Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Hill"
channel.
-
2
-
Donald Piniach Sanders has uncommon energy (obviously more than the average healthy 78 year old - he will be 79 in Sep. and Biden is 14 months yonger) After the blockage was removed and the 2 stents fixed the problem he bounced back within 2 weeks to the campaign trail with an intense schedule.
If he had gone earlier, there would have been no heart attack at all. He claims his heart did not suffer - His heart and system support that intense schedule - neither Biden nor Bloomberg have exerted themselves like this.
They are untested.
Sanders had a 7 day week during impeachment (he may have them anyway, but in January he was stuck 6 days in the Senate, so they used a private jet so that he could make the most of his time).
Biden has interviews where he is coherent - and speeches and appearance etc. where he isn't, where he is visibly at a loss for words (and no it isn't a stammer). he didn't have that in the past.
Especially the last days. - If he is in decline it is going to get worse under stress, and he hasn't campaigned hard.
And no, I do not trust the one assessment he got from his surgeon that saved his life after the 2 aneurysms (in 1988 I think). The surgeon confirms that he is sharp as ever: ahem, no obviously he isn't, at least not always, and I assume that he was in better shape in 2012, at least the footage I have seen from that time. Debate with Paul Ryan for instance.
there was major movement at the stock exchange after Biden unexpectedly came back into play. In other words: he is the candidate big biz and big finance prefers. And he was always considered to be ONE of the main competitors of Sanders (also in 2019 when he got the assessment . We are talking about trillions of dollars here. One doctor wouldn't do a politician that is so close to powerful interests favors, would he ?
2
-
Donald Piniach Sanders on the other has 3 assessments. His claim (heart is doing good, no damage done, great energy) is supported by his schedule and campaigning. heart rate 62 beats per minute is pretty good, as well.
Biden's claim (or that of his doctor) that he is unchanged on the other hand seems dubious.
Other older candidates also had a stressing schedule and apart from minor gaffes (Klobuchar) they coped well. Warren, Steyer, ... there is no footage like that we have from Biden (also from last year).
Biden did a light schedule, did not campaign in Super Tuesday states (he won some of them nontheless, which is an interesting lesson about the power of name recognition, being a household name and media narrative). His campaign shields him from interviews.
his campaign gave him a list with talking points (I think it was about his record on social Security or the Iraq war) to give to reporters when they asked him (at a smaller event). That is not a good look. Refer to a website for details, and either answer questions or not - but do not hand out lists.
It looked like his campaign wanted to prevent him from talking about tricky issues, in other words that they did not trust his mental agility to either deflect, filibuster, give a good answer, or whatever politicians do in these situations when they are pressed. It can't be lack of routine.
Several times when he was challenged in townhalls he insulted the people, told them to vote for Trump, etc. Now, some of the questions were tricky, either meant as set-up, to get incriminating footage, or people just strongly disagreed with his record.
But that comes with the territory and his reaction was not to solve it with an answer, fact based, with a joke or being charming, or a diplomatic evasion. He turned away, told them to vote for Trump etc. not so long ago he called a woman a pony faced liar, etc.
In other words, he may not have been able to counteract that, not with talking points and not with being quick witted or diplomatic. so he went a little rogue to not "lose" the argument.
Or he shoved an activist that asked him about his underwhelming plans regarding climate change.The man is know (cyled in an awareness campaign) and he politely asked a reasonable question. He admitted that he would support Sanders in the primary. Biden got hold of his lapels and got in his face. That man stood his ground, but Biden tried the alpha gig on him.
Now that could be typical Biden as soon as something doesn't go his way, or he does not have any other reaction (anymore) to navigate such challenging situations.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lovesthebass if you listen to Yang and his ads you will notice that he ONLY talks about the threat / challenge of automation now and in the future - and that he also attributes the job losses (all of them) of the last 20 years to automation. Plus driverless cars are not yet there. It is not the problem of the next 4 years.
I give him credit for opening the discussion about UBI.
