Declining Faith in Both Capitalism and Socialism Leaves … What?
Many Americans don’t seem to like any economic systems, and they’re no closer to agreement.

Americans don't much like each-other and many are willing to fight each other over their differences. But what do the opposing factions believe in? When it comes to economic systems and whether production and consumption should be dictated from above or guided by free exchange, a growing number of Americans don't seem to believe in much at all. Both capitalism and socialism are losing support, especially among Democrats.
"Today, 36 percent of U.S. adults say they view socialism somewhat (30 percent) or very (6 percent) positively, down from 42 percent who viewed the term positively in May 2019," Pew reports. "And while a majority of the public (57 percent) continues to view capitalism favorably, that is 8 percentage points lower than in 2019 (65 percent)."
Among Republicans, support for capitalism declined from 78 percent to 74 percent, and for socialism from a rock-bottom 15 percent to a slightly rock-bottomier 14 percent. With Democrats, capitalism became a minority taste, dropping from 55 percent support to 46 percent, while socialism's favorable standing eroded from 65 percent to 57 percent.
"Much of the decline in positive views of both socialism and capitalism has been driven by shifts in views among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents," acknowledges Pew. That still leaves the GOP as a market-oriented political party (despite the oddball 14 percent lobby for adding Lenin to the partisan pantheon alongside Lincoln and Reagan). The Democrats have become a lukewarm socialist party, to judge by the sentiments of supporters.
"Americans see capitalism as giving people more opportunity and more freedom than socialism, while they see socialism as more likely to meet people's basic needs, though these perceptions differ significantly by party," Pew notes in partial explanation of the disagreement. OK, but that's aspirational; do Americans really understand the differences between the economic systems?
Fortunately, in 2019 Pew asked respondents more detailed questions about their opinions of capitalism and socialism. Unfortunately, that poll was also terrible about defining terms, but at least it allowed people to describe their impressions of the systems in their own words.
Supporters of free markets "mention that capitalism has advanced America's economic strength, that America was established under the idea of capitalism, or that capitalism is essential to maintaining freedom in the country," the 2019 report offered. "Critics of socialism point to Venezuela as an example of a country where it has failed. People with positive views of socialism cite different countries, such as Finland and Denmark, as places where it has succeeded."
That's helpful because Venezuela's government has largely seized the means of production and dominates the economy; it's socialist. The country is ranked at 176 in the 2022 Index of Economic Freedom as a "repressed" economy. By contrast, Finland is ranked at ninth as a "mostly free" economy, along with Denmark (10th), and the United States (25th); all are countries where private enterprise prevails. Yes, both Scandinavian countries are considered somewhat more capitalist than the U.S.; but they have expensive welfare states and tax the hell out of their private economies to pay for them.
"I know that some people in the U.S. 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," then-Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen commented in 2015. "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."
"So, what is the catch you might ask. The most obvious one, of course, is the high taxes. The top income tax in Denmark is almost 60 percent. We have a 25 percent sales tax and on cars the incise duties are up to 180 percent. In total, Danish taxes come to almost half of our national income compared to around 25 percent in the U.S."
In Reason, historian Johan Norberg pointed out that Sweden, in particular, dabbled with state economic control. The experiment was abandoned after the economy tanked. Then the country "deregulated, privatized, reduced taxes, and opened the public sector to private providers." Impressions of socialist Scandinavia are "stuck in the 1970s," he added. Sweden also has a welfare state and very high taxes.
Americans probably mostly understand capitalism because they live in a generally market-oriented society, even if it's often cronyist and overregulated. Flaws, including politically favored businesses, and companies supporting ideological goals under regulatory pressure, undoubtedly tarnish impressions of the system. It wouldn't be surprising if recent arguments over "woke" corporations explain mildly cooling enthusiasm for capitalism on the right. But when it comes to socialism, too many advocates want a unicorn; they ask for socialism but point to capitalist models. Other sources offer some insight.
"The vast majority of Republican voters—85 percent—believe anyone who works hard can get ahead, while 53 percent of Democrats feel that way," a recent Wall Street Journal poll reveals. "Democrats often say that hard work isn't sufficient for all Americans to advance, partly due to systemic hurdles based on class or race, and that the government should help. … Republicans, by contrast, say the government should as often as possible get out of the way of efforts by individuals, businesses and charities to help people advance economically."
Republicans, then, retain faith in individual effort, which is fundamental to free-market capitalism. Democrats want some sort of government thumb on the scale, which isn't socialist state control of the economy (and perhaps this helps explain declining support for socialism), but which is welfare-state-ish. So maybe they do want Scandinavia as a model—at least for favored groups.
"There are so many socioeconomic differences in the country," one Democratic voter complained to the Wall Street Journal. "It really depends where you were born on the strata."
But the same poll suggests grounds for more strife. The Journal found 61 percent of Republicans and 53 percent of independents agree they are "one of the people the elites in this country look down upon." Just 40 percent of Democrats concur. So, Democrats don't trust capitalism, are losing faith in socialism, but want government to play a bigger role. Against them are Republicans and independents who think the ruling class that would pick winners and losers despise them; they're unlikely to envision themselves among those a hostile government would help.
In terms of capitalism and socialism, Americans may not entirely know what they're talking about, but it seems clear that many of us have very different visions for the country in which we want to live. If there's one thing on which we can agree, it's that we'll continue to strongly disagree.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I want neither socialism or economic freedom, too!!! I want "me-ism", under which everyone else works hard to produce goods and services for MEEEEEE!!!
Kinda like MANY so-called conservaturds who want "social media" to produce shit for THEM... And then they want to "return the favor" and boss around, said "social media" owners!
(In reality, me-ism is Marxism... #Marxism_for_Conservaturds )
Unfortunately, we won't let the real free market work. Those in government seem to think in terms of equity instead of equality. There can never be equal outcomes in anything. We are all different in our attitudes, aptitudes, behavior, and motivation. The old saying of you reap what you sow is true. That is if government leaves you alone without the high burden of taxes. People complain about wanting better lifestyles, and the government, those wanting to stay in power, acquiesce. Yet when they are forced to pay taxes for the less unfortunate, lazy, don't want to work (unless disabled), and unmotivated, we complain that it's capitalism that's failing. No, it's government trying to do to much! And while we are at it, for god's sake, educate the youths in skills that are useful. College today is a scam. It's taught by imbeciles that are woke and indoctrinated. They have no wisdom, but they consider themselves to be 'activists' against things they know nothing about. We will fail as country if we abandon the free market. Every country became rich because of America and its model of capitalism. Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system in the world. Period!!
Kudos, agreed, well stated! "There is no such thing as an undeserving poor person" is a fiction promulgated by the left! Militantly lazy people (they do exist) DESERVE their poverty! Throwing money at them does NOT help them!
I work from home providing various internet services for an hourly rate of $80 USD. I never thought it would be possible, but my trustworthy friend persuaded (amu-12) me to take the opportunity after telling me how she quickly earned 13,000 dollars in just four weeks while working on the greatest project. Go to this article for more information.
…..
——————————>>> https://smartpay21.pages.dev
The trouble with this piece is its undefended assumption that textbook definitions of any economic "-ism" exist in the real world of affairs. The U.S. economic system has been described as "mixed" ever since FDR -- that is, as nothing in particular. There's nothing perfect or beautiful about the mix, which changes and swings in both kind and degree over time. Both capitalist and socialist pretense become cronyism in practice. And yet: billionaires out of nowhere. Social Security, Medicare, EITC. Americans understand that the mix, not any ideologically or theoretically pure system, is what works for more people more of the time, and unlike ideology, is self-correcting. The polling results simply confirm this.
Thank you, Debo. Unfortunately, we are speaking in an echo chamber here. We all need to take our writing efforts to the places they will do the most good...to where the collectivists go unchallenged. I'm targeting YouTube videos that promote socialism and communism. Those videos are pure propaganda and there is very little push-back in the comment section.
I am making 80 US dollars per hr. to complete some internet services from home. I did not ever think it would even be achievable , however my confidant mate got $13k only in four weeks, easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail. Look extra details
going to this article… https://incomebuzz7.blogspot.com/
Edited? Am I gonna see the light after posting this…?
Edit: I came.
"There are so many socioeconomic differences in the country,"
These socioeconomic differences might be explained by the degree of a groups acceptance or rejection of Western Civilization. If you've rejected the benefits of education because your culture believes it is a white construct (It is, and is a good thing) you will probably lag behind those who make use of the opportunity.
Education is most definitely not a "white construct". Education (not universal education) has been a prerequisite of every successful civilization in history.
That’s right.
Well, Asians are lumped in with white when it comes to this. At least in the view of whackadoodle American academia.
Education (not universal education) has been a prerequisite of every successful civilization in history.
You did fence off Universal, but you might show your work on what previous civilization placed a premium on education (for the masses). It was always exclusive to the wealthy or retained by the various religions.
What civilization, other than Western, placed a premium on 'education' as a means of personal and societal progression?
Going to have to call a goal post moving penalty.
In keeping with your unblemished record of never once properly identifying a logical fallacy.
Sure, Tulpa.
He is sure. As he is correct.
It takes a Constitutional amendment to **LEGALLY** re-defined the USA. People and Democrats who think they can willy-nilly re-define the USA for their National Socialism (Nazism) - Yes; federal socialism is EXACTLY National Socialism which is exactly abbreviated to Nazism.
Which plays right into the Democrats Socialism motive as perfectly described by this article. They pretend to want a capitalist nation but ALSO want Gov-Gun THEFT to work in their favor. They want to STEAL from those 'icky' people. They want to be ARMED ROBBERS... They don't think *EARNING* things is a principle worth keeping around instead want THEFT to make all undeserving people richer.
There you have it.. Criminals. Treasonous criminals who want to ILLEGALLY take over the USA and also want to use GUNS to STEAL. Seriously Democrats.... What ethical principle can you possibly be based on? Selfish-emotions that just want to BREAK humanitarian and natural laws with GUNS? Think about it.
At the end of the day it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize the only thing that separates 'Gov' from any organization is the use of legally-approved GUNS against those 'icky' people..
Thank you for doing such a fantastic job of promulgating ignorance at its finest. Obviously you are completely unaware of the fact that 39 of our 50 states are mooching states; States that cannot survive w/o receiving additional monies from the 11 other states that actually fund our government. The overwhelming majority of these mooching states are run by Republicans.
