Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Billy_TParticipanti can think of lots of different kinds of societies that would be a lot better than a biosphere-destroying-poor-people-destroying Corporotacracy. I know you can too, BT.
How would you feel about allowing small-capitalist-businesses and nationalizing the big stuff, like health care, energy, transportation, internet, etc.
I think a nation of small businesses would be ok with me. Even though they are ‘for profit’ etc.
Its just when they start the process of eating each other and the small businesses become Walmarts, and the Walmarts can then buy the politicians, that things become Murderous.
Do you think it would be possible for humans to regulate a system so that small businesses would not become murerous-mega-businesses that destroy the poor, democracy,
and eventually the biosphere? 🙂This is what i’m readin this week, btw:https://www.amazon.com/Psychologies-Liberation-Critical-Practice-Psychology/dp/0230537693/ref=asc_df_0230537693/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312142103956&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=13754754053655343360&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9009441&hvtargid=pla-491634720637&psc=1
w
vWV,
I’d prefer a nation of nothing but “small businesses.” Small farms, artisans (a la William Morris’s vision), small producers of all stripes, etc. But, if it were up to me, I’d make it illegal to profit from another person’s labor. I think that’s the fundamental immorality of capitalism, and it leads to all the other immoralities, big and small, IMO. It can’t help but create classes, which can’t help but lead to class divisions and conflicts.
“Ownership” is the key to me. Who owns the means of production? Who decides what is produced, where, why, how, when, etc.? Is there an employer and an employee dynamic? Or are we all co-owners? Is the economy and the workplace “democratic” in real terms?
I think the best society is the one that starts with the fundamental notion that you can not profit off someone else’s work. You can’t own them for twelve or ten or eight hours a day. You can’t own anyone but yourself.
For me, it’s the difference between these two scenarios:
1. You build custom chairs with your own two hands. You don’t have any employees. It’s just you, from start to finish, including hauling your work to your clients, or getting them to visit you in your shop.
(You’re not a capitalist.)
2. You hire other people to build those chairs for you. They don’t own anything they make, legally. You own it all, even though you didn’t build a single chair. You get to determine the “value” of their labor. They have no say in the matter. You appropriate all the surplus value they generate as if you did all the work.
(You’re a capitalist.)
I prefer the first scenario, and this can scale up and remain “non-capitalist” simply by making everyone who works there co-owners. Democratize the process and you have “socialism.”
Billy_TParticipantSomething I wish the Dems would do, though they won’t:
Go after Trump’s supporters in DC by being brutally honest about him . . .
At pretty much every hearing on the Russia investigation, Republicans try to make disliking or hating Trump grounds for getting fired from civil servant jobs. It’s a rather unsubtle way of pushing for autocracy. Claim someone “hates” Trump, invalidate them, make that the basis to, at the very least, dismiss all of their work . . . at worst, get them fired.
The Dems need to turn the tables on this. Support for Trump should be the grounds for dismissing, at the very least, what one says on this matter. They’re already compromised and obviously biased. Trump is a serial liar, an admitted serial sexual predator and Peeping Tom. He ran on a racist platform, designed to divide Americans and pit them against each other and has never stopped doing this. He implemented policies to tear apart families, kidnap and put kids in cages, with no plan to reunite those families. He’s made a fortune off of the taxpayer, slashed his own taxes and that of his family and friends. He refused to divest his business interests and profits off the presidency daily. He sold off millions of acres of public lands to fossil fuel companies, rolled back environmental regulations, which puts all Americans in danger . . . and his cabinet has had more scandals than any other in living memory.
The question we (Democratic Party leaders) need to ask is how can you support such a despicable human being, and how does that support impact your decisions while in office?
Put them on the defensive for a change.
Billy_TParticipantWV,
One of the great philosophers of despair is E.M. Cioran. His politics were all over the map, and at times, terrible. But he’s among the finest misanthropes/curmudgeons/aphorists of the 20th century.
I read a lot of him in the 1980s and early 1990s, especially:
http://www.fraglit.com/impassioned/quotations/aphorisms/cioran-p.htm
If we could see ourselves as others see us,
we would vanish on the spot.
divider___
Consciousness is much more than the thorn,
it is the dagger in the flesh.____
I get along quite well with someone only when he is at his lowest point and has neither the desire nor the strength to restore his habitual illusions.
