Seems like you read the first sentence and then started with your definitions.

Sorry, but we do use the definition and the word "free market" / "free market system" to describe a present system.

But prior to more or less 1860 (and some exemptions of course, such as the East India Company!): — Benkei

?

And Before 1860 it was according to you more "free market"? That gives it quite a short time as I remember Adam Smith being against mercantilism and the last vestiges of feudalism in his country. And the East India Company was chartered by the English Monarch to have monopoly in trade, so bit confused just what your idea of "free markets" is?

The American system provides very high quality care to a lot of people. Some people are unfairly under-served. The question is how to deal with the bottom 25%, not blow up the system that's working for the 75%. — fishfry

That's the thing, you said it right there.

I don't know if it is 25% to 75% ratio, but something along the lines it has to be. Hell, even Maw is personally OK how things are in his life when it comes to health care!

Then of course, you are talking at a "Philosophy Forum", not on a forum dedicated to either golf or yachting. So I guess many here are younger than Bitter Crank and don't have a luxurious health insurance policies. Or if they do, then they have their principles.

Luxury cruises sound like a colossal bore, anyway. — Bitter Crank

Oh they are something just for people your age, Bitter.

On the other hand, ships are the easiest places to be handled if there is an outbreak: just park them away from shore and don't let anyone out.

That looks like a great plan to empower the everyday worker... a bit of freedom and liberty for working Americans. A reversal of so many policies that have resulted in so many Americans no longer being able to find a good place to work for their entire lives...

Oh, I know... what a horrible idea huh? — creativesoul

No.

But you should, just for a while before assuming anything, just look at what for example Biden is saying on the same issues. And try to spot the difference.

Do you know who Robert Reich is? — creativesoul

Yes.

Have you seen American Factory? Listening or reading Reich's comments/books is one thing, looking at how the Chinese are horrified of the idea of labor unions (when mentioned by a politician at the opening ceremony) and how union involvement is put down is even more telling about the situation of the US worker.

I get that. But I also get that there's a fine line between Biden's and Sanders' proposals. Would you spot the difference or just go with your gut feeling?

Free markets?

What the fuck is that? — creativesoul

A thing that even Sweden has it's economy based upon. A free market is one where voluntary exchange and the laws of supply and demand provide the sole basis for the economic system. Yet for that to work, there have to be institutions and rules that are enforced by a legal system, a government. And with that comes the fact that some issues aren't so well taken care of by free markets. Things aren't a juxtaposition between free market capitalism and non-capitalist socialism, but this simplistic position is how things are portrayed.

To quote Robert Reich: "Contrary to Karl Marx, there is nothing about capitalism that leads inexorably to mounting economic insecurity and widening inequality."

Totally normal with these kind of viruses.

Nothing, but didn't you say yourself:

What's wrong with letting the shareholders with the largest stake to deal with profits and maintaining their positions from making decisions from within the company? — Shawn

With the Bernie option, workers getting a salary (and either choosing the job or not) isn't enough.

I don't have a problem with labor unions. I assume you do need them. But also there is a point in having free markets too.

And of course strengthening the labour unions IS quite universal in the DNC.

Just look what Joe Biden says on his website:

Strong unions built the great American middle class. Everything that defines what it means to live a good life and know you can take care of your family – the 40 hour work week, paid leave, health care protections, a voice in your workplace – is because of workers who organized unions and fought for worker protections. Because of organizing and collective bargaining, there used to be a basic bargain between workers and their employers in this country that when you work hard, you share in the prosperity your work created.

Today, however, there’s a war on organizing, collective bargaining, unions, and workers. It’s been raging for decades, and it’s getting worse with Donald Trump in the White House. Republican governors and state legislatures across the country have advanced anti-worker legislation to undercut the labor movement and collective bargaining. States have decimated the rights of public sector workers who, unlike private sector workers, do not have federal protections ensuring their freedom to organize and collectively bargain. In the private sector, corporations are using profits to buy back their own shares and increase CEOs’ compensation instead of investing in their workers and creating more good-quality jobs. The results have been predictable: rising income inequality, stagnant real wages, the loss of pensions, exploitation of workers, and a weakening of workers’ voices in our society.

What's wrong with letting the shareholders with the largest stake to deal with profits and maintaining their positions from making decisions from within the company?

At no point does the government have to intervene or make decisions for individuals from within the company... — Shawn

Oh it does! Bernie has a long list on what he plans to meddle in the decisions of corporations.

Just listen to Bernie:

In order to strengthen America’s middle class, a Bernie Sanders administration will make it a priority to restore workers’ rights to bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions. That is what the Workplace Democracy plan is all about.

And now feel the Bern:

Bernie’s pro-union plan would:

Provide unions the ability to organize through a majority sign up process, allowing the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to certify a union if it receives the consent of the majority of eligible workers. Under Bernie’s plan, when a majority of workers in a bargaining unit sign valid authorization cards to join a union, they will have a union. If employers refuse to negotiate in good faith, we will impose strong penalties on those companies.

Enact “first contract” provisions to ensure companies cannot prevent a union from forming by denying a first contract. Employers would be required to begin negotiating within 10 days of receiving a request from a new union. If no agreement is reached after 90 days of negotiation, the parties can request to enter a compulsory mediation process. If no first contract is reached after 30 more days of mediation, the parties would have a contract settlement through binding arbitration.

