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."
The boomers pulled the ladder up on them.
As long there is strong regulation behind it keep things honest and upfront.
No-small-print capitalism.
... seeing as how fewer than half of them will ever be able to pay off their college loans. Maybe if we want to prove capitalism can work for everyone we should stop letting rich people write all the laws?
Get rid of it.
The young always think there is a better way. As they grow up, they realize that the current way works, while most "good ideas" don't. But, enough new ideas do work to keep the system changing.
When you got millionaires and billionaires putthing themselves ahead at the expense of the public, people are not going to have a positive opinion of capitalism.
The people who came before them are rigging the system against them so only they and their kids who made it can benefit. The ladder has been pulled up and these young folks are starting to realize this more and more.
If you're not a liberal at 20... https://quoteinvestigator.com/...
In other words, 65% of Americans are so dumb, they actually think we have capitalism...
Just remember, half the people are stupider than that...
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
And only fifty million Chinese had to die miserably for that communist utopia!
Lets not mention that the average standard of living in China only began to improve once they began adopting capitalism or that the communist regime risks being overthrown if they hint at turning back the clock to that utopia.
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
The system we have now is really corporatism. Very large, essentially immortal, companies that are able to achieve regulatory capture and get laws written for themselves.
Look at the way that the coal companies were able to get an exemption to clean water laws to blow the tops off of mountains and destroy streams and creeks. All so they could reduce labor costs. That's one hell of an externality they got out of.
small "c" capitalism is something a free society has to have, i.e. the ability to buy and sell goods in a relatively unfettered market. No you don't get to sell nuclear weapons, so there has to be some manner of regulation.
corporatism is all about shifting costs to the public and creating a bullshit concept that companies are somehow outside of morality and ethics. They want to be outside of morality and ethics but that doesn't mean we have to let them.
Absolute statements are never true
this again. Socialism =/= Communism.
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....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
they haven't lived in a (real) socialist country.
Norway and Sweden have both been pretty successful at what they are doing, maybe they are better examples than China or Russia.
It makes sense younger people would be susceptible to bad ideas and in particular people that say everything should be free. Hell I'd take everything free if I believed someone it was possible. Still these people have no experience, things that are too good to be true often are. And hell at that young age people are voting democrat solely because America is a democracy and democrat sounds similar.
I think actually it's because they are envisioning Europe; they don't want socialism as in a real socialist country, but things like socialized medicine, etc. I've heard often from conservatives that Europe is socialism and it's failing, meaning while things couldn't be more different in that living in a european country is quite different than many people think and really they don't have socialism from that strict sense of the term.
Let's see, the economic system that has raised more people out of poverty than any other, young people aren't sure about. The education system in every country on earth is just..wow.
>essential aspects of the free market
you're forgetting an unlimited number of buyers and sellers. Which is why a true free market is unrealistic.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
...that at least 90% of the people do not even understand what "Socialism" is, but they also realize that "Capitalism" has been taken over by "Crony Capitalism", I'm only surprised that the percentage isn't higher.
"And these children that you spit on, as they try to change their world...They're immune to your consultations - they're quite aware of what they're going through..."
It's not an A or B choice, though. There's a 2-dimensional spectrum with one dimension being capitalism --- socialism, the other being authoritarianism --- libertarianism. Most younger people want less authoritarianism and more socialism, but it's not a bilateral choice between "Mao" and "the US."
Yep.
Abraham Lincoln: “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”
In your version of history did you fail to include all the people that died due to capitalism as well? Also what is your definition of socialism?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
It's almost like capitalism hasn't done shit to help 2+ generations of people in a row.
Surely, blaming them for the problem while selling them down the road will serve the generations that didn't get totally fucked over.
This is what happens when post-modernists take over the school systems and Western Values are treated as bad instead of good.
Or young people see the generation before them loaded with debt and unable to afford to purchase a house, see a political ruling class that does not care about them, and see companies making record profits and all the money going to an increasingly smaller percentage of the population and are realizing "yep, the system's broken".
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
The problem is that everyone wants something for nothing. It doesn't exist. Socialism has been tried many times on many levels and it simply doesn't work.
Capitalism has a successful record. It has raised more people up from poverty than any other system in history. But you have to work for it.
As far as the U.S. college debt situation: look at who is running it: Government. Is adding more government to the problem going to solve it? Probably not. Be smart about it. Use community college (or high school) to get GE requirements done cheaply. Get a job to help offset some of the cost, don't just use the college loans to pay for 100% the cost. Use credit cards wisely and don't spend money you don't have. Don't eat out. Ramen noodles and PB&J are your friends.
Before entering college for that 4 year degree, be absolutely certain that's what you want to do. Most of my friends that graduated college aren't using their degree in their current field. Hell, some didn't need a 4 year degree at all.
Trade schools. Seriously. Use them. These careers can be very rewarding and pay very good salaries. Less student debt, start a career earlier and start saving for retirement earlier.
Many 4 year college grads have the equivalent of a home mortgage when they leave school. That's bad for many reasons and a drain on the economy.
Obviously I'm posting generalities. But they are truths. In the U.S. you are responsible for your education after high school. Choose wisely.
Government run education is extremely costly. In my home state they decided to offer free preschool to everyone. In my blue-collar town of 25,000 where up to 40% of the population is receiving some type of government assistance our preschool participation rate was 96%. After "free" preschool was announced by the state the cost per pupil per year went from $1,200 to $3,700 in one year. The new participation rate was still 96%. Why did the state government run program cost 3 times more to run than the private and community based system? Nobody seems to know. How do you suppose that would translate at the college level if college were determined to be "free"?
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
... an unlimited number of buyers and sellers.
That is not actually a requirement of capitalism.
It IS a requirement of "crony-capitalism", which causes inflation and results in a never-ending need for "growth"; which is impossible to achieve in a closed system.
You do realize that socialism is mainstream in Europe, right? I'm looking around and I don't see any gulags here.
I believe Bird-Person can arrange that.
That's easy, it's none.
Now with communism, you could argue that it's higher. Then again, was it communism or totalitarianism that caused the Ukrainian famines?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The US has public roads, public parks, and public schools. China has private businesses and personal investments. Socialism versus capitalism is just a matter of degree. Humans aren't ants or amoebas and can't deal with extremes and absolutes and, in those cases where someone does manage to fully impose their ideals upon others, it can take generations for things to recover.
Once upon a time, most of the value of the American economy was from actual goods and services, and not so intrinsically tied to the stock market. Since about the late 1970s, the American economy has been tied to the stock market, which has engendered dangerous short term thinking.
This, combined with the hollowing out of organized labor and the ever widening wealth disparity in the US has led to inevitable situation.
What would anyone expect? A heart warming embrace of a system geared to enrich and empower those who are already rich and powerful?
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
We raised a generation of idiots.
If you raised them and screwed it up then YOU are the idiot, not them.
And apparently we didn't teach them history, like how many in the past died due to socialism
You seriously think capitalism hasn't resulted in anyone dying? Evidently you didn't learn much history yourself.
Yeah, but Norway and Sweden have too many happy poor people, and the pro-capitalist crowd really wants people to suffer in order to boost their self worth.
.....or maybe there's a generation of people who don't blindly accept what they're told and question things, apply logic/reason, and think objectively.
It's quite obvious that most core ideas underlying (free market) capitalism also fail, just like socialism has in the past. That's why over the years, governments and their people stepped in to make modifications (e.g., welfare capitalism). Many existing models have pretty huge flaws. Take the US for example where capital accumulation continues indefinitely leading to higher and higher concentrations of wealth. One obvious issue here is this then shifts social power to the wealthy through governmental manipulation.
While it's true most modern day capitalistic economics work better than other models we've seen in the past, that doesn't mean it will continue indefinitely and it certainly doesn't mean we have the "be-all-end-all-model." Thinking we do is both ignorant and arrogant.
We also need to revisit the social contract as to what a society expects by agreeing to fall into a governmental system. It's quite obvious people aren't happy with the current social contract because most citizens are falling further and further into losing their half, so to speak. As such. they're rightfully upset. Now, we can both agree socialism isn't the answer but our current frame of capitalism isn't the answer either and it needs some changes to give people what they rightfully deserve.
You don't have to go back that far.. What about Perestroika in the late 80s.
then you have the young people who are well educated and not beholden to the whole idea of American Exceptionalism that has fostered an environment of never ending wars of conquest and profit for the last couple of decades.
the old dinosaur thinking has gotten the US (and much of the west) into the current state it is - useful idiots and intelligence staff and politicians living in a bubble of unreality where their crimes are not only accepted - but promoted as good business.
But I feel that capitalism works well for economy building. Once it's big, though, it's kind of run its course and needs to be modified to continue to satisfy the majority of CITIZENS (read: not "CONSUMERS"). I believe we're at that state right now.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Probably why a large chunk of this new generation of muppets still lives at home.
for the stuff you want is always an attractive idea.
Capitalism is bad at:
No where on earth is there a purely capitalist society outside of complete anarchy (e.g. Somalia). Once a government is established, the first thing it does is socialize something: defense.
Some other things most countries socialize:
Education is a prime example of capitalism dealing poorly with long time horizons. If we took loans out to pay for our entire education, it would be 20 years before we could make the first payment. Most debt is expected to be paid off in less than 30 years.
In terms of natural resources, the value placed on them is based on the labor required to extract them. However, air requires minimal labor to extract. You do it every time you breath. Because of this, we have subconsciously, and collectively agreed that no one owns the air. It is shared by all of us as a community. It's a communist system.
In summary, capitalism is a tool in our economic system, that works along side socialism and communism to get resources to people that need them. The trick is choosing the correct tool for the task!
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
...when people that never lived under socialist or communist regime start to talk how bad capitalism is and if one would implement socialism everything would be OK - we would live in harmony, almost in paradise.
I was born in 81 in one of the countries of the ex Soviet block. And I can not tell you how happy I am that my children were born in capitalist country. Because they will never know how it is when you can not buy food even when you have money. Because there neighbor will not disappear in the middle of the night because he told the wrong joke.
Americans of today are spoliled beyond anything one could imagine and would like to have everything for free - because it is there right.
But I can tell you one thing, back in 91 at 10 years of age everyone in my class was in the same position to make or build something. At that time I could tell you who will grow up to be successful and who would be a failure.
they haven't lived in a (real) socialist country.
I neighther have you, apparently.
Because if you did you'd know about a number of social-democrat countries, particularly in Europe, that have been doing spectacularly well for a number of decades.
But your post clearly shows that you're ignorant, but it also shows, and that is worse, that you don't even know that you're ignorant.
And that is to be expected for such a closed, culturally isolationist country like the US, where the vast majority of the population, especially in the red states, speak only one language and have never been more than fifty miles away from the place where they were born, let alone travelled the world.
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerki...
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
More accurately stated, young people are not positive about how Capitalism is practiced in America.
You are quick to blame people without closely examining how corrupt and rotten the system become. From debtor's prison of student loans, to bank bailouts, to suppression of tech wages by no-poaching agreements and H1Bs, there is plenty reasons to be skeptical.
As to idealized version of Capitalism, that would be great, but what country has it implemented?
Ahm.. you do realize that their preferences lay in joining the rest of the industrialized world in its economic structure, right?
I am always amazed at how people fetishize and seem so proud of their own ignorance, clinging to rose tinted versions of some imaginary past and ignoring the lessons every other 1st world country has learned from and incorporated.
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
So in your definition of socialism==communism even though they aren't the same thing? For instance, Sweden, Norway, and Finland are definitely socialist countries. I wouldn't call them communist.
But in your listing of deaths due to socialism did you list all the deaths due to capitalism which was my point?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Or young people see the generation before them loaded with debt and unable to afford to purchase a house, see a political ruling class that does not care about them, and see companies making record profits and all the money going to an increasingly smaller percentage of the population and are realizing "yep, the system's broken".
And everything you describe is a symptom of consumerism, not capitalism.
Consumerism is a social and economic order that encourages the acquisition of goods and services in ever-increasing amounts.
Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
Granted, in a capitalist system, the private owners of the means of production would like to promote consumerism, as it helps ensure their increasing profits. However, the root problem is that too many people feel like they have to own the latest iPhone and iPad or Samsung Galaxy phone and Galaxy tab (as soon as it comes out each year) as well as drive a new Mercedes or BMW, go on an overseas vacation every year, and go out to eat with friends every night when they are in their 20s and early 30s. When young adults spend 110% of their earnings and don't start saving for retirement until around age 40, of course we are going to end up with the state of things we see now.
That is not to say that there aren't people with real legitimate financial hardships. However, for every one person I see with real hardship resulting from a debilitating medical condition, or family situation that inhibits earning potential, I see at least half a dozen or more who are in a financial quagmire resulting form their own lifestyle choices.
Fix that nonsense by properly educating people about sound personal financial management principles, and most of the other things you describe will fix themselves as a result.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Excellent summary for the historically impaired.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Eh.... I'm very curious as to precisely how the poll was conducted. This is one of those things where the precise wording is important, and the subject is vulnerable to a lot of bias.
As an example, I will use my own views. I'm well aware of how poorly socialism has fared historically, but I'm also aware of how the implementation of socialist ideals has always been hindered by human corruption and greed, just as those same vices have caused inequality and suffering in capitalist societies. If I were asked whether I'd want to live under a socialist government, my response would be a resounding "no".
However, if asked whether I would be in favor of socialism as a legislative doctrine, I would have to answer "yes". I have seen significant evidence that governmental structure can actually run social services decently, if the human corruption can be adequately checked in the system design. Philosophically, I believe that we as a society should work to support the whole society, rather than seeking personal hegemony.
To borrow a phrase, capitalism is the worst system, except for everything else we've tried. There are certainly some good ideas in socialist systems, but they rely on an awful lot of trust. Capitalism assumes no trust, but brings its own collection of faults. I think an ideal system would draw on both ideologies (and others), with careful thought toward how the system can be exploited in the future.
One way that balance can be acheived is by using technology to monitor and control governmental services, filling the role that bureaucracy does today. It is much easier to design a "fair" computer than it is to ask a human to be "fair", because it's relatively straightforward to have computers explicitly ignore certain input.
That means we need to educate our children not just on civics, but on security, philosophy, history, and technology, as well.... We're doomed.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
You do realize that socialism is mainstream in Europe, right? I'm looking around and I don't see any gulags here.
Yeah, paid for with capitalism. The issue is that when people say "we like socialism *instead of* capitalism" something's not right.
Do you have ESP?
Shhhh. It's a secret to keep those dirty Americans from moving to Europe.
"Socialism is terrible. Nothing to see here. Move along. These aren't the droids you are looking for."
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Also what is your definition of socialism?
That's one part of a two-part problem. The first part is that there is a concerted marketing effort by a large chunk of progressives to redefine "social democrat" to simply "socialist". I think this may be some kind of political Darwinism as people try to emulate the stadium-filling success of Bernie Sanders by cargo-culting his misuse of the word "socialism".
Then on the other side you have people who know that their ideological opponents are misusing the term, but pretend that they are in fact referring to centralized control over production. So the resulting criticism is not about Denmark, but rather Venezuela. I suspect they are doing this because it makes their opponents an easy target.
So here we are with a discussion overwhelmingly dominated by people making dishonest arguments, and apparently we've done such a poor job educating our young people that many of them are oblivious to the total sham of a discussion going on.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
why the hell people don't want capitalism, yet they risk their lives to travel and live in a capitalist country.
They don't even understand it's not true socialism. It's democratic socialism that younglings are referring to when they cite European nations.
That's social democracy. Even Denmark's PM is frustrated by this new push to change the definition of socialism.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Define socialism, because no, it's not, unless you are accept the redneck definition, which is just 'anything I don't like' (just like the hippie definition of fascism).
Being more precise in language: Marxism, with it's ban on private ownership of means of production isn't active anywhere in Europe. Europe is full of capitalist welfare states.
Marxism is irretrievably broken. It had the 20th century to work. Killed more people than religion has, and religion had eons longer to do it.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Also what is your definition of socialism?
Socialism: Government ownership of the means of production.
That is what "socialism" means. That is the only thing it means. It has been tried many times, and has never worked well.
But when "young people" say they like socialism, that is NOT what they mean. They mean we should be like Denmark.
The problem is that Denmark is a capitalist country. In many ways they are more capitalist than America. Even their post office is privatized. They rate higher than America on the ease of doing business index.
They have fairly generous tax payer funded social benefits, but so does Greece. Nobody talks about the "Greek Model", but it is basically the same as the "Danish Model" except Greece is populated by Greeks instead of Danes. The "Danish Model" doesn't transplant well. It didn't work in Greece, and it didn't work in Detroit either.
When young people say they want socialism, they really mean they want someone else to pay off their student loans.
And everything you describe is a symptom of consumerism, not capitalism.
Consumerism is a social and economic order that encourages the acquisition of goods and services in ever-increasing amounts.
Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
And there is no mechanism to prevent the owners of production from gaining ever more profit and accumulating the benefits of that profit, nor to keep them from desiring to do so. Unchecked capitalism is as bad for the economy as unabashed communism. Eventually a significant portion of those profits have to filter back down to everyone else, yet instead more and more of it is being hoarded by companies and individuals. Without a natural mechanism to distribute those profits, government must and has an obligation to step in.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Which Western Values are you talking about? The ones that say if you don't have any money you'll be left to die of cancer by the for profit healthcare system? Or the at-will employment at 31.5 hours per week so SuperMegaCorp with 10 billion dollars in profit per quarter doesn't have to give benefits (or a living wage)? Or living in a city where wages are lowballed and housing costs more than half your paycheck? And at the same time shouldering an enormous student loan debt that will take decades to square up?
You mean those values? Yeah, can't see any reason at all that young people would turn away from that when they're exposed to it... especially when they see "socialist" places like France and Sweden, or even Canada and talk to people from there and hear how life is over there.
I don't want to do the Denmark model either...I don't wanna pay well over half my income to the govt, for them to redistribute.
I pay at least about 33% as it is, I don't feel like I should be forced to give even more.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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!"
Bankrupt.vs.Broke - in the first ism, the state collapsed broke under communism. In the latter ism, a population went broke under capitalism.
51% of millennials see unimpeachable testimony to concentration of power, demographics of corruption and proof positive means how ISM politics ends.
BUT 49% are smart enough to question to what ends adding another ISM means.
You're just making it up, full of shit.
Just like the 'no prefect free markets' derp commies are always spouting. It's nonsense they made up.
Actually read 'wealth of nations' then get back to us. Until you do, you are just repeating derp.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Competition is a powerful tool, but it requires a referee, and intelligent rules that ensures that competition continues, and that once you have a "winner", another contender can emerge and eat his lunch if he's sleeping. In many cases, we don't have that. Also, unlike sports, you have to consider the well being of the loser, which is where a government focused entirely on capitalism falls short. You want people to play the game, to play hard and ensure there's something to "win", but you don't want your losers to fall out and give up (or just plain die, when applied to real life). You need a safety net.
Young people are perhaps overreacting to the negative realities of capitalism. It is not a perfect system, it has many faults, as does socialism, as does a command economy. The overreaction is in part due to the fact that the US has reached a plateau, that geopolitics is not favoring us significantly and there is a lot less to go around, but also in part to the hard right turn reflected in both parties. We are seeing some facets of socialism that we have had for a long time, that were working amazingly well, get defunded and brutalized for an agenda that doesn't really make any sense. We're also seeing the government move away from the safety net idea that was going to enable us to be competitive globally, shoring up the weaknesses of capitalism, in favor of some very naive and misguided libertarian principles, all while ignoring the very real reality of a global economy, that will succeed no matter what we do.
