PDA

View Full Version : Our Next President?



Pages : 1 [2]

Chris Coles
02-17-19, 05:25 AM
Republicans an Democrats have let FIRE get away with mayhem for decades. They've done the same with healthcare.

Both parties are bought and paid for.

Government at all levels is too large and inefficient. Many corporations are too. Too many business categories are anti competitive and exclude
innovation.

The left has caused education to become bloated and biased. It was biased on the right 50 years ago then started shifting toward reasonably moderate. Now it's gone too far left. There is no questioning, no respect for other opinions, no debate and no opening of minds.

This is why both parties must be replaced and the entire system rebooted to serv all Americans.

It has come as a surprise to me, as a UK citizen, the full extent of the underlying difficulties faced by those of you on the other side of the proverbial pond. My journey of understanding of why, really started with reading Gold Warriors, America's Secret Recovery of Yamashita's Gold by Sterling and Peggy Seagrave. How a huge sum of money gave essentially unlimited funding to a very small group with no ethical anchor. With that core leadership, deep within the US establishment, acting without proper oversight; particularly without an ethical foundation based upon true freedom; has produced what I believe to be a new form of feudalism.

Here in Europe, we still live in an essentially feudal environment; very small families holding absolute power over their citizens. As I see it, what was forgotten, or again, misunderstood, is that feudalism can only exist if there is an administration that will support it. I might come into possession of a great fortune, but that does not give me access to the levers of power to control a nation. What gives access is bureaucracy; the faceless bureaucrat, someone behind the scene that acts, supposedly, as merely the means to deliver democratic decisions. But they find, over time, that they have complete control. A VERY good example here in the UK is how, when the integrity of the UK civil service comes up in open conversation; the politician will always state they are the very finest; or again, when the politician is briefed against, they will never comment when briefed against. What you end up with, as we here have today is a new form of mafia; an organisation totally dedicated to their own needs; totally secretive, (I once brought this matter up on The Times newspaper web site and heard that soon after, a leading politician decided to sit in on one of the primary civil service meetings in Downing Street, [we discovered some years ago that they have, far and away the best office for such meetings in Downing Street, which is NOT available to the politicians], the result being that the civil servants involved were most put out by his sitting in on their meeting and claimed that his actions were unconstitutional).

Once a nation has an organisation embedded within that has it's own agenda, with their primary discussions deliberately out of the earshot of the democratically elected politicians, then you end up with, as an excellent example.... https://uk.news.yahoo.com/chancellor-not-trade-trip-china-093900625.html The decision taken by the UK Ministry of Defense bureaucracy, (who are very obviously under the complete control of the US CIA), was presented to "a friendly" politician, who did not tell anyone else...... enough to make one laugh if it was not so sad a situation.

But these are the UK's problems. As I see it, the underlying problem; the core reason for the ongoing difficulties faced by the US citizen is a failure to create a non politicised system to deliver the rule of law. Especially law based upon ethics. That once you have embedded within the nation a primary leadership group unable to display ethics; you get mission creep. The word gets out that it is OK to ignore ethics and once that sets into motion the entire legal system; the underlying framework for all decisions made under the rule of law; particularly commercial law; becomes debased. An excellent example being when the likes of Microsoft, or, again, Adobe, deliberately set out to climb through the windows of every one of the previous customers to destroy the software that their customers bought under classic free market terms; paid for and thus owned by the customer; so that the customer is forced to buy a new product; or NEVER again have access to their work previously produced by that once free market software.

Now, imagine that everyone that had historically purchased a fine example of porcelain had to "enjoy" the destruction of their purchase, then NONE would exist today. Go and google images ancient porcelain and accept that all would have been destroyed as a "normal" part of the evolution of the product.

What the lack of ethics has done is very effectively destroy your nation's integrity. Your law is today under the influence of a national belief that any attorney may create any legal document without any ethical constraints whatever. If "I" write it down and some fool, (who does not fully understand the implications), signs it; that is LAW; simple and incontrovertible.

The United States has lost it's ethical foundations and will, as a result; fail.

dcarrigg
02-17-19, 06:38 AM
Your law is today under the influence of a national belief that any attorney may create any legal document without any ethical constraints whatever. If "I" write it down and some fool, (who does not fully understand the implications), signs it; that is LAW; simple and incontrovertible.

This is an old idea in the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era#Timeline_and_illustrative_cases). And there are those who still hold that the Lochner Era (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era) was a good thing, because they believe in this kind of unethical chicanery is a natural right and they call it Freedom of Contract (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_contract). Of course, all it really ever amounts to is license for the powerful to abuse the weak. And it always gets traction in tandem with increasing inequality. The two are inexorably linked.

DSpencer
02-18-19, 10:05 AM
I guess I just want to be clear about one thing:

The federal government does not regulate the prices Medicare pays for healthcare services in any way that's recognizably true price regulation. The federal government does negotiate the prices Medicare pays for healthcare services to an extent.


Who has authority to set the prices Medicare pays, other than the federal government?

Can you provide any links to support the idea that hospitals negotiate prices with Medicare?

dcarrigg
02-18-19, 11:59 AM
Who has authority to set the prices Medicare pays, other than the federal government?

Can you provide any links to support the idea that hospitals negotiate prices with Medicare?

I tried to explain the process in broad strokes with my numbered list before. Medpac (The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission) is the legislative independent advisory commission made of private practitioners (http://www.medpac.gov/-about-medpac-/commission-members) which recommends rates. CMS staff consults with Medpac staff and takes rates and rate policy under advisement. CMS then takes the NHED account survey data (https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/index.html) of provider rates paid to private insurers. The rulemaking process takes both these factors and public comment into account. Eventually a proposed rule comes out. Medpac comments again, something like this (http://www.medpac.gov/docs/default-source/comment-letters/09042018_macra_feeschedule_1693p_medpac_comment_v2 _sec.pdf?sfvrsn=0). They tinker again. Eventually, final rules are published in the fed register and set. Then providers decide whether or not they will accept Medicare, and negotiate all sorts of details, and get to recommend a number of their own adjustments and accounting methodologies, as broadly outlined in the provider reimbursement manual (https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/Paper-Based-Manuals-Items/CMS021929.html?DLPage=1&DLEntries=10&DLSort=0&DLSortDir=ascending). Eventually a contract is signed. Even after this, providers have some flex to affect rates.

So maybe you take issue with how I used the term 'negotiate.' It's not a free for all where a hospital CEO sits on one side of the table and a CMS bureaucrat sits on the other and they haggle rates. But neither is it an adversarial process in which a commission rules on rates and the government defends ratepayers against providers. The reality is different than either of those. The federal government doesn't just set rates. Industry has a huge role in the process, including the opening salvo out of medpac that sets the baseline for the process which I suppose I'm calling negotiation and you don't feel justifies the term. That's fine. Just a semantic quibble. Two points are that 1) providers don't have to accept Medicare at all, and, 2) there are a lot of ways they can push for and work to get reimbursed at higher rates. Hospitals also negotiate cost rates on the NIH and HHS and research side, sometimes as negotiated indirect cost rates (icrs), other times as lump sums.

It's very convoluted. I can get deeper in the weeds, but I don't think it will be very helpful. The physician fees are separate from the facility fees, equipment fees, pharma fees, etc. But if you want to see an example of the rule governing the process, here it is (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-11-23/html/2018-24170.htm). If you want to understand the mechanics of pricing better, you can play with the fee scheduler (http://www.cms.gov/apps/physician-fee-schedule/search/search-results.aspx). You'll have to know something about HCPCS codes. Suffice it to say pick a letter followed by 4 numbers. So P3001 is a pap smear, for instance. So there's the base. But notice the mods by locality (https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/PhysicianFeeSched/Locality.html) and MAC (Medicare Administrative Contractors (https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Contracting/Medicare-Administrative-Contractors/Who-are-the-MACs.html#MapsandLists), which are private intermediary entities), RVU (relative value units (https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/PhysicianFeeSched/PFS-Relative-Value-Files-Items/RVU19A.html?DLPage=1&DLEntries=10&DLSort=0&DLSortDir=descending)), various status and payment policy indicators, professional and technical components, etc. So roughly this is a broad sense of one side of the Part A and B payments. Part C payments are effectively de facto tied to percentages of the A & B amounts for various convoluted reasons, but are still independently negotiated between providers and private insurers that offer the plans. Part D we all know can't really negotiate with drug companies.

But the whole mess amounts to one simple take-away: It's not like thinking of the federal government as a monolithic price-setting entity is helpful here. Even if one were to do so, it's not clear that the federal government in that case would be either interested in setting rates itself, nor interested in controlling costs, nor firmly on the side of consumers against providers. If anything, the process is heavily run by outside industry, in terms of the role of outside advisory rate recommendations, and in terms of the process requiring private sector negotiated insurance payment rates as input, and in terms of the relative flexibility providers have in negotiating with CMS for various determinations and adjustments that affect ultimate reimbursement rates via contracts. I realize I'm being vague here. I'm also honestly getting a bit out over my skis, as I've never participated in the process directly myself. Regardless, here's a flowchart of the provider reimbursement process even after rate rules are promulgated and contracts are signed by providers to accept Medicare that shows you the effects of some of the post-contract determinations and adjustments I'm talking about.

https://imgur.com/FeeyA4E.png

Chris Coles
02-19-19, 04:23 AM
I tried to explain the process in broad strokes with my numbered list before. Medpac (The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission) is the legislative independent advisory commission made of private practitioners (http://www.medpac.gov/-about-medpac-/commission-members) which recommends rates. CMS staff consults with Medpac staff and takes rates and rate policy under advisement. CMS then takes the NHED account survey data (https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/index.html) of provider rates paid to private insurers. The rulemaking process takes both these factors and public comment into account. Eventually a proposed rule comes out. Medpac comments again, something like this (http://www.medpac.gov/docs/default-source/comment-letters/09042018_macra_feeschedule_1693p_medpac_comment_v2 _sec.pdf?sfvrsn=0). They tinker again. Eventually, final rules are published in the fed register and set. Then providers decide whether or not they will accept Medicare, and negotiate all sorts of details, and get to recommend a number of their own adjustments and accounting methodologies, as broadly outlined in the provider reimbursement manual (https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/Paper-Based-Manuals-Items/CMS021929.html?DLPage=1&DLEntries=10&DLSort=0&DLSortDir=ascending). Eventually a contract is signed. Even after this, providers have some flex to affect rates.

So maybe you take issue with how I used the term 'negotiate.' It's not a free for all where a hospital CEO sits on one side of the table and a CMS bureaucrat sits on the other and they haggle rates. But neither is it an adversarial process in which a commission rules on rates and the government defends ratepayers against providers. The reality is different than either of those. The federal government doesn't just set rates. Industry has a huge role in the process, including the opening salvo out of medpac that sets the baseline for the process which I suppose I'm calling negotiation and you don't feel justifies the term. That's fine. Just a semantic quibble. Two points are that 1) providers don't have to accept Medicare at all, and, 2) there are a lot of ways they can push for and work to get reimbursed at higher rates. Hospitals also negotiate cost rates on the NIH and HHS and research side, sometimes as negotiated indirect cost rates (icrs), other times as lump sums.

It's very convoluted. I can get deeper in the weeds, but I don't think it will be very helpful. The physician fees are separate from the facility fees, equipment fees, pharma fees, etc. But if you want to see an example of the rule governing the process, here it is (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-11-23/html/2018-24170.htm). If you want to understand the mechanics of pricing better, you can play with the fee scheduler (http://www.cms.gov/apps/physician-fee-schedule/search/search-results.aspx). You'll have to know something about HCPCS codes. Suffice it to say pick a letter followed by 4 numbers. So P3001 is a pap smear, for instance. So there's the base. But notice the mods by locality (https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/PhysicianFeeSched/Locality.html) and MAC (Medicare Administrative Contractors (https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Contracting/Medicare-Administrative-Contractors/Who-are-the-MACs.html#MapsandLists), which are private intermediary entities), RVU (relative value units (https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/PhysicianFeeSched/PFS-Relative-Value-Files-Items/RVU19A.html?DLPage=1&DLEntries=10&DLSort=0&DLSortDir=descending)), various status and payment policy indicators, professional and technical components, etc. So roughly this is a broad sense of one side of the Part A and B payments. Part C payments are effectively de facto tied to percentages of the A & B amounts for various convoluted reasons, but are still independently negotiated between providers and private insurers that offer the plans. Part D we all know can't really negotiate with drug companies.

But the whole mess amounts to one simple take-away: It's not like thinking of the federal government as a monolithic price-setting entity is helpful here. Even if one were to do so, it's not clear that the federal government in that case would be either interested in setting rates itself, nor interested in controlling costs, nor firmly on the side of consumers against providers. If anything, the process is heavily run by outside industry, in terms of the role of outside advisory rate recommendations, and in terms of the process requiring private sector negotiated insurance payment rates as input, and in terms of the relative flexibility providers have in negotiating with CMS for various determinations and adjustments that affect ultimate reimbursement rates via contracts. I realize I'm being vague here. I'm also honestly getting a bit out over my skis, as I've never participated in the process directly myself. Regardless, here's a flowchart of the provider reimbursement process even after rate rules are promulgated and contracts are signed by providers to accept Medicare that shows you the effects of some of the post-contract determinations and adjustments I'm talking about.

https://imgur.com/FeeyA4E.png

Thank you! Now relate that very convoluted system to the simple process of a face to face auction; where one bids against the actions of other bidders; or, again, when dealing with a purchase of a product from potential multiple suppliers, where one simply states what one wishes to purchase and gets the equally simple answer of related cost.

As I see it, the entire system above is the responsibility of the point of sale; that such complexity should be invisible behind the determination of the cost of purchase. Pap Smear costs and a single price offered from each provider. Any other way brings in such complexity that the whole idea of a free market is completely lost.

Very thought provoking.

jk
02-19-19, 09:24 AM
the problem with standardization is that most treatments involve an n of 1. some procedures should be pretty standardized, although i suppose one practitioner might be more thorough and diligent than another in performing a pap smear, and one path lab may be of higher quality- hard to judge. medicare went to reimbursement for drg's- diagnostic related groups. didn't matter what you did- you were paid a set amount for treating condition x. of course this incentivizes choosing the most highly compensated diagnosis, not necessarily the most accurate one.

btw, doctors are not allowed to talk to one another about their pricing - it's illegal, a violation of antitrust law. if i talk to a friend about my fees i'm committing a crime, because we might gang up on blue cross or aetna.

dcarrigg
02-19-19, 12:13 PM
the problem with standardization is that most treatments involve an n of 1. some procedures should be pretty standardized, although i suppose one practitioner might be more thorough and diligent than another in performing a pap smear, and one path lab may be of higher quality- hard to judge. medicare went to reimbursement for drg's- diagnostic related groups. didn't matter what you did- you were paid a set amount for treating condition x. of course this incentivizes choosing the most highly compensated diagnosis, not necessarily the most accurate one.

btw, doctors are not allowed to talk to one another about their pricing - it's illegal, a violation of antitrust law. if i talk to a friend about my fees i'm committing a crime, because we might gang up on blue cross or aetna.

Yeah, you're right. This is what I meant before when I said we tried every combination of cost-saving scheme imaginable. It's not just on the patient side. It's also on the doc side. And on the insurance side. None of them ever bring costs down. I mean, we've tried literally everything BUT even more complicated nonsense. There's a whole CMS innovation center now just for trying pilots on weird combinations of incentives. Nothing ever works particularly well. And even if something seems to, the effects wash out after the short term.

Ultimately, I see it all sort of like May's Trilemma to keep it topical and up with the news.

You've got 3 motives. Sometimes they're aligned, sometimes they're conflicting. But they conflict in predictable ways.

1. You've got maximum profit on one hand.
2. You've got maximum health outcomes on the other.
3. And you've got efficient pricing on the third.

No matter how convoluted and complex we make the system, there's no way around the inherent conflict in meeting all three of these goals simultaneously. This is why the American system cannot and does not work at the core. Basically, we've settled for decades on the idea that the above list is in priority order, and we can pretty much just ignore 3, so long as we pay lip service to it. The result is runaway costs, middling health outcomes, but the most valuable healthcare sector in the world by far, both in raw terms and as a percentage of the economy as a whole.

https://imgur.com/SwkYgkm.png

DSpencer
02-19-19, 03:44 PM
I tried to explain the process in broad strokes with my numbered list before. Medpac (The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission) is the legislative independent advisory commission made of private practitioners (http://www.medpac.gov/-about-medpac-/commission-members) which recommends rates. CMS staff consults with Medpac staff and takes rates and rate policy under advisement. CMS then takes the NHED account survey data (https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/index.html) of provider rates paid to private insurers. The rulemaking process takes both these factors and public comment into account. Eventually a proposed rule comes out. Medpac comments again, something like this (http://www.medpac.gov/docs/default-source/comment-letters/09042018_macra_feeschedule_1693p_medpac_comment_v2 _sec.pdf?sfvrsn=0). They tinker again. Eventually, final rules are published in the fed register and set. Then providers decide whether or not they will accept Medicare, and negotiate all sorts of details, and get to recommend a number of their own adjustments and accounting methodologies, as broadly outlined in the provider reimbursement manual (https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/Paper-Based-Manuals-Items/CMS021929.html?DLPage=1&DLEntries=10&DLSort=0&DLSortDir=ascending). Eventually a contract is signed. Even after this, providers have some flex to affect rates.

So maybe you take issue with how I used the term 'negotiate.' It's not a free for all where a hospital CEO sits on one side of the table and a CMS bureaucrat sits on the other and they haggle rates. But neither is it an adversarial process in which a commission rules on rates and the government defends ratepayers against providers. The reality is different than either of those. The federal government doesn't just set rates. Industry has a huge role in the process, including the opening salvo out of medpac that sets the baseline for the process which I suppose I'm calling negotiation and you don't feel justifies the term. That's fine. Just a semantic quibble. Two points are that 1) providers don't have to accept Medicare at all, and, 2) there are a lot of ways they can push for and work to get reimbursed at higher rates. Hospitals also negotiate cost rates on the NIH and HHS and research side, sometimes as negotiated indirect cost rates (icrs), other times as lump sums.

It's very convoluted. I can get deeper in the weeds, but I don't think it will be very helpful. The physician fees are separate from the facility fees, equipment fees, pharma fees, etc. But if you want to see an example of the rule governing the process, here it is (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-11-23/html/2018-24170.htm). If you want to understand the mechanics of pricing better, you can play with the fee scheduler (http://www.cms.gov/apps/physician-fee-schedule/search/search-results.aspx). You'll have to know something about HCPCS codes. Suffice it to say pick a letter followed by 4 numbers. So P3001 is a pap smear, for instance. So there's the base. But notice the mods by locality (https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/PhysicianFeeSched/Locality.html) and MAC (Medicare Administrative Contractors (https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Contracting/Medicare-Administrative-Contractors/Who-are-the-MACs.html#MapsandLists), which are private intermediary entities), RVU (relative value units (https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/PhysicianFeeSched/PFS-Relative-Value-Files-Items/RVU19A.html?DLPage=1&DLEntries=10&DLSort=0&DLSortDir=descending)), various status and payment policy indicators, professional and technical components, etc. So roughly this is a broad sense of one side of the Part A and B payments. Part C payments are effectively de facto tied to percentages of the A & B amounts for various convoluted reasons, but are still independently negotiated between providers and private insurers that offer the plans. Part D we all know can't really negotiate with drug companies.

But the whole mess amounts to one simple take-away: It's not like thinking of the federal government as a monolithic price-setting entity is helpful here. Even if one were to do so, it's not clear that the federal government in that case would be either interested in setting rates itself, nor interested in controlling costs, nor firmly on the side of consumers against providers. If anything, the process is heavily run by outside industry, in terms of the role of outside advisory rate recommendations, and in terms of the process requiring private sector negotiated insurance payment rates as input, and in terms of the relative flexibility providers have in negotiating with CMS for various determinations and adjustments that affect ultimate reimbursement rates via contracts. I realize I'm being vague here. I'm also honestly getting a bit out over my skis, as I've never participated in the process directly myself. Regardless, here's a flowchart of the provider reimbursement process even after rate rules are promulgated and contracts are signed by providers to accept Medicare that shows you the effects of some of the post-contract determinations and adjustments I'm talking about.

