2020 Democratic presidential primary

yeah bernie's definitely the guy with a sincerity problem foh

Sanders works within the exact same capitalist framework as Warren

So, like... he lives and works in the US?

No, it’s that 99% of his policies are just common sense keynesian policies that are very much capitalist in nature and have been adopted by other less dumb capitalist nations decades ago.

man man seriously just "yet bernie participates in society. curious!"

'concussed gabbneb' is a terrible bit

Ilx the only place where FDR is a marxist.

SANDERS '20: A Less Dumb Capitalist Nation

maybe Bernie read Frank Bruni's NYT column where he urged the Dem candidates to "grill" each other tom'w night

...but I hope he's got better things to do

Bernie’s cunning grift of calling himself a socialist for 60 years because he knew he’d need to find a way to differentiate himself from Warren in 2020.

a cunning stunt, nearly

What are the truly socialists thing he campaigned for over the last 60 years?

How about today?

Bernie Sanders released a proposal today that would gradually shift 20 percent of corporate equity into funds owned and controlled by the workers in each company. The plan, which would apply to all publicly-traded companies and large closely-held companies, would move 2 percent of corporate stock into worker funds each year for a decade. Once the shares are transferred into the funds, workers would begin receiving dividends and have the ability to exercise the voting rights of the shares, including the right to vote on corporate board elections and on shareholder resolutions.

Sanders’s plan is by far the most radical worker ownership proposal put forward by a presidential candidate in recent memory. By last count, the market value of publicly-traded domestic companies stood at $35.6 trillion. This means that the Sanders plan would shift at least $7.1 trillion of corporate equity into worker funds by gradually diluting the value of previously-issued corporate stock....

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/10/bernie-wants-you-to-own-more-of-the-means-of-production

VHS I get your point but there is an appreciable difference in ideology between sanders and warren, not so much so that one ought to sabotage the other, but enough of one to merit pointing out the contrast

There is nothing about ESOPs that contradict capitalism.

between M4A and his green new deal, that is a LOT of public ownership of the economy

There are substantial differences between Sanders and Warren and it is very healthy that to differences get to be played out and argued in public, but it has nothing to do with ‘capitalism vs socialism’.

no, but it is reflective of where their sympathies lie and whose interests will be prioritized in a compromise

the 2% plan above is kinda like what i'm currently reading about Hoffa and the Teamsters pension plan, except presumably the Mob will not get involved.

Single payer does not include ownership of hospitals, at least in Quebec (our bills are still fully covered by the states).

Ownership of the health care insurance industry is still public ownership, though. And I do think that the government mandating 20% worker ownership and 45% board of directors representation on the part of the workers is a genuinely democratic socialist proposal that goes beyond ESOPs. It's certainly not a free market idea.

I mean, it's a kind of ESOP but requiring it for large corporations on a national scale isn't the same thing as Wal-Mart giving employees the option to buy stocks.

That said, I thought Warren also had a plan to require worker representation on corporate boards?

The booty judge also called gun buybacks "confiscation" in the same interview quoted upthread. He can't fuck off back to Indiana fast enough.

If i’m not an employee of Wal-Mart and want to buy Walt-Matt stock would I be allowed to? Yes, absolutely. Would banks be allowed to invest in Walt Mart? Yes.

I feel like Friedman and Reagan gaslighted everyone into thinking ‘freedom for the c-suites and wealthy shareholders’ = free market.

yeah i really hope Warren isn't considering him for a vp

Free market, an unregulated system of economic exchange, in which taxes, quality controls, quotas, tariffs, and other forms of centralized economic interventions by government either do not exist or are minimal.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/free-market

Imo the socialism vs capitalism distinction is as much about their differing rpersonal histories and worldviews as it is about his policies taking things a half step further. These things do matter, at least to me. (Not that my opinion is especially relevant.)

What I'd like to hear about more from Sanders for clarity's sake is whether these policies are end goals or stepping stones.

Per the same article

As the free market represents a benchmark that does not actually exist, modern societies can only approach or approximate this ideal of efficient resource allocation and can be described along a spectrum ranging from low to high amounts of regulation.

