My husband works with people in many different countries who do research on health care. I don't think we necessarily want single-payer health care, especially given the American attitude towards independence and choice. We should be looking at ways to provide universal health care, which might or might not be a single-payer system. e.g. Germany has universal health care. The UK has single payer (supplemented by private insurance). Germany's system is more robust at the moment. It is more expensive than the UK's, but still much less expensive, in terms of percentage of GDP spent on health care, than the US.
I think people who are reasonably inquisitive and ask legitimate questions of their medical providers, are sort of blissfully naive about how totally not that way many others can be in the same situation. Remember COVID? And all the dumb everywhere? No matter what you felt about it, you probably had an experience of hearing some absolutely-clueless-as-to-how-amazingly-lacking-in-understanding-of-the-topic-they-were dipshit being insistent with their know-it-all internet/social media bullshit “knowledge”about what worked & didn’t work & how it should or shouldn’t be treated, etc, etc, etc. Now, take that multiply it by any and all medical conditions, and large swaths of every workday, and you might begin to understand what a lot of medical professionals are up against on the daily, and why it is a special combination of infuriating and exhausting.🫤
A faculty colleague who works in sociology of religion constantly says so much of our disfunction is the result of “unfettered capitalism.” I’m now persuaded. I think in many arenas, capitalism serves us well (exploration, innovation, etc). Im not an economist, but I also think that in at least 3 arenas it is harmful. (1) Healthcare. Fundamentally Americans do not believe that if you cannot afford care then you just die. But we have a for profit system. I can’t see how that’s serving us well. (2) Higher education. With a smaller population of college age folks, the competition for students is fierce and will get even fiercer over the next decade. So watch how many schools market programs as fast & convenient. That’s what “sells” in our culture. So we’re told (I work in higher ed) that “excellence” isn’t marketable. There are other ways that capitalism is harming higher education, but I’ll just name this one. (3) Beth mentioned the desire of many people to become rich. But ecologists tell us that there simply aren’t enough resources on planet earth for loads of people to consume at the level of those who are wealthy. I rarely hear the reality of our resources addressed when capitalism is the topic. So, my 2 cents. :)
I wanted to say something about capitalism not being good for higher education too. I couldn't put the words together, so thank you for bringing this up! I would add we aren't just told "excellence" isn't marketable. Neither is "learning." (Yes, there's some nuance there - but this is what it feels like it's boiled down to.)
Wanted to add this this idea is so wise: Beth: “And so many people’s views of politics are set in their workplaces. How does my boss treat me? Am I respected here or not? If you are really respected in your workplace, you’re more likely to see respect in systems. And if you are really beaten down in your workplace, you are more likely to see systems as inherently corrupt and bad and out to screw you. And so I think just turning a page on the selfish, crude, I’m the only person who matters tone in our politics could have a lot of ripple effects that makes people more willing to sit down and say, “Okay, what might we change next and how could that work?”
How have I never heard anyone suggesting that our concepts of competent leadership are nurtured at work?
When y'all were talking about primarying safe blue seats and how it didn't make sense as a strategy; that sentiment is part of what turns me off to the current democratic process. Our party system has become obsessed with strategy - taking over so they don't have to listen to the other side at all and can force extremes into law without having to consider any compromises whatsoever.
Right now, it feels like there are 2 teams playing a sport that no longer favors sportsmanship, skill, teamwork, or ability. It's just a rigged statistics sports-betting nightmare that costs us 14% or more of our paychecks. So yeah, I'm not at all surprised that voters are willing to take a risk on introducing any potential disruption.
Let voters primary who we want, vote for the weirdos we want, accept the baggage we want, and let this notion of red team vs blue team go. We need flexibility, adaptability, variety, and reality. I, for one, am tired of being reduced to a color on a map. Let it get messy, weird, and unpredictable. The more variety of views and knowledge we get into positions of power, the more they'll be forced to actually come together, talk, and compromise.
Chaos breeds creativity. Our political system doesn't need to be like our movies - same old stuff over and over, franchises, remakes, sequels and prequels. Let's shake it up. We have to try something. Some of it will flop but I'd rather risk it than keep going with mediocrity.
On the whole, I'm with you. I do think that we have more room for weirdos and experiments in the House than the Senate! It's supposed to be the people's house, and the people are all kinds of things that should be represented there. The Senate on the other hand is supposed to be a different job. I think that we'd all be happier with our system if we saw it as less monolithic and weren't just looking for something like star power everywhere.
I would also like to add that I have strong dislike for the left’s obsession with “the right credentials” and “expertise”… I think it’s possible to do a good job without the approved training or pathways that are out of reach for many Americans. Plenty of non-experts built this country and did well.
I would also like to add that I have strong dislike for the left’s obsession with “the right credentials” and “expertise”… I think it’s possible to do a good job without the approved training or pathways that are out of reach for many Americans. Plenty of non-experts built this country and did well.
True. I think our society would benefit greatly from more emphasis on learning about citizenship and the inner workings of our government. I'm pretty well informed (news-wise), but that doesn't mean I understand how it is supposed to all function. Yet, here I am out here voting 😆 or perhaps 😬
Yes! And stop making candidates say all the "right" things on policy. Let them show us who are they are, what they actually care about, the kind of people they are. We need whole and complete people making decisions for us, not avatars for the party. Not only is it not getting us the best leaders, it's also flattening everything out, from people to ideas to solutions.
