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...
Conversation
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.
1
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
That's why I called him a moderate. He is completely within the political mainstream of my own country, somewhere near the center.
And we don't have thousands of people (adjusted for pop. here) going bankrupt from medical bills yearly.
1
1
Now, yadda yadda, oil wealth - but the overall political mechanisms involved are scale-sensitive.
Would be far easier to implement in the US, economically speaking. But the politics is completely captured.
The core, unsolved problems of capitalism are externalities and perpetual growth. Social democracy doesn't solve those.
But it does solve all this other BS the US political mainstream wants to pretend is natural, or desirable, or whatever else.