S1: Following recording may or may not include instances of words being said that the FCC would find me for if their long arm could ever reach.
S2: It’s Tuesday, December 17th, 2019 from slated to the gist. I’m Mike PESCA.
S1: The latest morning console tracking poll of the Democratic electorate has Michael Bloomberg in place 7 percent behind bruited Dugit 8.
S3: That’s a national poll shows that an ad blitz to match the Draft Kings 2015 NFL by can accomplish quite a lot.
S4: You know, the ads are pretty good and they have this crazy idea that the ads are partly pretty good, not just cause Michael Bloomberg hires good ad people, but because he’s actually accomplish things as mayor that most Americans might want him to accomplish for the country. Now, the conversation about him on policy, not on how much money he has, but just let’s talk about Bloomberg’s policies has basically come down to. But stop and frisk, which is a good but. But if you’ve noticed, simply dismissing moderate candidates for apostasy or genuine missteps on racial issues, it has so far failed to derail many candidates this cycle. Joe Biden. Yeah, he did oppose school busing in 1972. And Pete bruited. Yeah, he did fire a black police chief as mayor of South Bend. South Bend also experienced the police shooting of a black civilian. Yet somehow they are not sunk. They’re still in it. Maybe Michael Bloomberg stop and frisk policy won’t be the thing that stops him either. So I’m going to dedicate my spiel to Michael Bloomberg’s record of accomplishment just based on the principle that no one else is talking about Michael Bloomberg’s record of accomplishment, mostly talking about stop and frisk and money. But first, I realize this. I’ve never actually articulated my theory of governance. Maybe you’ve been listening to this show for five and three quarters years. God bless you. But you’ve never heard me say, OK. Was talking about the president saying always talking about politics and governance. What do I think governments should do? So I will now tell you. Are you ready to strap in? Mike says a sentence. Here we go. Government should improve the lives of the most people, especially the people who need it most. Pretty simple, identify a problem. You find a solution, you definitely avoid euge screw ups. But government should improve the lives of the most people, especially the people who need it the most. A smarter guy than me once put it this way.
S5: Sometimes your job is just to make stuff work. Sometimes the task of government is to make incremental improvements or try to steer the ocean liner to degrees. Right. North or south. So that 10 years from now, suddenly we’re in a very different place than we were. But at the time that may that may not admit it. But at the moment, yeah, people may feel like we need a fifty two return. We don’t need a two degree turn. And you say, well, if I turn 50 degrees the hold shifter, then they weren’t going to let you turn 50 grant and you you can’t turn 40 degrees. The for. And it’s not just because of, you know, corporate lobbyists. It’s not just because of big money. It’s because societies don’t turn 50 degrees. Democracies certainly don’t turn 50 degrees. They. And that’s been true on issues of race. That’s been true on issues. The environment. That’s true on issues of discrimination. As long as they’re turning in the right direction. Right. And we’re making progress and the government is working sort of the way it’s supposed to.
S4: Those words, of course, from Boris Johnson on the show today. Yeah, that Bloomberg spiel I promised. You think you don’t want to listen.
S6: But after I deluge you with 45 ads telling you to listen. He’ll eventually warm up to it. But first, I love this guy. He’s a thinker. He’s an economist. He is, of course, Boris Johnson. No, he’s Broncho Milanovich. He didn’t invent the Gini coefficient, but he popularized its use. He’s a very interesting guy on issues of inequality, which the Gini coefficient measures. He’s curious on all manner of phenomena, economic and otherwise. And he’s here to talk about his new book, which acknowledges how the world seems to have organised itself as a capitalistic place.
S7: Capitalism alone, the future of this system that rules the world. Here’s Broncho Milanovich.
S8: Branko Milanovic is one of the great economists of the world. He was the lead economist for the World Bank’s research department and he’s written Global Inequality and the Haves and the Have Nots A Brief and Idiosyncratic History of Global Inequality. His new book is interesting and a new direction. It’s more overtly political, but it’s extremely descriptive. And I think eye opening capitalism alone, the future of the system that rules the world. Hello, Professor Milanovic. Well, hello. Very nice seeing you. And meeting you. Yes. So let’s just admit it. I mean, Kapre, it’s over. And capitalism one, right? That’s clear. Yeah. Capitalism one because it was better or why? Well what were its major advantages?
