Time is up for neoliberals. Democracy requires a new, progressive capitalism.

[homersapien 11,618]

By Joseph Stiglitz

Joseph Stiglitz is a professor of economics at Columbia University and winner of the 2001 Nobel Memorial Prize in economics. His newest book is “The Road to Freedom: Economics and the Good Society.”

Amid another election season, our impulse to debate American democracy through a single political lens is understandable. But we’d be better served considering a second closely related question too: Which economic system serves the most people?

On one side of the economic debate are those who believe in largely unfettered markets, in which companies are allowed to agglomerate market power or pollute or exploit. They believe firms should maximize shareholder value, doing whatever they can get away with, because bigger profits serve the common good.

The most famous 20th-century proponents of this low-tax/low-regulation shareholder-centric economy, often referred to as neoliberalism, are Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. These Nobel Prize-winning economists took the idea beyond the economy, claiming this kind of economic system was necessary to achieve political freedom.

They worried about the growth of government in the aftermath of the Great Depression, when under the influence of John Maynard Keynes, the state was taking on new responsibilities to stabilize the economy. In “Capitalism and Freedom,” Friedman argued that “free markets” were indispensable to ensure political freedom. In Hayek’s words, government overreach would lead us down “The Road to Serfdom.”

We’ve now had four decades of the neoliberal “experiment,” beginning with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. The results are clear. Neoliberalism expanded the freedom of corporations and billionaires to do as they will and amass huge fortunes, but it also exacted a steep price: the well-being and freedom of the rest of society.

Neoliberals’ political analysis was even worse than their economics, with perhaps even graver consequences. Friedman and his acolytes failed to understand an essential feature of freedom: that there are two kinds, positive and negative; freedom to do and freedom from harm. “Free markets” alone fail to provide economic stability or security against the economic vagaries they create, let alone allow large fractions of the population to live up to their potential. Government is needed to deliver both. In doing so, government expands freedom in multiple ways.

The road to authoritarianism is not paved by government doing too much but too little.

The surge in support for populism, especially of the ugly nationalist variety, has many causes. It would be overly simplistic to ascribe it just to economics. Still, it is no coincidence that populist nationalism is a graver threat in countries such as Israel, the Philippines and the United States than in Sweden, Norway and Denmark, where high-quality free public education, strong unemployment benefits and robust public health care free their citizens from the common American anxieties over how to pay for their children’s education or their medical bills.

Discontent festers in places facing unaddressed economic stresses, where people feel a loss of control over their destinies; where too little is done to address unemployment, economic insecurity and inequality. This provides a fertile field for populist demagogues — who are in ample supply everywhere. In the United States, this has given us  Donald Trump.

We care about freedom from hunger, unemployment and poverty — and, as FDR emphasized, freedom from fear. People with just enough to get by don’t have freedom — they do what they must to survive. And we need to focus on giving more people the freedom to live up to their potential, to flourish and to be creative. An agenda that would increase the number of children growing up in poverty or parents worrying about how they are going to pay for health care — necessary for the most basic freedom, the freedom to live — is not a freedom agenda.

Champions of the neoliberal order, moreover, too often fail to recognize that one person’s freedom is another’s unfreedom — or, as Isaiah Berlin put it, freedom for the wolves has often meant death to the sheep. Freedom to carry a gun may mean death to those who are gunned down in the mass killings that have become an almost daily occurrence in the United States. Freedom not to be vaccinated or wear masks may mean others lose the freedom to live.

There are trade-offs, and trade-offs are the bread and butter of economics. The climate crisis shows that we have not gone far enough in regulating pollution; giving more freedom to corporations to pollute reduces the freedom of the rest of us to live a healthy life — and in the case of those with asthma, even the freedom to live. Freeing bankers from what they claimed to be excessively burdensome regulations put the rest of us at risk of a downturn potentially as bad as the Great Depression of the 1930s when the banking system imploded in 2008. This forced society to provide banks hundreds of billions of dollars in the largest bailout ever. The rest of society faced a reduction in their freedoms in so many ways — including the freedom from the fear of losing one’s house, one’s job and, with that, one’s health insurance.