I don't know what economics courses you took, but when I read about the ISMs, I didn't hear "this is the best and clear winner". What I heard is here is what it does well, here is what it does poorly. Even command economies have strength: no other ism can move and adapt as quickly, no other ism CAN be as skillfully manipulated for a purpose. But of course, the weaknesses are tremendous. It's important to understand these shades, China manipulates all of the isms masterfully, at least in comparison to literally everyone else.
Exactly. It's more a question of redistribution. I don't think many progressives (however that is defined) want a state-run economy, which really is what socialism, at least as it is traditionally defined, is about. It's been useful for conservatives and libertarians to define progressive economic ideas which are fundamentally redistributive as somehow Marxian, but they're really not.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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
Younger people tend to be more idealistic -- nothing new there. A more interesting undertaking would consist of obtaining statistical data about the evolution of people's views as they age. I believe that they become more conservative, but I don't know to what an extent. What percentage of these kids will evolve into becoming the Trumpers of 2045?
This is what happens when post-modernists take over the school systems and Western Values are treated as bad instead of good.
Your assessment is a failure to think critically because few people form their ideological perspective based on texts. Instead it's formed based on what they are exposed to on a regular basis. Consider the fact that corporations have corrupted just about every facet of government using legalized bribes AKA campaign donations. How do young people know about this without closely following the news? Simple, the US government cannot get basic protections in place for guns, refuses to even acknowledge climate change, medical costs are staggering and college students take on crushing debt in hopes of getting a job.
You can claim that none of this is a problem with capitalism but when they see other socially-centric nations having resolved all these issues then they are likely to think it's capitalism driving these things. Here's the thing, they are right. You can claim it's "crony capitalism" that is the problem but it's just splitting hairs to most people.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
China is fine, the mainland is screwed up. It will all be fixed once Taiwan takes over.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Or maybe it's what happens when you call let financialization run unchecked for a few decades and tell them that the finance capitalism that results is actually just plain old capitalism. Surprise, surprise they might end up having a negative opinion of capitalism.
And if you also tell them that that is clearly mixed economy is called socialism, then it's unsurprising that they might end up having a positive opinion of socialism.
When society lies about what things are people end up believing the false labels.
What, exactly, does that mean? Capitalism is one of those slippery words that people define conveniently. It's either the bane of all existence which we should eliminate entirely (but hey, I still want to buy an iPhone and sell stuff I create) or the solution to all problems (but hey, I still want public roads and social security).
It's a stupid sort of word that people toss around like a weapon. Contrary to popular believe, Capitalism and Socialism are completely compatible. Also contrary to popular belief, we already HAVE some socialism here in the US. It's called freaking Medicare and Social Security!
We need to stop putting things in these tiny little boxes, and ignoring what anyone else on the "other side" says. Capitalism needs regulation or else it runs rampant and we get rivers on fire, and children working in factories. Socialism needs limits, or else we get masses of people doing no-work, bullshit jobs where they can't be fired.
In other words, some form of sane balance between the good and bad aspects of any system. We seem to have lost site of any balance lately.
Can you name a single instance of capitalism being used as justification to brutalize and murder millions of people?
Work Safe Porn
I take it to mean they want the engine of the economy (capitalism) to benefit society first and foremost. Education, housing, food safety, transportation, etc. should be take priority over tax cuts. Getting there efficiently is no easy task.
I'd argue that a purely socialist state has never really existed at all. Marx's fundamental theory was that agrarian societies were not at a level of social or economic development where his economic and political theories would even work. Both the Soviet Union and China had to literally ramp up their fundamentally agrarian economies through rapid industrialization just to get them to a point where the whole notion of collectivism, in the Marxist sense, would even be possible. And really, since most of the Communist economies ended up being labeled some variant of "Marxist-Leninist", these economies still retained a limited space for private enterprise, at least until the Cultural Revolution in China, which even most Chinese Communists now view as a horrible aberration that had more to do with Mao reasserting control of China after he'd been effectively sidelined when the full extent of the catastrophe that the Great Leap Forward in the 1950s had created.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Take a slice - any slice - of history, for which documentation is available. Almost invariable, the older generation use a language very similar to yours when describing the younger generations. This "generation of idiots" that you complain about will do the same about their younger generations - just as your grandparents' generation very likely did about yours.
The system we have isn't Capitalism, it's Cronyism. Brought on because people think that Keynesian economics is somehow a good thing. Sadly this line of thinking is so prevalent on both sides of the isle, that it will never get fixed until the system collapses. Young people today have never seen Capitalism, they have only seen Cronyism and yet everybody calls it Capitalism. It isn't.
You do still see Capitalism at lower levels of society. The farmers markets, the used/antique markets etc. But those in government don't make money on these, they would rather make the big bucks working with large corporations. As a result, the large corporations get the laws passed that they want, usually at the expense of the little guy. Hence Cronyism wins the day.
Now, if we can just get young people to understand the difference...
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
That's an oversimplified description. Socialism isn't just that the government owns the means of production, but also that it is responsible for the distribution of the produced goods and services. Since that's also the much larger and more difficult part of the philosophy, it's also the part that should be discussed most thoroughly.
In essence, any government that collects taxes already has a government-owned means of production. The government produces tax income. How it then uses those taxes is the subject of endless debate, and those of us who want a bit more socialism want to see distributions that focus on the socialist philosophies. We want to see less focus on propping up private industry, and more focus on community projects. We want less subsidies for corporate expansion, and more grants for anyone to claim.
In short, the socialist influence the young people look for is for government to aim to improve life outside of work, rather than dumping resources into privately-managed companies that have primarily just increased inequality over the past few decades.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
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.
It's also what happens when the only thing that trickles down is urine. If the big winners in capitalism don't want the game to end, they'd best make sure to spread the wealth a little better.
this again. Socialism =/= Communism.
As Karl Marx himself said, Socialism is just the step in between Capitalism and Communism.
All forms of Marxist Collectivism (Socialism, Communism, Fascism) are authoritarian They are authoritarian by their by their very nature and share many principles in common as they are all based on Marxism.
This includes "Democratic Socialism" which is an oxymoron in itself as it tries to put lipstick on that same old, tired, Marxist pig. Socialism and Communism are responsible for killing far, far more of their own people in peacetime than the Nazis did altogether in WW2.
"Warning! Warning! Danger, Will Robinson!".
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
So what? Postmodernism is still the stupidest most obviously wrong philosophy since the Dunces were a respected intellectual movement.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
This is what happens when post-modernists take over the school systems and Western Values are treated as bad instead of good.
Both capitalism and socialism are western schools of thought.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
or the Soviets. You do understand that people can misrepresent themselves, right? China is a Kleptocracy, which is where America is heading.
If you want to see Socialism in action look to the Scandanavian countries. Also Germany, France and Canada. Venezuela seemed to be making a run for it but couldn't shake the centuries of political corruption. I think if America hadn't sanctioned them and locked them out of the world banking system when the price of oil collapsed then they might have pulled out of it. Yeah, their ruler's a dictator, but so's the king of Saudi Arabia and we're helping him bomb Yemen, so it's not like we've got much of a leg to stand on. OTOH we did just use their collapsed economy to seize a bunch of their oil assets. Funny how that always seems to work out (RE: Iraq, Afghanistan).
TL;DR; You're misrepresenting socialism, either intentionally or by mistake. Please stop it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Read 'Wealth of Nations'.
It will help you to not be so stupidly wrong. Parent should be embarrassed by that post.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
they haven't lived in a (real) socialist country.
For example, despite all the problems you may have heard about in China, life there is significantly improved comparing to before the country's economic reform that turned itself from a backward socialist/communist state into the most capitalistic superpower, even though their governing doctrine is still communism.
I'll note that when you actually gave your example for a "(real) socialist" country you actually described it as "socialist/communist".
Most of the people here decrying the naivety of the youth are actually talking about communism. But most people when talking about communism tend to use a different label, communism.
Though when people talk about capitalism they still mean US-style capitalism, despite the fact the gap between pure capitalism and the US system is about as big as the gap between modern "Socialism" and Communism.
For a proper reading of the poll assume that a huge portion of the respondents are comparing a European style mixed economy to a US style mixed economy.
I stole this Sig
For instance, Sweden, Norway, and Finland are definitely socialist countries.
No they aren't. They are capitalist countries with slightly higher spending on social programs. If you call that "socialism" then the word has lost all meaning.
An American is more likely to work for the government than a Swede. The Swedish post office is privatized, and their education system is more privatized than America. They have LOWER per capita government spending on healthcare: America spends more money per person on Medicare+Medicaid+VA to cover 30% of the population than Sweden spends to cover 100%. Just because America's system is stupid and wasteful doesn't make it "less socialist".
Norway's Statoil is an example of socialism, but that is a special situation of a massive public resource owned by a small population. Very few other countries have that benefit.
No, it is absolutely not mainstream. Social democrats take some features of socialism, but real socialism looks different. Trust me.
My country suffered under the socialist rule for several decades and hasn't recovered yet.
This is a reasonable discussion to have. I tend to favor market forces wherever possible, and I think the concept of a welfare state is a flawed one. I do support using the government as a safety net, but I believe the goal of the safety net should be to get people back on their own two feet if at all possible. I think this can be achieved by rejiggering incentives for the people running and participating in the programs.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
"set up by the founding fathers"
Stopped reading right there, ignorance and foolisheness evident. Parent is exactly right.
The government as it is now is not even remotely like the one "set up by the founding fathers" Just for a taste, look at the state laws surrounding the founding and regulation of "companies".
That's easy, it's none.
Really? Because the people of Venezuela would care to disagree with you.
Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
Many in the past died from capitalism too. Their history is that capitalism has failed badly in too many cases; there is grinding poverty in rich countries, unregulated greed has caused financial turmoil, overuse of natural resources, and so forth. They don't know how government should work because it does not work at the moment - Trump has the most disorganized government in the US for decades, promises from the Obama administration rarely came through, the Dubya years brought needless wars, etc.
When you talk about deaths from socialism you have to leave off stuff like Stalinism, Maoism, etc.
When you take sides about one side being angelic and the other demonic, then you're being short sighted and partisan. Both systems fail when taken to extremes. But moderation is seen as an evil today by both liberals and conservatives.
No, like the department of transportation that builds the roads and bridges.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Educate yourself about the Nordic model. They are free-enterprise, capitalist economies with strong social safety nets. Not even close to socialist.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Dad: Just one more thing before you can go out with your friends. Paint the house.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
How's the swamp-draining coming along?
No sig today...
Those did not die directly because of communism, but because of totalitarianism. They are not the same thing.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
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.
The public education (indoctrination) system is a major cause.
I feel that capitalism works well for economy building,
Correct. Capitalism serves the needs of the masses so long as you are experiencing significant growth. When the growth slows or stops, as it must if we are to avoid destruction of the biosphere upon which we depend, pure capitalism has run its course. At that point, [more] socialism is needed in order to serve the masses, who are no longer offered a share of excess.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
No, these are social democracies, not socialist countries. Socialism is a pre-form of communism, it's a step before communism in the historical-teleological model that communists have proposed as a natural explanation of human history. Social democracy has historically been opposed to socialism, to communism, and of course also to national socialism and fascism. It's an older tradition of a democratic parliamentary that arose as one of many answers to the "social question" in the unrestricted capitalism of the 19th Century, at a time were child labor was normal and many workers were crippled in factories. Social democracy was already established as a political position in many European countries at the beginning of 20th Century.
Scandinavian social democracy is also kind of special in comparison to others for historical and cultural reasons but I'll stop there.
Yeah, now they want another trial at what failed in the Eastern Europe
What failed in Eastern Europe was communism. I'm not a huge fan of socialism but it is far less extreme than communism. Europe and Canada are now somewhere on the spectrum between socialism and capitalism, trying to find a balance between allowing people the freedom to generate wealth while also ensuring that some of that wealth provides a social safety net for those less fortunate.
And there is no mechanism to prevent the owners of production from gaining ever more profit and accumulating the benefits of that profit, nor to keep them from desiring to do so.
That mechanism exists. It is called consumer choice. It can roughly be stated as, "don't by stuff you don't need."
Unchecked capitalism is as bad for the economy as unabashed communism.
This is flat out wrong.
Eventually a significant portion of those profits have to filter back down to everyone else, yet instead more and more of it is being hoarded by companies and individuals.
You clearly do not understand how the economy works. Yes, there are a small number of corporations and extraordinarily wealthy individuals/families at the top of the income/asset heap. However, the vast majority of the capital in the economy is the retirement savings of individuals and groups (i.e., individual retirement accounts and pension funds). In 2012, total estimated retirement plan assets in the US were $23.7 trillion. When the economy grows, the millions of current and future retirees invested in those plans benefit from the growth, as will the small number of corporations and individuals/families with very large assets. However, the fact remains that a large portion of those profits are already filtering down to regular people in the form of dividends and capital gains in retirement assets.
Without a natural mechanism to distribute those profits, government must and has an obligation to step in.
We have a natural mechanism to distribute those profits: entrepreneurial spirit. I have the privilege to know quite a few entrepreneurs. They are doing some great things. I made a run at it and decided it isn't for me yet. So, I can't on the one hand say "I am unwilling to take the risk of starting my own business" and then on the other say "how come I don't get the same profits as those who are willing take risks?" If the government steps it, it creates a disincentive to innovate.
What I find intensely ironic is that things like Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and so on arose out of one person or a small group doing something daring. They should be rewarded for their ingenuity, acumen, and for the risk they took. If you want profit, go do something daring.
They are also small and very homogeneous in culture, morality, ethnicity and politics.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
... 3 hours in.
You do realize that socialism is mainstream in Europe, right? I'm looking around and I don't see any gulags here.
Socialism is pretty mainstream in the US too for a number of issues- they just don't call it that because people in the US assume that "socialism" is communism.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I found the prescriptivist!
It might be more productive to view this one through the descriptivist lens, because then you'll be talking about the ideas that are actually being discussed, rather than falling into a semantic rabbit hole.
You need a safety net.
The US spends about $10000 per person (about $27000 per taxpayer) on our safety nets. That's a pretty big net. (That includes $1.1T on Medicare, $980B on Social Security, $300B on income security programs ("welfare" etc), and $550B on Medicaid. )
Young people are perhaps overreacting to the negative realities of capitalism.
Young people are not "overreacting", they've simply been brainwashed. They aren't idiots, at least not moreso than young people in any age, they're forming reasonable opinion based on what the schools teach these days (which is pure propaganda).
China manipulates all of the isms masterfully
Did I mention pure propaganda? China's economy is quite bad, despite building endless seas of condos that no one lives in. They have a burgeoning tech sector, to be sure, but rural poverty remains the norm and manufacturing is shrinking as US manufacturing returns (to robots) in the US. You do know the trains didn't actually run on time under fascism, right?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Part of the reason for that is the US political parties defy classification... our system practically demands only two parties, and so almost everyone is forced into a tent with other people who may or may not be like-minded. Roughly 1/4 of the US electorate is "liberal" (in the sort of modern progressive sense), and almost all of them are in the Democrat tent. Around 1/3 are "conservative" (in the classically liberal and/or social sense), and virtually all of them are in the Republican tent. The remainder of the population is "moderate" and picks one camp or the other for some reason. Exceptions to this include blacks, who may be very liberal or very conservative - but one way or the other will mostly register and vote Democrat for historical reasons.
If we had some electoral reform that left room for more than two political parties, I think you'd see a lot more alignment between political party affiliation and ideological bent.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Unfortunately, it won't do much for the *willfully* historically impaired that infest /. these days.
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.
I really wonder how americans can be so brainwashed.
Which part of 'communism' killed one in China?
Oh, it was not communism, it was the aftermath of a revolution and the bloodiest civil war in human history!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
The only ignorance here is yours. It's pretty clear "socialism" as they understand and want it is nothing more than socialist democracy like Norway and most of Europe has. My god, the amount of people who latch onto FULL SOCIALISM when they hear anything with the word socialism is staggering. That's just as dumb as people saying capitalist means a few at the top and the rest struggling for scraps from the table on the bottom. "Oh no, a government that actually works for the people and not businesses and the 1%! The horror!"
The U.S also has a low birth rate which we were canceling out thru immigration. This is going to stop if Conservatives have their way. Ever though about how we are going to pay for all those retired baby-boomers when there are less and less young people to work? You don't have to wonder, just look at Japan. A dying society with a stagnant economy and a debt % twice as high as ours
You clearly do not understand how the economy works. Yes, there are a small number of corporations and extraordinarily wealthy individuals/families at the top of the income/asset heap. However, the vast majority of the capital in the economy is the retirement savings of individuals and groups (i.e., individual retirement accounts and pension funds). In 2012, total estimated retirement plan assets in the US were $23.7 trillion. When the economy grows, the millions of current and future retirees invested in those plans benefit from the growth, as will the small number of corporations and individuals/families with very large assets. However, the fact remains that a large portion of those profits are already filtering down to regular people in the form of dividends and capital gains in retirement assets.
And when the economy inevitable crashes again because companies are hugely overvalued (especially all the advertising, er, um, "tech" companies) , those retirement savings will be wiped out and the government won't have the money to make up for it.
We have a natural mechanism to distribute those profits: entrepreneurial spirit. I have the privilege to know quite a few entrepreneurs. They are doing some great things. I made a run at it and decided it isn't for me yet. So, I can't on the one hand say "I am unwilling to take the risk of starting my own business" and then on the other say "how come I don't get the same profits as those who are willing take risks?" If the government steps it, it creates a disincentive to innovate.
What I find intensely ironic is that things like Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and so on arose out of one person or a small group doing something daring. They should be rewarded for their ingenuity, acumen, and for the risk they took. If you want profit, go do something daring.
I'm a reasonably intelligent person, with quite a few skills. Some of the skills I do not have, however, are ones that lend themselves to starting a business or inventing something. There are millions, if not billions of people in the world just like me. All those people who have no hope of starting their own business and becoming the next Musk, Brin, Jobs, or Gates due to either a complete lack of economic opportunity or straight up inherent capability. I guess we're just fucked, then? Have to work until we drop dead, poor the whole time? And in any case, starting your own business doesn't make the slice of the pie any bigger-it stays they same, the only thing that changes is how a big a bite you get to take. The problem with having the only chance to succeed come through becoming one of the 1% is what happens to the other 99%.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
And yet, if you ask young people about this, they see that Denmark and similar countries have high living standards and rank at the top for happiness. Meanwhile in the US they see poverty, a massive gap between rich and poor, unaffordable education, unaffordable housing, unaffordable health care, and so forth. So is it any surprise that when given the poll that young people think about these issues?
Taxes are a matter of perspective. We tend to hate our relatively low taxes in the US because we see so littlle in return for our money, whereas in many high tax countries thre is a visible return of services back to the tax payers.
And also there are extremes. Denmark isn't engaged in autocratic centralized control of all facets of the economy. Yet some people spit at the word "socialism" as if it were equivalent to Stalinism or Maoism. We also don't have an extremist model of capitalism in the US either. Most modern countries are indeed a mix of some capitalist ideas and some socialist ideas. Denmark is clearly a capitalist state but it also has had social-democrat governments with strong social welfare programs - it's not 100% one way or the other.
Another problem is that "socialism" is being used by the right as an insult to apply to anything they don't like, exactly the same as the left using "fascism" to apply to anything they disagree with.
