Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Thom Hartmann Program"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It wasn't the earthquake, it was the flooding because of the tsunami that caused the meltdown in Fukushima Daiichi in 2011.
Both ! plants (they are 20 km apart) were built to withstand an earthquake of 6 - 7. Now that earthquake in 2011 was stronger, but the epicenter luckily was away far enough. The sensors started the automatic shutdown in both plants. In Fukushima Daini they pulled off an orderly shutdown (they had some troubles and no electricity in the beginning, but they pulled it off).
Fukushima Daiichi was built directly at the coast and at sealevel. That was an advantage when they used seawater for cooling. They had a 3 m concrete wall. After the catastrophic Tsunami in 2004 caused by the earthquake of Sumatra (which did not harm Japan !) there were discussions to raise that wall to 5 m. The wave in 2011 was 8 - 9 m high. Well, it would have kept some of the water off the site, it certainly would have improved their chances because the level of water would have been lower.
But the governor of the province saved TEPCO from having to make that investment.
Also: ONE generator was placed higher - that was the one generator that survived, was not flooded and continued to do its job (cooling the reactors after the shutdown to make sure they would not go out of control). ONE generator was not enough to uphold the cooling cycle (I think it was dedicated to specific reactors, so at least one reactor remained unserved). Therefore they got the meltdown (In Fukushima Daini they were able to start the emergency generators and maintained the necessary cooling).
Add to that that the Japanese should have asked for help earlier. The ordered a replacement generator immediately, but the truck transporting it got stuck in the traffic when civilians fled the area.
Tsunami is an old Japanese word, there is a reason for that. The wave had 8 - 9 m, which is high - but there had been much higher in the last 1000 years (up to 20 meters). Japan is an old culture, the catastrophes are on record and if the wave had 20 m the marks may be found even w/o written record.
1
-
@thomashusted I can tell you the numbers of Austria * 631 patients that died and it is certified (died FROM corona virus), that is 3,8 % of all that were ever tested positive, died. Versus 25 or so more who died WITH corona virus (tested positive, but may have died from something else or cause of death is unclear).
Which is 3,9 % if you take the higher number.
The gap was around 55 in mid April (shutdown was on March 15) but they revisted cases from the early stage, and/or it was a statistical or reporting hickup (something to do with automatic reporting, I spare you the details, but they are transparent about it on the website).
That means 3,8 percent of those who tested positive died.
(or 3,9 if you base it on "died WITH the infection" numbers)
There may ! be a unknown number of mild cases, that never make it in the stats.
(testing, and treatment is free, mandatory sick leave
So people that suspect they could have the virus, have no reason to not get tested or get medical help. and if they need quarantine there would be strong ! social pressure on companies that fire them because of that (they would find themselves in the news).
But considering that authorities watch new (potential) cases and potential infection chains like hawks while reopening (tourism will be the next BIG issue) I do not think a LOT of cases go unnoticed, since that testing is deployed and protocols are in place.
More may have escaped notice in the early stage (think the first month maybe, numbers spiked within 3 weeks after lockdown on March 15).
Undetected cases are not necessarily good. sure these people have no major problem and they should have (some, ? time limited) immunity. But they can spread it to others, who are not so lucky. And the harmless cases are also not enough to give us herd immunity with little sacrifices.
See Italy, in the wealthy region of the country doctors had to use triage (or were within 2 days of having to decide who would get treatment and who not. They had the official instructions (a letter was sent out to the hospital). They may have applied that inofficially or by default: because hospitals and staff were overwhelmed more patietns died than in countries with a less stresed system, they just could not give all patients the best possible care.
Germany and Austria helped out later and took in patients but not when things were the worst in Italy (and they did have a shutdown in place and in desperation people were even restricted to take a walk with maybe family members, rules in Germany and Austria allowed that).
IF there are a lot of unreported mild cases, it means the damn virus is also MORE INFECTIOUS. From a healthcare system standpoint you would prefer it to be more deadly BUT also less infectious - because then it is much easier to CONTAIN it.
A verson of SARS emerged in ? 2012. MERS in the Arabic countries: bats / dromedars / humans) that has a 30 % death rate - but it is not very infectious.
But recently there was a cluster, in a postal center in Austria and they found 130 infected people (testing positive) while testing around 7,700 because of that cluster. Postal center workers, those infected 1 teacher and 1 woman working in (emergency) childcare (provisions for parents who can't keep the children at home). There also was some spread among familiy members.
They found 1 or 2 asymptomatic cases (I think 1 mum that got infected by a teacher was such a case). Out of 7,700 tested (but they could be super spreaders so no need to get cavalier about it).
The city of Vienna did some more "random" testing. Not completely raddp,_ they checked care homes, places where a lot of interaction happen tec). So total number of testing related to that incident (which was found in the first place, because of mass testing) 16,000. And not many cases with mild or no symptoms were detected that would have otherwise gone unnoticed.
So those asymptomatic cases do happen and they can be important when the person is a good spreader and has a lot of interactions. But the theory that there are masses on unnoticed cases does not bear out - not from what we know so far. (it might be different with children, if they have a chance to become the asymptomatic carriers. currently they don't, no school, and emergency services for kids until age 14 if parents work, and have no supervision).
