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."
This is what happens when post-modernists take over the school systems and Western Values are treated as bad instead of good.
Given this administration, regulation and science seems counter to their ideals. For example, the EPA is considering allowing asbestos on a case by case basis even though its carcinogenic properties are well known. One way suggested is been to re-define what is asbestos to allow certain products.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I don't think you realized that I just trash talked that notion of "joining the rest of the industrialized world". America Lead the world in the industrial revolution even though it started in England. The desire to "be like the rest of world" is the problem here. Our government was setup by the founding fathers to explicitly be unlike the rest of the world for a reason and folks like you not only do not understand that or why and instead keep picking on the minority as you usually do. Loot at the economic deficit those industrialized worlds have now. How do you expect anyone with any real knowledge and information to take your argument seriously? To be a leader means leading, not joining the rest of the world, but that appears to be lost on you.
Talk about being amazed... maybe you should check the mirror some time. You are wearing the rose tinted glasses, and tell me exactly what lessons these countries learned? Case to put anything other than nebulous prattle in words? Afraid they will be debunked? All you have are rose colored ideas that do not bear out in reality, just like every other socialism communist state like Old Russia, Venezuela, Argentina, and lets not forget Greece... the list is quite long!
This video below is making direct fun of folks like YOU!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Tell me jythie, who is going to bail you out when this fails after you have "joined the rest of the broke as world with broke economies!"
Not an option, unless you're a wanna be Pol pot.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Whatever you want to call the system we have now, it is the most successful system the planet has ever had.
Name one system that has even come close to raising the standard of living for everyone in the world like this one has.
And before you spit out your milk, yes, it has its flaws and you could even say it's failed some people. But over all there is NO better option.
If you think there is, Name it. Provide evidence that its worked on as wide of scale as this one.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Over-regulation is, in fact, Fascism.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
he understands that he needs socialized medicine or he dies.
Socialized medicine could provide him with insulin paid for by taxpayers, who did not consent to the amount the IRS confiscated from them. (Indeed, even those who call for higher tax rates hire accountants, or meticulously go through tax-prep apps, to minimize their own personal tax bill.)
Or, private charity could provide him with insulin paid for by people who provided the funds voluntarily.
You might think that voluntary charitable contributions could never grow large enough to replace the nanny state. That would be wrong. Year after year, the amount Americans donate to charity breaks the record set the previous year. It grows faster than GDP grows, for reasons I won't get into in this post. In 2017, the amount was $410 billion -- which is within the same order of magnitude as the coercive (and highly inefficient) government wealth redistribution programs.
Within our lifetime, we might see voluntary charitable contributions exceed the size of coercive government wealth redistribution programs. Even though this would result in a much more robust social safety net, some people loathe the thought that government would no longer have control over the social safety net.
Three things prevent charitable contributions from growing even faster than they do now (thereby delaying the day when the nanny state is no longer needed) -- and all three are related to taxation.
1. The tax rate directly affects charitable contributions. When people receive a tax cut, yes, they keep most of the cut for themselves, but they also give more to charity than they otherwise would have. If you take into account the fact that private charities create social good vastly more efficiently than government social programs do, cuts to the government programs do not cause proportional reductions in social good, and in some cases may even cause net increases.
2. The tax rate indirectly affects charitable contributions, because lower taxes result in higher GDP growth, and more charitable contributions that arise from that GDP growth. (No, I'm not an anarchist who believes the tax rate should be cut all the way to zero. But I suspect we are far from the "sweet spot" that maximizes GDP growth and the growth of charitable contributions.)
3. We're held back by the attitude that "federal, state and local governments are already taxing me, and in the aggregate transferring over $2 trillion per year from the top 40% to the bottom 60%, so why should I give more to charity?" All of us suffer from this transference of social responsibility -- away from individuals, and onto faceless bureaucrats -- to one extent or another.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.