All of this because you can't just admit the obvious fact that the federal government controls Medicare pricing?

Congress has the Comptroller General appoint 17 people to a committee that makes non-binding recommendations and you describe this as the hospitals being able to negotiate rates? You can say it's a semantic quibble, but I disagree.

In another context, you would find this laughable. Imagine a union who "negotiates" by having the CEO of the company appoint a committee, who then advises the Board, who then decides in their sole discretion how much to pay the workers. And the union members can individually accept the terms or quit. But they can't talk to each other about what they will accept or they are guilty of price fixing. And the company controls half of the jobs in that industry locally and nationally. Would you say the workers are negotiating their salary?

dcarrigg
02-19-19, 04:40 PM
All of this because you can't just admit the obvious fact that the federal government controls Medicare pricing?

Congress has the Comptroller General appoint 17 people to a committee that makes non-binding recommendations and you describe this as the hospitals being able to negotiate rates? You can say it's a semantic quibble, but I disagree.

In another context, you would find this laughable. Imagine a union who "negotiates" by having the CEO of the company appoint a committee, who then advises the Board, who then decides in their sole discretion how much to pay the workers. And the union members can individually accept the terms or quit. But they can't talk to each other about what they will accept or they are guilty of price fixing. And the company controls half of the jobs in that industry locally and nationally. Would you say the workers are negotiating their salary?

It would be more like having the board of directors appoint a committee of union members to draw up the first cut at suggested salary rates, then letting HR take that under advisement, then letting HR survey market pay rates for the job, then having a public comment period about salaries in which workers' concerns were heard, then drawing up draft salary rates, then letting the union board chime in again, then allowing workers to bill and account for their time in a variety of complex ways that let them game their salaries up after they sign the contract.

Maybe that's not a negotiation in the pure sense. But it's way closer to it than a CEO just dictating what a job pays. And I'd bet you dollars to doughnuts that wages would be higher and increase every time you went through this process if you were to attempt it today.

That's all I'm saying. So fine, I'll concede the point. Maybe it's not a negotiation in the strict sense. But neither is it rate setting with the intention on controlling costs. If it were, presumably costs wouldn't go up like they do, and healthcare costs might have otherwise stayed as flat as wages.

Chris Coles
02-19-19, 04:48 PM
During 2001 I sat beside another airline traveler who told me he was concerned that his daughter was not planning to become either a doctor or a banker, but instead was determined to become an archeologist. Now I fully understand why he was so concerned.

Thailandnotes
02-24-19, 06:30 AM
My understanding is the very best pace to go, high quality for moderate costs for surgical work is Thailand and for dental, Hungary.

Medical tourism is alive and well and expanding in Thailand. New hospitals are being built with different grade hotels next to them. There is an ongoing debate about how much if any this siphons off from the healthcare of the general public. A colonoscopy is still less than 500 dollars, a filling less than 50, and although big pharma is flexing its muscles, many drugs are still 1/10th the cost in the US. In addition, most drugs do not require a prescription eliminating repeated doctor's visits. Hospitals post prices and compete on basic services like complete physicals, stress tests, mamograms. Pharmacies have sales and prices are often negotiable. Surgery like knee replacements are routinely preformed by doctors trained in the US. A large majority of the younger doctors are female, refreshing in a society dominated by men. There is little pressure on doctors to quickly wrap up patient visits. In most inpatient care, the hospital handles all the paper work with your insurance company.

geodrome
02-24-19, 09:58 AM
So far Warren is running on:

— Universal day care
— Universal health care
— Universal income (in Green New Deal)
— Universal jobs program (in Green New Deal)
— Write off student loan debt
— Civilian Disarmament aka Gun Control
— Reparation for slavery

vt
02-24-19, 10:24 PM
Sounds like a plan! And a very bad one.

dcarrigg
02-25-19, 10:47 AM
So far Warren is running on:

— Universal day care
— Universal health care
— Universal income (in Green New Deal)
— Universal jobs program (in Green New Deal)
— Write off student loan debt
— Civilian Disarmament aka Gun Control
— Reparation for slavery

I'd wait at least until they get an official platform online before believing everything the media says they believe.

Gun control could be anything from background checks to bans. Reparations could be anything from existing affirmative action programs to fulfilling Sherman's Order No. 15. Writing off student loan debt could be anything from dropping interest rates to those the fed charges banks plus to a full blown.debt jubilee. Green New Deal means something different to everyone of them. So does "universal healthcare." You can mean universal healthcare in the Hillary sense of exactly what we have now, or you can mean it in the Bernie sense if a single payer system. Even Medicare for All means dropping the eligibility age for some, letting Medicare compete with private insurers for others, and a full blown single payer plan for still others.

I'll tell you one thing about Warren, though. Hate her all you want. But she's a get serious person, and all the "very serious people" know that. She's probably not gonna roll out a policy proposal that's too pie in the sky or impossible to implement. At least that hasn't been her mo since I've known her as a local senator. Is she liberal? Hell yeah. So was Ted Kennedy. That Massachusetts Senators for you. At the same time, I don't think she's coming for JimBob's Glock and taking 40 acres of his farm for reparations. The left goes on hyperbole rants that the right has taken to calling "Trump derangement syndrome." But it's no different than Obama derangement syndrome. Or pochahontas derangement syndrome. And it won't stick any better than Drumpf did among anyone but those who reside in the same echo chamber.

She may not even get out of first gear anyways. Her numbers in NH have been looking surprisingly weak to me. But there's a year of internet and TV ads between now and then. Just don't think it bodes well if she's polling fourth behind Harris in her own back yard. Figured she'd start in the natural top 3. So we'll see.

vt
02-25-19, 11:54 AM
In the end it'll be Hillary and Bernie fighting to see who runs against Trump.

https://www.theamericanmirror.com/ex-clinton-pollster-hillary-will-run-if-biden-doesnt-or-field-is-too-far-left/

dcarrigg
02-25-19, 12:29 PM
She'll have a hell of a time if she hops in late and now. Especially if she thinks the party will just line up for her again. She'll be an instant front runner. But she's gonna be shunned in certain places. She'll have to pray the south falls into line for her again, because it's unlikely the big coastal cities will. And there is a lot more competition this time.

Rules are very different for the Dems. No winner take all like the GOP. So 20-30% might put you ahead in any given state, but maybe with only a delegate or two more than number 2. So if you really soar or flop in one region or another, it can be crucial.

Thailandnotes
02-26-19, 06:34 AM
Hillary would get booed off the stage almost immediately. I think Warren is "weak" in part because of the poor campaign Hillary ran. I can't put my finger why Warren = blase, Sanders equaled excitement. I think Trump will lose. No matter who the democratic candidate is, the holed-your-nose vote will be huge which is in part why so many people are running. If there was going to be a 3rd party candidate, you would have needed a lot more fever before now.

Woodsman
02-26-19, 12:55 PM
Sounds like a plan! And a very bad one.

Get with the program, vt. Gun control, reparations, infanticide and tax increase to fund giveaways to the free sh!t army is the winningest platform ever.

For the GOP, that is. What I want to know is who the DNC is going to blame when this dumbassery gifts the Bad Orange Man with a second term? Maybe Venezuela or Iran?

dcarrigg
02-26-19, 01:53 PM
Get with the program, vt. Gun control, reparations, infanticide and tax increase to fund giveaways to the free sh!t army is the winningest platform ever.

For the GOP, that is. What I want to know is who the DNC is going to blame when this dumbassery gifts the Bad Orange Man with a second term? Maybe Venezuela or Iran?

Always plenty of free cash to print and give away to the rich, no strings attached, though. And the infanticide thing is a laugh. How many abortions you think that orange man fathered in his time? How about all the billionaires in the Chinese rub and tug down in Jupiter? Heard they wrapped the CFO of Citigroup up in that one too. Greedy pricks got billions of dollars and girlfriends a third their age, but they still want to dump their loads into some poor sex slave who lives in a strip mall for $60 an hour. Ah, the vaunted morally superior business elite. Good thing we gave Kraft and Co billions in public money...maybe if we all dig a little deeper to give him another tax cut he'll spring for a real escort next time...

Chris Coles
02-26-19, 02:11 PM
Always plenty of free cash to print and give away to the rich, no strings attached, though. And the infanticide thing is a laugh. How many abortions you think that orange man fathered in his time? How about all the billionaires in the Chinese rub and tug down in Jupiter? Heard they wrapped the CFO of Citigroup up in that one too. Greedy pricks got billions of dollars and girlfriends a third their age, but they still want to dump their loads into some poor sex slave who lives in a strip mall for $60 an hour. Ah, the vaulted morally superior business elite. Good thing we gave Kraft and Co billions in public money...maybe if we give him another tax cut he'll spring for a real escort next time...

I was about to ask about "Heard they wrapped the CFO of Citigroup up in that one too. Greedy pricks got billions of dollars and girlfriends a third their age, but they still want to dump their loads into some poor sex slave who lives in a strip mall for $60 an hour. Ah, the vaulted morally superior business elite." when I realised that you were not describing Citybank, as a once very good friend of mine did, as far as I know, marry into .......... someone at ~ that level.
(Removed the smiley as she was a very fine individual lady).

dcarrigg
02-26-19, 02:17 PM
It was John Havens.

Chris Coles
02-26-19, 02:22 PM
It was John Havens.

Did not know the name of the man.... a very long story..

Woodsman
02-26-19, 03:25 PM
Always plenty of free cash to print and give away to the rich, no strings attached, though. And the infanticide thing is a laugh. How many abortions you think that orange man fathered in his time? How about all the billionaires in the Chinese rub and tug down in Jupiter? Heard they wrapped the CFO of Citigroup up in that one too. Greedy pricks got billions of dollars and girlfriends a third their age, but they still want to dump their loads into some poor sex slave who lives in a strip mall for $60 an hour. Ah, the vaunted morally superior business elite. Good thing we gave Kraft and Co billions in public money...maybe if we all dig a little deeper to give him another tax cut he'll spring for a real escort next time...

Boss, where in any of my thousands of posts do you see me rooting for these giveaways to fat cats? For the record, I don't and never will. Me, I'm waiting in vain for the Fortress America EJ keeps predicting. I look foward to the day when all these gimmiemores from Davos to Detroit have to pay their own freight. I understand that after a lifetime of seeing socialism for the rich, these young poors want a piece of that action. I empathize and sympathize, but won't play ball. EJ once said that socialism (paraphrasing here) isn't in the DNA of America and I think he's right. Obviously, we're way out of kilter and it seems like the ship of state and economy will have to keep listing until it capsizes before we get our collective heads out of our butts and restore America to something we can all agree on. But socialism, for the rich or the poors, isn't the way. It looks like you'll get your wish soo er than later and watch the money printing buy all sorts of goodies like free healthcare, college, reparations, and everything else on the wish list. Only we'll do that AND still keep a military budget 60x bigger than the next 12 countries combined, while keeping the sugar flowing to every other blood sucking elite banker and similar vampire, per the iron law of oligarchy. Which in the end only precipitates the fall even faster, thus my enthusiastic support for Bernie and Tulsi in 2020.

As for the rub and tug, don't knock it until you try it. Me, I can still get it for free - God bless it, but I'm not about to judge Kraft or any of the poor shlubs who were collared with him. Dudes who don't get regular chakra releases get really weird and goodness there are too many incels out there already. Free the Jupiter Dozen and get your consenting freak on, free or for profit.

And my, aren't we judgmental today?

dcarrigg
02-26-19, 04:02 PM
You, EJ, Louis Hartz, whatever. The idea that forcing 10s of millions of Americans to eke by without health coverage and millions more to go bankrupt or choose between x Ray's and dinner is the only American thing to do and any attempt at solving the problem is Stalinisim is just plain hogwash. Was the USA socialist before daddy Reagan was governor of California, back when public tuition was free? I'm just imagining Kingfish labeled as a "socialist," rational sense be damned. So as long as we're cranking the rhetoric up to 11, and facts don't matter, I say, screw it, why not play the game? As for consent, I think you got a funny definition of it. Don't think too many little girls grow up dreaming of sleeping chained to a massage table in a suburban Florida strip mall. And it ain't like billions aren't enough of an aphrodisiac to get even the ugliest old bachelor some legal tail with minimal effort. But here we are. 2019. All morality is relative. Judging billionaires for buying sex with trafficked girls for $60 is somehow now striking out beyond The Pale. If no crime the rich commit is worth judging, and no amount of free money they get is socialism, but everything the rest of us do is worth judging and spending money on literally anything else is socialism, then bring on the gulags, because we already live in hell. Alternatively the rhetoric is overblown and stupid. You decide.

dcarrigg
02-26-19, 06:06 PM
Anyways, you've got to give me a bit of leeway on this one. To a New Englander, it's all just a rerun. We watched the last time Manafort and Stone were slithering around here, putting Eddie "the envelope" DiPrete on the throne of Vo Dilun. Not a whole lot different than his dad in New Britain. But at least Patriarca had enough sense to hand out a few hams come Christmas. Anyways, it ain't like the Kennedies didn't have their own past that proves Balzac's adage. But that's where I always feel the kids today get misunderstood. It's not all about material things. The dream got crushed on them. Now you need to be born into wealth to do anything. Not so long ago a Boy Scout from corn poke Ohio could, with a lot of talent and luck, become the first man to walk on the moon. Now if you wanna go, you need to be a billionaire and pay Musk for the ride. Not so long ago, a kid from Yorba Linda sat in the Oval Office. Now just to be a Senior Advisor or a cabinet member you gotta marry In to the royal family or have a daddy who started the Amway pyramid scheme. They haven't built a new middle class ranch in your town in 25 years. Can't bring your kids to a damn Patriots game without blowing 5% of your household's net annual income anymore. But old Bobby still ain't decent enough to use that ticket money to order a working girl who's not a slave. You can keep thinking it's all about the money, and jealousy, and sour grapes if you want. But so long as you do, you're missing the point.

Woodsman
02-26-19, 07:20 PM
Anyways, you've got to give me a bit of leeway on this one...

You got it, boss.

dcarrigg
02-26-19, 09:43 PM
You got it, boss.

Sooner, rather than later, through action or through inaction, thy will be done.


https://youtu.be/v0nmHymgM7Y

vt
02-27-19, 04:18 AM
First, it's both sides. They both have elites. Democratic socialists have elites that will bankrupt the country and leave all poor.
And the right wing elites that have their elites that try to keep all for self.

However socialism in all forms destroys economies and fairly regulated free markets allow poor, uneducated hard working people
break out and create a larger middle class. It's all about freedom and the current progressives want to stifle it.

As you may recall I disliked both candidates. In 2016 I stated numerous times that Democrat Jim Webb was the best candidate running, and one who could unite the nation.

I also stated ban all money from all sources for political candidates. Give them a stipend to spend and that's it. Get the money out of the system.

I came from blue collar and went to public schools that probably the most diverse in the country. Best friends of all races and nationalities.

I stated why did the progressive fail to try the banksters and politicians that caused the crash. Of course it was the big bucks that they so gladly accepted to be bought off.

There's a pox on both houses and the holier than thou progressive, media supported lackey party doesn't want to admit there part in the payoffs.

Hopefully we see a third party get rid of these two divisive political party charlatans.

dcarrigg
02-27-19, 10:16 AM
I don't know how much more clearly I can explain this. One more try. There's two theories on how to stimulate the economy at this point. There is no austerity party. There is no third party. It is a binary choice.

Option 1: Cut taxes for rich people hoping it spurs investment.
Option 2: Invest in the health and education of workers, hoping it spurs productivity.

The story of the last half century has been choosing option 1 every time as hard as we can, and even cutting access to option 2 and making it more expensive over time, to the point life expectancy is going backwards, people are despondent, and homeownership rates are back down to Hoover levels for the youth.

You gotta pick, 1 or 2. Can't be neutral on a moving train. You and I both know you pulled the straight ticket R lever. You can't even criticize a single thing they do. I can. Clinton wanted to cut taxes for the rich too. Just like her husband. Just like Carter. You called all them socialist too. But they were really more like Tony Blair, who was just Thatcher in a suit. He was so right wing and deep in Rupert Murdoch's business, he ended up sleeping with his wife, the Chinese spy after he cooked up fake and poorly forged intel to get into the Iraq War, introduced tuition fees, and cut back on nurses.

That's what centrism is. That's what the pox on both houses people mean. Pick option 1 every time, cut back on option 2. Obamacare was a Heritage foundation plan, cooked up by John Chafee, the Rhode Island Republican and implemented by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. But when a right wing Democrat tried it Nationwide, you called it socialism and tried to destroy even your own plan.

Don't you see? The boy cried wolf too many times. If Republican plans cooked up by Republican Senators and the Coors family's Republican think tank back in the 1990s are branded socialist in the 2010s, then everything is socialist. Canada is socialist. Venezuela's socialist. China's socialist. Everywhere and everything is socialist. Pretty soon, it means nothing. You just use the word to describe anything you don't like.

So you see what happens, right? Kids know you don't like them. They know that anything that might make their lives better, or really any change whatsoever at all except tax cuts, you will just brand as socialist. So more and more they're starting to just take up the label. If Canada's socialist and it seemed nice up there, why not try it, right? Be careful what you wish for. You call right wing Democrats and 1990s tax levels and Republican market based healthcare exchanges socialist long enough that I think nobody will believe you when the real wolf comes. They'll just go, "Oh, that's just grandpa, he always mutters some nonsense about free markets and socialism. I think it's probably something about the cold war from when he was a kid. Anyway, don't mind him."

Then the kids will hop online and talk to their friends from other countries where they see threads and Instagram photos of outrageous tuition and medical bills every day and every Brit and Canadian and even the Aussies send their pity and advise the broke American to emigrate. But in that environment, your solution is even more tax cuts for the rich. Just keep hitting that same note. Health and education are socialism. Unlimited tax subsidies for billionaires is the only path forward.

jk
02-27-19, 11:01 AM
i really appreciate the level-headed way you deal with this stuff, dcarrigg. i'm always happy to read your posts and writing less myself helps control my blood pressure.

vt
02-27-19, 03:42 PM
Yada, yada.

Paint anyone who disagrees with a left wing agenda as a heartless person who wants to deny health care and education to little children.

Bill Clinton was a centrist and his administration did well. Democrats and Republicans were both centrists before 2000.

You have no idea how any one voted or even if they voted. Not sure today's leftists really want to solve problems, just get control.

Have those on the left who use the race card and other lies ever lived exclusively with the poor on a poverty wage? Did you come from working poor? Have family that came from dirt poor poverty?

Maybe those that want to throw even more money at the Democrat controlled education and health care rackets just want to create more high paying bureaucratic, unproductive paper shuffling jobs pay off their educated party elite, than to help the poor improve health and education and become middle class individuals.

They'll keep going down that same old tired road to failure, but still getting votes to stay in power because they "care".

As Woodsman said the left and right elites have no idea what they are doing and that their days a few. They will be replaced as independents with real innovative ideas to solve problems are voted into power and unite the nation.

geodrome
02-27-19, 04:39 PM
You gotta pick, 1 or 2. Can't be neutral on a moving train.

Gotta pick? Must pick? Can't be "neutral?"

Imagine a voter turnout of 15%. A big FU from the people. No mandate. What then?

dcarrigg
02-27-19, 06:22 PM
2018 turnout was the highest in a midterm in over 100 years. Extremely high on both sides. In another environment maybe that happens. But I don't see it as a possibility in the here and now. The electorate is less centrist and less complacent than any time in living memory. Conversely, they are more active and more polarized than too. The idea that they'll all just suddenly give up the ghost and become centrists or non voters without some massive intervening event seems super improbable given the trends.

