Joe Biden versus Bernie Sanders debate

What's the different between Mr Biden and Mr Sanders? Little as you could have heard in the first video in this article (no longer available) and the other two videos and in this video that summarised the highlights: both want actions concerning climate change, healthcare for everyone, education, more just migration, gun control, ... .

However, it is clear that Mr Biden is more for a pragmatic approach to change the system because, yes, most of Mr Sanders's proposals will not make it in Congress when the wealthy or their confidences have to agree on them because they would simply disagree because of the person. But, what with Mr Biden's proposals? Did he not experience when he was vice president under President Obama that little could be achieved because President Obama's proposals were considered too extreme? Although, there is a difference: President Obama is black while Mr Biden is white. And thus, maybe he may convince the wealthy elite that universal healthcare and paying taxes without reductions are important.

Stock markets as example

What was to be expected happened: markets plummeted although interest rates were cut to nearly zero because how can such cuts stimulate an economy that is hit as a result of a pandemic due to a virus?

In times of crises extreme measures need to be taken. When normally one or a few companies are hit by very big fluctuations than trading can be suspended. But now, while we face a catastrophe it seems little is done to limit any damage (although it seems recently markets were briefly suspended and some property funds ban withdrawal money to protect customers) while huge sums of money are taken from companies of which a number now face an almost certain bankruptcy such as airlines. And guess what: society may pay again to save companies just as over 10 years ago during the financial crisis, further impoverishing countries and their citizens.

Why is trading at stock exchanges not limited or even suspended instead that companies lose billions of dollars to worsen a financial crisis? But I'm sure, soon when most money is gone regulators may decide to interfere and stop trading and thus hit ordinary people who may lose again. Thus, this is such an example why sometimes extreme measures are needed and a pragmatic approach is not possible.

Climate change may enforce changes?

However, climate change may enforce these changes. As Mr Sanders said in the deleted video in the article, climate scientists (and in general everyone) notice changes are happening even faster than in their worst worse case scenarios. And thus, while fossil fuels made many of the rich very rich, even billionaires, an amount almost unimaginable and they continue to invest in that industry, the consequences of the use of these fossil fuels may also take away their wealth. Therefore, as Mr Sanders says, an urgency is needed to tackle climate change instead of a slow change, and at least a number of climate scientists agree and believe it is possible.

Many top earners complain about the contributions they have to pay and try to legalise for instance tax reductions and tax heavens while compensate their reductions in taxes by demanding that governments reduce their expenditures such as lower benefits. The result: healthcare professionals and certainly nurses but also teachers and cleaners are paid (relatively) low wages and face tough negotiations for relatively modest increases in wages. The well-paid enforce austerity on countries and certainly after the financial crisis because sharing means lower bonuses or dividends for the have-all. And thus, as wages for certain professions are lower, many people prefer better paid jobs to be able to live well in our increasingly expensive society, even when they complain they don't like their job. And, don't get me wrong, there are wealthy who return to society while people with more responsibility may earn more.

Contribution of Coronavirus COVID-19

Not only climate change but also this COVID-19 crisis may stretch the healthcare system as there may not be sufficient equipment and nurses even to help the rich because of underinvestments during the previous years; or priority for treatment is given to the wealthy while this may backfire when people become angry. Some scientists already explained that lack of money after previous local coronavirus epidemics SARS and MERS prevented the development of an antiviral drug that may have prevented the severity of this epidemic and thus its negative effects on the economy and society although I acknowledge this is a new virus and already much progress has been made such as being able to detect it. Maybe the virus may be insufficient to kill many but already it has a major effect on the economy as important companies such as airlines and thus probably also travel companies are facing bankruptcy. Also bars and restaurants may fail as they are forced to close although local and international measures are taken to prevent a collapse of society. But, unless the very rich are prepared to share so money becomes available to buy medical equipment or help companies against bankruptcy, you can expect anger when things go wrong while certain investors benefited from the drop in the stock markets to become even richer. And thus, I think central banks and governments should have intervened on the stock markets to prevent billions were taken from companies so their financial troubles become even larger. And this crisis after the storms last month adds an economical strain to society so the current system may collapse. Too much at the same time: climate change damage, healthcare costs in money and people, and shares that plummet and thus a new economic crisis that will cost money, certainly because people continued as before the financial crisis of 2008 with lending too much and thus creating huge debts; low interest rates are bad for the economy although people think the opposite.

Why urgency is needed instead of a pragmatic and thus slow approach

Indeed, nature (religious people call it God) may restore the balance so afterwards we can create a better and more equal world. Mr Sanders may try but probably will fail to change the system as even President Obama, not a radical, could hardly change anything and indeed, Mr Biden is gaining votes. And people don't want revolution thus are unlikely to vote for someone who may change too much. But Mr Sanders and Mr Biden (and before also Mrs Warren) should speak about a fairer world and how some people should stop being too greedy but instead share some of their wealth; afterwards the very rich can choose whether they will help by contributing more to society, or not. Likely many will not while they are too powerful to tackle; similar with the gun lobby that blocks necessary changes.

Therefore, climate change and diseases may be sufficient to topple our society into a crisis. A pity that by then even more nature and animals will be destroyed although the animals in our zoos may one day regain freedom to repopulate the land. But, speak about a fairer world and most people think you will take from them as people became used to the fact that many powerful take; otherwise they would not have ended at the top. Thus, today people such as Tony Blair and Barack Obama are called communists while they don't even recognise that ones they spoke as people like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders such as more investments are needed in healthcare, education and sciences to make a better and more equal world without extreme poverty. And yes, radical actions are needed on climate change, social reforms and redistribution of wealth and work in order to provide sufficiently well paid and relaxed work according the living standards in a certain society in which increasing numbers of jobs are replaced by automation such as emails and robots delivering packages instead of postmen.

Of course, we don't need an excess of nurses or police but sufficient numbers so they can work with an acceptable work-life balance with time to recover and to spend with family and friends. This applies for all work and this can only be achieved when everyone receives a decent salary AND certain persons are not overpaid as this results in too expensive products and services in order to increase profits. This also includes that not everything is free for everyone as high earners can pay but without excess so the state can also afford sending poorer students to receive a good education.

And thus, sometimes a more radical person is needed in order to create a fairer and thus more stable world that benefits everyone. No-one likes revolutions as everyone want a peaceful life so they can profit from life. Therefore, the revolution should be peaceful whereby top earners agree to earn less so this money can be used to hire other people to create a good work-life balance without burn-outs.