2020 Democratic presidential primary

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.)

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

doubt he honestly expects to be around to enact phase 2 in ten years

same

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

Also of note for that chart

As @RichardRubinDC explains, the Bloomberg chart incorporates an assumption that private health insurance premiums ought to be treated as a tax for comparison purposes. His story this morning shows what the Dems’ tax plans look like absent that assumption. https://t.co/Kj0vNSOgvD pic.twitter.com/r7PcxJ95DA

— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) October 14, 2019

Are those percentages wrt total income, total wealth, or marginal rates?

to wedge Warren when really they are both going for this high regulation of capitalism, that I believe is disingenuous.

I do think "I am x to my bones" implies a pretty high level of belief, commitment, and identification. Someone can live and work in a capitalist society without needing to believe that strongly in its axioms. (Can you imagine Jeremy Corbyn or even Jagmeet Singh describing themselves as capitalist to their bones?) I can see how this might make a difference when it comes to how someone would govern.

I was fine with Bernie Sanders drawing that distinction, what else is he going to do? I do want him to stay in the race, him and Warren are a great tag team. But I still think some of you are putting a loooooot of weight on six words. I'd think the CFBP should count for a bit more, for instance.

Are those percentages wrt total income, total wealth, or marginal rates?

The issue isn't the six words, which I agree are overblown. The issue is believability.

That chart should also show the average tax rates in 2000, 1980, and 1960.

x-post: But you think six words counts more towards believability than the CFBP and everything else Warren has done?

Fwiw, I wasn't saying the six words should carry more weight than Warren's record or platform, or even that what they say is a bad thing, but that I can see why they could carry more than zero weight when evaluating ideological distinctions between Sanders and Warren.

I've always thought that "capitalist to my bones" was mostly an assurance that she wasn't a right-wing caricature of a Scary Socialist. The caricature isn't fair, but to say she's a capitalist allows her to calm those fears (while still proposing plenty of radical reforms).

I also think she's a capitalist to her bones, though.

As do I. But living in a Social Democratic country, I don't really give that much for 'Democratic Socialism' as an alternative.

Though I have to say, the anti-corporation plan Bernie just published is really, really good, and actually distinctively 'democratic socialist'. So.

x-post: But you think six words counts more towards believability than the CFBP and everything else Warren has done?

― Frederik B,

I don't. But I'm referring to future, not present or past

As in, I think she's really passionate about e.g. breaking down oligopolies so that markets can function more competitively. I think Sanders's motivation has more to do with ideas about class struggle, even when they end up in similar places. xp to self

No, that is probably true. And ironically, this might be where believability comes into it for me, because I just don't think someone polling at 11% in a Dem primary can pretend to lead a popular class struggle... I don't begrudge anyone for wanting to cast a symbolic vote for that though. Not when Warren will win anyway by driving the wonky vote waaaaaayyy to the left.