And with contact tracing / testing they find the people soon, before they develop symptoms: on average after 5 days
1
-
In Germany and Austria much more people have an ID (travelling), and everyone has a birth certificate (and a statement of citizenship) shortly after being born. One uses those documents to get an ID and the requirements and systems are the SAME everywhere.
Poor (often black) persons born at home have a real struggle with it. Heaven forbid someone made a small error for instance with your middlename. (I read a case where a voter had an ID in a state and was able to vote with it.
He came with birth certificate and a drivers licence and the rental contract into the new state, but there was a slight difference - not his fault (middlename not mentioned in ID but in birth certificate or abbreviated - something like that) It took several visits, 2 flights, the vaccination records and school records, and I do not know what else, and he still could not get the new ID required in that state to be elligible !! to vote. Then he decided a) not to move to that state that disgusted him meanwhile and b) to sue them.
In Germany, Austria, ...the public offices are better staffed. You go there with your papers and will be served right away. It is possible they send it to you or you have to get it in person on another day. But it is not that complicated or takes that long.
At least in Austria one can vote if the election commission knows the person (so in a small village no one shows their ID). If you forgot to take the ID, it is possible for another person (either with an ID or known to the commission - at least 2 persons if I remember correctly - to confirm your identity.
Voter participation is high, so ID showing HERE this is not a hindrance obviously. And the polling stations are plentyful and well staffed, and elections are on sundays or holidays.
And there is automatic voter registration. When an election comes up and a person will be 18 on election date a letter with the invitation and details come to the place where the young person is registered, usually still with the the parents. When you move you have to register once (and for other purposes like driving licence) then you will be automatically updated in the CENTRAL voter register.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Governments that are in control of their own currency can create money as well. even to help struggling home buyers hit by a global financial crisis. - One exampel of government creating money was of course QE for finance. (No - they do not start the printing press, less than 5 % of the money we use is in form of coins/banknotes. And printing the money would not help anyway, who would SPEND the money into circulation ?). - The FED that is cooperating with the government arranged for QE for the finanical institutions, not sure if Congress was involved too.
And in case government would ever want to serve the citizens they could arrange for QE For The People 2)
Back to the theoretical help for struggling home buyers defaulting on their loans.
Allow lower interest rates for smaller loans that had been given before 2007 (including student debt, that is a complete rip-off, they pay way more than for a normal loan in this low interest environment). And extend the time for paying back - for instance for houses 30 years, because then even lower income people might be able to handle the monthly payment.
I think there were many people who could have kept their houses with low interest AND as long as they had a job. The moment they lost the job with the economic crisis they were in danger of foreclosure.
Such borrowers are not "good" borrowers anyway. Well no one bats an eye when they DO PAY for interests and bank loans when they are forced to RENT (the rent of course covers those loans and costs) w/o ever building their wealth.
Of course the state COULD help them - but such "welfare" is only for the already rich, for the pepole who brought the financial global system almost down.
"Bet" on rising market prices, take a risk, take the loan that is so easy to get (thrown at you really), try to become a home owner. - and when the bubble bursts you are scolded as "irresponsible". By hypocrites like Hillary Clinton (which funny enough did some speculation on derivates, highly speculative contracts 3) Whitewater investigations - which for HER was O.K.
And everyone else busy in deflecting from the criminal and reckless behavior of the professional and powerful players - the banks 4) The banks which were first creating a real estate bubble, then a speculative bubble by placing bets on those shady loans).
The Bush admin was glad about the seemingly booming real estate market, it made the economy and the jobs market look good - as long as the game of musical chairs lasted.
If a company buys up real estate and hope for rising prices and take out loans to finance that - they are smart, dynamic, good capitalists and admirable entrepreneurs. In case that goes wrong - oh well - see Trump's banrupcies.
The ordinary family aspiring for ONE home to live in were ALSO relying on rising house prices and a booming market.
Unlike the big players that enjoy so much help and have so much prestige with politicians and media .....the professional players who have easy access to expertise and insider informatio - those one time home buyers depended on and trusted the information of the media - and the banks. And they were lured in by informal information about how this was a chance to get a loan. The banks had very WELL HONED, refined sales and marketing PROCESSES in place.
The banks were extremely eager to sell those loans, no matter how.
Ted talk of Bill Black, "The way to rob a bank is to own one". If a bank does not bother to make sure such loans WILL be paid back (and house loans run over long time) - then they engage in a fraudulent scheme, wanting to make the quick buck, knowing that it will fail at some point of time (but then the manager and the bonus were already paid, it is like the game of musical chairs.
The only thing: in the 80s many managers were prosecuted in the aftermath of the Savings and Loans scandal wer prosecuted and Prof. Black had helped with that.
Fast forward not even 30 years - they had bought the political process, they had bought Obama, the Democratic and the Republican party) and could act criminally with impunity).
