Comment by shimman
6 hours ago
I'd rather the US fund universal childcare, medicare for all, and free school lunches than give a cent to subsidize a technology the American public absolute hates.
6 hours ago
I'd rather the US fund universal childcare, medicare for all, and free school lunches than give a cent to subsidize a technology the American public absolute hates.
I would add supporting literacy programs to that list. Unfortunately, many Americans struggle to read beyond the sixth grade level.
Can’t wait for the day Altman goes to run payroll or whatever and there just isn’t enough liquidity there, full stop.
That will be the start of the world healing from a very severe psychosis and ailment, slop leaving the internet, and the future being certain and stable again for kids and such.
It’s optimistic I know.
Redistribution can only get you so far. Creating new wealth is more sustainable.
So why did we stop doing that in favour of winner takes all weath centralisation?
Largely because enough American voters, contrary to all of the evidence, believed that Trump was going to grow a sense of duty, eviscerate corruption in Washington, deliver an economy that works for the working class, and not engage in any new wars.
Charlie Brown, Lucy, football.
1 reply →
AI destroys wealth, so what is that?
> Redistribution can only get you so far.
That "so far" being a middle class the envy of the rest of the world which the US threw away to create a new class of oligarch.
"Back at the tail-end of that era, in the early 1960s, America’s richest faced a 91 percent tax rate on income in the top tax bracket."
https://inequality.org/article/tax-the-rich-we-did-that-once...
Number one expense for SMB is healthcare, providing a nationalized healthcare service would likely unlock trillions in value (imagine what Americans would do if they got $200-500 more per paycheck?).
Instead we are forced to watch some of the wealthiest companies on the planet burn money for fun because apparently the government is "wasteful."
What a crock of shit.
The U.S. spends more money on education per student than any OECD country other than Norway and Luxembourg. Yet it gets quite mediocre results. Why do you think the U.S. will be able to do public health care in a more cost efficient way than it does public education?
I favor universal health insurance, but you’re going to pay more, not less. European countries didn’t flip some magic switch where they saved a bunch of money by just “cutting out the profit.” They do it through measures like the UK NHS setting the standards of care, so in a malpractice lawsuit the entity that says what the doctor ought to have done is the same entity that bears the cost of unnecessary tests and procedures. Efficiency is also achieved by aggressively rationing providers such as MRIs, keeping health worker salaries low, etc. There is no stomach to do any of that in the U.S.
15 replies →
Our healthcare system has its flaws (to put it mildly), but nationalized systems have their own. I know people who don't have primary care because they live in a country with a nationalized healthcare service and their government, in its infinite wisdom, chose not to allocate enough doctors to their town.
How would nationalized healthcare get funded other than shifting that 200-500/check towards… nationalized healthcare?
9 replies →
Well because you said that, we're going to add public investment in crypto too, everyone gets an NFT with their taxes this year.
Mothers are great at childcare and can easily provide much healthier lunches at far lower cost than schools. As for medicine, children are a small percentage of healthcare costs.