Slashdot Mirror
A Majority Of Millennials Now Reject Capitalism, Poll Shows (washingtonpost.com)
A new poll shows that a majority of young people do not support capitalism. The study was conducted by Harvard University, which polled young adults ages 18-29. It found that 51 percent of those polled rejected capitalism, that is to say, they did not support it. Only 42 percent said they support capitalism -- there was a margin of error of 2.4 percentage points. When asked what alternative system they would prefer, there wasn't a clear winner. Just 33 percent said they supported socialism. When talking about politics or economics, it can get complicated and the poll does little to shed light on what parts of capitalism young people dislike or what parts of socialism young people like. It does appear to suggest young people are frustrated with the status quo and are more focused on the flaws of free markets.
The Cultural Marxist Subversion of the Free World has resulted in weaponized zombies who prefer Big State authoritarianism and Central Planning over voluntary exchange for mutual benefit (the 'Free Market' - "capitalism" is the World the Marxists use for the Free Market). The nice thing is reality can only be defied for a short time, and those zombies will reap what they sew. And for all the sane people out there, buckle up, it's going to get rough as the Collectivist-Islamist Axis spins up to full speed.
All of a sudden, they will 'support capitalism', whatever that even means.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
People only see and evaluate their experiences; what they have lived. If you put these same college students into another system for a couple months they might change their tune.
All it takes is a trip to Eastern Europe for any American to realize their world is pretty darn good. But given modern politics we might have to bring the Post-Soviet style problems to America firsthand before they can realize the situation.
The ability to invest in yourself so you can produce more is good. I like the free spirit of working in what business you want. Capitalism doesn't have as much waste as another system where everyone gets rationing they may or may not want. Where Capitalism falls short is if you can't get a job at all or can't start your own business. There is no sympathy for those who can't do well. There is no cushion for rock bottom other than hopefully a supportive family. Fix that while also having people still want to work dirty jobs, and you're on to something.
God spoke to me
Where than can take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.
By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,-- but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
A majority of American millennials, without even the most basic political culture after decades of disinformation, propaganda, christian fanaticism infecting the schools, and a strong focus on technical skills to create generations of workers, surprisingly don't know what they are talking about when asked basic economics and politics questions.
News at sunset.
At a guess I would imagine the part where they don't get a job, can never buy a house, have a huge student debt loaded on them before they start their careers, and if they say anything bad about their situation, get called greedy and lazy by the people who have rigged the system to ensure they and their privaledged offspring own everything.
This probably means that a majority of them don't know what capitalism is. Their college professors taught them it was cronyism, fascism, patriarchy, etc., and K-12 probably didn't put it in a good light either. They're ripe with the kind of cognitive dissonance that buys a Che Guevera T-shirt from a vendor and doesn't put 2+2 together.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The rich are winning. They get rich through the use of capital. They bribe the communist government to pass laws making it too expensive for the poor to raise capital, thereby relieving the rich from competition. The rich pass on the costs they pay to their customers, the poor, so the poor are prevented from becoming rich and pay the rich's costs. They vote for the communists who pass these laws, proving they're not poor, they're stupid. Or in today's context, young.
Adam Smith was never writing about what's called the "free market". He envisioned small-scale peer-to-peer reputation-driven interaction, not what we have.
We need to stop calling Wall Street crony-ism a free market. It's a rigged market working for a few. How many of you out there have chance to not be haggled down to the very minimum that can be paid? How many people are routinely being awarded bonuses, and are they really contributing that level of worth to society? There you have it - resources divided not by merit, but by political and economic clout.
In other words, we have an unjust power differential, the same problem with the state-collectivized system that we refer to as socialism, but there are very different types of socialism out there and they don't all work like the totalitarian state-collective system of Stalin and Mao. Kerala's example of "land to the tiller" redistributes private ownership to guarantee ownership of the minimum tools and resources necessary to be self-sufficient. European social democracy may have problems, but many of those countries do have a stronger middle class and take for granted people in the USA only wish for. Again, the term is glossing over a lot and leaving key pieces out of the USA's public discourse, quite to the advantage of the ownership class who would keep anything demonized that would loosen their chokehold on the nation's wealth.
The key differences in any society, if you were to ask me, are the levels of equality in distribution, and representation in policy, and of accountability - meaning that corrupt officials and representatives who listen to lobbyists instead of constituents would get kicked out of office. Equality, representation, accountability - not capitalism versus socialism.
In those terms, people don't get hung up over whether government is big or small but whether it's in the public interest. Oligarchy in the form of Wall Street or a Communist party gets identified as oligarchy whatever the label. We remember that the real deal is that the people are in charge and can stop their government from going out of control.
So please, let's start talking in actual useful terms instead of red herrings.
The invisible hand does not exist, that is why capitalism has so many problems. Adam Smith got it wrong. The younger generations are screwed. There is no longer a decent path to paid insurance at a nice company with a nice salary. H1B visa holders own those jobs now. I work at a tech company in California. A billion dollar software company, a household name. Several managers from India (located in CA) were telling external recruiters they only wanted resumes of other workers from India. They did this for years. The major qualification was someone who once came from India so we ended up with a lot of technicians who knew nothing about our products and many with very little coding skills. They took almost all the new jobs over time. I checked around and other major tech companies almost all have this problem. Why do managers from India break the rules of companies committed to be equal opportunity employers? If you look at your organization chart at your tech company I bet you notice quickly that Indian managers and executives have tricked HR and managed to hire only other people from India or of Indian descent. At worst I suspect they are racist and believe the blacks, latinos, chinese and caucasian people are inferior. At best they are just hiring their friends, be an interesting study to find out what is going on. However, it is already too late, the young people of this country are screwed.
Only 42 percent said they support capitalism -- there was a margin of error of 2.4 percentage points. When asked what alternative system they would prefer, there wasn't a clear winner. Just 33 percent said they supported socialism.
Of course there wasn't a clear winner, they are rejecting what the schools and media have told them to reject, but frankly most of them have no bloody idea what they are talking about.
It's ok, they'll grow up and learn.
In my experience dealing with anyone under 30 years old, most of them have absolutely no idea how the economy works, how money works, what the difference between capital investment and expenses are, and so on. What it takes to turn raw materials into a $2 cheeseburger is completely lost on anyone who hasn't actually studied it.
In other news, economics, a subject so utterly close to most people's lives that they seek to have strong opinion on the matter whether they know anything about it or not, is still the least taught subject in any school system the world over.
That's because "Socialism" isn't an alternative to Capitalism. Socialism is high taxes, capitalism is relying on the exchange of money for the private ownership of goods and services. The two, obviously, have absolutely no venn diagram where the two are mutually exclusive. In fact, socialism as a Venn Diagram is contained entirely within "Capitalism", you literally can't have socialism without it because otherwise you'd have "true" communism and thus no money and nothing to tax.
But capitalism has become so overused as a word that people just think it's vaguely associated with "selfishness" or something about "bootstraps" and couldn't actually give a clear definition of it if their life depended on it. So the article headline is both valid and total bullshit, it makes sense but is so vague it doesn't tell you a whole lot. It should read "young people dislike vague notion of selfishness and greed, can't agree if there's something better". Which, really, there obviously needs to be a better word for that other than one that is still used for other things and means something completely different.
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Please remain calm, there is no reason to pani... wait, where are you all going?
The pundits have weighed in with their disdain for uninformed millennials - but don't seem to grasp the basic question their generation is confronted with - how does unbounded inequality lead to equality of opportunity? - a central paradox at the heart of Capitalism.
The reward/optimisation function in capitalism is greed - why act surprised when the end-game is inevitably an oligopoly? All this yada yada about crony capitalism is just a facile rationalisation from people who are unable to provide a clear-cut answer to this simple paradox inherent in a capitalist system. Millennials are seeing through this - and they are seeing through the fact that most ideologically driven systems that fail to take real-world evidence into account, inevitably lead to injustice.
Capitalism can mean different things to different people, and the newest generation of voters is frustrated with the status quo, broadly speaking.
can you blame them?
* the two party political system is really just one party with caveats
* their voice in the election has been snuffed out by super delegates
* laws are purchased via bribes aka "campaign donations"
* billions are being funneled into government defense contracts that we don't need
* taxes are being used to subsidise the fossil fuel companies that are destroying the planet
* they are being enslaved by hoisting debt on them before they even get out of college
* a whole lot of bankers just stomped on the global economy and were then bailed out of a problem they created
* multibillion dollar companies dodging paying billions in taxes
* H-1B fellows are being used to replace them in the workforce
* 0.01% of the population has 40% of the total wealth
this isn't a favorable outcome for anyone but aging psychopaths, so it's understandable that they are unhappy.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
No wonder - its the young people who get fucked over the most. In London UK younger generation has practically no chances of ever owning their own home for example.
The last war and/or global economy crisis that truely leveled the playing field is roughly 70 years - two full generations - ago. The market is completely staked out and capital sucktion is rampant. For millenials the game has been rigged from the beginning.
The efficiency of capitalism as we now it continues to decline. Any millenial feels this instictively. To be honest, I have grown more sceptical myself throughout the decades.
To anybody with a brain to think capitalism as we know it has run it's course. When even billionaires, or especially them, start calling it out, you can be sure that your strange feeling somethings wrong is spot on.
My 0.02 Euros.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Maybe it's because I've been raised in what the Americans would call a 'socialist' country (Finland) but it always irks me to see capitalism and socialism thrown about as some sort of polar opposites, or capitalism in general being talked about as if it's some single clearly defined ideology.
There are many versions of capitalist economies, and some of them are socialistic. In fact, most all of them are that to a degree, as even the US has a large public sector. Capitalism at its core means nothing more or less than the private ownership of the means of production. If the question was framed "Do you support the right of individuals to own goods provided they pay their share of taxes on them?", the answers would look quite different I reckon.
So the problem is not capitalism as such, the problem is they paying of the fair share of taxes. Neo-liberalism and the fact that the US sliding to the right continuously for the past decades has created this tilted landscape in which gigantic corporations and massively rich individuals have been uplifted to a status in which they're quite openly above governments: bribery and outright buying of bills via lobbying has been made legal (and relatively cheap compared to the profits of these companies), taxes can be circumvented easily if you're wealthy, and megacorps are allowed to wreck havoc to the environment and cause global economic meltdowns without any risk of anyone facing any jail time or even significant fines. They're given fines which are slaps on the wrist compared to the kind of money they can make by continuing illegal operations. To them, it's just a cost of doing business, and the cycle repeats.