1
-
Obama protecting the banksters: his Attorney Generals (both, but especially Eric Holder) carefully avoided !! prosecuting ANY of the banksters. A few out of court settlements for show (if they could not avoid them - see for instance Rolling Stone article "The 9 billion USD witness" it is about J.P. Morgan and Alayne Fleischmann.
City Group suggested Obama's cabinet picks - he obeyed their wishes - see Podesta emails. That was the first thing Mr. Hope and Change did when he got into office - make the foxes - more like the wolves - the guards of the hen house.
(And then starting the healthcare negotiations with a WEAK position, even the public option was thrown out right in the beginning - this was the next betrayal).
Obama could have been the next FDR, he had the mandate, he had the public and the enthusiasm behind him.
If - as was to be expected - a sell-out Congress would not comply (including - especially ! - the Corporate Dems) Obama could have told the public in detail what Congress COULD and SHOULD do for the voters - with some very strong hints about midterms in 2010. And what he would achieve for the voters if they just gave him a Congress with some willing and maybe NEWLY elected representatives.
FDR did exactely that, he strongarmed the members of the Democratic Party that were unwilling to support his efforts for relief for the people. Like today politicians were well off or even rich people.
Now, some were smart enough to see the pitchforks coming. In the year before the unions had won 1 million members, strikes and demonstrations everyhwere, FDR was the "lesser evil" when it came to having a left-leaning populist polician in charge. At least he was a rich person coming from a rich and well connected family and understood the upper class too. I assume many also were aware of the Russian Revolution of 1917 - in 1932/1933 that was not THAT far away.
So enough of them went along with his unheard of ideas when pushed gently, others he needed to strongarm (he would personally campaign to make them lose their political position.
No doubt many rich Republian AND Democratic politicians remained resentful (in the 1940s FDR considered the threat to not running for president again - there was no 2 term limit then). They just could not do much about it right away - the relief program, the New Deal made FDR very popular. So the "strongarming" of FDR paid off, it gave him even more political leverage about the Nay sayers in his own party.
1
-
How the Great Financial Crisis REALLY came about: first the banks started giving out shady loans (they could not find enough GOOD borrowers, the real economy was not THAT good).
So they found out they could lower the standards, the regulators did nothing about it, then they started to sell mortgages aggressively to low income borrowers. Low income people do not compare interests, they must be glad to get a loan at all - so in the short run they pay higher interest = more revenue, and more bonuses for management.
We know that the banks honed and reworked their sales process.
That created a growth in real estate prices. People also were encouraged to borrow more money than they needed (the house AND the new car) - that was the sales gig if they were more middle class.
Government (Cheney/Bush) was happy, no need to do something for the unwashed masses or spend money on infrastructure programs, etc. The "free market" seemed to take care of it all.
Construction jobs and perceived wealth in real estate let the economy look good and and the mood was optimistic.
The financial "information" industry (media) was cluelessly enthusiastic, the free market fans were happy, deafening silence from the Fed (Alan Greenspan), the regulators, the government, and mainstream ! academia.
The reckless banks intimidated the professionals that make the value assessments = appraisals of the property that is going to be financed. Those professionals are hired by the banks, - that is if they are not blacklisted for a honest appraisal. Many of them sent an open letter of prostest to a major newspaper. Maybe the New York Times - that letter was of course ignored.
The banks bundled and repackaged those loans, sold themto get them out of the books. They rubberstamped them as excellent quality with the help of criminal rating agencies (the largest in the world) or by intimidating internal law departments (J.P. Morgan, Alayne Fleischmann).
So they sold them internationally to large banks who also had some inklings that something was not quite right (they have whole departments of lawyers and analysts and economists - for instance Deutsche Bank).
They made sure to keep the option of plausible deniability, they kept the official paper record "clean". Of course no one realy KNEW the whole picture for sure, some "experts" and "professional" may truly have been overwhelmed by their greed
(DB CEO Joseph Ackermann, best buddy and advisor of Angela Merkel in the crisis, proudly announced in the years before, that they wanted to increase the return on investment from 17 % to 25 % for their large share holders. There is no way one can make such huge, obscene profits with honest banking, not even investment banking if it is legal. For single transactions yes, but not for the whole broad base).
Just to be on the safe side, these large banks, the buyers of the shady loan packages started offering bets to other actors in the global casino. They were searching for speculators that would compensate them in case those allegedly good U.S. mortgages would default.
= Credit Default Swaps.
Then ADDITIONALLY many financial institutions that had no stake at all in the underlying real estate loans started placing their bets on that risk TOO (the risk of the default of the loan packages).
This is where massive leverage entered the "market".
What was a real estate bubble in the U.S. (a major one, but manageable) almost brought the financial system down.
If DB had defaulting loans - they would lose the money. If some actors in the UK for instance would take that risk from the shoulders of DB (for a fee) but ONLY for the total volume of the loans- well then the risk was only shifted from on player to more and other players (it is the principle of insurance).
Within the system the potential risk has not grown, the maximum volume of losses is not larger - just someone else has the risk.
What happened instead:
the whole world and their dog started making those bets.
The underlying US mortgages wouldn't really default - would they ?
