US Politics Mega-thread - Page 588

On October 31 2013 10:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

If we were at full employment the employment-population ratio would still be deteriorating due to demographics. The other issues would still persist as well.

On October 31 2013 10:03 stroggozzz wrote:


The USSR was more productive under its centrally controlled economy from what i've read. When it underwent market reforms after the wall collapsed the living standard dropped by 70% during the 90's. As well as it's support with north korea being abolished, which led to a famine.

On October 30 2013 12:40 Thomas Sowell wrote:

Uh, none of those things have happened or changed. Why are you bringing up pointless hypotheticals? In the current case, premiums are higher, and we'd expect them to be higher because we've mandated more coverage.

No Widespread Increase in Cost of Individual Health Insurance Policies Under Affordable Care Act

While there have been some reports that the cost of individual policies may jump sharply under health reform, a RAND analysis of 10 states and the United States overall predicts that there will be no widespread premium increase in the individual health insurance market.

However, researchers caution that the cost of policies in the individual market will vary between states and will be influenced by individual factors such as an individual's age and whether they smoke, as well as whether they qualify for federal tax credits to help cover the cost.

“Our analysis shows that rates for policies in the individual market are likely to vary from state to state, with some experiencing increases and some experiencing decreases in cost,” said Christine Eibner, the study's lead author and a senior economist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. “But our analysis found no widespread trend toward sharply higher prices in the individual market.”

On October 31 2013 10:26 Alex1Sun wrote:
I and my parents actually really enjoyed living in USSR. Much less stress, no worries about the economy or about where the next meal is coming from etc. That being said, overall people in USSR were not wealthy or even well-off in material terms.

On October 31 2013 10:24 zlefin wrote:
Your argument about the rich stealing wages? sounds odd, though possible. Please elaborate.

Inequality in America has grown in tandem with a host of factors. And things weren't always this way. In the 1950s and '60s, the U.S. was remarkably egalitarian. The economist and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich says he's often asked what society the United States should emulate if it wants to address income inequality.

His answer: the United States.

The '50s, '60s version.

Back then, things were markedly different.

Labor unions gave workers a voice. The minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, was higher than now. College was affordable. And the super-rich were taxed at a higher rate.

Now all of that's changed.

On October 31 2013 08:24 Chocolate wrote:

Of course we run a hybrid system. That doesn't mean that hybridizing certain things will be better than complete capitalism. Sometimes a fully capitalist or fully socialist approach is better than a half socialist, half capitalist one simply because neither system is really created with the expectation that there will exist some weird sort of halfsies between the two. As long as we continue to run a mostly capitalist system we should continue to legislate (regarding the economy) in a manner that makes the capitalist system work while also looking out for those that do not benefit from it.

On October 31 2013 10:23 DoubleReed wrote:


That would be made up for with better wages (and therefore more taxes). I don't know how fast you think life expectancy is raising here...

And those demographics are a specific generation. The baby boomers are a particularly large generation. The generation after is not as large.

Look, just like the debt, the solution to long term problems is economic growth. The whole idea of raising technology (especially capital-based technologies) and maintaining wealth equality is that we should be able to work fewer hours for more pay as time increases. The only reason this hasn't happened in the last 30 years is because the rich have stolen the wages (through a variety of policies), creating wealth inequality and stunting growth.

Once again, you are looking at things purely from a supply perspective. Money in and money out. That's how you see it. You are not looking at from the point of view that growing the economy gives you more money and shrinking the economy lessens your money. Doing economically harmful things, like policies that increase senior poverty is going to shrink the economy, giving you less money, not more.

On October 31 2013 10:26 Alex1Sun wrote:

Correct, but that would happen in any type of economy undergoing drastic change. It was even worse when Russia changed to USSR a few decades before that.

Also the economic growth and the standards of living in USSR were not that high, so for an average person market economy or some mixture of market and planned economy appears to usually be better, at least in terms of material wealth.

On the other hand the minimal (not average) standard of living in USSR was quite a bit higher than that in typical capitalist economies with comparable GDP per capita. Also the inequality and insecurity in late USSR was very low. Everybody was guaranteed a job more or less corresponding to his/her skills, everyone was guaranteed a living wage, everyone was guaranteed free roof over the head, free medical care, free education. I and my parents actually really enjoyed living in USSR. Much less stress, no worries about the economy or about where the next meal is coming from etc. That being said, overall people in USSR were not wealthy or even well-off in material terms.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) addressed claims that he plagiarized a speech from Wikipedia in an interview with Fusion.

On Monday, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow pointed out that Paul spoke about the plot of "Gattaca" using words similar to that of the film's Wikipedia page in a speech in support of Virginia gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli.

In his interview with Fusion, Paul admitted he "borrowed" from the movie -- but said he gave credit to the people who wrote the film, not the people who wrote the Wikipedia entry on the film.

“We borrowed the plot lines from Gattaca. It’s a movie,” Paul said. “I gave credit to the people who wrote the movie... Nothing I said was not given attribution to where it came from.”

Entries on Wikipedia are crowdsourced and can be edited by anyone that has access to the site. The Wikipedia entry on Gattaca was likely written collaboratively by volunteers.

On October 31 2013 10:26 Alex1Sun wrote:

Correct, but that would happen in any type of economy undergoing drastic change. It was even worse when Russia changed to USSR a few decades before that.

Also the economic growth and the standards of living in USSR were not that high, so for an average person market economy or some mixture of market and planned economy appears to usually be better, at least in terms of material wealth.

