Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Carlitos Wrote: Read what Schmidt posted.
I have. Multiple times.
Carlitos Wrote: It's not just a 'personal preference' problem as you imply. Institutional incentives/disincentives play a role.
My point is that we can't begin to address the doctor shortage or health insurance problems if the first concern is deficit-neutrality or 'how's it going to be paid for?'.
You're talking about two entirely different things. The doctor shortage is not due to a shortage of intelligent individuals in this country who just can't afford to pay for medical school, but would strive to become doctors if only our monetary policy were to change. It's a hell of a lot more complicated than that.
We can throw an unlimited about of money at healthcare without concern for the deficit or debt, but if we don't have enough qualified medical professionals to actually treat the 330 plus million people living in this country then it will all be for naught. If we don't invest the money to teach people, especially children, how to live healthy lives then it will all be for naught. If we don't feed our school children healthy lunches and get rid of the ludicrous tax subsidies that allow multinational food corporations to fill our grocery aisles with garbage that causes heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and countless other illnesses then it will all be for naught.
That is what I mean when I say that MMT doesn't take the human side of things into account. Changing the way money, debt, and deficits are viewed is one thing, but it's only one slice of a very complicated pie.
Carlitos Wrote: MMT'ers would take into account what the real economy can produce. Notice how Schmidt said he was putting on his MMT 'hat' when he was questioning the real labor capacity of the nation to provide 'free healthcare' to all?
Yes, I did notice that. I also noticed when he immediately wrote "it would seem to me that there are real practical limits on any progressive agenda that seeks to throw almost limitless money at every problem" after he put his MMT hat on...
He then went into a detailed rebuttal of MMT's philosophy by using real world examples.
"But when you get down to the nitty gritty on how the money can be effectively spent to do the most good for society, the liberal progressives need to have a reality check. WE cannot offer free heath care for everyone AND free college education for everyone AND massive spending on infrastructure WHILE also cutting back on immigration...you know those people that come from abroad and take away your jobs." - Schmidt 10/6/2017
Are we reading the same thing? Because what I'm reading is a point by point rebuttal of why MMT would never be able to work.
Carlitos Wrote: You are conflating Single Payer or Bernie Care with MMT
No, I am simply trying to show why I beleive MMT would never work in the real world.
Carlitos Wrote: Where did anyone insist that everything would fall into place? You have arranged an extreme scenario where all of our engineers and bridge builders are corrupt and colluding to keep prices high.
Again, I am simply trying to show why I believe MMT would never work in the real world.
I'm not saying all engineers are corrupt. I'm using extreme examples because MMT is an extreme theory.
Carlitos Wrote: You haven't raised any issue with MMT.
I feel I have.
What are MMT's ideas for how to handle the fallout when thousands of doctors flee to private practice when price constraints are instituted on healthcare costs?
What are MMT's ideas for how to handle the looming crisis as more and more companies continue to shift towards a technology and machine based workforce that no longer rely on humans?
The "productive assets of the economy" are, sadly, more and more likely to be robots. They don't take sick leave, lunch breaks, vacations, or have any emotional constraints that affect their duties. They can't get addicted to drugs or alcohol and they can't get in trouble for sexual harassment. They can't sue employers for workplace injuries and they won't ever get in an argument with a coworker.
That's the world we're rapidly moving towards whether we want to accept it or not. I'm far more concerned about that than anything else. There's a very real possibility that we will be in an almost completely post-human work society in the next 100 years, which means that children who are already alive right now may see a post-human work society in their lifetime.
How we handle that will determine whether human civilization can adapt or simply become a sideshow to the beast we created.