Michigan ex-pat in Brooklyn, web nerd, banjo novice, loves food, mildly abrasive
669 stories
·
56 followers

Nordic Socialism Is Realer Than You Think

1 Share

This post was originally intended for the launch of the People’s Policy Project website. But as that is running behind schedule, I figure I will post it here.

When policy commentators talk about the Nordic economies, they tend to focus on their comprehensive welfare states. And for good reason. Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden are home to some of the most generous welfare systems in the world. Each has an efficient single-payer health care system, free college, long parental leave, heavily subsidized child care, and many other social benefits too numerous to list here.

As marvelous as the Nordic welfare states are, the outsized attention they receive can sometimes lead commentators to the wrong conclusions about the peculiarities of Nordic economies. Jonathan Chait thinks the Nordic economies feature an “amped-up version of … neoliberalism” while an oddly large number of conservative and libertarian writers claim the Nordics are quasi-libertarian.

The common thread to these mistaken conclusions, aside from the desire to deny that there are leftist success stories in the world, is the apparent belief that the only extraordinary part of Nordic economies are the welfare states. Except for their generous social benefits, everything else is properly capitalist and even more capitalist than the United States. Or so the argument goes.

Labor Market
But this is not true. In addition to their large welfare states and high tax levels, Nordic economies are also home to large public sectors, strong job protections, and labor markets governed by centralized union contracts.

Around 1 in 3 workers in Denmark and Norway are employed by the government.

Protections against termination by employers are much stronger in the Nordic countries.

Centrally-bargained union contracts establish the work rules and pay scales for the vast majority of Nordic workers.

These labor market characteristics are hardly neoliberal or quasi-libertarian, at least if we stick to typical definitions of those terms. The neoliberal tendency, as exemplified most recently by France’s Emmanuel Macron, is to cut public sector jobs, reduce job protections, and push for local rather than centralized labor agreements. For the US labor market to become more like the Nordics, it would have to move in the opposite direction on all of those fronts.

State Ownership
Even more interesting than Nordic labor market institutions is Nordic state ownership. Collective ownership over capital is the hallmark of that old-school socialism that is supposed to have been entirely discredited. And yet, such public ownership figures prominently in present-day Norway and Finland and has had a role in the other two Nordic countries as well, especially in Sweden where the government embarked upon a now-defunct plan to socialize the whole of Swedish industry into wage-earner funds just a few decades ago.

The governments of Norway and Finland own financial assets equal to 330 percent and 130 percent of each country’s respective GDP. In the US, the same figure is just 26 percent.

Much of this money is tied up in diversified wealth funds, which some would object to as not counting as real state ownership. I disagree with the claim that wealth funds are not really state ownership, but the observation that Nordic countries feature high levels of state ownership does not turn upon this quibble.

State-owned enterprises (SOEs), defined as commercial enterprises in which the state has a controlling stake or large minority stake, are also far more prevalent in the Nordic countries. In 2012, the value of Norwegian SOEs was equal to 87.9 percent of the country’s GDP. For Finland, that figure was 52.3 percent. In the US, it was not even 1 percent.

Some of these SOEs are businesses often run by states: a postal service, a public broadcasting channel, an Alcohol retail monopoly. But others are just normal businesses typically associated with the private sector.

In Finland, where I know the situation the best, there are 64 state-owned enterprises, including one called Solidium that operates as a holding company for the government’s minority stake in 13 of the companies.

The Finnish state-owned enterprises include an airliner called Finnair; a wine and spirits maker called Altia; a marketing communications company called Nordic Morning; a large construction and engineering company called VR; and an $8.8 billion oil company called Neste.

In Norway, the state manages direct ownership of 70 companies. The businesses include the real estate company Entra; the country’s largest financial services group DNB; the 30,000-employee mobile telecommunications company Telenor; and the famous state-owned oil company Statoil.