So is that capitalism? Well, yes, yes it is, but it's not the one and only true implementation of capitalism, in fact I'd argue it's one of the absolute worst implementations of it possible. It's a corporatocracy/plutocracy. And unless you happen to be one of the chosen few who actually benefits from such a system, there's no rational reason for anyone, on the right or on the left, to support such a model. Even a true conservative should realize that the government allowing legislation as well as elections to be sold to the highest bidder skews the market as it means whoever has the most cash can dictate the rules. That's not how a fair market is supposed to operate, regardless of what one thinks of socialist income redistribution policies.
The tittle would be more appropriately stated: "A majority of millenials now oppose free market/laissez-faire capitalism." And that's only a good thing.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
If the cold war wouldn't have happened, the USA might not have became a mostly communist nation in the name of fighting one.
Vast majority of people also do not know what any of these things are at all.
Capitalism - private ownership and operation of property.
Free market - market free from government regulations, absence of income and wealth taxes.
Socialism - redistribution of wealth and income based on the politics of the mob, state control of the individual, partial central planning.
Fascism - redistribution of wealth and income based on the politics of an authoritarian party, state control of the individual, partial central planning.
Communism 1- state controlled means of production, central planning, absence of individual initiative or means of production.
Communism 2 (Marxism) - absence of state control, international socialism based on some ideal 'new consciousness'.
What the millenials are actually rejecting: current mix of fascism and communism 1.
What they are made believe they are rejecting: free market capitalism.
Ignorance may be bliss but eventually it kills you.
You can't handle the truth.
How will they ever know what Capitalism truly is if they continue to use Ad Blockers?
USB, USB, USB!
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas."
--Joseph Stalin
Everybody loves the capitalism where there are rich people, but there is also a wide middle class which has a good standard of living, spare time and future. Nobody likes capitalism where there are rich people and the largest group, the new "middle class", earns enough to pay the rent, food and cable TV, if they work 16 h/day in two jobs.
If you put the same college students in USA 1960 they also might change the tune. The capitalism society has changed in 50 years. From the reward of hard work to the winner takes it all. If you ask people that was forty years old in 1960 what do they think of current capitalism, I don't they'll praise it.
Years ago. The winner earned 10000, the second 7000, the third 8000... til the end. Only those who didn't want to play got nothing. The problem was that the winner had the right of writing the rules and terms of the next race. That led to where we are now The winner earns 10,000,000 then second 1000. And the rest get nothing.
There is little difference between hard working and not playing. Why should I want to play?
By the way, Russia is also a capitalist country. There is a total free market.
Are you saying the millennials not longer support buying expensive cars and homes if they can, or even Uber rides? They should move to Cuba.
If you've ever read any books on the Spanish Civil War, the CNT were seen by many (inc Orwell and Hemingway) as the "good guys" in the struggle against the fascist forces of Franco, Mussolini and that Austrian fuckwit.
And in the present day, with Spain ungovernable after widespread disillusionment over the socialists (PSOE) and conservatives (PP), perhaps both systems have had their day.
Wow, your sweeping generalization of over 83 million people really makes you sound like an informed and thoughtful individual. Well, I'm sorry, you said a majority, so I'll say you've only broadly judged 41.5 million or so (in the US), to give you the benefit of the doubt. What's your sample size? Surely you've met with at least several million of them and discussed political and economic issues with them to form your opinion?
Your definition of information appears to be lacking.
That facebook propaganda picture with the divisive text in it and around it.. isnt informational.
The problem continues to be a government with too much power, being run be people that arent good people. Nobody would throw money at the people in government for the purpose of influence if the people in the government werent influential.
We need governments whose powers extends only so far as to protect the people from other people. Absolutely no further. No protection of industries. No social engineering. No grand plans. No big ideas. No social contracts. The introduction of a new federal law is supposed to be a big and rare deal, but instead many laws are passed every year and pretty much nobody even knows anything about any of them.
The founding fathers had it right. Then we let it get fucked up in the name of social engineering and so forth.
"His name was James Damore."
In my opinion, capitalism is the only market form that works reasonably effective and ensures progress and freedom, but it absolutely needs to be combined with moderate egalitarianism and effective laws to prevent monopolies and cartels.
People discussing these topics often base their arguments on false dichotomies, although it's kind of obvious that a reasonable middle ground needs to be found.
Why? Well, regarding the first point, we can always discuss how much wealth should be transferred and in which way, but that there should be universal agreement that some transfer is necessary. You can show that to almost anyone by explaining the Gini index and asking that person at which point society becomes unjust - people will only disagree about where the point lies, but nobody will honestly and sincerely defend a country with index 1. Insane differences between highest and lowest incomes like we have them now in most industrialized countries (the gap has widened dramatically everywhere in the Western industrialized world, not just in the US) are not in the interest of anyone, and particularly not in the interest of people whose own microeconomic theory predicts that monetary transfers from the rich to the poor always increase overall value due to the diminishing marginal utility of money. Nobody who has reached a certain amount of wealth actually needs more money - the idea is patently absurd. But that doesn't mean you need to deny that differences in salaries can be an important incentive that needs to be kept. A reasonable middle ground is called for.
Regarding the second point about cartels, many so-called markets nowadays do not have enough participants to be free markets. If there are only two telecom companies or two major chip makers who magically have the same price structure, then this does not constitute a real market but rather a quasi-monopoly, for example, and something has to be done about such situations. If somebody claims that this is not necessary, this tends to be based on a lack of understanding of economics and how and under which conditions markets work (or it is based on hidden egoistic motives and ideology, and these two don't count in a general discussion of how society should look like). Again, too much regulation is obviously bad while not enough regulation will lead to cartels and hinders progress by blocking small, innovative companies from emerging. A reasonable middle ground is needed.
These things are not very complicated and far less controversial than they are often portrayed in the media and by politicians. Most of the fighting and arguing in fact results from the ideologization of these topics by political parties and interest groups.
My 2 cents.
The problem isn't really capitalism in itself but the case that there is too much corruption involved.
Just look at the Wall Street feeding Hillary Clinton - there is a reason why that happens.
Republicans are today pretty weak - more focused on anti-abortion than the real issues that has to be managed. Ever wondered why Trump is so strong? Well, that's because he actually lifts up stuff people really care about, and that's not only the Mexican Wall he promised but a lot of other stuff too. Bernie Sanders is also an example of politicians really trying to change what's going on. Hillary is stronger because she's a woman and backed by Wall Street.
Don't get me wrong, I still think that the whole field is pretty weak this time and holds mostly sandbox level.
- Bernie Sanders - Grumpy old man (Grumpy cat maybe). Not going to win any election unless Hillary gets kicked out on a technicality.
- Hillary Clinton - Probably one of the most corrupt candidates we have seen in a long time.
- Trump - Pretty rude, shaking up the field by alienating everyone and may alienate most people he meets. But may have the force to actually kick out some of the parts of the government that blocks everything.
- Cruz - Too much interested in promoting the stagnant republican agenda.
- Kaisch - Not significant in this election, he's just in to get his name on the lists for the next election.
You won't get the president you need, probably the president you deserve.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Yup. The Republican Communists. Marxists want the people to rise up and sieze the government and have the government control industry. The Republican Communists want the corporations to buy the government. The paths are different, but the end is the same, though Republican Communism isn't usually the name given, but fascism.
Learn to love Alaska
The only really defining attribute of Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. But if the means of production is owned by a bunch of crony capitalist who are also able to control the political system, then the theoretical ability for individuals to own the means of production is meaningless. I have a theoretical chance of winning the lottery, but on an aggregate scale, that is not a solution to poverty. Capitalism thrives when the means of production are distributed among the population. This creates liquidity of labor, ideas and opportunity. Once a small bunch of people own everything, you can have Communism, Capitalism, Feudalism - whatever you want - and it still sucks for those who don't own any assets.
Our present system cannot survive in a democracy. You can see the political shift already starting. My concern is that instead of fixing up the systemic problems (tax loopholes, lack of efficient markets for land etc) there will be a big lurch to the left. What we need is to stop markets being manipulated, and re-calibrate the state so that it is only producing public goods and not acting as corporate welfare. Then leave people to get on with it. My fear is that we just bring in another central control system, and all the capitalist will have a magical epiphany overnight and wonder out the doors of their corporations and into the inner politburo.
A great deal of effort has been put into destroying any real understanding of freedom and of capitalism it both their own education and the education of their parents. Our "leaders" certainly don't act in accordance with any kind of free markets or much freedom anywhere. They don't act in accordance with our supposed "western values" either. So it would be absolutely shocking if the majority had anything nice to say about capitalism in any form.
It doesn't matter really, the only person I think has a chance as an independent is Trump.
But I think it's good that Bernie sticks around since Hillary may get kicked out on a technicality (email server, Benghazi, money to the Clinton Foundation from foreign countries etc.)
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Capitalism IS flawed, and if it's not the system logic per se, it's the crooked greedy bastards who run most of it...that's why the trickle down economy is uber bullshit...go ask the 0.1% fuckers who run their shit in panama and the likes to evade tax and outsource/pollute everything in 2/3rd world countries. Fuck it.
A tyranny of the 51% is far from ideal, but have you ever tried getting 51% of any large group to agree on anything? A tyranny of 5% is far worse, and that's what you end up with in a capitalist plutocracy.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Capitalism has fuck all to do with free market. Capitalism is about how to use money to ensure that the market will *not* be free.
Bernie Sanders - Not going to win any election
He polls 7-9 points better than Hilary vs Cruz and Trump.
Hilary only has a margin of 3 points on Cruz. That's just way too close for comfort.
Furthermore, pure capitalism is leading to its own death because progress is undermining some of the basics of capitalist economy, such as scarcity. Capitalism works because money is valuable. Money is valuable because you can buy stuff with it. Stuff is valuable because there's not enough to cover demand. In a society where basic needs are covered essentially for free, money accumulation becomes much less important. In a society where basic and luxury needs are given for essentially free, money accumulation is way less interesting or compelling to anyone. This, in the short term, leads to a society with an inflated artificial demand. Did you not notice the amount of ads you are subjected to? Yeah, that's why. Of course this is only a temporary solution to a structural problem. Market forces will make sure ads are minimized, and this is something which has a marginal cost of zero, so it will eventually be free for all, which is exactly what is happening with adblockers, and adblocker-blocker blockers. After that, demand will collapse and eventually we will move towards an economy of abundance, not of scarcity. I don't know what that will look like, but certainly it won't be capitalism or communism.
My Stack Overflow user
The problem is capitalism doesn't ensure progress and freedom. It might ensure it for some, but for society as a whole, capitalism left to its own devices is inherently dangerous. We only have to look back to the beginning of the industrial revolution for some great examples, and continuing forward where companies move quicker than regulation and end up screwing customers over by abusing their market share, etc.
- Cruz - Too much interested in promoting the stagnant republican agenda.
Wut?
Are we talking about the same guy that many if not most "establishment" Republicans despise so much they'd prefer Hillary Clinton as POTUS over him?
