Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Wall Street Journal" channel.

Just heard the interview "Mrs. Asma-al-Assad with Russia's Channel 24" and I am impressed by her thoughtful and down-to-earth opinions (I am from Europe and form a country that is not involved in the conflict). In that interview it does not sound "like she turns a cold shoulder to the suffering of the Syrian" people. Her answer to Media critique around 27 minutes, very well put. Of course an intelligent woman (she is a Havard graduate) could fake everything that is "appropriate" to say for a First Lady of a country suffering from war. However, her thoughts do not sound rehearsed or developed by herself or someone else just to make a "good impression". It is an interesting interview well worth your time - if only to form another view on Western media carelessly throwing around accusations (turning the cold shoulder to your suffering countrymen is a very severe accusation for a First Lady). Do you think the WSJ - or any other media outlet INVESTIGATED what she does or does not do for the people of Syria ?? And this has nothing to do with your opinion on the president (well it SHOULD not influence your opinion on her work!). She does not have political power in the large game (although she might have a little influence on her husband) - and it is even the question to what degree her husband, the president could act against the military, police and likely surveillance and suppression apparatus he inherited from his father.
14
Thanks for aggregating the links! Greetings from an EU citizen fed up with another sequel of the US grab for dominance . And when the US wants the EU to jump our "dear representatives" ask "How high ?"
4
@mcdonaldmollusca8376 The general welfare is part of the constitution. And the pursuit of happyness is easier when you have the basics. Especially in a crisis that the (former) government handled so badly.
3
** When you undercut wage growth you also undercut the very base of capitalism - consumers with spending power. And since big biz evades paying taxes the nations cannot even compensate with welfare payments. Smaller !! businesses (and also start-ups) who may depend on consumer spending are not doing so well - they have to fight in a market with not overly optimistic consumers and hardly increased spending power. Also: the (potential) output ! in manufacturing has risen - this is one way in which productivity has risen - more modern production especially automatization. However the SPENDING POWER of the consumers (who are supposed to ABSORB that ever increasing OUTPUT) has hardly risen and is also eaten up by high housing costs (because investors in search of lucrative investments are driving up real estate prices) and rising healthcare costs (that is true for all wealthy countries but especially for the US). INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION is NOT nearly running at FULL CAPACITY. Many large manufacturers in all branches have merged to form super large corporations. They could easily increase production by 10 - 20 % while using only existing machines - and due to high automatization they would not even need a corresponding increase in manpower. But there is not enough consumer demand or better consumer spending power to absorb that output In the US they invented the credit card for consumers in the 80s and for some time private debt kept sales and the economy going - but that band aid does not work anymore, private debt has risen to unsustainable levels.
2
Large scale kidnapping incentivized by the Europan colonial powers and later Chattel Slavery was necessary for the ECONOMIC model of clearing land for the upper class of Europe: they rushed to the new colonies in pursuit of easy money. Indentures servitude was fading out in Europe. there were cultural taboos to kidnap the citzens and drag them over to the new colonies (and it was also no legal) - sure there were a lot of deportations for petty crimes, but that was just not enough. These deported usually had to be realeased after some years (if they surivived). If they had children they could not be enslaved. European Catholics were not allowed to enslave each other (they could kill each other in wars), and there were cultural norms to not do that to Protestants of European descent either. Kidnapping by the millions and later chattel slavery by the millions was necessary for the LUCRATIVE plantation model and for growing cash crops (often under terrible conditions - one of the first crops was Indigo and I think that was a terrible crop for the farm workers, insects, humidity etc.). White farmworker would not have done that work - not for cheap or not for a master. If they would do the unhealthy work (draining swamps, malaria) or the bone breaking work - they would try to do it on THEIR OWN land. Intense racism was the Divide and Conquer strategy to keep the poor whites (the majority of white people) and the people of color apart. The slave owners needed their help to keep the MANY slaves in check. And it was important to keep those groups apart from mingling socially ! (learning to know and like each other). That there was no honorable union possible (marriage laws) or no way to have children with each other that would be valued and equal. (if people live to together they will of course make babies - and that UNITES). Carefully nurtured racism with a good dose of sexual hystera * took care to maintain those ECONOMIC CONDITIONS that were so lucrative for those at the top of the food chain. * Black men being painted as a danger to white women, meanwhile the white males raped black women as they liked. Black men only looking at white females could be in danger of being lynched. Of course once such a prejudice is FIRMLY implanted it tends to self-perpetuate. The pleasure to have someone you can always look down at is not easily given up by some.