Finland and Norway have their special reasons for the level of state ownership they engage in. Finnish government publications discuss the country’s late development and status as a peripheral country when justifying their relatively heavy public involvement in industry. That is, Finland does not want to expose the entirety of its marginal, late-developing, open economy to the potential ravages of international capital flows.

In Norway, the discovery of oil in the North Sea was the impetus for the creation of its enormous social wealth fund. The fund currently owns around $950 billion of assets throughout the world, including more than $325 billion of assets inside the US. In a video on the Norwegian central bank’s website, the fund is described as follows: “It is the people’s money, owned by everyone, divided equally and for generations to come.”

No one would argue that the Nordic countries are full-blown socialist countries, whatever that might mean. But it is also folly to pretend the only thing they have proven is that high taxes and large welfare states can work. Even on the narrow understanding of socialism as public ownership of enterprise, the Nordic countries are far more socialistic than most commentators seem to realize. American socialists who draw inspiration from their successes do so rightly.

Read the whole story
sstrudeau
18 days ago
reply
Brooklyn, NY
Share this story
Delete

High-Profile Russian Death In Washington Was No Accident — It Was Murder, Officials Say

2 Shares
Vladimir Putin’s former media czar was murdered in Washington, DC on the eve of a planned meeting with the U.S. Justice Department, according to two FBI agents…
Read the whole story
sstrudeau
18 days ago
reply
Brooklyn, NY
acdha
19 days ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

How Venice Beach Became a Neighborhood for the Wealthy

1 Comment and 2 Shares

Just over a week ago, The Wall Street Journal called the neighborhood where I rent, Venice Beach, California, the toughest place in the United States to build new housing, pointing to it as an extreme example of what is happening in a lot of wealthy urban enclaves.

“Apartment developers have stepped up production focused largely on the inner cores of big U.S. cities, where millennials are flocking for high-paying jobs and easy commutes, and where development is often welcomed,” the newspaper reported. “Meanwhile, surrounding low-rise neighborhoods—many filled with older structures and historical character—are keeping developers out. Residents of these older urban neighborhoods generally have resisted newcomers, complaining about congestion on roads and public transportation and seeking to preserve architecture, sunlight and views.”

It’s easy to understand what motivates anti-growth homeowners. Their financial interests are powerfully aligned against allowing the supply of residences to grow over time. And most of them moved to a given neighborhood because they liked it at the time. Of course, they changed Venice Beach when they arrived. And their failure to pay forward the ability to move here by preventing growth over several decades guarantees that over time this geographically small, highly desirable enclave by the ocean will lose its bohemian vibe, ending up as a neighborhood for the increasingly old and very rich, like Laguna Beach, La Jolla, and Carmel-by-the-Sea.

While that would suit a certain faction of Venice Beach homeowners, who have as much right as anyone to speak up for their preferences, their opposition to growth should not be presented as if it is morally or aesthetically enlightened rather than reactionary.

For example, consider a response to that Wall Street Journal article published in the L.A. Times under the headline, “They discover, they gentrify, they ruin: How 'progress' is wrecking Los Angeles neighborhoods.” The columnist Robin Abcarian writes:

A few months ago, on a Sunday morning, I drove from my house near the Venice Pier over to Abbot Kinney Boulevard to meet my cousin for a cup of coffee at Blue Bottle, which is to coffee what the French Laundry is to dinner: peak fetishization. (But yes, of course, delicious!) I circled the block a few times, adamant that I would not pay $9 to park in order to buy a $5 cup of coffee.

Fortunately, I found a spot on the street, but not before getting yelled at twice by motorists who were mad at me for blocking them as I waited for the space. Abbot Kinney, as you undoubtedly know, was once a funky retail outpost that was forever on the verge of being discovered. Unfortunately, in 2012, GQ named it “the coolest block in America,” and pretty much everything went to hell after that. Now you can spend 400 bucks on a pair of boots at John Fluevog Shoes, but you won’t be able to get them repaired anywhere on the street. If you don’t mind the gridlock and all the man buns (and if you squint hard), Abbot Kinney still maintains its old aesthetic: low-slung shops, coffeehouses and restaurants.