S9: You know it. I mean I would say it was better now. It was better I think in to do important things. Firstly it was better in producing goods and producing obviously wealth, but it was also good and maybe it was good in producing goods because it allowed people to actually do what they wanted. Yeah. And it allowed them to make money doing what was necessary to produce goods. So Dariela, I think two things is basically the incentives and the ability to use these incentives to produce things.
S1: Did we give the alternatives a fair enough shot? You always hear, well, you can’t really denigrate socialism or even communism. It’s never truly been tried, but it seems like we’ve had a few natural experiments where we’ve tried it and lost.
S9: You know, this is the argument that I’ve heard. You know, I grew up in a in a socialist or communist society. This is out of Yugoslavia. So I’ve been hearing since I was six, you know, the argument was always, well, look, look, this is not we are not happy, but it is not the real socialism. Well, you know, we cannot. Basically, what these people are, man, the real socialism is associated with it. I would really like to have. It’s like very much libertarians would say. Do you? Well, capitalism in the U.S. is not the real capitalism, because I imagine a different capitalism, which was much better. No cronyism, no political influence, nothing. But, you know, this is totally unrealistic. We have to look at the systems the way that they really are and not kind of imagine. So if you imagine something like maybe it’s like also religion, we would say, well, we have never really had the real, you know, Christian state. Yeah, we didn’t have it. But, you know, we tried it several times and we saw how it worked.
S8: Yeah. Doomsday cults have a similar foundational principles like we’re not doing it right. We got it slightly wrong. We’re gonna be right the next time.
S10: So basically, I think, you know, capitalism as it days and I take socialism or communist message as it was. And that’s I think this is the comparison that you have to make.
S8: But so there are different kinds of capitalism and you name them and you draw upon historical labelling of them. So tell me what they are.
S9: Yeah. You know, you can, of course, make a menu links because capitalism has evolved. I mean, if you look only at Western capitalism, it just always evolved from the way it was in the 19th century when you read Dickens, for example. I mean, this is not capitalism in the UK today. It’s this kind of change. So there was an evolution. But I think it’s fair to say that there is one capitalism which I call Li Birla slash meritocratic, where the U.S. is a very good example and another one where oh, which which it called political capitalism were using Maxwell Brous terminology were actually politics is more important and as other differences. But it’s still capitalism because most of the production is produced, you know, by privately owned capitalism with hired labor.
S8: I look at look at the statistics of China today who are most of the people working for?
S9: I mean, 90 percent are working for the private sector.
S1: So that that’s capital. That’s capitalism now. The reason it’s political capitalism, it’s it’s not to serve the workers or labor is it’s basically capitalism in the service of the elites at the top.
S9: And I would say it is also capitalism which allows the state or deal lead to which is political elites do make decisions that didn’t the liberal capitalism would be made by demarcates. So in other words, it is the capitalism where political influence. In this case, Communist Party of China, but also the government is on is much greater than in a liberal capitalism. But you know, liberal capitalism can also work in favour of the elite to sell both though Damar actually working well very often in favour of the elite, but the elites are different.
S1: Yeah. So you talk a lot about John Rawls, extremely influential political scientist. He’s important to think about. And he had this basic test where we let’s judge a society based on this. Where would you want to be randomly born in general? Would you want to be randomly born in a liberal or meritocratic rather than political? It would seem, because randomly you wouldn’t be an elite.
S9: Absolutely. Well, you know, I would you know, I actually studied the global inequality. And you mentioned actually in my previous book was called Global Inequalities Up. So I look at distribution not only of meaning comes across the world, but actually distributions. So when you look at the distribution, see around the world, what is very clear is that even if you’re born in a relatively low status or low income family. In the rich country, you’re very often much better off than being born in a middle class or even upper middle class in a poor country. In other words, it is better for you to make it very simple. It’s better for you to be born in a lower class in Sweden than to be born into upper middle class in Tanzania, simply because you would actually be richer and you would have public services, which you don’t have in Tanzania.
