Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Fox Business"
channel.
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
Greetings from Karl Marx - he was well aware that Capitalism would be eaten by automation (technology is only to a degree the "son of Capitalism" - more advanced !! technology is possible because of internationally diversified mass production of goods. Which currently is financed in the form of "Capitalism".
Marx btw was not per se an "enemy" of Capitalism: The rich have gotten it all and the masses stayed poor - that has been going on for millenia. Then came exciting technologies that helped to produce goods more effieciently, also new and exciting ways of transportation and scientific insights that challenged the worldview (evolution, ice ages, tectnic).
But all that technological progress did not uplift the masses. The masses stayed as bitterly poor as ever (even in industrial manufacturing, let along agriculture). A few people went up the ladder, and some that had been middle class lost out (like craftsmen, think a traditional miller or locksmith).
Marx got engaged into finding out WHY that is. - in Feudalism most people work in agriculture and most had just enough to survive, There was some middle class (lawyers, farmers that OWNED their land, small business owners, craftsman) - but max. 30 % of society did O.K. or better. and few were doing very well. These 30 % were "consumers".
That sucked for the 70 % - but the system was STABLE, the poor 70 or 80 % were NOT NEEDED as consumers. They produced the surplus that went to the upper 30 % - in form of food, wood, coal, work as servants. And they were dispensable when the country needed them as cannon fodder.
With the more and more efficiently produced goods using less human labor - the poor masses got even more desperate AND now they were needed as consumers all of a sudden. The new production methods were so efficient that the 30 % consumer base was not enough anymore.
Sure products became more affordable (cotton, maybe coal) - but not food, and for rent and the lease for being the peasant on the land of someone else - extortion prices were demanded (renging schemes benefitted the middle class. If one had ONE house one could rent out it made good money, enough to invest in more or at least to live from it w/o working).
So it was not clear that poor people with a job (and low wages) could afford the cheaper stuff - let alone those that started losing their jobs.
Capitalism is about MAXIMIZING PROFITS. Paying as little for labor as possible is logical - be it by wage suppression or using automation.
And it is also logical that on a systemic !! level the manufacturers will run out of consumers. (If a company produced for other companies they do not lose directly consumers whey they automate - but within the system the effect will show up. Every B2B prodict will finaly end up in a product that is either consumed by private citizens or government. (that is GDP).
See 1970s and 1980s when the wages - adjusted for inflation - did not rise anymore. The opening gap between ever growing output and stagnant disposable income was for some time bridged with loans and consumer debt on the credit card.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@crucisnh Sanders is not even a Democrat. Well the VOTERS may not be "true" followers of the Democratic party either. It is only the two party tyranny that spares the parties the trouble to compete with good ideas. Voters do not think in labels, they are pramgatic. Content beats labels
Have you followed the healthcare debate - which Sanders very much changed because he run in 2015/2016 ? (That was one of the reasons he even ran. Mind you AFTER he had coordinated with Elizabeth Warren who then also chose (did not dare ?) to not run in the primaries.
Sanders - correctly - drew attentiton to the well working, much more cost-efficient systems of all other wealthy nations. Hillary Clinton said (in 2016 !): "This country will never ever have single payer healthcare" - very aspirational, that for sure fired up the base.
the big shots of the Democratic party started using right wing talking points when they too were getting questions of the now more critical base. There are some cringe worthy clips form townhall meetings that happened all over the country in spring 2017.
Listen what Feinstein, Pelosi, Wasserman-Schulz, .... had to say then.
Or Tom Perez' pathetic response when he was cornered by a journalist in summer 2018 regarding universal healthcare. Perez was at the border protesting family separations. Which is an important issue of course. And one the Big donors do not mind, it does not cost THEM profits either way - so that the Democratic establishment is allowed to do.
But not good healthcare - meaning good for the citizens.
ACA is a gift to the industry.
With healthcare a country can either 1) have a good system for the citizens OR 2) the industry (insurers, hospitals, Big Pharma) can make money hand over fist.
Almost all wealthy nations have chosen option 1) and most started or expanded such systems in the late 1940s.