On the know-it-alls in the doctor's office. I haven't read the article, but I will. However, I think we are doing such a good job democratizing information (both good and bad information) that we are all becoming know-it-alls. I work in a creative field in higher education. I cannot tell you how often we are told how to do our jobs. Everyone is a web expert, a marketing expert, a design expert. It's maddening. But everyone feels as though they go on the internet, they see ads, they know how it all works. (They don't.)
I think this is the tension - medical professionals get so tired of people consulting “Doctor Google” that it can lead them to be automatically dismissive of anyone who tries to ask questions or advocate for themselves.
First of all, thank you for addressing this. I was one of the ones who asked! Really thoughtful discussion. It's interesting because I am a registered Democrat, but personality-wise I am much more like Beth so I often align with her thinking. But not so much today in the discussion of socialism and capitalism. I think we've gone so far astray, letting capitalism do its thing. I fully agree that people want reliable healthcare AND the ability to start their own small business. But small businesses aren't the problem. That upper echelon that buys and sells companies and stock like there aren't people tied to them is the problem. You've even discussed how almost challenging it to avoid the model of growth in your own small business. How often do things get better when a small company is bought up by a larger company? Not too often. Size is a problem. Our whole country has become a series of capital assets. We have a big problem here in New Orleans right now with out-of-town companies coming in and buy commercial properties. Soon enough they jack up the rents and long-time businesses - some beloved New Orleans restaurants - have to go out of business. I make what I think should be a decent salary. Yet I feel no freedom to go out to dinner regularly, take bigger vacations, etc. Isn't that what working hard your whole life is supposed to result in? Meanwhile the uber-wealthy buy seats to go into outer space. Capitalism is not working.
I’m born and raised in Ohio but have lived in Denmark for 8 years now, where capitalism is alive and accelerating, too. Yes, democratic socialism is dominant, but we also grapple with the degrees of ‘democratic’ and ‘socialist’ our systems are.
I believe that there isn’t a name yet for the next economic system we need to create in order to sustain our species and the earth that provides for us—though some are beginning to scratch at it: donut economics, well-being economy, gift economy, post-growth economy.
So instead of endlessly discussing ‘socialism,’ ‘capitalism,’ ‘communism,’ which to me represent past iterations, I’m interested in exploring how we shift into this necessary, but unnamed next system. I think of shifting from independence to interdependence; individualism to collectivism; extraction to reciprocity; exponential growth to maintenance of well-functioning systems.
The reason I’m anti-capitalism, is because we simply cannot go on like this. If we play it out — the compounding extraction and accumulation of resources and labor — at some point, we’re going to hit the end of the earth’s resources and/or die out as a species. So it’s not a question for me about whether I like it or not, it’s that this system has a finite timeline.
As for billionaires, I believe a substantial wealth gap is inherently undemocratic, as decision power is concentrated within few people. Sure, we could get lucky with generous billionaires, but it’s still not a democracy where average people have a real say.
I even talk about this in the salary differential with my husband – at some point, if he continues to earn exponentially more than me, I will not feel like we live in a democratic relationship, because no matter how much we try to even things out, at the end of the day, he can always pull the ‘it’s my money and I decide’ card.
I love learning about B-corporations for many of the reasons that you're naming. I think there are models that aren't coercive that also say, "let's take more than profit into account."
I’m also a fan. I have also enjoyed over the years when you have offered a window into the business strategy that steers PP — that you’re not just aiming for eternal growth but instead creating and maintaining a business that works for your lives.
Gina, I love that you brought this up. I have never lived outside the U.S., much less in Denmark, but I did watch all of Börgen (which I adored). The look at Danish politics was so fascinating. The way they can so quickly form new parties was amazing (I realize it's TV, but still). I also realize it's a much smaller country, but I think you are on to something that we don't have to just accept what we have. I'm studying environmental management right now and agree that we can't go on the way we are.
Hi Dee, Borgen was an education for me in Danish politics, and it’s actually quite true to form! Whenever we say the US is too big for xyz system, I always wonder what would happen if we shifted a lot more onto the states / regions / counties — whatever scale we would need to make a system feel doable. Even in the small country of Denmark, our public healthcare system is actually broken down into five different regions.
Sarah said something to the effect of, 'Everyone is just trying to create more subsidies, they should be breaking apart the systems.' How many years have we been talking about affordability and NO ONE has addressed the joke of our minimum wage. We wouldn't need these subsidies if we raised minimum wage.
I don't care what letter is after the candidates name, I'm voting for the first person who brings forth a plan to abolish the minimum wage and establish a federal living wage standard which includes the closing off all the loopholes that corporations use to pay a sub-livable wage.
I'm interested in what you think about this, Sarah -- sometimes I think that instead of a minimum wage, we really want a minimum standard of living. There are so many people in my community (and I imagine most others) who, for whatever reason, are never going to be able to steadily work a job. I want them to have a place to live, clean water to drink, and enough food to eat. Even if they received some kind of universal basic income, on their own, I don't think they could manage to achieve that minimum standard of living that I wish for them and that I truly believe is good for society. I'm not sure how to get there, but I'm trying to more explicitly name what I think is the goal.
