future citizens. And for that they cannot be dirt poor and illiterate.
And you cannot have modern medicine, mobile phones or science either.
btw. electronics, satellites, computers, internet, parts of mobile phones - like touchscreen - were paid for by the U.S. tax payers (under title: military funded research). - admitted at a time when tax was 80, 70, 60 % for every dollar over approx. 2,7 milion USD (in todays ! money).
I am generous in my proposal for your future truly libertarian lifestyle ;)
you will get a pass for travelling to Alaska on modern streets and by using vehicles. Although neither vehicles nor modern streets would be possible w/o our kind of civilization.
But from then on it is your independent and free thing where you do it all alone and are indebted to no one (except maybe a few friends and family).
1
-
@terminsane All the wealth you can acquire with that truly libertarian hunter / gatherer lifestyle you can keep 100 % and completely tax-free for yourself. - Of course you will have very little surplus (beyond your survival needs) if you use ONLY YOUR workforce (and maybe the few other people that would voluntarily join you).
If you cannot LEVERAGE the workforce of many people unknown to you personally, an education system, military, civil service, laws, justice system, science (present and past * ), governments, trade deal, international norms and standards **, currencies, ...
* Isaac Newton said: If I saw further it is because I stood on the shoulder of giants.
** The funny thing is: if you travel to let's say Canada you expect them to have streets, their air control be up to standards and not the gangs to roam freely. Even though you never paid any tax to that government to fund infrastructure, police and justice system. And it works the other way round for Canadians in the U.S.
You will not use the concept of money either - at the hunter / gatherer level money is not used / useful.
1
-
Yes, vaccines come from big pharma. So do antibiotics, blood pressure medication and all the stuff they use doing surgery. The large pharma companies had trials with 30,000 or 50,000 participants. I do not see how "small pharma" could pull that off. It needs a large company OR a public agency (Russia, China, Cuba) or a small company getting lots of subsidies to have the necessary budget to do it properly and in this case also FAST (startups will invariably become part of big pharma. See BionTech, got 350 millions Euro from the German government, as soon as it looked good, Pfizer teamed up with them).
One can be critical of those FINANCIAL aspects and still take the vaccine for MEDICAL reasons (the vaccine does it's job and is safe - despite the grift that is ALSO going on).
The problem with EpiPens is NOT that they are useless or not safe. They save lives !
One can be critical of big pharma and the financial aspects - and still acknowledge that it takes a large player to do the large scale testing for vaccines urgently needed to get a grip on a pandemic.
'Cause SAFETY and trust of the population.
As opposed to releasing millions of shots before you know at least how a few tenthousand volunteers fared.
You will not find the rare adverse side effect of 1 in 100,000 or 1 in half a million. But successful tests with 50,000 show that it is safe enough - also considering the negative outcomes w/o vaccination.
One death for an undiagnosed * blood clot in 100,000 or 200,000 is an acceptable risk - for THIS disease if you factor in where we would be w/o vaccines - NOW with Delta raging.
* if doctors and the recipients of vaccines are warned to err on the side of caution in the first 4 weeks after the shots the numbers could be even lower. small but increasing symptoms should be taken seriously the blood clots can be well treated IF they are diagnosed in time. blue spots on the skin. head aches, feeling dizzy, blurred vision (that should rush you at ALL times, vaccination or not).
For context:
in a first world nation approx. 1 out of 27,000 people (general population) die from a car accident EVERY YEAR. Working age population has higher risks, they drive more. So that risk is much higher and more than ONCE in your life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Peggy Kroeplin I currently live in an European country (Austria) with single payer (54 % of the spending per person compared to the U.S. so on the higher side. Spending level and quality of services are typical for a wealthy ! Europan country of any size). Your claims about waiting times do not apply. With that level of spending - around 54 % - a first world country should be able to pull off good medical service for eveyone.
The overwhelming majority of all wealthy nations (globally) spend between 49 % - 54 % of the U.S. (Germany is slightly above with 56 %) Data 2017, Kaiser Foundation, also see WHO data.
Note that the population in Europe is on average older than in the U.S. or Canada, age is a major cost driver.
Now, I have heard that some Canadian provinces have waiting times for some services - They do so at 48 or 49 % of the spending-per-person of the U.S. so a little better funding (at least HALF of the U.S.) could go a long way to fix that.
Canada has the advantage of the younger population, the disadvantage of having a lot of very remote areas. It is possible that they have more "private" in the system than is good (it ALWAYS makes things more expensive, in combination with austerity that can lead to budgets where doctors refuse to accept the contracts, so they open only "private" practices).
Those wait times in some regions of Canada (not everywhere) apply to specialists and plannable procedures - because the poorer provinces have not enough funding - and likely have higher costs to run the system in the remote areas.
I read a comment about Manitoba from someone who lives there (detailled knowledge, and nuanced comment, so plausible). Another commenter said that there is federal funding and it is supposed to help out the provinces with less revenue, but it has been hollowed out over the decades.
Every country has regions that are economic powerhouses (industry, natural resources) and others that have less economic activity and tax revenue.
If they are less densely populated (usually that is the case in the poorer regions in first world countries) it might be more expensive to offer the medical services. Norway or Sweden or Russia have the same challenge.
And the remote regions may not be so attractive for opening a practice. The graduates flock to the cities, the hip areas, and the beautiful touristic destinations. So not enough are interested in going to or returning to Manitoba for instance. If the public system cannot pay at least the rates they pay in other regions it is not helpful either.
A program to get students FROM those areas and to make them attractive offers if they open a practice there could go a long way to attract more doctors into the region. but that needs BUDGETS.
As Canada does not even spend HALF of what the U.S. spends per resident, they could fix that, and still be much, much better off than the U.S. That is a matter of political will (reduce military spending, tax the rich and profitable biz, and have sufficient funding for the commons in all of the country).
Poorer areas in any developed nation need transfer of funding, to maintain schools, infrastructure and also for the healthcare system
No one in Canada would want the U.S. system (the commenters that offered constructive critique of the Canadian system were clear about that, too). In the U.S. you also have those conditions (wait times, and the 2 class medical system is much more pronounced AND you get the high bills).
Canada performs better (life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.) and do so at less than HALF the spending per person.
In Manitoba your problem might be that it is hard to get an early appointment with a specialist. But paying out of pocket in ONE case would still be cheaper than the ongoing rip off in the U.S.
If you have to wait for a hip replacement, it sucks. (again that does not apply to all provinces).
But for normal (unplannable) hospital stays there are no wait times. And whether plannable or not, there is no bill. No one goes bankrupt.
I think the most harmful outcome is that people miss out on an early diagnosis when the specialists (not the general practicioners) have longer wait times. Or the patients avoid going to the doctor for that reason. One of the commenters had an example.
The relative did not go to the doctor , he did get imemediate treatment when he had become an "emergency" (diagnosis after his symptoms got bad and could not be ignored anymore) but he died a few months later, and his chances would have been so much better with an earlier diagnosis.
He was not worse off than many lower income Americans. But the minute he did have a diagnosis he was much better off because then he got services free at the point of delivery. He and his family were at least not burdened with high bills.
Of course the relative could have paid this time out of pocket to clear the symptoms, and could have driven to a city with more doctors etc.
If it is not easy to get an appointment fast, and free at the point of service it is a deterrent. That effect is well known. Even affluent citizens avoid going to the doctor to have (slightly) worrying symptoms cleared, that has psychological reasons.
If a person does not really want to go to the doctor (subconscious fear of a bad diagnosis while hoping "it is nothing, it will go away, or it is only old age ....") and it is a hassle on top of it (time, money, effort to drive to a doctor), they often end up NOT going until the symptoms become worse.
I know of a case of diagnosis-avoidcance here in Austria, an elderly woman (near 80) not feeling well and not quite like her healthy, active self for months - but she avoided going to the doctor. It was cancer and she died of it after 2 years despite getting 2 rounds of treatment, surgery etc.
She was irritated (scared) by becoming weaker but did not check it out. The symptoms were generic, weakness, no appetite, but no specific pain. Had nothing to do with money or access to doctors, she was wealthy and lived in the capital. Of course because of her advanced age there was hope that it would grow slowly, that the treatment could fix her.
But if you factor in that natural hesistance of folks to go to the doctor - longer wait times or the need to fork out money (when people are used to getting services free at the point of delivery) are not helpful to get people early to the doctor "just in case".
1
-
1
-
1
-
@atomicsmith The new law "fixes" that. The state can now OVERRULE the local election boards. Which can easily be Republican, does not matter: At that level (of little power !) it seems they had more decency - see Nov. 2020.
Board members D or R likely know each other in person, and have no other "important" office, so they would not agree to in your face, blatant manipulation of the voter rolls.
The rewards for cheating are not as high, so decency and common sense prevails. And social pressure works.
An individual report of one citizen against one registration would be handled, but not mass "accusations" (with no indidviudal backup of the claims - of course not for 250,000 people) by a think tank.
So that attempt failed - in Nov. 2020 ! I guess the high ranking Republicans of Georgia did not necessarily expect it to work - but why not give it a try. It was a test balloon and now they take it to the next level.
The state decides what is credible and plausible (the bucket used to stop in many cases with local election boards), and the state decides if the local authorities are even allowed to judge the plausibility of such accusations (resp. if the local boards can dismiss them as exaggerated, baseless, and unqualified).
The voters whose registration would be challenged by a right wing think tank would be notified * with a mailer and then have a COURT HEARING, to defend their registration. Yep, I can see how low income people will line up for that buraucraZy. For the privilege to wait hours in line to be able to cast a vote.
They already send "notifications" when they do the generic mailers (did not vote in 2 consecutive elections). That pretext for purges has become harder to pull off because the Democrats just had a voter registration drive and increased their turnout.
Greg Palast reported in 2018 how they do these "notifications" that a person is about to be purged under the assumption that they have moved (did not vote recently)..
The state sent an inconspicious mailer to the person that allegedly should not be on the voter rolls. (they have to, no doubt there was a lawsuit about that, too, else they would just purge folks).
The mailer is printed on paper that they have only ONE source for: that paper quality more often leads to the postal sorting machines making errors.
- there is a reason that paper quality is not sold but by one source anymore. No one in their right mind wants to use it (if they WANT the mailer to arrive and in time, that is).
Plus the trick to place the address very close to the margin of the place designated for the address. If you place it well into the middle - as a marketer would do, there is some margin of error for the sorting machine. If they place the address just to the margin in improves the chances that the sorting machines will have a problem, and at least there will be a delay. (For instance the mailer only arrives with "no, keep me on" AFTER they have already done the purge. I am sure Republicans could arrange for the error to never getting round to undo that.
A company / NGO / political party that sends out a sales / fundraising / information mailer WANTS it to be noticed. The design grabs attention. If it is important it will show on the envelope (like an extra text outside. Important voter information). The adress and paper quality would of course be one that is known to be well handled even by postal sorting machines that have been used for a few years.
.
Only if the voter returns the mailer with "No, I still live here, keep me on the voter rolls" the purge can be prevented.
If the message never arrives,
if the message is not noticed as relevant and thrown out unopened like other advertising material,
if the return envelope is sorted out or DELAYED until after the election (because of paper quality that is a bad fit for postal sorting machines espcecially if they have been in use for a few years)
..... That could reduce the D votes margin (NET after the Republican voters that also get caught up by the web) by 0.1 %.
That is not bad 0.1 % here, 0.1 % there with the other measures ... it adds up.
Stacy Abrams had 50,000 votes less in 2018, Joe Biden won by 12,000 votes (and likely the many more votes for Jo Jorgensen helped him ). The margin of Ossof and Warnock in the Jan. 2021 runoff was better, but especially Senator Warnock got 51.04 % over Loeffler's 48.96 % And HE had a special race and is up for reelection in Nov. 2022.
Of course they can target certain income areas. That is easy, commercial marketers do it all the time. If they let a RELIABLE, DISCREET contractor SELECT WHICH OF the voters (that have not voted in 2 consecutive elections) are up for a purge, of course they can selectively only target people that did not vote recently AND are likely to be D voters.
That is not hard to do, it is essentially zip code and street, (and the software code can be easily altered after the selection, no one will be able to PROVE that they used that additional criteria. The contractor could even keep that for inspection in case a disclosure would be needed - not publicly but in a closed investigation).
But even if they purge everyone that missed out 2 elections and do not discriminate - white, older,higher incompe people are more likley to vote consistently. But they certainly can improve the NET result, by keeping the more affluent voters, that sat out the last electins, on the voter rolls.
the U.S. is so segregated by income, that is an excellent proxy for voting preferences and also turnout. Also: the marketers likely also have more specific data on race. It does not matter if they catch also potential Republican voters, as long as they catch many more potential Democrats.
A contractor can claim proprietary code and knowledge, they are not subject to FOIA requests. IF the state even would have to agree to a reenactement of the purges they would likely find out that some people that also did not vote in the last 2 elections were not identified as targets for a purge.
Oh, well .... the contractors made a "mistake". If no coders leak (which means they admit to a crime and I am not sure if they would be charged by the STATE or the feds) it will be hard to prove in a court of law that the state of Georgia used a contractor to TARGET certain demographics for a purge. That would be illegal.
The optics could be bad - if there even is a leak. But Republicans do not care about optics. Their base does not punish them, and they also do not mind having power when half the United States thinks they cheated and stole an election..
Did not hinder Kemp in 2018, did not hinder GWB in 2000.
The Republicans acquitted Trump in Feb 2021.
They do not care -
At. All.
as long as they legally get the power.
1
-
1
-
@atomicsmith The GA Republican have diligently, consistently and creatively worked on death-by-a -thousand-cut strategies to suppress the vote of low income people (especially minorities) for decades. They could teach Florida a lesson.
They have lost countless court cases (paid for by government so they do not mind. At all. ). if possible they repeat what a court just struck down, try again, or try it again with a slight variation.
Example:
The rule of exact match was struck down by a court, undue burden on legitimate voters to prevent an unlikely event. Even if one hyphen is different in the driver's licence or SS data versus birth certificate, that means the voter registration will NOT be processed - not when Kemp and his cronies can prevent that.
They obeyed the court order - that time - and proceeded to make it a law.
In 2018 Kemp had 50,000 or 70,000 new voter registration pending because of the small errors that pop up because of exact match laws.
What are the odds - if a person has a birth date, SS data
a) some civil servant made a slight mistake * This is a harmless deviation, and the person has other documents like driver's licence ... They are who they claim to be
* such mistakes haunt a lot of middle aged or older voters in the South. I guess back in the day civil servants did not pay a lot of attention to the details, ESPECIALLY not for a black baby born at home. (I am not sure how the birth certificates were issued then, but the proceedings were often less meticulous and professional than for a child born in a hospital. A birth certificate issued at a time when black people could not vote in the South anyway.
b) a person IMPERSONATES another person (who happens to have the same birth date !) and their names only differ by a hyhen, or the middle name is abbreviated in more recent documents and in the long form in the birth certificate.
The goal of the criminal energy is TO CAST A VOTE UNDER THE NAME OF SOMEONE ELSE.
Kemp in 2018 (in a race where he run and Stacy Abrams gave him a good run for his money:
We totally will deny 50,000 - 70,000 people that have recently registered, the chance to vote to avoid that extremely rare event of voter impersonation (I do not know of ANY such cases). If you do not pretend you want to prevent that "exact match" laws make no sense.
The event were all details would need to align plausibly, and a person
stupid enough to try that would need to find a person with a close
enough name AND the same birth date to pull that off. (Or else be excellent in providing forged documents. I can see that people do that - for FINANICAL gain. The mob likely can create a good alternativie identity and back that up by legal documents - but they would not waste that costly effort on getting one vote more.
Even the CIA uses such personas sparingly. - a CIA officer commented on the first Jason Bourne film (how realistic was that from the point of view a a real spook). The scene where he goes to a Swiss bank and finds a suitcase with a weapon and several passports. She said: That is not how it works, passports are not just lying around as reserve).
The court said: no, you are not doing that. I think the voters were promised they could at least cast a "provisional ballot" (Greg Palast calls them placebo ballots because they are almost never counted). And the court decision was so short before the election that they were advised to have extra paperwork with them, when voting.
I know of a few cases where people were prosecuted for trying to register to vote (which may have been innocent mistakes). And a few where people tried to vote double (typically some Trump suporters who then knew full well they were cheating. They believed the lies how the Dems do it all the time and how easy it is - so the fools tried to do it and faceplanted. The woman from Iowa from 2016 was lucky. 2 years probation and 750 USD fine. While a woman in Texas faces 5 years prison for an innocent mistake.
But I do not know of any case where a person pretended to be someone else, came up with data and documentation, cheated to get a voter registration.
a lot of effort, hassle, need to forge documents, need to KNOW the exact data of a legitimate voters
meets risk to be found out and be criminally prosectued
meets no reward. At best one vote more for a prefered party, or candidate.
139 million votes were cast in Nov. 2016 and 160 millions in Nov. 2020. it is possible that there are a FEW idiots that remain undetected. Chances are they are not very clever about it and will be found out - because a smart person with the ability to preserve their rational self interest would not try it in the first place.
Many of the "voter fraud" cases in the statistics could be easily innocent mistakes. A woman in TX has her case reviewed, else it is 5 years prison. She was in jail for tax fraud, and after release she went voting to her usual place.
In TX ex felons CAN vote and she know as much. However: she was on probation and THEN she is not eligible to vote.
Which she did not know, and when prepared for their return to civilian society no one told them. She went to the polling station, they said, your name is not on the list. Which she could not explain to herself, when she was about to leave the clerk suggested she could fill out a provisional ballot. That was her undoing, she filled it out (but did not mention she had been in jail - likely did not want to talk about it).
provisional ballots are checked and that is how they found out that she was not eligible. So the provisional ballot was thrown out - and the AG started a criminal prosecution. That is weird because the law of Texas says you must have knowledge and intentionally cheat and it is quite plausible that it was an innocent mistake.
I leave it to you to determine which was the white and which was the black woman.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually Maduro WAS elected and probably it was even a legit. They excluded one guy from running (not sure maybe he was involved in the U.S. backed coup attempt against Chavez in 2002 or 2003 *, or if he was accused / tried for corruption. - If it was legit to exclude him from running there was no rigging at all.
Anyway: Bolsenaro for sure rigged the election by orchestrating that Lula was put to prison in a sham trial about alleged corruption. If Lula would have been able to run he had a legit shot at winning. So the Brazilian election was at the minimum as much rigged as that in VZ.
In VZ the U.S. government encouraged the opposition to refuse to run against Maduro they planned to declare it illegitimate. Well, one broke ranks (his party expelled him, and the U.S. was likely not pleased because he spoiled the narrative) so the people of VZ did have an alternative.
Maduro won and even though turnout was not good it was somewhere between 50 and 60 % and he had a very good result among thosee that did turn out (his base).
Since then they have voted for the assembly and the party of Maduro has won that election.
* A coup when it was clear Chavez was duly elected, VERY popular and the economy then doing very well because oil revenue was good. The plotters got leniency (house arrest) etc. They have a history of coups, and getting the military on board is a must for every gov. there. Chavez back in the day also tried a coup (which then was the oligarchy).
The plotters obviously did not dare to kil the president, the masses took it to the streets and they released him after 2 days I think. I guess the military top brass has good connections with the rich people that tried to pull off the coup, so they solved that quite amicably. But they had to confess their connections, that was quite embarrasing for the U.S. and Cheney / Bush left VZ alone and moved on to ruine the Middle East.
** As for the sham trial against Lula (Conviction overturned in March 2021, he had been released months ago, and now he can run against Bolsenaro - he better get very good protection)
They had no evidence and it did not even make sense (it was about an apartment purchase). One person testified and got a prison sentence commuted for it.
They had no plausible case. Lula thinking about buying a relativey modest apartment, the owner of the home was willing to add an escalator for the honor of having the former president in the house. I think he never bought the apartment anyway.
Not sure if that elevator would have served all residents. Lula was not president anymore at that time. The price was not very high - but it was not an exclusive location or a luxury object. Journalists were not allowed to visit the apartment for the longest time, so they could not see and document how modest the base for the alleged corruption case was. Then it came out (when Lula was already in prison) that the prosecutor and the judge had colluded (strategy in the trial) and then one of them got a cabinet position under Bolsenaro.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PlateletRichGel Now many citizens idolize Reagan. Mainstream media (including the so called liberal media) painstakingly avoids mentioning the Iran Contra affair when they mention Reagan. If it wasn't for the internet the younger generations would not even know it had happened. It could not be kept out of the public eye when the scandal broke, the press in Europe, Canada, Australia ... wrote about it as well. Washington Post, New York Times could not avoid reporting on it when it was headline news in other countries.
(the Dems were lenient on Reagan, his testimony was a joke, - no doubt the Republicans knew something about the Dems as well).
Some U.S. journalists used the unusual opening and squeezed in some stories that would not have been allowed to be published in less scandalous times. Noam Chomsky mentions the New York Times, and that some of the journalists took advantage of the few months where they enjoyed more freedom to write what was really going on. Knowing full well that that window of opportunity would close soon.
The liberal media is accused of being left - nothing could be further from the truth. They are indirect war profiteers (ratings, they get ads !! from military contractors. In case you have ever wondered why Boeing places ads - when was the last time a consumer bought a civilian airplane or some military equipment from Boeing ? The ads are not aired to convince consumers to buy something, they are a bribe for the network to be pro-war and pro regime change.
The 6 networks that dominate the scene (incl. Fox that is mostly neo con) like neoliberalism, WAR, military spending, they like "free" "trade" deals that pit the workforce of wealthy and poor countries against each other. They definitely like the insane amounts of money that is spent during elections - they get a lot of it in form of campaign ads.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why do the oligarchs and their politicians not give the people UBI or Medicare for All ? (fed creates the trillions with a few keystrokes, started on March 12, with 1,5 TRILLION as QE, they could create the money for that as well). It would expose and dismantle decades worth of propaganda.
The feudal authoritarian rulers in formers times had the military, but it was better that the peasant would resign themselves to their lot, it is disruptive having to deal with riots and resentment all the time (people still being obedient - but they do not ACCEPT it and JUST WAIT for their CHANCE to hit back. Mind control is better, and organized religion was helpful in ALL societies with that).
The narrative back in the day: it was god that had made society that way (of course ! there needed to be a king as leader, someone had to do it, and he or she had their absolute power because god wanted that. Now affluent educated citizens tend to get uppity, so they got a parliament in Britian and also in the Netherlands, where rich merchants carved out their niche against the aristorcracy.
But these were instruments for the wealthy to share power. The British parliament did not mean they had democracy.
The New American Republic wasn't a democracy either, the 1 % of the colony had seceded from the 1 % of the British Empire (with the help of the French monarch, who had absolute power).
Back to the propaganda back in the day:
Of course there were few rich people and they INHERITED their privileges. Of course most people were poor. There was just not enough to go around for everyone, and god had created society that way, that most people were poor or just getting by.
Law of _god_. - That propaganda does not work anymore, "god" was replaced by neoliberal doctrin and thought stopping economic clichés.
Now the "free market" competition, the GDP, Wallstreet is worshipped. No one questions if and how these condepts, and legal constructions function. What they deliver - or not.
(no we do not even need a stock exchange, there is little value for an economy in having them, and in reality the stock exchange has always been a playground for the rich to increase their fortunes, w/o the hassle of real entrepreneurship, but with specualtion and exploiting (and creating) shortages.
There have been huge speculative bubbles on ALL large stock exchanges throughout the CENTURIES. The little advantage a stock exchanges offers an economy (funding for start ups) is undone by the toxic influence.
Germany did have a stock exchange after WW2, it was a LAME affair. Germany afte WW2 was rebuilt with bank loans and government investement, not with companies being financed by rich people who later launced a part of their shares for public trading.
Start-ups could be funded differently. and high risk endeveours that include basic research and new technology ALWAY get a lot of subsidies anyway.
Pharma, electronics, touchscreen technology for smartphones, - twitter is not groundbreaking technology, it is USE of exisiting technology. Uber is a car pool. Amazon ships goods. They change our way of life. But this is not the same as graphene technology, new battery technology, new drugs - that is unchartered territory, and there is always a lot of government funding involved.
The ruling class in the U.S. went to work right after WW2 and after FDR and his progressive VP Wallace were out of the way. (laws kneecapping unions Taft-Hartely AND the Red Scare to get rid of the left parties and movement leaders IN the U.S. that had given FDR the leverage to push for the New Deal).
There was not that much they could do in the U.S. besides eliminating all left movements and leaders. Not to control the workers - and not YET the unions:
Outsourcing wasn't possible then, the economy was booming and for making the profits they needed the workforce. High employment rate THEN meant good wages (average hourly wages doubled - I mean the value adjusted for inflation = purchasing power between 1947 and 1970. The workers then got a large chunk, not all, of productivity wins).
Workers had been getting ideas throughout the FDR admin. (1933 - 1945) At least the rhetoric was fairly to the left regarding economics. So it was hard to convince them of the contrary at that time, that came in the 1970s, and especially from the 1980s on.
So for 30 years the U.S. ruling class was forced to give the U.S. population something (actually a good slice of the pie, at least white people).
The U.S. population become middle classy, complacent, and gladly accepted that other nations were raped by the U.S. oligarchs (fear of "communism" taking over in Latin America and Asia was the pretext for imperialism, so the Red Scare was useful for corporate interests in and outside the U.S.). They could leverage the power of the U.S. military and intel agencies, diplomacy and economic and real war.
The U.S. citizens by and large did not care - never thinking that a mindset of the ruling class (incl. the political elites) that unleashes that onto poor brown people in developing countries on a whim and for profit - would eventually also turn on them.