Thank you for your reply, it's nice to know I'm not alone in that line of thinking.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
The thing I find so disheartening is how many younger Americans reject Capitalism, in favor of a form of Socialism -- without realizing that this isn't as simple as an A or B pair of options. If you want Socialism, fine .... There are many places in the world actively practicing it, and you're welcome to move there. America was created as a unique experiment in the world, creating a Democratic Republic. IMO, it's proven itself not only viable but arguably superior to many other forms of rule by central governments. I wholeheartedly believe that as a U.S. citizen, I should do everything in my power to preserve this framework.
Obviously, we have a lot of flaws, corruption and other negatives. But show me ANY government that's perfect, except on paper.
IMO, what we need to be focusing on in America is how to move forward, to PRESERVE the Democratic Republic that our Founders created and made into a reality. Corporatism is really what most people are complaining about when they say they're anti-Capitalist. Corporatism is simply a situation where big business managed to collude with government to avoid being governed fairly by it. This can be addressed and mitigated without resorting to Socialism!
America has already done too much dabbing in Socialist practices to appease various groups. Even when it creates a "workable" solution to a specific problem? It weakens our whole system of government, because it means we took an "easy way out" or shortcut, copy-catting what other countries did, rather than finding an answer that doesn't go against the principles that built what we've got here.
Perhaps the place this "battle" is most evident, today, is the healthcare debate. Single-payer or Socialized medicine is something I just can't accept, even though I accept that it's ONE solution that basically works for other countries. If we stick to our core values and principles that defined America, I think we have to conclude it's unfair to demand medical professionals all get paid a fixed salary, as dictated by Federal government. I think we have to conclude that no, healthcare is NOT a right in America. You have every right to pursue better health for yourself, obviously. But as soon as you need medical care, you're demanding the services of another person or group of people who invested many years into education and training to be good enough to perform those services. They aren't your slaves, nor do you have a right to force other American citizens to pay their fees to treat you. We DO need to stop the collusion/ Corporatism that allows big pharma to get protectionist treatment by government for exclusive rights to sell medications, and to prevent competitors in other countries from importing their offerings here as legal alternatives.
Take the US for example where capital accumulation continues indefinitely leading to higher and higher concentrations of wealth. One obvious issue here is this then shifts social power to the wealthy through governmental manipulation.
Shifts? This presupposes that social power was ever out of the hands of the wealthy. I'm not entirely sure it was.
From ancient times to medieval times, people in power were rich and rich people were in power. They were practically inextricably linked.
In the Age of Mercantilism, rich people were so powerful they owned private armies. The Dutch West India Company managed to capture the Spanish silver fleet in 1628, stealing their entire cargo. (Among many other similar things of that era.)
In the Gilded Age in North America, a dozen men controlled the industry of the entire continent.
In the 1940s and 50s, television was such a fantastically powerful propaganda tool that Boomers were effectively controlled by a few dozen people.
Today, a handful of major websites are so influential that Congress holds hearings about it.
Control has been getting less overt and somewhat more diffuse, but it still rests with rich people. They're having to work harder to maintain it, but they are maintaining it. Tax law benefits them, not me. The courts benefit them, not me. Congress represents them, not me, except by accident.
When was this mythical time when society was controlled by anything other than rich people?
It's quite obvious people aren't happy with the current social contract because most citizens are falling further and further into losing their half, so to speak. As such, they're rightfully upset.
Rich people back through the Gilded Age knew to allow more than mere crumbs to fall from their table. Modern rich people seem to have forgotten that. They have far more medieval attitudes than we've been accustomed to for the past century and a half.
It's gotten so bad that we're no longer better off than our parents. That's when we really noticed things not going well. I personally am, but my brother isn't. Going down the list of my cousins, only one of them is doing better than his parents, because he married well. The rest are either hanging on, or doing markedly worse than their parents. Looking around my neighborhood, the number of houses with 3 and 4 and 5 cars parked at them is higher than it ever was when I was young, as Millennials either fail to launch and boomerang home, or launch much much later than was previously the norm, because they simply can't afford the real estate to move out. What I see jives with the statistics I hear about.
The Libertarian Lunatic fringe of Slashdot will be quick to point out that young Americans are being heavily propagandized at their universities about socialism and communism, so it's all their fault. I contend that universities have been propagandizing since the Communist Manifesto was published in 1848. It's gaining traction again now because capitalism is failing to make young people's lives better, for the first time in quite a while. If capitalism was working better for the masses, they would go on ignoring university propaganda just as they did for most of the last 170 years.
I'm not so sure that there's a generation of people who don't blindly accept what they're told and question, or apply logic and reason. Reading Youtube comments for an hour is enough to disabuse you of that notion. What I am sure of is there's a generation of people looking up from their empty plates and saying, "I was promised cake. Where's the cake?"
A lot of people here would be glad to be out of NATO.
You don't have a base here out of the goodness of your hearts. You have it to have a staging point for projecting power (and monitoring for intrusion) in the North Atlantic, to keep threats away from your shores. We didn't tell you leave when you left last, and we didn't tell you to come back when you came back.
I believe Bird-Person can arrange that.
Well, you don't need to pay off student loans if you get free education. You don't have to pay off your medical bills if you never get a bill in the first place. We do have countries that are capitlist in some areas but which also have institutions that are very social-democratic in some key institutions. That is because the government controls the means of production in a few places but not all places.
The US can not even agree with the rest of the world what 'capitalism' actually means. ...
'Socialist' Sweden, France, Canada etc. are no less capitalistic than the US are
If people can not even distinguish between 'political' system, 'economy' system, 'social' system, 'market' system and other concepts, but lumb a random selection of them under missleading umbrella terms, how can you even have a open discussion about stuff?
Hint: what distinguishes america from china the most? They have one more party ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Isn't that communism?
No. If you draw a Venn diagram, socialism would be a big circle, and communism would be a smaller circle embedded within it.
Communism is socialism, but socialism is not necessarily communism.
Communism is socialism violently imposed by the seizure of capital by the proletariat without compensation to the original owners. But that is not the only path to socialism. The Fabians believed in incremental socialism, with compensated government takeovers of industries. This was the original goal of the British Labour Party.
Well, worshiping Adam Smith is also wrong, but he was sure better than those who claim to follow him.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The Soviet Union failed at that. Yes it was Communism but they aren't too different. Even in socialist countries today you still have the haves and the have nots. People fail to believe that society stratifies on its own and not by the will of some uber ultra elite. There are those that will work to the bone to secure their lives and there are those that will complain that the man holds them down, even when the man is the only thing propping them up.
Yeah, I'm old enough to have met people in college that grew up in Eastern Europe during Soviet rule... yeah, you don't want that. Planned bullshit was more like it.
That means that they aren't syndicalist and the aren't communist, not that they aren't socialist.
And neither syndicalism nor communism scale at all well, so you won't find a large version of either existing.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
America isn't an oligopoly... now Russia, yeah, probably the true first one in the world I think.
"My god, the amount of people who latch onto FULL SOCIALISM when they hear anything with the word socialism is staggering."
Yes, totally, everyone that goes for socialism always just goes right at it, 100% no gradual steps just one giant leap off the edge right into the abyss.
You are totally clueless. Even capitalism in the USA before it won independence was not adopted overnight. Like everything, there is a slow and gradual movement from one to the next.
So yea... just a little socialism today leads to more socialism tomorrow and full socialism later. It's not really a mystery either. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, and since socialism is on the other side right now, the ignorant folks readily eat at the trough of empty promises of prosperity for nothing... well as long you vote for one of the rich people they say you should hate to rule over you after all.
It's almost like you guys want to destroy yourselves, you don't want to spread prosperity, you just want to spread poverty because you are angry at your own failure to obtain whatever your definition of success is.
"I hate capitalism" he thumbed into his phone, waiting in line for his welfare check.
20+ percent on government assistance (or higher depending on definitions)
what we have isn't capitalism. we have big corporations with lawmakers in their pockets.
Capitalism and free markets are two concepts on different dimensions. They have nothing to do with each other. They onky partly overlap.
China clearly shows that you can be communist, capitalist and have a free market (albeit ruled by a one party, pseudo democracy)
Europe clearly shows you can be 'somewhat socialist', capitalist, have a free market and be a democracy.
For some strange reason the US formed their society by always picking the worst part of: democracy, free market, capitalism and 'no social system'.
It is no longer 1789 or 1776 ... You are safe to advance into 2018!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
then you'll be talking about the ideas that are actually being discussed
I don't think there are any ideas being discussed. Just people talking past each other.
The summary clearly contrasts "socialism" with "capitalism".
Capitalism: Private ownership of capital.
So if "socialism" doesn't mean NON-private ownership, then what does it mean? If we can't even agree on the meaning of the most basic terms, then discussion seems pointless.
I understand that what young people want is "Capitalism, but with other people paying for my stuff". But that is not really an "idea".
Neither Greece nor Argentinia ever where or are Communist/Socialist.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There has never been, and will never be, a pure Capitalist country (larger than Luxemborg...it could possibly work on a small enough scale, at least for awhile). There are multiple reasons, but here's two:
1) It's an incomplete specification for a society. You *must* have other elements.
2) It doesn't include any mechanism to prevent accumulation of power into small groups that will then act to prevent potential competitors. Which transitions into a Monarcy or Oligarchy.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I've got a buddy with Type-I diabetes. The kind your born with and that you die of without insulin. He can't work because the illness kicks the crap out of him for about 2 months every year, and it's a random 2 months. He barely made it through high school. Smart guy, but not Einstein grade smarts so no employer is going to put up with him.
He's pretty right wing. Has a got family who worked in defense. So he gets his political views from there.
When asked about healthcare he understands that he needs socialized medicine or he dies. Again, he's smart. He's figured out that in a pure capitalist economy he couldn't possibly earn the money to pay for his care. You should hear the convoluted mess of a healthcare system he came up with that preserves his ideological system while ensuring he gets care. It was like Obamacare but with much bigger subsidies and more guarantees of care. To his credit when I pointed out that he agreed that he'd basically created a socialized medicine but with a 30% surcharge for private insurance profits.
I'm not saying we can't have a mixed system. I'm in favor of single _payer_, e.g. the gov't pays but otherwise stays out of things. But that's still socialism. At some point I think we have to admit that capitalism as we idolize it just plain doesn't work.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
> The US can not even agree with the rest of the world what 'capitalism' actually means.
Well, when the US Right's primary source of propag H^H^H^H^H^H news - Fox - has hosts on it do crap like equating Denmark to Venezuela, I'm not surprised that they have difficulty with concepts like nuance:
http://fortune.com/2018/08/14/fox-host-denmark-venezuela-socialism/
I'd suggest they read more, but many of that group are proud to tell you how they have no use for reading...
Democratic socialism exists when the governing party is socialist, and is democratically elected. There is nothing about socialism, inherently, that disallows free elections... including the ability to elect a party in the next election that does not have a socialist agenda (at which point the term 'socialist' cannot apply).
Yes, voter-turnout was always excellent in the USSR and East Germany and the Party always won, often by more than 100%, so the gulags and such must have been the will of the people. Nothings says 'love' like a good gulag and some secret police. [eyeroll]
Go read some history books before you're left standing there watching death & destruction occurring all around you to everything & everyone you cared about, and wondering how it could have happened.
Protip: What they have in Norway and other Nordic nations is not in any way what the US Alt-Left is pushing for, calling it 'Democratic Socialism'.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
"The kids" are looking at a future where it's financially impossible to ever own a home. The "American Dream" you so love and enjoyed is not at all possible. They're also not able to afford minor things like "children".
At this point, you will likely launch into an argument about majoring in gender studies, utterly unaware that even STEM majors can't find jobs. We graduate 1.5 STEM majors for every entry-level STEM job opening. Some simple math shows that's a problem for people who got the "right" kind of degree.
The fact is productivity and wages became decoupled in about 1978. That has resulted in massive wealth being built by a very small few, and the vast majority of people not benefiting from economic growth. That is not sustainable. It's going to be corrected. We can either correct that intelligently, or we can follow your plan of pretending that it doesn't exist until it is corrected through violence. And before you gaze longingly at violence as your desired result, you should remember you are massively outnumbered.
Those facts are not facts you like. So you pretend they don't exist. Displaying far more ignorance than those you attack.
Yeah like those hellhole of danemark , sweden, etc... You can mark everything as a failure if you ignore the success the only gather the failure. The truth is, socialism and capitalism together , the one to build a social net to avoid people falling down, the other to enhance society as a whole is MUCH better than either one pushed to 11. At the moment the US is doing capitalism pushed to 11, and the younger generation can recognize they are getting fucked in the ass without vaseline. You know people are young, not dumb.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
they haven't lived in a (real) socialist country.
By that standard, they're not advocating (real) socialism.
This is a reasonable discussion to have. I tend to favor market forces wherever possible, and I think the concept of a welfare state is a flawed one. I do support using the government as a safety net, but I believe the goal of the safety net should be to get people back on their own two feet if at all possible. I think this can be achieved by rejiggering incentives for the people running and participating in the programs.
One problem is that it kind of looks like every time someone tries to rejigger the incentives, politics gets involved and the result ends up being even less effective at encouraging results, often because too much effort is put into designing the sticks and virtually none into designing the carrots.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
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.
As a result of capitalism? Or "capitalism" as it's being practiced? We've had a long string of "you can't make an omelette without breaking an egg" followed by "mommy gubbamint! mommy gubbamint! wipe out my debts and save me from debt servitude, people want me to pay for the eggs I broke!" Take a look at the long list of Superfund sites as it grows year-to-year and tell me not one person died from any of those disaster zones.
One good way to partially fix the House of Representatives would be to change the way the Speaker is elected:
1. Allow Representatives to vote for ANY House member to be Speaker... by secret ballot, using a Condorcet method. No nominations, and members can't refuse if they win (otherwise, parties would just punish any representative from their party who accepted the position without their approval). Representatives can vote for as many or as few members as they like, and indicate different preferences for those they vote for (with everyone they don't vote for at all being treated as "last choice, with equal preference... so even someone who loyally supports his or her party's choice for Speaker would, at a minimum, have to vote for everyone in the party... assigning the party's choice as their #1 choice, everyone else in the party as their #2 choice, and everyone else as choice #3).
2. The top three candidates from step 1 run against each other, once again via secret ballot among House members. If one of them gets a simple majority, he/she's the new Speaker. Otherwise...
3. The top two candidates from step 2 have a run-off election (also by secret ballot). If one of them gets a simple majority, he/she's the new Speaker.
4. If, however, step 2 produces a result where the top candidate wins a plurality & the remaining two are tied, or if step 3 produces a tie, step 2 is repeated... but this time, under Condorcet rules (as per step 1).
Electing the Speaker this way wouldn't be likely to result in a Speaker who's from a party different from a majority of Representatives... but it WOULD effectively throw a monkey wrench into either Party's ability to enforce party discipline on Representatives, and quite probably result in the election of Speakers who are absolutely, positively NOT the first choice of the Party's own leadership. A Speaker who gets to be TOO heavy-handed about bringing representatives in line would be unlikely to win again, because he'd ultimately piss off too many members of his own party. By keeping the votes for Speaker secret, Representatives could freely vote against those who've pissed them off or antagonized them without fear of reprisal or punishment by the Party.
Capitalism is doing just fine.
I worry more that government by representative democracy has become unworkable. We need drastic action, and quickly. I don't know what it is.... I have wondered out loud before if we should form a third legislative body, a sort of jail where we put people from either existing house when they stonewall, change the rules,. obstruct, etc. How we choose who to put in there is a question, essentially whoever behaves badly (by some objective measure) goes to jail for a year. Or slash a legislator's vote value to half a vote!
Now I know how *I* identify obstructionist legislators but someone smarter than me needs to find a
way to do it objectively. Whatever it is, there needs to some incentive for legislators to compromise and make some progress. The penalty for not doing so should be severe, (It used to be that they weren't re-elected but clearly that no longer works. Voters now reward obstructionist behavior)
Or maybe we should just get an AI to run/be the congress.
I reserve the right to make this more coherent later... end of sermon!
cw
chris watts íë¦ìS ì(TM)ì
I think Americans need to travel abroad more and get a broader perspective. :) oki, I exagerate
That is problematic.
No guns
Driving at 18, not 16
Drinking from 16 on, not 21 (even in public on a bench in a park)
Having sex from 14, not 18
Walking to school
No police sirens all day long
Working and afordable public transport
No elevstors in most houses
Food that actually tastes
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You should not comment on the greatness of socialism until your tax bill hits at least $5,000 a year.
Regulating pollution causing industry has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism. Government should regulate irrational behavior.
Work Safe Porn
Everyone should live in a commune for a year in college or there abouts. Naturally, maintain your studies etc but much of the romance of utopian economic models is that people don't really viscerally understand them... understand the pros, the cons, the function, and the dysfunction.
Live in that context and the attraction of the greener grass on the other side of the fence loses its luster.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
it is responsible for the distribution of the produced goods and services.
When economists talk about "production" they mean the production of goods AND SERVICES. Distribution is a service.
Production of physical goods is about 20% of the economy of developed countries. The other 80% is services.
We want to see less focus on propping up private industry
Capitalists see subsidies as Lemon Socialism. Liberals see subsides as a form of capitalism. The capitalists have a better claim: The TARP bank bailout, and the auto industry bailout were both passed by Democrats, and opposed by Republicans.
The war here is simple... They want us to become Venezuela...
Naw, that this says is that they want us to become Canada or Northern Europe. Where they wish they had grown up, and where they'd probably think would be a better place to raise their kids.
But during that time there nither was the population nor the weaponary available like tanks and machine guns.
It is not communism/marxism that kills people, people kill people.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I disagree. Socialism - wherever applied - always left a destroyed country with a failing economy and a huge inner debt (e.g. in infrastructure).
I've never seen that happen with capitalism.
NEWS JUST IN 50% of People below average intelligence, read all about it!! ... even less vote, continued south American Importation will push it further down
BS. without an unlimited number of sellers, monopolies and oligarchies will happen. Few buyers would create an equally unbalanced system.
That is not how this works. Unlimited sellers is only a requirement if your system is corrupt and requires endless growth to avoid going out of business, but then, that WOULDN'T be "capitalism". Also, there's a big difference between "infinite" and "few"
Your position that the free market requires infinities to work is patently silly (probably why you are AC!). All the free market requires to work is protection from manipulation of it's essentials.
English?
#DeleteFacebook
Starvation kills a lot of people when socialism takes hold.
Sure, if taxes are so important and you prefer to pay premiums for healthcare, pension and the school education of your kids, and need a gun to feel save, and several cars for your family to go around over the course of the week, then Denmark is nothing for you.
If I earn a million per year, or for funk sake only 100,000 ... I don't care if the tax is 33%, 50% or in case of fhe million, even 90%
For what would I need more than 50,000 - 100,000 disposable income?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I can say for certain that regardless of what they are actually envisioning, a significant chunk are pushing for marxist socialism. They usually come off as idiots because they don't know what they are talking about, but given the body count of marxist movements, "but but but.. I MEANT like Sweden and you knew it!!!!" isn't going to cut it.
The usual talking points
"End stage capitalism!!!" When pushed, apparently the evils of end stage capitalism have been going on for longer than most marxist regimes existed and the notion that flawed but works better and murders less people might actually win compared to what they are pushing is beyond them, and at best recognized by...