What I've heard from Cruz is a push to return to the Rule of Law where those in power are actually held accountable and insistence on Constitutional limits on government power. Of course if you get your information and opinions secondhand instead of actually researching things yourself, your confusion is understandable.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
To welcome our new robotic overlords. https://slashdot.org/journal/2...
Thankyou, Anonymous Serf.
It doesn't have to be "Communism" (or if you prefer it "Socialism") vs "Capitalism".
Human beings are endlessly inventive. We can create new kinds of socio-economic systems which improve upon anything we have seen before and are acceptable to the large majority of the population.
Maybe. I hope so.
Nothing ensures progress and freedom. ;-)
However, I take it as a fact that capitalist societies have lead to more technical progress and freedom of choice than any other type of system. But if you're talking about the current US, I somewhat agree. IMHO, you've got a big problem. Lobbyism and the more or less fixed two party system have subverted your democracy and its proper division of power. I was thinking about capitalism in a slightly saner system, one that has a number of parties with changing coalitions, stricter laws against corruption, a fairer justice system, stronger anti-cartel laws, a better electoral system, ...
Capitalism is not the answer to everything. Socialism is not the answer to everything. There are dysfunctional markets. There are dysfunctional public services. A perfect system is just as unlikely to exist as a perfect diet, it's going to be better in some ways and worse in others. Capitalism works great when there's a reasonable number of suppliers and customers with low switching costs and equivalent bargaining power. Very often the latter is not the case, it's a billion dollar company again you with entirely different resources and needs, the insurance company doesn't need you but you need insurance. One premise that most economic theory makes is that companies are suicidal. If two companies are competing, they'll lower prices and steal customers back and forth until prices are as low as they can be.
If you take that one step up and say "you know this'll hurt both my and your profits, we'll have to answer and it'll all be for naught in the end" then no. They're not going to rock the boat until someone that's not in on this silent understanding tries to take those profits away. That is why you often have industry standard terms, laws and technical restrictions that are very much in the customer's disfavor. Also there's a vast difference between having a public service and public employees, you can very well have garbage disposal as a public service and yet hire the people and the trucks.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I agree... but it's also resembles someone pointing a finger at a suspect they believe started an argument, when they only showed up to see the last 3 seconds of a brawl.
This is pretty much all they know. The corporate and political corruption seems as if it's happening more and more, mostly due to the visibility inherited by the latest media and technology practices. The corruption has always been here, and companies have always made money from political decisions, but as of late it's been magnified as everyone would predict. It's not exactly capitalism that's the problem, but bad decisions in politics with no accountability. Capitalism WORKS, but you can't fight old fucks who have been serving life terms, making financial decisions and taking money from big corp. when they're about to retire.
Obviously they need to learn how it works, but blaming capitalism for corruption and failure is a different story than finding a single facet of capitalism that needs to be adjusted to overcome failure.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
To summarize: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Achille Talon
Hop!
Socialism ensure no progress and no freedom. There is absolutely no real life example where socialism has succeeded to promote progress, innovation, increase global wealth and freedom.
Achille Talon
Hop!
I'd love to see those answers. And then ask if they support it.
This is... Amazing. Clear and concise, thank you.
Your
And if anyone had asked the hippies what they though of capitalism in the 60s they would have gotten basically the same answer. Look where all (or at least most of) the hippies are now. Their generation gave us most of the ridiculous corporate welfare we have today. Nothing changes.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Cruz might come across as a reasonable choice for many if he wasn't such a raving Jesus freak throwing bibles at everything.
A new poll shows that a majority of young people do not support capitalism.
Are these the same iPhone using, Starbucks drinking, Nike wearing, Facebook posting, Amazon buying, Google searching young people? Give them time, they'll figure it out. Capitalism isn't what they think it is and the lifestyle they enjoy depends on it.
I think that 51% of people surveyed have no idea what capitalism is and have merely heard it used in the context of a political bogey-man. Even China, despite their official political stance is staunchly capitalist these days. Socialist countries like in Europe? They're capitalists too, just a different variety with a bit more government involvement. Socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Capitalism is any system based on private ownership of means of production with their operation for profit. That can come in a variety of flavors but its the engine that drives the worlds economy. Even in places that don't like to admit it.
Polls are a means of guiding and crafting public opinion.
The stagnant political agenda based on religious right-wing rules like anti-abortion (which should never be a political issue).
Another issue is that the republican party want to get rid of the network neutrality regulations put in place by FCC.
It's time to clean up the act and adapt in order to make it possible for any citizen to be prosperous, not just those that have rich parents. The middle class is dying and the republican party isn't even admitting it's a problem.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
"There is no longer a decent path to paid insurance at a nice company with a nice salary."
Yes, there is.
Step 1) Obtain relevant skills that are in demand
Step 2) Use those skills to produce something of value
Step 3) Convert that something of value into portable wealth
Step 4) Use that portable wealth to obtain other things you need/want
Step 5) When the winds of change blow, raise your sails.
All the while, you must understand that there will never be total justice or fairness in a world that involves human beings. There will always be those who break the rules. You can either learn to manage that risk, or you can fall victim to it. The choice on that, however, is all yours.
If you don't like what your company is doing and have objection to it on moral grounds, you are perfectly free to take your relevant skills elsewhere. If your skills are not relevant elsewhere, that is your problem to solve.
You can choose to be an Owner, or you can choose to be a Victim. It seems you are choosing to be a Victim.
Sure, that's called socialism. Ultimately, I think capitalism needs to pragmatically move above its limitations. It generates monopolies -> put pressures into the economy to fight back against them.
The trouble is, socialism generates the worst thing ever seen -- single gigantic monopoly. Instead of companies that sometimes loose markets to new players, sometimes face fierce competition, sometimes go belly up because of internal stupidity and get replaced by many other competitors, etc you've got huge monopoly called Socialist Government. It decides what's better for you, but resources are always limited and then suddenly you wake up in USSR with "free healthcare", when free means you have to know right people and bribe them to get real treatment.
Single monopoly of Socialist Government on basic things is much, much worse that monopolies generated by capitalism. I don't understand people who are afraid of monopolies and yet welcome the worst possible monopoly...
How would anyone under the age of 110 or so know the flaws of free market capitalism? No one younger than that has experienced it in this country.
Greg Raven
As long as there's any left, I'll take mine first.
The following is my, not his, take. But my view is heavily influenced by his book. Please do read his book or at least the summaries and reviews.
He argues that like in any system, in Capitalism too, the current generation of winners will do everything possible to stay on top and make it difficult for others to dislodge them. Without a strong government to break up cartels, trusts, de facto monopolies, the current winners will take too much of the fruits of the economy, it will stagnate and it will be in dangers of sliding back to a feudal system. But government, powerful enough to break such large corporations is also a threat to the liberty of citizens. Government can end up as a weapon in the arsenal of the current winners. That is why democracy, that keeps the government is check is so important. Again, democracy too can end up as a weapon in the same arsenal too. If the democracy is so undermined the pressure will build up and the system of governance will break down in a revolution, the current winners will lose it all. So it is in the best interests of the current winners to lock in their gains, not to get too greedy, allow next generation of winners to come up in a level field. The winners are already very powerful with money and market share, they should not also try to usurp the government, in their own self interest.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Look, I love to harsh on millennials as much as anyone else, by this is just silly and gratuitous.
First, I'm as ardent a capitalist as they come, but the currently-rugged crony political/banker cabal is disgusting. I've never been more convinced that the only solution is something that will literally shatter what this has ossified into.
Second, millennials are young and naive; that's not a slight,, it's just a commentary that a lot of learning about this stuff comes from real world experience, certainly not the leftist sjw drivel that these kids are being indoctrinated with in college.
In short, this is pretty much just a hit piece for laughs. The millennials will "get it" eventually like we did, except insofar as someone in power finds their ignorance opportunistically useful...never waste a crisis, right?
-Styopa
Milennials don't support Socialism. They support being given everything they want without having to work for it and expecting someone else to pay for it.
If you ask a Milennial "How will we pay for giving everyone free homes, cars, food, education, power, water, heat, lights, gasoline/electricity charging, massages or whatever else they decide they want today" the answer will either be "increase taxes on "the rich" (let someone else pay for it)" or "I don't know/that's a good question.".
I support the concept that every high school graduate should serve 2 years in the military. Make them understand what it means to work and give them a true sense of pride in the Country they are blessed to live in.
After this THEN they should be given a College Education. Then make them work for a small business owner for the exact same salary they earned in the military.
THEN they will see what the Military really deserves and what a small business owner has to deal with both the trials and the successes.
They will also learn that the only way to become a big business owner is to start as a small business owner and to work hard and earn your success.
Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N
Free markets can work in microcosm, and do. The problem is one of scale. Lassaiz-faire fails at the national (or even regional level) because they cease to be free of outside intervention; instead of government intrusion, it is another private entity manipulating the transaction between the vendor and consumer. Modern regulated markets do not unduly impact the freedom of consent between vendors and consumers, but curtail the worst excesses of large corporations under lassaiz-faire.
The article switches between talking about "Americans" and "people" as if the two are synonyms. I've noticed a lot of Americans think like this. I assume that Americans are the proper scope for the survey. So it's Americans who are too young to remember the cold war who have this idea that capitalism's a bad thing.
It would matter if they voted. But they don't. So it doesn't.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
When my generation was that age, circa 1968, we rejected capitalism even more vocally, with protests and riots rather than tweets. Now look at us.
when capitalism went global it turned third world nations in to slave-states while the first world nations keep losing jobs and what jobs remain are given to illegal aliens or immigrants on H1B, so yeah, globalized capitalism sucks, and whats worse is all that crap shipped around the world on HUGE container ships that are not regulated so they spew HUGE amounts of greenhouse gasses in to the air,
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Yeah, one. Were you trying to write "cocks" or "kooks"? I'm trying to figure out what sort of insult you were trying to direct to those stupid "Millenials" ;)
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
If the the current corporatist, cronyism, central planning, big government economy is "capitalism", I'm opposed to it as well.
Capitalism cannot exist simultaneously with a Federal Reserve bank manipulating interest rates and the money supply. If we had true capitalism, a low interest rate would signal surplus saving. i.e. people foregoing current consumption for future consumption. That's the best time to engage in capital formation (aka "investment"). High interest rates would give the opposite signal, but would also have the effect of stimulating more saving.
Capitalism would NEVER produce the current situation where gargantuan levels of debt in the economy co-exist with near-zero interest rates. Only central planning could produce such insanity. Central planning is a failure here, and everywhere else it has ever been tried.
Capitalism is the worst way of organizing an economy: it creates inequality, causes people to be greedy, and punishes people for being not as smart as others.