Sometimes, how these trade-offs should be made is obvious: We should curtail corporations’ freedom to exploit workers, consumers and communities. Sometimes the trade-offs are more complex; how to assess them is more difficult. But just because they’re difficult is no reason to shirk addressing them, to pretend that they don’t exist.

Some cases of unfreedom can benefit a society as a whole, expanding the freedom of all, or at least most, citizens. Stop lights — which curtail my freedom to cross the intersection — provide a good example. Without them, there would be gridlock. Their intrusion on my freedom enhances that of all of us — in a fundamental sense, even my freedom.

This reasoning applies broadly. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has reminded us that if we are to be free from the fear of harm coming from outside, we need defense, and that has to be paid for. We also need money to make the necessary social investments for a 21st-century economy — in basic research and technology, in infrastructure, in education, and in health. (Much of the country’s success evolves from initial research done at our universities, all either state-supported or nonprofits.) This all requires tax revenue. And taxation, as we know, requires compulsion to prevent the free-riding by some on the contributions of others.

Neoliberal capitalism has thus failed in its own economic terms: It has not delivered growth, let alone shared prosperity. But it has also failed in its promise of putting us on a secure road to democracy and freedom, and it has instead set us on a populist route raising the prospects of a 21st-century fascism. These would-be authoritarian populists reduce our freedom while failing to deliver on their promises, as the form of crony capitalism offered by Trump illustrates. The elimination of Obamacare or a tax cut for billionaires and corporations funded in part by a tax increase for the rest of us would decrease the security, well-being and freedom of ordinary Americans. Trump’s first administration gives a glimmer of what a second might look like.

There is an alternative. A 21st-century economy can only be managed through decentralization, entailing a rich set of institutions — from profit-making firms to cooperatives, unions, an engaged civil society, nonprofits and public institutions. I call this new set of economic arrangements “progressive capitalism.” Central are government regulations and public investments, financed by taxation. Progressive capitalism is an economic system that will not only lead to greater productivity, prosperity and equality but also help set all of us on a road to greater freedoms.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/05/13/stiglitz-captialism-economics-democracy-book/

[AURex 2,081]

Hayek and his compatriot in the Austrian School von Mises are heroes in the ultra-right capitalist cabal. I bought into that extremist philosophy as an undergrad at Auburn. It is fantasy. There is no connection to the real world in this economic machination. The notion of "methodological individualism" proposed by Hayek and others is really just preposterous.

The alternative is obviously not pure socialism in the Marxist vein, which has proven ludicrous as a socioeconomic system and horribly dehumanizing socially and politically. The same can be said of other autocratic sociopolicicoeconomic regimes.

If one looks at the real world of economies that are actually functioning, by which I mean governments that are actually pursuing policies that benefit their citizens (top to bottom citizens), it is the social democracies that blend policies that benefit corporate success, with policies that support individual freedoms and rights, health and prosperity.

I'm not convinced that his notion of "progressive capitalism" really ties in with social democracy. Conceptually, social democracy (to me) tends to emphasize human rights and social well-being founded upon a quasi-capitalist economic foundation that is subservient to the public good. The countries functioning within the social democracy ideology seem to outpace other economies worldwide as well as support for human rights.

The U.S. is not among those countries and seems to have moved steadily away from the social democratic ideals of the Roosevelt era in the direction, in recent decades, towards oligarchic economics and restriction of individuate rights.

So, however attractive the theories of Stiglitz, I just don't perceive the potential applicability of his notions in the real world. Socioeconomic theories are often pretty on paper, but ugly in practice.

 

[DKW 86 7,499]

Drivel.

While Stiglitz is correct, he is only HALF-assed correct. He makes the incredibly insipid assumption that ALL GOVT IS GOOD GOVT. He dismisses that in 21st America, that both parties AND almost all of Washington DC are owned by Billionaires and Corporations. So I can profoundly reject that all govt is good govt. 

I could do 30 minutes on VA Hospital in Aurora CO. It went 200% over budget, did not have anywhere near the patient rooms it needed, the damn thing was even exempted from the ADA Act access for, you know, disabled veterans. The parking lot was a 1/4 mile away. It took 2-3 extra years to build and was completed with a lot of the needed equipment 2-3 years down the road. Everybody and his brother made out like bandits, overpaid overpaid, overpaid. No one was arrested. Oh yea, it also had $30M in artwork in it.

