- correct, which is a management problem mitigated by having more than one person working for you and ensuring that nobody is indispensable (and it's not easy to do in a smaller company).
Unlike a hammer, they have skills you don't.
- that is possible, though I train my people myself, but over time they learn other things as well. However losing a person is perfectly normal, I had many dozens of people work for me, vast majority of them are not working for me now, managing turnover is part of doing business.
They need your financing and you need their skills
- they need a job and I need instruments to implement my ideas. I train my people and tell them what to do, they do what I want specifically because I want it. People in an organization are part of the machine, instrument created by the owner of the organization for his purposes.
His productivity is no more or less than what he personally takes care of in his day.
- productivity of a person who either builds or acquires tools grows with the number of tools that he acquires.
I understand it is a hard concept to grasp, if you don't hire people, you don't understand that they are in fact your instruments. Instead of doing every single thing you need to do in a day with your own 10 fingers, you are using 10 people and each one is coordinated by you (and in case of a larger organization, like Musk's, they are coordinated by other people, who are in turn coordinated by others, who are in turn coordinated by Musk).
The point is that Musk wants to build a factory, he builds a factory by arranging the people and tools and land and money and politics and other resources to build that factory.
He wants to build the factory, he is building the factory. Not because one of his welders wants to build the factory, the welder is doing his specific task in the construction process, but the welder is the part of the instrument that Musk set up to organize the construction and to produce what he envisions.
I get it, you don't understand any of it, you may even subscribe to ideas that are completely ridiculous from my perspective, that talk about nonsensical 'surplus labour', etc. However if I do not tell my developers exactly what I want them to do, and in some cases exactly how I want it to be done, they will not produce what I want, they will not produce anything actually, they are extension of my though and of my desire to build something that I want to see built. Arranging people, money, land and other resources is what builds the final product, as to any specific welder, that's great, that's why he is paid a salary at the market rate, but if one cannot weld, then another will be found and will replace him. However nobody will replace Musk with his specific goals and ideas.
So what you're saying is he doesn't make, he pays others to make.
- he makes in exactly the same way anybody using higher order tools makes something. A higher level programming language allows somebody to make a computer program and yet that person did not program 0s and 1s with wires.
A truck allows somebody to haul 20 tons of weight for 2000 miles without carrying it in his hands.
I hire people and tell them what I want them to do and they do exactly what I tell them, they are my higher level tools for development.
Musk does the same thing, except he does it a few orders of magnitude bigger.
You may not understand that and I don't blame you for it, however the fact stays: Musk does the things he wants to do by using people as higher level tools and that is why he is extremely productive, more than any person working for him.
As to taxes, AFAIC there shouldn't be any income or wealth taxes at all, this point is moot.
Of-course he does. He uses higher level tools for that purpose, he hires them and pays them money, they use lower level tools for that purpose. He controls many tools this way, which is why he is this productive.
1. Your fridge. You don't have to cook every day, you can store food for longer periods of time, you don't need to throw away as much food. This also applies to storing other things (not just food). 2. Sewing machine. 3. Washing machine.
So, it IS trivial, is what you're saying. Right. We all agree that collecting sales tax is trivial.
- yes, calculating shipping costs is trivial because it is outsourced to shipping calculators provided by the likes of UPS, FedEx, etc. You are clearly unable to read due to some mental issues.
You just said it was trivial. How is collecting sales tax going to "price out" everybody else?
- more mental issues. Shipping cost calculations are trivial, you dumbass, not taxes.
Oh, kid, you have a lot to learn. You should start off by trying not to be a selfish asshole, and realize that we all live in a society together, and that we all need to help each other.
- the only thing that can help you is some sort of a chemical that would fix your inability to get facts straight even when they are written on the same page in front of you that you are replying to.
It is, in any case, a considerably easier problem than calculating shipping costs
- not even remotely true.
Calculating shipping costs is trivial today because it is outsourced to shipping calculators of companies specializing in shipping. FedEx, UPS, even USPS provide shipping calculators in the USA and it's not hard using that data.
And if you look at the amount of money multinational businesses spend to avoid corporate taxes, the cost of handling sales tax is trivial.
- so your solution is only to allow huge multinationals to do business online, because everybody else will be priced out of it. Wouldn't that be great for the consumers...
You can't have public services without taxation.
