Free college and a $15 minimum wage are both retarded ideas, but there are a handful of industries that are quasi-socialized already and would be better off being completely nationalized. Health care, where 60% of the revenue already comes from the government and hospitals aren't allowed to turn away anyone who can't afford life-saving treatment and therefore have to push the costs onto responsible people, is the best example of that.
>>1092337 Marx was a crazy good doagnostician but the prognosis wasnt thought out.
Thankfully technology is forcing the issue as the value inherent in labor will shortly be replaced by machines completely and then we'll be forced to address capitalisms shortcomings , even though we will likely be doing so from the ghettos that 98% of us will live in.
We'll have legal weed , vr and soylent though! So thats a silver lining
Simply put, the economy needs the lower and middle classes to be successful.
We have been increasing job efficiency (less/easier/more low paying jobs) for the sake of profit, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The problem is that this extra profit isn't being reinvested properly and workers are suffering.
When the average consumer has less disposable income to spend, we can't depend on them to increase their spending year over year. We need to reverse course as soon as possible.
baby boomers had a $16 minimum wage equivalent when they were getting out of school but now that they run things it's "just not possible!"
LMFAO if you believe that garbage. Stop being corporate cuckolds. Also, I'd rather these corporations be forced to take care of their employees rather than having them turn to the government for handouts to fill in the gaps.
it might actually be true. When boomers were young, China was communist, so the companies could not outsource all the jobs there.Ofcourse the same fucking boomers outsourced jobs there at the first chance and whine about young people being "entitled", just like those boomer faggots were all LSD and weed consuming hippies and then started the "war on drugs" when they eventually got older.
>>1094043 if dems retake the senate (house isnt up until 2020) they would back "lighter" versions of his proposals
remember no one gets elected and then does what they say, so he can probably get us inversal healthcare by selling the savings and also calling it a fix to obamacare
the free college thing just isnt thought out well (and lowering current interest rates on existing debt) , in other socialist democracies you have to a.) not be getting a useless degree and b.)not be retarded - for free university and american exceptionalism wont let this fly. The bargain might be an expansion of trade schools and a clamp down on the bullshit ones, slightly lowerd rates. Really though for free university to make sense you have to restructure things a lot and I just dont see it happening.
his other stuff isn't that far out but he'd use all his political capital even with a dem controlled senate just for universal healthcare so eliminating private pirsons for instance would end up on the back burner, I think he could get some wall street regulation through but it would be piecemeal (like one large piece of legislation to begin with and then bits and pieces of amendments and stuff as his first term goes on) - the democrats didnt keep themselves together by blowing the federal budget and burning all their bridges on big idealistic stuff theyve survived through compromise and if bernie wants one of his big projects to get through (hopefully healthcare) the rest will have to wait
Now if the bernie people somehow got bernie style reps in as the ones who retake the senate and then do the same with the house? instead of just normal dems? well one could dream but its not realistic - fear motivates people (to vote in particular) and dems dont sell fear well
>>1094063 Universal healthcare will never happen. You know how many retirement plans you would wipe out overnight? What happens to AIG stock, etc and the holders of insurance stocks? You are talking about a quarter of GDP gone overnight
>>1094067 A quarter of our GDP isnt insurance stocks, and all the healthcare related jobs that arent parasitic insurance middlemen would be fine, I think we'd cope fine - every other first world country does it and they aren't in flames.
>>1094073 "Every other country does x..." is not a good argument. It appeals to idealistic people who think little of logistics and sounds good, but means very little. America is unlike any other country on the planet and very often get ourselves in trouble trying to emulate others when our entire system varies so greatly. Other countries operate vastly different retirement plans than ours. Here, most retirement plans are 401ks or IRAs, where a large portion is held in insurance stocks. What happens to this money? Where do the millions of insurance jobs go? No other country had an insurance industry like ours when they nationalized. I'm not necessarily against single payer, but the logistics of switching in America are insane and uncomparable to any other country
I don't like the free college plan. Pretty much makes a college education even more worthless. It might stipulate that it will reduce the interest rate on those that have already attended, but forcing even more through the system for free will take away any earning power a degree might have in the market today. Then it will be people bitching they can't make their lowered interest payments because a bunch of people went to school for free and took their job for considerably less money.
>>1094081 No. Its really not like at all. Go look it up , venture capital , banking and asset management + insurance is less than 7% and insurance is the smaller of the 4.