Scarce parking is among the foremost concerns of my anti-growth neighbors, so much so that, as above, the mere fear of being unable to find a spot is enough to elicit complaints.

But knowing Venice, I can’t help but notice that a resident living near the Venice pier could take a $5 Uber, bike to that the coffee shop in about seven minutes, or walk on a 25-minute route largely comprised of the Venice boardwalk. Property values are high here in large part because Venice and Santa Monica are some of the biggest pedestrian-friendly cityscapes in greater Los Angeles, with almost perfect weather all year round.

One can usually find free parking on Abbot Kinney Boulevard itself, and free spots are always available to those willing to walk for five minutes, but it would not be a failure of urban planning if one of the most popular commercial strips in the world didn’t guarantee free parking (or a shoe repair) to those close enough to walk there from home.

In fact, there are lots of off-Abbot Kinney coffee shops where an Angeleno can always find easy parking. But it is a failure to recognize the tradeoffs that reality imposes to patronize what may be the trendiest local coffee shop, the Bay Area transplant Blue Bottle, which wouldn’t even be on Abbot Kinney but for the fact that it is a highly trafficked, cool-by-reputation boulevard, and to then complain about the crowds.

Another passage betrays a similar failure:

There is a reason neighbors have trigger tempers when confronted with new projects on streets like Abbot Kinney, which has become a gridlock-plagued tourist destination, rather than a neighborhood commercial district.

Developers seem characterologically unable to conceive projects that are sensitive from the get-go. It’s always: burst through the door with a ridiculously overambitious plan, then scale back when the inevitable NIMBY explosion occurs. When developers proposed a first-ever hotel on Abbot Kinney, they roared in with a design for a four-story, 92-room monolith that would have taken up an entire block. Neighbors (naturally) objected, and the project, still on the drawing board, has been scaled back. Even so, 14,600 square feet of existing commercial space will more than quadruple to 64,000.

Many of my anti-growth neighbors are upset that Abbot Kinney boutiques are so expensive, and that whole categories of businesses are priced out; yet they regard it as self-evident that quadrupling the supply of commercial space is “ridiculously overambitious.”

As for calling a four-story hotel a “monolith,” there is a historical irony in complaining that Abbot Kinney Boulevard is a tourist destination. Abbot Kinney, the founder of Venice Beach, was an eccentric real estate developer who dug canals here in hopes of creating a pleasure resort for the rich, a Venice, Italy, of the Western United States. The street that bears his name is very much in keeping with the spirit of his plans for this community, which was inevitably going to be a tourist destination––it is, after all, a gorgeous stretch of coast in America’s second biggest city, tucked between a resort at Santa Monica and a boat marina.

Indeed, the Venice Beach boardwalk has long been among the most visited tourist destinations in L.A. And for as long, there’s been a severe shortage of Venice hotel rooms.

Again, reality imposes unavoidable tradeoffs. Absent more hotel rooms in Venice Beach, it’s relatively more expensive to visit, foreclosing a travel destination to some and causing local businesses to cater more to the richer folks who can stay; meanwhile, more visitors drive here, exacerbating heavy beach traffic in the summer; and still others turn to vacation rental sites like AirBnB, which the anti-growth set despises for affecting the local rental market in ways more hotel rooms would mitigate.

Few anti-growth locals acknowledge these tradeoffs, especially when their preferences impose significant costs on folks less wealthy than they are. And when they do mention competing choices, they tend to exaggerate the options before Venice residents.