Thank God your ignorance prevented you from calling out Venture Capitalists, who buy companies and strip the assets, as thieves.
Ignorance at it's finest is making up B.S. and then being too retarded to actually support curing the B.S. story by CUTTING the wealth redistribution ( A Nazi-Move )..
I won't even bring up how commie's pretend they own up to 80% of Republican states (federal land). Another UN-Constitutional taking.
It's understandable that Koch / Reason libertarians are skeptical of "socialism." After all, that philosophy has historically been associated with a desire to help the poor by redistributing wealth. Whereas our philosophy seeks precisely the opposite — to concentrate wealth at the very top.
But this is the key point: contemporary American self-described "socialists" don't actually care about hurting the rich or helping the poor. To them "socialism" is just a fashionable lifestyle brand for social media influencers.
Don't believe me? Consider our most prominent socialists Bernie Sanders and AOC. Who did they vote for? Joe Biden, of course. And who did American billionaires vote for? Also Joe Biden!
TL / DR — If socialists are on the same page politically as billionaires, then they pose absolutely no threat to billionaires. 🙂
#LibertariansForAOC
An unrealized gain (wealth) is not real, Grasshopper. Cash is real. Doomsday prepper assets are real- farmland, energy, water, antibiotics
Thus, Putin going for farmland
Thus Putin going for the land in Ukraine where the gas & oil are concentrated. He's got plenty of farm land already.
Yeah Ted Turner Jeff Bezos Elon Musk and Bill Gates are actually broke and not among the top 50 land owners in the US. Fucking moron.
Declining Faith in Both Capitalism and Socialism Leaves … What?
Lemme guess. Not-so-soft fascism continues to be overlooked as just business decisions among Capitalists by Reason and they're confused as to why the popularity of Capitalism is falling.
Republicans, then, retain faith in individual effort, which is fundamental to free-market capitalism. Democrats want some sort of government thumb on the scale, which isn't socialist state control of the economy (and perhaps this helps explain declining support for socialism), but which is welfare-state-ish. So maybe they do want Scandinavia as a model—at least for favored groups.
My mistake and even more typically Reason: Democrats losing faith in Capitalism and Totalitarian Socialism ergo Americans (and Reason) confused.
I think most people associate socialism with lots of welfare, and don't even know that the word means government owning the means of production.
Usually, whoever owns the means of production owns the product, as well. I think general welfare serves as a camel’s nose and that it is still an aspect of socialism while not being the bulk of it.
I don’t think we will see much more control of government over businesses beyond what we already have - taxation. I just expect we’ll see higher taxes as the means of owning the means of production, or rather it’s product.
I don’t think we will see much more control of government over businesses beyond what we already have – taxation
Did you just hand-wave away all the regulations over wages, hiring, firing, benefits, clients, operating hours, products and services, locations, and methods?
Most regulations are intended to impose impediments to competition, as opposed to controlling what goods and services the company produces.
No, you're just a really fucking stupid clown who self-admittedly couldn't even work your way through an introductory economic primer written at a middle school reading level.
Of course you’re going to look right past the fact that Reason rather unequivocally said “Democrat = American”.
If I said 74% of Reason commenters support sarcasmic’s posts, but “Many Americans don’t seem to like any forum poster.”, “Americans don’t much like each other.”, “A growing number of Americans don’t believe in much at all.”, “Do Americans understand forum posters at all?”, and “Americans may not entirely know what they’re talking about.” You might get the distinct, and I would posit not-contextually-inaccurate, impression that I didn’t regard you or forum posters as my peers, or American.
Tuccille says some pretty blatantly unsupported, completely unwarranted, and retardedly unnuanced shit for, seemingly, no other reason than to insult people. Even more carelessly than the pollsters that he criticizes. And he does it in a decidedly, if not obliviously, partisan manner.
Of course you’re going to look right past the fact that Reason rather unequivocally said “Democrat = American”.
Or maybe I didn't notice because I'm not a hyper-partisan.
Or maybe I didn’t notice because I’m not a hyper-partisan.
Which doesn't refute what was said. You do realize that declaring yourself non-partisan, and therefore morally or technically correct above anyone you can portray as a member of an inferior faction, is pretty critically authoritarian, right? Especially if you do it to dodge objective statements.
Tuccille: "74% of Black people understand what's going on. 30% of White people understand what's going on. Americans are confused."
mad.casual: "Uh, even if that wasn't intentional, it's pretty objectively divisive and racist or discriminatory. And the fact that you made the logical leap without evidence means it's your personal opinion/insult."
sarcasmic: "Oh mad.casual, quit being so hyper-partisan!"
You do realize that declaring yourself non-partisan, and therefore morally or technically correct above anyone you can portray as a member of an inferior faction, is pretty critically authoritarian, right?
You know what non-sequitor means? It's Latin for "does not follow."
Declaring myself non-partisan doesn't make me superior, it means I'm looking at things from a different point of view. And you jump from that to authoritarian? The fact that I won't support authoritarian Republicans or totalitarian Democrats makes me an authoritarian? The fuck are you smoking?
Declaring myself non-partisan doesn’t make me superior, it means I’m looking at things from a different point of view.
Right. All views are unique, some views are more unique than others.
The fact that I won’t support authoritarian Republicans or totalitarian Democrats makes me an authoritarian?
Yes. Stalin didn't support Republicans or Democrats. Hitler didn't support Republicans or Democrats. Mao didn't support Republicans or Democrats... You are asserting that your "non-partisan" or "not hyper partisan" view is, somehow, the authoritative view. Mine is not an authoritative view, it's an objective view. Tuccille may not have meant to insult Republicans any more than Joe Biden meant to insult poor, inner city black and minority kids but, absent other evidence, the statements are plainly divisive and insulting along those lines.
Yes. Stalin didn’t support Republicans or Democrats. Hitler didn’t support Republicans or Democrats. Mao didn’t support Republicans or Democrats… You are asserting that your “non-partisan” or “not hyper partisan” view is, somehow, the authoritative view.
Absolutely not. I'm being humble by admitting that while I don't know what the right answers are, I'm sure that those ain't it. I'm also not falling into the fallacy of "Well if you don't have a better idea than this idea must be good." I'm not trying to impose anything on anyone nor am I putting words in peoples' mouths.
This is like trying to explain my atheism to a Christian. I say I have no faith. They say I must worship something, because they can't imagine life without worship. I say no, I don't have faith. They say I must worship humanity or the devil. I say no, I don't have faith. Then they get angry and start accusing me of torturing small animals.
I've got no political faith.
This is like trying to explain my atheism to a Christian.
Your mask is slipping.
You do have faith. As has been explained. You don't worship anything and therefore you have faith that nothing worth worshipping exists. That there will be no repercussions to not worshipping. Since this can't be proven, you can only believe this, ergo you have faith. It's just a different style of faith. I'm tired of explaining this to atheists. All belief systems, rather you choose to believe there is a supreme being or choose to believe there isn't, requires faith because no one can know for sure who is correct. It's an untestable hypothesis.
You don’t worship anything and therefore you have faith that nothing worth worshipping exists.
That's exactly what I'm talking about.
You can't comprehend the concept of nonbelief, so you couch it in terms of belief.
Faith is a belief. Non-belief is not a belief.
You're saying that silence is sound and darkness is light.
Sorry, but silence is a lack of sound, darkness is a lack of light, and atheism is a lack of faith.
To be honest, I envy you guys who do have faith. It's powerful stuff. I wish I had it. But I don't.
You do have faith. As has been explained.
"This is how you think and what you believe!!"
Fuck you.
There are some militant atheists, I call them anti-religionists, who give the rest of us a bad name. They hate all things religion and have faith at the same time. They're jerks. Fuck those assholes.
You can be a non theist and a moral realist at the same time. There are plenty of faithful people who are moral relativists, see practicing Christians Holocaust.
Non belief is a belief because you can't prove it. Actually non belief is an oxymoron. As an atheist you believe rather you admit it to yourself or not. You believe there is no supreme or higher power. This is a belief. You don't know if there is or isn't a higher power. You can't prove one way or the other. Therefore not believing in a higher power is another form of belief. Unless you can prove it, any absolute thought on the matter (existence vs non existence) is belief.
Huh, looks like the conversation jumped the shark a bit from political lack of faith to religious lack of faith.
Yeah, I’m far from a militant atheist. I miss a lot of things about going to church, back when I was a kid and my parents made me go: the pretty girls dressed up nicely, cookies and Jello salads. I even played guitar in the church services.
Never liked the getting up on a Sunday morning part.
You don’t worship anything and therefore you have faith that nothing worth worshipping exists.
This whole line of exchange brings to mind the antiracist reaction to those hostile to overt discrimination but who aren't on board with the antiracists' worldview.
I've taken to remarking that the Anti- in Antifa and Antiracist is like that in antimatter (related, but with differing charge) instead of the one in anti-war (acting in opposition to) that is more commonly used. Similarly, there is a certain strain of atheism which is effectively antireligion, instead of just the absence of belief.
Non-belief is not a belief.
OK, prove it.
Your faith is misplaced. You have faith that noting exists, yet you want to live. Why? To what end? If there is nothing to live for, then you should have absolutely nothing to fear. However, I suspect you have faith that the government, someone, or something, will make things better. That is if you're optimistic. If not, then you believe that mankind is an accident and we will perish. Explaining atheism is next to impossible. No one can look at life with it's DNA, the universe, time, and space without questioning why? Those who don't ask why, just simply walk around foolishly. Asking question is what leads to success.
I suspect the main reason America is starting to fail, is because of the narcissistic, anti-god, and anti-logic that permeating our senses because of secularism. We were doing much better when we believed in something higher than ourselves, and we tried to live up to the standards of our faith.
First, it must be pointed out that this could be a textbook example begging the question.
Then notice how Sarc follows up by responding to an epistemological statement, "Since this can’t be proven, you can only believe this, ergo you have faith. It’s just a different style of faith." with an empirical answer "Non-belief is not a belief."
He started with a contrived position and then when that was disputed, he didn't offer a counterargument and instead attempted to reframe the argument in a way that he cannot be wrong. That is not honest discourse. That is the essence of the Motte and Bailey fallacy.