Automation is NOT the most pressing issue - and UBI is not the only solution. With the green New Deal and a jobs guarantee a lot of jobs will be created that cannot be automated: healthcare - nurses, doctors, installing solar panels, building streets, dams, bridges. Installing batteries, getting the power lines into the earth, planting trees (there could be use of some robots), childcare, .... organic farming, lots of scientific research. Firefighters ! cleaning up after floodings. Social workers / street workers. Reintegrating people from prison.
Of course there was automation in the past - but that does not mean it MUST cost jobs.
Automation was a major reason the hourly average wage in the U.S. rose by 97 % between 1947 and 1970 (REAL wages - that means adjusted for inflation).
That was with a real 40 hour workweek and often with only one breadwinner in the family. It meant that the purchasing power per hour doubled ! and that MOST of the productivity gains during that time (112 %) went to the employees in form of higher wages.
From then on the work week should have gotten SHORTER = the productivity wins are given in more TIME with a wage that stays constant - with inflation adjustments to have the same purchasing power.
So the same monthly income but for less hours. Costs for companies would have remained the same (the same number of people produce the same output but working fewer hours. In reality not all branches can improve productivity the same, not all are suited for automation, so there needed to be mechanisms to compensate for that. Working in the factory versus being a teacher or working in childcare).
Output of goods and services would have remained the same (not more and more / the same but with firing a part of the staff). That would counteract consumerism to a degree.
The 40 hour week for all was introduced in 1940 !! in the U.S.
Ongoing automation, other improvements in technology meant continued productivity gains (between 1970 and 2013 around 69 % - but wages rose only by 8 or 9 %). That would have allowed for more reduction of the hours.
Instead the haves used the economic crises of the 1970s (2 oil crises global problems, in the U.S. the debt of Vietnam on top) to hit back. Undermining negotiating power of labor because there was UNEMPLOYMENT.
First it was the highest unemployment rate since WW2. High interest rates under Carter (stiffling the real economy in order to accomodate big finance, the owners of fortunes). Then neoliberalism.
Then outsourcing of jobs (only possible because of technological improvements and only safe and economically viable because of free trade agreements !
It became easier from a technological standpoint. But they absolutely needed the low PERMANENT import tariffs. The workers that got peanuts could not afford to buy what they helped produce in Mexico or China. A 40 % default import tax if the goods are sent to Europe or the U.S. is a deterrent. And the corporate overlords had no intention to repeat the recipe from the Golden Era (after WW2 until the advent of neoliberalism - it did not hit all countries at the same time). They could not exploit the workers in first world countries - but they sure intended to do so in developing countries.
An ongoing smear campaign against unions. Glorifying "hard" work (which means both parents work more than 40 hours, no affordable childcare).
Now people are working MORE not less.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes, but unions in Nevada can TURN OUT their base, likely have their email (or social media contact data), can send in the union organizers to activate people in the larger companies. Total primary voters in the U.S. maybe 6 million (if turnout is good), so they certainly can influence the outcomes in Nevada if they want to, relatively small numbers like a few thousand can make a large difference in Nevada.
I just checked: 80,000 people are said to have participated in the primary in 2016 (just got remembered of the shenanigans of Roberta Lange and the Nevada party machine. They decided that they were under the impression that the voice call for HRC on the floor was "louder" than for Sanders, the rules would have required a head count if there was any ambiguity (how hard can it be to count people !!) but as always the party machine was not bound by the rules if they were not favorable for them.
If people are deceived and underinformed (and duly scared to lose their maybe "good" but certainly overpriced union negotiated healthcare) they will vote for the guy whose name they recognize.
the situation is so bad that healthcare coverage that would be considered default in other wealthy countries is "good" in the U.S. context and something you can lose when you lose your job - or the company decides to.
So the unions will transport their members to the convention. The members get a strong suggestions whom they should vote for (often people that mainly spead Spanish and work hard to put food on the table - so no time to follow the political process).
