Your weekly excerpt from one of my books. This week: "The Hidden History of Neoliberalism: How Reaganism Gutted America and How to Restore Its Greatness"
There are many different roads to Kings and authoritarians - Mises writes of just one road.
For a Democracy to presevere, the people have to continue to choose the road to optimise their freedom of living AND of support to ALL their neighbors.
One road to maintain this type of democracy is to use the "Constitution" as a living document - Britain is a country whose Constitution is living, and (with difficulty) maintains Democracy.
THE US is now plagued by "leaders/felons/croinies" (a CABAL) insisting on the worst parts of a dead, at least decaying, US Constitution.
We need to "re-Constitutionalize" before this new CABAL becomes too strong to overcome...
Von Mises and Hayek both spoke out of both sides on the mouth. Hayek argued that "social justice is an empty phrase with no determinable content". Both had to flee the Nazis. And both substantiated false bullshit to justify the rise of Hitler.
In 1973, Hayek, in Law, Legislation and Liberty:
There is no reason why in a free society government should not assure to all, protection against severe deprivation in the form of an assured minimum income, or a floor below which nobody need to descend. To enter into such an insurance against extreme misfortune may well be in the interest of all; or it may be felt to be a clear moral duty of all to assist, within the organised community, those who cannot help themselves. So long as such a uniform minimum income is provided outside the market to all those who, for any reason, are unable to earn in the market an adequate maintenance, this need not lead to a restriction of freedom, or conflict with the Rule of law.
Thewir views on welfare policy contradict their views on social justice.
"“To make a totalitarian system function efficiently,” Hayek writes, “it is not enough that everybody should be forced to work for the same ends. It is essential that the people should come to regard them as their own ends. Although the beliefs must be chosen for the people and imposed upon them, they must become their beliefs…""
And so it has come to pass, with at least 40% of the population, and 40% is more than enough for a seismic shift in the culture.
Consider the source. Hayek was free to leave Germany for England, to leave England foir the US, to leave Chicago to return to Deutschland, to abandon his own family.
He complained that Jews in Vienna had corrupted Vienanese society when he came form a Czech family that had intermarried. To accept that bullshit is to believe that Czechs and Hungarians, etc had actually corrupted the Hapsburgs.
As a matter of fact, he was related to the preeminent Vienese/Jewish philosopher! "On his mother's side, Hayek was second cousin to the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. His mother often played with Wittgenstein's sisters and had known him well. As a result of their family relationship, Hayek became one of the first to read Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus when the book was published in its original German edition in 1921. Although he met Wittgenstein on only a few occasions, Hayek said that Wittgenstein's philosophy and methods of analysis had a profound influence on his own life and thought. In his later years, Hayek recalled a discussion of philosophy with Wittgenstein when both were officers during World War I."
When he was on the faculty at the University of Chicago, he served with Milty Friedman and other Jews.
Just listened to Garry Kasparov on Velshi. I am pretty sure it will be on youtube, everyone should check it out.
Regardless of Hayeks background and history, there is truth here:
"“To make a totalitarian system function efficiently,” Hayek writes, “it is not enough that everybody should be forced to work for the same ends. It is essential that the people should come to regard them as their own ends. Although the beliefs must be chosen for the people and imposed upon them, they must become their beliefs…""
And so it has come to pass, with at least 40% of the population, and 40% is more than enough for a seismic shift in the culture.
He also made the point, that while Mike Johnson, Trump, Miller and Vance have tried to cast the protests as anti American, the passion of critique is totally 100% American,to make America better and live up to it's promise.
The same is true of the Democratic party, as he pointed out there are 240 Democrats in Congress, and only a handful have shown any passion, and none of the leaders have, rather they spend their time keeping their heads down. They may not have the votes, but they do have access to microphones, reporters and journalists.
BTW, your new hero Zohran Mamdani has accepted massive donations. His campaign has raised $16.8 million and spent $10.7 million, and the New York City Campaign Finance Board estimates Mamdani has around $6.1 million left to spend, the most of any candidate. Same sources as other Democrats.
Only a fool would reject help from Buffett, Soros, Gates, the exwives club, etc. Dems get a small fraction relative to Republicans and are not in a position to extort anyone.