And as long ! as they did not default they could cash in on the fee (that they got in exchange for a possible future obligation to stand in for defaulting loans).
The institutions that facilitate such speculative transactions ( in that case the Credit Default Swaps) get a fee as well.
Those bets BY FAR far SURPASSED the volume of loans - so of course no one really was able to meet their obligations to stand in for the payment once the loans started defaulting. But the banks before had paid them the fees, they had the costs, but they did not get any revenue for the loans anymore - the original homeowners could not meet their monthly payments anymore.
Of course the speculators that held the Credit Default Swaps would have gone under, some of the banks that were willing to "rely" on such bets to "insure" the loans (when they had a pretty good inkling the loans were not really that safe) would NOT have been compensated for their losses.
Many international banks that held those loan packages (Mortgage backed securities) would have ended up with foreclosed real estate on another continent.
With quickly dropping real estate prices. Good luck with covering your losses. and of course no one can sell huge volumes of real estate quickly - and the banks needed money quickly.
So they would have been in severe trouble or in danger of going bankrupt. And management would have had to face public outrage. And worse the outrage of their most important shareholders (rich and influental people). You can screw the little people, but good luck when rich people lose money (that is whey Bernie Maddow was prosecuted).
Government for the citizens would have let the domino effect play out, - and when the dust settles, resuce the savers of the involved banks. Plus take over those bankrupt banks, hold them provisory (good access to the files for prosecution if the government owns them !).
The taken over banks could have meanwhile engaged in the boring and necessary and productive banking services, no one needs "investment banking" anyway.
And then they could be broken apart (maybe into citizen-owned small banks, cooperative banking, etc.)
The big share holders of the banks would have lost all their investments (but they had of course the ability and in theory the expertise !! to know that all that speculation could not go well).
The even greater upheaval would have meant rolling heads for politicans AND the regulators asleep at the wheel.
And the upheaval would have challenged mainstream economics even more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thom gets this wrong and sees it too rosy. If they could - I guess half of the "Conservatives" in Europe would privatize the healthcare system, with all the corruption scandals that go with it. They are neoliberals and they are worse than the many neoliberals among the bourgoise left and greens. The far right nationalists often to the populist economic rhetoric (for OUR people) but serve big biz as soon as they get some power (they are authoritarians and adore those at the top of hierarchies so of course they collude with big biz.
Even Hitler and the Nazis had a lot of populist rhetoric and more importantly also the populist policies. Incl. healthcare ! * Now - most of the time it also had to be good for big biz. But they pulled off many highly popular and populist policies.
But it is hard to privatize something (in wealthy countries) that is running well and cost efficiently, is highly popular and has been established for 7 decades - and with the U.S. as warning example. It is not a conviction, it is being born and raised with a system taken for granted (incl. by the families of the conservatives), so even attacks at the fringes have to be very sneaky.
Most of them do not have the rabid belief it should be completely privatized. That would come 20 years later with the "next gneration" that grows into the mindset. Most of them have not been thinking it through.
Non-profit public healthcare contradicts their pet belief that private for profit is always better. so surely some privatizations would make it even better. (no, it would open a can of worms).
But the more left and Green parties and the populist wings in their parties hold against it, so the only way they can go about it is to slowly defund the universal non-profit systems, - that is also kind hard to pull off if a country is as rich as Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, ...
Not even a well run highly efficient system can perform well with defunding creeping in - not in the long term. Then it can be bad mouthed and partial privatization can be proposed as "solution". In countries with a strong and rabid right wing press and an intimidated public TV where the staff fears for their well paid jobs (BBC or PBS) that can work. See the U.K. and the tug of war in Australia. (Murdoch press. PBS was threatened by Bush and they now need to go to big biz for donations. Incl. Koch Industries. It explains the way they interviewed Sanders and how they stay clear of certain issues).
Hard to pull if off in other nations that are still wealthy and do have the money, the population does not fall for it and it could lose them elections. They are waiting for the next 15 years when more and more people age and it puts more financial burdens on the system. Of course those older people are voters. (77,6 % of the eligible voters voted in Germany, which is not too good. It would be record in the U.S., the recent 68 or 69 % were a 100 year record, in Germany 85 % would be good and 77 % is mediocre. The old and affluent vote more.
1
-
And in general citizen funded TV is more critical than in the U.S. (even the BBC), there are citizen funded non-profit TV networks (of course undermined by CIA and NATO friendly think tanks. They have a large audience in Germany, and are also watched in Switzerland and Austria). So a defunding of the healthcare system would be blasted. In the U.K. the government has too much influence on the BBC, can get people fired and can threaten to pass bills that would defund the BBC.
These are cushy posts and they fall in line. (Thatcher, the reporting on the police escalation with miner's strikes. The wars. And again under Blair, and the Iraq war). so they defend the government wars, the gov. posiiton on Syria and Russia, Israel .... and only meekly report about the neoliberal onslaught. Also the attacks and defunding of the NHS.