"True Marxism has never been implemented" Neither has true capitalism, but what we got at least seems to survive human nature to some degree without racking up body counts into the millions at the get go and tapering off to a poverty level and median lifestyle that makes capitalism's poor look pretty well off by comparison.
They never seem to grasp the concept of if you are unhappy, how about you propose something actually newish.
You can't have both open borders and a socialist welfare state. Choose one or the other. The more hardcore socialist a country is the stricter their border enforcement.
Car? Park a half mile away, take an Uber to the occasional interview. Cheaper than a car lease. Renting a new car occasionally also works nicely. Usually, you can get $20-30 per day if you plan in advance.
Phone? Buy one on Amazon for interviews; their return policy is rather lax.
Women? If she's not happy to date you with an old Android phone and a 25-year-old car, then she's really not that into you. Best to know now, not after you get married. She's going to spend time with you, not your car or pone.
"...high immigration is only a problem if you're racist...."
This is a moronic and demonstrably false statement. Anything else you say is beyond suspect.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Socialism: Government ownership of the means of production.
That is communism, not socialism.
The greek never had a 'danish model'.
Only the scandinavian countries have ...
When young people say they want socialism, they really mean they want someone else to pay off their student loans. ...
No, they want a good education that does not force them to get into debt at the first place!
Big difference. And most likely they want healthcare, welfare and pensions
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
And when the economy inevitable crashes again because companies are hugely overvalued (especially all the advertising, er, um, "tech" companies) , those retirement savings will be wiped out and the government won't have the money to make up for it.
That is part of why investing carries risk. First, diversify. Nobody forces you to invest in stocks. Second, if you are concerned about the stock markets, then invest in commodities, real estate, or any of another of instruments that are not tied to the stock market. Again, it is a matter of personal choice.
Have to work until we drop dead, poor the whole time?
Not at all. Work, live beneath your means, save, and retire comfortably at a time of your choosing.
And in any case, starting your own business doesn't make the slice of the pie any bigger-it stays they same, the only thing that changes is how a big a bite you get to take.
I don't doubt that you are an intelligent and skilled individual, but your statement makes it yet more clear that you do not understand how the economy works. If the economy grows, through innovation, investment, etc., then the whole pie does get bigger and with that the opportunity for everybody's slice to get bigger as well.
The problem with having the only chance to succeed come through becoming one of the 1% is what happens to the other 99%.
You don't have to become part of the 1%. You just have to look for opportunity and be ready and willing to act. None of the entrepreneurs I know are in the 1%. Yet, they are doing great things, employing people (and paying them excellent wages, I might add), growing the local economy, and in general growing the size of the pie.
Those Christians were not communist. "No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own" means they acknowledged that they were stewards of God's property, not that they advocated for governments to take their and others' property.
No, there's a word for what they were: generous.
"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
small "c" capitalism is something a free society has to have, i.e. the ability to buy and sell goods in a relatively unfettered market.
You're confusing a free market with capitalism, which is not the same thing. It's also a very common mistake to make given the propaganda in the US that intentionally wants us to associate "freedom" with capitalism.
Capitalism simply means private ownership and control of resources -- land, natural resources, and modern industrial means of production. Private ownership means generally speaking a person (a dictator or monarch) or a small board of directors (an oligarchy) make all the decisions about the use of resources and production. On the surface, this seems like a very fair thing -- you own it, why shouldn't you get to decide? -- but the problem with this line of thought is the scale we're talking. When a capitalist decides to clear cut a forest, that forest is now gone and even if he sells the land later, no other person gets to use that forest ever again. What if someone else wanted to create a park? Too late, capitalist decided already. What if a majority of people in the area wanted a park instead of a clear cut field? What if that forest and all those tree roots helped soak up water and prevent flooding, but now without it, surrounding neighborhoods easily flood? What if that forest held a rare species of tree or animal that could have lead to a medical discovery? Even if we needed to cut the trees down for firewood or paper or whatever, maybe we would have preferred to the wood go to local community members and not sold in China or wherever? Too late, capitalist already decided.
That's the problem with private ownership of resources and production. Most if not all resource use decisions actually impact all of us, at least community-wide if not planet-wide (as climate change is producing). And yet we are allowing monarchs and oligarchs make those decisions for our communities and nations without any input. Is that fair and just for someone else to decide things that impact your family and community without you having any say in the process whatsoever? I understand you might not always get what you want, but right now you don't even have a vote. A CEO decides and that's it, can legally do what they want (within broad confines of regulation that politicians continually cut and weaken) and completely ignore you and your family and your community. If it makes your house flood more, they don't care. If it causes environmental damage that gives you and your family lung cancer, they don't care. You don't have any say.
Socialism is the idea that resources and production should be publicly-owned and democratically managed. That's really all it is. Because of certain historical events people confuse socialism with authoritarian takeovers of those countries, but again, like the free market and capitalism, they are not the same thing. All we're talking about it more democracy, that you and your family and your community should have a vote and decide how those resources are used and that it should not be left to private decision-making behind closed doors by people who don't necessarily live in your community or even country.
Note also, as a common misconception, that socialist theory typically distinguishes between "private property", which is private ownership of natural resources and industrial means of production, and "personal property" which is your family home. Socialists don't generally care about your family home or your toothbrush or your clothes or your car, do whatever you want at home when you're not bothering anyone. No one is going to take your house. It's about democratizing economic decisions for the big industrial questions that affect all of us, it's about making sure no one businessperson CEO can force their economic vision on you and the community, you have to all agree together democratically. You get more individual freedoms and more say-so under a democratic system -- both politic
The Great Famine that occurred when China prohibited farm ownership (big feature of Communism), replacing (killing) all of the skilled farmers and replacing them with "The People" who had no clue how to grow food and no one left alive to teach them. All part of that Great Leap Forward!
Norway and Sweden both have histories of successful capitalist economies that paid for their new socialism experiment.
By definition of an US american, they probably would be socialist. ... and that has close to nothing to do with socialism.
In fact they are capitalist social democracies
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
As long there is strong regulation behind it keep things honest and upfront.
It's when you have a lot of regulation that capitalism changes to Corporatism, since only large companies have the cash to abide by, and pay for changes to, regulation.
There is a place for some regulation but "strong regulation" is where capitalism starts and decline begins.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Like 1984 warned, capitalism and socialism are dead words that have little actual meaning and have become almost empty brand names. It is extremely difficult, especially in the USA, to have a serious discussion about either ISM.
Capitalism that Smith promoted he justified using socialist arguments, it still is to this day! When you say something benefits the most people in the long run as a reason for doing something you are taking a socialist position. "The needs of the many out way the needs of the few".... to quote Spock. The argument for capitalism is that it's the best system for everybody in the end to let some anarchy decide winners and losers. We keep fighting over how much anarchy to allow and what kind of controls when we impose rules. When you have no anarchy, you're on the communist side of the spectrum -- and as usual, simpletons on either side see any steps way from their position as a binary.
Americans especially confuse communism with socialism; so much they seem to think they are synonyms.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, and since socialism is on the other side right now,
By that argument, you can only go so far over the fence before self-correcting in the other direction. That's kind of the opposite of what you were saying earlier in the post. Yeah, we might need more socialism in this country. But not at the expense of capitalism. However, the pendulum has already swung too far on the capitalism side. That's why there's a need to rebalance in the first place.
You're supposed to learn from the mistakes of others so you don't make them yourself instead of expecting daddy gov't to protect you from yourself. Freedom means being allowed to make mistakes.
Except in this case, this is the first generation, where it seems a majority of them are wanting to fundamentally change the society and system that have grown this country to the great level it has reached.
There's always an excuse for why this time it's different, and yet it always seems to be the same complaint (the new generation isn't exactly like me) and the same result (a generation that is nearly identical to the one that preceded it).
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Or young people see the generation before them loaded with debt and unable to afford to purchase a house, see a political ruling class that does not care about them, and see companies making record profits and all the money going to an increasingly smaller percentage of the population and are realizing "yep, the system's broken".
And everything you describe is a symptom of consumerism, not capitalism.
Consumerism is a social and economic order that encourages the acquisition of goods and services in ever-increasing amounts.
Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
It's easy to confuse the two, and certainly they're related, but it's not as simple as that either. Private ownership of resources and the means of production gives one a vast amount of economic power the larger a business grows, and at some point that economic power is enough to project political power as well. The ruling class becomes all about pleasing the private corporate owners, partly because they might personally profit from such arrangements, but also because of a concern that the private owner will hurt the economy and community or even nation as a whole if they don't get what they want. How many times do football teams threaten to leave if they don't get a publicly-funded stadium built? How many times does Harley Davidson or other companies threaten layoffs and to go to other countries if we don't give them free money in the form of tax cuts? How many times have the banks insisted they need a bailout or they will let the mortgage market take down the world economy? Capitalists essentially hold the rest of us for ransom with their economic power.
the root problem is that too many people feel like they have to own the latest iPhone and iPad or Samsung Galaxy phone and Galaxy tab (as soon as it comes out each year) as well as drive a new Mercedes or BMW, go on an overseas vacation every year, and go out to eat with friends every night when they are in their 20s and early 30s. When young adults spend 110% of their earnings and don't start saving for retirement until around age 40, of course we are going to end up with the state of things we see now.
Hang on here, has it occurred to you that capitalism has caused this? I think you're conflating two different groups of people here. The poor can't afford BMWs or overseas vacations. Most grocery store meals are designed with "the family of four" in mind and so depending on what you eat when you are out (and how many leftovers you bring home for tomorrow) it can be cheaper to eat out than cook at home and be wasteful. Most people don't buy phones but rather lease/rent them, and you get automatic upgrades every year or two, so it's entirely possible for someone to have the latest phone and still be paying only $20 per month or so, and it's not exactly easy to find a job without a phone number and internet access (for many people, their phone *is* their way of accessing the web and email too, they don't own high-powered desktop rigs) so it's a necessary expense.
The expensive lifestyle problems are the rich being wasteful, which capitalism encourages because you have to always buy to make more and more profit. For the poor, they are expected to take on more and more bills and debt in order to keep up with the middle class and have even a chance at getting a job and avoiding poverty/homelessness. The poor cannot win that race long term, and we're seeing that in statistics as more and more people drop out of the workforce, are forced out of their homes, declare bankrupcty, all while wealth inequality skyrockets.
This is all capitalism. It all stems from the wealthy using their economic power to extort money out of the poor. It creates a dog-eat-dog culture of consumerism and stru
And when the economy inevitable crashes again because companies are hugely overvalued (especially all the advertising, er, um, "tech" companies) , those retirement savings will be wiped out and the government won't have the money to make up for it.
That is part of why investing carries risk. First, diversify. Nobody forces you to invest in stocks. Second, if you are concerned about the stock markets, then invest in commodities, real estate, or any of another of instruments that are not tied to the stock market. Again, it is a matter of personal choice.
Those require you to already have capital to invest and diversify. When I am considered "lucky" for my generation for actually owning a house and having reasonable student loan debt, investing any more than I already do is not an option. And as history has repeatedly shown, when one market crashes it brings down all of them.
Have to work until we drop dead, poor the whole time?
Not at all. Work, live beneath your means, save, and retire comfortably at a time of your choosing.
I work and live beneath my means, but you are actually assuming the economy keeps growing enough to allow for a retirement in 40 years. I am arguing the opposite. Assuming my 401k doesn't get wiped out twice in the next 40 years (or is actually able to rebound) wages have stagnated in regards to inflation so it probably won't be enough and Social Security will already be in the red in less than a decade so I can't rely on that either.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
If we had some electoral reform that left room for more than two political parties
Ranked-choice voting.
I tend to favor approval or ranked voting systems as well. I'd like to see such reform extended to general elections.
In your example, why not simply go with the Condorcet winner?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
So this whole overblown mess over the last few years is that young people wanted to use shorthand to describe an ideology and the word means something else to the old people? And older generations couldn't just accept that language evolves and that slang/vernacular exists? If nobody was talking about the Venezuela model, maybe it's time to just accept that nobody here is using the word to mean that.
And companies rising to the top on their own merits and not getting handouts is also a capitalist ideology, so there really should be no conflict. We the people create a government to pool our resources to serve we the people.
This is wrong.
https://wichitaliberty.org/free-markets/myth-markets-depend-on-perfect-information-requiring-government-regulation-to-make-information-available/
Agreed. Part of the reason for this is the absolutely poisonous attitude people have when debating safety net programs. The discussion devolves to welfare queens vs not caring about the poor. When I talk to liberals about reforming safety net programs they immediately become suspicious that I'm trying to destroy them. When I talk to conservatives, I get lumped in with liberals. I don't mind "helping" people, but in my opinion it isn't really helping people to keep them cooped up subsisting in ghettos or trailer parks with no way to support themselves. The government bureaucrats need to be incentivized to get people off of assistance, but not the way it was done in the past. The so-called "welfare reform" from the 90s did indeed remove people from welfare roles, but really just shuffled them over to long-term disability. That's not what I mean by "helping" :) On the recipients side, they need to have proper education and given some carrots to move to where the jobs are. You can train someone to be the best widget maker in the whole world, but if there isn't a widget factory nearby it won't help them.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
That is communism, not socialism.
No, that is socialism. Communism is a subset of socialism. Cuba is communist. Venezuela is socialist, but not communist.
The greek never had a 'danish model'. Only the scandinavian countries have ...
The Greeks had the same model. The only difference was cultural. Poor work ethic, lower productivity and more tax evasion meant the same model failed in Greece. Same for Detroit. The "Nordic Model" is successful because they are Nordic, not because they are "socialist". Even in Scandinavia, their social model is not working well for refugees from other cultures, and there is a right-wing backlash against the "lazy freeloaders".
they want healthcare, welfare and pensions ...
That is just normal liberalism/progressivism. It is not "socialism".
I'd love that, or even just approval voting.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I understand that what young people want is "Capitalism, but with other people paying for my stuff". But that is not really an "idea".
Then you misunderstand. I'm a little less young. I want to help make sure that everyone has an opportunity in life because that's the kind of society I want to live in. My needs are met, but something bad could happen to me. I pay taxes so that I could help the people who need it now, because I may one day be the person who needs it. I can still earn more money through my own effort - so I still very much embrace capitalism. Social safety nets are really the only thing that could make healthcare affordable - Obamacare is not that.
I also like having public roads and highways. That's no less "socialist" under the current vernacular use of the term. Get over the hangup that it has a domain-specific meaning that's not being referred to by the general public. Just like you can get over the fact I call the music device in my car a radio, when it's actually an FM radio receiver and amplifier.
People act as is "democratic" means its good... Yet almost every 20th century regime that killed millions was started on a democratic vote or popular uprising. The thing they all had in common was some form of collectivism and/or socialistic form of government(fascism/socialism/communism). Even in the 21st century we have Venezuela as an example, not as horrible as the USSR but nobody would prefer it to capitalist nations. Capitalism is synonymous with liberty, the two coexist because liberty is the freedom of economic association. What Denmark, Sweden, Norway have are fairly capitalistic economies with a strong social services. Most economic analysis put the nordic countries as having greater economic freedom than the US(less regulation to startup). Socialism and communism are only different in popular analogy, in practicality they both centralize power and promote dictatorial authoritarian governments. Socialists coexisted with communists during every revolution and were summarily expelled or executed when stronger willed people took over the movement.
So, the govt is supposed to be there for preventing people being stupid with their own money, making decisions for them?
I mean, there was no one with a gun to their heads telling them to take out all these massive loans.....
The gun is called "poverty, starvation, and death".
Yes, people will take out loans and go to university when they are told that is the only way to find a "good job" and provide for themselves and their families. That is what business leaders and politicians constantly drone on and on about. Right now they're pushing "everyone needs to learn coding to get a job". It's the same pattern.
You describe an extremely unforgiving and authoritarian system if there is absolutely no help for "being stupid". Do you think an 18 year old fresh out of high school should know as much as you and make every decision absolutely perfectly for the rest of their lives? Did *you* make all of the best decisions at 18? It's not like we're cyborgs and can simply upload all of human knowledge to high school graduates on their day of graduate. People will make always continue to make bad decisions, but that doesn't make them bad people or even stupid. Maybe they just haven't learned yet, the world is complicated and often unpredictable, and they will learn for the future from the experience. In fact making mistakes is pretty much the only real way to learn and master anything. They deserve help and education and sympathy, not scorn and anger and callousness. We all do.
"I'd argue that a purely socialist state has never really existed at all"
Of course you would, as that's the only way to dismiss upwards of 100 million deaths caused by socialism over the past century. But it'll be different this time because you'll be in charge?
You do realize that socialism is mainstream in Europe, right? I'm looking around and I don't see any gulags here.
And capitalism is also mainstream in Europe. Markets are somewhat regulated, but the bulk of decisionmaking about where to invest resources is left to the owners of capital.
For that matter, the US also has quite a lot of socialism. Less than most European countries, but more than many nations in the world.
Really, this is a false dichotomy. Capitalism vs communism, now there's a real conflict, since the ownership of the means of production is completely different. But capitalism and socialism can and do coexist relatively nicely; capitalistic organization of the means of production and relatively uncontrolled markets ensure that lots of wealth is generated and there's plenty of room for upward mobility, while socialistic redistribution ensures that those who don't own the capital and don't fight their way into the upper classes don't starve.
Honestly, the whole industrialized world, including the US, has settled on capitalism with a socialist safety net as the best economic structure. We only debate about the scope, scale and structure of the safety net.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I thought that was finished. It was refilled, but that was part of the plan all along.
Again, we have people saying "capitalism is bad, socialism is good", so clearly they're not talking about what you're talking about. They see this as an either/or situation, mutually exclusive.
Do you have ESP?
what's in it for them? DEBTORS' PRISON
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
What exactly are "western values"? Slavery? Empire-building? Greed & selfishness?
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
The young always think there is a better way. As they grow up, they realize that the current way works, while most "good ideas" don't. But, enough new ideas do work to keep the system changing.
Wait a minute, is it that the current way works can never change, or that new ideas do work and change the system? That seems pretty contradictory there.
At one time we lived under monarchies and feudalism. We moved to constitutional monarchies and mercantilism. We then moved to republics and capitalism. Is it really so hard to imagine that there is a next step in human social evolution after what we have today? So hard to admit that we are nowhere near perfect yet? And yes, we will probably move toward "democracy and socialism" next because each step has been about expanding rights to more and more people. People of the future will look back on the poverty and environmental destruction under capitalism and the "right to private property" and shake their heads just as we do to the "divine right" of kings before us.
The overwhelming majority of the deaths attributed to communism by the capitalist propaganda organs were due to famine. Those famines resulted from failed agriculture policy (forced collectivization), with a lot of help from the weather.
It's interesting to look through a list of historical famines and try to identify which were due to capitalism. It's not always an easy call.
Otoh, capitalism certainly has a commanding lead in the number of deaths resulting from war.
What you describe is a classic "liberal" or "progressive", which as a political movement is more than a century old, and was dominant in America from the election of FDR in 1932 to the election of Reagan in 1980.
FDR, Truman, Nixon (yes, Nixon), and Clinton all tried to introduce universal healthcare. That is nothing new.
You are a liberal. You are not a "socialist". If you think you are, then you are diluting the term to be point of being meaningless.
whoa is me, I got a social liberal arts degree from a private school now I can't cash flow my student loan! Capitalism sucks, whine, whine, whine....
