|
riseofmydick posted:You can not tell me Medicare, which serves less than 30% of the population, will be able to serve 90%+ of the population without a massive expansion of offices and personel. ...I didn't say that, because that would be stupid. Yes, the government side would have to grow by a lot, and many many people who formerly worked in insurance will have relevant skills and will be able to move laterally into these new jobs. But less people than work in insurance right now. By design. Because that's part of the point.
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:30 |
|
|
riseofmydick posted:But in the article he's literally bitching about people voting for Bloomberg and Steyer because of TV ad buys? Leninism once again proven correct.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:02
|
|
|
John Wick of Dogs posted:That NV not instructing people to sign their ballot thing is hosed up if true. wow weird it's almost like Democrats want a plausible excuse to disqualify as many ballots from poor and minority neighborhoods as possible by giving them bad directions, while holding the hands of affluent white people to ensure they don't make any mistakes
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:02
|
|
|
riseofmydick posted:But in the article he's literally bitching about people voting for Bloomberg and Steyer because of TV ad buys? Granted Steyer only got .2% in Iowa and 3.6% in New Hampshire so those states are at least smarter than the rest of the country
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:03
|
|
|
Just noticed something: https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1230129914772369408 Bloomberg hasn't gained in YouGov's poll since last week. Sounds like he doesn't really have momentum on his side, I think a bad debate kills him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:wow weird it's almost like Democrats want a plausible excuse to disqualify as many ballots from poor and minority neighborhoods as possible by giving them bad directions, while holding the hands of affluent white people to ensure they don't make any mistakes I'm sure Stacey Abrams will take action to address this voter suppression,
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:07
|
|
|
blastron posted:There’s a fresh wave of “RELEASE YOUR MEDICAL RECORDS, BERNIE” posts going around Twitter and it’s so hard to see this as anything but yet another attempt to sink him. it's because anderson cooper asked if he would and he said he wouldnt guess the campaign has decided that what's in them is worse than the fallout from not releasing them
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
kidkissinger posted:i appreciate their honesty at least. just open contempt for democracy lol.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Just noticed something: Wonder if we'll get anti bernie circle and bloombergs failed support will go back to Biden. Then they can rise and fall forever and ever and ever and ever until the guillotines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:12
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I think the "if the other dropped out Sanders wouldn't win" thing isn't super true anymore, anyway. He was beating the whole field in theoretical head to head polling a while back, especially Bloomy. Yeah I agree, but they're still sticking to that narrative because they have to believe it in order to justify staying in, otherwise why are they in this grueling campaign. If that strategy ever had a chance of working, it would have needed to be before New Hampshire or even Iowa. Buttigieg completely hosed them all over by going all-in on Iowa and New Hampshire, cannibalizing their campaigns and robbing them of the electability narrative, and now his lack of campaign infrastructure in NV and SC is going to get him clobbered there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:13
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:it's because anderson cooper asked if he would and he said he wouldnt Or it's nobody's loving business what is in someone's private medical records
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:13
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Using a TNG reference to praise DS9 That episode is also great because Rom gets an ear infection from jerking it too much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:13
|
|
|
Frank joined the board of a bank after leaving Congress so it's pretty empty hearing him whine about the rich buying elections.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:14
|
|
|
If Bloomberg stalls after the debate would he keep spending on himself or just go for attack ads on Bernie?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah I agree, but they're still sticking to that narrative because they have to believe it in order to justify staying in, otherwise why are they in this grueling campaign. I think you have a point - without Buttigieg, Biden or Warren might have had a much more impressive showing in the first two states, and things could be much worse for Sanders. Sanders has been my top pick since like 2017, but I was being really cautious because I didn't think he was going to win this primary. Hot dang, he IS going to win this primary. Nice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:17
|
|
|
bobjr posted:If Bloomberg stalls after the debate would he keep spending on himself or just go for attack ads on Bernie? He has the money to do both and buy Tom Steyer an icecream.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:18
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:This is trivial to answer. First, obviously, you're issue here is you've assumed that its the case we want GDP to grow. GDP is a nonsense economic figure that doesn't adequately capture things regarding how well off society as a whole is, and we know isn't something that can sustainably keep growing forever. Yes, the GDP is promoted by technocrats. This is the problem. Raenir Salazar posted:Second, from the right first principles we can axiomatically come to the correct conclusions. Things like answering specific problems are trivial. How to reduce inequality, doesn't require nonsense levels of nuance like "focusing on the bottom 10% of earners" that doesn't economically make sense. It's not the right kind of question to ask; but if you ask the right questions you can easily get the right answers. Such as "tax the rich more or take away their wealth and redistribute it." Then you run studies and simulations to determine what is an adequate base line to bring everyone out of poverty and use that as your starting base. Axioms are a liberal myth. Nothing can be self-evident without context, and that context biases the human interpreter. For example we hold it to be axiomatic that "All men are created equal." A billionaire or king might not hold the same opinion. However, it is that billionaire who has ownership of the definition of "expert," and therefore the reigns of a technocracy. Raenir Salazar posted:A technocratic solution to climate change would insist on massively investing in nuclear power and committing to achieving self-sustaining nuclear