Not believing in an unprovable axiom provides no discernable difference from believing it. Epistemologically, not believing can be shown to be a belief just as not choosing can be shown to be a choice.
Empirically, A is =/= to Not A. But the nature of the argument is fundamentally different.
I've never seen a Christian worship their god with half as much fervor as you worship Biden.
Lol. Christians are responsible for the Holocaust now, Schlomo? Dachau was occupied entirely by Catholics.
Liberty. Liberty means fuck you I'm not doing anything to you leave me alone. Basically. As long as you're not imposing something on someone, fuck 'em. Isn't that stick-up-the-ass libertarianism?
In that context, wouldn't defining liberty as force be, well, wrong? It wouldn't make sense.
Defining a lack of faith as faith makes the same amount of sense.
I'm down with that. Point me the way. Help me find that faith. I want some. No sarc.
“have faith that nothing exists”
You are exemplifying the just-not-getting-it thinking that sarc described. An atheist or agnostic doesn’t positive beliefs about nothingness, they just see no reason to have a positive belief in a god.
You have unwavering faith in your hatred of Trump. You hate him more than you love anything. Except maybe booze.
Now that I've found where to get on, Soldiermedic76, so you're saying that Inquisitions, Crusades, Jihads, Pogroms, Witch-Burnings, Honor Killings, and theocratic religious laws against victimless acts were all over the undemonstrable? Well, that takes a load off my mind. /sarc
You’re obsessively anti Trump.
Indeed! In fact, you are an ignorant, virtue-signaling blow-hard.
No, that's not it, because you are a hyper-partisan Democrat who posts nothing but ActBlue talking points 16 hours a day, 7 days per week, from your section 8 apartment while piss drunk by 8 AM every morning.
I’m not reading every article as if I’m on a hunt. “What side are they on?!? Who are they promoting?!? What was that? They hinted at what? They’re on that side! Here’s the proof!”
*woo hoo used edit button to change "no" to "on"!*
It wasn't hinted at. It's right there in the subheading. I was reading the article looking for "Many Americans don’t seem to like any economic systems," when I stumbled across "Among Republicans, support for capitalism declined from 78 percent to 74 percent,". So, do Republicans not represent 'Many Americans' or is '74% approval/support' not a 'like' for Capitalism? This goes even further, speaking to your non-partisan nature, as apparently, we're distinguishing independents from Republicans and Democrats but they aren't even worth providing enough information about to consider as part of 'Many Americans' or liking an economic system.
If you read it objectively and or actually non-partisan or partisan-agnostic it's: "Many fruit don't seem to go in any pastry. Cherries go into about 70% of pies. Apples go into pies 46% of the time and turnovers 55% of the time. Most snobby pastry chefs don't like Cherries or Bananas."
There was an all-around decline. That's not wrong.
"Many Americans don’t seem to like any economic systems," connotes no trends.
Moreover, go see your definition of non-sequitur. Any 'decline' doesn't resolve anything:
"Declining fruit in pies and turnovers leaves what? Many fruit don’t seem to go in any pastry. 74% of Cherries go into pies. Apples go into pies 46% of the time and turnovers 55% of the time. Most snobby pastry chefs don’t like Cherries or Bananas.”
It's an unobjective article full of unstated and unverified assumptions that doesn't seem to serve any other purpose than to support Tuccille's notion that "Democrats are confused, therefor I (Tuccille) and Americans are confused." You actually have to be pretty partisan to understand or agree with all of Tuccille's assumptions and premises.
You're right. People use comparisons while ignoring the numbers. "Republicans are a 4 on a 10 scale regarding X, while Democrats are a 3. That means Republicans support X!"
When in absolute terms, a 4 is not support.
So I get where you're coming from. It's so common I overlook it.
Ownership means the right of use and disposal. If government dictates the use and disposal then government owns it.
There is no other kind.
Opinion polling should be a great way to determine economic policy. History and facts don’t matter as long as we have the fiscal tools to ensure all the right feels, equity, and a good life to people who don’t want to earn one.
Opinion polling is not even a great way to determine people's opinions. It's very well known as being almost incoherent. Sometimes it is good directionally.
The only real use for opinion polling is for politicians to find out what kind of things they need to say to get re-elected.
It's pretty obvious that opinion polling is trying to achieve an outcome the vast majority of the time. Hence why they get cited by politicians and political rags in support of this or that policy.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
Americans are getting what they vote for. American politics is a reflection of how Americans live individually: entitled, deeply in debt, and gluttonous.
That's what happens when you move from limited constitutional government with suffrage limited to property owners to universal suffrage with a living constitution.
+100000000000 Well Said!
From what I've seen most people who say they support socialism support the Nordic model, as opposed to government owning the means of production. They just want lots of free shit.
Bastiat put it best:
"Government is the great fiction through which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else."
http://bastiat.org/en/government.html
Nordic model is generally too free for them, reputation aside. I get the distinct impression that Gallic dirigisme is really where their hearts lie (Warren in particular is the epitome of a French Socialist).
The GOP (or at least the ascendant NatCon set) seems to favor an arrangement approximating the German approach, but without the completely insane energy politics.
Americans already get more free shit than people in the Nordic countries. The poor and lower middle class already have government programs for almost everything. It's primarily the high income earners that still need to pay for everything out of pocket, amounting to an even more progressive tax system. The amount of free crap Americans have voted themselves is ludicrous. And don't even get me started on government jobs, benefits, and pensions.
The actual difference between the US and the Nordic countries is that most Americans don't pay for it with their taxes.
If the US adopted the Nordic model, we wouldn't have 60% of Americans paying no federal income tax. Taxes would increase massively on the poor and the middle class. And on top of that, there would be a 20% universal sales tax. That's the Nordic model.
Economies are fictions we create to guide commerce in the image of our values.
Left, right, communism and capitalism are exaggerated cartoonish opposites designed to divide and distract the masses from our values.
People are recognizing that just because this divisiveness began millennia ago, doesn’t make it right.
What to do? Take nothing for granted. Use technology to support and strengthen the constitution as the basis of our values while weakening corruption. Then create a system of commerce that reflects them without the divisiveness.
What argument opposes the economy aligning with the constitution, which aligns with truth aka reality?
What argument opposes the economy aligning with the constitution, which aligns with truth aka reality?
Any of the marketing supporting every amendment after the 15th?
That’s not an argument.
Seeing as how those amendments were debated publicly they are indeed arguments for and against
If you think you’re making an argument, what is it?
Allowing women to vote was the 19th amendment. How is that an argument opposing that the constitution should align with truth, reality?
Are you insinuating that our economy/ constitution would somehow be better aligned with truth aka reality if women were denied the vote?
not so much women, but property owners (AKA taxpayers) only. And yes, I'll posit that allowing women to vote has hastened and exacerbated the following 8 (horrible) amendments, as well as the New Deal and the Great Society and 60 years of Democrat steerage of the country.
Yeah... don't let women vote unless they pay taxes.
Maybe you never read the 19th, or maybe comprehension is your problem.
Maybe you’re a Nazi, and want to slaughter the Jews that your friends totally didn’t slaughter.
That the Gaslighting Gauleiter Herr Misek has found a soft spot for the 19th Amendment in his otherwise illiberal totalitarian world view is hardly surprising. Let me put it this way: You know who else was voted into office thanks in large part to women voters?
It's Because Vagina. Vagina always figures highly in Totalitarian schemes to get more slave subjects.
IOW, "Jews" lie and lying should be a crime, amiright?
Lying is coercion and at the root of all corruption. I repeatedly say it should be criminalized.
The holiest prayer in Judaism, chanted by all faithful Jews on their holiest day in a couple of weeks, is clearly a plan to lie coercing other people.
When lying is criminalized, either Judaism will change or it will be advocating and inciting crime.
You want to get rid of the Jews, but there was totally no Holocaust, right?
He thinks he can do a better job than The Wickedly Great One. Never mind that the U.S. has more guns than people and many more Untermenchen than Übermenschen and even then, most of the Übers hate Neo-Nazis too.
They are a wildly unpopular group. Misek won’t quite come and and say how much he loves them, but we all know how desperate he is to do so.
Declining Faith in Both Capitalism and Socialism Leaves … What?
You know who advocated a "Third Way" opposed to Capitaliem and Communism?
Mr. You Know Who Else Himself & Friends Like You!
Fuck Off, Nazi!
Sheeple trolls confused as their bigotry prevents them from proving what they claim or refuting what they deny, choking, bleat naaazi naaazi.
Hahaha
Don't underestimate those you call "sheep." Here's the kind of "sheep" who stampeded and trample the ass of your "Honorary Aryan" buddies in WWII Da Big One:
Baa Baa Black Shhep Intro
https://youtu.be/3pvzA6-tSqE
And The Rat Patrol did it to your Aryan Brethren in your South Forty too:
https://youtu.be/0ZcbifYqpGc
So Fuck Off, Nazi!
Don't believe, just do!
Do what? 😉
Roberta, you're so forward! I love that! 🙂
TLDR; People have no fucking idea what capitalism, socialism or economics is and through our wonderful democracy vote on how to control the economy.
The only hope is for the different types of ignorance to cancel each other out.
I don't know about surveys, but I see a big surge in open support of communism. There is the obvious, BLM and Antifa, but go to Twitter or Reddit and you will see a lot of organized support for communist ideology.
There is currently a huge push to use the housing bubble to push communism. They are also being pretty bold with AOC level nuttiness like banning cars (walkable cities is the buzzword).
Communism actually works as long as you don't exceed Dunbar's number. If people want to form their own little communist bubbles, good for them. The problem is when they impose it on others.
Communism actually works as long as you don’t exceed Dunbar’s number.
This is a little bit like saying "My car actually works as long as it sits in my driveway." or "A brick of C4 wired up with det cord works as a paperweight as long as you don't..." I agree that if you just want to chill in your car in the driveway you should be able to but conflating "works" with "isn't sociopathically or destructively dysfunctional" is being generous.
It means if people want to live in communes, that's great. Good for them. Don't impose it on the rest of us.