The crises of the 1970s (oil price spikes) were used to villify the unions - the last left strong movement standing.
From the 1980s on it was a BIG and OPEN propaganda operation for neoliberalism. That was harder to pull off in the 1950s and 1960s, the people that had lived through the Great Depression, voted for FDR and hoped for relief were alive and active voters. FDR had been VERY popular it was hard to slam him and his policies back in the day.
NOW they are doing a rewrite of economic history.
FDR - with all he got wrong and screwed up - at least tried to deliver good governance.
It is true that the united left parties, unions. movements pushed him - and he COULD be nudged / pushed, he was not hostile towards the needs of workers, w/o the needed votes of the Dixiecrats the deal would have been batter for the minorities.
The movements did not need to drag him (but enough divide and conquer was going on to pit white agains black workers). H came up with ideas and plans on his own (listening to unorthodox advisors, for instance Keynes). It was not like he screwed the constituents evey chance he got, every time the voters did not pay close attention, and monitor every detail of every bill (expecting they would sneak something into it).
And FDR was willing to kick some behinds. Like today Democratic politicians were the problem, they had the presidency, Congress and Senate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marklolwins Jill Stein offered her ticket place to Sanders. Sure I gues she would have liked a cabinet post, but I think she wanted the MOVEMENT to win, the ideas to get realized. Warren can run like any other ambitious self-serving status quo politician.
However, she poses as "progressive" talks about the necessity of Big Structural Change and her desire to fight corruption.
These are major exercises in double think.
- I think many people that liked Sanders (and before she showed her colors also Warren) bought her claim that she was an ally (a weak one at times but an ally no less).
Well an ally would of course look at more than her narrow interest.
She did not run in 2015 when fans and Sanders nuged her. In 2019 she DID run (when she should have stayed out) knowing that HE was a once in a lifetime candidate versus the usual bunch of neoliberals.
Some are worse sellouts than others, but in the end all of them beholden to big donors and fearful to offend the establishment. Plus the few billionaires.
(Williamson, Yang, Gabbard may be the exception and ran campaigns to raise awareness - that is how Sanders planned his small dollar campaign with an initial budget of 30 million dollars).
Now in the beginning that may have been a campaign to get the message out and to get more name recognition. By participating in the debates (Yang, Gabbard, Williamson - Mike Gravel was also cheated out of his place in the debates).
But at this point she knows she helps Biden. maybe, likely - she is O.K. with that. Or it is even very intentional ad the price for her getting a VP post or a cabinet post.
The thing with calling yourself progressive: you should mean what you say. Like "big structural change" - Biden is anything but.
Sanders is - and unlike her he has a chance to win nomination and against Trump, too.
So what does Warren do ? Everything to help Biden (even if that is not intentionally she must see at this point that is the effect if she stays in, and she should have dropped out before Supertuesday IF she would care about the movement. Considering that the other candidates were ordered / bribed to drop out to help Biden).
Also: she started to stab Sanders in the back since January. Puls: misrepresenting his healthcare bill . "He has some good ideas ..." - no he has the better plan, which is not hard. he did not try to reinvent the wheel, he and Pramila Jaypal followed the blueprint of 70 years 4 continents almost all wealthy countries (not Switzerland the rely on privae insurers and pay a hefty surcharge for that).
The overwhelming majority of those wealthy nations with single payer pay between 49 and 54 % of what the U.S. spends per person.
he single handedly changed the national discussion on healthcare. While Warren sat at the sidelines agnling for a VP post in a Clinton admin.
She has terrible political instincts on top of that all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sarawallace7579 A lot of automation and also immigration was going on after WW2 (the Golden Era lasting approx 30 years in the U.S., a little longer in Continental Europe and their decline was not as sharp). THEN migration and automation was not bad for the regular people (incl. migrants).
Not in the U.S., or Europe, Canada, Australia, ....
And for the economy it does not matter what race / ethnicity the migrant has. the U.S. had to allow in more people of non-European descent ! They were doing fine at home in the 1960s, 1970s, ... and did not flock to the U.S. in masses.
For the same reasons Canadians do not work in large numbers in the U.S. Good jobs come with visas the employers do not risk it, a young person posing as tourist does not necessarily intend to STAY in the U.S. If they are white they do not stand out and are assumed to have a Green Card - and likely they are not the high numbers of LONGTIME migrants.
I know of an illegal au-pair that overstayed her tourist visa and lived 2 - 3 years in the U.S., she and her family really liked the arrangment, I think they treated her like a daughter. They tried the student visa approach. Eventually she returned home - into a wealthy and safe first world country and a family to help her out. Even if she had been found out and deported, for her it would have been an annoyance, not a catastrophe.
Pro working people policies (good wages, jobs creation triggered by government investment, also public housing) made sure the net gains of migration to the "economy" went into the pockets of regular people (for the most part). se below **
1
-
@sarawallace7579 Automation financed good wages for all (it helped a lot). The federal minimum wage (so also in poor states !) peaked in 1968 regaringpurchasing power. 50 years later and ONLY adjusted for inflation it would be over 10 USD - in 2018 dollars. See EPI website.
The inadequate federal minimum wage has stalled at 7.25 since 2009 (lost 15 % purchasing power). And there has been so much in terms of productivity wins since 1968 - that could finance much more than only the level of purchasing power of 1968 (only compensating for inflation lands you at over 10 USD).
The policy that workers got the LION'S SHARE of productivity gains in form of better wages, minimum and higher manufacturing and for the white collars, too (real wages = more AFTER inflation !) was abandoned.
In the 1970s the oil price hikes brought global economic problems, and the oligarchs used it to hit back against New Deal policies. And then came Reagan and Thatcher and appealed to selfishness of those who had done well because of New Deal policies in the last 30 years and convinced them they did not need these policies (or unions) anymore.
FDR was PUSHED by the united left and unions to do something. To his credit he was willing to listen, he saw the pitchforks coming, they did not have to drag him every step like today's sellout politicians.
Once he got going he seemed to like the role of benefactor of the desperate masses and became a traitor to his own class, the rich. So he surrounded himself with "unorthodox" advisors (the established ones had been asleep at the wheel before 1929, and were useless to help solve the crisis between 1929 and 1933 - so he disregarded them).
FDR and his cabinet came up with ideas or picked up suggestions by unions and left parties, and they tried out (and abandoned or tweeked them if necessary). FDR also fought and twisted arms - of Democrats. No bipartisan crap, of course Republicans would not vote with them. they did not need them, they had the majorities to get things done - and FDR meant business.
1
-
1
-
@sarawallace7579 People may have cultural issues with migration, or object to it that they are funnelled (like the rest of the working population) to hot, arid states that are in for more draughts, wildfires, and devastating storms.
But the economics is clear: Migration is a net benefit, and THEY are not the reason the U.S. healthcare system is so much more cost inefficient.
Nor is migration always a tool to suppress wages. it CAN be and certainly has been used to a degree for that - like automation. But that is only because those that have the vote have allwed themselves to be duped by Reagonomics.
Of course if a country has so much immigration like the U.S. - they would need to make provisions for that.
The U.S. has been messing with Latin America for 150 years with regime change wars and coups, death squads, helping their cartells, and helping their oligarchs to stay in power ! The American working class had to fight a fierce battle against American oligarchs and suffered brutal backlash (1921 Battle of Blait Mountain. Coal Wars. Carnegie the steel "philantropist" - did not hinder him to hire the mob to crush unions).
In Latin America they had all of that AND a superpower helping their oligarchs. See highly decorated marine Smedley Butler: His quote "I was a gangster for Capitalism .... " lists the regime change wars, many of them in Latin America (and Asia). Also see his booklet: War is A Racket, it is online as pdf.
THAT is the reason they do not get ahead, else Mexico, Brazil, Honduras, Ecauador, Guatemala, ... could be like Canada, or almost like that, and there would be no problem. The U.S. oligarchs ruthlessly undermined their self determination to promote their business interests. Cheney Bush tried a coup in Venezuela when Chavez was immensely popular (2002 or 2003). The plotters realized they did not even have the full support of the army, the masses took it to the streets, and rank and file soldiers would not go against them - so they released the kidnapped president after 1 or 2 days.
Oil revenue was good, Chavez spent it on the poor population, and they helped out other poor nations in South America. If you are to the right - you like that, if it works for them in the home countries or they take in people ... they are not coming to the U.S.
Koch Brothers have interests in VZ, and Trump again was willing to do their bidding. coup attempts and attempted drone attacks on Maduro, or economic warfare (crippling sanctions) did not work (but many Venezolans were admitted into the U.S. the affluent and educated ones, that will compete for white collar jobs). Thankfully Putin convinced Trump that open war against VZ was a terrible idea - never mind completely illegal, but when has that ever stopped the U.S. war hawks and looters.
If the president has no clue, serves big biz (incl. his own) and surrounds himself with chicken hawks and morons like Bolton and Pompeo ... getting and following advice from Vladimir Putin is a good second best. At least he is no idiot, and has a long term view on international relations.
Helpfull New Deal policies that made migration a net gain for regular people:
Public affordable quality housing for all.NOT helping companies to outsource. A lot of manufacturing in more rural areas was lost, that means people have to move away from there.
Good healthcare for all would complement that. Indeed Roosevelt (Teddy !) already considered getting such a system, following the lead of Germany (1873 / 1874 Welfare and Healthcare reform).
The U.S. has the vast area - why not use it, and promote regions that are NOT prone to draughts, and hurricanes, or are just waiting for a big earthquake (like California).
Most of migrants are PRODUCTIVE and working age = do not need much services on average. Or soon working age and children also do not cause much spending on average.
Spending increases disproportionally with age.
1
-
1
-
@sarawallace7579 I read that a cesarian with no complications can "cost" up to 30,000 USD in the U.S. (or to be precise that is the BILL) - and around 10,000 in all other first world countries (in that range).
A normal birth can cost a person in the U.S. up to 10,000 USD (free at the point of services in other nations and rest assured that no public insurance agency pays 10,000 USD for a birth with no complications).
10,000 USD For what ? O.K. - could be up to 24 hours of labor and midwife, nurses and doctors have to stop by regularily. (but it is not like a medical team is only devoting their time to that one woman and for 24 hours ! They check in on her and then let nature progress.
If it lasts much longer it is not a normal birth (w/o complicatons).
Some minor services. Stitches, showing a new mother how to care for the baby or lactation information (so she will be able to breastfeed).
Maybe the mother has to recover, and is weak and needs a little more assistance by nurses the first days. Then she occupies the bed for a few days, often mothers prefer to have the child IN the room 24/7, so she will take care of it already.
WHAT would cost 10k in that scenario ? It is not like she needed a surgery team dedicated to her alone for hours on end and the surgery theater prepared for her.
Modern medicine is highly standardized and services around it (like insurance coverage, but also setting up a hospital) are a good fit for blueprints, protocols, routines.
They have figured out ways to run hospitals in the U.K. Japan, New Zealand, Canada ... and there is not much difference how they do that. There is an international blueprint so to speak.
No creativity needed, it is more like a clockwork.
There is no good reason for a cesarian in the U.S. to cost up to three times more than in Germany or Japan. Well - it does not cost more if you think about the real deal - the MEDICAL services and what lean admin would be necessary to keep them organized.
The BILL in the U.S. is so much higher - not the NECESSARY COSTS in order to be able to provide medical services
It is an extraction racket with an insane buraucraZy (needed to maximize profits, and the bean counters and denial departments that are necessary t ocircumvent the laws that are supposed to protect the insured and patients.
you cannot blame that racket on migrants (legal or undocumented). Those people cannot vote, so unlike the CITIZENS they cannot even kick some behinds.
1
-
1
-
part 1 of 2 Moral leadership ?? Syria ? Libya ? Haiti ? Honduras ? - Never mind that Washington was buzzing with rumours in 2002/2003 - OF COURSE the Clintons knew that the Cheney / Bush admin was hell bent on having war with Iraq and was leaning heavily on the CIA to provide fitting "evidence" resp. They KNEW that the admin retaliated fiercly against anyone questioning the narrative.
Ask the media people fired then in the U.S. or U.K. (Chris Hedges, Phil Donahue, Pierce Morgan of the Mirror, or some of the BBC higher management, or Afshin Rattansi from BBC - who is now with RT). Bill had his security clearance - but even w/o it - he could know. The UN weapons inspectors knew, ambassador Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame knew.
The Clintons did not embarras the new admin. The then Senator of New York figured out she had nothing to lose - no family in the military, it could cost her ratings at least in the short term (she wanted to run for president and wanted to be perceived as hawkish).
If the unjustified war did NOT go well - well she had not started it, so she could avoid all blame (or so she thought). And she LIKES war - it is a like a game of chess to her. So why would SHE use her influence, and maybe pay a political price, to prop of the movement that wanted diplomacy and wanted MORE TIME. it was neither easy, nor lucrative, the people doing the polling for her did not think it was a beneficial move.
Being against an unnecessary and totally avoidable war could cost her - if only trouble to explain her position. Her donors liked the war, too.
Cheney / Bush did only what Clinton did to Yugoslavia ( war based on a lie *) - only this time the war was against a much larger and more capable nation and in a critical region. As Hillary's war against Lybia was based on a lie as well (the government troops allegedly had mass rapings with help of Viagra).
* after 1 or 2 years after the months of bombing against Serbia (killing a lot of civilians) German publicly financed TV came up with a documentary: It started with a lie. - see next comment (part 2 of 2)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slamandjam2 The NHS makes it possible to have record setting low spending per person in a first world country - the U.K. has 42 % of the spending per person of the U.S. (and most of that is spent via the NHS. - Other wealthy nations have 50 - 54 % (the usual range) with outliers between 47 to 56 %. The base for that comparsion is the U.S. with USD 10,260 for every person on average - in 2017. -
THAT low budget (for the NHS) explains why there is INCREASING need to have supplemental insurance in the U.K. and people would rather go to private doctors.
And it highlights how allowing a lot of "private for-profit" fucks up a system - see the U.S. The Swiss rely only on private insurers. They have universal coverage (everyone must have insurance, and the Kantons = like states in the U.S. help low-income citizens).
Regulation does not work regarding costs in Switzerland - but it protects the insured / patients in other regards: no kicking out by the insurers, the government sets the minimum coverage of a basic package, and they insurers must offer that basic package at the same price for ALL in the same age group.
That means they cannot discriminate against insured with pre-existing conditions and they cannot refuse to accept someone for insurance. They cannot chose their clients by making prohibitively high offers to those they do not want - not when it comes to the basic package.
Services are good, the Swiss have higher costs of living, that means higher wages, they pay staff well - but that does not explain the difference of 22 % to wealthy neighbour Germany: 56 % (high for an European country) versus the Swiss which have 78 % of U.S. spending per person.
Also: in Germany the average age is higher, age is a major driver of spending.
So that is what regulation in a country with a very strong culture of basis democracy (referendum culture) can get you. Good care, the insurers cannot mess with the insured / patients - but they pay a steep surcharge for that.
back to the U.S.
the Tories intentionally pushed the NHS to the brink in order to "justify" a privatizaion. (hard to argue for that if the non-profit system runs like a charm on a lean budget).
Plus the NHS has never covered dental - not even basic.
Dental is expensive in the U.K. (go figure !). If the one powerful negotiator (a public non-profit insurance agency in a single payer nation - or in the U.K. the NHS) does not negotiate on behalf of the patients the dentists do demand higher rates. Why ? Because they can !
"Private for -profit" does hardly ever add to the quality when it comes to doctors. Having acceptable waiting times is not quality - for that only the single payer agency must have enough budgets, to make it interesting for enough doctors to have enough practices which are spread out over the country.
Maybe private is better if the doctor is a capacity. Or they have non-traditional treatments like accupuncture. What I notice (I live in Austria) - doctors are not allowed to advertise, marketing for everything related to medicien is either restricted or outlawed.
So if they do not get the patients thanks to being open to the "publicly insured" they rely on the patients that FIND them and are willing to pay out of pocket (or have supplemental insurance that might cover the extra). They depend on word of mouth. That requires a good track record.
There are enough doctors with a contract with the public insurance ageny available. So even the "private only" doctors tend to offer their services at affordable rates (real capacities may handle that differently).
it is not possible in a cost efficient system to have private hospitals. (except the small units for the international oligarchs in London or Paris. If they need the big medical stuff they invariably land in the hospitals that are open to the publicly insured).
With insurers (paper shufflers) private for-profit adds NOTHING and always costs more.
Back to the NHS: if a system with a lean budget THEN is defunded over the course of of 10 years (finally, finally ! the Tories thought they could attack it under cover of "austerity") it starts showing. Citizens who can afford it are practically pressured to have supplemental insurance to get good quality services.
Which the NHS could easily provide - in the same quality and at lower costs - if they were given SUFFICIENT funding.
1
-
It's not more than a lame talking point. If they hope that 17 "younger" people are running (which all would need corporate chash to gain some name recognition) so they can drown out progressives dangerous for the status quo - they haven't been paying attention to the last Republican primaries. The guy with the (fake) populist message outdid all the well funded well established names.
Sanders would have won in 2016, and he would have a very good chance in 2020 (that is if he doesn't happen to get shot or be killed otherwise).
I was surprised by something that Larry Wilkerson Chief of Staff to Colin Powell said in a video in spring 2017
Obama might have risked being assassinated if he had chosen an anti-war, anti deep state stance.
* Wilkerson: ...If I call President Obama for anything, it was his timidity, and his lack of courage. His lack of courage with respect to politics, and his lack of courage with respect to particularly his last three years in office. Where I know from talking with him personally, talking with him in the Roosevelt Room, that he understood. He said [to me] there was a bias in this town towards war, with his Secretary of State sitting beside him. He said quote : "There's a bias in this town towards war" unquote. Well, he went on for another 20 minutes to elaborate on that. Well, Mr. President if you knew that - why didn't you start doing something about it ? I mean, he could have done a lot more, if he'd had the political courage to do it ..... I think it's because, first you get trapped in that environment, and you want to make lots of money, and you wanna be very happy, and you wanna be very satisfied when you leave that office, especially if you're as young as he is. And you realize that if you start these fights, if you start these battles, not only might you be assassinated, you're probably going to leave without anything like the dignity, and the honor, and the emoluments, and the fortune that he left with. And I don't say that lightly, that's a very difficult decision to make, when you stand up for principle, when you stand up for the country, when you are a true patriot, you usually are punished, not rewarded. * It is in the 2nd half of the interview mor to the end - see the full transcript below
- Wilkerson: Practically Everyone Opposes Trump's Reversal of Obama's Cuba Opening www(dot)youtube.(dot)com/watch?v=eMO4o5nRGQs&t=0s - a complete transcript is in the comment section
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ R.a. Only in the SWING STATES it would in theory make sense to manipulate either the mail ballots or the machines. In those states Republicans are in charge of elections, almost always they also have R govenors. The voting machines have a paper backup, if you count them you can verify the result.
Republicans were supposed to have safe processes for absentee voting in place, that is not new, they just had to handle much larger volumes. Are we supposed to believe that the state Republicans rigged it FOR Democrats ?
And in summer Trump already poisoned public opinion against mail voting (which is a senseible way to hold elections during a pandemic). If he would lose it was clear that it would be rigged. That is childish, idiotic and obviously sore loser talk. preemptively so to speak.
It was very transparent that Republicans set it up (they had seen the polling, and Biden overperformed in that, so the "shy" Trump voters seems to be a thing)
a) suppressing D turnout. Trump had decided in spring to make masks the wedge issue.
Trump was in need for an issue to rile up the base, "I am the rebellious outsider" like in 2016 did not work anymore - Dems took the pandemic seriously. Republican voters not so much (following the lead of Trump).
Mail vote increases turnout, and cautious Democrats would use it more than Republicans who would not mind voting in person.
Mail vote also increases turnout of voters that were targeted for voters suppression in the past, strategies that work regarding in person voting. (no car, no schedule flexibility in the job, can't take off for horus to wait in line).
Another very obvious R attempt to rig the election:
taking the very much needed sorting machines from postal services
and b) Republicans prepared for the sore loser CYA narrative for the likely case Trump would lose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gazinta ???? In every democracy that deserves the name, a committee of people consistiting of volunteers and civil servants guard the process and the ballot box, they hand count the PAPER BALLOT together and sign off on the result. It would be impossible to manipulate, ALL would need to be in on an manipulation AND - it would not even make a dent it is only ONE polling station.
Election day is a sunday or holiday (in the UK workday but open until 10 pm) and it goes w/o saying that there are enough polling stations to avoid long distance or long waiting lines (10 minutes is long). The concept that you walk into your designated polling place and would NOT be on the list is completely foreign.
The elections can be held OFF the grid. No glitches, power outages could hinder the procedures. pen, paper ballot cubicle and people that tick names off a list (2 lists double check).
Even before the advent of the computer the nations figured out how to keep the voter rolls up to date without using that as pretext to kick legitimate voters off the list - by the hundredthousands or even millions. These are the purges in which the Republican party "excells" (Dems do it too occasionally). Well let's call it STEALING THE VOTE.
Citizens are entered with the birth or naturalization certificate, 18 years after birth they get the invitation to vote - automatic registration. With the death certificate the person is removed from the register.
Citizens that move are expected to announce that once (and it works accross the states), then the voter registration will ALSO be updated. Citzens that don't change residency have to go back to their old place or order a mail ballot.
The whole tabulation of sub results is open for verification. they are published on the village-town-city / district / state and national level anyway (people like to see how their town voted). The hand counted sub results of several polling stations (if it is more than a village there will be more than one) CAN be required. And the certified list and of course the ballots are kept.
In UK they bring the sealed boxes into large halls, or they have runners ! who deliver them under the eye of the public. in sportshalls they have long tables, volunteers in pairs each with a pile of ballots work through them, all under the eyes of public and press, and the final result is read to the audience (or reported live on TV).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In summer 2017 in the U.K. snap election (called by PM May in a surprise move) Jeremy Corbyn turned around bad polling by activating the non-voters and especially young voters within 8 weeks ! They increased the turnout in the group of 18 - 25 year old from 43 to 72 %.
Citizens had 2 weeks time to register to vote (first time voter or after moving). They can do that online, by phone or in person. Nice TV ad to enocurage to do that. Adress, Name, birth date, Social security number, done.
In a population of 65 millions, 2 millions registered, 600,000 on the very last day.
Everything else is safe and old fashioned technology,
Paper ballot hand counted in halls, volunteers are paired up, each pair gets a heap of ballots.
The counting is done before the public. Results per district are then read to the audience. there are 600 - 700 districts. (election of member of parliament)
The numbers are publicly available, each district is known (who won the seat in the district for that it does not matter if it was razor thin or in a landslide, won is won)
The public can follow the results for each district.
They also do the aggregation of the popular vote (out of interest - one could repeat that manually if one wanted to, starting from the count results achieved by counting the district before the audience).
1
-
Natural immunty ( Which one ?? Light or more intense symptoms ? How many months ago ? Antibody count then OR now ? Before or after Delta ? ) is NOT always better. That doctor is an ideologue, does not know about the inconistency of natural immunity (it can be weak or excellent) - and if he "only lost 3 patients" he obviously was not working with severe cases (or passed them on to other doctors when they got bad). That is a ridiculous claim.
700 cases ( "case" = tested positive - not all need "treatment" those cases includes people sitting it out at home with almost no symptoms, who did not need a doctor at all) ...
would have resulted on average in 7 - 10 deaths. And some fairly impaired people on top of that (did not die but ravaged after a few weeks in the ICU, long haulers, permanent organ damage).
In Germany, Switzerland, Sweden or Denmark. More in the U.S.
And that 1.2 to 1.5 % fatality rate of cases (case = tested positive) of first world nations that did reasonably well was from last year BEFORE Delta. It hasn't gotten better since !
The U.S. was closer to 2 % fatality rate of "cases". Last year.
There is no way that doctor saw the normal spectrum of patients and did not lose more patients. Maybe he had a cherry picked group (young, healthy) maybe he is specialized in something else and CoVid-19 cases were NOT his main concern.
But even IF his numbers would be anywhere close to realistic :
A fatality rate of 0.5 % (3 out of 700, I am eyeballing it) means that 5 out of thousand people die. Or 5,000 out of one million. Or 250,000 out of 50 millions. (plus longhaulers, permanently impaired, and disruption if people "only" get sick and must quarantine, but it is not too bad. if close to 50 million people have that going on and must quarantine at least 10 days - that is much more disruptive than a flue season. People are earlier able to get back to work or work for their family. ).
With highly contagious Delta running its course until herd immunity is reached, 50 million is not unrealistic. Do the math.
That's 250,000 preventable deaths and of course the hospital system collapsing.
Which means MANY OTHER preventable DEATHS (accidents, stents, heart attacks, cancer surgery, ...) So the fallout would be apocalyptic.
See Italy in spring 2020 - and they had a very strict lockdown. They imposed it too late (part of the reason it got out of hand) but then they resorted to desperate measures. The treatment of all patients suffered and that reduced suvival chances for all. C19 cases that might have had a chance, and other patients.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Usually the neoliberal meme of "entry level" jobs comes up when one asks for good wages for ALL. Entry level means that the workers can make their employer immediately a profit w/o longer on the job training.
It also means that the employees do not have to invest into a longer formal training / education to be JOB READY or at least SUITED (even excellent coders for instance will need time to learn all the details when they start a new job).
"Unqaulified" jobs means tht they can jump right into become PRODUCTIVE.
Now, the effort for a higher education, missing out on having an income during that training time, maybe costs for college, for board is rewarded with higher pay compared to the jobs that require no such preparation.
BUT that is no reason to exploit the millions of people that are ALSO needed and make their employers good profits. (If not they are not hired).
It is not an argument to not pay them a living wage - even though others who need more prepation and have higher skills GET MORE.