Yes, this is why my son says many other countries are better places to live than they US, even though we are richer and our median income is substantially higher than any other country. In many other countries, there is a floor that is provided for you. He sees this especially in health insurance and public transit - you may make lower wages, but if you don't have to pay the same huge premiums and you don't need to have a car, your worries are much less, and you can live a simple but decent life on little money.
Ooh, a living wage standard paired with a life of dignity standard? So a UBI system of some sort kicks in for those who cannot maintain 40 hours a week. And also so that those living on SSDI don't have to live in abject poverty and don't lose benefits if they get married. There's no, "if you make above this" you lose everything trap, just an acknowledgement of what it takes to live with dignity and an assurance that the gaps will be filled. (And of course the doubters will say that this would cause people to not work, but I haven't met a single human who doesn't want the dignity of some sort of contribution to their community in the form of work - no matter how small their contribution may be)
Maybe we talk less about work and more about contribution? I agree that everyone wants to contribute. I think there’s a life of dignity standard that’s necessary and inclusive of some way to contribute.
I absolutely agree that we need to raise wages! Does a federal wage make sense in a country with such drastic differences in cost of living? I have very little knowledge of how people envision this working.
I like this MIT living wage calculator because it gets down to the County level for each state: https://livingwage.mit.edu/
YES! I want there to be a federally mandated calculation, like the MIT one, that allows living wages to be set at the community or county level. And as part of the legislation some small businesses, maybe based on number of employees, are exempt - so indi bookstores or Mom and Pop shops don't go fully under. But franchises will not be exempt. And corporations will be taxed more than they "save" if their business model relies on part time labor that does not recieve benefits. I'm still tossing around ideas, but the basic idea is that people can survive in their communities on a single job and corporations no longer profit from part time labor without benefits.
Bezos could still be a billionaire and pay his employees a living wage and treat them with dignity. Musk would still be a billionaire even if he hadn’t cut USAID. I don’t really mind Taylor Swift being a billionaire because it feels like she made her money (somewhat) fairly and she gives a lot of it to her employees.
THIS! Whenever we bring up raising wages we hear how they'll just have to lay people off or raise prices. How about lowering the salaries of top executives? This is true even in the non profit world like higher education where university presidents (and football coaches) make ungodly sums of money. Why????? Why?????
I am not sure, but when I have been on hiring committees for highly paid positions (not like Bezos or Musk, but highly paid heads of universities or school systems), it is very difficult to attract quality candidates even at a high salary. I wouldn't be surprised if salaries for non-profit and academic execs increase in future years, as the jobs are becoming more difficult.
Well, yeah, because you can make so much in top positions in corporate so of course non profit has to follow suit. But we have got to rein that in across the board. Why does someone deserve a million dollar salary? Does anyone really do work that is worth a million dollar salary? It's like we've completely lot the value of money and it's just Monopoly money now...except for those of us not in the top 10-20%.
This is where capitalism is losing young people. They see businesses operating with zero respect for employees, squeezing work out of them and resisting fair pay, benefits etc. And they do it because their advisors suggest that they are letting shareholders or investors down if they don’t maximize the return! But the pool of winners has shrunk to an untenable level.
If anyone wants to hear serious discussion of these issues (in addition to PP, of course!) check out the Pitchfork Economics podcast or their Substack (@civicventures)They grapple with what’s wrong with today’s iteration of capitalism, without throwing it all out in favor of stereotypical socialism. Lots of smart guests and interesting perspective!
Yes! It’s the private equity/enshittification of it all- the only thing that matters is squeezing every dime for shareholders, quality of product and treatment of workers be damned.
Yes! It’s the private equity/enshittification of it all- the only thing that matters is squeezing every dime for shareholders, quality of product and treatment of workers be damned.
I worked for many years as a financial advisor. I didn’t have any billionaire clients, but I had plenty who were multi-millionaires. To be clear, they were mostly lovely people! But here’s what (at least somewhat) radicalized me: They didn’t need most of their money. They were accumulating it easily (the miracle of compound interest, kids!) and favorable tax policy made it easy to hold on to what they had and pass to their heirs. Why do we not pay into Social Security above 184K? Easy— someone did the math and realized it wouldn’t be “fair” for wealthy people to pay in more than they get out. (It is) Why do we not tax carried interest (the primary way hedge fund operators get paid)? Cuz they lobbied hard to ensure that Congress didn’t approve it. Why do we not have a wealth tax? Because the wealthy have scared the rest of us into thinking they’re coming for us. (I live in California and I received a mailer against our proposed wealth tax implying exactly that, and I am def not a billionaire!)
Again, my clients were not monsters! But observing them made it crystal clear to me that we don’t have to treat wealthy people with kid gloves. They will be fine. Their heirs will be fine. We (voters, politicians, the media) have a romanticized vision of a successful business person. Beth described the small business person giving back to the community. But many, many people of means are way beyond this level, and they are completely detached from the connection to the community. And these are the same people happily giving millions to politicians to ensure that they don’t have to pay taxes. Excessive wealth corrupts. DSA policies are a little naive, but someone has to say the quiet part out loud: We don’t want little Johnny to study hard and go to a good college so he can become Elon Musk!