To the prospect of relaxed zoning restrictions that would allow tall new buildings in most Los Angeles neighborhoods, the column responding to the Wall Street Journal introduces Robin Rudisill, an activist who is okay with growth in some parts of Los Angeles, but not Venice or neighborhoods like it. The column characterizes her views as follows:

Rosenfeld thinks that the suburbs and neighborhoods such as Venice with special character should be treated very gingerly, but that the city core—ringed by the Harbor, Hollywood, Golden State and Santa Monica freeways—could absorb almost limitless growth.

“Single-family neighborhoods to me are sacred,” said Rosenfeld, who would be comfortable with 100-story buildings inside the freeway ring, Tokyo-style. “We all admire the quality of, first, the bungalows, then the ranch houses. Life is too short, for me as a developer, to want to change the character of our pristine single-family neighborhoods.”

Anyone who has visited Venice Beach lately is probably chuckling at the notion that it is “pristine.” The neighborhood has multiple homeless encampments, stretches of people living in RVs and cars, with all the attendant waste disposal challenges, and lots of stretches of boardwalk where walking barefoot would be extremely ill-advised. But the bigger problem with the argument, as presented in the column, is the way it elides the vast middle ground between 100-story skyscrapers and nothing-but-bungalows-and-ranch-houses, structures no one proposes totally eliminating.

Now, if the choice really were Tokyo or the status quo, I’d pick Tokyo––I value giving millions of people more affordable places to live and the environmental benefits that density confers more than the aesthetic preferences of wealthy city dwellers.

But Venice could preserve many of its bungalows, grow much more dense, and do more to retain, rather than lose, its bohemian vibe in the process; for freezing development does not preserve neighborhood culture––it transforms it by radically changing the mix of who can afford to live here. As the journalist Hillel Aron put it in L.A. Weekly, “Anti-development activists like to argue that development fuels gentrification, that the construction of new, high-end apartment buildings makes the whole neighborhood more expensive. But the case of Venice is a counterpoint. For the last 50 years, Venice has successfully fought developers to a stalemate. The housing supply stayed constant, while demand grew. As a result, the value of property in Venice has soared.”

When anti-growth folks complain about Venice today, they are lamenting the consequences of their own ideas successfully put into practice over many years. They would do better to reflect on the many lovely cities and towns on the coasts of Spain, Italy, Portugal, and beyond—places that prove it is possible to retain a beach vibe and traditional local color while offering residents apartment buildings of four, five, and even six stories, achieving density far beyond the status quo without resembling Tokyo.

So long as they affirmatively fight to make those projects easy to build, they can simultaneously opposing the replacement of rental units with mansions with a clear conscience.

A neighborhood can be vibrant and diverse, or it can be very low-growth, with easy parking for its aging population. It cannot be both. The anti-growth rich and their misguided allies may successfully indulge the illusion that they are preserving the neighborhood of bygone years. Those who can’t afford admission to their museum know better.

Read the whole story
satadru
20 days ago
reply
Sigh. More of what we're facing in parts of NYC too.
New York, NY
satadru
20 days ago
Also h/t @sstrudeau
sstrudeau
20 days ago
reply
Brooklyn, NY
Share this story
Delete

Paying people to preserve forests really seems to work

1 Comment and 3 Shares

Enlarge (credit: Kate Evans for Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR))

We’re trashing the world not because it’s fun, but because it pays to do so. People respond to financial incentives. So, how do you provide an incentive to stop trashing the world? One idea is to use cold, hard cash. If people earn more by not trashing, the thinking goes, the incentive flips: it suddenly pays to conserve. Based on this idea, a trial program in Uganda paid landowners to preserve the forest on their land and tracked the results.

It turned out not to be so simple—people don’t always neatly do what they’re supposed to. What if these landowners were already concerned about deforestation and were already preserving their land? You’ve just forked out quite a bit to pay for something that was already going to happen. Or what if they just cut down trees elsewhere instead? Figuring out whether the benefits of the program are worth the cost requires collecting a lot of data.