Hardly, true capitalism punishes bad choices and rewards hard work. Believing 20 somethings run the world is movie BS. Study hard, do a good job, pay your dues and when you hit 40 or 50, you get ahead and have enough experience to run the show.
One of the problems is you've all been babied by "everyone is a winner and gets a ribbon!", that's not reality. The real world is full of winners and losers. Some ideas a bad. Some people are bad. That's life.
A child starves to death every 30 seconds thanks to Capitalism
http://saveie6.com/
Instead, you're getting a different set of people moving in. Good luck with that.
I am neither. I think each situation should be treated as unique and the best tool for the job should be used.
You might not want it, but Danes keep voting for it, and seem to be very happy in general. It seems to work for them.
What remains is a plutocratic corporate socialism sold to the masses as free market capitalism. No wonder they don't like it.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
If you really want to ponder an intangible, Denmark and the Scandinavian countries are primarily mono cultures. This may invalidate the concept of "diversity by any means" that seems to be popular, and any argument against makes one a "racist".
I don't stand on either side of this debate, I just find it odd.
i would be surprised if half of them could even define it.
Most progressives I've met seem pretty happy with technological progress. It seems to be more conservatives that dream of nuns cycling through the mist to evensong, internet be damned.
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?
No sooner that someone drawns up an ideology (or laws, or tech, or some other system) to curtail some undesirable trait of humans, some other guy starts to think about a loophole to get around the constraint.
The other problem is obviously that some human(s) with his (their) own shortcomings draws up the system, so it can never be perfect.
When looking for reasons why the world sucks, instead of looking for something to blame outside you, why not start with some decent old-fashioned introspection?
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
It didn't work so well in Greece as Greece is poorer, and suffered from massive under investment in infrastructure up until the 90s, and then tried to correct that by borrowing lots, which then blew up during the credit crunch.
And apparently we didn't teach them history, like how many in the past died due to socialism,
Wow. Maybe it is you that needs to go read a fucking book. https://www.amazon.com/Radium-...
Much of the rest of the world seems to have implemented various levels of socialism without widespread murder. Will you teach that too?
You're mixing definitions when you include Marx's socialism (which predates the modern term) and others.
No, I'm not. Those pushing for various forms of Marxism are attempting to muddy the waters.
Fascism isn't Marxist in any manner, it's virulently anti-marxist. Collectivist and authoritarian, yes, Marxist, no.
Lenin congratulated Mussolini when he turned Italy fascist because they were both Marxists. The main differences between fascism and socialism are that fascists control the means of production but don't own them outright as in socialism, and that socialism is "workers of the *world* unite", whereas fascism is nationalistic and populist in nature (populist at least in the beginning before the death squads and 'disappearings' become intolerable).
The rest of your post is basically defending a Post-Modern worldview which is totally destructive to Western style logic, science, and reason from the Enlightenment.
The human race has enough problems, let's not engage in de-evolution from Enlightenment back to the dark days of Post-Modernism and all it's human suffering & slaughter.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
That mechanism exists. It is called consumer choice. It can roughly be stated as, "don't by stuff you don't need."
So what you're saying is all we need is for everyone to exhibit perfect behaviour at all times? I mean, if only people stopped acting like people and did what our model of what people should do says they should do, then everything would work, right? Frankly, I'm not sure a system the depends on people not acting like people is actually a good system.
In 2012, total estimated retirement plan assets in the US were $23.7 trillion.
In 2012, the top 1% of American controlled 43% of total wealth of American and the top 5% of Americans controlled ~72% of that wealth. If current trends hold, then by 2030, the top 1% will control ~64% of the total wealth of America, and top 5% will control ~95% of the total wealth of America.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I agree with some of this, but I don't think you understand what Keynesian economics actually is.
Uh, anyone who died because they couldn't afford to pay for medical treatment? Anyone who died because of improperly disposed chemicals or toxic waste? Anyone who died as a result of unsafe manufacturing practices in factories? Capitalism encourages companies to cut costs any way they possibly can, even if it puts human lives at risk. Capitalism has killed millions.
You don't need to pay more to support a system like Denmark's. Instead, we should make the super-wealthy cover those costs, by raising the estate tax and raising the capital gains tax.
I think it also depends on which bits are socialised, which bits not. Some have good 'bang for the buck' in terms of a safety net that encourages people to take risks and promotes business creation. If you can start a business which might be tough going for the first two years without needing to first raise capital to cover your medical costs for those two years, it may encourage you to do so. I don't know if the fear of failure and the lack of safety net makes it more likely for a new business to survive - I haven't seen figures. To be fair, I am not sure what the business creation rate is in Denmark or the USA either, but you'd need to look wider than just two countries, as the cultures are also different, and Danes might prefer to snuggle up in warm slippers with hot chocolate at home rather than start a new tech business.
Poor work ethic
Greeks tend to work longer hours than Danes, though, and it has been true for decades.
Strawman... I said free elections, not fixed ones.
The fact that some socialist countries practice what they are calling fair elections that are actually fixed has no bearing on whether democracy and socialism can actually coexist.
For an example of how they can, just look at the country north of the USA. And if you don't think that Canada is a socialist country, I don't think you understand what socialism is.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Norway's Statoil is an example of socialism, but that is a special situation of a massive public resource owned by a small population. Very few other countries have that benefit.
Well yes, but Statoil - actually it's now Equinor - is very much run like a corporation with ~30% publicly traded stock and the government doesn't interfere in their business decisions. The oil fund - which is where the real money is at, over 10x bigger than the market cap of Equinor - comes from a 55% special tax on top of the regular 23% tax so for every $100 of oil they pump up $78 goes to the government and they're still making money. I literally can't phantom how Venezuela could manage to fuck it up this badly with oil, it's basically printing free money. Anyway, the point is that we don't operate it according to a socialist plan economy. It's a business whose owners happen to be the general public. This is a very common confusion, yes we have socialized healthcare but we hire a lot of private services, just because the government picks up the tab doesn't mean it's done by a public employee.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.
I'll admit, I haven't read Marx. However, I think this definition is flawed. Communism means everything is a shared resource. Ideally, there would be no greed, and people would share resources willingly. It's for the good of "The People". This is requires a great deal of camaraderie among citizens (comrades).
However, people don't work that way. We are greedy, and easily splinter off into factions. Government's role is to arbitrate between "The People" to overcome these obstacles.
In theory, the government represents "The People" with their best interest in mind. However, the open nature of democracy tends to divide the nation (like the US right now). In the interest of camaraderie, only one political party is allowed. It's very hard to represent the people in this form of government.
In summary, people are responsible to each other, with the government as arbitrator. This has never been tried in a democracy, because the population needs to be united under the cause.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
not everyone can. For a lot of folks it's hard to be stable for 6 years without a college degree to fall back on. Post high school tuition waivers (usually worth about $4k/yr) generally require you to enroll full time and finish in 4 years. A lot of the grants do too. If there's a break in your enrollment you're kind of screwed.
Also, if you did it for $24k you I'm guessing she didn't go to a regular public U (or she got a bunch of scholarships). These days you're looking at $12k/yer. Now, if her income was low or nonexistant (and the income of her parents wasn't factored in) grans & scholarships might have covered half of that. Again, great if you can get it. But scholarships are hard to come by and as mentioned most grants want you full time.
Source: I've got a kid in college right now for Nursing. It's costing me $16k for her last 2 years (each) alone. That's before I account for the car she has to have (clinicals are too far apart to bus too and Uber costs more than the car, so unless she's secretly Nightcrawler she needs a car) and for food/rent. I could have forced her to live with me and saved about $6k/yr if I had to, but that's about it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
....
FDR, Truman, Nixon (yes, Nixon), and Clinton all tried to introduce universal healthcare. That is nothing new.
...
Nixon introduced HMOs to America, and health insurance has suffered for it every since.
Before HMO's I had BCBS while working in a luggage factory for a year. At the end of that year I went to college. In the first week of college I had an emergency appendectomy. The entire bill for the doctor and the hospital came to $750.50, which included a week in the hospital. BCBS paid for every penny.
Today, the average price for an appendectomy (laparoscopy) is $18K, with specialty chop shops offering it for $7K. With "deductibles" and co-pay and the like the average consumer will pay between $1K and #18K for their share of the bill, IF the insurance company pays anything at all.
Dental or vision? Usually a rider that costs $30-$50/mo but pays usually less than half and sometimes nothing. Many dental procedures are covered only once during the year or not covered at all. Need three teeth filled? Sorry, only one is covered, you'll have to pay full boat for the other two.
Also, "co-ordination" prevents you from buying and using more than one health insurance policy when, if you are willing to pay the fees, it shouldn't matter to the insurance companies how many policies you bought.
The entire problem with health insurance, as it is with most other social problems and scientific research, is that Uncle Sam has stuck his greedy nose into it and thus give the insurance companies the ability to stick their hand into Uncle Sam's pocket and extract taxpayer's money at will.
All the medicare supplemental insurance companies are doing is acting as a middle man. They get cash from the federal government to pay medicare patient hospital bills AFTER taking a nice chunk of change out for themselves. The less they pay you the more they put into their own pocket. That's why the CEO of one national supplemental insurance company can live in the midwest and fly every day to his job in California and home again at night, while pulling down several million in annual salary and benefits. People die or go bankrupt so he can do that.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
I'm not dismissing anything. I think Communism is a doomed political and economic theory, even if one were to find a society that was at Marx's right level of advancement for the workers revolution. I'm actually underlying the most critical flaw of Communism as it was enacted in places like Russia and China. The only way an industrialized country ever became Communist for any length of time was largely because it was imposed (I'm thinking Poland and Czechoslovakia in particular, both of which had a large industrial base before the Soviets imposed Communism on them). It never came to fruition in the nations that Marx figured it would be. The greater workers revolutions that were supposed to deliver Communism to the masses in the 1850s and 1860s in Europe never happened, in part because the rulers of these states were canny enough to realize that they needed to reform their political and economic systems (hence limiting hours of work per week, the growth of free primary education, health and safety laws, and so forth).
No, I honestly believe that the purist forms of socialism even in the ideal capitalist state that Marx envisioned would failed every bit as spectacularly, and probably far more quickly, then it failed in the Soviet Union. But the fact is that the revolutions Marx predicted never happened at all, and the first communist states were primarily agrarian states still not heavily industrialized. The Hungarian revolution in 1919 is a bit of an exception, though it lasted less than a year, so I consider it a bit of an outlier.
Even Lenin had to concede that Russia was not ready, and implemented or retained limited free enterprise, simply because the Russian economy was so broken by WWI and the civil war, so right from the get-go, the Soviet Union couldn't invoke Marx's purist version of socialism. Of course Stalin was much more doctrinaire than Lenin, and his collectivization efforts lead to the catastrophes that gripped the Soviet Union in its first two decades. A similar process occurred in China int he 1950s, with Mao's attempts during the Great Leap Forward to increase steel and agricultural output leading to worthless chunks of iron and mass starvation.
So, in fact, I agree with your primary point that Communism was a doomed enterprise from the beginning. I'm just pointing out that not only was it not workable in the long term, it wasn't even workable at the outset, and in fact, the supposed conditions that would lead to workers revolts which would see the Proletariat boot out the Bourgeois never happened either. Marx was, in fact, wrong about just about everything, with one exception. I think where Marxist theory does tend to shine some light on things is on the notion of class struggle. While it doesn't apply in all times in places, it is a useful tool for explaining various peasants uprisings, and even more general civil wars and revolutions like Rome's Social War and the American Revolution.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
because if you don't someone else will. They'll get all those "dumb" people who aren't eating. Give them rifles and boots and, well, I think you can figure out the rest...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Please, read The Three-Body Problem and tell me the Cultural Revolution (which was a Communist movement) didn't kill people. Even the Chinese government can't deny that history, or the book would not have been allowed to be published.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
insisting that the farmers double plant. Nobody had the guts to tell him no because he tended to murder anyone who disagreed with him. That's not communism, that's fascism. The only difference is Mao borrowed Karl Marx's books. His tactics were straight out of the same playbook kings and emperors have been using for centuries.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
is over 50% when I include the health insurance (which might as well be a tax even without the mandate that I carry it). That's _all_ my taxes. VLT, sales tax, income tax, etc.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
for all those taxes I get nothing but endless war and cheap oil for a car I can barely afford.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
And as God said in 1 Samual Chapter 8. When you ask for a King and seek salvation from them instead of God, you have rejected God... "18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.
And in Deuteronomy 22:10, god (or someone in his name) instructs you to ware tassles on the four corners of your clothes. Do you?
You don't.
But fear not, my son, god isn't answering to you either way.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
it was more or less the defacto economic system, yet there was poverty. Technology raised those people out of poverty. Scientists did. The economic system was incidental. If anything the rapid pace of tech made it so the ruling class couldn't monopolize the wealth generated fast enough to maintain control and prevent upstarts. They seem to be adapting at last and with it we've seen a general decline in standards of living.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Mostly, because Condorcet logic is really hard to explain to normal people, and even HARDER to pitch to the media as something that can be presented via soundbites and headlines. My hybrid scheme makes the first round a relatively low-key internal affair for the House of Representatives, then gives the media 3 candidates to talk about & handles the Speaker's election in a relatively straightforward (by American standards) manner beyond that.
The main benefit of using Condorcet rules for round 1, and having the entire vote for Speaker via secret ballot, is ensuring that whomever ends up winning as speaker probably WON'T be the preferred first choice of either party... and that any Speaker who pisses off too many Representatives by getting overly heavy-handed about enforcing party discipline won't be re-elected as Speaker.
There's a second reform I can think of that would severely limit the power of party leaders over individual representatives: whenever a bill is defeated, there's an immediate and automatic secret "no confidence" vote among representatives. If the Speaker loses the vote, a new Speaker is elected immediately (under the same rules as above), and the newly-elected Speaker is not bound by the previous Speaker's committee appointments or policies.
This would put a stop to Speakers who ram bills through the house with single-vote victories by putting the Speaker's position in EXTREME peril if he allows a vote to proceed without being REALLY confident of a solid victory. It might work once... or twice... but eventually, s/he's going to piss off one Representative too many, the bill will be defeated, and the Speaker will be defeated as well. Every Speaker would have to choose between loyalty to his/her party, and desire to keep being Speaker. The relative power of parties to dictate legislation would probably ebb and flow, but any party that pushed TOO hard to control its Speaker would find itself having to continually re-establish its power over new Speakers -- each of whom would be harder to control than the last.
That's 22:12, not 10. Oops!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
No, socialism has a broader meaning than that. See this. In particular, "worker self-management of production" is a key element and that directly relates to trade unions which are clearly a step in that direction. Strict regulations on private industry is also another tool which falls under the socialism banner even though ownership may reside in the private sector. In a free, public healthcare system often the hospitals and clinics etc. are all government owned and hence socialist, although private companies may be contracted to provide services too.
Canada and much of Europe is socialist to varying degrees. It seems to work well where the competition required to make capitalism work is impractical e.g. utilities, public transport, passenger trains etc. Even in the US you have strict regulations for utility providers which is on the socialism spectrum.
the insurance industry spent half a billion dollars killing it. Multiple studies have shown that short, intense ad blitzes can turn the public off on virtually any issue. The insurance companies are fighting for their lives when it comes to single payer, so they'll spend any amount of money to kill it. Plus since they're the gatekeepers on life saving medicine they can easily make the money back by overcharging on premiums. The only question is can they go too far. I think if the Republicans like Paul Ryan get too greedy and manage to kill Medicare that'll probably be the end. Once the old folks have to deal with private insurance all bets are off.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
And without the incentive to make money, technology and science won't exist. One characteristic of humans is to say 'what's in it for me?' It may not be money, quite, but an academic will scratch and claw to get (say) a chair with his name on it, even for no increase in pay.
1). Things are so terrible, they cannot get any worse!
2). Things are so great, and we should not even try to get better!
Fact is, people try to improve upon their circumstances, and if they lose under the current system they want to change that system. It is psychologically logical.
However many also think, "I want the present system +, where the + is one or more problems solved." This presupposes that those problems can be solved without other negative consequences. And that's where a great many detail devils reside.
Those young people (mostly) haven't experienced Communism, and fewer still real Fascism. OTOH, I still applaud structural changes that benefit the middle class. Somehow we've gone off track by making changes mostly for the wealthy and those people didn't really need the help. And the assumption that "jobs and wealth" would be created was an article of faith, without any costing or follow-up to make sure that happened.
Norway and Sweden
Norway and Sweden have decent social services paid for by capitalist economies. They are farther toward capitalism than socialism.
"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy,” Rasmussen said.
“The Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security for its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish,” he added.
https://www.thelocal.dk/201511...
Nixon introduced HMOs to America, and health insurance has suffered for it every since.
HMOs were a compromise after Nixon's initial proposal for universal healthcare was rejected by congress. Most of the opposition came from Democrats. Northeastern Democrats, led by Ted Kennedy, objected because they thought his proposal wasn't generous enough. Southern Democrats objected because they didn't want to tax white people to pay for healthcare for blacks. So we got HMOs instead.
Disclaimer: I get my healthcare from Kaiser, an HMO, and I am mostly satisfied.
The police/or laws themselves are not socialism !! (Unless the actual law is socialistic in nature)
The word you want is over-regulation.
"When you talk about deaths from socialism you have to leave off stuff like Stalinism, Maoism, etc."
Why?
You can go too far in either direction. North Korea and Cuba are 90% socialist, and are impoverished.
In order to be honest, you should note the role of US embargo on Cuba's impoverishment.
"Honestly, the whole industrialized world, including the US, has settled on capitalism with a socialist safety net as the best economic structure. We only debate about the scope, scale and structure of the safety net."
That sums it up nicely, thank you.
The system we have isn't Capitalism, it's Cronyism. [...] Young people today have never seen Capitalism, they have only seen Cronyism and yet everybody calls it Capitalism. It isn't.
This is the crux of the matter. Capitalism's good name has been thoroughly defiled by the oligarchs using it as justification for their excesses and greed. Minimum wage and environmental protection being Socialism only helps the socialist image, even if most "socialists" prefer the government to run the post office, police, and fire and private businesses continue serving general goods.
Brought on because people think that Keynesian economics is somehow a good thing. Sadly this line of thinking is so prevalent on both sides of the isle, that it will never get fixed until the system collapses.
Uh...what? Republicans LOATHE Keynes as a heretic to their religion of Friedmanite Supply-Side Reagonomics. The only time the Dems have had the political force to try Keynesian economics since the '80s was in the wake of the economy crashing in '07, and the Republicans have been doing their utmost to stymie the follow-through from the legislature in '10 and forward. We spent our way out of the crash, but conservatism categorically rejects the idea of raising taxes to head off irrational exuberance and pay back the previous debts, inevitably lining up the next crash. For all the noise Republicans make about "tax and spend", their marked habit post 2000 of "borrow and spend" is substantially worse, especially in an otherwise good economy.
You mean socialism. Not capitalism, which has only ever increased poverty and wealth inequality. Job creation? That comes from demand, not capitalism.
I graduated HS in the late 70's. We didn't have any of that crap. But for the last 20-30 years, the indoctrination centers called government schools, have been feeding these kids the dictate that capitalism is bad, socialism is good, America is terrible and on and on. So, it's no surprise to me, that a poll would reflect that. Lenin once said something to the effect if you give me the mind of a youth, the seeds I plant will never be undone. Or something like that. Well, how about we put some WEED KILLER on those plants!
....I, too, have developed a distaste of what has been done with capitaslim. I'm an early X.