No Congressional Dems support the Trump administration. None.
If the Democrats had not been so wishy washy, so Milquetoast cutting their own throat by backing establishment types, and cutting off the legs of progressives, we wouldn't be in this situation. They put their thumb on the scale for Hillary and lost, they put their thumb on the scale for McAuliffe and lost, Nancy put her thumb on the scale for a conservademn, Joe Kennedy III, against a Progressive Democrat Sen Markey and lost (thankfully) and again put her thumb on the scale for a homophobe against a progresssive and lesbian.
Why are you so afraid of Mamdani Daniel? Because he is a democratic socialist or because he is a Muslim?
Do you know the sources of Mamdani's funding? If so what are they?
Strawman argument Daniel, you present it as though the "establishment" support of the Democratic party comes from Buffer, Sores,Gates, Ex wives club
How about Raytheon, Exxon, BP,Shell, Dow, Goldman Sachs.
Politics is not a game where you choose a side like NFL vs AFL,.
I have principles Daniel, I am a democratic socialist, what are your principles.
The business as usual, centrist way of doing business is how we wound up in this mess Daniel.
Is you don't stand for something, you stand for nothing.
Re: Thom Hartmann FA Hayek vs. the Birth of Democratic Socialism
October 19, 2025
I am appreciative for the deep dive Thom produces, yet must address the use of sophsiticated terms that have no meaning to most of us when arguing our points. Thom’s previous prediction that the US Economy would fail looms as an example of over-prediction. I caution that non-physicians attempting to profit from Medicine are working on their own thru governmental and commercial interests and keep getting it wrong.
I am also amazed how the simple Google Chat can shed insights of hostory as Thom does if one possesses a knowledge base to ask better questions. Thom’s article writes:
“Germany’s social welfare state led all other developed nations by the end of the 1920s, that country having led the pack by initiating the world’s first single-payer healthcare system in 1884.[xxxi]”
In our unique Medical Scholars Program at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, we studied the history of worker Unions. It is of note that the program no longer exists. High level Academics in training Doctors has been rejected.
There is a contrast between the development of Worker Unions in England (Equality - everyone the same) and some 100 years later in Germany (Equitty - to each by the need). We oscillate back and forth as if one is superior to the other, when both in the context of employment are flawed. This is the unsolved hybrid.
Single Payer is not just how the money is paid, but also how the money is collected. Taxing only workers for Care thru payroll is lopsided and insolvent. The German Socialist System correctly emphasized Fee-For-Service, which I submit is the most cost-effective and quality assuring system. Yet, it collects funds from taxation of workers. This is the unstable.
We often address only part of a problem. I argue that the combination of a Fee-For Service with Universal Population Coverage is what gives us what we want. My internet search indicates that no single country perfectly combines all three of the necessary elements of 1) State Level Single Payer Fee-For-Service payments, 2) Universal State Level Mandatory Sales Tax, funding 3) Universal Population Coverage for Medical Care, This elimates the insane for nothing overhead of Commercial Health Insurance Corporations.
Timothy D Bilash MD MS FACOG
Candidate, US House of Representatives Missouri District 02 in 2026
Germany did not have a single-payer system in 1884, but it did launch a mandatory health insurance system that year, known as the Bismarck model, which is a multi-payer system with government regulation. Named after Otto von Bismarck, this system requires mandatory enrollment in a non-profit "sickness fund" (Krankenkassen) that provides coverage, funded jointly by employers and employees through payroll deductions. While it wasn't a single-payer system, the government heavily regulated these funds to ensure they covered workers and eventually expanded to cover the majority of the population.
• System type: The Bismarck model is a multi-payer system, not a single-payer system, because there are multiple competing "sickness funds" rather than one public insurer.
• Mandatory insurance: The system made health insurance compulsory for workers in certain industries, with coverage expanding over time to include more people and their families.
• Funding: The system was financed through a combination of employer and employee contributions, which is still a core principle today.
• Government role: The government played a significant regulatory role, setting fees, minimum benefits, and overseeing the non-profit nature of the sickness funds.