And no, these are not a student jobs - that is the other fiction the neoliberals like to throw out.
(not that I understand why that even would justify less pay when the teenagers already make their employers a good profit). That wage gap only pits young people against older ones.
Obviously the industries (retail, food, restaurants, service sector in general) could not run their business models ONLY with teenagers earning a few bucks.
Occasional babysitting is a teenager job.
The multi-million industries need employees that are not for the most part busy with school, or college and are only available sometimes - so they will have to apply the standard for adult employees that work with the intent to make an independent living.
that is what happens in Europe (Germany, Austria) btw:
young people work in the summer vacations (1 - 2 months) and they MUST get at least minimum pay. The proportional part for the mandatory vacations - usually 5 weeks per year is paid out in money in those cases (longterm employees must take time off). They also have to get overtime pay and the bonus for overtime - like regular employees.
If collective bargaining sets a higher than the legal minimum wage or other benefits, that applies of course.
Guess what: the industry and smaller companies hire them - they are obviously useful enough to replace the employees that take a part of their yearly 5 weeks vacations. And if they did well they will be rehired - next year they will be more mature and already know the company better. If the rookie does not do well, they will be fired, that kind of jobs are in high enough demand. And the companies can chose between teenagers and regulars (although regulars usually want longer employment, so there is a niche for the students).
Of course the students are useful and worth the minimum pay: it is entry level so anyone willing, punctual, polite, speaking the language, and not too stupid could get the job done.
It is unusal to have young people working in the food industry during school times. If the parents have a shop, business, or farm they will often be required to help, but else ….
Many young people have a paid 3 - 4 years internship as apprentice instead of continuing high school (starting out at age 15 respectively. after 9 years mandatory school).
These contracts are highly regulated to prevent teenagers from being exploited (and abused as cheap labor instead of giving those jobs to adults who want them).
Then and only then the employer is allowed to pay young people less than minimum wage (much less). BUT that comes with a lot of duties:
after a trial period the companies MUST keep them for the whole duration 3 - 4 years (depends on the trade). And they must continue to hire them after they "graduated" for 1 - 3 months with the minimum pay of a trained person in that profession.
The public trade school they must go to has grades, they get a report every year, and they have a theoretical and practical final exam.
The mandatory employment after graduation is an incentive for companies to have a transition into a regular employment contract.
Many companies always have one or more apprentices - and they cannot keep them all (for instance one for office work and one or few as electrian, carpenter, cook, …).
There are quotas however - you cannot run a biz with more apprentices than regular staff, that would usually mean there are not enough experienced workers to train, monitor and correct them.
having an apprentice (even if you cannot keep them all) is ALSO seen as a duty of companies: That they offer places for teenagers and that they will train staff that will work for them or other companies later.
So quite often they train MORE apprentices than they can keep and it is understood that the apprentice will have to find a job after the end of the training (and the mandatory, if short "after" employment).
Sometimes a regular leaves the company and a soon to graduate apprentice can take over. On the other hand it is often recommended to leave the company where a teenager learned a trade. In some places it is hard to get rid of the "rookie"-status.
In other companies they do things differently, and at that level the young graduates will be able to profit from that stimulus and grow quickly into a mature professional. 1 - 2 years in a new company (and with different boss and staff) can finish them off after 3 years of being a (hormonal ;) or slighly chaotic teenage apprentice.
They often have 6 weeks vacation. And they go 1 day per week to trade school (during the usual school times, so for approx. 40 weeks - or it is 40 days - or 2 x 20 days at a boarding school).
The companies must have a plan (and show it to the chamber of commerce) how they intend to train the apprentice in broad range of skills in the profession. What tasks the young people will have to perform and how that is going to evolve over time.
Companies that always have apprentices and when they are larger have their routines (office apprentices starting out at the reception, working their way through the departments, accounting is usually only in the last year when they have proven themselves).
But especially very small companies will have to answer the questions if they have enough variety of profession related ! tasks for the young person that they are entrusted with.
so having an apprentice and they only operate the phone, or they only stack the shelves in retail for 3 years - that is NOT a job training.
For that companies have to hire persons at least at minimum wage (which can be underage or adults - that does not change the pay)
A young electrician at age 18 may not be entrusted with installing a house alone - but he or she should do pretty well and grow into it within the next years.
A hairdresser should be doing fine (depends on her talent but most are at least at medium level).
A young nurse in training will do night shifts alone in the third year (apprentices can start at a minimum age of 15, nurses in training must be at least 16 to be of age, when they shoulder that responsibility.
There are certain hospitals who train nurses, also for 3 years, they have the school and dorms at the hospital. Their schedule includes more school time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
CWG90 I have bad news for you: You you will "suffer" the theft - like it was in the 1930s when the (Republican) oligarchs were enraged about the New Deal but could not do anything against it.
- the other side has many more people (that are being scrwed right now). And when they stop accepting the b.s and stop accepting that things are O.K. or just the way they are now - there are only two things you can do:
a) accept it - and pay the price for a high technology civilization
or b) be on your own and do it all yourself.
you can try that in Somalia, or in the remote areas of Alaska. You do it all youself. You owe no one.
Or you could join the Amish.
Then you do NOT LEVERAGE the ability of many other people to engineer, manage, work, sell, clean, do research, teach, ...
you also do not use the infrastructure or take a free ride on the education that is needed for everyone in that kind of high-technology civilization.
And with the Amish you do not USE the potential to sell to a lot of consumers, or trade deals, or international agreements, currencies etc.
Guess what: it will be hard to become even wealthy. And the Amish are still expected to help each other out (even though it is not "tax" but voluntary - voluntary with a LOT of social pressure)
In Somalia you have cheap labor. But safety, jurisdiction and consumer potential may not satisfy you. Let alone democracy.
You could try the gulf states - or Iran. If it is not Saudi Arabia you may even drink alcohol w/o getting into major trouble.
On the other hand even in more "moderate" Dubai, when you get involuntarily into the quarrel of relatives or some other intrigue, you may find yourself in major legal trouble.
Like being accused of having provided assistance to die for a terminally ill person. Of course the Western doctor had his day off when that man died - but that did not impress the "court" very much.
Who knows what was going on.
That is when it pays off to be the citizen of a civilized democracy (a member of the EU) that backs you up. So they let the man travel to Austria between the apellation. He was facing prison for life or even the death penalty (and had lost the first round).
The government of Dubai did not want the trouble with the EU (nor did they want to scare away the qualified Western employees they need to run their nouveaux rich oasis).
They also did not want to admit what a joke the trial was.
The solution was to let the doctor leave the country - and as was to be expected he did not return to Dubai.
But maybe things are better in Saudi Arabia.
1
-
1
-
9inchnail Austria here: "Social Security" deductions from wages that hit the employees are just below 20 % with a cap for wages over USD 5,000 per month (roughly). Those 20 % include 3,8 % for healthcare insurance, the rest is for retirement, unemployment insurance, insurance for work related accidents, .....)
The employers have also payments (mandatory) - it is more than the 20 % (and a little different, I think their share for unemployment is higher and also for severance, which is mandatory)
Employers definitely match the 3,8 % that are for healthcare.
So the public non-profit insurance agency gets 7,6 % for each employed person.
There is a cap for wages that is approx. at USD 5,000 per month. On the other hand even small wages will have the 20 % deductions (they do not pay income tax, and the amount that is for social security always reduces the base for taxation).
The most the agency gets per person for HEALTHCARE (might be in the area of 400 USD per person and that is shared between workers and company. All decuctions that run under the term "social security" are much higher - around 20 %. The term "social security" might confuse U.S. readers - they use that term when they mean retirment benefits paid by the government.
World bank per capita expenditures of nations (everything spent in the country on healthcare - no matter how it is paid for, divided by number of people)
in USD and the numbers are from 2014
Some examples:
Germany USD 5,600 Austria 5,400, U.S. 9,200, Switzerland 9,600, U.K. 3,900
The Swiss pay very good wages AND they do not have a public insurance agency but leave that to private insurance companies that are regulated.
In the U.K. most healthcare is delivered via the NHS which has been defunded (intentionally) for the last 10 years. It had been a lean budget to begin with - record for Europe, one of the most cost-efficient systems in the world for any wealthy nation. "Wealthy" is important because wage levels matter. It is legitimate to compare Germany to France, Sweden or New Zealand - but not to Hungary or Poland where average wages are much lower).
it seems that a well functioing medical system worthy of a First World starts with minimum USD 4,400 - except for the Japanese who beat the heck out of every other nation, well we are used to that already considering automotive. (must be the healthy living, they have an old population which usually means higher costs).
Most wealthy European nations, Canada or Australia are in the area of 5000 - 6000 USD per capita expenditures.
What that means is that a family of 4 would typically account for an average "budget" of 20,000 USD per year and upwards. Even if they all are healthy. It is the average.
So needless to say the contributions that are taken from the wages are not nearly enough and there is plenty of goverment funding going on.
That is also the case in the U.S. but in the U.S. it finances a lot of paper shuffling (it is a lot of work to deny care) and the profits in a dysfunctional system. In all other countries the subsidies (mostly) go towards delivering medical care and administration budgets tend to be lean - typically below 5 % while "obamacare" unsuccessfully tried to limit that to 20 % in the U.S. .
In Austria the government funding comes from the 9 states resp. from municpalities - a lot goes to the hospitals where a good chunk of the big expenditures manifest. the federal government is also somehow involved (if only in the way how they share tax revenue with the states and the muncipalities.
Except for big pharma the whole country has a stake in healthcare.
1
-
+ Mike C Are there waiting lists? Elective procedures, especially surgery yes (eye surgery, hip replacment). Can be reduced by going to a hospital where they have free slots. Might mean a 90 minutes drive instead of 20 - 30 minutes for visitors. Transport with ambulance for the patient is covered if necessary.
Appointments:
Dentist 1 - 2 weeks. 1 or 2 days if you are flexible with your time. Eye doctor maybe longer, if you think it is urgent you tell them, so they squeeze you in. Dentits do that for emergencies
pap smears and mammography and other preventive examinations - 1 - 2 weeks waiting time, depends where you are, rural areas. - it might take you in the 2 weeks range.
Again if you have a knot they will speed you up.
Pap smears are done for young women, mammography, ultrasound for the uterus will not be recommended unless you have a certain age (30 - 35). And likely not paid for unlike you have a good argument. Family risk would be one.
20 or 30 year old men do not line up for prostrate examinations by default. The insurance agencies invites older men to have these kinds of examinations.
Examinations that do have medical value (prevention) are availabe when they make sense age wise. But even if a mammography would not be covered - the costs for it would be likely much more moderate than in the U.S.
No caps on specific illnesses (payment or coverage) - however infections that are a public health risk would always be treated for free (tuberculosis or HIV for instance ) even if you do not have insurance, same for giving birth.
Citizens of the EU are treated for free in the facilities of member countries, the systems send the bills to the other nations. The system in Germany is very much like that in Austria - both countries have comparable wealth, are culturally and economically quite similar. Moreover German citizens that visit Austria do not complain about their system. If there would be any hardships it would be talked about. (also on TV which can be received in both countries).
Treatment will always be given for emergencies - but an uninsured person would get a bill. Which is very rare, as long as people have their act a little bit together they do have insurance. And tourists from outside the EU almost always have travel insurance.
An example for a person w/o healtchare insurance might be someone who has addiction related problems and becomes homeless. Mentally ill persons are taken care of and do have healthcare covereage (likely under titel of "disability" . They are not on the streets - or in prison like in the U.S.)
Technically it is possible to not have insurance in Austria, the system is built on mandatory participation if someone has a job (or an income as entrepreneur or farmer) - and then there are a lot of additions for everybody else.
let's say you life the hippy lifestyle and work a little bit under the table. Or a student that is older than 26 and not yet finished.
Of course there are possibilities to get insurance from the public agency which you pay for out of pocket. Could be in the range of monthly 50 USD up to 150 in the most unfortunate cases.
The smart thing would be to hold a little legal job that is more than 500 USD per month if you can, then insurance is mandatory and grants full insurance coverage.
Most people that can work do (or had children - housewifes in traditional marriages are insured with their working or retired or jobless partner/spouse - having children counts as contribution as well)
Medical drugs are negotiated - Big Pharma has a partner on the table that is non-profit, expected to stay within budgets (for usually ever increasing costs for an ageing population) and the agencies represent often millions of people. Or in the case of tiny Iceland only 300,000 people. - but I think the European agencies have an idea what other countries are paying .
So I assume Big Pharma cannot rip off little Iceland (their per capita expenditures are in the Euroean average). If they tried Iceland may decide to shop toghether with the other Nordic states or import from them (Which the U.S. cannot do. No imports from Canada. and except for the VA the agencies like Medicare cannot negotiate drug prices).
I know there is the myth that because the drug prices in Europe (well everwhere ) are much lower (= the non-profit public agencies are negotiating so well) that Big Pharma has to make up the difference by ripping off U.S. citizens.
Nope !
First - they DO make enough profits even in Europe and
Second: even if that was not the case - what would be the rational to make U.S. citzens pay for that situation - by legally ! not allowing to negotiate drug prices.
The markets OUTSIDE the U.S. are much larger . The U.S. has only 325 million people, the EU alone has plus 530 million. So if - IF - Big pharma would need more money the logical thing would be to add a little bit to the costs per durg in the larger markets and not much, much more in the U.S. - but of course if Big Pharma would make the claim that they cannot do new research without more revenue - in Europe they would need to prove their claims.
We know the profits of many of these comapnies. And they do voluntary information in order to attract large investors - about the prospects for profits on certain drugs. The large companies are traded on the stock exchanges so they must publish certain data.
The testing is very expensive and runs over years and they always have many developments in the pipeline (many of which will never come to fruition).
These costs are accounted for !
The regularily to be expected expenditures they are allowed to deduct from the base for calculating their profits (which would be the base for taxation).
In short their investment needs are accounted for and they work with averages.
As long as they have huge profits - somewhat reduced revenue will not jeopardize their regular investments for research.
Their accounting always includes huge, regular and longterm costs for doing research. (once the Military Industrial Complex has done basic reasearch and handed over the results to them for cheap - see Noam Chomsky the clip The Role of the Military is missunderstood).
The profits are on top of these ongoing and predictable budgets. They must be predictable as an average - the projects last long, they never know which ones will be a success. So they do the numbers game and have their averaged costs in the balance sheets.
Of course they make more revenue and profit per package in the U.S. than in Europe.
And if - IF the revenue would be considerably lower because the prices on a not so large U.S. market would be finally negotiated - to the point where they do not make enough profits - then they can come and ask for slightly ! higher prices in the wealthy nations.
There are many large companies in Switzerland, U.K. France, Germany, and medium sizedn in other countries. The U.S. is a considerable player in pharma research but by no means the only ones.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@popmonika Trump has the same challenge as Obama: having the public platform and both houses where he could get things done For The People. Or at least both could have riled up the masses to put the fear into their elected "representatives" in Congress and Senate. to pass GOOD things for the regular citizens.
Abolish ACA - great idea - provided the new system is already planned, budgedet and thoroughly discussed. (it is no small undertaking after all).
So Trump and Obama had to drag their feet and play pretend while promoting the oligarch interests. Trump on top plays the core base and tries to find always reasons to appeal to their lower instincts and anger.
(Anger is not necessarily a bad thing - it depends what you use that energy for).
Obama already in 2008 sold out to Wall Street (never mind campaign rhetoric). And also served the other Big Biz interests and the war machine. (Especially the private insurance companies !). It just had to "appear" like he could not do more.
Obama could have done an FDR. With all his flaws - FDR kicked some behinds and took no prisoners. Circumvented press and radio (owned by the oligarchs, in the case of radio at least partially right wing). He did the fireside chats to directly communicate with the citizens and to explain his plans (the big stuff).
In Feb. 1934 a lot of banks had failed, a national bank run was looming, people took their money from the banks. FDR in 1933 was the last president that was sworn in in March (then the "lame duck" constitutional amendment went into effect).
First thing was a 5 days banking holiday to sort out the bank and pass deposit insurance (and the banks having desposit insurance were only allowed to do "boring" and safe banking (and the core tasks of banking).
Of 60 out of 90 million people listened to the first fireside chat of the new president - late on Sunday evening. The trust in banking was restored and the format had a roaring start.
(Glass Steagall - that is why Big Finance does not like it: prudence restricts how much profit can be made. Also in "private" banking. If they take care of fortunes with no chance to plunder deposit insurance or decalre themselves system relevant - the owners of the fortune will also insist on prudency.
Not only are regular bank clients a source of revenue. _They can also be taken hostage to blackmail politicians to get a bailout if the banks get into trouble by reckless / criminal business practices.
Therefore Big finance wants both: being able of offer deposit insurance to GET the necessary hostages (and the revenue) and being able to speculate, enage directly in real estate, insurance, merge with other companies, etc.
FDR strongarmed the Democratic politicians into voting for the New Deal. Pushed through higher taxes. 70, 80, 90 top marginal income tax rates for over 2,7 million USD (in todays money, then the magical number was 400,000 USD income).
He installed rules for Big Finance and the banks that kept the system safe from 1933 to the 1980s.
(Some oligarchs feared the pitchforks - see Russia 1971 - others, especially Republican industrial leaders had half hearted plans to have a coup and erect a fascist regime - interesting story - search with: Coup FDR 1934 and Gen. Smedley Butler if interested).
Only in the early 1980s deregulation, negligence / collusion of the regulators towards banks which wanted to make MORE profits - coming out of the difficult 1970s - lead to the S & L crisis.
Prof. Bill Black was active during that time (and helped the FBI later with the prosecution). The first thing that was noted: The regulators in Orange County got information by the appraisers that they were pressured by the banks to giver higher estimates (or the banks stopped doing business with them if they did not comply).
Which does not make sense for a prudently acting bank. After all a realistic estimate (for a sale under pressure) is their security to get the money in case the loan defaults, you have to assume to get less than "currrent market price" in the transaction. It was an indicator for intended fraudulent or reckless business practices. The regulators put an end to it - in their jurisdiction.
Seems in other regions the regulators were turning a blind eye.
Anyway: the S & L crisis was a small thing compared to the Great Financial Crisis. (and the cure under the neoliberal Reagan order was to have MORE deregulation). But it was the FIRST major banking crisis AFTER 1929 - and could have been prevented had the regulators done their job everywhere.
In the 1920s - into the 1930s the U.S. had a right wing Supreme Court, too - FDR talked about court packing .... it worked, the court "found" the minimum wage to be constitutinal.
He was all for putting programs in place and quickly. His attitude: we can see what works - we can always adjust them or try something new.
In Bretton Woods (in 1944 already) the Post War global financial and currency order was set up. Bankers were not even admitted. There was no love lost between FDR and Big Finance (to avoid the word financial "industry").
In short: FDR did give it a try, fiercly. Therefore got a lot done that stayed in place. Unlike Obama or Trump.
.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sanders is not stupid, he KNOWS what is going on. so he makes the nods to the establishment - or to the base ? Clinton loyalists ? I do not know how many Democrats are out there that actively dislike him. Not that it matters: many will not vote in the primaries for him because they have plenty of other options (even if they do not hold a grudge against him -
there is a vocal group online that actively dislike him since he stole the thunder of the queen, but that may be trolls or vocal insiders, that do not reflect the mood on the ground.
The townhall in PE !! (which any Democrat should win) was hopefully indicative about the mood on the ground (if the Sanders campaign had stacked that event they did their job well, but maybe it is the mood on the ground).
And if Sanders wins the nomination, what are former Clinton fans are going to do ? Vote for Trump because they have a grudge (it would not even matter in California and New York) ? Or stay at home in certain states and risk 4 years of Trump ?
I do not understand if Sanders is smarter than us and plays the long game - or if he is a coward and betrays the movement.
If he had answered with the truth - like that the DNC will cheat again and in a heartbeat if they think they can get away with it - and that it would have consequences this time.
the media outlets and the Democratic establishment would riot the next morning, the Clinton loyalists would have been unpleasantly reminded of "divisive" Sanders.
I mean .... maybe he thinks that it is not worth the trouble NOW.
On the other hand: Trump made it clear that HE would run as third party (admitted he made that clear LATER), and the Republican establishment KNEW he would make true on that threat and give a damn: Trump would have split the vote. and would have all but secured the win of the other camp. That is the advantage if you do not care - Sanders did care whether Trump would become president.
(I always wonder if Trumpis REALLY that worse than Clinton. Sure they do despicable things - think dreamers, family separations, the debt and deficit - at least Trump exposes the "fiscal conservatism": the Republicans are only concerned about it when the money would benefit The People. The Democratic politicians btw help them with socialism for the M.I.C.
Clinton on the other hand would have already escalated the war in Syria, maybe started more troubles with Russia. If the Russians have something on Trump they are subtle about it - if they have something on Hillary Clinton - 30,000 deleted emails from her private server, maybe they kept that as backup for the time she would be president ... and never came around to using that - well that would be an interesting constellation.
I small sign of hope:
Sanders sent the letter to Center of American Progress (an Orwellian name if you ask me) which gives alittle bit of hope that he is not going to put up with crap.
And it is very early on - last time he only officially announced in April 30th, 2015.
If that mealy mouthed approach is how he would deal with the establishment that would fight FIERCLY against anything that would shake up the status quo
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DariusSarrafi - I highly recommend the channel of potholer54 (Peter Hadley) for anyone interested in the debate about CC. - That point about "global warming was changed into climate change" he debunks for instance in "Top ten myths about climate change.
The videos - he usually debunks deniers, sometimes also the other side if they are exaggerating or are not precise in scientific terms - are only 10 - 20 minutes.
Very well sourced, he always goes back to the original sources / and studies. (And provides links in the video description so people have it easy to fact check, which he encourages them to do).
Despite the high standards the videos are also easy to understand for lay persons.
He has a training as geologist (hence the name potholer), worked for the oil industry and later as (science) journalist. So he knows how to break it down for lay persons.
AND he has access to the peer reviewed studies behind the pay walls.
Not only the abstracts that can be usually found on the web. He gives the believable impression, that he DOES read the studies.
He also REPORTS on these studies - unlike the "citizen scientists" he knows the limits of his expertise when it comes to other fields of science. meaning he - like every one else - must trust that the peer review process will lead to more and more insights - especially when so much research has been published, and the participants (authors and those who comment on the work) come from all over the world and all kinds of publicly funded institutions.
(When researchers are paid for by ONE institution with a vested interest the setting is different. Like when Monsanto pays for studies that prove that Glyphosate is harmless. Do we know for sure there are no research results that are held back ? And how free are the scientists really in that setting to publish ANY finding)
You would be surprised how often studies are misrepresented (even if the authors foresee that danger and explicitely clarify a point in the abstract, they are taken out of context or manipulated anyway).
Or how often graphs are taken from peer reviewed studies - and altered to fit the narrative of the deniers.
That is why it is so valuable that he has access / pays for and reads the studies. And takes the time to lay it all out in a video.
He does it w/o financial gains (no ads on youtube) - people willing to give donations are refered to a rainforest project which he knows from personal experience.
Usually the deniers and bloggers do not invent the graphs from scratch.
They take an existing graph, doctor it (I have the suspicion some think tanks pay educated people to do that with some sophistication) and launch it into the denier bloggersphere.
From then on the articles, talking points and graphs are copied and pasted. In most cases the misinformation is likely spread in good faith and w/o fact checking. One blogger takes it form the next, sometimes larger media outlets run with it, too.
That is why the arguments are always the same and doctored graphs are indentical (they even pop up in larger outlets like Daily Wire).
No one bothers to check where a graph originates from and if it indeed is the exact same as in the original source - or what the description of the graph in the study says, that may add context.
Sometimes the sources are cited by the bloggers or integrated into the picture, somtimes potholer54 gets it from the bloggers if he asks for the sources (often another blog - it is like a scavenger hunt / paper chase)
Sometimes google reverse image search helps (where was the picture uploaded first and when was that). And sometimes it is quite a detective effort.
It is a LOT of work to be precise with you claims and to back everything up.
The videos of potholer 54 are a good source to refer your "sceptical" friends and relatives to, when they were exposed to some drivel on the web.
And you will learn a lot if you watch the videos - you will be qualified to debunk every point ;) - like I said they are not very original.
From time to time a new talking point is invented, he is usually alerted by the subscribers about the new meme ... here we go .....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Big Donors (who finance BOTH parties) want a ticket that looks as follows: Corporate spineless Democrat (who is "realistic" and accepts the economic framing of the neoliberal, and of Big Biz) VERSUS fierce tax cutting, regulation slashing Republican.
To make things more interesting for the plebs and give the illusion of differences of the two wings of the Big Donor Party:
abortion right, gay marrigae, and gun rights .... People can get all riled up about it - and these issues do not affect the profits of the Big Donors.
Healthcare (European style) or legalizing weed. THAT has to do with the profits of the donors and therefore the voters are not getting it, and it does not matter how it polls. The End.
Sanders using the platform of the primaries and the independent media using the internet have disrupted the cozy arrangement of SILENCE between both parties and mainstream media - that they would never, ever have a well informed, substantiated, reasonable debate about the healthcare system.
The Europeans - well all other wealthy nations - run their systems leaning strongly in the direction of non-profit since the end of WW2 and they cost less per capita and deliver better result.
But you would not know that watching U.S. TV - and you certainly would not understand WHY all these nations decided in the 1950s, and 60s at the latest that healthcare is a terrible fit for for-profit and the "free market".
As long as the gatekeepers controled what information was published and what was allowed to be discussed they could suppress any meaningful debate. They successfully preventit it for DECADES.
The Big Donors WIN with either side of the_carefully preselected_ "choice" that is given to the voters.