I'm on about what I think will happen, not what I think ought to.

dcarrigg
02-27-19, 08:10 PM
Yada, yada.

Paint anyone who disagrees with a left wing agenda as a heartless person who wants to deny health care and education to little children.

Bill Clinton was a centrist and his administration did well. Democrats and Republicans were both centrists before 2000.

You have no idea how any one voted or even if they voted. Not sure today's leftists really want to solve problems, just get control.

Have those on the left who use the race card and other lies ever lived exclusively with the poor on a poverty wage? Did you come from working poor? Have family that came from dirt poor poverty?

Maybe those that want to throw even more money at the Democrat controlled education and health care rackets just want to create more high paying bureaucratic, unproductive paper shuffling jobs pay off their educated party elite, than to help the poor improve health and education and become middle class individuals.

They'll keep going down that same old tired road to failure, but still getting votes to stay in power because they "care".

As Woodsman said the left and right elites have no idea what they are doing and that their days a few. They will be replaced as independents with real innovative ideas to solve problems are voted into power and unite the nation.

What ideas? What problems?

We can't even agree on what facts are.

There's no way to innovate out of those loggerheads.

We'd first have to agree that there are problems. We'd then have to agree on what those problems are. We'd then have to agree on acting to solve them. And that's all before we even get to the point of discussing solutions.
.
I don't see it happening. People are just gonna get more polarized until one vision or another comes to fruition. If we get to the 2030s it seems either we'll have no corporate or estate or cap gains taxes, or we'll have universal healthcare and affordable college and more progressive taxes. Either way, the deficit is going towards 150% of GDP. Those are the choices I see.

I don't see a middle ground. The status quo is not a stable state. It's like civil unions, they seemed like a good compromise between gay marriage and no gay marriage, but the middle was actually an untenable position that couldn't last. Doing nothing at this point and clinging to the status quo will create change just as fast as doing something.

There are folks who labeled Uncle Sam a beast, and they set out to starve him. They did a pretty bang up job too. Now he's hungry. Either they'll push until the job is done and they've starved him out, or he'll feast. Either way, I expect the next 10 years to be much more interesting than the last.

vt
02-27-19, 08:27 PM
Voter turnout has been declining historically. There are at least 40% that do not vote:

http://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present


I have a theory that many of the actual voters for Clinton and Trump were not necessarily strong supporters. They may well have been voting Against the other candidate than For who they vote in favor of.

There are likely more than enough voters to gain 34% of the vote to win a Presidental election. Not high percentage odds but doable. Perot polled at least that high and lead for a short period.

dcarrigg
02-27-19, 08:53 PM
Voter turnout has been declining historically. There are at least 40% that do not vote:

http://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present


I have a theory that many of the actual voters for Clinton and Trump were not necessarily strong supporters. They may well have been voting Against the other candidate than For who they vote in favor of.

There are likely more than enough voters to gain 34% of the vote to win a Presidental election. Not high percentage odds but doable. Perot polled at least that high and lead for a short period.

That's Michael McDonald's website. Here are his figures for 2018 and his thoughts about 2020: https://mobile.twitter.com/electproject/status/1063504733841879040

Turnout is historically very high. It was higher back in the day when women couldn't vote at all and you had property qualifications and Jim Crow hurdles that limited the voting eligible population. But there were never more Americans that voted in a midterm than in 2018. https://www.google.com/amp/nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2018/11/2018-turnout-was-the-highest-of-any-midterm-since-1914.html

vt
02-28-19, 12:41 AM
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/27/phone-polling-crisis-1191637

dcarrigg
02-28-19, 02:43 PM
In the Starspins of Zorelta 3127 there was a planet called Blornax. Blornax was the seat of a powerful trading empire, the most powerful planet in the Galaxy, actually. This wasn't something many foresaw just a few hundred starspins ago. Blornax was located on an out of the way spiral arm. It was more or less a political oddity, never the most populated planet, and long somewhat untamed. In fact, settlers from the galactic core only landed on Blornax about 500 starspins ago.

But for the last couple hundred starspins, Blornax had been more or less ruled by a Chancellor. The Blornaxians were good spacefarers and ship builders. Blornax itself was full of valuable natural resources and good farmlands. Every few starspins they'd elect a new Blornaxian Assembly and a new Chancellor. Soon the Blornaxian military and trade routes stretched across the Galaxy. And with that came great wealth and great expenses.

There had always been a number of very wealthy Blornaxian families, just as there had always been Blornaxian slums. At least as far as anyone could remember that was the case. Most Blornaxians thought of this as the normal order of things, and very few bothered to question it. But then, about the YoZ 3110, a quiet change took place.

See, in 3110, the High Court of Blornax issued a decree. It ruled that, since telepathy helmets and telepathic transmissions cost credits, and since Blornaxians are guaranteed the right to telepathy, that therefore credits were an expression of telepathy, and so unlimited sums of credits could be spent during a Blornaxian election to send out telepathic messages for or against any candidate one wishes, and the Blornaxian Assembly was no longer allowed to regulate spending on political telepathy.

Most Blornaxians thought this was probably a bad idea. Most did not like it. But, nevertheless, it came to pass and became the law of the land. Blornaxians soon went back to arguing about other issues and largely forgot all about it.

What few Blornaxians noticed was that an odd shift in power on Blornax had already begun. Three years after the High Court's decree, the first credit bleenionaire was appointed Minister of Commerce by the Chancellor. Blornaxians use an odd base 11 number system, and ut doesn't quite translate, but suffice it to say that bleen is quite a large sum. Only a hundred or so families on all of Blornax were bleenionaires. And in all of Blornaxian history, even adjusting credits for inflation, no bleenionaires have ever served as Minister before.

But, as I said, most Blornaxians didn't stop to notice. Normal Blornaxians were just tired and stressed. They were constantly bombarded with more and more telepathic messages, from Blornax and beyond. Most were just advertising products. But some clever folks skilled in telepathic technology were probing ever deeper into the minds of Blornaxians, working to find out intimate details that might be used to nudge their behavior through future telepathic messages timed just right.

And in any event, it seemed most Blornaxians had to work harder and harder and go to school longer and longer just to stay out of the slums. Things were not dire for Blornaxians. They still were largely comfortable by galactic standards. But the trade rules had been repeatedly changed over the last few starspins in ways that disadvantaged most Blornaxians, but which led to large windfalls for the hundred bleenionaires families.

Bleenionaires meanwhile had been buying up more and more of the telepathic networks. Everyone knew this, but most Blornaxians didn't pay it much mind. After all, as long as the telepathic broadcasts were still there, who cared if the owner of them was a bleenionaire or a slevionaire or someone with even lesser means? A transmission is a transmission, right?

And so, obvious and in plain sight as it occurred, nobody stopped to question what was happening when the first bleenionaire was elected Chancellor just three years after the first bleenionaire had been appointed Minister of Commerce. And this new Chancellor appointed members of five other bleenionaire families as Ministers.

Soon other bleenionaire families on Blornax took notice. One of them moved immediately to try and remove the Chancellor. Several others sent telepathic messages across Blornax stating their intentions to run against the Chancellor in 2120. Nine short starspins after the High Court of Blornax ruled that credits were telepathy, the separation of wealth and political power on Blornax had all but totally disappeared.

But still, few Blornaxians noticed. Few cared. A good chunk griped that the bleenionaires had raided the Blornaxian Treasury and that life was getting harder for most Blornaxians. But somehow few grasped the gravity of bleenionaires suddenly for the first time in Blornaxian history actively capturing political office and bleenionaire families suddenly spending enormous quantities of credits on telepathy as they started fighting amongst themselves for political power.

See, the bleenionaires had long been the heads of the most lucrative trade routes, and they knew a thing or two about how far they could push negotiations. They figured that they had already squeezed the average Blornaxian about as hard as they could, at least while the Blornaxian Republic still stood. And they knew they raided the Blornaxian Treasury, in fact, it was empty and they had been borrowing on the planet's credit to maintain their lavish lifestyles. And no new trade routes had been discovered in tens of starspins. If the bleenionaire families wanted their fortunes to grow, and most did, the obvious next step was to capture existing trade routes from rival bleenionaire families. Soon bleenionaire families were investing heavily in starships and mercenaries along with telepathy. They were digging in for the long war, and preparing to turn on each other. The Blornaxian Republic had turned into a mere appendage for their own affairs.

Which brings us to the Starspin 3127...

vt
03-02-19, 09:31 PM
Here's how Shultz or some other independent could win the Presidency:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/01/how-howard-schultz-could-become-president/?utm_term=.79806404d861

Chris Coles
03-03-19, 04:45 AM
Gotta pick? Must pick? Can't be "neutral?"

Imagine a voter turnout of 15%. A big FU from the people. No mandate. What then?

Perfect!

Chris Coles
03-03-19, 04:53 AM
What ideas? What problems?

We can't even agree on what facts are.

There's no way to innovate out of those loggerheads.

We'd first have to agree that there are problems. We'd then have to agree on what those problems are. We'd then have to agree on acting to solve them. And that's all before we even get to the point of discussing solutions.
.
I don't see it happening. People are just gonna get more polarized until one vision or another comes to fruition. If we get to the 2030s it seems either we'll have no corporate or estate or cap gains taxes, or we'll have universal healthcare and affordable college and more progressive taxes. Either way, the deficit is going towards 150% of GDP. Those are the choices I see.

I don't see a middle ground. The status quo is not a stable state. It's like civil unions, they seemed like a good compromise between gay marriage and no gay marriage, but the middle was actually an untenable position that couldn't last. Doing nothing at this point and clinging to the status quo will create change just as fast as doing something.

There are folks who labeled Uncle Sam a beast, and they set out to starve him. They did a pretty bang up job too. Now he's hungry. Either they'll push until the job is done and they've starved him out, or he'll feast. Either way, I expect the next 10 years to be much more interesting than the last.

Yesterday I asked Finster Market Discussion - Page 27 (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/28039-Market-Discussion?p=314740#post314740) if he had read the latest speech by the FED Chairman Powell Federal Reserve Board - Recent Economic Developments and Longer-Term Challenges (https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20190228b.htm) as I believe that there is an underlying debate going on and that this speech confirms that.


Finster, as you will no doubt remember, I had placed up here on iTulip a debate about a possible use of the FED $ stash as http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...-Roots-Economy (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/29161-Recapitalisation-Of-The-Grass-Roots-Economy) and, that I did also send a copy to Powell at the FED, as also a copy to the White House. Not sure if you noticed, but this speech by Powell in New York February 28th Federal Reserve Board - Recent Economic Developments and Longer-Term Challenges (https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20190228b.htm) seems to point towards his taking some of my underlying points on board, particularly about the possibility of the unemployment figures being too good to be true. Again, he seems to be asking for further political guidance, beyond their normal remit. I would welcome your viewpoint. Chris.

Techdread
03-03-19, 08:02 AM
i really appreciate the level-headed way you deal with this stuff, dcarrigg. i'm always happy to read your posts and writing less myself helps control my blood pressure.

+1

Polish_Silver
03-03-19, 11:01 AM
At least 3 solutions:

Fed or state governements open up clinics available to the public at cost.

Price transparency and real choice, both at individual level and for insurance companies

End the model of "fee for service" make it more like "fixed salary for so many patients"

Direct government control of prices (japan)


A big mystery is why a major insurer does not create a vertically integrated system and offer care at 1/10 the price,
and gain market share. Kaiser is the closest.

Polish_Silver
03-03-19, 11:35 AM
Yada, yada.

Paint anyone who disagrees with a left wing agenda as a heartless person who wants to deny health care and education to little children.

Bill Clinton was a centrist and his administration did well. Democrats and Republicans were both centrists before 2000.


As Woodsman said the left and right elites have no idea what they are doing and that their days a few. They will be replaced as independents with real innovative ideas to solve problems are voted into power and unite the nation.

The electoral system prevents independents from getting into office. How can an independent get a plurality in a congressional district?

Until we have proportional representation, things will not change, because new parties do not have a chance. How can we get those
in power to change the system that keeps them in power?

lakedaemonian
03-11-19, 01:47 AM
At least 3 solutions:

Fed or state governements open up clinics available to the public at cost.

Price transparency and real choice, both at individual level and for insurance companies

End the model of "fee for service" make it more like "fixed salary for so many patients"

Direct government control of prices (japan)


A big mystery is why a major insurer does not create a vertically integrated system and offer care at 1/10 the price,
and gain market share. Kaiser is the closest.

Check out Circle Medical.

Disclosure: we are investors

Circle Medical are enhancing the primary care medical experience leveraging technology(genuine AI: Doctor/Machine hybrid utilisation) combined with reduced fixed infrastructure costs.

Small(Bay Area only), but very fast growing, and with far higher margins compared with traditional primary care.

Worth keeping an eye on.

rjwjr
03-11-19, 07:24 PM
Warren is a lightweight. I read her 2003 book (The Two Income Trap) and found it informative but, lacking in solutions that resonated with me. Just because she can identify some issues doesn't mean she knows how to solve them. Add in the lack of charisma and recent rookie mistakes (heritage, beer thingy) and she fails the heavy-weight test. We have 350million+ people from which to choose. We can do better than Warren. Much better.

That being said, rather than trying to identify the best third party solution/candidate, my opinion is that our efforts would have the greatest potential impact coupled with the greatest potential chance of becoming reality if we created a groundswell of support for; 1] greater states rights (less federal power) and 2] senate & congressional term limits. All of this federal power is exacerbating the political divide while simultaneously increasing the stakes. Dilute/diffuse the problem by marginalizing the players and spreading the power. Instead of rallying behind finding a candidate, let's rally around finding someone to lead us toward getting some constitutional amendments on a federal ballot.

And, that being said, I personally don't see why any logical individual would ever vote for a progressive/liberal/democratic candidate for president when comparing the current state of affairs in California, New York, Illinois versus those in South Dakota, Texas, Tennessee. I'm registered Non-Party Affiliated because I hate the politics on both sides, but hey, conservative leaders have done a better job state-by-state in the metrics that make sense to me. It's about as black & white as it gets.

And, before you pigeon-hole me as a biased conservative, I'm also a pro-choice (although it's a horrible choice to be faced with), pro-gay marriage (although straight), atheist (although I respect most God-fearing individuals for their moral compass & compassion toward others). I think for myself and methinks conservatives have proven better public leaders than have progressives.

It's science :)

davidstvz
03-20-19, 04:22 PM
Warren wants to dissolve the electoral college. Any Warren supporters having second thoughts yet?

dcarrigg
03-20-19, 04:38 PM
Warren wants to dissolve the electoral college. Any Warren supporters having second thoughts yet?

Haven't really had time to look into it in depth yet. But isn't she talking about the national popular vote compact? That plan has been around for years. Fwiw, I think even if it worked, it'd work once and only once than states would crash out of it. But there's nothing totally strange or illegal about it. No constitutional restrictions on how states choose to assign electoral college delegates. Maine and Nebraska are relevant examples.

That said, looks like she's not handling the press on it well.

jk
03-20-19, 06:03 PM
the electoral college, and the non-population-based number of senators for each state were devised to convince smaller and less populous states to sign onto the constitution and join the UNITED states. here we are now, about - what- 230 years later still living with that deal. i don't see it going away: there are too many states which are beneficiaries, certainly too many to allow an amendment to the constitution, and even too many to get the national popular vote compact.

in a way, i can see a silver lining to these realities. ultimately they will FORCE the different political tribes to deal with one another. wasn't that the idea in creating the UNITED states?

thriftyandboringinohio
03-20-19, 06:26 PM
the electoral college, and the non-population-based number of senators for each state were devised to convince smaller and less populous states to sign onto the constitution and join the UNITED states. here we are now, about - what- 230 years later still living with that deal. i don't see it going away: there are too many states which are beneficiaries, certainly too many to allow an amendment to the constitution, and even too many to get the national popular vote compact.

in a way, i can see a silver lining to these realities. ultimately they will FORCE the different political tribes to deal with one another. wasn't that the idea in creating the UNITED states?

All good points.
Senators representing just 25% of the US population have a veto proof 60 votes that can defeat Senators representing the other 75% of Americans.




These 62 senators represent about one-fourth of the people in the United States.

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2013/03/04/senate/314b226ba74fa5d4207ef989f82e6637e5b44bc7/group1.jpg

vt
03-20-19, 06:51 PM
We are a republic, not a pure democracy.

Read "Democracy In America"

https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-America-Unabridged-Translated-Introduction/dp/1420954121/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?hvadid=241893200349&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9007586&hvnetw=g&hvpos=1t1&hvqmt=e&hvrand=12018489637537394802&hvtargid=kwd-34042412&keywords=democracy+in+america&qid=1553118618&s=gateway&sr=8-1-spons&tag=googhydr-20&psc=1

dcarrigg
03-21-19, 09:44 AM
I very much like that book, vt. Gustave de Beaumont and Alexis de Tocquville were keen observers of America. In fact, they observed pure democracy in town meetings in New England. They also observed slavery on plantations in Georgia. And if I recall correctly, they just about predicted civil war because of the wide gap in values back in 1830, a generation and a half before civil war finally broke out.

I think in a way, the story of America has always been spit in two like this.

There was John Winthrop's Massachusetts vision of a City on a Hill based on the Sermon on the Mount when he founded Mass Bay colony on Arbella. It was very concerned with things like direct democracy, education, and being an example for the world. Oh, it was a cruel, religious intolerant place of witch trials and more. But it was as democratic as anything since ancient Athens.

Then there was the Virginia colony idea of Sir Walter Raleigh. He himself was a nobleman. He was much more interested in order. Burgesses could not vote directly in town meetings. They could only elect representatives to assemble. There never was direct democracy there.

The tradition of local pure democratic government continues to this day, if only in the six New England states, where every citizen is a town legislator, counties mean basically nothing, and towns have the power of cities and counties combined in other states (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_town).

Here, where I live, we are a pure democracy. This is part of how we don't see eye to eye. My first experience with government was as a little boy dragged along to a town meeting where I saw my father, who was no elected official, argue his part for how something in the town ought to go. It was pure democracy, in the literal sense. And I suspect that colors how I view government in America, and how I think it should be even when it isn't yet, to this day.

It's funny because you can see it in elements of pop culture like the Simpsons monorail episode and such. I always wondered what people in other parts of the country think they're doing in those town meetings where town citizens are deciding how to spend budget surpluses. It's totally normal here. But to the rest of the country it must seem like the mad invention of a wild cartoon writer.

Anyways, if ever you see crazy northeastern blue state people going on about Democracy in America, realize that we very much use direct democracy in our day-to-day governments up here and have for about 400 years. Southerners can keep telling us we're a republic not a democracy until they're blue in the face, but when town meeting day comes around, it's not gonna jibe with reality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_meeting).

dcarrigg
03-21-19, 10:07 AM
It's only gonna get worse given demographic trends. In the past, these problems were dealt with by making new states. Split Dakota into north and south for political reasons & senate count. Split Maine off of Massachusetts for the same reasons. Don't see why they couldn't have north and south Rhode Island. About as many people as the Dakotas combined there now...

thriftyandboringinohio
03-21-19, 12:04 PM
...We are a republic, not a pure democracy...



That's a pretty import point vt.

It's clear to me we get better government through representative democracy than we do through direct democracy. At the state level I've seen the explosion of direct referendums over the past 30 years, and I'm not very impressed with the results of most of these referendums in my state and others.

It's not that we citizens are stupid; it's that we individual citizens just don't have the time to deeply research the consequences, nor the skills to understand the legal subtleties of referendum language. It's too easy for a smooth operator with a hidden agenda to whip the mob into a frenzy and get a goofy referendum passed into law. We get better laws when our representatives and their staffs work through the issue and write the laws.