They will by deafault (and with some nudging of union leadership) chose the guy that is presented by the media as uncle Joe, friend of the working class, elder statesman - and the media keeps silent on his REAL voting record, glosses over the signs for cognitive decline or the common sense assumption that he would lose against Trump in the GE.
So the unelected VP and the special interest guys and gals in the cabinet positions would run the country - like in the Reagan era. The oligarchs would not mind a Biden OR a Trump admin, they win either way.
The only thing that is good is that the Sanders campaign knows exactely how they were cheated in 2016, and they do better with Latinos on the ground this time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ideally Sanders kills it with droves of young people and "unlikely" voters showing up (dragging along family, friends, grandma and the cat). The campaign also organizes car pools and offering rides. The intense volunteer activity now starts showing in the polls. The polls tend to include older, more affluent voters, "likely voters" that means they voted in the PAST, usually in the last 3 elections. So that automatically excludes young voters that come of age.
And on a practical level: it is easier for the pollstes to reach people on landlines.
So the polls might be fairly accurate for candidates with an older, more affluent base (Biden, Warren, Buttigieg). But Sanders, Gabbard, Yang are likely not realistically represented in the polls (even now), they might OUTPERFORM the polls.
Yang and Gabbard have appeal to voters that are not usual Democratic voters or caucus goers and that are also not in camp Sanders. THAT might turn out to be good. They have an affinity with the Sanders PLATFORM. If the Yang Gang does not make it over 15 % in a place in the first round - would they go to team Biden ? It is much more likely that they "realign" with team Sanders.
Same for team Gabbard.
And in the 2nd round they can only realign with successful teams. That will often be only Sanders / Biden. In many but not all places Warren.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
it benefits the U.S. and Mexican oligarchs. NAFTA is even worse for Mexico (the regular people). Companies like GM produce in Mexico or hae their supply chain there (over which they exert a lot of power). NAFTA was bad for the U.S. citizens and worse for Mexico.
U.S. companies (and from other countries because Mexico has trade deals with other nations) produce IN Mexico.
The wages are not that good, not even for Mexican costs of living.
On the other hand the U.S. could dump the big ag surplus on the Mexican market, so the small farmers went under. Not enough jobs for them in the cities - there are not that many new jobs. In some provinces the cartells are the last resort for "employment" - that or people migrate to the U.S.
They kept the industrial wages down in Mexcio *, the development did not go like in the U.S. in the Golden Era after WW2. Good industrial wages rising with productivity - the Mexican workers produce with modern technology so they start out at high level of productivity).
* that was the whole point of NAFTA apart from opening Mexico for U.S. agricultural imports - to pit the poor workers of Mexico against the U.S. workers.
The growing U.S. middle class spent the good wages in retail, vacations, construction, service industry.
Average hourly wages adjusted for inflation grew by 97 % between 1947 and 1970 - in other words DOUBLE purchasing power. And 9 % between 1970 and 2013 (I know these numbers by heart, it has not improved since then though).
Increase in productivity (a lot due to automation, new technology or better educated workforce) 112 % between 1947 and 1970 resp. 69 % 1970 - 2013. So until the 1970s wokers got the lions share of productivity wins in form of higher wages. The 1970s brought 2 major global crises (oil price spikes) and higher unemployment (high for that time) for the first time after WW2. The oligarchs used that to hit back.
The policy to let the workers participate in productivity wins has been abolished since the 1980s (by undermining unions). "free" "trade" deals were an important instrument for that as well. Now the workers cannot even ask for higher wages (compared to inflation rates which also increased in those times) when unemployment is low. Many manufacturers threaten to close shop and go to Mexico or Asia.
The manufacturers only turned their back on the workers at home - they still need the consumers ! When they pay peanuts to workers in developing countries those workers can't buy the stuff they help to produce.
Consumers have the spending power of course mostly from wages - or from benefits like SS - so that is the flaw in the scheme. consumer debt on the credit card helped to paper over the gap between output of goods and dwindling purchasing power in the U.S. - that started in the mid 1970s as well.