Now Trump is an outlier because he is too uncough, and too erratic. Because of his rudeness and idiocy he awakens the unwashed masses (that is never good - from the point of view of the "elites" ), a polished sellout and war monger would be preferable.
that said: they got their tax cuts... if the trade wars are getting too bad, or if their is a real danger that peace would break out (Syria, nuclear deals with Russia, ...) they will get rid of Trump, keep the tax cuts and find a cozy arrangement with "reasonable" Mike Pence. Who can also be relied on to be a war monger.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Andrew_2414 The 1970s were used by the oligarchs to HIT back (as per this interview they already prepared it in the 1960s). Unfortunately the population had just enjoyed the benefits but did not understand the economics of the Golden Era, the Economic Miracle. Enabled by KEYNSIAN ECONOMICS. Very specific conditions that took 150 years to manifest (a window of a few decades: 30, U.S. UK40 years Continental Europe, Japan, ...)
150 years of labor struggle against brutal resistance of the oligarchs. Then the Great Depression, debunking laissez-fair economics. FDR's New Deal era.
2 world wars. In Europe the right and the "conservatives" the upper class and rich industrial leaders had to shut up for a while. They had helped the dictators to end the democracies after WW1, not only in Germany. While the left had usually tried to stem the tide, and was engaged in resistance.
Technology that was ready to take off but did not YET allow to outsource manufacturing, and the Cold War political conditions. The insight by at least part of the ruling class that the economic misery in Europe, especially Germany had lead to the rise of Hitler and that WW2 could have been avoided.
Interestingly: on economics Hitler was a populist - like FDR - maybe partially out of conviction, or because he realized that he needed an economic recovery. Same old, same old as was propagandized by the ruling economic class was not going to work, it hadn't in the past 15 years.
The German economic recovery was spectacular between 1933 and 1939 (1933 power grab of the minority government, and 1939 begin of WW2 in Europe, until then the Germans could not plunder other nations so the growth had to be sustainable).
Hitler understood that you need a healthy population that can raise kids if you want to go to war and dominate other nations.
The German emperor and the Chancellor Bismarkc understood in 1873 /1874 that you cannot have a strong army, if the young men they had drafted had grown up as malnourished children. The Welfare and Healthcare reform of the 1870s were groundbreaking (internationally), but the intentions were not all benign. Nontheless it was SMART.
They took some wind out of the sails of the growing Social Democratic and Socialist movements. The short sighted greed of the ruling class had kept the population poor, it made the nation and the economy (and the army) stronger to invest a little bit into the welfare of the general population.
The already existing German healthcare system had been kept and was likely expanded under Hitler. There were public housing programs, and the regime bragged about them. Not sure how much they really did - but the narrative was that the population - those that were NOT discriminated against - DESERVED to have healthcare, public affordable housing, mass transportation. The post WW2 governments had to deal with that mindset of voters. The left gladly and the right had to put up with giving the masses something, voters were not going to accept that only a part of the population had comprehensive health insurance coverage.
In the U.S. living in public housing is painted as shameful, and there is fear mongering that public non-profit healthcare (insurance AND hospitals) would be overused. Which is nonsense, people do not like to go to the doctor or to the hospital.
After the power grab in early 1933 Hitler / the Nazis did their own variaton of Keynes and even some direct money creation (covertly, the MEFO scheme to finance military investments). After WW2 in Europe many center left parties were voted in OR their economic ideas prevailed.
In Germany after WW2 they had more often than not the Center right party in charge or as the leading partner of a coalition. But even if the coalition partner was a small libertarian pro commerce party - they could not stray far from the Social Democratic consensus. Center left Social Democrats were breathing down their neck, they would have won the next election.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Andrew_2414 exchange of goods and services (" value") can be INCREASED by injecting money into an economy to MOBILIZE untapped resources (of labour, of physical resources even, of creativity). Government spends (funded in the traditional way or by direct money creation). Households then can spend - a lot on SERVICES. Persons that did not have PAID work = an untapped resource of the economy (THAT would be the most important limiting factor for how much can be created in services and goods) now have an income while providing something that other participants of the national economy WANT.
They create "value" - for the most part not to be "stored away" or hoarded, a lot of that is the little luxuries of life.
Could be creation of "durable" wealth - if it is spent on housing, insulation, repairs, maintainance ....
It would allow the population to EXPERIENCE WEALTH. Because they get necessary services (repairs), nice things and can afford pleasant experiences. (like dining out, or going on vacations, delegating chores, ....).
At the same time they enable another person to earn their living.
** as for other "values" the most important is the monopoly on real estate, farm land (more than what a person needs for housing or making a living as farmer), natural resources (mines, fossil fuels) and now they try to extend that power grab even to water.
That has to do with power and they are scarce resources (currently used for price gouging and extraction of wealth from the bottom to the top, respectively exploitation of developing countries).
100 billion USD hoarded away ("store of value") are not the same as 100 billions CIRCULATING in the economy. Every time "money" (or an alternative currency, that could be a useful tool) changes hands, a person receives value (a hair cut or repair) and the person that provides the labor or service can make a living and exchange that for things and services they need. Could be construction work, repair, food, ....
Those 100 billions CIRCULATING among the participants of the economy facilitate a transaction volume of much more than 100 billions.
The money (alternative currency) returns to the issuer (government) by the process called TAXATION and they inject it again (hopefully wisely - even military spending has an effect. A nation gets the most bang for their buck for civilian spending especially also research, education, and long time infrastructure improvement and affordable housing.
For SURVIVAL or for the bare minimum we need machines, vehicles, housing, food, garments, energy, furniture, ...
Our civilization is so developed (technology wise) that we can easily provide the bare necessities.
On top of that a LOT of our economy (the way many people currently earn an income) is SERVICE for things that are "nice to have" - during the pandemic those non-essential (for survival) sectors of the economy were shut down or restricted, and it triggered an economic depression.
1
-
@Andrew_2414 You might check out the leeches of finance then, or the U.S. health "care" industry . About time THEY get "cut off". As for the regular population, not even in a dictatorship they can cut off people forever and restrict how large the pie can be - it is expandable within certain limits. You should check out the history of the last 250 years. Oligarchs have installed dicatorships and the U.S. government has often helped them (even with the Austrian economists - see Chile) - but over time the population will not put up with it.
they extract money, but create for the most part speculation (finance) and price gouging and red tape (health industry) That is the opposite of creating value.
Not all sectors have the same capacity for automation / technology improvements / productivity wins.
Coding, manufacturing - high potential for productivity gains. Cleaning, education, childcare, cooking, ....Not so much.
As we need and WANT all of that - the people that benefit the most from being part of this high technology civilization must be made to contribute more (and progressively so, see taxation).
The manufacturing worker can be well paid. With the help of decent federal minimum wages (15 USD) they pay 1.50 - 2 for a burger or 5 - 10 bucks more for a haircut so that the people that are willing to provide those services (that are harder to automate) also profit from being part of that high technology society.
And contributing from the surplus applies especially to the people that are the owners of profitable busineses.
What you make when doing the solitary trapper lifeystyle in Alaska is yours - for the rest you need this society. If you are able to make a lot from it - you pay more. Enough so that the rest of the population that is ALSO needed or the whole SYSTEM would not function, also can have the good life.
In other words: returning to the wage, trade and tax policies of the Golden Era. Keynsian policies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nice litte country you have here. Wouldn't it be a shame if Trump (Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney .... ) happened to it ? The party DUOPOLY protects politicians of BOTH parties that betray their base. They bet on it that the other party is perceived as even worse by their base. Lesser evilism.
So they can turn their back on the will of the voters. The voters have nowhere to go, because third parties are not viable. For instance if being against abortion or pro guns is an issue for a voter they will never ever vote for Democrats (which are also villified by Fox and Republicans). These voters are hostages when it comes to the economic agenda.
And BOTH parties love the "free" trade deals and for profit healthcare. So even if conservative voters would "tolerate" that their representative is for gun regulation and pro-choice, the voters are usually not rewarded with helpful economic policies by "compromising".
That is how Sanders helped to make Vermont (a rural, conservative state) solidly blue. They used to be solidly red. Not all voters agree with his stance on guns or abortion. But they appreciate the genuine support for left populist ECONOMIC policies - and give him a pass on abortion.
(left economic policies can help bring abortions down. Making the doctor visit to get birth control easily available and free at the point of delivery. Good childcare, public housing, enough jobs, not being shackled by debt. Couples OR single mothers can dare to welcome the unexpected addition to their family, they GET HELP.
There is public help for parents of children with diseases, birth defects, down syndrom. These children will be taken care of even after they have grown up (if they live to become adults), there will be offers to support them (like arrangements for easy work and supervised independent living once the parents get old or die).
The voters - in both parties - have nowhere to go.
Likewise the big fish in the Democratic party can safely assume that the Republicans will always come up with candidates that are even worse (in the eyes of the Democratic base) than the good-for-nothing Democratic candidates.
The establishment got Carter out of office after one term (Reagan campaign very likely with help of fmr CIA director Bush colluded with Iran to keep the hostages until after the election). But the Democratic big fish were likely not sad to see Carter gone. He "was not liked" in D.C. as well.
He too was an outsider that no one saw coming and no one took seriously. He reliably got 30 % of the primary vote per state and ended up winning the nomination before they knew what had hit them. And then money in politics was not nearly as prevalent, and the issues were not as openly threatening to big biz.
Media and party establishment did not like Carter.
He was the last president that had won with a publicly funded campaign.
1
-
@wtsherman3080 if she is a hack she is TERRIBLE at it. WHAT did she have to gain from supporting Sanders and consequently STEPPING DOWN from the DNC (as deputy chair) so she would not have a conflict of interest ? At that time no one really thought he had a shot (also not Sanders ! and his campaign). So what did she have to GAIN from it ??
A good shill preparing herself for a national run would have stayed in the good graces of the party machine and in the center of power (DNC deputy chair is a start). Most shills or career conscious Democrats did that. Only Tulsi Gabbard and Nina Turner dared to endorse Sanders.
And then going to Syria at the beginning of 2017 (priceless the Wolf Blitzer interview - he tried "gotcha" again and again, and she not only made him look stupid but also consistently delivered the message. The U.S. must stop funding terrorists and stop the regime change WARS). That was an interview she came well prepared for.
If she had the intention to ever run for higher office (or even defending her seat) she KNEW that the real shills (politicians AND the media) would use it against her. (It seems she really, really dislikes wars, its effect on civilians and that U.S. soldiers are put in a cavalier manner into harms way by people who PROFIT of war and who do not have to pay the price).
In Hawaii she has enough support from the base (that is why she dared to do her own thing - she can hold and defend her seat even without the party machine and their access to money * ) - but on a national level it has become easier to villify her because of going to Syria.
* the Sanders endorsement made it harder to raise money - on the other hand it helped with the base. The first effect could be taken for granted (at least most Democratic politicians calculated that way) - the second benefit came somewhat unexpected.
Going to Syria was different: it was a political risk, that could not benefit her with political establishment and media, and she could not even expect much praise from the base - the Syrian proxy war (main driving forces the U.S. and Saudi Arabia) had been misrepresented by the media long enough, and most citizens simply do not have the time, energy, interest to dig beyond the circus and what the stenographers for the government and the military contractors tell them.
Only conviction can make politicians do that - there are not many in the U.S. political circus that would have dared to go to Syria either.
She comes well prepared. I would not call it calculated. She thinks about WHAT she is going to say and expresses it with eloquence (I watched a part of a town hall in the time when repeal of ACA was the hot thing).
It does help if you come from political conviction: then you do not have to weasel around ("access the healthcare" Debbie W.S or Tom Perez come to mind). She can be simple and steady (consistent !) in her answers. It reflects how she came to those opinions (conviction). Nor does she have to invent b.s (again high ranking Democratis in town halls in spring 2017, Diane Feinstein or I think also Pelosi. That was a feast of talking points of right wing think tanks. Or Tom Perez when the went protesting family separation at the borders. One journalist did her job and also cornered him on "universal healthcare". Ooops. Some stammering - and quickly turning to other microphones. Well done
The corporate Dems for instance have to square the intention to NOT GIVE good health insurance to the U.S. citizens because that will reduce the profits of their Big Donors with the need to mislead the base and to keep their vote.
They cannot admit the real motivation and no level of rhetorical skill will suffice once you are challenged on the issue. (Sanders does not have to conceal his motivation, or details or do a weasel exercise - on the contrary. So it is "only" about the details of how to make it happen. That is a very get-the-work-done issue and besides a politician could easily yield to better proposals if they are made. (Better means better for the citizens and for genuine systemic needs - as opposed to the needs of the profiteers and those they bribe).
Mainstream media colluded for the longest time to mislead the public and gave politicians that served the donors (advertisers ! owners of the networks) only softballs questions.
But thanks to the internet and to the Sanders campaign the citizens are not buying the soundbites anymore. Or falling for intentional misinformation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
What is the share of labor (all wage related costs) in the restaurant industry ? (scroll down).
9 %
So even if you double the wages (7.25 to 15.00) till 2025, if you pass it all on, you raise prices by 9 %.
Now, you might have half products that are also made with the help of lower income workers. Food, or table linens (being washed and ironed).
So let's make that 15 %, generously eyeballing here. Over a few years.
But not across the board, mostly in the service sector.
Cars, energy, rent !, housing, healthcare, education, is not affected. Or very minimal (they pay much better, or it is industrial manufacturing, energy healthcare are very different stories).
Retail has much less than 9 %, and manufacturing even less, they can automate more (and have done that already).
One aspect: if the wage now is 7.25 that is a poor state (7.25 was the new federal minimum wage in 2009, it has lost 15 % purchasing power since then, if there is no better minimum wage at the state level it is a shit show. Some states in the South do not have a state minimum wage on principle I think Louisiana for instance, so it is only the federal that provides a base line).
The consumers of those services are usually middle and upper middle class people. They can afford tutoring (pays more anyway), beauty treatments, vacations, dining out, gardeners, maids, ...
The companies that have to pay the higher wages (it trickles up) - are the ones that also can tap into a new customer segment. Low income workers that now have more disposable income and can spend on the little luxuries of life. But even if they save it all up, and then buy furniture, cars, a down payment for a home, ... some of the money will go into the service sector in that state.
You get only partial (15 %) increase of prices of some services and products. But the low income people, the folks that will spend all their income sooner or later - now have MUCH MORE.
7.25 USD 15,000 per year (40 hour week)
to 15.00 = 30,000 income before taxes.
That is massive, because the spending power is now in the poor states.
That is why it worked so well in the past, the leverage is there and the regular income people get the budgets to pay for the higher prices (and then plenty on top).
The productivity wins are there to finance the relatively good wages
It reshuffles the balance of who gets what of the national income if they participate in creating goods and services.
your 15 USD will also go up (till 2025), so you have to pay the higher prices (0.50 cents - 1 USD more for the burger, 5 - 10 USD more for a haircut. But you also get the budget to do so.
The consumers need to get used to the new price points, gradually is better or they will resent it. The plans was to raise the minimum wage in several hikes so even IF there would be problems, this would be the one rollout that is the exception that proves the rule, they would notice earlier.
The higher minimum wage (trickling up, too) activates some money from the people who can easily afford to spend more (uper class), the development of their incomes has nothing to do with the development of the lower income workers. (the ones that were often called the essential workers, or people desire to finally be able to consume the services again. Restaurants, gyms, beauty treatments, ...)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Recipe after WW2: corporations are productive, workers get good wages, increases of productivity to a large part benefit the workers too. Workers = consumers have enough disposable income. - that built the U.S. middle class. between 1947 and 1970 rise of productivity + 112 % rise in average wages 97 % (adjusted for inflation of course, - that was almost double the purchasing power !).
Now the neoliberal model:
we the Western multinationals bribe our government to negoatiate "free" "Trade" deals for us. That will protect our manufacturing plants in exotic countries with a justice and politicial system that is not quite as stable as we likeit to be. In those countries we produce for cheap, and the workers at home lose their jobs (in sum LESS disposable income from wages, but much more profit for us).
Since it is impossible to sell the stuff where it is produced (people are way too poor for that) it is essential that the Western corpoation can send the stuff to the wealthier countries. And there is always the danger that future governments would slap prohibitive import tariffs on these goods, reducing the profits. (Or we would need to raise the standards of production, wages, safety, envrironment). But then they we have stayed at home with produciton !
The "free" "trade" deals prevent tariffs being used to protect domestic markets from such sweatshop imports. They are valid 20 - 30 years AFTER they are quit (should any government think about leaving such arrangements). And the Multinationals can sue governments - in a private court system (IDS). and they can alway become an affected party by opening a letterbox company. Philip Morris did that, suing the Australian government by using an old deal Australia has with Hongkong. Not that Philip Morris does business over Hongkong. but they are incorporated THERE.
(Australie made a law that requires drastic warnings of the dangers of smoking on the package. Morris thinks that violates their property rights - their brand and the look of it.)
P. Morris cannot keep Australia from passing such laws to protect the citizens, but they can make the government (taxpayers) pay compensations !
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheFoxSaid I know the German and Austrian single payer system very well - and comparing it with the U.S. mess made me really think WHY the non-profit systems have reliably in many wealthy countries and since the late 1940s performed so much better.
Under the thread of Michael Willow (another comment under this video) I added my experience with single payer healthcare system to the exchange between + Bruce Hudson and J P (the latter spouting the usual rightwing / libertarian talking points.
It is long but if you are interested in NEW insights I recommend to read it - you might understand the U.S. AND the European single payer systems better.
I had inherent knowledge if you will. Some things fell in place. some things I happened to know (had noticed, read in the paper as a side information) turned out to be helpful or crucial factors for the cost-efficiency.
Like very restricted marketing for doctors, Big Pharma.
Or eperiences how the smaller general hospitals are set up throughout the country. and how the agency (with the states and the governor) renegotiated that - to get more cost-efficiency.
The people that set up the systems after WW2 were smart - or they were lucky - or things are going to be shifted in the right way anyway with some common sense - if - IF - the politicians are not HOSTILE towards the system and WANT to see the country well served at reasonable costs..
The inherent complexity certainly would offer opportunities to sneakily undermine the system (while playing innocent) - see U.K.
One important reason is ideological bias (The claim that private for profit is always, always better. Never mind the evidence to the contrary.)
Even more important: with single payer a major chunk of the economy is off-limits (mostly) for profiteers. When it works well, the voters will like it - so no getting rid of it either.
Some of my insights:
Healthcare is on principle not compatible with the free market.
Or that regulation like quotas ensure efficiency. That it is not competition but complementing the resources and dividing up the pie that helps with cost efficiency.
The public agencies see to it that the doctors and hospitals do NOT compete. They make sure that every area has ENOUGH but not too many - more simply do not get a contract.
The agency nfluences the smaller hospitals that they partially specialize (in a plannable procedure) so they they can "fill beds" and to close down other departments (and leave that "business" to another hospital). That is all common sense - but not free market and competition.
The contracts do not pay hospitals, doctors, pharmacies that much - but with the regional "quotas" they make enough money. while patients have choice (usually they stay in the region).
The Swiss are one of the very, very few developed nations that mainly uses private for-profit insurance companies. (I only know of the U.S. and Switzerland). They have no major public non-profit insurance agency (single payer) And they have even higher per capita healthcare expenditures than the U.S. .
The average wealthy single payer country has USD 5,000 - 6,000 per person, U.S. 9,200 USD, CH 9,600 USD. That is the average for each and ever person in a country per year.
source: World Bank
A part of the high Swiss expenditures can be explained:
higher costs of living and wage levels in general.
They pay all healtcare staff well - even considering their generally higher wage levels.
The healthcare is excellent and everyone has it - so there must be some low income options. I think some Kantons offer something like a public option.
Anyway: the Swiss are usually good with direct democracy and down to earth management of their little state.
If they have way higher costs than all other states (of the same size ! - or much larger or smaller)- maybe it is time to give up on the idea that the usual mechanisms of the "free market" and competition can work for a service like healthcare.
Another surprising aspect: Size does not matter. It does not hurt to be a large country - but it does not mean lower per capita healthcare expenditures either.
Iceland and other smaller countries beat large Germany.
And the U.K. have indeed an extremely cost-efficient (now completely underfunded) healthcare system.
1
-
@TheFoxSaid Medicare seves the over 65 year old - they cause much much higher expenditures (in any system - fact of life). But Medicare is NOT allowed to negotiate drug prices and they have no reasonably ! funded non-profit hospitals to work with.
Medicaid serves a lot of people, too - the increasing number of poor / low-income and children.
I read that 65 % of the U.S. healthcare expenditures (all that is spent in the country on healthcare) are paid for by government. Since that includes Medicare - it is not as bad as it sounds.
per capita healthcare expenditures - all that is spent in the country (no matter WHO pays for it) divided by number of people (all: young, old, healthy sick, in the U.S. uninsured or broke over medical bills, or doing well financially) It is the average.
Other nations have per capita expenditures in the range of 55 - 65 % of the U.S. (the average for EVERY person). Tiny countries, large countries does not matter. The U.K. has only 44 % (but they underfund their NHS - but with 50 % the NHS likely would run like a charm).
Most wealthy nations make do with HALF the costs for every citizen (well a little more it is 55 - 65 %, most are in the range of 5,000 - 6,000 USD while the U.S. has 9,200).
And we are talking of wealthy nations, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Austria, ....
There is PLENTY of MONEY WASTED. it finances dysfunction, the annoying of the clients, the profits of the middlemen - but not so much the timely and hassle-free delivery of care.
A part of that wasted money comes from too high premiums extorted from the consumers - but a lot comes from the government already. (The citizens get the Medicare contributions deducted from the paycheck).
A lot of the government funds go towards profits, rigging. Towards the buraucraZy which the for-profit actors need to maximize their profits in this environment.
It is a lot of work to deny care and make patients (and their doctors) jump through hoops. Even if most of these bean counters may not be well paid - they need hordes of them.
Never mind the costs for the lobbyists, the lawyers and marketing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
People want saviors. - Reality is: they all disappoint, they are neither as good nor as bad (Progressives, that is). Sanders disappointed. The party tamed even the former Civil Rights icons (for instance John Lewis). the Squad is timid to say the least. - JD ranted and raged (too much, I stopped watching for a while) Sanders is not that bad, he is a flawed sometimes weak human.
And there is no reason to make AOC the main target of Jimmy's rant (methinks he panders to a right wing audience that likes that).
Yes from those that have a lot a lot should be expected- obviously she does not have the nerve.
Same with Katie Porter, they likely score high at agreeableness. AOC and Sanders gave an interview in New York at the Bernie Is Back rally in Sep. 2019. He had the heart attack, she had endorsed him (which was a bold move, she has her heart in the right place. It is just not enough to fiercly fight in the shark tank).
Between the lines you could hear how the system got to her then already. She expected pressure, but it was even more intense. She said she appreciated even more that he had stood alone in DC for so long.
This is of couse not entirely true, he made some compromises.
I also guess that Biden was gracious to Sanders when they met in the Senate.
A Senate seat opened in Vermont and Congressman Sanders ran for it. it was fairly certain he would win that, and the Dems wanted to make sure an ally would win that seat. (they do elect Republicans in VT, they have an R govenor at the moment).
so he and Biden had one or two years in the Senate together in 2007/2008 (then Biden became VP).
I assume getting the friendly treatment by Biden meant something. He was fairly isolated in the Senate, humans are social beings that takes a toll. Especially if you are a decent human (not Ted Cruz maybe, it is widely known that he is unpopular, maybe that does not get to him.
Claire McCaskill in her cushy job (for big donor friendly expoliticians) was asked how she experienced Sanders. If you read between the lines, they did not like him, he annoyed them.
He made us sit through many a lecture.
Yes, he was calling them out. not even rocking the boat more than that and he is diplomatic in his language on the floor, but even that was too much. Sanders was an important vote, I think he was the one vote that gave them the majority in the Senate (end of Bush's second term).
Vermont got a F35 fighter production order. so he was getting something for his state. Probably also with help of Biden. That is where the "my friend Joe" routine might come from.
1
-
@nedlalley6314 The 60 k preventable deaths per year are a more recent study. (I would count the daughter of Amy Vilila, if she had not been "in between insurance coverage" they might not have been so dismissive (towards a patient that might not pay the bill, which btw is ridiculous IF it was no big deal - and they treated it like that, the MRI that confrimed "no blood clot" is not that expensive, that would not break the bank.
And IF it was a blood clot this was a life and death issue. I do not think that was only a case of misdiagnosis, the cavlier attitude was very much helped by the fact that she was potentially ! a non-paying patient, so they denied her emergency services. The doctors and nursers have to walk the fine line every day between burdening their hosptial with potentially unpaid medical bills and doing the right thing.
Medial diagnosis can be complicated anyway, but it is not helped when that conflict of interest is added on top of it. They will be pressured to err on the side of: it is nothing serious - probably.
If a young otherwise healthy person has inexplicable pain in a limb (a leg) that gets stronger and stronger it is a good idea to be worried and even as a layperson I would have thought of blood clots.
Or the man that killed himself after he got a cancer diagnosis (maybe not with a good prognosis) - so his wife would not lose the home over medical bills (a woman told that Sanders in a townhall). He - they - did not even have a fighting chance.
The 60,000 may not be an exaggerated number considering the U.S. has 330 million people.
A former study cited 30,000 per year. - in 10 years that is 300,000 people, plus all that survive but are worse off because of delayed treatment. That is a bodycount that the Dems very gladly acccept. They ripped Trump over his CoVid bodycount, but they ave blood on their hands as well.
I can see that it is hard to nail down and the numbers would vary based on what assumptions are defined. Same with the bankrupcy numbers, a lot goes into it. A person may suffer less income and that plus treatment costs and other things lead to bankrupcy.