Eliminate the “Right to Work for Less.” Bernie’s plan would repeal Section 14(b) of the Taft Hartley Act, which has allowed 28 states to pass legislation that eliminates the ability of unions to collect dues from those who benefit from union contracts and activities, undermining the unions’ representation of workers.

Under Bernie’s plan, companies will no longer be able to ruthlessly exploit workers by misclassifying them as independent contractors or deny them overtime by falsely calling them a “supervisor.” When Bernie is president, his administration will end the ability of corporations to misclassify workers as “independent contractors” or label them as a “supervisor.”

Make sure that employers can no longer use franchisee or contractor arrangements to avoid responsibility and liability for workers by codifying the Browning-Ferris joint-employer standard into law. When Bernie is president, his administration will make clear that a worker can have more than one employer. If a company can decide who to hire and who to fire and how much to pay an employee at a franchise, that company will be considered a joint employer along with the owner of a particular franchise — and both employers must engage in collective bargaining over the terms and conditions of employment.

Give federal workers the right to strike. In December, Trump shutdown the federal government for 35 days — the longest in history — depriving over 800,000 workers of their paychecks. Adding insult to injury, hundreds of thousands of TSA agents, air traffic controllers, IRS employees, members of the Coast Guard, and other federal government employees were forced to work without pay and without recourse. Under current law, federal employees are not guaranteed the same labor rights as workers in the private sector. While they have the ability to unionize, they are prohibited from going on strike. Under this plan, federal workers would have the right to strike.

Make sure every public sector union in America has the freedom to negotiate. When Bernie is president he will sign the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act of 2019 to guarantee the right of public employees to organize and bargain collectively for better wages, benefits and working conditions in states like Iowa that currently do not offer these fundamental protections.

Require companies that merge to honor existing union contracts. In February, Wabtec completed a merger with General Electric Transportation in Pennsylvania. Instead of honoring the existing union contract with its workforce, Wabtec tried to impose substantial cuts to benefits employees have earned, while rewarding executives with over $120 million in bonuses. Under this plan, companies would no longer be able to abrogate union contracts through mergers.

Deny federal contracts to employers that pay poverty wages, outsource jobs overseas, engage in union busting, deny good benefits and pay CEOs outrageous compensation packages. When Bernie is president he will issue an executive order to prevent companies from receiving federal contracts that outsource jobs overseas, pay workers less than $15 an hour without benefits, refuse to remain neutral in union organizing efforts, pay executives over 150 times more than average workers, hire workers to replace striking workers, or close businesses after workers vote to unionize.

Ban the permanent replacement of striking workers. This plan will outlaw, once and for all, the permanent replacement of workers who go on strike.

Protect the pensions of workers. As President, Bernie will protect and expand pension benefits of employees in both the public and the private sector. Because of a 2014 change in law instituted in the dead of night and against the strong opposition of Senator Sanders, it is now legal to cut the earned pension benefits of more than 1.5 million workers and retirees in multi-employer pension plans. As president, Bernie will sign an executive order to impose a moratorium on future pension cuts and would reverse the cuts to retirement benefits that have already been made.

In addition, President Sanders will fight to implement the Keep Our Pension Promises Act he first introduced in 2015 to prevent the pensions of up to 10 million Americans from being cut. Instead of asking retirees to take a massive cut in their pension benefits, Bernie will make multi-employer plans solvent by closing egregious loopholes that allow the wealthiest Americans in this country to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. If Congress could provide a multi-trillion bailout to Wall Street and foreign banks in 2008, we can and we must protect the pensions that were promised to millions of Americans.

Stops corporations from forcing workers to attend mandatory anti-union meetings as a condition of continued employment. Under this plan, companies would be barred from requiring workers to attend anti-union meetings as a condition of employment.

Establish federal protections against the firing of workers for any reason other than “just cause.” When Bernie is president he will fight to make sure workers cannot be fired “at will” and will sign a “just cause” law to protect workers and their constitutional right to speak out and organize in their workplaces.

Create a sectoral collective bargaining system with wage boards to set minimum standards across industries. When Bernie is president he will work with the trade union movement to establish a sectoral collective bargaining system that will work to set wages, benefits and hours across entire industries, not just employer-by-employer. In addition, under this plan all cities, counties, and other local jurisdictions would have the freedom to establish their own minimum wage laws and guarantee other minimum standards for workers.

Guarantee the right to unionize for all workers. Bernie will ensure farm workers and domestic workers, historically excluded from labor protections, are afforded the same standards as all workers, including the right to overtime pay and to join a union. He will enact a Domestic Workers Bill of Rights to secure safe working conditions, collective bargaining, and a living wage for domestic workers.

Allow for secondary boycotts. This plan reinstates a union’s freedom of speech to take action to pressure clients and suppliers of companies opposing unions.

Allow states and cities to pass even stronger labor standards than the expanded National Labor Relations Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. We will establish the expanded NLRA and ERISA as the floor for labor rights in this country, not the ceiling. We will not allow the federal government to preempt state and local laws that expand workers’ rights. Period.