Just as a frame of reference, the billionaire who is trying her darndest to reduce her net worth is Mackenzie Scott, Jeff Bezos’ first wife. According to Wikipedia, as of 2025 she had given away $26 billion. I couldn’t find the value of her divorce settlement, but her own net worth as of the end of 2025 was reported to be $40 billion. This after actively trying to give it away for six years! The billionaires (and the $100 millionaires) will be just fine.
To be clear, I'm for a lot of the tax policy changes you're outlining here. People could pay a lot more in taxes and still be wealthy beyond imagination. And I think you make such a good point that there's a level of wealth that disconnects people from their communities. I think that's bad for them on a moral and spiritual level (I also don't want to coerce anyone into my moral and spiritual framework to this degree).
Thank you for the definition and conversation around socialism. I think healthcare and social security tend to be the easy and also challenging examples, and I think we need to include the programs that are less thought of as socialism LIKE law enforcement, fire fighting, highway maintenance and improvement. I bring these examples because nobody talks about getting rid of them or privatization of these programs that are focused on safety and health.
What I like about these examples is some are hybrid services that still rely on the competition of capitalism but are also subsidized through our taxes and run at the local level through agreements and contracts that generally support local businesses. I don't understand how the volunteer fire departments work, but the model is popular and repeated so hopefully it does work well.
Our water and sewage is a more privatized system and the public-private partnership goes wrong often - they'll have a private company own the stormwater/sewage and the government just monitors them. The company violates environmental regulations, gets fined, can't afford to improve, gets fined again, and the issue never gets fixed... contaminated water keeps going to homes and leeching into waterways because the government can't step in and fix it, they can only sue the company to fix it, which reduces the available capital even more. It's ineffective.
The long-term ownership and liability of important public utilities should rest with the local government for the safety of the residents. Companies go out of business all the time. I can understand having a private company compete for the overall management and monitoring, but this water issue is one I see as especially troublesome. Although, the government gets it wrong too (like in Flint Michigan), I think the people have more power against their own government than against a private company who has an agreement with the government. We the people have no standing when it comes to contract violations.
Can we call it capitalism with a robust and meaningful safety net?
By far the most successful parts of our safety net are the nationalized parts-Medicare, Social Security and SNAP. The programs like Medicaid that are administered locally are not more effective. There is more waste and disparate outcomes between localities.
Let people be rich! But have a robust, progressive tax system that meaningfully supports human flourishing.
I would love to know your thoughts on how you would like to see this achieved! I imagine it would be with less government involvement-so how would you want to see the private sector (or just individual citizens) involved in achieving this? Beth's vision for American flourishing would be a long form article I would totally read!
I was fired by my GYN (solo practice) about 20 years ago . I had been with her about 5 years and appreciated her attentiveness to some minor symptoms which led to a diagnosis of thyroid disease. I had a benign asymptomatic uterine fibroid, which was being monitored by ultrasound. One year she said that I needed an endometrial biopsy to ensure it wasn't cancerous, which I agreed to. It was the most painful medical procedure I've ever had. Everything checked out fine. A year later, she said I needed another one and had no good explanation why. So I decided to get a second opinion, and that GYN said that a properly done ultrasound would give him the necessary information and that the biopsy was unnecessary. I called GYN#1's office and said I was declining the biopsy after getting a second opinion. A few weeks later I received a certified letter in the mail saying that my seeking of a second opinion and my refusal of the biopsy made me an unacceptable risk and I was no longer her patient. Needless to say I had my records transferred to GYN#2 and my fibroid never caused any issues (it has shrunk since menopause).
What a terrible experience. I’m glad you advocated for yourself by getting a second opinion. I did something similar when my endocrinologist sent me for my third thyroid biopsy and I had had enough. I went to someone else for a thorough ultrasound and they said there was no need for further biopsies. Sad when invasive procedures are required for legal CYA purposes.
How pray tell does one become a billionaire ethically, to arrive at having “good” billionaires? They are cartoonish because that much wealth is unhealthy and corrupting. It creates classism and inherently makes some people disposable and less than. Why align yourself with them Beth? It makes no sense.
I'm not "aligning" with anyone as much as saying "I don't think governments should have the power to absolutely constrain wealth to an arbitrary standard." I don't think that it's good for anyone's soul to run a business in ways that hurt people and communities. I think power, however it gets concentrated, has the power to be corrupting. To me, capitalism can work if it is kept in check by a multitude of forces--government, culture, art, ethics and religion, etc. It's out of balance right now for a lot of reasons.
My husband works with people in many different countries who do research on health care. I don't think we necessarily want single-payer health care, especially given the American attitude towards independence and choice. We should be looking at ways to provide universal health care, which might or might not be a single-payer system. e.g. Germany has universal health care. The UK has single payer (supplemented by private insurance). Germany's system is more robust at the moment. It is more expensive than the UK's, but still much less expensive, in terms of percentage of GDP spent on health care, than the US.