On the other hand the minimal (not average) standard of living in USSR was quite a bit higher than that in typical capitalist economies with comparable GDP per capita. Also the inequality and insecurity in late USSR was very low. Everybody was guaranteed a job more or less corresponding to his/her skills, everyone was guaranteed a living wage, everyone was guaranteed free roof over the head, free medical care, free education. I and my parents actually really enjoyed living in USSR. Much less stress, no worries about the economy or about where the next meal is coming from etc. That being said, overall people in USSR were not wealthy or even well-off in material terms.

On October 31 2013 10:26 Alex1Sun wrote:

Correct, but that would happen in any type of economy undergoing drastic change. It was even worse when Russia changed to USSR a few decades before that.

Also the economic growth and the standards of living in USSR were not that high, so for an average person market economy or some mixture of market and planned economy appears to usually be better, at least in terms of material wealth.

On the other hand the minimal (not average) standard of living in USSR was quite a bit higher than that in typical capitalist economies with comparable GDP per capita. Also the inequality and insecurity in late USSR was very low. Everybody was guaranteed a job more or less corresponding to his/her skills, everyone was guaranteed a living wage, everyone was guaranteed free roof over the head, free medical care, free education. I and my parents actually really enjoyed living in USSR. Much less stress, no worries about the economy or about where the next meal is coming from etc. That being said, overall people in USSR were not wealthy or even well-off in material terms.

On October 31 2013 10:54 Acrofales wrote:

Nice way to link this to the earlier discussion about Cuba. Very similar situation there.

The good thing is, poverty, in relative terms within the country, doesn't exist. Everybody has a guaranteed wage. A doctor earns just as much as a street sweeper, which is enough to live off. Education is mandatory and good. Medical aid is free, and Cuba has some of the best doctors in the world (although medical supplies are lacking, partially due to the trade embargo with the US: many pharmaceutical companies, and medical equipment companies, are US-based companies).

However, with the lack of poverty, there is also a lack on the other side of the spectrum: nobody is rich... and there is absolutely NO incentive to innovate. Starting up your own company is, strictly spoken, allowed. However you must do so with your own money, and 90% of any money you make must be paid to the government. Combine that with a strict police state, and you end up with a society where everybody just keeps their head down and does the work they have to, but exactly that and not any more.

Cubans, compared to people elsewhere, are poor. The wage is around US$ 20 a month... and anything that has to be imported is pretty much unaffordable (although some things are rationed by the state). However, in contrast to other areas of the world, poor people in Cuba don't starve, they have a good education, and are generally healthy. Coming from a western mindset, this is super paradoxical.

Of course, I was there before the reforms (I was there in 2007), and by all accounts things are changing now.

So, what, you ask me, does this have to do with US politics? Nothing much, but since people had been talking about Cuba first, and planned economy now, I thought I'd share!

On October 31 2013 10:23 sam!zdat wrote:


because what you are talking about is the rate of profit, not the production of surplus value. bourgeois political economy conflates profit and surplus value because they don't want to investigate where surplus value comes from - it just happens magically (there is a whole debate about this, whether you are a physiocrat and you hold that surplus value comes from the land, or a Ricardian and you think that surplus value comes from comparative advantage and trade, but economists today simply ignore the problem because it is politically delicate, because of course the answer is that all surplus value comes from labor). But they're not the same thing (when you treat the rate of profit and the production of surplus value as identical, you make, among others, the mistake of thinking that machines - constant capital - produce value, when in fact constant capital merely stores value that requires labor - variable capital - in order to valorize itself).

basically you are looking at things purely from the point of view of the firm, not the point of view of the worker. and that means that you are trapped in the fetish.

edit: actually, this is the point where capitalists themselves fall prey to the fetish and are harmed by it, because capitalists seek to maximize the rate of profit when really, if they were a fully conscious class acting in their own interests, they should seek to maximize the rate of exploitation, not profit.

On October 31 2013 10:23 sam!zdat wrote:


because what you are talking about is the rate of profit, not the production of surplus value. bourgeois political economy conflates profit and surplus value because they don't want to investigate where surplus value comes from - it just happens magically (there is a whole debate about this, whether you are a physiocrat and you hold that surplus value comes from the land, or a Ricardian and you think that surplus value comes from comparative advantage and trade, but economists today simply ignore the problem because it is politically delicate, because of course the answer is that all surplus value comes from labor). But they're not the same thing (when you treat the rate of profit and the production of surplus value as identical, you make, among others, the mistake of thinking that machines - constant capital - produce value, when in fact constant capital merely stores value that requires labor - variable capital - in order to valorize itself).

basically you are looking at things purely from the point of view of the firm, not the point of view of the worker. and that means that you are trapped in the fetish.

edit: actually, this is the point where capitalists themselves fall prey to the fetish and are harmed by it, because capitalists seek to maximize the rate of profit when really, if they were a fully conscious class acting in their own interests, they should seek to maximize the rate of exploitation, not profit.

On October 31 2013 11:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

I'm not talking about rate of profit, I'm talking in general terms. Ex. you rake a lot of leaves one afternoon and describe your endeavor as "productive". Or conversely you rake few leaves and say you were not productive.

I'm not getting into the economic philosophy mumbo jumbo.

On October 31 2013 11:33 Roe wrote:


let's all talk about spreadsheets instead

On October 31 2013 10:16 oneofthem wrote:
just subsidize ss when the downfall arises, ss was a net creditor so sometimes it can be in debt too. they do this with le banks pretty regularly

On October 31 2013 12:13 Doublemint wrote:


You don't seem to get it, they are deemed essential and too big to fail! ;-)

//edit: sry fucked up with the formatting somehow... T_T