Blind Rulers

Recently one of YouTube's biggest stars, Mr. Beast, uploaded a video the sparked some discussion about the inadequacies and inequities of capitalism. This post will try to answer some of the questions the video inspired.

So, what was the video about? Well, the title of the video is 1,000 Blind People See For The First Time, which should already give you some direction. Mr. Beast, as one of the highest paid YouTubers, has done very well for himself, has an estimated net worth of $100 million and makes between $3 and $5 million per month from YouTube ads alone. That does not include in-video brand deals. He uses that money to make more money, but he does it in a quasi-philanthropic manner, by organizing big stunts in which he gives away a lot of money, which draws a large audience to his channel. He's done things like organize a real life squid game for in which the grand prize was more than $400 thousand, he gifted an island to his 100,000,000th subscriber, and challenged his audience to earn "$10,000 Every Day You Survive Prison".

The video in question was about him paying for a simple 15 minute surgical procedure that can cure a type of blindness for 1,000 people. Two days ago he tweeted this: "Ï don't understand why curable blindness is a thing. Why don't governments step in and help? Even if you're thinking purely from a financial standpoint it's hard to see how they don't roi on taxes from people being able to work again." That's a good question, one that boggles the mind if you don't know how capitalism works. What he means by "roi", for those who don't know, is "return on investment". Surely the government would gain more in taxes from people who can work again, than they would spend on this rather cheap and simple cure? That's undoubtedly correct, but the problem runs a lot deeper.

Why not ask the obvious follow-up question; why don't the United States transition to Medicare For All? Several studies have shown that this, or any other single-payer healthcare system, would not only save hundreds of billions of dollars, but hundreds of thousands of lifes as well. Here's the abstract from a 2020 study published in The Lancet:

Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion as well as savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal healthcare system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national healthcare expenditure, equivalent to over $450 billion annually. The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is currently incurred by employers and households through healthcare premiums, as well as existing government allocations. This shift to single-payer healthcare would provide the greatest relief to lower-income households. Furthermore, we estimate that ensuring healthcare access for all Americans would save over 68,000 lives and 1.73 million life-years every year.
_{source: National Library of Medicine}

Medicare for All and the answer to Mr. Beast's question are no-brainers: of course, any government that's working for the people would do those things. Everyone is in favor of those things, across the political spectrum. Or... No, wait, every average citizen across the political spectrum is in favor of those things. And that's the problem. Not just the American democracy, but democracies in general are not democracies at all. That's the problem. Our governments don't care about what we want, not in the slightest. And we all know it. We all feel it. Almost every single poll that indicates strong support for the policies that would actually improve our lifes, whether it's about taxes, wages, the environment or healthcare, does not translate into policy changes towards those indicated goals.

This is a good time to bring to your attention a study that I've used many times in my writings. In 2014 Cambridge University Press published a study called "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens", which you should all read and take to heart. I'll just quote one paragraph from the abstract, just to give you the TL;DR:

The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.
_{source: Cambridge University Press}

See? The emperor may have no clothes, but it doesn't matter. Our rulers are blind to our wishes and needs. In the first study published in The Lancet about Medicare for All, it's mentioned that "a 1% tax on household net worth above $21 million, applied to 0.1% of all households, would yield $109 billion annually." And that's great. But the 2014 Cambridge University study shows that the economic elites want to pay less, not more taxes, and that they are the ones our governments listen to. I hope I've given you enough reason to read both sources, but if you don't like to read (what the hell are you doing here then?), watch the below linked video about Mr. Beast's video about curing the blind. It mentions both studies I've mentioned and quoted from.

Thanks so much for visiting my blog and reading my posts dear reader, I appreciate that a lot :-) If you like my content, please consider leaving a comment, upvote or resteem. I'll be back here tomorrow and sincerely hope you'll join me. Until then, stay safe, stay healthy!