Funding for a proper Medicare for All system could be achieved by repurposing other givernment healthcare spending and improving cost efficiencies, plus increasing the Medicare tax on both sides by 6-7% and applying the tax to unearned revenue as well. It can be supplemented if necessary by a 5% tax on corporate profits. Most individuals would save money, as would most businesses.
The first year after implementation would see a significant drop in the official personal earnings rate, but only because current employer-provided healthcare benefits are included as income and social insurance taxes are specifically subtracted to determine net earnings. Expect a “shocking” total income drop of a couple of trillion dollars or so—and then move on, because despite the on-paper income drop, most citizens would have more money in their pockets.
We need an honest debate on the numbers. We haven’t had one in ages, in large part due to Republican name-calling and gaslighting. That has to stop.
Has Paul Krugman ever read either the HR676 Expanded and Improved Medicare For All bill, or, the funding mechanisms for that bill, published by Gerald Friedman, which can be found on www.pnhp.org?
It appears not.
For the once reputable economist Mr. Krugman to so cavalierly dismiss the massive economic gain of a national Universal Single Payer Healthcare system such as the House version, HR676, shows that he either doesn't read or he doesn't care.
First of all, a Medicare buy in, as a public option, will not save a dime.
Let me repeat: a public option will not lower system wide costs.
However, adding a public option, which will be a new form of insurance, to a crowded insurance market will force doctors/hospitals to buy one more software, learn one more system. This is adding administrative overhead.
We can lower our healthcare cost from 18% of GDP to 11% of GDP if we:
1. Drop admin overhead from 1/3 of our 3.2 trillion HC spending to less than 5%. This is accomplished by creating one benefit package with one billing system for all providers, and, by eliminating micro management of physicians from insurance company billing procedures. If providers only have one simple system to offer and bill by, then provider admin overhead will drop from 15% of their total budget to less than 3%.
2. Repeal Medicare Part D and allow prescription drug price negotiation.
3. Compel hospitals to be Non Profit, because For Profit hospitals charge more for a lower standard of care.
4
"Instead, it would mean allowing individuals and employers to buy into Medicare – basically a big public option. That’s really not radical at all."
Unless you're a Republican and hate the idea of everyone having health insurance. Oh, sorry, they want everyone to have "access" to health insurance. Even if it's unaffordable.
3
'Radical' is very relative. What a radical reform is here may not be one in Europe. Just because Europe is now voting to limit their social democracies more is not proof that WE should change in the direction of social democracy. Just look where we're coming from. Where we would enjoy a huge (and positive) bang for the buck by socialization, Europe might get very little from it (or even a negative result.)
1
Mr. Krugman along with all Establishment DEMs,
We won't be fooled again by your liking Medicare for all to get elected. Only those who are activist and pledge to stop taking all HEALTH $$$ will get any consideration.
3
Radical left these days are for mostly ideas that a vast majority of the US population will support. How that is radical is beyond me.
9
In these times, it's unsurprising to see reasonable ideas derided as "radical." As long as there's a VA backlog, crumbling infrastructure or people sneaking through the desert instead of filing through Immigration lines, there ought to be jobs for everyone.
1
Please tell me you haven't been cared for in a hospital lately, or a nursing home, and see the ratio of "immigrant" caregivers to white caregivers. What jobs are being taken away from longer time citizens ? Cleaners and maintenance? construction? Store clerks? Transportation workers? Landscapers? Who is languishing around due to lack of a job? Go out and look around.
Krugman was very much critical of Bernie Sander's domestic policies in favor of Hillary Clinton's. He said Bernie was too extreme. Now he's saying that someone who is even further left than Bernie is "reasonable". Can we all just admit that Krugman is the type that barks for the team that he believes will be in charge and thus he will be mascoting for?
3
Medicare for All is NOT "a deliberately ambiguous phrase." It means one system for ALL. The phrase is an attempt to provide some better sense of what single payer would be. It is a danger that you represent by conflating it with Medicare Option, or MediCare Choice, etc. Medicare for All is Single Payer. What you propose/suppose is a continuation of multiple payers/bureaucracies and the maintenance of insurance corporations reaping their outrageous profits and requiring their byzantine administrative structures. Incrementalism is a road block not a road map !http://stephenadairvernon.blogspot.com/
4
Man if only Paul would have said this 2 years ago. ..
3
Nice try, Professor. But she's for SINGLE PAYER.
Economic Populist + No Corporate Pac Money + Telegenic, Charismastic Man/Woman of any Race, any Age = Unstoppable Candidate
4
Until all profit motive is removed from our healthcare system, corporate profits will continue to be placed ahead of people's health and wellbeing. And regardless of what Krugman or any of the status-quo-establishment Democrats say… only one of the proposed bills (HR 676) will actually do that! Don't let anyone tell you otherwise... even Bernie Sanders (who I greatly admire and campaigned for in 2016). Sanders' bill leaves all long-term care beneficiaries under Medicaid, which is a state-administered system, and under it, all but one state then subcontracts with for-profit insurance companies (who take 40 - 50% of the Medicaid funding to administer it). So, other than HR 676, all of the proposals (Medicare Extra, Public Options, etc.) fall far short of eliminating the cause of the ever-increasing cost and ever-decreasing quality of our healthcare. By contrast, HR 676 will cover 100% of ALL medically necessary services, prescriptions, devices, etc... even dental, and hearing aids and glasses, etc.... for every person living in the US for life! And it will save the average American between $4,000 and $9,000 per year! Sorry, Krugman.... That is not radical... it is simple, logical, and practical! That is what progressive Democrats are advocating, as opposed to the neo-liberal Democrats, who are too financially beholden to the for-profit healthcare industry to support a plan that will really work!
3
The profit motive is only reason we have medicine, medical equipment and healthcare
2
The profit motive is nowhere near strong enough to sustain the unbelievably difficult work of caring for sick people. That work requires a higher ambition and those people interested in weathering the difficulties are as numerous and talented as those who are mainly interested in a fat paycheck.
Who are you going to support: the humanist or the shark?
The conventional wisdom among the politically ignorant is that the Republicans have gone so far to the right and the Democrats have gone so far to the left that there ought to be a centrist party "for the rest of us," although such statements are short on details. Probably "socially liberal and fiscally conservative," which is the lazy person's way of saying, "Let me do what I want, but don't harm my stock portfolio."
The fact is that the present-day Republicans are outright reactionaries, trying to undo the entire twentieth century, as they target unions, equal opportunity, civil rights for ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities, and eventually, Social Security and Medicare.
In contrast, judging by their actions rather than by their reputations, the mainstream Democrats are stuck in Richard Nixon territory, playing defense against the increasingly fascist Republicans while neglecting to come up with any bold initiatives of their own.
Vast numbers of Americans who want something more than tepid defense of the status quo feel politically homeless, especially when the DNC slights popular grassroots candidates and insists on funding "safe" ex-military or ex-intelligence candidates.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's upset victory should be a wake-up call to the DNC, a clue that there is room in the party for social democratic candidates who aren't afraid to make bold proposals and have a good rapport with their potential constituents.
6
Until all profit motive is removed from our healthcare system, corporate profits will continue to be placed ahead of people's health and wellbeing. And regardless of what Krugman or any of the status-quo-establishment Democrats say... ONLY ONE of the proposed bills (HR 676) will actually do that! Don't let anyone tell you otherwise... even Bernie Sanders (who I greatly admire and campaigned for in 2016). Sanders' bill leaves all long-term care beneficiaries under Medicaid, which is a state-administered system, and under it, all but one state then subcontracts with for-profit insurance companies (who take 40 - 50% of the Medicaid funding to administer it). Other than HR 676, all of the proposals (Medicare Extra, Public Options, etc.) fall far short of eliminating the cause of the already-extremely-high and ever-increasing cost and ever-decreasing quality of our healthcare. HR 676 will cover 100% of ALL medically necessary services, prescriptions, devices, etc... even dental, and hearing aids and glasses, etc.... for EVERY person living in the US for life! AND it will SAVE the average American between $4,000 and $9,000 per year! Sorry, Krugman.... That is NOT radical... it is simply LOGICAL and PRACTICAL! That is what progressive Democrats are advocating, as opposed to the neo-liberals, who are financially beholden to the for-profit healthcare industry to ever support a plan that will really work!
3
Dr Krugman:
So I assume you are taking back all that stuff you said about Sanders' ideas being "happy dreams." Or was that just Hillary boosterism at the expense of your real economic analysis?
7
This sure doesn't sound like the Paul Krugman of 2016, who wrote one slanderous column after another about Bernie Sanders' economic ideas. What a hypocrite.
6
“So next time you hear someone on the right talk about the “loony left,” or some centrist pundit pretend that people like Ms. Ocasio-Cortez are the left equivalent of the Tea Party, ignore them. Radical Democrats are actually pretty reasonable.”
It wasn’t long ago that Dr. Krugman was using terms along the lines of “fairy dust” and “unicorns” to characterize humane and civilized policies like Medicare for All and was berating supporters of those policies as “Bernie Bros.” While I welcome the change of heart, I agree with the earlier commenter who pointed out the longstanding need at the NYT for a genuinely progressive columnist.
7
After almost forty years of trickle down economics perpetuated by both parties (wasn't Obama who made Bush's tax cuts permanent?) we've basically become a plutocracy controlled and run by corporations and oligarchs. Both political parties have the same donors. We can turn is around and it, but it needs to start with the Democratic Party. The Republicans are beyond hope and aways have been, so the neoliberal strategy of basically becoming a Republican has actually damaged the Democratic Party far worse than the Republicans could ever have hoped to achieve. Democratic leadership, like Schumer and Pelosi and Hoyer, are beyond saving and need to step aside. And Mr. Krugman, If you can break away from the Hampton party circuit this summer, try to get out here in the middle of the country where you will see first hand that Ocasio-Cortez's message is very enthusiastically received.
7
If you think tax cuts are bad, go tell Ocasio-Cortez. She supported tax cuts in 2012 when she was running Brook Avenue Press
2
out here in the middle of the country we laugh at yet another politician promising that Big Government will make our lives perfect. Social Security and Medicare are bankrupt, ObamaCare is a complete disaster, and we’ve put $20 trillion on the national credit card to fight the failed endless War on Poverty. Big Government has been a complete total failure in every regard, but don’t worry because Even Bigger Government will fix everything! Sure it will
2
"Big Government has been a complete total failure in every regard....."
That's what you get if you elect totally incompetent people to run it.
Demolition is easy.
"Social Security and Medicare are bankrupt, ObamaCare is a complete disaster"
No. But just like like everything else in this life, if no actions are taken to engage with the problems and maintain the machinery over the long haul, the whole system will decay.
A job guarantee is probably a good idea, but first can't we stop eliminating jobs?
Closing the Post Office will cost thousands of jobs, for what purpose? It may help Fedex and UPS, but I see nothing in it for me. So why are we allowing it?
No toll station on a highway should be without a human collector. What if I need directions? Or help? Or simply want to exit and don't have easy pass?
But the beat goes on! Why?
5
Yes, they replaced the toll collectors on the Golden Gate Bridge with an automated web-based system. Instead of spending 10 seconds handing over a toll, now you have to spend 10 minutes finding the right website and filling in the forms to pay the toll. I don't know what they expect people without computers or credit cards to do.
Some smart people have figured out that the automated system can't find you if you don't have a number plate on your car, so the bridge has lost a significant amount of revenue.
So, the government agency spent money to destroy jobs, and install an inconvenient system that collects less revenue than the humans did. Stupidity!
5
And why is the IRS using computers? They should go back to having everyone file paper returns and hire enough agents to process them using abacusses
1
No excavators or bulldozers on construction sites! Using shovels, or better yet spoons, for digging and moving dirt will create thousands of jobs!
1
Unfortunately, socialism has a body count in the 100s of millions. So with that in mind, keep your wits about you as the skinny housewife with the wild eyes tells you that meth is really a fantastic diet and isn't that radical.
4
Anyone who can't tell the difference between democratic socialism and bolshevism should be disqualified from participating in the discussion
5
Marxism has a body count in the scores of millions, but social democrats (which is what Ocasio-Cortez actually is) don't really have a body count at all.
Stop calling everything to the left of you Marxism.
And socialism (in most of its forms) and Marxism are two very different things, in the same way that Having a Police Department and Having a Gestapo are also very different things.
5
Interesting comments about Brat. He is a wacko and my representative. How he beat Cantor had a lot to do with how Virginia ran their primaries. Republican and Democratic primaries were run on different days and anyone to could vote one or both primaries. So a local movement rose up to unseat Cantor among the democrats. The idea was Cantor had the power to actually get stuff done. Replacing him with a Tea Party wonk would cause division among Republicans. So Democrats went to the poles with the sole purpose of Kicking Cantor out of office. Republicans say it made no difference but they changed the Virginia primary system so it wouldn't happen again. Now we have a real candidate with DNC backing that started campaigning a year ago who has a real chance of getting rid of Brat.
1
That is very interesting about Cantor and good to know. Thanks!
The NYC Democratic Socialists of America held a march on June 29 in which they demanded abolition of ICE, abolition of borders, abolition of cash bail, abolition of prisons and abolition of profit. There is no way to normalize this level of radical , fanatical extremism
5
ICE has become a national police force run by an authoritarian chief executive.
If you don't see the danger you should.
5
Either you've got their positions wrong or the NYC group is fringe and doesn't represent Democratic Socialists in the US or elsewhere. (You might want to Google the DSA.) Abolition of borders, prisons and profits? Even communists don't "demand" this. Wanting that the economic order within a country is not SOLELY determined by private profit is not as extreme as you present it. From my understanding, Ocasio-Cortez supports a social democratic agenda, as seen in Europe and elsewhere. She is young and attractive and seems to be genuinely progressive. I doubt she's ready for national-level, prime time though. But that's not what she was elected for. I'm sure the national media will build her up - and bring her down. After all, they seem to call the shots.
2
If you google the NYC chapter of DSA you’ll see them carrying signs with these demands
Guaranteed jobs doing what exactly? Makes no sense to me. And what if the person steals, does not show up for work,or is terrible at their job do they get to keep it no matter what?
And what about her position on immigration after she gets rid of ICE does she want open borders? 50 million new immigrants streaming in having babies ? What will that do to the healthcare she wants? What will that do to the environment? What if they bring crime? Does anyone think this through. Show compassion for others but do not ruin American doing it.
3
According to Paul Krugman’s past writings, it doesn’t matter what they do. Some can dig holes while others fill them up. Paul once advocated for a massive Big Government spending program to prepare for an alien invasion
2
On the alien invasion thing, Paul was kidding, to make a point which you seem to have missed.
And I can think of tons of constructive things for people employed under a jobs guarantee to do - infrastructure repair, child care, planning and building a nationwide high-speed rail network, etc.
'You know, the only trouble with capitalism is capitalists. They're too damn greedy. "
--Herbert Hoover
6
How about an op-ed comparing Ocasio-Crtez's policies and FDR's policies and vision?
This would highlight how the right-wing has captured public discourse and steered it to the extreme right on economic issues, beginning in the 1970s.
In a country where some municipalities outlaw feeding the hungry, and do so without massive general protest, it's high time we steer public discourse back towards reason.
Dr. K knows as much as anyone that his own discipline of economics has increasingly been filled with free-market shills and that neoclassical economics stress policies with 'value free' models based on phony math. They attempt to grasp the mantle of 'science' to defend their ideological posturing, while they laugh all the way to the bank.
There has been a slow evolution towards more empirically based, honest economics in the past three decades. However, the money the Kochs, et al throw at universities and think tanks to keep the fantasies of neoclassical economics alive continue to are causes to our current ideologically distorted discourse.
This is why someone that recapitulates FDR's economic bill of rights is a 'radical'.
Pretty soon it will seem 'radical' to demand children not be separated at the border from their asylum seeking parents.
The moral center shifts as the utility-maximizing selfish agent of neoclassical economics becomes our standard.
But it is this that is the truly radical shift in our consciousness as a people.
15
What's happened is most Americans have been brainwashed to become patriotic shoppers to fill the coffers of the Corporate State of America and its investors.
And Congress and most state legislatures have become the puppets, letting the 'shoppers' off the hook from taxes and civic responsibility.
We have become more valuable as shoppers and less so as citizens.
1
Medicare for all is not unreasonable, when you consider that all it would be doing is shifting the cost away from those paying for hospital care from other patients of hospitals to all taxpayers. This would reduce the cost of a hospital stay and provide Americans with preventive doctor care instead of medical care in emergency rooms. #Makes sense to me.
9
We were promised that ObamaCare would do all those things and put an extra $2500 in our pockets. Now Medicare For All will fix everything! Still waiting for the $2500 or any of ObamaCare’s promises or any of Big Government’s promises to come true
4
Who annoited Paul Krugman our party's gatekeeper, anyway? Why should we let him or any other spokesperson of corporate media tell us 'what we need to know' about any given issue? Why should we let Krugman frame the rise of a new political voice in his academic, authoritative terms? Maybe we don't want to REDUCE her views to identity politics or a reaction against the evil, other side...
This paper has an abysmal track record. They've been blind to and/or resisted the popularity of Dean, Obama, Bernie, Brexit, Trump..... MAJOR historical events. Even in the Bronx, a clearly popular, non-establishment politician received zero coverage BEFORE the election, when it counts. Let's restore our Democracy by, 1) opening up our primaries to Independents (the country's largest political affiliation, by 2-fold), 2) require pre-election media blackout periods, like EVERY major democracy uses, except the US (and Nigeria, I believe) and, 3) radically reform our campaign finance laws. (And, hopefully, superdelegates will be relegated to the history of machine politics in America.)
6
I’ll take Dr. Krugman’s informed, balanced voice any day! I’ve relied on his column to guide me through economic and political alarmism for years. Admire his kindness and dry sense of humor as well. As a former writing teacher, I am impressed by his clear and entertaining writing style that bypasses academic jargon and pretension. He is a stellar, informed gentleman in the purist sense.
8
Wow, you're quite a writer, too!
My issue with Krugman is more of content than of his form. It's an age old problem for the econominaly exploited. The voices that get heard are the articulate, i.e. educated, ones. Just look at the NYT and Reader Picks. Probably half of them offer NO new insight or ideas, they just express their (often tired) points very well. I feel like I know what Krugman has written before I read it, unlike say, Brooks (who I usually disagree with, too.) I also do not see him as informed and balanced, at least in his writings here. Besides being a generic, anti-Trump cheerleader, he seems to over-apply economic theory to systems he knows very little about, like in Europe. I lived about two decades there and was often embarrassed for him by his authoritative prescriptions he offered these countries.
If Medicate for All only means people can buy in, I much prefer my own catch phrase which is Medicare for everyone who wants it. We need to make clear that there is no mandate.
3
About time you wrote that! Don’t you regret you didn’t support Bernie Sanders?
2
I supported Bernie until I saw his views on Israel. No I do not regret not supporting him. I regret that he hates the Jewish state so much that I can't support him.
the real problem wth the programs you discuss is what FOX news will tell it's viewers about them..... lies that they will believe.
5
Not sure if someone with less credibility could have penned this article. The neoliberal attempt to co-opt Ocasio-Cortez’s win is shameful and disingenuous. This young lady ran on the same platform as Bernie Sanders and Krugman spent the entire Democratic primaries parroting intellectually dishonest plutocratic talking points.
The NYT ignored a race in their own city because of progressive energy and now they trot out Paul Krugman to try and save face.
3
Does this mean Krugman and hopefully the NYTs learned something over the last 18 months? Or are they again going to guide the country towards another Dem. carpetbagger?
Carpetbagger: a political candidate who seeks election in an area where they have no local connections.
2
Maybe Paul can put down the econ books and pick up a history book, can we say Walter Duranty? In all fairness, smarter and more well read people than me have fall'in for "socialism", be it the National Socialism, Communism, Maoism, Vietnamese, Stalinist, Pol Pot, Chavez or the Castro types........
3
Again, democratic socialism is not the dictator-led government guiding all aspects of society. It is focused mostly on social infrastructure and not fully economics focused. Please actually look at what is being analyzed before commenting.
17
Yes, it is! You socialists really think you can defang and normalize a murderous philosophy just by putting “Democratic” in front of it?
oh please... this 'democratic socialist' espouses exactly that. How else do you provide a guaranteed income and federal jobs for everyone without controlling the economy. How do you expect to pay for 'free' education without pulling the cash from the economy.
Her platiform - regardless of how loudly you pink commies protest - is built on cradle to the grave government dependence with a splash of unenforced, open borders thrown in for good measure.
truly a recipe for the destruction of the Republic.
btw - Krugman has proven himself to have no idea on economics policy - similar to most lefties.
As one would expect, Paul wants to have dynamic scoring of the $500 B "jobs for all" programs but static scoring when doing Trump tac cut analysis! Some Nobel , May be given like all and barracks!
Those terrible progressives:
Ended slavery.
Got women the right to vote.
Gave us Social Security.
Ended segregation.
Gave us Medicare.
Are trying to give us birth control but the right is fighting Planned Parenthood.
Are working on same sex equality. One day we will look back at this fight the same we now look back at the fight over segregation.
10
Progressives didn't end slavery, they reinstated it through central banking, monetary policy, income taxes, insurance mandates, and more. Chains are now legal, regulatory, and financial.
Women the right to vote, and women have used that to vote themselves the productivity of others.
Social security. A ponzi scheme given legality because the government runs it. Great for the first in, but if you were born in the early 70s you're going to put a lot in and when it becomes time to collect oh... sorry the pyramid scheme collapsed.
Segregation was created by racist politicians who wanted to force their racism on others. Woodrow Wilson was probably the progressives' most productive president in progressing us towards their desired ends (some may say FDR though) and he screened 'birth of a nation' in the White House.
Medicare, as the government interventions achieved the desired result of higher prices some people couldn't afford them. The government stepped in again to divert americans' wealth to the medical industry through taxation.
Same sex equality? If women were equal to men they would protest the downgrade.
2
@B
So what is your solution?
By the way, I grew up in Chicago :-)
Bernie woulda won.
Any regrets yet for your DNC-approved behavior during the 2016 primary, Mr. Krugman?
3
Repeat this ad infinitum... proposing the policies of Western Europe is NOT radical!!!
7
Wonder why Krugman has nothing to say about abolishing ICE? Or about harassing Trump Administration officials when they appear in public?
3
The birth of the Tea Party coincided with the birth of birtherism and Obama-care.
Obama-care is the Republican plan for healthcare. It was Romney-care based on the Heritage Foundation.
The exchanges are free-market competition. And the mandate is individual responsibility.
With Obama, the Tea Party gave us government takeover of healthcare, death panels, and they’re going to pull the plug on granny.
And talk about incivility. Remember all the disruptions at town halls.
Worse, the Tea Party people never look back and see they were lied to. They just move on to the next lie.
Throw in the NRA and Obama is coming to take your guns.
And talk about incivility, how about all the Second Amendment people showing up armed at Obama rallies.
Add White Nationalist marches like North Carolina.
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/armed-white-nationalists-descend-on-char...
1
Errr, excuse me, but the second amendment kooks were showing up armed at Tea Party rallies, not Obama rallies.
Now that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has been thrust into celebrity status, she will be met with the usual money-making opportunities that go with it. She may continue to stand for democratic Socialism (Orwell capitalized the "S") and its attendant redistributionist programs, but as one of the newly rich she will be secretly glad they'll never happen.
1
Odd that no one who has lived in a socialist country advocates for socialism
3
France?
Sweden?
Finland?
Denmark?
Britain?
Japan?
Norway?
Iceland?
Canada?
Holland?
Don’t pull a hamstring jumping on the bandwagon Paul.
2
Krugman only worries about his Achilles.
1
Great comment I must attribute to a friend: “Ocasio-Cortez is about as socialist as Dwight Eisenhower. It's just that fascism has been normalized so much that reason looks like an extreme, left-wing position.”
16
So why call them Radical in the first place.
2
Because being labeled "radical" is the kiss of death in politics. With friends like Krugman, progressives don't need any enemies.
Ironic that acolytes of Sanders -- who bear as much responsibility for electing Trump by helping him and his GOP Hate Squad savage Hillary Clinton with an assist from Putin -- still need to feel vindicated for losing.
Like Trump they got what they wanted most, which was the peak satisfaction of blocking Hillary from the White House.
Now some also feel the need to mimic Trump by bleating their glee and thumping their chests at "enemies" who dissed their beloved candidate who despite 24 years in Congress has zero legislative achievements other than naming a Vermont post office and lobbying to exempt gun makers from civil lawsuits.
If not for one inspired speech before a sparse Senate chamber that went viral, Sanders would still be a nonentity.
The final judgment of Sanders' zealots, many who idolize him like Trump's do Trump, is their shared need to win a pointless argument even if it means we'll lose the crucial debate.
A previous comment grousing The NYTimes should have "hired someone more progressive [than Krugman!] three years ago" takes Marie Antoinette's cake.
Hillary ran against Trump, Koch, Putin, Fox News, Sanders Netanyahu, Bill, and the entire GOP Majority allied with American misogyny. And still won more votes than anyone before.