Back in the day a company that produced in China had a default import tariff of 40 % if they wanted to sell the stuff in the U.S.. The tariffs for Made in Mexico also dropped when NAFTA went into effect (not sure what they were before NAFTA) . And more importantly they dropped permanently - the trade deal provided the safe foundation to make investment decisions.
40 % import tariffs (China) is not helpful when you want to sell those foreign made products (in most cases designed / developed in a first world country) in the U.S. What if the corporations had invested lots of money and then an new government in the U.S. would increase tariffs to protect the workforce. There goes the profit.
Politicians colluded with big biz to create the conditons where manufacturers can undermine domestic manufacturing and the negotiating power of labor to demand good wages.
And it had to be "written in stone" so that new governments could not reverse those deals. (they are often valid 20 - 30 years after a country theoretically quits, and the companies can sue the governments for damages - in the After period as well. That was an important part of TPP Asia and TTIP - with Europe - that companies can sue governments if they pass regulations that decrease the future profits of companies (not compensation for stranded investments which could be justified in some cases - not forgone PROFITS).. And it would be a private court system (arbitration by for profit legal firms. Experiences so far: in 2 out of 3 cases they decide pro corporations. What cases: Canada passes a law to protect marine lifef from underwater explosions near senstitive coastal eco systems. Egypt raises the minimum wage from 48 - 72 USD - per month. Australia demands warnings on cigarette packages resp. plain packing. Big bad government harrassing the poor multinationals).
The U.S. can leverage its power as large importer so Trump demanded new negotiations - but Mexico and Canada could not renegotiate those deals if they wanted to work for THEIR citizens. They are stuck with what the sellouts in former governments agreed to.
40 % import tariff is a bummer
Then there is the hassle to deal with the foreign work force, set up manufacturing plant, learn to deal with their local mob, polticians to bribe, language, then there is transport costs, a creative legal system maybe, top executives that do not like to move, ... - it is just not worth it if you have to deal with 40 % tariff or if that is looming over your head as possibility.
By Executive Order Bill Clinton took the power from Congress to grant much lower tariffs to China on a yearly base. It had become a political football - but once that power rested with the State department the representatives went silent (by orders of their donors. They had wrangled not out of principle but for grandstanding or to make deals regarding other matters).
That was better for the oligarchs - but the oligarchs remembered the Ross Perot campaign, so there was a threat that a pro workers candidate could get into power later. So they still held back the large investments. Until Bush signed the Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China (PNTR) beginning 2002, then the dam broke.
Then the LOW import tariffs became permanent and no government could (easily) undo them - then it had become safe for big biz to invest the hundreds of millions.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Free market does not work for healthcare. Exhibit A: the U.S. - for profits have been around for a while, they had their chance to shine (since Nixon, before that it was not legal to make a profit, of course there were too many non-profits that also added unnecessary admin costs for the insurers and the providers)
Exhibit B: Switzerland. Cost control does not work well.
They are the other wealthy nation that relies on private insurance coverage only. the U.S. has 10,260 USD spending per person (2017 Kaiser), Switzerland 78 % of that, the overwhelming majority of other wealthy countries is in the range of 49 - 54 % of the U.S. spending per person.
4 continents, many countries, cultures, lifestyles and risks (diet, alcohol, cigarettes), age of population.
70 years (most countries implemented or adjusted after WW2).
No free market. Single payer ! There is no system relying on private insurers) that that could beat them, it is not even close.
The Swiss have at least good services, they pay staff well, insurers cannot play games, deny accepting a client * or treatment etc. - so that is what you get with "good" regulation and many for-profit players.
They MUST have a basic offer, the government determines "basic", and they must offert that a the same price for everyone in that age bracket.