(I know the systems from Germany and Austria, too so I speak from experience).
Germany has had universal healthcare since 1883 / 1884 when they had the Welfare Reforms. Very basic of course - modern medicine was just at the beginning.
In a single payer system there are (smaller) for-profit actors as well - but the only powerful for-profit actor is the Pharmaceutical industry. They fortunately have very standardized, internationally comparable products. so the non-profit public insurance agencies can contain them in negotiations. Needless to say: these public agencies are mandated to negotiate.
While in the U.S. Congress passed a law (many years ago) that forbids the agencies like Medicare to negotiate. And the Democratic party could never be bothered to change that - or at least scream it from the rooftops if they did not yet have the votes. (Of course they stay silent- they get the bribes too).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@chrisgreer5181 you are not a capitalist when you are all for tipping the scales for the richest man of the world and his company. Bezoes had bought property in the region, they did for show a beauty contest pitting the cities (and their sell out politicians) against each other - he likely always wanted to go to New York.
They decide for a city and then they see how much they can extort. In the case of Amazon they did an extra step by having that "contest".
Bezoes was miffed when confronted with the possibility that there would be UNIONS. He bought a newspaper and has hords of lobbysts and lawyers - but the employees should be all on their own.
As the mayor said - it was not about negotiating - they just exited and would not talk anymore. Has nothing to do with AOC - she was just another advocate for not having Amazon - DOING ECONOMIC DAMAGE to the citizens and on top giving them extraordinary preferential treatment.
The CITIZENS that would pay for the deal (less revenue for necessary infrastructure, being priced out from housing) not many extra jobs for THEM were critical, there were townhalls, the city council members were not silent - so the mayor and governor may have made requests they should have made long ago - and Amazon immediately have had it.
Yes, Amazon for sure would have looked out for the city, right ! That is - as long as the chose to stay because maybe in a few years it is the next extortion scheme in the next city.
The city can easily raise more revenue - they just could raise taxation on houses that are bought up the the global investor class. Dr. Richard Wolff: it is a sport of New Yorker. They take a walk in these areas and look if there are any windows where there is light in the apartments. Likely N.Y. would get a little less attractive for those people - and the developers (read Big Donors).
Amazon has not the reputation of having done a lot of good things for Seattle. And whereever they are (they must have headquarters somewhere) they are supposed to pay for using the infrastructure and not taking a free ride.
people from Seatlle btw congratulated New York - that they dodged a bullet.
25,000 jobs (let's make it half to be realistic) - that is nothing if you spead it out to all of New York. BUT: they would have captured the last area in New York where rents are affordable (for New York).
Well paying jobs - for peole mostly coming from outside the city. Buying up the real estate and pricing the locals out. The normal administrative jobs would have been New Yorkers - but those people might not be able to afford living there.
New York may want some 25,000 jobs more - and if they do not have to bribe a company they can make do with more modest projects (which costs them less in subsidies) and spread them out throughout the city. It is also more likely those companies will pay taxes.
OTHER businesses especially small ones and citizens pay the tax, that Amazon should shoulder with them. The job numbers are usually vastly inflated with such projects to "justify" socialism-for-comapnies on stereoides. There is never an assessment later - have you read about the development about Foxconn recently ? Or all the stadions, or a garment factory in a southern state.
Regarding Foxconn: Lots of hype and not long after things look differently. - that is the company that needed suicide nets for their employees in China. Why would anyone think they would ever engage in a deal that is good (or equally good) for the community.
So your wife indirectly profited from a subsidy / handout to a major company ? considering that now allegedly the economy is under full steam it is weird that handout should be even necessary. And: if millions / billions are spent in any project it WILL create jobs and the wages will go into the economy. As a rule of thumb the more the money is spread out and goes to many regular income people and also smaller businesses the more it will move around in the economy. As opposed to handing it over to ONE LARGE company - a lot of the subsidy then funds the profits of the company.
And what will keep that company from leaving in a few years ? You think they have a clause that they have to pay back the favors .... ? I would not bet on it. rather on the contrary.