- yeah, which is why there shouldn't be such things as 'public services'.
people need schools more than they need the internet
- aah, that's only 100% wrong. The Internet today can replace public schools, and public schools shouldn't exist in the first place.
the internet is just going to have to grow up and start contributing rather than constantly expecting pocket money from mummy & daddy citizen
- except it is the citizen that benefits from the Internet more than the Internet is benefiting from these citizens. The choices and savings speak for themselves, otherwise people wouldn't be using the Internet.
Why in the hell would I want to run something, for which I have no respect? Nothing disrespects an individual more than some statist / authoritarian / collectivist system, your nonsense is too transparent.
I am nowhere near that rich and I have no respect for humanity. I may respect some specific individuals, but humanity? No collective deserves respect, only individuals can have that.
Totally different. Australia is a place made to keep convicts out of the rest of the civilized society, flair is irrelevant and nobody should be forcing these people to do anything, they just shouldn't be able to get out of there.
I have a solution for this problem. Have the people caught in theft of property (including any similar white collar crime, such as embezzlement, fraud) shipped out to a large gated area, where they would be free (within the confines of that are) to do whatever they like.
The only money spent would go towards ensuring nobody gets out. How they survive on the inside should not be a consideration, the area should be large enough for them to try and feed themselves off the land.
That leaves businesses as the only source of taxes to support the government. Meanwhile, the buyers will be supporting businesses and keeping them viable according to how needed or popular the business is with the public.
- Oh my. I totally understand that economics is the least understood subject by vast majority of people, but can we please fix this huge part of misunderstanding?
Let's say there are 100 businesses and they are providing 100% of everything that people need. Let's say these 100 businesses are owned by 100 people.
Let's say there are 10,000,000,000 people in the world.
Let's say there is a government that taxes these 100 businesses and then distributes the money to the 10,000,000,000 people to buy the products from the 100 businesses.
Try to understand that what you have here is a production/consumption loop that is not closed, it's one directional.
The 100 people who own 100 businesses produce 100% of everything. When you say that 'government provides the money', what you are trying to imply that the government created money has value for these 100 businesses, you are totally mistaken.
Money is created by business, not by government. Money is the productive output of the businesses. Government cannot create anything it did not take away from somebody first.
If 100 businesses are taxed on their earnings and then the same money that was taken from these 100 businesses is used to buy the new products from these same 100 businesses, what you have is 100 businesses who supply 100% of products and 100% of money.
The 10,000,000,000 people and the government supply absolutely nothing to these 100 people.
The only thing you can argue is that the 10,000,000,000 people will murder the 100 people if they do not receive their food, shelter, energy, clothing, medication, education, entertainment, etc. However I would argue that 100 people supplying everything are the actual government, they are the ones supplying the food, energy, but also the protection, weapons. They own every one of the 10,000,000,000 people on the planet, there is no government above the 100 businesses once they are the only one with all of the productive capacity.
I would say that the lives of these 10,000,000,000 people are completely and utterly subsidised and irrelevant, they could all live or die, the productive capacity of the society would not change even by 1%.
My point is that it is a huge mistake to think that government can create money that would be of any use to the businesses that actually produce everything and the other point is that consumption of the products is the most trivial part of the economic life cycle.
These 10,000,000,000 are living on charity time, their entire lives depend on charity, not on anything else. Should the 100 businesses decide to stop producing most of what they do, most of 10,000,000,000 would starve and die.
They didn't want to have it exclusively for only 14+ years, so kept it secret until they lost it. They gambled and lost, and had the intention to keep it hidden forever.
- trade secrets is the way to go, there shouldn't be government protections for anybody's monopoly, so AFAIC the trade secret is the way to protect your property right. As to 'gambled and lost', so for how long have they had their trade secrets, if they had them for longer than 14 years then they gambled and won.
This is PROOF that ability and hard work has exactly jack shit to do with compensation or the Majick Fairytale Free Market.
- it is not a proof for all cases, there are cases where people fuck up and get very well compensated for it and there are people who do well for themselves and their companies.
Of-course when you are saying 'free market' you really mean the USA version of what you believe is a 'free market', while the reality is that USA is not a free market at all. Where exactly do you see a free market in the USA?
Government manipulates money, interest rates, taxes income and wealth, redistributes, runs huge deficits and debts, borrows and prints for various military excursions that enrich a number of very well connected companies and individuals, bails out entire markets time after time after time. Where do you see a free market exactly?
I don't see it that way. Once there is a society where people who own the means of production are producing everything they need automatically and can freely exchange with each other for what they produce there is little incentive to take over other people's businesses.