No one lost their job. Nothing happened to anyone. 

VA Scheduling Scandal rocked the Obama White House. Again, no one is held accountable. Nothing improved. No one lost their job. Veterans died. SSDD in Washington DC. 

For forty years we have been told that the DOEd was going to give us great schools and prepared students. We have gotten forty years of failure. Rural and Urban schools still under produce on a cosmic level and no one is held accountable EVER.

So while trickle-down has proved to be a fail, surely it is a true fail. It is no more a fail than dozens if not hundreds of other Fed Govt programs. Thinking that more failure by different people is a good thing is just another stupid idea. 

Edited May 15 by DKW 86

[auburnatl1 5,441]

On 5/14/2024 at 7:14 AM, DKW 86 said:

Drivel.

While Stiglitz is correct, he is only HALF-assed correct. He makes the incredibly insipid assumption that ALL GOVT IS GOOD GOVT. He dismisses that in 21st America, that both parties AND almost all of Washington DC are owned by Billionaires and Corporations. So I can profoundly reject that all govt is good govt. 

I could do 30 minutes on VA Hospital in Aurora CO. It went 200% over budget, did not have anywhere near the patient rooms it needed, the damn thing was even exempted from the ADA Act access for, you know, disabled veterans. The parking lot was a 1/4 mile away. It took 2-3 extra years to build and was completed with a lot of the needed equipment 2-3 years down the road. Everybody and his brother made out like bandits, overpaid overpaid, overpaid. No one was arrested. Oh yea, it also had $30M in artwork in it.

No one lost their job. Nothing happened to anyone. 

VA Scheduling Scandal rocked the Obama White House. Again, no one is held accountable. Nothing improved. No one lost their job. Veterans died. SSDD in Washington DC. 

For forty years we have been told that the DOEd was going to give us great schools and prepared students. We have gotten forty years of failure. Rural and Urban schools still under produce on a cosmic level and no one is held accountable EVER.

So while trickle-down has proved to be a fail, surely it is a true fail. It is no more a fail than dozens if not hundreds of other Fed Govt programs. Thinking that more failure by different people is a good thing is just another stupid idea. 

Besides deep state conspiracy stuff, gov has no competition - a monopoly - good luck getting efficient results with that. As for education - look at this forum - free college and transgender in schools debates galore. But as for actually transforming our steadily dumbing down  educational system…. crickets.  We don’t truly prioritize it.

[homersapien 11,618]

37 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Besides deep state conspiracy stuff, gov has no competition - a monopoly - good luck getting efficient results with that. As for education - look at this forum - free college and transgender in schools debates galore. But as for actually transforming our steadily dumbing down  educational system…. crickets.  We don’t truly prioritize it.

 

Typical DKW.  Where did Stiglitz say "all government is good government."

[homersapien 11,618]

39 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Besides deep state conspiracy stuff, gov has no competition - a monopoly - good luck getting efficient results with that. As for education - look at this forum - free college and transgender in schools debates galore. But as for actually transforming our steadily dumbing down  educational system…. crickets.  We don’t truly prioritize it.

Well, the competition that would supposedly drive government efficiency is the election of replacement politicians who direct government.  Unfortunately, that electoral system has been corrupted by those same politicians.

[DKW 86 7,499]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

 

Typical DKW.  Where did Stiglitz say "all government is good government."

So you didnt read your own post? Typical...

[TexasTiger 13,283]

On 5/13/2024 at 2:38 PM, homersapien said:

By Joseph Stiglitz

Joseph Stiglitz is a professor of economics at Columbia University and winner of the 2001 Nobel Memorial Prize in economics. His newest book is “The Road to Freedom: Economics and the Good Society.”

Amid another election season, our impulse to debate American democracy through a single political lens is understandable. But we’d be better served considering a second closely related question too: Which economic system serves the most people?

On one side of the economic debate are those who believe in largely unfettered markets, in which companies are allowed to agglomerate market power or pollute or exploit. They believe firms should maximize shareholder value, doing whatever they can get away with, because bigger profits serve the common good.