S11: OK. So with that in mind, with the Rawls test in mind and with everything you say about liberal meritocratic systems being generally preferable to political ones choose between India or China. Where would you rather randomly be born?
S9: It’s a very difficult question. You know, I’m you know, there were many people who had these discussions. You mean, do you think China would actually be more successful than India? It’s a difficult question. What is interesting about India and India doesn’t play a big role because in my book, because obviously I use China as the exemplar of political capitalism, as India is a democracy, but India is a remarkably able to deal with the various crises. If you look at India at any point in time like today, you would really have innumerable crises and issues, including, you know, rebellions in the northeast of the country. So these are problems that democracy of the Indian scope is able really to withstand and to grow and to basically ignored. So it has incredible flexibility. So it’s not to use, for example, Nassim Taleb terminology. It’s not at all fragile. It’s not broadly. It’s actually very robust. China, on the other hand, is obviously much more successful in many respects, including growth, infrastructure, education, health, lack of costs, for example, or social mobility. On the other hand, crime, a crime that the regime, on the other hand, seems to be much more sensitive to. Even small disturbances, say, does have fragility and India doesn’t have fragility.
S1: OK. So when you talk about the liberal Meric Craddick system, there are two great pillars that make it meritocratic. One is education and the other is taxing inheritance. There are many policies that people who want to be meritocratic or liberal can advocate. But you say those are the key ones. Why?
S9: Right. Actually actually took it from Rolls Rolf’s when you could define sexually what is a liberal system. He says, well, everybody can accede to any position in life, which of course in the past was not the case. If you were nobility, you actually obviously only nobility could have certain positions. If you’re in India, your you have a cost structure, so you cannot really go beyond your costs, Stephen. You met today actually has some problems. But while drawls says about Lieberal is that you really have two key things to allow social mobility. The first one, you have to have free education so that actually everybody can go and study and actually have ability regardless of the class or social background of their parents. And the second part is also to level the playing field is that you have to tax very strongly. He doesn’t save it 60 percent, 80 percent, whatever, but very strongly inherited money. And I really believe that there’s two points that drawls raises are absolutely crucial. If you want to have a society where actually ability and talent and hard work would be equally valued regardless of the background of individuals.
S11: America doesn’t have a high enough inheritance tax, but let’s talk about the problem with mass education. It’s it’s a trick. It’s an experiment that you can only do once massively.
S1: It’s like the move from an agrarian society to an industrial one, and that confers great economic growth. We went through this experiment where people were generally not given a free education and now they generally are caveated with a lot of problems. So that means we would have to double, triple, quadruple down on the inheritance tax side of things.
S9: You know, obviously, I don’t know. I don’t have the calculations like how much things would have to be how much my needs to be raised. But I really I believe that the society that is so rich, like the American society, really would need to guarantee two people, two things which are essential and who real price has really gone tremendously and has affected a lot the middle class in this country. And this is education and health. And we see this really all over again. The third issue is housing. You know, we talked about that before. But when we go back to education, I really think what has made America great particular and a lot of parts of the 19th century and early first 50 years of the 20th century was really massive public education that really opened the doors for incredible number of people. And we see that little debate being close now with a huge importance, not in terms of numbers, because numbers have not change of the top universities, but huge importance of going to such top universities in order to get very good jobs. So you essentially have is that truth of perception? Well, it’s true, actually, when you look at how much money people from the top universities, I’m not taking Ivy League only. I’m taking the top fifth of universities are making off. They graduate and compare that to the second tier. You’ll have significant difference, I don’t know. Remember, it’s like thirty forty thousand dollars a year. So it’s really significant. Compounds over time. You know, what then happens is that you have the following situation. You have very rich parents. Rich parents are able to pay such high tuition that high tuition guarantees you a very high paying job. So you really maintain the power, all the family all over longer term. And that’s, I think, actually quite dangerous.
S1: Yes. And this is you talk a lot about what’s your phrase for marrying like people?