If a few more of Sanders' people got beyond sticking their tongues at Krugman for being a meanie, your president wouldn't be an existential threat to democracy, America, the world, your family and mine.
Move on, please.
4
OMG Yuri, do you need a trip to Vermont...
1
Coming from a Socialist economist (does anyone else see the irony in this?) this does seem a pretty reasonable statement. You go Hugo.
2
The least Dr. Krugman can do is say he was dead wrong about Bernie Sanders! I mean, c’mon!
2
Some are, some aren’t. Try talking to a Bernie supporter about his refusal to finalise his FEC filings, or release his tax returns, or his perfect record voting against gun control — the amount of fantastical excuse-making is just as reality-denying as you’ll find at any maga rally.
What first repelled and disgusted me about them, though, was a NYT photo of Bernie supporters abusing HRC supporters at one of her fundraisers. I had to read the article several times before I could process it — those nasty, abusive folks, with those snarling faces, weren’t Republicans protesting Hillary — they claimed to be liberals! Progressives! On my side!
On my side? I think not.
3
Great article. But if economics had anything to do with the fund raising the Republicans are going to do off of Cortez's win I'd put my first sentece in all caps.
2
Good for Paul.
1
Dear Iris: What is unforgivable is that we have a president who is a blatant racist and sexist. Add to the mix his embracing of thugs like Putin and Kim while impugning our time-tested, reputable institutions. What is unforgivable is that people of my age in their 70's voted for an old, white, egotistical, and unstable man who sustains himself by feeding himself and his followers with lies and the downright hate they hunger for. Call me "radical," but this old woman hope that there are more young individuals who have ethics and morals like Ms Ocasio-Cortez. Today is not the Fourth of July it was meant to be.
3
To bad you and the Times didn't come to this realization a couple of years ago, Paul!!
3
Sure Radical Democrats are pretty reasonable. As long as the Republican are playing his or her part, Democrats (Lucy) holding the football and Republicans (Charlie Brown) falling on their kiester after Lucy pulls the ball away. The thing that's driving Krugman and the rest of the pompous elitist windbag media class, and the Democrats nuts is that he refuses to play according to their script. When Lucy (them) pulls away the football he just changes target. He (Charlie Brown) wises up and boots her in the kiester.
1
That's one way to look at it.
Hey Paul, how's that "global recession, with no end in sight" working for ya!
2
(Continued) .Trump and his loons on the right rant about ‘open borders’ supported by democrats. Loons live in an alternate and fact free universe filled with the hate filled conspiracy theories that they create. Obama deported 400000 illegal immigrants in 2012, more than any president. Most were deported with no court review. It was a near zero tolerance policy. But he tried to shield the DACA kids. Most americans support that. Attempts to cross the border illegally steadily dropped when the democrats had control. People from Central american countries like guatamala tried to cross the border wothout visas even back then. But there was none of the hatred towards these people from obama and his supporters. Trump on the other hand is rabid and spews viciousness and venom, calling a handful of immigrants an ‘infestation’. He is very sick and so are his supporters
4
Try to imagine a debate between Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sarah Palin. Who would be the reasonable one? Chuckle now?!
1
That's easy; Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of course.
Here’s a trade off:
Federally guaranteed job for abolishment of welfare.
1
Radical Democrats = Compassionate People with Commonsense.
3
Sad that Krugman has become such a rank partisan that he's willing to be an apologist for preposterous ideas he knows are bad and unworkable, like a jobs guarantee (which yes, is a crazy idea) because the "goals are laudable" and hey, the Republicans are worse.
2
If Socialism is the lefts strategy to win back the Middle Class, I regret to tell you that they are way too smart for that. In a poor district in the Bronx where few pay income taxes and get a lot of services given to them, It’s an easy winner. In a Middle class distric needed to win national elections, its a non-starter.
2
Some of her ideas are good. A broken clock is correct twice a day.
1
Socialized medicine has already been rejected every time it has been brought up. Crazy Bernie’s home state of Vermont, far left California, and Colorado voters have all rightly rejected this far-Left scheme that is guaranteed to fail
No, they are not "reasonable."
Those terrible far left Democrats!
They want universal healthcare like all the other first world countries.
They want trade school or the first two years of college provided which would be great for the economy.
Shades of Karl Marx!
We pay around $10,000 per capita for healthcare compared to the $4,500 to $5,500 the other first world countries pay.
They get universal coverage and we have parts of the US with infant mortality rates of Botswana. Seriously, look it up.
With the savings to healthcare, we could pay for the additional two years of education.
And maybe that would decrease poverty and crime. Then we would get more people working and paying taxes instead of paying for prison and police and courts.
We have the highest incarceration rate in the world.
I can't believe how far left these new Democrats want to take us.
What would the Founding Fathers be saying today.
In the meantime, Republicans just increased the deficit.
Again.
Deficits went up under Reagan, HW Bush and W Bush. Deficits went down under Clinton and Obama.
Actually, way up under W Bush. He took the balanced budget from Clinton and gave Obama a whopping $1.4 Trillion deficit and the worst recession since the Great Depression.
Obama cut that by almost 2/3 and got 11.5 Million jobs compared to W Bush 3 Million jobs. And 20 Million people got healthcare.
And the right is smearing Nancy Pelosi just like they did for years of Hillary. Being Hillaried is now a verb like swiftboated.
9
Those terrible far left Democrats!
They want universal healthcare like all the other first world countries.
They want trade school or the first two years of college provided which would be great for the economy.
Shades of Karl Marx!
We pay around $10,000 per capita for healthcare compared to the $4,500 to $5,500 the other first world countries pay.
They get universal coverage and we have parts of the US with infant mortality rates of Botswana. Seriously, look it up.
With the savings to healthcare, we could pay for the additional two years of education.
And maybe that would decrease poverty and crime. Then we would get more people working and paying taxes instead of paying for prison and police and courts.
We have the highest incarceration rate in the world.
I can't believe how far left these new Democrats want to take us.
What would the Founding Fathers be saying today.
In the meantime, Republicans just increased the deficit.
Again.
Deficits went up under Reagan, HW Bush and W Bush. Deficits went down under Clinton and Obama.
Actually, way up under W Bush. He took the balanced budget from Clinton and gave Obama a whopping $1.4 Trillion deficit and the worst recession since the Great Depression.
Obama cut that by almost 2/3 and got 11.5 Million jobs compared to W Bush 3 Million jobs. And 20 Million people got healthcare.
And the right is smearing Nancy Pelosi just like they did for years of Hillary. Being Hillaried is now a verb like swiftboated.
2
as to the revolutionary effect of ms. ocaso-cortez's victory, can someone remind me of the turnout percentage in that election?
3
Abolish Immigration and Customs Engorcement? Guaranteed jobs? Government run health care? No thanks. I’ll take secure borders, real job growth and the best health care system in the world.
1
I love the craziness she is bringing out in the right-wing astroturf community. She's a socialist! She's from a rich neighborhood! She's for open borders! (Notice they never have an actual quote to back up any of this.)
She's the GOP's demographic kryptonite-worst-nightmare mixed together. Young, female, a minority. And incredibly positive and hopeful in spirit. Add to that she's tough as nails and never dodges a question.
No wonder the right is so obviously scared to conniptions by her, and pouring huge energy into smearing her.
2
This idea of fake Medicare for All - "a big public option", is now dead because of the threat to Roe v Wade - only actual single payer will guarantee universal abortion rights. This attempt to turn the coming democratic socialism into the same old neoliberalism will fail.
1
There is nothing reasonable about being a socialist and an open-border advocate.
Hope she's enjoying her 10 minutes of fame brought to her by record low turnout (a fluke),
There is very little substance here but a deal deal of hyperbole.....should be fun to watch though.
2
Socialist policies lead directly to 2 tiered systems.. If you want government run healthcare, all one has to do is look at government run education. There is a poorly operated, tax payer funded system in place for the masses, which is ripe with corruption, waste and lack of choices. On the other hand, you have the private education system where the elites and wealthy go. If you think that a public option will result in anything other than this, you are mad.
Trump is trying to bully and blackmail china and europe into giving him trade concessions so he can claim victory. His tariffs are already a total disaster. Steel prices are up by 50 percent, and US manufacturers are unable to get parts such as steel castings due to shortages.
2
Radical Dems are pretty reasonable---except when they run against Hillary. Then they're nut cases and anyone who votes for them are losers who live in their parents' basements.
Why the sudden turnaround?
Well in both cases, Krugman is arguing for power. Before, he wanted Hillary in power, so he bashed Bernie. Now, he wants Trump out of power, and it's looking like "Radical" Dems may galvanize the base enough to do so--so he praises a Bernie-apprentice.
This is why I'm not affiliated with a party. Those who are, are inevitably hypocrites at best, as here. He doesn't even bother to acknowledge his passionate work of two years ago the literally directly contradicts this article. And why not? It's not just that he's in denial or a hypocrite. It's that he considers himself behaving consistently--he is consistently regarding the ends as justifying the means, and the end for him is 'his' political party in power, no matter what.
I find this intense partisan cheerleading, and this attitude of the ends justifying the means to be repugnant, both politically and morally, and very damaging to our nation.
If you want to support her, then first acknowledge why you didn't before; then don't create a strawman (a boogey monster Republican, and argument very few Republicans are making about her being looney). instead, simply argue her merits and explain why you were so very wrong before, and why you think she's right now.
If you can't do that, think about why.
2
Trump's war against china, canada and US allies is a dumb war. Imagine what would have happened in 1962 if john f kennedy had responded to russia's sputnik by trying to bully and blackmail the russians. Instead he quickly realized that the US had fallen behind in technology. He pushed for investment in space technology, science and engineering, and the US landed astronauts on the moon in a few years. It was the same with soviet migs of the 60s. The US responded by building stealth fighters. America needs to answer China, with a Made in USA 2025 plan. US intellectual property needs to be protected to make it harder for China to catch up. China is producing thousands of engineers and scientists. The US needs to compete. Half the semiconductor revenues come from China, for chip companies. Tariffs will only shut them out of the chinese market and make the chips needed to build electronic and computer products in america much more expensive. Steel, aluminium, cars, computers, household appliances, aircraft and so on will all get much more expensive. A mass mobilization of US public and world opinion to oppose trumps tariffs is needed. Trump is ignorant and uninformed and he does not understand the complex trade interrelationships.
3
From the DSA constitution:
"We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit"
"We are socialists because we share a vision popular control of resources and production"
Nothing new about Ocasio-Cortez. Same old failed Marxism.
1
A leading member of the progressive left thinks someone on the progressive left is "Pretty Reasonable". Okay. So what?
1
Right. What could be more reasonable than screaming down or chasing out of your establishment anyone who disagrees with your political views? What could be more reasonable than free everything for everybody? What could be more reasonable than a nice Venezuela- or Cuba-style socialist government? The majority of citizens in Russia and China lived in bare subsistence until they switched from a socialist, directed economy to capitalism. Now they're as awash in flat-screen TVs and smartphones as we are. But let's don't believe our eyes, let's believe our brainwashed rhetoric.
1
Radical Dems?Please, Paul, give me a break.
If "the kids" of which you speak appear too radical, perhap that's because there are less mornings in America in front of you then behind you.
My reps in the Senate, Schumer and Gillibrand, whine and moan, explaining there's not much they can do about Trump, as they ask for a donation. Michael Cohen said he'd take a bullet for Trump. Will Chuck and Kirsten do the same for me and America? Don't bet your life on it.
Chuck and Kirsten claim to be servants of the people.
The only notable thing Kirsten did of late was to railroad an excellent Senator, Al Franken, out of office, with no due process. What courage that took Kirsten. And how convenient. In the name of MeToo she also got rid of a potential opponent in her quest for the presidency.
So, Dems where do we stand? Al Franken is kaput and Trump is still here?
Chuck and Kirsten are unwilling to do what is right. Maxine Waters knows what to do, and she was roundly criticized by her fellow Dems.
For now, we progressive Dems are between a rock and a hard place, so we'll put up with Chuck and Kirsten, until Young Dems come forth and show some chutzpah and start fighting for the thing s our Founding Fathers were willing to fight and die for.
First, we get rid of Republicans. With the Dems in charge we then begin to whittle away at them Dems, until we the people get a government of, by and for the people. Now that's my wish for the Fourth. Sound good?
DD
Manhattan
Just wondering if anybody, anywhere is going to point out the extremely low turnout of voters in this large district. 27,000 total votes doesn't exactly point to excitement.
1
The average Democrat in Congress would fit nicely into mainstream conservative parties in many European countries.
I wonder what 96% of economists think of $20 trillion in debt.
Cheney said that deficits don't matter, and obviously Republicans agreed when they recently passed tax cuts for the rich which doubles deficits.
2
What exactly is the argument here? You take a single strawman, say that Ocasio-cortez is not as bad, then make the sweeping conclusion that no Left wing politician is 'looney'? I'm not arguing she is 'looney' anyway--I'm arguing her positions are untenable & a huge mistake for the Dem party to embrace.
You have to love when wealthy people like Krugman advocates for socialism. If he feels so strongly about it, why not give away his money now to the needy to do his own part in evening things out? I myself put my money where my mouth is, & devote my own life to servicing inner city kids at a far lower salary than Krugman. But to reap the benefits of capitalism -as indeed Ocasio-cortez has, by growing up in an upper middle class community & working as a bartender for tips - while seeking its destruction, is naive at best & toxic at worst. (Yes I realize she says she 'identifies' with her father's working class background, but she mislead everyone about her background until called out.)
But let's talk about her actual politics.I strongly disagree with her ignorant condemnation of Israel & her position to abolish Ice. Her other positions - medicare for all, free school, & especially guaranteed jobs - all sound idealistic on the surface but in practice would entail at the least very massive tax hikes & are questionable in effectiveness, as Krugman points out in part.
The strawman argument may convince those who already agree with her, but won't persuade anyone else.
1
Ought not the minimum wage be tied to the cost of living for the area? $15/hr goes a lot further in, say, Alabama than Manhattan.
Steven King (R) is right out of a Steven King novel. I used to watch him on CSPAN orating to an empty room in the Capitol building. Pure pandering. Nothing of substance is said. How low can you go? Steven King from Iowa's fourth district sets the bar.
2
Why stop at $15, what about $50 per hour? Bring on the robots!
2
Cortez is a proud self-avowed Socialist who rattles off myriad "free" programs with no explanation of how to pay for them, as usual. Nor does her call for a $15 minimum wage address the inflation that would follow (hurting the poor), or the fact that it's already proven to decrease jobs.
I left CT for Texas because of the oppressive taxation and economic mess that's nothing compared to the insane policies advocated by Cortez. 100% of economic professors won't change the fact that her policies are losers Nationally. So by all means, keep it up.
2
Republicans show little concern about how we're going to pay for tax cuts for the rich, or the 15% increase in an already bloated Pentagon budget.
1
$43 billion in cuts in revenue to corporate tax cuts. During that same time only $15 Billion actually less taken in. Why? Because growth of business investment as a result of corporate tax cuts increased jobs and sales and taxation from those areas increased to replace the projected shortfall. Seeing as return on investment will really take a year and a half to see how fully reflective that will be, the concern will be due in about June of 2019.
Seeing as Connecticut is about to go into receivership due to debt (which will become apparent the day after Malloy is out of office), crocodile tears over concern of debt.
The fact that "Radical Democrats" may be "Pretty Reasonable" is largely irrelevant since the MSM will treat their agenda much the same as they treat "retractions;" small print on the back pages, while continuing to report on Trump's misinformation Tweets without any critical analysis and sticking to their false, false equivalent narrative.
This cowardly acquiescence of journalistic principles is nothing new; every Ryan budget proposal is treated by the MSM as if it was the most significant spoken words since Jesus's "Sermon from the Mount," while the Progressives Caucus annual budget proposals, to paraphrase the Beatles "Eleanor Rigby," will have "Died in the Press and are buried along with their plan' the MSM meeting wiping their hands of the dirt as they walk towards their grave; the public was not served; I look at all the lost Americans when will they all belong, all the lost Americans their problems when will continue on."
1
"Radical" and "Leftist" are sloppy words that mean nothing except to those who use them as pejoratives to deny political legitimacy to anyone concerned about human welfare being a priority for government.
Those labeled leftist were once suspect as agents of the Soviet Union, a Fifth Column out to subvert democracy in service of Soviet global dominance.
"Leftist" and "Radical" are loaded not just with ideological danger, but also as a coded reference for Jews, atheists, anarchists, and also sexual orientation.
The consummate irony is that the roots of red-baiting are planted in Red Scare McCarthyism and the Cold War ostensibly between Capitalism and Communism but in reality a clash of aspiring post-war superpowers -- US vs. Soviet Union -- for global hegemony.
Ironic because just yesterday Sen. Richard Shelby (R, Alabama) in Russia as part of a political junket declared there was no reason the US and Russia can't be -- like Trump and Putin -- the very best of friends.
No reason? Even if today the Senate Intel Committee confirmed that Russia aggressively interfered in the US elections last year for Trump? And Croatia or Ukraine? They all speak Russian so it's just a family squabble?
Wouldn't it be novel if Republicans were as eager to be friends with Americans as they are with Russians?
Yes, Radical Democrats are reasonable. But for the sake of our country I wish they weren't.
1
Not only are her ideas not crazy they actually address problems facing our nation unlike the Trump tax cut which is a solution in search of a problem or more accurately a problem disguised as a solution.
3
Krugman seems to have changed his mind, but why hold it against him? It’s an indication of the changing tide in the Democratic Party.
So the US will stop importing altogether from china and the eu ? Ain’t gonna happen. Nobody in america is about to give up their built in china gm and ford cars. And the US will pull its forces out of europe and the pacific ? Trump’s America is the biggest threat US allies face. If nato falls apart and the US lesves it is the best thing that happened to europe in a long time.
So, are ideas from Candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez valid for discussion? Of course.
And, as Mr Krugman suggests, are "radical Democrats" relatively less crazy than, say, Tea Party Republicans?
Too easy, too limited, Mr Krugman. With their majority leadership unwilling to address countless destructions, every remaining rank-and-file Republican who admits to Trump 'charm' is obviously stuck on Crazy Mountain.
This is not some one-off social-ish candidate. This is massive.
Rush and Fox pundits first 'elevated' their millions of listeners and viewers to wuthering heights of VICTIMHOOD. And over decades of sustained blows, all trees are bent to their direction. "They" caused big government and the deficit. "They" are scamming my tax dollars. "They" will end the American Dream for my family unless I stop them.
Believe this: those millions of 'victims' are PERMANENTLY retired on their Republican 'high plain'. And once there, the "life long" throng are only beset by more sirens. Incessant messaging upon the trapped, drives them far right.
Then, Tea Party politics seep-in: "They" are out to take my guns. With millions seated in their new 'safe in privilege' perches, even Trumpian illusions seem real: "They" have no right to take a knee. "They" can only be stopped by a wall. "They" must self-deport.
Bottom line: Zero basis in reality. Crazy.
Even crazier than millions trapped in a machine run by Trump - is millions more - failing to free everyone. Vote.
1
What did Krugman predict about the economy if Trump won?
1
But we have to call her irresponsibly radical, or what will ever happen to both-sides-ism?
1
It was in 1948 that Alberta with its radical right wing christianist Social Credit government introduced government provided hospital care for all joining Saskatchewan and its democratic socialist New Democratic government as the second province in Canada to guarantee hospital care to all.
The Poor Houses and Poor Farms were not left wing guarantors of jobs but products of the Protestant work ethic that said Arbeit Machts Frei"
Funny that recipients of great generational wealth never felt an obligation to give their children the obligation to find jobs.
Work for pay Is not a guarantee of moral rectitude and with supply vastly exceeding demand a three day work week may be a far greater virtue than the Protestant work ethic.
1
Both Wisconsin Senators, Tammy Baldwin and Ron Johnson, just voted for a $715 billion discretionary military budget with no one I know of asking how we were going to pay for it,
What if Paul Krugman and the New York Times started to highlight that exorbitant expense as the iconic trade-off for Medicare-for-all? How quickly would Medicare-for-all seem not just doable, but the immanently reasonable bang (no pun intended) for our buck?
3
"Radical" and "Leftist” mean nothing except as pejoratives to deny political legitimacy to anyone concerned about human welfare being a priority for government.
Those labeled leftist were smeared as a Soviet Fifth Column out to subvert democracy.
The irony is that the roots of red-baiting are planted in Red Scare McCarthyism and the Cold War between Capitalism and Communism.
Ironic because just this week Sen. Richard Shelby (R, Ala) in Russia as part of a political junket declared there was no reason the US and Russia can't be -- like Trump and Putin -- the best of friends.
No reason? The Senate Intel Committee just confirmed that Russia aggressively interfered in the US elections to elect Trump...Western economic sanctions against Russia for invading Croatia and provoking conflict in Ukraine…Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 downed by a Russian missile, killing 298…Assad’s use of poison gas on his own people...destabilize the Middle-East and trigger mass migration to disrupt Western Europe...latest Russian ICBMs easily penetrate US defense…Russian dissidents are brutally suppressed at home and summarily executed abroad.
Sen. Shelby might also consider how Russia is the leading vector of political and financial corruption that has sowed doubts about the legitimacy of an American president.
Maybe Republicans will someday be as eager to be friends with Americans as they are with Russians.
Yes, Radical Democrats are reasonable. But for our sake I wish they weren't.
3
In weighing the more feasible and better of the two options it is better to concentrate on single payer healthcare. There is more benefit to this program. It would free people from a huge amount of anxiety and worry. In terms of employment they could work 2 or 3 jobs which would compensate them the more instead of working one job with reliable healthcare. They could take the risk of quitting a job where they could get more experience or better compensation. It would turn people into individual entrepreneurs. With networking resources provided by the internet employers and employees would be able to maximize utility. Employers would probably be forced to pay higher average wages to keep a employee working a regular 40 hour week.
John Brown, Gabriel Prosser, Denmark Vesey, Nat Turner, Abraham Lincoln, U.S. Grant, Franklin Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, Jr, and Lyndon Johnson were radical democrats.
While Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were both well too the partisan political right of FDR and LBJ as expected but Ike and Nixon as well.
1
Sanitizing Obama's far left political ideology for consumer consumption didn't actually make him any less of a radical leftist.
1
Thank you Dr. Krugman for writing this piece. Why couldn't you had written this in early 2016? You did not defend Senator Bernie Sanders in this fashion.
1
Thank you Paul Krugman. Now, if you had figured this out in 2016 and had the foresight to deviate just a little from the "mainstream media pundit who's stuck in 1988" default, we might not have Trump in the White House at all. But much better late than never. Welcome aboard the sanity train.
2
Krugman'sarticle reviews only several of Alexandria Casio-Cortez's Platform or proposals. The full list is available on her website and is frankly radical. Definitely socialist if not communist. As said by Thomas Perez, the DNC Chairman, she and her platform are the future of the Democrat party. With regard to Krugman's observations: Guaranteed minimum wage and guaranteed government employment merely provides a floor for pricing. Just replaces welfare on a more grand scale; College for all is merely a job increase for prospective professors, defers entry into the job force for all and increases the need for post college degrees to be more competitive (college degrees now are equal to high school diplomas); Medicare for all - Why do Drs from all countries now come to the US? Best paying profession. single payer system is best exemplified by the VA hospitals. All Drs on federal payroll - not the best and brightest that the present system attracts. Question: Why did one scrimp and save with millions of others to put kids through college; why did millions of others serve in the military and /or work part-time to get through college; are they now to put others through free college also? What a kick in the pants. She and her party of Justice Democrats are for real and want to secure power to enrich themselves at taxpayer expense. Legalized larceny.
1
Paul Krugman hasn't been right about anything for years. He attacked Paul Ryan routinely and that gave us Trump. He loved Obama totally because he thought he was a fellow professor. Krugman personifies everything that is wrong about the elites in this country.
2
Dr Krugman is trying to portray Ocasio-Cortez in a positive light by interpreting her positions to be what he wished they are. He wishes they are not crazy. So do I, although self-professed 'socialists' in their 20s are lacking in the understanding of what socialism has done to the world and a huge number of people in the 20th century, in my experience.
Mr Ocasio-Cortez is an extremely interesting case to watch for the foreseeable future. Once she's in congress, she'll face a huge number of obstacles, and when she learns that the grievances of 20-somethings are not everything, and the older generations who appear to make life miserable for them now have been through their anxieties and instabilities in their 20s, she'll have many choices to make. And I bet that involves a serious correction to her socialist beliefs.
2
"...self-professed 'socialists' in their 20s are lacking in the understanding of what socialism has done to the world and a huge number of people in the 20th century..."
Please, enumerate the damage done by socialism, keeping in mind that 1) socialism and communism are two different things, and 2) even the so-called "communism" of the USSR, China, et al had little or no resemblance to what Marx and Engels described.
Describe the damage done by American socialism; i.e. public education, Social Security/Medicare, public highways, public parks, unemployment insurance, welfare, public hospitals, airports, harbors, and so on.