• Expansion: Initially limited to factory and mine workers, the system's coverage expanded significantly in the following decades to include more occupations and eventually nearly all trades.
Dr./Candidate Bilash. I find it difficult to follow your writing. Please do not take this as reason to ignore me. I am certain many other readers had the same experience reading your words. I believe you have something valuable to contribute. And because; you are an expert in medicine by virtue of being an MD, [and apparently a faculty member at U. of Illinois?] your ideas are worthy of our attention. Also, because you are a candidate for Congress, your ideas are immensely important to all of us.
You left some sentences dangling in obscurity. I do not know what you mean with the seemingly throw-away sentences at the ends of paragraphs. eg:
"This is the unsolved hybrid."
"This is the unstable."
If you could enlarge on these things, I might be able to better understand your essay.
You, yourself say that some of Mr. Hartmann's terms are sophisticated and "have no meaning to most of us."
I do not recall seeing you on this blog previously. I appreciate your contribution as a breath of fresh air. Plus, I hope you are serious about running for Congress.
Thanks, Thom. The hero-worship of Hayek and Mises is foundational among my right-wing correspondents. Any ammunition I can use to embarrass and debunk those two charlatans is helpful.
I read Mises's "Human Action", and found his logic and articulation of economic complexity very compelling, except for his incomprehension of one particular very fundamental reality: Labor and Markets are not separate entities. He always treated them as two different elements of the economy, while the overwhelming majority of consumers are members of the labor force.
While he accepted the reality that democracy is a kind of necessary evil, being the only political system that reliably insures peaceful transfer of governmental power, avoiding the violence that leads to the damage of personal property, he felt democracy was still a kind of tyranny of the majority, because it did not allow for "secession" by some undefined group or individual that wishes to proclaim a kind of personal sovereignty in defiance of any government statute. He, and Hayek, never accepted the reality that their basis for rejecting the legitimacy of democracy was the same as rejecting the legitimacy of all government, all legal systems. They were anarchists.
I hate the economic gibberish of the past, but always know Thom is going to have an interesting nugget in his Report that makes me think. In this case, it's the damn racism that is the hearts of these revered "intellectuals". Economists that have no idea of the collective value of ALL the people consuming, producing, and the social relationships they have as motivation.
The motivation of the psychopaths and oligarchs is not complicated. It is control. This century it will be through technology. TRump has forged the relationship from hell with the Tech-Bros and our/his government. They are baking-in their prejudice and so called morality. Stop. Them. See you in the streets.
Thanks for the unexpected insight that the benefits of Germany's social democracy (or democratic socialism) were confused with the overarching psychological impacts of the Versailles Treaty. I can't help thinking that the bourgeois bias of early century Vienna had a lot to do with the disconnected conclusions in academia.
Now that we know, we still have the challenge of drumming the lessons into popular consciousness against the tsunami of advertising and neoliberal propaganda. Democratizing corporations and the general economy to make the economy publicly-owned faces this enormous challenge that has overwhelmed us time and again since the industrial revolution. The ancient patrimony of hegemonic property ownership is our civilizational challenge (Overshoot may defeat us).
There are many different roads to Kings and authoritarians - Mises writes of just one road.
For a Democracy to presevere, the people have to continue to choose the road to optimise their freedom of living AND of support to ALL their neighbors.
One road to maintain this type of democracy is to use the "Constitution" as a living document - Britain is a country whose Constitution is living, and (with difficulty) maintains Democracy.
THE US is now plagued by "leaders/felons/croinies" (a CABAL) insisting on the worst parts of a dead, at least decaying, US Constitution.
We need to "re-Constitutionalize" before this new CABAL becomes too strong to overcome...
People's rallies everywhere can do that..
Von Mises and Hayek both spoke out of both sides on the mouth. Hayek argued that "social justice is an empty phrase with no determinable content". Both had to flee the Nazis. And both substantiated false bullshit to justify the rise of Hitler.
