Political Roundtable Part XXVII

[dckingsfan]

Back to an equivalence. An administration that started the war vs. one that got saddled with the war.

[Pointgod]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Get Mayor Pete out of the paint.

This is 100% speculative bull and poor journalism. Listen I used to work in consulting and there’s little to lay at the feet of a junior associate. First of all, this is just poor journalism and I’m not surprised the Intercept is pushing unsubstantiated claims. Second, yes sad reality is that people get laid off, companies restructure all the time. That’s a tough reality of business. Third McKinsey couldn’t raise premiums for a healthcare insurer and it’s idiotic to think that a junior employee would have any influence on these decisions. This is a lot different from Mitt Romney, who was head of a Private Equity company.

[dckingsfan]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Get Mayor Pete out of the paint.

This is 100% speculative bull and poor journalism. Listen I used to work in consulting and there’s little to lay at the feet of a junior associate. First of all, this is just poor journalism and I’m not surprised the Intercept is pushing unsubstantiated claims. Second, yes sad reality is that people get laid off, companies restructure all the time. That’s a tough reality of business. Third McKinsey couldn’t raise premiums for a healthcare insurer and it’s idiotic to think that a junior employee would have any influence on these decisions. This is a lot different from Mitt Romney, who was head of a Private Equity company.

Yep, just bad reporting... Add to that - McKinsey isn't called in when things are going well. Adding to my original questions that good reporting would cover.

What were the premium increases vs. the rest of the industry?

Did those layoffs help streamline efficiencies (remove:that allowed for a better patient experience)?

Why was McKinsey called in in the first place?

[dckingsfan]

It would be "interesting" seeing a bunch of insurance companies go belly up from climate change. The entire issue of "we don't know how/where a climate change event is going to strike is indeed the key. For a long-time the cost of climate change was "hidden".

I think there might be pushback when the cost to insure a house is as much as the mortgage.

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2019/09/19/changing-weather-could-put-insurance-firms-out-of-business

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/01/07/colorado-west-wildfire-risk-home-insurance/

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/climate/california-fire-insurance-climate.html

Of course - not necessarily terrible for farmers

But here's the good news: He'll get a check anyway — a payout from his crop insurance. It won't be as much money as he'd have gotten from a soybean crop, but it'll help him get by, "which is better than going under, you know?" he says.

Most farmers who grow big commodity crops like corn, soybeans and wheat buy crop insurance. It's a good deal for them; the federal government actually covers about 60 percent of the cost of the premiums.

In fact, the federal government spends, on average, about $8 billion a year subsidizing crop insurance for farmers.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/07/24/npr-as-climate-changes-taxpayers-will-shoulder-larger-u-s-payouts-to-farmers

Climate change could make insurance too expensive for most people

As a note: Housing is between 15-18% of GDP - look for that number to fall...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/21/climate-change-could-make-insurance-too-expensive-for-ordinary-people-report

[I_Like_Dirt]

Of course - not necessarily terrible for farmers

But here's the good news: He'll get a check anyway — a payout from his crop insurance. It won't be as much money as he'd have gotten from a soybean crop, but it'll help him get by, "which is better than going under, you know?" he says.

Most farmers who grow big commodity crops like corn, soybeans and wheat buy crop insurance. It's a good deal for them; the federal government actually covers about 60 percent of the cost of the premiums.

In fact, the federal government spends, on average, about $8 billion a year subsidizing crop insurance for farmers.

It will come eventually. Where do you think the bulk of the climate change deniers are, based on % of population? The whole food security concern has shielded farmers from the effects of climate change and it's about to get a whole lot more expensive to do that. Couple that most of the continental reasons are disproportionately farmers and the effects of climate change, while still significant, aren't anywhere near what they are on the coasts at this point and good luck figuring that one out. That $8 billion figure doesn't include states costs, either. Farmers would be screaming about climate change if they had to pay out of their own pocket for lost crops, or even just for the ever-increasing insurance premiums. As it is, they're basically all well aware of the issue but don't prioritize it. Climate change has the potential to force dramatic and continual changes to the food production system which will cost a truckload. That worrying about such problems is disproportionately left to younger people is depressing.