I'm awfully glad we don't have any mechanism for direct citizen referendums at the federal level.

seobook
03-21-19, 01:04 PM
It's only gonna get worse given demographic trends. In the past, these problems were dealt with by making new states. Split Dakota into north and south for political reasons & senate count. Split Maine off of Massachusetts for the same reasons. Don't see why they couldn't have north and south Rhode Island. About as many people as the Dakotas combined there now...
It was easier to make new states when the economy was not saturated by debt. It would be much harder to divide assets & pension liabilities today. Sharp changes in either could perhaps end up rescoring debt ratings & force redemptions of debt & issuance of new debt at a higher rate.

dcarrigg
03-21-19, 02:12 PM
It was easier to make new states when the economy was not saturated by debt. It would be much harder to divide assets & pension liabilities today. Sharp changes in either could perhaps end up rescoring debt ratings & force redemptions of debt & issuance of new debt at a higher rate.

I don't see why it would be any harder now than then. It's not like Massachusetts didn't have any debt obligations in 1820 when Maine was cut out of her. Ditto with West Virginia. Don't see why it should be any more difficult to work through which entity gets which assets and which liabilities than it was to break up Ma Bell or spin Fox out like just happened the other day. Let the markets panic if they want. They get over it soon enough.

seobook
03-21-19, 03:41 PM
I don't see why it would be any harder now than then. It's not like Massachusetts didn't have any debt obligations in 1820 when Maine was cut out of her. Ditto with West Virginia. Don't see why it should be any more difficult to work through which entity gets which assets and which liabilities than it was to break up Ma Bell or spin Fox out like just happened the other day. Let the markets panic if they want. They get over it soon enough.

When the financial economy controls the political economy debt is holier than any version of god.

Also, given the lack of willpower to scrub the fraud out of the healthcare system, the economy is structurally dependent on asset bubbles for the government to fund itself.

In the current age of social media - where rage leads all - it would probably take an extreme degree of physical violence to alter the financial system for the better of the bottom 80% of the economy.

Capital is much more entrenched in its control over government. And it is much more mobile.

dcarrigg
03-21-19, 04:06 PM
When the financial economy controls the political economy debt is holier than any version of god.

Also, given the lack of willpower to scrub the fraud out of the healthcare system, the economy is structurally dependent on asset bubbles for the government to fund itself.

In the current age of social media - where rage leads all - it would probably take an extreme degree of physical violence to alter the financial system for the better of the bottom 80% of the economy.

Capital is much more entrenched in its control over government. And it is much more mobile.

Nothing I disagree with there. I don't see new states happening any time soon without a drastic shift. I think I misinterpreted your last post to be about the impossible when it seems to me now you meant it more about the improbable. Actually doing it is not so hard. Getting up the gumption to go for it is much tougher. But then again, sometimes big shifts happen. I would not have predicted this Brexit mess 10 years ago, even after UKIP's showing in the EU elections, for example.

vt
03-22-19, 02:12 AM
But DC, Alexis de Tocquville warned about the Tyranny of the Majority, which recognized why the founders created a republic vs. a pure democracy.

And as far as making life better for the 80% on the bottom we don't need violence. Simply do what I proposed a few years ago.

"Take ALL the money out of politics"

No money from any source: corporations, unions, special interest groups, wealthy individuals. Nothing. Nada.

Right now we have the best government money can buy. And we got robbed!

dcarrigg
03-22-19, 09:53 AM
You don't have to worry so much about tyranny of the majority if you set the process up right. Madison et all fretted a lot about that in the federalist papers 10 and 51 etc. And I agree with I believe thrifty who said that the voter initiative stuff becomes a nightmare if it's poorly designed. California has more or less proven that.

But believe it or not, vt, we have been using direct democracy up here for hundreds of years, and our states are run pretty well, and our towns aren't controlled by tyrants. Direct democracy is as American as apple pie, clam chowder, maple syrup, and lobster tails.

But it's not a system where somebody can lawyer up a few legal lines and we just get a majority vote up or down. It's also not a system where we don't (sorry for the double neg) select people from among ourselves to take on certain specialized roles and responsibilities for limited times. It's not asking the masses a yes or no question once per year. It's looking each other in the face and talking and arguing out what to do and deciding whom you trust to do what.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4JVC0f5RFo

Chris Coles
03-22-19, 02:49 PM
You don't have to worry so much about tyranny of the majority if you set the process up right. Madison et all fretted a lot about that in the federalist papers 10 and 51 etc. And I agree with I believe thrifty who said that the voter initiative stuff becomes a nightmare if it's poorly designed. California has more or less proven that.

But believe it or not, vt, we have been using direct democracy up here for hundreds of years, and our states are run pretty well, and our towns aren't controlled by tyrants. Direct democracy is as American as apple pie, clam chowder, maple syrup, and lobster tails.

But it's not a system where somebody can lawyer up a few legal lines and we just get a majority vote up or down. It's also not a system where we don't (sorry for the double neg) select people from among ourselves to take on certain specialized roles and responsibilities for limited times. It's not asking the masses a yes or no question once per year. It's looking each other in the face and talking and arguing out what to do and deciding whom you trust to do what.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4JVC0f5RFo

Thank you. Here in the UK I live in a small village which has a Parish council that meets regularly. But not many local people ever attend from the local community. In large part because the bureaucracy has created additional hurdles in the form of District and County councils, where the bureaucrats hold all the power. I will pass this on to my Parish Councillor.

ProdigyofZen
03-24-19, 04:21 PM
Warren wants to dissolve the electoral college. Any Warren supporters having second thoughts yet?

Not only that but she wants a "commission" on reparations.

Like that won't sow more hatred when African Americans are suddenly granted X amount of money and go out to buy cars and houses that the other 60% of poor to middle class can't afford.

I can see that going over really well......

She has lost touch and all the Democrats are just trying to out do the others on policy.

ProdigyofZen
03-24-19, 04:24 PM
i doubt eliz warren is a viable candidate, but if so she won't buy substituting identity politics for an attack on the finance industry.

Looks like she is going right for identity politics, as she is making a huge campaign push for reparations.

Polish_Silver
03-26-19, 08:06 AM
I'd say a much bigger problem is her stance on immigration (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/04/david-frum-how-much-immigration-is-too-much/583252/). I don't see how she can get so much economics right
and ignore the effect of immigrants on wages, house prices, traffic, schools, etc.


Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand have called for abolishing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

show me the towns doubling the zoning for multifamily housing, adding a lane to every expressway, two lanes to every interstate, etc.

dcarrigg
03-26-19, 08:55 AM
I'd say a much bigger problem is her stance on immigration (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/04/david-frum-how-much-immigration-is-too-much/583252/). I don't see how she can get so much economics right
and ignore the effect of immigrants on wages, house prices, traffic, schools, etc.



show me the towns doubling the zoning for multifamily housing, adding a lane to every expressway, two lanes to every interstate, etc.

The ICE thing is just symbolic. The agency was created in the aftermath of 9/11, about 15 years ago.

Before that, we had INS do most of what people imagine ICE doing now, with Customs Officers being a separate service, and the FPS police who monitor federal facilities and lands being another separate service, etc.

Believe it or not, Customs Officers, Border Patrol, & Air and Marine Operations were transferred out of ICE into Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in 2003. Air Marshalls were transferred out of ICE in 2005. FPS was transferred out of ICE in 2009.

ICE was created to combine all these things. It failed. The agency is basically just a husk of what it was designed to do. Changing it back to the old INS and moving it from Homeland Security to Justice would not be the end of the world. In fact, it would probably be smart.

The whole thrust of Homeland Security was supposed to be a response to Terrorism anyways. Always felt to me like they tried to jam too many things in there. So they took Coast Guard away from Defense and INS away from Justice and the Secret Service away from Treasury and combined them with FEMA.

And when you think about it, it's not entirely clear how these missions intersect. FEMA drops trailers in places that flooded. Secret Service finds counterfeiters and protects the President. Coast Guard rescues boaters at sea. INS catches illegal immigrants, not at the border, but at work or whatever.

But there will always be customs and border officers of one kind or another, whether they're called Customs Officers or CPB. Always has been since George Washington. The INS mission is a bit different. Its purpose is to catch folks who overstay visas and stuff.

It's a Gilded Age Era invention. Lots of parallels now with the Gilded Age. People became very concerned with immigration then. They had wanted it in the 1870s for railroad workers, but not so much by the 1890s. And by the time the Chinese Exclusion Act passed and INS was born and all this was happening, we were only about 10 years off from Teddy Roosevelt and Trust Busting.

Anyways, we have these complicated visa restrictions now, and somebody's gonna have to enforce them. So they can abolish ICE and win a few points with some of the base, bring back INS or give it a new 3 letter name, probably close down or soften the detention facilities because there've been some controversial developments there, and call it a day. Or just let CPB take over ICE's function.

I don't think it's fling open the borders time for anyone.

That said, it's not obvious what her strategy is with immigration. It's pretty clear that the overarching sentiment is so slow it down. And to be honest, lots of folks on the left realize immigration's a tool to drive down the price of domestic labor, and will agree with that. In fact, folks on the left have been talking about open borders as a right wing idea for some time now.

I think maybe it's only ivory tower establishment centrists who want open borders. I don't know if you caught this clip from 2015. But Ezra Klein thinks he can get Sanders to agree to open borders, and it doesn't go the way he thought it would.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0

DSpencer
03-26-19, 11:49 AM
The ICE thing is just symbolic...


I don't think it's fling open the borders time for anyone.

That said, it's not obvious what her strategy is with immigration. It's pretty clear that the overarching sentiment is so slow it down. And to be honest, lots of folks on the left realize immigration's a tool to drive down the price of domestic labor, and will agree with that. In fact, folks on the left have been talking about open borders as a right wing idea for some time now.

I think maybe it's only ivory tower establishment centrists who want open borders. I don't know if you caught this clip from 2015. But Ezra Klein thinks he can get Sanders to agree to open borders, and it doesn't go the way he thought it would.



The average person doesn't understand any of the nuance about INS vs ICE. So to the extent it's symbolic, the symbolism is that people advocating to abolish ICE are advocating against a symbol of enforcing immigration policy. Nobody is chanting "bring back INS".

I hate the binary division of everything into right and left, but seriously, what evidence supports the idea that open borders are a right wing idea? Donald Trump is claimed by many to be aligned with not only the right, but the "FAR RIGHT." The people at his rallies are screaming "BUILD THE WALL!" Meanwhile candidates on the left are calling to abolish ICE. I'm really supposed to conclude that open borders is a right wing idea? Dcarrigg, you have posted often about the importance of agreeing on the meaning of words. What is right wing? Are most Trump supporters not considered right wing? What right wing candidate supports open borders?

Bernie's interview was very interesting and surprising to me. Other than the weird part about open borders being a right wing concept, I found his message to be a very logical position.

I really can't make sense of the liberal position on open borders. If someone's position is:

1. Existing illegal immigrants should not be deported. They should have a path to citizenship instead.
2. We should not build walls to keep illegal immigrants out.
3. We should not separate illegal immigrant children from their families or throw whole families in jail.
4. Immigrants are hard working people and we need them here to help grow our economy.

How is that not essentially an open borders policy? It's basically saying we should have laws about immigration, but should never enforce them because it's inhumane; and the people who break them are good people who are helping America and should be made into citizens.

From feelthebern.org:

"From Bernie believes that border security is an important aspect of immigration law and reform, but does not support stronger measures to increase it and does not think border security should be connected to a border fence (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/bernie-sanders-tells-latinos-he-bacsk-immigration-reform-naleo-n378691)."

That's the definition of lip service in my mind. Imagine if his position was "College tuition needs to be affordable, but I don't support any measures to make that happen."

jk
03-26-19, 12:24 PM
my understanding is that illegal immigration has been declining, and that also much or most of it is people overstaying visas, not people crossing the border from mexico. a wall, as i understand it, is not an efficient use of funds if we indeed want to put more funds into border security.

i agree that bernie's position is an endorsement of the immigration status quo.

as for right wing support for immigration, i think it exists at the BUSINESS level, not the populist one. i.e. illegal low skill agricultural workers in california and texas, increased LEGAL h1-b's desired by tech companies.

dcarrigg
03-26-19, 02:40 PM
The average person doesn't understand any of the nuance about INS vs ICE. So to the extent it's symbolic, the symbolism is that people advocating to abolish ICE are advocating against a symbol of enforcing immigration policy. Nobody is chanting "bring back INS".

I hate the binary division of everything into right and left, but seriously, what evidence supports the idea that open borders are a right wing idea? Donald Trump is claimed by many to be aligned with not only the right, but the "FAR RIGHT." The people at his rallies are screaming "BUILD THE WALL!" Meanwhile candidates on the left are calling to abolish ICE. I'm really supposed to conclude that open borders is a right wing idea? Dcarrigg, you have posted often about the importance of agreeing on the meaning of words. What is right wing? Are most Trump supporters not considered right wing? What right wing candidate supports open borders?

Bernie's interview was very interesting and surprising to me. Other than the weird part about open borders being a right wing concept, I found his message to be a very logical position.

I really can't make sense of the liberal position on open borders. If someone's position is:

1. Existing illegal immigrants should not be deported. They should have a path to citizenship instead.
2. We should not build walls to keep illegal immigrants out.
3. We should not separate illegal immigrant children from their families or throw whole families in jail.
4. Immigrants are hard working people and we need them here to help grow our economy.

How is that not essentially an open borders policy? It's basically saying we should have laws about immigration, but should never enforce them because it's inhumane; and the people who break them are good people who are helping America and should be made into citizens.

From feelthebern.org:

"From Bernie believes that border security is an important aspect of immigration law and reform, but does not support stronger measures to increase it and does not think border security should be connected to a border fence (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/bernie-sanders-tells-latinos-he-bacsk-immigration-reform-naleo-n378691)."

That's the definition of lip service in my mind. Imagine if his position was "College tuition needs to be affordable, but I don't support any measures to make that happen."

There's nothing here I really disagree with. I think we're on the same page for the most part.

But here's the thing: there is no agreement on the meaning of this stuff!

Leftists tend to think open borders is a right wing idea. They really do. Not liberals. Leftists. I don't feel like folks on the right quite grasp the distinction between those groups on the left. And it's not easy, because there are some folks who blur it.

The equivalent might be libertarians and conservatives. Libertarians, at least the Koch variety, tend to support open borders. Conservatives don't. And I think, if I go way out on a limb, leftists more often view libertarianism as extreme right wing, and liberals tend to view conservatives as extreme right wing. But that's way out on a limb. And it's easy to talk past each other.

Leftists and Conservatives in this vein sometimes just get labeled "populist," and the idea then becomes "Populism vs. Centrism" or some dichotomy like that. In reality, everything's more complicated.

But I might suggest that if you want an example of right wing open borders supporters, maybe look at Amash et all's letter to Paul (https://amash.house.gov/press-release/amash-sends-letter-sen-paul-immigration).

And I'd go further and suggest the following:

The real question is simply: "Do we want to let more or fewer immigrants in over the next few years?"

I think you would find some very right wing Senators like Rand Paul who would answer, "More." Maybe more, with caveats. But more.
I think you would also find some very left wing Senators like Bernie Sanders who would answer, "Fewer." Maybe fewer, with caveats. But fewer.

So it doesn't map necessarily in ways people would think at first blush.

As far as the security stuff goes, the leftist version will always be warmer and fuzzier. Partly because white collar criminals do less time in a country club for ruining countless lives than these kids do on a cold cement floor with a space blanket for having committed no crime themselves. Mostly because the idea that a child should have to suffer state punishment for the sins of his father is really antithetical to a group of people who aren't keen on the concept of inheritance.

So it's a mixed bag.

My personal position is that the wall/fence/whatever is fine. I don't object to it. I also have no objection to slowing down immigrant flows. I think it's necessary at this point politically. I further think there's no political will to pull an Eisenhower Operation Wetback type of mass deportation option. So I figure it's probably better to get those who are here on the books somehow. Can't do it for free, there has to be a penalty since the law was broken. But the pathway should be there. Limbo status is no good for nobody. You also don't want the precedent that this happens every 30 years. So it's worth getting on top of with more visa restrictions and agents to enforce them. I don't think this is terribly hard. I'm just a couple generations off the boat myself. And my experience has been generally that immigrants are hardworking people. But the US is also a nation-state and its citizens have every right to restrict immigration flows and reasonable reasons to want to do so from time to time. I also think it's reasonable to restrict capital flows too (not just labor flows), especially foreign mass purchases of real property. But there too, I'll butt heads with libertarian-minded folk.

Anyways, if that doesn't sound like a very left wing position to you, I wouldn't be surprised. But I suspect you'd find it pretty common amongst the rank and file left, if not the liberal high-rise folk. Labor, self-determination, and non-domination are the principles at work. The Democrats largely sold labor out. The left still hasn't forgiven them. The general opinion amongst the left is that Clinton was a terrible president who gutted Roosevelt's New Deal, deregulated telecom giving rise to things like Murdoch and Bezos owning increasingly monopolized and partisan media, and deregulated banks giving rise to the Great Recession. It's not uncommon to hear people say HW was a better president. View is that Americans have a raw deal now. Worst healthcare at the highest prices. Most expensive education. Fewest labor protections. Fewest benefits. Most people arrested or in prison. Life for most citizens is unnecessarily brutal.

Thing is, the liberals run the DNC. And they care much more about what the elite think than what Joe the union pile driver thinks. And that pisses the left off. Especially the labor left.

Did you catch this Time article from a couple years ago? (http://time.com/4170591/bernie-sanders-immigration-conservatives/) Sanders and the other labor-minded pols have a looooong record of voting against measures to expand immigration. They routinely vote to reduce visa numbers and reduce the number of guest workers and all that. They see it as a method by which corporate America imports low wage workers and drives down the price of labor. What's weird about this is that it's mostly northeast and midwest Dems who aren't the party elite but who've been there forever on the "fewer immigrants" side. The "centrist" Dems and blue dogs from the south like Tim Kaine always vote for more visas and more guest workers.

It's part of what I mean by saying centrism is an ideology, not the middle ground between left and right. It's really whatever corporate America wants. So the idea's like this: Centrism means no healthcare for Uncle Sam's kids. But also open borders for cheap labor. Tax cuts for the wealthy. But also no sick days for the janitor. It's always what the boss wants in the extreme. There's nothing moderate about it.

dcarrigg
03-26-19, 03:02 PM
This is a rough sense of the picture. Immigration numbers were drastically reduced under W & Obama. In part because of policy and increased policing and the secure communities act and whatnot.

http://i1.wp.com/metrocosm.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/usa-immigration-flows.png?w=600

DSpencer
03-26-19, 03:45 PM
my understanding is that illegal immigration has been declining, and that also much or most of it is people overstaying visas, not people crossing the border from mexico. a wall, as i understand it, is not an efficient use of funds if we indeed want to put more funds into border security.

i agree that bernie's position is an endorsement of the immigration status quo.

as for right wing support for immigration, i think it exists at the BUSINESS level, not the populist one. i.e. illegal low skill agricultural workers in california and texas, increased LEGAL h1-b's desired by tech companies.


I think there exists a lot of confusion about the means vs. the goal and probably much of it on purpose. Trump gets a lot of criticism that the wall isn't a cost effective way of securing the border. That's likely true. However, the people doing the criticizing don't seem to be pushing a real alternative that would achieve the same goal through different means. The Trump opposition groups aren't chanting "install more cameras" or "hire more border patrol" or "deport overstayed visa holders."

Sure, people like Bernie claim they want to secure the border. I assume they see it as a weakness if they admit to wanting open borders. Maybe Bernie really does want it, as I said, he presents a pretty good working-class justification. But to the extent that immigration is a motivating issue for Bernie's supporters or any other democratic nominee, it seems to all be in the direction of being friendlier to immigrants rather than securing borders, enforcing laws, deporting immigrants, etc.