In 1973, Hayek, in Law, Legislation and Liberty:
There is no reason why in a free society government should not assure to all, protection against severe deprivation in the form of an assured minimum income, or a floor below which nobody need to descend. To enter into such an insurance against extreme misfortune may well be in the interest of all; or it may be felt to be a clear moral duty of all to assist, within the organised community, those who cannot help themselves. So long as such a uniform minimum income is provided outside the market to all those who, for any reason, are unable to earn in the market an adequate maintenance, this need not lead to a restriction of freedom, or conflict with the Rule of law.
Thewir views on welfare policy contradict their views on social justice.
Both were immigrants who hated immigration.
"“To make a totalitarian system function efficiently,” Hayek writes, “it is not enough that everybody should be forced to work for the same ends. It is essential that the people should come to regard them as their own ends. Although the beliefs must be chosen for the people and imposed upon them, they must become their beliefs…""
And so it has come to pass, with at least 40% of the population, and 40% is more than enough for a seismic shift in the culture.
Consider the source. Hayek was free to leave Germany for England, to leave England foir the US, to leave Chicago to return to Deutschland, to abandon his own family.
He complained that Jews in Vienna had corrupted Vienanese society when he came form a Czech family that had intermarried. To accept that bullshit is to believe that Czechs and Hungarians, etc had actually corrupted the Hapsburgs.
As a matter of fact, he was related to the preeminent Vienese/Jewish philosopher! "On his mother's side, Hayek was second cousin to the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. His mother often played with Wittgenstein's sisters and had known him well. As a result of their family relationship, Hayek became one of the first to read Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus when the book was published in its original German edition in 1921. Although he met Wittgenstein on only a few occasions, Hayek said that Wittgenstein's philosophy and methods of analysis had a profound influence on his own life and thought. In his later years, Hayek recalled a discussion of philosophy with Wittgenstein when both were officers during World War I."
When he was on the faculty at the University of Chicago, he served with Milty Friedman and other Jews.
Just listened to Garry Kasparov on Velshi. I am pretty sure it will be on youtube, everyone should check it out.
Regardless of Hayeks background and history, there is truth here:
"“To make a totalitarian system function efficiently,” Hayek writes, “it is not enough that everybody should be forced to work for the same ends. It is essential that the people should come to regard them as their own ends. Although the beliefs must be chosen for the people and imposed upon them, they must become their beliefs…""
And so it has come to pass, with at least 40% of the population, and 40% is more than enough for a seismic shift in the culture.
He also made the point, that while Mike Johnson, Trump, Miller and Vance have tried to cast the protests as anti American, the passion of critique is totally 100% American,to make America better and live up to it's promise.
The same is true of the Democratic party, as he pointed out there are 240 Democrats in Congress, and only a handful have shown any passion, and none of the leaders have, rather they spend their time keeping their heads down. They may not have the votes, but they do have access to microphones, reporters and journalists.
What does he know? We have a govenment shut down. Who the hell showed up yesterday? Pick on Republicans.
I don't have to pick on Republicans, we are in one accord they are the enemy, but Republicans are not reading Robert Reich or Thom Hartmann.
Chances that a Democratic politician is reading, they need to stick a steel rod in their spine.
The Government Shutdown has nothing to do with the subject and conversation, it is an attempt to change the subject.
If the Democratic party doesn't show some passion, some courage and stop slopping at the same trough as the Republicans, we are goners.
Those are false allegations and only feed MAGA.
BTW, your new hero Zohran Mamdani has accepted massive donations. His campaign has raised $16.8 million and spent $10.7 million, and the New York City Campaign Finance Board estimates Mamdani has around $6.1 million left to spend, the most of any candidate. Same sources as other Democrats.
Only a fool would reject help from Buffett, Soros, Gates, the exwives club, etc. Dems get a small fraction relative to Republicans and are not in a position to extort anyone.
No Congressional Dems support the Trump administration. None.
What are false allegations Daniel.?
If the Democrats had not been so wishy washy, so Milquetoast cutting their own throat by backing establishment types, and cutting off the legs of progressives, we wouldn't be in this situation. They put their thumb on the scale for Hillary and lost, they put their thumb on the scale for McAuliffe and lost, Nancy put her thumb on the scale for a conservademn, Joe Kennedy III, against a Progressive Democrat Sen Markey and lost (thankfully) and again put her thumb on the scale for a homophobe against a progresssive and lesbian.