Expand and update the persuader rule. This plan would require companies to disclose anti-union information they disseminate to workers and provide for equal time for organizing agents. This would include the funding of third party anti-union campaigns. This plan will also ensure that whatever contact information (email, phone, mailing addresses) the employer uses is disseminated to the organizing agent. Monetary penalties would be enacted for failures to disclose.

A fair transition to Medicare for All: Bernie will require that resulting healthcare savings from union-negotiated plans result in wage increases and additional benefits for workers during the transition to Medicare for All. When Medicare for All is signed into law, companies with union negotiated health care plans would be required to enter into new contract negotiations overseen by the National Labor Relations Board. Under this plan, all company savings that result from reduced health care contributions from Medicare for All will accrue equitably to workers in the form of increased wages or other benefits. Furthermore, the plan will ensure that union-sponsored clinics and other providers are integrated within the Medicare for All system, and kept available for members. Unions will still be able to negotiate for and provide wrap-around services and other coverage not duplicative of the benefits established under Medicare for All.

You got that, Shawn? It's all about unions.

And we haven't come to Corporate Accountability and Democracy part yet.

That's even more of the true unadulterated Bernie.

I agree with all those that they will pick a woman for the vice presidency. If Biden is too centrist, they might pick Warren to woo the left wing of the party.

They'll hear too much about it if they pick two old white men.

So, the alternative is to stick with the fascist structure of central management imposed by the chiefs, CEO, COO, etc.? — Shawn

Now you've lost me. Central management is a way to coordinate a large network where people simply cannot all come to sit down on a table and have a coffee and decide what everybody is going to do. Large cooperatives also have central management, so what is your point?

In western social democracy companies and corporations are left alone. The exceptions are what is in the administration's agenda + existing regulation, taxation and supervision. They simply have to comply with the regulation imposed on them. Otherwise, they can make all the money they want, assuming they do pay their taxes. Modern social democracy doesn't even want to nationalize corporations. Only some strategic companies might fall into the category of where nationalization is looked positively.

Please read the agenda. Who else will look that the goals are met than the central government?

Who else would it be than apparatchniks of the workforce sitting in boardroom with the owners? And if you think about it, actually, it has to be people that do understand a lot more than the specific work at counter or the factory line.

This part we do know in the Nordic countries where the system has been built up for a hundred years or so.

Much less red tape is being created than is definitely being stripped away...

So...

If red tape is bad... Bernie's policies are more good than current convention.

You'll have to do better than that. — creativesoul

Uh..do what?

I'm just telling that Bernie is a Social Democrat in all his heart. That all above is social democracy.

Because Americans have never actually experienced what is Western social democracy like, it's really like this (the above). High minded ambitious agenda's that in truth create a lot of red tape, because the agenda is promoted and executed by government boards manned by administration officials (picked by social democrats) and stakeholders (close to social democrats) and the few unfortunate industry representative to write down lofty goals that will be forgotten when the next administration changes...

Change comes through THE COMMITTEE!!!

You really ought to get your priorities straight. Talk about GPD or debt or stocks or anything else is completely useless if we're heading towards disaster. If you don't believe me, take a look at how something like the coronavirus is effecting the markets. That's peanuts compared to the upcoming wildfires, floods, sea rise, mass migrations, and food and water shortages. — Xtrix

What effects? You think that market going down is a source of trouble? Perhaps you should read what you write yourself.

Climate change? How wouldn't the climate change discussion be something else than talking about the economy, if it's fossil fuel you want to replace? It is especially about how to organize the economy, how to make the change happen.

Let's take just an example. In the Green New Deal Bernie says:

Reaching 100 percent renewable energy for electricity and transportation by no later than 2030 and complete decarbonization of the economy by 2050 at latest – consistent with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change goals – by expanding the existing federal Power Marketing Administrations to build new solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources.

Fine. But how? Those are...deadlines.

Deadlines like Sweden decided in the 1980's with great fanfare to abolish nuclear energy use in the middle of the 1990's (a decade or so) and then when that time limit was achieved, was producing more with nuclear energy than when the decision was first done. So the real issue would be how to get there. That's where you have to do something with the economy.

Can you actually support this with some evidence? — Shawn

You should start with his campaign pages and really read through all of his agenda thoroughly at:

Bernie Sanders on the issues

There's just 34 issues (if I counted them right). And everyone of them has a lot than just one issue.

You can start from counting how many new issues has a medium size corporation have to deal in Bernie-land if everything Bernie wants would go through. Start from the Green New Deal, go through workplace democracy, check Real Wall Street reform and it's effects, then plunge into Jobs for all and Fair trade agenda a see what they will force your company to do. Finally, your ready to face "Corporate Accountability and Democracy" and look how you will have to share profits, boardroom decisions with workers / labor unions and diversify your corporate board. After all, Bernie wants that "Every employee should be guaranteed the right to vote at work, and have a voice in setting their pay, regardless of the kind or size of company or firm they work for."

So uh... that's social democracy in the purest form for you.

The rollout of Obamacare was a disaster of epic proportions. It utterly failed to bring down costs and sent premiums skyrocketing for self-employed people and small business owners.

