this is at best an incomplete assessment and at worst ahistorical
others [1] would argue that it was american auto manufacturers' anti-union zealotry (and the decisions they made in the production process to combat the unions) that lead them to shoot themselves in their own foot.
[1] Schwartz, Michael, and Joshua Murray. Wrecked: How the American Automobile Industry Destroyed Its Capacity to Compete. Russell Sage Foundation, 2019.
"Marxism has therefore given up trying to provide an explanation for the 20th century history... The reason for this failure lies in the fact that Marxism never made a meaningful distinction between standard Marxist schemes regarding the succession of socio-economic formations (what I call the Western Path of Development, WPD) and the evolution of poorer and colonized countries. Classical Marxism never asked seriously whether the WPD is applicable in their case."
In fact this was/is an active area of research, namely Post Colonial Theory and Subaltern Studies, which has been heavily criticized and reified with a more classic Marxist analysis since. Post Colonial Theory and the Specter of Capital [1] is perhaps the most accessible such critique.
It's worth noting that a recent analysis of S.1804, the Medicare for All Act, "could reduce total health care spending in the U.S. by nearly 10 percent" [1]. Even conservative analysis [2] has the program project to save in the trillions over a decade.
All while providing comprehensive, universal healthcare, free at the point-of-service.
Also, Medicare For All would theoretically be able to command substantially lower drug prices by nearly monopolizing demand.
Notably, given the study's analysis focus on OECD countries, the United States is (said to be [3]) the only of the top 25 wealthiest countries and one of two total member countries to not provide universal healthcare coverage.
Why would I be excited about a proposal to totally restructure an industry that every American comes into contact with and that represents something approaching 20% of our economy just for the prospect of a ten percent savings? Take any family complaining today about the cost of a Silver plan on an ACA exchange, offer them a 10% savings, and see if they're OK with what they're paying.
It leaves us overspending on health care by a huge amount, raises everyone's insurance, and ultimately takes away everyone's employer-provided care, which the majority of Americans who have it like. If it was cutting our expenses in half, the cost savings might sell it. But 10%?
> ultimately takes away everyone's employer-provided care
Really? Even the NHS system allows a parallel employer provided system to run alongside it, it's just only common for higher-paying jobs and those with US parent companies.
Right, the rich will retain private care no matter what. The challenge is what happens to the middle class, the majority of whom have employer-provided care that they actually like (this is a major challenge with any health reform in the US: the status quo has powerful support). There's a near-consensus that the impact to the market for these insurance products will, within a few years, be eliminated by M4A.
It's not that it's imperfect, it's that it's insignificant.
If the proposal had no costs, it would obviously be worth pursuing.
But it's a historically disruptive proposal. For changes on that scale, we should be targeting significant fixes. 10% is just nibbling at the edge of the problem --- to put it another way, if the cost savings is 10%, then a few years after the change was enacted, we'd be right back where we are now.
You can't iterate on restructuring the economy; it's not a PHP program. You can iterate on incremental fixes, but that's not what M4A is.
From my understanding of Bernie's "Medicare For All" bill (S. 1804) [1] payment to providers would be fixed at the, well, Medicare rate. Medicare rates are about 40% lower than private insurance (about 56% of national healthcare spending is private), but it's also higher than Medicaid and obviously higher than what the uninsured pay. All-in-all, from the figures I've seen [2], this specific single-payer plan would lead to about a 10.6% [3] overall reduction in payment to providers (some of which will be ameliorated by a reduction in costs that maintain complicated insurance administration work at hospitals) but I imagine providers will generally take some percent hit to payments which would in turn affect physician salaries (albeit not drastically)
Interestingly enough the house single-payer bill H.R. 676 [1] (and supposedly the Senate bill S. 1804, although I couldn't find any specific language on it) has provisions for "retraining, job placement and employment transition" to account for any "jobs eliminated due to reduced clerical and administrative work".
The article didn't really go into detail on how LO3 uses the blockchain as part of their technology, so this may be unrelated, but this podcast [1] better articulates some insight into on how the blockchain could be used to affect the energy sector, specifically the grid.
There's two main reasons I can see: performance is impacted by the implementation language and because officially supported SDKs/client libraries are usually written, and get updates, in the implementation's language first e.g. Elasticsearch and Java.
How accessible is the book (the google preview on that page does not help assessing how complex the text is) ? I guess it's better to start with "Types and programming languages" by the same author ? I don't have a formal education in these topics.
I just attended a talk but Sumit Gulwani where he demo'd FlashFill, FlashExtract and walked through their underlying architecture. His talk had much cooler demos than any I could find online but from what I can tell it seems like they provide a superset of transformy's functionality (not to detract from it, this is very cool, and I'd be curious to see how related the underlying theories are). Apparently current work by that team at Microsoft is focused on abstracting out functionality into a system called FlashMeta so that it can be applied to a bunch of domain specific problems. Overall very exciting work, from both parties.
others [1] would argue that it was american auto manufacturers' anti-union zealotry (and the decisions they made in the production process to combat the unions) that lead them to shoot themselves in their own foot.
[1] Schwartz, Michael, and Joshua Murray. Wrecked: How the American Automobile Industry Destroyed Its Capacity to Compete. Russell Sage Foundation, 2019.