Objectively intelligent.

[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

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.

[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.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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.

I'm supposed to go hiking in the UK in may. As of today I have no plans to cancel.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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.

It's going to be all over us here pretty soon. It seems like no big deal unless you're old and have respiratory issues. But having just muscled through two months of some form of bronchitis/walking pneumonia/sinus infection (when you've family in health care, you get everything), I do not want to spend any more time wheezing, coughing, and sneezing.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I would have voted for Yang. But not any other D.

I listened to Yang on the Freakonomics podcast. Very refreshing. I'd also vote for him.

ETA: This is not hyperbole: I'd vote for practically anyone over Trump. Not any candidate. Any human. He is mentally deranged -- George Conway has my proxy on this. If you're uncle said the things Trump says in the manner he says them, you'd drive him immediately to the hospital. He's not well.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

So is anyone troubled by Bernie's authoritarian streak?

2 examples from last night:

Wanting to prosecute energy executives as criminals, not based on future changes in the law, but for "the destruction they have knowingly caused." Past actions... with seemingly no legal basis.

Also, on marijuana legalization within 100 days, and vacating and expunging all related convictions and moving the clemency board from the DOJ to the WH and using an executive order to declassify pot as a controlled substance. I did not care for Obama's executive actions. I also hate Trump's executive actions (except for the ones undoing Obama's because what can be done by executive authority should by definition be able to be undone by executive authority), so I also am wholeheartedly against making nationwide changes to criminal law without action by the legislature. Making the presidency *more* imperial isn't the answer, as Trump has shown.

I can warn you that nominating someone in reliance on the fact that they cannot ACKSHUALLY accomplish what they have promised is not a good place to be.

It seems as if to the general public, Bernie has not been fully vetted. Not really. For example, the whole rape fantasy essay hasn't come up in the debates at all yet. Information about his pro-dictator streak is just dribbling out now. I am sure that once he gets the nomination it is all going to be aired for the less online folk, and maybe it's just me, but it seems like the rape fantasy thing may hurt him with suburban women???

Bernie is domineering and shouty in the debates, but I don't think he can beat Trump at that game.

Republicans deciding it's ok for CBP to shoot kids across the border seems more urgent. Pro-life justices my ass.

Bernie isn't my choice, but every time you try to attack him, it just brings to mind worse stuff with the current administration. Rape is worse than rape fantasies, colluding with dictators in office is worse than playing footsie with them when you're a mayor from the hinterland, and so on.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

So is anyone troubled by Bernie's authoritarian streak?

2 examples from last night:

Wanting to prosecute energy executives as criminals, not based on future changes in the law, but for "the destruction they have knowingly caused." Past actions... with seemingly no legal basis.

Also, on marijuana legalization within 100 days, and vacating and expunging all related convictions and moving the clemency board from the DOJ to the WH and using an executive order to declassify pot as a controlled substance. I did not care for Obama's executive actions. I also hate Trump's executive actions (except for the ones undoing Obama's because what can be done by executive authority should by definition be able to be undone by executive authority), so I also am wholeheartedly against making nationwide changes to criminal law without action by the legislature. Making the presidency *more* imperial isn't the answer, as Trump has shown.

I can warn you that nominating someone in reliance on the fact that they cannot ACKSHUALLY accomplish what they have promised is not a good place to be.

It seems as if to the general public, Bernie has not been fully vetted. Not really. For example, the whole rape fantasy essay hasn't come up in the debates at all yet. Information about his pro-dictator streak is just dribbling out now. I am sure that once he gets the nomination it is all going to be aired for the less online folk, and maybe it's just me, but it seems like the rape fantasy thing may hurt him with suburban women???

Bernie is domineering and shouty in the debates, but I don't think he can beat Trump at that game.

I don't think you're going to find anyone here that isn't troubled by some aspect of Sanders. I personally am livid about his torpedoing Immigration reform in 2007, but I'm guessing that's not a beef you have. Plus, his followers are just assholes.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

A cable access show he did as Mayor of where ever he was mayor is available on Youtube. The guy had brain worms already decades ago.

A debate of two crazy old guys yelling at each may push people to vote for the crazy guy who at least has to slowing down wanting to do more damage, instead of unleashing a new crazy guy. I really think you need someone who will, as they say in Texas, take the salt of of Trump by speaking rationally and calling out his nonsense.

I think of this as the debate of the Grandpas. Do you go with the crazy mob-connected, scary-sketchy Grandpa who likes to kill things and watch them die or do you go with the crazy, overly friendly-sketchy Grandpa who always has gifts for you?

I know it's a tough call for some.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I don't think you're going to find anyone here that isn't troubled by some aspect of Sanders. I personally am livid about his torpedoing Immigration reform in 2007, but I'm guessing that's not a beef you have. Plus, his followers are just assholes.

His followers do include an awful lot of assholes, but not as many as Trump. Listening to the two of them, however, apparently I'm a communist member of the establishment. I'm also an unChristian Jesus freak.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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.

My work wouldn't let your in-laws come in for 2 weeks, as of today. They could work from home, but if that's impossible, they get two weeks paid leave to ride out the incubation period.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It's going to be all over us here pretty soon. It seems like no big deal unless you're old and have respiratory issues. But having just muscled through two months of some form of bronchitis/walking pneumonia/sinus infection (when you've family in health care, you get everything), I do not want to spend any more time wheezing, coughing, and sneezing.

I'm doing the cough that won't go away, so I'm not looking forward to it either.

I did have a conversation with my parents about it, though. They're up there in age and my dad especially has a history of respiratory/heart issues. I'm glad they live on a ranch two miles from the closest building (which is one they own). They're going to minimize trips to town and take advantage of Amazon for the next few weeks.

[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 Replaced_Texan

I don't think you're going to find anyone here that isn't troubled by some aspect of Sanders. I personally am livid about his torpedoing Immigration reform in 2007, but I'm guessing that's not a beef you have. Plus, his followers are just assholes.

The core rationale of the Sanders campaign is that the Democratic Party hasn't been speaking to a lot of people, who feel disenfranchised and have been sitting out, and he is going to mobilize these people to grow the base of the party. If that sort of thinking were going to appeal to anyone on this board, it would be Sebby.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that someone ought to do the above, I just am utterly unconvinced that Sanders is the guy. He seems more like Jeremy Corbyn than the 2008 Obama (before he took off the mask and revealed himself as a centrist).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

My work wouldn't let your in-laws come in for 2 weeks, as of today. They could work from home, but if that's impossible, they get two weeks paid leave to ride out the incubation period.

They're retired, and I'm a little more worried about whether they'll be able to get into somewhere like where you work if they start to show symptoms. I don't imagine that anyone will want to evacuate them to the US, and it's not clear to me that they'll be in a good position to get medical care in Italy.

Apropos of your work, these were some former colleagues of Ms. Slothrop.