The most famous 20th-century proponents of this low-tax/low-regulation shareholder-centric economy, often referred to as neoliberalism, are Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. These Nobel Prize-winning economists took the idea beyond the economy, claiming this kind of economic system was necessary to achieve political freedom.

They worried about the growth of government in the aftermath of the Great Depression, when under the influence of John Maynard Keynes, the state was taking on new responsibilities to stabilize the economy. In “Capitalism and Freedom,” Friedman argued that “free markets” were indispensable to ensure political freedom. In Hayek’s words, government overreach would lead us down “The Road to Serfdom.”

We’ve now had four decades of the neoliberal “experiment,” beginning with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. The results are clear. Neoliberalism expanded the freedom of corporations and billionaires to do as they will and amass huge fortunes, but it also exacted a steep price: the well-being and freedom of the rest of society.

Neoliberals’ political analysis was even worse than their economics, with perhaps even graver consequences. Friedman and his acolytes failed to understand an essential feature of freedom: that there are two kinds, positive and negative; freedom to do and freedom from harm. “Free markets” alone fail to provide economic stability or security against the economic vagaries they create, let alone allow large fractions of the population to live up to their potential. Government is needed to deliver both. In doing so, government expands freedom in multiple ways.

The road to authoritarianism is not paved by government doing too much but too little.

The surge in support for populism, especially of the ugly nationalist variety, has many causes. It would be overly simplistic to ascribe it just to economics. Still, it is no coincidence that populist nationalism is a graver threat in countries such as Israel, the Philippines and the United States than in Sweden, Norway and Denmark, where high-quality free public education, strong unemployment benefits and robust public health care free their citizens from the common American anxieties over how to pay for their children’s education or their medical bills.

Discontent festers in places facing unaddressed economic stresses, where people feel a loss of control over their destinies; where too little is done to address unemployment, economic insecurity and inequality. This provides a fertile field for populist demagogues — who are in ample supply everywhere. In the United States, this has given us  Donald Trump.

We care about freedom from hunger, unemployment and poverty — and, as FDR emphasized, freedom from fear. People with just enough to get by don’t have freedom — they do what they must to survive. And we need to focus on giving more people the freedom to live up to their potential, to flourish and to be creative. An agenda that would increase the number of children growing up in poverty or parents worrying about how they are going to pay for health care — necessary for the most basic freedom, the freedom to live — is not a freedom agenda.

Champions of the neoliberal order, moreover, too often fail to recognize that one person’s freedom is another’s unfreedom — or, as Isaiah Berlin put it, freedom for the wolves has often meant death to the sheep. Freedom to carry a gun may mean death to those who are gunned down in the mass killings that have become an almost daily occurrence in the United States. Freedom not to be vaccinated or wear masks may mean others lose the freedom to live.

There are trade-offs, and trade-offs are the bread and butter of economics. The climate crisis shows that we have not gone far enough in regulating pollution; giving more freedom to corporations to pollute reduces the freedom of the rest of us to live a healthy life — and in the case of those with asthma, even the freedom to live. Freeing bankers from what they claimed to be excessively burdensome regulations put the rest of us at risk of a downturn potentially as bad as the Great Depression of the 1930s when the banking system imploded in 2008. This forced society to provide banks hundreds of billions of dollars in the largest bailout ever. The rest of society faced a reduction in their freedoms in so many ways — including the freedom from the fear of losing one’s house, one’s job and, with that, one’s health insurance.

Sometimes, how these trade-offs should be made is obvious: We should curtail corporations’ freedom to exploit workers, consumers and communities. Sometimes the trade-offs are more complex; how to assess them is more difficult. But just because they’re difficult is no reason to shirk addressing them, to pretend that they don’t exist.

Some cases of unfreedom can benefit a society as a whole, expanding the freedom of all, or at least most, citizens. Stop lights — which curtail my freedom to cross the intersection — provide a good example. Without them, there would be gridlock. Their intrusion on my freedom enhances that of all of us — in a fundamental sense, even my freedom.