I think sarcasmic is right, but I think the Dunbar number is still too high. I’d be willing to bet an actual commune wouldn’t make it past 50 people before you started having Bernie deadbeats not pulling their weight.
sarcasmic being a fucking retard doesn't realize Dunbar's number is about the number of personal relationships a single individual person can maintain, not a collective number. There is no "Dunbar's number" for a collective. There is a Dunbar's number for each individual member of the collective.
We also have the historical example of Jamestown to give us some guidance on the practicability of socialism among a small settlement. Spoiler: It failed. Miserably. Even more miserably than sarcasmic failed to finish reading Economics In One Lesson because of his intellectual deficiencies.
Hi Tulpa. This new feature on Reason lets me see everyone I've muted. I assume most of them with two names are you because you show up in the middle of the week with a new two-name handle, talk the same shit, I mute you, then you disappear only to do it again the next week. There's pages and pages of them. Dude.... get help....
Have you joined AA yet?
I think sarcasmic is right, but I think the Dunbar number is still too high.
I don't mean it as a personal attack, but it doesn't make sense and Dunbar's number is being misapplied here... unless, as I alluded, you consider wearing tattered rags, eating boiled grains, and dying of preventable diseases "works". Just the tip of the iceberg: there is only ~1 neurosurgeon for every 60,000 people. That doesn't mean only 1 in 60,000 people need brain surgery. It does mean that the 99.75% of 'Dunbar communes' that don't have a brain surgeon are either going to practice some form of capitalism/barter or are running a reasonable risk of catastrophic failure. Repeat ad nauseam for welders, electrical engineers, heart surgeons, power engineers, etc., etc. Assembly lines and mass production are a thing, and despite communism and Dunbar's number, they work.
Case no1: Vermont and Sanders socialist medicine. When Ben&Jerrys are willing to flee we understand that the commies in congress have the numeracy or basic mathematics understanding of a newborn
Anything "works" depending on your purpose. Both International and National Socialism "worked" very well at the purpose of starving, impoverishing, enslaving, and murdering people.
But it all looks so lovely in the artists' rendering. Though I'm still not sure how they expect to get building materials or freight into, or waste out of, there.
Declining Faith in Both Capitalism and Socialism Leaves … What?
Equitism! It's a thing! Rigidly utopian third ways between socialism and liberalism never lead to untold human suffering and worldwide devastation, that's just science.
Wow.
So much to choose from... but I am going to pick the low hanging fruit...
A "sustainable city" of 50,000 to be built from scratch... in the desert southwest.
OK, step 1: if you want a sustainable city, don't build it in the desert. Where ya gonna get the water, smart guy?
Yup. I love the notion of sustainable that picks the place least likely for two-humans with nothing but a bag of rocks and seeds to survive a full week. That place that's been inhabited by humans for the last 10,000 yrs.? That's not sustainable!
Water tends to come from large aquifers here. They're actually quite large, and despite water issues coming more in the news, many of them are doing well. For instance, my aquifer has been increasing in depth the last year due to heavy monsoon rains. But I live more rural.
Him saying 50k, which is a very small city, is probably a major part that makes it sustainable. That's the size of one of the suburbs of Tucson like Marana. It's not big.
Even if the water situation may be on solid footing, I don't think we'll disagree that it's horseshit along multiple, multiple dimensions. Did you look at the rendering? The one has something more than a dozen buildings over 10-15+ stories (most suburbs of 75K+ people have a half dozen). It's got a concert
venuehall *and* venue. Another has what looks like a baseball stadium. Monorails/Elevated trains (for 50K people!). It's pretty obvious that if this city is sustainable, it's because it's exporting a massive amount of its unsustainability to the state around it.Oh, for sure. As I said above, if someone is saying Utopia, run.
The water situation is one I'm just familiar with myself. Particularly because I leave near huge pecan and pistachio farms and when I tell people that people almost always as "Aren't nut farms water intensive." and then I explain about how water works here etc. etc.
The water issues in the state aren't overstated, but have a lot to do with the fact that Phoenix is now the 8th biggest city in the country and Maricopa county is the... 3rd biggest I think now. And they're all in one valley basically which means approximately one aquifer.
I hope this shit falls though. Bill Gates also wanted to do some big planned City of the Future thing out here in Arizona. Because of this, we have had ridiculous land speculation going on and shit is crazy even in extremely rural portions of the state.
This is thus preventing ME from buying my 100 acres out in the rural parts to set up my doomsday cult.
All the Richie Rich types have dreams of utopian city planning, but it never actually works out. There are entire abandoned building projects out the in the deserts of California to prove the rule.
Though I’m still not sure how they expect to get building materials or freight into, or waste out of, there.
And whose water they will confiscate.
One of the simplest and most accurate advice I have for people is if someone promises you Utopia, run.
Do not fear ashes, do not fear curses,
Do not fear brimstone and fire,
But fear like the plague that man with the rage
To tell you: “I know what’s required!”
Who tells you: “Fall in and follow me
If heaven on earth’s your desire.”
—Russian Bard Alessandro Galich
Aleksandr
And if someone aays they want to kill you, believe them.
Looks like a lot of people standing around. What are all of these people going to do in the middle of the desert?
I saw a dip station in one of the depictions. They can all do dips. Everyone's triceps will be ginormous!
coding
"Progressives" are usually against any actual progress.
Progressive National Socialism (syn; Nazism) to conquer the USA.
The end-goal is well stated and obvious; it's just so evil it's hard for people to actually acknowledge it even to themselves.
Just like how soooooo many German-Nazi's couldn't face the 'progress' of their socialism materializing. As it is now in the USA. People cannot acknowledge Gov-Welfare is Gov-Gun theft. It takes a heap of ignorance to pretend armed robbery is some kind of charity.
Socialism and communism are imposed upon society. They require an initiation of force by virtue of the means of production being owned by men with guns who answer to no one.
Capitalism is simply what naturally arises from enforcement of property rights, contracts, and criminal law. It's not an imposition.
I don't understand why more people don't get that.
Maybe because "capitalism" is an "ism"... Just a set of beliefs. And my beliefs are as good as yours! Who is to say? (Which is bullshit... Individual-freedom-promoting ideas work better than fascist ideas, as history shows us.)
I have, for a LONG time, advocated using the phrase "economic freedom" instead of "capitalism" to get around the many-many dipshits who can't think straight!
It's isn't an "ism." The term was created as a pejorative. It's not a system of beliefs. It's just what happens when a society has a functional government that protects the basics like property and contracts.
Oh, indeed. A capitalist is a person who works with capital; capitalism is a system which (according to the socialists that coined the term) favors capitalists.
It's also not just the absence of interference in trade you fucking clown. The people who coined the pejorative didn't leave it ambiguous. It either means what the people who coined it says it means or it means nothing. You don't get to substitute your definition for theirs. Words have meanings. People 5 or 6 standard deviations above your intelligence level already coined other terms that describe a market free of coercive interference. They didn't call it "capitalism".
Yeah, but then you talk like a crazy person all the time, which doesn’t get around people put off by insane people.
Another worthless input by an airhead... "Crazy person" = "anyone I disagree with, however much actual evidence that they may be able to bring to bear." Data is irrelevant... My FEELINGS about how crazy or stupid people are??! By God, now THAT is self-evidently the be-all and end-all!!!!
You're crazy, and the evidence is not disagreeing with me, but the long, rambling, repetitive screeds you post that are barely comprehensible.
I'm not sure I could even get enough meaning out of them to actually disagree with you on something.
I also try to use different words, but "capitalism" is too convenient sometimes. And you make a very important point. Capitalism isn't just another system that people can implement. As you say, it is (the way most people talk about it today) just what happens when people are left largely to their own devices economically. And happens to be the only thing that has ever greatly improved life for large numbers of people. Capitalism is productive. Socialism is parasitic and can never get people from poverty to prosperity. At best it is a slow decline.
Meanwhile back here on planet earth capitalism has resulted in no growth in real wages in over half a century and inflation is running 12% annually.
Free Market Capitalism didn't create the inflation. That comes from more money chasing fewer goods and both Trump and Biden ordered The Fed to create more money for "stimulus" checks and the cumulation of Government taxation, regulation, and spending us into debt over generations resulted in fewer goods. This, of course, is on top of inflationary monetary policies of previous generations.
Also, Government taxation, regulation, and deficit/debt spending all went together to deprive workers of opportunities for greater income and inflation made their income worth less.
Not Free Market Capitalism. Start again.
Blaming poor people when corporate profits & CEO compensation is at all time record highs. You also seem to forget how these Corporate American citizens clean up their messes & disasters; they kill themselves by declaring bankruptcy and stick the rest of the country w/the bill.
Socialism or Capitalism? That's the binary question? What a joke. We and just about every economy that has ever existed is a mixed economy. Most right-minded people realize that we will always be a mixed economy and it will have elements of individual and elements of state control. Finding the right balance is hard and needs to be dynamic and changing. We are so stupid about this. Trump comes along and uses the state to meddle with the economy and we still have this simplistic debate. Obviously Republicans favor state influence over the economy, they just can't say it out loud.
So why is the media still stuck in this binary debate? Is it because they like to find conflict everywhere and use conflict to sell stories? No wonder we are so divided. the media is keeping us stupid.
It's a mostly one dimensional spectrum. Who owns or controls the means of production? Individuals in the private sector, or agents of the state?
So on one extreme you have a never before achieved Laissez Faire propertarian free market, on the other extreme you have millions of people dying under dying when the socialist finally manage to implement the "true" socialism that their god Marx envisioned.
But while it is a one dimensional spectrum, it's clear from the evidence that the further down the capitalism side one goes, the better the economic fate of the individuals. More freedom equals more prosperity, all other things being equal.
In all cases, you still need the government to enforce some kind of minimum structure within which any system can function.
Yes, but according to many anarchists, such a structure can arise under a stateless system. Which is possible, but is not going to happen when a state already exists. So more realistic to limit the state to enforcing property rights and contract enforcement rather that waiting for property rights and contract enforcement to arise after the state was smashed.
To be clear, a LOT of anarchists do not want to smash the state. They want to keep minimizing it until it becomes superfluous.
It's hilarious that you describe Marx as the god of socialism and then introduce stateless society as if it's a novel invention of anarchism. Marxist communism is stateless. The state withers after the proletariat has seized the means of production. Imagine being so goddamn stupid you literally agitate for utopian Marxist statelessness while slagging Marx for being a dirty commie.