Bernie is on the high end of the spectrum, so is Warren. Just not as much.

Per the same article

As the free market represents a benchmark that does not actually exist, modern societies can only approach or approximate this ideal of efficient resource allocation and can be described along a spectrum ranging from low to high amounts of regulation.

Bernie is on the high end of the spectrum, so is Warren. Just not as much.

Sorry for double post

this ideal of efficient resource allocation

Good lord! What tripe.

Misallocation of resources is endemic in "free" markets, not least of which is the relentless drive toward monopoly and the temptation to outright fraud or even violence. The only efficiencies free market capitalists are interested in are efficiently generating maximum profits as rapidly as possible. This invites overleveraging, followed by harrowing bouts of so-called "creative destruction" which makes bankruptcies, raging unemployment, closed and abandoned plants, and massive capital losses sound much nicer than they are. The truly "ideal" free market is also called "the war of all against all".

... that’s why you have regulations.

I wrote my first letter to the editor this weekend about this topic after the la times published this garbage https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-10-13/hiltzik-healthcare-competition

I guess I usually understand "free market" as something that is contrasted with a "highly regulated market".

It's true that no Presidential candidate is going to replace a market economy with a feudal or communist economy, especially within a four-year term, but I don't think it's dishonest to call it "democratic socialism" if you plan to make gradual but significant shifts towards public and worker ownership and regulation. In any case, I actually do think Sanders and Warren are relatively close ideologically.xp

Indeed I don’t think it’s dishonest for Sanders to call himself a DS but to wedge Warren when really they are both going for this high regulation of capitalism, that I believe is disingenuous.

they have a different perspective on the history of US capitalism though, clearly. so if their presidency is the beginning of a movement, sanders is the one saying "let's not be content with going back to the postwar economy" (as if such a thing were even possible. the only way is forward)

that's a very good point. theyre moving in similar directions, but not necessarily to similar lengths.

i think so.

there also aspects of bernie as a campaigner that i think are weirdly suited to our moment. specifically, the simplicity of his platform, which can be described by probably every american. medicare for all; free college; cancel student debt; green new deal. this stuff is as easy to grasp as "the wall" and a million times more appealing. i don't think the republicans will be able to confuse the voters about what he is all about.

however

1. who the fuck knows who would be in a better place to beat the republican and

2. if either sanders or warren won, it would be a great day and i would be over the moon

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EG1ePUfWwAEsteB?format=jpg&name=medium

(watch out for the partisan x-axis)

What accounts for the lil' (but, I imagine, lucrative) dip at the end of Warren's stats?

... that’s why you have regulations.

I know that. Apparently you know that. What I was pointing out was that whoever you were quoting was pretending that a "free" market was some ideal of perfectly efficient resource allocation, which is Milton Friedman's economics at its most deluded. A regulated market is not a "free" market, but it's a lot less chaotic, less monopolistic, less fraudulent and less destructive than what that asshole was citing as "ideal".

Who the hell were you quoting?

Is the Y axis there supposed to be the effective tax rate? Because Warren and Sanders taxing the bottom 97% at a lower rate than Biden & Trump across the board seems off to me. I thought Sanders has been making the point that technically taxes will go up, but eliminating healthcare premiums & lower healthcare/drug costs will more than offset that for most people?

xpost

The Britannica. I think it’s worth reading the whole definition they give, as it clearly indicate that this ideal is impractical and does not exist and is best viewed as a spectrum. As I read it, this ideal of ressource allocations can only exists with various degrees of regulations; also that the degrees of regulation is a source of debate.

My feeling is that Sanders is planning on doing this without bringing taxes up by using MMT or just not giving a shit about the debt in general, the former I couldn’t care about but the latter would be otm considering the hypocrisy of the right wrt to the deficit and spending.

The Britannica used to have their subject matter experts sign their articles. Long ago. And it was a good idea then. Still is.

(That article is, in fact, signed. I will note, though, that it differs slightly from articles commissioned by in-house editors in that it was part of a bulk acquisition of content originally published by SAGE Publications.)

(To be clear, the articles acquired as part of that deal were still reviewed and edited by Britannica editors.)