Youve been hoodwinked (convinced) that were some snowflake special country but time and time again the math shows that in reality we pay more per capita to NOT insure people than it would cost to simply insure them because we cut out the middleman graft and the country having a monopsy (single buyer) gives us a discount.
Literally just go research the subject , the numbers dont lie.
>>1094114 You totally dodged the point. I didnt say our current system is great (Obama are has royally fucked my taxes as well as other problems I had totalled me about $5k lost this year outside of premiums/deductibles).
I'm asking you what Bernie's plan is to replace the capital invested in private insurers
>>1094116 YOU totally dodged the point, its literally a non issue because health insurance companies are a small % of GDP (with low ROI btw - less than 4% so theyre a bad investment) - we can knock these parasites off and its a rounding error more than made up for by government and personal savings on insurance premiums / health related bankruptcies.
You're the fucking idiot, idiot. The guy made a valid point. National healthcare has to be implemented because there will always be people who don't buy medical insurance despite being able to afford it and then show up at the ER for free treatment when they needed it
>>1092365 "Free" college creates a moral hazard program, but implementing a completely reformed version of generalized college (say, the first two years when everyone has to take gen eds) in a way similar to public high school would probably be a step in the right direction. That way you're not paying for womens studies majors, but you're also cutting the standard tuition in half.
What are you talking about? The costs are already being paid - by those that actually pay for the insurance. Now the freeriders would be forced to pay too, lessing the burden on those that are paying the premiums already
>>1094157 How about the fact that the US government already pays $162 Billion in tax expenditures to subsidize companies to give their employees private insurance?
I think the point most people make, and I don't see how it's not a valid one, is simply that paying x amount of dollars in taxes is always preferable to paying x+y amount of dollars in health insurance. As long as y is a nonzero sum for the median American, from a policy standpoint it should be implemented, no?
Now, if you argue that y under any universal healthcare policy would be 0 or less, then that's a valid argument, but also a very specific one that we should focus on instead of the nebulous arguments we keep hearing.
>>1094167 No, those freeriders are not going to pay into the system enough taxes to cover themselves or they wouldnt be freeloaders. Unless your plan is to jack up taxes on the lowest tax brackets, single payer doesnt solve the freeriders it just sweeps them under the carpet.
>>1094176 Once again, Im not arguing against singlepayer. Im just saying there are a few specific problems that need to be addressed. Wiping out billions of dollars from everyone's 401ks is not a "temporary shock to the stock market." It's a problem that would face every retiree, pension manager, or anyone holding these securities, including the long term debt. What happens to the corporate bonds? What is Sanders' plan to address this?
>>1094191 >No, those freeriders are not going to pay into the system enough taxes to cover themselves or they wouldnt be freeloaders
Again, you do not know what you are talking about. The people who genuinly cannot afford medical insurance are awarded Medicaid. The problem is with people who can afford insurance but choose not to buy it, instead spending their money on various frivolities, but when they suffer a medical emergency they pass that financial burden on a hospital that can not refuse them, and in turn that hospital raises the rates and everybody else
>>1094201 I understand the concept. This is something Obamacare claimed to fix conpletely. It didnt. And what I'm saying is singlepayer does lnt fix the problem either, it just pays their bills for them. Unless the plan is to substantially jack up taxes on these lower bracket individuals. Is that the plan?
>>1094191 Again. Those stocks and bonds makeup like 2 or 3% of gdp , its not a big deal.
Also please reference the link I provided regarding your above reply to that other poster , it lays out point by point how its paid for and why it saves us money. We cant discuss a proposal only one of us even read.
>>1094209 It solves the problem because when the government is the only buyer they set the price.
A homeless guy going to the ER isnt a 15k ordeal when the cost of the ER reflects the reality of a banana bag of b vitamins and salines (hobos a drunk in this hypothetical) a half hour for a nurse , 15 minutes for a doctor and 15 more minute of paperwork later.
>>1092462 This whole Thomas Piketty way of thinking doesn't seem historically sound to me. Capitalism is sole reason why middle class even exists. History has shown time and time again, that poorest people live in socialist countries. And it's in those same countries where there are most prospects for standards of living (since income would incorrect be term to use when talking about planned economy) to decline.
>>1092401 It's actually suprising to see so many people, on /biz/ of all places, to buy into this argument that there is will be no innovation in the future, that we will in some Fukuyamist utopia where history has ended.
So let me get this straight you imagine a future in which all manufacturing, service and creative jobs are completely taken over by machines and computers, in which capital owners are only wealthy people (which apparently are controlled solely by greed), but you can't imagine the future in which people have created new industries.