1
It is Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, not Mr., and you are thoroughly underestimating her.
1
These young Democrats speak truth to power. They appear to have the political will to stand up to the established wing of their party. I think their time has come. While I respect our representative from the 4th Congressional District in NC, I gave my primary vote to Michelle Laws. She couldn’t overcome the power of the established wing at this juncture. I like it when young, intelligent and responsible Democrats shake things up a bit, just don’t be reckless, because you see what’s happening in our current national experiment.
The real hit against Ocasio-Cortez is that she calls herself a democratic Socialist. I would like to suggest that there is a proper and effective role for Capitalism and Socialism required for a sustainable democracy.
First, what we are witnessing in the US is the failure of our democracy due to economic destruction of working families by unfettered corporatism which operates without competition or regulation to protect public safety. Since 1972 we have allowed the oil, communications, farm and food processing monopolies to re-form along with new Comcast, Facebook, Uber, UPS, FEDEX and Amazon as well as regional healthcare insurance monopolies.
Second, we have allowed for-profit corporations to own and operate natural monopolies where they can plunder and gouge working families. Natural monopolies fall into two categories, those that provide a path for service using an easement — sewers, water and power distribution, roads, rails and communications networks or emergency services for which consumers will normally not consider price such as police, fire and emergency medical.
Once Capitalism (which requires competition) is restored where possible and we convert to government ownership where not, we will restore the purchasing power of working families and the tax base to finance infrastructure, public schools, healthcare and a social safety net.
Then demagogues will no longer gain traction and we can resume our quest towards a more perfect society.
5
That's a good point. We have allowed anti-trust enforcement to get a lot weaker and the result has been a wave of mega-mergers. My view is that these tend to destroy shareholder value by creating large, dysfunctional and inefficient companies. However, some of that is offset by greater pricing power which allows them to charge customers higher prices. The only real winners are the chief executives.
1
you list UPS and FedEx as companies without competition yet they compete with each other! Uber competes with Lyft, cabs, and bike-sharing Ofo and Limebike. Amazon competes with Walmart, Apple, Home Depot, Lowe’s, Netflix and countless other retailers. Every company you cited has competitors!
1
@Robert Goldschmidt I heard the old saying "corporatism has no soul" on a radio talk show that is a corporate leaning platform.
When I hear about the government jobs guarantee I remember my experience as a high school exchange student visiting Moscow for two weeks in 1980. There were huge numbers of older women using weird short brooms pretending to sweep the sidewalks, in slow motion. In the early mornings there were more of these women on the sidewalks than everyone else actually walking on them. At the time the USSR bragged that it had full employment (and meanwhile U.S. unemployment was quite high). These women had government jobs but they weren't really doing anything.
6
What exactly is a “guaranteed job”? Does that mean that every adult US citizen will be employed by the government regardless of qualifications or criminal record? And once hired, what is the process for termination if this person does not perform? Do they get all civil service protections? This sounds too good to be true and maybe it is.
10
It’s not guaranteed if they can be fired
A minimum wage is a rather blunt tool for achieving fairness objectives between capital and labour since no business should be permitted to operate which cannot pay a decent living wage to its employees; but better in my opinion would be a legal requirement that wages should be no less than a certain percentage of profits, once the costs of the enterprise including costs of capital are calculated then profits should be shared between owners and workers. Capital is important but without workers there would be no profits. We need to calculate a fair division of the returns to the enterprise.
3
This fair division between wages and profits is a natural part of a competitive environment. Competing corporations will reduce their profit to 5% of sales. This occurred throughout the period 1948-1972.
Another way of looking at this is that, in a competitive environment, any reduction in a corporation’s wages will produce a matching reduction in the price of goods produced, thus preserving the purchasing power of workers.
The division between capital and labor is determined by the market. When demand for workers is high, wages rise. When demand is low, wages fall. If you want wages to rise, you’ll thank President Trump for his tax cuts and deregulation for creating the booming economy that is causing wages to rise as demand for labor increases. You’ll also oppose the $15/hour minimum wage as it is artificially high and reduces demand for workers
1
No idea is more unreasonable than trump's tariffs. Take US built cars:
-Every US built car has an import content ranging from 25% to 50%
- All US manufacturers have cars built in Mexico. Tariffs would double the cost of these cars to the carmaker
-The US carmakers will pass the cost for tariffs to the buyers, stop making cars and lay off workers. Steel prices are up 50 percent due to trump's tariffs. Both new and used cars are going to get very costly. Workers, carmakers and consumers will all pay heavily for tariffs that nobody other than Trump and his GOP supporters want.
https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/02/news/companies/auto-tariffs/index.html
6
Not too different from Bernie Sanders' ideas, but he only succeeded in drawing votes from supposedly "Establishment" Hiillary Clinton and other centrist Democrats. I don't believe it will work this time around either.
2
Democrats find themselves at a near 100 year low of political power, that is undeniable.
The party has suffered defeat after defeat doing what they are doing, and their answer is to do more of the same.
I have never seen people so blind to reality, so unable to see where they are and where they are going. Worse, they cannot see how others see them.
This country is not a leftist country, it was never designed nor intended to be leftist and wont ever become a leftist country.
Socialism will work in the district where Ocasio-Cortez resides because you can promise free stuff to your people, who largely have very little, and promise that other people will pay for it.
But large parts of the country will flatly refuse to go along with it and the democrats will further erode their political power trying.
Even the author of this piece, a man who assured the country and the world that 3% economic growth was a thing firmly cemented in our past, he and his employer for some reason cannot see that his credibility is confined to the echo chamber of folks who think, act and talk just like him.
The rest of the country knows he was a one man standing ovation for the most recent ex-president even though that ex=president presided over the demise of his party in a way none of us has ever lived through before. America desperately needs better advice and leadership from the democrat party. Socialism is obviously not the answer and will only further erode your standing with the public.
17
The argument about socialism remains the middle school issue of private property or all property owned by the state, even though this is not nor ever has been the case in states where social democracy is practiced. The addressing of common needs by common efforts is the real issue. Should Americans arrange for equal access to basic good medical care for all or treat it as a commodity available to any who can afford it. Furthermore, since the efforts of any do have consequences affecting all, what consequences might we expect from whichever decision that we make? We have the long and well recorded experiences of our own system and of those of the other advanced countries. That evidence shows that our system costs twice as much but provides less favorable results for the country as a whole. No policies proposed will remove private wealth to be he state’s property. The pretense that tax money does so is misleading to simply avoid paying taxes to provide for our common needs.
7
On the socialist campaign in NY City:
These districts generally contribute more in taxes than they receive in benefits. In other words, advocating for aid, especially in a broad way, is more like saying, “let’s contribute to a program that gives us all dignity and deals with real problems in all districts.” If her plan only targeted her district, it would be more like, “let’s bring more of our tax money back to our district.” Either way, it’s not really about free-riders promising that others will pay.
That’s actually what the tax cut did by taking away blue state deductions and increasing national debt, to help the 1%, foreign investors, and red state taxpayers (that tend to contribute less in taxes).
So, it’s a little like, the GOP offers a package with change for voters and a lottery ticket’s odds of 1% investment trickling down to any given taxpayer. While this candidate offered a raise and a job. One is interested in investing in American people overall, the other, only in the 1%, connected friends, and the few that will get jobs in these mechanizing companies. It doesn’t sound like a hard choice, but maybe most red state voters prefer change and powerball to a jobs program and a living wage.
This new wave carries the socialist tag proudly, but others point to The New Deal, or The Great Society, the center of the Democratic Party years ago. Maybe the real problem isn’t that “socialism” is just too unAmerican. Politicians need to earn voters’ trust. She did.
7
She didn’t earn anybody’s trust, she just promised a bunch of free stuff that she says Big Government will force somebody else will pay for
The only radical shift we "radicals" propose is that America shed its reactionary posture and join the civilized world on matters of substantive policy. It'd definitely be a big shift for us to do what is right (economically or morally) rather than what is most profitable for the owners of capital. It'd be an even bigger shift if we did it without using guns.
9
If 96% of economists think fiscal responsibility is a bad idea then the profession has jumped the shark.
4
A balanced budget amendment and fiscal responsibility are not the same.
Bring down deficits over time like Clinton did to give W Bush a zero deficit.
W Bush took that zero deficit and gave Obama a whopping $1.4 Trillion deficit. Obama cut that by almost 2/3 to $550 Billion.
But it is Republicans who turn around and make the deficits go back up. They just did it again with the Trump / McConnell / Ryan tax cuts.
The deficit will be going back up to $1 Trillion by 2020 and they are projecting adding $12 Trillion to the debt in the next 10 years.
Republicans are only "deficit hawks" when a Democrat is president.
By the way, Clinton got 50% more jobs than Reagan and Obama got almost 400% more jobs than W Bush.
So fiscal responsibility would be to put back the high end and corporate taxes while at the same time stimulate the economy with infrastructure and healthcare and education spending - investments for the future - while also bringing the deficit down systematically.
9
Perhaps economists would just prefer honesty in marketing. Let's call it what it is....the Writing Tax Cuts for GOP Donors into the Constitution Amendment.
Professor Krugman’s statement that a balanced budget amendment is opposed by 96% of economists but implication that a $15 minimum wage wouldn’t be opposed by a similar number merely insults the math skills of his peers. It also discredits his own textbooks (something he does regularly in his columns).
The fact that socialized health care isn’t viewed as a radical policy despite the continuing slow-motion failure of those programs in most of the rest of the world is only evidence of willful partisan blindness.
As for Ocasio-Cortez, not only is she proudly socialist, she is equally proudly anti-Semitic and anti-Israel, positions becoming ever more “mainstream” in the Democratic Party. Radical indeed.
5
Don’t believe everything you hear on Fox. I know people in the UK and their health system is doing well.
9
and I know plenty of european expats who would pick health care here over their home countries social or semi-social health care.
has nothing to do with Fox, but that was a good one.
Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean my sources are suspect. I’ve studied (as opposed to relying on anecdotes) health care systems around the world. I’ve read two of Krugman’s textbooks and most of his columns. I’ve read and watched Ocasio-Cortez’s pronouncements and can substantiate everything I wrote.
Well, this piece settles it. I was wrong. There is no more denying it.
As I was pulling the lever for Donald Trump for President (Donald Trump!), I was sure the Professor would get the message: I'm yelling at the top of my lungs that my wallet is closed for government pilfering to be spent on the never ending list of needs they identify for a multitude of freeloaders (Exhibit A: food stamp surfer, Jason Greenslate).
Perhaps it is my fault. Maybe there is something about my smiling at work every day with my tie on that has convinced observers that I love to work and therefore draining my pay stubs would not be a concern (for the record, I would rather be fishing.)
Or maybe, given my historical support of caring for widows and orphans, they just decided we are going to push this as far as we can to exploit his compassion and give free stuff to all who ask for it, deserved or not.
Whatever the cause, when Professor Krugman identifies Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's platform as pretty reasonable - one that demands free college, free healthcare, and jobs for all, paid for by hardworking, taxpayers like me - I can only come to the conclusion that my vote for Trump in 2016 did not carry the intended message.
I'm not sure what it will take, but given the success of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, the description of her positions as "pretty reasonable" by the Professor, and Tom Perez calling her "the future of our party", it looks like I will be giving my messaging one more attempt come 2020.
15
You cannot expect to enjoy your freedom and prosperity in any country where inequities are so great that how much wealth and power people have determines how able they are able to enjoy those benefits. This country has deliberately underfunded our public institutions so much that the wealth of this country cannot even be used to support infrastructure nor to conduct day to day public services without borrowing. It would seem that conservatives like yourself no longer believe that their welfare is due to the people of this country working for mutual benefit but comes directly from God as reward for their virtue.
7
Jerome,
It's true that some people carelessly describe universal health care as 'free'. It isn't free anywhere in the world, and never will be. And yes, you the taxpayer will pay for it.
But you won't have to pay for private health insurance any more. And given the enormous difference between Medicare and private health administration costs - some say 10%, others (Economist mag.) say 44% - you are almost certain to benefit financially from universal health care.
Added to which you will get the enormous benefit of never again having to worry about losing your health care.
18
During WWII the top income rate was something like 90%. I'm sure many were peeved by this, but many may have felt that they were contributing to something important (the defeat of fascism).
Today, the vast, vast majority of climate scientists and other scientists (Letter to Humanity) are screaming at us that we need to radically transform our energy, transportation, agriculture and other sectors.
Although technically, taxes aren't needed to 'pay for' expenditures (see MMT), in may help to reduce possible inflationary pressures.
I don't necessarily think the free college part of her plan is necessary, but her stance on climate change is in line with the urgency that most scientists are urging on us. I don't know about you, but these are the same people in high school that usually knew what they were talking about.
6
https://twitter.com/Ocasio2018/status/1014517624657543173
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez @Ocasio2018
It seems that the GOP is so emotionally committed to keeping children in detention centers that they equate the stance of abolishing ICE with “open borders.”
Don’t let their hysteria get to you. A humane, responsible immigration system is possible.
GOP @GOP
Democrats’ calls to abolish ICE would mean abolishing America’s borders— and opening the floodgates to crime, drugs, and terrorism.
7:33 AM - 4 Jul 2018
1
Liberals like Krugman are fond of telling half-truths. "And if we’re talking economics rather than politics, every advanced country except America has some form of guaranteed health insurance."
This is true. But it's also true that every advanced country except for America taxes everyone using far more uniform tax rates than we do. In most of Europe, for example, even the poor pay a VAT (or sales tax) of about 20% - 25%. So nearly everyone pays a similar tax rate - and nearly everyone uses the resulting services (e.g. healthcare). While this may sound socialist, it's not that foreign. It's actually how most towns operate their local school systems - with everyone paying the same tax rate (called a property tax) and nearly everyone sending their kids to the public school.
Things are different in the US, however. Nearly half of Americans pay no income tax. While most pay payroll taxes, this is only 7.6% and is often even lower due to tax credits like the EITC. By contrast, only 20% of Americans pay 94% of the cost of government. And again, unlike Europe, these taxes mainly fund services that are used by the poor (rather than everyone) - e.g. Medicaid, SNAP, Welfare, etc.
So if Krugman wants single payer, he should advocate for broad based taxes. But the problem is that liberals have been unsuccessful in convincing even other liberals to pay broadly higher taxes - see VT, CO and CA - which all considered single payer but rejected it due to the taxes.
8
We save some for taxes compared to Europe but we pay $10,000 for healthcare, or our employers pay it.
And we pay $40,000 for university.
There is no free lunch.
As for those states rejecting single payer, go look at the work done by insurance company lobbyists to defeat single payer.
5
actually in some, maybe all, european countries lower wage earners (i'm not calling them poor) pay taxes on their first dollar earned. so it's not just vat.
you are very right, our bottom 50% basically don't pay but in Europe everyone pays from dollar number 1.
1
Princeton 2015: read Piketty, Saez, Atkinson, Deaton (Princeton) and other academics (from the BEST US and UK has to offer in terms of Universities). After you do that, assuming you learned ANYTING at Princeton except for manners, you will understand why the problem is universal and the local differences of things like VAT are just nit picking. We can reallocate “resources” and fund universal healthcare and education in a jiffy. We just have to control military spending and tax the wealthy (not just high income earners but the wealthy if you know what I mean a la Piketty) fairly and we are there. The problem we have in the US is myopia. The same type that the pre 1789 French wealth had. It did not end up too well for them as you probably learned in between meals in your eating club.
One major issue that American public economists, politicians, and pundits are not dealing with is mass automation in all sectors of the economy leading to a smaller work force. What’s to be done with those who can not find work because there aren’t the jobs? Europe is dealing with this issue. Finland is experimenting with a minimal wage for all employed or not. Will America wait till the roof caves in or will it start addressing the economy Tsunami waiting to hit our shores?
6
Automation is nothing new. Humans have been making labor saving devices ever since the first tool was made.
2
Both ideas are actually very crazy. Medicare for all would bankrupt any provider accepting it for all their patients, increase utilization of health care, bankrupt the government, and according to the Oregon study have minimal impact on actual physical health.
The income proposal might be worse, as many would just get the money and live at home or in groups reducing needed labor in an economy growing due to Republican policies. The rest are probably worse, and a person who wants to impeach the president yet does not understand the constitution well needs to lose.
3
The US spends $10,000 per capita on healthcare.
The other first world countries spend between $4,500 and $5,500 per capita.
They have universal coverage. We have parts of the US with infant mortality rates the same as Botswana. Seriously. And we are the richest industrial country on the planet.
If we spent what those other countries spent, we could have universal coverage and money left over for two years of trade school or community college.
12
It has been scientifically proven that a higher minimum wage reduces employment and wages. This is no longer a debatable point, the science is settled! The only beneficiaries of higher minimum wages are robot manufacturers. Yet the crazy Left continues to push higher minimum wages, proving their contempt for workers
5
Assume a business in an isolated area has 100 machines, each of which will generate $10 of net revenue product per hour. Each machine requires one operator. The business owner is paying $8 per hour and is thus making a net profit of $2 per hour from each machine. The owner has a big sign in front of the business that says "Help Wanted $8 per hour" because there are only 80 of the machines in use and he has 20 vacancies that he would like to fill. The net profit per hour is thus 80 machines X $2 = $160 per hour.
Every day people come into the business saying they would work for $9 per hour but no less. It would be irrational for the owner to raise the wage to $9 per hour, since the net profit per hour would be 100 machines X $1 per hour = $100 per hour.
Then the minimum wage is increased to $9 , the profit maximizing strategy is to pay $9 (since he has no choice), but at least he has 100 machines operating. In this example a higher minimum wage increases employment.
That said "Issues such minimum wage laws, problems with our education system and infrastructure can increase the income and wealth inequality. However, these are extremely minor when compared to the shift of the tax burden from the rich to the middle class. It is the compounding year after year of the effect of the shift away from taxes on capital income such as dividends over time as the rich get proverbially richer which is the prime generator of inequality..."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1543642
Really! So what are the studies which most economists concur prove that these results are the certain outcomes of minimum wages?
12
Those "terrible socialist" countries like Denmark and Germany seem to be doing pretty well.
They don't have the poverty we have. They have universal healthcare. They have better education for the working class.
We have the highest incarceration rate in the world and parts of the US with infant mortality rates the same as Botswana. Seriously.
The ideas of Ocasio-Cortez are reasonable, but can they be understood to be so when we have so radical an administration and majority in Congress? Paul Krugman has framed this matter well.
9
https://twitter.com/Ocasio2018/status/1014330676869521410
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez @Ocasio2018
The fact that my platform is called “radical” is more a reflection of our current political moment & how far we’ve strayed from our bold, visionary past.
Luckily, we can correct course.
Besides, smart, compassionate radicals have made this nation better.
7:10 PM - 3 Jul 2018
9
“Open borders” is an extremist policy position - undercutting the most basic and internationally recognized mechanism for organizing humans: the nation-state (or country).
9
Do you think we should work with Mexico and Cental American nations to try to make it so people don't want to come here?
After the civil war, there were huge numbers of Southerners who travelled north for economic opportunity. Should the North have stopped that?
Periodically, states have economic booms with big in flows of people from other states. Should that be stopped?
How many future criminals travel into Florida from other states every year?
That would be radical. Thankfully it's not the policy position of the Democratic Party, just the buzzword rhetoric of a proven liar. Happy 4th!
There are two major obstacles that must be addressed before any Medicare-for-all legislation could have any chance of being enacted. One is the way it will be financed and two is what would be the status of current Medicare beneficiaries. The latter is the more interesting, in that potentially a powerful group could be switched from extreme opponents of it to allies.
The first reaction from many current Medicare beneficiaries to the idea of Medicare-for-all, might be related to the issue of others getting immediately what they have paid into for many years while they did not get any benefits. At minimum, current Medicare beneficiaries would chafe at the idea of having to pay new taxes to pay for Medicare-for-all, and not getting anything for those taxes, other than the Medicare already have now.
The proposed status of current Medicare beneficiaries will be the key factor if a Medicare-for-all type system has a chance of being enacted. To put it bluntly, current Medicare beneficiaries will have to be bought-off. One fair way to garner the support of current Medicare beneficiaries would be to grant them a special deduction that could be applied to their adjusted gross income for Federal income tax purposes. The special deduction could be the total amount paid for Medicare tax by both themselves in all years that they were not receiving Medicare benefits. This would be above $100,000 for a typical couple. It might be capped at some..."
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4111577
3
Not just that, but those currently getting care will find new millions competing for the same doctors time. Those doctors now getting only medicare prices will retire, stop taking medicare or go bankrupt. So as a person with Medicare I don't and won't support its expansion, unless all of these are addressed and those additions pay the entire price of it. Like say 12K per person per year.
Most of the commenters on here fundamentally don't understand economics or currency systems or taxation, which, is totally understandable given that Krugman is the poster boy for mainstream consumption. Under HR 676, which is IMPROVED Medicare for All, there are no deductibles, copays or exclusions. There needn't be any taxes [premiums] either. Everything would be covered, including dental, mental, hearing and vision. Maybe the scarcity of doctors would be a problem to start, but so we make more. See how nicely this dovetails with public college? As for the Federal Job Guarentee, I've never heard of those "economists". The ones I have heard of, who actually came up with the idea, have modeled it and hashed it out, are: Stephanie Kelton, Pavlina Tcherneva and Fadhel Kaboub. Forget the guys Krugman mentioned. Forget everything you think you know about economics, it is most assuredly wrong unless you are MMT aware. The government is not a household or a business, it can never run out of dollars. Taxes do not fund spending except on the state and local level. Think about it, how come nobody ever asks how we're going to fund the Pentagon. They don't. It's always how are we going to pay for that when it's things people need. Like National Improved Medicare For All, Federal Job Guarantee, clean water etc..
1
Sometimes the space left blank says more about a topic than the space filled in with words, pictures and musical notes. The lack of what would be Paul Krugman’s suggestions for fixing the Healthcare nightmare facing our wealthy (albeit very unequally so) nation speaks volumes about the futility of his position in the past couple of years. The candidates and politicians deemed radical by the likes of Professor Krugman are really not radical at all. They are sensible social democrats that would be considered mainstream in most of the civilized word. I yet have to see anything concrete proposed by Krugman. Perhaps he really doesn’t have anything to offer. One wonders.
11
I don't wonder, I know he is too ignorant and arrogant to have anything other than single payer as a potential solution.
Now improving health of our population is difficult but worthy. Improving the health care system is possible and not that difficult, industry has been forced to improve and has many tools that providers could use to improve real care and reduce costs.
1
I hope Medicare for All means Single Payer, and unlike your "buy into" option, it makes a whole lot of sense, substituting taxes for premiums and other payments, and controlling medical costs.
As for a job guarantee, some people are just not fit to work, and should be on welfare. But if we can find work for those who are able, the more power to us.
5
Medicare for All, yes. But Democrats need to structure it properly and message it appropriately. If Democrats want acceptance, they need to appeal to those of us lucky enough to have employer sponsored insurance, along with businesses who jointly incur this cost. We sometimes overlook the large price tag on premiums alone, generally between $6-7,000 dollars per person, thus a family of four around $25,000 not including out of pocket, and rising at rates of 8-10% per year on average.
Voluntary buy in for those individuals with employer sponsored insurance should be a no brainer, considering this important benefit is part of an employees overall compensation package. They should be given the option of either continuing with their current insurance (and thus paying no new payroll tax for Medicare for All) or opting out of their employer insurance and instead buying into Medicare insurance. Should they choose the latter, and here’s the real selling point Democrats should drive home; their current premiums, eg ~$25,000 for a family of four, should be required by law to be added to their base salaries. Otherwise, employees would essentially see a compensation decrease as a result, and then a new payroll tax on top of it. Democrats need to make sure this makes it into any law and into any messaging selling it.
1
In my political lifetime (I first voted in 1965.) Democrats, the liberals/progressives, not the southerners, have viewed politics as a collegial exercise with an expected rational and reasonable debate and discussion between rational and reasonable people.
Republicans, on the other hand, have long viewed and practiced politics as a winner-take-all, take-no-prisoners, scorched earth political/ideological version of war. There is a sole victor and unconditional surrender and disregard for the defeated.
After 50 years of Republican search and destroy politics, maybe it's time for Democrats to take off the ("reasonable") gloves and go for the Republican jugular. Seemingly nothing less will get the attention of Republicans/conservatives (including columnists...) and the battle is certainly worth waging.
12
Paul, I loved your last line. I am going to borrow it as a tagline, "Radical Democrats are actually pretty reasonable."
But you know, Paul, if you had figured this out three years ago, we might have a President Sanders right now, and not live in a world of Putin designed Chaos.
I guess better late than never.
And for those who say Bernie is not a Democrat, well, Hillary ran as a Rockefeller Republican.
7
Sure they are??? They propose harassing anybody who does not agree with them or works for this administration. And for their entire lives. They threaten violence, and of course do a lot of violence as well. Very reasonable!!!
3
Politically/philosophically speaking both the Clintons and Obama are Rockefeller Republicans. Triangulation was just an attempt to attract Blue Dog and other less liberal Democrats...