It doesn't seem like business owner support for immigration is split along party lines in a way that would make it seem like a right-wing issue. Sure, maybe there are some right wing business owners that break from the rest of their right wing brethren on immigration because it benefits them personally. But I doubt they are more likely to support higher immigration levels than left wing business owners.

DSpencer
03-26-19, 04:59 PM
There's nothing here I really disagree with. I think we're on the same page for the most part.

But here's the thing: there is no agreement on the meaning of this stuff!


The terms are imprecise and the confusion only worsens over time because even if Left and Liberal were used distinctly at one time, they are now used interchangeably by most people. Also, just like trying to sort people into Right and Left is oversimplifying, the same is true for Left or Liberal.

Some libertarians hold positions on largely ideological rather than pragmatic grounds and this sometimes leads to positions others find extreme. I think most people that consider themselves at least somewhat libertarian (such as myself) try to balance. In an ideal world, it would be great if humans could choose to live wherever they preferred, rather than being bound in many cases to wherever they happened to be born. In the real world, that creates an enormous problem.

Defining a moderate or a centrist is always difficult, even in theory. Libertarians might consider themselves moderate because they are "socially liberal and fiscally conservative." But if another person is the opposite, are they both moderates? Or is a moderate supposed to have some balanced view on every issue? I think that's often the ideal portrayal: that a moderate is someone who believes in reasonable compromises between two extreme positions on every issue. In many cases that probably is the right answer, but it's often hard to even pin down what it would mean in any given situation.

The reality is that a left-right spectrum just doesn't capture the complexity. Adding two dimensions might get you closer, but it still doesn't really work.

The problem with the pathway to citizenship (or even just legalization) is that if you can't or won't stop the inflow of illegal immigrants, then it will always be a repeating cycle. I think most people would come around to the idea of doing a one time legalization, if they believed it was really the last time. But most skeptics, rightly in my opinion, question whether the will to enforce the law going forward exists. That's the appeal of Trump to the anti-immigration crowd. His over the top rhetoric gets him a ton of flak, but it signals to the people that care that he really means what he says. Does anyone really believe that Bernie is going to secure the border, even if he says we should? Since nobody will admit that their real position is lax enforcement and cyclical amnesty, you have to look for other clues.

I'm curious what would happen if a Democrat actually used immigration enforcement as a core position. Take Bernie's position that American workers have to come first. Soften the blow by offering the pathway for people already here. But beat the drum like Trump did that we are shutting down the southern border and turning people away, not because they are rapists and murders, but because the jobs they want are our jobs and we aren't giving them away to the lowest bidder. Maybe they would end up in no man's land, but it would be interesting to see.

dcarrigg
03-26-19, 11:22 PM
Defining a moderate or a centrist is always difficult, even in theory. Libertarians might consider themselves moderate because they are "socially liberal and fiscally conservative." But if another person is the opposite, are they both moderates? Or is a moderate supposed to have some balanced view on every issue? I think that's often the ideal portrayal: that a moderate is someone who believes in reasonable compromises between two extreme positions on every issue. In many cases that probably is the right answer, but it's often hard to even pin down what it would mean in any given situation.

It seems to me the convention is that moderate or centrist means socially liberal, fiscally conservative, although generally more neoliberal than libertarian in orientation, more corporate realpolitik than pure libertarian ideology would allow. I've never heard of fiscally liberal socially conservative people labeled as moderate or centrist. Seems to me they're always branded 'populist,' which has a much more negative connotation likely due to the preferences of media moguls. Of course, the term populist has been used for everyone from Trump to Sanders and in between. So it's just kind of a catch-all for doesn't tow the mainstream corporate culture line.


The problem with the pathway to citizenship (or even just legalization) is that if you can't or won't stop the inflow of illegal immigrants, then it will always be a repeating cycle. I think most people would come around to the idea of doing a one time legalization, if they believed it was really the last time. But most skeptics, rightly in my opinion, question whether the will to enforce the law going forward exists. That's the appeal of Trump to the anti-immigration crowd. His over the top rhetoric gets him a ton of flak, but it signals to the people that care that he really means what he says. Does anyone really believe that Bernie is going to secure the border, even if he says we should? Since nobody will admit that their real position is lax enforcement and cyclical amnesty, you have to look for other clues.

I'm curious what would happen if a Democrat actually used immigration enforcement as a core position. Take Bernie's position that American workers have to come first. Soften the blow by offering the pathway for people already here. But beat the drum like Trump did that we are shutting down the southern border and turning people away, not because they are rapists and murders, but because the jobs they want are our jobs and we aren't giving them away to the lowest bidder. Maybe they would end up in no man's land, but it would be interesting to see.

It almost doesn't matter. Facts don't matter. More people were deported under the Obama Administration than ever in American history (https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2016/table39). He got almost no credit for it one way or the other. Right just paints him as weak on immigration. Liberals think he was dovish on immigration. Facts tell another story. In fact, deportations fell under Trump (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/12/14/deportations-under-trump-are-rise-still-lower-than-obamas-ice-report-shows/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2013fb5da7f1). But the medium is the message. The perception is all people absorb. That's the rub about the border fence. The objection's mostly to the symbol, not the reality. And the fence itself in fact is somewhat a symbol. It might deter a few entries, probably not most. But I've accepted that nobody cares about facts. So I'm fine with the fence. It's just a few billion. Screw it.

But I guess to circle back to your point, even if a Democrat does deport millions of people, nobody listens. It's like the narrative is fixed. People don't understand how other people are thinking. And somehow the perception of everyone has become an extreme caricaturized stereotype of reality. My view is that these perceptions are used to make people fight about things that don't cost much money so that you can rob them blind in the process. Notice that the largest single piece of domestic legislation since Obamacare was a debt-financed tax cut primarily aimed at large publicly-traded c-corporations and the highest income earners. America has a lot of problems. Not enough federal debt or not enough money for corporate execs etc. wasn't really one of them. Yet somehow made it to the top of the priority list, ahead of immigration, ahead of infrastructure, ahead of everything else.

Polish_Silver
03-27-19, 06:58 AM
This article (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/04/david-frum-how-much-immigration-is-too-much/583252/)matches my impression, that immigration is still very high, and could increase.


By 2027, the foreign-born proportion of the U.S. population is projected to equal its previous all-time peak, in 1890: 14.8 percent. Under present policy, that percentage will keep rising to new records thereafter.

This may be mostly legal immigrants. The article did not spend a lot of time distinguishing legal from illegal. Wilton Ct, is close to lily white.

But in surrounding towns, (Norwalk) you almost think there are more immigrants (https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/immigrants-connecticut)than native born.

Chris Coles
03-27-19, 07:15 AM
This article (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/04/david-frum-how-much-immigration-is-too-much/583252/)matches my impression, that immigration is still very high, and could increase.



This may be mostly legal immigrants. The article did not spend a lot of time distinguishing legal from illegal. Wilton Ct, is close to lily white.

But in surrounding towns, (Norwalk) you almost think there are more immigrants (https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/immigrants-connecticut)than native born.

But everybody in the United States is foreign-born, or stems from the original immigration started in Virginia; except of course, those native populations that were there already.

dcarrigg
03-27-19, 09:18 AM
But everybody in the United States is foreign-born, or stems from the original immigration started in Virginia; except of course, those native populations that were there already.

Anglo-Saxon Protestants consider themselves the only true Americans. And it's very obvious to everyone else, especially tribal peoples. When someone like Sarah Palin was talking about "Real America" and the "Real Americans," that's what the dog heard. This isn't sour grapes or anything. It's just fact, glaring and obvious through American history, but uncouth to mention. The original Constitution, of course, was not signed by just WASPs, but most people presume it was. There were, in fact, a number of other folks, German, Irish, French, Scotch, Catholic, etc. But they were a minority of the signatories.

Ben Franklin spelled it all out quite clearly:


Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion. Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_LgOPoA5T8&t=14s

DSpencer
03-27-19, 10:50 AM
But everybody in the United States is foreign-born, or stems from the original immigration started in Virginia; except of course, those native populations that were there already.

There's all kinds of US born people whose parents immigration didn't stem from the "original immigration" in Virginia except in the broadest of senses. But putting that aside. Everyone is an immigrant, or the descendant of an immigrant, or the descendant of "native populations" that are basically only classified as such because they immigrated before modern countries or history.

What's your point? This kind of thing gets said all the time as if the United States is somehow totally unique in this regard. What place isn't made up of immigrants or the descendants of immigrants? Is there some time limit where you say "well, now that the US is 500 years old, we are no longer a nation of immigrants." Is the implication that the US has some different set of rules than the UK or Egypt or China that says we don't have a right to determine immigration policy as a country because our immigrants are too recent?

Chris Coles
03-27-19, 12:13 PM
There's all kinds of US born people whose parents immigration didn't stem from the "original immigration" in Virginia except in the broadest of senses. But putting that aside. Everyone is an immigrant, or the descendant of an immigrant, or the descendant of "native populations" that are basically only classified as such because they immigrated before modern countries or history.

What's your point? This kind of thing gets said all the time as if the United States is somehow totally unique in this regard. What place isn't made up of immigrants or the descendants of immigrants? Is there some time limit where you say "well, now that the US is 500 years old, we are no longer a nation of immigrants." Is the implication that the US has some different set of rules than the UK or Egypt or China that says we don't have a right to determine immigration policy as a country because our immigrants are too recent?

Fair comment; point taken.

dcarrigg
03-27-19, 01:29 PM
There's all kinds of US born people whose parents immigration didn't stem from the "original immigration" in Virginia except in the broadest of senses. But putting that aside. Everyone is an immigrant, or the descendant of an immigrant, or the descendant of "native populations" that are basically only classified as such because they immigrated before modern countries or history.

What's your point? This kind of thing gets said all the time as if the United States is somehow totally unique in this regard. What place isn't made up of immigrants or the descendants of immigrants? Is there some time limit where you say "well, now that the US is 500 years old, we are no longer a nation of immigrants." Is the implication that the US has some different set of rules than the UK or Egypt or China that says we don't have a right to determine immigration policy as a country because our immigrants are too recent?

All that said, the citizenship convention in the western hemisphere is different. No, this doesn't mean citizens don't have a right to determine immigration policy. I agree with you there. At the same time, blood and soil are not the same here as in the old world.

https://i.ibb.co/ZWSPT30/Screen-Shot-2019-03-27-at-12-26-59-PM.png

DSpencer
03-27-19, 03:44 PM
All that said, the citizenship convention in the western hemisphere is different. No, this doesn't mean citizens don't have a right to determine immigration policy. I agree with you there. At the same time, blood and soil are not the same here as in the old world.



That's an interesting map. I was not aware how consistent the divide is. There's no doubt that cultural attitudes are different. I just don't like the implication that somehow we are bound to accept huge numbers of immigrants because we have historically.

One of my big personal concerns is environmental. I live in Ohio. Just a few hundred years ago there would have been bison, elk, wolves, bears, and mountain lions in this area. Now there's a few isolated black bears and every once in a while someone claims to see a mountain lion. At one time there were tens of millions of bison across nearly the entire country. Now there's a few thousand wild and free in a few small areas. Maybe that doesn't matter to some people, but I think it's a devastating loss.

Why do we need more people in the US? It's one thing to accept huge numbers of immigrants when the country was relatively uninhabited, but we have 325 million people now and every day we have 2,500 more than the day before. Nothing against the people of India or Bangladesh, but I don't want that kind of population density here.

One minute I hear about how we need immigrants to grow the economy and then next minute we need UBI because the robots are going to take everyone's job. I'm not so dystopian about the robots but it's pretty clear already that we don't need the same quantity of labor to work the fields, mine, factories, etc.

dcarrigg
03-27-19, 04:36 PM
That's an interesting map. I was not aware how consistent the divide is. There's no doubt that cultural attitudes are different. I just don't like the implication that somehow we are bound to accept huge numbers of immigrants because we have historically.

One of my big personal concerns is environmental. I live in Ohio. Just a few hundred years ago there would have been bison, elk, wolves, bears, and mountain lions in this area. Now there's a few isolated black bears and every once in a while someone claims to see a mountain lion. At one time there were tens of millions of bison across nearly the entire country. Now there's a few thousand wild and free in a few small areas. Maybe that doesn't matter to some people, but I think it's a devastating loss.

Why do we need more people in the US? It's one thing to accept huge numbers of immigrants when the country was relatively uninhabited, but we have 325 million people now and every day we have 2,500 more than the day before. Nothing against the people of India or Bangladesh, but I don't want that kind of population density here.

One minute I hear about how we need immigrants to grow the economy and then next minute we need UBI because the robots are going to take everyone's job. I'm not so dystopian about the robots but it's pretty clear already that we don't need the same quantity of labor to work the fields, mine, factories, etc.

My inclination is to be against UBI and in favor of slowing immigration flows at the present moment, so for once I really have little to argue with you about.

Chris Coles
03-28-19, 04:32 AM
That's an interesting map. I was not aware how consistent the divide is. There's no doubt that cultural attitudes are different. I just don't like the implication that somehow we are bound to accept huge numbers of immigrants because we have historically.

One of my big personal concerns is environmental. I live in Ohio. Just a few hundred years ago there would have been bison, elk, wolves, bears, and mountain lions in this area. Now there's a few isolated black bears and every once in a while someone claims to see a mountain lion. At one time there were tens of millions of bison across nearly the entire country. Now there's a few thousand wild and free in a few small areas. Maybe that doesn't matter to some people, but I think it's a devastating loss.

Why do we need more people in the US? It's one thing to accept huge numbers of immigrants when the country was relatively uninhabited, but we have 325 million people now and every day we have 2,500 more than the day before. Nothing against the people of India or Bangladesh, but I don't want that kind of population density here.

One minute I hear about how we need immigrants to grow the economy and then next minute we need UBI because the robots are going to take everyone's job. I'm not so dystopian about the robots but it's pretty clear already that we don't need the same quantity of labor to work the fields, mine, factories, etc.

The obvious answer is to enable an increase in prosperity within every other nation whose citizens keep trying to cross into your nation. Except that what you have is an administration determined to enact any and every possible means to ensure the slavery of every other nation to the needs of the US.

geodrome
03-28-19, 12:05 PM
@DSpencer

I appreciate your commentary around here.

DSpencer
03-28-19, 12:40 PM
My inclination is to be against UBI and in favor of slowing immigration flows at the present moment, so for once I really have little to argue with you about.

Hahaha! The elusive common ground. We did it!

Honestly, we might agree on more than you think. Most people, myself included, have a tendency to respond only when they disagree. It's like the saying that if you want to know something, don't ask a question, just give the wrong answer. Then everyone jumps out of the woodwork to say why it's wrong (or at least why they disagree).


@DSpencer

I appreciate your commentary around here.

Thanks!

DSpencer
03-28-19, 02:00 PM
The obvious answer is to enable an increase in prosperity within every other nation whose citizens keep trying to cross into your nation. Except that what you have is an administration determined to enact any and every possible means to ensure the slavery of every other nation to the needs of the US.

The US needs to accept more people so that the countries they are emigrating from will have an increase in prosperity? If other countries are sending their "best and brightest" wouldn't the effect be the opposite? In any case, I have no idea why the benefit of other countries should be the main decision factor for the US.

I don't like Trump and I haven't voted for a two party candidate in a long time. America is far from perfect in its interactions with the world. But honestly, you need to get a grip. "...enact any and every possible means to ensure the slavery of every other nation..." That kind of hyperbole is just ridiculous.

dcarrigg
03-28-19, 03:12 PM
Hahaha! The elusive common ground. We did it!

Honestly, we might agree on more than you think. Most people, myself included, have a tendency to respond only when they disagree. It's like the saying that if you want to know something, don't ask a question, just give the wrong answer. Then everyone jumps out of the woodwork to say why it's wrong (or at least why they disagree).



Thanks!

It's one of the nice things about these old-style longer-term, slow forums. Get to get more of a sense of people and where they're coming from over time. Don't have to always just knee-jerk onto the topic-du-jour. And the lack of feeds and post-ranking algorithms takes a lot of the noise out of the equation. Internet's full of useless noise. Finding a useful signal in it is harder each passing year. I'm sure we probably do agree on more than we realize.

I honestly can't really fathom who finds UBI particularly attractive. Especially Yang's plan. It's bananas. It's not totally dissimilar from Nixon & Moynihan's old FAP in some respects, but in others it's uniquely strange. And it's not hard to see who benefits. But you have to follow along.

1. It basically supplants welfare and disability. So anyone receiving benefits now would get nothing out of it.

2. So the 10% VAT to fund it ends up being regressive and really screwing over poor and disabled people compared to the status quo.

3. This should be obvious, but a 10% VAT on everything means it's not actually $1,000 extra per month. And by the point you hit a $10,000 per month spend (not figuring in any exemptions), you're back at square one. Go over, and it's a net negative.

4. $1,000 per month is not enough to live on, especially since he's proposing not to disburse it until age 18, so families with kids don't get as much out of it. Note: This is not universal since kids don't count. And since it supplants other benefits, the poor and disabled don't really get anything either. So we've already gone from universal to everyone but the poor, the disabled, and children.

5. It might be a slight net gain for moderate income people, but that would significantly depend on the details of how the VAT was applied to real estate & housing. I don't see how any serious plan could omit details on that. It could hit the mortgage markets like a sledgehammer. The income would compensate for some of it. There's a lot of devil in these details.

6. So it doesn't really provide freedom not to work. You can't even run a 2-income household with no kids on $24k gross annually in the US. Maybe you could eke it out in some of the poorest areas. But it's going to be tough and miserable. And $12k per year for an individual alone might buy a year's healthcare or a year's rent, but probably not both, and certainly not utilities and food and all. The freedom/automation argument just makes no sense at $12k per year.

7. It's clear that he intends on having this supplant disability insurance, less clear on whether he intends on having it supplant old age or survivor's portions of Social Security. He never comes out and says it. But he also never explicitly promises it won't, so far as I've heard. My guess is the math's not gonna work if he doesn't, but who knows. That's a HUGE fight, and a potential huge cut for elderly people and middle aged workers who've paid in so long.

8. So now I've narrowed down who benefits, I suppose. Young, able-bodied moderate income people who rent relatively cheaply with low-wage jobs but without children. And even then, if they have a $5k monthly spend, they're only benefitting to the tune of $6k per year thanks to the VAT. Guess it's perfect for pandering to students. But it generates a lot of pain for everyone else in the process.

9. It's literally much cheaper and easier to just make public college free (~$75 billion / yr) and have a student debt jubilee (~$1.6 trillion one time), than to make these payments (~$2.8 trillion annually), and the drag of a new VAT tax (he's estimating ~$800 billion/yr).

10. To make up the difference, he's proposing ~$600 billion/yr in cuts to current welfare and social insurance programs, projecting ~$200 billion/yr in unproven reductions in imprisonments and hospitalizations, and projecting ~$600 billion/yr in new revenue growth concomitant with a highly unlikely 13% GDP bump, and I guess the other $600 billion per year would just be debt financed. But I suspect the plan would is probably coming up a trillion or so annually short. And I have a sneaking suspicion that trillion, if he gains any traction (which I doubt), will suddenly come out of Social Security old age insurance.

I feel for kids just starting out. You know I do. I think the $75 billion to make public college tuition free is easy and totally possible within the realm of existing fiscal constraints, and probably only held back by private schools protesting it. And I think student debt is hurting the prospects for homeownership and raising families for a whole generation unnecessarily, especially when the gap between the interest rates the government charges banks and the interest rates it charges students is so wide (it's not like it's unsecured, since it's secured by the fact there's no bankruptcy and there's wage and benefit garnishments). But I think this is a stupid and expensive solution to the problem.