2
You have the right idea (like Britain, Germany - wall, all of the wealthy European states). However the Swiss system to my knowledge is private for profit * with a lot of regulations. And I think insurance is mandatory. Private - this may explain why their system is almost as expensive as the US system (around USD 9,000 per capita) ;) . At least the Swiss have coverage for everyone, it has an excellent reputation, and I know that they pay the staff very well (wages are higher in Switzerland to offset the higher cost of living, but even so they are well paid, not only doctors but also nurses etc.) Of course those higher wages also show up in the costs of their healthcare, but then it means also disposable income for middle class consumers. In Europe the UK (public system, ? tax financed) had in 2014 costs of 3.900 (2nd best worldwide after Japan for a rich country, but they are in trouble, I think they are intentionally underfunded by the conservative governmnent). Most wealthy Europan countries have costs of USD 5.000 to 5.500 (Canada the same). see per capita healthcare costs World Bank (the data available was for 2014) * edit: another contributor claims it is private but without profit - whatever, expensive, good and for everyone within the country (that applies to many things Swiss ;)
1
In my country Austria (8 million citizens) the costs in 2014 were 5.400, Germany (80 million citizens) had 5.600 USD per capita. I can testify that it is possible to organize good healthcare in a non-profit system for everyone for that budget (no need to waste 9.000 like the US). And no, no death panels or long waiting lists - but higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality than in the US. Also the US has a younger population, so they should beat us in the cost/quality contest on demographics alone. I also see regularily claimed that the Canadian system is bad, that there are waiting lists etc. I do not know the Canadian system, there might be a disadvantage due to the size of the country (remote areas). Whatever, for 5,500 or let's make it 6k it is possible to have a top notch system. More likely the claims about the Canadian system are very exaggerated. There is no denying the Canadian system costs less - "but the quality is bad" is the last line of defense of the "free market and for profit" zealots.
1
+K Moore World Bank Data for 2014 only: Did you visit the site - they have to aggregate the data of different countries (very developed to almost failing states) with differing ways of aggregating data, I think it is also a challenge to make the data comparable. That said, there are complaints about rising costs in the US (for instance recently: US citizens got their new insurance premiums before the presidential elections and there was talk of massive increases, 10 - 20 %). The US and then the Swiss system were the most expensive in the world in 2014 - I do not think that was much different in 2015 (9k vs. around 5k in RICH European countries). Maybe the rich Gulf States are in that area as well. Norway had per capita costs of more than 8k and the least costs for wealthy developed nations are approx. 3,800 / 3900 USD for Japan / UK. That gives you a good idea even if these are the costs for 2014. I do not think it is realistic to expect the 2016 data in Feb. 2017 and obviously they do not even have the 2015 data available . Not that it matters that much.
1
+ K Moore To my knowledge the first Public Healthcare system was introduced in Germany under Bismarck. - I just looked it up - in 1883. Vey basic of course, it was kept after WW1, the Nazis kept the system as well (maybe even expanded it). Most developed nations decided to go for a non-profit healthcare system for all after WW2 (Canada made the transition from private to public in the 70s). Funding and the systems differ: The German and Austrian system is funded by payroll deductions and works with private players (familiy doctors as small entrepreneurs, many hospitals are run by Religious organizations, mostly Catholic, they are private but non-profits, other hospitals are run by muncipalities). It is my understanding that the NHS is tax-funded and all players are state employees or state agencies or organizations. Which can be quite cost-effective - even though the British system with 3,900 USD seems underfunded (see recent reporting about troubles). But then they have a huge budget gap to countries like Germany or Austria with budgets of 5,400 - 5,600 USD per capita - which seems to be "normal" for a wealthy European country (maybe a little above average). Higher costs but good quality and satisfied patients.