I'm sorry to inform you, Trump and his coterie are so horrible they deserve to be told to their faces the destruction they are bringing.
Sorry, no safe spaces for them.
At least verbally.
Abolish and replace are not equivalent as many Democrats wish to convince. Ocasio-Cortez campaigned on Abolishing ICE not replacing it. The message was clear and concise. The enforcement of immigration laws had become a cause of fear, of dread, and her constituents wanted no more of it. That’s what her constituents wanted and that’s why she used it for her campaign. She will learn how to deal with these kind of irresistible force meets immovable object issues with experience. But for now, she gave Trump an issue that he can use to confuse and redirect the debate. She could easily have said reform the laws and replace ICE and never given Trump this opportunity. Sometimes using language precisely is important.
2
I would suggest that the various federal law enforcement groups be consolidated into say three, eliminating all or most of the top managers along with their high salaries and tendencies for corruption. And precise language is always important. Like say "persecution" as used in a treaty is to me government actions, not some gang violence or poverty.
Don't worry about giving Trump ammunition. He'll always be slinging something. He finds it even when its not really there. And the radical right (otherwise known as the Republican Party} eats it up.
What is reasonable about deeper financial slavery for ordinary productive americans for the benefit of the wealthy 0.01% and the few scraps thrown at the underclass and those who struggle under the effects of crony corporatism?
All her policies do is double down on the things that got conditions to their present state or treat symptoms to the previous government intervention with more government intervention.
Who is this reasonable for? Intellectuals like Mr. Krugman. The intellectuals of the technocratic state, the wealthy 0.01% that influences government, and government itself. The poor get a few scraps, the rest of us plunge deeper into financial slavery paying for it all.
6
Here’s what the rest of the world ought to do. That would include the eu, japan,china, mexico and all countries that are being hit by trump tariffs. They should stand together and impose counter tariffs that hit the economies in trump country hard. Their tariffs would be directed at farm products, cars and trucks, chemical industries and US oil to name a few.Software, semiconductors, computers and aircraft would not be impacted. The anti-trump states are opposed to his destructive tariffs which do nothing to address the trade issues and imbalances anyway. They are just Trump and far right temper tantrums. Trump’s base will hurt and force him to back down. Trump will loose but america will win.
5
Go for it, we can use all the benefits of not importing anything, and they can do without say our military protection. I might note that many Japanese auto companies make their parts here. From engines to filters.
2
So, I see Dr Krugman is getting a lot of criticism for supporting Ms Ocasio-Cortez's proposal for Medicare for all but not doing the same for Bernie Sanders.
I think it appropriate to give Ms O-C a break here because she is only running for a House seat. Proposals from a Presidential candidate should be held to a much higher standard. They need to be things that can be implemented in the current political environment.
Two years ago I felt that Bernie's Medicare for all proposal was a pipe dream that could not be implemented by any realistic Democrat congress. Nothing that has happened since then changes my view.Hillary's plans might have stood a chance if they Democrats had won the House and the Senate. Of course, neither Bernie nor Hillary would have made any progress with the current Republicans.
I think people have forgotten that Obama had the best Congress that any Democrat is likely to get. Even in that favorable environment, the ACA barely passed. Krugman lobbied for a public option, but he was told the votes just weren't there.
Going back in time to the mid-90s, Hillary herself had fought for a comprehensive health care plan, only to see it killed by health insurance industry lobbying. That experience left her scarred, and I think that was the reason she refused to adopt a plan that she didn't know how to implement even though it was winning votes for Bernie.
There is a case to be made that Hillary's plan was better. For a House seat, it is easier to be bold
9
Medical care intervention by government in the USA started in 1910 with the Flexner report. The "problem" to solve was the low pay for doctors. This set the design of the intervention in the USA. Such intervention has always been to push prices higher and bring more of american's wealth into the medical industry. The ACA does this. For any plan to be implemented it must feed the industry with more wealth and do so in a way where the most powerful factions within the industry don't lose out. Otherwise the fight over the spoils could stop it.
2
All the medical care needed in this country cannot be met with profitable market driven private insurance. That is why it is not and why medical costs are factors in so high a proportion of personal bankruptcies. Run through the choices people make with respect to buying health care insurance. People who need health care currently or soon buy it, those who don’t unless health care is provided as benefit by employers delay buying it. To save themselves from insolvency insurers increase premiums, increase deductibles, and limit coverage on the most costly patients.
2
Many private insurances are non profit, and some others are minimal profit. Not to mention large corporations who also make no profit on their provision of self insurance.
So balancing the budget is radical, but socialism is reasonable? Give me a break, they know socialism will only lead to large debt, and mass poverty, so they see balancing the budget as a radical idea. We all have to balance our personal budget, and it's only reasonable the government balances theirs.
9
So, do you know any people who have borrowed money to buy homes or autos? What do you mean by the term "balanced budget." I hope most of us think that a balanced budget is one where total revenues are equal to or greater than total expenditures. Individuals, families and businesses very commonly borrow money to acquire assets. Some of us can achieve a personal balanced budget in younger years when renting living quarters or living with parents and riding public transportation. Others who marry, buy a home and auto and have children must resort to debt to manage living expenses. The most fortunate among us can use inherited money or gifts to enjoy a balanced budget and others reach financial independence in later life after long periods of paying down debts and saving for retirement.
5
If you want to balance the budget, vote for Democrats.
The 2018 deficit is going up after the Trump tax cut by almost double - $600 Billion is going to between $800 Billion and $1 Trillion.
Most people I know will be getting about $1,000 a year for 7 years.
That's about $20 a week.
But after ten years, we will have added $10 Trillion to the national debt or about $67,000 for each tax payer.
I wouldn't mind if Trump voters got fleeced. But I am getting fleeced, too.
Reagan cut taxes and got 16 Million jobs and a huge increase in the deficit / debt. It’s the reason they put the debt clock in Manhattan.
Clinton raised taxes and got 23 Million jobs, almost 50% more than Reagan and balanced the budget, zero deficit.
W Bush gave us two "tax cuts for the job creators" and we got 3 Million jobs. He took Clinton's zero deficit and gave Obama a whopping $1.4 Trillion deficit. And he also gave Obama the worst recession since the Great Depression.
Obama got us through the Great Recession and cut the deficit by almost 2/3 to $550 Billion. He gave us the "jobs killing" Obama-care and we got 11.5 Million jobs, almost 400% more than W Bush. And 20 Million people got healthcare.
And now with Trump, Republicans have done it again, cut taxes and increased the deficit / debt. And I expect worse job creation than Obama.
Already the 2.06 Million jobs in 2017 was the lowest since 2010 when the recession ended.
8
I agree but the government should borrow for valuable long term assets just as families do. We should not borrow for those things that happen every month like food etc. Our government has borrowed for many things that have no or very limited long term value.
Balanced budgets are goals not predictable outcomes. It is not possible to know with certainty all that will require material resources in the future. The balanced budget amendment would memorialize silly thinking into the laws over our laws. It’s a crazy idea.
Medicare for all is a well known kind of policy that has worked successfully in many advanced countries. It’s effects are known and can be debated based upon facts that all can consider with confidence.
Ocasio-Cortez is intelligent but she is young and lacks enough experience not to know when not to just say what her constituents want to hear.
2
Half right (balanced budget amendment), half wrong (Medicare). Our population is highly diverse and has many habits that restrict health, don't look to other countries for examples. Look at the Oregon experiment to see what having insurance does to the physical health of our type of population.
http://www.nber.org/oregon/1.home.html
As far as hurting the party, I seem to recall that in the months prior to the 2016 convention a Democratic Socialist was outperforming the current occupant of the White House by notably bigger margins in head to head polling match-ups than the eventual Democratic candidate. Some of us oldsters may need to re-tune our notions of where on the political spectrum one needs to be to win national elections in Trump's America.
7
None of these "radical" Democratic ideas are particularly new. There was a public option with Obamacare (didn't get passed), minimum wage was passed long ago by Congress, they just refuse to raise it. Many of these "radical" ideas become reality over time because of cultural and economic changes. Let's hope we don't decide to go backwards.
6
Whenever I see Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez I just can't stop smiling. That in and of itself is a huge accomplishment.
13
More goofy diversion from the American capitol of global finance. Even liberal democracies with universal healthcare are imploding (see; Germany; Italy; England...). The issue is, nominally, immigration, because immigrants are mistakenly seen as driving down wages and living standards for citizens of the West. The liberal Democratic globalists will never admit that free trade is the culprit, because that would take a dime out of their own pockets.
2
But it's not "free trade" it's crony trade. Real free trade would help us, which is why we get crony trade marketed as free trade.
2
An increase in the minimum wage is not only sensible it is an economic plus. Any amount over $10.00 would be. But the $15 figure is within what we can and should legislate.
Not only would it be beneficial to our Federal government it would solve many problems that states have. Particularly red states. The inability to raise taxes by Republicans severely hurts these states.. They are among the lowest ranked states in education, health, poverty and standard of living.
It obviously would move many people off government subsidies while adding workers to our workforce which is in need of more workers. Many of blue states have already raised the minimum above the federal minimum with no harm done.
The increased tax base for our Social security system would solve a future problem.
An increase in immigration would also help.
8
Medicare for all, or some kind of healthcare that is available and affordable to all, is desperately needed. One 'fuzzy number' cost that isn't considered is the opportunity, or perhaps 'entrepreneuity' cost of our current employer-based insurance system that covers the majority of Americans. How many working people might startup their own business if they knew they would continue to have health care to protect their families? How many people might change jobs to one they could be more productive at, if they knew it wouldn't mean abandoning needed heath coverages? And the lower GDP cost of every advanced country with a 'universal healthcare' system makes it clear that the current US system is both less effective and more costly that known, currently functioning alternatives. Why do we continue to pay more to get less? I'm less enamored of 'guaranteed work'. I think we might be better served by guaranteeing education, college or trades apprenticeship opportunities, to anyone at any age, which would increase the skills of millions of people, eventually yielding the economic benefits of higher productivity across the work force. A 'mandatory public service' program - to 'draft' people who then are used in public works and social programs, and teach them some skills, then fund further education for those who serve in the program. A 'GI Bill' program for the public. The changes would take a generation, but the impacts would be profound.
11
Thank you for the best comment on the page. You so totally get it.
Medicare for All would liberate the workforce and allow companies to be more competitive globally.
2
KRUGMAN: "Whether or not you support Ocasio-Cortez...she’s advocating a more responsible policy than that actually enacted by Republican in Congress."
This should not come as a surprise to anyone that has been following politics and attentive to the eonomy. The Republicans offer nothing more than "trickle down" economics and ask the rest of us to trust that this economic theory will bring in utopia. There is no evidence that "trickle down" has ever worked, but faith that it wil work continues to be a repeated Republican dogma.
This dopey doctrine will continue to prevail until we elect many similar to Ocasio-Cortez to replace the deadbeats in Congress and remove the Putin-Trump candidate now occupying the Oval Office.
14
The democrats offer nothing more than higher taxes based on nothing but greed. There is no Putin backed candidate in the Oval Office. She was soundly defeated. Thank God !
Trump was Putin's man, and is still Putin's man. Don't think you have better intelligence that our various intelligence sources.
Krugman pulled off his socks to show his feet of clay in the 2016 primary.
I'm not usually prone to conspiracies, but I always wondered what group of corporate Democrats paid him off when he was so over the top in his support of Clinton, while Sanders was the political embodiment of every policy that Krugman has supported in his writing, from single payer, to borrowing to improve infrastructure, to holding banks accountable and maintaining FDR era financial protections. He was a huge proponent of the 2008-09 stimulus that pulled us out of the depths of the Great Recession. His only criticism was that it wasn't enough! This was written right into the Bernie Sanders playbook.
Now there is tacit support for Ocasio-Cortez without any acknowledgment of her alignment with Democratic Socialism (Or is that the same thing as being a "Radical Democrat"?), or that she was a foot soldier for Sanders in 2016. Mr. Krugman, who are you?
11
Trump and the right want to overturn roe vs wade. They are the loons. Preserving it would be reasonable, and the democrats are making every effort, being the reasonable ones. The most radical ideas from the democrats-wide access to health care, education and world markets, a large stimulus when confronted with the 2008 recession, banking regulations to contain reckless lending and so on have all been reasonable and served the needs of all of america- rich, middle class and poor.
5
What is the difference between what Ocasio-Cortez is proposing and the Works Progress Administration (WPA) fromm the new deal. A lot of infrastructure was built under the WPA and the TVA. What is this Administration building or repairing with all the money it is saving by not providing guaranteed employment?
Henry Ford understood that he needed to pay a fair wage so that his own workers could afford HIS cars. Who is going to be able to afford all the higher cost products being generated by this Administration without any sort of reasonable guaranteed wage? How will the 1% continue their revenue stream drawn directly from the pockets of the 99%, more likely the lowest 25%?
Nothing radical. Just good business.
10
Nice arguments, Professor. On the other hand, the way that we have been going, many of them conservative-driven policies haven't exactly worked out now, have they?
But we won't know for certain if Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s ideas will work until we try, right?
We should try, shouldn't we?
7
I don't know, Why don't you ask the Venezuelans, who used to be the richest country in South American, if they are happy their parents and grand parents tried Socialism. You can find them in Columbia trying to find food and medicine.
The problem with Medicare for all would be premiums for seniors would rise. Some may think that Medicare is free for seniors as they have paid all their lives into the program but it isn't. Part A, which is bare bones coverage is free but you have to pay for part B. Since Parts A and B combined still lack a lot of coverage seniors have to buy a supplemental. Part D for medications and a Medigap policy to cover more of the out of pocket expenses. Even with all those policies, Medicare does not cover dental, vision or long term health care like nursing homes. In our case it is around $300 a month for each of us. That is after we have paid our entire working lifetime into the system through payroll deductions.
If you are allowed to buy into Medicare but have not paid 40 or 50 years into the system then you will have to cover people that have not paid in for as many years. Therefore their will be less money to pay more claims unless premiums rise. They increases could be tailored to the new entrants based on a formula that considers how much they have paid into it but that would mean younger people buying in would end up paying premiums similar to what they are facing in the private market. The cost of health care is not affected by what insurance is paying, private or public, so the rise in the cost of care would continue. All going to medicare or universal care would do is to shift the burden of payment for services but would do nothing to lower the overall cost.
5
We could pay for a Medicare option instead of what we as individuals or our employers pay to private insurance.
It's the same money. Just a matter of who is the insurance provider, Blue Cross or Medicare. We might even save on premiums.
The US spends an average of $10,000 per capita on healthcare. The other first world countries pay an average of $4,500 to $5,500 per capita.
They have universal healthcare.
The US has parts of the country with infant mortality rates the same as Botswana.
13
PS - the money I am paying into Medicare today is for others who are already retired.
Then when I retire, those working will be paying into Medicare for me.
Same for Social Security.
8
Exactly that, it wouldn't do anything for prices but make a lot more business for the medical industry. More wealth flowing to the medical industry without the need to price to what the customer is able and willing to pay.
Her ideas are no more radical than FDR's, and we KNOW those policies work, as they brought us out of the Great Depression and set the foundation for 50 years of sustained and broadly shared prosperity that followed.
Europe's workers continue to benefit from policies - national medical insurance, stronger labor rights, access to free (or at least affordable) higher education, etc. - that were once normal in the US.
There's absolutely no reason why we can't bring these policies back to benefit most Americans and make our country great. Only a lack of imagination, ambition and dedication to seeing them through will hold us back. And don't even think of saying we don't have the money for it, because we do. It's just locked up in our bloated military budget (over 600 billion) and the recent Trump-Republican tax cut (1.4 trillion!). Repurposing those funds to make America great again is just a question of national priorities, and Ocasia-Cortez and the Bernie Sanders movement has them right.
25
We are not in a Depression! There is huge income inequality, but the economy is not where it was when FDR was in office.
I live in Vermont, and know who pays for "free" stuff here. People like me do. I'm not a socialist. I've been a Democrat all my life. My parents were Depression era Democrats and loved FDR. They never took anything for "free", and they worked so hard. You do not see anyone work like that anymore. I have the same values they did- people need to chip in, have some skin in the game. If someone truly needs help, you help. It's just old fashioned common sense, which I guess is now unfashionable. If the Bernie people do not get over it, the Democrats will lose another election. Remember Ralph Nader?
5
Dr K,
Glad you have finally come around on ideas that were radical and unworkable when Bernie proposed them.
Now, if you could help with redefinition of socialism - economic socialism - it would be helpful. We practice socialism within our family. If one child needs twice as much medical costs, or incurs twice as much educational costs, we handle it. We don’t say “sorry all you get is X, and go get a loan if you need more”.
Democratic Economic Socialism tends toward reducing inequality. Capitalism tends toward inequality; the mission is to vanquish your competitors and take as much money as you can.
13
But in your family you have the power to change behavior to reduce your costs. Stealing money from my paycheck to give it to somebody else to “reduce inequality” I must demand that I have the power to change people’s behavior to reduce my costs.
Fair?
1
Let Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez get elected to the seat first. She's promising yes, but she's got a way to go before she's elected. Don't forget, she's not the only one running for that seat and, if she wins, far from the only representative in Congress.
You keep missing the fact that Americans are voting Republicans into office. Why? Because those Republicans are saying what voters want to hear. They aren't doing those things that will help working Americans most but with our short memories it hardly matters.
If you want to contribute something to the discussion about candidates and policies you would do better to start citing history. I say this because all too many of us have no idea how certain things got started or why they are continuing. The best example is our current mess of a health care system. The other one: how little help our government gives to people when they need it (particularly when they cannot find jobs) and why Americans continue to view the welfare state, which works in other countries, as an anathema. Economically speaking it's a complete waste of human talent to have so many discouraged, unemployed people of working age in any country especially while claiming that there are no Americans available for skilled jobs.
As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to see our elected officials start working for us instead of corporate lobbyists and points in popularity polls.
11
It is a good idea to discuss policies at any stage. Why wait until she is elected?
1
I don't object to discussing her policies but I do object to acting as if she's already in office.
NYU professor Peter Baldwin, NYTimes 10/20/2015
UPDATED OCTOBER 20, 2015, 3:21 AM
Can the United States be more like Denmark, or any of the other Scandinavian nations? Indeed, it can so long as Americans are willing to follow a few simple steps.
To be more like a Scandinavian country, Americans would need to pay more in taxes, and that tax burden would fall predominantly on the middle class.
First and foremost, Americans would need to pay more in taxes, and that tax burden would fall predominantly on the middle class. Marginal tax rates as high as the U.S. rate kick in at a much lower income level in Scandinavian countries. For instance, in Denmark, plumbers pay the same 50 percent income tax as hedge fund managers. And there’s also a 25 percent value added tax on most purchases (180 percent on car purchases), far above the 7 percent average sales tax in most states.
Pretax income per capita is 23 percent higher in the U.S. than in Denmark. And because so much is raised from consumption taxes, in general things are more expensive in Scandinavian countries. For example, a beer in Denmark will cost you 75 percent more in than in the U.S., a coffee a third more, a dozen eggs 40 percent more. Housing in Denmark is also more expensive than in the U.S. and on average homes are
5
Convert into equivalent taxation all stuff we don't get for "free" here such as college education , health care, etc. and we pay about the same as the Sweeds.
2
our friends in Denmark, mostly middle class people like teachers, enjoy a quality of life similar to ours in the USA, perhaps slightly better, and much less stressful on the financial front.
sitting down over the kitchen table to discuss the comparison, our joint conclusion was money comes and money goes, and once it is gone, it doesn't much matter where it's gone to. at the end of the day, does it matter how much you pay in taxes, or for healthcare, because it all comes out pretty much even. there is no free lunch. but, it's easier to pay for a somewhat more expensive lunch if you know you also pay less, or close to nothing, for healthcare.
a Danish friend was showing us around her 18th century house once. I asked her where the furnace was. she didn't know what a home furnace is (after we established it was not something involved in smelting); as is the norm,her household heat and hot,water come in by pipe from a municipal heat plant. there is no charge for this; it's part of her taxes. but just like here, it gets done and gets paid for.
lest you think Denmark is a paradise when it comes to healthcare, it seems dental care is not generally covered by their socialized medicine program, and private dentists are so expensive Danes travel to other countries if they need much in the way of dental work, in order to save a lot of money or to afford it at all.
4
To be more like Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, and Sweden) The US would have to throw out about 120 million minorities, and then about 200 million whites in order to leave a population of 10 million, 95% of which would be of white, European heritage. Then we’d have to institute English as the national language and make sure at least 98% of citizens speak it at home, and then repeal the First Amendment so we could adopt some variant of the Lutheran church as the one official State church. (These are the social conditions in all three Scandinavian countries.)
If we did this, the population would be homogeneous enough to view fellow citizens as extended family and would then be willing to support the kind of tax and welfare policy Scandinavians support.
I have watched everything I can get my eyes on about this young lady, since I was wondering when the next generation would oust us old fogies and start taking the reins as to the path they want to see the country go. She is not radical at all...as to her goals? Yup, they reach for the stars and may actually get almost there. A whole lot more rational and fact based than Trump's erratic pie-in-the-sky snake oil he sold on slogans that divided America. This is one candidate we should keep our eyes on, and I hope the media will follow others. These down-ballot candidates are the hope for the future, both far and in 2020. Keep America informed. And that you Dr. Krugman for the evaluation from an economic point of view. We need more "educamification" on REAL socio-economic issues as well.
17
I agree with Mr. Krugman. Her ideas are not radical at all, just difficult to implement.
Imagine what would have happened if she was advocating for the abolition of death penalty, another radical idea perhaps.
15
Democrats are making a huge mistake if they believe veering to the left is going to win a general election. If I’m not mistaken, Sanders lost handily to Hillary in the last Democratic primary election. I’m not quite sure how that’s going to translate with the rest of the electorate.
Democrats have abandoned the productive middle class in favor of the poor and the Uber rich.
11
Saying that Hillary Clinton handily beat Bernie Sanders in the primary isn't entirely accurate. Yes, she did best him, but not handily. it was a close race for far longer than anyone anticipated, and frankly had Hillary worried for much of the time. And it wasn't for lack of support for Bernie's ideas either. Quite the contrary. Bernie's ideas were very popular - especially among young voters, but suffered from the average primary voter's skepticism that they could be implemented. Thise gutters may be right only insofar as most voters share this collectivepessimism, but Bernie Sanders' campaign and subsequent movement successfully captured upwards of 80% of the young vote (under 40), and THAT, folks, is where the future of the party lies.
6
"If I’m not mistaken, Sanders lost handily to Hillary in the last Democratic primary election. "
That was a shocking historical mistake by a political party. It was the only time in modern history that I can think of when a candidate who polled ten points worse in the general election was nominated. Technically Trump couldn't even win the popular vote over Hillary Clinton (at least not with Gary Johnson in the race), but by running the least popular candidate they could come up with, Democrats allowed Trump to get close enough to get lucky and win the EC.
Sanders has been elected multiple times in a rather moderate rural state that used to be a Republican stronghold and would likely have beaten Trump in a landslide.
3
Out of approximately 28 million votes, she won by almost 4 million, a large enough majority where she didn’t have to debate the difference in issues and criticize theirthe differences. That won’t happen in a more closely contested or a general election.
1
The central problem is that the Democrat Party is really two different parties that aren’t a lot alike: The Emerging Socialist Working Class Labor Group and the Wealthy Educated Privileged Donor Group. The tensions will become pretty untenable sooner versus later, despite Dr. Krugman’s efforts at trying to paper over the issues...
12
Hedge fund managers and public worker apparatchiks
linking arms with Socialists. And they wonder why the Middle Class who will have to pay the price has abandoned them.
You might call them the Bronx Democrats and the Martha’s Vineyard Democrats. For this odd couple to get together and win an election will require both sides to give up cherished principles—and everybody knows what these are.
Better thsn steal ftom the poor and middle class Republicans
7 days a week
Well it takes all sorts of viewpoints to make a political party (at least the Democratic Party). I don’t take her positions as final results, just a point to start discussions. You have to take the goal of the proposed legislation and modify it to make it workable.
8
In the deliberation for the Social Security Act of 1935 both health insurance and a public jobs program were considered. Both were dropped due to opposition - from the AMA on health insurance --problems that need addressed just keep cycling till remedied.
13
Krugman dismissively considered Bernie Sanders as too radical and I don't see much difference between Sanders's and Ocasio-Cortez's proposals. So what's the difference now? The reality and horror of Donald Trump might have something to do with it. It is said that repentance is good for the soul.
23
I was disappointed although not surprised that Krugman drank the "aging television pundit who thinks it's still 1988 and is obsessed with the idea that Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush are 'inevitable' because of their 'pedigrees'" koolaid in 2016, but maybe he woke up with a Trump hangover and is drinking coffee now.
When you are radical, other radicals appear normal.
Medicare for All is code for socialized medicine like the British National Health Service, which only stays within budget by rationing quality of life and end of life medical care we take for granted.