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[queridiculo]

20 years of war in Afghanistan, and yet it's just one of many in the history of the United States where the public was misled about the efficacy, motivation and long term prospects of the conflicts they involved the nation in.

Trillions of dollars wasted and tens, if not hundreds of thousands of citizens' lives destroyed, in the name of what, corporate welfare?

How can you look at this pattern of deception and ignore the reality that we have collectively been duped into consenting into a social contract that champions the financial and strategic interests of faceless corporations and industries, over the welfare of an entire society?

You almost have to laugh at the absurdity of the GOP's base being so distracted by their fog of hatred and ignorance that they can't even see the obvious contempt their representatives have for them.

I feel bad for the poor people left behind by policies that actively undermine and destroy any chance they have at carving a living out for themselves and their families, but I am not sure anymore if it isn't outweighed by my contempt for the self righteous, morally superior **** that make it all possible.

[gtn130]

Why was McKinsey called in in the first place?

Is there a reason to think it would be anything but to increase margins? Of course it's *possible* Mayor Pete was doing stuff at McKinsey that wasn't outright depraved, but it doesn't really matter because that is an incredibly low bar to clear for someone who is running for President.

There are alternatives to candidates who spent a big chunk of their professional careers helping health insurance companies maximize profits at the expense of workers and healthcare recipients. The best case outcome for Pete here is that he was doing consulting work that didn't happen to be harmful to society. That outcome does not make him a viable Presidential candidate, it makes him a guy who made ppt decks to help businesses make more money.

[dckingsfan]

Why was McKinsey called in in the first place?

Is there a reason to think it would be anything but to increase margins? Of course it's *possible* Mayor Pete was doing stuff at McKinsey that wasn't outright depraved, but it doesn't really matter because that is an incredibly low bar to clear for someone who is running for President.

There are alternatives to candidates who spent a big chunk of their professional careers helping health insurance companies maximize profits at the expense of workers and healthcare recipients. The best case outcome for Pete here is that he was doing consulting work that didn't happen to be harmful to society. That outcome does not make him a viable Presidential candidate, it makes him a guy who made ppt decks to help businesses make more money.

Yes, many times when I have been involved with McKinsey it was because there was a problem that the company just couldn't solve. Or if they felt like they were headed toward insolvency if they didn't fix problems. Or if the business model they were using was becoming obsolete due to a changing marketplace of competitors.

Also, isn't it beneficial for a candidate to have both business experience and political experience? Or business, political and military experience?

Well, maybe not through the lens you are looking through - but maybe to more moderate voters?

[gtn130]

Yes, many times when I have been involved with McKinsey it was because there was a problem that the company just couldn't solve. Or if they felt like they were headed toward insolvency if they didn't fix problems. Or if the business model they were using was becoming obsolete due to a changing marketplace of competitors.

These things literally all result in generating more profit.

Also, isn't it beneficial for a candidate to have both business experience and political experience? Or business, political and military experience?

No? What evidence is there that Presidents need business experience?

Well, maybe not through the lens you are looking through - but maybe to more moderate voters?

Could be, man, but I don't think "moderate" voters are correct about much.

[dckingsfan]

Yes, many times when I have been involved with McKinsey it was because there was a problem that the company just couldn't solve. Or if they felt like they were headed toward insolvency if they didn't fix problems. Or if the business model they were using was becoming obsolete due to a changing marketplace of competitors.

These things literally all result in generating more profit.

Also, isn't it beneficial for a candidate to have both business experience and political experience? Or business, political and military experience?

No? What evidence is there that Presidents need business experience?

Well, maybe not through the lens you are looking through - but maybe to more moderate voters?

Could be, man, but I don't think "moderate" voters are correct about much.