Even if one believed in universal, mandatory, government-run health care -- is the US government the government you want in charge of your health care? I say no, and I'd point to the ongoing scandal of the VA as evidence. — fishfry

Yes, this is the crucial thing here.

What is actually possible?

The big-pharma and medical lobby hasn't just power because it gives money to politicians. It has power because in truth a lot of Americans are OK with the prevailing system. They have a job, they have a decent plan. Otherwise things would have changed already. Just whining about the stranglehold that the rich have of the political system doesn't cut it. There has to be the majority which is OK enough with the system.

We shouldn't forget that if Americans pay the most for health care, they also have the highest income on average. Some stats put median income or household disposable income of Norway, Luxembourg perhaps Switzerland higher than in the US. If you pay much, you also get much income also.

Besides, it's with Bernie as it was with the odd duck candidate Ron Paul some years ago. On the right the young libertarians got excited about him, but the real question would be just how much could on man change the whole structure?

This comparison is unjust. Sanders is by all means not fixated of nationalizing everything in the market. Only some more regulation and much needed higher taxes on the ultra-rich. His policies should lead to higher GDP growth in the long term if that's the only thing that matters to Joe or Sandy. — Shawn

Your counterargument doesn't make the point, because I've made the distinction quite clear between social democrats and true marxist-leninists and I've said multiple times that Sanders is a social democrat.

What Bernie wants is classic social democratic goals, universal healthcare, free education and to tax the wealthy more than others. And raise taxes. And create a lot of new regulation and fees and taxes. A lot of red tape from rules from diversifying corporate boards to worker participation and requirements for stakeholder charters. All kinds of new programs and laws that companies have to make. Just massive amounts of red tape.

That is the socialist part Bernie's program. And of course that there is absolutely nothing about keeping the US economy going. How to keep the US competitive. The only thing is that Green New Deal will create jobs and free trade has to be curbed. And that's basically it with Bernie. Just like with social democrats all over, the economy and the private sector is more of this nuisance, that can and ought to be milked as much it can be because it's inherently bad and wrong I guess.

Look at the consequences of these policies. It's been around 40 years or so, since Reagan and the beginning of the "neoliberal" era, and had run though every administration. We're living with the results. — Xtrix

One thing you should remember. The US has also done well. That it has avoided the ugly side of socialism has it's positive side too. Don't think that things couldn't be worse! They surely could.

The following graph is interesting when it shows one country that has chosen the most reckless, most destructive economic policies thanks to populism and that is Argentina. Just look at how prosperous it was in 1909. Argentina was far wealthier than my country, for example. (The Chinese economic ascent only starts in the time frame.)

A real problem, though, is that the Democrat Party could not do better. Do you, does anyone, understand how we ended up with Joe Biden as best candidate? — tim wood

It quite clear when you think who they picked to be their candidate last time.

The political party is run by weak geriatrics, who don't want to take a gamble. And who have been quite out of touch from the actual feelings of the voters.

Finding an Obama, a one term senator, was the exception. Yet Obama was a "loyal democrat" as a senator and then got support even from superdelegates. That he won Hillary should have told something later for the DNC. But I guess enough people in the party promised Hillary the candidacy after Obama. That Biden didn't go for it in 2016 is again very telling.

Mainstream political thinking here is obvious.

As I've said in the other thread dedicated to this, when you have even just the potential of a truly deadly pandemic, you take drastic measures. It is a political suicide to dismiss the pandemic at first and downsize the response if the epidemic later causes then lots of deaths. However, if it goes on to be like, well, all the previous pandemics one's like Ebola or SARS or Swineflu, you are not going to be challenged because you took drastic measures that were felt economically. You can always say that the drastic measures were needed and they were successful. Nobody will dare to complain that you wrecked economic growth for a while, just to save some people. It ought to be a no-brainer.

Yet Trump has chosen as he is Trump, a different narrative. At least for now. And if you really listen to everything he says, not just the picks the Trump-hating media says, he is quite normal also and admits that there is a possibility of the situation to become dire.

And with Trump, of course, he can say just about whatever he wants and can easily backtrack what he has said.

The more you know, the more you also know how complicated things are.

Using the Scientific Method and the scientific guidelines makes one very cautious in saying that one specific reason caused a complex phenomenon.

Joe Biden.

Will he continue the list of the following Democrats?















At least he would perfectly fit in to this category.

Prediction:

If Sanders doesn't get the nomination (if Biden is shoe-horned in), then Trump will win a second term. — VagabondSpectre

I think we are all now familiar with this train-wreck of a disaster President Trumpov. Wonder how Democrats will feel then in 2024.

Not unless the Coronavirus crashes the economy first. 2020 is gonna be a crazy year. — Mr Bee

Or more likely said, if the responses to corona-virus crash the Global economy.

Already China's exports have dramatically decreased. Yet if the corona-hysteria dies down (just like SARS, swine-flu or ebola-hysteria died down too), the markets can rebound. After all, the only true deadly pandemic we have seen in our life time is the HIV pandemic.