Minimum compensation mandates for wages, benefits and time off which are higher than what consumers are willing to pay make the low skilled unemployable and destroy small businesses reliant on low skilled employees. Minimum compensaiton mandates are why every progressive nation has high endemic youth and low skill unemployment. If this were a matter of realistic debate, the government could simply decree we all be paid like CEOs.
Guaranteed work is when late stage progressivilsm has destroyed the labor market with policies like minimum compensation mandates and steals even more money from the surviving private businesses and workers to pay for government make work jobs in an attempt to stave off revolution against progressive government.
Indeed, the Independence Day is a good time to note that today’s progressive government directs far more of our lives and takes far more of our earnings than the British monarchy we overthrew in an armed revolution over two centuries ago. How do you think our founders would view such a government? “Radical” would be the least of their reactions.
7
NHS in the UK doesn’t ration healthcare, certainly not the healthcare we take for granted. We take for granted that healthcare comes with co-pays, claims denials, loss of coverage when losing a job or in divorce. None of that happens in England, or anywhere else in the industrialized world.
One billion people worldwide live prosperous and secure under socialized medicine. Not a single country has chosen, since enacting it, to adopt the American model instead. For all the supposed problems, it remains hugely popular in every country, England and Canada included. That would not be so if the evils alleged against it here were true.
Medicare for All is estimated to save $1 trillion annually in wasted medical expenditure. It would also save 50,000 lives at the same time. That’s the whole toll of Vietnam, every year.
Isn’t time to end the carnage? Isn’t it time to return to the American public affordable, universal healthcare?
We don’t need to suffer. We just need to understand, and vote.
27
You’re comparing apples and oranges with your comparison of our “progressive” system relative the British monarchy we left. You think things haven’t changed in 242 years?
As a country we pay more for our healthcare and get worse results. We are doing something wrong.
1
I so clearly remember the tons of propaganda opposing so called "socialized medicine" in the fifties. It was all part of the "communist Menace". Now seventy years later we (the U.S.) has the most expensive/worst results healthcare in the world. Hunhmmmmm? Do you suppose we might have done something that worked badly???
I have an observation as to how we will pay for the medical and education programs proposed by “radicals” like our new Congress person.
Recognize that we are paying for it now. The difference is that instead of using progressive taxation, we use regressive loans. If we reformed our payment structure than the banksters would not make as much money. I don’t care about that because they will still make plenty.
Furthermore, our current system does not provide any downward pressure on costs. The Democratic Socialist systems use the natural resistance to tax increases to act as a drag on cost increases.
The problem with both our medical and educational systems are that they have inelastic demand. The demand simply does not respond well to price increases. Health care and education are not commodities. They are utilities. Conservatives can whine about it all they want, but that’s the reality we cannot get away from.
17
in a perfect conservative world, people who can't already afford healthcare can just curl up and die if they're sick or wounded. and higher education is for the legacy types with limitless money and raccoon coats. America just like it used to be when it was great, before WWI.
My problem with Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is not her more-socialist economics, that might be explained in simpler terms as "let's try to turn the USA into a much bigger Denmark." Denmark seems to be working quite well. (Where is the libertarian/laissez faire capitalist society anyone can point to?)
My problem is "abolish ICE." It's true that just exactly what she and others advancing this as a slogan mean by it is not fully explained. But taken literally, as in "no immigration or customs enforcement at all" ... it's preposterous.
9
Look into it. Abolishing ICE doesn’t mean ending border security. We had border security before ICE. According to Republicans, we don’t have it now. Abolishing ICE should be a nonpartisan no-brainer.
The problem with ICE is its lack of judicial review. In any other context, its powers would be unconstitutional. Furthermore, it acts militarily, rather than as officers of the law. That’s because it’s part of DHS, not Justice.
Border security, as Republicans never tire of telling us, is all about enforcing the law. That’s the role of the Justice Department and the courts. Let’s rely on them instead of extralegal organizations like ICE.
9
JKL -- it's not my job to "look into it," and try to figure out what she means. It' her job to spell it out in detail.
And it's a fact that she's not doing that. The unpleasant truth is that she's acting like Trump: inflammatory grand-and-vague promises , that she has no real plan or even intent to accomplish.
2
Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen:
"Therefore," he said, "I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."
So. There's that.
Although Paul Krugman asserts that radical Democrats are pretty reasonable, it's very likely he would agree that the GOP is not reasonable. Today's GOP/Trump administration has abandoned any pretense of being a normal party. Conservative commentators Norman Ornstein (American Enterprise Institute) and Thomas Mann (Brookings Institution) describe today’s GOP as “a radical insurgency — ideologically extreme, scornful of facts and compromise, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition: a serious danger to the society” Conservative columnist George Will advises to vote against the GOP this November.
The beholden GOP is in lockstep service to the very rich corporate sector and has mobilized extremist sectors of society. The GOP establishment wants to use them as a battering ram in the assault against the .99% and New Deal programs, to privatize, deregulate, starve the beast /limit government, and increase austerity while retaining those profiteering parts that serve wealth and power of the .001%.
26
Through regulations and fines diverted to progressive activists organizations, the Obama administration weaponized the "Rich Corporate Sector".
Trump, who I didn't vote for has very effectively won over the former democrat working class base.
A job guarantee does not necessarily mean the government would be the employer. The guarantee could be effected through governmental collaboration with willing employers in the private and nonprofit sector. A number of economists have speculated on how such a system would operate. See, for example, the writings ( or blogs) of L. Randall Wray.
3
Came around from the anti-Bernie stance did you Dr. Krugman?
There is no future for a fair and just America without an expansion of state-funded social care programs. The systemic problems that plague finance and lead to incredible amounts of household debt cannot last.
Ocasio-Cortez and others like her will be the young, new blood of the Democratic Party. It's time to get past politically and practically ineffectual centrism toward a second New Deal or Great Society.
17
As Paul says, "decades of experience show that these federalized healthcare systems are workable," we also have decades of experience showing that they don't work. Let people who want free healthcare go to the VA.
Why a $15 minimum wage, Paul? Why not $500? Or, even better, $15,000? That way, people would only have to work a couple of hours a year to make bank.
But, let me guess: YOU would be happy to round up a posse of like-minded economists to tell us just what we need to do...and how we need to do it, right?
6
The VA may not be as bad as you think. There are problem areas. But my father never got the vision care in the private sector that even approached what the VA did for him.
$15/hr is used because is adjusted the 70’s minimum wage to account for inflation. The employers have kept wages flat. But, if you prefer, we can make employees whole by social insurance programs.
17
The VA? Pretty popular among veterans I know.
But Medicare for All isn’t VA for All. We’d still have private doctors and hospitals. We’d just pay through taxies instead of premiums, and pocket the 33 cents on the dollar that the private system now extorts.
Ask anyone on Medicare if they remember fondly their employer-based insurance plan. It may take awhile before you get the answer you want.
Medicare is popular for a reason. Universal Medicare will be, too. You’ll see.
8
Interesting as always reading the comments and finding the remembrance and responses to the unfortunate way in which Paul Krugman chose to go after Bernie Sanders. Change though was necessary and possible, so I am pleased.
Ocasio-Cortez by the way is no radical but simply a caring reasonable policy advocate who is nonetheless wildly different from the likes of current majority members of Congress.
15
There’s only one thing radical about guaranteed jobs for all, in the minds of Republicans; a total shift in our tax structure; excess profits taxes, increased taxes for that one percent, plastic bag taxes, gas guzzler car taxes....I think we can be creative and progressive. Republicans, and more and more of we progressives, are tired of loading ever more regressive taxes on our stagnant incomes- property taxes, sales taxes, and yes, gas taxes on the first...10 gallons needed to get to work.
And heaven forbid we have public works projects....like...a transcontinental high speed rail system. Like building thousands of small, yard-ready wind turbines (think old fashioned windmills, cut down by half) all hooked into a grid. Like, solar panel companies that are, yes, tariff protected. A high speed internet system that includes rural areas. But no...we only get those if private companies decide to provide them. Gasp...a government doing that, in hyper-capitalist America. Yup- definitely, radical. Did I forget subsidies for millions of electric bicycles...and government owned plants to build them?
Well, never mind. Capitalism will give me a driverless cab, someday. Just what I always wanted.
16
Esteemed professor, please explain how a defense industry costing $700 billion annually, farm subsidies totalling $20 billion, $7 billion in ACA payments to insurance companies, and on and on, do not constitute Democratic Socialism. The only difference is with Republicans there is no Democratic to it.
17
Get your federal government hands off my Medicare!
How would it be if, sitting in your bank account right now, earning interest, you had $1,250,000.00 available to pay your medical expenses?
That is the amount that the AVERAGE person pays over a lifetime for health insurance coverage.
How would it be if you could sign up today, and have the government deposit your pro-rated equivalent into your account? Available to buy true catastrophic insurance so you would never have to pay over $35,000.00 in any one year - ever!
And if you had a chronic ailment, you would be allowed to progressively reduce your cost of treatment to nothing over a period of 5 years?
And since it would be your money, you could live in Mexico, Europe, New Zealand or Australia and still be assured of health security.
And since it would be your money, you would determine who would inherit it after your passing.
If you think that would be an powerful force for universal access to healthcare, for equality in healthcare, for truly PERSONAL care, for a dynamic and cost effective healthcare system, and for income redistribution from top to bottom, you would be absolutely right.
Of all the misconceptions about the nature of health care, perhaps the most damaging is the one that says ordinary people cannot understand what they want for themselves and their loved ones and so must controlled by the elite, whether in the private sector or in government.
This plan says different. This plan says, "Trust yourself to know what's best for you and yours."
3
VCR writes:
"How would it be if, sitting in your bank account right now, earning interest, you had $1,250,000.00 available to pay your medical expenses?"
To write this in a column about economics is to either betray complete ignorance of simple interest, or to assume that the readers are that ignorant, and so can be gulled with a ridiculous claim.
Start with the obvious: the average lifespan of an american male today is about 79 years. 1.25e6 / 79 ≈ 15,823 ... if the cost were flat-rated over a lifetime, ≈ 16 k$/year. Of course the premiums aren't flat over a lifetime ...but for simplicity let's assume that.
The author's idea is that somehow you have all of that lifetime cost upfront in cash at birth, and then all the interest is "yours." And if you are a trust-fund kiddy indeed it is, nothing stops you!
So do the interest/payout calculation ... if you have 1.25 m$ and can get 4% interest on it, you can pay out 16 k$ per year for 79 years, AND HAVE 19 m$ TO LEAVE to heirs then! It should be obvious that if you can get any interest over 16e3 / 1.25e6 = 0.0128 = 1.28% that principal will grow, rather than decline.
Conversely, if you do the calculation, you can fund that 16 k$ payout for 79 years (leaving zero balance at the end) for $381,952 if you can get 4% yield.
In reality, since cost rises with age, it's even better than that.
VCR -- the idea that Dr. Krugman or the large fraction of his audience do not understand the concept of "interest" is insulting.
1
That might work well if you KNEW what your future medical needs were. Mere mortals like me do not.
Thanks for approving my post! Your nitpicking - for that is all it is - simply affirms that we can talk further about HOW to fund your account.
The much more important point has to do with how individual, tax-funded accounts could deliver personal health care, independent of work status, and transform the medical industrial complex into a dynamic, universal user-friendly service.
Something, by the way, that medicare for all or single payer is unlikely to do.
This was 50 years ago but when I graduated from college in 1968, I owed a whole $300 for a loan through the LSU alumni association. My first job paid well, for those days, and I paid the loan in about 6 months. In those days almost anyone could go to college without amassing a huge debt. To me, support for college, is obviously an investment in the country's future. If a person isn't interested in college, support their training in trade schools, apprenticeships, etc. You have to have skills and those skills have to be updated from time to time.
22
Medicare for All is not quite ready for prime time. The broad support for universal access to health care is there. Voters know that Medicare works and has worked for over 50 years. But the ambiguity is not really constructive.
Medicare for All is just a slogan that stands for a universal access national healthcare system. The substance of that system will have to be defined by Congress. The process of defining a universal access national healthcare system will be one that requires a long attention span and attention to detail. There are too many members of Congress who suffer from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder to expect a good result without strong Presidential leadership.
So we have an insightful, and courageous young woman running on a bold progressive agenda, a Republican Congress committed to the agenda of its wealthy donors and the White House occupied by a man incapable of leadership. That is not a recipe for resolving the ambiguity in Medicare for All.
11
We had a very good start for universal access to healthcare for almost all Americans, called the ACA or Obamacare. The Republicans took a really good beginning and are destroying it piece by piece. Why because it was well thought out, by the Democrats, and actually was working.
Only in America, where too many voters are unable to see the forest for the trees and do vote against their best interests. Which brings us back to the incompetent President and equally evil Legislature, that can't put the Republic, the Constitution above Party self-interests.
13
We already have universal access healthcare. What is needed is a taxpayer funded mechanism to pay for it. People have the access but don’t have the money to actually pay for it.
2
I'd written more than 20 years ago that a compromise position between the bizarre health care system we had then and a full single-payer system was to allow anyone who wanted to to buy into the Medicare system or into one of the plans offered to Federal employees.
It was my sense that many people would opt in, eventually withering the connection of health insurance to employment, which would have a lot of entrepreneurial advantages; the coverage provided would be cheaper and more efficient, and as more and more people chose it, more and more health care providers would need to honor it. I suspected eventually the overwhelming majority of Americans would be part of it, with some possibly opting for additional paid coverage (as many seniors do now), but the plan would still be MUCH cheaper to buy into and to administer than anything we had then, or now.
I suppose that's radical--but remember, in Latin "radic" literally means "root". This approach would be hacking to the root of the problem--specifically, for-profit insurers whose presence results in a cost a third or more over what health care cost should be.
Being radical--getting to the root of the problem--is a GOOD thing.
25
If a true objective of the Left is to untether health insurance from employment, one step in that direction would be to equalize the tax treatment of employer provided health benefits, privately purchased healthcare insurance and services, along with the treatment of gratis medical benefits as income.
I am sure this would be an economic winner and would gain the support of like-minded individuals on the Right.
1
more realistically, I'd bet a common goal of progressives, or liberals, or lefties, or even just middle of the road Americans of the not too rich, not too poor class would be to untether healthcare from the talons of insurance companies. they basically confuse the issue by interspersing themselves between patients and providers, add no value, and charge about 30% for the confusion and obfuscation they contribute.
4
Cortez has caught the attention of Fox news and they are using her as their target for immigration and creeping or galloping socialism. A good sign since she seems capable of explaining herself.
The best news about the emergence of divergent, younger Dems is the push to make Congress effective again. An energetic positive Congress provides a strong buffer against Presidential power grabs. Similarly sound laws provide a buffer against and ideologically driven Supreme Court. Both buffers are badly needed given the compliant nature of the House in particular.
20
The best thing about her is that she’s worked in a real job. As a bartender she earned tips by responding to her customers. She knows something of real life and real work. Now that’s radical for Congress.
2
Especially important when considering what these self same Fox parrots were screaming just 3 years ago:
About the overeaching of the Presidency
What’s good for tge goise is good for the gander
In the meanwhile, Lopez Obrador in Mexico was elected with a true Keynesian platform. Very good news this week in the middle of bad ones like the situation in Germany, which keeps veering right ward.
14
Surprisingly reasonable piece Krugman, but you're wrong here. . ."My guess is that they’re way too optimistic here, that many of those not working still wouldn’t be working for a variety of reasons even with a guaranteed job."
No, most people not currently working would run not walk to the prospect of a living wage guaranteed job.
10
There seems to me two problems that keep many job seekers and employers separated - lack of transportation and access to childcare. I have lived in NC and I know that there is no rail system for getting workers to jobs and the bus system is simply dreadful. If you do not have a car, your employment options are severely limited. And for many families, lack of childcare is also a major hurdle. So although a job may be guaranteed, a way to get there is not. This is a national problem and needs to be addressed. It is also one of the reasons employment mandates for government services is so mean-spirited.
2
A national jobs program is pretty extreme and yet it worked so well for FDR who was the first Democratic president to embrace the idea. He used his work programs to rebuild our infrastructure and give every American who wanted one, the dignity of a job. When people work, they earn money which they spend in their local community which stimulates their community and creates more jobs. FDR's programs were in place less than a decade and yet our country went on to have a booming economy for decades after they ended. He specifically focused on the low skilled workers who needed more help to recover from the depression.
Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, headstart, and public schools and universities are all pretty radical ideas and yet they pay for themselves by educating our young and allowing our elderly some security as they age. I suspect that Medicare for all would create similar security and create jobs while reigning in excessive medical costs. Other countries have found that providing affordable healthcare leads to happy citizens and doesn't cost as much as our system.
If we tied minimum wage to inflation that would help the working poor while keeping labor costs in check. We used to do that before we decided that greed is good.
We used to be a pretty radical country. The best minds used to come here to study our systems. Now if you want to see new technology and creative thinking you have to go abroad.
67
Ami - "A national jobs program is pretty extreme..."? It would be a good solution to repair our extremely decrepit infrastructure.
1
Mr. Krugman may have heard a rumor that the NY Times is looking for a progressive columnist.
Krugman is steadfast in his refusal to understand single-payer Medicare for All.
For starters, single payer and "public option" are not the same thing. How often do we have to say this?
Failing to understand the distinction means that you fail to understand the central power inefficiencies of our current system. They are first, the massive cost of administration both within insurance companies and more importantly, outiside of them, caused *solely* by our multipayer payment system and second, the failure of our current system to control pricing.
Yes, there are countries that have multiple payers, but they are much more tightly regulated and the benefits much more uniform than, and they control prices by national mandate. They also cost more than single payer systems.
We're going to have to fight the insurance and pharmaceutical companies for any substantial change. We might as well get the most efficient and effective thing, and that's a single payer system.
14
PK's references to single payer and Medicare/public option were perfectly clear about the differences.
5
Very well put. You nicely clarified what I felt but couldn't articulate after reading Krugman's piece.
1
Ocasio-Cortez does have one crazy policy idea, the elimination of ICE. Yes, ICE has used some deplorable tactics lately, but that is due to their new boss. They are a police force, an essential enforcement arm of our country. If someone who is a criminal sneaks in, there needs to be someone to find them and remove them. Its just common sense. ICE was used by Barack Obama as a tool to correctly enforce US law, which is what a president is supposed to do. This one crazy policy was immediately pounced on by Trump, and you can bet we will all hear it over and over during the election because Trump knows it will resonate with millions of Americans, especially in the Midwest states who's electoral votes put him over the top in our last election.
The US has the right, and the responsibility to control immigration to a level that does not overwhelm our ability to provide jobs, food, housing, health care, education, etc. Without ICE, we would in effect have open borders, and the rate of immigration could easily explode. If Democrats are going to make unlimited immigration part of their platform, they will lose to the Republicans, who will say that Democrats care more about immigrants than citizens. Trumps strongest line was "Americans are dreamers too".
I am desperate for the Democrats to win in the next election. That is why I do not think dems should play into Trump's hand by not making clear they will continue to enforce our border, like Obama did. Its the right thing to do.
12
ICE functions would be moved to another agency. Next.
9
ICE doesn't enforce the border. We have the border patrol for that. We also seemed to get by just fine without ICE for the 95% of our country's history it didn't exist. A lot of the resistance to the "abolish ICE" position gaining steam on the left seems to come from a misunderstanding of what it would mean to "abolish ICE," along with an ignorance of what the agency actually does.
I have no doubt that there are certain tasks of law enforcement performed by ICE that we would not want to abolish, those tasks could be taken up by the agencies responsible for them before ICE was established in 2003.
Abolishing ICE doesn't mean "we would effectively have open borders." In fact, immigration enforcement at the border would scarcely change. Instead, we would not have a militarized police force terrorizing communities, families, and children in the interior.
I can understand the moral arguments for controlling immigration at our borders, but the arguments for deporting people here who have set down roots, who have children that depend on them, who have coworkers and friends that will miss them, are morally bankrupt.
No moral society should have a government entity whose main purpose is to inflict suffering and trauma on an incalculable skill. I fail to see how anyone could look into the abundant journalism showing how ICE's deportation force destroys communities, families, and the lives of children and not come away with the conviction that the agency must be abolished.
39
The elimination of ICE is not a crazy idea, but it is a bad campaign slogan. Once the idea is explained it makes more sense. Separate I from CE, or absorb I into the agencies that used to perform the same tasks. Our previous Republican president created a whole new law enforcement agency, which included ICE, in his massive over-reaction to 9/11/01. (So much for smaller and less intrusive government.)
It reminds me of "Black Lives Matter." Great sentiment, bad bumper sticker.
5
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is my kind of Democrat. I was thrilled with her campaign and thrilled but not surprised that she won, given her positive-sensitive ideas and an opponent who could not even be bothered to debate policy but rather sent along a surrogate.
I am with Ocasio, simple as that.
47
I sure hope that no one is wondering where those government jobs would be coming from. Having spent 32 years of diminishing returns working for the Feds I can attest to the fact that government agencies become less and less effective as more and more staff is lost through attrition. Computers can do an awful lot but you still need competent employees to feed necessary data into those computers and to make eligibility and post-entitlement decisions that can't be performed by automation alone. There's a particular shortage of clericals within most government agencies and such jobs can be performed by the long-term unemployed even as they continue to search for higher-paying positions in private industry. Also, didn't The Donald once promise the country an infrastructure bill- one that would certainly create lots of hiring opportunities? I guess he's been too busy meeting with Korean dictators, complaining about foreign tariffs and preparing his collusion defense to come up with a detailed proposal on infrastructure.
61
Paul, you just joined Bernie's ranks, though a little late for his purposes.But, it is better late than never.
Many people are asking what is now different from then. A good discussion of these issues will help us, liberals, to clear our minds and go united to the next election.
26
welcome to morality, paul krugman. (sorry you weren’t on board two years ago...)
What's different between now and then is that Mr. Krugman thought in 2016 that he might have a good shot at a plum job in the Clinton Administration. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling and transparent.
I'm all for Medicare for All but think that government employment guarantee is a pipe dream. How can a responsible party program include something that was never analyzed with hard numbers and tested on a small scale, let alone the fact that even back-on-envelope estimates by Krugman put its cost in the range 250 - 500bn? Sounds to me like 'universal income' that was tested in Europe and failed.
1
This is America and we better start looking out for the common man. We have money to spend on the trump clan but we have no money for medical care . The tide has turned people are awake and ideas are being studied no more we don’t have the money,
We have real problems and we want leaders who Are going to implement real solutions not happy talk for only one group of Americans.
35
Universal income failed? See "Finland Has Second Thoughts About Giving Free Money to Jobless People" from April 24, 2018 in NYTimes. Universal income didn't fail. The experiment was discontinued in Finland for political reasons. The data and analysis have not yet been published. [Also too... Finland effectively has universal income already... free university, free health care, generous unemployment benefits, etc.] Experiments continue in California, Canada, the Netherlands, and Kenya.
...
What will happen if Google-FB-Amazon-ATT-MS-Tesla really achieve full robotization? Economies will have to adapt. If mechanical slaves do all the work, what will we do? Skynet? Ready Player One? Reamde? Star Trek? Jetsons? Blade Runner? The Time Machine? I suspect a hybrid between the Jetsons and Blade Runner. A universal income at the poverty level will be necessary for any sort of social stability and a super elite self-driving themselves around on private toll roads and living in the penthouses. Of course, this is hardly a prediction. This is more or less our reality.
1
Reasonable sure. But the optics of tacking leftward are NOT a winning strategy for the Democrats. Better to embrace a moderate platform that will appeal to the swing voters repulsed by Trump.
5
This is not a sign of tacking leftward. It's only one congressional seat out of over 400. And there are already several Democratic senators and congresspeople with similar views. Although she deserves congratulations, the media has made too much of a national case out of her win.
18
Yeah, that strategy worked out so swimmingly in 2016. In the effort to appeal to voters that don’t actually exist, you alienate the overwhelmingly progressive youth vote.
Go join the GOP and turn them pro-choice so they can become just as liberal as DNC leadership.
24
What? Didn't we try this in 2016? And we lost?
Awesome that 3 years after smearing Sanders as a crazy lunatic with no substance in his proposals you have seen the light and a politician with the same platform or more radical is "reasonable".
Still, NYT should have simply hired someone actually progressive 3 years ago.
105
I think you are trying to impute more to this article than was meant.
It was chiefly a comparison of those on the "left" with those on the "right" who are labeled with terms denoting "extreme."
From the beginning, Professor Krugman notes that he has not seen much details in Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's policies; he does say that the subjects, which each have wide-ranging ideas on how to achieve some measure of them, are not at all as radical, or unacceptable, stripped of inflammatory labels, when actually implemented, to the majority of American citizens.
Professor Krugman did not oppose the objectives of Senator Bernie Sanders, but did point out the difficulties of actually implementing what he proposed, and pointed out that the proposals of Hillary Clinton were actually more easily achieved, at least with a less hostile Congress than she would have had to work with.