fusion energy as mankind's next major Manhatten Project, while liberals hem and haw about NIMBY's, about profitability and other unimportant things. That depends on who the technocrat is. George W. Bush was a Yale and Harvard alumni. He did not think climate change was real at all. Raenir Salazar posted:Any socialist economy and political system that would be successful at accomplishing its policy goals would need to be inherently technocratic in its decision making; the USSR couldn't produce over 50,000 T-34's without technocracy working at its best. Yes, high skilled labor is required in an advanced society. In any society, really. We also require lots of food, however we don't have a government run by corn growers... Oops. I'm getting tired of posting on this topic, and while I don't disagree that the word "technocracy" is somewhat wrongfully maligned, it does have a different set of flaws than the capitalist republic we have today. Currently, power is in the hands of those most capable of accumulating wealth by hook, crook, or inheritance. A technocracy would change the seat of power from those who own the means of production to those who own the means of education. If you let the government run your schools, then you open the door to a much blander form of corruption where politicians sell diplomas to the highest bidder, much like government contracts today.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:19
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:it's because anderson cooper asked if he would and he said he wouldnt ...or they correctly deduced from that "RELEASE YOUR TAX RETURNS BERNIE" thing that these demands aren't being made in good faith, nobody cares what's actually in them or bothers to read them, and giving in to increasingly ludicrous demands for more and more disclosures from only one candidate will never end. As was proven when Obama finally did give in, released the long form birth certificate which had nothing bad in it, and his critics promptly insisted it was a forgery and demanded the real Barack The Islamic Shock birth certificate. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Feb 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:20
|
|
|
I am not sure if this is normal neolib elitism or a fame version of the "I am uniquely qualified to do this very high profile job because I am rich" myth. That tendancy for all americans to believe that rich people are somehow uniquely qualified is probably the most dangerous myth in our society.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:20
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:This is trivial to answer. First, obviously, you're issue here is you've assumed that its the case we want GDP to grow. GDP is a nonsense economic figure that doesn't adequately capture things regarding how well off society as a whole is, and we know isn't something that can sustainably keep growing forever. You obviously fundamentally misunderstand the argument. The point is precisely that the more important questions don't have a technical answer. There is no technical expertise that can answer your first principles. If you want to get real deep into welfare economics, is the goal here to be Pareto efficient ? To maximize overall utility regardless of Pareto efficiency? And it's obvious from your first two issues that you don't even understand the point that is being made because you are simply reestating what I said there. Your "technocratic solution" there is a great example of what I am talking about. Switching over the entire power grid to nuclear is an inherently political decision. Lot's of people would win with it, and lots of people would lose. You'd have to have a way to enforce that policy on other countries, a way to make sure that there isn't free-riding in what would then be plentiful and cheap fossil fuels. There's no inherent technical superiority in it to other solutions, including the degrowth approaches. Technocracy isn't just the use of technical expertise. There isn't a single political opinion where people are advocating that we put an illiterate moron in charge of nuclear power policy. Technocracy is the belief in the rule by experts. But for pretty much everything political, there isn't an objective answer to moral and political questions. There are objective answers to technical questions, but not political ones. So the " Clearly and self evidently a technocracy can be good under the right circumstances" is a bullshit meaningless sentence. We can say that medicare for all is the technically superior way of providing healthcare to everyone in the US, but there is no technical argument to be made as to why everyone should have access to medical care, and why providing everyone with medical care is the superior alternative to, say, emphasizing economic growth. There is a reason there isn't a single major area of policy (as opposed to technical descriptions of reality) where experts and economists are in consensus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:20
|
|
|
VH4Ever posted:Chelsea Manning. Again. Isn't she in prision tho for contempt so even if he does she doesn't go anywhere because the judge just asks her if she's ready to talk and says no.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ashleyfeinberg/status/1230213666647216135 https://twitter.com/ASegals/status/1230211619692666880
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:40
|
|
|
Technocracy, at least in practice, is rule by people who are part of an educated elite. They don't have to actually know what they're doing, much less to have a proven ability to solve problems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:41
|
|
|
bobjr posted:https://twitter.com/hollyotterbein/status/1230088878033375233?s=20 He's not just winning people's approval, either - he's winning the electability narrative now! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:41
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/zachdcarter/status/1230183562923724806
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:42
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:https://twitter.com/ashleyfeinberg/status/1230213666647216135 Jfc that second one. Bloomberg isn't trying to save the US from Trump's fascism. He's trying to save fascism from Trump's incompetence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:45
|
|
|
syntaxrigger posted:I am not sure if this is normal neolib elitism or a fame version of the "I am uniquely qualified to do this very high profile job because I am rich" myth. It's amazing it continues to persist since a lot of billionaires and powerful people have been exposed as being incredibly stupid who probably shouldn't be in charge of anything, authoritarian psychos, or both. A lot of these people got to where they are by continuously failing upwards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:45
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:He's not just winning people's approval, either - he's winning the electability narrative now! If Bloomberg doesn't dazzle in the debate tonight, this primary is over.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:46