“The state withers away”….and YOU’RE the one well-grounded on planet Earth? Quick, what color is the sky there?
You need the government to ensure Individual Liberty and Justice for all. Or if you need a detail description see the U.S. Constitution; the very DEFINITION of the USA which is wildly ignored by socialists and that is the very problem. Democracy shouldn't be conquering the USA. Definition changes have a very strict process called constitutional amendments.
They should've included corporatism in the survey. Wonder how many Democrats would've gone for that.
communism, old economy, capitalism, monetarism, free market, free-enterprise, the new economy, market economy, command economy, mixed economy, tiger economy, industrialism, macroeconomy. the gold standard, economy, market.
Those are the Synonyms from a big dictionary site. No wonder we cannot have a normal discussion. Even dictionaries have no idea what these words mean
Feedback on the new comment system:
Love the edit button.
Needs error messages when comments fail that explains the failure. Illegal characters, too many links, whatever. It shouldn't be trial and error.
A fried of mine once put it so well:
"Nothing is free is someone else is paying for it."
TANSTAAFL is too long to put on a license plate. Only allows seven characters.
7 characters? So about your attention span. Remember how you confessed you couldn't finish Economics In One Lesson, which is 218 pages and written at a middle school comprehension level?
No, and "Hi" Tulpa. Read it twice. Lent it out twice. Didn't get it back the second time, but you expect a lent book to be a gift.
Ackshuyally, I seen one in NC, presumably sported by one of the State LP activists.
Well where I live there’s a limit to seven characters. Would have to shorten it to NSTAAFL or something. But then it wouldn’t be the same.
Got in argument with this dude on a forum this week. He finally shouted "capitalism is not moral!", to which I replied "neither is socialism". That got a stunned response from him. "I am not a socialist."
Well like it or not, there are only three choices, the means of production are in private hands, or the means of production are in public/state hands, or some mixture of the two. It's a simple spectrum.
That dude was obviously raging against crony capitalism, but had to lump all instances of private ownership into the mix. The only other option is therefore socialism. (Or fascism, which is just another form of socialism).
Now of source, the great unwashed masses on both sides (both sides!) want the middle ground. Heavily regulated capitalism, private ownership (except for schools and other "special" industries) but still some form of government control over the means of production. Private hospitals but government agencies heavily regulating it. Private steel companies but government providing protection against foreign competition. Etc. This is better than outright socialism but still it's still a turd in the punchbowl that makes capitalism look bad. But one can have a nice refreshing glass of punch without turds floating in it. That this never seems to be an option on the table is profoundly sad.
Show me some complaints about capitalism and I'll show you complaints about government meddling in the economy.
What puzzles me is the general obtuseness of the people complaining. They say the problem is corporations running the government, so they want to give the government more power to control the corporations that control it. That only results in a bigger government for the corporations to control. The solution is more government to control the corporations that control it. That only results in a bigger government for the corporations to control. The solution is more government to control the corporations that control it. That only results in a bigger government for the corporations to control. The solution is more government to control the corporations that control it. That only results in a bigger government for the corporations to control. The solution is more government to control the corporations that control it..............................
Money is evil, capital is evil, capitalism is evil... But MEEE?!?! I am big and strong, and can RESIST that evil power of money!!! So give me ALL of your money NOW!!!!
Cue Pink Floyd.
Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day.
Overheard at OccupyCapitalism: "Corporations are EVIL! Except Apple, because I like iPhones."
I don’t think it is just a simple spectrum. It’s more like a complex card game where there are various levels of government and private players, all holding various cards they can play. Sure, you can look at that as “each card is either in a government or private hand” and then you could count how many in each domain, but you’d miss seeing a lot of the game that’s going on.
I want to push my analogy to include a draw pile of cards nobody is holding, but I can’t figure out how to abuse the analogy to make that fit.
You already constructed an unimaginably stupid analogy that doesn't comport with the way any actual card game is played, so just continue making shit up. What, are you afraid you're going to look any more retarded than you already are?
No. He thinks he is clever and pithy.
Sure, but I'm using the Marxist formulation: who controls the means of production? Under capitalism it's private individuals, under socialism it's the state (or euphemistically, the "public"). So under that definition it is a simple spectrum.
I'm not talking about stuff like taxes, licensing, baksheesh, or shit like that. Just who controls the means of production.
"Declining Faith in Both Capitalism and Socialism Leaves … What?"
Nanny-style fascism. It's the closest thing we can get at the national scale to mimic life as a perpetual 10 year old.
Fascism is socialism. Just tends to be nationalist rather than globalist, but still the same economics.
I'll go ahead and bookmark this comment for the next time you spend 50 posts in a threat histrionically screeching that fascism is a far-right ideology.
I wish more teachers would try the experiment where they issue each student the grade they earned, and then adjust it for equality with the grades all the others earned. Sure, those who move from a D to a B will be very happy, while the A students reduced to a B will be irate. Then tell them next week's test will be graded the same.
I'll bet the "equality" grade next week falls to something like a C- or even D as each smart student decides "why should I study?" and each D student decides the same. Maybe it would open some eyes?
Easy fix: Threaten the kids that were getting good grades with detention if their raw test scores before adjustment are less than an A to support the dumb kids.
That's socialism in practice.
Threaten to kick the kids out of the class entirely if they get bad scores, and then you have a commune in practice.
Ironically, that's more or less the free market solution as well. This illustrates a human truism, I think, over something inherent to either system. It's executed differently for better or for worse, but the motivations are largely the same.
Replace tutorial sessions with struggle sessions.
I would, as I have in the past, suggest that no country really has a capitalist or socialist economy, but rather a blend of the two. It is the proportions of that blending that define the success or failure of a country's economy. I see the unhappiness with capitalism and with socialism as an indication Americans don't believe the blend is correct.
With regards to the Nordic model. It would be good to examine the contours of their market economy. Is it strongly dominated by large companies or by smaller companies? What is the predominant corporate culture? Do companies see themselves as primarily making money or do they see themselves as a responsible part of society? Finally, does the broad social safety net free companies from burden of supplying employees with expensive benefits and allows them to focus on business.
Only criminals don't want JUST Individual Liberty and Justice for all.
They want to use Gov-Guns to STEAL or CHEAT. There will never be peace in 'gangland' [WE] mobs RULE government ideology because there is no focus on *EARNING* thus *PRODUCING* human resources. Only 'gangs' trying to STEAL and CHEAT by Gov-Guns.
The blend doesn't include kiddie fuckers, shreek, so you can fuck off and die. Nobody cares what you have to say.
declining faith in capitalism is a fantasy.
I think that's mostly the result of socialists successfully tacking corporatism to capitalism. It has much more in common with socialism, but people see the raw deal we get with multinational corporations being propped up by the government. To the extent that Republicans have soured on capitalism, it tends to mostly be about corporatism and the government putting Americans at an economic disadvantage through trade and immigration policies.
thumbs-up emoji
We had to destroy capitalism to save it!
Leftards propaganda of "crony capitalism" which is a contradiction.
It has always been "crony socialism"..
It's not the only retarded but massively accepted B.S. the left buys in pursuit of their criminal ways.
In other word's you're exactly the same as the communists who insist that every form of communism that has failed wasn't real communism.
I'm going to help out White Mikey and sarcasmic both here: that's a logical fallacy called "No True Scotsman".
Socialism and communism have failed spectacularly.
Free market capitalism has succeeded spectacularly, making humanity vastly richer, healthier, and less violent.
It is a shame that Democrats and progressives have been slowly destroying free market capitalism in the US over the last century.
As a quick rule of thumb, I think for the U.S. to have tax levels similar to that of European countries, you would have to double every tax there is in the U.S. This means doubling income tax, property tax, sales tax, and anything else you can think of. People who pay no taxes currently, would have to start.
People who pay no taxes currently, would have to start.
This would be a good thing
Gov-Gun theft for the WIN!!!
"You aren't 'people' UR just SLAVES of the STATE!", scream the criminalistic minds drooling over their next planned robbery.
Everyone 'supports' 'capitalism'.
In much the same way that everyone 'supports' breathing.
There is nothing else.
'Capitalism' is a word invented to try to demonize what naturally occurs as part of animal interaction. No, not 'human interaction'--animal. There are species that engage in systems that appear to meet the definition of capitalism that are nowhere near human.
Communism and socialism are just 'capitalist' systems in which the 'right' people get to decide who gets what.
Communism and socialism are just retarded criminalistic systems that like to pretend charity is about *STEALING* other people's labor/property. It's Gov-Gun slavery in action.
No animal species practices anything resembling human economics because they lack the level of sentience required for abstraction you fucking retard. Keep advocating that human society be constructed to mimic a herd of Ibex if you want your lolbert ideology to be taken even less seriously than it already is.
Ackshuyally, you mean sapience, not sentience. Sentience is Feels, sapience is thoughts.
Russian joke: a Soviet emigre returns to Moscow after the collapse of the Soviet Union and visits his old Marxist economics professor. He tells him, "everything you told us about Communism was false, and everything you told us about capitalism was true".
That must have had the 8 year old boy you fucked last night in stitches, shreek.
You are disgusting.
Shrike has it coming. There should be no vicious discourse with him. He’s a goddamned pedophile, and proud enough of that to post his kiddie porn links here.
No peace or civility for Shrike.
They both deserve to be condemned.
People are throwing around terms like "faith" or "belief". Economic and political systems should get their justification from evidence though theoretical support is a good thing. Further, all such systems are not merely mathematical or philosophical/moral constructs but are also models of human behaviour, and if your model gets human behaviour wrong, your model will suck with a mighty suck.
Evidence for the effectiveness of socialism? None. Theoretical reason to suppose it won't work? The pricing problem, amongst others. And it assumes that humans will behave (mostly) uniformly altruistically.
Evidence for the effectiveness of laissez-faire capitalism? None. Never been tried, Theoretical reason to suppose it won't work? "Increasing returns", and externalising of costs. People will put others at risk for money.
Evidence for the effectiveness of Western-style capitalism? Plenty. Theoretical reason to suppose it will work? Avoids the pricing problem and resource distribution problem. Behavioural?
When downside risks are reduced through safety nets, risk aversion is mitigated -> entrepreneurship is less risky and costly. Then it becomes an optimisation problem: costs of safety net versus benefits of entrepreneurship.