I think people who are reasonably inquisitive and ask legitimate questions of their medical providers, are sort of blissfully naive about how totally not that way many others can be in the same situation. Remember COVID? And all the dumb everywhere? No matter what you felt about it, you probably had an experience of hearing some absolutely-clueless-as-to-how-amazingly-lacking-in-understanding-of-the-topic-they-were dipshit being insistent with their know-it-all internet/social media bullshit “knowledge”about what worked & didn’t work & how it should or shouldn’t be treated, etc, etc, etc. Now, take that multiply it by any and all medical conditions, and large swaths of every workday, and you might begin to understand what a lot of medical professionals are up against on the daily, and why it is a special combination of infuriating and exhausting.🫤
I do think the *volume* is often the thing
A faculty colleague who works in sociology of religion constantly says so much of our disfunction is the result of “unfettered capitalism.” I’m now persuaded. I think in many arenas, capitalism serves us well (exploration, innovation, etc). Im not an economist, but I also think that in at least 3 arenas it is harmful. (1) Healthcare. Fundamentally Americans do not believe that if you cannot afford care then you just die. But we have a for profit system. I can’t see how that’s serving us well. (2) Higher education. With a smaller population of college age folks, the competition for students is fierce and will get even fiercer over the next decade. So watch how many schools market programs as fast & convenient. That’s what “sells” in our culture. So we’re told (I work in higher ed) that “excellence” isn’t marketable. There are other ways that capitalism is harming higher education, but I’ll just name this one. (3) Beth mentioned the desire of many people to become rich. But ecologists tell us that there simply aren’t enough resources on planet earth for loads of people to consume at the level of those who are wealthy. I rarely hear the reality of our resources addressed when capitalism is the topic. So, my 2 cents. :)
I wanted to say something about capitalism not being good for higher education too. I couldn't put the words together, so thank you for bringing this up! I would add we aren't just told "excellence" isn't marketable. Neither is "learning." (Yes, there's some nuance there - but this is what it feels like it's boiled down to.)
I’m with you on the limitation of resources, Mitzi. Just mentioned it in my comment above :)
Wanted to add this this idea is so wise: Beth: “And so many people’s views of politics are set in their workplaces. How does my boss treat me? Am I respected here or not? If you are really respected in your workplace, you’re more likely to see respect in systems. And if you are really beaten down in your workplace, you are more likely to see systems as inherently corrupt and bad and out to screw you. And so I think just turning a page on the selfish, crude, I’m the only person who matters tone in our politics could have a lot of ripple effects that makes people more willing to sit down and say, “Okay, what might we change next and how could that work?”
How have I never heard anyone suggesting that our concepts of competent leadership are nurtured at work?
This is one of the things about politics that I feel most confident about
When y'all were talking about primarying safe blue seats and how it didn't make sense as a strategy; that sentiment is part of what turns me off to the current democratic process. Our party system has become obsessed with strategy - taking over so they don't have to listen to the other side at all and can force extremes into law without having to consider any compromises whatsoever.
Right now, it feels like there are 2 teams playing a sport that no longer favors sportsmanship, skill, teamwork, or ability. It's just a rigged statistics sports-betting nightmare that costs us 14% or more of our paychecks. So yeah, I'm not at all surprised that voters are willing to take a risk on introducing any potential disruption.
Let voters primary who we want, vote for the weirdos we want, accept the baggage we want, and let this notion of red team vs blue team go. We need flexibility, adaptability, variety, and reality. I, for one, am tired of being reduced to a color on a map. Let it get messy, weird, and unpredictable. The more variety of views and knowledge we get into positions of power, the more they'll be forced to actually come together, talk, and compromise.
Chaos breeds creativity. Our political system doesn't need to be like our movies - same old stuff over and over, franchises, remakes, sequels and prequels. Let's shake it up. We have to try something. Some of it will flop but I'd rather risk it than keep going with mediocrity.
On the whole, I'm with you. I do think that we have more room for weirdos and experiments in the House than the Senate! It's supposed to be the people's house, and the people are all kinds of things that should be represented there. The Senate on the other hand is supposed to be a different job. I think that we'd all be happier with our system if we saw it as less monolithic and weren't just looking for something like star power everywhere.
I would also like to add that I have strong dislike for the left’s obsession with “the right credentials” and “expertise”… I think it’s possible to do a good job without the approved training or pathways that are out of reach for many Americans. Plenty of non-experts built this country and did well.
I would also like to add that I have strong dislike for the left’s obsession with “the right credentials” and “expertise”… I think it’s possible to do a good job without the approved training or pathways that are out of reach for many Americans. Plenty of non-experts built this country and did well.
True. I think our society would benefit greatly from more emphasis on learning about citizenship and the inner workings of our government. I'm pretty well informed (news-wise), but that doesn't mean I understand how it is supposed to all function. Yet, here I am out here voting 😆 or perhaps 😬
Yes! And stop making candidates say all the "right" things on policy. Let them show us who are they are, what they actually care about, the kind of people they are. We need whole and complete people making decisions for us, not avatars for the party. Not only is it not getting us the best leaders, it's also flattening everything out, from people to ideas to solutions.
