Listen now (73 mins) | Professor David Hemenway, the author of “Private Guns, Public Health” joins us to explain how we can reduce gun deaths if we treat the problem more like a public health issue, just like Ralph proved when dealing with the auto industry. Plus, Ralph weighs in on the repeal of the child tax credit, and Francesco DeSantis reports news items that tend to get ignored in the corporate media in our segment “In Case You Haven’t Heard.”
Regarding the point in Francesco’s segment about the Canadian homeless study:
“...yet, what was remarkable about this study is it showed this program actually saved taxpayers money overall by relieving $8,277 per subject by removing them from the shelter system.”
This is not exactly what the research states, but I reckon that summary is based on this sentence from the journal article (p. 9):
“In the utilitarian condition, participants read another summary of Study 1 results showing that cash recipients reduced their reliance on the shelter system and saved more money than the cash transfer itself, producing net savings for society.”
In my view, what the authors are saying exactly is ill-defined. If we’re talking about municipal and state/provincial-run shelters, and many homeless shelters in the US are run by private charity, then perhaps there is some level of truth to what was said in Francesco’s segment and in the journal article as these are all currency-using entities.
Of course, we must remember that the authors of this study are not economists. The authors come from departments of psychology, medicine, statistics, and so forth. From the view of those professions, I think the research has merit in helping squash the neoliberal conservative and neoliberal centrist viewpoints. The conservative viewpoint is that poor people are poor because they cannot handle money and, thus, they aren’t worthy of social support. The neoliberal centrist position is that the poor need counseling in how to handle money and, with that, they’d be self-supporting. This is nothing new really, but research shows this to not be correct and now there is more evidence for that view.
Beyond that, I wouldn’t take the economic policy recommendations in the study seriously. Again, the recommendations were not made by economists or made from an economically enlightened point of view as the authors are working on commonly held neoliberal assumptions. Money transfers or a universal basic income in circumstances where rent is controlled by private interests will only lead to inflated housing costs and will eventually put even further burden on the poor as the private rent-controlling interests will increase their rates to account for the increased income.
The correct solution is a combination of policies including affordable public housing funded by the currency-issuing national government (the operation of the public housing can be done provincially under national guidelines, but the funding must come from the national government), comprehensive public healthcare funded by the currency-issuing national government, full employment policies by the national government, and a job guarantee program funded by the currency-issuing national government. Full employment with a job guarantee will act as an inflation buffer as explained by Randy Wray et al. and, of course, the benefits of affordable public housing ought to be obvious. None of these nationally-funded programs will cost taxpayers anything since the national budget is not funded by taxes.
Neoliberalism is so ingrained in society that I’m not surprised that the authors of the study are working from neoliberal assumptions. They are not economists so I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt that they didn’t intend to make neoliberal assumptions. That said, those listening to and producing the Ralph Nader Radio Hour really ought to know better by now than to parrot neoliberalism. In that regard, Mr. Nader is correct in admonishing the Democratic Party for not challenging the Republican Party on social program cuts. That said, those of us demanding better from both parties must be economically informed enough to know what to demand or else we’re guaranteed to get some flavor of neoliberal policy.
I just want to make this quick point that if Milton Friedman was alive today, he'd smile and laugh with glee each time the Ralph Nader Radio Hour states something about 'taxpayer money' as it relates to the US federal budget. Will the esteemed members of the Ralph Nader Radio Hour stop trying to please Milton Friedman and his corporate acolytes?
Ro Khanna is a true bullshit artist. He worked unsuccessfully for Bernie, who has become, again, a shill for the Democrats. This stinks like a game to entrap Progressives in the pretense that there are actual Progressives in Congress. Progressives fight. Democrats whimper and whine. This is not hyperbole. Folks need to pull the blinders off. That includes you Mr. Nader. I know what real progressives look like, act like, and even smell like, and there isn’t a single one in Congress.
If there is a more topical and relevant guest for the RNRH than UAW president Shawn Fain, I don't know who it could be.....get him on NOW!! And for the whole hour.....
Andrew Yang suggested each Gun had a “Finger print” or “Hand Recognition Safety.”
As a Teacher & Researcher I do not believe Education is offering enough. I believe it is from School to Work. My Vision is each child is in Montessori from PreK upward, this learning engineering, balance & math. I will also
Offer SUZZUKI Singing & Music Instruments to learn Reading & Presentstiron.
In time, after each student has experienced all tools they will take their State Board in Their Chosen Skill, Graduate & Woek 2 Years in their Community as an Intern, thus becommjng a Master of their Trade. This is also their DRAFT.
S this saves USA $2 Billion per day that private mercenaries are paid to protect USA interests.
PUBLIC CITIZEN: Forgive me, but I have been broke. I just donated to Nuclear Hotseat &
Public Citizen is next. I would love to be in DC & interact with Congress.
Note: I also LOVE the idea of individual country states or Commonwealths where we can control our income, outgoing &’contracts,
Such as Yearly Review of Corporate Contracts
This is just playing “catch up”. We have more easy steps to take as we communicate with each other. (w)
"The Greatest Show on Earth": the most uplifting documentary in history.