Answer 1: staying in business is good? And in general, so is business process improvement.
Answer 2: What evidence to the contrary. I think all experience is beneficial. If you think business people are evil - not much I can say about that. If you think there is no benefit from seeing business process improvement and using it for government business process improvement, well...
Answer 3: Okay - but they still get to vote

[gtn130]

Answer 2: What evidence to the contrary. I think all experience is beneficial. If you think business people are evil - not much I can say about that. If you think there is no benefit from seeing business process improvement and using it for government business process improvement, well...

Government and business are not the same thing. The burden of proof here is on you.

My point isn't to vilify business owners - but I do think the work done by the McKinseys of the world provides zero value to society. It is a mark against Pete Buttigieg that he was a consultant, regardless of what he was actually doing at McKinsey.

[dckingsfan]

Answer 2: What evidence to the contrary. I think all experience is beneficial. If you think business people are evil - not much I can say about that. If you think there is no benefit from seeing business process improvement and using it for government business process improvement, well...

Government and business are not the same thing. The burden of proof here is on you.

My point isn't to vilify business owners - but I do think the work done by the McKinseys of the world provides zero value to society. It is a mark against Pete Buttigieg that he was a consultant, regardless of what he was actually doing at McKinsey.

Process improvement is process improvement in business as in government. That you think it has no value... well, I can't help you there. Do you not understand that McKinsey also provides services to governments to increase productivity for better government services? Is that a bad thing?

And to say that it is a mark against Buttigieg that he was in business (on the consulting side) shows your bias against business. I get that you have your problems with capitalism and business people. But I am going to say that your comments are showing a bit of ignorance on this particular subject.

To me (and many moderates) having experience in business, military and government is a net positive. IMO, general experience before government is a good thing. Just like it is a positive that Warren was a law professor before she was in government. Just like it Biden being a public defender before being in government, ect..

[gtn130]

Process improvement is process improvement in business as in government.

No, it's not! You say this, but it's not true. Running the federal government and running a healthcare company are not the same thing even if they can both benefit from the broad nebulous concept of "process improvement".

Do you not understand that McKinsey also provides services to governments to increase productivity for better government services? Is that a bad thing?

Wow, you don't say! You realize that like 90% of federal government consulting/contracting is straight up grifting right? Legitimately almost every single person working for BAH, Deloitte, PWC, etc. has a completely pointless job.

And to say that it is a mark against Buttigieg that he was in business (on the consulting side) shows your bias against business.

I'm not saying this, though. I actually said quite explicitly that I'm not vilifying anyone for being in "business" but I do think consulting is often either an outright scam due to its inefficacy or is detrimental to society. There is a massive difference between starting a business that creates things and being a knowledge worker who makes decks for Big Pharma or whatever.

Just like it Biden being a public defender before being in government, ect..

Would you trust Joe Biden to represent you in any legal setting?

[dckingsfan]

Process improvement is process improvement in business as in government.

No, it's not! You say this, but it's not true. Running the federal government and running a healthcare company are not the same thing even if they can both benefit from the broad nebulous concept of "process improvement".

No, you are correct. Running the federal government and running a healthcare company are not the same thing. We can agree on this.

But, process improvements you might see in a healthcare company may be similar in say HUD. And yes, that experience could be very useful when tackling the healthcare issues in front of us. We are a collection of our experiences.

Do you not understand that McKinsey also provides services to governments to increase productivity for better government services? Is that a bad thing?

Wow, you don't say! You realize that like 90% of federal government consulting/contracting is straight up grifting right? Legitimately almost every single person working for BAH, Deloitte, PWC, etc. has a completely pointless job.

That is just straight bias. "All consultants are complete pointless". Why not just substitute Mexican for Deloitte and be Trump. Are all of the services that Deloitte brings to the table worthwhile, no. Are many of the services they bring to the table worthwhile, yes.

And to say that it is a mark against Buttigieg that he was in business (on the consulting side) shows your bias against business.

I'm not saying this, though. I actually said quite explicitly that I'm not vilifying anyone for being in "business" but I do think consulting is often either an outright scam due to its inefficacy or is detrimental to society. There is a massive difference between starting a business that creates things and being a knowledge worker who makes decks for Big Pharma or whatever.

