I don’t disagree with a thing in either this Jon Walker post or this Jon Walker post. And I’m not about to defend the exchange scheme in the Affordable Care Act. But there are a couple key differences between that and the Ryan plan. First, health care for senior citizens is exponentially more expensive than for everyone else, and so a private system for it will be impossible to administer. You could envision an exchange plan with healthy people in the pool possibly working, but that simply won’t work with seniors. The second difference is that, at least in theory, exchange subsidies in the ACA cap the cost of health insurance at a percentage of income (not care, but insurance). That’s not the case with the Ryan plan. In fact, seniors would be expected to pay a lot more for their coverage over time.
Most future retirees would pay more for health care under a new House Republican budget proposal, according to an analysis by nonpartisan experts for Congress that could be an obstacle to GOP ambitions to tame federal deficits.
The fiscal blueprint would put people now 54 and younger in a different kind of health care program when they retire, unlike the Medicare that their parents and grandparents have known. Instead of coverage for a set of benefits prescribed from Washington, they’d get a federal payment to buy private insurance from a choice of government-regulated plans.
“A typical beneficiary would spend more for health care under the proposal,” the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in an analysis released late Tuesday.
The whole CBO report is really damning. The bottom line is that seniors would pay more for less coverage. It’s not a reform plan, it’s a cost-shifting plan. Public debt goes down as private debt goes up. And if the senior can’t afford coverage… tough. Find a friend.
And even with privatizing Medicare, block granting Medicaid and food stamps, and radically pulling government out of the business of supporting the general welfare, the Ryan budget still doesn’t balance for two decades. That’s true for two reasons: one, Ryan doesn’t give a crap about the budget deficit and wants only to cut taxes for the rich, which he accomplishes in this program by making the Bush tax cuts permanent and then decreasing the top marginal tax rate to 25% (which he has to make up by raising taxes on the middle class); and two, he exempts Medicare recipients and near-recipients for nakedly political reasons, because people 55 and over are more Republican. Of course, as the pool shrinks over time, those seniors grandfathered into Medicare will realize they’re getting a raw deal as doctors stop taking them and costs skyrocket because the program loses its bargaining power.
The point is that we as a nation made a decision almost 50 years ago that the elderly, after spending their entire life working to the bone, deserved some dignity in retirement rather than having to live on the street because of health care costs. Ryan would leave the elderly poor – actually all the poor – on their own, and as a society we would all suffer from the indignity of our grandparents dying unnecessarily early from our collective negligence.




72 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
I support the Ryan plan to abolish the Medicaid expansion and to block grant Medicaid and Food Stamps and other Welfare.
I support paying full promised benefits to all current and future Social Security recipients.
(I will support anyone who will pay full Social Security benefits to everyone who has earned them.)
I think taxes should be raised on the wealthy to pay for the deficit and debt problems and would support large cuts in Defense spending.
If Democrats would have supported Social Security instead of using it at poker chip in the Gang of Six … I might have had different opinions.
(I will support anyone who keeps the promise to pay Social Security payments to everyone who has earned them.)
Where will seniors get the money to pay for all these fees and costs?
Is Ryan and the Tea Party going to go after the banks for raiding and stealing the pensions and 401K plans people saved for 20 to 45 years?
Just for the record, I’m not quite a senior yet, but close…
…and I won’t be using any chemotherapy. Ever. It just kills your immune system and then you end up with a secondary cancer and they want you to do it all over again.
If I can’t cure something holistically with alternative means, then I’ll ask for hospice and acupuncture. That’s it. No heroic measures. What’s a death compared to being tortured with chemo?
I don’t expect others to think as I do, but I work in a medical center and I’ve seen this happen too many times with coworkers and coworkers’ spouses.
Can a nascent Soylent Green industry be far behind?
Well…even though healthcare costs would rise dramatically for seniors, I’m pretty sure the savings from eating catfood (because of SS cutbacks) should make up the difference. Right?