Shows in how they covered Corbyn, Labour - under Corbyn ! not before - made the brazen defunding of the "beloved" NHS an issue (Tories also claim to cherish it) - if the BBC had blasted the Tories they would have lost elections on that. The angle was to report about "problems" but not to point out how the the already lean but just sufficient budgets had been reduced under Tory governments for over 10 years. If you have mass immigration (from Eastern Europe) but do not ramp up housing or healthcare, and the wages are suppressed so the contributions are not high enough - it is de facto defunding. Even if nominally the budgets remain the same (never mind inflation that was also not covered).
If the budgets and state revenue are not enough to cover healthcare - voters could get ideas like "taxing the rich". The global evasion is only possible because ALL highly developed nations collude with big biz or have to go along if they are smaller nations. France had tax evasion - because they can now. They couldn't int he 1970s and the couldn't in the U.S. with over 90 % top marginal income tax rate between 1944 and the late 1960s. As long as the U.S. helps multinationals /finance tax evasions flies. The European Union is as neoliberal as they come BUT the population behind them is less brainwashed. So they could do something - and the EU and the U.S. could really kick the rich and multies - if they wanted to.
The multinations would have nowhere to go. China might disregard their property rights and dispossess them. Where would they park the money ? in Libya, Vietnam, Pakistan, Russia ?? Saudi Arabia with their superb justice system ?
Never mind governments could CREATE money (and use QE for the masses).
1
-
1
-
1
-
During and after Allied occupation the Germans voted center right (which likely helped to placate the communism fearing U.S.) governing conservatives had to observe the "Social Pact" - they reinstated / overhauled healthcare with some 2 class twists after WW2. You can still notice that, the overal consensus prevents the worst fallout from that, only 10 % of the population is fully privately insured - only a small part of the population even have the choice, if they want to opt out from mandatory unversal non-profit insurance.
Which in Germany is provided by highly regulated private non-profits. There is mandatory private insurance (but it is more or less like single player except there are more insurers, and it is not a public agency that offers coverage) and there is "private" insurance (that also can be offered by for profits) that covers more. Either for 100 % or - and that is more common and helps the buddies of conservatives - as addition to the basic and mandatory coverage.
The private non-profits that cover 90 % of the population are so regulated, and also backed up by a societal consensus ! that dates back to 1884 - that they could as well be a government agency like in a single payer country.
But the higher number of actors introduces slightly higher costs for admin.
Some of that complexity (it does not help but it also does not create too much ineffiency so it does not overcome the inertia of a historically grown system) can be explained from the long time that Germany - as a pioneer - had same kind of "universal" healthcare. They grandfathered in a lot of solutions in 1884 - they had many thousands ! of insurance non-profits then. Some local government, co-ops, unions, larger companies that had it for their workers, civil servants, railway workers, ..... Then it was a 2 class system and that was not opposed to the zeitgeist. The unwashed masses could be glad they got an universal system with 2 classes no one challenged the fairness of that.
Now:
CHOICE only for higher income (and some self employed professionals that tend to do well financially, like doctors, lawyers, ... Plus public servants which in Germany have super job security and can rely on regular raises (they are unionized). That adds up over time even it they only have a mediocre position. It is well known that they have it easier to get mortgages and get better conditions by the banks.
If those that even are allowed a choice, have preexisting conditions they chose the better deal from the universal services (which covers 90 % of the population), else it is highly regulated private for profit (or private non-profit) with better coverage. So the non-profits that cover 90 % and are not accetped by all doctors with a practice - miss out on the people that are young, healthy and would pay higher than average contributions (although there are yearly caps).
That is a gift to affluent voters, to the doctors that get higher rates from private insurers and of course the insurance industry. Who also get a cherry picked group for marketing. If a person has "private" healthcare insurance in Germany - they belong to a highly interesting market !
The affluent get the best of both worlds in Germany - to the degree that private insurance _can- be good (better services in practices, 2 class system). Mind you ONLY for doctors with a practice, the "private" for-profit insurers are not interested in the most costly services = hospitals. There all get the same treatments, the privately insured only get their own room and better food (and a little more attention from head doctors who get a part of the higher rates). But when it comes to care in hospitals it is not a 2 class system when it comes to what is medically necessary. A low income person with only the regular coverage will not be discriminated against. In the ICU there will be no difference.
In areas with clusters of "privately" insured (affluent areas, urban, Munich, Berlin, ..... lots of civil servants) it is hard(er) to find a doctor that will accept only the insurance coverage for the masses. Long waiting times. Not for hospitals, and for emergencies - but for eye examinations, health check, imaging, OBGYN, etc.
That can delay timely diagnosis. Or people have to pay for an upgrade (to the insurance of the masses) - biz for the industry. doctors get higher rates (and it makes admin more complicated. And of course doctors try to MILK those policies).
The most cost efficient solution would be to offer out of pocket payment - not sure IF that is possible and legal in Germany though - I think IF a doctor also has a contract that covers the 90 % with the generic insurance, it is VERY restricted what they can ask for in direct payments. Taking money directly was banned to prevent extortion through the backdoor. A GP can offer extra massage or physiotherapy and accupuncture and it would be O.K. to ask for cash payment. But not for a more thorough checkup or eye examination. IF the basic insurance would cover that kind of service, no cash payments. ONLY some form of insurance (basic or better coverage) can pay for it.