1
-
@nedlalley6314 The big picture. Politicians and media gaslight and lie, this is not the time to worry about having impeccable academic numbers. Voters have no nuance and do not care about the impeccable studies anyway, they fall for sound bites.Sure, it does not hurt to have a study that backs up ones argument whether the numbers may be inflated / massaged / at the end of the plausible range or not.
There are academic facts - but this is not about academic research anyway: Why does the U.S. even need such studies. There is an "experienced" truth, things that voters "get" and both studies cover that.
It is important is to have a valid cause and something that aligns with the experience of voters.
Most voters know someone who delayed going to the doctor or to the hospital. They may have done it themselves (fearing the costs) or worried to lose coverage. So if they have not ideological objections (single payer is evil socialism) they will nod along whether they hear the 30,000 or the 60,000 preventalble deaths. Both numbers are not very tangible.
They know people that have to sell their home (losing intergnerational wealth) so they can pay for the treatments, or they end up with debt. They do not go bankrupt, they just lose their nest egg or struggle for a long time (and that money could have gone into a lot of things).
Normal people will nod along when they hear those numbers, it makes sense to them - they may not even remember the exact numbers, but this is not about the numbers.
The bullshitters will argue about the details - is it better if "only" 25,000 lose their life per year, and only half of the people go bankrupt ?
It is unworthy of a first world nation.
And the other side is not shy at all to lie, obfoscuate and misrepresent. The people arguing are not just nerdy academics worried about the integrity of academic research. (I understand that is not your point), but I do not think good faith researchers will take issue with the numbers.
and voters, politicians, media shills that dismiss them, have made up their mind already, that is about ideology and not about the numbers per se.
1
-
1
-
My assumption is that the young folks are getting a lot of support from Democratic PR professionals - SO WHAT ? Politicians and think tanks do this all the time. Maybe the kid processes the shock in this way, maybe he even gets something out of being in the spot light (being an average student at least according to grades and now on national TV).
I guess they accept any help gladly (the advertisers list was handed to him - I suspect strongly there was no need to do the research). You know the saying attributed to Jesus: You should be innocent like the doves but sly like the snakes.
Anyway: it is not as if the other side are these innocent, naive, helpless, well-intentioned people with integrity.
The Democratic Party eagerly jumps at those events (resulting from tragedies) . Like they were enthusiastic about the women's march or the protests at the airports in Jan 2017.
In absence of any policies that would really help people - they see an opportunity to activate their base and have "together time" with them.
And unlike any Sanders style policies (public education, prison reform, healthcare, marijuana) it does not cost their donors a dime - and the activism now lets them hope that some of that engagement might spill over in November.
Moreover these are young people that MIGHT remember in 2020 that they engaged politically for the first time with the Democrats at such events or on Social Media.
One can see right through the game of the Dems - and still admit that the people wanting reasonable gun laws are up against a powerful, cunning, ruthless, only profit-oriented enemy with a very strong ideological bias - and that the enemy has dominated what laws were passed against public opinion.
The enemy does not care how many more victims will be in the future. They are perfectly OK with more shootings incl. victims in schools.
So the Democratic PR specialists, spin doctors etc. are working overtime ?
For once they might do something useful !
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Have you ever WONDERED why Trump even had a chance to win? Neoliberalism does not work for the mass of the people. And there is always a certain number of morons and bigots in the population, but when the economy is doing fine, they do not have the megaphone.
In time so trouble some kick upwards and identify the problem (that behooves to the lefties), but many prefer to not bother the "authorities" and the ruling class (too much trouble, and they identify with and adore power, they just want their share in it, THEY it must not be for everyone). So they vent their frustration by kickingsideways and even better downwards (always people that are minorities, they do not go after the powerful).
Scapegoating isn't new. See the 1930s.
In that time ongoing ! economic troubles made some societies SNAP.
The troubles in the U.S. were severe but lasted only from 1929 until 1932 - when a populist LEFT man from a rich family promised hope. In a society where the unions had become strong again, and the left and far left was organizing all over the country (Socialist farmers of Kansas...)
And FDR delivered. - He had to strongarm some Democrats, like today many had the idea that the plebs would have to suck it up, THEY were doing fine and they could resign themselves easily to the misery of others. Well, FDR wasn't having it.
There were Nazis and plenty of White Supremacists active. 50,000 marched in New York in the 1920s (Klansmen and w/o hoods, showing their faces). The Klan had 3 - 5 million members then. And that was BEFORE the Depression. The 1920s had stagnant wages (one of the triggers - the haves could not invest in productive projects, the masses could not afford to buy and consumer debt wasn't a thing then. So they started speculating to "make money out of money").
In Europe the economic troubles started during WW1, were increased by austerity (and for Germany and Austria by reparations). And just when they had somewhat recovered they got hit again when the Depression of 1929/1930 spread over the globe.
Like always in times of trouble the politica scene was polarized - between the right and the left. There were many strong left movements (incl. Germany - and the U.S.) but the lure of the nationalistic far right/fascism seems to be strong - many fragile democracies became right wing authoritarian regime /fascist dictatorships. (Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Spain after a civil war with help of fascist Germany, I think also Poland, not sure what was going on in Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, Romania).
The U.S. did not drift to the right because of FDR - and because of the strong left and labor movement. The rich Republican industrialists in the US. had friendly ties to the Nazis (and their eugenics programs, they loved the white supremacy). They were outraged about him (helping the masses, negotiating with unions AND making them pay minimum wages and HIGH taxes !! They wanted FDR gone or to become a figurehead in a fascist state. (planned coup of 1934 Gen. Smedley Butler).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Allowing different speeds (discrimination) also means that they have an incentive to work out software and systems on a large scale to throttle and speed up content. That of course CAN and WILL be used for CENSORSHIP - to get not only rid of corporate competiton but also people challenging the politcal status quo.
Imagine an initiative that Google, Apple, Facebook should starting their fair share in taxes. Imagine such an initiative would really get traction in the U.S. and Europe ..... Today when they throttle down transfer of data it is esy to detect and to docoment it . And it is forbidden. Period. When it is allowed sometimes, in different scenarios , they will alway find a "techncial" excuse and muddy the water, why some smaller videos are always slow. Of course everybodey will know what they are doing but it supplies the fig leaf for politicians and regulators to notdo anything about it. (It is like the Sanders campaign, it was very obvious that the DNC rigged the game - and they INSISTED it was all paranoia and not true. And then there was the written undeniable evidence. So DWS stepped down and was immediatley hired by Clinton. Of course ! The powerful know no shame, means while they hardly try to pretend. Plausible denyability to avoid outright legal action will be more than enough for them. (There was a documented case of throttling, which is still illegal. They did it anyway, and when caught came up with a lame excuse - we did a test. Well a test can be announced (We apologize for any inconveniences, we try to improve bla, bla bla). More like a test run with what they can get away with.
Censorship already started. The hysteria about "fake news" was a convenient pretext.
The political and financial establishment noted that they do not control the narrative as much as they used to (Brexit, the rise of Sanders, the open discussion of Single Payer, and Wallstreet greed, then the election of Trump was not supposed to happen, in UK the rise of the progessive in Germany and France the rise of the far right).
As for Single Payer, Universal healthcare - as long as MSM did control the narrative and what was even up for discussion and the kind of arguments the audience would be allowed to hear, neither the Republicans nor the Dems were bothered/embarassed.
Now their constituency has the necessary info the line of argumentation and demands explantions in townhalls.
Thanks to the web AND the Sanders campaign that genie is out of the bottle.
The establishment had it alway easy to make the mainstream media fall in line - does not work well with the independent media.
Big Biz and / or youtube taking ad revenue from many channels was a test run to weed out independent media on youtube.
In the good old days of "manufactured consent" critical ideas did not have a platform, and there was a lot of collusion between "independent" media and politics and Big Biz.
Try to place a segement critical of the big banks, Monsanto or fracking on TV.
No. Chance.
They have been silenced with advertising revenue and some pressure. And with very high salaries (Rachel Maddow has sold our her liberal/progessive ideals for big bucks - she is a smart woman, she KNOWS what she is doing - or she could now and lets her bias get the better of her).
Google wanted Hillary Clinton to win (she would have allowed them to not pay taxes, to get visas for IT employees from India - standard IT jobs, not some top wizards. In short they would get the full neoliberal program with her w/o the uncough manners and the embarassment of Trump.
So an online search for "Hillary Clinton crimes" either with google or another search engine brought very different results. (of course there are a lot of stupid or hostile opinions going on - that does not matter).
They also manipulate what is "trending" (Facebook) - not what is rally trending, but what they want to get more attention.
Rightwing or right leaning youtubers claim they were shut down by youtube - no sympathies for the right - but youtube does have an almost monopoly. Youtube is important for voicing and spreading certain point of views (incl. that they make it possible to earn money with the ads deliverd by google/youtube . Therefore professional small news or opinon outlets can exist - If no one can make money with those videos, if the estabishment only has to deal with non-profits, and if even those can be shut down, slowed down, or kept in obscurity - they are not a challenge for the status quo when the have 1000 views on dailymotion..
So it is not just "whatever google and youtube as private companies "like" on their platforms" - they play in another league and have more responsibility towards society. So they must allow the freedom of information and feedom of speech as long as it is not illegal (recruiting for the KKK or ISIS would be illegal, they are free to forbid nudity, but should not be arbitrary about it.
Censoring a woman in a bikini because she is overweight, does not fly either, when they allow slim bikini ladies all the time.
No one said free speech is convenient or democracy is easy. There is a reason free speeech was not allowed for so long and usually suppressed fiercly. The powerful hate it - but evn in the age of hunters and gatherers with much less inequality. Homo sapiens is territorial. Our opinions are like a part of our personal sphere. So it is a cultural achievement to suffer it gladly that someone else disagrees with us about issues important to us.
It is somewhat against our nature.
Back in the day survival of the species was much more important. In the case of homo sapiens that meant group cohesion was more important than any individual, their personal developement or their independent opinions.
Therefore we "naturally" do not like it or are irritated if people deviate too much from the norm (the norm that held the clan together and avoided too much friction among the members). Same opinions on gender norms, how to dress, what to eat, religion, the "right" lifestlyle, education, enemies or friends, traditions, ....
1
-
1
-
+ Lex Delaney It is a game of chicken. They do not want to fire, but he whole population and the healthcare staff (which might include administrative staff) must know that they mean business. In NJ "hesistant" nurses * have already blinked first (20 out of 10,000 of one provider stated the mandate as one of the reasons to quit, all others got the shots or completed their vaccination). <or maybe got the nudge needed and the were not fiercly opposed, feeling coerced etc. *
A police union pomised that hundreds of cops would resign - 1 really did.
* those nurses might have had the infection before vaccines were available. No, natural immunity is NOT always better. Vaccines AND natural immunity wane (antibody count, this is the stronges, fastes reaction the body has. There are other longterm strategies, but not quite as fast, or reliable. Advantage: they do not cost the system so much energy. If you ever encounter the vuris after longer time, even a few T-cells are better than nothing. It is not completely new, that gives you some advantage and should be good enough to survive (if the person had no other risk factors).
Antiboides go down over time. That is normal.
And before Delta or widespread vaccination an U.S. study showed that on average mild cases (almost no symptoms) meant low antibody count. I the person had fever, had it like a bad case of cold they were more likely to have a good reaction (antibodies).
Children on the other hand got good antibody count even out of very mild cases. Not sure if they hold as long as for adults.
so those nurses may not have been irresponsible (they knew they had some if waning immunity) but now it is time to get protection up to date. Has the advantage that they get the fresh = higher antibody status, so even the chance for reinfection might be better than the 39 %. That number comes from the group that has gotten the vaccine sind early 2021.
1
-
Please DO vote - The People have the numbers - that is the only way to beat he system - to overwhelm them with numbers. A president pulling off Medicare for All (or better) would have some room to maneuvre to reign in the agencies (before they reign him or her in).
Next thing: the war on drugs must be ended (the CIA, FBI police, DEA would riot - never mind big pharma and the FDA). The CIA used drugs to have "black" budgets under Reagan (I doubt they have given up the habit) and they use the same channels to transfer money (incl. tax havens with bank secredy) that help the international terrorist, the vile criminals, drug lords, merchants of death and all the tax evaders.
Of course if the U.S. stopped doing that, stopped funding proxy wars, regime change, funding terrorists, right wing death squads, Nazis in the Ukraine - they would only have to pay the regular spies. That is small change. The need for all these tax havens / bank secrecy bubbles would go away.
Imagine U.S. soldiers would NOT guard poppy fields in Afghanistan.
The media went easy on the government with those photos didn't it ?
1
-
Fraudulent vote counting - what else is new ? - again the only strategy is to overwhelm them with NUMBERS. It becomes "dangerous" for the establishment when the other side has 10 or 15 % more votes, you cannot deviate THAT much from polling, from the local polls and the exit polls. Even without legal consequences: the main danger is that many, many people become aware that they do not liven in a democracy - and get active and/or angry about it.
(Trump narrowly pulled off a win in some Rust Belt states, the polling was not completely wrong - Clinton won the popular vote after all. With the "winner takes all system" winning with 50,5 % is as good as winning with 60 % or 65).
When people that do not profit from the status quo and are somewhat FOR a working people party would bother to vote they should have at least 60 % everywhere !
There are PROGRESSIVE candidates running. If they all had gotten at least 25 % in the PRIMARIES of 2018, the elites (R + D) would be really, really scared. Even if the establishment candidate pulled it off - this time.
Among other things it can be expected that there would be loooooong lines if there was voter participation as in other wealthy countries. Venezuela where the opposition boycotted the presidential race had not much lower turnout than the U.S. has on a regular base
We could expect eager voter roll purges (by both parties, but the Republican have made that into an art / craft).
Of course the "authorities" would not prepare if the polling suggests they would have to handle more voters in an election. And minority voters do not like mail voting because they know there is the habit to "sort out" thier votes. With mail votes the people handling the votes KNOW from which area the votes come from, or the name makes clear this is not a white middle class person.
But it is a difference if these are 10,000, 50,000 or 200,000 votes that the crooks would like to throw out (and some media attention and social media going wild). In Georga the crooked Secretary of State / aspiring govenor had not processed 50,000 registrations to vote, again the courts helped, and the media attention restricts the criminals somehow.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@patrickwinn9700 ?? Hitler's party won the election in a field with at least 8 parties, with 35 % of the vote, and was allowed to form a minority government - and seized power within 3 months. THAT power grab included that the parliament handed over its power to the government (they had to vote on that and it needed more than simple majority. all the right leaning parties voted for it, and the Communists that were duly elected and abiding by the law had been locked up to change the ratios. not two thirds of all seats but two thirds of all present. (That rule change was also voted for by the right incl. the center right. they helped the Nazis all the way.
Hitler needed and wanted the appearance of legitimacy. His beerhall putsh in the 1920s was ended by the police, the trial was a joke though, he got a slap on the wrist.
He could not have seized power by force in 1933. The conservative pillars of society could have stopped him right away when he trampled the constituional rights of the left opposition, and the army would not have gone along with it. (the army then was small - treaty of Versailles, but the veterans of WW1, especially the officiers had a lot of standing with the population. They leaned conservative, but that does not meant they liked Hitler or the Nazis).
So, no his policies were not approved by parliament, not many no time for that, certainly not on econoics
As for stats: they had the MEFO scheme that they pulled off covertly (a form of direct money creation, smart and effective, the Social Democrats should have done something like that long before than they would have won the elections with increasing margins).
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump Derangement Syndrome is a thing (or fierce Hillary tribalism). Tweet 8:45 If he is a bernie bro, and i suspect he is .. I'd rather the Republican win than watch a pretend Dem be Gov of FL @MarleneBloom2 - So she does not KNOW him or his platform - but being affiliated with Sanders is the worst. Does she remember Jeb Bush ? Or Rick Scott ?
And one could craft an accusation of racism out of it - I will not go there.
Andrew Gillum may also spoil the Senate race of Rick Scott, the Dems have a uninspiring candidate but he could profit from Gillum increasing turnout of minorities and non voters.
Beneath the thin "do gooder" veneer there is fierce tribalism, contempt for those outside HER camp (she basically retweets Dem establishment, Bill Maher, etc.)
She felt entitled that HER candidate would win, types like her are enraged that he with a lot of success ran against her and long. Running with litte success and dropping out soon would be O.K. (concessions to democracy have to be made), but no one was to disturb the coronoation. The primaries were supposed to be a formality.
They would have been w/o Sanders.
that Sanders supported HRC is not even recognized, and HRC was not a bad candidate.
And what of Medicare For All, 15 Dollar Minimum wage, education is important does she dislike the most. Or doing something for clean water, air and algae bloom in the ocean.
And he does believe in Science (at least he said so - I think in Florida they cracked down on mentioning Global Warming in the state related files, documents and reports).
(she retweets establishment Dems, angry about Trump, some interesting info too)
1
-
1
-
1
-
An economy like ours (internationally diversified industrial mass production) needs the tool of Currency = MONEY, we operate with FIAT money (no, gold backed would not work, it is a straitjacket if you want GROWTH). so the government GIVES the banks the legal privilege to create money (= purchasing power) every time the give out a loan.
In rare cases the government creates money directly. But he banks and financial instituation do not like that - at all. and have been always well conncted to the powerful. so they usually can prevent that from happening except in times of crisis. Even then they return to money creation by commercial banks, and control the narrative so that the population does not rethink of what they think how money works is even true.
The central banks SETS the interest rate.
Money / currency is a legal / societal agreement / concept that can only work with millions of participants. It needs a justice system, international agreements, infrastructure, education system, workers / consumers / producers / distributors .... and all kind of agreements and aligned norms and standards with other nations.
There is plenty of GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION going on before you even started any economic activities. And past government activities made the system possible .
Want to be libertarian and have a free market ? Live in Alaska, in the remote cabin - live with the materials and devices with which the first nations survived. You can do exchanges with your fellow trappers.
That is NOT completely voluntary / free market either. If humans know each other and interact on a personal level, instincts honed by evolution force us to be generous, to reciprocate, it will be literally impossible to live your unfethered self-interest and maximize your gains. And asides: you might need their help and you better be in their good books then.
If intellectually honest, do not use any metals, plastics, fossil fuel - or modern medicine or communication or transportation devices. Of course no firearms or tools. (In order to have all these modern products and materials you need the "system" - the one for which government intervention is the base.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sthubbins4038 Pandemic, economic crisis, Trump his usual idiotic self. Nontheless - in the Electoral College it came down to 3 states with a total of 43,200 votes more for Biden (a repetition of 2016 btw only this time the win fell to the other side).
GA / AZ / WI:
12,000 / 10,500 / 20,700 votes more
Biden won all 3 and needed at least 1 of those very close states. And if Trump had won all 3 he and Pence would have gotten a second term.
In 2016: Trump won MI, PA and WI needed at least 1 of them and Hillary Clinton could have pulled it off (273 electors) if she had won all 3. Very doable Trump got a total of 70,000 more votes from those 3 states, and after all 2 of them are fairly large.
Yes, Biden got 7 million more in the popular vote. That's cute, he always blew it anyway. With his lame campaign. The platform was to placate progressives and there were not many things he ADVERTISED. 15 USD federal minimum wage (till 2024 and 9.6 soon), and the promise to handle the vaccination and pandemic better. Plus some fleeting reference to Public Option.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sanders planned a 30 million campaign with small donations - meaning he never expected to get that far. This was about leading by example (grassroots campaigns) and talking about the ISSUES. But before he did, he asked Warren to run / resp. waited for her. (cost him valuable time most likely). There was a Run Liz, Run campaign to draft her to join the primaries and she had better name recognition than Sanders at that time.
But she did not want to annoy the Clinton machine and prefered to angle for a cabinet / VP position. so she stayed at the sidelines.
I think I recall Sanders saying (in 2015 or 2016) that you must be a little crazy wanting to become POTUS, that he was not one of the people, that looked in the mirror in young age and said: One day I will be POTUS.
[Pence, Trump, LBJ, the Kennedy's, FDR .... they all have seen themselves in that position.]
I guess with a good progressive running he would have been happy to support that campaign (he was one of the few, who supported Jesse Jackson. Sanders then was mayor of Burlington, Jackson won VT). I assume Warren would have needed to adopt a bold single payer position, with some CONCRETE PLANS, and maybe he would have liked a role in getting healthcare done. Not even sure he would have demanded a cabinet position (but maybe having influence who is appointed - a kingmaker so to speak).
In his age he would be better off being in Senate and campaigning from the outside for a progressive president (getting him or her elected, and organizing to get bills passed). And setting him or her straight if they backpaddle on promises. I guess that would be an influental, and more convenient way to spend your late 70s.
Maybe he caught the bug now. Maybe he does not see anyone that could fill his shoes (I see no one, not yet, if Sanders gets elected I hope he has the wisdom to build up his successors).
Warren it turns out is ambitious - just not in 2015 when it would have been about SERVING with the very real risk of infuriating Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment. (being blacklisted: So forget about access to big donors). Tulsi Gabbard was not afraid.
But Warren calculated to adance her career.
She is just not good at this game. Her political instincts are not good. And now she revealed herself as a backstabber (and fool).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
After WW1 in Germany the former elites and the traditionalists and (well-off) conservatives and the war hawks cried after the emperor had been unseated, the chance gone to make Germany a powerful rival of GB, to become a strong militaristic nation. - And these people were pissed off that the left parties now had more of a say in governance, and that society changed.
So sure enough immediately after the war the created the urban legend that the "Left" was to blame for the lost war, it was their fault that Germany had been defeated and that it had gotten a really crushing peace treaty. (you can compare that to the birther movement or to Trump derangement syndrome).
It wasn't like it was game over the moment the US entered the game and helped UK and France.
No the Social democrats in the country (and the communists) were to blame.
If the left had been reasonable they would have fiercly opposed the declaration of war. (there were demonstrations, but as soon as the government had declared war, they were afraid to go against "patriotism").
There was a war between France and Germany in approx 1865 (which Germany won and the French were miffed, this is why they were all for giving the Germans the most oppressive peace treaty with high reparations in 1918 - the Brits were more reasonable once they had defeated that rival - to the point where France invaded Germany in the early 1920s and occupied a part of their steel and coal country. Germany simply could not pay. (before the Germans had printed money, then the allied forces demanded gold to counteract the being paid with freshly printed money, which Germany simply could not come up with. It took the French some time to realize that you cannot pick the pockets of a naked men. This is when the French laid the base for WW2).
There were demonstrations. And they had a vote in parliament where they needed to votes of the left parties for issuing the war bonds. (And be assured: before the Austrian-Hungarian monarchy started the war they asked if Germany would help them out. Had Germany said: No, - no war. At least not in August 2014.
wo
(the allies had slapped democracy on Germany to dismantle that dynastie and their political invluence)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Cheney Bush admin prepared the war against Afghanistin in SUMMER 2001, so 9/11 was a convenient pretext - and that is the kind assumption. That is why they could start the war so quickly after the fake ultimatum directed at the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden (which had been a CIA asset before the falling out with the U.S.)
The Taliban tolerated ! ObL in Afghanistan, They might have decided he was not worth the trouble with U.S. / NATO but of course they wanted PROOF, that he was behind 9/11. Which isn't that plausible. With what means of communications did he control the operation that was unfolding in the U.S. .... ?
The CIA / FBI not cooperating, the government asleep at the wheel, warnings of allies, the Mossad and even the Russians being ignored.
As for going to war 4 weeks after 9/11 - war is a major logistics operation !
And the NATO members had the FIRST EVER SUMMONS to "defend" another member state. So a terror attack that a clueless admin did not see coming (I am very charitable here) was defined as WAR attack - which means another NATION.
The war had been prepared, the Western media had gotten their share of negative reporting on the Taliban. Now, they were terrible, it is just that the extremists in Saudia Arabia (and the other gulf states are hardly better) never got that attention.
In hindsight - that was the setup to have the population fall in line and not oppose the "intervention".
And here we thought the first call upon all NATO member states would be when the Soviet Union might start something in Europe - nope ! - Interestingly even GERMANY (and their media !!) went along with it - the German government must of course have know WHAT was really going on, and that this was a war that had been planned well ahead.
Almost all of the citizens fell for it - because the Taliban were so terrible.
But their extremism wasn't worse than that of Saudi Arabia. Except of course that Afghanistan was poor, so it was not even softened by oil revenue for the native population.
Afghanistan had been occupied by the Soviets (that in itself may not even have been that damaging, the Soviets brought development at least in the urban areas, education, healthcare and rights for women, and a push for a more secular society).
But of course the U.S. started problems there by sending in fierce fundamentalistic mercenearies (jihadis - and they were not from Afghanistan, many recruited by Saudi Arbai). The Soviets retaliated when the occupying troops were attacked - they also lashed out against the population (in the remote mountain areas).
When the Soviets left it got really bad - then a civil war broke out - and the population was initially glad about the Taliban seizing power. God fearing, disciplined, fierce fighters, they would end the insanity (well they started another one).
The terrain is a military nightmare btw. Higher altitudes. mountains, valleys, caves, insufficient streets, lack of water, remote communities that stick together and MUST stick together. It does not matter much what is going on in Kabul.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
a) Fauci ONLY claimed that masks do not work in the initial phase, he has NOT discouraged people from wearing them in the last months - it was pretty obvious that all Western governments did not push it (until they did and then we switched form "not necessary" to "mandated". Can't remember Fauci undermining that. Of course not. He always knew it would at least not hurt, BUT he had to deal with a potential run on masks, and with industrial capacities EITHER for healthcare staff OR the common people. Not his fault, that there were not better options.
b) at that time these studies had not been made (to be sure I think Fauci should have been able to push for such studies to be conducted - not sure if he CAN have them done. Maybe epidemiologists have a bilind spot regarding such pratical tests. If they have a measels outbrean (VERY contagious, much more than Sars-CoV-2 or flu, or ebola, ....) the experts do not have to think about airborne virus load (it for sure must have some very effective ways to travel with air, wind). BUT: for measels we have vaccination, and outbreaks are not controlled with people wearing masks. quarantine and vaccination. And the people treating the sick ARE immune.