____
If we could see ourselves as others see us,
we would vanish on the spot.____
Consciousness is much more than the thorn,
it is the dagger in the flesh.___
We have lost, being born,
as much as we shall lose, dying.
Everything.___
My mission is to suffer for all those who suffer without knowing it. I must pay for them, expiate their unconsciousness, their luck to be ignorant of how unhappy they are.
Billy_TParticipantGood video, WV. Thanks.
Will take a look at the second one later. But from what I’ve read, the percentage of private sector listed (70%) for Venezuela is too low. It’s the vast majority of it, and they “nationalized” the oil sector back in the 1960s, if memory serves. It happened long before Chavez and Maduro.
Here’s an excellent essay by Emma Goldman, explaining the difference between nationalizing and socializing. The former isn’t what actual socialists want. It doesn’t make an economy “socialist” to nationalize industry. That’s actually state capitalism — in its right or left-wing forms.
There is no Communism in Russia
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-there-is-no-communism-in-russia
Bottom line for me, in these discussions? There has never, ever been a “socialist” nation in the modern world. It’s only existed in small enclaves, like in Republican Spain in the 1930s, or the Paris Commune of 1871, or even smaller scales like co-ops, WSDEs and Kibbutzes. No “socialist” nation-state has ever existed.
Billy_TParticipantW,
I’m not arguing that the statutes exist or don’t exist, when it comes to reception of X during elections. What I think I learned from parsing Mueller and the Dems is this:
The Mueller investigation wasn’t focused on crimes of receipt/reception, per se. It was looking at crimes of active meddling — conspiracies that included foreign powers and the Trump campaign. That bar, for the investigation, was set higher than just the reception of dirt . . . otherwise, the Trump Tower meeting alone would have been enough.
I think they were looking at actual, front-end attempts to screw with the election . . . not the back-end receipt of help that could be spun as “indirect.”
Mueller, IOW, was incredibly cautious about this entire thing, IMO, from Day One. Waaaay too cautious. He was basically looking for the kill shot, and wasn’t all that interested in smaller crimes when it came to Trump. He was, when it came to his circle, but not Trump himself.
Just my take, anyway.
Billy_TParticipantQuick note on #2.
It’s not that anyone made this distinction apparent explicitly. It just hit me after hearing the charges and evidence discussed. Reading between the lines, etc.
Billy_TParticipantI actually did learn a coupla new things from watching. Admittedly, others may have known this going in. But it was new for me:
1. I can’t remember seeing Mueller testify in the past, so I have nothing to compare yesterday’s events to . . . but I just didn’t realize he was struggling so much, medically. He simply wasn’t in the kind of shape needed to adequately defend his work, fight off Republican attacks, or present an effective overview.
2. I finally figured out something that had confused me a bit previously, when I bothered to think about it at all: The bar is set incredibly high when it comes to “conspiracy.” Trump and his campaign could cooperate with the Russians by way of receiving their dirt (help from the Russians in order to win the election). The charge of conspiracy in this case was all about Trump, his campaign, and the Russians working together to get that dirt. Mueller couldn’t find sufficient evidence to show that they had worked together to “meddle” in the election — not that Trump and company willingly accepted Russian help.
As in, apparently, it’s not “conspiracy” to receive stolen goods. It’s just “conspiracy” to actively work in conjunction with others to do the stealing in the first place.
I’m betting I’m not the only American who didn’t note this distinction previously, or the very high legal bar in place.
Billy_TParticipantGood points, PA.
Personally, I think the Dems should have launched an impeachment inquiry when they first took power. And they didn’t have to limit any of it to Russia. They could have gone after Trump on his emoluments violations, his family’s grifting, his putting kids in cages, his rolling back our already lax environmental standards, his selling millions of acres of public lands to fossil fuel giants, and the numerous cabinet members with their own scandals. In fact, they could have left out the Russia scandal entirely, and still had plenty of grounds.
I also think they’re misreading history. The Republicans actually didn’t suffering all that much after they impeached Clinton. They won the next election, held the White House for the next eight years, and Congress for most of that time. Not sure why the Dems and the media always seem to talk about that as a disaster for the GOP.
“This country needs an actual opposition party. Right now–we do not have one.”
All too true, PA.
Billy_TParticipantI didn’t express myself well above. It came across as overly hard on Mueller, as a human being, likely suffering from some medical condition, or just the aging process itself. We all will go through this or something similar, if we live long enough. I have a great deal of sympathy for him on those grounds.