It's rather ironic that you talk about possible flaws of capitalism, but fail to point out that planned economy (which is only alternative as of right now) directly conflicts with human nature and is historically PROVEN to be utopian.
So what, do you suggest to replace a system, which might fail sometime in the distant future if whole human race sits on their ass the whole time, with the system which is proven to be impossible to implement.
>>1094384 No. We create a "humans alive on the planet" dividend since were all on a planet together with limited resources and share the productivity of the machines between ourselves instead of what will happen (the rich who own the robot factories and robots will force us into ghettos and we'll wither away attached to vr headsets)
And I explained in the post your replying to that the ministrations (solution) of communism is a non starter ,
Its weird you tongue in cheek when I mention mand inherent greed ruining capitalist society yet you agree the same human vices wrecked communism from day one?
>>1094446 Mostly the same, except for college. A lot of things were actually more expensive then
>>1094392 I asked what Bernie's plan to replace the lost investment capital was. I didnt say anything beyond that. I'm assuming he doesn't have one now, because you are doing everything except answering the question
>>1094468 >Homes are over 50k than what they were >Median income has dropped 4k >A new vehicle is apprx 15k more >min wage is $1 less than it was in 1975, adjusted >college prices are straight up through the roof, public included
>>1094491 It's still hard to judge. Houses may be larger, cars may have more safety features, and there may be more expensive options for both, thus driving up the median or mean. Perhaps both have improved features as well.
The education piece must definitely be looked at as it's essentially the same system, but double/triple the price.
>>1094504 That's not how it works. Everyone's first 10000 is taxed at 10%, then everyone's 74900 is taxed at 15% etc and so on regardless of how much you make. That final $1 after 250k would be taxed at the 37% rate.
What baffles me is that the rich still benefited from a tax break under Bush, just not their marginal income over 250k when Obama changed it.
>>1094468 >house: more expensive >college: more expensive >car: more expensive >wages: lower >but hey you save 69 cents on a movie ticket! Wow things sure have gotten so much cheaper now, we are living the life!
The plan is to make people who can afford to pay for insurance but don't, pay for the fucking insurance. What's so hard to understand? Say you're making $50k/year but you refuse to get health insurance becuase "I'm young and I feel healthy". Well fuck you, get insurance or pay a tax penalty. That's why it's called insurance - it protects from unforeseen things. And should you have that accident, it will covered by the insurance, instead of the hospital that can't refuse your ER visit
>>1094524 This is exactly why we need forced insurance.
>I should be the one who chooses if I need insurance or not! No, because you don't buy insurance and then you go to the ER on the American people's dime. Fuck you. We either all chip in, or none of us do.
>>1094522 college was not more expensive, my old man got a bachelors in EE working part time at the school library - not a thing today >>1094524 if you make 50k a year the ER isnt going to give you a freebie and write it off as a charity case they'll bill your ass later and send it to collections if needed , the problem with the current system is the actual destitute poor who use it for everything , they dont get regular checkups and show up in critical condition (requiring icu stays - dialasys etc which costs fuck tons of money)
If poor people have insurance and they get told they have treatable conditions like diabetes and hypertension before it gets bad they can take preventative measures so they dont end up amputees etc
>>1094531 >Communist It's called community. Retard. Humans learned a long time ago that they can increase productivity and live better lives if they work together. That sometimes includes paying for shit you don't use. Roads, the postal service, community college, what have you. Because out there, there is someone paying for shit you use, and they don't.
You're more than welcome to fuck off and live off the grid. Just don't leech off our services like a parasite when you realize you need a doctor for an injury or a teacher for your kids.
>>1094535 >they'll bill your ass later and send it to collections if needed
Lol you're naive. Did you ever try selling a debt to a collection agency? It's pennies on a dollar, because its hard as fuck to collect when you aren't allowed to send in the goons. And as I mentioned before, poor people are already covered by medicaid since 1965. If you think we can lower costs by trying to encourage poor people to go for checkups that's fine by me
>>1094524 I think you're talking about Obamacare. We were discussing single payer. And no hospital will let you off the hook anyway. Youll get billed and if you dont pay theyll get a percentage from collections and write the rest off and take a nicr subsidy to cover a good percentage of the rest. It's not as big a deal as your making it out to be
>>1094524 That's not right. We would get Medicare for all under Bernie. Medicare is like a $120 premium for parts A and B (very basic care). If you qualify for Medicaid (poorfag, Medicaid pays the premium). If you want more coverage you can option into Part C, a private insurer that covers basic care and additional stuff. If you need prescription drugs you get a Part D (prescription drug care plan), arguably a Bush era failure because they don't get drug prices low enough like in other countries. Medicare is national and already covers lots of people over 65.