Ryan, bolstered by his fellow conservatives, is obviously sticking it to the weak and vulnerable in the hope, and he’s probably right, that they won’t fight back (because they are weak and vulnerable.) A primary job of government is to protect us from each other. Can we hope that the Democrats in the House and/or Obama will fulfill their obligation, will show us that they deserve their paychecks?
Speaking of Wingnuts, I happened to catch a portion of WJ this morning with the esteemed Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT). If you look up “arrogant little snot” in the dictionary, you’ll find his photo. I called his office and excoriated them for his bullying, arrogant attitude. Her ears are still bleeding, I’m sure.
In any other civilized advanced nation in the world Ryan would be categorized as an anti-social kook. In the U.S. pundits and the corporate media champion him as a “deep thinker.”
Anybody who advocates for the pain and misery of others, supporting this Ryan Proposal, should be ignored.
Such advocacy is inhuman.
ryan budget is a disaster on deficit reduction and spending priorities.
but i can’t support these statements:
why should progressives be advocating austerity budgets (which is what “reducing the deficit” means)?
Come on now, PP. That’s a silly question. Of course nobody’s going to go after the banks.
Not necessarily austerity, but decreased defense spending and increased taxes on the individuals who can afford it and the corporations who pay essentially nothing. Fixing our tax code, levying tarriffs on offshored job produced goods, and a higher income tax rate (including capital gains, estate tax, etc.,) would essentially wipe out the deficit.
Its all easy to pay for when its someone else’s money right?
How about an approach that might actually make the U.S. a competitive place to do business again rather than just taking take from your neighbor.
And how, specifically, would you propose to do that? With the same old shopworn, disproven policies as are being advocated by the clearly mentally ill wingnut contingent?
I’m not suggesting taking from my neighbor. That would imply I could afford to live where these people do.
And please explain to me what fucking claim a hedge fund manager has to a 10% tax rate on his billion dollar income? How is it that he gets to support our economy at a lower rate than I do, even though this economy is responsible for the environment in which he gets to thrive?
No, Republicans don’t expect needy seniors to find a friend.
They expect them to find a daughter.
Every cut in social services ends up shifting burden of care onto women. Women provide the vast majority of care for children and for sick and/or elderly relatives.
We ALREADY see this in the school systems, where schools are covering the cuts in funding for programs by relying on the unpaid labor of volunteer mothers (dads, too, yes, but the vast majority of that unpaid labor comes from women.)
Increasing this burden, which is already high and which already creates greater difficulty for women in the workforce than for men serves a major purpose: it increases the pressure on women to get out of the workforce.
And voila! The unemployment crisis is solved.
Without public spending there simply isn’t enough private investment in this country to keep us at full employment. Getting women out of the work force is a time-honored way to solve that problem — it worked quite well in the aftermath of WWII, for example.
Whenever Republicans say that “families” should take greater care or charity should step in — what they really mean is: society should exploit even more than it already does the unpaid labor of women.
They can start by proposing a tax holiday on US corporate cash overseas. This has been estimated to be as much as $1.2 trillion. Bring that back into the U.S. where it can be spend locally.
This has been beaten to death. Hedge fund managers are paying at the same income tax rates as everyone else. Their capital gains are taxed at the same rate as yours and mine.
What exactly does “make the U.S. a competitive place to do business again” mean?
I can guess, and be wrong. I’d like you to elucidate (bullet points would work well).
Thanks.
