Would be useful if those fed dollars the author is decrying was much more than military jobs and general entitlements like ag grants, Medicaid, and SNAP. Like yeah, their legislators don't care about those folks either. But we ain't exactly pulling a TVA anymore here so playing like neolib Clinton era bare minimum spending on poverty is a grand handout is pretty silly. For the most part nobody in the South or the Rust belt has gotten shit post NAFTA. The new deal has been dead for a long time but we're sure they owe us for managing poverty.
All Mamdani had to do was go in there and say both him and Trump are mavericks out to fix the system by breaking the dumb neoliberal rules and Trump would be all for it. You tell Trump you've got similar qualities that are good and he'll think you're hot shit for gassing him up.
I'm not minimizing the impact of people if the natural rent extraction of the market would result in the collapse of the system. The savings are overstated precisely because it creates a very poorly optimized mixed system. And if there's one thing markets are optimized to do it's extract rents from these things. See: the entirely of the American public private partnership. Medicare part D is the most recent egregious example on its own.
In the end we needed a lot more than even Medicare for all because the administrative bloat in the healthcare system needs a flamethrower taken to it even after the giant leeches of the insurance companies were removed. But it'd be a start.
Public healthcare in any reasonable iteration uses regional agencies solving regional problems with cooperative agreements or wholly public enterprises. Right now the nursing home system that is top heavy even while it relies on a combination of Medicare and Medicaid should be example enough of that. Medicare for all alone would just create the worst of both worlds of bloat just like we see with US defense, infrastructure, and increasingly space funding.
This dudes main contribution that I can see is some sort of attempt to peg happiness to income so we can figure out just how many bread and circuses the proles need for us to keep them content. Like yeah, Trump is operating well outside of the lines by talking about grocery prices going down, but these dudes have been going full ham about how income inequality is actually a healthy thing.
He's just lying dude. There's nothing to be that shocked about. I figure a Brookings economist would be familiar with these things. Maybe not since neoliberals seem to have some sort of massive aversion to ever contemplating material reasons for these things.
Hasn't been one in the anglosphere in general for a long time. The NDP is the closest but they've given up their working class cred years ago. And labor, well, if Blair didn't convince you they were a lost cause Starmer will. I'm not familiar enough with auspol but I'd imagine the trend holds.
That just increases the margin for smugglers. Even there the level of debt bondage and lack of payment for mules is terrible. Not much in the way of unions in criminal enterprises.
They vastly overestimate what low level gang members make off of drug slinging. They're arguing that it's economical to lead a gang and hold territory. Well yeah.
"The Cattle Ranchers, who I love, don't understand that the only reason they are doing so well, for the first time in decades, is because I put Tariffs on cattle coming into the United States," Trump wrote in his Wednesday post.
Despite days of verbal clashes between president and ranchers, the White House on Wednesday confirmed plans to quadruple the tariff-rate quota for beef imports from Argentina. The same day, the Department of Agriculture announced an action plan to support domestic cattle ranchers.
Unironically everybody involved in this are fucking morons. Trump saying to buy Argentine beef while raising tariffs. Ranchers complaining while prices skyrocket and he raises tariffs. It's really really dumb.
Imperial palace intrigue is a fun genre I guess. I liked The Apothecary Diaries.