Good analysis. I think you are right it is an optimization process. Current dislike of both systems suggests the need for optimization.
Or maybe criminals will never be happy because the more they can STEAL the more they want to STEAL. Maybe the only point/value in having a monopoly of guns (i.e. Gov-Guns) is to ensure Individual Liberty and Justice for all.
Hey, shreek's sock agrees with shreek's other sock! Look at all this consensus!
Stick your golden mean fallacy bullshit up some kidnapped 8 year old little boy's asshole, shreek.
The US was laissez-faire, free market capitalism until the beginning of the progressive era; and that was when it produced the most prosperity.
If by Western-style capitalism, you mean the post-war form of economic organization, it has been a failure, leading to economic stagnation, massive economic inefficiencies, institutional corruption, and cronyism.
When safety nets protect people, companies, or institutions from the consequences of risky choices, people take on too much risk and economic inefficiencies.
And both empirical and theoretical evidence demonstrates exactly what I was saying: any time government "mitigates risk aversion", things go badly. It also tells us that the post-WWII Western economic system of increasingly government managed and dominated economies has been an abject failure.
Facts and reason: you should try them sometime.
"...and that was when it produced the most prosperity"
As a simple statement of fact, that is clearly wrong. There is far more prosperity and abundance today than before the "progressive era". You are making a counter-factual adjustment in your reasoning: an assumption that we would be even more prosperous under a path not taken. That is a fact not in evidence.
"When safety nets protect people, companies, or institutions from the consequences of risky choices, people take on too much risk and economic inefficiencies."
While that may be true, punishing people does not necessarily mean the risky behaviour is avoided. In many social contexts punishment can be counter productive and exacerbates the cost involved. Human behaviour is more complicated than just punishing people to try and effect a change in behaviour. Safety nets limit cost and inefficiency. There is a level of deprivation beyond which the returns, in terms of motivating a change in behaviour, are diminished and not worth it. People are not commodities you can despose of as surplus to requirements.
We measure "production of prosperity" in terms of growth of GDP, growth of per capita GDP, and growth of personal income and wealth. As government took over more and more of the economy under progressive and New Deal policies, economic growth slowed down more and more. Since the 1970's, the middle class has economically largely stagnated.
Well, and then people suffer the financial consequences.
You're babbling incoherently and contrary to both economic theory and observation, starting with the fact that misconstrue people paying for the risks they take as "punishment". Assumption of risk by the US government has led to everything from bank failures to massive public health problems.
It's people like you who are responsible for most of the social and economic problems the US experiences today.
Socialism vs Capitalism as physical systems (open to interpretation of what those words actually mean) is the wrong discussion, in my opinion.
Capitalism is the natural result of a system that is void of central planning and enforcement. It’s not a system as much as it is human nature given the freedom to pursue their own interests. Socialism is the opposite of that system. It is a system run by central planners with the power to enforce their will on individuals to support others against their own self interest and will. If you don’t believe that, then ask yourself which “system” requires the use of government agents with guns to enforce it.
If you asked the question, “should people be free to pursue their own economic interests or should government be given the power to plan and enforce collective economic interests,” I suspect you might get quite different results than this poll. That, or else it is true that all hope is lost for individual liberty.
*Note: edited just to say I did it.
Excellent! Free to choose versus coerced at gunpoint is the full context. And the guy with the Russian fake name understood the distinction with unconfused clarity. If only Christian National Socialists and tribalist soviet socialist could see this clearly, we'd again be urging our peeps to infiltrate them and rewrite their platforms instead of the other way around.
Get them to agree with you on murdering babies and fucking children?
Hold on, now. Hank may not be all there, but where did he support either of these?
"Democrats want some sort of government thumb on the scale, which isn't socialist state control of the economy (and perhaps this helps explain declining support for socialism), but which is welfare-state-ish."
If only there was a word for a system where nominally things are privately owned, but the government can violate any property rights in any direction it wants at any time.
Again, reason fails to address that the contemporary understanding of our and other countries "mixed economy" as capitalism is what the issue is. If reason would just become comfortable calling it fascism, then they could make much clearer arguments for free trade and liberty.
Reason doesn't believe in free trade or liberty. In a laissez-faire market Chuckie Koch would be giving handjobs behind 7-11 instead of greasing the pockets of politicians to entrench an oligopolistic dynasty he was left by his ancestors.
Reason is not a libertarian magazine.
You, however, are a fascist.
Tony got reinforcements or a mocking troll. Now we have two mindless bolsheviki and several hundred hard, angry, superstitious Republican Trumpanzees all trying to make Reason look bad by bleating from behind masks. All of them are on the left-hand side of the bell curve distribution of intelligence quotients.
You have a lot more strange notions than the average Christian Hank.
"Democrats often say that hard work isn't sufficient for all Americans to advance,
They're not wrong, but they have no idea why hard work by itself isn't sufficient. I can go dig furiously in my back yard for hours. I can sweat more than Elon Musk does in six months, but my efforts will not help me "advance". I have to work hard where my work is wanted. Or maybe I don't have to work hard, maybe providing value to others comes easy to me. It doesn't matter.
Progressives are not smart enough to grasp the concept. Liberals don't care, they still believe they have the moral authority to take the fruits of someone's labor and give it to someone else. They were not taught that theft is immoral, double-so when the theft they advocate is outsourced to a group of thugs with guns acting under the color of law.
When federal taxes falls on 10-15 percent of the population, we start to run out of federal taxpayers. That ain’t sustainable.
'Eat the rich' is good for a few meals, but it's literally the tale of the golden goose. After you eat the goose, you're left with nothing.
Progressive was the title of the Theodore Roosevelt party of 1912. TR backed forcing women to reproduce at gunpoint, keeping the Comstock laws with their chain-gang and economic ruin penalties, and sending goons with guns to waterboard and exterminate overseas "till somebody we like can be elected." Progressive, too, is an epithet without quantifiable dimensions other than racial collectivism and the determination to resort to the initiation of deadly force on the flimsiest of pretexts.
If you don't like income taxes, then exempt the 98.6% who earn less than the POTUS. It only accounts for 17% of the nation's revenue, but it requires more than 2/3rds of the IRS's resources to collect. Now if you believe that those who are earning more than the world's MOST powerful position shouldn't have to pay taxes to support the government that made it possible, then you obviously don't care about our military that is providing world wide police protections those in the 1.4%.
A 1% sales & purchase on OUR stock markets would eliminate all capital gains taxes & 401K/IRA rules and provide our nation with over 5 times the revenue we are currently collecting. Republicans & Libertarians have been calling for a national sales tax for years, well here it is.
Fascism, monarchism, or libertarianism
Americans seem to be increasingly voting for fascism, viz Biden, Warren, etc.
Libertarianism is just a fancy word for technocratic totalitarianism so no actual difference there.
Fascists like you really hate it when people can make they’re own choices.
You are disgusting.
Minimizing the initiation of force is the opposite of totalitarianism in the English language. Not surprising Yourupeans and their local brainwashees can't grok it.
We're all totalitarians now.
Perhaps the answer is a capitalism where the working poor are subsidized by augmenting their incomes by a beefed up Earned Income Tax Credit program funded by a surcharge on the wealthiest five percent. It would incentivize work while reducing inequality.
Why is reducing inequality a goal in a game that isn't zero sum?
Does someone having a billion dollars make you poorer, somehow?
That's notably not how it works at all.
"[WE] mobs work endlessly (cheer leading) for Gov-Gun THEFT and some of us armed robbers are still poor!", the criminnalistic Nazi-fans will repeat endlessly....
What R the Nazi's really saying?? Bank Robbers 'work' too.... 🙂
Yeah; they really are that criminalisticly retarded.
That's literally exactly what we already have you fucking moron.
Perhaps nowhere do the letters C & S come together so nicely as with C. S. Lewis, rationalist of a major world religion whose name eludes me and probably eludes his fantasy Narnia series, too.
Rationalist? Hardly.
I think one reason for the decline of faith in both is the massive level of propaganda. In our schools, children are taught against capitalism and our country in general. The opposite of patriotism is taught by the communists running the public school system. This same propaganda is everywhere in T.V., online, advertisement, sports, higher education.
Also, many big corporations are exhibiting anti-human rights behavior specifically rejecting our Bill of Rights and supporting totalitarianism. They give a bad name to capitalism.
Adults are seeing first hand the workings of socialists in their cities and certain state govts, and the federal govt. Socialism is destroying these places, as it is based on lies and goes against human nature, which is selfish and prone to cheat. So a large number are turning away from socialism. At the same time a certain smaller segment of the population which believes strongly in socialism/communism, exhibits horrible behavior via riots, taunting, cancelling, and so on.
What we need in America is to make this a Christian nation again, where most of the people turn to God and Christ and repent of their evil ways and embrace Christianity. They will understand their responsibility for good and right behavior and oppose wicked behavior, promoting justice.
This may seem simplistic to some, but our founders knew exactly what I mean.
It never was an officially Christian Nation. Look through The Constitution and the Amendments and you won't find one reference to Christ, Christianity, or any other Patriarch, Prophet, or Religion.
Start again.
Also there's all the explicit rejection of Christian-based rule by the founding fathers, history's greatest atheist edgelords.
You found your nut, Tony. More are not far away, so keep tapping your cane. 🙂
Perusal of Mein Kampf, on the other hand returns God 52 times, Christian 34 times, Providence 7 times and the Lord 10 times. Jews are attacked 444 times, negro 6 times and those other collectivists, the commies, more than 17 times as the guy called his brother socialists all manner of names and epithets. Hitler wouldn't be a bit out of place right here badgering Reason subscribers--under a sock alias like Spinach Chin, Patriotic Guy, Mothers Lament or mtrumonkeyman, and singing the praises of girl-bullying Grabbers Of Pussy.
Mein Kampf is searchable? Jeez! It's barely touchable.
"In our schools, children are taught against capitalism and our country in general."
Is this something you have witnessed, or did you just hear about it on FOX News? Don't worry, capitalism gets plenty of propaganda too. Why not let the propagandas compete in an open market?
"What we need in America is to make this a Christian nation again"
Oh, that's why.