This reasoning applies broadly. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has reminded us that if we are to be free from the fear of harm coming from outside, we need defense, and that has to be paid for. We also need money to make the necessary social investments for a 21st-century economy — in basic research and technology, in infrastructure, in education, and in health. (Much of the country’s success evolves from initial research done at our universities, all either state-supported or nonprofits.) This all requires tax revenue. And taxation, as we know, requires compulsion to prevent the free-riding by some on the contributions of others.

Neoliberal capitalism has thus failed in its own economic terms: It has not delivered growth, let alone shared prosperity. But it has also failed in its promise of putting us on a secure road to democracy and freedom, and it has instead set us on a populist route raising the prospects of a 21st-century fascism. These would-be authoritarian populists reduce our freedom while failing to deliver on their promises, as the form of crony capitalism offered by Trump illustrates. The elimination of Obamacare or a tax cut for billionaires and corporations funded in part by a tax increase for the rest of us would decrease the security, well-being and freedom of ordinary Americans. Trump’s first administration gives a glimmer of what a second might look like.

There is an alternative. A 21st-century economy can only be managed through decentralization, entailing a rich set of institutions — from profit-making firms to cooperatives, unions, an engaged civil society, nonprofits and public institutions. I call this new set of economic arrangements “progressive capitalism.” Central are government regulations and public investments, financed by taxation. Progressive capitalism is an economic system that will not only lead to greater productivity, prosperity and equality but also help set all of us on a road to greater freedoms.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/05/13/stiglitz-captialism-economics-democracy-book/

Bernie hit a chord in 2016– on progressive economics with little mention of identity politics. If democrats could hone that message they’d get a lot more traction.

[auburnatl1 5,441]

21 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Bernie hit a chord in 2016– on progressive economics with little mention of identity politics. If democrats could hone that message they’d get a lot more traction.

As has been mentioned before, there is current vacuum on economic ideology  - with both sides almost fixated on social issues.  While I disagree with Bernie’s  European socialism, a lot, I agree that there is an opportunity for Dems to reengage with labor along these lines. Beyond grade school protectionism/tariffing - maga has no clue or message on this dinner table topic.  

[TexasTiger 13,283]

2 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

As has been mentioned before, there is current vacuum on economic ideology  - with both sides almost fixated on social issues.  While I disagree with Bernie’s  European socialism, a lot, I agree that there is an opportunity for Dems to reengage with labor along these lines. Beyond grade school protectionism/tariffing - maga has no clue or message on this dinner table topic.  

Let’s take Denmark, for example— what do you like? Take issue with?

[auburnatl1 5,441]

13 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Let’s take Denmark, for example— what do you like? Take issue with?

Dear lord not the Scandinavian counties again😇  I understand your point, I love Copenhagen (but translating that to the US…), and we agree the Dems have a potential opportunity. 

[TexasTiger 13,283]

27 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Dear lord not the Scandinavian counties again😇  I understand your point, I love Copenhagen (but translating that to the US…), and we agree the Dems have a potential opportunity. 

I don’t think we become Denmark for many reasons. But I see most people mischaracterizing “European socialism,” so I was wondering what your specific issues are with it. The stores and malls I visited were higher end than most here, well stocked and doing brisk business. The airports are much nicer. Even a country like Portugal, I’ve seen food courts in department stores that were mind blowing. Most Americans criticizing it have no clue, but I know you do— thus my question.

[auburnatl1 5,441]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

I don’t think we become Denmark for many reasons. But I see most people mischaracterizing “European socialism,” so I was wondering what your specific issues are with it. The stores and malls I visited were higher end than most here, well stocked and doing brisk business. The airports are much nicer. Even a country like Portugal, I’ve seen food courts in department stores that were mind blowing. Most Americans criticizing it have no clue, but I know you do— thus my question.

Scale, diversity, culture (US is WAY more about individualism and many currently distrust gov running things at any level), international role,  tax shock - many American would go nuts. Pretty different.

If your point is only about their healthcare system - maybe.  Though given the current debt the timing could be better.

Nonetheless,  you have fair point to challenge the status quo. 

[TexasTiger 13,283]

30 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Scale, diversity, culture (US is WAY more about individualism and many currently distrust gov running things at any level), international role,  tax shock - many American would go nuts. Pretty different.

If your point is only about their healthcare system - maybe.  Though given the current debt the timing could be better.

Nonetheless,  you have fair point to challenge the status quo. 