But I don’t for the Dems, who apparently knew about his medical struggles but put him on the stand anyway.
Billy_TParticipantThanks, Zooey.
That’s a really good article.
I think it’s pretty clear that we have two right-wing parties in America. The Dems are center-right; the Republicans are now far-right. Yes, the Dems have a very small faction on the center-left. But the powers that be are definitely right of center.
We leftists have no representation, really, in DC. And that may be permanent. At least until capitalism is gone. There is just too much of a conflict between the interests of capitalists and the interests of “the left,” which coincide with the interests of the vast majority, and always have. We threaten the Power Elite. We threaten the interests of the rich and powerful. So as long as they’re able to, they will make sure our government is never left of center, beyond a few token matters.
The Dems and the GOP both play along. Their (financial) survival depends upon that.
Kabuki. Good cop/bad cop, etc.
Billy_TParticipantI caught the beginning of the hearings, and bits and pieces of it during the day.
My biggest takeaway from it? Mueller was really, really awful. He seemed older than his 74 years, unsure of himself, unwilling to forcefully defend his own work, and largely ill-acquainted with it. From personal experience, from witnessing this kind of decline, I’d say he’s edging toward dementia. He shows the signs.
Of course, it may well be that he just had a rough night and this led to a very bad day. We all experience this. But if Trump could have handpicked a person to be the face of this “investigation” under examination, before Congress and the nation, it would have been the Mueller we saw today.
If not for the Dems reading directly from his report, it would have been beyond a disaster. The report is devastating for Trump. Trump is clearly guilty of crimes and outrageous unethical behavior. But Mueller’s terrible performance gives him new life.
Billy_TParticipantBut i do think a biosphere-killing-system thats built on greed and lies and imperialism, would indeed influence/shape its ‘citizens’. I mean how could it not.
Granted, there are worse systems. And better systems.
w
vI dunno. Classicly bred German officers in WW2 were renowned for their politeness in social interaction.
I personally don’t find that people have gotten worse in terms of everyday civility. I just find that it is expressed differently, ie. that the rules and customs have shifted. They’re not ruder, they’re just polite differently. (Corporate capitalism after all depends on having civil consumers. So for example we are all trained to not take too much time at the register when ordering fast food. Our training in that makes us part of the machinery that makes the whole fast food system work. If you doubt me next time you’re in a line in a fast food place, take longer than 20 seconds to order…like, act like you’re reading the menu on the wall for the first time. You will feel the social disapproval falling down on you like invisible rain.)
If I wanted to come up with stories about people being dicks or acting in uncivil ways in public, I can think of ones from every decade of my short humble life.
And it’s not just shifts decade by decade…of course, as I visibly aged over the years I got treated differently too.
One thing that’s funny now is people opening doors for others. I could do my own stand-up routine about that. When young I was taught, always hold a door open for a woman. Then in college and after, I started to get rebukes for it. Like, hey I can open a door myself you know. These were reminders that “chivalry” is double-edged and assumes superiority. Okay. But then in the last decade or so everyone holds the door open for everyone. Except, as often as not, younger people now don’t know how to do it. They stand there and hold it open too soon, with you too far away. I have bad knees so I don’t really run or walk fast. I see someone too many paces away holding a door open and it feels like pressure to speed up and close the distance. Often I smilingly, politely wave them off. Back when I had to open doors because otherwise I was a thoughtless impolite male, I had a sense of how close someone had to be to perform that gesture. You don’t add pressure to make them walk faster to accept your presumably kind gesture. Now both young women and men will hold a door open for me, making it a more universally polite and less loaded gesture, but, they invariably don’t know how to measure the right distance on when you do that.
…
Good points, ZN.
There have probably been umpteen books written about “civility” as one more mechanism of conformity and forced docility. Though I think it’s hard to argue against it in general. But, yeah . . . it’s probably not that much different, though I’d argue that Internet forums may be training us to be far more aggressive in argumentation . . . due to, well, anonymity and other factors, etc. etc.
I think some people may not be used to code-shifting yet, when they get back into the “real world” after a rough session. We may be losing some of those “filters” built up over millennia of direct, face to face communication. They, of course, had already eroded due to a shift to TV and Radio viewing, and far fewer gatherings of people just to talk, etc.