Yes, people must make things, and sell things. Fine. Do it. But do it with a sense of fairness. What I see reminds me of warfare, not a competition. Honestly -- it's shank your competitor before he does you in first. It could instead be like a race, or a ball game, but no.. it's WAR.
But for fuck's sake, nothing's made here (broadly speaking) anymore, a very few people are raking in the profit$ -- those who own the companies which have their shit manufactured overseas, and those who own the stores that sell it.
.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
I'm not against paying more in taxes, if that is what the best solution to the problem is.
My problem is trying to keep up with everything the government is doing. I still haven't fully read the PPACA, much less understood it in its entirety.
Free college for everyone seems like a proper direction to move in. The costs of college are rising, and the demands upon our workforce are increasing. We can either throttle the rate of change to match that of the human ability, or we can reduce the cost to the individual to keep pace with technological progress. Cars cannot be driven indefinitely without being maintained, animals cannot be pushed indefinitely without their health deteriorating. Furthermore, one cannot simply plant a few seeds and gain a crop. A field of crops has to be cared for, and looked after. There is more to creating and sustaining a workforce than simply procreating. And the deal is that those college kids become productive members of society and increase the rate of contributions to your Social Security and 401k.
For what would I need more than 50,000 - 100,000 disposable income?
To be able to escape economy class airlines.....
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
In other news, a majority of young Americans are retarded (in the clinical sense, before political correctness rewrote the DSM) snowflakes, and big government likes them that way because they are easier to control. Wind 'em up, spin 'em around...
Also, we're besties with North Korea and war with Russia is imminent. No wait, that was yesterday's copy. Today we are besties with China, war with Iran is imminent and neither Russia nor China play fair and we are very upset about it.
I stopped after the first statement. You don't live on this planet Earth. The people who work the hardest and longest are paid the least and do the shittiest jobs. You ignore reality.
I think it also depends on which bits are socialised, which bits not.
Sure, and it is obvious which sectors work reasonably well with socialism: natural monopolies, and markets with no transparency. Roads and healthcare are good examples.
But socialism works very poorly in manufacturing, the delivery of most services, and any sector that relies on innovation and creativity.
Socialist agriculture has been an unmitigated disaster wherever it has been applied.
Greece is more geographically separated, by water thus making distribution, travel, more expensive money-wise and time-wise,
Hogwash. Manhattan, San Francisco, Britain, and Japan are also "separated by water", yet none of them are poor. Water makes distribution easier, not harder. Look at a map of rich and poor countries. Poor countries tend to be inland, with poor access to ports.
And when did Detroit have a socialist government?
Never. Who said they did? I was specifically pointing out that the high welfare spending model used in Detroit was NOT socialist.
Are we talking about the same Detroit in MI?
Yes.
Sounds like you did a bad job. Good thing you don't have to care.
Capitalism and Socialism don't exist! These words are not nouns; they are labels, and they are grossly generalized labels at that!
It is all right to argue the merits of generalizations (philosophers do it all the time), but before you can start the comparison you must have an agreement on exactly what those terms mean.
Do you want to have some fun this week? Just go around asking your friends and acquaintances, "What is Capitalism?" or, "What is Socialism?" or even, "What is 'Capital'?" They may never forgive you, but it will be amusing.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
Rinky-dink embargoed communist Cuba developed a vaccine for lung cancer, and sends far more doctors to disaster areas than the infinity richer USA does. The Soviets put a man in space long before anyone else did.
Just because capitalists operate on pure avarice, doesn't mean the rest of humanity does the same.
Charities don't give the money out equitably. For the most part they have an agenda and you either have to meet a criteria or do something for the charity. What happens to the people who don't meet the criteria or are incapable of what is asked? Gay youth make up something like 40% of the homeless children. I can guarantee you that most of the Christian charities would ask them to "renounce their wicked ways" before helping them. Since being gay isn't a choice, that would be a little difficult for the kids to do.
Charity isn't a guarantee. You say charity would be a more robust net and that may be true for some, but the net would definitely have larger holes in it than the one the government provides. A thin blanket is better than none at all.
I would also point out that terrible people always find a way. If we were to switch to social safety nets based on charity, there would immediately be people taking advantage of both sides of the system. The rich would use their promises of donations to distort the missions of charities to favor the rich and the scammers would set up shop finding ways of getting more than they should. That is inevitable.
In fact, while writing this, it occurred to me that shifting everything over to charity would allow for much less oversight. There would be more grift. What is the purpose of that? The charities that you know may be stellar, but you can't deny there are terrible people out there willing to use the word "charity" to make money. Heck, our president uses his "charity" to pay off his legal fees. It's like we are in a cave of scarcity and you anti-government people want the rest of us to throw away the flashlight. And it really sounds like you just don't want to pay taxes for the programs that you disagree with and to hell with other people.
Also, Medicare alone is 702 billion dollars per year. 402 billion isn't going to cover it.
Also, also, I realized that the system you are suggesting would resemble the scholarship system for colleges. Have you ever applied for scholarships? It is a PITA. It is always not enough, there are always conditions on the money, and you always find the great ones after it is too late to apply. Scholarships are what happen when you leave college tuition funding to charity.
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
The problem from the beginning of safety nets, in the U.S. at least, has always been that it is cheaper to throw money at people than to actually solve problems. For example welfare programs were suppose to provide temporary support to the marginally employed or unemployed while providing programs that would make them both employable and better, more contributory members of society.
Unfortunately training programs that really work with structured incentives and social intervention that changes people's behavior are really expensive and require a great deal of social commitment. It's cheaper to just throw money at people. So that's what we do.
So what happened was the training programs and intervention programs either never started or were greatly underfunded. Then the failure resulting from underfunding was used as an excuse to kill them. Meanwhile the dole continues.
Distribution is a service.
When economists talk about "distribution", then mean the distribution and allocation of goods and services. Economists don't care what logo is on the truck making shipments. They care about how many trucks are going to what places.
Capitalists see subsidies as Lemon Socialism. Liberals see subsides as a form of capitalism. The capitalists have a better claim: The TARP bank bailout, and the auto industry bailout were both passed by Democrats, and opposed by Republicans.
Partisanship somehow changes the merits of an argument? That's an... interesting... approach to debate. Politics aside, it's worth noting that the auto bailout ended up costing the US government about $14 billion, while TARP as a whole (including the auto bailout) actually ended up turning a $86 billion profit overall. All together, the program seems to have done exactly what it was intended to do: reduce the shock of the financial crisis, stabilizing the economy to protect against further snowball effects.
Your partisan analysis of subsidies also doesn't mesh with a socialist perspective. To a socialist, subsidies are a governmental decision that something risky is of such benefit to society that the risk (financial or otherwise) should be offset. In a totalitarian state like the USSR or DPRK, the state-run company in that area would just go order work on that project... and open the door to corruption because the state will ensure the project's success, no matter how poorly it's managed or how wasteful it may be. With private industry, however, the subsidies have to be financial offsets, either ensuring a minimum income or covering some expenses outright.
What's offensive to a socialist is the use of subsidies and financial incentives to support projects that aren't directly in the public interest. For example, I know of a particular company that promised to upgrade their factory in a small town, but only if they got a nice tax cut for a few decades (similar to a more-publicized event). While that made for nice headlines about "creating jobs", it hurt the town in the long run. Since the company's normal taxes were a significant percentage of the town's budget, local projects actually lost funding in order to keep the town's budget balanced. Sure, some folks got a new shiny office building, but the high school roof started collapsing.
Unfortunately, that's been a recurring theme with American government policies lately. A notable example is the coal industry, which is subsidized by about $850 million annually, yet only employs about 77,000 people. That's about an $11,000 cost per person per year, ostensibly to keep those 77,000 jobs. The question is, of course, whether we need those jobs as a society. To a socialist, that $11,000 would likely be better spent funding career education and training to support other industries (or even bringing new skills to the coal industry), with the key benefit being that even if the coal industry collapsed, the society would still have a larger wealth of skills to continue progress.
Again, it's a matter of philosophy. The socialists want societal improvement to be the primary goal of government, with industries benefiting indirectly. Who actually owns the company is relatively insignificant at this point.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
The reason socialism and every other system will never work is corruption and greed. The problems which are occurring in the United States with crony capitalism are the result of corruption and greed. The reason socialism doesn't work is corruption and greed.
A working economic system must be corruption and greed tolerant, because any economic system that exists will have to deal with corruption and greed because it will contain human beings and some of them will be corrupt and greedy.
The biggest problem with capitalism as it exists in the United States in the present is that corporations are out of control. This is a governance problem. Corporations are an instrument of the state. They were originally created to protect investors engaged in risky business ventures which were socially beneficial, like the transcontinental railway. As originally structured corporations were only allowed to engage in commerce in a very narrow manner. They were specifically barred from diversifying. This was to keep them too weak to do what they have done, which is regulatory capture,
You want to fix crony capitalism? Break up corporations. Revise corporate law to prevent diversification and strengthen stockholder control over boards and corporate executives, and make corporate executives and board members legally responsible for corporate decisions. Yes I know technically they are legally responsible, but very seldom are they criminally prosecuted for corporate actions. Keep corporations small, weak, and narrowly engaged in commerce.
As for fairness, fairness is our problem. Bureaucracies always try to be fair. That's why governments are bad at doing what charities should be doing. A charity can look at two people who are in the same position and help one and refuse to help the other, because one person was just unlucky and the other is a lazy slob. Government must help both, because it's fair. Eventually the unlucky one will recover. The lazy slob will suck at the teat of government forever.
but when I read about the ISMs
Just wanted to say that the ISMs are useful when everyone understands their meaning, but are a distraction when some people do not know (or think they know) what it means.
Therefore, I'd say that the discussion on how society should be structured needs to happen outside of the realms of any current ideologies or ISMs, meaning that one could borrow ideas from whatever ideology (such as the notion of wealth/ownership), but specifically state what feature you're referring to instead of for example just invoking capitalism.
Competition is a powerful tool
So considering my comment above, I would argue that competition as a means of running society isn't the best solution for all, because to compete means that a few win while many others lose (a WIN/LOSE scenario). You can see the parallels of this in capitalism: for example in the console wars, where some win (MS, Sony, Nintendo) and others lose (Atari, Sega, etc)
I don't know what an ideal society would look like, but I would like to see collaboration instead of competition. By that I mean, multiple entities working together for a mutually beneficial outcome (a WIN/WIN scenario). That may be as small as a few people coding on an open source library, or as large as entire nations trying to colonise another planet or build a space station
Of course, such a notion is incompatible with greed, so that human need to Own All The Things needs to be fixed as well.
You know what's really indicative of a totalitarian mind?
The excuse has always to do with rough individuals not a fault of the system. It was Mao and Stalin your honour, not the system! It was not real communism! Next time we will succeed, for sure! Just 200 extra megadeaths....it's a bargain.
Stupido, the system is fucked up so whoever you put on top is a dissaster. Do you seriously suggest that without those individuals the horrors would not have happened?
If the Chinese are so revolted why nobody stopped Mao? Cause the system is like that....stupido!
So this whole overblown mess over the last few years is that young people wanted to use shorthand to describe an ideology and the word means something else to the old people?
No, that is NOT the problem. First, this not a "young vs old" issue. Some people are using the word "socialism" to mean "progressivism", which is also called "liberalism" in America (but not in other English speaking countries). But other people, in this very thread, are using it to mean "capitalism without subsidies", so "socialism" apparently means the free market should be more unfettered. Other people, in this thread, think socialism is communism.
On a scale of economic ideologies it is being used for everything from 0 to 10.
In the field of economics, the word has a specific meaning. But to the general public, the word now means everything and nothing. It is meaningless when used by a non-economist.
Ikea is my hero. They funnel their profits through a non-profit so they don't have to pay taxes on it. Crony capitalism at its finest.
People form their ideological perspective based on the information to which they are exposed. If they are exposed primarily to socialist teachers teaching from textbooks that promote socialism, get much of their information from media dominated by socialist then they will form their ideology based on what they have been exposed to.
The fact that a few countries which are primarily monocultural, with populations smaller than some U.S. states, and which have no defense costs because the U.S. protects them, have made some kind of high tax cost social safety nets kind of work is not reflective of the viability of socialism. It just means they haven't run out of other people's money yet.
Let's take a look at Sweden's healthcare system. It has one of the longest waiting times. They're having problems with certain kinds of cancer treatments. Having low patient healthcare costs is no help if you can't get treatment, or the treatment you need is unavailable to you.
U.S. citizens have experience with government run healthcare. It's the VA and anyone who has had to go to the VA for care knows how bad that system is.
You think Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" us a communist writing? The book that founded capitalist thinking? I'm guessing you never read it. You really should before you embarrass yourself further.
"It's not real Capitalism."
Where have we heard that one before?
Why do people keep think I'm defending Marxism? The system never worked. It was not even implementable
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Yes, this is why a proper incentive structure is so important. I was mulling over how to introduce some competition into the process - try different approaches and reward the ones that work at the expense of those which don't. Perhaps fund charities based on their success in removing people from roles while also measuring outcomes in some way (e.g. recidivism, wellness measures, etc). You could set it up with a grant structure, where the grant money starts as a pilot and is adjusted based on success or failure. I think that, at least, this would get the low-hanging fruit - obviously some people will always be dependent on someone else for support.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The system we have isn't Capitalism, it's Cronyism. Brought on because people think that Keynesian economics is somehow a good thing. Sadly this line of thinking is so prevalent on both sides of the isle, that it will never get fixed until the system collapses. Young people today have never seen Capitalism, they have only seen Cronyism and yet everybody calls it Capitalism. It isn't.
You do still see Capitalism at lower levels of society. The farmers markets, the used/antique markets etc. But those in government don't make money on these, they would rather make the big bucks working with large corporations. As a result, the large corporations get the laws passed that they want, usually at the expense of the little guy. Hence Cronyism wins the day.
Now, if we can just get young people to understand the difference...
Cronyism or crony capitalism is capitalism in a pure form... The farmers markets et al. are examples of small market economies which scale out to be mixed economies.
The problem isn't that young people don't understand the difference, it's that you have made up your own definitions.
Successful economies are always mixed economies, combining parts of capitalism, socialism, free market libertarianism and controlled markets. There's plenty of room to argue which mix is best but pure forms of these ideas are and have always been bound for failure.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
So you are saying almost all white.
Your comments and a couple others are the most pertinent I've seen. It's a complex issue. Adding to yours:
1) Another poster mentions the fact that by definition it means that the resources and institutions are held privately VS nationally. This is at the heart of the Canadian and US softwood lumber dispute. Whereas most of the lumber produce in the US comes from private land, to which the supposed "market" dictates the production cost, in Canada most of it is produced from Crown or national land, by which the government charges stumpage fees. The whole arguement can be boiled down to that the US believes that the fees that Canada charges are lower than that determined by the US market, and thus an unfair advantage (disproven twice btw).
2) It is also a means or tool of efficiency, which is really good at what it does, but the end result, left unchecked, has obvious results in wealth inequality.
3) As you and another eloquently put it, under the current framework, the wealthy more so in recent years than most, have more less "pulled the ladder up" after themselves to ensure that only they and their offspring have the advantage, done as you say largely through government manipulation. Which could be also argued is not a failure of capitalism, but in the system of democracy being employed that allows for it. The fact that Trump runs the show is a pretty good indication is this. Considering the only really tangible thing he's done is a tax bill that overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy, and even makes one of the worst wealth inequality offenders, the Estate Tax even more lopsided towards people collecting all the money at the top and keeping it there indefinitely.
Anyway blaming capitalism is a simplistic view, as it is more about how it is implemented, and indeed how it fits into the political framework. However given how things have gone for years now, it isn't really all that surprising that a younger generation isn't all that keen on the system which seems to be failing most of them. Hence all those protests from young people about the 1% and occupy wall street, etc... That said look how many people voted for the Republicans, though again one could argue that at least in this regard the Democrats are not really any different. As a last note, none of this is really new, and all of it has existed at one point or another during history, it's more about how far that pendulum has been allowed to swing in modern times.
I am curious about how other age ranges feel about capitalism right now too.
The funny thing is that capitalism is still the best method for managing resources since the inputs and outputs are decentralized; however, once everything gets centralized like it is right now, I would have to ask if it is really capitalism or if it has morphed into something else.
TL;DR, asking today's youth about capitalism is absurd since we do not really have capitalism right now. Maybe a form of corporate fascism since companies seem to be able to buy laws with impunity.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
If individuals are the primary makers of political and economic decisions, they are not living in a Socialist system.
Some amount of "socialism" is desirable.
It is most desirable to have people independently motivated and capitalism is how that can be best achieved considering our knowledge of human nature and economic systems. The real problem is that what America has right now is not capitalism. It may have been capitalism in the past, but at some point, everything consolidated into too few owners and now, America is paying the price for that.
Capitalism is the best way to handle things considering our knowledge and nature; however, it MUST be managed properly. It has not even been managed at all. A reset WILL come soonish. Hopefully it is not extremely bloody, but I think it will be. *sigh*
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
American Democratic Socialism, on the other hand, is just classic Socialism with some obfuscated marketing. Unlike the European flavor, it is inherently undemocratic.
Until a year or two ago when a bunch of ignorant kids that understand neither Socialism, Capitalism, or political economies in general started promoting actual Socialism.
odds are that nobody wants to tell the GP they've been through a bankruptcy. You're not supposed to talk about it. What do they call us? Temporarily inconvenienced millionaires...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Remember, labor is an economic resource. Thus where every individual lives and works is, in a Socialist system, determined by a central planning authority, not the individual. Moreover, and as Marx famously noted, political and economic systems are inseparable. If a central authority makes the economic decisions for everyone, it is also making their political decisions. In other words, individuals have no political power.
There is no half-measure, no blend of Socialism and Capitalism or Socialism and Democracy. They are incompatible at the most fundamental levels. Capitalism can have pseudo-Socialist features like providing more services through government and Socialism can permit some private ownership
Oh, the government does not produce tax income. It taxes income to generate revenue. Taxes are not production, nor are they productive. Our government does not produce anything on its own. The closest it comes is printing cash and publishing various documents. Even then I think they pay private companies to do the actual printing.
Demonstrating self evident truths is masturbation. I don't do that on the internet.
Calling others racist without any justification is the worst kind of idiocy. Makes sense though, since you're a pedophile nothing is beneath you. (See how that works? Now, I doubt you're a pedophile but I am certain beyond all things that you're certainly a piece of shit.)
During periods of high immigration there are problems that arise. These problems are the same in every country I have seen:
1) Immigrants get paid less
2) Immigrants are ostracized
3) Immigrants are incarcerated at higher rates
4) Immigrants do work that gets them killed and hurt at much higher rates
5) Immigrants are disenfranchised
6) Immigrants have less access to medical care
Just like everyone I see calling other people racist for wanting controlled immigration, you fail to take into consideration the life and happiness of immigrants themselves. You want immigration*. You don't care how it feels to the immigrants. To prove the statement "...high immigration is only a problem if you're racist" all of those immigrants must be racist, because the problems of high immigration are borne by the immigrants.
*I actually think most people who support high immigration, illegal immigration, and call others racist when they oppose it are just in the game to call other people racists and make themselves look good. I know this because they do nothing to change the laws about immigration in this country and they do very little to actually help immigrants. (Posting on the internet is not helping immigrants. Calling people racist is not helping immigrants.)