I'm politicked out for the moment. Health care policy is very wonky, I only get into it to a certain level. In general I favor liberty and individual choice, so instinctively I push back on any kind of one-size-fits-all system imposed from the top down by a government that does not exactly have a good track record for competence. — fishfry

All I can say to that is that with the present system, you pay far, far more in health care costs, than anybody else in the whole World and have a truly dismal health statistics starting with lower average life expectancy than other rich countries. I'd say that is a sign of a huge racket. Why? Because in any case all those countries that do have universal health care and a public sector lead health care system aren't phenomenally efficient, but just moderately good. But your system is even more inefficient! But hey, large pharma gets it's profits and doctors can get to be millionaires, so I guess that makes it good.

Is change possible in your corrupt political system? That is a good question.

We've seen again and again how the Democrats have failed in the health care reform or how watered down it has been in the end.

Personally, I think people should work with their strengths. I have a few friends who are quieter guys and good students and they do fine as engineers. I know other who, while okay students, are much more charismatic and have been doing well as salespeople. School shouldn't break the bank. There's also trade school, but in practice many of the upper middle class wouldn't want to send their child there out of pride. It's totally a pride thing. — BitconnectCarlos

Well, you are talking to people on a Philosophy Forum, so I think a lot of people are familiar with the juxtaposition "what is interesting" / "what is good for your career and future income" when picking subjects to study.

What people many times forget is that a university degree, with the exception of a medical or legal degree, seldom open a path for certain jobs, it's more of the show that you are intelligent enough to innovate, think and handle more advance issues.

And in the end most important thing we often forget (when only looking at education) is that it's the actual training that you get in work life that truly defines one career. And there either the economy works or it doesn't. Government programs have little say in this: it genuinely gives only the supporting institutions, but in a free market capitalist system isn't the major player. When there isn't that working private sector and functioning economy, even an OK education system, low corruption etc. doesn't solve the problem. I think in the West and especially in the US one can understand this difference easily: just carve out the "rust belt" or the poor places from the economic hubs.

And this in fact important to understand especially in the case of social democracy (or Democratic Socialism in Bernie's case). Yes, people can make the argument for the welfare state. It has it's positive effects. Universal Health Care is nice and so is free education up to the university level. Absolute povetry and widescale crime can be eradicated. However, the economy has to work, it has to have the ability to create that tax income for the government. Because socialism in the Marxist-Leninist way doesn't work! It ruins the economy and creates in the end in the best case a stagnant backward economy with few incentives and a multitude of problems. At worst it create a catastrophe, just like in Venezuela.

The real problem with social democrats is not that they are out to destroy capitalism, those are the marxists, but that they stay ignorant of the economic reality and in their idealogical agenda start making it difficult for the economy to perform and do this rather unintentionally. Once that vibrant economy is choked off, then the real problems emerge only afterwards.

It's far more about what people percieve than actual factual statistics, especially when crime is truly rare. What is a better neighborhood?

Especially, when thinking if some city/neighborhood is "safe".

How safe is Manhattan compared to Amsterdam, compared to Chicago, Malmö or Mexico City?

3. Their houses are in better neighborhoods so there's less crime, resulting in less damage to our theft of property; — Benkei

That doesn't tell why they would be better neighborhoods. Or that with lower income you would automatically have worse neighborhoods.

This isn't so straight forward. For example, I lived earlier in my life in a very upscale neighborhood with the highest real estate prices in Finland. It also was also one of the places where most crime happened in Helsinki: the city center. Unlike American cities, here the downtown is a sought after place. There is crime (by Finnish standards): typically it's the young people coming there to party or to hang around that keep the police busy. This tells just how much of these issues are just in people's minds: basically statistically the City center was as bad (or good) as the so-called problematic parts of Helsinki, but that didn't matter the people that lived there. Lot of young couples with children were totally happy to live there, especially if they had had their own childhood in the city center. They were cavalier about parked cars being sometimes vandalized on the street. It was just something that occasionally happened, even if the 16 years I lived there my car was OK (perhaps the reason was my home was on the other side of the street from a police station).

Yup. Bernie has the heart but not the cojones. Just like he let Hillary off the hook on her email scandal He should have hit her hard on her corruption and carelessness with classified documents. He should hit Joe hard on his corruption. There's a debate coming up soon, we'll see if Bernie wants it or not. — fishfry

He fears that tearing down Biden (or running as third candidate) will simply get Trump re-elected. That's the lack of cojones.

It could mean nothing or it could be that we've reached peak Woke and the voters have had enough. We'll find out. — fishfry

I think we have reached "Peak Woke" already.

Just to look at things from a totally different perspective, have you noticed the response that Greece got to closing it's borders and how the EU responded to Erdogan? There simply isn't the "woke" responses anywhere. Nobody started shaming Greece. No EU member (that I know) has reprimanded Greece. Even the leftist politicians here say "If the international argeements have to be followed, a state needs to take care of it's borders". One even purposed that asylum applications could be just given with the people remaining in Turkey. The EU has decided to give Greece 700 million euros and is setting up a 'rapid intervention team' with Frontex. If Greece asks for more border personnel, likely it will get it. The EU is finally starting to close it's borders as, well, the US.

Just look at the response Ursula von der Leyen gave:

The European commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, said: “This border is not only a Greek border, it is also a European border … I thank Greece for being our European aspida in these times,” which was translated as “shield”.

