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