That is, it is the worst way of organizing an economy except for all the others, which share all of the problems of capitalism and in addition impoverish and oppress people.
"In my opinion, capitalism is the only market form that works reasonably effective and ensures progress and freedom"
If your idea of freedom is taking advantage of others? yes. A free market system is the only one that ensures progress and freedom
A free market system is an economic system based solely on demand and supply, and there is little or no government regulation. In a free market system, a buyer and a seller transact freely only when they voluntarily agree on the price of a good or a service. For example, suppose a seller wants to sell a toy for $5 and a buyer wants to buy that toy for $3. A transaction will occur when the buyer and the seller agree on a price.
Capitalism is focused on the creation of wealth and ownership of capital and factors of production, whereas a free market system is focused on the exchange of wealth, or goods and services. A free market system is based solely on supply and demand and leads to free competition in the economy, without any intervention from outside forces. On the other hand, a private owner in a capitalist system can have a monopoly on the market and prevent free competition.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Can you define Socialism? Because all industrialized economies have since degree of Socialism.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Maybe they WOULD if they were TAUGHT that it was good. What do you expect them to say when they've been brainwashed by the very universities conducting the survey?
I can't blame them either.
I think the only reasonable system possible is one which has private ownership, free and competitive enterprise, and a government providing basic services, ensuring security and regulation, and promoting fairness and equality by e.g. making sure everyone has access to health care and education.
If this is 'capitalism', I'll take it. You can also call it the Rhineland model or social market economics, or whatever you want. I want it :)
What we're seeing now is: .5% per annum), while average income increased by 100%. In other words: the economic growth since the seventies has almost entirely gone to the above-median earners: the top 1% share of income jumped from 10% in the seventies to over 20% now, with a large part of this increase going to the top 0.1% (i.e., not us).
- wage share of income falling relative to capital's share [1]
- real median income stagnant for the past 20 years even though real average income has increased by 25% [2]. Over 50 years median income increased by 25% (not even
- governments are unable to provide basic services because the rich don't pay their fair share of tax [4]
- governments are unable to provide basic services because they are unable to reform entitlement/welfare systems which are in fact transferring money from the relatively poor young to the relatively well-off old [5]
- markets aren't acutally well regulated, especially in the US, and too many industries have (near-)monopolies, causing profits to be historically way too high [6]
In Europe, 'capitalism' means that old people have either permanent contracts with generous benefits, or are already enjoying their equally generous retirement which they entered between 55 and 65. Young people have temporary contracts at stagnant wages, are unable to buy a house because of (1) inflated prices due to government meddling (green belts, mortgage interest deductability); (2) they don't have a permanent contract; and (3) new lending regulations means banks are a lot more stingy than even 10 years ago; and will not retire before 67 on a defined contribution scheme, which is pretty bad news especially given the essentially zero interest rates and government bond yields. In the US (and increasingly the UK), added to this is a nice pile of student debt. If I were young(er), I'm not sure I would think this is such a good bargain...
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
2) https://research.stlouisfed.or...
3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
5) http://www.economist.com/news/...
5) http://www.economist.com/news/...
What is rejected? The concept of capitalism or the idea pushed from some political parties.
Much like "Patriotism" do you need to be an American flag waving, car stuck with yellow ribbons to be a patriot? Or can you be a Patriot by concerning yourself with identifying the current problems and challenges in our government and work to fix them to help improve our nation for the long term?
Or Religion? Are they those guys who knock on your door and tell you that you are going to go to hell because of your modern lifestyle. Or faith based institutions who reach out the public and offer charity and services to the community and offer teachings of tolerance and understanding?
Capitalism had became one of these politicized words. For the most part it does more good than harm. However there should be regulations to minimize its harmful elements (Preventing the sale of harmful goods, insuring that monopolies don't form, ensuring that trade is being conducted fairly...) Capitalism isn't buyer beware consumerism. But allowing freedom to sell/trade goods and services with its value based on the supply and demand of such products and services. For example Communist Soviet Union had a problem shortages of common items, because the government was trying to filter out what it thought the people needed and not actually what the people really wanted. So some days the store may be overstocked with cooking oil while the next day it may have bread. While the demand for bread was much higher then cooking oil, it was treated equally thus creating a shortage in bread, causing the infamous bread lines.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
You mean when I'm forced to buy electricity, gas, water, housing, or cars at ludicrously inflated prices, that's OK? When I'm forced to bail out poorly run banks, Wall St firms, and car companies, that's not a problem? When socialized medicine lets doctors and insurance companies bleed patients dry while making them such, that's not a significant interference in the market?
If he polls much better, why has he only won 1 of the past 6 states?
Socialist capitalism is probably where the balance is.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Except that the large drug companies spend only a small fraction of their budgets on R&D, and spend more on marketing. It's small companies and universities that develop half of all new drugs in the US, despite raking in far lower profits.
As for the military, has it ever occurred to you that most of us actually don't want there to be a giant hegemonic power (you) throwing around your military weight in the world?
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
to me its been decided by the supreme court. so have gun rights. women can have abortions. people can have guns. honestly i think both suck.
abortion is lousy, but i dont have a problem with it in some cases, and i have a huge problem with the lack of follow up of unfit mothers who can have umpteen fucking kids and raise them poorly to have more kids they will raise poorly.
i dont really like the ridiculous number of guns and gun deaths we have, but its a right and you can have them and everyone has them and people--innocent people--just keep getting shot. god forbid you do anything about the guns, but hey...
innocent people die in car accidents, too, and nobody is up in arms over *that* atrocious figure--we just want to keep our cars. those arent even a right!!
and people die in wars--a lot of people. its way easier to stop abortions and women's rights than it is wars, or cars, or gun owners--so i think people sort of gave up on those things
By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
In my opinion, capitalism is the only market form that works reasonably effective and ensures progress and freedom...
Capitalism absolutely does not protect individual freedoms and there are increasing examples of this. Just look at copyrights and patents to see how companies would like to severely restrict our freedom in order to make money. Other companies support laws to prevent grey imports so they can charge more in some countries than others etc. If individual freedom gets in the way of a company making more money then they are only too happy for us to lose it.
Capitalism works when companies are small in size because small companies need the same freedoms which individuals want in order to compete and they lack the resources to manipulate countries into passing favourable laws. However once you get huge companies they seem to switch (with a few exceptions) from innovation and growth to aggressively defending their existing wealth generation mechanisms by actively trying to restrict the innovation and freedoms of others. This is where capitalism fails although, like Winston Churchill said about democracy, it's the worst form of economic system except for all the others which have ever been tried.
it will still have problems without a lot of oversight. look at car manufacturers -- now that is some capitalism, right? they want to make money, they need efficiency, they need talent, they need a work pool, they need a global supply chain...and they need oversight or they will get people killed over a frickin ignition switch or ruin the environment even more than we thought because they will lie about emissions tests and the like.
without oversight other companies would hire child laborers---which we are ok with as long as they arent *our* kids, in *this* country--or theyd give people shit pay and benefits and let the top execs take it all for themselves, or theyd dump chemicals in public water sources or do whatever they want.
capitalism can get a whole hell of a lot done, but i needs a whole hell of a lot of oversight not to fuck up everything in its wake as it moves us forward. i'm scared about the price we are paying for it sometimes
By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
Millennials want other people to work while they get free stuff and can sit around all day, smoke pot, and play video games.
Replace pot and videogames by golf, fishing, knitting or any other leisure activity and show me one person who wouldn't want that, too.
bickerdyke
political economies? Or either component field?
Does it Insure? No but capitalism is a big motivator. The ability to change your social status by offering goods and services that the community wants. Or inventing a new good or service that will allow you to change your status better due to its advantages.
The problem isn't capitalism, but the general depression of the population. Expensive collange loans, lack of affordable housing, lack of public transportation which force grads to take safe lower paying jobs as to avoid going further in debt. As the risk of starting your own enterprise is high, and getting low credit ratings at a young age will affect you for life. Also with technology they are these gaps in the corporate ladder. The old days, it was common for someone to start in the mail room, delivering mail to all the people, talking to them picking up skills and personal relationships which allows them to move to different units in the organization and work up the ladder. However email stop that mail room position, also a lot of starting jobs in particular units have been replaced by automation. So companies are looking for people with experience not for someone to do a bunch of legwork that builds experience.
The cost of failure had risen, we need to lower the cost of failure to allow capitalism to work.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I don't think you understand what socialized medicine actually is. You pay taxes, they fund the health system. Doctors get paid a set wage, not per treatment. And insurance companies play no part...
"Millenials" are (archaic short form of) adulterous wives? That's an... odd accusation to make.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
You mean when I'm forced to buy electricity, gas, water, housing, or cars at ludicrously inflated prices, that's OK?
If your utilities are burdensome, you are living in the wrong place. Likewise with housing. Move to Georgia; some of the lowest cost of living in the US. As for cars; buying new with a loan is a choice you make. The car makers determined that you would opt for that rather than pay cash for a commuter clunker. You could have shown them up, but didn't.
When I'm forced to bail out poorly run banks, Wall St firms, and car companies, that's not a problem?
That's completely orthogonal to the question of regulating the relationship between consumer and vendor. Government subsidies do not have to exist in a regulated market, and aren't what makes it work (or not work). Agricultural subsidies are driving up food prices and do need to go away, but overall food prices as a percentage of household expenditure has never been lower.
When socialized medicine lets doctors and insurance companies bleed patients dry while making them such, that's not a significant interference in the market?
Look, I got friends that have been completely fucked over by the ACA market plans, and yeah, I'd like to get rid of both them and the annual penalty (or non-consumption tax, according SCOTUS); but by and large the medical care system in the US did not disintegrate the way the doomsayers said it would.
This isn't surprising since we don't have true capitalism now. If they are being told the current system is capitalism, its no wonder they reject it.
The problem isn't really capitalism in itself but the case that there is too much corruption involved.
That is true, and there are no corruption free systems. At least in a demoratic based society, there is some greater ability to root out corruption. In most other systems, it is pretty much impossible.
Anyhow, millennials just want jobs, and a large number will reject whatever system is in place when the economy is no doing well.
BUT, the poll does not say what the headline claims. This is not surprising. The poll does tell us that millennials prefer capitalism to socialism, and to any other economic system.
They live in the greatest country ever, and they reject it. Move to Cuba or China.
this is a statement on the poor state of education more than economics. we just don't educate well anymore. where do think the jobs come from?
nothing to see here - move along
Ask them what those millennials think of 'Economic freedom' and I predict you'll see very different percentages.
When are we going to stop calling the opposite of a state led economy as 'capitalism'?
It's a term coined by socialists for Pete's sake!
