4 ms·

Nowhere did I say that all public interest organizations are positive. Just that in the specific example of OP of air quality they are vs a corp would most like

Nowhere did I say that all public interest organizations are positive. Just that in the specific example of OP of air quality they are vs a corp would most likely want to pollute if anything. Not understanding that is indeed rather dumb. > Our immense prosperity is due to megacorps, not public interest organizations. "Nearly 80 percent of American workers (78 percent) say they're living paycheck to paycheck". I think those people would disagree with you. P.S. Why do you think there's lack of will among politicians to implement single payer, despite it being majority popular and implemented by practically every developed and developing country in some form? Why is there no sick leave, maternity/paternity leave in America by law? Could it be that corporate players don't want these things? Hmm...

rayiner 8y ago
> Nowhere did I say that all public interest organizations are positive. Just that in the specific example of OP of air quality they are vs a corp would most likely want to pollute if anything. Yes, and in a lot of cases, pollution serves the public interest more than whatever the public interest organization wants. Making cell phones and microchips is an enormously polluting process, for example. > "Nearly 80 percent of American workers (78 percent) say they're living paycheck to paycheck". And prior to the raise of mega-corps, Americans were living harvest-to-harvest. In countries without mega-corps (I come from one), people are subsistence farmers, living at the knife edge of starvation at every moment. > P.S. Why do you think there's lack of will among politicians to implement single payer, despite it being majority popular and implemented by practically every developed and developing country in some form? > Could it be that corporate players don't want these things? Hmm... They have mega-corps in other developed countries too, so no, I don't think that's the reason. I suspect the answer is that the public mood has only shifted in favor of single payer in the last 10 years: https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer.... And of course, that: (1) is for the public as a whole, not actual voters who are more conservative on average than the general populace; and (2) does not account for the fact that voters in smaller states, which lean more conservative, have more representation in Congress. You can see these effects from Slide 4. 62% of Republicans polled strongly oppose a national health plan today. Pretty much the entire time that public opinion overall has favored single payer (since 2010), there has been a republican majority in the house. The last time there was a Democrat majority in both chambers (2008-2009), we got the ACA. At that time, a majority of Americans opposed single payer. Public opinion (adjusted to account for the fact that polls do not directly map onto votes in the House and Senate), directly explains why we don't have single payer.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  Am sorry, but this whole comment reeks of delusion. First of all, it is important to understand that it is not businessmen who created the markets thanks to which we have such "prosperity", it was indeed the state. Second of all, am extremely supportive of small/medium sized businesses, am not a fan of megacorps. I understand that there are several sectors, which benefit greatly from vertical integration, but these should be few and far between and be under heavy regulation, which is not a case today. I think today's governments still do relatively little to actually incentivize people to start a business, there's still an unhealthy amount of risk and worry involved. Perhaps you're impressed because you came from a very poor country and this all seems very impressive, I don't know. But why do you think you have many of the rights as a worker that you do today? Precisely because of public interest organizations. And if megacorps are responsible for our "prosperity", why worker compensation has not kept up with the increases in productivity? Why has the minimum wage not only not kept up with inflation, but has not risen at all in a decade? Why when corporate tax breaks are passed and advertised as "the savings will be passed down onto the workers", that has historically never happened? Only executive pay has increased? Ask yourself why you even need the minimum wage in the first place in the U.S. Since I am not merely impressed by tall buildings, shopping centers and blinking LEDs, my vision is for every Western country to move towards the Nordic model, a strong social democracy. Guess what? Norway doesn't even have a minimum wage, you know why? Because it has strong unions i.e public interest organizations who negotiate better wages than the minimum one would be, so it is THEM who actually don't want minimum wage there. And do 45,000 people die and thousands more go bankrupt because of (lack of) medical insurance, like they do in the U.S.? No. Are they mostly harvesters? No. Are there no businesses, or even a few properly regulated megacorps in Norway? No. Do people from Nordic countries usually report themselves as happiest? Yes.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    > First of all, it is important to understand that it is not businessmen who created the markets thanks to which we have such "prosperity", it was indeed the state. The state creates an environment to allow businesses to flourish, but it is businesses that create prosperity. Specifically, mega-corps. Mega-corps invented the transistor, email, computer networking, AIDS cocktails, etc. > Second of all, am extremely supportive of small/medium sized businesses, am not a fan of megacorps. I understand that there are several sectors, which benefit greatly from vertical integration, but these should be few and far between and be under heavy regulation, which is not a case today. I think today's governments still do relatively little to actually incentivize people to start a business, there's still an unhealthy amount of risk and worry involved. Small and medium sized businesses don’t have the economies of scale to do really cool things. They may begin as startups, but to have impact they need to scale to mega-corps. You can’t build an iPhone ad a small or medium sized business. > my vision is for every Western country to move towards the Nordic model, a strong social democracy. The Nordic model is heavily dependent on mega-corps. It’s more accurate to characterize those countries as practicing welfare capitalism, rather than democratic socialism. The Nordic countries score among the highest in the world in measures of business freedom. Norway is hard to analyze because of the massive oil money, so let’s use Sweden. Sweden is heavily dependent on large multi-national corporations: http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/mirror2/SI/security/economy.html http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/mirror2/SI/security/economy... > The Swedish economy is highly dependent on a limited number of very large international companies. In 1992 the United Nations estimated that there are a total of some 35,000 multinational corporations in the world. Of these, about 2,700 have their headquarters in Sweden. Sweden has low corporate tax rates (21%, the same as under Trump’s tax plan). It has no minimum wage. It has deregulated or privatized the same industries the US has. It has no farm subsidies. It has no inheritance tax. It has school vouchers. The Swedish tax system is also flatter. The maximum marginal rate kicks in at about $100,000. There is also a 20% VAT, which is borne mostly by people in the lower income brackets. The result is that each third of the income distribution pays about the same percentage of its income in taxes. That’s very different from the US, which singles out the top 25% to pay a higher percentage of its income in total (state plus federal) taxes. Capital gains rates in Sweden are a flat 30%, about the same as the top rates in New York or California under Trump’s tax structure. Sweden is not a “New Deal” style social democracy. It implicitly recognizes that businesses create prosperity. So it combines a deregulated market economy, with high taxes on individuals to pay for a robust welfare state. The government doesn’t create prosperity; it simply redistributes it once the income from the corporations passes to individuals. > Because it has strong unions i.e public interest organizations who negotiate better wages than the minimum one would be, so it is THEM who actually don't want minimum wage there. Unions in Europe are different in important ways from unions in the US, which makes them unpopular in the US. The New Deal Era NLRA enshrines this concept of the “union shop” where if a majority of workers vote to unionize, the union becomes the exclusive bargaining agent in the employer, and union membership is often mandatory. That system is often illegal in Europe, because it violates workers’ freedom of association. As a result, the public prefers the current weak level of union influence in the US: https://news.gallup.com/poll/241679/labor-union-approval-steady-year-high.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/241679/labor-union-approval-ste.... 26% of people want to maintain the weak union status quo. Another 29% want them to be weakened even further (so 55% want same or less union influence). A distinct minority, 39% want US unions to have more influence.
SamReidHughes 8y ago
"Nearly 80 percent of American workers (78 percent) say they're living paycheck to paycheck". Since the 10th to 75th percentile household incomes range from $14,000 to $111,000, you can be sure that living paycheck to paycheck has nothing to do with 78% of American workers' material prosperity.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  Ok, so would the tens of thousands of people dying or going bankrupt every year due to a (lack of) medical insurance be a better stat for you? Or perhaps that nearly half of Americans earn less than $30,000 annually? The point stands.

