Made in the USA: Socialism for the Rich. Capitalism for the Rest(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Made in the USA: Socialism for the Rich. Capitalism for the Rest
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/opinion/us-capitalism-socialism.html
126 comments
This article is completely hypocritical to be coming from Tom Friedman. He has been one of the primary cheerleaders for globalism which has been a major driver of corporations gaining more favor from the government. This favor has been in the many forms including favorable trade deals (to China and the companies that manufacture there), ignoring the environmental impact of manufacturing in China which hurts all people especially the citizens of China, lax immigration enforcement (which led to more competition for the workers and cheaper labor for the companies), and ultra low interest rates that make it difficult for people to save money without buying overpriced assets and accepting extended risk.
International trade agreements, taxation of corporations and interest rates are all distinct issues. Trade agreements are not the reason Amazon and Google aren't paying taxes, and neither are the current interest rates.
I disagree that they are distinct issues. Ultra low interest rates inflating their market cap gives them access to capital and in turn power to lobby for favorable tax policies, trade policies etc.
Of course it all happens in the same economy, so the outcome of a can affect b. But if something develops into a problem for society, it should be acted on directly, which is possible for all the points at hand here:
* If uber-profitable companies abuse their wealth for lobbying, then stop allowing these kinds of lobbying. The current system with PACs an Super PACs and so on is unique to the US, it essentially is a societal decision to have a system like that.
* If FAANG companies are very profitable (see p/e ratios) but don't pay taxes, then fix tax law.
* If money is cheap because there is no demand for it to invest into new businesses etc., then raise minimum wages and invest into infrastructure at federal and state level, to induce demand. Remember that low interest rates mean companies have no need to borrow money. This is a common misconception, but low interest rates are a consequence of the current economical climate, not its cause - if money were in demand interest rates wouldn't be so low, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rate_of_interest )
* if employers employ illegal immigrants to do tax fraud, then enforce the tax law. The tax fraud part has nothing to do with the immigration, small business tax fraud works perfectly fine with exclusively Americans employed in the company.
* If uber-profitable companies abuse their wealth for lobbying, then stop allowing these kinds of lobbying. The current system with PACs an Super PACs and so on is unique to the US, it essentially is a societal decision to have a system like that.
* If FAANG companies are very profitable (see p/e ratios) but don't pay taxes, then fix tax law.
* If money is cheap because there is no demand for it to invest into new businesses etc., then raise minimum wages and invest into infrastructure at federal and state level, to induce demand. Remember that low interest rates mean companies have no need to borrow money. This is a common misconception, but low interest rates are a consequence of the current economical climate, not its cause - if money were in demand interest rates wouldn't be so low, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rate_of_interest )
* if employers employ illegal immigrants to do tax fraud, then enforce the tax law. The tax fraud part has nothing to do with the immigration, small business tax fraud works perfectly fine with exclusively Americans employed in the company.
> This article is completely hypocritical to be coming from Tom Friedman. He has been one of the primary cheerleaders for globalism which has been a major driver of corporations gaining more favor from the government.
If that's so, doesn't the defection to an opposing camp make his message even here more credible?
If that's so, doesn't the defection to an opposing camp make his message even here more credible?
Yes? So "yay" for small victories.
Mea culpas are more convincing when there's some kind of contrition. An intellectually honest person would at least nod towards having a change of heart, updated opinions.
Shoutouts to Liberal (neoliberal?) economists like Ruchir Sharma is progress. Of course, I hope Friedman ventures outside of the Mises vs Keynes food fight. I find Raj Chetty and David Graeber interesting, for instance.
Edit:
Oops. Looks like a "contrarian" economist Sharma is something like a deficit hawk. I regret my suspension of disbelief.
The Rescues Ruin Capitalism [2020/06/24] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rescues-ruining-capitalism-...
Mea culpas are more convincing when there's some kind of contrition. An intellectually honest person would at least nod towards having a change of heart, updated opinions.
Shoutouts to Liberal (neoliberal?) economists like Ruchir Sharma is progress. Of course, I hope Friedman ventures outside of the Mises vs Keynes food fight. I find Raj Chetty and David Graeber interesting, for instance.
Edit:
Oops. Looks like a "contrarian" economist Sharma is something like a deficit hawk. I regret my suspension of disbelief.
The Rescues Ruin Capitalism [2020/06/24] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rescues-ruining-capitalism-...
> If that's so, doesn't the defection to an opposing camp make his message even here more credible?
All you really need to judge a Tom Friedman article is the "Opinion columnist" badge by his name.
What does he produce? He produces opinion. By what metric are his opinion pieces judged? Engagement.
Tom Friedman - and for that matter, most other opinion columnists (excepting those who are practicing domain experts who occasionally write about those specific subjects) - isn't paid to be right. He can be wrong over, and over, and over again. If the orthodoxy of the group who employs him changes (hey, look who's buying NYT subscriptions these days...) he can be wrong in novel ways. He doesn't have to "show his work." He never suffers any consequences.