2
Dr. Krugman's moment to step up and be a progressive working class champion came when the NYTimes gave him an ultimatum to address the Occupy Wall Street protesters or be fired. His popularity at that time was so great that he could have left the Times and started his own blog. The great majority of his readers would have followed him there.
However, he capitulated and sold out the working class movement that saw him as an intellectual leader and stayed at the Times. This betrayal was only a prelude to his hit man smear job on Bernie Sanders and the progressive movement in the last presidential primary season.
Dr. Krugman, the days of straddling the fence middle of the roadism, bring the two sides together are over.
1
Absolutely.
I've been liking Michelle Goldberg. She's got some guts.
1
Socialism is the big catchword for anything a conservative does not like. Socialism by definition is the government ownership of the means of production, but just about any social program that improves the lives of all, is called socialism.
The Social Security act was called socialistic, and has been a target of the right since it was enacted. The same for medicare, and just about any public project that is no a private enterprise. Public transportation, even our national parks. We are seeing an attack on our public lands from the coalition of greed.
We see these programs in use in other countries and the work quite well. True they have to be paid for, and taxes are high by our standards.Taxes are an easy target, conservative politicians attack public profits by convincing taxpayers, they would have more to spend and be bettor off without them.
Our Republican candidate John Cox is using that argument about our gas tax. He says it costs the lower income more to commute, not taking into account what toll bad roadbeds take on their cars. The same argument for public transportation, it costs too much, forgetting the toll of long commutes on families and home life.
These arguments are right out of the "Americans For Prosperity," a Koch brothers funded organization. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is simply at the front of a movement we were discussing in the late 1950s in North Beach, we Beatniks were the Socialist radicals then, not so radical now.
27
Socialism is simply the social administration of the wealth created by society (or the collective products of labor). The current appropriation (actually concentration and centralization) of the means of production by few corporations creates the logistic basis for that step. Most people work and don’t own any means of production. I own my small apartment and bike, but they only serve as means of shelter and transportation. Most people work and acquire means of subsistence. So the scare you introduce in the concept is not justified by the reality of the increasing concentration of wealth (means of production - land, factories, commercial transportation companies, the digital and information technologies, and so on).
Socialism is more than just the technical aspects of the administration of social wealth. It is democracy at its fullest. Real participatory democracy instead of representative democracy.
Those who bring the scary ghosts of the gulag are only referring as something that usurped the name of socialism. In reality it was state capitalism at its best and inefficient system of wealth creation and distribution. Socialism needs full capitalist development. The Chinese , Soviet and other experiments were built on the grounds of feudalism, barely enough ground to develop adequate means of production.
6
Honestly, I'm baffled by this column as many other readers seem to be. But then again, I'm not.
Bernie is a real outlier, not part of the Ivy League world of Harvard and Yale and Wellesley. He probably doesn't have a home on Nantucket or Martha's Vineyard, he speaks with a thick, rather passe (in some homogenized circles) New York accent, he was raised in real poverty, unlike the fake poverty claimed by Hillary. He is passionate and genuinely aggrieved at injustice, not because he took a poll to see what stance was popular with what demographic but because he has experienced it firsthand and has empathy.
I honestly think that's why even Obama ended up embracing Hillary--more of a class thing than anything else. Obama was not exactly from the streets of Detroit, but grew up in Hawaii, had parents with PhD's, went to prep school and then Columbia, Harvard-- you know, the usual.
I think a lot of people, including Krugman, just couldn't abide anyone outside of the elite group that they are accustomed to mingling with.
It really wasn't the policies they objected to, it was the fact that he wasn't a part of their club.
50
Paul Krugman, as a recognized economist, could do a lot of good for Ocasio-Cortez's ideas by showing that Medicare for All might seem expensive, but if you consider all the waste in the current system and the benefits to Medicare for All, it's a bargain.
That waste includes: private insurance company profits with executives with multimillion dollar yearly compensations; the duplication of multiple health insurance coverage for many (working spouses both insuring themselves and each other; auto insurance, homeowners insurance, workers compensation all having a health insurance component; the finger pointing delays and paperwork needed by doctors and patients to deal with instances involving multiple insurances like auto accidents); the doctor's expense of complying with all the different private insurances.
The benefits of single payer means: no more networks requiring you to change doctors when your employer changes insurers (You go to any doctor and stay with them as long as you want); the government as the single payer can negotiate prices; rural areas with poorer populations can get a doctor because the doctor knows that everybody walking through the door has insurance and the doctor will get paid; the price of auto insurance should go down because it no longer has a health insurance component.
Somebody, like Paul Krugman, needs to add up all the savings in all the hidden places to show the benefits of Medicare for All.
20
While I share your general sentiments, I suspect that Krugman and Obama and HRC don't realize how elitist they actually are. They self congratulate each other for being successful, but their definitions of success are Ivy-diplomas and ribbons and honorary degrees. It is a self contained, circular argument. They are successful because they are Ivy and they are Ivy because they are successful. They say stuff like, "that's a good school." Meaning that it is an Ivy. They see the Ivy club as entrance into the exclusive zone of successful people. Everybody else gets man-splained and put into lower tiers.
....
How many awful people came out of Harvard-Yale-Princeton? The list is extensive. Type A, as in colon-relief-valve.
2
Either that, or more likely, Krugman was banking on a plum job with a Clinton administration.
1
Actually, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez also is notably for free education for all, as well. Basically, everything Bernie is for, she’s for. That, along with her other ideological aberrations place her beyond the pale with regard to most Americans if not necessarily TOO alien for most who live in the Bronx, so long as you don’t ask people who live too far up in the NORTH Bronx. I can’t say I feel unalloyed support for Steve King’s ideas, or even like the guy; but the likelihood that his convictions resonate with fewer Americans than hers or Bernie’s do is tantamount to wandering about in some dream-state.
This is the central identifying characteristic of liberals: they actually believe that their convictions are “pretty reasonable”, and that given the opportunity to ram gas-funnels down the throats of most “deplorables”, and pour all this “pretty reasonable” Kool-Aid down those throats until they explode, the fact that Republicans dominate our governance SO utterly at every level would … simply disappear as a bad dream does on a sunny day.
Dave Brat? The only reason he's remembered is that he’s the one who unseated Eric Cantor in a Republican primary, thereby killing a promising House career. And by now the likelihood that he would have supplanted Paul Ryan as Speaker if he still were there is FAR greater than Joe Crowley EVER had of replacing Nancy Pelosi, who gives every appearance of wishing to die in her job sometime in a distant, massively liver-spotted future. But explaining …
2
… the likely survival of Ocasio-Cortez’s attention-getting capacity while Brat molders away is that nobody (that I know of) ever accused him of having better legs than Cantor’s.
“Every advanced country … [with] some form of guaranteed health insurance” is either already on the economic ropes with its own NHS clone creaking and dragging them down, but also will find it almost impossible to respond positively to Trump’s call to contribute more to their OWN defense. Make no mistake about who actually pays for that guaranteed healthcare: the American taxpayer does and has for many decades. Perhaps if they concocted something more sustainable and DID contribute more to their own defense, we could eventually draw down our own military expenditures and concoct a better healthcare system for ourselves.
Dr. Krugman’s tentative problems with guaranteed employment schemes miss the point: their sole arguments to him are economic ones. The truth is that vast multitudes of Americans just don’t want government THAT involved in employment – the results of such planned economies offered SUCH wonderful examples of dismal failure throughout the 20th century.
But, first you argue that these ideas are NOT looney, then you argue that they’re “pretty reasonable”, and pretty soon some are convinced that a grand majority of Americans will conclude that it’s time to give them a try. And Bernie, with his new acolyte in NYC, are awarded halos.
Won’t happen.
5
"...while a jobs guarantee is probably further than most Democrats, even in the progressive wing, are willing to go, it’s a response to real problems, and it’s not at all a crazy idea."
The jobs idea is a loser from the start. I don't know what the cost to hire a minimum wage employee is, but, now days, it's pricey. And, a failure at one step, usually precludes advancement.
A background check. Drug test. Credit check. Education verification. Past employment. What are you trained to do now? Are you willing to relocate, at no cost to the government?
Once these questions are satisfactorily answered, you might only get 100,000 or 200,000 people working. Doing what? What equipment and supplies do they need? Who is going to supervise them? You might be better off paying them $10/hour to stay home. Than companies would have to keep the MW at at least $15/hour just to keep the workers.
Now, let's get rid of ICE. That will go over well. Why not fire the local cops? They just want kill young black men. And, empty out the jails. We'll save some cash there. Or put them on boats and send them to Venezuela. Castro did it.
5
The New Deal overcame all the obstacles you suggest and put millions of people back to work.
I don't think the idea is a loser. I rather pay people to work, rather than for doing nothing.
So let me see if I understand this... In 2016 Mr. Krugman insulted, berated, just plain said you were nuts if you backed Bernie Sanders.
Now a shiny new 28 year old walks through the door with a near identical platform, and its all "pretty reasonable".
Is it any wonder the Democrats can never seem to quite pull it together? This is just laughable! Please don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. But how are you supposed to take commentary like this seriously, given the history of its' author?
91
False equivalence. Krugman and most pundits supported Hillary because the alternative, Trump, was so bad (and proven so). Sanders lost the primary under existing rules and wasn't even a Democrat until he entered the primary. His followers that refused to vote for Hillary likely created Trump, with support from the Russians on both cases.
14
Bernie Sanders was nuts and continues to be nuts.
Move on.
Thousand mile hikes begin with the first step.
In the USA that is undoing years--decades, scores maybe centuries--of conceptual nonsense. The very categories/classifications out of which visions of reality and ideality are formulated.
Political proposals--their possibilities, impossibilities, probabilities, improbabilities, and even plausibilities, implausibilites (worth arguing about or not) are discussed like god stories--your "faith" against mine.
Reasonable/unreasonable are plausible/implausible--or even arguable/inarguable.
But when evidence and logic are irrelevant--ruled out of the political court--free-from law and logic marketing kicks in.
Trump's idea of arguing/reasoning is insult and spittle.
Such "freedom of speech" may be tolerable in back rooms; but they undermine public discourse--especially in diverse, pluralistic publics. E Pluribus Unum is replaced by raw majority tyranny.
Ideas are marketed--by blind brand loyalty--pro one brand, con all others--god stories as well as political platforms.
Indeed the god story market claims all ideals are possible only as god stories.
The entire Bible Belt buys this. The first step is is to dis-cover basic political classifications.
Right/left; progressive/conservative (Times favorites) are as uninformative as the brand names--Democrat/Republican/Catholic.
Capitalist/Socialist can be defined--see the Merriam Webster website.
Is democracy majority rule? Or good government--due process, due diligence, rule of law?
3
"Whether or not you support Ocasio-Cortez here, she’s advocating a more responsible policy than that actually enacted by Republican in Congress."
For at least the last three decades we have been forced to practice some form of trickle-down economics. The ravages of that policy - wage stagnation, ever widening inequality, ever increasing anxiety over job loss and catastrophic medical costs - are plain to see. Ocasio-Cortez is proposing something that is the opposite - a sort of trickle up process. Provide the poor and the middle class the means to a decent life, and the increased economic activity will benefit all, including the rich. It is worth trying.
25
You had the correct answer on health care 13 years ago. Why have you drifted so far to the right since then?
9
Sean,
But he's back now, defending Medicare for All. I hope he gets specific about his defense, as an economist could.
3
As I have been pointing out ad nauseam , history is blindly clear that a balanced federal budget is a bad idea: We don't have to poll economists to see that.
The federal government has balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than three years, and paid down the debt more than 10% in just six periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, and 1920-30. The debt was paid down 29%. 100%, 59%, 27%, 57%, and 38% respectively. A depression began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
10
"Either the government carries a debt or private enterprise carries a debt." And the results of a high debt load in private enterprise are deflation and depression.
5
Good piece, Mr. Krugman. I would like to add a few thoughts. First, the use of the word "radical" by those on the other end of the political spectrum is unfair and insulting. An individual who seeks equal treatment for others whether it is related to one's socio-economic group, ethnicity, race, religion, sexual identity, or gender, is far from radical. Rather s/he is about justice, about the need to constantly nurture the very roots of this grand Tree called Democracy.
Now, health care. This is something that as a retired RN I fought for under the Obama administration and will continue to fight for. Realizing that President Obama had the moderate Dems to contend with, also called Blue Dogs (remember them?), one of the biggest disappointments for me was eliminating the Public Option. It actually is an ideal theory, and folks need to focus on the word "option" and not just "public."
Finally, and I am not saying to oust very fine senators and representatives just because of their older ages, we are in the early years of a 21st Century. Our country's minorities have assimilated, are growing, and are an integral and necessary part of our national tapestry. And...we need young voices who represent best the complexities of a young century which is far, far different from our recent past one. A nation can not sustain itself if it is anachronistic and is resistant to progress.
17
The Democrats have a problem: Republicans tend to vote on principles and national and international issues; Democrat voters have to be bought. If Democrats want to turn out the vote they have to raise the price they're willing to pay for it. Their voters have this game figured out, they raise their price to see how high the Dems will jump to get the bait; we see this being played out in the current campaign. The Democrats are offering anything and everything including guaranteed employment (free money by another name), free healthcare, free higher education + unlimited immigration, relaxed law enforcement, (much beloved of minorities) -- anything, the sky's the limit--and a respectable economist like Mr. Krugman aiding and abetting. If the Founding Fathers are watching they must be shaking their heads; this is exactly how they did NOT intend American democracy to work.
6
Ronald, your difficulty is that you don't understand two simple facts. A reader, max,stated them in a reply to one of my comments:
"So much of our economic issues could be solved if people understood that the US cannot run out of money, and how hard it is to cause hyper-inflation from government spending alone."
Listen up Ron!
The first idea to learn is that gov operations, militarily, infrastructure, research, etc. are NOT paid for or limited by taxes or borrowing.
The gov doesn't need your money. It can (thru the FED) create as much as it needs out of thin air. Just think about where YOUR money came from in the first place. Unless you have a printing press in your basement, it came from the federal gov. (This isn't quite right. Banks can create a limited amount, but 2008 showed that is dangerous.)
But there's a catch. If the gov needs to create too much money to do the things we want it to do, we may not be able to make enough stuff to soak that money up & will have too much money chasing not enough stuff, i.e. excessive inflation.
But that's easy to solve & where taxes come in. Taxes allow the gov to take back the excess money & prevent inflation. The purpose of taxes is to adjust the amount of money in the private sector. That is what max is telling us.
Now if there are shortages, e.g. oil, we may produce so little, we can't tax enough. That's we we get hyperinflation.
The Founding Fathers did not know about fiat money and you should learn about it, Ron.
16
1. You devalue the usefulness, the necessity, actually -- of a social safety net for productivity in the economy. Without reliable medical care, the market doesn't work so well. Libertarianism -- really, just prettified laissez-faire capitalism-- is the effort to deny this simple fact
2. You completely overestimate the "thinking" behind Republican policies. Pretty sure this guy is going to Russia to complete his side of a very corrupt bargain.
12
@ Len Charlap, @ Jim Hassinger: I can see I'm really getting hammered! Somehow, I suspect the thing that makes unlimited government spending appear to work is that the U.S. produces the world currency, so we get to 'export' inflationary pressures as foreign entities buy our debt securities at reasonable interest rates to serve as part of their own monetary base and the medium of world trade. Since we borrow and pay our debts in dollars it looks like a foolproof arrangement. If we could count on this go on forever I would agree that government spending is harmless, but, sooner or later world conditions change. Our credit card is unlimited only as long as we continue to produce the world currency. I imagine that will go on through your lifetimes and mine, but it is probably not a permanent state of affairs. At some point we will have to share that privilege with competitors (China; others?), then the game is up. International bond vigilantes will switch out of dollar denominated debt when they see us acting irresponsibly. Interest rates will rise, inflation will reignite, belts will have to be tightened, benefits cut; social and political upheaval. Why not act responsibly to begin with, why wait until we become a gigantic Greece with no World Bank big enough to bail us out? The Democrats seem not to care about this, they vote based only on who will drop a check in their mailbox.
Someone on twitter juxtaposed Krugman's denigration of Bernie who advocated for Medicare for All, free college and increased minimum wage alongside today's Krugman column praising Ms. Ocasio-Cortez for advocating for the same things. Are we supposed to take the NYT seriously anymore?
https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1014237071773392896
12
So really Mr. Krugman's sole argument in favor of "guaranteed federal jobs" is that, instead of going to people of wealth that somehow invest, and that said investment could create jobs or increase wages, he'd rather entrench a select number of people in lifetime jobs for the already massive US government, at a time when unemployment is at it's usual lows, excuse me if I fail to see a solution to problems by increasing the size of a bureaucracy.
3
Actually Carlos a job guarantee program was proposed by good old Tom Paine in 1797. The federal gov would become the employer of last resort. It would guarantee a decent job or paid training for such a job to everyone able to work. The economy works best when people are working, producing, and spending.
There are plenty of things that need to be done--fixing roads & bridges, education, research etc. BTW there are plenty of support jobs in education and research that do not require a degree. As with unemployment benefits today, you could require each worker to show that he had applied for a comparable private sector job periodically.
How would we pay for it?
A) It would to a certain extent pay for itself.
1. When people are working, producing, & spending, they pay more taxes than when they are out of work. The money they spend provides jobs for others who also spend & pay taxes.
2. We could reduce much of what we currently spend on welfare.
3. It would raise private sector wages and thus taxes.
B) We could raise income tax rates on the Rich as we did during the Great Prosperity of 1946 - 1973. This would not only raise revenue, it would reduce inequality and financial speculation, both of which are bad for the economy.
C) We could sell Treasury bonds both to the public locking in low interest and to the FED which returns the interest.Since we would be producing more, there would be little inflation.
See http://www.levyinstitute.org/topics/job-guarantee
14
Please stop using the term: '' radical '' when describing anyone that is unequivocal in their beliefs about human rights and equality for all.
It is not radical to want a decent living wage for a fair day's work, nor is it radical to want front end health care, which is a human right to all. ( getting triage in an emergency room is not health care )
It is not radical to want clean water, earth or air to breathe, nor is it radical to want to belong to a society that has a fair taxation policy of you making more, and then paying more taxes progressively to contribute back to the society and infrastructure, that allowed you to progress in the first place.
It is not radical to want peace, instead of endless wars and a ridiculously high percentage of your taxes going to a bloated MIC, nor is it radical to not want babies be separated from their mothers. ( regardless of where they come from )
It is completely normal to want all of these things ( and more ), and it is radical for all those that do not.
These terms matter in the war of words that the right wages.
202
I'm not sure that $15/hr is quite so unprecedented. Certainly it isn't if you compare past wages with productivity. If the minimum wage which was prevalent from instantiation through 1968, which was approximately adjusted by productivity over that period, had continued to be adjusted by productivity, the minimum wage today would be over $20/hr.
11
Right Kimberly!
From 1948 to 1979, worker productivity rose 108%, and real hourly worker compensation increased 93%. And we had Great Prosperity.
From 1979 to 2013, worker productivity rose 64%, and real hourly compensation rose just 8%.
The difference?
From 1978 to 2013, real CEO compensation increased 937% while real worker pay increased just 10% and similar figures hold for all executives.
24
"allowing individuals and employers to buy into Medicare – basically a big public option. That’s really not radical at all."
Yes! Finally. Thank you Paul, this idea is called radical because the people who make radical profits off of the least efficient medical care system in the word- BY FAR, want Americans to believe that it is a radical an unobtainable dream of the extreme left.
Meanwhile the majority of Americans are currently in favor of universal Medicare, as are the majority of American doctors, according to the only legitimate poll I've seen on the subject.
The profiteers of our health care, low minimum wage, bloated military budget, extreme high incarceration rates want us to believe that their corruption is good for America and the reasonable middle path, when, in fact, it is only good for them. And at that, only in the short run. Without a vibrant middle class in the U.S., their hustle is over. Their profits are at the direct expense of that middle class.
64
In 1950 the USA spent less than 1/2% of the GDP for medical care.
Now US medical care costs are over 18% of the GDP, growing rapidly, and is predicted to be 20% in the next few years.
How much can the taxpayers of this nation afford to spend on Medical Care before this nation becomes bankrupt?
I am a fiscal conservative, but I am now in favor of National Socialized healthcare, like the European “Nanny States,” rather than rely on local taxpayers to pay for healthcare for US citizens and illegal immigrants who are without health insurance.
US taxpayers are already paying for most all of the nation’s healthcare right now. Local taxes create and support local free hospitals (ala our Harris County Hospital District taxes here in Houston, Texas) providing free medical care for the people from anywhere that cannot otherwise afford medical care or do not have insurance. Other Hospitals raise their charges to cover the costs of other patient care costs that are not paid by the patient or otherwise not collectable.
Free Medical Care seems to now be considered to be a US government provided right, like Freedom of Speech and the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness!
There are real limits to how much of the GNP that can the taxpayers afford to pay for any kind of national taxpayer paid for healthcare in addition to paying for the other US government activities before the US national government becomes bankrupt!
3
In 1950, there was a lot less medical care could do. Many people did not get any health care at all. And too, now we have Big Pharma. The cost of Viagra just went up to about $80 a pill. Which is a "what the market can bear" price, not a "the costs of making it went up" price.
5
So... Medicare for all was not “politically feasible” when Bernie was running on it, but now it’s “not radical”. While those two descriptions aren’t mutually exclusive, you’re clearly taking a more accommodative stance. When Bernie proposed it you harshly criticized him for lack of a detailed plan. Ocassio provides no more detail, but for her you choose to fill in the blanks (which is what a good policy wonk should do). I can’t blame the establishment media for playing catch a rising star (though I’m proud to say I contributed to her campaign long before NYT knew she existed) I would demand more consistency however regarding Bernie if he chooses to run for president again.
9
The sad thing is, you don't even know what a whiny and negative vibe you're putting out. Yes, you didn't win everything your first time in the arena. Very seldom do new movements which didn't exist 6 months before the election succeed. Can't you possibly look at it as, okay, we had an impact, and now it's being looked at? Because that's true. And it's also true that we now have next to nothing left to build on, which wasn't true until Trump was elected. Think politically.
6
Radical Democrats are reasonable indeed but they should stay away from presenting themselves as socialists. Right or wrong, that word has negative connotations for many Americans and it could prove disastrous at the ballot box.
There are many ways to campaign for their issues without setting themselves up for yet another failure.
2
Well, it may help you to know that Bernie set up an organization called "My Revolution." I don't know if any of them won their primaries. There were a bunch of people directly endorsed by Bernie, but a handful won. What's different about Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is that she is a very good candidate. And she's in the Bronx, along with the media.
3
No. It's called Our Revolution. Get facts straight.
The national taxable wealth and the taxable payroll checks for US citizens (and illegal aliens) in the USA that are created and owned by non-government businesses, corporate businesses, and non-government private individual businessmen is (almost) the only source of wealth available for any nation's government to forcibly take or confiscate a portion of in the form of taxes in order for those governments to raise funds to pay for all of their bureaucratic government bureaucratic employee payrolls, infrastructure improvements, wars, welfare, guaranteed income, unemployment benefits, government contracts, other government benefits, and other government activities, except for funds that the government raises by borrowing money or actually printing and selling US Treasury Bonds that offer our private businesses as collateral and obligates our children and future unborn generations to work harder than ourselves to repay these bonds when these Bonds become due.
The amount of money that the US Federal Government can borrow, using privately owned businesses as collateral, and then spend on WEALTH CONSUMING government activities and infrastructure IS THEREFORE LIMITED to a portion of the amount of existing national taxable wealth that the wealth creating businesses previously created that is still available to be confiscated by the US government to pay for government activities, and to be available as collateral security for any new public debt.
2
Your whole account of government is deeply flawed. We are now a big country. We need a big government. Or do you want to slash Defense like you want to slash health care?
8
Wait a minute, Paul - you accused Bernie Sanders of being unreasonable and unrealistic in the '16 campaign, but now you're hailing Ocasio-Cortez as reasonable? Are you just a hypocrite, or have you finally seen the light?
17
The difference is back then, he thought he had the prospect of a job under a Clinton administration.The hyocrisy disgusts me.
So. Dr. Krugman, what is your opinion on the universal basic income? If you have ever commented on it, I can’t find it.
Cortez’s immigration and social welfare platforms would be apocalyptic. She talks about immigration policy with 'heart.' What she means is mass 3rd would migration; mainly Hispanic. Latin American socialism in the USA. Paul leaves this out, of course.
4
She said "heart" as contrast to the Trump catastrophe taking lace at the border. Let's see I interpret it to mean NO "zero tolerance" policy for people claiming asylum. They should have a hearing, with a lawyer present. "All persons" shall have due process, not just those who are citizens. And children should not be separated from their parents. As for what you think she means, and the horror show you imagine will happen, you know, right-wingers were always certain that we were all "coming to take your guns." Actually, there are just some common-sense measures to make sure that fewer people would die every year from gunfire. You speak about it as if it was depriving people of their guns. Unless you want to protect felons or the mentally ill -- or gun smugglers -- then you have nothing to fear.