In 1933 Germany "escaped communism" and got: "At no time was greater damage ever done to Christianity than in those years when the Christian parties ruled side-by-side with those who denied the very existence of God. (…) It shall be our task to burn out these manifestations of degeneracy in literature, theater, schools and the press – that is, in our entire culture – and to eliminate the poison which has been permeating every facet of our lives for these past 14 years." Hitler, 15FEB1933, same thing as today's MAGA Trumpanzees; both are at right angles to the LP in a world with more than one variable.
You, however, are not at right angles to fascists/socialists: you are right there in the midst of them.
Capitalism was INVENTED as an epithet by a communist who hated individualism and any diminution of State coercion. As irony, the way Objectivists answered to "The Collective," the thing was already flyblown, stale and moth-eaten before Nixon drafted us to throttle the accursed commie or be jailed with hippies. I used to bandy it about as promiscuously as Ayn Rand or anyone here. But after debating a professional Freeze-And-Surrender communist whose strong suit was reciting how fanatical American mystical prohibitionists invaded ten times more countries than Stalin's Soviet, I realized the error.
"Capitalism" in classic socialist lingo referred to the state privileging the interests of capitalists (capital holders) over and against labor interests. It had nothing to do with free markets or individualism or an absence of government coercion. The 19th-century American individualists anarchists, by and large, considered themselves antistate socialists, not capitalists of any description, despite championing free markets.
"Declining Faith in Both Capitalism and Socialism Leaves … What?
Many Americans don’t seem to like any economic systems, and they’re no closer to agreement."
Sadly, nobody that is alive in the USA today actually has experience capitalism so to not like capitalism is actually a dislike of statism / cronyism and fascism.
The USA has not seen capitalism in a century and people keep calling what the USA mostly has as capitalism. That is why some people hate capitalism. Capitalism label is incorrectly being applied to our fascist (in more areas than people think) way that things are run as well as the statism and obvious cronyism (lobbying being one example).
Think we are a free country? Try building a storage shed in your backyard. Many locals will make you get a permit for it or you might even have to tear it down if your neighbor, that can't even see it, complains about the color.
Install solar...depending on where you live it might take weeks or a month or more to get the city or county to sign-off on the installation. How about the goddamn power company do it? They have electrical experts and could likely be out within a day or two or even at the tail end of a project, especially if you are doing a grid-tied system.
I remember a clip from a Bill Maher conversation when he was in Adam Carolla's podcast and he was talking about how he has something like a year of fighting the city, constant permitting and engineering reviews to put a shed in his backyard to hold is batteries for his solar system. Here is another clip of him talking about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwIbpbljl6A
if that link doesn't work, youtube this: "Bill Maher has waited over 1000 days to get solar".
My father had farmland at one time years ago. We had a pretty wet spring and there were a couple of spots where there were puddles that stayed around for a couple of days. He commented on how if they don't dry up in the next day or two we will have to go out there and fill them in with dirt. Why? Because there were a number of areas on that same property that were turned into EPA protected wetlands because when it rains the water hangs out for awhile and ducks were playing in it when some EPA or environmentalist a-hole drove by. A couple of the spots are below the level of a canal that runs through so that is likely why the water drains slow right there. But you look at the place now and the gubment that made some of that land unable to be used by the owner did build a road right through there and covered up some of what was deemed to be "wet lands".
Get in the wrong business and you are regulated to death such that you are basically treated like you are in a facist country. You have the illusion of having a business but you are so highly regulated that the government is telling you what to do at every turn which basically means you are run by the government. You just happen to employ people onsite that take care of the government requirements. It is such that many people think of it as 'just the cost of doing business'.
We are like frogs put into room temperature water in a large pot. You don't know that the heat is on because the water is being heated so slowly that your "normal" or 'basline' keeps adjusting. Eventually, when it is too late you realize that you screwed up.
tHaT wAsN't rEaL cApItALiSm!
You are exactly as retarded as the commies who insist that Cuba North Korea China Venezuela and the Soviet Union weren't real socialism.
There is no such thing as "real capitalism"; "capitalism" is a term invented by communists to demonize all other forms of economic organization.
There is such a thing as "free markets" (or "free market capitalism"), and the more a society moves towards it, the more economic success it has.
In other words, real free market capitalism has been tried and it works.
An inefficient permitting process is not the stuff of fascism. But there are plenty of actual signs of it around.
As a friend of mine noted: "Capitalism is great at creating wealth, but terrible at distributing it. That's why the idea of socialism came about, to try and level the playing field. The problem is that socialists often spend more time arguing with one another about how to do that than actually getting it done."
Way before Marx, the idea of socialism was to augment the market system instead of replacing it, like the Ricardian idea of having cooperative enterprises replace "privately owned" ones, making sure workers got a fair share of the profits their labor produced, while keeping the rest of the market economy intact.
Worker-owned co-ops are not socialism you fucking moron.
^+10000000 exactly...
And the difference is........... Workers in a co-op don't pack GUNS (i.e. Gov-Guns).
Far too many have de-associated 'Gov' from being the tool of 'GUNS'.
What possible human resource can a GUN create?
Well; it either ensures Liberty and Justice or it destroys Liberty and Justice.
Socialism is about social ownership of the means of production, either by workers or by a state claiming to represent workers. After the fall of the USSR, Eastern bloc countries de-communized by socializing, i.e., by turning the state-owned factories over to the workers themselves. Socialism can either be pro-state or anti-state, and Ricardian socialism absolutely is a "thing."
But, but... Up is actually Down!!! /s
Private property is a *legal* designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities. (Wikipedia)
Nobody uses non-government "Ricardian socialism" to refer to
co-ops. It's very existence was/is just butter (indoctrination for spaghetti-brains) to promote actual socialism.
Your friend is an ignorant criminalistic child-minded buffoon.
Capitalism was never meant to reward everyone equally and that part of it is EXACTLY why it works.
It teaches the people in society that they must add *VALUE* to society if they plan to reap a benefit from it. It's hardly just 'capitalism' it's NATURAL LAW.. What does your friend call taking Labor/Creations from another by GUN poking without any returned benefit? Oh; let me guess - charity? That's where the idiocy of socialism is --- It's not charity; it's armed robbery. It's teaching people of society to be armed criminals for a living.
And why does it always fail?
Because having 'gangs' gun it out for every last golden goose doesn't matter if no-one is *EARNING*/laying the next egg. They're all going to starve. Its just a matter of who starves first. The zero sum game.
Instead of focusing so much on who gets the last kernel of corn maybe someone should focus on who's growing the next crop of corn.
In free societies, workers are free to own as much or as little of the company that employs them as they want. They are also free not to own any if that's what they choose.
And in a free market, workers always receive their "fair share of the profits their labor produced", namely the share that they negotiated with their employer, the share that both the worker and the employer mutually and voluntarily agreed to.
Your friend is an idiot.
"Declining Faith in Both Capitalism and Socialism Leaves … What?"
What I want is a good, strong monarchy with a tasteful and decent king who has some knowledge of theology and geometry, and to cultivate a Rich Inner Life.
Soooo...Do you work at Mideaval Times or the Renaissance Freak-Nic? 😉
Capitalism is not the free market. They work well together, but are not synonyms. Understanding this is step one if we’re going to have a serious and productive conversation about exploring something new.
Britannica
capitalism, also called free market economy or free enterprise economy.
Step #1 to socialist indoctrination... Propagandize the masses into believing lies about 'capitalism' that make it sound bad.
You're about 10-Steps behind the current Nazi-Empire. This is 1900s leftard propaganda.
Declining faith in socialism, yes. Capitalism? That's more function of societal trends, and it is pretty obviously going back in that direction. Socialism is contrived and always failed. Sometimes, indeed often, with tragic results. But...
How many more pointless centuries will be wasted debating between -isms that serve only to create artificial teams to compete over nothing? Capitalism, communism. -Ism my nuts. These mean next to nothing because they describe utopias and not economies.
"Denmark is a market economy with a strong social safety net."
Sounds like a compromise to me. Let's make the US into Denmark and move on to other subjects, shall we?
"But the high taxes!"
Name one poor person whose big problem in life is high taxes. The "problem" of high taxes is only a problem if you want to hoard more of this planet's resources than you deserve to. Taxes are the mechanism by which we redistribute this planet's resources away from some shitty market-based allocation that makes people's lives miserable to some democratically agreed-upon distribution that helps people be more free.
An entire philosophy, hordes of working-class idiots, all complaining on behalf of the rich, specifically those rich people who not only think that it's OK for them to have billions of dollars while there is actual poverty in their own country, they want us to kneel down and lick their balls for it.
Oh where are my manners, this is a libertarian website. Kneepads anyone?
Your plan requires the government to initiate force, that's immoral.
This slogan about initiating force is a conversation stopper lodged in your brain.
Taxation isn't an initiation of force. You're talking about the threat of force used to maximize compliance, but that's the same thing government uses for any law.
If we can't have any government at all, then your slogan has failed to provide you with a sensible moral foundation for a theory of human politics and you should discard it. It's only preventing you from thinking deeper, after all.
Tony as defender of altruist looting enjoys depicting mixed-economy depredation posing as the opposition. A laissez-faire party advertising its love of Wallace-Johnson-Nixon-Reagan-Biden-Bush²-Clinton-Obama mixed-economy statism as an ideal makes even Hitler-Stalin socialism an easy sell. Laissez-faire is what Prof. Joseph Stagg Lawrence of Princeton recommended in May of 1929, when the Dry Hope Hoover Administration was "building a new race" with bans on peyote and enforcing the latest Jones Law making beer a felony. THAT is Christian National Socialism complete with eugenics, racial collectivism and a planned economy. Look what happened 5 months after policymakers ignored Lawrence!
There is no "ideal" in my theory. We can discard 100% of our political philosophies and values, approach the world innocent as a babe, and simply select from a table the society that comes out on top with respect to the data on basic measures of human well-being.
Once we copy wholesale some other, smarter country's system, then we could spend the rest of time tweaking it to make improvements. All legislatures would be debating commas and semicolons at this point, if our species were rational.
But the underlying point was actually that there is no "system." There are attempts to impose a system, and the spectacularity of their failure is proportional to the strictness to which that system's rules are adhered to. No political order can work without huge latitude given to account for our vast ignorance of how complex systems evolve and what motivates people. I'm as loath as anyone to admit that markets offer some dumb utility in this regard, but I do hope one day to be freed of scarcity so we don't need them.