Problem: if the spending funds incomes for regular people and more humble projects it is hard to do photo ops. And the services of more and reasonably paid teachers or firefighters or construction workers building affordable housing do help the other citizens - but they are not going to pay a lot of campaign donations or provide cushy jobs for ex politicians.
THAT is the reason politicians like to hand over the advantages to the big names instead of spreading it out.
a lot of things can be done if the city is willing to forgo revenue to the tune of billions (and they would have invested FOR Amazon as well).
Btw google did invest in New York w/o extracting extraordinary subsidies. And what would keep other companies from playing the the blackmailing game (we are leaving if we do not get the same bribes ......)
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is a gem in propganda, misleading information, conceit, hubris, foolishness, the MIC in action - and did I hear BALCANIZATION mentioned at the end ? - Of course - Assad is the only one who can hold the country together under a secular government. (maybe authoritarian or dictatorial, but be careful what you wish for if you want him gone). The fractions will break up, the terrorists/jihadists that are constantly financed and helped with material etc. will take over parts of the country. Israel, Turkey, US and NATO and the Gulf states will love that - a broken up Syria with the jihadists slaughtering the Christians, the Shia Muslim, the moderate Sunni etc. are no threat to their evil plans. The fractions of Syria will be at each other's throat, buy weapons - and Israel will be free to go for the oil and water in Lebanon.
And if you want to go to war with Iran it is logical to take out Syria first. (Not that the idea to go after Iran has anything with logic)
Some areas in Syria have oil, water, industries. etc. so expect endless fighting like in the failed state of Libya. And Iraq is far from stable, too. Remember when ISIS took first over a part of Iraq and the US trained Iraqi army ran.
(the former officiers were kicked out on principle by the clueless new US approved government - didn't matter if they even were that high ranking or loyal to the former ruler Saddam Hussein - so no experienced military leadership, but lots of shiny toys
supplied by the U.S. - ISIS was glad to take them).
Democracy and "stabiltiy" in the region - that fairy tale is for the gullible folks that believe what they hear in MSM.
Of course the agencies KNOW that it will be catastrophic for the population. And it will be a stronghold for extremists - the powers that be do not seem to bother. - They have Libya as example and still do not get it - or more likely they do not care or see it as advantage.
Of course THEN they will also GET the pipeline on Syrian soil that Assad would not allow - to protect that pipeline U.S. troops tax funded will be deployed. And Russia at the moment can use Syrian naval ports - maybe that can be undercut as well.
The occoasional terror attack in the Western country is not THAT bad. The ruling class does not think it will harm THEM. The additional budgets for surveillance go to their buddies - private for profit contractors.
And "safety concerns" provide the argument to do away with civil liberties. That comes in handy should the masses ever protest in case of MORE economic stress.
The terrorists are NOT a threat to the powers that be - but the enlightend citizens are.
.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
part 4 of 6 A public option would be plan B for the fprofiteers that rip off U.S. citizens. No other country has a public option and with good reason. It squanders opportunities for save costs. Private insurers have costs that the non-profits do not have:
Marketing, sales force, more administrators, profit,. With healthcare (as opposed to consumer products where the rules of the free market apply - at least to a degree) these expenditures ADD NOTHING to the quality of the service - on the contrary !
And that is under the assumption that the for-profit players would act ethically ! In reality for-profit adds toxic incentives (especially in the U.S.) or it invites at the minimum the players with more power / information advantage to game the system.
THAT is another cost factor. The gaming may require a lot of administrative staff - it is a lot of work to deny care and purge individuals or whole companies from the pool - ask the U.S. insurers (see a recent interview with Wendell Potter, fmr senior executive of Signa turned whistleblower). Someone has to pay for the bureaucraZy. The insurers would rather not have them, but to maintain an appearance of abiding by the law and not to advertise too openly that they are predators they need the beancounters, statisticians, … and the callcenter that deal with doctors, nurses and desperate patients on a daily basis.
For them it is a cost of doing business and it helps preserve their profits. So the squeeze the insured and they extract as many subsidies as they possibly can.