Only a self-absorbed rancid piece of shit would encourage high immigration, much less illegal immigration, without a robust social and law system designed to represent the immigrants universally and fairly, and a society that is prepared and accepting of the idea. The US does not have this and you can see how it works out:
1) Invite immigrants
2) Call anyone a racist that objects
3) Make no preparation for immigrants socially, legally, and/or economically
4) Intentionally make sure the immigrants are not protected from harm, suffering, fear, and even terror.
5) Hold up examples of the inevitable harm which happens to immigrants as proof of racism.
So yeah, I call anyone who encourages illegal immigration and high immigration without first preparing the society for it a racist and a traitor. These people intentionally create suffering of people from another country, use that suffering to attack their own country, and give less than zero actual fucks about the immigrants lives and families that are destroyed.
Look at it simply. Your country is your home. How do you treat visitors, much less someone you are inviting into your home to live, to become family? Some of you are upset that the new family are having a bad time. That's understandable. However, you're blaming everyone else except yourself.
I'm upset that you fucking idiots didn't clean up the house, make room for them, and prepare dinner before you invited them. Now they're tripping over your shit, stepping on your kids, and going hungry, and according to you it's still someone else's fault. In fact, it's so important to you that it's someone else's fault that you are going to make sure the conditions are complete shit for as long as possible so you can keep blaming someone else. Every time a child slips on a skateboard you left out and falls down the stairs you left it by, you cackle with glee inside because you get to blame someone else even more.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Capitalism. Kids hate the very thing that provides them a life unfettered by need, want or discomfort.
Do you think people are not dying in Communist China for the same reasons? Industrial pollution, poor workplace safety, etc? That's not a failure of capitalism in itself. Now, that's very different from getting a bullet to the head, or being sent to a forced labor camp to work until you die, because of your political beliefs. That's what we're talking about when we say "communism kills" - governments actively killing their own citizens due to ideology, by the tens of millions. Can you show me a capitalist country that does that?
If that floats your boat, sure. I'd recommend bible printed toilet roll however. It's likely to be Much more comfortable.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The one everyone keeps ignoring, is military spending.
Like or hate the US, they spend a gob on the military, and most of Europe falls under that protection umbrella.
Remove that protection (or fascism, or imperialism or whatever you like to call it) and SOMETHING will need to fill the newly obvious vacuum.
Either each country will need to increase expenditures in that area drastically, or there may be a remaking of borders. And that money has to come from somewhere.
If you believe the US removing it's military presence will revert everyone to lions lying with sheep, you're pretty naive.
Socialism is not government providing some services. It is "public" (aka, government) control of ALL means of production. This necessarily includes all resources for production, like labor. It is not "single-payer healthcare", nor is it European-style Democratic Socialism (which is entirely Capitalist, but with more services). Democracy and Socialism are fundamentally incompatible. Marx was right about the inseparability of political and economic systems. To deny the people the right to make economic decisions is to deny them the right to make political decisions. To concentrate economic authority is to concentrate political authority.
Communism is a modified form of Socialism. It essentially is Socialism with the goal of becoming an anarchic utopia. As that is a practical and theoretical impossibility, there is little effective difference.
Capitalism is private control of the means of production, generally operated for profit. Unlike Socialism or Communism, it does not seek to change human nature or avoid it's more inconvenient aspects. Capitalism accepts humanities flaws and uses them. It sets greed against greed, and cheaters against cheaters so that they must establish fair rules to protect themselves from each other and thus each other from themselves. Unlike Socialism or Communism, it uses self interest instead of trying to supplant it. It is not perfect, but never claims to be. It has within it both the room and the means for improvement.
Corporatism is not corporations running everything. That is Corporatocracy (which is entirely theoretical so far). Corporatism is a decision making process involving government and industry stakeholders (businesses and labor). It predates Capitalism (in the form of guilds), and has been used by Capitalist, Socialist and Fascist systems.
China is not Capitalist. It is a Socialist dictatorship that allows for semi-private enterprise.
Socialism cannot make people more free. It will reduce the number of decisions people have to make, the number of things they have to pay for directly, and the number of responsibilities they have, but this is not freedom. If it were, none would be more free than the slave.
The word you want is "jibes", not "jives", turkey.
Yes, it was. Thank you, chicken.
Yes, lucky. You were lucky you didn't end up on crack, lucky your piece of shit dad didn't sell you into prostitution at 12 because heroin, lucky you DIDN'T STARVE TO DEATH AT 27. Go be part of the poor class in India or Somalia and then tell me that luck ain't shit.
That wasn't luck either. My great grandparents emigrated for good reasons.
It is significant that the word "feel" is used here. Since the majority of people simply feel instead of cerebrate, what do these kinds of articles accomplish? I wonder what percentage of Chinese young people "feel" about totalitarianism? Capitalism is and never was something you felt good about... it has too many issues. However when studied, considered, compared, and evaluated... capitalism beats the stuffings out of any other approaches.
That is actually an idea! ... then again a flight from FRA to BKK would cost me 20k in fuel, and back the same.
I could aim to earn more than 1M a year, cut down on taxes somehow, save the money for ten years, buy a private lear jet, and hire a pilot for mere 200,000 bucks a year.
Well
And: I would need a cook, too. And probably a flight assistant, and one who keeps the bar stocked.
Anyway, if you have a business idea where we can make that money, I'm all ears ;D
(However I then settle for a yacht, I can pilote it myself and only need one extra person, depending on size .... and it is much much more fun)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
They can give me all their money.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Not true. The problems with America are the parts that socialism has been implemented. If we were totally capitalistic it would be a whole lot better.
Besides, what the left wants is equal outcomes, not equality. So you can work your ass off and you get the same stuff a slug gets. I know a slug, she's a total drain on society. She's also about 450 Lbs. That's what socialism does to people and she's a very hostile dependent. I've known others just like her.
I also know guys that worked their asses off and they've done very well. For that I'm sure we traded years off of our lives.
She spouts nonsense. She's really stupid.
Your close, not quite there. Way left is the Communists. Then the Fascists, then the Socialists. Then you have various levels that aren't quite socialist, middle ground, then you're on the right. Ironically Communists, Fascist and Socialists hate each other. All three kill lots of people and destroy culture, societies, good stuff. All in the name of so called equality. Here's a good place to read the diffs http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexi...
Fact is, being an American right now puts you in the top 1% of the world. Just think about that a minute. 99% of the world is worse off? You betcha. Yet people bitch, moan and complain about everything. America has so many first world problems.
In America if we got rid of the socialist parts, it would be a whole lot better. OMG, a whole lot less BS.
I like, in a sarcastic way, how you skirted the idea that charities would only help those they deemed worthy. I suspect that 'lazy' has a wealth of meanings for you. I am familiar with Charity Navigator. I would point you towards Rotten Tomatoes, which was, more or less, subverted the moment the big movie studios took a hit in profits they could trace back to the site. Do you think that the mega-churches would fail to do the same to Charity Navigator?
Republicans whine about unfunded liabilities, then spend big. If they were concerned about government debt, they wouldn't add to it every time they get into power. Also, stuff like Social Security was designed to be "unfunded." We pay taxes to fund those currently on SS, as future generations are to pay for us. The only way the system breaks down is if people stop paying taxes (which could come about from a number of apocalyptic scenarios).
Again, this comes back to you and those like you. This belief that anything that doesn't directly benefit you is a waste of money, no matter the net benefit to our society as a whole, that people who need assistance are just "lazy." It is short-sighted, narrow-minded, and it is dragging the US down more effectively than any outside agent ever could.
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
Given a few infamous cases of "affluenza", people are provably correct about the wealthy getting special treatment in law. Commoner goes bankrupt, sorry but your student debts will follow you through the bankrupcy. Bank goes bankrupt, it's here, have a billion dollars to make sure those executive bonus checks don't bounce.
In some states, poor people still go to jail (debtor's prison in all but name) if they can't pay a fine. Cash bail is simply unaffordable for many. Even 10% of the bail is out of some people's range and you don't get it back even if you're not guilty. And of course, public defenders are chronicallu overloaded and in some states only available if you're indigent (but not if paying the lawyer bill will render you indigent). Of course that's not even an option in civil court, so a corporation threatening to sue you is effectively an edict from the king.
Essentially, being poor is expensive and to many it feels like being kicked when they're down.
t may have been capitalism in the past, but at some point, everything consolidated into too few owners and now, America is paying the price for that.
and socialists want to consolidate it further into one big corner: the US federal government. Fuck that.
Canada is pretty diverse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
That is my dream, but lately I've scaled it back to business class flights and hotel rooms without bedbugs....
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You can work without the chair, but it is more fatiguing to the individual. You can work without the table, but it limits you to not building anything larger than your lap. ...
They've been told College is THE path to wealth.
They've been sold on a line of majors/degrees with limited-to-no ACTUAL utility in the jobs market.
They've been promised corner high rise offices with a sexy secretary and and expectation of being paid six-plus figures to do little more than browse porn and post on Twitter for 8 hours a day.
Now, when all the bullshit they've been sold by the communist-infested educational system turns out not to be true, and that they're tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt and can't even get a minimum wage job asking about fries? Then you tell them, that with their level of non-income, they're now firmly in debt for the rest of their lives?
Then you have a bunch of communist agitators come along and tell them "free stuff, debt forgiveness, life will be unicorn jism, fairy farts and orgies every day", of COURSE these people are going to be down on capitalism.
"I didn't do any research! Now I can't get ANY job with my Masters in Intersectional Lesbian Basket Weaving Studies!"
Note: STUDIES. Because the courses for Intersectional Lesbian Basket Weaving were "too hard".
"I'm mad and I now think the world owes me free everything!"
And this is why anything that's NOT STEM or an actual jobs-oriented major should only be offered on a cash-only basis.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
And yet, this is what people votes for. The most Ferengi like government ever.
Denmark isn't engaged in autocratic centralized control of all facets of the economy. Yet some people spit at the word "socialism" as if it were equivalent to Stalinism or Maoism.
Denmark is NOT socialist, it's a democracy (just like the US or France or Germany).
Moreover, the political leaning of most of their governments was not socialism but social-democracy.
Please stop spewing lies.
Catalin Braescu
Ofaly.com
For what would I need more than 50,000 - 100,000 disposable income?
This questions should be answered by the individual, not by the government. That's the fallacy of your silly argument.
Catalin Braescu
Ofaly.com
...Communism, not once. People turn to leftist ideals like communism in a similar way to how drug addicts start:
They think they'll get something nice (free stuff), however (always) *everyone* ends up poor, and you have the equality and freedom of people living in a prison.
Life sometimes isn't fair, that's the nature of life. Taking philosophical cyanide - and forcing others to take it too - fixes nothing.
Plenty of study shows that coal kills prematurely 100K to 1M people worldwide. e.g. for EU https://phys.org/news/2016-07-... . And that's with today standard you can imagine what it was with 1930 standard. Capitalism killed far far many more people than communism by simply offloading externalities.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
In essence, any government that collects taxes already has a government-owned means of production.
No, simply no. Your claim is beyond absurd, since "means of production" refer to any tangible way to generate a product or a service. The tax comes AFTER said product or service is being sold.
The government produces tax income.
The government COLLECTS tax income, it does not "produce" it.
Your argument is a total fail.
Catalin Braescu
Ofaly.com
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.
And yet you still didn't receive the Nobel prize for economics. Strange, isn't it?
Catalin Braescu
Ofaly.com
Capitalism is like Monopoly(tm). Starts well for everyone and things get better during the way: buying properties, building houses, paying taxes BUT, in the end, only one can win and everybody else goes bankrupt. Right now, in capitalism, we passed half way of the game.
You might have just been "a die hard at 20", but not really a conservative.
2. And you are a communist. (which are worse than the national-sotzialists, btw)
Maybe if they didn't ask things with inappropriate terminology they'd get better answers.
Capitalism is seen as bad everywhere in the world (I'm surprised 45% of the US actually likes it) because of its association with capital accumulation and the classification of people as either wealthy capital owners or poor wage slaves.
Call it free market economy, and suddenly everyone likes it.
You're one of the youngsters.
Look up Keynesian, nothing to do with what is happening in this greedy self indulgent world.
Keynesian type economics helped take Australia through the 2008 GFC quite successfully.
They're in for a harsh lesson of how the oligarchs shut down socialism.
I'm over 60 and left of Gandhi
Go well
In your version of history did you fail to include all the people that died due to capitalism as well? Also what is your definition of socialism?
Vs. how many have died due to socialism?...care to lay odds on which has been more deadly?
Also, no need to troll a question on the definition of socialism...how many are there really...is yours different from what you'd find with a google query?
Just another day in Paradise
Wish I had mod points for you. I'd only like to add that in my opinion, where we've failed to properly deal with the bad part of capitalism is in monopolistic behaviors. Since the break up of AT&T, we haven't busted up monopolies or seriously (except for the failed MS lawsuit) limited companies from dominating markets, nor colluding (pharma...I'm looking at you) screw over the general population and prevent competition.
Just another day in Paradise
Since when is draining the swamp comparible to deregulation. What does regulation have to do with crony corruption? And how the fuck is trumps deregulation of things like clean air a good thing? Have you been smoking tailpipes again?
I could launch and promote my Kickstarter campaign for my solar-powered, blockchain enabled, 3D printed drone. I'm sure it would be a hit.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
.....or maybe there's a generation of people who don't blindly accept what they're told and question things, apply logic/reason, and think objectively
Neither is accurate. What you're seeing is a pendulum swing, and a result of a generation growing up under the great depression, and being hit with oppressive college debt, no wage growth, no pensions, and looking at socialism as the potential answer.
I'd argue that capitalism isn't a failure, but we've failed to deal with it's down side(s) properly. We need to prevent monopolistic behavior (pharma, major ISPs, Amazon, etc.) because without actual competition, you have no improvement, and society takes it up the ass.
I'm a capitalist, but I differ with many of them who believe that businesses "are people too". That line of thinking that allows corporations to dominate the government agenda needs to be corrected.
Just another day in Paradise
maybe in the past a lot of people died to socialism (lot of other factores played a huge role), but you dont have to be a genius to figure out that with capitalism like this everyone will die, humans on this planet wont survive.
Avoid Paris then, surprisingly that is the only place in the world where I found bed bugs.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Unfortunately, our implementation has been twisted by monopolies and lobbyists. We can't fix it by throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Capitalism doesn't work w/o competition, and you don't get competition in a monopoly (or local monopoly...sorry cable companies). You don't get competition when you allow collusion to fix prices...airlines. You don't get competition when there's no cost transparency...hospitals. And you don't get competition when you allow companies to be "people too", twisting the meaning and value of the word to unduly influence the government for their own greed. Greed isn't always bad...greed at the expense of others is evil.
Just another day in Paradise
Do you think people are not dying in Communist China for the same reasons?
China is not communist. They were earlier when Mao led the country, but these days it's more of a dictatorship (communist in name only) with state owned enterprises and private enterprise both operating in a capitalistic economy.
Good to know. I just moved out of a room in Japan because I have bedbug bites all over my arms and leg. They avoided the other leg, apparently.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Feels more to me like left-wingers are trying to paint socialism and social democrats with the same brush in order to drag up Cold War prejudice to demonize them.
At the same time, centrist corporate Dems would love to claim that it's socialism and erase actual leftists.
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
Did you miss a digit off the 'tax paid'? Just that a developer in London will pay that much tax in a single year, let alone five.
well the jail / prison can cover that at 30k-50K+ year per inmate. OR you can just use the ER to get your insulin and you don't have to pay and they can't cut you as well.
"-- but the other side of the coin is that many more have fallen deeper into poverty and debt, stuck in a cycle that is nearly impossible to break without help from others."
this is False.
Proof? My entire country since we abandoned multilateral socialism. Nobody is worse than before. QED.
We know, and it's tragic.
Who died as a result of capitalism in and of itself? Sure, some starve when they can't afford food, but that wasn't introduced by capitalism, and when compared against parallel socialist economies, the socialists starved the most.
Many people died in mills and factories during the industrial revolution. People worked long days and weeks, under unsafe working conditions. This is just the first thing I found from a Google search, but it provides an outline: https://www.historyonthenet.co...
We take things like weekends and vacations, and workers compensation, and safety regulations for granted these days. But they were actually fought for by people who had to do the work under the Capitalist system. It was not always this way, and the exploitation of workers by business owners is fairly well documented. Capitalism can be great, but the greed and power of owners must be dealt with, or abuses happen.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
By "capitalists" you mean politicians. The free market doesn't guarantee you solid politicians son. That's up to the Volk to elect.
To be able to escape economy class airlines.....
Why waste the money on a couple of hours of an only slightly less shitty experience? Personally I can afford intercontinental business / first class travel. But generally I spend money on something more productive like using $100 bills to light expensive cigars.
Okay, no I don't but the point is being made. Having flown first class intercontinental a few times it's still an miserable shithouse experience and I'd much rather just buy a nice watch or check into a michelin star restaurant when I get to my destination.
Your close, not quite there. Way left is the Communists. Then the Fascists, then the Socialists. Then you have various levels that aren't quite socialist, middle ground, then you're on the right. Ironically Communists, Fascist and Socialists hate each other. All three kill lots of people and destroy culture, societies, good stuff. All in the name of so called equality. Here's a good place to read the diffs http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexi...
Fact is, being an American right now puts you in the top 1% of the world. Just think about that a minute. 99% of the world is worse off? You betcha. Yet people bitch, moan and complain about everything. America has so many first world problems.
In America if we got rid of the socialist parts, it would be a whole lot better. OMG, a whole lot less BS.
Fascists and Communists are at opposite ends of the spectrum. They're both authoritarian but- Fascism is the far right and Communism is the far left.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
You can't have socialism without MAO. You can't raise huge taxes without strongarming. And if you believe the allmighty state will restrain itself to only 1-2 fields of activity.....
But the natives are treated like shit. Also it's 77.7% white and the other 22% being half Asian.
"TL;DR; You're misrepresenting socialism, either intentionally or by mistake. Please stop it." :)
You stop misrepresenting it first
Exactly, leftists have a severe lack of investitional imagination.
Else they would have some bucks too.
Capitalism works when Government doesn't create or enforce monopolies. We need to end the patent system and bust up companies like Google. Companies can be too large. This is what drives people to socialism, they have no other choice. Socialism is as awful as it gets. No where does it work. "Oh but it does in the Scandinavian Countries. " No, it doesn't. Have you been there lately? Try getting a flu shot. LMAO.
For instance, Sweden, Norway, and Finland are definitely socialist countries.
Norway's Statoil is an example of socialism, but that is a special situation of a massive public resource owned by a small population. Very few other countries have that benefit.
Actually Statoil is more of an example of corporatisation. The state owns it, but the entity runs itself appointing it's own management and running it's own affairs. The government is effectively the shareholder and only has the power to elect and sack the board like a private corporation (and collects the dividends). In fact the Norwegian government only owns 67% of Equinor (formerly Statoil) so it's no more socialist than Singapore's Tamasek holding company (which is about as socialist as Ayn Rand). Tamasek and Equinor are good examples of government owned corporations.
Venuseula's attempt at nationalising the oil industry is an example of what a socialised industry is (and why it's a bad idea). When people get appointed due to political favour you end up with clowns running a circus. Not that this is a trait exclusive to Socialist despots, there are plenty of examples in any despotic government.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Canada's not considered western?
Or were you unaware that Canada is largely socialist?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
So it's just a coincidence that 30 singlerule parties called themselves socialist....
