Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[hack]

It's not even socialism. Most of what Bernie wants to do is already in place in countries we do not refer to as socialist. But, after 30+ years of an economic orthodoxy that's very different, a lot of this stuff is new to most people. With the exception of health care, Bernie's not for turning the state into an economic force at the expense of the private sector. He's not suggesting nationalizing for-profit entities, and we're not going to have state-owned enterprises like China does, or a centrally-planned economy. It just adds up to, in most cases, tighter regulation of the market. In truth it's basically more market and less capitalism.

[SeattleLionsFan]

Seattle has lost jobs and seen increased unemployment at at time when most of the country is going in the opposite direction.

As for the Rt of Privacy and other SCt decisions, it's perfectly fine to criticize the process while being fine with the result. I happen to support gay marriage, but I think the SCt's decision was god-fucking-awful as a matter of legal reasoning -- fantastic as a matter of philosophy, but utterly unmoored to anything other than the feelings of the Court.

I have no problem criticizing legal analysis, including Ogberfell and the Jiggery pokery applesauce. In fact I don't remember reading Ogberfell. But to say that they are ridiculous without analysis or saying that Ogberfell allowed Hulk Hogan to sue is wrong and ignorant.

As for your assertions about Seattle losing jobs, that is 100% contrary to my experience and every article I've ever read about the job market in Seattle for 2015-16. As far as I know Seattle is the fastest growing city in America and there are literally 8 cranes building new offices in Seattle visible from my office. Do you mind sharing your authority for the proposition that Seattle has lost jobs and increased unemployment?

[SeattleLionsFan]

It's not even socialism. Most of what Bernie wants to do is already in place in countries we do not refer to as socialist. But, after 30+ years of an economic orthodoxy that's very different, a lot of this stuff is new to most people. With the exception of health care, Bernie's not for turning the state into an economic force at the expense of the private sector. He's not suggesting nationalizing for-profit entities, and we're not going to have state-owned enterprises like China does, or a centrally-planned economy. It just adds up to, in most cases, tighter regulation of the market. In truth it's basically more market and less capitalism.

Healthcare and college, no? And ordering banks to disband because they are too successful is expressing govt control over the means of production.

[froot loops]

Those self scan machines would still be there even if the minimum wage was 2 bucks an hour.

[hack]

Healthcare, SLF. As for education, he'd make it free at state schools but he's not ordering private schools to shut down. As I understand it.

As for banks, he's not ordering them to disband. Mandating that they sell a unit or two to fall under a size threshold is different. That's not unlike the system we already have, in which the government forbids mergers or sets conditions. Currently it's blocking the Halliburton/Baker Hughes merger. Ma Bell in the past, Standard Oil, etc. There's a different mindset no doubt, but no new paradigm here.

[SeattleLionsFan]

Except that Ma Bell/Standrd oil etc were antitrust suits related to the lack of competition. There is no lack of competition between banks.

For the record, I'd support the Feds passing a law that It would no longer give any money or insure any bank that did x y or z. That would likely cause the banks to break themselves up.

[hack]

The common thread is that the state has a say in how big commercial entities can be. And, lack of competition can mean monopoly or a meaningful reduction in competition.

So, basically, restoring Glass/Steagall, or redrawing the distinction between deposit taking (and protecting those banks because they hold people's money) and investment banking (pooling money for the purposes of investments riskier than that deposit-taking banks can). I think that's important too. In addition to Too Big to Fail and a handful of other limitations on banks, like the Basel III standards.

But, to your wider point about whether Bernie is a socialist or not, whatever label you want to apply the bottom line is that he's not attempting to abandon a market-driven economy, nationalize commercial entities, or use for-profit public entities to crowd out the private sector.

[iam416]

SLF:

This is what I was basing my Seattle thing on: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst.../#2038d7c63712

Could be wrong. I'll investigate further and see whether it was accurate/still is accurate.

[iam416]

Listening to Sanders talk about free education on Tuesday was laughable..."we should reward students, not penalize them." Unfathomable.

I thought of the all the similar situations that vapid line of reasoning could apply to: "we should reward home buyers, not penalize them. Free houses!"

Boggles my mind.

[hack]

Listening to Sanders talk about free education on Tuesday was laughable..."we should reward students, not penalize them." Unfathomable.

I thought of the all the similar situations that vapid line of reasoning could apply to: "we should reward home buyers, not penalize them. Free houses!"

Boggles my mind.

Is thay your cost/benefit analysis or your cost/ analysis?

[SeattleLionsFan]

Mine too Iam.

Thanks for the source. It to me reads as an opinion piece that misuses stats to support a predetermined conclusion but, I could be wrong. There is a study from the UW that says that there is little effect on the job market but it is an ongoing study.

[iam416]

Yeah, I was just looking at that, SLF.

[iam416]

Hack:

C/B. "Free" education increases a workforce segment that is already struggling to find work. I think we need fewer college students, not more. I think we need far better counseling re college and the C/B associated therewith starting with expected income for a major.

The "problem" of student debt is a result of poor decisions in a pure C/B sense. Period. I see no reason for society to incentivize decisions which, by defintion, don't pay for themselves. I mean, if they did there wouldn't be an issue.

[WM Wolverine]

Did all these former students who went into debt for school loans not realize they'd have to pay that money back later?

It'd be great if a lot more money went towards scholarships & grants as opposed to the $600 BILLION the US spends on defense but wars are immensely profitable for some very rich & powerful people.

[WM Wolverine]

Did all these former students who went into debt for school loans not realize they'd have to pay that money back later?

It'd be great if a lot more money went towards scholarships & grants as opposed to the $600 BILLION the US spends on defense but wars are immensely profitable for some very rich & powerful people.