“would essentially wipe out the deficit.” — that IS an austerity budget
i think maybe there is some confusion because i’m all for decreased military spending and taxing the economic rentier (have problems with some of your other policy prescriptions, but let’s leave them aside for now).
here is james galbriath: In Defense of Deficits (my emphasis)
repeating, because i think we’re not getting the point and it’s key:
a big deficit-reduction program would destroy the economy
is destroying the economy now part of the progressive agenda? i don’t think so.
i have lots more links. here are a couple i’ve been posting. i beg everyone to give them a read:
L. Randall Wray: The Perfect Fiscal Storm: Causes, Consequences, Solutions
Warren Mosler: Seven Deadly Frauds of Economic Policy
Scarecrow has a fresher cross-post available: Japan Nuclear Watch, Wed: Radiation Leak to Sea Stopped, But Other Concerns Grow
How about a coherent, workable solution to how to make the US “competitive again.” You’re real big on the “taking from your neighbor” meme, how about some constructive ideas.
see post 18 to start.
If it ever gets approved by the moderators?
I think we’re on the same page. I agree that a deficit is necessary in our economy. If the government has a surplus, that’s money that the private sector is lacking. Government spending would need to increase, and in theory, business would increase as a result, if all of the above mentioned changes were made to the tax code. This creates a cyclical revenue stream for public and private sectors that increases over time, resulting in job creation, additional investment, infrastructure improvements, lower health care costs, you name it.
If we keep the budget deficit low (under a couple hundred billion, say) we’ll be in good shape, because it’s a running tab. It’s always low, but on an ever-increasing budget.
Right, this is the other key difference, that non-seniors have, um, income.
Ok. Great! I’m all eyes: what’s your proposal? Specifics with links, if possible. I’m serious. I’d genuinely like to know what your proposal is to “make the US a competitive place to do business again…”
It would seem HeadedWest has only his shallow libertarian talking points and the Regressive’s privatize everything scheme to fall back on. Shit, a private company couldn’t even handle a payroll operation out of Tallahassee without turning it into a complete nightmare. Their software sucked, people didn’t get paid, payroll records totally fucked up and it cost way more than the same job previously done by state workers. But then, that’s the plan. Just suck money out of the taxpayers and laugh all the way to the bank.
Good, strong government regulations and oversight — public health and safety, FDA, FTC, workplace safety, S&L’s, pensions — ensured that a large US population would reach its life expectancy. Deregulation ever since Reagan: A really good lawyer could make a case for conspiracy to commit murder.
Exactly. Increased cost is fine, because 2008 succeeded in publicizing loss and privatizing profit. Obama cemented this in 2010 with his continued tax cuts.
Money lost? Put it on the little guys. Money gained? “You can make that payable to Dimon, that’s Dee Eye Emm Oh En.”
I work part-time in a job that has a lot of senior workers – like people in the late 60s to early 80s. I know of several workers who worked *hard* all their lives, and then got the rug pulled out from under them by ripped off by corporations.
Example: one of my co-workers worked for years for Montgomery Wards as a Sales Associate, contributing regularly to their 401(k) plan. When Monkey Wards went bankrupt about 15 years ago, this person lost most of their 401 (K)and was already in her mid-60s. This person continued to work in various jobs is now 80 and filing for bankruptcy bc of – wait for it – medical costs (even though she does have private insurance).
And this person continues to work full-time, even though it’s a struggle for her to keep up and continue doing the work adequately.
Yeah: let’s all sit in a circle jerking off about how *lazy* citizens are, who lazed around all their lives, never “bothering” to “save money” and now “expect a gov’t hand-out.”
Gimme a break. My co-worker contributed to Medicare & the Soc Sec Ins program all of her life, along with contributing to the Monkey Wards vaunted 401 (k) program – which is what the Elites want all of us serfs to contribute to rather than defined benefit plans (which are safer). She got *ripped off* by a giant corporation (I’m sure the Monkey Wards top brass skated away with load$$ of money for themselves), but conservatives *make believe* that my co-worker is LAZY and worthless and should go beg in the gutter and die… frankly it stinks, but where is the outcry against this, except for blogs like this?
INSANE.
David,
Just want to take a moment to thank you for your incisive, thoughtful coverage and analysis of news. You’ve been doing a spectacular job since coming to FDL.