S9: Ah, well, it’s actually Hamar gum is a hallmark of made. And yes. And that reinforces this, because what then happens, I think is something which is not fully understood yet is among them. It means that you’re really marrying. You’ll have couples, whether homosexual, heterosexual, whether they’re official couples or whatever. But in any case, you know, you have companionships or couples of both of them having higher education and relatively high incomes. Then, of course, they give all these other advantages that their children, including obviously money, education on, but also time and connections. And we know that from the work that was done on the importance of early parental involvement and education. So the kids from such families have an incredible advantage towards everybody else. And then just superimposed on that defect today, they they’re the only ones able to go to such fancy and expensive schools, then really this situation is very clear.
S1: This is just a thought experiment. But if what we really wanted to do was target income inequality, which is a great goal of yours and you mentioned it. It’s been formed all your work. Would we be better off having a robust inheritance tax or a much more progressive tax code? Or if we could somehow pass a law that would outlaw Hamaguchi, you had to marry from outside your social class.
S9: Now, obviously that would be crazy. First up, because it’s not feasible and secondly would make everybody unhappy. Right.
S8: And we don’t go to call about idealism as happiness or default. What would it really affect? Income inequality more like how big an effect is this?
S9: You know, our objective is not to reduce income inequality for its own sake. Our objective is to reduce income inequality to so it does not produce the negative effects. What it is a creation of a class which then basically maintains the power over generations or whether it’s actually writing the rules of the game in your favor. So it’s really preventing the negative effects that income inequality degenerates. But there are also positive effects. We talked about communism in the beginning. One of the negative things in communism was precisely total absence of income inequality or actually not absence. But that would say total decoupling between your effort and your reward. So obviously that’s not something bad. So in other words, what they want to say very clearly to everybody. The objective is not to reduce income inequality because we just want everybody to be exactly equal. The objective is reduced income inequality, so does not produce the negative effects.
S1: Let’s talk about mobility. I’ve also always thought that if you could condition one is you really have to address privation. You shouldn’t have immiseration, you shouldn’t have starvation. So if we could really provide a robust safety net and also have very good mobility like the United States used to have, then I think income inequality would be much less of an issue.
S9: This is true. You know, in the U.S., of course, there was this belief, very strong belief that as you know, that actually U.S. society with very high income mobility. So even if at every snapshot, when you take a picture of inequality, even if inequality is is high, people would say, well, it is high now, but it’s actually behind that kind of quiet did it. You observe today is really lots of social mobility. So it doesn’t matter. And I would agree with you if this was nowadays the case in the United States. But what do we see from empirical work, which we did not have before, is that actually the current level of inequality, which is high, produces also inter-generational inequality.
S8: So maintainance of intergenerational positions that it works reduces mobility, b costs for some of the reasons you talked about, because people with the high incomes send their kids to the good schools and there are only so many spots. And although why shouldn’t we just open up education through distance learning? I mean, maybe the case can be made that the 50 elite schools. Why did they only have to have, you know, two thousand undergraduates per class?
S10: And that’s happening, of course, when, you know, Harvard has actually opened this up. So, you know, there could be many solutions, you know, to this problem. But let me listen.
S11: Isn’t the point of higher education mostly signaling as that is signaling?
S10: And, you know, that’s one of the reasons why I’m saying, for example, when I talked about, of course, top schools in Ivy League schools, it is lots of that. The signaling and the reason we see that is that essentially when people I did not buy well the American system and people would say, well, I graduated from such as such fancy school, but in reality, that means mislabelling. It’s really they got admitted because whoever gets that made out, graduates, you look at the graduation rate, 97, 98 percent. So unless you do something like totally crazy. And you leave on your own. Really? The admission is the key here. And let me just say, that’s the reason why the scandals in the U.S., most recently one in California, were the scandals about admission. There are not scandals about bribing professors so that they would give you A’s.
S9: That doesn’t really matter that much. It meant Metrowest to some extent, but really it doesn’t matter that much. I mean, if we had I think we had presidents who actually, you know, graduated from fancy schools, we’d see minus averages or whatever. So it’s really not important. The important part is admission.
S1: Yeah. Do you find any of the ideas, the economic ideas being discussed or debated in the Democratic primary, heartening or exciting? Or do you find any of them disappointing?