A paper in Science this week reports on the results, which are encouraging: deforestation slowed to about half the previous rate, and it looks as though people didn’t just shift their forest clearing elsewhere. The program benefits seem to have outweighed the costs, whichever way you slice it. In other words, money provides a great incentive to preserve habitats, which is great news for climate change efforts.

“Payments for Ecosystem Services”

This kind of scheme is already widely in use—both in environmental efforts and in programs that incentivize families to send their children to school or participate in health programs. But efforts like this often become widespread before it’s clear whether or not they actually work—a bit like a popular diet that hasn’t been rigorously tested.

The danger is that all of these schemes rely on assumptions about human nature that don’t always check out in the real world. Programs that haven’t been tested run the risk of throwing resources away on something that doesn't work or even causes active harm.

Uganda is heavily forested, but it is undergoing rapid deforestation. Most of this deforestation is on private land, which accounts for about 70 percent of the forests in Uganda. Landowners sell trees for timber or cut them down to use the land. The forests serve as a kind of savings account—when a family hits a big expense, trees can provide a quick cash injection.

Cash transfer schemes have been tried before, but this program did something new: it was set up like a clinical trial, taking 121 villages in western Uganda and randomly assigning them to “control” or “treatment” groups. This helped the researchers to be sure that the villages in the treatment group didn’t have systematic differences from control villages.

In the treatment villages, landowners with forested ares could enroll to conserve their land for two years. Spot checks were carried out for signs of deforestation, but if the landowners stuck to the agreement, they received “Payments for Ecosystem Services” (PES). On average, landowners could earn US$56 per year. That’s about 16 percent of median annual household income in the region, equivalent to a US citizen being offered around $8,300.

A cheap way to save trees

Using satellite imagery, the researchers calculated the impact on forested areas. They found that in the control villages, 9.1 percent of tree cover was lost over the trial period of two years. By comparison, in treatment villages, tree loss was less than half that rate, at 4.2 percent. It’s possible that landowners were cutting down trees elsewhere—on another person’s land, for instance. But examining tree cover within the whole village means that this kind of leakage was included in the results.

There are other, more complex kinds of possible leakage. It’s possible that the timber market just adapted to sourcing timber elsewhere. A study this small may not have had effects large enough to trace in the overall market, but that might be worth tracking if a program rolls out nation-wide. This study also didn’t explore whether people were adapting to different fuel sources and what impacts this might have—it stuck to answering just the question about whether paying people made them cut down fewer trees.

The reduced deforestation also has a value, based on economic models of the social cost of carbon emissions. Using these models and testing a variety of different assumptions, the researchers conclude that the program benefits outweighed the costs. Under different assumptions about the future impacts of emissions, estimates of the program's value ranged from just about breaking even to a benefit of roughly fifteen times the cost. Compared to many other emissions programs, this is insanely cheap: “hybrid and electric car subsidies,” the authors write, “cost 4 to 24 times the CO2 benefits they generate.”

A randomized controlled trial is a great way to get a solid lock on whether programs like this work, and it’s exciting to have such robust research looking into it. But it’s not the final answer: the results won’t necessarily generalize to every similar program. For instance, people might run out of patience eventually, so the benefits could tail off in permanent programs.

“Curbing deforestation in low-income countries, where most deforestation occurs today, is viewed as one of the most cost-effective ways to reduce global CO2 emissions,” the authors write. “Thus, having rich countries finance conservation projects in poor countries is a promising way to address climate change.”

Financially, it seems that this might be true, but it may have unforeseen consequences for the lives of the people in those countries. For instance, it seemed as though this project stopped landowners from allowing poorer people to take firewood from their land. “A do-no-harm version of PES might want to include small cash transfers to poor, non-forest-owning individuals in the community,” the researchers suggest. Research looking at the wider economic changes brought about by programs like these will be an important part of the puzzle.

Science, 2016. DOI: 10.1126/science.aan0568  (About DOIs).