Face to face talking. Isn’t this less common today than it was before the Internet? And again before the advent of Radio and then TV?
Billy_TParticipantYeah all that stuff is goin on. The question is: Is it worse than it used-ta-be? Is it worse than the Middle Ages? The 1930s? The 80s? I dunno. I dunno how it can be measured.
But i do think a biosphere-killing-system thats built on greed and lies and imperialism, would indeed influence/shape its ‘citizens’. I mean how could it not.
Granted, there are worse systems. And better systems.
w
vI’ve never had any success in convincing those committed to the capitalist system that it is at the root of our problems.
And, to me, it’s just so obvious. How could it not have a negative impact on the way we treat each other? It rewards selfishness, greed, aggressive competition, dog eat dog. It’s top down, autocratic by design, set up on a Master/Slave dynamic. How could it not drive people nutz?
And the flip side? What if the system rewarded generosity, cooperation, even little kindnesses? What if it took away the incentives to screw people to the wall? What if the system just made it flat out impossible to be at the top of the pyramid, shitting on everyone else, because the system itself made those pyramids illegal to begin with?
And for those who would argue “It’s human nature to be selfish, aggressive, ultra-competitive,” then that’s all the more reason not to encourage our worst aspects via the system in place. For those who would argue “we’re not angels,” that’s all the more reason not to have system that puts such vast amounts of power in so few hands. If the folks with all the wealth and power aren’t “angels,” then we’re all screwed.
The answer seems so obvious to me: the system must legally, constitutionally, democratically, non-violently, disperse power and wealth and prevent its concentration.
(IMO, most humans really do want to cooperate and live in harmony for the most part. Very few of us want to be Caesar. We’d have wiped each other out by now if that were truly “human nature.”)
Billy_TParticipantTo me, it’s the little things, the easy things, the things people could do without causing themselves a single drop of sweat, but refuse to.
Example: Perpendicular streets. There is room for two cars in front of you — to make a left or a right turn. But the car in front of you rests roughly in the middle of that area, blocking your ability to make a right turn, as he or she gets ready to make a left.
Similar example: You’ve dumped your trash off at the local recycler, and want to leave. The truck in front of you is waiting for his turn to get closer to the regular trash container, which involves a quick left turn. His truck is in the middle of an area that could easily fit two cars. This blocks your ability to leave to his right. You honk the horn. He does nothing. You honk it again. He ignores you. Not that he could know this, but you’re on your way back from a chemo treatment and already feeling lousy. If you had been younger and healthier, this may well have ended up in a fight. You end up backing up and leaving another way, after the person behind you is considerate enough to back up and clear some space.
Or, loud music. People can enjoy their music without drowning out all the thoughts their neighbors may be struggling to craft.
etc. etc.
July 21, 2019 at 9:20 am in reply to: ZN: a request for info on the subject of "race" as social construct. #103099Billy_TParticipantThanks to you both.
Yes, it was about the science, especially genetics/biology.
Trying to make a long story short here: Recently got into a rather bizarre argument on another forum, when I posted what I thought would be non-controversial. In the midst of a discussion of Trump’s recent racist attacks, I said that “race” did not exist, but racISM was obviously an actual thing, with deadly results. For some bizarre reason, this ticked off a few posters, one of whom is a scientist. She and those involved have generally espoused antiracist views, but they seemed to draw the line at the idea that “race” was a social construct.
So, we went back and forth a bit, and when I posted articles to support my position, she dismissed them all and said I didn’t have the technical ability to understand them. It was obvious that she didn’t read them, and refused (after my very civil requests) to engage in their arguments. She just dismissed me as having no knowledge of the subject.
In a sense, her reaction was kinda like this:
Poster A: This is the full text of McVay’s recent interview.
Poster B: Poster A!! You don’t know what you’re talking about!! Please read the following textbook on football before you post here!!
Poster A: It’s McVay’s own words. I just posted them.
Poster B: You don’t know what you’re talking about!!
blah blah blah.
Anyway, I’ll take another stab at this on said site, but won’t react this time to their responses.
July 17, 2019 at 5:52 pm in reply to: ZN: a request for info on the subject of "race" as social construct. #103021Billy_TParticipantThanks, ZN. Greatly appreciated.
I fully understand you’re busy. Just whenever you get time . . . the more good links the better.
Will save what you’ve posted so far and read closely. And thanks in advance, too.
