@cline_collier@ifmcknight@mattyglesias@PEWilliams_ It's fine, build a coalition. But then apportion power accordingly to please each faction when you do win, don't spit in the face of the people who got you there
@BryantSmit51765@SwannMarcus89 Idk when shit hits the fan who delivers the goods? It can do massive economic coordination and leverage huge scale to crush a problem, while suppressing costs to do so
@cline_collier@ifmcknight@mattyglesias@PEWilliams_ It does, but this hostage-taking cannot continue forever, and basically does not in any other democratic systems. Only the US centre-left considers this normal expected behaviour
@ifmcknight@mattyglesias@PEWilliams_ Could be, but then you need to throw a bone to the left commensurate with their electoral weight when it comes to legislation, expecting a vote without providing anything (or even showing open contempt) is crazy behaviour and unsustainable
@ifmcknight@mattyglesias@PEWilliams_ As Matt Bruenig has said, this hostage-taking is a stupid way to manage a coalition and is only really expected in the US Dems for some reason, most normal parties accomodate factional requests according to electoral weight
@mattyglesias@PEWilliams_ Because voters with left-wing views just owe fealty to dems, you see, so if they join the coalition they can be ignored and if they don't join they deserve scorn (unlike right-wing dems who we must keep happy at all times)
@cellis212@cccvb90482622@SwannMarcus89 Private companies also and do run with losses for years, through financing. I think you need to scope out to other countries, in Europe experience with government-owned industry is overwhelmingly positive, and the private sector is an inefficient mess for the overpaying rich
@SRamirez68083 I think the point is even if you have some stock, most people have to work for a living to actually cover their costs. That is hugely different from a stock-owner that derives so much income through ownership titles that they don't need to provide anything of value in the market
@cellis212@cccvb90482622@SwannMarcus89 Yeah, in education, electricity providers (TVA in the US), some airlines, housing supply, rail... government provision crushes the private sector on cost-efficiency, mainly through reducing admin overhead and trading higher labour stability for lower salaries
@cellis212@cccvb90482622@SwannMarcus89 Governments absolutely have a huge incentive to cut healthcare costs, look at the UK or Spain, way less costs than a Netherlands or Switzerland model! I think you are just drawing on ideological axioms that having a market always makes things more efficient, which is not true
@cellis212@SwannMarcus89 What are you talking about, single payer (or even better socialized medicine) does a better job reducing admin expenses, preventing fraud and holding down provider prices than having a do-nothing mesh of private companies pushing identical government-written plans
@cellis212@cccvb90482622@SwannMarcus89 A single payer system absolutely does those things, delivers lower admin costs, prevents fraud,... even better if it was a socialized medicine system, all these privare insurers bring nothing but more middlemen mouths to feed
@jmhorp Weird how people try to gain anything meaningful from these indices, does anyone believe Japan is richer than Norway or Israel was ever richer than Belgium?
@DrewPavlou Mosley spent less than 4 years in prison and was released in 1943, in the middle of the war. He was also the leader of a fascist political party seeking power, not an independent writer
@NeilThin I think this shows you don't understand academia very well, he was funded to pursue a specific research line, you can't just pocket the money and spend your academic time doing something else (especially if they clash with the profile you presented for the grant application)