In other words: they never had to think about airborne infections. Reducing that with simple LOW TECH measures is not on the radar. The leads to the next point.
c) cultural issues of scientists. They tend to be too invested into "professional" well tested, peer reviewed solutios that offer and 95, 99 % certainty that a certain mask will be effective.
There was a study of 2000 doctors / nurses during flu season (2009 ? - the link is on smartairfilters (dot) com, some wore the masks that according to protocol and expert opinion would be sufficient to protect them (filtered out small particles and pathogens).
Others wore the insufficient simple surgical masks. ("quick and dirty" / improvised / good enough better than nothing solution)
This was about staff not getting infected, not the protection of their patients.
Surprise, surprise : the "not sufficient masks" turned out to be pretty good, only a few % less protection than the "correct" masks (as recommended in the handbook if staff would need protection. That was voluntary participants, they did not think they were in danger because of the flu, they would have opted for the better, official solution IF this would have been a dangerous disease). Both masks were in the 90ish region, and note even 5 % apart.
Self identified sloppy wearers = only 70 %.
tight fit and no gaps = best protection, but wearing it more loosely is more comfortable.
So wearing it correctly (with a tight good fit) made much more difference then the version of the mask.
AND: the simple mask worn in an incorrect manner still provided plenty of protection.
So for people who would refuse the tight fight or the professional mask (which makes it harder to breathe, a facor if you wear it all day long) - the sloppy method was a good compromise.
In software development / coding there is the method / term: "quick and dirty". (good enough, eyeballing / winging it, living with a compromise in quality or execution).
Everything in Fauci's training, professional career and ethos sets him up to be against "quick and dirty". Medical machines and procedures must be tested, safe, must be safe in 95,x % cases or whatever. This has to do with the standards of medicine and liability issues.
The head of the CDC or any agency like that will make global headlines when saying: wear a bandana, it gives you pretty good protection, almost as good as masks
In hindsight: they could have encouraged that, the right wing whiners would have accepted it more easily, and would have run out of plausible arguments why they are against it.
BUT: the population and governors were insecure about the financial help (or lack thereof). So if there is no trust in leadership, the appeal of the presidents (or his chief medical expert) to wear bandanas, sew or craft masks, but to not hoard masks * will not be be followed by the population.
* (We need the production capacities for medical staff Who Must Have Better Masks, and for you when shopping and riding the bus, or working in retail the simple solutions are good enough, almost as good as the masks you could buy. let's keep the professional masks for the heros who are exposed to much higher risks").
The lack of leadership and the ambiguity of Trump, and the constant contradiction (and nonsense) set a negative record. Fauci had to deal with the idiot day in day out, he knew what was possible with that president - convincing ALL of the citizens and being the president for ALL was not going to happen. Trump and the rightwingers used the crisis right away for partisan issues - or to stick it to China.
Travel for Chinese nationals ! was restricted (I think in ? January - which was the right decision, but didn't go far enough). But NOT for other people coming from that area. also not for Chinese people who happen to have a US passport, too. and when he was advised to put travel restrictions on European travellers, he balked, the special interests were against THAT.
So the Chinese travel ban did not come form a principled and factual standpoint. He would not have restricted them at all, but someone said it would be good to do that, and he did not mind putting it on Chinese travellers. But not on all others, who could as easily spread the virus.
Given the siutation Fauci had to deal with - he decided to go with avoiding the run on masks in the first phase while he ALSO did not have concrete better insights (he could have pushed for such studies though) and while the scientific mindset of an epidemiologist set him up against accepting "quick and dirty" for masks, or any other measure.
Trump would not even wear a custom made mask (some of his entourage had some, fabric masks in patriotic colors), but of course if the president does not lead by example .... How was Fauci going to push for wearing cotton masks, shawls, bandanas ?
Sanders could have doned one, he would look cool with a bandana.
1
-
Agitators are old news - Civil rights movement. Anti war movement. Hell they send middle aged FBI agents to completley peaceful speeches of a feminist that happnes to speak out against the surveillance state and the war in Iraq (Noaomi Wolff). I saw that some time ago, I assume that even was in the first term of Obama.
She spoke at a libertarian event, but was it was a well behaved, polite, normally dressed crowd. She comes across as middle classy, as can be (optics, way of dressing), pleasant behavior.
A New York lady, nicely dressed, in a feminine way and obviously wanting to be pleasant.
I mean I get it: if the FBI has to justify the existence of many agents, they can let a guy spend an afternoon at that event. It is certainly more pleasant than going after the mob or the real criminals. SHE and the people she spoke to, are not going to be dangerous.
They could be dangerous to the status quo - because they exercise their consitutional rights.
She spoke about the typical FBI guy or gal that is sent over to monitor the events when she is speaking. Organizer of that event (where Wolf was only a guest speaker) interrupted: but they always pay full ticket price, so thank you. Whole room started laughing. So audience and those organzers also had the experince of being monited.
Now these are the harmless people. What are they going to do, to monitor or to disrupt protest movements ?
Naomi:
"I do not want to body shame anybody - but what do these agents think, how people that are eager to protect the constitution look like ? Their ideas what they should wear to blend in into our events, are outdated. Do they think we all dress like hippies ?
A middle aged slightly overweight guy has the rasta cap with the locks, or some skater outfit, or dones a hippie outfit - and then he returns to the office, takes off the costume and writes his reports.
What do they think, that we all wear no bra ?"
Wolff has written books and is certainly not going to jeopardize her bourgeoise existence (on the other hand she visited Guantanamo, at a time where the people there let journalists in and talked to them.
Wolf: "I can get very charming, if I want to find something out."
So behind that feminine and pleasant demeanour is a real journalist. She is also friends with Laura Poitras.
The Bush admin had Wolf on a list - she got the plane tickets with the "special code". That ended when Obama got into office. I could imagine that the Clinton circles, like her, she is also a feminist. So she was left alone and got off that the list of people who get "those" plane tickets.
But then the harrassment of Laura Poitras started (until Glenn Greenwald wrote in the New York Times. EVERY time she had a flight and came back into the U.S. she would be interrogated for hours. Impossible to plan and super annoying. She is no criminal, had never any charges against her, pure tyranny.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The hit piece on Sanders ALSO contains some nuggets and positive things about Sanders. It gave some insights on the real estate swaps. Nothing to see here: it is all middle class, the Sanders family got the duplex in 2006 or 2007 in D.C. with a mortgage - so they likely bought for a high price). anyway having a nice (but not extravagant) home in Burlington is fitting for a long time Congressman / Senator (they sold 3 or 4 over the course of the years, incl. the house Jane owned - the house they own now is the best so far.
The only luxury is the 595,000 USD lakefront cabin at Lake Champlain. It seems Jane Sanders was for setting up a funds - so the property would stay in the family. I like the idea - maybe shared ownership and use. Meaning it is put to better use and does not sit idly like so many beautiful houses / locations.
Of course Sanders does not spend money of wife, wine and song, not lawsuits, shady lawyers or mistresses - so he could SAVE UP what he earned.
the thing that catapulted the family into the ranks of the wealthy was the book - and he did not have to sell out his principles to get that revenue stream.
Mayor of Burlington from early 1981 - 1988 brought a good salary (100k in todays money per year), the town has 30 or 40,000 people ! That was nothing that Sanders implemented - but getting there at age 40 meant he made good money for the first time in his life. The psychological effect was that he owed those benefits to the voters, the base that supported his grassroots campaigns.
By and large I think he was content with the money one could make as representative. There are some shady votes, but they seem to be not about personal advantage, but political calculation - to remain on good terms with the Democratic party or to get contracts for Vermont (the F35 for VT may have been the reward for votes he cast with the Dems). In Senate for 1 or 2 years he secured the very narrow D majority (else it could have been a tie - and Cheney could have broken that. With the vote of Sanders and ALL D Senators they had one more vote).
the way he run the city was ALSO liked by the business community (at least some, and after some time. They were worried about the "Socialist" initially. He cooperated with the Republicans on a case to case base ). His frugality showed when trying to eliminate cost drivers.
The interesting thing: Sanders lived like a poor churchmouse in the late 60s and 70s - but he clearly wanted to be in politics - and never gave up on that dream. He could have compromised (tone down the message, play nice with Democrats, get a suit and a tie) - but he didn't.
After his 4th term in Burlington (do they have term limits ?4 terms with 2 years = 8 years) he taught at a university (that was in 1989). Then he narrowly lost a run for office, in a 3 candidate race (the Dem was the spoiler). This is when the Democratic party gave up on supporting and running D candidates in a race in which he run (so he should win the seat easily) provided Sanders would caucus with them.
so he won the Congress seat in 1990 and was sworn in in 1991. But these were the partisan Clinton years (the Republicans increased the heat), so it was not so sure that he would be able to hold on to the seat. The article implies he was butting heads with Dems in D.C. although it does not elaborate. In other words - would the Dems start running a candidate against him again ? - Well it would mean a Republican had much better chances of winning - but a "moderate" Republican (well liked and aligned with the D establishment) could have been more appealing than the Independent FDR style politician...
.
I guess after the next election he felt more secure - he increased his margin and reaped the incumbent benefit (very important for grass roots campaigns. Money can buy name recognition. so the donors can usher in their shills - and since they finance the shills of both parties in the end it does not matter for them who wins.)
As for Sanders: only from 1992 / 1994 on he could relax, there was a good chance he could hold on to the seat.
Whatever his concerns may have been at the beginnin of his career in Congress in the 1990s - he STILL did not join the Democratic party (that would have meant fundraising FOR the party) and he did not compromise on the principles (which a more calculating politician would have done, to make his or her position more "secure").
And we have the speeches on the floor speaking out against many Biden / Bill Clinton pushed bills. Not that anyone paid attention then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U.S. certainly could throw their DIPLOMATIC weight around and make sure there is a genuine peace agreement between the Turkish government and the Kurdish region (which is in Turkey and in Syria). They could keep some U.S. soldiers there. Not for combat or to meddle with Syrian affairs, but as witnesses and deterrent for Erdogan. For THAT a few hundred would likely suffice. (The EU could send some soldiers as well - let's make it a Blue Helmet UN mission).
The U.S. has thousands of soldiers !! in Germany, France, U.K., Japan, Australia, South Korea, Qatar, likely Dubai, ..... These are regular bases. There are AT LEAST 10,000 soldiers in South Korea (it is either 10 or 20k).
So a few hundred in the Kurdish region (not meddling with Syria) just to make sure there would be witnesses and Erdogan the psychopath does not get wrong ideas would not be too much.
There is a happy middle ground between meddling and not caring at all.
The Kurdish region is in Turkey and that in Syria ! (and Iraq).
Turkey and Syria could have a trade agreement. Or a "border" agreement.
Before Austria joined the EU (1995 or 1996) they had such territorial agreements with Germany. Some areas in the mountains belong to Austria, but a few you can reach ONLY when travelling via German territory. And the people there are either farmers - or they drive to Germany to work there. Or go shopping. And that is the way the tourists and goods get there - or the ambulances or police.
Then there are the areas where the German route is faster. They had (? have) special tax agreements for Austrians working in the next town (often German), or for the border crossings. Postal services. Medical treatment was never a problem, all Western European countries (except Switzerland) have single payer and had national agreements to recognize insurance coverage.
If a person was insured in their home country (and that automatically means FULL coverage) they will be treated like a fully insured person in the country where they happen to need treatment. The public non-profit insurance agencies (single payer) have their tariffs to compensate each other - that is nothing that concerns the patients.
Usually one needed a passport when crossing the border between Germany and Austria (or any other border). In those special regions the driver's licence was enough.
The Kurdish region is mountain area, a dry region, they are not rich, and do not have much natural resources or tourism. They are kind of backwards, very patriarchal, traditional. On the other hand the Kurdish woman played a role in the battle against the Western terrorists (ISIS was gladly tolerated IN SYRIA, other moderated terrorists were outright supported). They took their chances and also set up co-op style economic structures. Like the dirt poor region in Spain become the incubator for Mondragon now the largest co-op in the world. Co-operating was a necessity to go forward.
So if the Kurds got some semi-autonomous status they would stop giving the Turkish government trouble. And it is in their own interest to stay with Turkey (the Turkish Kurds) the rest of the country is richer than they are - a wise Turkish government would give them some tax revenue for development - and they would all be fine.
Erdogan can forget to take advantage of a regime change in Syra by grabing some Syrian territory (with Syrian Kurds). It will not happen.
And yes, Turkey has flown attacks on Syria (the Syrian "Kurdistan"). I have heard that Erdogan and Assad had a good and cordial relationship. Assad came into power in 2000. Later Turkey was pressured / enticed by the evil forces (U.S. KSA U.K., France, Israel) to support the regime change effort in Syria. After all the camps to train the infiltrators and jihadists (often non-Syrians) were in the border region of Turkey and Jordan.
(see the interview of the former Qatari Prime minister on Qatari TV in Oct. 2017. Forgot to mention Qatar as part of the Axis of Evil. When they still had good relations with KSA they were ordered to organize the regime change operation. I assume that was around 2005 / 2006 - he did not mention a date, when he made the visit where he got the instructions to convey to his father (seems his father then ruled Qatar).
KSA would (also) pay for the regime change - but Qatar should carry out the mission.
It was extraordinary to hear that talked about so openly in Oct. 2017 (of course the quality press and media ignored that completely). Maybe a nudge from Qatar to the address of the U.S. to not let KSA invade them. Maybe they have more and embarassing proof of the involvement of the U.S. of how they used terrorists (Al Qaida !) to overthrow the Syrian government. Which they could produce if the U.S. does not protect them from KSA.
Qatar is like the little sibling of KSA - well, they are havinga major family row.
Qatar also has one of the largest U.S. bases outside of the U.S. - KSA very seriously considered invading them - but Rex Tillerson and Gen. Mattis intervened (that was in 2017 - spring or summer)
1
-
No, because Alex Jones is a grifter, too. Like Maddow, but he is not nearly as intelligent or knowledgeable (he does not have to be for his audience). He is a tribalist that RILES UP PEOPLE for a (very lucrative) living. The bounty on U.S. soldiers story did not pass the smell test. But it could have been true, (and to be fair, Trump would have ignored it anyway).
"based on informations by the intel community" it is nothing that a citizen or journalist can easily VERIFY. Or verify at all.
That is the genius move about the lies for the left and even more so the "liberals", the liars KNOW these folks factcheck at a reasonable level (the audience - at least some of them, and if they think they have been lied to about something important they take it to social media). To be fair, when a person was never exposed to other news and follows the "news" and politics only loosely, it is almost unbelieveable that all of the media get it wrong (let alone intentionally). Fox is unwatchable, so they never encounter anyone of "established media" that they resepct - that questions the story.
And if the large outlets would do their job as "news" they would now talk about the retraction (it was a big story, so the retraction is big news, too) and the CONSEQUENCES for news. Or relations with Russia.
So we cannot trust these sources ?
Not only when the government wants war - but also when the government wants to bring home the troops ?
The viewers would remember that. Not all people FOLLOW politics. They pick up the headlines. But when the next time the "intel agencies" "confirm" something, one person would be there saying: Remember last time, the WMD's for war, the bounty story against ending war, .... you can't trust the agencies.
But how are they gonna push for the NEXT war then ?
Viewers haven't learned anything from WMD's in Iraq, or the incubator lie in the 1990s. - I assume as this is not about going to war - at least not obviously ! people assume that the intel agencies have no such OBVIOUS reason to lie.
Everyone with minimum thinking skills and not blinded by tribalism realized that the Cheney / Bush admin absolutely WANTED war and likely leaned on the CIA in 2002 / 2003.
So they are given "proof" that they cannot fact check. Like: The intel agencies leaked to us .... You cannot verfiy that.
The over 60 court hearings regarding the election fraud are public record - but Trump cultists are unfazed, there is no sophisication needed to dupe them.
On the other hand going after the parents of Sandy Hook massacre is evil. Also that Alex Jones spread the story that a pizzeria was engaged in trafficking children (for sex trade). An armed man showed up, luckily he was arrested.
The tragic of it: this man may not be completely unhinged (he did not go on a shooting spree) and he may even have had noble intentions. There have been atrocious sex crimes of smaller abducted children been ignored / messed up by authorities (Marc Dutroux in Belgium, many witnesses died, likely they had the protection of powerful people), so it is not _completely imposssible. And Epstein could abuse teeangers with impunitiy.
Jones put him in danger and the people eating or working in the pizzeria in danger - because he does not have the will or ability to make a honest living.
Alex Jones has the money to investigate Sandy Hook, and talk to people - if the whole thing was made up, it would be a wild story, that warrants an investigation.
And the pizzeria does not even have a basement, so the story how they kept children there falls apart at this point.
But Sandy Hook massacre is a story that is against his team - gun enthusiasts and the right in general that did not agree to gun reform even after that. If the tribalists don't like it, it can't be true. The bounty on U.S. soldiers was also against team Trump. so he could be sceptical of that or better in denial.
1
-
First I was pleasantly surprised the Biden admin would correct the bounty story - and also consider bringing home the troops (silly me - read till the end). Media and likely deep state are pushing back against leaving Afghanistan - so the Biden admin throws in this nugget ("Remember last time when you got it wrong ?")
The retraction helps them in the battle of public opinion, regarding the end of the Afghanistan war.
intel community only recently lied / misinformed the audience, media and even the Biden campaign. I mean if the bounty story is not disputed by the CIA - then a presidential candidate should be able to repeat it.
But then I was like. Holy, shit they want to start a war ELSEWHERE, that is why they leave Afghanistan. VP Harris already dropped a hint. "WATER WARS".
Egypt and Ethiopia. Soon.
And maybe India and China (later).
One could invest into these countries in Africa. Environmental protection, no industrial (unprocessed) waste water into the water that they recycle. So what little they have, can be used.
First thing NATO bombed in Libya was the groundbreaking irrigation system they had set up.
Libya sits on a huge aquifer. That is why the French voltures are interested and were eager to have and participate in a regime change war, with Gadafi in charge (or his clan) they cannot privatize that. - Privatizing water does not fly in Europe, a consortium with a French company on board was ran out of Bolivia, ....
Ethiopia got garment industry - Vietnam and China have become too expensive. Sewing would be neutral when it comes to water use, but they also dye and that pollutes water. So their companies would need help to switch. They would need a sewage system.
also: modern forms of organic agriculture that use less water.
Compost toilets instead of ones that are flushed with water (if they upgrade). And a system to pick that up (in the cities), or to teach the farmers how to use that waste (manure) safely.
They use that manure in the poor areas anyway. Like they did in the U.S. maybe 100 - 150 years ago. Or in Europe. With the high temperatures they just have to be more mindful about germs. But then the heat can also help them to kill off germs.
Desalination with help of PV panels (they have enough sun). Pipelines to distribute that water.
would not cost more than war and create a LOT of goodwill for the U.S. / EU - and both nations (Ethiopia, Egypt) could find a cooperative way to share the water of the nile. Ethiopia builds a dam. Egypit is up in arms,. they dcan of course try to bomb that dam, but Egypt also has crucial targets.
Not to forget: BIRTH CONTROL. Not sure if the water has become less, or they have too many people. Poor agricultural societies have high birth rates. Now vaccination and very basic healthcare helps more babies (and adults) to survive but they are not wealthy enough to have reduced the number of children they have (which was necessary in the past, because so many died, or there was a war or other catastrophe - the strength of a modern army is not the number of people they have in the country and can use as cannon fodder).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2 of 2 Why don't politicians use MMT ? Let's talk about speculation! And the relevance to the MMT issue and keeping information about MMT hidden from the voters. - Power. Keeping the unwashed masses busy, productive (but not profiting !). Brainwashing them with thought stopping clichés about the * economy, banking, Wall street, the need for derivates or even the stock exchange. *
Germany was rebuilt after WW2 - they did have a stock exchange, it was a lame affair to put it mildly. The recovery wasn't financed by the stock exchange.
* Banks, speculation, stock exchange, neoliberal globalized economic policies are the areas where the top can "make" loads of money. - It is essential that the plebs do not get a) what is going on and
b) do not understand how money could be made to work for them (not only the upper income group).
Let alone that the process of money creation is abused by the speculator class - big time. Not only are they leeching off the productive economy when they use the "financial gains" coming from the bets
In the derivatives "market": zero deposit for large players, 15 % maximum for others when they place the bets (= derivatives). That is how they can bring currencies down by speculating against them provided there is a trend they agree on.
They do not need to have the money in order to be able to bet. They get CREDIT. Regular people on the other hand have to pay in advance for their bets - insurance contracts (yes technically that is a bet), lottery tickets, gambling in the casino, joining a poker tournament, ....
These transactions are not financed on credit (or "writing on") - and with good reason. And we know that with bets money changes hands - but the volume in the system does not change. In Big Finance most parties win for extended periods of time (they win more bets than they lose). That is not possible unless they constantly increase the volume of money. By creating money.
Until 1970 the volume of money rose in lockstep with growth of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) resp. globally with Gross World Product. Which makes sense, in the real economy we use money to exchange products and services. Banks create loans when productive businesses ask for them. There will be more goods in the system (see growth of GDP / GWP) - and the necessary money (= purchasing power) to exchange them.
Since 1970 * the money volume increase is detached from the growth of the ecomony. in a dramatic manner.
(For real since 1980 when financial deregulation started. The Vietnam war and going off the gold standard may have allowed some deviations as soon as the 1970s).
Anyway: growth of the economy vs. growth of money TIMES 18 for the USD, TIMES 13 on a global scale (1970 - 2013) - I have those figures from a speech from Edgar Moest, he juggled the currency dealings for Eastern Germany (GDR), built the business for Deutsche Bank in that area after the unification.
Given his background he might not have bought into all the capitalistic narratives. He was critical of Big Finance especially after the Great Financial Crisis. (Not sure what his position was before).
That money does NOT cause hyperinflation. the most simplistic explanation of inflation: Too much money chasing not enough goods. That money sits on the accounts of (super) rich people (often in tax havens). It does not chase anything, it is not spent into the economy. Some inflation happens maybe in the stock market and more in real estate on a global scale, but not when it comes to consumer goods, etc. They could never, ever spend the money.
Highly leveraged speculation, the maximum so far was 700 TRILLION in derivatives on a given day in 2011 in the U.S.. see the zerohedge article. Compared to then U.S. GDP 18 or 19 trillion.
700 tn open balance on one day (they took June 1st and the last day of December.
Not the traded volume in a certain period.
GDP is for the period of ONE year.
MMT undermines the ideological base that makes it possible - among other things - that Big Finance cashes in a lot of money of speculation.
Or take austerity: it was proven to be a failure in the 1920s and 1930s in Europe - a LOT of powerful, well educated politicians NOW did not get the memo.
Well, austerity is ALSO a tool of power. Like the knowledge about money creation (either by commercial banks in form of loans OR directly by the state).
Once the unwashed masses realize that that tool COULD be USED to create the good life for eveyone it would subvert the power of the establishment and reduce the possibilites for income of those who are already rich. Those increase of income are sucked away from the lower to middle income brackets. So far MONEY and since the 1980s the economic system at large has mostly served the already wealthy and influental .
With widespread understanding of MMT there would be no turning back.
If the genie is out of the bottle the argument: " We cannot afford it" * would be thrown into the dustbin of history.
* "We would like to provide the god life for the citizens: healthcare, good infrastructure, free higher education, social housing, research in renewables - BUT WE CANNOT AFFORD IT"
Especially in the U.S there is the worship of "hard work". It would be almost frivolous to insist on working no more than 40 hours per week. Well - that was introduced in the U.S. in 1940 (for all - some industries or companies already had it, for instance railway or FORD). The 40 hour week came in Europe in the 1950s after the recovery from WW2 had set in.
That is approx. 70 years ago. Between 1947 and 1970 productivity gains (automation, computer use, international exchange of compenents and technology...) were given in form of more purchasing power = wages adjusted to inflation. Average Real wages almost doubled - plus 97 % (productivty rose by 112 % in the same time.
After that productivity gains should have been given in more free time reducing the work week to 39, 38, 37 ... 30 hours - with the same wage (purchasing power as for the 40 hour week so of course adjusted for inflation).
When corporations can increase output w/o increasing the use of labour (or if they manage otherwise to reduce costs) = increase in productivity - and they give the increases in form of more free time while keeping wages constant * - everything stays the same for them: sales prices, revenue, production costs, profits - and the number of full time jobs. Which then would be full time with 39, 38 …30 hours.
That would have meant ongoing FULL employment and good negotiating power for the workforce - even with the women joining the workforce, more automation, computer use, ongoing immigration.
* constant wages = same consumer spending, which comes mostly from wages.
In that scenario wages = consumer spending can keep up with the ever increasingin efficiency in the production of goods and services.
What happened: the gains in productivity were not given anymore - not in wages and not in time, consumer spending was kept up for some time with credit card debt, housing bubbles gave the illusion of being wealthy so people spent on furniture or got the larger loan that also financed the new care.
The gains did not stay the same for the corporations or shareholders which were doing quite well in the Golden Era even with the good wages that were paid then. NOW the lions share of the productivity gains goes to the top.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sadly Sanders is so weak that he does not dare even hint that Biden is not like he used to be in the presidential race of 2012 (VP debate against Paul Ryan). Or even 2017. if he would say:
I am the stronger candidate I have the RESERVES, I even weathered a heart attack and stent surgery and was back on an INTENSE SCHEDULE after 2 weeks. In January and Feburary it looked like Biden, Bloomberg and I had a shot at the nomination.
