Slashdot Mirror
Fewer Than Half of Young Americans Are Positive About Capitalism (cnbc.com)
gollum123 writes: According to a new poll from Gallup, young Americans are souring on capitalism. Less than half, 45 percent, view capitalism positively. "This represents a 12-point decline in young adults' positive views of capitalism in just the past two years and a marked shift since 2010, when 68 percent viewed it positively," notes Gallup, which defines young Americans as those aged 18 to 29. Meanwhile, 51 percent of young people are positive about socialism. This age group's "views of socialism have fluctuated somewhat from year to year," reports Gallup, "but the 51 percent with a positive view today is the same as in 2010."
Darn. You beat me by two minutes. B-b
For those not familiar with it, and who don't want to follow the link and read a page, the current version of the old saw is:
(The article linked by the parent poster tracks variants back as far as 1875 in France.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
"Socialism has been tried many times on many levels and it simply doesn't work."
It hasn't been tried many times.
Given the debt load of the these two latest generations, the McJob Market, and the continuing concentration of wealth towards the 0.0001% while wages continue to stagnate in the face of increasing productivity I'd say I'm right and you can go pound sand, little anon.
We raised a generation of idiots.
We started by breeding the compettion out of them all....that "everyone is a winner" bullshit, with you get a trophy just for processing oxygen.
And apparently we didn't teach them history, like how many in the past died due to socialism, nor did we teach them civics on how govt should work and their part in it...etc.
Well, its been a good run till now....just hope this crap doesn't come to pass till I'm well dead and underground, so that it doesn't affect my quality of life I and my peers worked hard for....
Or it could just be that when they say "socialism" they actually mean "I want a more progressive tax system, slightly more government regulation of business, and public healthcare, ie, Northern Europe".
One of the things that changes between generations is what they think a label actually means.
I stole this Sig
What's the difference?
Communism: technically the government runs everything. Very autocratic- usually one party. People are responsible to the government (not the other way around). No private ownership.
Socialism: democratic- government answers to people and human rights valued.. Some private ownership but for things that are intended for the good of the public there is public ownership (such as mass transit, healthcare, public education). Socialist states try to "even out" wealth by placing progressive taxes on higher earners and taxing poorer people less. The goal is to be as egalitarian as possible and for the common man to have ownership of his future. Society protected from abuses by industry through regulation. (such as dangerous materials banned from food)
Capitalism: usually democratic but under a pure capitalistic society the democratic vote is skewed because only the rich can afford to run and get their name out. Very little public ownership to none- most things, like education, transit, healthcare privatized. Little to no redistribution of wealth- human rights may take back seat to economic drivers in a pure capitalistic society. The goal is for people to earn more by striving to be richer because wealth brings about a higher quality of life. In theory people will work harder because they want more money to live a better life. Little or no regulation of industry to protect society from things like dangerous materials in food... as it is believed consumers will stop buying unsafe things by themselves.
Most western nations (including the US) are somewhere between capitalism and socialism- which is probably for the best. Most people wouldn't fare well in a purely capitalistic society; but some capitalistic tendencies are needed for a healthy economy.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I think you mean the US lead protection of the legally elected South Korean government from violent socialists of North Korean after North Korea, with support from the socialists of China and the USSR, invaded South Korea on 25 June 1950.
Learn fucking history and stop blaming the U.S. for shit socialists did, asshole.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Your signature speaks volumes about your message.
No one has died due to socialism. Many people have died due to single-party dictatorships that called themselves socialist.
In many ways, Canada could be called socialist. Strong social programs including universal medical care. Not nearly as far down that spectrum as some, but still very successful and a higher standard of living and higher average life span than the US, so that says something.
There is nothing that says that competition has to be absent in a socialist system. What socialism is saying is that there has to be a better way to distribute income and wealth than the system we currently have. Capitalism is failing to attract young people because in its natural state, it is a system that encourages coalescence of wealth into the hands of a very few. A system of financial oligarchs. The whole array of financial rules that try to make stock trading fair, anti-trust laws, and consumer protection legislation work to partially correct some of the more egregious natural effects of capitalism, but those protections are failing more and more.
Young people are failing to flock to capitalism's banner for the reason that they are simply better informed. The standard of living has improved all around and the young don't have to fight for survival. They are more global thinkers, and less personally greedy. And they are seeing the results of generations of capitalism and what it is doing not just to third world countries but our own. Corporations are getting absolute erections at the possibilities afforded by the use of technology to control and gather wealth. iphones and their walled garden, smart TV's and home voice controllers that send all your voice to central servers for processing, social media that is rife with fake news and social manipulation, DRM methods that restrict people from even the fair use of their purchases. Pharmaceutical companies purchased by larger corporations where their product is subsequently raised in price, not by double, but by factors of ten or a hundred.
I don't have a replacement system to propose that fixes everything. But I do know that we have to have a discussion about it and try something, because the system we have is broken, and it's getting brokener.
Greed is simply not a principle that can sustain good public policy.
Like roads and bridges ?
Yes. Roads and bridges are capital.
Every country in the world has a mixed economy, with some socialism, and some private production. In America, the government builds roads, bridges, and airports. North Korea has private vegetable markets. Cuba has small private restaurants (which can't hire more than 2 people).
You can go too far in either direction. North Korea and Cuba are 90% socialist, and are impoverished. Somalia has almost no government spending on roads and ports, and is also impoverished.