Since so far we can't control gun access effectively, is there a way to control access to bullets? This could especially be a way to make ghost guns less "useful" to those who want them.
Oh my goodness, I might need another PhD to read the glorious pages of the latest Capitol Hill CITIZEN. The editorial is rich, a wealth of weaponizing reality. I haven't devoured 1/2 of what you've all served up. Literally needed to double read = Dirty duoploy debt deal, Democrats are not taking corporate crime seriously, Iraq war 20 yrs later. Grab a copy folks & test your levels of sustainable comprehension. Post Hole Digger *Kathlean Keesler PhD
First and foremost... Law is a function of Logic, and not opinion. Opinion is irrefutable fallacy of Logic
The individual Right to self preservation is nobody's business but the Individual. It is INALIENABLE and therfore subject to the opinion of nobody.
This kind of hyperbole of gun violence is puerile popular sciolism and the most illogical & illegitimate nonsense of Government. Gun cowardice is the epitome of pusillanimous puerility. Gun ownership and responsibility should be mandatory education in the United States as it is in other peaceful nations.
Nonetheless, Rule of Law protects Individual Rights in the United States. The very Law, all Public Servants are lawfully obliged to uphold - the U.S. Constitution is as clear as a Propositional Statement can be - "The Right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed". Propositional Statements are axiomatic Logical certainty. A Propositional Statement is a Truth Statement function of Logic. Opinion is moot-point Logical fallacy. Grow up. There is no legitimacy to gun control of any kind. Whether you like it or not.
This "Public Health" scam is nothing more than an illegitimate attempt to get around Constitutional Law in order to institute illegitimate and illegal Gun Control. It's arrogantly-ignorant virtue-signaling foolishness, and inherently criminal.
Any agent of Government acting in contradiction of the Constitution should be summarily removed from office and indicted for Treason. The United States of America is a Nomocracy by Law.
Health as well as security are not public issues, no matter who opines different It's a private matter. Individuality, independence, liberty, and freedom are not subject to the definition, approval, or permission of anyone. Particularly agents of Government & their lickspittle's.
Rights are INALIENABLE - opinions be damned. Contrary opinion is moot-point Logical fallacy.
Inalienable is a Logically certain Propositional word not subject to opinion. Contrary opinion is moot-point fallacy of Logic.
This "public health crisis" attempt at Gun Control is exactly what the malfeasant Governor of New Mexico is illegally attempting. It's criminal violation of Constitutional Law. Moreover it's not even an argument congruent of Law. However, the argument that all Gun Control is a Public Health crisis is congruent of Logic.
Everyone in the United States is obligated by Law to the Constitution especially every citizen on the Public payroll.
Guys, please consider having Matt Kennard on the show, co-author of "Silent Coup: How Corporations Overthrew Democracy". He sees it and I'd say would be valuable to have on.
Guys, see if you can get on Matt Kennard, co-author of "Silent Coup: How Corporations Overthrew Democracy". He sees it. It'll be valuable to have him on.
Why is Ralph applauding Ro Khanna for his anti-corruption con?
Even with a perfect storm scenario those proposals will take 20 years to legislate and implement as they would require not just legislation but a constitutional amendment. And the prospects for a perfect storm scenario are pretty dim.
The corporate corruption is facilitated by big money in our political process. The problem caused by big money in our political process is that the big money legislators only pass legislation that primarily benefits the big money interests and the big money interests have no interest in getting the big money out of politics.
In order to pass legislation to get the big money out of politics we must first replace the big money legislators with small donor legislators. The problem has to be solved before legislation to solve the problem can be passed.
This also ties in with the discussion of third or forth parties and the parliamentary system that would also at best take decades to accomplish.
The parliamentary system is an academic discussion and a third or forth party would make little difference in congressional elections if they were also made up of big money candidates.
How much difference would it make to choose between three or four big money candidates instead of two big money candidates?
And the Democrats and Republicans are not really two parties except on paper. They are in practice each one half of the one big money party. Before we call for a third party we have to have a second party to provide opposition to the big money party.
In congressional elections 90% of citizens live in a district where only one half of the one big money party can win the election as it is gerrymandered for either a Democrat or Republican. Even if you consider the Democrats and Republicans two separate parties those 90% of citizens live in a one party district.
About 40% of citizens in those districts that will not be voting for the gerrymandered winner of the district will be voting for a candidate that cannot win the election.
Using a vote on a big money candidate that cannot win does nothing to get the big money out of politics. As 80% of citizens want the big money out of politics, if Ralph believes that anti-corruption is a winning issue then why not encourage these citizens that are using their vote on a big money candidate that cannot win to instead use their vote use their vote to demand small donor candidates by participating in One Demand?
Citizens can use a write in vote if there are no small donor candidates on the congressional ballot in their district in 2024 rather than vote for a big money candidate that cannot win in 2024 which ensures that there will only be the same non-choice in 2026.
Rather than call for Ro Khanna to add an anti-corporate corruption plank to his con, Ralph should be encouraging citizens to participate in One Demand to eliminate the big money in our political process that facilitates the corporate corruption as this could begin to be effective by 2026 or 2028 rather than decades of waiting for the big money politicians to get it done .