He might have re-evaluated things! He might even be right - because hey, a stopped clock is right twice a day! But knowing what his job is and how he's performed in the past, it should be apparent that there's no particular reason one should believe him over, say, a random commenter on HackerNews such as myself. He has no incentive, credentials, or history that suggest a reader could usefully appeal to his authority.
All you really need to judge a Tom Friedman article is the "Opinion columnist" badge by his name.
What does he produce? He produces opinion. By what metric are his opinion pieces judged? Engagement.
Tom Friedman - and for that matter, most other opinion columnists (excepting those who are practicing domain experts who occasionally write about those specific subjects) - isn't paid to be right. He can be wrong over, and over, and over again. If the orthodoxy of the group who employs him changes (hey, look who's buying NYT subscriptions these days...) he can be wrong in novel ways. He doesn't have to "show his work." He never suffers any consequences.
He might have re-evaluated things! He might even be right - because hey, a stopped clock is right twice a day! But knowing what his job is and how he's performed in the past, it should be apparent that there's no particular reason one should believe him over, say, a random commenter on HackerNews such as myself. He has no incentive, credentials, or history that suggest a reader could usefully appeal to his authority.
No. It just means that he shifts with the wind. Trump pulled the ugly band-aid off the China problem and now even the Dems and some Republicans have realized the mess that economists like Friedman got the US into.
> Trump pulled the ugly band-aid off the China problem and now even the Dems and some Republicans have realized the mess that economists like Friedman got the US into.
Are you kinda also thinking of Milton Friedman? Thomas Friedman isn't actually an economist.
Are you kinda also thinking of Milton Friedman? Thomas Friedman isn't actually an economist.
> lax immigration enforcement (which led to more competition for the workers and cheaper labor for the companies)
Please explain how you know this. Was there ever any bottom at all for the cost of low-skilled labor?
More people means more workers, generally, I accept that. But more people also means more consumption, generally. And that requires more labor. Surely you don't think that normal population growth implies cheaper labor, right?
Please explain how you know this. Was there ever any bottom at all for the cost of low-skilled labor?
More people means more workers, generally, I accept that. But more people also means more consumption, generally. And that requires more labor. Surely you don't think that normal population growth implies cheaper labor, right?
Do you think it is just a coincidence that wages stopped rising when they ramped up low skill immigration in the 70's? When you increase one class of people without increasing the other then simple economics says that said class will get less valued and see wage stagnation/reduction, which is exactly what history says happened.
https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/wp-content/uploads/site...
Where I live low skilled labor is paid well simply because otherwise you wont find anyone who wants to do the job. That is how it should work, educate everyone and there will be a shortage of low skill labor driving up their wages.
https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/wp-content/uploads/site...
Where I live low skilled labor is paid well simply because otherwise you wont find anyone who wants to do the job. That is how it should work, educate everyone and there will be a shortage of low skill labor driving up their wages.
A lot of things happened in the early 70s:
- Many overseas markets opened to more outsourcing. Nixon "going to China" was one of the big ones.
- The rest of the world had pretty much fully recovered from WWII and started being more competitive with US manufacturing.
- The collapse of Bretton Woods and the removal of the gold peg for the US dollar freed central banks to pursue aggressive monetary policy.
- Automation really took off in the 1970s, and the computer revolution really got going.
- Women entered the work force in large numbers. In case anyone misreads: I am not against this. I'm just pointing out the supply and demand effects.
- Unions started declining for numerous reasons including the rise of anti-union politics and corruption in unions themselves.
- Increased racial equality is another thing I'm not against, but I am forced to point out that it increases the supply of labor in many labor markets that had been at least partly closed to non-whites.
- Finally, more immigration is definitely on the list too.
... there's a lot more, but those are the big ones. Almost everything I listed is deflationary to labor prices. So many things hit in the 70s it's like the floor dropped out. It's amazing US labor has managed to hang on at all.
- Many overseas markets opened to more outsourcing. Nixon "going to China" was one of the big ones.
- The rest of the world had pretty much fully recovered from WWII and started being more competitive with US manufacturing.
- The collapse of Bretton Woods and the removal of the gold peg for the US dollar freed central banks to pursue aggressive monetary policy.
- Automation really took off in the 1970s, and the computer revolution really got going.
- Women entered the work force in large numbers. In case anyone misreads: I am not against this. I'm just pointing out the supply and demand effects.
- Unions started declining for numerous reasons including the rise of anti-union politics and corruption in unions themselves.
- Increased racial equality is another thing I'm not against, but I am forced to point out that it increases the supply of labor in many labor markets that had been at least partly closed to non-whites.
- Finally, more immigration is definitely on the list too.
... there's a lot more, but those are the big ones. Almost everything I listed is deflationary to labor prices. So many things hit in the 70s it's like the floor dropped out. It's amazing US labor has managed to hang on at all.
Thanks, that’s is a really comprehensive list, as always there is very rarely a single reason for such large scale changes like wage stagnation.
Imo wage stagnation in the US seems to be far more attributable to deregulation, decline of unions and pressure from public companies to constantly cut costs to justify rising stock prices.