"insurance" is admin and negotiations regarding healthcare, so how much can you innovate in that ? Especially with the basic packages (so that people with preexisting conditions have no disadvantage, they cannot cherrypick their pool). With that package they cannot even do product differentiation (not that it makes much sense for extras either to differentiate). So there are only costs but not more value for consumers to have so many different companies that make offers.
If that many companies make cars or garments or household applieances you also have the costs of diversity, but the reward is an interesting range of products. For consumer preferences. Which does not come into play with medical treatments.
Consumers can decide NOT to BUY consumer goods and even improvise around more essential things (living with the parents, car pool, starting college later. If they can't afford to rent or the car repair).
But they cannot avoid having healthcare services. And in most cases they cannot even WAIT (usually it gets worse if you wait).
If you are not really rich getting the necessary care - or not - depends on the insurance coverage. = being de facto forced to buy insurance. In the U.S. there is nothing but too expensive insurance.
Versus: mandated modest payroll tax that gives FULL coverage in a single payer system
With single payer, resp. M4A no worries about coverage or "what is covered" (Well, all that is worthy of a first world medical system and that changes all the time anyway).
No unexpected costs LATER.
And a LOT of co-fighters who have the exact SAME coverage (or lack therof) and who also have the vote. LOTS of political leverage because people are united in a very important issue.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Jinx Mim No one (with any knowldege not even informed lay persons) said the Novel Corona virus would wipe out humanity. The European infections savaged the natives but some survivied - can be only 5 or 10 %, but they were not "wiped out".
Mankind has gone through bottlenecks before (it shows in the humane genome, for instance 70,000 years ago - it must have been climate change likely caused by volcanic outbreaks. Sulphure high up in the atmosphere dims the sunlight. (see in the 19th century the year w/o summer that was caused when either Tambora or Krakatau happened). Had impact on the global weather, temperature and agriculture for a few years.
That may lasts only for 5 - 10 years - but that can be enough, if it is draughts and what not and the change comes FAST - so animals (prey) cannot adapt or people cannot continue with agriculture and do not have enough water so they have to give up settlements and cities. Farming is only around for 12,000 years so the hunter / gatherers were hit by lack of rain and the migration patterns of their prey changed, resp. the animals died.
The European population survived the different waves of The Plague, and the Spanish Flu in the last 1000 years. Diphteria and whooping cough killed a lot of children under 4 (bad for everyone but especially bad for children).
The spread of SARS-CoV-2 if left unchecked would cause a terrible death toll and at some point there would be enough immunity that it would fade away. Like the Spanish Flu. It does not matter if the mortality rate is only 0,1 % or whatever the realistic number is, when you count in the undetected mild or asymptomatic cases. If there are so many undetected cases it means the damn thing is also more contagious.
If it can spread like wildfire a lower death rate does not save you, the explosive growth in case numbers more than compensates for a lower realistic death and complication rate.
Have a few billion people infected and there will be plenty of dead and so many cases with (very severe) complications than even first world nations can handle in hospitals (see Italy, they have more hospital beds per 1000 people than the U.S.)
There would be economic damage anyway - people would avoid shopping and holidays even w/o official lockdown. Those who can would homeschool.
Novel coronavirus after globally 50 - 100 million people dead, and terrible scenes in hospitals and a lot of dead nurses and doctors. After 1 - 2 years it would have run its course - but there is a good chance it would come back in form of another mutation.
But like with the flu then there is some basic immunity that can help even if the strain has mutated, it can help to slow spread down even if the formerly aquired immunity does not fully work or that fades. And in 2 - 3 years it should be possible to have a vaccine as backup.
So whom of your parents or elderly relatives, friends would you see as disposeable.
And if you are over 50 do not feel to safe. It can kill you too (or you are left with lasting health damage).
I think the Spanish flue cost 50 milion lefes and lasted 2 years. It hit people under 40 harder, many children died of it too. Have you seen the film Awakenings ? (I think those patients were long term victims of the Spanish Flu). Did not happen often, but it did - and these are public health costs as well. People being like zombies for the rest of their life.
2
-
2