(posted from the socialist republic of the Netherlands)
I don't know how we'd manage to piss off the middle east without your help.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
One of the reasons people reject capitalism is that the GOP has twisted it away from it's true meaning.
For example - did you know that in true capitalism there are NO patents. Patents are a remnant of Mercantalism. (Google Queen Elizabeth and patents on COAL) Real capitalism has a competitive free market as a core principle, which leaves zero room for patents. They were pushed into the US version to encourage innovation.
A purer capitalism would either use a bounty system (think Darpa's challenges) or have a set royalty assigned inventors. Either of those would preserve the free market, unlike patents.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
The poll shows even more millennials (over 60%) reject socialism, if you use the logic of the author.
What the poll shows, clearly, is a that of all the choices Capitalism is the preferred one among millennials.
It's just like all the Millennials think they are some sort of socialist, right up until you play twenty questions with them and realize they are either some sort of libertarian or social liberal (classical liberal, not the low-calorie Nazis we have now) combined with chunks of conservatism.
R&D is not the only big ticket cost for drugs. Every drug put on the market for the last 20 years or so has been the subject of huge "bad drug" lawsuits--often quite dubious--with billions of dollars of settlements required. It's no wonder that pharma companies have to charge extra to fill those reserves to pay off the inevitable suits.
I don't think you understand what socialized medicine actually is. You pay taxes, they fund the health system. Doctors get paid a set wage, not per treatment. And insurance companies play no part...
That's mostly correct, although some socialized medicine systems do pay doctors (and hospitals) per treatment. I suppose those are not-completely socialized systems, in that only the insurance part is actually socialized and the doctor's offices, clinics and hospitals are the regular mixture of private for-profit and not-for-profit businesses.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
> A majority of "millennials" probably couldn't find their ass with both hands
Millenials 'started' in 1982. The oldest of them are 34 this year. Some of us have been out in industry for a decade and seen parts of the world.
Good point!
I think "Corporatism" was a word invented recently to protest the corruption of Capitalism -- mainly popularized because the word sounds enough like Capitalism so it implies a twisted variant of it.
Perhaps Mercantilism is really what it's referred to, all along, though?
On the other hand, I'm not sure if Mercantilism encompassed other situations we have in government today, such as the Federal Reserve keeping a fiat currency afloat despite unsustainable debt? (I forget the exact percentages but I believe it was recently calculated that if government was able to seize ALL of the assets of every single billionaire in America today to put towards our national debt, it would only cover less than .3% of the total.) We truly are living in a system of "debt dollars" today, where the value of the currency is backed by nothing but faith that central government can keep up the charade a wihle longer.
Yeah, just like there are no private companies involved in national defense, because national defense is after all the job of the federal government and fully paid for by tax dollars! Seriously, the ignorance and stupidity of people like you seems to know no bounds.
Socialized medicine, in many countries, is delivered through private insurance companies. Doctors in such system may be paid per procedure, or based on other "performance measures" that they can game. And the "set wage" is a wage that is determined through political lobbying by doctors themselves.
Or at least have no clue what capitalism is. It has nothing to do with taxes / social programs. It's simply about who decides to open a burger joint - anyone who can come up with the "capital" or your local minister of food services. It is certainly possible to support regulations, or nationalization of specific industries like healthcare. But someone needs to tell millenials they are not getting their rose gold iPhone in a fully/mostly planned economy.
Regardless it's still a question of needing a profit motive that does not exist as much in secondary markets. We want a lot of places racing for that patent to get something on the market.
As to military they are perfectly free to build up their own, but until enough of them have there is little choice if you want to deal with China/Russia. From a practical perspective if nothing exist to check them we would have some huge issues, politically were often obligated to defend them via NATO etc.
No sir I dont like it.
They could also reject evolution.
Capitalism+free market+liberal democracy are necesserily preconditions for the process evolution of civilization we call progress.
Witness the power of propaganda.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Well, that certainly takes away a lot of incentive for the best and brightest to study all those years, sacrifice, and go into debt...to become doctors, if in the end, all they can do is make a "set govt. wage".....
We're already seeing a shortage of doctors in the US now...and you want to exacerbate this by making them wage monkeys?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth. She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying. Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?" She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over." Her father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA." The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!" The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the conservative side of the fence."
I know!!!
I mean, really...there is a scary real chance that cunt might actually win!?!?!?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Its not so much the procedure though I think late terms should be banned, its viable, not a bunch of cells anymore. If a killer murders a pregnant women they are charged with two murders. The argument now is really should the public fund them, right now they do. In the case of rape, sure, no worries. Some women use this as their preferred form of birth control and I do not think the public should not be funding that. The powers that be (big telecomm, etc.) are push major dollars into both parties so blaming the GOP alone is being naive. Likewise the middle class is taking a thrashing from both parties, like there is only one party , The Money Party. Obama with TPP etc. Clinton with having the taxpayer subsidize manufacturing abroad and outsourcing and W. keeping that going. If you vote establishment then you can expect this kind of stuff to continue.
Capitalism, like socialism, or any "ism" really doesn't work in extremes as they are simply ideology, ideas.
In reality to work well and to prevent gaming the system, or run away events, the whole thing needs to be regulated, to have the checks and balances required to keep things running like a well oiled machine.
This regulation needs to come from a government that is responsible to its citizens, and that keep their best interests at heart.
That last one is where things have fallen apart in the last 30 years. Corporations inserted themselves into politics. They have been influencing regulation to benefit companies and corporations rather than individual citizens. Everything is rigged to be protectionist, everything is rigged to ensure the status quo, all scales tipped in their favor, and this has been going on like a snowball downhill for decades.
Is it any wonder we are where we are right now?
The solution of course, much like the debate about church and state, is to remove the corporate influence from the political systems. Doing so at this point will not be easy, as they are dug in like ticks feasting on a host. How is this to occur? No idea, the cards are certainly stacked against change.
Capitalism stands on self-organisation and enlightened self-interest. When there was the threat of the USSR, this kept greed and short-sightedness in check. In the aftermath of the Cold War, however, that is giving way to unrestrained self-interest. Competition is good to a point, but expending resources to compete rather than produce, and to alter one's strategy away from the overall common good is what is happening. I imagine game theorists saw it coming to a certain degree.
John_Chalisque
As for the military, has it ever occurred to you that most of us actually don't want there to be a giant hegemonic power (you) throwing around your military weight in the world?
Has it occurred to you that perhaps we (giant hegemonic power) really would rather not be throwing around our military weight? Step up and do your part and and ensure peace in your regions, we'd all rather be home. Well, most of us as there's always a few in every country that would love to dominate their neighbors.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
All governments are monopolies -- on violence, if nothing else. The proper function of government is to address market failures. In some cases, this involves providing consumer information. In others, it means breaking up collusion. However, markets are not appropriate to solve all problems: there is such thing as a "natural monopoly". When competition is not desirable or possible, or when services are required to be universal, private ownership is equivalent to a private tax. Governments could be said to be the natural monopoly of natural monopolies, but that's getting a bit clever. In any case, while government monopoly may be a "last resort" necessity, there is no denying it that role: governments are monopolies by definition.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
I think GP meant he polls better against Trump than Clinton polls against Trump. See also: Condorcet criterion.
Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
The one that gets me is climate change. It seems that the Republicans took that up as a political issue only so that they could oppose the Democrats on it.
Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
Exactly this. I have always believed that capitalism is a sound concept. The problem comes when you start believing in it as an ideology that you defend against all comers.
Many people think of Capitalism (The capital C is intentional) as the solution for everything. Many of them, I think, believe that its because "Gods invisible hand" is manipulating things and making sure that the "worthy" are successful. Thus we have this blending of religion and Capitalism that pulls along a lot of small c capitalists and the moderately religious.
Nothing is the solution to everything. And just because you are successful where others arent doesnt make it Gods will.
It worked perfectly in Greece and Venezuela.
We only have to look back to the beginning of the industrial revolution for some great examples, and continuing forward where companies move quicker than regulation and end up screwing customers over by abusing their market share, etc.
you are right we should look at that how many people are better off today than they were prior? the majority of them
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Because it isn't a Sanders V republican race but instead is a Sanders V. Clinton race. There are a lot of people on the democrat side of things who really want Hillary and these are the long time democrats who are most likely to vote. In both parties there seems to be a large burn it all down contingent it is just that the one on the Republican side has had more success in getting rid of the establishment candidates. Personally I would love to see a Sanders V Cruz as it would offer a very different choices but instead we will likely get Clinton V Trump. Clinton seems like one who is a political opportunist and in it for herself and Trump seems like one as well.
Time to offend someone
Are we calling cronyist collusion between government and big banks "capitalism" now?
Imagine just for a moment:
- if the US gov't hadn't granted 3 bonding agencies the "US gov't backed seal of approval" making them the "official" information source on rating bond products
- if the US gov't hadn't deemed certain private firms "too big to fail"?
- if Goldman Sachs alumni weren't present at the highest levels of every Western country's financial governance?
Yeah, that's "free market capitalism", right?
-Styopa
I like to think about various different market sectors, and how capitalism succeeds and struggles in these sectors. The auto industry is, for the most part, a good example of capitalism at its best. It still has issues with safety & emissions regulations -- pure market forces would favor lower costs over safety, and definitely favor lower costs over low emissions because the individual car owner doesn't suffer exclusively from their own car's emissions. And there are globalization market effects to contend with, as well as monopolistic tendencies.
Service industries are also great in free market economies, like hair salons and auto shops. Though auto shops do benefit from sleazy tactics that are hard for the average consumer to detect. But a haircut is easy, you know exactly what you're getting and what you're paying. How about the tipping culture though?
I think where capitalism struggles the most today is in information industries like software, news, music, etc where the per-unit production costs are zero or are dwarfed by "development" costs. In these industries, I believe the efficient market hypothesis no longer applies because one of its predicates (an aspect of scarcity) is no longer true. These industries are becoming larger and more important today, so it's not surprising that capitalism itself is being challenged.
This doesn't make me "reject" capitalism, because it still has tremendous value and use. But I don't expect it to work very well in the not-distant future without some significant modifications. And no, I wish I knew what those modifications might be but I don't.
The problem isn't really capitalism in itself but the case that there is too much corruption involved.
What we have in the United States is NOT capitalism, for the most part. There are some places where it exists, but by and large we have is a form of negotiated/committee'd command economy.
and in countries where that is happening, doctors are striking or leaving for places where they can get paid what they deserve to be paid, not what the government says they should be
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
What I've heard from Cruz is a push to return to the Rule of Law where those in power are actually held accountable and insistence on Constitutional limits on government power. Of course if you get your information and opinions secondhand instead of actually researching things yourself, your confusion is understandable.
All most of us here is a bunch of religious nutcase babble, not even representing the form of christianity we all grew up with. It sounds rabidly insane.