Most GOPers are non committal on Ryan’s budget. Getting a bit lonely out there on that limb Paul?
I would love to list out a number of ideas, but I refuse to spend 15-20 minutes writing out a post if the moderators refuse to post it.
I have been waiting more than 20 minutes as is for previous responses in this thread to be approved. By the time I get anything up and it actually gets approved to be posted everyone has moved on to the two new articles already up. FDL doing their best to eliminate any opportunity for debate.
Nah, there’s a possum for him to molest. He’ll be fine.
I saw the esteemed representative and all I could think of was “douchebag”. Arrogant little snot is an even better description.
Ooo! Ouch! Poor Possum.
He means increased taxes on the poor, increased subsidies for corporations and the wealthy, elimination of social safety nets and of regulations. He means 3rd-world comparative equivalence, in the hopes that business will find consumers elsewhere and yet decide to locate here. In other words, yes: same old failed ideological theories. You needn’t have asked.
completely disagree. that IS a big deficit reduction.
really important topic… and imo, worth hashing through so we all understand the various povs.
I think Neko is channeling Kismet SD. She sure has been “helpful” with my typing lately.
The budget has no chance of passing, however, it will swing debate to the right.
You’re right, of course.
It is a big deficit reduction. You’re right about that, too. However, with increased revenue our government can continue to increase spending, investment, subsidies, etc. Our government doesn’t stockpile money like the private sector does, so the money is continuously recirculated into the economy. Hence the nature of the economy becomes cyclical, unlike now, where it’s a tornado sucking money from the bottom to the top.
Like these transnational gangsters would even consider doing that. What color is the sky in your world?
and laugh all the way to the (offshore) bank.
Fixed it.
Don’t let the opening statement in this fight fool you. Ryan and compadres fully are out to get the government out of health care completely. They are not even going to shill for the insurance companies after the vouchers become “too expensive”. That is, unless the Koch brothers decide to buy an insurance company, which would subject them to state regulation unless they buy the legislatures of those states.
Ryan is putting forward a plan written by others who do not fully understand what is likely to happen if they succeed in eliminating senior health care completely. Because they do not remember what existed in the 1920s. Before health insurance.
Most elderly did not live as long as today. Physicians were constantly giving away free services just to satisfy their Hippocratic oath. Deaths from heart attack and stroke were epidemic. Hospitals were operated by charities and religious groups–and barely made expenses. And elderly folks who were working and began to lose their health also lost their jobs. Independent farmers would die suddenly and their families would have to scramble to keep the farm in an economy that always had overproduction. The families of tenants would have to move in with relatives.
If folks have the illusion that insurance companies, providers, employers, or the wealthy are going to prosper absolutely under the full elimination of government health responsibilities, they are mistaken. This is a case in which folks don’t know their own interests but are willing to sacrifice to the idol of free markets. Yep, a lot of folks will be OK, but not as prosperous as they could be by operating in a, you know, society.
LOLzer! Yeah, that’s a nice fantasy, I must admit. Too bad US corporations will definitely NOT spend that purported $1.2trillion on creating jobs ‘n stuff.
Where is *evidence* that so-called “US” corporations (which are mostly all global entities now, in case you haven’t noticed) will actually spend tax breaks in the good old USA??? They won’t. They only people who’ll benefit from a tax dodge like that are the top brass CEOs. Gimme a break.
Come up with something else, and I’d be glad to read about it.
It’s all that energy coming from the Bridge.
That’s a very shitty way of saying nothing at all to contradict the principal behind my statement.
Hedge Fund managers have little income when compared to their capital gains. Their capital gains are taxed at the same rate as yours or mine, but my capital gains don’t comprise the vast majority of my income, nor do they number in the billions of dollars.
An individual with a multi-billion dollar personal income pays a higher tax rate than a hedge-fund manager pays on their multi-billion dollar income. Calling it capital gains instead of income doesn’t change what it is.