Read Comments

Read the whole story
satadru
23 days ago
reply
Nice.
New York, NY
sstrudeau
26 days ago
reply
Brooklyn, NY
acdha
26 days ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

Oakland Gets a Marxist Pop-Up: the 'Museum of Capitalism'

1 Share

At the Museum of Capitalism, viewers will find a hand-cranked machine that spits out pennies at the same rate the U.S. minimum wage does. There’s a trading post for rare, allegedly collectable endophytes (fungi and other microorganisms that live inside plants). And there’s a series of miniatures and figurines based on the U.S. Treasury Department’s 2008 bailout of Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and the other banks deemed too big to fail.

Museumgoers can also browse a library with all the essential texts: Geoffrey Hodgson’s Conceptualizing Capitalism, J.K. Gibson-Graham’s The End of Capitalism as We Knew It, David Harvey’s Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism—early classics in this fan-favorite late-capitalist genre.

Naturally, no trip to the Museum of Capitalism would be complete without a visit to the gift shop.

The Museum of Capitalism, which opens on June 17 in Oakland, must be the first institution outside the former Soviet bloc dedicated to a pure critique of capitalism. A pop-up exhibition occupying a vacant retail storefront in Oakland’s Jack London district this summer, the inaugural (temporary) exhibit will feature work by more than 50 artists across a variety of media. Admission is free: Entry will only cost you your fragile bourgeois preconceptions.

“Some would argue that opening a museum of capitalism is a radical act,” says Timothy Furstnau, one of the founders and curators for the Museum of Capitalism. “We don’t think it should be considered all that radical, but it seems to fit in place, in the radical history of Oakland, which we admire.”

Blake Fall Conroy, Police Flag (2009) (Courtesy of the artist/Museum of Capitalism)

Furstnau—one of two curators who make up FICTILIS, the curatorial collective behind the Museum of Capitalism—credits a few different sources for the inspiration for the museum. One was a speech by Alex Callinicos, the British political theorist and Trotskyite, about visiting the Apartheid Museum in Johannesburg. “He gave a moving account and then speculated that there might one day be a museum of capitalism,” Furstnau says. “We read that and thought, Let’s not wait for ‘one day.’”

Over the past two or three years, he and Andrea Steves—FICTILIS’s other half—have been organizing texts, gathering artists, and investigating real estate for a museum to memorialize the future end of capitalism. She says that the institution is focused primarily on art, because art can help people with the “defamiliarization” of a subject that they’ve known all their lives.

“The larger space of the museum will also have elements that your typical museums have,” Steves says. That includes the library, gift shop, and even games, such as Mark Anspach’s Anti-Monopoly. “There’s a commodity library that traces the history of commodities in capitalism”—imagine displays on cotton, sugar, and tobacco. (Some examples of which will be available for purchase in the gift shop.)

The Museum of Capitalism could easily be called the Museum Against Capitalism. Perhaps fittingly, the museum can’t escape certain contradictions of its own enterprise, starting with its partnership with the Jack London Improvement District. The local economic development organization is the fiscal sponsor for the inaugural temporary installation. The Emily Hall Tremaine Foundation also supported the show, which runs to August 20, with its prestigious exhibition award.    

“We happen to be a district with a significant amount of vacant commercial space,” says Savlan Hauser, executive director of the Jack London Improvement District. “The waterfront development, Jack London Square, isn’t one of the newer developments in Oakland. This area is just starting to reach the level of density and foot traffic that would support tenancies in these spaces. So we felt we were a good match for an art use that was seeking a home.”

The Museum of Capitalism, pictured before installation. (Museum of Capitalism)

The museum exhibit will occupy a nearly 13,000-square-foot space in a retail center that has remained mostly vacant since the financial crisis struck. The space is part of the story of the Museum of Capitalism, according to FICTILIS. Working with an engine of capitalism in order to put on an exhibit about dismantling capitalism isn’t a bug—it’s a feature.