Joe is 14 months younger, Bloomberg is 5 months younger than I am. Joe had 2 aneurysms when he was much younger (and it was very serious then) and Bloomberg and I have stents.
But I am the ONLY candidate that has PROVEN to stand the strain of an intense and long campaign. Bloomberg let his money campaign for him - so we do not know his resilience.
Joe Biden did a light campaign throughout 2019, his campaign had him on 7 minute speeches after he won South Carolina / did well on Super Tuesday.
When we went into isolation, Joe Biden went missing for almost a week. He left the field to Donald Trump, even his weak performance got him a bump in the ratings - because the presumptive front runner of the Democratic Party is Missing In Action.
When Joe FINALLY comes up with appearances he makes no new proposals (that have not already been made - even by Trump), gives unconvincing interviews with strange statements - or his team has a podcast with OLD numbers (so obviously it took them several days to record that and / or heavy editing to come up with a 21 minute podcast).
I immediataly did a lot of virtual events, round tables with experts and was present online - but I am not covered by the mass media while doing that. And while I am not a master at the tech - I - unlike Joe Biden - was able to attract and hire a team that has me up and running with the online tech within 1 or 2 days.
Joe Biden would get as much coverage as he wants on mainstream media and he could chase Trump like in a fierce general election battle - but he simply went into hiding. And does not chase Trump now either.
People ask ME to drop out:
On the ground campaigns in primary mode because at least 2 strong contenders stay in the race:
Candidates have to campaign and use resource and TIME in states that they would negelect in the general campaign.
But VIRTUAL campaigns do not have those constraints: Biden could ignore that I am still in the race and take leadership and make a convincing case on his own and against Trump.
Let me remind you that he chickened out of a last debate with be - when we have a completely changed economic situation and an unprecedented challenge for out country. That would very much warrant a debate - and after all it is not much investment of time if we do it online. I must say I would prefer it to be in a studio (so a little more hassle) - I do not use ear pieces to get my answers delivered by someone else. And in the setting of online a lot could be manipulated.
In a studio would get a lot of attention, so it is worth the higher investment in time and the travel.
Joe Biden has the billionaires rallying behind him - he certainly can afford the private plane to protect his health.
And I think we should stand during the debate - to show our physical resilience.
Joe Biden - unlike all other candidates - has not campaigned hard or a lot in all of 2019 or 2020 - maybe with the exception of South Carolina and with half intensity in Iowa and New Hamshire (but for those states he had one year).
And in a virtual campaign he is not hindered at all to campaign in any state or to go into "general mode". he does not have to do on the ground rallies, townhalls.
and if he does a virtual townhall (which wasn't a success - to put it mildly - last time they tried) the limitations of time and space of a real campaign do not apply. That townhall can be watched in EVERY state.
No one hinders Joe Biden to behave like he was already in the general campaign, like I was already out of the race. he could already annoy the heck out of Trump. Nobody hinders him but Joe Biden himself.
And when he appears in virtual events and interviews he seems to have one mishap or another EVERY single time.
I wish Joe the best - but I do not think he can stand the strains of a regular campaign and the presidency and he cannot even cope well with the very much reduced strain of campaigning from the comfort of your home while being in isolation.
Biden has proven that you can win on name recognition (if all other candidates drop out on your behalf in a concerted action).
And let's keep it real Biden got xx USD in free campaign by favorable media reporting as per the study of xx.
While it is good for him that he can win on name recognition and the narrative of "electability" and no policies - it does not give us any insights to his endurance, stress resilience, ability to react FAST to dramatic developments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2 of 2 Grassroots form all over the country, people feel inspired and emboldened to become first time candidates - before the Sanders campaign that seemed impossible without the backup of a party machine of Big Donors. That is a MAJOR CHANGE compared to before the Sanders presidential campaign.
Sure Pat Buchanan, Barry Goldwater, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, and Jesse Jackson tried a populist campaign w/o or against the "machine". But no one came as close as Sanders.
One reason is that the economic problems have worsened (the GFC was a game changer to make citizens critical of the current economic system) and the internet and independent media was a game changer as well.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was not covered by the New York Times before her unlikely win in the primaries. The underdog story NOW gets her some free airtime - good for her. But as long as a candidate has not won the uphill battle - they will be treated as non-existent by mainstream media.
Independent news on the internet covered her for one year, that helped to fund raise (likely also money from supportive progressives from outside New York). And it helped with name recognition and on social media.
Now it is certainly necessarry to have quicker electoral successes than Sanders in the 70s and 80s (climate change looming and there will be another financial crisis).
And they will be quicker - a more professional approach (fund rasing helps to pay for that) and now they are organizing and fund raising on a national level and have the internet.
Three major achievements of Senator Sanders:
1)
He changed the national discussion about healthcare. Politicians of both parties and the media colluded for DECADES to never, ever have a substantiated meaningful discussion. Which would have uncovered that healthcare is a terrible fit for the "free market" because the patients are the much weaker players in the game. That the for-profit actors would be always 2 steps ahead of even well-meaning regulations, and 4 steps ahead of the patients.
Which is why the systems leaning towards non-profit (like the European systems do) are so much more cost-efficient, they eliminate the profit motive that is toxic for a service like healthcare. And if there are private for-profit offers they have to compete with a very efficient non-profit public offer.
A "Big Donations OUT of Politics" politician is of course free to start such a discussion, he can allow himself to annoy for profit and self-interested actors (the healthcare industry, mainstream media which gets a lot of the campaign budgets, and the political class, also often in form of ex-politicians that are employed as strategists, consultants, lobbyists, ...)
2)
He changed the idea who could even run for office and HOW that could be financed and organized. He helped jumpstart grassroots (Our Revolution) and others connected in spirit did the same (Like Justice Democrats or Brand New Congress).
Yes, one CAN run - even without support of the party and Big Donors. And some succeed. While others have decent results (30 % isn't shabby at all for a first attempt - giving how tilted the game is towards the candidate with the most money).
With the internet the grassroots can circumvent the gatekeepers - established parties beholden to the Big Donros and the media that helps them. They all profit massively from money in politics, so they are going to suppress or sideline candidates that run grassroots campaigns.
3)
He unapologetically used the word "Socialist" or "Social Democrat"even though he lived through the cold War and knows the brainwashing
Sanders is not a "Socialist" nor is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez they are on the Social Democratic spectrum.
1
-
1
-
4:20 the part about Mexico, fence / wall, they are drug dealers, .... starts here. Joe Biden in 2006 raising money for 2008 - and yes he sounds like an angry rightwinger.
The part before is Joe Biden joking about touching people AFTER asking forconsent (a child on the stage, buy hey, usually he get's handsy / creepy with little girls right in broad daylight when the proud family have a photo op with the drum roll .... Vice President - so hardly anyone has the swift reaction to hinder him.
People are usually polite and somewhat caught up in the excitement of the moment, and they are not EXPECTING anything inappropriate to happen with so many people watching.
(that was the scheme he did on Lucy Flores. He was supposed to be the much more senior (senior in the sense of being at the top) Democrat that helped her by appearing at her pivotal last campaign event.
She concentrated before going on the stage (it was a bit hectic - campaigns tend to be like that in that stage) - and Biden chose THAT moment to creep up on her from behind ! put his hand on her shoulders, sniff her hair and place a long kiss on the top of her head.
That is the privilege of an INTIMATE PARTNER, and even then it would have been wrong time, wrong way.
How about approaching her so she can see you in advance, and give her a reassuring squeeze of the hand or a encouraging pat on arm or shoulder. (Still not a good idea when you see her concentrating, collecting herself for going on stage in 1minute or so).
Biden gets off on it that he CAN take those liberties and doing them in broad daylight gives him plausible deniability.
And it surprises the victims and bystanders. Most people do not want to cause a scene especially not when the person is powerful. I guess many parents could have recognized how inappropriate the behavior was if a neighbour or relative or teacher would have done the exact same during a photo op.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@h00dielogic42 The bill came back from the Senate to the House. The House either includes the 15 minimum as INTEGRAL PART (and if need be then VP Harris will have to bother and overrule the parliamentarian) or the Squad will not vote for the whole 1.9 trillion package.
Your usual workday blackmail ;) - worked well for the Freedom caucus (the tea party factions), they forced Republicans to shut down the government and other stunts.
Panic of course Senate, House and WH because that is a must-pass-bill the Biden admin WANTS to pass it. the Democrats in the House and Senate want to pass it.
That would be reported in the media and of course the Squad would have to communicate why they of all people refuse to vote for the bill, why it is highly unlikely that it will pass in the next years if they do not include it now.
They need to have the arguments to debunk the lame pretext of inflation, small biz going under, job loss. All nonsense of course. Oh and the CBO only got at the assessment of 1.4 million jobs lost over 10 years (and a slight uptick in the deficit) since they assumed an unusually high degree of automation triggered ..... that needs debunking as well).
O.K. the House includes it, passes it and it goes to the Senate (they cannot vote down a bill and then bring it up again, there are limits how much they can send a bill forth and back).
And then it is the question if Manchin blinks or not. He is the worst punk, I assume Sinema could be pummeled. If the White House could be bothered to twist arms or to charm them ....
Manchin said he will not pass it WITH the minimum wage.
He would have blinked. He got away so far with his acts of sabotage, he does not mind being an asshole but he has not been challenged so far, so his bravado is not quite so impressive.
Since 2010 in Senate (and the 5 years before as govenor of WV, always as "Democrat"), in 2012 he endorsed Mitt Romney (or said he could not endorse Obama, not sure which one).
In 2013 he was one of 3 Senators with a D to their name that cost the Obama admin the possibility to pass the infrastructure bill with a simple majority (and that is a bill they wanted - I suspect they were glad that someone killed the Public Option for them in 2009 and now the minimum wage).
The House sent the bill BUT w/o the minimum wage, Sanders in the Senate added it again with an amendment but the big donor serving D Senators were able to vote down the amendment w/o killing the whole bill.
That was important to not have to pay the heavy political price.
The Squad could have forced the nuclear option on Manchin and Sinema, by making sure that the House added the minimum wage as part of the package. It would either be all or nothing.
The others 6 Senators that voted down the minimum wage amendment came crawling out from their caves when it was safe.
But Manchin and Sinema stuck out their neck. Not only with the bill, right away when this Congress season started. They took all negotiation power from the party regarding filibuster. Sided with the Republicans, and made strong statement. Got a little bit of reaction from the White House (Harris gave an interview on local TV in Arizona and West Virginia).
So they did not have to pull the nuclear option: killing the stimulus, killing a popular wage increase and they cannot defend their positition, the handwringing does not hold up when challenged by someone talking economics - they have only Chamber of commerce talking points, but the experiences of the past, and there are reasons why there are no negative effects.
On top of that: it is rolled out in steps so if this would be the exception to prove the rule - "concerned" Dems could find enough Repubs to amend the bill later. Any negative effects would show up, but not in full force.
The Seattle minimum wage was raised by a good amount (in hikes, big biz earlier). Researchers accompagnied the project, it went very well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Special interests" on the other hand are only a FEW companies which hijack however HUGE budgets PER COMPANY (so naturallay they have strong incentives for rigging and bribery). They are usually large, with few very specialized products which require a lot of research and development - they get the budgets for that - * no questions asked (all hail the free market).
* THEY LIE!" Bernie Sanders' BRILLIANT Takedown of Trump & the Establishment's Illegal Foreign Policy youtube(dot)com/watch?v=G7NP6rtIdZg
Despite the title which is misleading ! it is an excellent 10 minutes clip of a recent committe session about very high military spending, the recent increases (by 70 bn to almost 700 bn per year), the waste and missing money, no audit for 28 years, ....
Rand Paul, Bernie Sanders and another representative
Little competition, huge profits - so they CAN afford the political donations that are of course necessary so that they stay in the game. Those bribes are costs of doing business and deliver an excellent R.O.I.
And - very important - HIRING ex politicians, giving them a seat on the board, or contracts when they are "consultants".
If the product/service is such that a LOT of players including government agencies can deliver them - there goes the scheme so lucrative for the few involved companies AND the politicians.
Government can provide excellent schools, childcare - it is not rocket science. Or public non-profit healthcare insurance agencies. The work is mainly ADMINISTRATIVE. They do not need to be INNOVATIVE. Just well organized and managed with common sense.
the NHS is an example how an almost completely public non-profit system can beat all other systems (incl. the other "universal healthcare" systems in Europe that involve MORE private actors or allow a two tier system.
All those systems beat the U.S. of course, but I got the impression (World Bank per capitat healthcare expenditures) - the more private for-profit or two - tier is integrated into the way a country organizes its healthcare - the more expensive it gets.
The Tories had to defund the NHS over 10 years (starting from a situation where they had a lean budget already, the lowest for a wealthy European country ) in order to run it into the ground and in order to create a pretext for a partial privatization.
Well I hope that helps to bring Jeremy Corbyn into office as Prime Minister.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Humans are social animals, people like Schumer, Pelosi, HRC or Obama likely do not have the cynical intellectual fortitude to admit to themselves that they are cowards and self-serving lying, sellouts that gladly accept preventable deaths of the people they asked for their vote and swore to serve. Humans have selfish and aggressive impulses, but being social, generous, getting along with the tribe members (you were often stuck for life with them) was crucial for survival of the species.
So 100,000 years ago in small groups humans knew each other very well, depended on each other for survival, and social control (that is based on our instincts) is WAY stronger than greed and selfishness - or even the desire to express your individuality. Or being overly agressive.
Part of that evolutionary heritage is the desire to see ourselves as "good".
"I am a Corporate stooge that sells out the constituents even though I am already rich" - does not rhyme with that deep desire of humans (even the morons, selfish pricks) to align with the evolutionary dictate to be social.
They still live it - in THEIR circles they may be nice, and generous people. But in our kind of society and being a politican with so much power - they would need to use their frontal lobes to EXPAND their empathy and caring beyond their tribe. To the somewhat abstract, intangible "constituent" (or even citizen of another country).
So that exercise in complancent selfishness (w/o your better instincts bothering you) needs some good double think.
Even better: avoiding to even notice any discrepancy between self image, professed care for the voters - and the actions, and what is observable in society.
Suppressing information (= you are good in NOT realizing obvious things, and good in looking the other way) is the easiest way humans can align their social instincts (their better self) with utter selfishness.
We naturally tend to stay within out circles (the tribe) so that is not too hard.
A good "theroy" can help to gloss over the contradictions (so they captured academia and pay for think tanks to come up with a theory that backs up the selfish actions. it is either like a law of nature, or it is the best you can achieve, or the popolist policy is not REALLY working. a lot of those lies are going on regarding single payer).
Humans are not rational: Bias and tribalism (or well concealed selfishness and greed - concealing means: also hiding that insight from yourself) beats intelligence, and education. And any campaign promises.
Intelligence and education can even help with coming up with the thought stopping clichés to justify the selfish actions.
And there is another point:
When humans deep down "know" that they are not doing the right thing - but they have went down the slippery slope - they often double down.
So intelligent, educated people like HRC or Obama, with a lot of staff to help them with the research, have the facts on single payer (globally and for 70 years - they pay half of what the U.s. pays per person ) or what Nafta, China deal did to the U.S. population.
And they gladly promoted the next trade deal, TPP. And gladly tell lies about single payer.
That needs some sophisticated suppression of insight / double think.
The Democrats have to do more of that, because they claim to be for the little people, so the discrepancies they have to gloss over intellectually are much bigger.They tend to have intelligent politicians (at least when running for president).
Again intelligence, and a degree (not necessarily an education) does not equal insight, being self aware nor does it lead to wisdom, or intellectual honesty.
1
-
BUT: Humans cannot be selectively willfully ignorant. The (subconscious) exercise of double think (in order to quell their own better impulses) hurts the ability to process information of the real world.
These intelligent, privileged, educated people with the staffers to help them, are really not able to "get" it.
Exhibit A) Clinton campaign in 2016.
It was not hard to SEE this was the election of the economic populists. Hillary Cinton: I do not understand the country anymore. (Quote form the book Shatterd).
She hadn't understood for decades, but in 2016 the discrepancy became so large, she could not help noticing something was off and that the usual recipes how to manufacture an election win did not work anymore.
The insight did not go far enough to help her (and her equally self serving team) FIND the winning strategies.
A theoretical ynnouncement of HRC:
TPP is off the table - and we will have a look at NAFTA. Robert Reich will be my Secretary of Labor and we will work on this together. (so assuring voters in the Rust Belt that she means it and hasconcrete plans, it is not just a "public" position). I hereby install a working group, Robert Reich, the unions are welcome to make their suggestions, I am sure Senator Sanders or Warren have ideas as well
We will go for the public option for ages 0 - 55, plus lowering Medicare age to 55. Plus better funding for Medicare, plus reigning in pharma prices (the low hanging fruit). Medicare will be allowed to negotiate drug prices and pharmacies CAN buy at Medicare gross prices, chains or small pharmacies all get the same good price.
The plan Sanders announded in 2017 had a 4 year rollout so in year one the age group plus 55 would be in Mediare, and two there would not be that much difference. Lets do Public Option and take it from there. Sanders' role in my admin wil be [more concrete details] so you can sure we will push for it together.
We will have a look at student loan forgiveness. Or have offers to switch to an loan from a public bank with a very low interest rate.
Weed is classified like heroin, I will change that on day one.
If Clinton would have announced that - she would have won and handily.
Instead she sighed a breath of relief after the convention, after she had limped over the finish line. And turned to the right immediately (see VP pick). Schumer laid out the plan to win the mythical moderate Republican (an agenda that is not at odds with the interests of the big donors, these voters still profit from the current system and do not oppose neoliberalism, not like those who have been crushed by it for decades and do not believe the propaganda how it is inevitable / their fault).
Because Trump is such a moron HARC felt secure to give little of substance to the voters, what were they going to do ?
Vote for Trump ? and the base HAD to come out, after all they had to worry about the terrible alternative to her, which was Trump.
- well the base stayed home in larger numbers than before, and many crossed over to voting Trump.
Even for purposes of getting into power, the smart and safe thing would have been to make the voters a GOOD offer. Since the candidates with economic populism_ had filled the stadions in the primaries. In the economic rhetoric Trump was to the left of Hillary Clinton.
But it is always the voters that are screwed in favor of the big donors - and never the other way round.
Clinton is already rich, for once she could have screwed the big donors. Sanders showed that you can finance campaigns and the party w/o depending on the big donors.
Madame president could have built her legacy regarding healthcare, NAFTA renegotiatons and she for sure would be a better leader in times of a pandemic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Josh Swett + Ungha Especially the U.K. and French "elites" get the colonial itch from time to time. While the other wealthy and influental European nations cowardly do nothing about it. They saw to it that that Ukraine did not get completely out of hand, but did not call it the U.S. backed coup that it was. They support Iran - a little bit - after the U.S. had ditched the deal. They go along with the new push for a Cold War - or at least do not strongly and openly oppose it.
It is much harder to sell war to the European VOTERS (in Europe they had war IN the countries during WW2, the civilians not only the soldiers had to face the reality of war and occupation = bombing, foreign occupation, atrocities from all sides, people being driven out, serious food and fuel rationing, people being drafted for forced labor, etc.).
The Western multinationals cannot make their French and UK political puppets start wars for their interests on their own - but a lot is possible under the NATO umbrella "following" the U.S. - playing the willing vassal of the U.S.
Europe could EASILY stand on its own feet - but is has advantages for the ruling class (not the countries, not the population) to play the U.S. lapdog.
"Western" Europe had roughly the same population during the Cold War era than the U.S. (which has now 325 million people).
Now: Only the EU and associated countries (that is not all of Europe) have roughly 530 million people. If the EU stands together they do not need the U.S. or NATO to DEFEND themselves, not all but many of these nations are wealthy.
Many have a skilled workforce (they kept quality manufacturing, have engineers). Most European countries are low in natural resources, especially fossil fuel - on the other hand they are more affin to energy saving technology and energy prices have always been higher than in the U.S. (if only because of taxation).
That is another lesson of BOTH World Wars - energy scarcity was one of the reasons Nazi Germany colluded and later turned on the Soviet Union under Stalin. And there was not only food but also serious energy rationing going on during WW2 and scarcity after WW2 throughout Europe
The U.S. war machine does not want Europe to become too independent (which they could easily do and would do if they had wise leadership). The European nations are part of the EURASIAN !! continent, Europe has technology and science and Asia (incl. Russia !) has natural resources. But the European "elites" have their reasons to play along with the U.S. and NATO.
The U.S. has the global naval dominance - which is very expensive btw (and they also control the regions where the world currently gets a lot of fossil fuels = Middle East).
But if push comes to shove that costly naval U.S. dominance would not be enough for the U.S. - the transports between Europe and Russia / Asia are on LAND or can be done on land (see the Chinese initiative Silkroad 2.0).
If the Middle East would stop to supply energy, Europe could (and would !) turn to Russia and the other former Soviet states. Prices would go up - but the already exisiting culture of "energy saving" could be put on stereoides - they would buy some oil and gas and replace fossil fuel with technology and human labor.
In short - an independent Europe after WW2 over 10 or 20 years would have started friendlier relationships with the Soviets. Especially after Stalin had died in 1953 - some wise economic help would have gone a looooong way to prop up the more moderate forces in the Polit Bureau. Democracy or Dictatorship - the government always has a major interest to make the economy work for the population.
So the underdeveloped Soviet Union would have gotten a big dose of high technology and engineering while the Europeans would not have needed to cower before the U.S. to make sure their supply for minerals and fossil fuel is safe.
The U.S. does not need the oil in the Middle East (well not all of it - although there are political interests to keep oil priced down) - but with controlling the Middle East they also control the other nations as long as these nations use a lot of fossil fuel from that region.
There is no better way to secure peace between nations than mutually beneficial trade relationships and a lot of citizens visiting the other countries.
That is much cheaper than having an arms race and World Wars every few decades. Additionally to being much more civilized.
But the producers of weapons have very specialized NATIONAL technology. In that field usually there is only very limited international competition.
The U.S. for national security reasons is not going to buy proprietary Chinese or even European technology. Every country develops their own military technology (buying a little bit from close allies).
Economy of scale is not fully utilized for the manufacturing of military equipment. - well it is a reason to push for endless war and lower level conflicts. Regarding military equipment worldwiede there are HUGE over capacities for manufacturing.
A very powerful, politically very well connected insider clique in a scene with excessive corruption desperately wanting to CREATE DEMAND for their product.
it is completely different with civilian technology. For weapons there is little if any competition. The countries even want to have the production of not so advanced technology IN the country (so they will not be dependent on getting it from other countries). Especially with high tech and new technology the contracts tend to be large. So very few corparations can rake in the profits and they will not be bothered by competition.
When a country invests in civilian technology it tends to be less high tech (building streets and schools and affordable housing is not rocket science) - and there is international competition as well.
Let's say there is a huge bridge project - not too many large international construction companies can pull that off - But Dutch, French,.....companies can join the bidding process. Even if an U.S. company gets the contract - their chance for very high profits will be somewhat undercut by the competing offers. and they cannot afford to be very much behind technology and cost-wise - or the foreigners will get the contract.
In construction architects are sometimes invited to do a planning and come up with a study or proposal. And they are paid for participating in the process. So even if they are pretty sure that they only have an outsider chance to get the contract - they can show off, they at least will break even with the costs (as long as they have workforce to spare for such "vanity" projects) - and the purchaser gets competition !
The same process could be utilized to find companies that will join an international bidding process for huge infrastructure projects.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ JanPBtest - so that is why so many Polish people leave their country to work for instance in the UK (or in the Baltic states, the young and educated leave). Because the economy works so well. Let's start with the year 1990 and add 28 years. Now take 1945 and add 28 years. that was 1973
- sure there was the first oil crisis, energy prices doubling within 18 months when almost all oil is imported, did not help. But apart from that spike - it was an era of unprecedented growth (under only somewhat ! free market conditions. Lots of protectionism, tariffs, customs procedures, fixed exchange rates. In the US, Western Europe, Japan, ...
That is when the export industry in Europe and Japan developed.
I thought it would be the Economic Miracle all over again - this time for Eastern Europe, surely they were in better shape than Germany and Japan after the war.
Nope - Eastern Europe was thrown into the neoliberal shark tank, no time for transition, no sheltered conditions to develop and grow (like Western Europe had after the war). That was no law of nature - both strategies were POLITICAL DECISIONS.
The U.S. needed Western Europe against the Soviet Union - and as potential battlefield and first strike area in a nuclear war. And politicians directly after the war were acutely aware what economic stress can lead to. In 1990 those lessons were forgotten by the elites.
It shows in the results.
And many European countries drift to the right and get quite authoritarian leaders (at least the mindset if not - yet - the possibilities). That also happened under the economic stress of the 1920s and 1930s.
1
-
1
-
I hope he runs, Sanders will wipe the floor with him, and he might divert some Republican votes (he should run as a R to begin with) - Starbucks does not hire unless you have a college degree (to be a barista * !!). They had incredibly fractured work schedules (people never knew in advance WHEN they would be working, they were hired according to who biz was going).
* Prof. Richard Wolff (economic update, Democracy@Work) overheard a conversation in Starbucks in New York. He told that a few months ago (early 2018) as example that the heralded recovery of the economy and good employment situation is anything but. (See next comment: prettied up unemployment numbers)
If the workforce is REALLY getting scarcer WAGES RISE and the employers are more generous when your resume does not quite fit, you are getting a chance to prove your capabilites.
