4 ms·

This IS the reasons a US economy is so strong. You got it all wrong. Extreme consumerism, inability to be unemployed (unemployment can end up in being homeless,

This IS the reasons a US economy is so strong. You got it all wrong. Extreme consumerism, inability to be unemployed (unemployment can end up in being homeless, so the transition period between jobs is almost non-existent, so the economy won't feel it, and the government don't need to pay benefits long term), enforcing businesses and insurance companies to cover the healthcare (inflating costs, creating jobs for middleman to shift the responsibility, building fear in people that if their wealth decreases they will be uninsured), not many social programs (so more money can be spent on public projects). All of those things are fuel to the economy, not dead weight.

walshemj 8y ago
How is having a lot of non productive middle man jobs in the health industry "good" ditto having 52 sets of employment laws if you had one you would not need so many HR overhead roles.
- BartBoch 8y ago
  Well, you can have 3 employees when 1 if needed, and then 2 unemployed people looking for social benefits, or 3 employed people that add some value. I think it is obvious which one is adding to the economy more. Not saying it is good, but this is one of the tools governments have to reduce the cost of social state and increase the production.
jpatokal 8y ago
The tail end of your argument is the broken window fallacy. On every conceivable metric the vast amount of bureaucracy and paper-pushing required by the uniquely dysfunctional US healthcare system fails to deliver any benefit proportionate to its gargantuan costs. Put another way, if healthcare costs and the amount of insurance paperwork doubled yet again overnight, would that be "fuel to the economy" or "dead weight"?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- andy_ppp 8y ago
  This is the strange think about market fundamentalism, market efficiency doesn’t really exist but it seems end stage capitalism isn’t about efficiency so much as people who believe they deserve it.
- BartBoch 8y ago
  The question will be then if the increased amount of uninsured people will affect the economy badly (by the inability to access professional health services) and if this will result in creating a new market for more efficient, low-cost health providers. This will be controlled by the government as always by relaxing the laws. Once again - this is from a non-emotional point of view. I am not saying this is good. The way the US works and the way they push towards more "dead weight employee" rather than "social beneficient" works for now well enough to keep it as it is apparently. Otherwise, there will be a much stronger push for change.
lewis1028282 8y ago
Yeah and the US has some of the worst social issues in the world. Proof by counter example, then. The Scandinavian countries have the exact opposite mindset to the US yet they are some of the richest and happiest countries. But that could be the oil money talking.
- kebman 8y ago
  Only Norway has any real quantity of oil. Sweden has none. Denmark only has a little. Finland – albeit not technically in Scandinavia, but related since it's part of the Nordic Countries – also don't have oil. And while we're at it, also Iceland don't have oil. That should give you a better idea of how well these countries are being run. Also consider that the dream country of Reich – Venezuela – has tons of oil... While we're at it, neither Denmark nor Norway are "Democratic Socialist" states. Heck, not even Sweden, though they are marred with a Left-Wing government. They are instead Market-liberal Capitalist Welfare States. While the policies of these countries are "social" they're not Social-ist. Please make a clear distinction between the two, because Socialism – the thing Robert Reich stands for – is anything but what we have here in Norway. But like in most countries, you'll find commies also here. That doesn't mean either Communism or Socialism are viable political ideologies. Quite the contrary!
  - mrob 8y ago
    >Iceland don't have oil But it does have abundant geothermal and hydropower. Aluminum smelting is a big part of Iceland's economy, and it wouldn't be possible without the cheap electricity those natural resources supply.
  - mads_ravn 8y ago
    In this context I think the Norwegian Oil Fund deserves a honorable mention (https://www.nbim.no https://www.nbim.no). It really is a testament to a well-run government that they are saving significant amounts to future generations - and I say this as a somewhat envious dane :)
    - e12e 8y ago
knuththetruth 8y ago
Strong for whom? The tiny sliver of oligarchs who are vacuuming up all of the wealth? This seems like a pretty shitty outcome for everyone else.
- BartBoch 8y ago
  My comment was not about if it is good, or bad for people, but for the economy (to a certain point). Again, I am not saying it is a good solution, but for now, it worked and works well enough.
emodendroket 8y ago
I don't think that's right. I think the US enjoys a lot of benefits that would make it an economic powerhouse even if it went to a Nordic model -- most importantly probably its hegemonic status
- e12e 8y ago
  Most importantly it's abundant resources!
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    That's a big one too, but having tremendous political influence, the reserve currency, etc. are major advantages.
alkonaut 8y ago
You are probably mostly right. Yet I think there are probably also a huge untapped potential. If everyone doesn’t have access to higher education, you run into underuse if the talent pool through aristocracy in place of meritocracy. If families don’t have long paid parental leaves and subsidized daycare, you both get low birth rates and lower workforce participation. The overheads in the healthcare system are well known.
- BartBoch 8y ago
  Absolutely. My comment was without the emotion - it is good enough to work for now, but there are so many better options that would have a better outcome in future.

walshemj 8y ago

How is having a lot of non productive middle man jobs in the health industry "good" ditto having 52 sets of employment laws if you had one you would not need so many HR overhead roles.