But go nuts at what, exactly?

One of the selling points of federalism is having 50 laboratories to try things out and see what works and what may be adapted elsewhere. We’ve long thought that other countries should be more like us— and for years we had processes and approaches that others adapted. It’s obviously overly simplistic to expect a huge, diverse country with our history to adopt broad wholesale changes overnight based on much smaller, homogeneous countries, but I often see these countries dismissed out of hand with little (and usually no) analysis which seems unwise and counterproductive. I’m always curious about what other organizations (and in this case countries) do well and what can be learned.

A few years ago conservative social media went crazy over a report that McDonald’s paid $20 an hour in Denmark. It was broadly panned as “socialism” run amok and paying low skill menial labor too much. Then we soon after reached the conclusion such labor is “essential.”

I revisited Denmark shortly after and was curious about the McDonald’s. Visited a few different venues. Most efficient, well-run McDonalds I’d ever visited and the prices were pretty in line with ours. Even an attractive “value menu.” Employees were sharp, friendly, fast-moving and looked like folks who could work in any office. What’s the problem? Why the derision?

When certain countries consistently report the highest level of life satisfaction, surely they are worth examining for possible improvements, aren’t they?

[Gowebb11 9,488]

24 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

But go nuts at what, exactly?

One of the selling points of federalism is having 50 laboratories to try things out and see what works and what may be adapted elsewhere. We’ve long thought that other countries should be more like us— and for years we had processes and approaches that others adapted. It’s obviously overly simplistic to expect a huge, diverse country with our history to adopt broad wholesale changes overnight based on much smaller, homogeneous countries, but I often see these countries dismissed out of hand with little (and usually no) analysis which seems unwise and counterproductive. I’m always curious about what other organizations (and in this case countries) do well and what can be learned.

A few years ago conservative social media went crazy over a report that McDonald’s paid $20 an hour in Denmark. It was broadly panned as “socialism” run amok and paying low skill menial labor too much. Then we soon after reached the conclusion such labor is “essential.”

I revisited Denmark shortly after and was curious about the McDonald’s. Visited a few different venues. Most efficient, well-run McDonalds I’d ever visited and the prices were pretty in line with ours. Even an attractive “value menu.” Employees were sharp, friendly, fast-moving and looked like folks who could work in any office. What’s the problem? Why the derision?

When certain countries consistently report the highest level of life satisfaction, surely they are worth examining for possible improvements, aren’t they?

I agree with this. I realize the that there are challenges when comparing several small European nations to  our one huge nation, but we need to look closer. I have traveled to most of Europe. They have every thing we have: nice malls, great cars, well maintained infrastructure, and much better outcomes for their educational and health systems. They have great restaurants, and worship where they want, or not if they don’t want. They also live in nice brick homes, modern apartments, and have beautiful subdivisions. Most people who haven’t been there seem to dismiss their lives as less than ours. I don’t. I feel considerably safer over there. Their police departments are very professional and better trained than ours. Yes they tax you for healthcare. But in most cases we are paying more for heath-care premiums than they pay in taxes when adjusted US to Euros. And they get much better outcomes. People over there are not having to declare bankruptcy or do Go Fund Me pages to pay for their child’s cancer treatments. While I routinely see 60 year olds creeping through Wal-Mart on their scooters, too obese and frail to get about, I see 60 and 70 years olds over there zipping healthily around on bicycles. And they have virtually all, if not all of the freedoms we seem to think are unique to us. They were doing constitutional governments centuries before us. I see people protesting over there, they vote, they choose what to buy in the stores, and they have a wide variety of news sources. 

Is Europe perfect? No. Do they have some of the same issues we have here? Absolutely. But like you @TexasTiger, what would it hurt to find things they do better than us and try bringing those ideas here.

Edited May 19 by Gowebb11

[auburnatl1 5,441]

7 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

But go nuts at what, exactly?

One of the selling points of federalism is having 50 laboratories to try things out and see what works and what may be adapted elsewhere. We’ve long thought that other countries should be more like us— and for years we had processes and approaches that others adapted. It’s obviously overly simplistic to expect a huge, diverse country with our history to adopt broad wholesale changes overnight based on much smaller, homogeneous countries, but I often see these countries dismissed out of hand with little (and usually no) analysis which seems unwise and counterproductive. I’m always curious about what other organizations (and in this case countries) do well and what can be learned.