I forgot to add: the zero-cost-manufacturing industries and low-emissions vehicles have a key element in common. A significant portion of the purchase price benefits a whole community more than the purchaser.
Instead of asking about existing labeled economic systems, Harvard should have asked this question:
If you were king of the world, how would you distributed limited resources in a world with unlimited demand?
This "resource allocation" problem is non-trivial. Markets seem to be the only way to efficiently and equitably direct resources where they are most productive. Any other system requires policy makers to pick winners and losers - and history is full of examples of that going wrong.
Millennials may feel differently about planned economies when they are being taken from instead of being given to.
What makes you say those things? Sweden and Finland are not even in NATO and they have capable armies of their own, as well as functioning defence industries. Norway is in NATO, but also maintains an army (it's really a requirement for membership) and an exporting defense industry. If anything, it's a net benefit to the US to have them as allies (access to ports, proximity to foes, well-trained personnel etc.). Your notion that somehow the US is feeding the entire world is... let's say amusing. I don't know what to make of your argument as a whole when the basic premise is so much off the mark.
The younger generation today is more informed. They have seen what has happened in the economy in the last 10-15 years. They have seen what has happened to their parents, families, with the effects of globalization(China), immigration, college debt, etc; They are no dummies.
How would any objective person expect them to react. They see now, very clearly, that "the game" is rigged. It has been going this way since the 1980's. Many spoke up about it, including the fantastic Bill Moyers.
If anyone had been paying attention, like Bill and others like him who had the courage and intelligence to document how the American middle class has been gamed, time and time again, they wouldn't be surprised AT ALL that Millenials are skeptical of what passes for "Capitalism" in the US.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Capitalism is not a system of government. Capitalism is an economic system. Capitalism in no way ensures progress and freedom. In fact lessee faire capitalism often leads to a lack of freedom and repression.
Democracy ensures progress and freedom.
In some cases, eg Canada, America has put a lot of pressure on to not have too big a military.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Some women use this as their preferred form of birth control and I do not think the public should not be funding that.
No they don't, and even if you're convinced that they do, you're impying that it *still* isn't cheaper to have health insurance cover abortions than to have to bear the cost of unwanted children once they're born? It's funny how people who seem to need to frame everything as a matter of "who is paying for it" seem so unwilling or unable to make the actual calculations required to arrive at the sane, financially AND socially sound decisions that every other developed country does.
"Old man yells at systemd"
It's small companies and universities that develop half of all new drugs in the US, despite raking in far lower profits.
Develop or bring into production? There is long way to go between success in the lab and routine therapeutic use --- meaningful sales of a genuinely useful product.
Your freedom personally? I'm sure I can find someone on the darkwebs that can arrange a "contract" for that.
On a more serious side there are plenty of products that cause harm to people other than the purchaser through pollution.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Heh, mod parent Insightful.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
What part of "slavery" do you not understand? The United States was a capitalist country in 1850.
You are welcome on my lawn.
There is little doubt that the capitalism we now believe to have has led to increased rates of poverty and wealth consolidation. Indeed market economists can evolve into a sort of corporatist tyranny over time through mergers and acquisitions, ironically, reducing entrepreneurship and limited the options for small business ownership. Corporations are ironically only nominally free market, they would rather not have a market at all since competition is bad for profit margins. The abuses of corporatism is being exploited by communists to sell their agenda to young people who basically dont know better. It is absurd because communism is a broken ideology that will lead more towards tyrannical government control of things which would be even worse for individual rights than we now have. Marx correctly identifies several concerns but he uses that to push an agenda that is unworkable in reality. Communism, like atheism are little more than religions.
What we really need is to return to small business capitalism rather than communism, where average people own their own businesses, especially in the retail jobs which ironically are most adept at taking away many ownership opportunities.
Many groups are being heavily manipulated with economics and economic concern. They are told that what we have now is capitalism, and they seem themselves unable to get a break and unable to move out of parents basement. Since communism is toted as the opposite, they are drawn to it as an atlernative to what is not working. Part of the problem is that they are stuck between these two alternatives, none which work well. Ignored is another way which is small business capitalism. The promises of economic utopia can be used to undermine individual liberty and initiative, which can be important, ironically, for a healthy and innovative economy. Both millenials and foreign aliens, both democrat voting blocks, seem heavily influencable into supporting shrinking individual liberty in exchange for, not really even prosperity, but instead for "equality" or something like that. It is true that severe inequality is bad but having some equality is good. I do agree that even people in the least skilled jobs should be able to earn enough to cover their basic needs. The corporatists, associated with free market, give the free market a bad name by their shills showing little concern for the poverty that exists. It is important to offer solutions to this that does not involve communist ideas or growing government.
The democratic party has attempted to use charges of racism as well to basically cover up the fact that the corporations that have run the party have damaged working people. This is a red herring. Studies have shown that in fact whites are being severely harmed by offshoring and immigration and actually whites have lower average incomes than many immigrant groups, such as Indians, as Indian immigrants are stealing jobs from the american worker. Then you have millenials that want to be fashionable and politically correct who vote for a party that actually wants to bring in foreign aliens to steal their jobs and drive down their wages. This is why the millenial mentality is an unhealthy response, basically, its a suicidal generation, one that covers themselves with tattoos, destroys their hair, mutilates themselves and supports policies that are destroying their very own country by floooding it with third world riff raff, and then they whine about not being able to find a job. A good first start is not giving your jobs away to third world invaders and not tattooing yourself.
I do not believe the outcome of any of this will be communism as many are told to believe of it but something like China, which is a combination of totalitarian statism and corporatism. This is why many corporations dont have a huge problem with funding democrats with their sympathies to communism, they know the outcome will mean further enslavement of the worker and a further loss of individual rights, which suits them fine.
The result of communism an
a private owner in a capitalist system can have a monopoly on the market and prevent free competition.
How? Force is not a part of capitalism.
Is that a poe ? No most probably the rejection comes from the excess of capitalism and very obvious inequalities which make no direction to be reverted, rather than anything else. Not about cultural amrxist whatever boogy men from the 50ies maccarthysm era.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I'm an Xer, and I know many millenials. I also know that the world they(you) grew up in is much different than the one I grew up in.
I know Millenials face much, much, much more pressure than my generation did. Its not even close.
You can safely ignore dipshits like the guy you replied to.
He is the one trying to find his ass.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
If it has anything to do with Marxism, it's because we are currently living in a situation where capitalism looks a lot like Marxism, so it's hard to say one is better than the other.
Capitalism only makes sense if you have free markets. Without free markets, private ownership of industry is virtually indistinguishable the king or the state owning industry. Capitalism==feudalism==communism. All of the usual virtues that we normally talk about in the context of economic success (hard work, intelligence, inspiration, etc) have little bearing on the situation. What really matters is whether or not you recognized those values as worthless and saw what really matters: gaming the system though inheritance, bribery, theft, clan/party-membership or whatever. And of course, the main reason to game the system, is to prevent a free market from emerging!
Look at some of the things that you hate the most. See any monopolies? See any byzantine legal frameworks? See any immortal business owners? Any chance, that even if you were a genius badass motherfucker, you would be able to enter into competition with the established players?
So of course who-owns-it is irrelevant and it's hard to get excited about capitalism, because all the advantages that would have arisen under Adam Smith's vision, are denied to everyone anyway. It's already centrally planned so why would you care whether the planners are a group of VCs, or a king's court, or the Soviet central committee? Corruption makes them all look the same to anyone coming from a free market perspective.
Now granted, not the entire economy is like that, but a lot of it is, and especially some of its most visible parts. You're reading this thanks to your ISP, for example, and if you're American, you know that ISPs have *cough* transcended free markets. And many people are reading this on a computer where it's against the law to modify how they're reading it, and maybe it's illegal to maintain the hardware too. Anti-free-market forces and mechanisms are so ubiquitous that many people barely even notice them anymore (and don't normally describe their intent as "prevent a free market from happening"), but your don't fail to notice how much so many things suck by law. As long as you don't honestly ask yourself "Is this really capitalism?" (in the sense that someone 250 years ago would recognize) then it's easy to conclude: capitalism sucks.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
People (and even capitalism) are better off due to the mixture of capitalism and socialism. One example is having an educated work force. When automation became advanced enough that children were no longer required in the work force, society took over and put them in school, which led to a more educated workforce. Universal education is more socialist then capitalist.
Other improvements in peoples lives came about through collective action to get better wages/working conditions and laws to do the same. The argument can be made that a well paid work force leads to more consumption which leads to more work.
Things were pretty horrible for the common person at the beginning of the industrial revolution, perhaps slightly better then subsistence farming, perhaps not when the farmers could produce something that there was a demand for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I guess the millennials haven't figured out how to vote yet. we are protected
Because a lot of those states had closed primaries.
Bernie supporters tend to be newer voters, or voters that were not previously Democrat. So in a closed primary they aren't allowed to vote, unless they knew ahead of time. In New York, you had to confirm party affiliation by October 2015.
He effected a bored affect.
What we have is corporatism, not capitalism.
I think the better term for this is Mercantilism, which is pretty much what Adam Smith argued against in The Wealth of Nations. The government makes laws & regulations which appear to be for the purpose of protecting consumers, but actually make it more difficult for other actors to enter the market, thereby reducing freedom of economic choices.
The problem is a lot worse than simply government corruption in support of the corporate status quo. Look to the minimum wage laws put in place by governments in LA, San Fran, Chicago and San Jose. The unions(nominally the little guy) lobbied hard to raise minimum wage and the government listened. The unions then lobbied hard to make exceptions to the minimum wage for union employees. So now the unions are nominally the ones lobbying hard to see their own people paid less than minimum wage. Why do that? It means more unionized work places because businesses will now get to lower wages by going through the union.
The overall problem is that all the rights we fight to gain for workers don't just help workers, they can also hinder employers. All too often, the smallest employers are hit the hardest by this too, meaning it makes it harder to start your own business and get out of the worker pool.
Err...well, perhaps for a simple General Practitioner that might suffice, but I know specialists that PAY 6-figures in taxes annually....they make much more than that....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Go to any political rally and ask random people what they're protesting. You'll get such a random cross-section of answers you'll wonder if anyone actually knows why they're there. I'm reminded of "occupy wall street" where many were interviewed and nobody seemed to know what the point was.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Can I volunteer you as the first one for the death camps?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
As Adam Smith warned us about in his seven books, the chief enemy of Capitalism is Mercantalism, which is the system we live in today.
Try reading all of his Wealth of Nations books, not just snippets on a far right website.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I am 71 and I think capitalism sucks bilge water.
Technically (based on "Age of 18 in the year 2000") I'm Schrödinger's generation. Generation X or Millennial (Gen Y) depending on what the issue is.
