We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18451533 and marked it off-topic.
Edit: please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18446684 too.
I'm shooting from memory here about Sanders' proposals, and can't cite a source, so someone feel free to correct with hard data if you've got it...
The main focus was on Medicare-for-All, which could not but would also (even in analysis by hostile sources) reduce total public + private health costs.
> That was the start of Venezuela's road to ruin.
No, it wasn't.
Venezuela did not enact policies that cost more than it could supports, then try to raise taxes for revenue, and then turn to expropriation as a revenue measure; expropriation and high taxation were adopted deliberately as part of an overt policy of aggressive redistribution of wealth, not because revenue for social services was unavailable elsewhere but because redistribution from the rich was an independent goal.
Venezuela’s road to ruin was based on overdependence on oil revenue combined with failure to invest to diversify (or even maintain production) which led to falling production masked for a while by soaring prices and the whole house of cards collapsing when oil market prices collapsed.
> The main focus was on Medicare-for-All, which could not but would also (even in analysis by hostile sources) reduce total public + private health costs.
So there's a deal available there to be done where everybody wins (except perhaps politically). Medicare-for-all without the deal could be a disaster for the government finances, though.
But Sanders also proposed free college for all, which would also have to be funded somehow. And it seems like there was another big one, but I don't remember what it was.
> Venezuela did not enact policies that cost more than it could supports, then try to raise taxes for revenue, and then turn to expropriation as a revenue measure; expropriation and high taxation were adopted deliberately as part of an overt policy of aggressive redistribution of wealth, not because revenue for social services was unavailable elsewhere but because redistribution from the rich was an independent goal.
On reflection, that's not very comforting. We are at a place politically where "redistribution from the rich" has become thinkable as an independent goal.
He actually proposed that public colleges and universities should be tuition free, which is not the same thing.
> On reflection, that's not very comforting. We are at a place politically where "redistribution from the rich" has become thinkable as an independent goal.
Redistribution wasn't what caused the collapse, being more dependent on oil while producing less of it (and thus becoming supersensitive to price was.)
I only mentioned redistribution as an independent policy goal to explain why the narrative social spending -> funding needs -> effort at raising taxes -> expropriation was wrong. That sequence simply didn't occur. Venezuela relied on raising oil prices for revenue, and collapsed when oil prices did; expropriation was adopted early on when things were going relatively well, because of high oil prices, not in desperation over inadequate revenue.
Case in point in America. I know many, many people who served in the military for the sole reason of a college education. It cost them 4-8 years, but they emerged a veteran with veteran hiring preferences, debt-free, have work experience, life experience, and they are all fine. And no, you don't have to end up in a combat role at all. It's completely avoidable by going into the Air Force or Navy in an administrative role. In the rear with the gear, as it were. Military IT training for those with an IT bent is great training and you get to work on some really interesting stuff. You will never see the front lines as an Air Force IT staffer. This is but one path. For those morally opposed to the military, there are other paths like the Peace Corps, WWOOF, etc.
Edited to add:
From Winston Churchill:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
"There is nothing government can give you that it hasn't taken from you in the first place."
"The main vice of capitalism is the uneven distribution of prosperity. The main vice of socialism is the even distribution of misery."
"You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer."
"We contend that for a nation to try and tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket trying to lift himself up by the handle."
# End Sir Winston Churchill
I agree with all his above statements. Even Scandinavia is cutting back on the services they offer because they cannot afford it long term. It's not a panacea. You earn it, you keep it. Full stop. I should not be forced by taxation to fulfill the lives of others. If you are able-bodied, get a job, even if you don't like it. Work your way up the ladder. Don't expect anything from anyone. No one owes you anything other than mutual respect as a human being. Want something? Go earn it.
But you’re surely fine paying your taxes into “Defense” (private, for-profit contractors) continuing wars in other destabilized regions?
I’m actually supportive of defense spending....when it’s relevant to American (or really any developed nation’s “greater” life on earth). I currently see no effort to build ICBM/EMP/Astroid/Natural disaster defenses shrug
I also have to wonder what your priorities are when your first thought is “I don’t want to pay for everyone else” instead of “where is my tax money going?”
I, too, do not want an undue yoke of taxation on my back. To be honest, no one is calling for a “magnitude” increase in your taxes. And trigger warning, America has numerous socialist policies such as Medicare/Medicaid and health coverage for your politicians (but not your fellow countrymen)
It seems far more “fake and forced” to me that our FAANG companies (and their ilk) need additional tax cuts. It seems far more “fake and forced” that income tax is so high compared to other taxes. the sudden 2016-induced claims of a “booming economy” seem more “fake and forced” in the light of no real wage growth. Our slow descent into Feudalism and lordship seems far more “fake and forced” when you look at the policies that enable it.
And If you are one of the world’s wealthiest 0.1%, let me play the worlds smallest violin for not wanting to help you press your boot down harder on the throat of the proletariat.
There are more then a few animal social systems that practice resource sharing:
https://www.elephantvoices.org/elephant-sense-a-sociality-4/...
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/285/1888/2018...
The act of ensuring everyone has the bare minimum to survive when resources are abundant is more natural, more human, not less.
Possibly relevant: I’ve lived for 5+ in Northern Europe in the same economic/familiar circumstances as in the US, and I paid pretty much the same amount (as a percentage of my salary) after adding education and health care. The winters in Northern Europe are terrible, though. Pretty much everything else rocks.
https://quillette.com/2018/03/10/sanders-venezuela-meme/
Corbyn, on the other hand, has explicitly and often praised Venezuela and Chavez. There are plenty of primary sources, e.g.,
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/309065744954580992?l...
It is possible that the result would still be broken, but it is certain that the result of doing nothing will still be broken.
We can either just keep things broken, learn from what others have done use those lessons to take our best shot at fixing things, or we can completely ignore the hard-won lessons of others and go for an untested and novel approach. Which is most likely to work?
How do you define a “socialist” country? What countries would you say are “socialist” versus “cartel driven”?