Billy_TParticipantIt’s likely going to happen — an increase to the season. Our opinions are just opinions, etc. etc. But I’d rather see the NFL go back to 14 games, and no pre-season. None whatsoever.
I think physics tells us these players just can’t handle 16, 17, 18 games, plus the 4 preseason, plus playoffs. They’re far too big and fast now, so their collisions are getting crazier and crazier.
The human body wasn’t meant to take this kind of pounding, and it seems the NFL is hell-bent on adding to it. And, aside from the health and welfare of each individual player, just the quality of the play is diminished the longer the season goes.
Same goes for NBA and MLB, as far as I’m concerned. I’d shorten their seasons, too.
In short, I’d rather see quality than quantity, and think the quantity negatively impacts the quality, etc.
Billy_TParticipantI saw the movie and liked it. Especially the Shakespearian diction thingy they do.
Have not seen the series, though. I cancelled HBO right after I watched the movie, with GOT ending, etc. etc. But may renew for another month when His Dark Materials is on. Might give it a shot then.
The Guardian had an article the other day, talking about the end of peak streaming and the beginnings of balkanization . . . with everyone and their mother getting into the Netflix biz. Pretty soon, we won’t have any aggregators, and will have to purchase subs for every network, and a few for the content providers themselves. That is, if we care enough to want to see these shows.
I’m okay with having one or two. But I won’t be signing up for more than that, even if it means I can’t watch this or that series. I think I’ll survive. More time to read and enjoy nice weather when it’s here.
Billy_TParticipantTo me, where one sits along the political spectrum can be determined, basically, by how they answer the following questions.
Yeah, I know. I’m oversimplifying things beyond the pale. But to save time, billions of dollars and millions of lives, I think it’s a good way to go:
1. Do you actually believe in collective action to improve quality of life in this country?
2. What percentage of the population should we help, together? A small percentage? Some? Half? Everyone?
3. How soon do you want to implement this collective help? Over the course of years, a generation or two, or right now?IMO, centrists and moderates tend to be okay with the status quo. So they typically take the low side on all those questions, and are fine with a glacial pace for progress. Conservatives and further to the right claim not to want any collective action on anyone’s behalf, though that claim is, to be kind, problematic. Everyone really wants the public sector to do something — for them, at least. It’s the “far left,” however, that seeks to maximize the potential of collective action for all, now, in the here and now.
To me, the latter is self-evidently the best for the nation and the earth. If people voted for their best interests, they’d always go with that.
Billy_TParticipantWhy does the above make so much sense to me, as to how things work?
Cuz if people actually voted based on their best interests, rather than just their team, or the personality and relative charisma or lack thereof of the candidates, guess what? They’d always vote “far left,” or the farthest left. And why? Because the “far left” is the part of the political spectrum that does the most for people and the planet, and it’s not close.
It’s also the part of the political spectrum most opposed by the powers that be, for just that reason. They don’t want the public sector to be used to help the largest number of people possible in the here and now. They want to do the least possible for people, so they retain their power over them, and the obscene gap between the haves and have nots. They don’t want the public sector to be in the business of creating equality. They love inequality, cuz that means they’re on top.
Billy_TParticipantIMO, someone on the “far left” could win, if the stars aligned just right. Someone a bit to his or her right, a “progressive,” could also win, under the same circumstances.
Why? Because Americans don’t vote based on ideology. They tend to vote for their own team — D or R — or stay home. There is a small group of voters who aren’t locked onto one team or another, and yes, they can be persuaded. But it’s rarely due to “policy” or anything wonky. It’s personality, the sense of connection with the candidate, a gut response, etc. And they don’t decide things. The D and R folks do, and the numbers of folks who stay home.
People, IMO, make a huge mistake when they say someone “on the left” can’t win in certain parts of the country. If that candidate has “it,” yeah, they can. If that candidate has that special something, yeah, they can. If they don’t, then people tend to just revert to the normal D or R thing, or stay home.
That’s how elections are won and lost in America. Not on where you sit along the political spectrum.
Billy_TParticipantBut the total costs for healthcare will be much lower, even with the higher taxes.
I wonder how many people who complain about taxes covering single payer realize they would pay less that way than most people and/or companies pay for private insurance NOW.
Plus imagine if pharma had to negotiate with ONE united insurer.
Agreed.
