Does anyone else remember Occupy Wall Street here in the US? Millions camping out in parks demanding change and support. But they were unable to rally, organize, create any lasting impact on the elites and wealthier strata of society. The middle and top looked down on the bottom as an annoyance. They were literally removed by riot police, and the movement died. Unsurprisingly, the number of homeless people increased drastically in that same period (financial crisis) and how have many municipalities responded? Laws against sleeping on benches. There was literally a tent city under Las Vegas, but the decision makers in this society are so far removed it just doesn’t matter. Until the bread runs out, we are not in a real “end of the world” crisis as you describe it. Americans are apathetic, just wealthy enough not to starve, have deeply ingrained individualism that makes them resistant to anything resembling support or handouts, and don’t understand what’s happening - that is to say, the rich are getting so rich their families will never be poor again, and the doors to that class are closing. There’s more support now for ideas like a basic income, universal healthcare, etc. but the fundamentals of the system are so ponderously difficult to change...a very interesting situation.

Of course!

My conspiracy theory is that because the stole 700billion with the bank bailouts and that resulted in OWS, which was quashed pretty quickly - and resulted in no consequences for those that stole that.

They have ossued the “stay inside orders” whole the now steal four trillion dollars so there wont be another OWS at scale.

It wasn't too long ago that Los Angeles was burning on national TV, and people had to post on roofs with rifles due to the police refusing to get involved with the situation beyond protecting the wealthiest zip codes. It only stopped when the national guard deployed armored vehicles.

People think the U.S. is removed from this sort of thing. It's not. If you push the working class to a breaking point, they will break into stores to steal diapers if they have to.

I mostly agree with what you're saying, but disagree about Bernie. Many of his biggest policies are still just trying to cover the rot with a coat of paint. Healthcare too expensive? Just have the government cover the bill. College too expensive? Same thing. Workers not paid enough? Raise the minimum wage. All very blunt, simplistic reactions, that ignore the complexities of the real world. Getting rid of the rot requires looking at the roots of the problems. If something is 10x more expensive today than it was a few decades ago, just agreeing to pay the 10x price is not a good solution. You need to figure out and address the underlying causes.

I am still hopeful for our future, maybe foolishly, but I am. If there is a silver lining of Covid-19, maybe it will highlight some of the insane bureaucracy and regulatory capture that are strangling our institutions in the US and lead to improvements. Don't get me wrong, we also need some progressive policies targeted at helping those who are struggling most, but those policies will only be effective if we also recognize and address the underlying cost disease issues. Just look at progressive havens like San Francisco to see how much money can be burned on well-intentioned ideas without achieving any results, if you refuse to acknowledge the underlying causes.

> If something is 10x more expensive today than it was a few decades ago, just agreeing to pay the 10x price is not a good solution.

That's not what those proposals were. Single payer healthcare and state-provided education is how you fix those problems.

IMO, 4 year university degrees in the USA in their current state are basically a scam

We're promising kids that if they study hard in school they'll be elevated to the middle/upper class by their degree, but in reality most of those degrees are almost completely worthless for building a career.

People are graduating with 4 year degrees in business, math, assorted liberal arts, and then they're saddled with 6 figures of debt and not any more appealing to companies than someone with a year of experience in a desk job

Another problem: So many people are getting pushed into getting 4 year degrees now that they're now a requirement for many jobs that don't even need them. Sure, a CS degree will help if you're building some Google-scale backend code, but you really don't need one to tinker with a small web storefront's layout bugs

Bernie isn't trying to solve a problem, more correct it. Why fault the people for trying to correct a problem that's more to their advantage when hospitals, to this day, still haven't tried to correct the problem of expenses. One shouldn't have to forego their home to pay for small surgical procedures. When people try to correct these things we get replies like yours saying you shouldn't correct them but leave them to the system to correct them. We have to realize the "system" won't inherently do these things, we the people as part of the system have to take measures to look out for ourselves also because the system won't do it for us.

I would agree with you if there weren't so many case studies of other countries solving those problems with those exact, "blunt"-seeming solutions.

Are you familiar with Bernie's plans of

a) giving 20% of ownership of large corporations and 40% of board seats to workers?

b) breaking up the big banks and helping community banks.

These are insanely good ideas and aren't simplistic. Unfortunately, many, including you, only scratched the surface of what Bernie was about.