Missed opportunities to cut costs with a public option
No streamlined admin, or simple billing. - along with Medicare the multitude of insureres with INDIVIDUAL contracts must be STILL administrated - and they must check / fight what is and what is not covered.
The private insurers still have applications, healthcare questions, no chasing after the money by hospitals.
One powerful negotiator - Medicare - can get good rates. All hospitals and most doctor practices must accept them (unless they offer something really special) or they will not have enough patients. They would benefit from simple billing, and would get the money reliably. So with all covered by M4A the hospitals and doctors save costs.
The doctors serve nerves as well. no more phone calls with private insurance companies.
Single payer agencies (a public non-profit) get the money from companies (payroll tax) and additionally they get government subsidies, so they do not have to chase after the premiums from individuals.
(Insurance companies have more hassle = costs).
Both parts of the budget go into COST-EFFICIENT systems - wealthy nations with single payeer spend roughly HALF per person on healthcare.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ReeseL4D Tariffs are another form of sales tax and a protectionist measure - they are eventually paid for by consumers. They were much more in place in the Golden Era after WW2. - I am not against them - but there is a price to pay and to consider when doing that - because the U.S. producers would of course face the same tariffs. Then all nations did it.
The European of Japanese export industryfor high quality essential components, machines, spare parts thrived nontheless. Note: these were not consumer goods, but it was B2B business. The markets for consumer goods, especially cars and for agricultural products were somewhat protectionistic.
The advantage of getting those parts by far outweighed the costs, so the costs for the tariffs when importing them were just added to the calculation and ended up in consumer prices. The tariffs were also tax revenue so the country could raise less sales tax or other mass taxes.
Then taxation on work was reasonable ! because the rich and profitable businesses were made to pay much, much more.
92 % in 1944 (top marginal income tax rate, that means 85 % effecitvely with a few excemption for every dollar over 2,7 million USD yearly income - in TODAYS value - then the threshold was 400,000 USD).
Nixon accused JFK of wanting to cut taxes on the rich. (in 1960 in a presidential debate). JFK begged to differ: the 90 % were still in the books but had been undermined by excemptions. He was for an EFFECTIVE top marginal tax rate of 72 %.
Unlike today when AOC or Sanders make such suggestions there is no big outcry. The sky did not come tumbling down - the 72 % effictive top margingal income tax guy even won the election.
Only when Reagan came into office taxes were lowered for all income for work (so it could be sold to voters) but of course massively favoring rich people and the profitable businesses. Like now with the Trump tax cuts no wonders happened so that tax revenue would be remain steady by stimulated economic activity. That happens only if the mass of people have more income. That was not the case during the reagan time and certainly not now. Rich people do not spend the extra money, the hoard it.
companies only invest into new products when they are pretty sure they can sell the stuff. We have massive over capacities for industrial production worldwide. The mass of income earners (workers) do not have the disposable income - or they have to spend too much on rent* because the governments everywhere exited from providing affordable housing.
That is what we watch with the multinationals: they sit on huge stacks of cash, which they do not invest however. (Under Eisenhower or even under Carter they would have paid more in taxes and better wages by comparison - so that "problem" of having to much uninvested money did not arise. And there was disposable income for the workers to spend).
* THAT would be another benefit for the masses. For low income people, if there is non-profit public healthcare, housing, public transportation, education and childcare - that is a major, major part of their spending. For the most part that is what they have in Germany, France, the Nordic countries, Austria, Netherlands. Except for housing. it is such a lucrative income stream for the haves so when neoliberalism hit the affordable housing programs were reduced. So they now use what has been built in the past (sometimes 100 years ago, but still going strong. For instance in Vienna).
but that is not enough so there is a lot of money extracted from the bottom and goes now to the landlord class.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
a VALUE ADDED TAX hits ONLY the middle class and downwards. The affluent and rich are not bothered by it. They have much more income (usually from capital gains) than they could ever spend so they add it to their accounts (untaxed). That however gives them undue political influence, they can suppress competition, etc.