A Sea change from the confusion of 2015-2016. Von der Leyen's response now would be attacked as populism and Trumpist rhetoric back then. What a difference few years make.

Few if any woke calls for solidarity or us having to do our share, especially when Erdogan's move is so obvious and calculated, that even idiots understand that the refugees and migrants are just a political pawn in the game of the Turkish dictator.

Now this is good, because what it does is that takes all that important fuel from the right-wing populists. They need that annoying wokesters to get their people supporting them. And also the futility and indifference of the state. But if the mainstream doesn't follow the wokest, people aren't interested in them either.

Back to the elections, I should note that Bernie has never been the hero of the wokest. Sanders is actually a traditionalist when it comes to the left and what he has been for is very traditional western social democracy. As an old leftist, he of course has a lot of positive things to say about the Soviet Union, but luckily he hasn't praised Venezuela (or what later came of the Sandinistas). Smart politician would look at this and understand what needs to change, but likely an old fart like Biden won't understand. Just like Hillary didn't.

Look on the bright side: had China not had their one-child policy, there would be more Chinese people today and consequently, more individuals with the virus. — Relativist

Actually China would have less problems than now it is facing if it didn't have the one-child policy back in the day. One disasterous policy I would say.

Prosperity is the best way to curb population growth and China has succeeded in it.

India didn't have any one-child policy or similar drastic measures and look how fertility has gone there:


All because of economic growth, emerging prosperity and the ongoing successful eradication of povetry.

And to the population growth, a corona virus won't mean anything. Even if a million died of it, you wouldn't notice it in the statistics.

That’s a good point. And as a corollary, military and military force is rarely applauded by statists, socialists and big government types in my experience. There is somewhat of a schism there. — NOS4A2

Yeah, those government employees don't make it to the leftist list of nice things that the state gives.

Anyway, the existence of armed forces and how they are formed and organized in basically every nation state shows that not all what is truly collective is ideologically leftist. The fixation on the individual and on his or her rights and freedoms hides this truth.

The fix is already in. The deal's done. My condolences to the Bernie fans on the board. Note also that the mythical youth vote didn't bother to show up. Of course a lot can happen between now and the convention so we shall see. But there's no way to spin Super Tuesday as anything but a shocking defeat for not only Bernie, but also all the AOC-backed Congressional candidates. The Dem voters have rejected ultra leftism. — fishfry

I'm starting to think this way myself.

I'm even starting to think that all the silly wokeness is a way to crush the left luring it away from the important question. Forget the bluecollar worker and health care, let's talk about trans rights etc.

I don't think the Dems were so alarmed by the leftism of Bernie themselves, they were afraid that Bernie would become a similarly divisive as Jeremy Corbyn in Britain. That many otherwise democrat sanctuaries would turn into surprising Trump support. This is why the gang up against Bernie.

And likely Bernie will do what he did in 2016: give support to Joe as he did the last time with Hillary.

The Good Loser. Same repeat now with Joe coming soon.


And btw. has anybody else noticed that Joe Biden is a lot like Walter Mondale?

Oh, oh, oh! And back then Mondale had Ferraro! How progressive!

Someone's first responsibility to themselves. I'll 100% stand by someone joining the military to get out of poverty. — BitconnectCarlos

The real issue is if the ways to get out of povetry diminish or grow.

In our meritocratic World education is the important way for upward social mobility. If there are no stipends, no way for even a very talented pupil to get into the best schools, then there is a huge problem. If the only route is joining the armed forces...that cannot be good.

Yet if the education you get is so bad and the whole environment is against learning, then one can ask if the problems are typical to Third World countries. It's telling when the English teacher simply cannot speak correct English, or if the teacher simply isn't there in school. Or the class size is something like 80 to 100 in lower or middle school. That's how it is in many poor countries. There's no way an ordinary child will get from their to a highly respected Masters degree.

Hence the gap with the poor and the rich will remain.

Because he's bad for America, bad for democracy, bad for capitalism and liberal social democracy. He's the best trojan horse a dictator like Putin could ever dream of. (Incidentally, this is also why, at least according to rumor, the Kremlin is rooting for Sanders - they know that if Sanders is the nominee, Trump will win a second term.) — Wayfarer

It's quite simple.

They know that the more polarized the US is, the better for them.

At least Bernie gets the point totally clearly:

“Let’s be clear, the Russians want to undermine American democracy by dividing us up and, unlike the current president, I stand firmly against their efforts, and any other foreign power that wants to interfere in our election.”

Sanders also suggested some of the online vitriol frequently blamed on his supporters may be coming from Russia. “Some of the ugly stuff on the internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real supporters,” Sanders said.

See article Bernie Sanders briefed by US officials that Russia is trying to aid his campaign

Prediction isn't fate, and you're ultimately responsible for yourself. I hate to say this, but if all else fails just join the military (preferably Air Force). I work with a ton of people from poor backgrounds who thanks to their job will be middle class. — BitconnectCarlos

You do know that you are here praising the virtues of the government as an employer, the role of the public sector.