The "sweet spot" is about 30-40% socialism and 60-70% capitalism. That is enough for infrastructure and a social safety net, but not enough to stifle innovation and economic growth.
There is no single incident but lost of smaller ones e.g. the Bhopal gas disaster plus lots of similar accidents often caused by companies prioritizing profit over people's safety with the dumping of toxic chemicals, refusal of valid health insurance claims etc. On top of this, there are the unknown numbers of preventable deaths caused by the US's lack of free, public healthcare which is a socialist idea.
While these do not meet the standard of "brutalize and murder" it is also true to say that I cannot really think of any incidents where socialism has lead to much of this either except for similar isolated incidents with the trade union movement. On the other hand, Communism has clearly caused massive suffering on this sort of scale so perhaps you are getting communism and socialism confused? The two are not the same.
Common in the United States. Or, at least, it was before Obamacare helped fix it. For years the number one trigger of personal bankruptcy was medical debt.
Your attitude is a big part of the problem. Because YOU PERSONALLY don't see something, it isn't a problem? Please don't do that. The world is bigger than what you personally experience.
Time has a good article on the subject right here: http://time.com/money/4765443/obamacare-bankruptcy-decline/
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Try the alternative. Medical bankruptcy is pretty common.
Common where? I'm sure that it happens, but I'm in my mid 60's and no one I've ever known even slightly has had a medical bankruptcy.
Common in the US. Depending on how you define a "medical bankruptcy", estimates range from 250,000 - 640,000 medical bankruptcies per year in the US. Split the difference and you have just under half a million medical bankruptcies per year, or about 1 in 300 households per year. Considering less than 20% of bankruptcy filers are repeat filers, my guess is only around 1 in 150-200 households ever declare a medical bankruptcy.
I'm not sure how many households you are close enough with for them to admit a medical bankruptcy with you, but it could easily be under 200. Medical bankruptcies can certainly affect millions of people per year and you could still not really notice it in your life. That doesn't mean it isn't happening though.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
As with most things like life, too little and too much are both bad.
but real socialism looks different. Trust me.
Ah, the No True Scotsman argument. Any ideology taken to a logical extreme is bad. This includes both capitalism and socialism. Demonizing one over another is silly, because capitalism, socialism, and communism all have high ideals at their core - and they've all been twisted beyond recognition as a means to an end. It all comes down to who is the one with power - a government, a dictator, or the people themselves. In the US, the people themselves have less power than ever, even when capitalism is what gave them the power in they used to have in the first place.
More like you learn that the new boss is the same as the old boss, you cant fight entrenched interests, you are too busy surviving and raising kids, have zero disposable time or money or energy to 'fight the system' anymore and accept that the rich will always win. For me that happened in my mid 20s. I drank for a while, then raised a family and am more concerned with their well being than enacting any sort of societal change, if i even had the time...
What you are describing is that people get broken down and more apathetic as they age. You can call that being "realistic" all you like, but reality as it is sucks. Sure there are lots of realities that are worse, but its not like the "money takes all" reality is anywhere close to good.
We can do better and indeed must because climate change is here to stay and will only get worse.
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
You forget the third option -- removing those failures from our society.
If you're too busy trying to emulate the Jersey Shore to learn anything useful to society you should be voted off the island.
Ah yes. Eugenics. The end game of every sanctimonious prick.
Eugenics is a fantastically stupid idea because that's not how genetics works. Albert Einstein's parents were unremarkable people. Isaac Newton's parents were unremarkable people. Pick any genius you care to name, and you will typically find the bemused average people who birthed them standing behind them, completely unable to understand what their child has created, but proud nonetheless.
The culture of Jersey Shore is almost assuredly completely worthless. Feel free to denigrate it all you like, discourage your own children from embracing it, shun people in it, and make snide comments on Slashdot about it. But you do not get to "vote them off the island." One of them may birth the genius that extends quantum theory far enough to render relativity obsolete. The odds are against it, but then, the odds are always against it.
Over-regulation is, in fact, Fascism [wikipedia.org].
Not according to your link:
An important aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigism,[16] meaning an economy where the government often subsidizes favorable companies and exerts strong directive influence over investment, as opposed to having a merely regulatory role. In general, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.[17]
The article directly contrasts fascism with government regulation.
The system we have isn't Capitalism, it's Cronyism.
So you're saying "that's not REAL capitalism!"? :-) funny that many don't let socialists get away with making that same argument.
Can you point to a time when we *didn't* have cronyism? Because the last time we had such concentrated wealth and lack of regulation and oversight was the Gilded Age, the height of cronyism and poverty. If you're referring to economic prosperity since the world wars, that comes partly from being the major economic power left standing as well as FDR's New Deal and progressive reform that actually took very strong cues from Socialist Party demands (the Socialist Party was actually winning seats in Congress and state legislatures as a third party and that was enough to scare the establishment into giving into some of the demands). So in modern US history we've actually done the best with progressive/socialist reform and the worst under deregulated "free market" capitalism (that quickly becomes cronyism).
So why is it so wrong to point out we've never had real full socialism either and should give it a chance? Socialism is about economic democracy instead of the economic dictatorship of CEOs under capitalism, what's so wrong about democracy?
Medical bankruptcies account for over 60% of all bankruptcies in this country. And since your a right wing ideologue here's a fox news article about the study:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2...