A young woman asked for a job application form, the manager asked if she had finished college - no she had not, seemed embarrassed. The manager said friendly, I will give you the form and will submit it to human resources - but to be honest you do not have a chance to get hired unless you have a college degree.
Wolff said he sat at the bar, so he could overhear the conversation.
And added: Why does Starbucks DEMAND a degree for a job that involves pushing 6 buttons ? A job that never has and never will need that kind of qualification ?
Because they CAN - that's why !
There are obviously enough people with degrees that do not get adequate jobs (at least in New York - and I assume HR was CENTRAL so that is not necessarily a local attitude). Not even regular OFFICE jobs. If pay and benefits were in the same range I would take the office job (even if I am overqualified) it is a better starting point than being a waitress or barista.
And if those people were not availabe for Starbucks and companies like them (because they do other white collar work even if the pay is less than they expected) - Starbucks would not make that a default "qualification".
Being punctual, reliable well groomed, a friendly smile, well spoken does not hurt, patient ! and polite healthy, even young - all of that would be a positive.
Which a highschool dropout might provide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheTerrypcurtin the free market works only if all actors have around the same power. The most important power for consumers is to not buy. That restores a lot of power even if consumers have to do with large for-profit companies.
Not buying = can't afford it and have to make do w/o, not willing to spend that much, not happy with quality or price, not interested in the product anyway, can make my own (food, repairs, clothes, construction, .....)
you do not have those choices with healthcare. To make things worse it IS expensive even in the best case. A fairly expensive service tha decides over life and healthc that people MUST have from craddle to grave, and they are at the mercy of for profits.
A service you usually cannot even delay. Normally if you do not treat it right away it gets worse (even a harmless fracture can cripple you, you cannot save up 2 years, and you cannot wait for a special offer either, or shop around).
healthcare is very complex (diagnosis, treatment, running the facilities). And the billing and conditions to have insurance coverage can be intentionally made complex. Complexity favors big companies.
for profits WILL screw consumers if they CAN.
Think USD 5,400 per resident per year, take or leave 400 USD (data 2017).
That is what it costs to have good healthcare for all in a first world country.
While a range of 800 USD is something (most countries are in the middle - see the 49 - 54 % of U.S per person spending) - the surcharge for the U.S. to have a for-profit system is much more, at least USD 4,500.
per person, per year - for 330 million people.
1
-
@TheTerrypcurtin Health insurance is administration around medicine, it is NOT the real thing. (That is: getting care by nuses, docors, surgery, lab testing, the hopspital as accessible institution ....)
Single payer: the admin around healthcare is kept VERY simple. That reduces costs signicifantly.
you have a wage of more than 500 USD per month, you pay the 3,8 % payroll tax. That is a mandate - and gives you also the RIGHT to coverage. FULL coverage. There is a cap at a yearly wage of 60,000 (approx). and 2,200 or 2,400 USD. The company must match that.That is not optional. Signing up takes 5 minutes, the company announces what is due for their staff at the end of month and pays 45 days later.
Companies and staff / insured / patients know their costs in advance. Unless the wage is higher, theres is no more payment. And there is the cap. And of course the full ! costs are known in advance (and kept very affordable).
Services free at the point of delivery = no bad surprises later. No bills later. (almost no costs and certainly nothing significant).
insurance coverage (the same comprehenisve coverage for all in the country) always includes all the dependent family members, stay at home spouses / parents, minors and adult children if they do engage in professional training (without a salary) or go to university (till age 26).
What is covered ? all that is medically warranted, in most countries also dental (not the fancy stuff like braces and implants, but root canals, all fillings, pulling teeth and surgery to remove teeth if necessary). braces for aesthetic reasons are not covered, but in some cases they are covered, too. Same with eye surgery with lasers. (if medically warranted).
Ambulance drives are covered (the normal ones or the ones with the doctor on board).
Airlifts, too (normally that decision is made by a doctor. It used to be that amulance drivers had the authority to call the helicopter when they were the first at the scene of an accident, or emergency, but they overdid it).
Many tests and health checks. The culture of "non-profit" brings with it that even tests you have to pay for out of pocket are affordable. Exploiting the patients isn't just a thing. As all medically things are covered the patients always have some discretion if they really want to spend the money (even if it is a test for 50, 100 or 200 USD) so the prices are kept at a reasonable level.
Or the patients are "not buying". (If it would be really adviseable, necessary it would be covered). A friend wanted to check his vitamin D status (last year, pre corona). I would just take some vitamin pills if in doubt or eat more food that contains vitamind D, you don't overdose right away, but he wanted to check it out.
Hospitals and doctors rarely encounter a person w/o coverage. That makes things vey streamlined for patients and providers. = low admin costs. No hassle.
Hospitals and doctors * and pharmacies * have a contract with the public non-profit insurance agency, that is a very strong player and buyer of medical services on behalf of the citizens. They have to serve the insured and society at large - so the insured are getting a good deal.
* they are like small companies, but they have a lot of regulations. their professional representation negoiates for them. BUT they are not allowed to incorporate in larger structures, as to not give them undue (financial) power. Which makes it easier to game the system.
pharma prices are negotiated by the agency too, one powerful player to match the powerful pharma indusry (and they can compare prices with other national agencies - although I think they have non disclosure agreements so that will be behind closed doors. Iceland has around 300,000 people but they can't be ripped off by big pharma, you bet they get a MUCH better deal than U.S. residents).
The public insurance agency gets very good rates BUT the hospitals (also non-profits run by cities or states in most cases) know they get their money on time. Same for doctors and pharmacies. No chasing after money. so no money wasted on admin. The biling is very simple. It is also simple for doctors.
A treatment is either available for all or no one. As this means all residents in the country (and a LOT of them are voters) - ALL get first world medicine, the catalogue of treatments is updated. "extent of coverage" is nothing that the insured think about.
Co-pays are very modest for some things (hearing aides, and for drugs. But not for low income people). there are no deductibles.Pre existing conditions do not matter.
What is covered ? Why - everything medicine has to offer, and that changes all the time anyway. you do not have to figure out if air lifts should be included (and then paid for) or not. If you want or can spend the money to have that in your plan. And there is no fine print, so you think you have - but then it turns out the insurer wants to weasel out of paying.
Nor does the employer have to think about the extent of coverage (or offering any insurance at all). Plus 500 USD per month. It is mandatory insurance .... and airlifts are included. Someone figured out that is a good thing to have in a first world medical system, it leads to better outcomes in certain cases. So they set up a system to manage the resource negotiated with companies, have the doctors on standy - and everyone can have it if medically needed.
The cost example is from Austria, but it is typical for a rich developed nation.
max. 2,200 USD per year does not cover all the costs - think a family of 4 and they have sick members, and only one person earns a wage (and then they must have 60,000 before taxes to pay the maximum amount). So obviously there are generous subsidies necessary. So that the mandatory payroll tax can be so low that it is no burden for companies or the employed.
but the single payer countries still subsidize LESS per person than the U.S. already pays. If it costs only half ALL can save money. The government some and companies and insured at lot.
And they save on avoided costs for later treatments (when things got worse and often more expensive to fix).
MAJOR case in point: how diabetes is handled in the U.S.
The human misery and the preventable early deaths are not all that goes wrong. At some point badly adjusted diabetes WILL cause higher costs that are preventable
(think kidney failure, amputation, blindness, wounds that will not heal).
The U.S does not just let people die of diabetes if they are poor, the optics would be too bad. so if an afterthought they get something, but only when it is too late and will not help much.
- until the person dies.
The worst of both worlds - causing costs, and that spending does not even yield good results
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sanders made some shady compromises too (there is a danger that such almost inevitable compromises become a slippery slope, HE is one of the few where the shady votes / decisions are the exception and did not become the norm). - The important thing: what made them compromise. Are they caught between a rock and a hard place ? Or are they people that are NOT rich, and if they lose their political career they have not much to fall back on (think of Tulsi, others have built their career, while she spent time in politics).
1) do the "shady" compromises cause REAL damage ? A vote for war, for the bankrupcy bill
versus
2) an unprincipled inconsistent endorsement for Biden (that conflict with philosophy and platform)
are NOT the same.
Not to take it lightly - is she sells out once (even for understandable reasons) where else is she (or Sanders for that matter) compromise.
And compromises can also be made in good faith w/o chasing personal advantages (Exhibit A: Sanders). That does not make them reasonable compromises though - but it also does not make Sanders a sell out, weak, or a sheep dog for the establishment.
I am harsher on Warren because STAYING IN and not endorsing (in 2016 and 2020) MADE A DIFFERENCE (Tulsi endorsing Biden or endorsing Sanders does not make a difference). Warren does not care about the progressive movement and the POLICIES, not enough that she would PRIORITIZE having the most important politician of the progressive movement in the Oval Office and she might "only" get a cabinet position.
Or she sticks out her neck for Sanders, it does not work out, and she would stay "only" the rich Senator with a fairly safe Senate seat (which she has only to defend in 2024, and she won it with 60 % in 2018, and had 2 opponents, a Republican and a right leaning Independent).
Warren has had a distinguished career (as Corporate lawyer helping companies pay less in pensions and damages to workers and consumers), the academic career - latest employer was Harvard, has a safe Senate seat.
And she has her state in convenient flying distance, and she is rich (corporate lawyer, Harvard professor, flipping houses during the GFC - YES - and her husband is or was an academic as well, so more income from that side. A family could do well only from his income).
The long distance flights to Hawaii take a toll (that is a common problem for politicians from Hawaii), maybe Tulsi saw a problem to defend her seat now she is blacklisted by the DNC and the big donors. Not sure that Sanders would have gone out of his way to help her defend it (and she must do it every 2 years).
Sanders makes mistakes and shady compromises, too, one is that he still tries to accomodate the DNC (might be a political calculation. I think he knows to be grumpy in person and with his staff, he is no pushover, but the question is how much he stands up to the institutions. Or even personal relationships. I guess Joe Biden was one of the few that was gracious to the new Senator. Being the outsider that is a littel ridiculed or shunned will take a toll. (Claire McCaskill: Bernie is serious, he is committed, I sat through many long speeches where he lectured us. He can be one to joke about himself as well. he is no back slapper).
I "got" why Sanders did not endorse Tim Canova - but I regretted it. In hindsight I wonder if they would treat Sandes any differently if he had dared to help Canova. (And if Canova hadn't won it would be gleefully reported how useless his endorsements are).
I think Tulsi secures her political career or future (could be in a think tank, or NGO). Now, she is not one of those who are financially comfortable for life or even rich. The people that could easily afford to do the right thing (that is the difference between her and let's say Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Chris Hayes, Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow - these people could easily afford to do the right thing and give a shit if they do not earn more money because of it.
Ronan Farrow is one of those that uses his personal wealth to withstand institutional pressure. That is why he continuted with the work when they tried to shut him up about Weinstein. - he could afford to, he does not need that salary.
If they are shunned from the insider circles - Rachel Maddow or Bill Maher could care out their niche elsewhere. They could be a force for good.
They are settled for life. In the case of Pelosi: she is 80 - she can't take it with her !
1) causes real damage
2) philosophically inconsistent, the hero / heroine are a little less admirable (they are flawed, mistaken, sometimes weak humans - and yes they have self interests, and some are quite understandable.
Tulsi wants to secure her future. Which she would not have needed to risk in the first place in 2016, she could have stayed the DNC deputy, not commenting of pressure, not endorsing Sanders. Also: staying quiet on the war machine, be the token (attractive) intelligent woman of color and veteran as cherry on top.
I she didn't want to continue the flights between Hawaii and D.C. or wanted to do something else - she could get the golden parachute. And of course she would then endorse Biden as well (or any other shill). Or even endorse Bloomberg, he would have salivated over such an endorsement.
His empire is so large, he could have easily found her a place.
1
-
1
-
@MrRobster1234 Ralph did ? lol - well, Sanders is either watching his back (which gives you some idea of the power AIPAC has and how they control the media - see also what is going on in the U.K. with Corbyn. It is not only about Israel, but "antisemitism" or being "hostile" towards Israel can be used to attack a candidate that is a threat to the profiteers: Big Finance, the MIC, big oil, the healthcare industry, the industrial election complex and money in politics including ! media, Silicon Valelley, the tax dodging multinationals, ....)
Of course it is also possible that he has a serious blind spot regarding Israel.
That said: he defended Omar Ilhan AND he criticizes Israel and Netanyahu more than most Democrats or Republicans dare to do.
In 1984 or 1985 he invited Noam Chomsky to hold a speech in Burlington, the video is on youtube (Foreign policy jargon Noam Chomsky).
The crimes of the U.S. in foreign policy, Latin America, the collusion of the legacy media. manufacturing consent. In the Q & A israel came up. The usual Noam chomsky stuff.
I do not know to what extent they agreed - certainly on Latin America. Sanders KNEW - he may have changed of course now that he is closer to real power. It is easier to maintain your integrity regarding the MIC when you are the mayor of a town or 30 or 40,000 people.
Noam Finkelstein gave him a pass - it is not a current clip maybe 2 or 3 years old. He is under the impression that Sanders wants to keep Aipac out of his hair - as opposed to most Dems who will gladly go along with their agenda incl. the wars in the ME. Finkelstein was highly critical of Hillary Clinton, but not only of her.
Sanders is a grassroots candidate - he has to thank the base for his political career and financial success. I think he reacts MORE to the base than most other candidates.
AND: if as president he stubbornly gets healthcare on track and pushes through an infrastructure investment program - he may get some leverage to deal with Israel. or the financial industry. Or money in politics, or the oil industry, .....
I watched his announcement video: that is work for more than one president. The U.S. had a toxic foreign policy from earlier than 1900 on. it went reasonably well for the masses udner the New Deal until the 1970s. The 1970s were still aligned with the New Deal AND there were major cultural shifts. But the reactionaries hit back AND then the oligarchs turned on their own population. (not only on poor brown people in Asia, Latin America, or the convenient collusion with Isreal and Saudi Arabia, damned be the palestinians or the suppressed Arab populations).
The domestic decline has been in the making for 40 years - PLUS some problems where capitalism outsourced the costs of production (like the costs of burning fossil fuels).
That is a LOT to undo. Even FDR did not get to the core. And at an important time - it was known how sick he was (high blood pressure) the big fish in the Democratic party made sure Truman not the immensly popular Wallace became VP.
In 1940 FDR picked a fight over his VP choice and Wallace became VP. Wallace was a progressive to the left of FDR. he likely would not have started the imperial wars like Truman and Eisenhower did. The U.S. oligarchs could not exploit their own population, the war profits were over - so back to exploiting the quasi colonies.
The Red Scare was useful
1) to suppress and villify the strong left movementsthat had given FDR the leverage to push through the New Deal (only the attack on the unions was delayed until they got their chance in the 1970s and 80s)
2) the ancient Monroe Doctrine and the Domino Doctrine were used to wage war on far away poor nations that could not have been a threat to the U.S. if they wanted to (Korea, Vietnam, El Salvador, Guatemala, .....)
3) to justify excessive military spending especially for hardware. When spending on universities, public childcare - these are non-profit activities. it is good for the economy, wages are paid and spent, the population gets servies. But no one extracts large profits !
When building bridges, streets, public housing, sewage systems. That is NOT unique and SECRET technology. It is civilian technology and there is a lot more competition for those contracts. And the companies that get the contracts must not always be large.
With military contracts they can write their own cheques - they bribe the politicians with donations. They make sure so much is spent theat EVERY state gets some jobs out of it and every representative gets their bribes.
(if the project is reasonable prices and does not include more than necessary and is limited to a few states - it has no chance to be passed in Congress. Larry Wilkerson -paraphrased).
4) the Soviet Union had a hard time to keep up with the arms race . So it held them back economically (the resources went into the military and not into providing for the population. That on top of the massive damages of WW1 and WW2 - they were much more harmed than the U.S.
And on top of having an inefficient, top-down micromanged form of State Capitalism, that did not consider the feedback of consumers or workers - considering that: they did not do too badly to turn the Soviet Union from a 3rd world to a 2nd world country within a generation.
The West had no problem with dictators, even brutal ones like Stalin or Mao. But the oligarchs of the West were shook to the core by the Russian Revolution in 1917. Or Cuba (the place was run by rich U.S. citizens, the mob and the local elites colluding with them).
The official and unironical phrase was that the U.S. "lost" China when Mao won the Civil war - so had the U.S. ever "possessed" China ?? Unfortunate Korea was collateral damage in the struggle to get control back over China - the carnage was so bad that even WW2 U.S. generals were shocked. The U.S. and U.K. could not meddle enough in the Civil war in China to achieve a win of the reactionary forces that were against Mao (it is not clear at all if THAT side winning would have been better for China).
In Russia, China, Cuba they dispossessed rich people, changed the government - and got away with it.
The winners of WW1 (inc. the U.S.) ended monarchy in the countries that lost WW1. The German empire and the Austrian-Hungarian empire. That was to weaken those countries. Other monarchies continued to exist in Europe (although they evolved - the monarchs now are figureheads).
The winners of war toppling governments is one thing. And if they toppled oligarchs they installed OTHER oligarchs. Not doing away with rich people and landlords and owners of plantations and estates alltogether.
But the population, the poor peasants daring to do it is completely different.
So it was essential that neither the Soviet Union, nor China or Buba would do well. The systems could not be allowed to fail on their own. Binding their resources in an arms race and proxy wars was one thing. Hitting them with sanctions (Cuba) another.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Term limits for offices of a very few people with a lot of power (president, Surpreme Court justices maybe) - makes sense and is done in many countries. Term limits for representatives of a larger group (parliament, congress, senate) ?? It INCREASES CORRUPTION and cements the power of money in elections even more.
To get elected one must have name recognition. That is an uphill battle for grasroots anyway. Often takes several campaigns. The millions of Big Donors spent for expensive mainstream media ads can drown out, and misrepresent the other campaign(s). And buy name recognition even for ushered in candidates.
Even IF the grassroots candidates win against the odds - the establishment can be sure that the grassroots candidate will not bother them too long, nor do they get the chance to build longer on their initial efforts, connect with the constituents (which could be their strenght).
All politcians build their careers when other people build their businesses or their career in the private sector.
The interests of Big Biz and regular people seldom align. If serving honestly the constituents, grassroots candidates will inevitably step on the toes of rich and powerful people. So no cushy jobs for them when being forced out of office (even if they and the constituents would like to continue).
They are lucky if they are not subverted in retaliation when they try to build the next career after leaving office. And if big biz is pissed off they might make a point to do that - just to set a warning example.
Meanwhile the Big Donors can do the beauty contests with the careerists, and buy them the elections. if they leave politics they will be provided with cushy jobs. That is going on in Congress anyway, the age limit is lower than for Senate, so aspiring lobbyists do the tour to Congress to network.
After an appropriate time they leave for more lucrative careers provided by the Big donors with help of the gatekeepers and sheepdogs of the party establishment. Of course only when they were good shills who put the interest of the Big Donors and the demands of the party over the interests of consituents.
Term limits work perfectly for the Big Donors and obedient careerists. (Preferably well spoken, well groomed, if possible attractive, maybe from a political dynasty. Candidates that come across well on TV, good memory to remember the think tank provided talking points.
Candidates with genuine convictions and a spine need not apply).
Grassroots candidates can strengthen their positon over time if they earn a good reputation with their constituents - which makes them more immune to the influence of competing big money. And it gets easier to campaign.
Of course they get more experience the longer they are in politics.
Case in point: Bernie Sanders, campaigned throughout the 70s with a small independen party, no success (they went for the big races).
First political election he won: mayor of Burlington with a majority of 10 votes. Since then he increased his majorities.
That position and the way the city changed gave him exposure. It still took 3 more races until he was sworn in in 1991 as member of Congress. And that was in tiny Vermont where it is easier to gain name recognition as candidate with litte money.
Since then he has increasd his majorities further.
So what good would term limits do ? He is getting good grades by the voters.
1
-
1
-
Some time before ACA the industry COULD discriminate against people with preexisting condtions. 20 % of the people cause 80 % of the costs. (Pareto principle - I think with healthcare it is more like 15 : 85). Anyway if they denied those people coverage or kicked them out the insurers could make plenty of profits. 15 or 20 % of people is NOT that many.
In those days the media were the gatekeepers and colluded with the industry (as always) the internet was not as widely used to gather information and connect the dots. Those people were just ignored.
Many people still had well paying manufacturing jobs and the healthcare plans, and that the buyer of the plan was a larger entitiy (the company) protected them somewhat (for instance from being kicked out when they got older or sick).
The plans (via companies or privately bought) were of course completely overpriced if you factor in the cherrypicking and how the costs are structured - but the costs then did not rise the suspicions and seemed to be O.K.
The unfortunate ones were just ignored (that tended to be lower income people, not people that had money or well paying jobs in a larger company.
Around 2000 the massive outsourcing started. Now many lost the good plan from the company - if they found work it was often a McJob w/o benefits.
The cruel schemes of the industry hit MORE people. Healthcare has become more expenisve over time - more capable, they can save more lifes, but it costs.
When ACA forced the industry to accept more people with pre-existing conditions - they had no intention to give up their profits. The now higher costs for them were shifted over to the relatively healthy people. And deductibles are another excellent way to HIDE the real costs and have as much intransparency as possible.
Not only do they rob off the insured - of course they try to extract as much subsidies as they possibly can. Obama and the Dems were glad to oblige.
Pelosi mentioned that. That they want to raise the threshold to get the subsidies. While that in the short term of course helps some people - it also means shoving more government money into the dysfunctional system.
I read a story about a person that had acne treatment as teenager, forgot to mention that in the healtcare questions (respectively was unaware that it mattered - well it doesn't) - it was the pretext to deny payment for skin cancer treatment (not sure what came out of it, if the insurance company got away with it. They can sit back and wait if the customer has the nerve and money to sue them).
This was NOT a mean employee doing voluntarily overtime to harm a client. They have departments of people going with a fine comb over the files and the medical history in order to find something they can leverage against the client. They institutionalized DENIAL OF COVERAGE.
It is a lot of work to deny coverage and to make the clients jump through hoops. Sure enough the number of adminstrators has multiplied. The number of doctors doubled - but with admin it is factor 10 or in that range. (I saw a graph 1970s till now - Bureau of Labor Statistics maybe).
That fruitless work also costs a lot of money, even if they do not pay the bean counters well.
Reminds me of the film rainmaker with Matt Damon (film 1997, the book is from John Grisham). An insurance company hardselling healthcare plans in poor neighbourhoods at seemingly low cost. Then denying care, especially in severe cases that needs more costly treatment, and dragging it out until the client hopefully dies. In the film the lawyers (incl. the character Damon plays) get to the insurance company when they find out the name of a bean counter and have him testify about those practices. Those who do cost calculation / accounting know how the system works.
The company is found guilty - and does a strategic bankrupcy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ Richard Shapiro - you have got a point here - the Democratic Party must be given full opportunity to show how UNWILLING they are to change, and that they are beyond redemption. That may be important if Sanders (or someone else) tries to run third Party in 2020. Because to win, they need to convince a lot of "Democratic" voters to switch over, and as long as they can be labelled as "traitors" and as "those who split the party which will only help the GOP winning" the decent folks that are the Democratic base might fall for the "Nader again" story.
There have been several attempts to reform the Democratic Party over the decades and they all were crushed by "the machine". - Of course NOW with money in politics the DONORS (bribing BOTH parties) ASSIGNED exactely that ROLE to the Democrats. Should ever a PROGRESSIVE movement arise it is the task of the Dems to make sure they do not come into power, to CORALL them in, DILUTE their ENERGY and neuter or bribe the leaders.
So the concerns are very legitimate. Still - having people at the INSIDE, annoying the heck out of the party establishment is a good thing - as long as no one has any illusions. It is more like: at the moment maintaining and increasing AWARENESS about the DYSFUNCTION and BUILDING a following, lists, and to organize.
Nomi and Jimmy cannot do much beyond that.
If - IF - Sanders declares to do his own thing (or support a progressive independent candidate in 2020), THEN it is important what the people (no matter what was their approach: inside or outside) are going to do. And I can totally see Nomi and even more Jimmy Dore, and more or less the whole team of the Young Turks rallying behind Sanders. They would have a hard time to double think (but one never knows of course, Rachel Maddow pulls off that double think stunt quite well, intelligence can help you NOT KNOWING. More important their subscribers would go crazy. Sure 20 millions is a nice sum - but without their audience they are nothing.
I think Sanders could jumpstart a huge movement (incl. an army of volunteers and independent media beating the drums) within a month. And I think he could hold huge rallies (forget about only 30,000).
If the surge would be strong enough, the "lesser of two evils" and "be willing to make concessions" game could be turned on its head and could be employed AGAINST the Corporate Democrats: THEY could be declared to be the potential "SPOILERS" and THEIR VOTERS asked to support the party and candidate with the more realistic chances to pull of a win. (to avoid the phrase "falling in line").
The hardcore hillbots and the Democratic Establishment plus their media - all very vocal - would of course never "compromise" - they feel entitled to others making making concesssions to them.
But no one needs the VOTES of these people. (or their support, endorsement, money or campaign skills).
This is about the VOTES of their POTENTIAL SUPPORTERS, decent folks who usually rather would vote Democratic than GOP. Plus enough of the Independents, and some Moderate conservatives. And last but not least: a lot of people who do not vote.
In a way it is a good thing that the Dems are so corrupt that they do not even manage to pull off a convincing show. If they would make more amends (for instance if Keith Ellison would not have been prevented by all means to become chair including Obama intervening) - then the progressives could be lured into being hopeful.
Thankfully the Dems make it abundantly clear that they have not intention of making even those concessions.
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. lol - I like that quote
1
-
1
-
1