More than that, I think the whole automation argument is a farce. It's super easy to blame non-human things and non-policy decisions for stagnant wages. It's markets! or it's robots! just means it's inevitable! Which is absurd. People have agency in resource distribution decisions. It's the whole basis of the social contract. Blaming anyone other than decision-makers for the fact wages have been stagnant for 40 years is absurd. There's plenty of money and resources to go around. And there's plenty of work that needs doing. If capital isn't allocated to the work that needs doing and the people who need to be doing that work, then that's a policy failure. Not the magic of technology or markets. And you don't solve that policy failure by leaving the existing power structure in tact, adding a new tax, stripping old benefits, and replacing it with poverty subsidies.

Like everything else coming out of Silicon Valley these days, it's a solution just begging for a problem, and a deflection from the real problems that exist.

https://jimbuchan.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Wizard.jpg

DSpencer
03-28-19, 07:01 PM
The basic premise of UBI is somewhat disingenuous. It implies that somehow everyone can get extra money. In reality it's not much more than a redistribution scheme. Then the question just becomes who is going to pay and who is going to benefit. Using a VAT to pay for it muddies the waters a bit, but ultimately the tax has to be paid by someone (or by everyone who uses money through inflation for the MMT sticklers).

If we are the point where the best or only solution to inequality is to have a sliding scale of welfare not just for the poor but all the way up to people making 6 figures, then let's at least be honest about what we are doing and why.

I think the question of whether lots of individual welfare/benefit programs should be replaced by just giving money is one worth considering. I think there's good arguments on both sides, but at least it could greatly reduce the bureaucratic overhead expenses. That's really not a central part of UBI though. It's just an optional twist on it. We could do that without UBI or could do UBI without changing existing benefits. In fact, Yang's plan seems to give people the option which seems like the worst idea of all because then you have to keep all the benefits administration in place for every program.

Chris Coles
03-28-19, 07:36 PM
The US needs to accept more people so that the countries they are emigrating from will have an increase in prosperity? If other countries are sending their "best and brightest" wouldn't the effect be the opposite? In any case, I have no idea why the benefit of other countries should be the main decision factor for the US.

I don't like Trump and I haven't voted for a two party candidate in a long time. America is far from perfect in its interactions with the world. But honestly, you need to get a grip. "...enact any and every possible means to ensure the slavery of every other nation..." That kind of hyperbole is just ridiculous.

What you see below is an excellent example of what I am describing and I have to say the sight of this turning up on my home PC, makes me very sad indeed. You see, this occurred this week, not twenty years ago, two days ago. It is the result of perhaps the most honest medical doctor on the internet, Dr. Joseph Mercola, www.mercola.com (http://www.mercola.com) being silenced; I am no longer permitted to read his criticism of US government agencies and pharmaceutical industrial practices. And no, the action to prevent access was taken by my UK government, not yours. Our government will have been asked to do this by yours. Apart from a very brief news item on BBC TV news, nothing in any newspaper; total silence.

Now you may well believe, quite honestly, that I am ridiculous. But take my word for it, this is just another example, I could give much more, of the pernicious nature of the lack of any real intent to deliver freedom; by the leader of the free world. Certainly not freedom as I understand the word.

http://www.itulip.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5906&stc=1

dcarrigg
03-28-19, 09:04 PM
The basic premise of UBI is somewhat disingenuous. It implies that somehow everyone can get extra money. In reality it's not much more than a redistribution scheme. Then the question just becomes who is going to pay and who is going to benefit. Using a VAT to pay for it muddies the waters a bit, but ultimately the tax has to be paid by someone (or by everyone who uses money through inflation for the MMT sticklers).

If we are the point where the best or only solution to inequality is to have a sliding scale of welfare not just for the poor but all the way up to people making 6 figures, then let's at least be honest about what we are doing and why.

I think the question of whether lots of individual welfare/benefit programs should be replaced by just giving money is one worth considering. I think there's good arguments on both sides, but at least it could greatly reduce the bureaucratic overhead expenses. That's really not a central part of UBI though. It's just an optional twist on it. We could do that without UBI or could do UBI without changing existing benefits. In fact, Yang's plan seems to give people the option which seems like the worst idea of all because then you have to keep all the benefits administration in place for every program.

Once again, nothing I disagree with. +1

Chris Coles
03-29-19, 04:57 AM
There is one other aspect of UBI that is not discussed, loss of work ethic. Here in the UK we have so many on welfare, now including the new Universal Credit, that adds payments to people already in work; that we have to have immigration to provide a work force. Our own young have no concept of work ethic and thus no long term aiming point, other than to get their hands on as much welfare as possible. It is work ethic that has driven the concept of the freedom to make your own way in life; do your own thing; create greater prosperity within your local community; create better opportunity for your young people; give them a better future. UBI completely, silently, removes work ethic; why work when someone will pay you to keep you silent?

I am reminded of a young man, a bus driver in Brazil who had commented on BBC TV Newsnight now several years ago; "We are all slaves now, except that now they pay us".

Polish_Silver
03-29-19, 07:20 AM
I disagree. An excellent third party candidate can win. Perot showed the possibilities.

.

Perot did NOT win, not even close.

He got about 19% of popular votes, the highest 3rd party performance in more than one century.
He would have to get 3X that to win.

T Roosevelt did not win as a 3rd party candidate, even after being president.

How many congressional seats are held by 3rd parties?

And of those, how many are not former members of Repocrats?

The Major party candidates get worse and worse, because there is no alternative.
It is "race to the bottom " in a two party system.
People vote based on party loyalty. The parties have no moral or intellectual integrity.

DSpencer
03-29-19, 10:04 AM
What you see below is an excellent example of what I am describing and I have to say the sight of this turning up on my home PC, makes me very sad indeed. You see, this occurred this week, not twenty years ago, two days ago. It is the result of perhaps the most honest medical doctor on the internet, Dr. Joseph Mercola, www.mercola.com (http://www.mercola.com) being silenced; I am no longer permitted to read his criticism of US government agencies and pharmaceutical industrial practices. And no, the action to prevent access was taken by my UK government, not yours. Our government will have been asked to do this by yours. Apart from a very brief news item on BBC TV news, nothing in any newspaper; total silence.

Now you may well believe, quite honestly, that I am ridiculous. But take my word for it, this is just another example, I could give much more, of the pernicious nature of the lack of any real intent to deliver freedom; by the leader of the free world. Certainly not freedom as I understand the word.



Dr. Mercola is a fraud who preys on the ignorant and desperate to make a fortune for himself. Your government choosing to censor his site (if that's even true) is a policy question that has nothing to do with the government of the US. It's certainly not evidence of the US government trying to enslave the world.

We've been through this before. I hate these interactions. You need help and I hope you get it. Best wishes.

dcarrigg
03-29-19, 11:12 AM
Dr. Mercola is a fraud who preys on the ignorant and desperate to make a fortune for himself. Your government choosing to censor his site is a policy question that has nothing to do with the government of the US. It's certainly not evidence of the US government trying to enslave the world.

We've been through this before. I hate these interactions. You need help and I hope you get it. Best wishes.

I really don't want to wade in on this one, but is anybody certain any government censored anything here? Looks like it could much more easily be a simple server error--DNS settings mistake made by some IT person somewhere.

DSpencer
03-29-19, 01:50 PM
I really don't want to wade in on this one, but is anybody certain any government censored anything here? Looks like it could much more easily be a simple server error--DNS settings mistake made by some IT person somewhere.

I edited my post to clarify that I don't know if it's true. It wouldn't surprise me though given the BS that Mercola puts on his site. Maybe the UK is less tolerant of people peddling products with claims they "help to virtually eliminate your risk of developing cancer in the future."

vt
03-29-19, 06:50 PM
A third party candidate can win with 35% of the vote in a three way race. Perot polled at 30% plus in the summer of 1992.

Bernie Sanders is an independent. Angus King was elected as independent to the Senate from Maine in 2012

From June 11, 1992 NYT:


"In the telephone poll of 815 registered voters nationwide, conducted June 4 to 8, Mr. Perot was supported by 39 percent, Mr. Bush by 31 percent, and Mr. Clinton by 25 percent. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.
In a previous Gallup matchup in late May, Mr. Bush and Mr. Perot were tied at 35 percent each, while Mr. Clinton was supported by 25 percent."

Milton Kuo
03-29-19, 09:23 PM
I really don't want to wade in on this one, but is anybody certain any government censored anything here? Looks like it could much more easily be a simple server error--DNS settings mistake made by some IT person somewhere.

That is the most likely explanation. I notice from the error message that Cloudflare's DNS is being used. I've used Cloudflare's DNS before and its reliability is poor. How poor is it? I find that Comcast, a cable television company, seems to have more reliable DNS. If Chris isn't too concerned about privacy issues, he can use Google's DNS (8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4). Barring that, he should also be able to access the web site through a VPN or Tor.

dcarrigg
03-30-19, 01:51 AM
Duverger's Law has 3 elements:
1. First past the post
2. Plurality wins
3. Single member districts
The Senate doesn't meet criterion 3. One would predict that independents would have more success there than in the House or the Presidency.

dcarrigg
03-30-19, 01:52 AM
That is the most likely explanation. I notice from the error message that Cloudflare's DNS is being used. I've used Cloudflare's DNS before and its reliability is poor. How poor is it? I find that Comcast, a cable television company, seems to have more reliable DNS. If Chris isn't too concerned about privacy issues, he can use Google's DNS (8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4). Barring that, he should also be able to access the web site through a VPN or Tor.

Yeah, Verizon is unreliable enough at resolving I've had to switch to Google's DNS before.

dcarrigg
03-30-19, 02:49 AM
Also this is because the Republican Party is all but dead in New England for federal offices. We no longer have a single Republican representative in any district in any of our 6 states. Only Susan Collins remains in the Senate, and she's liable to lose in 2020.

Otherwise, the other 11 Senators from up here caucus with the Democrats, and 9 of them are Democrats. Regionally, the GOP just cannot compete here, much as the Democrats just cannot compete in the Deep South, except against a fatally flawed candidate like Roy Moore.

But there still are people who do not like the DNC or the Democrat brand here. They simply hate the GOP brand worse. So people like King and Sanders have an opening. For better or for worse, all that "Real America" talk of Palin and Cowboy Hat wearing of W and play to the Mexican border of Trump just anchors the GOP in the south and in southern politics that really don't speak to people up here.

Clinton also didn't speak to people up here, and lost 4 of the 6 states, and came close to losing the other 2 despite overwhelming party support. Lots of New England is rural. But nearly none of it is evangelical protestant, and nearly none of it is into the southern tropes that have become central to GOP identity. Those tropes do seem to sell better in the plains and midwest, though. But I think there's a cost in the DNC's laser focus on big city cosmopolitanism, just like there's a cost in the GOP's laser focus on evangelical southern pride, and in the Senate, more than any other elected federal body, we find people who fill the gap those foci leave amongst the rest of us who aren't quite yoga yuppies, but who also aren't quite confederate cowboys.

For all the big name national GOP politicians I've seen dress up like Billy the Kid, eat steak, and go blind hunting, I've never seen one dress up like the Gordon's Fisherman, eat lobster, and go offshore fishing.

And I'm not just making this up:

https://b-i.forbesimg.com/theapothecary/files/2013/05/300px-Ronald_Reagan_with_cowboy_hat_12-0071M_edit1.jpg

https://dallasnews.imgix.net/1500394740-GHWB-hat.jpg?q=30&w=200&fit=clip&auto=format&frame=1



https://www.solidprinciples.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/President-Bush-Cowboy-Hat.jpg

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/UhZv0Qp4rgg/hqdefault.jpg


Even when Mitt Romney who won up here goes national, suddenly he looks like this:

https://dpulling.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/romney.jpg




And, of course, it ain't like Billy Jeffs and old Carter didn't do it either, but they were good ol' boys after all:

https://popsciencetv.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/clinton-halloween.jpg?w=660

https://cdnph.upi.com/pv/upi/b59bdcff7421b69b9f6c0004fd1fcad7/President-Jimmy-Carter.jpg

All I'm saying is that however right this feels other places, it signals something else up here. Especially because so many of them went to school up here and grew up here and definitely didn't dress like that or sound like that when they were sitting in Phillips or Harvard or Yale classes, and we know it. So for a long time, none of these guys won here. Ford beat Reagan in the '76 NH primary. Kennedy beats Carter in most of New England. Tsongas beats Clinton in NH. Buchanan beats Dole there. McCain beats Bush. The cowboy schtick isn't really a winner up here, even with native Connecticut sons under the cowboy hat.

So maybe, if you're insistent on the independent idea, the focus is best placed on taking seats in the Senate. You'll have better luck there mathematically than in the House or the White House. But it can't just be about moderate (meaning neoliberal, not populist) policy. It has to be about the dual rejection of the lost cause of the confederacy and of the global liberal elite at the same time. And maybe if you shed the regressive economic policy of centrism and adopt a populist perspective, you'd have a lot of success with a nation-wide independent Senate campaign like this. Maybe if it got big enough, you could build a new party out of it strong enough to challenge one of the big 2.

But that'd be my strategy, anyways, if I really cared about pushing for independent candidates and whatnot. Going after the presidency just throws it to whoever you took the least votes from and makes people hate independents and third parties for playing spoiler.

Chris Coles
03-30-19, 06:33 AM
Dr. Mercola is a fraud who preys on the ignorant and desperate to make a fortune for himself. Your government choosing to censor his site (if that's even true) is a policy question that has nothing to do with the government of the US. It's certainly not evidence of the US government trying to enslave the world.

We've been through this before. I hate these interactions. You need help and I hope you get it. Best wishes.

I can understand your dilemma, I am from a different nation and thus from a different culture. Dr Mercola has some 12 million subscribers world wide and does appear to be very successful financially, though my contribution to that has been minimal over the many years; since another iTulip subscriber recommended him to me and others here. So I am to take it you do not like people that succeed, particularly financially? My experience has been that, by taking his advice, my overall health has immensely improved.

His site disappeared at precisely the moment it was announced that anti-vaxer sites were to be pulled down. All of them are from the USA; which has the worst health outcome for its citizens, for any first world nation. 25% of your children are Autistic. This last week we watched a BBC TV program that included video of autistic children in a school beating each other senseless; seven teachers trying to hold one of them down. The USA will have a quarter of the population unable to make any input to your society, and the numbers are rising. Yet every effort is being made to prevent debate.

Yes, I do understand that my view of the why's and wherefores are in total disagreement to yours. That is life and everyone has the right to disagree. Your nation needs help, and I do hope that it gets it. Best wishes.

vt
03-30-19, 10:05 PM
Depends on who is running. A Jeb Bush- Hillary race would have been a perfect setup for the right independent.

Polish_Silver
04-01-19, 04:17 PM
Also this is because the Republican Party is all but dead in New England for federal offices. ...hunting, I've never seen one dress up like the Gordon's Fisherman, eat lobster, and go offshore fishing.

And I'm not just making this up:
....
. Going after the presidency just throws it to whoever you took the least votes from and makes people hate independents and third parties for playing spoiler. (emphasis added)

With our current electoral system, your analysis is right on.
The elections are not about issues, but persona, identification, party loyalty.

Candidates who talk about issues (Ron Paul, Sanders) do not fare well in primaries.

Voters are frustrated because none of the candidates really represents them.

What we need is an explicitly multi-party electoral system, based on proportional representation.

dcarrigg
04-01-19, 11:22 PM
(emphasis added)

With our current electoral system, your analysis is right on.
The elections are not about issues, but persona, identification, party loyalty.

Candidates who talk about issues (Ron Paul, Sanders) do not fare well in primaries.

Voters are frustrated because none of the candidates really represents them.

What we need is an explicitly multi-party electoral system, based on proportional representation.


That would certainly do the trick. But it's such a huge structural and constitutional change, it seems unlikely. The other thing to consider is the long term. No proportional system has lasted so long as the United States. There's something to be said for longevity.

In the end of the day, this is how the American system works. Nothing changes for 30 to 50 years. Then suddenly in four or five years everything changes. It's a punctuated equilibrium. And we're due for drastic change, soon.

All it takes is one wave election where you get 60 Senators, a majority in the House and the Presidency. It happens infrequently. Not since 1964 clearly. Close in 2008, but barely and Kennedy dying killed it. We weren't ready then anyhow. When we are, the change will be remarkable and swift. My money is on fewer than 10 years now. The way it goes is not ordained. But we can't keep going with the way things are for much longer.

dcarrigg
04-02-19, 12:32 PM
It almost doesn't matter. Facts don't matter...deportations fell under Trump

Here's another one: Trump Admin expanding H2B visas by 30,000 more per year (https://vineyardgazette.com/news/2019/03/29/government-expands-cap-h2b-visas). 100,000 more per year than ever under Obama. Of course, I read that in the Martha's Vineyard paper. The rich folk here who actually own everything are cheering it on. Not a big surprise to me. Not sure how many folks here interact with the masters of the universe with any regularity. Wild how far reality and perception can diverge these days.

Polish_Silver
04-03-19, 07:42 AM
That would certainly do the trick. But it's such a huge structural and constitutional change, it seems unlikely. The other thing to consider is the long term. No proportional system has lasted so long as the United States. There's something to be said for longevity.

In the end of the day, this is how the American system works. Nothing changes for 30 to 50 years. Then suddenly in four or five years everything changes. It's a punctuated equilibrium. And we're due for drastic change, soon.

All it takes is one wave election where you get 60 Senators, a majority in the House and the Presidency. It happens infrequently. Not since 1964 clearly. Close in 2008, but barely and Kennedy dying killed it. We weren't ready then anyhow. When we are, the change will be remarkable and swift. My money is on fewer than 10 years now. The way it goes is not ordained. But we can't keep going with the way things are for much longer.

Proportional representation is common for governments formed after 1942 (europe, Israel, and I think India) . So there is a 70+ year track record. I am not aware
of proportional representation before that. Is there a nation you think failed because of proportional representation?

I'd say the US is functioning now because of the federal system and separation of powers. And the current electoral system is precisely what could destroy it.

The lack of change after two absurd wars, a financial crisis, and the patriot act is what convinces me we are going down hill, with no brakes. There was no leadership
able to bring change during any of those times. And very few elected leaders even wanting change. Health care has been exorbitant in this country for 30 years.
And who but Trump even says so?
I actually think we could get presidents MUCH worse than trump.

Polish_Silver
04-03-19, 07:46 AM
The H2B VISA labor certification program establishes a means for U.S. nonagricultural employers who anticipate a shortage of domestic workers, to bring temporary nonimmigrant foreign workers into the U.S. H2B VISA eligibility requires that the job and the U.S. employer's need for the foreign worker be of a temporary

I Did not now what the H2B was. Sounds like what we need LESS of them, not MORE of them.

As for this "American workers would not do it" . Pure BS. If wages and working conditions were decent, they would do it.

thriftyandboringinohio
04-03-19, 09:34 AM
As I understand it, H2B visas are for unskilled labor like landscape and farm work, while H1B visas are for specialty work, and it seems IT jobs dominate. The large banks like Chase have loads of folks from India, Pakistan, Nepal...
Here's a list of the top companies sponsoring H1B visas from thos site https://visacoach.org/2009/02/26/the-top-100-companies-that-sponsored-us-visas/
Corporations really love the foreign H1B engineers. They accept lower wages, helping push pay scales down for all workers.
The H1B workers are bound to the job - if they quit, they get deported. So they can be pushed to work longer hours for lower wages, which sets a certain tone for all professional staff.


<tbody>
COMPANY
No. of Visas


INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
4,559


WIPRO LIMITED
2,678


SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LIMITED
1,917


TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED
1,539


MICROSOFT CORP
1,037


ACCENTURE LLP
731


COGNIZANT TECH SOLUTIONS US CORP
467


CISCO SYSTEMS INC
422


LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LIMITED
403


IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
381


INTEL CORP
351


ERNST & YOUNG LLP
321


PATNI AMERICAS INC
296


TERRA INFOTECH INC
281


QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
255


MPHASIS CORPORATION
251


KPMG LLP
245

</tbody>

dcarrigg
04-03-19, 10:30 AM
As I understand it, H2B visas are for unskilled labor like landscape and farm work, while H1B visas are for specialty work, and it seems IT jobs dominate. The large banks like Chase have loads of folks from India, Pakistan, Nepal...
Here's a list of the top companies sponsoring H1B visas from thos site https://visacoach.org/2009/02/26/the-top-100-companies-that-sponsored-us-visas/
Corporations really love the foreign H1B engineers. They accept lower wages, helping push pay scales down for all workers.
The H1B workers are bound to the job - if they quit, they get deported. So they can be pushed to work longer hours for lower wages, which sets a certain tone for all professional staff.