On the know-it-alls in the doctor's office. I haven't read the article, but I will. However, I think we are doing such a good job democratizing information (both good and bad information) that we are all becoming know-it-alls. I work in a creative field in higher education. I cannot tell you how often we are told how to do our jobs. Everyone is a web expert, a marketing expert, a design expert. It's maddening. But everyone feels as though they go on the internet, they see ads, they know how it all works. (They don't.)
I think this is the tension - medical professionals get so tired of people consulting “Doctor Google” that it can lead them to be automatically dismissive of anyone who tries to ask questions or advocate for themselves.
First of all, thank you for addressing this. I was one of the ones who asked! Really thoughtful discussion. It's interesting because I am a registered Democrat, but personality-wise I am much more like Beth so I often align with her thinking. But not so much today in the discussion of socialism and capitalism. I think we've gone so far astray, letting capitalism do its thing. I fully agree that people want reliable healthcare AND the ability to start their own small business. But small businesses aren't the problem. That upper echelon that buys and sells companies and stock like there aren't people tied to them is the problem. You've even discussed how almost challenging it to avoid the model of growth in your own small business. How often do things get better when a small company is bought up by a larger company? Not too often. Size is a problem. Our whole country has become a series of capital assets. We have a big problem here in New Orleans right now with out-of-town companies coming in and buy commercial properties. Soon enough they jack up the rents and long-time businesses - some beloved New Orleans restaurants - have to go out of business. I make what I think should be a decent salary. Yet I feel no freedom to go out to dinner regularly, take bigger vacations, etc. Isn't that what working hard your whole life is supposed to result in? Meanwhile the uber-wealthy buy seats to go into outer space. Capitalism is not working.
I’m born and raised in Ohio but have lived in Denmark for 8 years now, where capitalism is alive and accelerating, too. Yes, democratic socialism is dominant, but we also grapple with the degrees of ‘democratic’ and ‘socialist’ our systems are.
I believe that there isn’t a name yet for the next economic system we need to create in order to sustain our species and the earth that provides for us—though some are beginning to scratch at it: donut economics, well-being economy, gift economy, post-growth economy.
So instead of endlessly discussing ‘socialism,’ ‘capitalism,’ ‘communism,’ which to me represent past iterations, I’m interested in exploring how we shift into this necessary, but unnamed next system. I think of shifting from independence to interdependence; individualism to collectivism; extraction to reciprocity; exponential growth to maintenance of well-functioning systems.
The reason I’m anti-capitalism, is because we simply cannot go on like this. If we play it out — the compounding extraction and accumulation of resources and labor — at some point, we’re going to hit the end of the earth’s resources and/or die out as a species. So it’s not a question for me about whether I like it or not, it’s that this system has a finite timeline.
As for billionaires, I believe a substantial wealth gap is inherently undemocratic, as decision power is concentrated within few people. Sure, we could get lucky with generous billionaires, but it’s still not a democracy where average people have a real say.
I even talk about this in the salary differential with my husband – at some point, if he continues to earn exponentially more than me, I will not feel like we live in a democratic relationship, because no matter how much we try to even things out, at the end of the day, he can always pull the ‘it’s my money and I decide’ card.
Thanks for a thought-provoking episode :)
I love learning about B-corporations for many of the reasons that you're naming. I think there are models that aren't coercive that also say, "let's take more than profit into account."
I’m also a fan. I have also enjoyed over the years when you have offered a window into the business strategy that steers PP — that you’re not just aiming for eternal growth but instead creating and maintaining a business that works for your lives.
Love this. Interdependence and respect of our environment's carrying capacities. Yes.
Gina, I love that you brought this up. I have never lived outside the U.S., much less in Denmark, but I did watch all of Börgen (which I adored). The look at Danish politics was so fascinating. The way they can so quickly form new parties was amazing (I realize it's TV, but still). I also realize it's a much smaller country, but I think you are on to something that we don't have to just accept what we have. I'm studying environmental management right now and agree that we can't go on the way we are.
Hi Dee, Borgen was an education for me in Danish politics, and it’s actually quite true to form! Whenever we say the US is too big for xyz system, I always wonder what would happen if we shifted a lot more onto the states / regions / counties — whatever scale we would need to make a system feel doable. Even in the small country of Denmark, our public healthcare system is actually broken down into five different regions.
Sarah said something to the effect of, 'Everyone is just trying to create more subsidies, they should be breaking apart the systems.' How many years have we been talking about affordability and NO ONE has addressed the joke of our minimum wage. We wouldn't need these subsidies if we raised minimum wage.
I don't care what letter is after the candidates name, I'm voting for the first person who brings forth a plan to abolish the minimum wage and establish a federal living wage standard which includes the closing off all the loopholes that corporations use to pay a sub-livable wage.
I'm interested in what you think about this, Sarah -- sometimes I think that instead of a minimum wage, we really want a minimum standard of living. There are so many people in my community (and I imagine most others) who, for whatever reason, are never going to be able to steadily work a job. I want them to have a place to live, clean water to drink, and enough food to eat. Even if they received some kind of universal basic income, on their own, I don't think they could manage to achieve that minimum standard of living that I wish for them and that I truly believe is good for society. I'm not sure how to get there, but I'm trying to more explicitly name what I think is the goal.