And this is a very American thing: that the armed forces gives these kinds of opportunities, gives the ability to study etc. isn't hardly mentioned as an example of that evil socialism/statism/welfare state. Anarcho-libertarians often ridicule government employees, but very seldom do they ridicule the men and women in uniform. The reason is obvious.

Perhaps the way it goes is that an unabashed leftie like Bernie Sanders isn't the correct messenger for these kinds of issues. Someone like Eisenhower would be.

Even if I concede the point that Bernie is not a Stalin socialist but more like a Mr. Rogers socialist, I would not change a word of what I wrote. Because Bernie has many followers who ARE Stalin socialists or worse. The #CancelCulture out there is like Chairman Mao's cultural revolution, complete with public shaming sessions. struggle sessions, they use to call them. The far left scares the shit out of me lately and they're all way into Bernie. — fishfry

Bernie's weakest point is his most fundamentalist supporters.

Biden will be a disaster of course as a candidate but these results are certainly interesting. A big Bernie win was predicted but instead the Dems got Amy and Pete to quit and endorse Bernie and all the Dem voters fell into line. Rarely if ever have the Dems been this organized recently. — fishfry

Actually thanks to Trump, Americans can believe that they can make a change to their party by participating in the primaries. Yet normally political parties usually have a leadership which decides on the candidates.

If (when) Biden gets the candidacy, will Bernie supporters go and vote for him? Got to stir up that Trump hatred!

Most of the Western world has those policies and has no problems paying for them. There's nothing unrealistic about them. — Benkei

The US is different in many ways, Benkei.

Well, let's see. Taking my disposable income, so after taxes, social security and pension contributions it looks like this:

Mortgage makes up about 33%.
Upkeep House 2.5%
Gas, water, light, phones is another 5%,
all insurances, including health insurance 5%
Car and petrol 4%
Daycare kids 3%
4 Holidays a year 17-20%
Food 10%
Clothing and birthday gifts 10%

We also just build an extension to the house and bought a lot of furniture,so the buffer is lower than I'd have it normally.

Probably the main difference is that I don't need to save for my pension from my disposable income. So I really only need savings to replace stuff if it breaks. — Benkei

You do understand that with this kind of spending you are in the elite when viewed globally? 4 Holidays a year is worth 17-20% of your your income? Who do spend 17-20% on holidays in the World globally speaking?

In the World, the highest income quintile spends on food 8,2%, so you quite are very close to them if not in them. When you add up those Holiday expenditures etc. you are quite likely in that highest quintile.

You should accept that you are in the Global Elite as, well, as I am. We can talk about how well the welfare state take cares about of our children, but we are among the elite in the global perspective.

:up:

I would assume that what Zeno had in mind were things like the problem of the infinitesimal.

(Too bad we don't have his book around anymore.)

Certainly as little as is required. But absent any sort of audit of where the tax money goes I fear that the question of how much tax money is required for a working police and judicial system is a difficult one. — NOS4A2

I don't think that you understand the question. The question isn't not just about audits, tax payer money being poorly handled or somebody stealing the money. The question is if the judicial system exists at all, if there is a justice state. Or if there are just a bunch of competing gangs pretending to be the "government institutions".

You see the question is if you can trust the police at the first place. For many Westerners this might sound completely strange, but is reality in many places. What if the police just stops you and you have to pay them a small amount to avoid being put into a jail cell for a night, for let's say that you look too gringo to them or your car is too flashy. Or what if I would just bribe a judge to get a paper that says your house is actually my property and come with a gang of heavily armed police and throw you and your family out from your house. When ownership of property is 'negotiable' in this way, the risk of even owning a house are quite high.

As you hopefully have noticed, if a thing like the judicial system doesn't work, you actually don't have those liberties and rights that the American Republic and the vast majority of Republics and Constitutional Monarchies are built on. Liberia might have had a copy of the Constitution of the US one, but that didn't mean much when the country plunged into chaos of the first Liberian Civil War.

Perhaps.

There are totally reasonable things there, but the leftist rhetoric and attitudes hide them. Yet one has to understand what the GND is about.

One purpose pf the GND is to get attention, to be clear, simplified and easy to understand. It is intended to be radical and progressive, stand out from the Joe Biden realm of thinking. Just like the utterly whimsical Trump declaration: "I will build a big beautiful wall and Mexico will pay for it". Well, Mexico didn't pay for it. Even holding both houses Trump had a problem to fund it. But that doesn't matter, it was a great catchphrase and it got the followers excited. Here was someone talking something totally different. You see, a more conventional approach, saying things like "I'll put more money into border control and tackle the issue of illegal immigration with a coordinated inter-department effort working closely with federal authorities, the bordering states and with Mexico itself" will simply not fly. How many politicians have said something like that. Isn't it actually quite the way that Obama saw the issue? That kind of strategy might actually work far better than pouring money into a concrete wall, but who cares in the end?

In the end, it got the supporters excited, the haters angry and Trump got into the center of the whole debate. Great! And that's basically what a declaration like the GND is about: get your fans excited, your haters angry and you in the center of the debate.

Hence wording like uprgrading all existing buildings in the US, "meeting 100% of the power demand" and naturally taking care of all Americans (so Bill Gates will be happy to get his welfare perks he so desperately needs) is simply this grandiose rhetoric which isn't even thought to be accepted as is, but to make the writers of the GND to stand out from the "ordinary" consensus Washington crowd.