Why are you so afraid of Mamdani Daniel? Because he is a democratic socialist or because he is a Muslim?
Do you know the sources of Mamdani's funding? If so what are they?
Strawman argument Daniel, you present it as though the "establishment" support of the Democratic party comes from Buffer, Sores,Gates, Ex wives club
How about Raytheon, Exxon, BP,Shell, Dow, Goldman Sachs.
Politics is not a game where you choose a side like NFL vs AFL,.
I have principles Daniel, I am a democratic socialist, what are your principles.
The business as usual, centrist way of doing business is how we wound up in this mess Daniel.
Is you don't stand for something, you stand for nothing.
Re: Thom Hartmann FA Hayek vs. the Birth of Democratic Socialism
October 19, 2025
I am appreciative for the deep dive Thom produces, yet must address the use of sophsiticated terms that have no meaning to most of us when arguing our points. Thom’s previous prediction that the US Economy would fail looms as an example of over-prediction. I caution that non-physicians attempting to profit from Medicine are working on their own thru governmental and commercial interests and keep getting it wrong.
I am also amazed how the simple Google Chat can shed insights of hostory as Thom does if one possesses a knowledge base to ask better questions. Thom’s article writes:
“Germany’s social welfare state led all other developed nations by the end of the 1920s, that country having led the pack by initiating the world’s first single-payer healthcare system in 1884.[xxxi]”
In our unique Medical Scholars Program at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, we studied the history of worker Unions. It is of note that the program no longer exists. High level Academics in training Doctors has been rejected.
There is a contrast between the development of Worker Unions in England (Equality - everyone the same) and some 100 years later in Germany (Equitty - to each by the need). We oscillate back and forth as if one is superior to the other, when both in the context of employment are flawed. This is the unsolved hybrid.
Single Payer is not just how the money is paid, but also how the money is collected. Taxing only workers for Care thru payroll is lopsided and insolvent. The German Socialist System correctly emphasized Fee-For-Service, which I submit is the most cost-effective and quality assuring system. Yet, it collects funds from taxation of workers. This is the unstable.
We often address only part of a problem. I argue that the combination of a Fee-For Service with Universal Population Coverage is what gives us what we want. My internet search indicates that no single country perfectly combines all three of the necessary elements of 1) State Level Single Payer Fee-For-Service payments, 2) Universal State Level Mandatory Sales Tax, funding 3) Universal Population Coverage for Medical Care, This elimates the insane for nothing overhead of Commercial Health Insurance Corporations.
Timothy D Bilash MD MS FACOG
Candidate, US House of Representatives Missouri District 02 in 2026
_______________________
AI Overview - Google Search
1884 germany single payer health system
https://www.google.com/search?q=1884+germany+single+payer+health+system&oq=1884+germany+single+payer+health+system&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDU4MDFqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&sei=lPv0aPPmHazSp84P5uOPqQo
Germany did not have a single-payer system in 1884, but it did launch a mandatory health insurance system that year, known as the Bismarck model, which is a multi-payer system with government regulation. Named after Otto von Bismarck, this system requires mandatory enrollment in a non-profit "sickness fund" (Krankenkassen) that provides coverage, funded jointly by employers and employees through payroll deductions. While it wasn't a single-payer system, the government heavily regulated these funds to ensure they covered workers and eventually expanded to cover the majority of the population.
• System type: The Bismarck model is a multi-payer system, not a single-payer system, because there are multiple competing "sickness funds" rather than one public insurer.
• Mandatory insurance: The system made health insurance compulsory for workers in certain industries, with coverage expanding over time to include more people and their families.
• Funding: The system was financed through a combination of employer and employee contributions, which is still a core principle today.
• Government role: The government played a significant regulatory role, setting fees, minimum benefits, and overseeing the non-profit nature of the sickness funds.
• Expansion: Initially limited to factory and mine workers, the system's coverage expanded significantly in the following decades to include more occupations and eventually nearly all trades.