Yes, this is why my son says many other countries are better places to live than they US, even though we are richer and our median income is substantially higher than any other country. In many other countries, there is a floor that is provided for you. He sees this especially in health insurance and public transit - you may make lower wages, but if you don't have to pay the same huge premiums and you don't need to have a car, your worries are much less, and you can live a simple but decent life on little money.
Ooh, a living wage standard paired with a life of dignity standard? So a UBI system of some sort kicks in for those who cannot maintain 40 hours a week. And also so that those living on SSDI don't have to live in abject poverty and don't lose benefits if they get married. There's no, "if you make above this" you lose everything trap, just an acknowledgement of what it takes to live with dignity and an assurance that the gaps will be filled. (And of course the doubters will say that this would cause people to not work, but I haven't met a single human who doesn't want the dignity of some sort of contribution to their community in the form of work - no matter how small their contribution may be)
Maybe we talk less about work and more about contribution? I agree that everyone wants to contribute. I think there’s a life of dignity standard that’s necessary and inclusive of some way to contribute.
Yes! I love it!
I absolutely agree that we need to raise wages! Does a federal wage make sense in a country with such drastic differences in cost of living? I have very little knowledge of how people envision this working.
I like this MIT living wage calculator because it gets down to the County level for each state: https://livingwage.mit.edu/
YES! I want there to be a federally mandated calculation, like the MIT one, that allows living wages to be set at the community or county level. And as part of the legislation some small businesses, maybe based on number of employees, are exempt - so indi bookstores or Mom and Pop shops don't go fully under. But franchises will not be exempt. And corporations will be taxed more than they "save" if their business model relies on part time labor that does not recieve benefits. I'm still tossing around ideas, but the basic idea is that people can survive in their communities on a single job and corporations no longer profit from part time labor without benefits.
Bezos could still be a billionaire and pay his employees a living wage and treat them with dignity. Musk would still be a billionaire even if he hadn’t cut USAID. I don’t really mind Taylor Swift being a billionaire because it feels like she made her money (somewhat) fairly and she gives a lot of it to her employees.
yepyepyep
THIS! Whenever we bring up raising wages we hear how they'll just have to lay people off or raise prices. How about lowering the salaries of top executives? This is true even in the non profit world like higher education where university presidents (and football coaches) make ungodly sums of money. Why????? Why?????
I am not sure, but when I have been on hiring committees for highly paid positions (not like Bezos or Musk, but highly paid heads of universities or school systems), it is very difficult to attract quality candidates even at a high salary. I wouldn't be surprised if salaries for non-profit and academic execs increase in future years, as the jobs are becoming more difficult.
Well, yeah, because you can make so much in top positions in corporate so of course non profit has to follow suit. But we have got to rein that in across the board. Why does someone deserve a million dollar salary? Does anyone really do work that is worth a million dollar salary? It's like we've completely lot the value of money and it's just Monopoly money now...except for those of us not in the top 10-20%.
This is where capitalism is losing young people. They see businesses operating with zero respect for employees, squeezing work out of them and resisting fair pay, benefits etc. And they do it because their advisors suggest that they are letting shareholders or investors down if they don’t maximize the return! But the pool of winners has shrunk to an untenable level.
If anyone wants to hear serious discussion of these issues (in addition to PP, of course!) check out the Pitchfork Economics podcast or their Substack (@civicventures)They grapple with what’s wrong with today’s iteration of capitalism, without throwing it all out in favor of stereotypical socialism. Lots of smart guests and interesting perspective!
Thank you for the recs!
Yes! It’s the private equity/enshittification of it all- the only thing that matters is squeezing every dime for shareholders, quality of product and treatment of workers be damned.
Yes! It’s the private equity/enshittification of it all- the only thing that matters is squeezing every dime for shareholders, quality of product and treatment of workers be damned.
Ooh thank you for the recommendation! I’ll have to take a listen to that!
I worked for many years as a financial advisor. I didn’t have any billionaire clients, but I had plenty who were multi-millionaires. To be clear, they were mostly lovely people! But here’s what (at least somewhat) radicalized me: They didn’t need most of their money. They were accumulating it easily (the miracle of compound interest, kids!) and favorable tax policy made it easy to hold on to what they had and pass to their heirs. Why do we not pay into Social Security above 184K? Easy— someone did the math and realized it wouldn’t be “fair” for wealthy people to pay in more than they get out. (It is) Why do we not tax carried interest (the primary way hedge fund operators get paid)? Cuz they lobbied hard to ensure that Congress didn’t approve it. Why do we not have a wealth tax? Because the wealthy have scared the rest of us into thinking they’re coming for us. (I live in California and I received a mailer against our proposed wealth tax implying exactly that, and I am def not a billionaire!)
Again, my clients were not monsters! But observing them made it crystal clear to me that we don’t have to treat wealthy people with kid gloves. They will be fine. Their heirs will be fine. We (voters, politicians, the media) have a romanticized vision of a successful business person. Beth described the small business person giving back to the community. But many, many people of means are way beyond this level, and they are completely detached from the connection to the community. And these are the same people happily giving millions to politicians to ensure that they don’t have to pay taxes. Excessive wealth corrupts. DSA policies are a little naive, but someone has to say the quiet part out loud: We don’t want little Johnny to study hard and go to a good college so he can become Elon Musk!