8
She hasn't released an enforcement plan. What do you think it'll look like Jim? Most of the asylum claims are bogus. And you know it. If your okay with our current system that's great. If you think it's appropriate taxpayers subsidize refugee care and fund lawyers, etc for anyone who can swim the Rio Grande - very generous of you. However, our immigration system hurts vulnerable Americans. Liberals like you use to care. But 'those people' - they're poor, mainly white - and you have the African American vote cornered.
A giant LOL on this one Paul. Remember when you used to say mean things about Bernie Bros? Basically, for two years? Well, during those years, Alexandria was campaigning for Bernie. She's a Bernie Bro!
49
It seems to me that, in this article, Professor Krugman has damned Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with faint praise.
There's a lot to be said for universal health care and better wages. However, Ocasio--Cortez's style and policy positions strike me as somewhat demagogic. I wonder whether she has any idea how to *secure and implement* the policies she espouses. Talk is cheap.
1
She's a 28-year old candidate for congress. She's not running for president. She won her election and has proven to be very adept at establishing her positions in public. Also, she's being gracious with the party, and they're being gracious to her. You might read Think Progress's Medicare Plus plan, which goes some way towards thinking about implementation. Who could apply for Medicare? Large corporations might want to keep their private, even self financed, plans. Small business might just sign up for the public plan. It would surely be good for Original Medicare, because you'd have a lot of money coming in that would be from healthier contributors. Technicians and economists can look after the details. Selling it to the public depends on politicians. It really should be a lot easier sell than you think. Canada has the most expensive public plan, and they pay half of what we do.
5
Krugman is so far left that anyone who squeezes into the little space remaining left of him must seem "pretty reasonable".
But lets give her a term or two to see if she actually accomplishes anything.
5
First of all, Krugman mis-characterizes Ms. Ocasio-Cortez position. She supports Medicare for all, not the "public option." I'm always amused by those wondering how we'll pay for something that costs half as much as we're already spending.
The Job Guarantee is straight out of Hyman Minksy's playbook (and, in addition to the WPA, has been tried before internationally).
Even if (big "if") a Job Guarantee is going to cost a half trillion dollars, we had no compunction about spending $3 - $7 trillion on illegal wars in the Middle East, or extending $16 - $29 trillion in credit to the Wall Street Ponzi capitalists whose frauds caused the Great Recession (the figures are from the Fed's audit). Government buys surplus crops and cheese all the time. Why not buy surplus labor? (Answer: Because it reduces "labor discipline"--i.e. workers' willingness to take whatever crappy job is on offer, under threat of poverty, homelessness or even starvation. Reducing social safety nets is the whip in the hand of our plutocratic masters.)
So...Wall Street and wars, or helping people. Hmmm. Which do I choose?
15
Her personality has confidence, clear eyes, and the spirit of joy. She writes clearly, one of the best.
She is an economics major and is already talking about the gini coefficient. She wants to know what the plan to avoid another midwest flop. She has vision; months ago she was a waitress and bartender--and her peers didn't have health insurance.
She protects her flanks, speaking respectfully and with good will about the incumbent. Hers is the vision of the Beloved Community, its pillars of healthcare, housing, and education. She is authentic. A voice of merit. "Respect the hustle."
144
Walter Rhett,
Please allow me to associate myself with your remarks. Your statement that she "is already talking about the gini coefficient" was the closer. I think she will do a lot of good. From what I have seen thus far her authenticity will be persuasive to her caucus.
If she reads your comment and Dr. K's column, I think she has a beautiful opportunity to inspire others of merit who are seeking a good government. I have granddaughters and a grandson her age and I am hopeful that they can feel her energy and commitment to the well being of our society.
7
"Oh, yeah? Well, even our 'radicals' are better'n you guys' bestest guys! So, there!" ... What you're saying, in essence, is that while these policies are bad, at least they mean well; as opposed to Republicans, who only want to cut taxes for corporations and millionaires. Some of the most destructive acts in history were carried out by people with good intentions. What is it they say about the path to hell? You shouldn't be encouraging liberals to think that it's okay to navigate by the heart instead of the head and to imagine that the worthiness of a policy should be based on its aspirations. Soon enough, not a single Democrat in the legislature will have the guts to stand against any of these proposals. And when that happens, you'll be able to write a column with the exact opposite title: "Reasonable Democrats are Pretty Radical."
But, golly gee, she sure does seem like a nice young lady.
2
You’re making it sound like she’s Joseph Stalin.
The health care expansion is something every major country, almost all with lower GDP per capita than the US, have managed to do for decades at a fraction of the cost we spend on healthcare. And yes, savings and efficiency aside, it’d be cool to have everyone have access to healthcare from a purely humanitarian point as well - luckily the two goals aren’t at odds.
What about this screams “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” to you?
11
Where does he say these are bad policies? I see an endorsement of one, and a discussion that the other may be a little two ambitious, but cheaper than the just-passed tax cut.
The positive impact in reduced need for public assistance and increased tax receipts from people who now have living wage jobs would be very significant, plus the multiplier effect of people who spend pretty much every dollar they make.
4
Winstong Churchill's own words from 1944 below.. and I don't believe that anybody saw him as a radical :-)
"our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country irrespective of means, age, sex or occupation shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available.”
3
I grew up in Yorktown from the 1960’s through the 80’s and for several years have resided in the Queens part of the 14th congressional district where Ocasio Cortez will be my representative so I’ve had my feet in both places for most of my life. When I attended Yorktown schools they were and still are to this day fairly socioeconomically diverse. Think the Linklater film Dazed and confused in suburban NYC instead of Austin, Texas. You attended classes with the children of police and fire officials, civil servants as well as IBM executives and those who commuted to Madison Avenue and Wall Street.
Many people like her father made the move from the city for a better quality of life for their families while still having family and friends connections to the five boroughs of NYC. The modest two bedroom home she lived in were once winterized bungalows and are a far cry from a McMansion.
We benefited from a decent amount of federal largess (Socialism!) be it highway , parks and HUD redevelopment funds for a section of town including some nice garden apartments next to the old rail depot and museum. IBM benefited from a fair amount of federal research and development funding and NASA grants. None of it was controversial and much of it was due to the work of moderate Republicans like our congressman Hamilton Fish jr. The soon to be congresswoman views are well within this realm.
21
As usual, Mr. Krugman doesn't get it. I haven't had progressive values in forty years. But when there was all the fuss about Ms. Ocasio- Cortez, I checked it out. Based upon her campaign platform and public statements, it is clear to me that she is one smart cookie. Maybe even extraordinary. But the fact that she is extraordinary is no reason to believe that other Radical Democrats are extraordinary. In fact, some of them are left wing versions of the Tea Party.
6
You need an education. It seems to me that ideology stands between you and the real world.
8
All the media attention on Ms Ocasio-Cortez is interesting, because there are plenty of other members of Congress with similar left leaning views. Rep Pramila Jayapal of WA 7th congressional district is one who was elected recently; Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren in the Senate, etc. She is not especially radical and why it should be shocking that someone with these views should represent a very Democratic borough in NYC is not clear. OK, she defeated the more establishment Crowley (who ever heard of him anyway?), and she deserves lots of credit for her win. But it doesn't necessarily reflect some huge change for Democrats.
2
Talk about crazy!
Grover Norquist founded Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) in 1985 with the stated goal, according to Norquist, of reducing “government to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub.” In furtherance of this goal, ATR requires that any politician who seeks its support sign a pledge to “oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes.” The overwhelming majority of Republican politicians have signed this pledge since it was instituted 1986, and Democrats have refused to make this pledge a campaign issue.
The failure of Democrats to make this pledge a campaign issue made it possible for Republicans to argue that Americans are overtaxed and that all we have to do to provide the government we want is to lower taxes and eliminate government regulations and waste.
The extent to which politicians have come to embrace it is truly amazing. This is particularly so when you think about what Norquist is saying when he says he wants to drown the government in a bathtub. He’s saying that he wants to destroy the American government. The idea that we can save the country by destroying the government is utterly absurd on its face and totally out of touch with reality. And, yet, Norquist and his conservative friends, with the acquiescence of liberal/progressive Democrats who refuse to make this pledge a campaign issue, are well on their way to accomplishing this end. See: http://www.rweconomics.com/IVR.htm
39
It is past time to question the sanity of capitalism, the system designed to make as much money as possible without the least regard to who gets hurt or how badly. The entrepreneurs Reagan lionized have brought us things like private prisons which incentivize criminalizing and imprisoning as many people as possible. The S word needs to come out of the shadows.
12
Bottom line We MUST have control of the House AND Senate to STOP the destruction wrought by trump and his republican enablers.
Whatever it takes to WIN. The stakes could not be higher nor more dire.
Even though I am sympathetic to the 'radical left' goals, I doubt going all in with that approach gets US the WIN.
Therefore for once DEMOCRATS MUST be SMART and Shrewd. UNITE. Turnout in force and VOTE. Worry about what programs to save or initiate AFTER we HAVE Control of the House AND Senate.
Otherwise we are condemned to repeat the disaster of 11/9.
Need I remind US that people who voted for Jill stein and gary johnson HELPED give the presidency to trump. So did the Bernie or busters who refused to vote for Hillary. Of course there's plenty more blame to go around: comey, Russians, republican voter suppression AND gerrymandering, Wikileaks, citizens united, etc., etc.
Without an Overwhelming Democratic TURNOUT especially in Red states we won't be able to circumvent the extensive republican CON Game.
That's the TRUTH
8
Stop blaming Jill Stein & Gary Johnson voters. Their impact on the last Presidential election were inconsequential.
Stop blaming "Bernie or busters". Like the Stein & Johnson voters their votes were inconsequential.
Blame James Comey for interfering with the Presidential election --against the advise of Justice Department's ethicists; and Blame Hillary Clinton herself for not shoring up her base, and for not hustling more. She took herself for granted, until she realized, too little, too late that she needs to hustling harder. Hillary Clinton, on voters supporting Trump, was recorded laughing, "Who'd vote for that guy?"
Hillary Clinton won a plurality of the popular vote. If she hustled & shored up her base in key Rust Belt States (advice from both Michael Moore and her husband, Bill Clinton), she would have secured 270 or more Electoral College votes.
4
"Howard,"
May I remind you that Gary Johnson is a Libertarian, which is a far-right movement.
If anything, votes for Johnson reduced the votes for Trump, not Clinton.
Keep assuaging your guilt by telling yourself that third party voters were inconsequential. They elected Trump - pretty consequential in my book.
1
"So next time you hear someone on the right talk about the “loony left,” or some centrist pundit pretend that people like Ms. Ocasio-Cortez are the left equivalent of the Tea Party, ignore them."
Their comments aren't directed to us.
They are intended to rile up the base, make them fearful that after the Democrats come for their guns they are going to put M13 members in every school, forbid the practice of religion, doom them to 3rd-world levels of healthcare, and bankrupt the economy.
3
You have to love Mr. Krugman’s through-gritted-teeth endorsement of Socialist economic pie-in-the-sky: “pretty reasonable”. Of course, he soundly demolished the same ideas during the Democratic primary.
Mr. Krugman, you look pretty contrite and the leftist activists might me pretty satisfied. Unless you commit heresy again by thinking like an economist grounded in reality.
4
Compared to what Republicans want to do, for sure, very reasonable.
7
I am in California, the world's fifth largest economy. We get called loony and crazy all the time. I have even heard it from people who should know better, like Chris Mathews. Have I mentioned yet that we are the world's fifth largest economy. Perhaps Chris Mathews and others like him should improve their life by being California crazy.
13
Keith,
I gave up watching Chris Matthews and also Rachel Maddow when neither one could give Bernie Sanders' ideas a fair hearing in the 2016 primaries. They both thought Sanders was just crazy and Hillary Clinton was the only possible candidate. Look what that got us.
4
Bernie Sanders and his constant lying about HRC and her accomplishments is why we have Donnie Dorko as President.
Bernie Sanders lost the primary because he was just another old white guy with the same bad ideas that no one would or could pay for. He wasn’t the answer and she wasn’t coronated as evidenced by your lack of willingness to accept the blame for Trump.
4
You may be the 5th economy but you still have thousands of homeless people on the streets, increasing by the day. Oh and then there's the prisons. All packed. Unlike any other advanced economy in the globe. And the health system, putrid. Progressive tax, progressive thinking, solidarity, social democracy, these things don't come easy to the average American mind. Astonishing, all this talk about whether "socialism" is good or bad; it is as if we never received a proper political education. But who cares really, because the "economy is good."
3
If your views don’t differ from those of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, then why not have her courage to embrace socialism?
8
The idea that the corporate puppets of the Democratic Party establishment would ever offend their capitalist bosses by advocating even such mild Social Democratic nostrums as Mr. Krugman details is completely unrealistic.
4
I am appalled at the adulation suddenly bestowed upon Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I can't understand why she is lauded in the media as the new look and savior of Democrats, who in the 2016 election saw that socialism (Bernie) and Democrats don't mix. Here is Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's printed campaign platform:
- Medicare for all
- Universal jobs guarantee
- Tax Wall Street to support tuition-free higher/vocational education
- Paid family/sick leave
- End war on drugs
- Demilitarize police
- Abolish for-profit prisons
- Protect DREAMERs and TPS recipients, simplify paths to citizenship, and abolish ICE
- Invest in 100% renewable green industry
- End corporate finance in public elections
Unfunded pie in the sky, though I do hope her win will shake up the ossified Democrat leadership.
We know how Democrats and Trumpers will vote, so we should focus on undecideds and moderates. Calling Ivanka Trump a vile name, saying that Barron Trump should be locked up with pedophiles, and tossing a senior White House staffer out of a restaurant can only convince the undecideds and moderates to vote for Trump and Republicans because Democrats seem so wacky and disgusting.
No need to slither into the muck with the Trumpers; we can win in November and in 2020 on our merits. However, we will lose if the Democrats' platform includes planks supporting the termination of ICE or turning over the means of production to the workers.
3
We'll have plenty of money if cut down defense spending to one billion dollars a day.
57
Seems very reasonable to me especially with deep cuts of the defense
7
70% of doctors in the US do not accept new patients on Medicare because, according to them, Medicare does not pay enough to make it worth. This is the obstacle that expanding Medicare in California hit; more people get it, but it’s not really worth what you think.
Obviously, if you go to Medicare for all, you force the doctors to accept Medicare, since there will be no other choice. How do you think the doctors will react to this ? How do you think the 156 million Americans who have insurance through work will like this ?
The mantra of the fresh Socialist converts is “you’re going to keep what you have, it’s even going to be better, and everybody will have it”. Really ? So it’s just as easy, we were for decades just one step away from it, probably it’s just the evil corporations that kept us from reaching this Nirvana.
You want a sound rebuttal of all these economic fairy tales ? Read Paul Krugman’s articles on the topic, written during the primary. Krugman’s allegiances have changed since then, but economic reality has not.
4
How will doctors react? Badly at first, as ordinary citizens react when they learn that their insurance premium is going up again 20- 30 %? Well, according citizens experience, after initial shock doctors will adjust to making less money. They can negotiate with Medicare to arrive to prices that will be reasonable for both sides. How will Americans with health insurance from employers react? Depends on what kind of insurance their employer provides. Some will be glad to switch, other will be not so much in beginning, but eventually Americans learn to love Medicare for all, as they did with SS.
6
I’m glad to hear that the doctors will just accept to make less money; after all, they’re just filthy bourgeois. But what if some don’t see the light and just quit ?
As for “all Americans will learn to love Medicare for all”, I have no doubt a way will be found to teach people what’s good for them. In the country I came from, after just 200,000 murdered and two millions in concentration camps, people would take whatever the Socialist Republic would through at them, no fuss.
2
And what the doctors will do after quitting? Flipping burgers in McDonald's for 7$ per hour? surely, it will attract tons of the doctors. On the other hand medical schools are full, so I don't think it will be difficult to find the replacement. And in your country was it Medicare for all who executed people and send them in camps? Strange, because right now there are plenty of countries that have universal health care and do not execute their citizens and do not send them in camps.
2
We support what Ms. Ocasio-Cortez advocates, and will vote for those Progressive policies whenever we get the chance - but those policies will resonate in some local and state elections before they are viable in others, and in national elections the ridiculously conservatively-biased Electoral College has to be dragged along.
So, the question becomes whether Progressives will continue to shoot themselves in the foot in national elections as Dr. K. reminded we did in Florida in 2000 with Ralph Nader, and as he forewarned regarding 3rd party candidates in 2016 - where 130,000+ Progressive voters for Jill Stein in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania gave the Electoral College victory of 77,000+ votes in those states to the Orange Jabberwock:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/19/opinion/vote-as-if-it-matters.html
We will vote for policies Ms. Ocasio-Cortez (and many others) triumph - but until those policies can win nationally, Progressives must fall in line behind the 'not perfect' national candidate (there are no perfect candidates) who meantime 'hold the fort' keeping GOP'ers from tearing apart the safety net, afflicting the afflicted and further comforting the comfortable, making the job even harder for the day Progressive policies can be implemented.
The teachable moments of 2000 and 2016 should not be ignored; they are not in the dim distant past of some long ago century.
7
When the “not perfect” progressive policies become the average, would the centrist pro corporate Democrat leadership support them? Or like what’s happened before throw them under the proverbial bus?
2
R. Law,
The Bernie Bashers have it backwards.
Sanders did not steal votes from Clinton.
The Clinton campaigne's adoption of some of Sanders' policies drove many progressives to vote for her, giving her that three-million-vote margin.
2
What the heck? You are suggesting that we try running a corporate centrist again? After what happened in 2016 when we ran the corporate centrist queen herself? Unbelievable. It didn't work.
"Radical" leftists won't get what it wants but are critical to moving implicit and explicit negotiations to shifting policies to the left. The right-wing did this for years and the pendulum is long-overdue to swing.
5
The combined ideal vision of the founding fathers of America included Thomas Jefferson’s first public school and Benjamin Franklin’s first public hospital and first public library, all of which represented systems of sharing public money. They thus promoted mixed capitalism, and broke us out of the mold of two-tiered monarchy capitalism, at the same time as extolling the virtues of capitalism, as the economic model of the new world.
They set the precedent for our country, not today’s gop rightists who are quickly returning us to the monarchy capitalist model, which closely resembles the old southern confederacy. Confederacy was prewarned of in Federalist No.2. Knowingly or not, Republican voters are chasing after a vision closer to Jefferson Davis’s than Thomas Jefferson’s. The extremists are ones veering far from the ethical models put forward by America’s true founding fathers. Remember that Franklin’s hospital would take in all who needed help from the streets of Philadelphia, and it was funded despite the private doubts of aristocrats who didn’t think it could possibly work - but it did.
6
1) A bad analogy. There are plenty of places in the Midwest where a moderate Democrat can and has won office. When was the last time a moderate Republican won in the Bronx?
2) There is actually quite a bit of evidence that higher minimum wastes DO reduce employment at the lower wage levels, all else being equal - some of it from recent wage hikes in places like Seattle. I will concede however that the evidence is not conclusive either way.
Check out the link to the official platform below before you decide if her views are "radical" or not...
Only rightist biased surveys conclude that raising the MW reduces employment. You want to fix it? Make overtime premium pay a real penalty to the employer,as it was originally intended. The half-time premium pay was expected to be so onerous to employers that they would hire additional staff rather than pay it. Let's make it onerous again. Instead of paying 3 or 4 times the regular rate to a few employees the employer would hire more people to cover those hours. So the worker gets a raise and his 40-hour workweek back, two more workers are hired, and the boss actually saves money.
2
Except there is no such thing as Medicare for all.
It's Medicaid for All.
Nice try to repackage it..and resell it...but we're not buying it.
"If we expanded Medicaid [to] everybody. Give everybody a Medicaid card—we would be spending such an astronomical sum of money that, you know, we would bankrupt the nation." Bernie Sanders
2
Erica,
Not so.
Medicare is paid for through a national payroll tax and premiums.
Medicaid is piad for by the states, with a boost from the federal government.
3
To my earlier post about Socialist Democrats wanting Medicaid for All...and coopting the Medicare name for packaging purposes.... think of this.
Sanders says Medicaid for All would bankrupt the nation.
Medicaid, notably, is far less generous than Medicare, the health program for seniors that Sanders wants to expand
2
Everyone else manages decent healthcare, what is it that makes Americans so uniquely unable to do the same?
Not only does the UK's NHS offer universal care, it takes less money (as a percentage of GDP) to do it than the US government spends on healthcare, regardless of the ridiculous sums that Americans have to spend privately. If you adopted the same model, you'd have zero health insurance costs, better care, higher economic productivity AND lower taxes.
It simply doesn't wash to claim as impossible something that's done as a matter of absolute everyday routine in other countries.
8
Erika,
There is no proposal for Medicaid for all, nor would Medicare for all be free, as Medicaid is.
Medicare for all would be paid for just as it currently is, through payroll taxes and modest premiums.
It would be possible to eliminate premiums with a slightly higher Medicare tax. But een that increase would be unnecessary if the taxes Americans already paid were to be used to extend life rather than end it through spending for war.
2
I wouldn't call Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a Radical Democrat, unless FDR and LBJ were Radical Democrats. She is very much in their tradition. Her objective is to have a nation where no one is starving and anyone who works can bring in a living wage. She believes that the people should have the power, not just the small percentage who are rich. And she is willing to work with others to come up with workable solutions. I call this progressive, not radical.
I'd also like to emphasize that Medicare is a program that includes deductibles, and it does not cover everything. I, like most other seniors who can afford it, pay for a supplemental policy — Medigap it's called, from a private insurer — that covers what Medicare does not. This system is affordable and works very well for me. I can see it as a solution for the entire population.
8
My family moved to England in 1979, so I've seen socialism. Back then, they had state owned oil companies, steel mills, railroads, airlines, telephone companies, aircraft manufacturers, car manufacturers and coal mines. I remember striking miners fighting it out with police on the picket lines. Real socialism didn't work all that well, and by the end of the 80s, the British had dismantled most of it.
American millennials have no idea what socialism actually was, and so they are able to completely redefine the term. Ms Ocasio-Cortez's definition of a society where no one is too poor to live is really just European style social democracy. Some of what she is proposing is nutty, but quite a lot wouldn't be particularly left wing outside the US.
On healthcare, the radical position is that of the US Republican party, which insists that there has to be a free market, private enterprise solution. No other advanced country does it that way because it doesn't work. The British never dismantled their socialist National Health System, which has evolved into one of the most efficient systems in the world. Healthcare is a weird area of the economy where government solutions are more efficient than free market private sector ones.
UK minimum wage is $10.31 per hour, which is higher than the US rate of $7.25, although apprentices can be paid less. $15 / hour might be a stretch, but raising the minimum wage isn't that radical.
Free college also isn't that radical elsewhere. (cont)
5
The UK used to have free universities, and students were paid a grant to cover living costs. However, the entrance exams were hard and far fewer people went. College is still free in places like Denmark. My guess is that the US has the most expensive universities in the industrialized world at the moment. Cheaper college shouldn't be a particularly radical position.
So a fair number of Ms O-C's positions are not far-left. The problem, is how is she going to pay for it? That's the hard part, and like most socialists she doesn't have a plan for that. The Trump tax cut cost $280 billion per year, so if it that was completely repealed she would have some money to make a start. However, Ms O-C's full program would cost....well, does she even know?
2
No such thing as free. And the US colleges, while expensive, are generally considered to be the best in the world.
1
A former Bernie Sanders volunteer, waitress, hardly starving for anything, and having taken advantage of the exceptional opportunities of this country, hardly makes for a radical-- more like a better messenger that old white haired Bernie. Radical is the Modern Feminist Manifesto-- where women are paid for all their labor. Where women who allow their bodies to be used as carriers of our children, receive a subsidy for their contributions to a greater more productive society. Where older women, who have raised their children, serviced their communities, receive parity in SS benefits of a working spouse and tax credits for every hour of unpaid labor donated, a deduction against any earned family income taxes, tax free access to feminine hygiene products, free family planning, including but not limited to birth control and sterilization as an insured medical procedure, and some white male judge's discretion. How about fair funding for education, equally, regardless of which tax district country club county you live? Nationally subsidized childcare for families so all eligible and wanting workers can work with dignity and fair wages. And because women are under violent attack,guns law that absolutely remove guns from cops and domestic abusers who have exhibited any sign of violence-- a zero tolerance standard as a baseline instead of relegating violence against women as "domestically" protected. A law that classifies domestic violence terrorism, finally. Radical, where?
10
It's nice to see that Dr. Krugman is somewhat in Ms. Ocasio-Cortez' corner, if only in a back-handed way. She holds a degree in economics, btw.