<tbody>
COMPANY
No. of Visas


INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
4,559


WIPRO LIMITED
2,678


SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LIMITED
1,917


TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED
1,539


MICROSOFT CORP
1,037


ACCENTURE LLP
731


COGNIZANT TECH SOLUTIONS US CORP
467


CISCO SYSTEMS INC
422


LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LIMITED
403


IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
381


INTEL CORP
351


ERNST & YOUNG LLP
321


PATNI AMERICAS INC
296


TERRA INFOTECH INC
281


QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
255


MPHASIS CORPORATION
251


KPMG LLP
245

</tbody>


IIRC, H1B includes fashion models too. So there's a double-benefit for corporate tech execs. Bring in the cheap help and bring in the yacht girls. I've been around here all my life. And I can tell you without a doubt that it ain't home grown girls with New England accents sitting in bikinis on deck with the 60 year old men. Was taking amtrak on the regular for work about 5 or 10 years ago. Wednesday mornings there'd be a gaggle of them coming off the ferry stop from the islands, taking the bus to the train station with huge bags and top end luxury clothes, some headed to Boston, others to NYC. They were hard to miss! BTW, what do you think being bound to the job under threat of deportation does in that scenario...nothing good, I'm certain.

Far as the H2Bs go, this is why every waitress and ice cream stand worker on the Cape and Islands speaks Russian or Ukrainian or something these days. And I suspect they might end up at some of the parties with their better-paid H1B counterparts after working hours. But it's not just here. Went to Yellowstone and saw the same thing in Gardiner, MT. I'm sure it's even more obvious in Aspen and Silicon Valley. Back in college I had a night job making deliveries. Even back then the party rental company in an old mill had about 4 or 5 dozen eastern European Girls doing laundry and prepping napkins and table cloths and all that for the seasonal weddings and parties up and down the shore. It's a wild thing to experience locally before you really put it into a global context.

dcarrigg
04-03-19, 10:32 AM
Yeah, I think it's totally possible too. I don't rule out anything you're saying here. History tells me that usually times like these lead to realignments. But history also tells me that the presidency was never quite this powerful in the past, so...

dcarrigg
04-03-19, 10:37 AM
Yup. That's the thing. Housing prices are so high on the islands in the summer when they need workers that nobody wants to move to the islands just for three months to work the low wage jobs just to give every penny they earn over to a landlord for a slot in a twin mattress bunk bed and a bathroom you share with 16 other people. It's literally all a matter of wage to rent ratios being out of whack.

Polish_Silver
04-04-19, 08:54 PM
IIRC, H1B includes fashion models too.t.

Maybe stop H2 completely and use H1 only for physicians, lawyers and CEO's?

dcarrigg
04-04-19, 10:00 PM
Maybe stop H2 completely and use H1 only for physicians, lawyers and CEO's?

Honestly I'd say none of the above. I know kids who have been on wait lists for nursing programs or med school for years. There are 100,000 qualified MBAs for every CEO slot. JDs are unemployed all over the place. We have plenty of talent. There's no shortage of pretty girls who'd like to marry a rich guy that I've seen. We don't need more H1Bs.

Milton Kuo
04-04-19, 10:48 PM
Honestly I'd say none of the above. I know kids who have been on wait lists for nursing programs or med school for years. There are 100,000 qualified MBAs for every CEO slot. JDs are unemployed all over the place. We have plenty of talent. There's no shortage of pretty girls who'd like to marry a rich guy that I've seen. We don't need more H1Bs.

I think Polish_Silver was being facetious. Imagine hiring an H-1B visa from India with a degree from IIT and IIM who's willing to work for 1/10 the wage of a typical CEO. To use the spiel from management when it comes to bringing in totally unqualified, unintelligent technologists on H-1B visas, "We can't find anyone with the qualifications for these CEO jobs. We should bring in Indian CEOs! They've graduated from world class institutions and the best thing is, THEY ALL SPEAK ENGLISH!"

Polish_Silver
04-05-19, 07:20 AM
I think Polish_Silver was being facetious.
http://www.itulip.com/forums/images/buttons/reply_40b.png only 50%

Maybe I was wrong about JD, but Physicians and CEO's are the most massively overpaid groups I can think of.
If DC is correct, that there are many qualified people, than why are CEO salary so high?
Obviously, supply and demand has nothing to do with physician and CEO salaries.

The systems operate more like cartels.

dcarrigg
04-05-19, 02:36 PM
http://www.itulip.com/forums/images/buttons/reply_40b.png only 50%

Maybe I was wrong about JD, but Physicians and CEO's are the most massively overpaid groups I can think of.
If DC is correct, that there are many qualified people, than why are CEO salary so high?
Obviously, supply and demand has nothing to do with physician and CEO salaries.

The systems operate more like cartels.

Absolutely. Especially the combination Chairman of the Board / CEO positions. The same guy as Chairman hires himself as CEO and sets his own compensation package. There's no separation of powers. There's no national or international search for talent. It's not about who's best for the job. It's about power.

You want a great case-in-point? Mylan, the makers of EpiPen who got some bad press about jacking up the price by 500%. Who enabled that? Senator Joe Manchin. Who became CEO of Mylan? Heather Bresch, Joe Manchin's daughter. Did she have an MBA? No. But she lied about having one on her resumé. So why did Mylan select her, of all people, to be their CEO. Was it because she was the best qualified? Was it because she was the most honest? Or was it because her dad pushed through a bill to have all schools buy EpiPens at inflated prices? (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/09/20/family-matters-epipens-had-help-getting-schools-manchin-bresch/90435218/)

Of course, I think markets are always about power. Even if you make it to the last table at a Hold 'Em tournament, if you're low on chips compared to the big fish, it's easy to get pushed all in. Even small business is full of this stuff. I learned that as a kid flipping pizzas. Owner was trying to open a new location. Competing pizza shop was owned by a guy who had several restaurants in the town. Several of his restaurants was rented from the same landlord who owned the new location, since that landlord was the local land baron and owned lots of commercial real estate in that town. Competing owner told landlord he'd shut everything down and walk if landlord rented to my boss. Landlord tore up the lease and rented it to the competitor who just kept it empty to avoid competition until he finally put something in there maybe a year later. My boss ended up finding a different spot to rent tucked back in a less visible location. It eventually went bust. This is how the real world works, not like a supply and demand graph the ivory tower egg heads teach kids in econ 101. It's not fair. It's cutthroat. And it's super easy for bigger players to leverage power to muscle out competition.

With doctors, the bottle neck isn't even the med schools, which also have very long waiting lists, but have been expanding enrollment somewhat. In the last 20 years they have opened a couple dozen MD granting institutions and about a dozen DO granting ones. The tightest part of the bottleneck is residencies. Residencies have been frozen at a constant level since 1996 thanks to "The Balanced Budget Act." But this is cutting off your nose to spite your face, and probably costs more money than it saves. I've not gone through the process myself, but from what I've heard it's bananas. Why?

Of course, The Market® will never fund residencies at any reasonable level. BUT, big corporate pharma and med companies will fund specialists' residencies that do things they like, with heavy strings attached. They have no incentive to fund what people actually need, only what's profitable for them. So Neutrogena will make more dermatologists happen to sell more Neutrogena stuff. Actual health outcomes are irrelevant. So this is how the supply of doctors happens--this is how the decisions about how many we'll have practicing in which areas of medicine happen. The number of slots government funds is capped. Corporate funds augment it and fund a number, dictating how many and in which given specialty. Then the National Resident Matching Program reviews things over matching weeks and tells students whether they match at all, and what they matched with. Of course, they had to "market up" the process with nonsense. So the decisions are made by the Roth-Peranson algorithm, which operates on the principle of the stable marriage problem (https://medium.com/@vishnuravi/how-long-does-the-residency-match-algorithm-take-to-run-c38c06cd4d57) and makes snap decisions in less than a minute. The system is designed such that there are always more applicants than slots, so many MDs and DOs are "not marriage material." What happens to all those MDs? They end up in hundreds of grand of debt doing paperwork or lab tests or some other thing someone with much less education could do and try again the next year (https://www.ama-assn.org/residents-students/match/what-if-you-don-t-match-3-things-you-should-do). (https://www.statnews.com/2016/03/17/medical-students-match-day/) So now we have a pool of deeply indebted domestic MDs not allowed to practice doing menial labor deeply in debt. But we also don't have enough MDs practicing in certain areas that don't get corporate love for residency slots. So what's the solution? Import doctors who have gone through foreign residency programs and send them through a whole different tortured process (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/business/economy/long-slog-for-foreign-doctors-to-practice-in-us.html). And if this sounds like the stupidest thing you've ever heard, then I think you're following along with me.

There's no shortage of people who want to do these jobs. MDs entering medical billing data all day on the sidelines because an algorithm didn't like them probably aren't living their best lives. Of course, the entire generation born after 1980 that has been essentially priced out of the housing market in good chunks of the country probably isn't either. And the solution to both issues is easy. Build thousands more small, unpretentious, two and three bedroom homes. Fund thousands more residencies. But The Market® will never do it. Because it's about power. And doing it would squeeze those with a bigger pile of chips, both wages of practicing physicians now, and home equity of people who bought in before the early 2000s when housing prices went through the roof. So we only build luxury housing, and we only add corporate-sponsored specialist residencies. 84% of all new construction lists in the top 20% of local housing markets now for the last decade and change. And most of that luxury housing gets scooped up by people and investors from abroad too. And when the eggheads say, "luxury houses trickle down," I'd invite them to come to New England, where lots of us live in housing that's very old, and the middle class housing from the 1700s and 1800s is still middle class today, and the luxury housing from the gilded age is still owned by the wealthy and powerful. It doesn't trickle down. It never will.

And I think the root of the problem is really the Good/Evil, God/Devil, Market/Government dichotomy people have in their heads. We've got to break out of it. We've got to get ourselves to a point where we realize that there's a stupid and a smart way to do things, not a good and an evil way. There's tremendous potential in America being wasted every day. If we could just break the stranglehold of power a little bit, we could unleash it. Millions of smart, educated, qualified people are doing pointless, menial jobs. Millions of couples that could be improving property and raising families are living in basements and one-room apartments letting the days tick by paying student loans, getting too old to have children or pay down a 30 year mortgage. We're better educated and trained than we've ever been. But we're locking a huge swath of people out of opportunity because it benefits a few people tremendously. It's the mis-match between skills and opportunity and capital and projects that need doing that are really the core of the slow growth and falling life expectancy and general malaise.

And the problem with the total hands-off free-market approach is that VC billionaires and big developers will never find a way to do small-town local construction projects in a way that sends all the profits to back to the valley. So capital they've accumulated will never be allocated to those ends, and therefore nor will the tax revenue. Just like there's no good way for big corporate players to make money off small private practice GPs, so they won't fund those residencies, and CVS will push for NPs and PAs or something like them to staff Minute Clinics instead. When you take democratic government totally out of the picture in a highly oligopolized world where capital is the most concentrated in the fewest hands it has been in history, power to make decisions how to allocate capital goes to the oligarchs de facto. And they have no incentive to do anything altruistic.

Of course, the government over everything approach doesn't necessarily work either. But I cannot think of an institution other than Government (inclusive of the military) that has the power to challenge the powerful and realign skills and opportunity; capital and work that needs doing. Problem, of course, is right in the Manchin example I used above. How much incentive to legislators really have to do these things when their funding all comes from the people benefiting from keeping the misalignment of capital and useful projects and skills and opportunity going? People are going to have to bootstrap candidates who will actually stand up to the oligarchy and wrest capital and opportunity free from those directing it toward their own ends. The problems America has are not terribly hard to fix. The healthcare issue can be solved by copying almost any other system from any other 1st world country instead of the one we have. The housing issue can be solved by building a lot more ~1,000sqft plain jain not-luxury homes. The infrastructure issues can be vastly improved by simply building them, swapping out lead pipes, building gas lines, The opportunity issue can be solved by funding more residencies and programs and licensures and all that and getting rid of the rube goldberg machine of private sector administrative jobs that gets bigger and bigger all the time and just crushes the souls of people who work them and bogs every sector down. And I'm even open to the idea that some of the regs and restrictions can be pared back in a way that's not dangerous.

I mean, imagine an America where instead of having a single algorithm decide whether and which residencies MDs get, we have an algorithm free millions of people from the drudgery of working in medical and insurance billing and administration. It's possible without proprietary pricing agreements and trade secrets between insurance companies and hospitals. It really is. Almost any other activity would be more useful. As a nation, we're expending a tremendous amount of effort on pointless activities just because we can't snap out of the good/evil paradigm, and it forces us to punt the authority to make decisions to a few private sector people with the power to make them, who always act in their own interests and have no incentive to care about the common weal.

I mean, the state where I was born was named after the common weal. It is a commonwealth. If the citizens of a republic hamstring themselves and actively punt decisions, who will act in their interests? Who will care about the commonwealth? Probably nobody. And if we're locked in a good/evil paradigm in which we've convinced ourselves that punting decisions is good and making them ourselves is evil, then I don't see how we have any hope. We'll keep getting bananas processes if we insist on having a banana republic where a handful of oligarchs run roughshod over the rule of law and make short-sighted decisions that benefit themselves at the expense of the commonwealth. So someone's going to have to reassert control, at least long enough to shake the ground and better, if not perfectly, align opportunity and skill and capital and useful work. We need less capital for apps and more for sewers. How many millions of kids are going to grow up with cognitive impairments from lead poisoning and lower IQs, and how much will that cost in lost opportunity? We know how to fix it, we have the technology, we simply don't allocate effort and capital to solving the problem. And we're never going to ever get it without really shaking things up. I doubt it will come just from one strong personality either, although someone will become a figurehead for it. It's going to come from people demanding it. People generally don't give power away. Usually you have to take it from them. And they tend to kick and scream in the process.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi6XV8yBFoU

Chris Coles
04-07-19, 03:31 PM
Absolutely. Especially the combination Chairman of the Board / CEO positions. The same guy as Chairman hires himself as CEO and sets his own compensation package. There's no separation of powers. There's no national or international search for talent. It's not about who's best for the job. It's about power.

You want a great case-in-point? Mylan, the makers of EpiPen who got some bad press about jacking up the price by 500%. Who enabled that? Senator Joe Manchin. Who became CEO of Mylan? Heather Bresch, Joe Manchin's daughter. Did she have an MBA? No. But she lied about having one on her resumé. So why did Mylan select her, of all people, to be their CEO. Was it because she was the best qualified? Was it because she was the most honest? Or was it because her dad pushed through a bill to have all schools buy EpiPens at inflated prices? (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/09/20/family-matters-epipens-had-help-getting-schools-manchin-bresch/90435218/)

Of course, I think markets are always about power. Even if you make it to the last table at a Hold 'Em tournament, if you're low on chips compared to the big fish, it's easy to get pushed all in. Even small business is full of this stuff. I learned that as a kid flipping pizzas. Owner was trying to open a new location. Competing pizza shop was owned by a guy who had several restaurants in the town. Several of his restaurants was rented from the same landlord who owned the new location, since that landlord was the local land baron and owned lots of commercial real estate in that town. Competing owner told landlord he'd shut everything down and walk if landlord rented to my boss. Landlord tore up the lease and rented it to the competitor who just kept it empty to avoid competition until he finally put something in there maybe a year later. My boss ended up finding a different spot to rent tucked back in a less visible location. It eventually went bust. This is how the real world works, not like a supply and demand graph the ivory tower egg heads teach kids in econ 101. It's not fair. It's cutthroat. And it's super easy for bigger players to leverage power to muscle out competition.

With doctors, the bottle neck isn't even the med schools, which also have very long waiting lists, but have been expanding enrollment somewhat. In the last 20 years they have opened a couple dozen MD granting institutions and about a dozen DO granting ones. The tightest part of the bottleneck is residencies. Residencies have been frozen at a constant level since 1996 thanks to "The Balanced Budget Act." But this is cutting off your nose to spite your face, and probably costs more money than it saves. I've not gone through the process myself, but from what I've heard it's bananas. Why?

Of course, The Market® will never fund residencies at any reasonable level. BUT, big corporate pharma and med companies will fund specialists' residencies that do things they like, with heavy strings attached. They have no incentive to fund what people actually need, only what's profitable for them. So Neutrogena will make more dermatologists happen to sell more Neutrogena stuff. Actual health outcomes are irrelevant. So this is how the supply of doctors happens--this is how the decisions about how many we'll have practicing in which areas of medicine happen. The number of slots government funds is capped. Corporate funds augment it and fund a number, dictating how many and in which given specialty. Then the National Resident Matching Program reviews things over matching weeks and tells students whether they match at all, and what they matched with. Of course, they had to "market up" the process with nonsense. So the decisions are made by the Roth-Peranson algorithm, which operates on the principle of the stable marriage problem (https://medium.com/@vishnuravi/how-long-does-the-residency-match-algorithm-take-to-run-c38c06cd4d57) and makes snap decisions in less than a minute. The system is designed such that there are always more applicants than slots, so many MDs and DOs are "not marriage material." What happens to all those MDs? They end up in hundreds of grand of debt doing paperwork or lab tests or some other thing someone with much less education could do and try again the next year (https://www.ama-assn.org/residents-students/match/what-if-you-don-t-match-3-things-you-should-do). (https://www.statnews.com/2016/03/17/medical-students-match-day/) So now we have a pool of deeply indebted domestic MDs not allowed to practice doing menial labor deeply in debt. But we also don't have enough MDs practicing in certain areas that don't get corporate love for residency slots. So what's the solution? Import doctors who have gone through foreign residency programs and send them through a whole different tortured process (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/business/economy/long-slog-for-foreign-doctors-to-practice-in-us.html). And if this sounds like the stupidest thing you've ever heard, then I think you're following along with me.

There's no shortage of people who want to do these jobs. MDs entering medical billing data all day on the sidelines because an algorithm didn't like them probably aren't living their best lives. Of course, the entire generation born after 1980 that has been essentially priced out of the housing market in good chunks of the country probably isn't either. And the solution to both issues is easy. Build thousands more small, unpretentious, two and three bedroom homes. Fund thousands more residencies. But The Market® will never do it. Because it's about power. And doing it would squeeze those with a bigger pile of chips, both wages of practicing physicians now, and home equity of people who bought in before the early 2000s when housing prices went through the roof. So we only build luxury housing, and we only add corporate-sponsored specialist residencies. 84% of all new construction lists in the top 20% of local housing markets now for the last decade and change. And most of that luxury housing gets scooped up by people and investors from abroad too. And when the eggheads say, "luxury houses trickle down," I'd invite them to come to New England, where lots of us live in housing that's very old, and the middle class housing from the 1700s and 1800s is still middle class today, and the luxury housing from the gilded age is still owned by the wealthy and powerful. It doesn't trickle down. It never will.

And I think the root of the problem is really the Good/Evil, God/Devil, Market/Government dichotomy people have in their heads. We've got to break out of it. We've got to get ourselves to a point where we realize that there's a stupid and a smart way to do things, not a good and an evil way. There's tremendous potential in America being wasted every day. If we could just break the stranglehold of power a little bit, we could unleash it. Millions of smart, educated, qualified people are doing pointless, menial jobs. Millions of couples that could be improving property and raising families are living in basements and one-room apartments letting the days tick by paying student loans, getting too old to have children or pay down a 30 year mortgage. We're better educated and trained than we've ever been. But we're locking a huge swath of people out of opportunity because it benefits a few people tremendously. It's the mis-match between skills and opportunity and capital and projects that need doing that are really the core of the slow growth and falling life expectancy and general malaise.