Dude’s got nothin’ but horseshit for ideas. Definitely a true believer when it comes to “trickle down” economics.
“You could envision an exchange plan with healthy people in the pool possibly working, but that simply won’t work with seniors.” ???????????
An “exchange” is just a visit to your local insurance company agent or broker – no magic involved – so why the “savings” would differ by age cohort is not clear to me – indeed in both cases all that happens in the agents office or in the exchange info pamphlets is that the subsidy from the government to the insurance companies is explained – so the savings appears to my eyes to be zero in all age groups.
Indeed that is why I am peeved that the Obama plan designers – and the Mass Connector plan designers – locked onto a proprietary spreadsheet by a MIT econ prof who refused to explain where he got his “savings factors” used in his spreadsheet recommending exchanges as a way to avoid single payer and prospective budget rules- there is just the magic fairy of high deductibles (claimed to be supported by the RAND study of the late 70′s but when RAND is reviewed it says nothing of the sort) leading to self-denial of care so as to save money with increased sickness and ER cost to society, and with the magic wand of competition in an industry the professor does not understand – one where one designs product so that comparisons between policy offerings are impossible and one never competes on price. It is like he tried to use data from a one year term insurance product’s business model and apply it to health insurance.
Again – in a world where exchanges are unlikely to force business plan changes and therefore will produce zero savings, they will fail equally – just as well in the pre-Medicare crowd as they will fail in the Medicare crowd.
We had a tax holiday on the deferred tax on overseas profits – resulted in lower corporate taxes as they financed dividends in the US – it did not result in US investment or more jobs in the US – please check your data as it appears contrary to the facts.
We have insurance professionals, actuaries, economists, tax professionals on this thread – your first idea – a tax holiday for deferred tax liabilities on overseas profits – suggest results that were contrary to prior factual history of the results of the prior GOP tax holiday on those same deferred tax liabilities. If you can not support your ideas with facts, the moderators are doing a good job by not wasting our time with them in this thread.
Best to do your posting over at Fox where truth is not a requirement and is indeed an impediment to the policy goal of lower taxes for the rich and corporate.
Corporations aren’t going to invest in US jobs unless and until hourly wages go down to Chinese, Vietnamese or Indonesian levels. The increased profit levels shown by corporations with overseas manufacturing are a proof of Marx’s assertion that surplus value (read profit) comes from the worker. A pair of Converse sneakers cost more now that they’re made in Viet Nam than they did when they were made here. The difference in worker’s wages spells increased corporate profits.
Some people are into the water-sports.
The facts on hedge manager income:
The professional fund managers of these hedge funds and private equity firms are allowed to treat a substantial portion of their compensation as capital gains, meaning they are most likely taxed at 15% rather than the 35% rate that applies to ordinary income such as wages and salary. Such an exemption, however, makes little sense: in economic terms, the fund managers (also known as investment advisors) perform a professional service, much like lawyers or doctors, and receive remuneration for their labor.
These investment advisors and hedge fund managers can take advantage of this tax structure because they are often compensated through a scheme that, in part, pays them according to the returns on the fund. The industry standard for hedge fund managers is “two and twenty,” which is shorthand for an “overhead” fee of 2% of capital under management plus carried interest (often called a “carry”) of 20% of the returns on the fund. Thus a $100 million fund earning 20% would pay its fund manager $2 million for overhead and $4 million in carry. The carry portion of their compensation is treated under the tax code as capital gains for the fund manager and is taxable at the much lower capital gains tax rate of 15%.
There is no reason to treat income not derived from selling a personal asset as a capital gain.
It is a loophole put there to compensate those who donate to the GOP.
So what was your reasoning again as to why that loophole should be kept?