How many totalitarian parties have called themselves capitalists ??? Yeah i thought so...
Drop them off in North Korea for a while so they learn a lesson.
Same as saying "children regurgitate what they are taught".
What's funny is they now get most of their anti-"capitalist" messages via giant corps (Google, Facebook, etc.)
"It's not real Capitalism."
Where have we heard that one before?
Everywhere. That's because real capitalism cannot exist for very long. Capitalism needs brakes to keep it from destroying itself. But capitalsim considers any form of braking to not be capitalism.
So you have a choice, Capitalism being destroyed by the most successful and greedy taking over and killing it, or any form of regulation to keep the most successful and greedy from taking over and killing it.
Me? I don't mind the idea of capitalism tempered with enough controls to keep it from self destruction.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I believe what people really resent are the "chartered for greed" corporations. Everything they do is to maximize profit which warps even the things they do that "appear" to be from a good motivation. They try and make their company more appealing by donating to charity, claiming some more environmentally friendly product, or enhancing workplace benefits but that generally doesn't make things great for the employees in the long run. That drive for money taints everything the company does and makes it a "soul crushing" environment. No one, not even the CEO, really feels ownership of the company because the charter removes the possibility of "humanizing" the company's decisions.
The government is the only real protection from getting ground-up and spit-out by corporations. Also, as a previous post pointed out, if becomes very expensive to just ignore the problem of people that are unable to work for whatever reason. We would go broke trying to put everyone in prison that was forced to steal because they couldn't work and had no other source of income. No one is more dangerous than someone with nothing to lose. This is why capitalism vs socialism is a ridiculous argument. We need both of them.
"Meaningless!, Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless!"
For anyone still here, Google on the Economists' magazine recent ranking of 'livable' cities in the world. Canada has three of the top 10. Says something for socialized democracy.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
This is one of the arguments for a guaranteed minimum income. I would like to see such a thing trialed (and trialed for real, not like in Finland) in a first-world country, just to see if it holds up to any of the claims its proponents make.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Capitalism is a mess. It must be rolled back as we are entering an automated era in which humans will rarely have jobs. Picture a system that works like this : Every Friday you get two checks. One is for $800 for you and your family to spend. Then you get another check for $1,000 which you must invest within 24 hours. Those that make good choices on the $1,000 in stocks that they were required to buy will live higher than those that make lousy choices. That gives us a social pecking order which seems to be vital in the human mind. Taxes will be paid by the businesses as well as by taxing income from those $1,000 per week investments. The simple truth is that we have zero choice in this due to our competition with other nations. If they can produce cheaper by using more automation then we will all live in poverty. Increasing the abilities of automation in the US is now a matter of national survival. And it also offers a proof. That proof is that the form of socialism that I have described is fit to survive and that capitalism is no longer fit to survive. And by the way if capitalism is defined as a free market then it has always been nonsense. No market has ever been free of laws, rules and taxes and never will be. One can not be partially socialist just like my sister can not be partially pregnant. A free market is an absolute. The market can not be partially free and all markets are regulated. Even in very primitive tribes the guy with the strongest arm enforces what he thinks trade should be like. It is astounding how the public can be led around by the nose with beliefs that are total nonsense.
Capitalistic systems and free enterprise have been the most successful systems and are responsible for America being such a prosperous country, and "not being positive about capitalism", basically suggests these people are largely ignorant about Economics, Economic history, and Philosophy.
People in the US don't seem to recognize their own privilege --- the poorest of those in the US are better off than the average person in countries that have had other systems.
Every attempt to "centrally plan" an economy ever have resulted in total disaster;
some other systems that have been proven not to work are Socialism and Communism --- look at Venezuela for examples.
Look how China has risen from the ashes after it changed to a more capitalistic system with free-er markets than it had before.
If we are going to think devisive, letâ(TM)s go; what percentage of humans do not wash after using windows?
If you get people off welfare and they become self sufficient, those programs go away. You have no heart. Think of the bureaucrats and their empires?
That's another reason why some people favour a UBI. Everybody gets it, so it never has to grow or try to shrink. Mind you, quite a few bureaucrats will lose their empires when it's introduced, but I think that's a sacrifice we would all gladly make for our country...
Fanatically anti-fanatical
The system we're suffering under has about as much to do with Capitalism as the Soviet Union had to do with Socialism. Yeah, it's called that, but just calling shit butter and showing that it spreads well on bread doesn't change its taste.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The right laws? Curiously the ones that don't get eliminated...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
When it works for the benefit of the middle class.
When capitalism is used to prop up a ruling elite, then we stop liking it.
Capitalism is a tool, you can use it for the benefit of all, or you can destroy your nation with it.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
We could overturn the Citizen's United ruling with new legislation that ends corporate personhood.
Doing so would not end capitalism, it would not make us socialism, it would bring about healthier business and healthier government.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
You do realize that murder wouldn't be a crime either if there weren't laws and regulations against it? I assume you don't want murder deregulated. Anyone can cut regulations at a record pace when they don't care what the consequence of those deregulations are (or worse are cutting them to deliberately allow the corruption to become lawful).
I know, I know, it is silly of me to equate corruption with murder right.
Who's talking about first class? I want a private jet. Preferably a big one. With a hot tub. Stop complaining, you prole.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Dude, I live over here in "socialist" Europe where we have all the perks you're talking about and more. And even I, as someone who earns quite a bit of money, don't pay 30% in taxes.
In other words, if you pay 30% tax and do NOT get that in return... well, everyone has the government they deserve.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'd like to know what the favorable conditions are for Austria, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Luxemburg, Sweden or Switzerland?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Did anyone read the article? It was interesting till I watched the 3 videos. Wow what a difference in perspective.
First video, and author talked about her book "Squeezed". All she talked about was how it's not young peoples fault they're having financial issues. Ya, just what people need. Another person pointing the finger at why people can't succeed. Which takes me to the second video.
Some how this guy was able to not get squeezed and figured a way to make it. Wow, if what didn't work the first time didn't work try something else? What a concept. So I guess it is possible.
Third video just makes sense. Buying a house. Helps build equity. Not an investment, but builds equity. Use a 15 years loan, and gee pack your own lunch instead of eating out all the time. This sounds like the polar opposite of the lady in the first video.
Really shows what a different perspective can give. Who do you want to be?
We are not getting it anyhow; it's bottle-necking at the top.
Northern European nations, and even Canada and Japan, seem to have a more stable and robust middle class. They are not "pure" socialism, but rather a more even mix of capitalism and socialism. Canada's mortgage regulations make it harder to get a home, but in exchange they largely avoided the mortgage meltdown because there were fewer "leveraged" loans floating around.
Purer capitalism hasn't been working so well of late for regular folks. Bubbles and inequality are still unsolved. I'm just the messenger. If proponents of the purer form don't fix it, people will look around for other systems that are working better. Observation 101.
It appears being on either extreme of the spectrum is a recipe for problems. "Goldilocks" economies are in.
Table-ized A.I.
While the society was distracted by the talk of imaginary "nazis", Communists — adherents of the far deadlier, indeed the deadliest, school of thought known to humanity — have crept in on us, and are even fielding national politicians already...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Young Americans' frame of reference is eight years of Obamanomics. They believe that that's what capitalism looks like. It's not.
Also, the size of the state is an important consideration. What works for a small European country will not necessarily work for the US, which is a hugely heterogeneous country that is better compared to the European Union than an individual European country. Further, there are models other than capitalism and socialism, e.g., a free market that avoids capital by using a different form of investment, whereby co-ops partner to do larger things. In a co-op, everyone is an owner - there is no separation between the owner and the worker. That can be achieved through a legal construct that replaces the corporation construct.
We used to have a much more socially responsible form of capitalism in America - the top tax rate of 91.5% insured that income disparity was closer to 30x than the current 350x. The tax base supported nearly free public higher education. There was funding for infrastructure projects (which almost exclusively benefit the wealthy - roads to get their workers to them and their consumers to them vs. a road you take to/from work - should you be paying the same?) Industries that could be converted to wartime manufacturing were protected sensibly (auto industry steel work, manufacturing, agriculture, etc.)... the boomers and generations after them saw what was built and decided to monetize it into the ground. They began demonizing "Socialism" (progressive-ism, etc.) without naming their own philosophy: Elitism (or Greed-ism). The goal of Greed-ism is to systematically shut down any part of government that benefits society as a whole; slash the wealthy's contribution to common good (taxes, regulations) while taking full advantage of the current generation of educated public - use the infrastructure built up over decades for short-term profit while letting that infrastructure crumble due to lack of funds. Steer any remaining government welfare towards agribusiness vs. family farms, dedicated military-industrial vs. general manufacturing. Gut social protections for the bottom 90% (union busting, social safety nets, nearly free state higher education, etc.). Private schools. Private prisons. Legislate massive protections against lawsuits aimed at the rich; virtually eliminate those same protections for the bottom 90% (IE: you cannot get rid of your student loans by declaring bankruptcy; most situations in which you could try and recoup justice through civil suits are now steered into arbitration, etc.). Elitism is what Bernie Sanders should be talking about - compare and contrast *that* against his Socially Responsible Capitalism policy suggestions. Promote a government and policies that protet the common good against the Greedy Elite - recognizing that they have the resources to protect themselves and require a strong check/balance in a progressive government. Government did a much better job in Eisenhower's time than it does in ours (with obvious black marks in minority/womens/LGBT rights).
imagine a soft, buttery paw gently pressing down onto a sleeping soldier's face. forever.
The Gallup survey simply asks for an up-down view on the word capitalism. A necessary and much more informative question would have probed what the viewed denotation and connotations of that word are in the minds of the surveyed people. My guess is that most young adults (and even old adults) do not know what capitalism is. However, they know what the US system is "capitalism". Thus, the question is likely mostly useless as a comment on the virtues of theoretical capitalism. Rather, the question effectively asks for a comment on the respondent's view of the current US economy, and it is wholly unsurprising that many young people who are struggling financially would have a negative view of a term that describes the economic system that currently afflicts them.
People have made, bought, sold, and consume things for money long before capitalism.
Capitalism is ONLY the idea that if you have money you can invest it, so you don't have to work.
The problem is: some people were born into money; some people weren't.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
It's a stretch to say our system is even capitalist, since it has extensive regulation, union protection, and social welfare.
It is more accurate to say that democracy has failed, because whenever you ask the masses what we should do, they run off chasing illusions and then we all go over the cliff.
If anything, we are seeing the demise of the idea of herd behavior being a good thing, and a recognition that the root of herd behavior is individual selfishness.
Blaming capitalism for that is just a last-ditch strategy to avoid seeing the obvious: modern society has failed. We need a new type of social order.
Alternative Right.
Whatever, Jordan Peterson.
Jesus saves and takes half damage.
well in that case... nobody's died from _socialism_, they've died from _authoritarianism_ masked in socialist memes.
Have a nice day.
First off, no ... my last sentence didn't "betray me" as somehow being for socialized medicine.
I'm saying that I'm for a free market... not the current one that pretends to be free, except for the legal limitations government places on things to benefit big pharma unfairly! (EG. If a company over in Germany or up in Canada starts producing a perfectly good version of one of the drugs under U.S. patent by a pharmaceutical firm based in America, it's illegal to mail order it into the country and issue it to patients, even if it's 1/3rd. of the cost and works as well as or better than the one under the legal patent protection here.) If you want to sell drugs in a Capitalist framework, I think that should mean it's a level playing field for all participants, including foreign manufacturers who want to export drugs to America.
Big pharma constantly bellyaches about the huge expenses involved in R&D of a new drug and claims it requires government protection to get exclusive rights to sell it for so many years before generic alternatives are allowed. Yet we can see by the huge profits they consistently make that they're not in any special need of these protections at all! "No risk, no reward" is how the free market is supposed to work. If you dump millions into R&Ding a new medication and then find you can't recoup your investment before everyone else clones your drug and undercuts your price on it? Too bad! Welcome to the reality of pretty much every other business in America! There's usually a lot of short-term profit potential for having a product out first, even without any government protection.... You exploit that "first past the post" momentum with the right marketing push, and you've got brand recognition everyone else has to really fight to compete with. You *should* be able to turn a profit if your product is any good.
Right. And it just so happens that many of these 'private enterprises' happen to be owned by current or former high-level government officials. Probably not a great idea in their 'capitalist' economy to be a competitor to a company owned by a general.
The problem with every single Communist revolution is it never got past the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", which naturally, considering human nature, it never would. Once you have the dictators in power, they almost never give it up. The Revolution must be maintained, even encouraged, because so long as there is some dark counter-revolutionary force, real or imagined, the tyrants can just keep up the facade that Utopia is just over the hill, apparently in perpetuity. Unfortunately men like Cincannatus, Diocletian and Washington, who retired to their farms, are very rare, and more typical are the Stalins, Maos, and dare I say, Maduros, who go so far as to actually create the conditions to guarantee the necessity of tyranny.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I know and it lights my fire more than anything else. Why does righteousness lead so easily into self-righteousness? (Of course, the mirror shows my face.)
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
That the government is uncontrollable is kind of our fault. Somebody's sig from ages ago: Ballot, soap, ammo - use the boxes in order.
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
People kill people.
That was the point.
There is no poisoness *ISM that kills people.
Revolutions kill people ... so we probably should all hope that there is no revolution replacing communism in China?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Seems you don't know anything about the 'Danish System'.
E.g. healthcare is payed by taxes.
In Greece you need a health insurance. See?
So your points are wrong. Claiming they have bad work moral is quite insulting, too.
You know where this "mere" is comming from?
In WWII, Greece was occupied by german forces. The country was under curfew, till roughly 8:00 in the morning. So when the officers finally arrived ad the "plakka" and sat down for a breakfast in a coffee shop, that plakka was already full with "lazy greeks" drinking coffee. So the german officers spread the myth: greeks never work. For some reason they were to dumb to realize that the greeks ignored the curfew and worked at night from 4:00 till 7:00/8:00 and then went for breakfast.
Anyway ... if you think there are other countries that used the "scandinavian model" ... outside scandinavia, you are mistaken ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
That was in Cambodia, not in China. ... same result. And most definitely it has nothing to do with "free markets" or not free.
True is that Mao put people into charge, who had no clue. And they did not dare to report truthfully, so he was out of the loop what is going on.
See: it was Maos fault He was the dictator. Has nothing to do if he was a communist or a simple fashist
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
After a revolution, starvation is the norm, regardless of "*ISM".
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The only negative thing you can say about Denmark is: the beer is slightly more expensive than in Germany ;D ... alas, what a hardship.
And only 99% of the population speak english
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Yes it is.
Glad to see you understand the absurdity of comparing basic moral imperatives with congressmen writing earmarks or regulations to benefit their friends and supporters.
The right laws? Curiously the ones that don't get eliminated...
Tax cut is working miracles
Except that US will hammer any foreign corporation that breaks US embargo and also has US activity. When they have to choose between access to US and Cuban market, corporations usually settle on the former.
Moreover, US has show it will easily arrest and jail leaders of foreign corporations breaking US embargo, if the opportunity arise..
Yea those shitty unions everyone on slashdot bitches about. They actually stood tall and helped usher in better working conditions.
And what thanks do they get? They get called the mob. My dad was IBEW for over 30 years, and whenever he needed help from the union they had his back. Labor dispute- the union helped, hurt on the job- the union was there from start to finish. Unsafe work conditions-union stepped in and made things right. Disputes between management and workers or workers vs workers-the union took care of it. When my dad retired the union had HR sit down with him and plan out his retirement. Did the company help? Nope. Did the company send my dad a thank you note and a gift for 30 years of survice? Nope. Did the union send my dad a gift and a thank you note? You bet your ass they did. Did his work CALL him and congratulate him on his retirement? Nope. Did the union? Yep they even threw a party for em.
Unions have a purpose. And when you find a good one and join them, you usually are a member for LIFE. Because believe it or not, they are workers to, they are in the field with the little man working. They know the struggle. And I'm happy that SOME places have unions still around to help employees with any problems that arise. Because do you think a corporation is going to look out for you? Or themselves? Yea thought so. But most unions, note I say most, WORK FOR THE WORKER.
Yes, indeed. I am pro-union. To be fair, organized crime did move into the unions in some cases. But that is a problem to be fixed, not a reason to eliminate unions. There is all kinds of crime that happens within corporations as well, but no one suggests eliminating them. Unions are needed more than ever, to balance the power that employers have.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I like, in a sarcastic way, how you skirted the idea that charities would only help those they deemed worthy. I suspect that 'lazy' has a wealth of meanings for you. I am familiar with Charity Navigator. I would point you towards Rotten Tomatoes, which was, more or less, subverted the moment the big movie studios took a hit in profits they could trace back to the site. Do you think that the mega-churches would fail to do the same to Charity Navigator?
I don't like, in a literal way, how you made an allegation against Charity Navigator without doing any basic research. I looked at the top 4 megachurches (based on average attendance):
Life.Church. Charity Navigator has not rated it.
Church of the Highlands. Charity Navigator has not rated it.
Lakewood Church. Charity Navigator has not rated it.
North Point Community Church. Charity Navigator has not rated it.
So yes, I'm confident Charity Navigator won't be subverted by organizations it doesn't rate.
Republicans whine about unfunded liabilities, then spend big.
Yes, I'm very unhappy with Republicans about that. At least they -- unlike the proponents of socialized medicine -- aren't proposing new programs that would cause $218 trillion in additional deficit spending over the next 30 years (to say nothing of what the new programs would do to unfunded liabilities). You complain about hypocrisy on the issue of unfunded liabilities, which is certainly true of some Republicans, but you offer no solutions to that issue yourself.
The only way the system breaks down is if people stop paying taxes
You don't think Social Security will break down if the ratio of retirees to FICA-paying workers grows a lot larger (due to lower birth rate, increasing life expectancy, etc.)? That's what's happening in Japan, and to say fixing that problem is "a major political challenge" might be the understatement of the century. Sorry, rather than trusting your bare assertion, I will trust the official report of the U.S. Social Security Board of Trustees, which back in 2009 had already announced $17.5 trillion in unfunded liabilities. I've never seen a credible definition of "Ponzi scheme" that doesn't describe Social Security to a T.
Again, this comes back to you and those like you. This belief that anything that doesn't directly benefit you is a waste of money, no matter the net benefit to our society as a whole, that people who need assistance are just "lazy." It is short-sighted, narrow-minded, and it is dragging the US down more effectively than any outside agent ever could.
You must live in opposite world, because the facts consistently support the opposite of your assertions.
* I advocate for making the social safety net sustainable, and much more robust. That certainly doesn't benefit me; just the opposite, it requires me to become more charitable.
* I didn't say people who need assistance are lazy. I said they are the opposite of people who are merely lazy, and that they should receive the opposite treatment (more resources directed to them). Does your reading comprehension really suck that much, or do you just
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Notably, Alaska has a similar system and a yearly oil dividend paid to every Alaskan. You could say Alaska is more socialist than Sweden.
it's always been this expensive. We used to heavily subsidize public Universities with federal funds. We stopped doing that in the late 90s (thanks Clinton). I was in school when it started and the school newspapers talked about it. They had the economics department project what the cost of college would be if the cuts continued and it's right about what it is now. Nobody listened to them because their voices were drowned out by right wing think tanks in favor of the cuts (or a variety of unpleasant reasons I'll leave up to your imagination).
So yeah, I won't blame capitalism necessarily, rather I'll blame cronyism. e.g. funding tax cuts for the rich on the backs of our children.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/