|
" Bernie could have swung the scales towards infrastructure, unionism, and lowering inequality, which would put dollars in the pockets of the poor, which would in turn be spent directly into the economy." That's a little bit of a stretch. Inequality is a problem mostly because: A) The benefits of globalism go to the 1%, then to the middle class in terms of cheaper prices, but the working class lose jobs. B) US has massive importation of low-skilled immigrants. They go right at the bottom. You don't need a 'messed up system' - if you just add poor people, you increase inequality. C) Bernie is an old-time socialist - he has no new ideas, really. I've heard him talk, he wants to massive increase wealth distribution and do it by taxing 'the rich'. This never works out, really. 'Infrastructure' is a cover - really, it's a wealth transfer exercise. Europe and Canada tried that in the 1960's it didn't go s well. The problem is really difficult, and it's exacerbated by the sheer size of the US, also there are no ethnic ties. Sweden is only the size of Los Angeles - and they are 'Swedes' an ethnic group with fraternal social order, a Monarchy, a State Church, common cultural identity. It's easier to 'redistribute' when the person getting the service is someone you know. The best kind of 'redistribution' is 'jobs'. Surely, increasing the minimum wage a little bit might work, and possibly having unions where none exist (Wallmart?), but strengthening already existing unions - particularly in the auto-sector and government is not going to help anyone - they are part of the problem. Auto workers and gov. workers are massively overcompensated relative to their private sector peers. Gov unions are one of the reasons government is so massively inefficient. If Bernie could fix that, that'd be great - but he's a politician, he's never had a normal job and wouldn't have a clue how to do it. I think moving towards empowering people, making sure they can participate in the global wealth creation is very important, but 1960's style socialism is not the answer. |