S10: You know, I have not followed it very, very closely. But I am actually find in a streamlined satisfying that some of the ideas that have not been even on the margins even 40 years ago have now really moved, if not in the mainstream. But certainly making significant progress in the U.S.. And what is those same tracing and wealth tax like wealth tax and actually, I mean, acceptance of taxation. If you look at the actual Elizabeth Warren, look at Bernie Sanders, it’s really now a quite coherent view, which even 40 years ago was much less coherent dental day except your whole book is that capitalism won and Bernie rejects that premise. No, no. But I don’t know what Bernie calls socialism or whatever. I mean, a baby, because everybody is a capitalist. Now, you know, Bernie is not saying, OK, we are going to tobring state ownership of the means of production. He is not saying we are going to have publicly owned companies. I mean, forgettable in the sense state don’t rice. So really, Bernie EESA capitals, but he wants to have a capitalism which actually would be much more to distributive and more egalitarian. That’s what they called people’s capitalism in the book.
S12: All right. And the book is Capitalism Alone. Branko Milanovich, thank you so much for coming in. Well, thank you very much for having me. It was a pleasure. It was a pleasure. Thank you.
S4: And now the schpiel. The other day, an acclaimed daily Slate program. What next? A guest, Ian McDougall, was on to talk about Pete Bhuta JEJ and his time at McKinsey. Don’t worry, that’s not what this is about. It wasn’t the specifics about anything but a G-G that caught my ear. It was.
S13: This general statement has a fairly technocratic attitude, believes that problems are fixable and believes in the virtue of of smart people putting their minds to tough problems and fixing them.
S4: Now stop something. Now, as I heard those words, here’s what I had in mind. Here’s where I thought he was going. And the problem is that not all problems are fixable. That could be a way he would be going or. But the problem is, sometimes even the smartest people aren’t smart enough to handle a serious problem. But that’s not what the turn was. Here’s what McDougal’s said.
S13: That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it can be misapplied.
S4: Certainly that, by the way, that trying to fix problems and being smart in doing so, that’s kind of a conservative argument for government inaction and unintended consequence. It always pops up. Be humble in your ambition. Be very doubtful of the ability of government to solve a problem. An unintended consequence is lurking right around the corner. But I would say smart people believing problems are fixable and then trying to come up with the best solution to fix them isn’t a way to look at government. Or an example of one of the things government can do. It is the fundamental purpose of government and should be the charge for all our elected officials. Others disagree. They cite moral beacon, represent our values. Rhetorical leader, I say. Sure, as long as those skills are used in service of being a smart person, identifying real problems and then attempting to fix them. I’m not talking about people to judge. I’m talking about Michael Bloomberg. Once was mayor of a city 80 times the size of South Bend. He gets labeled. I would say he gets tarred with the label of technocrat. Why is that a bad thing? Well, if you’re actually a capable technocrat as opposed to an aspiring or wannabe technocrat, when Bloomberg entered the race, you heard you probably heard that he favored some bad policies, namely stop and frisk. True. You also heard and see every day that as a billionaire, he’s trying to influence the election. Sometimes they put it like he’s trying to buy the election. That’s what all the other candidates were saying.
S12: As documented in this montage put together by The Daily Show, I think that Mike expressing concern about this primary field and he should not have concern.
S14: This is a stark difference from someone that can just come in and plop down checks and buy a bunch of ads. I think people are going to see through it.
S15: I think that our elections should not be something that are bought by billionaires folks tonight.
S16: We say Michael Bloomberg and other billionaires. Sorry.
S17: Yeah. Good guy. This election.
S4: Trevor Noah in the audience finds Bernard delightful. I do, too. But Bloomberg is not trying to buy an election. He’s trying to buy our attention. And he will do so if he succeeds in buying our attention. Perhaps he will succeed in laying out his record of accomplishment and he will need to, because the political punditry has been largely dismissive of his potential appeal to voters. Here’s Peter Baker of The New York Times.
S15: Look, I guess I’m not, as, you know, bullish, I suppose, to use the phrase.
S4: I think that, you know, I don’t see consistency as honestly, I see that here is UN and you’re a hardass on MSNBC.
S18: The idea that a plutocrat is the solution to the problems of 30 or 40 years of plutocracy is sort of laughable.
S1: And I can hear his pollster, Ariel Edwards Leavey on left, right and center.