Dr./Candidate Bilash. I find it difficult to follow your writing. Please do not take this as reason to ignore me. I am certain many other readers had the same experience reading your words. I believe you have something valuable to contribute. And because; you are an expert in medicine by virtue of being an MD, [and apparently a faculty member at U. of Illinois?] your ideas are worthy of our attention. Also, because you are a candidate for Congress, your ideas are immensely important to all of us.
You left some sentences dangling in obscurity. I do not know what you mean with the seemingly throw-away sentences at the ends of paragraphs. eg:
"This is the unsolved hybrid."
"This is the unstable."
If you could enlarge on these things, I might be able to better understand your essay.
You, yourself say that some of Mr. Hartmann's terms are sophisticated and "have no meaning to most of us."
I do not recall seeing you on this blog previously. I appreciate your contribution as a breath of fresh air. Plus, I hope you are serious about running for Congress.
Elimination of the collateral resourses rule would make the costs involved drop.
Are you ruinning against Fred Wellman?
Thanks, Thom. The hero-worship of Hayek and Mises is foundational among my right-wing correspondents. Any ammunition I can use to embarrass and debunk those two charlatans is helpful.
I read Mises's "Human Action", and found his logic and articulation of economic complexity very compelling, except for his incomprehension of one particular very fundamental reality: Labor and Markets are not separate entities. He always treated them as two different elements of the economy, while the overwhelming majority of consumers are members of the labor force.
While he accepted the reality that democracy is a kind of necessary evil, being the only political system that reliably insures peaceful transfer of governmental power, avoiding the violence that leads to the damage of personal property, he felt democracy was still a kind of tyranny of the majority, because it did not allow for "secession" by some undefined group or individual that wishes to proclaim a kind of personal sovereignty in defiance of any government statute. He, and Hayek, never accepted the reality that their basis for rejecting the legitimacy of democracy was the same as rejecting the legitimacy of all government, all legal systems. They were anarchists.
Hayek saw a welfare check and screamed “fascism.”
That’s the seed of our modern sickness—the belief that caring for each other leads to tyranny, but letting billionaires hoard oxygen is “freedom.”
He mistook solidarity for slavery.
He fled fascism, then spent his life blaming compassion for causing it.
That’s how neoliberalism baptized greed as virtue.
Funny how the people who fear “the road to serfdom” never notice they’re already serving the lords.
There is a reason.....
I hate the economic gibberish of the past, but always know Thom is going to have an interesting nugget in his Report that makes me think. In this case, it's the damn racism that is the hearts of these revered "intellectuals". Economists that have no idea of the collective value of ALL the people consuming, producing, and the social relationships they have as motivation.
The motivation of the psychopaths and oligarchs is not complicated. It is control. This century it will be through technology. TRump has forged the relationship from hell with the Tech-Bros and our/his government. They are baking-in their prejudice and so called morality. Stop. Them. See you in the streets.
Thank you, for that history Captain, my Captain.
🪧 THE TEST OF A COVENANT
OCT. 18, 2025
This was not a protest.
It was the test of covenant.
Not of slogans—but of sovereignty.
Not of outrage—but of ownership.
Democracy didn’t ask for applause.
It asked for your presence.
Your feet.
Your breath.
Your grief.
If you stayed home, ask yourself:
What ritual would have moved you?
If you showed up, ask yourself:
What rhythm will you carry forward?
We are not the authors of our choices.
But we are the aftermath.
The propagandists shape our choices.
Yesterday was an act of courage for seven million people.
It was a reflex built on a covenant—
between the individual and the American way of life.
They came to resist a man.
They left having remembered a covenant.
The American covenant.
Thanks for the unexpected insight that the benefits of Germany's social democracy (or democratic socialism) were confused with the overarching psychological impacts of the Versailles Treaty. I can't help thinking that the bourgeois bias of early century Vienna had a lot to do with the disconnected conclusions in academia.
Now that we know, we still have the challenge of drumming the lessons into popular consciousness against the tsunami of advertising and neoliberal propaganda. Democratizing corporations and the general economy to make the economy publicly-owned faces this enormous challenge that has overwhelmed us time and again since the industrial revolution. The ancient patrimony of hegemonic property ownership is our civilizational challenge (Overshoot may defeat us).