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Jfc that second one. Bloomberg isn't trying to save the US from Trump's fascism. He's trying to save fascism from Trump's incompetence. https://twitter.com/pareene/status/1230131806273441793
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:46
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:He's not just winning people's approval, either - he's winning the electability narrative now! I mentioned it earlier, but the twin strategy of "Bernie is a conservative racist and sexist, he's not even a Democrat just a Blue Trump" and "we need a conservative to win back those Obama-to-Trump voters in the midwest" has backfired in the most hilarious way. I didn't even expect it, but it's obvious in retrospect that if you convince people of both those things the logical conclusion to draw is that Sanders is the electable moderate who gets Trump voters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:50
|
|
|
Nate Silver posted:Obviously Bloomberg could see his #'s keep growing, or they could shrink, but the scenario where he stalls out at ~16%, enough to make Biden's fall much worse and to blunt momentum for Buttigieg, but without coming particularly close to Sanders, is a really good one for Bernie. Bloomberg's entry might have just handed Sanders the nomination.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:51
|
|
|
riseofmydick posted:You can not tell me Medicare, which serves less than 30% of the population, will be able to serve 90%+ of the population without a massive expansion of offices and personel. You might need to triple the number of people manning the phones and processing applications or whatever, but tripling the numbers on an Excel spreadsheet doesn't require triple the manpower to maintain it. There will be some redundancy. There are also private sector jobs without a public sector analogue, which is a further redundancy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:52
|
|
|
They're gonna loving murder Bloomberg on stage tonight https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1230207883721179136?s=20
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:52
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:They're gonna loving murder Bloomberg on stage tonight Wow, he wouldn't endorse his own vice president pick? Now THAT'S principled!
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ryanlcooper/status/1229958645091307520
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:53
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:I can't see the whole article but the opening is him complaining about Steyer and Bloomberg buying votes, and I find it hard to disagree that it's frustrating to watch billionaires buying their way onto the national stage. The article is paywalled for me too, but it's kinda silly to complain about voters based on the polling performance of two candidates who have yet to get even a single delegate between them. It'd be nice if the American elites at least waited until the elections actually happen before they start going off on speeches about the moral corruption of the American voter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:55
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Even if we had universal technocratic consensus on how to make the GDP grow (which we don't) that can't answer some fundamental questions. Is it more important for the government to focus on growing the GDP per capita? The median household income? The average income of the bottom 10% of the income distribution? Let me ask an even more fundamental question. Why do you want the GDP to go up? We waste tons of poo poo already. Almost 40% of food is wasted for example. Not just in the fridge, but food is just thrown away because it rots or because there aren't enough people to eat it. Do we need to produce more food? No. We don't. We need to better distribute the food that we already have and encourage people to actually eat it. Do we need more dispoable goods that will end up in a landfill after a use or two? No, we don't. All of those razors and styrafoam plates and plastic forks and plastic bags? We don't need those. We can create sustainable alternatives or eliminate them altogether. In an age of incredible automation, do we need to work longer hours for lower pay? Obviously not. And yet we do. In the 1970's we were discussing a 30 hour work week and France, an industrialized country, has a 28 hour work week with generous vacations. I could go on, but the point is that you assume that GDP going up is a good thing. I disagree. Whenever that number goes up, not only does it do gently caress all for me, but it means that my labor as well as the labor of others is probably being extracted at an accelerated rate. I do not give a single gently caress about GDP save that the economic output of America in the aggregate meets the needs of ordinary people at home as well as trading partners. A lot of that profit comes from waste and that waste is killing us. It's killing our planet. Consumerism is a deathtrap. We need to find new things to measure like happiness and environmental restoration and they need to be taken just as seriously if not more seriously than the GDP. Further, I'm generally in the number goes down camp. Save for the revolution in data, we haven't had many new technological revolutions. So when a company's stock prices go up, it's most likely because they are extracting even more labor or externalizing costs in the form of environmental pollution. I am very much a numbers go down guy. When stocks go up, when GDP goes up, it means that capitalism is thriving and they are extracting more wealth on average from normal people, which is theft. When numbers go down, they're losing their ability to extract wealth. Until their ability to extract wealth from average people evaporates completely, capitalism will still live. I favor and applaud labor and work and trade, but I it is nothing but a sickness if it is killing our environment and allowing the propertied class to extract excess labor through theft and violence. So in short, I find your fundamental ideas flawed. GDP should not go up. Most people already work too drat hard for too little pay. We trash our environment and that's ripping into us. We need to produce less and consume less and focus on our happiness and the restoration of our environment. My question is "How do we push the GDP and stock prices down?" and that is a very simple question. Produce less bullshit and work less.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:55
|
|
|
Bloomberg really does think this is a game he can buy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:56
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:They're gonna loving murder Bloomberg on stage tonight That pithy response is great, but also not even remotely true. Joe Biden endorses Republicans all the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:30 |
|
|
he hypothetically supported raising taxes in a completely theoretical scenario. this cancels out his opposition to any actual attempts to raise those taxes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 21:56
|
|