S19: I think maybe the, you know, rationale for a Bloomberg run is that Bloomberg would like to be president. I don’t think that what this electorate was really crying out for was more candidates to choose from. And, you know, we’ve sort of consistently found, if you look at polls, that people in the Democratic primary electorate are generally pretty happy with their field enthusiasm. Satisfaction is higher than it’s been in past cycles at this point. You know, you see a pretty small minority who’s saying, I’m not happy with the candidates who are out there and certainly not enough to simply become the front runner. I guess the question then is those people who aren’t happy with the field is what they’re looking for. A Michael Bloomberg sort of candidate. And, you know, I’m not really convinced there is I’m not sure what he brings to the table.
S1: What he brings to the table is if we were, to be fair, the deepest record of accomplishment of anyone running. I don’t like the idea of billionaires running our government. I didn’t like it when Bloomberg ran in 2001 and I didn’t vote for him. But I stopped my idea when I saw what he was doing. And I did vote for a mayor in 2005 and 2009 because he was a really good mayor in so many areas that I judged to be vital to the city. Now, I guess I have the curse of having lived in the city and paid a lot of attention during that time. So I’m not going on caricature. I’m not just pointing to one policy like stop and frisk. I am not subscribing to the world view that the problem of America is plutocrats. On his right. The Bloomberg candidacy is not the candidacy for people who think that the problem is plutocrats. There are a lot of Democrats running who define America’s problem as plutocrats or millionaires and billionaires. But if, say, you think a problem is crime or education or budgeting or the environment or gun violence or public health, then yes. Michael Bloomberg. I will say it again has an actual record of accomplishment that surpasses anyone in the field unless you count all of the accomplishments of the Obama presidency. As Joe Biden’s accomplishments. Let us just take a couple. There are too many to get into. But education is a big one. When Bloomberg took office, the high school graduation rate in New York was less than half forty six point five percent. When he left office, it was two thirds. Now, sometimes it’s a bigger societal trend that explains what one city does. Like how the national economy affects the local economy. But with education, Bloomberg pointed to it as this is going to be a big area of my concern. He revamped and redesigned the Board of Education. He’s centralized power with the chancellor of the Board of Education accountable to the mayor. It worked. It worked really well. It worked in ways that profoundly affected the lives of thousands of people. Graduation rate is only one measure. But schools improved by almost all measures. And just think of the power of graduation. Just think of the deficit of lacking in education. When Bloomberg took office, 22 percent of high school students dropped out when he left office. That number was down to 10. It’s since become lower still. There are 55000 New Yorkers who are high school graduates who would not have been high school graduates were it not for the changes that Bloomberg enacted. And that was only during his tenure. Since then, throughout the de Blasio administration, thanks to changes Bloomberg implemented, it’s probably true that close to a hundred thousand New Yorkers or they may have since left New York, are walking around as high school graduates and not as high school dropouts.
S4: And that is a huge deal that has a huge impact on people’s lives, because high school dropouts struggle more with criminality and drug use and diminish economic prospects. That’s all correlated with dropping out. If you want to look at the racial progress made on high school graduation, here are some stats. When Bloomberg takes office, black students graduate at a rate of 40 percent when he leaves office at 61. White students go from 64 to 80. Hispanic students start off as a 37 percent graduation rate. When he leaves, it’s sixty five point nine. And yes, Aaron Pallas, chair of the Department of Education Policy at the Teachers College of Columbia University, ding’s Bloomberg by noting, quote, It’s still the case that the typical white New York City public high school student was much more likely to graduate from high school than the typical black or Hispanic student at the end of the Bloomberg era. Or you could say that by the time Bloomberg was done, the black student graduation rate had climbed to almost where the white student graduation rate was before he started. And it’s since surpassed it. I mean, you know, technically you could try to get more white students to fail to make that stat seem better. But the gaps actually shrank in the gap of student graduation rates by race. Bloomberg has done more to help Americans on this one issue than all of the senators have cumulatively accomplished. Now, in a way, it’s not fair because Bloomberg was the mayor of America’s biggest city. And a positive change in New York is going to help a lot of lot of people. And if you’re a senator, especially a senator in a Republican controlled Senate, you’re not going to be able to have a lot of tangible accomplishments. Although some of these other candidates were also mayors, Cory Booker was mayor of Newark. He improved schools a little bit there. Also, he was mayor from July 2006 through October 2013. He improved schools a little bit there as far as crime. He didn’t do so great.