1
As for our alleged trouble with population growth and the propagandized "need" for immigration. In Germany and Austria this is one of the unchallenged establishment talking points (like globalization or that we need the "financial markets" or how wonderful the Euro or the "free" "trade" agreements like TTIP are going to be). I used to accept it - sure in Austria and Germany the birth rates are down. So we are provided with arguments how many working people have to pay for non-productive citizens (that means retired but also ! children, students, disabled, not to forget homemakers/Stay at home mums). One very common argument (for cuts in the retirement system) is: HOW MANY WORKING adult will have to PROVIDE for ONE RETIRED person (they talk only about retired, not about the other non-productive citizens). The doom and gloom scenario: in 2030 one working person will have to "provide for" one retired person (which is realistic with the birth rates in Germany and without immigration). Right now: around 1000 working people take care of 600 retired. Part of these retirment payments are already subsidized and financed with state debt because the 1 % and Big Biz refuse to pay taxes and successfully lobbied politics to support that plot. (Apple has an agreement in Ireland that allows them in some cases to pay as little as 50 - FITFTY - Euro for every MILLION profit - yes profit, not revenue. And their tax rate does not exceed 2 % - that would be a maximum of 2000 Euro per million profit, Apple is hugely ! profitable. Former President Obama immediately gave them verbal support when the EU objected to that arrangement between Ireland and Apple). Of course in the 70s the population was much younger and the ratio Active to Retired was much more favourable. But what is never mentioned in this context is that for instance in Austria and Germany many women were homemakers and stay at home mums and the salary of the husband had to be sufficient for the whole family. Even though people lived more modestly then, one has to consider that now often two adults work (in a paid job) a total of 80 hours per week to make that living standard possible. In the 70s the weekly work of 40 or maybe 45 - 50 hours (meaning 5 - 10 hours well paid overtime) was sufficient to provide for a family - and that often meant a family of 4 - 5 persons or even more. Even more important: since the 40s and 50s there was a DRASTIC ! RISE in PRODUCTIVITY . Up to 1970 wages rose more or less with it (15 % gap), since then until 2013 there is an additional ! gap of wages vs. productivity of 57 %. (see *) The problem is that more or less only the middle class is now paying the taxes and they have less money than they used to (and the number of middle class people is shrinking). The big corporations (Multinationals !) on the other hand are sitting on cash - they do not know what to with their huge profits (because of increased productivity which they do not share anymore and because of tax evasion of big biz). Investing in more production makes no sense (see**). So if one worker produces so much more wealth (and is not getting paid for it) - how come we cannot take care of the increased number of non-working citizens ? ? ? And if we had the same birth rates as in the late 60s (before contraception) - in which jobs would these people work now ?? (see ***)
1
* After WW2 until the 70s the workers more or less got their fair share of that improved productivity , wages rose WITH productivity, taxes were much higher (for top earners and profitable corporations) AND were paid. No outsourcing of jobs (because politics entered into "free trade agreements" that made outsourcing possible in the first place) You can search with "productiviy vs wages" the graphs are very impressive. The one I looked up - 1948 - 1970, the base line is 1948, in that period the Wages and Productivity line is pretty close: Increase in wages vs. productivity: 93,4 vs. 108,1 (so roughly ! doubled since 1948, the corporations got more than the workers, but still an impressive gain in real average wages. Since then (1970 - 2013 in that graph) there were further increases: 8,1 % in total for wages and 64,9 for productivity. (that is an US chart, in Germany and Austria the gains in productivity are at least as much if not more - both countries have very competitive export industries). So on top of the gap of 14,7 % (from 1948 - 1970) which gave the entrepreneurs an advantage and a reward for their input NOW there is an ADDITIONAL GAP of 56,8 % (1970 - 2013). So in total wages lag behind 71,5 % In the 70s pressure on wages began. Before the manufacturers had an almost shortage of workers, they had to pay good wages AND to let the workforce participate in the increase of productivity. That means IF and WHEN the company was more successful or more cost-efficient or whatever, not only the owners of the company got all the profit from that improvement, no the workers because of their negotioting power got their fair share of the profit as well. Also the income taxes and corporate taxes for those doing well were MUCH higher AND they were acutally paid. Neither outsourcing nor tax evasion was possible (Politics starting enabling that on the behest of big biz in the 80s, Reagan, Thatcher, Neo Liberalism, resp. Neo Conservatism)
