3 ms·

I keep thinking last few days, we need a communist mode. Basically, a way to change all of the normal rules to option B when necessary. Instead of making random

I keep thinking last few days, we need a communist mode. Basically, a way to change all of the normal rules to option B when necessary. Instead of making random laws that make no sense. A method of completely putting all existing loans on pause - effectively not due and not late and the next payment is effectively delayed until the communist mode is turned off. Communist mode should go a lot farther, but you get the idea.

kevingadd 7y ago
The risk, so to speak, is that people will be so fond of communist mode that they'll reject attempts to turn it back off. Any laws for this would be drafted in a hurry under crisis scenarios, so they would likely have many vulnerabilities that could be exploited, ones that wouldn't necessarily exist in non-crisis bills aimed at achieving the same goals. A more concrete example: We could pass a "communist mode" bill that makes everyone's health expenses free (covered by the federal government) during the duration of the crisis, to ensure all covid-19 victims get treated and possible cases get tested so we can trace their contacts and control the spread. Alternately, we could introduce a national health program instead, not a crisis one. As it turns out we've had lots of prototype "medicare for all" legislation already and had debates about it. Upsides to the crisis bill: Potentially easier to pass, because we can tell nay-sayers that it's an emergency measure. Any resistance from industry types can probably be defused in the same way - after all, hospitals are actually struggling revenue-wise right now, so having a steady flow of patients funded by the government potentially helps them. Downsides to the crisis bill: Once people are used to it, they'll be very angry if it disappears. There will be political incentive to extend it. Industry may grow used to the federal money and get familiar with ways to raise prices and make more off the crisis system than they did before. Any actual changes will likely be uneven, on a state-to-state basis or targeting specific groups that can't fight for themselves, similar to how many US states simply opted not to take free federal money to expand programs like medicare to more residents. The duration of this crisis is unknown, so you risk setting your end date too early (and having to fight over an extension, like the debt ceiling), or setting it too late and carrying high expenses forward for a potentially disastrous program. Also keep in mind that it being a mode means it can be turned on or off for political reasons. People on either party could definitely hold the populace hostage through that means, just like how the debt ceiling (and resulting cuts to programs and services) has been used in the past.
- musingsole 7y ago
  Historical examples would lead one to think people might not be very fond of communist mode and eager to get out of it. Perhaps having a system that was designed to flip from capitalist to communist and back again could alleviate the harsh realities of either system. Communism when times are bad (because perhaps central planning is needed to weather a storm) and capitalism when times are good so as to maximize the capturing of opportunities.
Zenbit_UX 7y ago
Such a mode would likely provide the unprecedented power to America's leadership. It also seems likely that the next election will be delayed. Still think this is a good idea?
- c0nducktr 7y ago
  > It also seems likely that the next election will be delayed. Can you explain how this would be likely?
krapp 7y ago
How about instead of a "communist mode" and "capitalist" mode, what if we do what the rest of the civilized world does and have a "socialist" mode which operates alongside capitalism and provides a robust social safety net, and we considered actually funding and competently staffing government programs rather than opting for the Grover Norquist model of constantly trying to reduce government to "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub" and expecting the free market to pick up the slack in providing for the general welfare? And how about we finally realize that trying to run the American government like a business and electing "CEOs in Chief" is a bad idea?
- papermachete 7y ago
  We don't need safety nets, most people have good jobs and are only having trouble because they have no savings and didn't otherwise plan for a crisis. Good lesson in personal responsibility, keep my tax money elsewhere please.
loopz 7y ago
Neither extreme addressed global issues.

kevingadd 7y ago

The risk, so to speak, is that people will be so fond of communist mode that they'll reject attempts to turn it back off. Any laws for this would be drafted in a hurry under crisis scenarios, so they would likely have many vulnerabilities that could be exploited, ones that wouldn't necessarily exist in non-crisis bills aimed at achieving the same goals. A more concrete example: We could pass a "communist mode" bill that makes everyone's health expenses free (covered by the federal government) during the duration of the crisis, to ensure all covid-19 victims get treated and possible cases get tested so we can trace their contacts and control the spread. Alternately, we could introduce a national health program instead, not a crisis one. As it turns out we've had lots of prototype "medicare for all" legislation already and had debates about it. Upsides to the crisis bill: Potentially easier to pass, because we can tell nay-sayers that it's an emergency measure. Any resistance from industry types can probably be defused in the same way - after all, hospitals are actually struggling revenue-wise right now, so having a steady flow of patients funded by the government potentially helps them. Downsides to the crisis bill: Once people are used to it, they'll be very angry if it disappears. There will be political incentive to extend it. Industry may grow used to the federal money and get familiar with ways to raise prices and make more off the crisis system than they did before. Any actual changes will likely be uneven, on a state-to-state basis or targeting specific groups that can't fight for themselves, similar to how many US states simply opted not to take free federal money to expand programs like medicare to more residents. The duration of this crisis is unknown, so you risk setting your end date too early (and having to fight over an extension, like the debt ceiling), or setting it too late and carrying high expenses forward for a potentially disastrous program. Also keep in mind that it being a mode means it can be turned on or off for political reasons. People on either party could definitely hold the populace hostage through that means, just like how the debt ceiling (and resulting cuts to programs and services) has been used in the past.

musingsole 7y ago
Historical examples would lead one to think people might not be very fond of communist mode and eager to get out of it. Perhaps having a system that was designed to flip from capitalist to communist and back again could alleviate the harsh realities of either system. Communism when times are bad (because perhaps central planning is needed to weather a storm) and capitalism when times are good so as to maximize the capturing of opportunities.

Zenbit_UX 7y ago

Such a mode would likely provide the unprecedented power to America's leadership. It also seems likely that the next election will be delayed. Still think this is a good idea?

c0nducktr 7y ago
> It also seems likely that the next election will be delayed. Can you explain how this would be likely?

krapp 7y ago

How about instead of a "communist mode" and "capitalist" mode, what if we do what the rest of the civilized world does and have a "socialist" mode which operates alongside capitalism and provides a robust social safety net, and we considered actually funding and competently staffing government programs rather than opting for the Grover Norquist model of constantly trying to reduce government to "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub" and expecting the free market to pick up the slack in providing for the general welfare? And how about we finally realize that trying to run the American government like a business and electing "CEOs in Chief" is a bad idea?

papermachete 7y ago
We don't need safety nets, most people have good jobs and are only having trouble because they have no savings and didn't otherwise plan for a crisis. Good lesson in personal responsibility, keep my tax money elsewhere please.

loopz 7y ago

Neither extreme addressed global issues.