Archive for 2018

HERE’S WHY BUREAUCRATS SEE A LETHAL THREAT IN THE ‘PLATFORM ECONOMY:’ The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has a great new video out explaining why the Platform Economy — Uber, AirBnB, Amazon, etc. — is such a gift to the cause of individual liberty. And why politicians and bureaucrats are determined to regulate it out of existence.

DISPATCHES FROM YOUNG-ADULT WEBSITE VOX.COM: Democratic socialism, explained by a democratic socialist.

I’m a staff writer at the socialist magazine Jacobin and a member of DSA, and here’s the truth: In the long run, democratic socialists want to end capitalism. And we want to do that by pursuing a reform agenda today in an effort to revive a politics focused on class hierarchy and inequality in the United States. The eventual goal is to transform the world to promote everyone’s needs rather than to produce massive profits for a small handful of citizens.

Democratic socialists share goals with New Deal liberals. But they want to go further.

So they’re liberals in a hurry, to coin a phrase. I’m sure it all work out fine this time around. (Dubbing yourself the descendants of the Jacobins is also a nice touch.)

(Classical reference in headline.)

CHOOSE THE FORM OF YOUR DESTRUCTOR: The Amazing Story of How Trolling by Obama Gave Us Trump.

Read the whole thing, including this:

I don’t see how being held up to public ridicule by Obama can possibly be discounted as something that convinced Trump to run for president. In fact, it is very much in sync with what we know about Trump.

Now, did he expect to win when he launched his campaign? I don’t think so. There was an interview by an early member of Team Trump that gave the distinct impression that he wanted a credible showing as a springboard to more reality television.

Who else didn’t think he’d win against Hillary, and was using his longshot election bid as a springboard to gain additional notoriety? Oh yeah, this once-unknown politician:

Soon-to-be-candidate Obama, then an Illinois senator, was thinking about turning down an invitation to speak at a big health care conference sponsored by the progressive group Families USA [in January 2007], when two aides, Robert Gibbs and Jon Favreau, hit on an idea that would make him appear more prepared and committed than he actually was at the moment.

Why not just announce his intention to pass universal health care by the end of his first term?…

“We needed something to say,” recalled one of the advisers involved in the discussion. “I can’t tell you how little thought was given to that thought other than it sounded good. So they just kind of hatched it on their own. It just happened. It wasn’t like a deep strategic conversation.”…

The candidate jumped at it. He probably wasn’t going to get elected anyway, the team concluded. Why not go big?

Why not indeed? The result was a hollowing out of the Democrats’ backbench due to Obamacare’s deep unpopularity, giving the Democrats very few options for 2016, except for a remarkably flawed retread.

CHOICE: Cheaper Health Plans With Less Coverage Move Forward.

The Trump administration, in one of its most significant efforts to roll back the Affordable Care Act, on Wednesday released a rule that will allow for the proliferation of cheaper, less-comprehensive health plans that have been restricted by the former Obama administration.

The rule would loosen restrictions on a type of coverage known as short-term medical insurance—low-cost plans that cover a limited period with less-expansive benefit offerings, which are subject to fewer consumer protection regulations.

Such plans now can only be carried up to 90 days. The new rule would allow the plans to last for a year and be renewed for a total coverage period of 36 months.

The plans are often sold to people who qualify as healthy and may have annual limits on the amount of care the policies will cover. The plans don’t have to cover people with pre-existing conditions, and insurers can charge higher premiums based on a consumer’s health status.

They also don’t have to include the specific benefits mandated by the ACA, such as prescription-drug coverage.

Choice is good.

TAMARA KEEL: “So, you think that there’s a bumbling madman in the White House who is Literally Hitler, and that the military is made up of reactionary goons who swear fealty to this guy, and the police of the nation are engaged in a coordinated conspiracy to straight-up murder oppressed minorities…and also those are the only people who should have guns. Your worldview is wack.”

TESLA IS ‘ONE OF THE MOST SHORTED STOCKS ON WALLS STREET’: Peter Roff explains why.

CHANGE: Until today, I was a Jewish member of the Labour party.

There has always been anti-Semitism on the far left. As a student, demonstrating during the build-up to the Iraq War, I saw it on protests, at rallies, in political meetings. The way everything would somehow slide towards a debate about Israel, the comments about Jewish influence, about how many Jews were in the media.

It was surreal—but it was a fringe. Since Jeremy Corbyn became leader, the fringe has entered the party’s upper echelons. And the explanations and the excuses have racked up. Don’t worry, nobody even knows who Jackie Walker is. That’s just Ken, he’s being an idiot. That’s just Christine Shawcroft, she’s an idiot too. Look, it’s just a few random councillors. I know, there are loads of #JC4PM-types saying some pretty nasty stuff—but who knows if they’re even party members. The mural comment looks bad, yes, but it was a long time ago and he’s apologised now. The code—well the thing about the code is you have to see both sides…

Until last week I’d never heard of the IHRA code. Being Jewish, I didn’t need a definition of anti-Semitism. I’ve read it now, like most of us have, and there are lines here and there which I might take issue with. Among Jewish friends and family I’d happily debate it. But no, not with you. Not here in public. Not in 280 characters.

Parsing the code is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is this: the Labour party will not allow Jews to define anti-Jewish discrimination.

There are more votes to be won amongst Britain’s (mostly recently imported) antisemites.

BLUE ON BLUE: Sanders, Warren question whether Dem primary is big enough for both of them.

Some Democrats say they don’t think there’s room for both progressives in what is expected to be a wide-open but crowded Democratic contest to take on President Trump.

“If a likely winning strategy is to reconstitute as much of the Obama and Clinton coalitions as possible, it’s unlikely they will be able to do so sharing the same ideological space,” said Democratic strategist Basil Smikle, name-dropping the last two Democratic presidential nominees.

Sanders and Warren have much in common.

Both are heroes to the left, and represent the progressive side of Democratic politics that clearly has momentum within the party.

They have complimented one another and joined forces on common causes, most recently last week on legislation that would provide debt relief to storm-ravaged Puerto Rico.

“They align on almost every issue,” one Sanders ally said. “That’s not an accident.”

As we get closer to 2020, don’t be too surprised if several prominent Democrats re-assess Trump’s vulnerability and decide to “spend more time with their families” rather than run.

WELL I NEVER: Global warming mitigation schemes, such as a global carbon tax, would do much more harm to food security than global warming itself, says the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. What they suggest is that the developing world should use more advanced technology. In other words, let the developing world develop.