Politics aside, this is such a grotesque misuse of the word “precisely”. Nowhere does the quoted tweet say “all”
Conversation
Unless you'd have to have access to all of it to be able to ensure that everyone had what was promised which *seems* plausible to me? Like for *every* single person to have it I think you'd have to have access to all resources and the ability to distribute them all.
2
This is very much not the case in Norway, which meets every point on Bernie's list pretty well.
These talking points aren't just wrong - they're completely nuts. Bernie is a moderate, not a tankie.
2
3
Is it true that *everyone* is Norway has this? Is the homelessness tax literally 0? Isn't it just from their oil revenues?
1
It's not literally everyone. But close. No system has perfect throughput. The welfare state is actually dysfunctional, people have trouble w/benefits etc.
It's the functional tripartism that's the key. Even low-paid jobs are plenty to survive and have fun, savings, holidays...
1
1
The economy has been bending neoliberal for a decade or more, with predictably disastrous results, but it's still much healthier than most anywhere.
Oil helps, but the US could have this level of prosperity today, much like it did in the 50s. These are all policy choices.
1
1
Right - I don't know enough to disagree with any of this. I just meant that if Bernie literally meant 'every' and not just as a rallying call then visa's point of it being a bad use of precisely isn't that good (because it does entail what primalpoly says it does).
1
What? basic logic and first principles is all you need here. There is no reason why you need access to *all* available resources in order to provide the population with a subset of it
1
1
The primary scenario in which this might be untrue is if “provide 327m people with X services and resources” matches or exceeds the total available resources, which cannot possibly be true in the wealthiest country in the world. Back of envelope, American GDP is $19,000,000m
2
1
I *think* that at the margin providing *whatever* gets increasingly expensive to the point where it is not possible without control of all resources
1
Does this thought emerge from any research into the political and economic history of tripartism?
Because it sounds to me like pure conjecture.
The neoliberal status quo is not the first or only status quo to have existed in the West. And it's by far the worse recent one.
No, it comes from half-remembered research by givewell (I think) or some other meta-charity analysis institute that found that giving resources at the margin got harder and harder.
1
This is a completely different problem space, largely irrelevant to the highly politicized upward wealth transfers Sanders' platform is against.
If you cut out the absurd rent-seeking companies can take advantage of, esp. in the US, you get a much healthier capitalist economy.
1
1
Show replies