My class was the first one that was pushed heavily to college (And the first year my high school started tracking the "Goes to college" metric). A lot of my class would have been better off in a trade school. The good news is 15 years later most of them have shaken out into their place in society. Some went for a degree that was employable. Some did end up in the trades.
At the same time I lack a lot of empathy for those that entered college after 2008 and picked an unemployable major. My college's career services department has been publishing salary and graduation numbers going back to ~2004. An 18 year old should be able to understand that 4 years, 100k of debt for a job that doesn't quite make $25k mean should be a no brainer question. I went for engineering, my wife went for Medicine. We both did end up with good jobs but we both realized that ages ago.
The issues raised seem to ignore a large amount of socioeconomic backgrounds as well. My wife and I both received 'government assistance' at some point in our lives even with our parents busting ass at a slave labor jobs. It made us want better... at the same time a lot of our 'richer' peers, the ones with the latest NES game or dirt bike, did go to college and get something worth the paper it was written on. They did buy into the fallacy of 'do what you like and the money will follow', and perhaps took it a bit too literally. I have a friend from that is a daughter of a multi-millionare. The most difficult thing she's ever experienced in her life is her parents moved while she was in college. Never had a family member die from lack of health care. Never had to worry about where the next meal was coming from. Never had to consider that saltines and scrambled eggs was a meal. It's funny watching all these 'frugal' blogs come up with novel ways to save money or live cheaply and my wife and I look at each other and go "This isn't normal"?
Likewise parenting plays a large part of it. Some of my peers had helicopter parents, I did not. Even into my 30s you can see the long term effects of that. People went to college not knowing how to make Mac & Cheese or do their laundry. I've interviewed people (for professional positions) that had their parents follow up where as I was pushed out of the car door for my interview at Taco Bell when I was 16.
There's more to the picture than the random year someone was born in.
I mean, really...there is a scary real chance that cunt might actually win!?!?!? :O
Thanks to "superdelegates" and similar shenanigans that the DNC likes to play, she's almost guaranteed to win the nomination for her party.
(...and if *that* doesn't tell you how corrupt the current political parties are, nothing will.)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
It did: they got +2 Insightful.
Kinda explains a lot of things.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
As for the military, has it ever occurred to you that most of us actually don't want there to be a giant hegemonic power (you) throwing around your military weight in the world?
Cool - so when can we expect these nations to build up their own to a number sufficient for self-defense, so that the US military can remove themselves from those places? It might break some national budgets, but...
Also, we'll require a treaty stating that such countries are not to call on the US for help if they run into trouble.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
The U.S. hasn't been truly capitalistic for a long time now. It has been slowly muddied with socialism for years. Those that claim that capitalism isn't working are actually pointing out that the socialism they are slowly integrating and eroding the system with isn't working. Those same people refuse to believe their socialist policies aren't working and that we need more socialist policies to fix it. Many Millennials believe they are rejecting capitalism, when in reality they are rejecting a sluggish economy that socialism is causing.
Capitalism is the best system to generate wealth. It's terrible at distributing wealth fairly and allowing reasonably equal opportunity.
We can debate what's fair forever, but condemning people to poverty because of where or to whom they were born isn't fair.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Just put in a rule that after second abortion it's mandatory sterilization.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Free markets are not synonymous with capitalism. Which is it that millennials object to: voluntary non-coercive trade of goods and services, or an economy where the outcome you get is not so much a product of your skill and hard work but rather heavily influenced by the prior distribution of capital ownership?
Note well that it was Marx who suggested that the latter was an inevitable consequence of the former, and coined the term "capitalism" to describe the latter, so if you support free markets and treat "capitalism" as though it means just that, you're tacitly buying into Marx's ideology.
Socialism is the opposition to capitalism, not necessarily to free markets. Market socialism is a thing. The opposite of a free market is a command economy, and socialism does not necessitate a command economy.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
says Harvard University's study actually.
The way I look at it, (and this comes up every election cycle to some degree) when voter turnout in the primary is under 15% in a State, and yet there are candidates that are literally filling up stadiums with crowds... only a small percentage of the people waving signs at those events are even voters! But if you can turn out crowds, the media will count that as being something.
Many of them won't even know what day the general election is being held until they hear about the results the next day. Then they'll moan about a bunch of irrelevant stuff, "something something two parties something something."
I meant "moderate" by US standards, which is "cartoon cowboy" by international standards.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
It's pretty peaceful where I'm at. Now, since when is "your region" the Middle East?
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Are you seriously arguing against democracy?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
"young adults ages 18-29. It found that 51 percent of those polled rejected capitalism" In other news, a recent study of young adults aged 18-29 showed that only 49 percent have ever worked to support themselves and paid taxes. :-)
"All those moments, will be lost in time...like tears in rain..."
I wonder how much of these poll results are affected by this phenomenon of adult children staying home. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... These things start a parent to think about their options, such as taking Jonny out to a bar and then the military recruiters' office.
Various portions of Africa, Europe, Asia, South America, and most of the Middle East (deserves its own listing) are all in turmoil. A full listing is too long to go through at this point, which I think says all that is necessary.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
In my opinion, capitalism is the only market form that works reasonably effective and ensures progress and freedom, ...
It's not just your opinion, virtually all the evidence points that way.
...but it absolutely needs to be combined with moderate egalitarianism and effective laws to prevent monopolies and cartels.
You'd have to be more specific about what sorts of rules you're in favor of. There's evidence that monopolies and cartels tend to fall apart soon enough if there's free access to markets and no use of force (e.g. legislation or regulation) to enforce the monopoly. I'd also say that an egalitarian and compassionate society is a wonderful thing but I'm less convinced government is a good way to ensure that.
Why? Well, regarding the first point, we can always discuss how much wealth should be transferred and in which way, but that there should be universal agreement that some transfer is necessary. You can show that to almost anyone by explaining the Gini index and asking that person at which point society becomes unjust - people will only disagree about where the point lies, but nobody will honestly and sincerely defend a country with index 1.
And here's where we depart ways. A high Gini constant by itself isn't a bad thing if everyone is getting richer (e.g. the United States for the last century). Heck, if most people are content with their lot, even getting richer doesn't matter. Problem is, that's not how we're wired. We innately want to compare ourselves to the Other Guy, to keep up with the Jones'. That leads to envy and class warfare. IMHO, that's the problem, not the actual inequality.
I also believe your hypothetical country with a Gini index of 1 is a strawman. I don't think that can exist in the real world. Or if it did (e.g. Tom Hanks in Cast Away), it would be a very poor country.
True free-market capitalism hasn't existed in the United States for longer than any of 3 or 4 millennials combined have been alive - specifically, since Woodrow Wilson started truly ushering in the era of big government, and FDR hammered the nail in the coffin of capitalism in this country with his rotten "New Deal". What we have is "crony capitalism" at best.
So, that's nice that they're rejecting it, but they've never had it either, and I seriously doubt they were taught anything legitimate about it beyond rants from far-left leaning teachers that "capitalism is bad" and "unions saved the workers" (a correlative fallacy, since there's no proof the market wouldn't have corrected itself without unions, particularly if the justice branch had actually been doing its job: corruption is neither unique, nor endemic to capitalism, and is every bit as bad - if not vastly worse - under highly authoritarian and controlling governments like socialism and communism tend to produce). What makes any of them think that the government and businesses would somehow be less corrupt and greedy and abusive with power consolidated even further in the hands of government, rather than resting nominally with the people? Doesn't it stand to reason that, at best, the greedy and corrupt would just then insinuate their way into government, where they could exercise even greater authority, and commit even worse abuses?
A great example of how even the best-intentioned results of socio-communism go wrong is seen in our government's assertion that it has a right to tell us what we can put in our bodies, and the resulting "War on Drugs" it declared (which would never fly in a truly free-market economy and a government that actually supported and believed in it), with the untold harm it has caused to millions around the world: if it weren't for the black market that the government created by trying to ban or control drugs, there would be no Cartels, for example. The only reason the Cartels exist is due to a facet of human nature and economics that socio-communists don't seem to understand: supply and demand will always trump laws, and that where there is a demand, a market will rise to meet it. It's only because the government is artificially trying to control that market that violent criminal gangs rose up to fill it. If there were no ban on drugs, there would be no black market, as proved early in the last century with the prohibition on alcohol, and the drop in crime that occurred when it was rescinded.
The fact remains, kids graduating from high school today are less educated than their parents or grandparents were, and even those people don't know squat about economics, or economic systems, on the average. Heck, most economists don't even know anything about economics, as evidenced by those in the Fed who think printing more money and maintaining a steady increase in inflation is somehow a good idea...
Years ago, I noticed one thing about economics, and that is that economists didn't get anything right.
-Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Economists tend to think they are much, much smarter than historians, than everybody. And this is a bit too much because at the end of the day, we don't know very much in economics.
-Thomas Piketty
I don't care for a lot of this person's theories, but the following, at least, I can definitely agree with:
Contrary to what professional economists will typically tell you, economics is not a science. All economic theories have underlying political and ethical assumptions, which make it impossible to prove them right or wrong in the way we can with theories in physics or chemistry.
-Ha-Joon Chang
Lastly, I think this lad
"Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
Your list criticizes some for being poor leaders and others because they can't win. That doesn't make the field weak; it makes the voters stupid.
-Dave
Small companies mostly hope to be bought by large companies once the drug gets past the right trail stage - just like other tech startups, it's the big company acquisition budget (not the R&D budget) that drives progress.
As for the military. Don't fool yourselves that 70 years without a world war was an accident. It was the result of deterrence. As America's power wanes, we'll see how it plays out. Nuclear proliferation is on the rise, Russia is territorially ambitious, Europe is economically unstable, and I'm quite glad I'm too old for the draft. It is not a victory for the human race that ISIS was allowed to grow and conquer so much territory - it looks like it's reached its peak, but with so much suffering and misery along the way.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I'm pretty sure the mainstream Democrats that run the party have already decided on Hillary Clinton as their nominee. This primary election has been mainly about convincing registered Democrat voters to agree to that fact.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
and i have a huge problem with the lack of follow up of unfit mothers who can have umpteen fucking kids and raise them poorly to have more kids they will raise poorly.
This doesn't happen very often, it's a really small problem in terms of occurrences. People like to exaggerate and imagine it's a central problem in order to support their own bias on an issue. There are many social problems that a much bigger problem than this one.
Did you even check any statistics published by the CDC ?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Yeah, Sharia law! (Or more precisely, the Christian Dominionist equivalent of it.)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
First, they don't know what capitalism or socialism means, and prefer capitalism over socialism when explained in basic terms. Second, how can they focus on the flaws of the free-market when there isn't one in the first place? Admittedly, they could have studied economics and be against perceived flaws, but not knowing what capitalism or socialism is, I think almost certainly not.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Even up here in Canada, where our health care is paid for (msotly), doctors can and do get paid based on the number of patients they see.