rayiner 8y ago

> Nowhere did I say that all public interest organizations are positive. Just that in the specific example of OP of air quality they are vs a corp would most likely want to pollute if anything. Yes, and in a lot of cases, pollution serves the public interest more than whatever the public interest organization wants. Making cell phones and microchips is an enormously polluting process, for example. > "Nearly 80 percent of American workers (78 percent) say they're living paycheck to paycheck". And prior to the raise of mega-corps, Americans were living harvest-to-harvest. In countries without mega-corps (I come from one), people are subsistence farmers, living at the knife edge of starvation at every moment. > P.S. Why do you think there's lack of will among politicians to implement single payer, despite it being majority popular and implemented by practically every developed and developing country in some form? > Could it be that corporate players don't want these things? Hmm... They have mega-corps in other developed countries too, so no, I don't think that's the reason. I suspect the answer is that the public mood has only shifted in favor of single payer in the last 10 years: https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer.... And of course, that: (1) is for the public as a whole, not actual voters who are more conservative on average than the general populace; and (2) does not account for the fact that voters in smaller states, which lean more conservative, have more representation in Congress. You can see these effects from Slide 4. 62% of Republicans polled strongly oppose a national health plan today. Pretty much the entire time that public opinion overall has favored single payer (since 2010), there has been a republican majority in the house. The last time there was a Democrat majority in both chambers (2008-2009), we got the ACA. At that time, a majority of Americans opposed single payer. Public opinion (adjusted to account for the fact that polls do not directly map onto votes in the House and Senate), directly explains why we don't have single payer.