S6: He was mayor from July of 0 6 through October of 2013. And in 2013, there were 112 murders. And in 2006, there 105 murders in between those years. There was an average of 85 murders. I guess it’s something. By the way, Bernie Sanders was mayor of Burlington, Vermont, for all of the 80s over his span as mayor. The number of families living in poverty increased 42 percent from 563 to 798. What about in Senate? Well, have the total for the number of bills that became law from a few of the senators who are running for president. Elizabeth Warren has introduced 305 bills and zero became law. Cory Booker has introduced 269 bills and two became law. Bernie Sanders introduced nine hundred nine bills. Three became law. I understand. I understand. Q The caveats. The Senate was mostly controlled by Republicans during their time. The value of a senator isn’t only number, no bills. Here she writes, That becomes law. But the premises, my premise here is what’s the case for Bloomberg? Someone asked. I said it’s that he has a greater record of achievement than anyone in the race. I think that does go to my point. I could list some of his other accomplishments. Murders have people incarcerated, nearly halved. Excellent budgeting. They included a rainy day fund to fund pensions. Here’s an accomplishment that was touted by the current mayor, Bill de Blasio, when he was running for president during a debate.
S20: Lead poisoning has gone down 90 percent since 2005. And we’re going to literally bring it down to zero because we’re going to go into everyplace, buildings, schools, public housing and take out that led remediate, that led once and for all that needs to be done all over this country.
S6: What’s interesting is that de Blasio started his count 2005. That piqued my interest. I looked into the stats. That was when Bloomberg was mayor for four years. In fact, almost all the progress that de Blasio was talking about pre-dated him. Lead poisoning of kids at a rate above 10 micrograms per decilitre affected 14 out of a thousand children when Bloomberg took office. He brought it down to 2.5 out of a thousand in his last year. It’s now 2.3 per thousand in the last year for which there are stats. Bloomberg manage a big city exceedingly well, didn’t do perfectly in all policy areas. He didn’t do so according to the policy preferences of all people. That’s all impossible. Beyond his morality, his public health efforts are profound and world changing. This guy is an ambitious program that could save 10000 Bangladeshis from drowning every year. He bankrolled the most impressive and most important public health school in America. His anti-smoking efforts. Oh, my gosh. Sure. There, Nudgee there. Coerce of if you’re a smoker, you think they’re a pain in the ass. They’ll probably wind up saving a cumulative, I dunno, hundreds of millions, maybe billions of years of Americans lives. It’s kind of crazy to me to ask, why is this guy running? What’s he done? And now. Oh, how’s he ever going to get past stop and frisk? It’s almost like he’s done so much. And yes, some of it’s bad that it’s hard to get your head around. It’s hard to compare to the stature of the mayor of a Midwestern city, one ATF the size of New York. But maybe I’m impressed with Bloomberg by what I said at the top of the show. I think government should improve the lives of the most people, especially the people who need it most.
S1: They saw the slogan of the Bloomberg philanthropy’s and it was this Bloomberg Philanthropies work to ensure better, longer lives for the greatest number of people. That is close to my ideal. And even if Bloomberg is less than ideal, he should get a more serious consideration. Ideally.
S21: And that’s it for today’s show. Daniel Schrader produces the gist. He wonders, was it Dick York or Dick Sargent? Which of the Darran portraying Dick’s working alongside Geni made sure Jeanie’s time wasn’t wasted and that Jeanie’s good works had maximum impact? Who was the better Gini coefficient? Krystina to Joe, such as producer thinks the guy who stigmatized Big Gulps and posted calorie counts on menus could be president, just not of the United States of America. Picked the wrong country for a calorie hater.
S22: The jest I say the ocean liner needs to turn 2 degrees one day, then 2 degrees the next may be 2 degrees the third day. Pretty soon we will be wishing we’d actually left the dock. We’re poor, desperate to Peru. And thanks for listening.