Which sounds fine by me because since the govt is already involved you might as well cut out the middleman thats pretty much taking a cut for passing it through his private corporation. That's the same bullshit that was happening when banks served as an intermediary between guaranteed govt student loans and the students. They literally took 0 risk because the loans were guaranteed by the govt, yet got a cut from the interest anyway.
The bottom line is, US healthcare system is so completely fucking convoluted that if the govt took it over and shook out all that entangled bullshit filled with parasitic HMO middlemen, we'd all be actually saving on taxes. Right now we dont have a private system and we don't have a universal healthcare system. What we have is a private health system backed by the government, which is absolutely ridiculous.
>>1094598 Holy shit, lol. You kids are so funny. Like what? "Emperor Trump?" People have been posting rational arguments in this entire thread, but every single time cucks like you try to turn it into "lol but ur just jealous. So no, faggot, you're the one that can't reason.
Do you tell people IRL that you're trying to elect the immortal god emperor? I would pay honest money to watch that kind of comedy gold. Fucking mandchildren, lol.
>>1094384 >Capitalism is sole reason why middle class even exists.
The west first recorded a middle class after the black death, when farm and skilled labor became far more valuable (because 40-90% of the farmers/skilled laborers had died!) and some peasants and a larger number of skilled tradespeople were able to wrench control of land and finances away from their former feudal lords.
>>1094679 Because austerity and cutting taxes have both been done before, and every single time they are implemented they bring disasterous effects. We currently have a problem with capital stagnation causing a demand slump, so the rational thing to do would be to get that capital moving again rather than throwing more money on the pile where it can just sit there. Capital's utility is proportional to the log of its owner's capital reserves. In other words, the more capital a person has, statistically that capital will do fewer economically useful things per dollar.
>>1094660 No, he's right. It's past your bedtime kiddo. It's time to dream of your firebreathing dragons and silly god emperors.
>>1094713 http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics5.asp This is the economic basis for why our economy has been struggling so much lately. It turns out that an uneven capital distribution is actually extremely harmful to economic health.
>>1094704 I have my own problems with that entire theory, since it doesnt account for debt at all. I can take out a $100,000 business loan and it doesn't matter how much money is sitting in Bill Gates' savings account. I then sell to people with credit cards.
Beyond that, how does Bernie plan on getting that stagnant money moving?
>>1094398 Because greed is the motivation in capitalism. That's the beauty of capitalism, it utilizes individual flaws to benefit the "society". It's just natural, it's where people thrive. As long as it is within the legal boundaries, there is nothing wrong with wanting to increase your capital.
What do you think people do when you try to confide them, distribute their produce? What do you think workers in soviet kholkhozes did when authorities tried to distribute produce they created? They stole from kholkhozes to get ahead of everyone else. What do you think shopkeepers did when authorities commanded them to restrict their sales? They sold to the highest bidder, large black markets arose. Sure some were imprisoned, some were shot. But it didn't stop people. Free markets always prevail.
I understand legitimate concern that free markets tend to overproduce. Or drain resources. However, markets distribute resources better than any other economic system. Again, lower class was always poorest in socialist countries, biggest famines happened in socialist countries, middle class was destroyed in socialist countries, biggest gap between upper and lower classes was in socialist countries, socialist countries were the most polluted countries on Earth.
And it's ironic that you are afraid of some conglomerate taking over in the future, but your solution to prevent this is to give away your power of choice to some centralized entity. Capitalism is only economic system which can guarantee you freedom since it is decentralized in nature. How is that a logical solution?
You westerners need a reality check. You have lived your lives comfortably and I suppose it made you lazy and naive. You are so quick to throw away what your forefathers have created in the name of convenience or social justice. I would actually like to see you go under, but if west goes under rest of the world will follow.
>>1095055 Debt is not an adequate substitute for capital ownership or income because it places a massive burden on future economic performance. Also for the average person in US, a demographic who also happens to carry out the majority of economic activity in this country, debt *has* been increasingly used a substitute for wages. However, at some point your have to make payments on that debt, and then without any means of doing so the whole system collapses.
>>1095071 >muh emotional arguments Opinion discarded. Post economics.
