Objectively intelligent.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Oh really? I’ve supported:

1. UBI
2. Post 2008 student loan forgiveness
3. Financial transaction tax (like Warren’s)

I’d go one further and create a “rent” tax to mine dollars out of parasitic asset holders.

I could go on at further length, but I want the admission that you’re side is mostly a different stripe of country club republican that just wants to buy off the problem with dumb and regressive redistribution.

Your 1, 2 and 3 all sound like a good start to me, but just a start.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Your 1, 2 and 3 all sound like a good start to me, but just a start.

4. Repeal McCarran Ferguson to allow insurers to pool nationally (lowering ins. costs in numerous areas)
5. Cut off fed subsidies of all kinds to states that use license acquisition as a cash machine (licensing endeavors that needn’t be licensed to placate local protectionist interests and mine fee income for the state);
6. Shut down every agency rendered redundant by UBI (give people more cash and put useless middlemen on UBI themselves rather than stealth white collar welfare);
7. INFRASTRUCTURE BILL
8. Bankruptcy relaxation (allow modification of primary mortgages and allow discharge of up to 50% of student loans)

I can be exceedingly generous. Bernie-like. But where you and I differ is you want things managed. You believe in allegedly smart managers. I believe in smart policies. I think smart wonky managers of the ilk you desire are usually the road to hell in the policy arena because most govt folk have never managed shit, never made a payroll. They’re not serious people. They just sound like it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

4. Repeal McCarran Ferguson to allow insurers to pool nationally (lowering ins. costs in numerous areas)
5. Cut off fed subsidies of all kinds to states that use license acquisition as a cash machine (licensing endeavors that needn’t be licensed to placate local protectionist interests and mine fee income for the state);
6. Shut down every agency rendered redundant by UBI (give people more cash and put useless middlemen on UBI themselves rather than stealth white collar welfare);
7. INFRASTRUCTURE BILL
8. Bankruptcy relaxation (allow modification of primary mortgages and allow discharge of up to 50% of student loans)

You ran out of ideas after 3. It's not that 4, 5 and 8 are necessarily bad, they're just pointless. If UBI is a good idea, then 6 is pointless because it doesn't make much redundant. No one opposes 7 except Republicans who don't like taxes, but the challenge is to spend money in a way that really improves things.

You complain a lot about the poverty of Democratic ideas to create jobs, but you don't have any of your own, unless 7 means hiring people to build stuff, which Democrats like.

I can be exceedingly generous. Bernie-like. But where you and I differ is you want things managed. You believe in allegedly smart managers. I believe in smart policies. I think smart wonky managers of the ilk you desire are usually the road to hell in the policy arena because most govt folk have never managed shit, never made a payroll. They’re not serious people. They just sound like it.

I'm not sure why you think I "want things managed," whatever that means. But you're just saying stupid stuff like this because you'd rather bitch than find solutions to problems.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

You ran out of ideas after 3. It's not that 4, 5 and 8 are necessarily bad, they're just pointless. If UBI is a good idea, then 6 is pointless because it doesn't make much redundant. No one opposes 7 except Republicans who don't like taxes, but the challenge is to spend money in a way that really improves things.

4 is significant because it would allow broader pooling which decreases the cost of insurance. It also helps to glide path toward single payer, which I think is an inevitability and would create significant economic gains.

5 is huge because it eliminates a huge barrier to new business formation. Credentialism and licensing are parasitic except in circumstances where absolutely necessary (doctors, pilots, etc.).

8 sound small, but it's not. I'd prefer forgiveness and a removal of the federal govt from the student loan market (no more backing the loans and no more administering them, as this TPA/Guarantor structure only encourages education providers to raise prices), but I'm not sure that will happen any time soon to the degree needed. If we allowed bankruptcy as an option, it would at least cause rates to rise. And as rates rise, they limit ability to borrow, which causes the cost of tuition to freeze or perhaps even drop. (This is an alternative or lead-in to a more broader form of forgiveness.)

6 I include because elimination of the costs of administration of the current programs that provide benefits which will be redundant to UBI is a big chunk of what pays for UBI. Believe it or not, a number of wonks argue that we should continue all the programs and simply add UBI on top. So a person getting a transfer of X to cover necessities would now get XX, and the administrators of the program and the administrators of UBI would do the same job. That's insane inefficiency.

You complain a lot about the poverty of Democratic ideas to create jobs, but you don't have any of your own, unless 7 means hiring people to build stuff, which Democrats like.