Easy to understand:


The nuts and bolts of how to get their doesn't matter so much either. This is the real tragedy. China might put objectives into being a World leader on this and that strategic industry or capture some strategic market (like capture the rare earths production or corner the wind and solar power market, etc), but even if it is green tech and renewables that are talked about above, a focused industrial policy how to get there is far too ugly for many voters.

So let's make nice sounding plans, offer some perks and money for the industry if we get really into power and hope for the best. People will forget the plan in a few years anyway. And you can always blame the GOP for ruining it (like not closing GITMO)! But what counts is to get people excited.

That’s not what I said, but I doubt accuracy is paramount here. It’s my money; I earned it; I know best what to do with it. It’s really that simple. If you cannot explain how that is irrational or don’t want to answer or cannot say how that is against my best interest, that’s fine, but just know that I was genuinely curious. — NOS4A2

What is lacking here is the question how much would you pay for things like just to take on example, a working police and judicial system? Or put it another way, how much ought to be paid for you to move to Mexico or Honduras where basically the legal system doesn't work? Tax rates are lower in both countries, so I guess you wouldn't have to be paid much.

Thanks for the insight. If I may, let's go threw them with some brief comments:

"Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States."

What on Earth is Green in this one? Even for citizen of a Nordic welfare state, this sounds ambitious.

"Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature."

Only part (iv) is partly about the environment. And not about the environment, but the consumption of water, air and produce. Others like (i) to (iii) might go against (iv) and the environment, if done wrongly.

"Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States."

Again, the environment???

"Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources."

Umm... 100 percent? Meaning every goddam fossil fuel motor on a land vehicle, ship and aircraft will be replaced? Or is this referring only to electricity production? And when would this happen?

"Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible."

Uh...yeah, the US infrastructure is partly in bad shape. But how does that follow up with zero-pollution, zero greenhouse gas emission clause. How much more costly does it make everything?

"Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity."

This sounds OK to me. Nothing against smart grids.

"Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification."

A L L BUILDINGS? Jesus.

I can just think of the old middle of nowhere in Montana crapper having built ages ago for passing by cowboys on some ranch having to cope with the Green New Deal requirements. It has to be upgraded! :razz:

And every goddam old house in the US. What a blessing for the building inspection community. Hey, just GO THROUGH EVERY GODDAM BUILDING IN THE US and check them for maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort and durability including through electrification. Well there's a bureaucratic wonderland for everyone to enjoy.

"Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail."

Put it that way, I hope this doesn't politicize high-speed rail. I'm a great fan of high speed rail, It works best only at some distances, but not at longer distances. New York - Boston or Dallas - Houston are the kind of distances where it wins air travel, but on long routes like NY - LA it simply doesn't compete with passenger jets. Unfortunately only one word, affordable, is mentioned here about the positive things HSR has to give to transportation and every thing else is about making the environment better or Greta Thunberg happy (or something like that).

"Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible."

Much as is technologically feasible? Yeah, forgetting that ugly thing called competitiveness or that manufacturers have this intent to make a buck is something that is truly forgotten.

"Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible."

Lol. Working "collaboratively". As if collaboration is the new way to force feed new regulation on a tiny segment of the population that has had to endure the downsides of the agricultural revolution all their life and which is showing no signs of slowing down with more automation and computerization. Nope, now you have to look firstly at your pollution and how much your cows fart! But it's done collaboratively.

Ahh.... this is true social democracy.

In every way, with every word and scent.

The whole deal above just reeks social democracy in it's purest form!

It sounds like... my country's present leftist administration would have been given the chance to imagine "What would you do, if you would have all the resources of the World at your disposal to make country and the environment better" and then drafted it to a policy agenda.

Yep. AOC would fit in just perfectly into this administration (in picture below) now ruling my tiny country...(Ed Markey would ruin the picture.)

That may look like voting against your own interests to some, but that's because they are projecting their own "big issues" on those that voted differently. Obviously, if you are more community-minded and think social justice is very important, it looks like Trump voters voted against their own interests. And they did by that specific standard but it would be wrong to think they voted irrationally. They still voted in favour of other personal interests.

Now, if the political landscape would offer more policy combinations, that would include for instance, "lower taxes but in favour of abortion" you'd see people would actually be capable to truly vote in accordance with their interests. So don't blame the voters, blame the system. — Benkei

This is a good constructive comment, with which I agree with, Benkei.

And I actually do blame the system: the fixed duopoly landscape doesn't create the fear of losing the voters. Evidentially after at least 8 years likely the voters will be so fed up of the current party that they will swing to the other one. So you just can sit out the opposition time in a think tank or in the private sector ready to go back in four or eight years.

A two party, two agenda choice simply cannot represent all the various views and mixes of opinions people have as you stated. A two option race makes people usually to pick the less bad option. And typically in the US if the economy is doing OK, the advantage is to the ruling administration. Yet now the political field is so polarized, it's hard to tell how it will end. Thinking that people are simply irrational, uninformed and hence vote against their interests is in my view condescending. Yet that doesn't mean that totally absurd mudslinging won't have an impact.