And the problem with the total hands-off free-market approach is that VC billionaires and big developers will never find a way to do small-town local construction projects in a way that sends all the profits to back to the valley. So capital they've accumulated will never be allocated to those ends, and therefore nor will the tax revenue. Just like there's no good way for big corporate players to make money off small private practice GPs, so they won't fund those residencies, and CVS will push for NPs and PAs or something like them to staff Minute Clinics instead. When you take democratic government totally out of the picture in a highly oligopolized world where capital is the most concentrated in the fewest hands it has been in history, power to make decisions how to allocate capital goes to the oligarchs de facto. And they have no incentive to do anything altruistic.

Of course, the government over everything approach doesn't necessarily work either. But I cannot think of an institution other than Government (inclusive of the military) that has the power to challenge the powerful and realign skills and opportunity; capital and work that needs doing. Problem, of course, is right in the Manchin example I used above. How much incentive to legislators really have to do these things when their funding all comes from the people benefiting from keeping the misalignment of capital and useful projects and skills and opportunity going? People are going to have to bootstrap candidates who will actually stand up to the oligarchy and wrest capital and opportunity free from those directing it toward their own ends. The problems America has are not terribly hard to fix. The healthcare issue can be solved by copying almost any other system from any other 1st world country instead of the one we have. The housing issue can be solved by building a lot more ~1,000sqft plain jain not-luxury homes. The infrastructure issues can be vastly improved by simply building them, swapping out lead pipes, building gas lines, The opportunity issue can be solved by funding more residencies and programs and licensures and all that and getting rid of the rube goldberg machine of private sector administrative jobs that gets bigger and bigger all the time and just crushes the souls of people who work them and bogs every sector down. And I'm even open to the idea that some of the regs and restrictions can be pared back in a way that's not dangerous.

I mean, imagine an America where instead of having a single algorithm decide whether and which residencies MDs get, we have an algorithm free millions of people from the drudgery of working in medical and insurance billing and administration. It's possible without proprietary pricing agreements and trade secrets between insurance companies and hospitals. It really is. Almost any other activity would be more useful. As a nation, we're expending a tremendous amount of effort on pointless activities just because we can't snap out of the good/evil paradigm, and it forces us to punt the authority to make decisions to a few private sector people with the power to make them, who always act in their own interests and have no incentive to care about the common weal.

I mean, the state where I was born was named after the common weal. It is a commonwealth. If the citizens of a republic hamstring themselves and actively punt decisions, who will act in their interests? Who will care about the commonwealth? Probably nobody. And if we're locked in a good/evil paradigm in which we've convinced ourselves that punting decisions is good and making them ourselves is evil, then I don't see how we have any hope. We'll keep getting bananas processes if we insist on having a banana republic where a handful of oligarchs run roughshod over the rule of law and make short-sighted decisions that benefit themselves at the expense of the commonwealth. So someone's going to have to reassert control, at least long enough to shake the ground and better, if not perfectly, align opportunity and skill and capital and useful work. We need less capital for apps and more for sewers. How many millions of kids are going to grow up with cognitive impairments from lead poisoning and lower IQs, and how much will that cost in lost opportunity? We know how to fix it, we have the technology, we simply don't allocate effort and capital to solving the problem. And we're never going to ever get it without really shaking things up. I doubt it will come just from one strong personality either, although someone will become a figurehead for it. It's going to come from people demanding it. People generally don't give power away. Usually you have to take it from them. And they tend to kick and scream in the process.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi6XV8yBFoU

There are small signs of change, with perhaps the best, recently, has been the publication of this paper https://www.westonaprice.org/oiling-of-america-in-new-york/ which sets out in great detail, (printed out some 30 pages of text), so a very long read. This will sound outrageous; if you want to live, you absolutely have to read it; all of it.

That leaves the obvious question; who among the candidates for your next President understands the challenges Oiling of America demands? And if there is even just one; where is their recognition of the need for change?

dcarrigg
04-08-19, 11:03 AM
Of course I think markets are always about power

Saw this earlier, good example of nobody breaking the law, investors just seeking return, and folks getting hurt in the process. For anyone who grew up being told stories of absentee landlords in the great famine, this should be familiar stuff. For anyone else, if you ever wondered where my aversion to getting locked into "regular monthly payments" for something you can't quite own and control outright, there you go. Sensitivity to market power and aversion to getting into positions where it can be wielded like a weapon against you is a deep, cultural thing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCC8fPQOaxU

thriftyandboringinohio
04-08-19, 12:51 PM
Last week I went to a meet-and-great for investing in apartment buildings.
Most folks were house flippers looking to move up into the big leagues, I was looking for passive lending opportunities.

The presenter made a similar argument about raising rents. It's one key to making the numbers work for the apartment project flipper, raising rents 20% to 30%.
He talked about how people are stuck in their apartments to a large degree. Although in theory they can move, most folks want to live within a couple miles of where they live now, and moving is expensive.
If the flipper buys the cheapest project in an area, he can raise rents up to the units nearby and people are just stuck, they will somehow find another $100 a month.

dcarrigg
04-08-19, 01:01 PM
Yeah. Homelessness is usually the last option. Most people will default on their car loans and credit cards and student loans and go hungry before they get thrown out on the street. So it's great for investors. The landlord's pretty high up on the payment priority ladder. Of course, some people can and do stop paying. And laws vary by state about how long they can get away with that. But I generally expect chattel defaults to precede evictions and mortgage defaults.

I think that this is going to be a bigger story as one integral part of the next recession. The last recession forced subprime homeowners into the rental markets. The next recession is going to push renters onto the streets. The monthly cash flow of the bottom 50% is super precarious. And they're disproportionally young. And there's a lot of them. For some it may even be a blast. But they're going to be super pissed off and radicalized by what's happened. I don't think it's a coincidence that the big rental squeeze is on at the same time socialism is on the rise amongst the exact population demographics in the exact localities most affected by it. As the squeeze gets tighter, what other reaction should anyone expect? Basic Newtonian physics.

And America's unique system of profit-based healthcare works exactly this same way. They know they beat even the landlord and the bank on the priority chain. So they charge whatever they damn well please. They liquidate people in exchange for their lives. It's just naked and vulgar raw power.

dcarrigg
04-08-19, 03:00 PM
Maybe of interest and relevant to the thread, this just popped up on my RSS feed. (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/08/bernie-sanders-open-borders-1261392)

thriftyandboringinohio
04-08-19, 03:45 PM
Nobody supports "open borders" .
It's a talking point catch phrase that implies some candidate wants any person in the world to be able stroll in and stay forever, no questions asked, even a million people at a time.
I'm not aware that anyone has proposed or endorses such a thing; it exists only as an insult.

dcarrigg
04-08-19, 03:49 PM
I think you're right. More than that, perception is everything and reality doesn't matter. I'd be shocked if 10% of rando Americans polled would say that the Trump Admin legally lets in more foreign guest workers than Obama's. But it does. There's a lot of rhetoric and kabuki theater going on. Actions tell a different story.

DSpencer
04-09-19, 11:52 AM
Nobody supports "open borders" .
It's a talking point catch phrase that implies some candidate wants any person in the world to be able stroll in and stay forever, no questions asked, even a million people at a time.
I'm not aware that anyone has proposed or endorses such a thing; it exists only as an insult.

Very true. Bernie even backs it up a little bit by pointing to some problems with the idea. The problem is that most of what he supports has the tendency to move towards open borders. It's kind of like saying that you don't support anarchy; you just want to release all the prisoners from jail and then defund the police.

dcarrigg
04-09-19, 12:21 PM
Very true. Bernie even backs it up a little bit by pointing to some problems with the idea. The problem is that most of what he supports has the tendency to move towards open borders. It's kind of like saying that you don't support anarchy; you just want to release all the prisoners from jail and then defund the police.

I'm less certain about this. We'll see what comes. But I think Bernie and most of his fans are primarily interested in increasing wages, aka the price of domestic labor, and I think they'd happily end guest worker programs and curtail immigration if it led to those ends. The more "centrist" Democrats generally support a more open borders policy, but they also generally support whatever is in the best interest of the Davos crowd anyways. Horseshoe theory is generally stupid. But I think you'll find immigration may be one issue where folks on the left and the right agree more than they disagree on actions, if not rhetoric, and folks in the center are really the opposition on actions, if not rhetoric. The problem is keeping the rhetoric distinct from the actions long enough for people to pick up on it.

You ever met a union member who liked illegal labor? Don't think I have. SEIU may be the exception to the rule. I'll tell you one thing, I agree with almost everything Tucker Carlson said here. Bananas. Who thought we'd see the day?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cvbKdij6vE

DSpencer
04-09-19, 03:56 PM
I'm less certain about this. We'll see what comes. But I think Bernie and most of his fans are primarily interested in increasing wages, aka the price of domestic labor, and I think they'd happily end guest worker programs and curtail immigration if it led to those ends. The more "centrist" Democrats generally support a more open borders policy, but they also generally support whatever is in the best interest of the Davos crowd anyways. Horseshoe theory is generally stupid. But I think you'll find immigration may be one issue where folks on the left and the right agree more than they disagree on actions, if not rhetoric, and folks in the center are really the opposition on actions, if not rhetoric. The problem is keeping the rhetoric distinct from the actions long enough for people to pick up on it.

You ever met a union member who liked illegal labor? Don't think I have. SEIU may be the exception to the rule. I'll tell you one thing, I agree with almost everything Tucker Carlson said here. Bananas. Who thought we'd see the day?



Maybe it's just that Bernie tries to stay quiet with the rhetoric for fear of offending groups that might support him. The problem is that nearly everyone claims to want the same thing: secure the border, deport violent illegal immigrants, and humanely deal with the peaceful and hardworking immigrants who want to stay here, especially children. Is there any candidate that wouldn't say they support "comprehensive immigration reform"?

Maybe it's just a question of priorities. Or maybe some people say it but don't really mean it. All I can say is that, personally, if Bernie gets elected, I won't be expecting a clampdown on illegal immigration.

thriftyandboringinohio
04-09-19, 04:39 PM
Maybe it's just that Bernie tries to stay quiet with the rhetoric for fear of offending groups that might support him. The problem is that nearly everyone claims to want the same thing: secure the border, deport violent illegal immigrants, and humanely deal with the peaceful and hardworking immigrants who want to stay here, especially children. Is there any candidate that wouldn't say they support "comprehensive immigration reform"?

Maybe it's just a question of priorities. Or maybe some people say it but don't really mean it. All I can say is that, personally, if Bernie gets elected, I won't be expecting a clampdown on illegal immigration.

This is a campaign game we play now. Conservatives have convinced millions of Americans that Democratic candidates want a slew of ridiculous things, so the Democrats will be asked about them, and need to disavow them, no matter how absurd. I try to listen to right wing radio a bit every day, and the ridiculous accusations come a dozen every hour by every radio talk host.

dcarrigg
04-09-19, 04:59 PM
Like I said, you don't have to. I just like to point out that there were a lot fewer H1Bs and H2Bs etc. issued under Obama than Trump, and there were a lot more deportations under Obama than Trump too (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/12/14/deportations-under-trump-are-rise-still-lower-than-obamas-ice-report-shows/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c968becc1329). Trump is making a big show of a couple miles of fencing and some holding camps and executive orders. But the actual data show he's not really doing all that much, and Obama actually did more. The data is not matching the rhetoric at all.

https://redbus2us.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Total-H1B-Visa-Petitions-filed-with-USCIS-History-from-2004-to-2019.png

https://i.ibb.co/gVR7qKH/Screen-Shot-2019-04-09-at-3-56-23-PM.png

DSpencer
04-10-19, 10:18 AM
Like I said, you don't have to. I just like to point out that there were a lot fewer H1Bs and H2Bs etc. issued under Obama than Trump, and there were a lot more deportations under Obama than Trump too (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/12/14/deportations-under-trump-are-rise-still-lower-than-obamas-ice-report-shows/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c968becc1329). Trump is making a big show of a couple miles of fencing and some holding camps and executive orders. But the actual data show he's not really doing all that much, and Obama actually did more. The data is not matching the rhetoric at all.

My sense was that Trump's rhetoric was primarily about illegal immigration, not legal. He's not talking about building a wall to keep H1Bs out.

The deportation numbers are interesting, but what does it mean? Are fewer people attempting to enter the country? Is the Border Patrol more successful in keeping them out? Are there fewer immigrants that meet deportation criteria?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-deported-more-people/

From the article you posted:


"It used to be that there was a sense that they were looking for people who had committed serious crimes,” she said in a phone interview with The Washington Post.

Under the Trump administration, Bauer said there has been a sense that U.S. immigration officials are “looking for everyone,” which has “created a society of fear and terror” in immigrant communities.

Is that all just baloney to make Trump look mean? Do you think that Trump's actions while President are actually softer on immigration than Obama's? It feels like you are throwing out a couple points of data that don't really get to the heart of the issue.

dcarrigg
04-10-19, 12:10 PM
I think it depends on what you mean by hard or soft. Secure Communities was created in 2008 implemented nationwide under Obama, starting in 2011. We had local protests against Obama (and other Democrats) by immigrant rights groups because of it. (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/massachusetts-activists-protest-secure-communities-program) I think Trump's rhetoric has been a lot tougher. I think the handling of the cases they do work has probably gotten rougher. I think they're also working fewer cases overall. And I think they're juicing legal immigration and guest workers. But let's be real about it, there's always a percentage of them who overstay their visas. It's a vector for illegal immigration. So if we get 10,000 more guest workers in MA this year than in 2015, some number of them are bound to stay.

Then again, maybe the heart of the issue is different for me than it is for you. If the point is to ease downward pressure on wages from competition from foreign labor, then authorizing a bunch of new foreign labor to come in gets right at the heart of the issue. If the point is to make a big show of roughing up people without legal immigration status with the idea that publicizing it will be a deterrent to future people who might try it, then maybe Trump's approach has merit. I tend to be skeptical of a lot of the deterrent arguments. I think we're a nation of laws, and laws should be enforced. But I've also always noticed little things like that states with the death penalty still have higher murder rates 150 years later compared with states who banned it before the Civil War. Sometimes you have to get tough. Sometimes you have to take the high road to set an example.

So what do I think? I don't think it's baloney to make Trump look mean. I think his rhetoric and some of the handling of publicized cases is mean. Like I said, I think they're handling fewer cases, but treating the cases they do handle more roughly. I don't think it's a genius move. But it serves two purposes. One, it keeps the supply of foreign labor high, which corporate America always wants. And two, the silverback posturing keeps the base happy. It's a way the Trump Admin can have its cake and eat it too. Obama had the opposite problem. He wanted to look soft and civilized to his base, but simultaneously reduce immigration flows to deal with the unemployment fallout from the great recession.

Here's my theory behind why that is: The pressure to run up immigration flows always peaks late in an expansion, for obvious reasons. The pressure to cut them off always peaks after the doldrums of a recession, for similar obvious reasons. Whether you're looking right or left, for different reasons, it's obvious the social pressure of immigration has become contentious. The 1990s were a rate of immigration the likes of which the US hadn't really experienced sine the 1910s. So now in the 2010s, the percentage of foreign born residents is as high as it has been since the 1910s. The last peak was 1999-2001, and is behind us already. The way I look at it is we're coming into the trough and could, and probably will, stay there through the 2020s. But the pressure to increase immigration flows, from a few places including the borders, but especially in Washington from large employers, ratchets up late in an expansion as demand for labor goes up and their lobbyists fight to prevent wage increases. They tend to get what they want, regardless of which party is in charge. So we're back up to 2005, 2006 levels of granting legal permanent status, and of legal immigration in general.

Now, I'm going out on a limb on this one, but I suspect that the vast majority folks who get very upset about illegal immigration probably don't want a whole lot more legal immigration either. In fact, the things that bother them in day-to-day life probably don't exactly hinge on the vagaries of visa status. In fact, even if all immigrants in the US were here legally by some act of God or Congress, I think most of these folks would still be upset. It's hot in the melting pot. The assimilation process is not painless, and rarely perfect. We underinvest in public services, and labor is getting an increasingly shrinking share of the pie to invest in their private homes. Adding more demand for private homes and public services drives up prices for folks already strapped. Of course, not all of this can be solved by immigration policy alone. The vans of Chinese nationals roving major US cities speculating on real estate are real. They bought up half of Long Island City before they got burned on the "HQ2" announcement. So I think there needs to be a concomitant series of capital flow restrictions. Various cities are trying some piecemeal ones. Think of the Vancouver foreign buyer tax, or the DC 10-month vacant tax now starting to hit parked empty luxury properties, not just blighted buildings.

Anyways, that's what I think of it. The 'nativist' impulse on one hand is cultural and psychological. On the other hand it's economic and material. It's a product of having the highest percentage of foreign born residents in a century, a good percentage of whom have no legal status, and it is the product having the flat wages and asset price inflation with the highest levels of income inequality since at least the gilded age. What else would anyone expect would happen? It's like throwing fuel on the fire. And if you follow me, whether or not you agree, increasing legal immigration flows is just adding more fuel. For a physical analogy, everything adds energy to the system. Increase capital's share and decrease labor's share, there's energy. Increase the GINI coefficient, there's energy. Increase immigration flows, more energy. Increase demand through foreign asset purchases, more energy. Crank up housing, healthcare, education, childcare, and other essential costs, and push down wages. More energy. Eventually either something gives or something pops off.

DSpencer
04-10-19, 04:13 PM
I almost entirely agree, with one main exception. I don't buy the idea that they are deporting fewer people because Trump wants to keep the labor supply high. That may be the reason for more visas, but I don't think it extends to people here illegally. Deportations are rising, not falling. Yes, they were higher at some points during Obama's two terms, but they were trending down for years and now the trend is reversing.

I'm not sure the deportation number provides a clear picture of the President's wishes/strategy/actions anyway. Did Obama want to deport a lot of people early in his presidency and then change his mind? As you said, there are other factors that influence immigration policy and enforcement.

How would Trump even put this into action without it making headlines? I assume if he wanted to lighten up enforcement it would have to be communicated to the rank and file agents. A story that Trump wanted to step up enforcement wouldn't garner much attention, but certainly one that said the opposite would raise eyebrows, right?

dcarrigg
04-10-19, 09:21 PM
I almost entirely agree, with one main exception. I don't buy the idea that they are deporting fewer people because Trump wants to keep the labor supply high. That may be the reason for more visas, but I don't think it extends to people here illegally. Deportations are rising, not falling. Yes, they were higher at some points during Obama's two terms, but they were trending down for years and now the trend is reversing.

I'm not sure the deportation number provides a clear picture of the President's wishes/strategy/actions anyway. Did Obama want to deport a lot of people early in his presidency and then change his mind? As you said, there are other factors that influence immigration policy and enforcement.

How would Trump even put this into action without it making headlines? I assume if he wanted to lighten up enforcement it would have to be communicated to the rank and file agents. A story that Trump wanted to step up enforcement wouldn't garner much attention, but certainly one that said the opposite would raise eyebrows, right?

It doesn't have to be intentional even. Take a department. Leave a ton of leadership posts empty. The department runs less efficiently. Easy.

Slimprofits
04-22-19, 11:06 AM
http://www.itulip.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5893&stc=1

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/we-asked-democratic-activists-who-theyre-backing-and-who-theyd-hate-to-see-win/

California Sen. Kamala Harris continues to lead the pack

Ellen Z
12-03-19, 11:28 PM
Reading a great book of Nazi Germany and Hitler had the special sauce to mesmerize the crowd. The Elites of Germany loved Hitlers oratory skill and figured to use him as a puppet to manipulate the masses. Hillary Clinton did not/does not have the ability to mesmerize and was able to win lots of states with her platform/resume, but not enough to secure the office.



What's the name of the book, please?