I’d like to take on this meme of “competition” or “competitiveness.” The Fukishima nuclear accidents are pointing out to us all once more that we actually live in a highly interdependent situation further concentrated by the resource draw and waste load created by the human population on the planet. I think that the concepts of “competition” and “competitiveness” amongst humans is a counterproductive fiction that we should no longer buy into to the unbounded joy of the socio-psychopathic, “he who dies with the most toys, wins” rich-sters as it guarantees our disorganization and inability to effect constructive solutions. The natural world that supports and literally contains humans doesn’t tolerate for long the disruptions we deliver it and simply moves back into balance in whatever way necessary despite what we puny humans want or think. We can work with that system or persist in working against it and therefore perish. My suggestion is the former rather the latter.
First of all, savings to whom? The overall system because of more effective health care that actually keeps folks healthy? The government? Individuals?
The second issue is how partitioned is the risk pool. The current legislation prevents partitioning by anything but age. And limits that to doubling the premium.
The third issue is that the exchanges will vary from state to state in premium costs and benefit payment levels, depending on how competitive (or not) the insurance market in the state is.
The bigger issue is that because folks will be self-denying care that they can’t afford, there will be more missed work days, more spread of infectious diseases, more missed school days, and poorer overall economic competitiveness as compared to nations that fully subsidize health care. The cost of the system as a whole will go up. And likely the incomes of providers and insurers will go down. Unless there is a mandate, very healthy people will not purchase insurance and very sick people will not be able to afford insurance. And the folks stuck in the middle will be subsidizing through cost-shifting by providers treatment for those who cannot pay. Or we will become a society that lets people die at the ER door because they can’t pay their medical bills.
I have yet to figure out why money should be taxed less than actual sweat equity (labor), ever!
{ LOL } “She canna give ye no more, Cap’im!”
Clearly, Ryan knows that the Bush tax cuts for the rich must be protected at all costs.
at least we agree that what you propose IS a big deficit reduction.
now, can you please show me where galbraith is wrong when he wrote, “a big deficit-reduction program would destroy the economy”
the links i gave above are just three of many. here are three more:
Deficit spending 101 – Part 1
Deficit spending 101 – Part 2
Deficit spending 101 – Part 3
i hope you will read them.
for now though, here is knut from yesterday:
……
again, i think this is really really important stuff… blowing it off before we’ve made the attempt to understand it may mean we’re just as wrong (although not in the same way) as ryan et al.
Why are these psychopaths allowed to propose healthcare legislation?
Headed West: The corporations a few years ago already got one tax holiday to repatriate profits stuffed away in overseas tax havens, now they are banking on another tax holiday. And then, later, a third. This encourages repeat criminal behavior.
The original purpose was to allow corporations to INVEST the money in the market where they earned it. In that case, how could they still have money to repatriate if it was already invested overseas? Surely you see it is nothing but a scam perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.
GE for example, increased its profits as a direct result of tax evasion by shifting the funds overseas. Their “profits” of billions of dollars are nothing more than the taxes they should have paid here in the US.
Why doesn’t GE just move its corporate headquarters to Canton, China and be done with it? (I know: crappy weather, dirty air, filthy water, difficult language, oppressive government, limited military, even more graft.)
1. hourly wages are not the only cost of doing business. let’s take the cost of pensions and ss (via fica), cost of employee health care, etc onto the public sector.
2. wages are not the only cost of doing business. infrastructure matters too. we’ve shot ourselves in the foot on this one, but let’s imagine universal low cost v high bandwidth public internet access. massive investment in education, r&d, clean up of the environment, healthy food AND alternative energy.
3. corporations aren’t the only source of jobs. public sector, small business, self-employment, etc.
not saying the above is a panacea, but it doesn’t have to be as bad as it is
thank you.
Competition is not a fiction. It’s a reality of too many folks demanding much more of resources that have limits (it is a finite world after all). The resource that is most constrained relative to the demand for it and also is has the strongest utility under all conditions (food, water,..) will have the most intense competition, one that can lead easily to conflict and violence. One of the functions of societies is to regulate that competition.