Of course you are... you could say "bank" "consultant" "insurance company" - you paint a very broad brush. Only those that have started a business are worthwhile - everyone else is a grifter. You have no idea of the breadth of services offered by consultants both big and small.

Just like Biden being a public defender before being in government, ect..

Would you trust Joe Biden to represent you in any legal setting?

Sorry, did you see Biden in court when he was younger? Do you know how he represented his clientele?

Now, do I want Biden now? Well, over Trump yes. But that goes for Bernie after his heart attack as well (and I guess Bernie is the last one of the D candidates that I would want to represent me as he starts yelling at the jury).

Do I think that Biden is as addled as some make him out to be? No. Do I think Bernie is a communist? No. Do I think that Warren is a war-mongering D? No. Do I think that Buttigieg is an evil corporatist? No.

And yet they have all been labeled as such - wonder where that is coming from?

[pancakes3]

it's not about the industry but the candidate. it's not buttigieg or any other person's individual fault that banking, finance, and consulting pays super well and attract bright minds. bright people follow the money.

not to say that there aren't bright minds working in other fields, or even that bankers/consultants/wall street are smarter than other equally intelligent-attractive fields like engineering or medicine, but point remains that it's pretty fallacious to say that "the industries don't translate, so politicians shouldn't come from these ranks"

like, yeah, buttigieg is a corporate shill, and also came from MBB consulting. the two aren't mutually exclusive.

amal clooney worked at a law firm doing white collar defense before transitioning to human rights. elena kagan worked at a firm before going into academia. people have lives. pinning blame because of what someone had to do - especially as a junior cog is bad reasoning.

[gtn130]

it's not about the industry but the candidate. it's not buttigieg or any other person's individual fault that banking, finance, and consulting pays super well and attract bright minds. bright people follow the money.

not to say that there aren't bright minds working in other fields, or even that bankers/consultants/wall street are smarter than other equally intelligent-attractive fields like engineering or medicine, but point remains that it's pretty fallacious to say that "the industries don't translate, so politicians shouldn't come from these ranks"

like, yeah, buttigieg is a corporate shill, and also came from MBB consulting. the two aren't mutually exclusive.

amal clooney worked at a law firm doing white collar defense before transitioning to human rights. elena kagan worked at a firm before going into academia. people have lives. pinning blame because of what someone had to do - especially as a junior cog is bad reasoning.

I’m not saying candidates shouldn’t come from those ranks - I’m saying it’s not a plus when they do.

And this is a horrific pitch for Pete Buttigieg for President. There are other candidates who didn’t spend their brain power and a big chunk of their careers on management consulting. There is absolutely no reason for me to try to suss out what type of consulting work Mayor Pete did when I don’t have to perform that exercise at all for the rest of the field.

There are simply better candidates in the field with far better track records than some slap**** management consultant who speaks seven languages and has no clear policy positions

[gtn130]

Like sure let’s not crucify Pete Buttigieg for being a consultant. At what point do we get to the compelling part of his background that makes him a good candidate for President?

[verbal8]

I think passing NAFTA2 on the same day that the Articles of Impeachment are released is brilliant.

It shows impeachment as being in additional to normal business, not in place of it. It probably became a campaign ad for Amy McGrath since #MoscowMitch can't apparently handle it. It also contrast dramatically with Trump's Russian Collusion-fest today.

[queridiculo]

I think passing NAFTA2 on the same day that the Articles of Impeachment are released is brilliant.

It shows impeachment as being in additional to normal business, not in place of it. It probably became a campaign ad for Amy McGrath since #MoscowMitch can't apparently handle it. It also contrast dramatically with Trump's Russian Collusion-fest today.

It's a win, for the republicans.

NAFTA2 is a setback for anybody looking to reign in healthcare costs and there is zero chance of reaching the two-thirds majority in the senate for a conviction.

The GOP will spin the failure to convict as the deep state gone rogue and use it to energize their base for the 2020 election.