There is nothing radical about Democratic Socialism. Most so-called advanced nations' democratically-elected governments are run by Democratic Socialists of one stripe or another including those Scandinavian countries Krugman has so fondly written about in the not too distant past. A strong social safety net and policies that look out for one's citizenry are not radical ideas. In a nation in which education is delivered equally, to all, concepts like justice, civil rights, human rights, and basic human decency and cooperation aren't foreign terms to at least one half of the nation, nor are basic historical facts so controversial, that we can't talk about them freely, in a discussion of the day's current and most obvious wrongs, as we are now doing when it comes to Trump's policies when it comes to non-white humans, as Krugman did in a recent column: https://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2Tt
Calling Ocasio-Cortez a radical is no better than what some prominent Democrats had to say about the left and the Midwest and Bronx. The vast majority of Democratic voters support Ocasio-Cortez' platform when asked about individual planks. This says more about the centrists among us than it does about the so-called "far left."
We need new leadership.
---
https://www.rimaregas.com/2018/05/31/in-trumpian-times-a-mighty-strange-...
72
FDR's second bill of rights was what the nation needed. Looking at it today, how radical was it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights
It really wasn't.
As for Ocasio-Cortez' jobs guarantee platform plank, get ready to see many more politicians who have one get elected. As we get closer to a "world without work," this will be a necessity.
Election 2016 should have included a discussion of jobs guarantees and Universal Basic Income. It didn't. Instead, the oligarchy and plutocracy won the day and the massive haircut to our tax laws. But make no mistake, this win is only temporary. The pendulum will swing all the way back. If America is to remain a dominant power, it cannot do so as a nation of serfs feudal lords. Corporations are owned by people who are citizens of this nation. Freeing them from the duty of citizenship is only a temporary reprieve.
---
Universal Basic Income and the Precariat
https://www.rimaregas.com/?s=universal+basic+income+precariat
4
Yes but Midwestern Democrats like Tammy Duckworth and Heidi Heitkamp have dome something that Ms O-C will never have to do. Beat a Republican.
Schrodinger,
Both of those haven't done their jobs, speaking to their constituents and changing their minds about the steady diet of propaganda they're consuming. Both of those candidates enjoy the financial support of a long list of corporations and now the Koch Brothers who thanked them in an ad for their votes on the Tax Scam Bill.
If a party can't enforce a modicum of discipline and a baseline of positions from which no member deviates, then you have the mess we've had on our hands.
The Kochs thanking Democrats and helping them win their elections is a sign of a mighty strange resistance. Don't you think?
https://www.rimaregas.com/2018/05/31/in-trumpian-times-a-mighty-strange-...
2
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is a self-described Democratic Socialist. The stated goals of the Democratic Socialists of America are unlikely to appeal to most Democrats, much less Republicans; here are two that will turn off many voters: (https://www.dsausa.org/where_we_stand#global )
1. "Economic democracy means...direct ownership and/or control of much of the economic resources of society by the great majority of wage and income earners." This is basic Marxism/Communism, under which workers own or control the means of production; it hasn't worked elsewhere, and is not likely to appeal to US voters.
2. "Social redistribution--the shift of wealth and resources from the rich to the rest of society--will require...massive redistribution of income from corporations and the wealthy to wage earners and the poor and the public sector, in order to provide the main source of new funds for social programs, income maintenance and infrastructure rehabilitation...." This goal is both unappealing and unfeasible.
As a life-long Democrat I am sad to see that the Democratic Party leadership is so ossified and out of touch with reality that some of its members are hailing these young socialists as the future of our party.
Recall that socialism (Bernie) cost us the 2016 Presidential election. In no way is it reasonable to expect that Ocasio-Cortez and extremists like her will achieve other than sporadic Democratic successes, and may cost us votes in the mid-terms and in 2020.
5
Thanks for posting that link. A great many people today either don't remember, or are to young to remember, what "socialism" entails and it's near-universal failure on the world stage.
1
Mon Ray,
As a life long liberal who used to always vote Democratic until the Democratic Party became just another party supporting big corporations and ignoring the poor, the working and middle classes, I have no problem with the 2 quotes you've presented. Those are good ideas.
8
Well, I suppose if "Racist" isn't regarded by Republicans as a term of affliction, "Socialist" shouldn't be by Democrats, either.
6
Is this the same Paul Krugman who was dissing Bernie Sanders loony ideas a couple of years ago?
67
Platforms are always aspirational. As a prospective House member Ocasio-Cortez is promising to advocate for these ideas.
The current president has demonstrated how hard it is to come through even on sincere, if mind numbingly stupid, campaign promises and from a much more powerful position.
3
Unfortunately, although there have been some (mostly legislative) misses to date, the cerrent administration is doing just fine on keeping many of their campaign promises...
I used to worry about the too radical views of my party (Dems) and how they would play with the opposition. Not any more. The GOP has shown themselves to be uncaring, unreasonable and unhinged. No matter how centrist a Democrat's position, the Republicans will lie, and say whatever, to make it appear as if the Democrat is, not only wrong, but unAmerican. Want to talk about gun safety, your trying to take away their guns. Want to discuss immigration, you want open borders. Want to bat around ideas about healthcare, your a socialist. Want to bring up Gay rights, your a secularist. Bring up just one of the things Donald Trump has done to hurt the U.S., you have Trump derangement disorder. It doesn't matter the topic, they've made it impossible for their side to lose an argument, even if they have to deny math, science or reality. I ask Trump people if they would vote for Kanye West for President and then bat back all the reasons they tell me they wouldn't. Not enough experience, check. Not enough smarts, check. He's an ego maniac, check. Naked pictures of his wife on the internet, check and mate.
102
Those two thoughts didn't flow together so let me couple them by saying theRepublicans are so busy arguing with the straw men they create that they don't have the time to notice that Trump is a crazystraw.
4
Somehow we need to find a way to combat the Right wing media's incessant mischaracterization of Democrat's policies.
Medicare for all was proposed by yours truly, more than a decade ago: the idea is to open Medicare to all… As long as they pay the cost of insuring themselves. As Medicare is not for profit and is huge (economies of scale), it would be cheaper than ANY private health plan. So Medicare for All would quickly devour for profit healthcare gouging. My friend Obama meekly proposed it to his cabinet, which unanimously rejected it in favor of giving subsidies to healthcare billionaires, their sponsors.
Employment for all, as presently done in the USA is a good thing… Except if people work for free, in which case that’s called slavery. Thus, to avoid slavery, a hefty minimum wage insuring minimum living standards, in particular the capability of affording a home. In places like Oakland, California, or cities around, with all those jobs, a minimum one bedroom is $3,000 a month. That’s 36K a year. Cities around Oakland are instituting a minimum wage of $15. That boils down to 30K a year, working full time, 2,000 hours: not enough to afford a roof! Thus college professors have been observed, sleeping in cars....
$15 an hour is not socialism, it’s not even, a realistic minimum wage in the most booming part of the US. It is just an effort to avoid a slave society.
Employment is important: it doesn't just provide income, it provides power, self-esteem. Workers can go on strike, block the machine of the state. Imperial Rome provided subsidies, not employment, and that emptied the core.
22
The point you seem to be making by your example is that the minimum wage should vary widely in accordance to local cost of living and housing prices.
1
Patrice,
I agree with your mostly fine post.
However, Medicare is for profit. It uses private insurance conpanies, which are profit-taking businesses.
That's why Medicare for all is only a stopgap measure, a public option. A single-payer healthcare system would eliminate the waste of profit-taking.
2
We tried the employment part before, didn't we? The WPA of the thirties?
9
This is a little before my time, but didn't the WPA allow a lot of men to provide for their families?
15
And it worked.
9
And the WPA was a resounding success. The young men of the Civilian Conservation Corps, which was a part of the WPA, went out into America's wildernesses and built all the roads, buildings and facilities at our national parks, and we still use them today.
I am proud to say that two of my uncles were part of that group of young men, and the money they sent home kept the family going during the very darkest days of the Great Depression.
8
I often wondered why the healthcare situation didn't improve, even when Democrats had opportunities. I went to the open secrets website. Looking at donors to Democrats, I was unfamiliar with the names of corporations. Looking them up, I learned: Ahhh, that one is a health insurance company. Ahhh, that one is a pharmaceutical. Ahhh, I see why the fire for a fair healthcare system never really was set aflame by the Democrats in power. Hooray for progressives!
10
During normal primaries, mainstream Democratic candidates don’t criticize the economic program of fringe leftists - they don’t need to attract the ire of activists.
However, in 2016 Bernie was getting too close for comfort to Hillary, so the Democratic establishment got out the big guns: Paul Krugman and Larry Summers, as renowned economists, wrote articles in the NYT explaining in detail how unrealistic Bernie’s proposals were. They got a lot of very nasty criticism for that from leftist activists. Mr. Krugman, who always faithfully toes the Democratic line in his columns and relishes his image of economic icon of the left, appeared quite shaken.
Now that “Medicare for all” has morphed from un-electable pie-in-the-sky into the quasi-official Democratic policy, the faithful foot soldier is back at work. Mr. Krugman provides us an adorable explanation of why what he rejected firmly less than two years ago is now perfectly viable. It comes complete with educated guesses of what the miracle New York candidate really wanted to say, in order to at least try to squeeze it into the realm of viability, as well as a quiet but smart rebranding from Socialist to “Radical Democrat”.
Mr. Krugman, I’m sure that this U-turn will get you back into the graces of leftist activists. However, it confirms what every independent mind already suspected - you write whatever the Party needs.
29
Andy,
You may be on to something in seeing an inconsistency in Paul Krugman's stance on single payer healthcare, an inconsistency that might be attributable to loyalty to Hillary Clinton rather than objectivity about the issue.
There is a struggle now in the Democratic Party between the Sanders - Warren - Ocasio-Cortez progressives and the establishment, corporate, centrist Democrats. I'm not sure that all the Democrats who claim to be Sanders - Warren - Ocasio-Cortez supporters really are or would be if the Democrats came to power.
Since the struggle over the values of the Democratic Party is still going on with no obvious winner yet, Paul Krugman can do a lot of good for Sanders - Warren - Ocasio-Cortez progressive ideas by offering them support now.
2
It's not a U-turn, he is just saying that the ideas are not radical, not that he favors them. Read the column. And if Hillary Clinton had been elected, the ACA (Obamacare) would have been preserved and perhaps extended; now with Trump and the GOP in total control, they are ruining the ACA and a more robust alternative needs to be found.
5
Either that, or there is more joy over one sinner who repents . . .
1
As surely as the sun rises in the east & sets in the west, any move by the Republicans farther rightward will be touted as politically astute or necessary, and any move by the Democrats to the left will be criticized as political suicide. It's a way of making sure we don't discuss the merits of issues.
11
Hooray for the Krugman kudos
Time was when the inverse arose
Bernie was defrocked
Single payer he mocked
Prof Krugman I hand you a rose.
84
Mr Krugman,
Thank you for giving up that mindset you've had since the 2016 primaries.the mindset that the only good and practical politics are centrist Democratic ones and that the Sanders - Warren progressive ideas are pure fantasy.
In 2016 it was disheartening to see you run away from single payer healthcare, to favor that "kludge" (your word) that is the ACA. The ACA is indeed a mess that didn't, and doesn't, come close to giving us affordable, easy to use, universal healthcare.
A decade or so prior to the 2016 primaries you had heartily endorsed single payer healthcare, and it's good to see you again give credence to it.
The Sanders - Warren - Ocasio-Cortez wing of the Democratic Party has big ideas, and they are good ones. The right's and centrist Democrats' objection again and again to them is the cost. If a prominent, articulate economist would take on the task of showing what the implementation of those progressive ideas would cost -- say, in terms of a fair tax structure, a reduction in military spending, savings in reducing redundancies (like some people having multiple health insurances while others have none), savings in gaining efficiencies with single payer healthcare -- that economist would be doing a much needed task.
46
Nancy Pelosi, someone vilified by the Right while getting the job done, should reach over the heads of the established 'next in line' of the traditional Dems, and let it be known she is 'heir apparent' in a highly visible REPLACEMENT, when Nancy steps down, which could be tomorrow, or like Ruth Bader Ginsberg, in 30 yrs . Get the Dam base and the 'radicals' excited on the blending into the party.
2
I haven't researched or thought much about the federal Jobs guarantee, but I DO know Healthcare. This is my field, for decades now. Even here in ruby red Kansas, the number one issue for all except the very Rich is the affordability of Healthcare, for Families. And inevitably, Medicare WILL be slashed due to the deficits occurring due to Trumps Tax Cuts for the Rich. That will effect everyone and everything, eventually. The solution: Medicare For ALL, 2020. Economy of scale and real negotiating power. Eliminating or even greatly reducing the parasitic Insurance Companies,
Care Managers, etc.. would be a major savings alone. It starts NOW, make this an issue for the Midterms. Vote Democratic, for REAL Life.
317
I agree that healthcare is something Republican voters care very much about . I also have seen that the President responds to what his voters care about and want much more than people think . Convince him that his base supporters want Medicare for all and he will do it.
Ocasio-Cortez’s policy positions are a lot more sensible than those of the Republican mainstream, let alone the GOP’s more radical members.
Your statement couldn’t be more correct.
Ironically, if you take away the “(D)” from her name and present many of her positions to Americans (from both Red and Blue states) they would probably agree with them.
The tagline of her campaign is:
Ocasio-Cortez is running for Congress to create an America that works for all of us, not just a wealthy few.
Most people would agree with this statement.
However, we live in a time when political tribalism prevails and both sides of the isle are far too quick to ignore each other’s points of view.
What I find so disheartening is that the Dems are once again so afraid of losing any ground and/or angering any part of their base that they capitulate to weak statements about any path which strays from the centrist party line.
Nancy Pelosi said that Crowley will be missed and stressed that the Dem Party is a "big tent."
Her response (along with others) should have been: we congratulate her for proposing new and bold ideas that will help to invigorate voters into joining the Dem party.
When the Repubs back candidates they don’t give perfunctory acclaim, they fully support and praise there candidates; no matter how despicable they might be.
ACO put it perfectly when she said:
"We have to stick to the message: What are we proposing to the American people? Not, 'What are we fighting against?'"
158
Beyond simply articulate: "ACO put it perfectly when she said: "We have to stick to the message: What are we proposing to the American people? Not, 'What are we fighting against?'"
Positive wins then. What will bring the 'people' together?
1
You nailed it: "Ironically, if you take away the “(D)” from her name and present many of her positions to Americans (from both Red and Blue states) they would probably agree with them." For beneficial ideas to have a chance, party labels have to go. When citizens are able to vote for a candidate and not a party, red and blue will no longer be a deciding factor. Political parties are about power and intimidation, not freedom of choice.
3
Her ideas are not “new.”
Wow...Mr Reasonable has given us the go ahead! What would we do without him?
1
As an American who lived in Australia from 2011-16 a very high minimum wage country, I describe it this way. It is a tax on everyone for a more equal society.
128
Of course, but Americans seem to reject the idea of sharing resources for a more equal society. The selfish wealthy think that they have earned and deserved their wealth and don't think it is fair to ask them to share involuntarily. The white working class and poor have been hoodwinked into believing that their money is going to pay for people of color or immigrants, even though the politicians they support hurt them.
9
Yay! Welcome back to our progressive side, Prof Krugman. Centrist Hillary and establishment Dems blew their dark money millions trying to convert conservatives. Alex O-C supports the policies Krugman championed for decades. As in Casablanca: "This time I know our side will win!"
26
Krugman didn't say he FAVORED these policies more than those that Hilary Clinton proposed - he said that they are not radical, and certainly more reasonable than Republican policies. So no, he is not changing his views.
7
The key to me here is allowing individuals and/or employers to buy into Medicare. With the ACA on shakier and shakier ground thanks to the Trump administration chipping away at its core provisions, what will a person who loses his/her job do if he /she finds it difficult to land another one? This is a very real possibility, especially for those over 55. Another 10 years to qualify for Medicare is daunting. I believe that Hillary Clinton proposed allowing that age group to buy into Medicare early. I support that. In my own path to retirement, the date I celebrated was when I turned 63 1/2; on that date, I figured that if I lost my job and its employer-sponsored health care, I could keep my policy for 18 months on Cobra, although I would have to pay my employer's share as well as my own. At the end of 18 months I would turn 65 and sign up for Medicare. I was fortunate enough to stay at my job until I qualified for Medicare; then I retired. But there must be millions who are in danger of falling into that gap. I salute the new crop of progressive Democrats who will fight for this, not just give it lip service.
88
Well, this piece from Paul Krugman is certainly an improvement over his nay-saying re Medicare For All around the time that Bernie Sanders was giving Hillary Clinton such a run for her Wall Street money.
Even so, there's still that lingering "but where are the details?" little dribble of cold water implicit in his defense of this good and sane and non-radical proposal. So I would suggest that anyone interested in the details visit the Physicians for a National Health Plan website for links to both Medicare For All bills now in Congress, as well as a wealth of other helpful info:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-resources
For those who still insist we must retain the austerian "pay-go" method of financing things that will help make people's lives better, Modern Monetary Theory is finally entering the mainstream. More here:
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-rock-star-appeal-of-modern-monetar...
The politicians who have no qualms about mindlessly appropriating more than a trillion dollars to our endless war machine and surveillance state should absolutely be called out on their hypocrisy every time they insist that there is just no money for Single Payer or a federal jobs guarantee, or that we have to rob from the poor to pay for the poor. The politicians who spout such nonsense are in thrall to the big money interests running this show. It's high time that the tycoons of unfettered capitalism get booed off their self-serving propaganda stage.
241
Thank you Karen.
2
Karen, I agree whole heartedly with what you have to say here, but I do wish you hadn't added that link to the article on MMT. That piece gives people the impression that government is free in that we don't have to worry about taxes, e.g.: "once we change the way we think about money, we can provide for everyone: We don’t have to “find” the money to “pay” for universal health care by “cutting” the budget elsewhere."
While it is true that the government can always print the money needed to pay for whatever it wants to pay for, it is not true that the government does not have to collect taxes if it is going to pay for things without destabilizing the economy.
Please look at: http://www.rweconomics.com/htm/MTFB.htm and
http://www.rweconomics.com/Deficit.htm
2
Bernie Sanders never had a plan. If he did, he never managed to communicate it. For many people political slogans don't work. They need facts, not a lot of arm-waving.
And as I did then I will comment:
What about the millions of people employed in the Healthcare industry? What happens to them? No one ever wants to talk about that.
I'm happy to listen if you have a practical approach for the job losses across the industry of people like admins, and office workers and the myriad of people who work in big insurance. You want to change how we deliver healthcare I'm all for it. But don't throw the economy and peoples lives into a tailspin before you figure out how to support them as we transition.
3
Part of the issue here is branding. Her policy proposals are roughly consistent with being a social democrat, that is something along the lines of the Nordic counties and some others in Europe. The use of the term socialist conjures images of the government takeover of large portions of the private sector (not just additional involvement in the health care sector). While the Nordic model provides successful role models full on socialism does not. Full on socialism would be much more radical than the positions she has taken and much more worrisome to many who would otherwise vote democratic. Some of this, I guess, is the watering down of term socialist by the Republicans (Obama is a socialist!) but I think it is worth keeping the positions social democrat and socialist distinct.
7
"Whether or not you support Ocasio-Cortez here, she’s advocating a more responsible policy than that actually enacted by Republican in Congress."
Repubs don't care about being responsible. They only care about ensuring their corporate and billionaire patrons get to keep as much money as possible. Repubs could not care less about the working class. Never have, never will. If you want to change this, figure out how to get working class people to vote for THEIR interests rather than a billionaires interest.
24
A universal jobs guarantee is certainly no more crazy than universal basic income. It's almost a universal basic income policy, but people still need to work for it.
8
My concern is if they are ideologues who take an all or nothing approach to policy making. Then they will become radicals.
There is simply no way those policies could be fully enacted in one swoop.
If they are shifting the Overton window to make them more palpable in an incremental approach, then they are pretty reasonable.
The fact that they are gaining leverage with a $15 means it is more likely that it could be raising to $9 or $1 across the nation and tied to inflation.
If they use the Medicare for All stance to enact a Medicare for More, then that is reasonable. They will become radicals if they do not compromise and resort to incrementalism if that is the only path.
5
"My concern is if they are ideologues who take an all or nothing approach to policy making. Then they will become radicals. "
You mean, like "republicans?" They set the example for all or nothing. They will not compromise for any reason. Dems need to be more like that to get anything done.
51
I don't mean that. However, if you want to push the county in a more liberal direction you need:
1. Vote
2. Compromise and realize it is going to be an incremental approach.
You are not going to get a guaranteed jobs program, universal HC, and a national $15 minimum wage with a single vote (or three separate single votes).
Even heralded liberal programs like Social Security and Medicare evolved/expanded over decades.
My objection to Ocasio-Cortez is not her policy platform, but her messaging, which repeatedly implied that her opponent's identity as an older white man was a good reason to vote against him. She actively promoted ageism, racism and sexism in her campaign and that is unforgivable.
40
Citation, please. Because I didn't hear her do this in the slightest way. I suspect you are simply reacting to the pride she expresses in her own identity. I encourage you to look in the mirror and ask "Why am I threatened by her identity?" "Why did I misread her expressions of pride as an 'implied' attack on people like me?"
7
I disagree with this. I think she explicitly focused on the class divide and that her opponent was out of touch with the realities of the district.
If you like the exit polls, it’s stunning that her opponent actually did better with latinos and African American!
The Democratic Party DOES have an issue with too many Very Senior Citizens holding on to power and not making room for the next generations. Congress and Americans in general are against dictators for life, but feel entitled to lifetime position in their own fiefdoms. For example, I have loved Diane Feinstein, greatly appreciate her service to America, but sure as heck wish she was not running again. Ditto for many others. In this case, I think the knock on him was that he didn't live or relate to those in his district any more. They wanted someone who did.
1
Prof. Krugman is a classic multi-handed economist. He’s able to conjure up many different scenarios about the economic effects of various public policies. He’s is definitely NOT Harry Truman’s desired one-handed economic policy advisor.
That being said, progressives should welcome his vacillating, backhanded compliment to a winning, game changing, progressive Democrat that defeated a “New Democrat Coalition,” old machine politician. Former Democratic House Caucus Leader, Cong. Crowley, is the kind of politician Krugman became enamored with after signing aboard Hillary Clinton’s trip to Palookaville years ago.
Thanks, Paul. Perhaps next time you’ll recognize it’s time to get off the Palookaville Bus and write something recognizing that the Democratic Party must change and soon.
6
This article was an embarrassment for Krugman. He says that Ocasio-Cortez doesn't mean "single payer" when she says medicare for all (laughable claim by itself).
Krugman has criticized Sanders's single payer system so he has to find a way to keep his knees from getting scrapped as he jumps from one bandwagon to another. This is the best he could do.
However, on Ocasio-Cortez's official website, she explicitly calls for "single payer". Oops.
https://ocasio2018.com/issues#create-medicare-for-all
Canadians don't think she's radical at all. She sounds more like one of us, and we're doing fine, thanks. We're much happier than you poor souls south of our mutual border. As a matter of fact, your "loony liberals" pretty much match our own rightist group, called the Progressive Conservatives, and we have two other parties, the Liberals and the New Democrats that are much more socialist in nature than anything you've ever seen, and we love them all. They're all decent human beings, with policies that look after everyone, not just the wealthy.
34
All of this intellectual messing around with numbers in which the so-called “science” of economics delights is totally beside the point.
People, all people, need and deserve as a basic human right the income or money to maintain a decent standard of living: food, shelter, medical care etcetera. It is absolutely possible to provide a minimum income for everyone. It is not a question of there being “enough”. It is a question of ancient stupid notions and twisted sophistry about some being more worthy and deserving than others.
From all of history one can conclude that striving to do something to make something to find something or to labor, to have a goal or a plan is basic to being human. If we have the basic needs met, we will not sit on our couches and get fat. We will explore, search, invent, make art and music and theater. We will do what free humans do.
Human consciousness is not piggish. Human consciousness does not need or want MORE than anyone else to prove that they are superior. Such needs are the residue of selfish animal habits.
12
I am Canadian. My Foreign Minister is Christia Freeland. Chrystia Freeland was an economic journalist who covered Russia for most of her career.
Her 2014 NYT best seller Plutocrats: The Rise of the Global Super Rich may be the best explanation of the GOP's economic plan for the USA.
From this side of the border it seems obvious that you are headed to become another Russia and the GOP is doing its best to achieve that end.
All the window dressing and all the punditry simply obscures the purloined letter that is exposed on the table.
Putin is not manipulating the USA, Putin and the GOP are reading from the same hymnal except Russia has Russian Orthodoxy as its state religion and you have something call American Orthodoxy or MAGA.
27
It is obvious from this side of the border too. I haven't read the book but your conclusion is unavoidable. I wonder at the lack of reporting about the alignment of interests of Putin's Russia and the Republican Party. Maybe Trump "colluded", but even if he did, that's the least of it. The Koch-run Republican Party is more than happy to undermine democracy and I'm sure they appreciate Putin's help because the only way they can ever get elected is to lie, cheat and steal their way into office. The American oligarchs have been working on this for a long long time. I wish "news" wasn't restricted to 24 hour time periods. There are bigger stories behind the daily stories, but we must go to the library and read fat books to learn about it.
1
Really? You could argue a convergent trajectory but as of now, even from afar, the US is nowhere near like Russia.