“Politics as purity is something we’re just not interested in doing,” Furstnau says. “We relish the messy partnership and hope that it can lead to dialogue.”

Works on view in the Museum of Capitalism will contain plenty of winking nods at the theme. Evan Desmond Yee’s Shop of Desires (2017), an installation, mirrors the gift-shop experience—but without any merchandise. With soil-erg (2012), Claire Pentecost proposes a new currency, in the form of bars of soil that resemble gold bullion. Carrie Hott will lead a class on artificial light for a project called The Light That Elongated the Day (2017).

In the library, a special selection of readings called the “capitalisms collection” categorizes capitalisms (plural) by relevant periods (industrial capitalism, agrarian capitalism) or modes (crony capitalism, platform capitalism). There’s another, simultaneous special art exhibition running alongside the main presentation called “American Domain,” curated by Erin Elder. Other artists or entities involved in the museum’s first foray include Dread Scott, Jennifer Dalton, Futurefarmers, and the Center for Tactical Magic.

If the Museum of Capitalism were planned as a permanent institution, it might live long enough to be displaced by the very forces it surveys. That’s practically a given in Oakland—and part of the reason why the museum fits there. “It is an interesting meta-museum to bring to an area that is in transition, in a moment of physical and economic development,” Hauser says.

For the Jack London Improvement District, the museum is an opportunity for economic activation, absolutely. In fact, it may be a little late in coming: Retailers and restaurants are already starting to pour into the area. The Museum of Capitalism also represents an artistic tradition that has disappeared from other parts of Oakland. Hauser isn’t worried that a pop-up multi-media show means that hyper-gentrification is just around the corner. Instead, the Museum of Capitalism is a chance to shore up one category of use—art, like music venues or fabrication businesses—that is becoming harder to find in Oakland.

“Part of what we’re trying to do with this exhibition is to play with the boundaries of the Museum of Capitalism, what is inside and what is outside the walls of the exhibition,” Furstnau says. “Oakland presents itself right now as a convenient, ready-made exhibit on a certain kind of accelerated development and moment in capitalism.”

There are so many other key icons and objects that museumgoers might hope to find in a permanent Museum of Capitalism. A signed copy of The Art of the Deal. Nolan Ryan’s 1979 Million Dollar Contract. A tamagotchi. Perhaps grist for future FICTILIS outings. In the meantime, the curators may have already accomplished their goal. When a specialty museum opens on a subject—see also: The Rock ‘n’ Roll Hall of Fame and Museum (1995) and the Newseum (2008)—that’s the tell. Capitalism is doomed.

Read the whole story
sstrudeau
50 days ago
reply
Brooklyn, NY
Share this story
Delete

How many people will Obamacare and AHCA kill?

1 Comment and 2 Shares

Five separate people were bylined on a Center for American Progress post about how many people AHCA will kill. The post is quite long, but all the authors really do is take the CBO estimates of how many people will lose coverage under AHCA and then divide that number by 830. They do this because there is a study that shows that 1 person dies unnecessarily for every 830 people who lack health insurance.

I have duplicated CAP’s efforts here, but rather than focus only on the AHCA, I have also included Obamacare and single payer into the mix. One other difference is that I track cumulative deaths between 2017 to 2026 rather than reporting an annual figure for each year.

Under AHCA, nearly 540,000 people will die in the next decade because of lack of health insurance coverage. For Obamacare, it is a more respectable 320,000 deaths.

If you enjoyed this content, please subscribe to the People’s Policy Project patreon. In the next month, the PPP will have its own website full of gems such as this.

Read the whole story
sstrudeau
54 days ago
reply
Brooklyn, NY
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
jsled
55 days ago
reply
«Under AHCA, nearly 540,000 people will die in the next decade because of lack of health insurance coverage. For Obamacare, it is a more respectable 320,000 deaths.»
South Burlington, Vermont
Next Page of Stories