Would you please stop trying to put the blame on us for everything you fuck up?
It doesn't take the Illuminati to fuck up the US. That fuckup is one of the few things left that are 100% made in the U.S. of A.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
ism: a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement. So, Capital-ism, versus social-ism. One focuses on wealth and costs, one focuses on social (human) aspects. As much as Finland is scared of it, yes - free healthcare, free education, intervention in various industries - that's socialism. The US itself isn't purely capitalistic, no, but we're the closest that anyone has ever been in the history of mankind. The "global" entities are very capitalistic - globalism itself is. Ship the labor to where ever it is cheapest, to make the widgets the cheapest, to hell with the anyone anywhere other than the 0.01%. That is, absolutely, capitalism. The pursuit of capital and wealth growth.
If Trump is winning, I suspect the problem lies with the Illiterati, rather than the Illuminati.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Socialism ensure no progress and no freedom. There is absolutely no real life example where socialism has succeeded to promote progress, innovation, increase global wealth and freedom.
And when you say socialism, you mean dictatorships that masquerade as Communism, right? Because Socialism isn't a bivalent thing, and there are a number of highly socialistic countries that are doing quite well. Look to the Nordic countries in northern Europe for an example.
Other than being totally wrong, your statement is quite correct.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
is Capitalists.
You, yes YOU mr. Republican, is that you showed the young how the game is rigged, bragged about it in fact, by running dynastic inheritors like Bush, Bush, Rmoney and now Trump, while "winning" by forbidding the counting of votes, rigging the voting booth and rejecting valid voters
Surprise, your young have had ENOUGH of you.
When the few rule by creating a false rhetoric of "meritocracy" while the true rulers are dynasties of wealth, the many WILL figure it out.
A MINORITY rules the Capitalist world.
the 1% own or directly control 88% of the value of stocks in the world.
They ARE the boards of directors, and those people decide who eats.
So how many less does it take to decide whose vote is to be counted?
5, actually.
I was thinking about capitalism in a slightly saner system, one that has a number of parties with changing coalitions, stricter laws against corruption, a fairer justice system, stronger anti-cartel laws, a better electoral system, ...
I've been there. It's the one with the unicorn on their flag.
The problem with all financial systems is that humans are selfish.
Capitalism devolves into a winner take all via wealth transfer.
Communism devolves into a winner take all via need of an absolute authority to oversee.
All complex systems will require someone in charge. That gives them power. Power corrupts. Greed will see to the rest of it.
I think they're just moving on to a new insult. After all, you can't just call people gay anymore.
Thus, calling them cucks/cuckolds as a way to, not necessarily say that they have cheating wives, but that they're easily fooled, period. I'd say, especially by the government and corporate interests.
I don't read AC A human right
Did you read the post you responded to?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
It says to me you're confused about what "your region" is.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Those polls are nearly worthless at this point. There's plenty of historical evidence of that. Much of the country isn't even engaged.
Just another day in Paradise
+1 Sir.
We've failed to reign in the monopolistic behavior here in the U.S. There is no free market when one or two companies have it locked up. Cable companies, satellite radio, Microsoft, etc., etc...all virtual monopolies. Sure, you have other "choices"...if you want to life on the fringe.
We need to get the big money out of politics, and stop the bullshit about corporate "speech" being a constitutional right.
Just another day in Paradise
The root of the problem is instant gratification. Back in my day, ie 80's, we had Saturday morning cartoons. That was the only solid couple of hours of cartoons on TV at the time. You might get one or two shows the rest of the week. You looked forward to Saturday for those cartoons. Now you have channel after channel on TV and streaming sites for instant cartoon gratification. Millennials never learned how to "look forward" to something. They want anything they just want instant gratification in cartoons, careers, education, and economic freedom.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
The free market is only free until the players start to flock to guilds, and start setting up rules they impose on every player. The current system is not some sinister conspiracy against a free market, it's a direct evolution of the original free market people had, when the first nomadic tribes started trading goods between each other. Even if we abolished all laws controlling the market, the "free market" would be free for about 5 seconds until the players started setting up rules. A truly unchecked free market would also have catastrophic effects on the environment.
Superdelegates are just an excuse that whiney weaklings use to excuse their own failure. At this point, the superdelegates aren't even an issue. Hillary is winning based on normal delegates alone. At this point, the only way they could possibly sway the nomination AWAY from the "will of the people" is if they voted for Sanders.
The idea that the system is rigged is just an idea that's being repeated over and over. It's like the Big Lie. If you repeat it often enough, people think it's true.
Primaries in general are a bit of a farce because they favor extremist candidates that are supported by the "true believers".
If you want open primaries in your state, you might want to try actually trying to participate in the political process instead of just whining about it.
This is no place for slacktivism.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
They aren't children either as a matter of science or law.
The evangelicals didn't even care about them until very recently.
Catholics are really the only people that have any respectability on this issue.
If they were actually children, busybodies could adopt them. Except you will never see that. Those busybodies also actively sabotage any chance the forced-borns might have in life. They also fight against sex ed and birth control.
PP is more about condoms, pap smears, and pre-natal vitamins.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Guns aren't the problem. You can have very well armed neighborhood and those will be safer than socialist utopias in Europe. Gun crime is just something that liberals in the media like to put on a pedestal. It's click bait. It's scary, but it really nothing relevant to the bleeding hearts in the suburbs.
People still suffer in high crime areas even when guns aren't involved. Even if you could magically make them all disappear, the underlying problem would continue. It would just be invisible to bleeding hearts in the suburbs.
Of course there is always the problem of how. It's not just good enough that someone has promised you rainbow ponies. The devil is in the details and how you are going to implement your grand plan.
There's that pesky 2nd Amendment that you need to get rid of first rather than trying to ignore in a most lawless fashion.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
if things like "rule of law" and "constitutional limits" seem like religious zealotry to you then you're more dangerous than Cruz.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
We have NOTHING like a command economy.
A command economy doesn't even manage to cover the basic necessities and basic things like toothpaste get neglected.
That's the problem with the younger generation. Without the Soviet Union around, people have gotten out of touch with how truly BAD socialism can be. Even socialism-lite sucks but too few people pay attention to what they're taught in school or have seen what the rest of the world is like for themselves.
A lot of BS propaganda is exchanged person to person on social media and through the regular news media.
The left also likes to deny the idea of economic mobility and is now developing a blatant racist streak with how they try to portray their propaganda.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
"Your region" is an arbitrary area designation and would be something closer to you than me. ;) I'm positive at least 1 of those is closer to you than me and therefore falls into the "you should take care of this" rather than someone further away. "You" also being generic.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
>> Capitalism+free market+liberal democracy are necesserily preconditions for the process evolution of civilization we call progress.
> Witness the power of propaganda.
I dunno. When it comes to medicine that is of interest to me, it seems like the vast majority (if not all) of the progress is being driven by the United States. Israel also seems to have made disproportionate contributes. For the most part, the socialist utopias are not producing. They're not contributing to progress. Many of them aren't even keeping up with the times.
If it's not greed or capitalism then it's something else that the US enables by not being Europe.
I'm alive to contradict you because greed does work. Even the Chinese figured that out.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> Capitalism promotes waste.
That waste is a necessary byproduct of sufficient supply and a useful diversity of products. Without capitalism, you end up with housing shortages and the lack of basic hygiene products. Too many things are considered unimportant and thus don't get made.
> Cars could be made to last longer, more serviceable, more upgradeable
What are you talking about? I expect a car to last 300,000 miles. Many cars can easily last for decades. Although that's not necessarily the optimal thing because technology improves. Ancient devices use more energy.
If your car fails to meet your own requirements then you simply failed to choose well. Suitable options are available in the market. You simply have to be willing to buy them.
There is also the problem of usage spikes. In some areas, a shortage can be quite literally a matter of life in death. So if there isn't some slack designed in the system, supply won't be available and people will DIE.
The only problem you cite with capitalism is driven by a religious notion of self-deprivation and suffering.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> We can debate what's fair forever, but condemning people to poverty because of where or to whom they were born isn't fair.
If you feel "entitled" to something, you will just demand more. This has come up in minimum wage discussions where leeches have demanded that minimum wage be able to support a "Leave it to Beaver" lifestyle where one income can support a family of 4.
That's not even being provided by the current socialist utopias. That also never existed for the working class in the US ever. It's an idea based on a work of FICTION where the earner is an engineer. These people want Soviet style DIS-incentives based on a fantasy from Hollywood.
Beyond that, the motivated can improve themselves. Education is free. Higher education is free for many of the poor and minorities. Higher education can also be paid for by government loans and state schools are still relatively affordable.
The left just likes to promote the narrative that economic mobility isn't possible anymore. People just want things handed to them. They don't think they should have to work for anything. They also have a demanding idea of what they should get for free.
I suspect this is a result of the "everyone gets a trophy" mentality.
If you implement socialism, then upward mobility really does become impossible. Regulations will crush the little guy or the individual and make large corporate interests even more entrenched (rather than less).
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Most young people tend to work on emotions instead of reason; wisdom does come with age through brain development. Then there is the fact that most young people do not have very much money, and a system wherein they gain at the expense of people who are far, far richer than they are does tend to appeal somewhat.
As soon as these people have started earning money, and started paying taxes then the prospect of becoming rich off one's own efforts starts to appeal, and the notion of having one's own money confiscated for the use of those who did not earn it starts to hurt quite a bit.
I would therefore be interested to see how the views of these people changes over time.
They will stay socialist as long as the free ride continues, or until they see a way to make lots of money and then they become capitalists, and will then protect what they have. The flipflop will happen as they gain responsibilities in their lives.
So where did I say I believed that first-trimester abortion was murder? Certainly not in the post you responded to, where I said I believed it probably wasn't, was OK with it, but how can anyone be sure? You're quick to show your tribal identity, but you're off-topic with it.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Trump as an Independent, would not win enough electoral votes. Guess who wins in the event nobody pulls that off.... Clue...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And, that would mean the Republican candidate would be a lock.
Just another day in Paradise
Wait...did you really just say that Capitalism doesn't ensure progress and then turn around and cite the Industrial Revolution as an example?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
boehner called him lucifer and a miserable sob. sums it up I think.
Given their history, distant, not so distant and recent, I would say explode.
And all the time making sure that he himself is exempt from those rules...
The guy is a snake. He has a politician's heart and soul, in the very worst sense of the word. He lies and cheats to get ahead. Actually, very much like Hilarity. Probably why he polls so close to her.
He completely lost me with his "Carson's quitting, come to my side" tweets. Asshole through-and-through.