"Bernie Sanders was, as far as I can see, our last shot at reversing the trend from within the current system"

If anything, Bernie Sanders was our first, worst shot at structural economic change. In fact, every candidate on stage during those Democratic debates was running far, far to the economic left of Barack Obama, John Kerry, Al Gore or either Clinton. With some historical perspective, you might see that the tides have turned in favor of the types of changes you are calling for, not against as so many people seem to pretend.

There's truth here, but - and this is getting into subjective territory - it's my belief that none of the other candidates came by those platforms through conviction. I think they measured what voters wanted to hear, measured what kind of brand they could sell for themselves, found the intersection, and constructed a campaign around it.

Now, that doesn't completely invalidate the point! There's a genuine "economy" of votes around "I take a stance for X, you give me votes, I continue to take that stance, you continue to give me votes", which can function even in the midst of cynicism. But it's much less reliable or efficient when that's the case; when the politician, as a person, doesn't base their platform in their genuine beliefs. In fact I think the prevalence of this mentality is one of the major causes of our current situation.

There's almost nobody left among our politicians who has any real conviction. I think John McCain did. And call me naive, but I believe Bernie Sanders is authentic when he's talking about these topics. He's been doing so since the seventies. Career-politicians who do nothing but appease voters might do an okay job at running the show, but they will never truly change the system that got them elected.

In practice, none of them would actually have implemented it, except the only one with a history of going against party and lobby. Barack Obama ran far to the left of Barack Obama, but ended up compromising with Republicans for some absurd reason as he held both the house and senate, to the degree where he passed Mitt Romney's proposal while dragging his feet.

None of them except for Bernie Sanders was willing to recognize the system as fundamentally broken. Biden and Clinton and indubitably their Democrat sosies would openly profess to the elite that nothing would change.

"none of them would actually have implemented it, except the only one with a history of going against party and lobby"

Why would the person with few allies and hostile relations with various power players be the one who could "actually" implement anything? Barack Obama had a senate majority that Bernie would have killed for in his hypothetical first term, but Obama still couldn't get his own party to even consider a public option. Things have changed compared to them, but not so much that any 51-seat senate majority could pass anything close to what Bernie calls for. It's beyond unrealistic to pretend otherwise.

Because the presidency is vastly more powerful than what you think. Obama could have pulled an FDR, or a Trump, and shifted the party very hard, but didn't. It's quite simple: you go to your opponent, you tell him that if he doesn't follow the whip you will use your vast reach to get him primaried, threaten to modify the rules of the DNC, hell, drum up support for a general strike. Threaten to slash the military budget, threaten to cancel a defence program, or to stop shale oil subsidies, play politics. But for some reason, from FDR onwards, no one plays politics except to concede towards the right. Literally no one in power. The platform of the Democratic Party has become "Let's be Republican-lite in order to win those elusive moderate independent" that for some reason seem to shift more and more towards the right for every single election cycle for the last 40 years, almost as if they were illusory or weren't as ideologically unmovable as asserted.

And it's total bullshit that the Democratic Party wouldn't consider a public option. The Republican Party was considering a public option.

You're saying that even with a Senate majority, Obama couldn't get his own party to consider public option, while also arguing that through candidates that are "far to the left" of Obama (except Bernie Sanders apparently), we can achieve the kind of structural economic change that people who support Bernie Sanders want. Seems a bit contradictory to me.

> but ended up compromising with Republicans for some absurd reason as he held both the house and senate

My memory is a bit fuzzy on this, but didn't he also have to compromise with the (relatively) right-leaning wing of the Democratic party?

Did Trump have to compromise with the left wing of the Republican Party? Did Biden have to compromise with the left wing of the Democratic Party? No, because of the implicit threat of being primaried, or for the party to be shifted. Which Obama did not even threaten, but all others presidents did (towards the right).

He also openly compomised in the name of "bipartisanship" multiple times despite it being uneeded.

The only thing that comes close to a left wing part of the Republican Party is Sue Collins, who is always very sorry and disappointed but eventually toes the party line.

Compared to Trump, roughly half of the Republican party is to his left by varying magnitudes. Obamacare, for example, was originally a Republican proposal.

But yes, the entire Republican party line eventually toes the party line. Same for the Democratic party, as long as the party line strengthens the class interests of the elite.

I didn't believe even Sanders would do that. That's why I supported Gabbard. She wasn't as strong on the economics, but I actually believed she would try to rein in the military-industrial complex, which is an indisputable blight upon humanity and which Sanders never discusses.