They do not have a denial industry though, that would not fly. Being denied surgery or medication is not a thing in Germany.
Although it turns out is is expensive despite all the regulations that provide some cost control. - In Germany if a procedure is covered by the insurance services for the masses - the "private" offer cannot deny them , so the "privately" insured have by default much better protection. And if a drug has a price for the masses - it is not like it can cost more for the privately insured.
1
-
The Conservatives are typically the neoliberals. The nationalists are normally the far right parties which pay lip service to economic populism. Of course now the also move the neoliberals to the right or they will lose part of their voters. See Germany, Denmark, Austria, Sweden, Netherlands, Poland, France, ..... - If the far right get into government as coaliton partner - usually with conservatives - they side with big biz, and help conservatives to privatize and undermine the welfare state. Plus some half baked "improvements" of the non-profit healthcare system, at least they will try or float the ideas. See Austria (discussions), see Netherlands.
Even the Tories that were fiercly against the NHS in the 1950s do not dare to talk bad about it, they have found sneaky ways to defund it and do a backdoor privatization.
1
-
1
-
Yes there are racists, lots of them - but Clinton did not need them to get elected. The quesition is: why did people change to Trump that had voted for Obama twice (those racists) or they could not bring themselves to go and vote for her - not even with Trump being the other option ! Hint: sellout Clinton, betrayal by Obama. - I guarantee you if Sanders had not been cheated constantly during the primaires - it would have been much closer, might have been a tie.
Now a gracious and patriotic Clinton could have stepped down for the SAFER candidate (considering it was Trump on the other side). She would be cementing her legacy with Clinton Care right now (going full circle with her efforts as First Lady in the 90s) instead of making a fool out of herself with the "everybody but me".
But it was alway about her and not about the country. Like the Libya war was meant to be a feather in her cap - while Libya is in catastrophic shape now. They have slave markets in a country that was stable, secular, womens rights, relatively wealthy for a North African nation. Sure a dictatorshop, but certainly not as bad as the Saudis, and much more open to the West.
Christians could exercise their religion in peace under Gadaffi.
Like in Syria !
So why is it that Gadaffi had to go, or Assad has to go - when the alternative is worse, much worse ?
That's right: the state of Israel wants it. As long as Syria and Iran are intact no chance to annect Lebanon or a piece of Syria.
As for Libya: it has resources (a lot of gold in their treasury - it is gone, and oil and WATER) - the French and the UK supported Clinton very much when she lobbied heavily an initially hesistant Obama admin for the next war (2010 and 2011)
But the Multinationals for sure had their interests.
I wonder what those 30,000 deleted emails on her server really were about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The guy who resigned did not get it right in the resignation letter (he was responsible for Cyber security regarding voting) 2:24. That "the "moral" infrastructure is the foundation of the pysical infrastructure". - No, you have physical and organizational hindrances for cheating in place. Make it watchable, public, regional, and manual. That will take care of "moral" just fine.
If there is moral and the law on the one hand - and the advantage for the powerful and well connected on the other hand - the latter will ALWAYS win if the hardware and the process let's them get away with it.
Infrastructure, processes, applied law, and hardware guarantee the integrity of the vote (so of course the process is severly corrupted in the U.S. - Greg Palast: "The Democrats steal primaries, the Republicans steal General Elections").
And you bet the the "Resistance" aka the Corporate Democrats are not going to protest that undermining of the integrity of the vote.
They did not bother to in 2000, knowing full well, that Al Gore would NEED Florida to win (the purge of black men in Florida was major headlines in Europe thanks to Greg Palast - and this was months BEFORE the election.
Neither the sitting president Bill Clinton, nor Al Gore could be BOTHERED to raise a stink about it.
The owners of the political process (the Big Donors) have a role assigned to the Neoliberal Democrats and it is to suppress any progressive movement should it ever arise. That is a task they can fulfill and the Republicans can't. Sure the Dems would prefer to win, but in the end making sure to get the Big Donations in the future is more important. And the Donors will provide the lucrative jobs/contracts for ex politicians (that is very important for the influence of Big Biz on politics and often overlooked).
At least those who call the shots in the parties will always be well taken care of (in office and after they left office) provided that they served their owners well as long as they held office.
And no party is EVER supposed to rock the boat, or AWAKEN / WORRY the unwashed MASSES and STIR UP DOUBT if this is even a functioning democracy with fair elections (never mind any alleged foreign interference, the Dems and the GOP need no help in rigging elections and undermining real democray , they do just fine on their own. ).
The elites in the UK would very much have liked to suppress the progressive takeover of the Labaour party that is currently going on (the neoliberal wing of the Labour party AND the Neoconservative Tories as well). - They just can't.
In the last GE (snap election in June 2017) on a workday, people could vote until 10 p.m. and there are enough polling stations because that is the custom in the U.K. and it would trigger MAJOR UPROAR and MASS PROTESTS if they tried to make voting harder (so the political tradition and the grassroots and even some traditional media outlets guard that aspect of the process).