But I think the logic of what you and I are saying can be applied to pretty much every thing we purchase. Overhead for every for-profit item is higher, right off the bat. We pay more for our food, our houses, our medicine, our for-profit schools, etc. etc. . . . because we also pay to make a few people very rich.
Imagine a society where we pay for the item itself, instead. Just the item. Not for obscenely high executive pay/golden parachutes; not for shareholders who have no sweat equity in the company; not for tax-cheat lawyers or lobbyists; not for unsold merchandise, etc. etc.
Just the item and its direct costs.
A truly all public, all non-profit economy would radically lower all of our costs, and when profit is no longer the motive for production, we’ll see all kinds of new innovation and problem-solving that never happens when making personal fortunes is the rationale.
I know. It’s a dream. A faraway horizon. But I can’t help but hope for it.
Billy_TParticipantBetter watch your favorite shows now, while you still can. It’s already happening, but pretty soon, you’ll need separate subscriptions for all kinds of content.
All the networks are getting into the Netflix act, pulling their content from the aggregators. And several content providers are (or will be) following in their footsteps.
Pretty soon, if you want to watch your favorite movies and shows, you’ll need a dozen or more separate streaming subs.
Me? I’ll just add to my reading time. I may still carry Netflix and Hulu for their own original content, and perhaps switch from one premium movie service to the next, depending upon what’s on at any given time. But I’m not going beyond two or three, if that. I may just drop them all.
In short, the “cord-cutting” revolution seems to be backfiring. It may well end up that the old aggregator services like Cable will end up being much cheaper overall than the newly balkanized streaming landscape.
We’ll all survive, of course . . .
;>)
Billy_TParticipantYes, it means higher taxes, which we’ve been gaslit into believing is a terrible thing for everyone.
But the total costs for healthcare will be much lower, even with the higher taxes.
Explain it to people that way and it’s a winner. Everyone’s total costs will go down, and no more medical bankruptcies.
It would go down even further — a hell of a lot further — if we stopped commodifying health care, period. But that’s a much tougher hurdle to overcome than extending an existing system (Medicare) that people love.
My two cents, anyway . . .
Billy_TParticipantW,
I mentioned in the other thread that we need both Medicare for all and non-profit health care at the provider end.
But if we’re just talking about the insurance side, and we’re honest with everyone, Medicare for all can’t be beaten. Anyone who argues against it, if they understand what it is, is arguing against saving a fortune, providing health care to everyone, ending all medical bankruptcies in America, and leaving no one behind.
(Those medical bankruptcies only happen here. And to millions of people with insurance too.)
There is no valid argument against making the change, IMO. Again, if we’re limited to dealing with insurance only.
The only arguments against it amount to scaremongering in my view. Clinton tried one angle against Sanders in 2016, by lying to voters and saying his plan means everyone would lose their insurance.
That’s like saying that the person who advocates for 100% public housing for anyone who needs it is taking away the chance for people to live on the streets.
No one loses insurance if Medicare for all is implemented. Everyone is covered for the first time in our history.
Billy_TParticipantI think it’s important as symbol and omen. It’s one more norm Trump has destroyed. It’s basically him, playing little dictator for all the world to see, and to send a little message to his opponents here.
“I control the military. Don’t fuck with me.”
It’s fascist in essence. Echoes the end of the Roman Republic, which used to have an unsaid rule against the army being in the city at all. Caesar broke that norm and soon enough ended the republic.
This is also evidence piece #three gazillion that Trump was never the better choice for those of us who hate war and empire. He was always every bit the warmonger, and actually worse than HRC. And his party and its base want war and empire even more than the Dems. They get off on it. I think the Dems and their base at least have some ambivalence about American empire and the projection of power. They at least wring their hands a bit before going to battle. The GOP seems to relish the idea.
Yeah, there are much bigger issues than this one. Like the atrocities at the border and our concentration camps. But it’s an ominous sign of things to come, IMO.
July 2, 2019 at 1:21 pm in reply to: the circular firing squad: Sanders v. Warren supporters #102567Billy_TParticipantQuick example of costs:
A chemo treatment — just one day for me — is roughly 30K. That money is going to have to be covered by Medicare for All, too. If they say no, we’ll have fewer and fewer places offering chemo, which likely will push up prices even higher.