Your entire philosophy is based on the theory that a society’s happiness is dictated by social policies, and is as easy to both measure and replicate as a factory process.
You’re proposing that as some new “Tony-ism”, but it’s really the same recycled central planning approach, promising that this time, the vaguely defined “ideas” are good.
“But the underlying point was actually that there is no “system.” There are attempts to impose a system, and the spectacularity of their failure is proportional to the strictness to which that system’s rules are adhered to.”
Blah blah blah, a system is just an abstract thing like language and math and law and “military” and government and country and like any other concept we use. At some point in your philosophy studies, did you not get bored of these lazy observations?
“You can’t kick a system, so it doesn’t exist! Now let’s all discuss the best policies we should implement….” How insightful.
The spectacularness of their failure is directly proportional to how much the society made unfounded promises to revolutionize their lives by using violence against their own people to make them behave, violence that would make extremist theocracies blush, calling it “good” and “moral” because it had the self-approving stamp of “legal!” on it.
By the same token, I can’t remember a single failure that came about by the citizens choosing a limited government, property rights, and respecting individualism.
"the citizens choosing a limited government, property rights, and respecting individualism."
At last we come to your preferred system of government.
How do you prevent citizens from choosing a non-limited government? How do you get them to respect individualism? Is it violence?
Isn't the state in your system only violence and nothing else? So you don't hate state violence. You think it's the only thing the state should do!
I don't see what's so violent about funding scientific research or subsidizing medical care. Some would say these things are the opposite of violence.
And why would you want to make Americans as poor as the Danes?
That's because in the US, the bottom half either pay no tax or even receive government handouts in the form of EITC.
If we turned the US into Denmark, high taxes would very much be a problem for the poor and the middle class because those people pay high taxes in Denmark.
The problem in the US is hordes of idiots like you, idiots who know shit about either economics or the world.
I'm not saying Denmark is perfect. I've gone to great lengths to emphasize that.
But modeling our society on the most successful societies by objective metrics is not only a good first start, it's damn near the only rational first start.
There's no reason to tax the poor at all. Taxation is a disincentive to do something or a correction to an improper allocation. Why would we ever tax the poor? Not to take money from them, since by definition they don't have enough. To disincentivize them from buying food and toilet paper?
You have cause and effect reversed. Denmark functions the way it does not because of its laws but because of the way Danes think and Danish society operates. You cannot impose Danish law on Americans and hope to get Danish society.
Well, see, and right there you demonstrate my point: the fact that you even ask that question shows that you think like a greedy, entitled, ignorant American, not like the kind of person capable of functioning in a Danish-style society.
I'm sure we can learn to think differently. We learned to attach our faces to iphones 24 hours a day. Geez, the absurdity of claiming that there is some kind of universal, immovable culture in 21st century America.
“But modeling our society on the most successful societies by objective metrics is not only a good first start, it’s damn near the only rational first start.”
Sounds good. Now do the work of showing me that Danish people are truly the happiest and that this is because of their government, and specifically their tax and spend policies.
Because “Happy people pay high taxes so if we pay high taxes we’ll be happy” is just the lazy masturbation of a day-dreaming would-be central planner.
Happiness is a fuzzy concept, I agree, which is why I prefer to look at hard numbers about life expectancy, educational attainment, wealth, and so forth.
Tony-ism is still an ism, especially since it’s just a loose cobbling together of ideas borrowed from other -isms.
Giving it a name is the mistake. People flock to -isms because they are, well, sheep. All governments, everywhere, are mixed, so you tell me the great categorical difference between Denmark and Venezuela.
In fact, the only thing that seems to be missing in this world are countries that are almost all market-based with little public sector, unless you want to claim any of the anarchic shitholes nobody wants to set foot in.
This kind of polling proves that the education system has been dumbed down to the point, the comprehension rate and the material taught are equally horrible……They cannot understand because they are not taught Capitalism is economic freedom, it is choice, production goals, cost competition for a free market and open society….Communism is state controlled obstruction and your inalienable rights and choice is controlled by the central government….They look at you as if you are owned by the state like a commodity….Our schools need a overhaul and a enema to flush out the lame brainz…..
Declining Faith in Both Capitalism and Socialism Leaves … What?
Well Fascism. As we have seen with the Biden Administration. A mix of government, woke corporations, sycophant media and big tech, to stifle all dissent, lock opposition people up without charges, bail, trials or access to lawyers, weaponize the DOJ, FBI and IRS against political opponents and their supporters, and politically harass opponents. Trying to Federalize elections while holding both Houses of Congress and the Presidency. Trying to turn liberal cities into states. Trying to get rid of the electoral college Trying to keep opponents from even running based on obsolete Civil War era laws. Dividing the citizens by race, sex, creed, social status and class. Destroying the economy with money printing and spending for an economic collapse crisis to use as an excuse to permanently gain power. Ignoring immigration laws and sending the illegals they think will vote Democrat to red states to change the political populace. Trying to end the 1st and 2nd Amendments. Talking about the Constitution as out dated and wanting to re-write the Constitution Trying to establish a one party dictatorship. We have never seen a greater threat to our Republic and democracy than the current Democratic party.
At one time I was a Democrat, never again. I have never been a Republican and never will be, and am now a libertarian. Yet the Democrats are so dangerous I will vote straight Republican to try and stop them.
Girl-bullying race-suicide coercion was a duty to TR as president, when Comstock laws kept women in their place. Nobody preached that place better than Adolf Hitler, who held it the absolute power and duty of the altruistic Political State to compel women to reproduce by threat of deadly force: "But, on the other hand, it must be considered as reprehensible conduct to refrain from giving healthy children to the nation. In this matter the State must assert itself as the trustee of a millennial future, in face of which the egotistic desires of the individual count for nothing and will have to give way before the ruling of the State. In order to fulfil this duty in a practical manner the State will have to avail itself of modern medical discoveries." It's in Mein Kampf, copied from there into Prohibition and Republican Platforms since 1976, after the Supreme Court copied Roe from the LP.
If you don't know what you believe you'll be pushed around by the people who get paid to push you around. In other words the news media and politicians.
Tuccille repeats a language error all of us have fallen into. Adam Smith defended monarchic mercantilism, and advocated attacking and sinking Dutch shipping to favor British trade in the Caribbean. Karl Marx' proposal of an industrial looter state hit the stands in English without "Capitalism," which a fanboy invented later. American schoolbooks of the 1920s explained "Industrial Society" as a mixed economy preyed on by a political state whose planned economy included men with guns to bust you for beer--anything else physically enjoyable. Even Ayn Rand preferred conscription and fawning in the lap of Richard Nixon to endorsing the laissez-faire libertarian party with its law-changing spoiler votes that legalized birth control.
I only want to convince people of one "ism", individualism, as in respect for EVERYONE'S right to their choice, as long as they do the same, e.g., "Live & Let Live".
What is the alternative? Groups fight politically, outvoting each other and getting their way for awhile. This always ends badly, with violence, and no one wins in the end because violence only cements opinions, ensures division. For example, the Confederates lost the physical fight but they didn't accept the federal govt. They continued to resist and distrust the feds.
It leaves, for example, steady state economics like that proposed and developed by Herman Daly. I find his first book “Steady-State Economics,” the most accessible, but not for the system he proposes so much, though that system is interesting. The most important thing he does is point out implied but unacknowledged premises in our economic thinking as well as premises and goals we do exclaim but don't appear to think about. He asks what happens if we think about those goals and how they affect us. He proposes a solution which is at least something that describes terms that are otherwise than the old terms.
It leaves NUANCE. Prosperity is mostly self organized (capitalism) but every market requires rules and regulations which all exists on some sort of central planning spectrum. You can't go whack someone. That's central planning so common sense it is taken for granted but it is a rule applied by a central authority. You can't assault someone and take their stuff. Welfare, or saying no matter how useless you are, or how unfortunate your circumstance, you don't deserve deprivation nor does your deprivation advantage society generally. That's another central planning rule. It's all about BALANCE and always has been. Central planning on the scale of CCP? Obviously bad. Give so much welfare the lazy are just as well off as the productive? That probably won't work either. But government is inherently about a central plan of some sort. The ideologues that see rules of thumb (like markets are good or inequality is bad) as religious commandments are dangerous on both sides. Far from being oddball, conservatives who have a positive view of socialism I find more interesting. Same with liberals who have a positive view of capitalism. These people are probably far more balanced than the true believers on both sides. If nothing else they are just more interesting than someone who is Republican and likes capitalism or a Democrat that favors socialism. How original!
Or maybe that "balance" was already established by a Revolutionary War in which founders created a Supreme Law (The People's Law) over the government they were creating.
The only corruption to the USA over time has been the ignorance shown towards what the USA is by its very definition.
Government isn't the only entity that intrudes on the free market. As Ron Paul noted, there is such a thing as corporatism which can be confused with capitalism. And if one confuses the two the choices are between socialism and corporatism (which is being called capitalism). And if that's the choice, neither of them is going to work.
What you describe is 'crony socialism'. Leftard Nazi-Indoctrination termed the contradictory term to stain 'capitalism' on their Nazi-Empire building pursuit.
'Intrude' infers a lack of freedom to negotiable. Government 'intrudes' because it is nothing but a monopoly of Gun-Threats (that's the only 'tool' in its toolbox).
If your trying to describe an 'intrude' by companies the correct term you're looking for is 'corporatocracy' (arming corporations) - which was a huge curse. After all calling a government a 'corporation' doesn't change it's usage of accepted GUN-Force.
The only corporatocracy in the USA is 'crony socialism'. Yes the USA has gone socialist. Trying to contradict 'crony socialism' for 'crony capitalism' is the only thing confusing you.
I wish I could claim they're all becoming Georgists, Distributists, or classical free-market anticapitalists, but somehow I doubt that's the case.
The mainstream left's "middle ground" is heavily regulated, mixed markets and redistrubutionist welfare capitalism. The new right's middle ground is economic nationalism, which may or may not be an improvement over their former preference for corporate capitalism.
A lot of Americans do not even know what continent they are on. How many of the poll respondents could define capitalism or socialism? To make it more understandable we should ask do they prefer an economy where consumers choose what to buy or one where the government chooses for them.