In the U.S. they just shorten hours and close down polling stations in the poor areas to suppress the vote of the poor - because the law and the public does not prevent them from doing so.
In the U.S. they CAN PURGE voter lists - so that is what they do (the Republicans AND the Democrats). That process is just not possible with the UK civic adminstration.
In the UK it is EASY to register to vote (millions have in the last election) and one can do so ONLINE . (And I guess they have the government offices staffed so that older people can do it offline and in person).
Young people in the UK are notorious for not registering for the first time - and they move more (whic requires registration change) than the older groups which have a much higher participation rate. Well in the last election that changed, even though the 18 - 30 year old still have a lot of potential to increase the participation.
For the voting process the UK uses infrastructure and methods that ressemble those of centuries ago. No voting machines - of course not.
Some processes look like cherished tradtions or folklore: I saw long lines of volunteers who pass on the boxes with the ballots. Some cities tradtionally have RUNNERS delivering the ballot boxes. They have fun competitions among some cities about which one has the fastest delivery and the fastest count.
To me it indicates that it is custom in Britain/U.K. (with their very old parliament !) that the ballot boxes are ALWAYS VISIBLE to the public eye, no transport in closed carriages, or now in cars (where the boxes could be theoretically swapped or disappeared).
The boxes are opened in sport halls, there are pairs of volunteers on long tables with a pile of ballots before them. They open the covers and do the hand count. Of course a lot of citizens, cameras, media are watching them. Then the results are disclosed to the citizens in the hall and they are reported by phone to the election headquarter (and live on TV especially for the larger or contested cities - a certain district of London or Manchester , .... "calling")
So citizens could do the math manually with the publicly available sub results if they wanted to. It is not like in the U.S. where the votes (or sub results of each polling station) are transmitted electronically (no visibility for the citizens), and then processed in a "black box" (with secret, privately owned = proprietary software and hardware). Electronic procesing of course allows to swap and disappear secretly a lot of votes.
In the U.S. the public has to believe whatever results are published - because there is NO WAY to VERFY them.
On top of that the exit polls (a survey of people just leaving the polling stations) are "adjusted" to fit the published election result. And the unadusted polling results are secret.
The processes in the U.K. guarantee the integrity of the elections in a country of 65 million people (and something like that is at work in Europe, no country there even allows electronic voting machiens).
What works in a country of 65 millions can be made to work for 325 millions, there is no need for electronics in the voting process.
The manual processes, every step with many witnesses, make it practically impossible to rig the results. And even if someone would be able to pull off some cheating (which would be risky because at every level there are so many witnesses allied with different parties, and the "manual" processes only allow to manipulate a LIMITED number and it would also be REGIONALLY restricted. So there is a very good chance to be found out and go to jail and no chance at all to make even a dent in the end results. If one subresult would deviate too much (for instance a lot of valid votes being sorted out as "invalid") it would not have an impact in the larger scheme, but would be a VERY VISIBLE red flag. It would likely trigger a recount or investiagtion and the "deviations in the count" could be attributed to certain persons.
Sure the U.K. is more densely populated, the distances are longer in the U.S. , if they wanted to deliver the ballot boxes with cars they could do so with a bus and a few witnesses to be the watchdogs over the ballot boxes.
In a narrow race it may take the whole night in the UK to come up with definitive results (well that is true for the U.S., too). They have predictions based on the exit polls which they publish at 10 p.m. and then adjust as the night goes on - the 10 p.p. estimates were pretty accurate the last election.
A few hours waiting time because of old fashioned SAFE methods is well worth the integrity of the vote.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think that a certain requirement to have cash / capital (the 90 : 10 ratio is common) was also to push the banks to make good offers for savings and cheque accounts for regular people. Having many small customers helps to keep the MYTH alive that banks are intermediaries (which has advantages when the economic "narrative" is framed in favor of the rich, and Big Finance).
If 90 % can be created, 95 or 100 % are technically possible as well, a bank could only lend out money w/o handling savings.
incentivize the banks to make attractive offers for saving accounts for regular people
The small savings accounts were not cost-efficient (no computers after WW2), they needed a lot of tellers for that. I think they used punch card systems for data processing back in the day. If the offers cost too much, the consumers would have continued to use cash (they were used to it).
Every dollar the banks collected from the little people, they could leverage with being allowed to lend out 9 times more (or whatever the allowed ratio was).
And loans ARE lucrative for banks.
Banks had the infrastructure and processes to handle large fortunes and loans (accounting, regular money transfers, money coming in and out - they could use the same infrastructure to integrate the whole population in a system that is less cash reliant.
For instance many workers got their wages in cash weekly or every 2 weeks, that was not efficient. And the shopping was done with cash as well. When people became wealthier they would have more cash at home (risk of stealing) etc.
Banks (or before money lenders) always worked with IOUs and borrowed money which they did not have, but there was a time when that was not protected by the law. Now it is.
Ann Pettifor says FIAT MONEY is around since the 17th century.