To me, again, the answer is to decommodify all of it. The chemo drugs, the dispensing of those drugs, the facilities. Once it’s already set up as non-profit and public across the board, you’ve already gotten rid of the “competition” motive/laws of motion. There’s no reason to close up shop because you can’t make enough profit there. No one is in that sector.
And they’re not going to move overseas. Because pretty much the entire world already pays far less than we do now. They can’t escape to another profit wonderland, because America was basically it.
Gotta attack the pricing issue at both ends.
July 2, 2019 at 1:16 pm in reply to: the circular firing squad: Sanders v. Warren supporters #102566Billy_TParticipantI support medicare for all. But it’s not the entire answer to what ails us. And it’s a bad fit with a private, for-profit delivery sector, for (to me) obvious reasons.
As in, M4all is going to greatly reduce costs on the insurance side. Likely more than 30% in the aggregate. Which means trillions over time. But ever increasing prices on the delivery side will continue, and that creates a conflict for the funding side as well. That means higher and higher taxes to cover those increases, which our political system has rejected at least since 1964.
The answer, in my view, is to decommodify health care, period, on both sides. Take profit out of it across the board. Make it all non-profit and publicly held. Set up “free” health care clinics in every town possible, and pay doctors and nurses salaries.
Currently, NIH and other government institutions do the R and D for roughly 75% of our pharma, yet our system hands that over to the for-profit sector, and we the people end up paying for it twice . . . taxes and later purchases. How about keeping publicly funded research in the public domain?
Instant and radical cost reduction for pharma.
To make a long story short, we need to lower the costs of care itself, not just the insurance covering it. This can’t happen in a hybrid system of public coverage for for-profit care. It’s just a really bad match. The two sides of the equation have radically different interests, and they’re at odds.
Billy_TParticipantTo piggy-back on my last post:
We’re really at the point now that it makes no sense to try to convince the “other side.” It’s all about maximizing the moment of power we get, cuz it’s likely going to be short.
As in, kinda like you’re saying. Fuck the other side. When the side closest to our own philosophy gains power, we need to make sure they maximize their time at the plate and do the right thing. Swing for the fences. Don’t even try to compromise or cajole or coddle or appease the other team. Max out on opening up immigration and asylum, and spend all their time on making the case to Americans likely to agree in the first place. It’s just a waste of time at this point to try to convince people dead set against more brown and black people coming here . . . Nothing is really going to appeal to them short of ending all of it.
IMNSHO.
Billy_TParticipant…
But how to make that clear to the majority of Americans completely eludes me.
I’m betting you are far better at communicating this than I am. So if we’re both lost on this . . . . sheesh.
========================
Well, i no longer have any ‘desire’ to communicate with them, though 🙂 The system has done poked out the people’s eyes. Or poked out their brains, is more like it.
Anyway, there’s these big meta-issues like “The Nation-State” which we agree on. But history has run its course and we are stuck with what we are stuck-with. So, we must settle for ‘tinkering’ with the Corporate-Imperialist-Beast. Tinkering policies. With that in mind, and leaving aside the grand unfairness of the Nation-State….what would be a decent principle for immigration policy? Who should ‘get in’ ?
I have no fucking idea.
How bout…Ram Fans. No Viking fans allowed.
w
vI like your solution. I guess we were both traumatized by Joe Kapp, Carl Eller and Bud Grant, right? So it’s only fair!!
As for the folks who should be let in. If the issue is changing the minds of those who oppose immigration from the right, a quota limited to Norwegians would likely do it. Outside of that, set some crazy high bar for “skills” and “education,” which would eventually pizz off the same people once they find out how many “brown and black” people have those things. Cuz they probably think they don’t. So, again, I don’t know.
It used to be that advocates for “growth” could make the case, even to hard-core righties, that immigrants were absolutely necessary for that growth — which happens to be the truth. But in the age of demagogic victories, that doesn’t seem to work any longer. Trump seems to have them convinced that “growth” can magically occur without a growing population, which is all but impossible. Tax cuts and deregulation can provide temporary sugar highs, but they don’t last. “Growth” can’t be sustained by such tricks. A growing population is really the only way to sustain economic growth . . . which, of course, leads to other massive problems (primarily environmental). Another story altogether.
Boiled down? Probably a really tough quota, with seriously tough standards on skills and education. That might do it. But I think the folks who are against immigration have moved beyond tinkering. All too many are calling for an end to “legal” immigration, period, not to mention what they see as illegal.
-
AuthorPosts