Just as a frame of reference, the billionaire who is trying her darndest to reduce her net worth is Mackenzie Scott, Jeff Bezos’ first wife. According to Wikipedia, as of 2025 she had given away $26 billion. I couldn’t find the value of her divorce settlement, but her own net worth as of the end of 2025 was reported to be $40 billion. This after actively trying to give it away for six years! The billionaires (and the $100 millionaires) will be just fine.
To be clear, I'm for a lot of the tax policy changes you're outlining here. People could pay a lot more in taxes and still be wealthy beyond imagination. And I think you make such a good point that there's a level of wealth that disconnects people from their communities. I think that's bad for them on a moral and spiritual level (I also don't want to coerce anyone into my moral and spiritual framework to this degree).
Exactly. They will be fine!!
Thank you for the definition and conversation around socialism. I think healthcare and social security tend to be the easy and also challenging examples, and I think we need to include the programs that are less thought of as socialism LIKE law enforcement, fire fighting, highway maintenance and improvement. I bring these examples because nobody talks about getting rid of them or privatization of these programs that are focused on safety and health.
What I like about these examples is some are hybrid services that still rely on the competition of capitalism but are also subsidized through our taxes and run at the local level through agreements and contracts that generally support local businesses. I don't understand how the volunteer fire departments work, but the model is popular and repeated so hopefully it does work well.
Our water and sewage is a more privatized system and the public-private partnership goes wrong often - they'll have a private company own the stormwater/sewage and the government just monitors them. The company violates environmental regulations, gets fined, can't afford to improve, gets fined again, and the issue never gets fixed... contaminated water keeps going to homes and leeching into waterways because the government can't step in and fix it, they can only sue the company to fix it, which reduces the available capital even more. It's ineffective.
The long-term ownership and liability of important public utilities should rest with the local government for the safety of the residents. Companies go out of business all the time. I can understand having a private company compete for the overall management and monitoring, but this water issue is one I see as especially troublesome. Although, the government gets it wrong too (like in Flint Michigan), I think the people have more power against their own government than against a private company who has an agreement with the government. We the people have no standing when it comes to contract violations.
Can we call it capitalism with a robust and meaningful safety net?
By far the most successful parts of our safety net are the nationalized parts-Medicare, Social Security and SNAP. The programs like Medicaid that are administered locally are not more effective. There is more waste and disparate outcomes between localities.
Let people be rich! But have a robust, progressive tax system that meaningfully supports human flourishing.
I think that capitalism with a meaningful safety net is exactly what I'd like to see.
I would love to know your thoughts on how you would like to see this achieved! I imagine it would be with less government involvement-so how would you want to see the private sector (or just individual citizens) involved in achieving this? Beth's vision for American flourishing would be a long form article I would totally read!
I was fired by my GYN (solo practice) about 20 years ago . I had been with her about 5 years and appreciated her attentiveness to some minor symptoms which led to a diagnosis of thyroid disease. I had a benign asymptomatic uterine fibroid, which was being monitored by ultrasound. One year she said that I needed an endometrial biopsy to ensure it wasn't cancerous, which I agreed to. It was the most painful medical procedure I've ever had. Everything checked out fine. A year later, she said I needed another one and had no good explanation why. So I decided to get a second opinion, and that GYN said that a properly done ultrasound would give him the necessary information and that the biopsy was unnecessary. I called GYN#1's office and said I was declining the biopsy after getting a second opinion. A few weeks later I received a certified letter in the mail saying that my seeking of a second opinion and my refusal of the biopsy made me an unacceptable risk and I was no longer her patient. Needless to say I had my records transferred to GYN#2 and my fibroid never caused any issues (it has shrunk since menopause).
Marie, this sucks. And I can imagine it has complicated a lot of how you think about healthcare, and I'm sorry it happened.
Only an insecure doctor would retaliate after someone gets a second opinion. I’m so sorry that happened.
😧
Oh my god! This story makes me so mad!
What a terrible experience. I’m glad you advocated for yourself by getting a second opinion. I did something similar when my endocrinologist sent me for my third thyroid biopsy and I had had enough. I went to someone else for a thorough ultrasound and they said there was no need for further biopsies. Sad when invasive procedures are required for legal CYA purposes.
I thought hard on what I am a know it all about and I’ve landed on the origins of the domesticated dog and middle school science.
I was briefly a know-it-all during Covid about virus prevention but I’m a little embarrassed about that now, so.
Ooooh! I would love to hear you talk about the origins of the domesticated dog!
How pray tell does one become a billionaire ethically, to arrive at having “good” billionaires? They are cartoonish because that much wealth is unhealthy and corrupting. It creates classism and inherently makes some people disposable and less than. Why align yourself with them Beth? It makes no sense.
I'm not "aligning" with anyone as much as saying "I don't think governments should have the power to absolutely constrain wealth to an arbitrary standard." I don't think that it's good for anyone's soul to run a business in ways that hurt people and communities. I think power, however it gets concentrated, has the power to be corrupting. To me, capitalism can work if it is kept in check by a multitude of forces--government, culture, art, ethics and religion, etc. It's out of balance right now for a lot of reasons.
Start as a multi-millionaire!