A few years ago conservative social media went crazy over a report that McDonald’s paid $20 an hour in Denmark. It was broadly panned as “socialism” run amok and paying low skill menial labor too much. Then we soon after reached the conclusion such labor is “essential.”

I revisited Denmark shortly after and was curious about the McDonald’s. Visited a few different venues. Most efficient, well-run McDonalds I’d ever visited and the prices were pretty in line with ours. Even an attractive “value menu.” Employees were sharp, friendly, fast-moving and looked like folks who could work in any office. What’s the problem? Why the derision?

When certain countries consistently report the highest level of life satisfaction, surely they are worth examining for possible improvements, aren’t they?

Of course. Personal observation - to support it the indigenous culture must be rule of law oriented at a personal level (such as Scandinavia) or strong government models inherently corrupt, go kick back/ bribe crazy,  and becomes unworkable  (ie Russia, Latin America, Africa, SE Asia). Even French culture often struggles with this (ie Haiti and even historically New Orleans).

My only point is you’re suggesting a very nuanced and sophisticated model that is highly dependent on an educated and rule of law-based society. The US is such a cultural  hodgepodge, I’m not sure.

[TexasTiger 13,283]

9 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Of course. Personal observation - to support it the indigenous culture must be rule of law oriented at a personal level (such as Scandinavia) or strong government models inherently corrupt, go kick back/ bribe crazy,  and becomes unworkable  (ie Russia, Latin America, Africa, SE Asia). Even French culture often struggles with this (ie Haiti and even historically New Orleans).

My only point is you’re suggesting a very nuanced and sophisticated model that is highly dependent on an educated and rule of law-based society. The US is such a cultural  hodgepodge, I’m not sure.

Again, I’m not suggesting blanket adoption. If I run a company, I’m scrutinizing the competition to see what they do well and what we may adapt. But the conservative default has long be  derisive dismissal. There are reasons for this, which at the point of origin, probably aren’t rooted in ignorance, but self interest. I was raised with this propaganda and largely believed it. Travel opened my eyes. Further research opened it more. All that said, I believe in democracy and you have to sell it. That’s a tall order and no one is doing it particularly well. Bernie was more effective than most, but still too ideological. There’s a pragmatic case to make for doing somethings differently. For example, focus on what’s not working— health care premiums, copays, out of pocket expenses. Focus on which alternative systems work best. Detaching health insurance from particular jobs frees entrepreneurial opportunity- there’s a capitalist case for universal healthcare, and I don’t mean just enriching insurance companies that most people already hate.
 

What elements make sense? What works better? What can we tweak or adjust? It’s poor management/leadership to not ask those questions. It’s poor management/leadership to not recognize the challenges to change, also.

[SaltyTiger 7,991]

On 5/19/2024 at 2:22 PM, TexasTiger said:

Detaching health insurance from particular jobs frees entrepreneurial opportunity- there’s a capitalist case for universal healthcare, and I don’t mean just enriching insurance companies that most people already hate.

Great point Tex. See so many younger people worried and continuing a job they despise over needing health insurance. Also, like the idea of employers not having to use resources. Not such a big deal in our days. Just not clear on how this would work.

[TexasTiger 13,283]

11 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Great point Tex. See so many younger people worried and continuing a job they despise over needing health insurance. Also, like the idea of employers not having to use resources. Not such a big deal in our days. Just not clear on how this would work.

A variety of models to look at. France seems to work better than many. As I understand it, there’s a state provided plan- kinda like Medicare for all— and folks can buy supplemental plans. They are required for salaried folks with the costs split between worker & employer, but the base coverage is there for self employed entrepreneurs. But similar to Switzerland where everyone buys a basic plan and can get a supplemental plan, insurance companies are much more regulated and costs much more manageable. They still profit, but not with the insurance company CEO salaries you see here.

This, of course, requires taxes which is the difficult selling point. But, once you factor in premiums, copays, out of pocket, etc., I could pay far more taxes and come out ahead. And not run the risk of medical bankruptcy if my kid or wife gets cancer.