How would you do it? 1000 people, each one has a completely automated way to produce something the rest want to use. What's the incentive to bother to consolidate all production into one single entity and how can prices be lowered exactly?
I think not. I think you do not turn people into slaves of a system, where they are forced to live by rules that are imposed upon them as a payment for this idea of 'basic income'. I think you remove rules and taxes, allowing people to build their own economies without government interference. I am not interested in being a welfare recipient, being subsidised by anybody to live my life on other people's dime. I prefer to run my own business and make my own decisions on how to feed myself and my family.
AFAIC those who are not producing anything to pay for their consumption are living on borrowed time and money, free cheese is found in a mouse trap. Those who supply them with food, energy, etc., are not going to do it for nothing at all, they will have complete and total control of people's lives and behaviours, no fucking way, it's better not to live at all than to live that way.
Lets simplify and take this to its logical conclusion:
There is 1 company that makes and distributes everything, it employs 5% of the entire population.
95% of the population does not produce or distribute anything.
Taxing the 5% of population amounts to taking the products that the 5% of population creates to distribute to the 95% of population, that's all that the taxes are.
The 95% of population consumes what the 5% of the population produces and the 95% of population gives nothing in return to the 5% of population.
The logical conclusion is this: 5% of population do not need the 95% of population, these 95% are only adding to the amount of work that is done by the 5% but they are giving nothing back (nothing at all). So this redistribution amounts to a simple case of charity.
Either the 5% of population feel charitable to keep doing it for some length of time or the 5% of population decide they do not need to bother and stop production that goes towards the 95%.
This forces the 95% of population to be productive again but there also maybe a fight, where the 95% decide they want to take possession of what the 5% have (the productive capacity, machinery, tools, land, everything).
5% of the population should see this coming before hand and hopefully for them they prepared for this. The virus seeded into the most popular foods is triggered and there is a massive culling.
I have a clear understanding of why that is. If you believe that my point of view is dying, you are clearly not paying attention. The Chinese are accepting my point of view more than anybody else. There are a number of countries today that are moving in the correct direction. USA is moving in the wrong way.
If only I could avoid the roads... But I prefer of private roads, they don't tax me, I pay per use.
As to 'asking' in a democracy, this must be a joke. Democracy is voting by majority to provide themselves with entitlements paid for by a minority. That is not asking, there is another name for that behavior - armed robbery. Only an armed robber is more honest about himself.
Wealth of a nation is in free individuals, free from that very general public, free to try and fail, try and hopefully succeed. Free to fail but free to succeed without the 'general public' pulling them down. As you can see I am not of high opinion of 'general public' at all. General public participated in these polls (a representative subset of that public). Nations are poor until free individuals pull them up by taking crazy risks with their own lives. Note, I said crazy risks with their own lives, not with public money, as the Fed and the US banks do because of the Fed, not the way governments do with wars...
Crazy risks with your own life and you should be able to fail or succeed and to succeed the consequrnces of failure must be dramatic. However when successful, these people create the economies that the 'general public' lives in and is relying upon.
General public is best off not trying to control and tax people that succeed. Those who succeed can use their resources better than any general public and its representatives or they will fail, and again: risk of failure is the most dramatic motivator.
As you can see I am against ant collectivism for economic reasons, but even more so for the ethical reasons. I find it unethical to take away anybody's work output by force to supply anybody else with anything, no matter how great the need may be presented. People need to learn to ask as opposed to taking by force for economic and social stability.
Vast majority of people also do not know what any of these things are at all.
Capitalism - private ownership and operation of property.
Free market - market free from government regulations, absence of income and wealth taxes.
Socialism - redistribution of wealth and income based on the politics of the mob, state control of the individual, partial central planning.
Fascism - redistribution of wealth and income based on the politics of an authoritarian party, state control of the individual, partial central planning.
Communism 1- state controlled means of production, central planning, absence of individual initiative or means of production.
Communism 2 (Marxism) - absence of state control, international socialism based on some ideal 'new consciousness'.
What the millenials are actually rejecting: current mix of fascism and communism 1.
What they are made believe they are rejecting: free market capitalism.
Ignorance may be bliss but eventually it kills you.
Slashdot Mirror
If they don't show, you will accomplish squat.
- correct, which is a management problem mitigated by having more than one person working for you and ensuring that nobody is indispensable (and it's not easy to do in a smaller company).
Unlike a hammer, they have skills you don't.
