Read on Twitter
Here's my thing: I really like some progressive ideas, but putting those ideas into action requires a herculean shift in American public policy, and currently... there's no way it can happen.
Not because we can't, but because financially, these things are impossible.
Not because we can't, but because financially, these things are impossible.
I've been to Sweden. I've been to Denmark. They're really cool countries, but trying to model an American system of socialized.... well... anything, in the way they do it?
We simply can't. Culturally, it's a non-starter. There are also some geographic issues.
We simply can't. Culturally, it's a non-starter. There are also some geographic issues.
If you go to a place like Malmo, or Gothenburg, you realized their cities are totally different than our cities. There are tons of bikes, buses, and people on foot. Even cities in the US like NY and SF which have robust public transport pale in comparison to nordic countries.
Culturally, people across Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, etc -- they have bought into a set of ideas that are quite different than how Americans operate. This type of psychological shift is something I don't see happening in the US.
Not every vocal DSA member cites these nordic countries, but many of them do, and it's worth pointing out their argicultural, manufacturing, and raw materials industries are totally different than ours. We also have different regional trade that makes comparisons difficult.
I like to use WITS visualizers to help, but being on the North American continent means we're not as active with the EU.
Comparing Mexico and Denmark, it's a bit clearer who makes what, who buys what, and how global trade works.
Comparing Mexico and Denmark, it's a bit clearer who makes what, who buys what, and how global trade works.
Denmark is a highly educated, super-homogenous country, with a highly skilled workforce of about 5 million people. Why? Because that's what their economy needs to be. They can never really be an agricultural or raw materials net exporter. They don't have much oil or LNG.
I don't bemoan most of these Scandivavian countries for being how they are -- but I think we need to be honest about why. Norway is GORGEOUS, but something like 90% of the country is steep ass mountains.
We can't be like Norway. We're different.
We can't be like Norway. We're different.
Sidebar: I love how everyone always posts Stephanie Kelton and her "deficit myth" nonsense. MMT is a non-starter. I'll debunk this really quickly for y'all, since I've had this conversation before, and I'm sure I'll have it again...
There's an economic theory called seigniorage, and it's your differential of printing versus value.
This is a basic concept, and Kelton rolls MMT into this. Her argument (and I have read her book) is that inflation is when money becomes less valuable than resources and labor.
This is a basic concept, and Kelton rolls MMT into this. Her argument (and I have read her book) is that inflation is when money becomes less valuable than resources and labor.
Kelton isn't really new in what she's saying. She's really just re-branding the Phillips Curve, which hasn't stood the test of time. We've had both low inflation and low unemployment at the same time -- so while it sounds like it could work, it really doesn't.
Kelton also thinks that we can solve unemployment by offering a job program sorta like the WPA of the 1930s, where if you're unemployed, the government puts you into a job making wind tubrines and green energy. That sounds lik a super-great idea, right? Well... not really...
The private wind indsutry, without massive subsidies, would have been dead on arrival -- because its $/kW is astronomical from a standpoint of land usage, and idle time.
Why? Because you have to account for idle time. It's not always windy.
Why? Because you have to account for idle time. It's not always windy.
UT has this thing called an LCOE map, and when we look at energy costs without subsidies, things start to make more sense.
LNG is the cheapest, usually -- but transport to the midwest drives costs ups, where nuclear wins out. A few spots in the Southwest are solar efficient.
LNG is the cheapest, usually -- but transport to the midwest drives costs ups, where nuclear wins out. A few spots in the Southwest are solar efficient.
There is no reason to believe that shifting a failing, and over-subsidized industry with a high cost over to the government would be good for the economy.
It's this constant pushback against reasonable spending that breaks Kelton's theories.
It's this constant pushback against reasonable spending that breaks Kelton's theories.
I don't see how MMT can simply print money into diverting what would be good (private government backed loans for small business), and pushing it into jobs programs that are idealistic and empirically flawed.
Jobs are good, but the answer to jobs isn't "government" jobs.
Jobs are good, but the answer to jobs isn't "government" jobs.
I will say this: Kelton does prove a point, and that we *DO* have a lot of headroom in terms of what we can actually spend. It's not like we're in any danger of blowing out our deficit today.
I supported a COVID stimulus package because I understand this.
I supported a COVID stimulus package because I understand this.
Even super-fiscal-whatever-dipshits like Rand Paul pushed through the $2T COVID-19 stimulus without their usual nonsense about "we gotta cut spending" because they know they have $2T to spend.
With that said... $2T is not $30T.
With that said... $2T is not $30T.
To get back around to the point I was making: I like the ideas that Bernie Sanders is talking about, and they COULD work.}
But he's not doing enough to overcome the "value of labor and goods" hurdle. Simply put: The United States just isn't the same powerhouse we used to be.
But he's not doing enough to overcome the "value of labor and goods" hurdle. Simply put: The United States just isn't the same powerhouse we used to be.
I'm going to post a link to a right-leaning think tank now, so don't freak out, okay?
They're... kinda right. They miss one point (or two... or fuck it, like 20 points), but they're right on the others. http://www.crfb.org/blogs/sanders-introduce-single-payer-bill-how-much-will-it-cost
They're... kinda right. They miss one point (or two... or fuck it, like 20 points), but they're right on the others. http://www.crfb.org/blogs/sanders-introduce-single-payer-bill-how-much-will-it-cost
American healthcare costs are high for two reasons.
1. We have a for profit system. They make a shit ton of money when you're sick.
2. Americans are less healthy than any other OEC nation. We eat like shit, have higher rates of obesity, heart disease, cancer, etc.