The low income people spend ALL they get so they are FULLY TAXED. - it is true that the European countries have a VAT (for instance it used to be 15 or 16 % in Germany, and now it is 19 % (but lower for food and I think rent, not sure about fuel). - most rich European countries have a VAT rate that is around 20 % (the higher rate).
They also provide a lot of well funded public services (childcare, free higher education, care for the elderly, mass transportation, child benefits, ...)
Also the subsidies that are necessary for universal / single payer healthcare. All countries pay less per person than the U.S. - t he U.S. system is just so overprized. That said, of course they have to subsidize that too
The average spending per person in a rich country is 5,250 (5,600 in Germany, 10,240 in the U.S.) in order to keep the mandatory wage related contributions (worker AND company) low there must be plenty of subsidies.
With the advent of neoliberalism they started to tax the ever growing profits of big biz less and allowed them all sorts of tax evasion. Especially the large companies that swallowed the small and medium sized companies - so they had to raise the most regressive tax there is: VAT.
Germany used to have 16 %, now it is 19%, Austria had 18 % now it is 20. (the higher rate). 2 or 3 % on a good portion of what people buy in the nation (incl. fuel, electricity, all consumer products that are not food - that is HUGE).
For basics - like food it is often half of that (it varies). Usually they also take less taxes for materials for heating (fossil fuel, wood).
The goverments could EASILY TAX THE RICH and highly profitable companies - they just don't want to.
1
-
Regarding pharma research: tiny Switzerland does a lot, also Germany, France. In the U.S. also a lot of research is done (and a lot of it is FUNDED by the MILITARY - so the tax payer picks up the bill). For instance Malaria, or the Epi-pen. When Noam Chomski was at the MIT in the 50s/60s electronics corporations where on campus - they benefitted from the tax financed research. This was a thing for decades. The tax payers financed the heavy lifting, when something interesting came out of it, the private for profit corporations took over. - Now, at the MIT campus the electronics era is over, there are the biotechnical and pharmaceutical companies represented on the campus (I think he mentioned also Swiss and German names). So a lot IS government funded.
And if you pay good salaries you get scientists and doctors - I do not think they care if the MIT or another public institution, or a private company pays the salary.
Besides if the US develops new drugs they also want to sell them in Europe. The EU alone is 500 million people,some of the wealthiest countries on the globe are there. And if they want to sell the drugs there, the prices WILL be negotiated - by non profit, public institutions.
Do they imply that the drug companies rip off the U.S. citizens in order to be able to sell at lower prices to Europe and Canada ??
Which is absurd - and it is not true anyway. They make very high profits. they also make profits in Europe. Just not as much as in the U.S. And if the U.S. pharmaceutical industry would grant the U.S. citizens better prices and - theoretically - would need to raise the prices for Europe SLIGHTLY, wouldn't that be fairer to the U.S. citizens ? - the other much more likely scenario. They make less profit in the U.S. AND the same in Europe and do not raise prices in Europe - it will be hard to increase the prices for drugs that are already negotiated and on the market.
Also: the high profits they declare, they have AFTER they have deducted all the high costs for the drugs they are developing. So they obviously have enough funds for every project where they want to do research on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
A country can obsess with the question if someone contributed to their illnesses and medical costs (by their lifestyle and how it is fair or unfair that they should be fully covered. On the postive side: they do not talk about people who are unlucky enough to have higher risks and preexisting conditions - and they could not prevent it (disposition in the family, had an illness or accident as child, developed an allergy).
As for discerning WHO DESERVES FULL COVERAGE: If a men is very alpha, success oriented that may result in a higher risk for a stroke or heart attack. Should he be punished for his lifestyle choice ? Then there are the risks of smoking, of too much alcohol. Being raised in a dysfunctional family increases the risk for men to become alcoholics and for women to seek the wrong kind of men (unhealthy stress). And this can cause costs.
The costs if you had a sports accident - of course in a touristic country the locals WILL ski, go into the mountains or do bike tours and it is positive for the local economy - but there will be more broken arms and other accidents. Should we make those industries contribute AND those patients ?