- that is possible, though I train my people myself, but over time they learn other things as well. However losing a person is perfectly normal, I had many dozens of people work for me, vast majority of them are not working for me now, managing turnover is part of doing business.
They need your financing and you need their skills
- they need a job and I need instruments to implement my ideas. I train my people and tell them what to do, they do what I want specifically because I want it. People in an organization are part of the machine, instrument created by the owner of the organization for his purposes.
His productivity is no more or less than what he personally takes care of in his day.
- productivity of a person who either builds or acquires tools grows with the number of tools that he acquires.
I understand it is a hard concept to grasp, if you don't hire people, you don't understand that they are in fact your instruments. Instead of doing every single thing you need to do in a day with your own 10 fingers, you are using 10 people and each one is coordinated by you (and in case of a larger organization, like Musk's, they are coordinated by other people, who are in turn coordinated by others, who are in turn coordinated by Musk).
The point is that Musk wants to build a factory, he builds a factory by arranging the people and tools and land and money and politics and other resources to build that factory.
He wants to build the factory, he is building the factory. Not because one of his welders wants to build the factory, the welder is doing his specific task in the construction process, but the welder is the part of the instrument that Musk set up to organize the construction and to produce what he envisions.
I get it, you don't understand any of it, you may even subscribe to ideas that are completely ridiculous from my perspective, that talk about nonsensical 'surplus labour', etc. However if I do not tell my developers exactly what I want them to do, and in some cases exactly how I want it to be done, they will not produce what I want, they will not produce anything actually, they are extension of my though and of my desire to build something that I want to see built. Arranging people, money, land and other resources is what builds the final product, as to any specific welder, that's great, that's why he is paid a salary at the market rate, but if one cannot weld, then another will be found and will replace him. However nobody will replace Musk with his specific goals and ideas.
So what you're saying is he doesn't make, he pays others to make.
- he makes in exactly the same way anybody using higher order tools makes something. A higher level programming language allows somebody to make a computer program and yet that person did not program 0s and 1s with wires.
A truck allows somebody to haul 20 tons of weight for 2000 miles without carrying it in his hands.
I hire people and tell them what I want them to do and they do exactly what I tell them, they are my higher level tools for development.
Musk does the same thing, except he does it a few orders of magnitude bigger.
You may not understand that and I don't blame you for it, however the fact stays: Musk does the things he wants to do by using people as higher level tools and that is why he is extremely productive, more than any person working for him.
As to taxes, AFAIC there shouldn't be any income or wealth taxes at all, this point is moot.
Of-course he does. He uses higher level tools for that purpose, he hires them and pays them money, they use lower level tools for that purpose. He controls many tools this way, which is why he is this productive.
1. Your fridge. You don't have to cook every day, you can store food for longer periods of time, you don't need to throw away as much food. This also applies to storing other things (not just food).
2. Sewing machine.
3. Washing machine.
Really? I benefit from capital gains, I make plenty of things. You will not see my capital gains, I make sure of that as well.
For an obvious example: Musk benefits from capital gains, he makes things.
Why do I have to state such most obvious things, I don't know.
So, it IS trivial, is what you're saying. Right. We all agree that collecting sales tax is trivial.
- yes, calculating shipping costs is trivial because it is outsourced to shipping calculators provided by the likes of UPS, FedEx, etc. You are clearly unable to read due to some mental issues.
You just said it was trivial. How is collecting sales tax going to "price out" everybody else?
- more mental issues. Shipping cost calculations are trivial, you dumbass, not taxes.
Oh, kid, you have a lot to learn. You should start off by trying not to be a selfish asshole, and realize that we all live in a society together, and that we all need to help each other.
- the only thing that can help you is some sort of a chemical that would fix your inability to get facts straight even when they are written on the same page in front of you that you are replying to.
It is, in any case, a considerably easier problem than calculating shipping costs
- not even remotely true.
Calculating shipping costs is trivial today because it is outsourced to shipping calculators of companies specializing in shipping. FedEx, UPS, even USPS provide shipping calculators in the USA and it's not hard using that data.
And if you look at the amount of money multinational businesses spend to avoid corporate taxes, the cost of handling sales tax is trivial.
- so your solution is only to allow huge multinationals to do business online, because everybody else will be priced out of it. Wouldn't that be great for the consumers...
You can't have public services without taxation.