It also requires a governing body that’s not in the pocket of insurance companies.

https://www.frenchentree.com/living-in-france/healthcare/french-mutuelles-top-up-health-insurance-what-you-need-to-know/

[SaltyTiger 7,991]

9 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

A variety of models to look at. France seems to work better than many. As I understand it, there’s a state provided plan- kinda like Medicare for all— and folks can buy supplemental plans. They are required for salaried folks with the costs split between worker & employer, but the base coverage is there for self employed entrepreneurs. But similar to Switzerland where everyone buys a basic plan and can get a supplemental plan, insurance companies are much more regulated and costs much more manageable. They still profit, but not with the insurance company CEO salaries you see here.

This, of course, requires taxes which is the difficult selling point. But, once you factor in premiums, copays, out of pocket, etc., I could pay far more taxes and come out ahead. And not run the risk of medical bankruptcy if my kid or wife gets cancer.

It also requires a governing body that’s not in the pocket of insurance companies.

https://www.frenchentree.com/living-in-france/healthcare/french-mutuelles-top-up-health-insurance-what-you-need-to-know/

So you are seeing a trade off between premiums, etc. vs higher taxes. Taxation adequate to cover everyone with a base plan. Why are salaried employees required to have a supplemental plan? Seems a younger healthy person regardless of compensation structure would least need it.

My biggest problem with the government running anything comes from experience with their contracts. The system can be comfortable when you learn what Ts to cross and I’s to dot but the no decision or inability of decision in “gray areas” is a huge problem. Of course insurance companies can be just as layered in big claims.

 

[TexasTiger 13,283]

19 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

So you are seeing a trade off between premiums, etc. vs higher taxes. Taxation adequate to cover everyone with a base plan. Why are salaried employees required to have a supplemental plan? Seems a younger healthy person regardless of compensation structure would least need it.

My biggest problem with the government running anything comes from experience with their contracts. The system can be comfortable when you learn what Ts to cross and I’s to dot but the no decision or inability of decision in “gray areas” is a huge problem. Of course insurance companies can be just as layered in big claims.

 

I doubt we’d adopt any alternative wholesale. Medicaid for all, as opposed to Medicare for all, would provide at least basic coverage and supplementals can be optional. If required, risks are spread further and plans likely cheaper, though.

After Trump was elected I was actually looking a silver lining. He was positioned to really disrupt the two party hold and do some interesting things— had he actually cared. A friend of his pushed this idea, but Trump went the other way.

https://theweek.com/speedreads/685883/trumps-close-friend-christopher-ruddy-just-wrote-oped-calling-president-implement-medicaid-all

[auburnatl1 5,441]

Though I disagree with progressivism at a fundamental level, I appreciate that theyre trying to at least solve the root cause of much of current national grumpiness - inequity. Not symptoms - solve.  For example the border mess causes 3 major fears: 1) racial 2) security 3) income (they compete with lower income Americans). The third is because of perceived systemic inequity. It’s why white collar people think the economy and stock market is kicking butt, so what’s the problem? Meanwhile the working class gets more and more disillusioned and frustrated.

My personal belief is the primary strategic solution is blowing up and radically improving  the educational system - pretty simple, people get paid more when they’re worth more. Especially in a global economy. But the progressive focus of social benefits, minimum wage, tax restructuring, and redistribution of wealth mechanisms is a fair discussion. Again, I disagree with much of it but I get it. IMO the challenge is that maga seemingly just wants to scream and blame symptoms - but I have no idea what to they want to do to actually solve root cause problems.  Just bitch about transgender and the like. That solves nothing really in their day to day lives. They have to have a counter economic ideology to inequity besides complaining. Otherwise there’s no debate. And no movement.

[homersapien 11,618]

4 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

.....Again, I disagree with much of it but I get it. IMO the challenge is that maga seemingly just wants to scream and blame symptoms - but I have no idea what to they want to do to actually solve root cause problems.  Just bitch about transgender and the like. That solves nothing really in their day to day lives. They have to have a counter economic ideology to inequity besides complaining. Otherwise there’s no debate. And no movement.

And no government.  They don't really have defined policies evidenced by their lack of a platform.