AsyncAwait 8y ago
Am sorry, but this whole comment reeks of delusion. First of all, it is important to understand that it is not businessmen who created the markets thanks to which we have such "prosperity", it was indeed the state. Second of all, am extremely supportive of small/medium sized businesses, am not a fan of megacorps. I understand that there are several sectors, which benefit greatly from vertical integration, but these should be few and far between and be under heavy regulation, which is not a case today. I think today's governments still do relatively little to actually incentivize people to start a business, there's still an unhealthy amount of risk and worry involved. Perhaps you're impressed because you came from a very poor country and this all seems very impressive, I don't know. But why do you think you have many of the rights as a worker that you do today? Precisely because of public interest organizations. And if megacorps are responsible for our "prosperity", why worker compensation has not kept up with the increases in productivity? Why has the minimum wage not only not kept up with inflation, but has not risen at all in a decade? Why when corporate tax breaks are passed and advertised as "the savings will be passed down onto the workers", that has historically never happened? Only executive pay has increased? Ask yourself why you even need the minimum wage in the first place in the U.S. Since I am not merely impressed by tall buildings, shopping centers and blinking LEDs, my vision is for every Western country to move towards the Nordic model, a strong social democracy. Guess what? Norway doesn't even have a minimum wage, you know why? Because it has strong unions i.e public interest organizations who negotiate better wages than the minimum one would be, so it is THEM who actually don't want minimum wage there. And do 45,000 people die and thousands more go bankrupt because of (lack of) medical insurance, like they do in the U.S.? No. Are they mostly harvesters? No. Are there no businesses, or even a few properly regulated megacorps in Norway? No. Do people from Nordic countries usually report themselves as happiest? Yes.
- rayiner 8y ago
  > First of all, it is important to understand that it is not businessmen who created the markets thanks to which we have such "prosperity", it was indeed the state. The state creates an environment to allow businesses to flourish, but it is businesses that create prosperity. Specifically, mega-corps. Mega-corps invented the transistor, email, computer networking, AIDS cocktails, etc. > Second of all, am extremely supportive of small/medium sized businesses, am not a fan of megacorps. I understand that there are several sectors, which benefit greatly from vertical integration, but these should be few and far between and be under heavy regulation, which is not a case today. I think today's governments still do relatively little to actually incentivize people to start a business, there's still an unhealthy amount of risk and worry involved. Small and medium sized businesses don’t have the economies of scale to do really cool things. They may begin as startups, but to have impact they need to scale to mega-corps. You can’t build an iPhone ad a small or medium sized business. > my vision is for every Western country to move towards the Nordic model, a strong social democracy. The Nordic model is heavily dependent on mega-corps. It’s more accurate to characterize those countries as practicing welfare capitalism, rather than democratic socialism. The Nordic countries score among the highest in the world in measures of business freedom. Norway is hard to analyze because of the massive oil money, so let’s use Sweden. Sweden is heavily dependent on large multi-national corporations: http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/mirror2/SI/security/economy.html http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/mirror2/SI/security/economy... > The Swedish economy is highly dependent on a limited number of very large international companies. In 1992 the United Nations estimated that there are a total of some 35,000 multinational corporations in the world. Of these, about 2,700 have their headquarters in Sweden. Sweden has low corporate tax rates (21%, the same as under Trump’s tax plan). It has no minimum wage. It has deregulated or privatized the same industries the US has. It has no farm subsidies. It has no inheritance tax. It has school vouchers. The Swedish tax system is also flatter. The maximum marginal rate kicks in at about $100,000. There is also a 20% VAT, which is borne mostly by people in the lower income brackets. The result is that each third of the income distribution pays about the same percentage of its income in taxes. That’s very different from the US, which singles out the top 25% to pay a higher percentage of its income in total (state plus federal) taxes. Capital gains rates in Sweden are a flat 30%, about the same as the top rates in New York or California under Trump’s tax structure. Sweden is not a “New Deal” style social democracy. It implicitly recognizes that businesses create prosperity. So it combines a deregulated market economy, with high taxes on individuals to pay for a robust welfare state. The government doesn’t create prosperity; it simply redistributes it once the income from the corporations passes to individuals. > Because it has strong unions i.e public interest organizations who negotiate better wages than the minimum one would be, so it is THEM who actually don't want minimum wage there. Unions in Europe are different in important ways from unions in the US, which makes them unpopular in the US. The New Deal Era NLRA enshrines this concept of the “union shop” where if a majority of workers vote to unionize, the union becomes the exclusive bargaining agent in the employer, and union membership is often mandatory. That system is often illegal in Europe, because it violates workers’ freedom of association. As a result, the public prefers the current weak level of union influence in the US: https://news.gallup.com/poll/241679/labor-union-approval-steady-year-high.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/241679/labor-union-approval-ste.... 26% of people want to maintain the weak union status quo. Another 29% want them to be weakened even further (so 55% want same or less union influence). A distinct minority, 39% want US unions to have more influence.

SamReidHughes 8y ago

"Nearly 80 percent of American workers (78 percent) say they're living paycheck to paycheck". Since the 10th to 75th percentile household incomes range from $14,000 to $111,000, you can be sure that living paycheck to paycheck has nothing to do with 78% of American workers' material prosperity.

AsyncAwait 8y ago
Ok, so would the tens of thousands of people dying or going bankrupt every year due to a (lack of) medical insurance be a better stat for you? Or perhaps that nearly half of Americans earn less than $30,000 annually? The point stands.