- yeah, which is why there shouldn't be such things as 'public services'.
people need schools more than they need the internet
- aah, that's only 100% wrong. The Internet today can replace public schools, and public schools shouldn't exist in the first place.
the internet is just going to have to grow up and start contributing rather than constantly expecting pocket money from mummy & daddy citizen
- except it is the citizen that benefits from the Internet more than the Internet is benefiting from these citizens. The choices and savings speak for themselves, otherwise people wouldn't be using the Internet.
Why in the hell would I want to run something, for which I have no respect? Nothing disrespects an individual more than some statist / authoritarian / collectivist system, your nonsense is too transparent.
I am nowhere near that rich and I have no respect for humanity. I may respect some specific individuals, but humanity? No collective deserves respect, only individuals can have that.
Totally different. Australia is a place made to keep convicts out of the rest of the civilized society, flair is irrelevant and nobody should be forcing these people to do anything, they just shouldn't be able to get out of there.
I have a solution for this problem. Have the people caught in theft of property (including any similar white collar crime, such as embezzlement, fraud) shipped out to a large gated area, where they would be free (within the confines of that are) to do whatever they like.
The only money spent would go towards ensuring nobody gets out. How they survive on the inside should not be a consideration, the area should be large enough for them to try and feed themselves off the land.
I am thinking Australia qualifies....
people won't have kids because they're afraid of being tied down
- so the problem solves itself.
That leaves businesses as the only source of taxes to support the government. Meanwhile, the buyers will be supporting businesses and keeping them viable according to how needed or popular the business is with the public.
- Oh my. I totally understand that economics is the least understood subject by vast majority of people, but can we please fix this huge part of misunderstanding?
Let's say there are 100 businesses and they are providing 100% of everything that people need. Let's say these 100 businesses are owned by 100 people.
Let's say there are 10,000,000,000 people in the world.
Let's say there is a government that taxes these 100 businesses and then distributes the money to the 10,000,000,000 people to buy the products from the 100 businesses.
Try to understand that what you have here is a production/consumption loop that is not closed, it's one directional.
The 100 people who own 100 businesses produce 100% of everything. When you say that 'government provides the money', what you are trying to imply that the government created money has value for these 100 businesses, you are totally mistaken.
Money is created by business, not by government. Money is the productive output of the businesses. Government cannot create anything it did not take away from somebody first.
If 100 businesses are taxed on their earnings and then the same money that was taken from these 100 businesses is used to buy the new products from these same 100 businesses, what you have is 100 businesses who supply 100% of products and 100% of money.
The 10,000,000,000 people and the government supply absolutely nothing to these 100 people.
The only thing you can argue is that the 10,000,000,000 people will murder the 100 people if they do not receive their food, shelter, energy, clothing, medication, education, entertainment, etc. However I would argue that 100 people supplying everything are the actual government, they are the ones supplying the food, energy, but also the protection, weapons. They own every one of the 10,000,000,000 people on the planet, there is no government above the 100 businesses once they are the only one with all of the productive capacity.
I would say that the lives of these 10,000,000,000 people are completely and utterly subsidised and irrelevant, they could all live or die, the productive capacity of the society would not change even by 1%.
My point is that it is a huge mistake to think that government can create money that would be of any use to the businesses that actually produce everything and the other point is that consumption of the products is the most trivial part of the economic life cycle.
These 10,000,000,000 are living on charity time, their entire lives depend on charity, not on anything else. Should the 100 businesses decide to stop producing most of what they do, most of 10,000,000,000 would starve and die.
They didn't want to have it exclusively for only 14+ years, so kept it secret until they lost it. They gambled and lost, and had the intention to keep it hidden forever.
- trade secrets is the way to go, there shouldn't be government protections for anybody's monopoly, so AFAIC the trade secret is the way to protect your property right. As to 'gambled and lost', so for how long have they had their trade secrets, if they had them for longer than 14 years then they gambled and won.
This is PROOF that ability and hard work has exactly jack shit to do with compensation or the Majick Fairytale Free Market.
- it is not a proof for all cases, there are cases where people fuck up and get very well compensated for it and there are people who do well for themselves and their companies.
Of-course when you are saying 'free market' you really mean the USA version of what you believe is a 'free market', while the reality is that USA is not a free market at all. Where exactly do you see a free market in the USA?
Government manipulates money, interest rates, taxes income and wealth, redistributes, runs huge deficits and debts, borrows and prints for various military excursions that enrich a number of very well connected companies and individuals, bails out entire markets time after time after time. Where do you see a free market exactly?
Was it an African or European weasel?