That regulation can take one of three forms. Resources are allocated by tradition; inheritance of land is an example of a tradition other than competition being used for allocation of resources. Resources can be allocated by decree (whether that decree comes from an autocrat, a bunch of aristo- or techno-crats, or a democratic process); allocation of wages by managers or boards of directors is an example; minimum wage and overtime laws are also an example. Or resources can be allocated through barter, through patronage, or through a monetized market. The problem with barter is that it is inefficient in matching buyers and sellers, because of the need to align third- and fourth-party buyers and sellers. The problem with patronage is the implicit unequal power relationship. The problem with a market is that allocates purely on the basis of ability to pay.
There are some resources of society that should not be allocated on the basis of the ability to pay. Basic levels of food, water, shelter, health care, education all contribute the the stability and prosperity of the society at large. Those have to be allocated in some way, but a market is not adequate because it will allocate second homes to people with the ability to pay before people who cannot pay have first homes; then the purchaser of the second home will have to hire security firms to prevent homeless squatters from living in the second home (or first home) while they are living in the other. Isn’t it interesting how the security industry thrives with greater inequalities in wealth.
Health care is very interesting in that as a service, the demand for it is very much related to the health of the population. In fact, the only way that providers have found to generate more revenue from wealthier patients has to do with the delivery of goods and services not related directly to health care — such as adequate and rested staff, posh surroundings, additional non-health care services, preferential scheduling… So the cost of health care is not going to spiral out of control if all basic health care is subsidized. In fact, most analysis of the experience of other countries shows the opposite.
It is not economics but Randian philosophy that is driving this debate. As as most folks contemporary with Rand knew, the philosophy is based on pure selfishness and greed. Period. The opposite of Rand’s selfishness is Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, a book that most conservatives neglect even when they bother to read the Wealth of Nations.
Didn’t you miss it? We decided to destroy the economy last December. The current debate only deals with how thoroughly and with what means.
From what I’ve seen, they effectively have in addition to every other corporatist in the US and Europe who has also decamped with its facilities to GulagsRUS. As they are allowed to remove the slice of the international fiat currency in their possession from the country and move it around in a network of financial black sites, if we rid ourselves of them as the middle man by ridding ourselves of the present financial system, we all get a new start. If we don’t, the suffering and slavery continues.
We have barely any rule of law, a failed central government (“gridlock” was used to mask that for sometime), and possibly other failed state and city governments. My view and experience is that “markets” and “competition” aren’t honest besides the fact that those concepts rest on other human-made concepts premised on other flawed concepts of selfishness, scarcity thinking, the inherent inequality of others/their needs, and denial of human dependence on a larger, interconnected system that can easily cause the extinction of whole human civilizations in the blink of an eye (e.g. photo of an “artifact” from the volcanic eruption at Pompeii). Seems to me we are all suddenly faced with that realization which can provide a really good outcome if we resolve not to make the same mistakes again (the definition of apology) and build something far better that benefits as many people as possible.
i wasn’t able to pay attention to the news last december…. guess i missed that.
The big mistake of the market fundamentalists is in mischaracterizing the current system. It is not a system of markets but of patronage. When I go buy local produce at the farmers market, that is a market. I can haggle a little bit, depending on how late in the day it is and how many folks are still there. And it operates in a space provided by local government. I can see their produce and they can see my money (and check for counterfeit bills); no information asymmetry there.
The big mistake is to discount the role of government in ensuring that markets remain free. That happens through regulations and infrastructure. There in fact has never been a free market that lasted for long without some sort of regulation.
We have law priced to the highest bidder and have lost both an independent judiciary and independent media (there was a major fight to get both of those in the middle third of the 20th century. And then we got complacent.
I agree very much that we need to confess to what we are witnessing about how the system has failed, and then to turn to build something better (this turning is what repentance used to mean).
It had to do with the extension of the Bush tax cuts in exchange for extending unemployment benefits and pursuit of fixing the deficit.