Women taking the pill have slightly higher risks (but it may lower other risks). Women more often seek treatment for depression - should that be financially punished - or is it that men for cultural reasons eat up their frustration/anger/sadness which may result in higher costs ! They either develop a higher risk for strokes, heart attacks due to the stress, sometimes they self medicate - with alcohol for instance. So should we "punish" the men for their "choices" ? Women because of estrogen are better protected than men when they eat unhealthy and are overweight - now should the men be punished more - because the women have an unfair advantage. Young men as a group take greater risks (driving, sports, ...)
One could build an EXCESSIVE BUREAUCRACY under the pretext of "fairness". Or one could accept the fact that homo sapiens is not a rational creature. And if so MANY humans do things that in the long term are not in their best interests and may shorten their life or the quality of their life - if that risk is not enough to deter them, a financial punishment is not likely to function either. But the costs and hassles of the necessary buraucracy to apply those standards of "fairness" would be extremely costly, likely not really just, and also violate the privacy of the patients.
One could see it that way: we are all in this together, and if folks have insufficient coverage we will pay for it - one way or another.
Then a nation could set up a very simple and transparent system, where costs and contributions are comparabe. That is what all other wealthy nations did - most after WW2. These systems have worked well for more than 70 years. And they are much more cost-efficient than the U.S., do not plague/annoy/demoralize the citzens/patients, and on top of that the medical outcomes are better.
Sure some may have a slight advantage - remember to have that advantage you must get SICK. I would rather stay healthy and gratefully NOT COMPLAIN how unfair it all is.
1
-
1
-
part 5 of 6 consumer products: free market rules apply (as least to a degree). Product differentiation makes sense: consumers have different needs, tastes and budgets. And we accept that people may not be able to afford things. They are not necessary for the well being of people.
Companies will try to sell more or create demand - even push them with skillful advertising and marketing. it is not always clear WHAT the consumers want and need and the sellers try to influence that anyway. Or invent things and services that the consumers might want.
The consumers have choice - including the most important choice: TO ABSTAIN FROM BUYING !
That restores a lot of power to the consumers.
Consumers do not have that power with healthcare (or insurance which is the usual "vehicle" to access care).
There is no entrepreneurial spirit or creativity needed to be the administrative middle man for healthcare. People MUST have it or they die - so no sales or marketing skills needed either.
PROFIT is the reward for entrepreneurial action and for catering to the individual demands and buying power of consumers. Marketing and sales and distribution costs are needed so that products and consumers will find each other.
Nothing of that makes sense for the adminstration (insurance !) or delivery of healthcare - even worse: there are a lot of inefficiencies and even toxic incentives that come with "for-profit".
The admin of access (insurance) AND the delivery of care is systems, protocols, standards. It is about a service that all citizens should have in uniform ! good quality.
That uniformity of the service is why non-profit public agencies and hospitals usually do a good job: no creativity or catering to individual consumer demands needed. And they do not need a sales force or marketing skills either. Product differentiation does not make sense.
It is systems, standards, protocols, routines. You would not want them to design your clothes or cars, but they blow the private insurers out of the water.
For ethical reasons no person should be excluded from having services that are medically needed.
It is the same for everyone - and all that is needed and not more.
On a practical level: what would be the luxury versus the plain version of a gall bladder surgery ? Or the luxury versus plain version of a life saving heart surgery of a newborn ?
if an airlift can save the life or prevent more harm (time is crucial when it comes to strokes, heart attacks, severe accidents, ..). so what would be the rational to not pay for it for a low income person - if the doctor (without any profit motive involved !!) decides that it is justified.
even a person with a gold plated plan would not want unnecessary x-rays or surgery for a clean break. On the other hand if it gets you better medical outcomes - why would lack of money exclude a person from receiving that.
They have to run the hospitals in a certain way to ensure hygiene and medical standards and they have to treat and host the patients a certain way to make sure they recover fully and quickly. (so they all need a bed and the nurses must come to all if they have problems).
There is no cheap version for low-income people that would make sense.
Neither from an ethical nor a practical standpoint. That is what I mean with "one size fits all".
1
-
1
-
1