1
-
1
-
I recommend Dr. Richard Wernter Debt and Interest Free Money. Or Ann Pettifor (12 minutes, economic myths in the U.K. election 2017 - it is generally applicable). Or Stephanie Kelton or other MMT proponents. Affordable housing and a good public transportation system could be financed by the government without more debt or deficits ! - Both INVESTMENTS bring down the costs of living for the population. Housing has been left to the landlord class and many nations and communities allowed foreigners to "invest" in real estate.
That is luxury "development" - the appartments and houses are not used all year round (or they serve the wealthy who take up a lot of space where space is scarce) That drives up the prices for the people living and working in the densely populated centers and they have longer commutes (less quality of life).
That is a political decision where the conservative AND the allegedly Social Democratic parties side with the landlord class and rich people. New Zealand, Germany, Austria have reigned in the real estate "investments" (NZ in general, in Austria the communities can forbid that foreigners can buy real estate. That means Austrians, EU citizens and other buyers. A peson must live most of the time there of they cannot buy. In Germany at least Berlin did something like that.
In Vienna in the 1920s groundbreaking affordable housing projects were built (brick and mortar, 3 - 4 storeys). Good quality for the time and they also had some city planning going on, parks, streets, sewage system, water, public transportation. The appartments are STILL owned by the city of Vienna, many people live in them (so it is no stigma, on the contrary people are happy if they get one). That also means a mix of lower and middle income people. There are no ghettos in Vienna anyway.
Renovations was done over the course of 100 years. They are well kept, the rent is very affordable for a city, those house can serve for centuries (!) to come.
If a government (federal or local) invests in quality building and gets the population mix right, that is an investment for the centuries. The new roof every 40 - 60 years (longer if they are lucky), new windows every 30 years, new heating and plumbing every 40 years is less than building new homes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
6:22 Bush1, the first US war against Iraq was supposed to help him get reelected, Bush 1 encouraged Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait so he could have his "clean little 3 days war".
- Thom does not cite any sources for that. - I read about the female ambassador to Iraq then being left w/o ANY instructions when she met Saddam Hussein for the last time (last official meeting before the invasion).
If that ambassador was set up from the beginning to be a failure the Bush admin would not want to waste a good male candidate on it - just a thought - she vanished from public life after that "blunder" to warn off Saddam from touching Kuwait - well I guess she never should have prevented Saddam from doing that.
The U.S. and the Gulf states had encouraged Saddam Hussein to start a war against Iran in 1980 or 1981 (and the West sold weapons to Iraq AND Iran). That war did not go well for Iraq, after 8 years, huge loss of life, enormous costs they had not been able to shift their borders and capture Iranian oil fields that were supposed to pay for the war costs of Iraq. Plus I think Iraq had a major problem with a pipeline or extraction site (so more loss of revenue).
I think the Gulf States had promised some money if Iraq would go after Iran (and might not have paid as promised). Kuwait was accused by Iraq that they siphon off Iraq fossil fuel by horizontal drilling (accesssing fossil fuel accross the border).
Anyway: the U.S. knew of these tensions and controversies, in the last official meeting between the U.S. and Iraq before the invasion (that was several weeks... few months before) Saddam told the U.S. ambassador they he would continue to negotiate these cotroversial points with Kuwait, that they wanted a solution for that. Since she had no instructions she was very friendly, assured him of the goodwill of the U.S., etc. No harsh (or even polite) warning: Don't start any military trouble. The U.S. KNEW of course of the impending invasion, the troops getting ready). Still no harsh warning.
The elites of Kuwait were warned ahead of the "surprise" invasion. They gave interviews from Egypt some 12 hours later.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Putin is not really concerned with American "democracy" and could not care less. Trump is an idiot, you cannot fake that, a smarter person putting up an act would slip up at some point and there would be signs of intelligence and knowledge. I think it was Putin who convinced Trump to engage in renewal of Reagan era treaties (they expired, Trump was too stupid). To not start a war with Venzuela (while Pompeo and maybe Bolton pushed for it). To retreat from Syria, which would be a blessing for the Syrian people (Saudi Arabia and the U.S. and major Nato countries plus Turkey have started and fuelled that proxy war. I know not the usual narrative. That war has been considered in early 2002, it did not start in 2011).
Like the U.S. the Russians / Putin do not care whether a country is a democracy or dictatorship. True: with a less erratic democracy (where the grifters that rile up voters, audiences and congregations are rewarded, which leads to crazyness) it would be much easier to deal with them.
a part of the Military Industrial Complex is hell bent on having a good enemy for another Cold War and Arm's race.
Some dream of small nuclear weapons for the winnable nuclear war.
Others want to sell fracked liquified gas to Europe, who currently buy cheap Russian gas. And the new pipeline was hotly contested, but this is an issue the Europeans will not fold. Energy is more expensive in Europe anyway, and they will not explain the favors for the U.S. to the voters.
The U.S. and Nato have been meddling in the backyard and on the door steps of Russia for at least 15 years. Likely longer. Offers of Putin to cooperate (he came into office in 2000) were rebuffed.
1
-
1
-
1