BartBoch 8y ago
Well, you can have 3 employees when 1 if needed, and then 2 unemployed people looking for social benefits, or 3 employed people that add some value. I think it is obvious which one is adding to the economy more. Not saying it is good, but this is one of the tools governments have to reduce the cost of social state and increase the production.

jpatokal 8y ago

The tail end of your argument is the broken window fallacy. On every conceivable metric the vast amount of bureaucracy and paper-pushing required by the uniquely dysfunctional US healthcare system fails to deliver any benefit proportionate to its gargantuan costs. Put another way, if healthcare costs and the amount of insurance paperwork doubled yet again overnight, would that be "fuel to the economy" or "dead weight"?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
andy_ppp 8y ago
This is the strange think about market fundamentalism, market efficiency doesn’t really exist but it seems end stage capitalism isn’t about efficiency so much as people who believe they deserve it.
BartBoch 8y ago
The question will be then if the increased amount of uninsured people will affect the economy badly (by the inability to access professional health services) and if this will result in creating a new market for more efficient, low-cost health providers. This will be controlled by the government as always by relaxing the laws. Once again - this is from a non-emotional point of view. I am not saying this is good. The way the US works and the way they push towards more "dead weight employee" rather than "social beneficient" works for now well enough to keep it as it is apparently. Otherwise, there will be a much stronger push for change.

lewis1028282 8y ago

Yeah and the US has some of the worst social issues in the world. Proof by counter example, then. The Scandinavian countries have the exact opposite mindset to the US yet they are some of the richest and happiest countries. But that could be the oil money talking.

kebman 8y ago
Only Norway has any real quantity of oil. Sweden has none. Denmark only has a little. Finland – albeit not technically in Scandinavia, but related since it's part of the Nordic Countries – also don't have oil. And while we're at it, also Iceland don't have oil. That should give you a better idea of how well these countries are being run. Also consider that the dream country of Reich – Venezuela – has tons of oil... While we're at it, neither Denmark nor Norway are "Democratic Socialist" states. Heck, not even Sweden, though they are marred with a Left-Wing government. They are instead Market-liberal Capitalist Welfare States. While the policies of these countries are "social" they're not Social-ist. Please make a clear distinction between the two, because Socialism – the thing Robert Reich stands for – is anything but what we have here in Norway. But like in most countries, you'll find commies also here. That doesn't mean either Communism or Socialism are viable political ideologies. Quite the contrary!
- mrob 8y ago
  >Iceland don't have oil But it does have abundant geothermal and hydropower. Aluminum smelting is a big part of Iceland's economy, and it wouldn't be possible without the cheap electricity those natural resources supply.
- mads_ravn 8y ago
  In this context I think the Norwegian Oil Fund deserves a honorable mention (https://www.nbim.no https://www.nbim.no). It really is a testament to a well-run government that they are saving significant amounts to future generations - and I say this as a somewhat envious dane :)
  - e12e 8y ago

knuththetruth 8y ago

Strong for whom? The tiny sliver of oligarchs who are vacuuming up all of the wealth? This seems like a pretty shitty outcome for everyone else.

BartBoch 8y ago
My comment was not about if it is good, or bad for people, but for the economy (to a certain point). Again, I am not saying it is a good solution, but for now, it worked and works well enough.

emodendroket 8y ago

I don't think that's right. I think the US enjoys a lot of benefits that would make it an economic powerhouse even if it went to a Nordic model -- most importantly probably its hegemonic status

e12e 8y ago
Most importantly it's abundant resources!
- emodendroket 8y ago
  That's a big one too, but having tremendous political influence, the reserve currency, etc. are major advantages.

alkonaut 8y ago

You are probably mostly right. Yet I think there are probably also a huge untapped potential. If everyone doesn’t have access to higher education, you run into underuse if the talent pool through aristocracy in place of meritocracy. If families don’t have long paid parental leaves and subsidized daycare, you both get low birth rates and lower workforce participation. The overheads in the healthcare system are well known.

BartBoch 8y ago
Absolutely. My comment was without the emotion - it is good enough to work for now, but there are so many better options that would have a better outcome in future.