I don't see it that way. Once there is a society where people who own the means of production are producing everything they need automatically and can freely exchange with each other for what they produce there is little incentive to take over other people's businesses.
How would you do it? 1000 people, each one has a completely automated way to produce something the rest want to use. What's the incentive to bother to consolidate all production into one single entity and how can prices be lowered exactly?
I think not. I think you do not turn people into slaves of a system, where they are forced to live by rules that are imposed upon them as a payment for this idea of 'basic income'. I think you remove rules and taxes, allowing people to build their own economies without government interference. I am not interested in being a welfare recipient, being subsidised by anybody to live my life on other people's dime. I prefer to run my own business and make my own decisions on how to feed myself and my family.
AFAIC those who are not producing anything to pay for their consumption are living on borrowed time and money, free cheese is found in a mouse trap. Those who supply them with food, energy, etc., are not going to do it for nothing at all, they will have complete and total control of people's lives and behaviours, no fucking way, it's better not to live at all than to live that way.
Lets simplify and take this to its logical conclusion:
There is 1 company that makes and distributes everything, it employs 5% of the entire population.
95% of the population does not produce or distribute anything.
Taxing the 5% of population amounts to taking the products that the 5% of population creates to distribute to the 95% of population, that's all that the taxes are.
The 95% of population consumes what the 5% of the population produces and the 95% of population gives nothing in return to the 5% of population.
The logical conclusion is this: 5% of population do not need the 95% of population, these 95% are only adding to the amount of work that is done by the 5% but they are giving nothing back (nothing at all). So this redistribution amounts to a simple case of charity.
Either the 5% of population feel charitable to keep doing it for some length of time or the 5% of population decide they do not need to bother and stop production that goes towards the 95%.
This forces the 95% of population to be productive again but there also maybe a fight, where the 95% decide they want to take possession of what the 5% have (the productive capacity, machinery, tools, land, everything).
5% of the population should see this coming before hand and hopefully for them they prepared for this. The virus seeded into the most popular foods is triggered and there is a massive culling.
I have a clear understanding of why that is. If you believe that my point of view is dying, you are clearly not paying attention. The Chinese are accepting my point of view more than anybody else. There are a number of countries today that are moving in the correct direction. USA is moving in the wrong way.
If only I could avoid the roads... But I prefer of private roads, they don't tax me, I pay per use.
As to 'asking' in a democracy, this must be a joke. Democracy is voting by majority to provide themselves with entitlements paid for by a minority. That is not asking, there is another name for that behavior - armed robbery. Only an armed robber is more honest about himself.
Wealth of a nation is in free individuals, free from that very general public, free to try and fail, try and hopefully succeed. Free to fail but free to succeed without the 'general public' pulling them down. As you can see I am not of high opinion of 'general public' at all. General public participated in these polls (a representative subset of that public). Nations are poor until free individuals pull them up by taking crazy risks with their own lives. Note, I said crazy risks with their own lives, not with public money, as the Fed and the US banks do because of the Fed, not the way governments do with wars...
Crazy risks with your own life and you should be able to fail or succeed and to succeed the consequrnces of failure must be dramatic. However when successful, these people create the economies that the 'general public' lives in and is relying upon.
General public is best off not trying to control and tax people that succeed. Those who succeed can use their resources better than any general public and its representatives or they will fail, and again: risk of failure is the most dramatic motivator.
As you can see I am against ant collectivism for economic reasons, but even more so for the ethical reasons. I find it unethical to take away anybody's work output by force to supply anybody else with anything, no matter how great the need may be presented. People need to learn to ask as opposed to taking by force for economic and social stability.
Vast majority of people also do not know what any of these things are at all.
Capitalism - private ownership and operation of property.
Free market - market free from government regulations, absence of income and wealth taxes.
Socialism - redistribution of wealth and income based on the politics of the mob, state control of the individual, partial central planning.
Fascism - redistribution of wealth and income based on the politics of an authoritarian party, state control of the individual, partial central planning.
Communism 1- state controlled means of production, central planning, absence of individual initiative or means of production.
Communism 2 (Marxism) - absence of state control, international socialism based on some ideal 'new consciousness'.
What the millenials are actually rejecting: current mix of fascism and communism 1.
What they are made believe they are rejecting: free market capitalism.
Ignorance may be bliss but eventually it kills you.
My point of view is alive as long as there are people who have it, you wouldn't suggest that there are no people who do, would you?
I am fine with my comments being moderated down, that's normal mode of operation.