Re: What?

Or, mayhap, eliminate a system that runs on money in the first place! Nahhhh...

There are only two ways in which people may acquire something they don't have: voluntary exchange; and violence. And wherever there is voluntary exchange, some form of abstract means of exchange will appear. Sweden today is seriously considering banning cash, but not for a moneyless society, but for a society completely running on cellphone mediated payments. (I disagree, my reasons are predictable)

many other Americans are beginning to more loudly complain about this situation, more's the pity for pro-capitalists like youse who fetishize money rather than *hurls!* equality!

It's not about money. It's that there is no way to create equality without stopping the more successful from succeeding. Yes, the Olympics would be more egalitarian if runners had a target time to run to and all arrived simultaneously to the finish, but that wouldn't be "the best" performance possible. Unfortunately, that means that thousands of runners don't have any medals to show for their effort, real as that effort is.

and have the ability to pretty much purchase the loyalty of the government officials with their campaign lobbying, along with all the best lawyers, which has the effect of constantly bolstering the gap between the small number of haves and the vast number of have nots, as well as insuring that the laws the very system of "justice" constantly favor the rich.

Which is why every branch of government should have a lot less power than it has now. A powerless government is useless to lobby, no matter if you're a billionnaire, because whatever you ask it to do, it cannot do.

And it doesn't change the fact that the poor remains exploited, nor the simple ethical point that all who do the work deserve full access to the social store of wealth that is produced.

And yet, most of the poor seem, de facto, by action, not by words, more interested in raising their quality of life than in ending exploitation.

Yes, it does, because those in power have a vested interest in losing them, and you know what I mean by that. Winning a war against poverty has too many disadvantages for the tiny number of beneficiaries of a system that thrives on inequality, which is why "winning" this war on poverty is so extraordinarily difficult--if not impossible--within the context of a class-divided society itself.

Well, we agree.

Sorry, but it's bigger than all other nations combined, and a huge amount of our tax dollars go to fund it, so I totally disagree with you that it's not obscenely big.

The USA is the richest country in the world, the most powerful in soft terms too, and has large borders and coasts (and some overseas possessions not interested in independence). With this, there is no way it was going to have a small defense. Short of fragmentation (which I would favor for other reasons, but which is not likely in the short term), it will continue to have the largest defense budget in the world for the foreseeable future.

Moreover, and most important, since the US armed forces are, de facto, the armed forces of its rich allies too (Canada, Western Europe, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, and Saudi Arabia, at least) - the USA is financing the defense of other countries. This is empire, but it needs mentioning of itself because that is the real reason that other rich countries have so small defense budgets. The budgets of American enemies are much better comparison points: China, Russia, Iran. Even the budgets of American allies outside the umbrella are better points of comparison: Israel, India and Pakistan.

Lots of luck trying to convince the most powerful nation in the world from both a military and economic standpoint within a global system that thrives on competition and private ownership and control of the world's resources not to do everything in that considerable power to build an empire. The globalization of capital, and all that.

China and India are not doing it.

And as I have told you endless times (and will likely tell you endless times again)[â¦]

All of that is a product that the way health provision is designed by law incentives every provider to raise their costs and conduct useless treatments or choose more expensive alternatives. This inevitably raises insurance premiums; and inevitably raises also the costs to government of financing some of it. There are huge barriers to entry both for doctors and for treatments and medicines, which makes absolutely no sense. And there are huge incentives to align your own way to operate as a hospital or doctor not with the patients but with the government and private insurers. It need not be that expensive; no matter who is paying.

And you said not a thing about Bianca.

Go for her. Talented, but a little too old for me.