1
* We do not have enough jobs for the workforce as is - and there is a trend to not hire people over 50 or even over 40. So if you are unlucky enough to lose your job and you are over 50 good luck with getting another well-paying long term stable position (as opposed to provisory employment, hire and fire, short term jobs). In Germany there is also the myth popping up every where, that there is not enough "skilled workforce" (and it is never defined - do they mean academics do they mean skilled blue collars ?, IT, healthcare staff ??). If that would be the case, 50 year old people would be rehired on the spot and one would see good salaries offered. That is not happening, more like: they do not have 10 people in line for every position they offer, and they would like to hire young excellently trained people up to 25 years with 10 years experience in the workforce. Add to that wish list a rather low salary and a lot of flexibility (so when and how is that imaginary workforce supposed to have the confidence to establish a family and raise kids ??) The shortage in skilled workforce seems to be a neoliberal Think Tank invention in order to "justify" working visas for IT people, doctors of medicine etc. from poor countries like India, Bulgaria. They can hire these qualified people at lower wages than the domestic academic workforces would demand. In that scheme even highly qualified positions come under wage pressure as soon as the number of people seeking employment is higher than open positions. And it has actually become harder to find good, qualified, skilled and resourceful handymen - like plumbers, construction workers, carpenters. Well pay these people better (and give the rest of the population enough money to pay for those services) - and you will be able to find people willing and capable to do the work - and to it well (as it used to be here until around the 90s) These days everyone runs for the white collar jobs and "higher" education: Motivation part is social prestige, part is the hope for a good salary, part is that the hands-on jobs can be very demanding over time especially if the person is not a young strong man (or woman) anymore. Well treat them better or offer a transition of career and more people will be willing to do the work.
1
The European colonial power INCENTIVIZED the Arab and African slave trade, there was some going on (also if they went to war with each other). But the European DEMAND and WILLINGNESS TO BUY created a HUGE MARKET. - if one tribe would raid another one which they considered to be adversaries or enemies (in that case to get slaves and not for the "usual" more rare cases) - of course the attacked would retaliate. Divide and conquer.
1
Meanwhile Joe Manchin from WV and Kyrsten Sineam from AZ are "worried" about the tradition of the filibuster (an accident of history, hardly used until the Dixiecrats wanted to prevent lynching laws from being passed). Biden knows of course that Manchin auditions as the better Republican, he was 1 of 3 "Democrats" in the Senate that hindered Obama in late 2013 to get an infrastructure bill passed (Repubs were not going to let Dems get anything done, the voters would like). And a few killed the Public Option in 2009 (Joe Lieberman was one of them). FDR had to twist arms - of Democrats. But of course HE was not in the pockets of the big donors (that finance all Republicans and most Democrats).
1
4:00 she does not understand that the small rural hospitals would profit the most from M4A (she cannot think outside of the framework she is used to). Of COURSE the rates would need to be better. Currently large and prestigious hospitals try to MILK the good plans and the rural hospitals do not get that many good patients. - all hospital need too much admin staff because the billing is so complex (and if they have a Medicare, Medicaid contract they are forced to engage in extensive documentation so that they cannot "cheat" - some of these rules place an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on the providers). And others rules just fall sideways when all the patients have M4A. They also likely end up with more unpaid bills.
1