>>1095084 I'll disagree with you there. The point is that no matter how much money is sitting in Bill Gates brokerage account, I have access to as much money as I need. There is no set amount of capital in the system. I can add as much as I want by either creating value or taking on debt. Cmon, this is simple economics
What is Bernie's plan to get the so-called "stagnant" money "moving?"
>>1095084 Economics is a social science you dipwit. It analyzes human behavior and their choices which are connected with economic activity. And I did just that, I examined human behavior and showed historical evidence to support my claims. It wasn't emotional up until last paragraph, which was just my opinion.
What, do you actually think there exists empirical data on how big black market in USSR was? Best we can do in this case is to go by historical accounts, which are plentiful.
>>1095102 A lot of college kids take their econ classes as empirical fact instead of as general theory to expand upon outside of school. It's something you have to get used to around here. But, yeah, it's annoying AF when they start quoting economic theory as if it is physics
>>1094679 You're confuses means and ends. A balanced budget should never be a goal but the effects of a budget and other fiscal and monetary policies. A budget should be a means to economic prosperity. You shouldn't assume any particular a priori relation between government expenditures and revenues or a priori desirable size of debt. What a budget should be can't be said before economic analysis.
>>1095090 >I have access to as much money as I need Except back in the real world you don't. Yes, new capital can be generated, but you're vastly overestimating the rate at which that occurs. I can transfer a million dollars between accounts in the blink of an eye, but it takes many years, decades even, to create that kind of value. Since the rate of capital transfer is so much enormously larger than the rate of capital creation, we can consider it capital generation to be negligible in this case. I already explained why you can't just take out debt, so in the end you're stuck between a rock and a hard place if you don't have any capital. So if all the capital is locked away in offshore accounts, doing mostly nothing, that will do tangible economic damage.
>>1095102 >>1095109 You can't just in your first breath post your gut opinion and then in your second breath cite your own opinion as fact and call it science. That's not how it works. I could post some sob story about a poor sap that lost everything and can't find work, but that's low hanging fruit. Post more economics.
>>1095131 >we can cosider capital generation to be negligible. No, you cant. The entire system is based on capital generation and debt. The only reason the "locked away" capital exists is through these two devices.
What you are doing is pausing the clock of economic growth at a certain time (now) and assuming that the capital currently in play is all there will ever be and we should divide it up.
Literally communism and the reason why Yeltsin visited a grocery store in America and thought it had been staged. You cant discount the constant creation of capital as it is what makes "capitalism" work
>>1095331 >shouldnt be Not >wont be Thats the problem with you communists. Always coming up with grandiose ideas without any practical form of implementation. Good luck telling millions of people who already have insurance that their insurance company investments are trash and their taxes are going up.
>>1095984 You're assuming most people pay out of pocket for their own insurance. Also, your comments on the lost 3% of retirement portfolios being negligible makes most of your other opinions trash. I didnt even bring this up as an argument against single payer, just a point the needs to be addressed. Ignoring it or acting like it isnt an issue makes you look so economically illiterate that no one is going to take you seriously (see: Bernie Sanders)
Not that I would expect him to be economically literate, since his first "job" was mayor of a small town and since then the closest he's ever had to a real job is university professor. Why anyone listens to his economic ideas is beyond me
>>1096000 Youre replying to a different poster smartypants
Also again , we have mountains of evidence that this works and you have a single nitpick. You arent making a very strong counter argument on an economica board by not even supporting your argument. I posted the link to his plans details way way above and you havent even botherd to look at it have you?
Most people do pay out of pocket. Deductibles and premiums and copays (higher than they would be with single payer)
Also the states still have to bill the federal government (im on vacation two states over and break my leg etc) and do cost saving reviews etc. The actual insurance company employees would still have jobs (just less of them)
Anyway , so if you have an argument thats fact based and not a weak nitpick then im all ears.
>>1096022 and the us gdp is 16.7 trillion or 158x that ,
as I alluded to above not all the workers would be laid off,
as I mentioned farther above that as insurance companies make up so little of the actual economy pension funds / 401k's would hardly notice the hit (google "income elasticity of demand" to see why the money people now spend on health insurance going into spending in the conomy would be a boon for other businesses to counteract the temporary loss)
and as a final note, every other first world country in the world did it and their economies didn't collapse
fucking hilarious, you worry about an insurance comapny going underwater and we get free health insurance? look how much of your money has been pissed away since 2001 on failed wars
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.