Delivery of large scale infrastructure at the fed level can work. The feds can be efficient. The state govts, OTOH, are filled with low talent low quality decision makers. We should scrap most state procurement codes and allow for more public/private partnerships that use currently cheap capital. This provides a benefit to the banking sector, cuts costs to the state, and delivers projects at twice the speed and 1/4-1/3 discount off the cost of traditional state controlled delivery (where contractors disciplined only by state employees of limited talent can feast on change orders). Europe has already adopted this model and it works nicely. Compare their airports and highways to ours.

I'm not sure why you think I "want things managed," whatever that means. But you're just saying stupid stuff like this because you'd rather bitch than find solutions to problems.

I think you favor light regulation on finance, but not on much else. Your view that the govt should spend on infra rather than exploring creative solutions using private capital is a good example. You've faith that govt can deliver best and should control. I think in some regards that's true, but in just as many others, govt involvement is the very problem that needs to be eliminated.

[SEC_Chick]

Speaking of Bernie not being fully vetted...

https://thebulwark.com/sierra-blanca...rushes-bernie/

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Had to be this spring that we decided to go thru southern Europe.

Maybe we'll get lucky and it'll magically disappear by April, as Chief of CDC, Dr. Trump has advised.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Had to be this spring that we decided to go thru southern Europe.

Maybe we'll get lucky and it'll magically disappear by April, as Chief of CDC, Dr. Trump has advised.

My in-laws are in Italy right now for six weeks. So that's awesome.

We were in London last week -- seems like we pulled that off just in time.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Speaking of Bernie not being fully vetted...

https://thebulwark.com/sierra-blanca...rushes-bernie/

Did you find that compelling? Seemed kinda meh to me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

4 is significant because it would allow broader pooling which decreases the cost of insurance. It also helps to glide path toward single payer, which I think is an inevitability and would create significant economic gains.

5 is huge because it eliminates a huge barrier to new business formation. Credentialism and licensing are parasitic except in circumstances where absolutely necessary (doctors, pilots, etc.).

8 sound small, but it's not. I'd prefer forgiveness and a removal of the federal govt from the student loan market (no more backing the loans and no more administering them, as this TPA/Guarantor structure only encourages education providers to raise prices), but I'm not sure that will happen any time soon to the degree needed. If we allowed bankruptcy as an option, it would at least cause rates to rise. And as rates rise, they limit ability to borrow, which causes the cost of tuition to freeze or perhaps even drop. (This is an alternative or lead-in to a more broader form of forgiveness.)

6 I include because elimination of the costs of administration of the current programs that provide benefits which will be redundant to UBI is a big chunk of what pays for UBI. Believe it or not, a number of wonks argue that we should continue all the programs and simply add UBI on top. So a person getting a transfer of X to cover necessities would now get XX, and the administrators of the program and the administrators of UBI would do the same job. That's insane inefficiency.

You are so neoliberal. Seriously, listen to yourself. If Hillary Clinton ran for President on this platform, you would vomit all over it.

Delivery of large scale infrastructure at the fed level can work. The feds can be efficient. The state govts, OTOH, are filled with low talent low quality decision makers. We should scrap most state procurement codes and allow for more public/private partnerships that use currently cheap capital. This provides a benefit to the banking sector, cuts costs to the state, and delivers projects at twice the speed and 1/4-1/3 discount off the cost of traditional state controlled delivery (where contractors disciplined only by state employees of limited talent can feast on change orders). Europe has already adopted this model and it works nicely. Compare their airports and highways to ours.

You are full of great ideas about how to better spend money that Republicans don't want to spend. I don't particularly care how the government spends money on infrastructure, but it's a public good and needs public investment. If you want to create jobs, build train lines and roads and sewers and airports and create good blue-collar jobs in the process.

I think you favor light regulation on finance, but not on much else.

I don't think I favor "light regulation" on finance, whatever that means. I tend to think that much of what's happening in finance is a tax on the rest of the economy.

Your view that the govt should spend on infra rather than exploring creative solutions using private capital is a good example. You've faith that govt can deliver best and should control. I think in some regards that's true, but in just as many others, govt involvement is the very problem that needs to be eliminated.

You just said the feds are efficient, so I'm not sure which Sebby to disagree with here. The government has a lot of capital. It can borrow money cheap, and can print it too. The only reason to use private capital on infrastructure is a hostility to using tax dollars -- it's not about anything to do with the actual provision of infrastructure.