1. We have a for profit system. They make a shit ton of money when you're sick.
2. Americans are less healthy than any other OEC nation. We eat like shit, have higher rates of obesity, heart disease, cancer, etc.
Look at the pushback against something as simple as wearing masks: Something we know for sure is a great public health idea.
Okay, now try saying people can't have a giant cup of Coca Cola. Or worse -- putting a massive tax on tobacco.
Okay, now try saying people can't have a giant cup of Coca Cola. Or worse -- putting a massive tax on tobacco.
Look man, I get it: I'd love to have a single payer system, but self-insuring the costs of 350 million unhealthy people without making some huge changes is... just silly.
And it's backed up by the CBO. This is a $26T question. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52142
And it's backed up by the CBO. This is a $26T question. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52142
I want to say that Bernie Sanders did an excellent job of getting $16T towards it in his first proposal, but that's still $10T short. That's... a lot.
And this is well-covered territory: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000785-The-Sanders-Single-Payer-Health-Care-Plan.pdf
And this is well-covered territory: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000785-The-Sanders-Single-Payer-Health-Care-Plan.pdf
Then, there's this whole cultural aspect: Our hospitals, our schools, the whole "system" if you will -- it's a lot more luxurious, and has a lot more amenities than are common in Europe.
Americans have invested in excess, and that excess doesn't go away.
Americans have invested in excess, and that excess doesn't go away.
I'll agree with the refrain that I often hear from DSA members, where they do the mocking tone thing and say, "But how will we pay for it?!" -- it's totally true that we can.
Just look at what we spend on defense. We clearly have the money.
I KNOW the money is there.
Just look at what we spend on defense. We clearly have the money.
I KNOW the money is there.
I mean, honestly -- we spend something like $750B a year on defense. I'm not sure what the stat is, but I think it's something insane like 20 times what the next 15 nations spend combined.
It's an OBSCENE amount of money. We pay for that. Why not healthcare?
It's an OBSCENE amount of money. We pay for that. Why not healthcare?
I mean, shit yeah -- if this was a technocratic socialist government, and I had unlimited power tomorrow, I'd cut defense spending by like 80%, re-allocate the money to healthcare, and dust my hands off. Boom, job done. It's paid for.
But we don't live in that world.
But we don't live in that world.
The fact is, we had a black football player kneel in protest of police violence, and the GOP decided to say he was disrespecting the military. By kneeling.
Imagine the fury they'd ignite if you said, "Hey, this defense budget needs some big ass cuts."
They'd lose their shit.
Imagine the fury they'd ignite if you said, "Hey, this defense budget needs some big ass cuts."
They'd lose their shit.
I like the ideas of the DSA -- lots of them. Shit, for all intents and purposes, we share a TON of the same policy objectives. But look at Trump's approval rating. Depending on the week, something like 35-40% of the country looks at what he's doing and says, "Good job!"
I think it'd be a great idea to strip the military industrial complex for parts, and then allocate the money into healthcare and education.
But those industries are populated with lobbyists and PACs that would make you rue the day you suggested it.
But those industries are populated with lobbyists and PACs that would make you rue the day you suggested it.
Can you imagine how crazy Fox News would go on any elected politician who said they wanted to cut the DoD? They'd roll footage of ISIS/L next to pictures of houses in Scottsdale. The Boomers would lose their shit on Facebook, and you'd get bent in half in your primary.
So knowing all that, how to do you "beat a system" that is designed to accept money, lobbyists, and corporate spending.
The DSA route seems to be harassing people like me on Twitter, for having the audacity to be pragmatic about our path forward.
The DSA route seems to be harassing people like me on Twitter, for having the audacity to be pragmatic about our path forward.
The reason I respect politicians like Katie Porter (D-CA) so much is because she's willing to put the math in front of people, and then force the issue. She understands this is a math problem.
Video of that here:
Video of that here:
I want to highlight something kinda crazy here that Rep. Katie Porter brought to light: Our COVID-19 tests for an ER visit are $1,331 on average.
In Germany, a non-profit system, their tests cost between $69-224.
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tamarathiessen/2020/07/24/germany-free-covid-tests-travelers-returning/#5321f26a33b9
In Germany, a non-profit system, their tests cost between $69-224.
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tamarathiessen/2020/07/24/germany-free-covid-tests-travelers-returning/#5321f26a33b9
The reason is because even a M4A strategy doesn't change the massive structural inefficiencies of American hospitals.
Even if you consolidate an M4A plan, you're not actually addressing the problem: We're paying WAY too fucking much for simple shit like a nasal swab.
Even if you consolidate an M4A plan, you're not actually addressing the problem: We're paying WAY too fucking much for simple shit like a nasal swab.
I understand Rose Twitter is mad at me, and honestly -- I couldn't give two fucks, because if they want to die on their make-believe moral high ground, that's fine. I just can't do it.
Their whole ethos has yet to get a bill sponsored in Congress, much less passed into law.
Their whole ethos has yet to get a bill sponsored in Congress, much less passed into law.
I understand we want a lot of the same things, but if you don't vote for Biden, you have a 0% chance of seeing any real push towards a single payer solution, because Trump (or any Republican) will veto it on the spot.
The change happens down-ballot.
The change happens down-ballot.
If you don't vote for Biden/Harris, none of your down ballot chances mean a damn thing. None of the work by AOC and other like-minded progressives will add up to anything. Because bills have to be signed into law, and Republicans are NEVER going to help this country.
I'll wrap this thread up by saying vote for Marquita Bradshaw. She's the Democratic Senate candidate in Tennessee, and she did it by building a real movement.
She was endorsed by the DSA, and she has some great policy positions.
/done
She was endorsed by the DSA, and she has some great policy positions.
/done
