I'm gonna focus on the first part because that's where I have the most to say on. I have found just about any discourse regarding "economically left" to be pathetically shallow, resulting in equally pathetically narrow goals.
Like say, let's take universal healthcare as an example. If you apply literally any level of economics above the most basic level, it's actually strange why the go-to method is either 1) Mandatory public plan or, 2) just sending more government funding directly to hospitals.
What about tackling the industrial disadvantages of healthcare? Well one of the most obvious is overhead costs for maintenance for non productive equipment. Obviously, there isn't someone having a hereditary, incest only heart attack everyday. Then there's the obvious cost of specialist doctors, they're the more extreme version of overhead cost on equipment, since each specialist doctor also had to personally invest a lot into the qualifications to be a specialist in the first place, so it's understandable they'd demand for higher wages in return- they have fucking debts to pay.
That last statement would be solved WITH free education funnily enough, if they were just selective about it at least. Why not cut the costs of education specifically for fields that are lacking in qualified manpower? Why is it free education even for feminist dance theory? (if you wanna talk about how to tackle the first part too, just subsidize equipment hospitals need to maintain their asset class, automatically would take into account private practices too that way)
That's just one example too. Basic macro economics is just recognizing externalities on a micro scale ought to be accounted for (even if they're just calculated as a lump sum in most macro models).
Let's take another example, something more self-contained, something like tackling the insurance industry before creating any kind of mandatory subscription model. What's the main obstacle for insurance industries? Oh right, it's the cost of maintaining core assets to guarantee 100% sustainability. Well then fuck, why not just allow insurance companies in particular to be particularly leveraged above other industries? That worked for oil companies. Take a notch off of the cost of credit for insurance companies while you're at it too, bills for positive discrimination on an industry basis for cost of credit is passed everyday anyway, open up those market barriers why not.
The exponential growth of operational costs scale with the length of the operation before meeting the consumer. Of course this ends up being worst for an industry as integrated as healthcare, so the solution is always to just slash costs as close to the base as possible. Then you'd get a cost difference that also gets affected by exponential length multipliers, instead of just being a subtraction at the very end after all multipliers to cost.
TL;DR: I'll be "economically left" when the side trying to be "economically left" are actually trying to implement their shit in ways that are feasible instead of setting money on fire.