I am not exactly sure when it started, but if the topic is immigration impact on stagnating wages, I believe unless I am mistaken that the US-Mexico border was in fact a lot more open up to the 50’s, at least for cheap seasonal agricultural workers, until an ex marine general took over immigration enforcement sometime in the 60’s (or maybe 70’s?) with the perverse effect of forcing more seasonal immigrants to stay rather than risk going back home and not being able to come back.
Imo wage stagnation in the US seems to be far more attributable to deregulation, decline of unions and pressure from public companies to constantly cut costs to justify rising stock prices.
I am not exactly sure when it started, but if the topic is immigration impact on stagnating wages, I believe unless I am mistaken that the US-Mexico border was in fact a lot more open up to the 50’s, at least for cheap seasonal agricultural workers, until an ex marine general took over immigration enforcement sometime in the 60’s (or maybe 70’s?) with the perverse effect of forcing more seasonal immigrants to stay rather than risk going back home and not being able to come back.
Is it not obvious that that H1B program has been abused for years to suppress engineering wages?
Didn't Trump suspend H1-B visas? Does Biden have a plan for the program?
Seems obvious that millions of people that aren’t “supposed” to be in the labor force with a high concentration in low wage jobs would have a negative impact on said wages for those jobs. Sure there are benefits from the purchases from these workers, but there are significant costs like displaced workers on unemployment and other aid, costs for healthcare, good businesses in these industries that are unable to compete against companies that avail themselves of the cheap labor close down along with the better paying jobs, financial and social impacts on certain communities (mostly poor ones) that must deal with the inundation of people that do not speak English and are largely not tied to the community (at least initially).
However, the wealthy love this policy. Cheaper labor to build their homes, mow their lawns, clean their homes, and staff their low skill employment needs both at home and their businesses.
However, the wealthy love this policy. Cheaper labor to build their homes, mow their lawns, clean their homes, and staff their low skill employment needs both at home and their businesses.
[deleted]
> This article is completely hypocritical to be coming from Tom Friedman.
True, but I would say better late than never.
True, but I would say better late than never.
[deleted]
that probably makes him qualified to understand the problem he helped create
Does this logic apply to software? When someone creates a giant slow insecure spaghetti monster piece of code do you rush out and hire them as a consultant to fix it?
Are they not the last person that should do that job given that they are the only ones that have proven that that they cannot?
Are they not the last person that should do that job given that they are the only ones that have proven that that they cannot?
That depends on what they've learned from the experience.
you mean visual studio ? lol
He didn’t understand the problem he created, so why should we expect him to understand his new position?
Friedman has been irrelevant for about 10+ years now. He, Carl Bernstein and Paul Krugman are characatures of their former selves. I guess the statement is true for the new York times overall, as they have become a lifestyle magazine, of sorts.
While I'm not a huge fan of Tom Friedman, I thought his take on how we've handled downturns over the past few decades was relevant here.
Especially with respect to the smaller numbers of startups and the impact of the big players either buying or snuffing out potential competitors among those startups.
Changing the incentive structures around startups, competition and markets propping up so-called "zombie" companies[0] seems like a fertile area for discussion, especially on HN.
[0] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/z/zombies.asp
Especially with respect to the smaller numbers of startups and the impact of the big players either buying or snuffing out potential competitors among those startups.
Changing the incentive structures around startups, competition and markets propping up so-called "zombie" companies[0] seems like a fertile area for discussion, especially on HN.
[0] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/z/zombies.asp
It is also clear that the SEC and FTC have been absent for the 21st century. As long as Wall Street calls the shots, the consumer is screwed.
I think a big issue is company mergers and acquisitions. For a while now, the bigger is better mentality has ruled.
Additionally, we've let too many companies buy up competitors. For example, Facebook purchased Instagram and Visa tried to buy Plaid.
Additionally, we've let too many companies buy up competitors. For example, Facebook purchased Instagram and Visa tried to buy Plaid.
I'm also very concerned about the decline of small businesses.
It seems to me that any faction claiming to be "pro-business" would champion policies encouraging new business formation, especially smaller and more local.
Stupid obvious stuff like access to capital, helping with health insurance and other benefits, tax holidays like what Amazon enjoyed. There's no shortage of ideas.
It seems to me that any faction claiming to be "pro-business" would champion policies encouraging new business formation, especially smaller and more local.
Stupid obvious stuff like access to capital, helping with health insurance and other benefits, tax holidays like what Amazon enjoyed. There's no shortage of ideas.
An unfortunate title seems to be redirecting what could be a productive discussion about stuff that's relevant to HN users:
Increasing barriers to entry for startups due to increased concentrations of cash/power stifling competition and innovation.
What changes in incentives improve the ability of startups to survive and thrive in an environment dominated by a few, cash-rich and competition-hating mega-corps?
Increasing barriers to entry for startups due to increased concentrations of cash/power stifling competition and innovation.
What changes in incentives improve the ability of startups to survive and thrive in an environment dominated by a few, cash-rich and competition-hating mega-corps?
Honestly, this is the biggest reason I want UBI.
I want it to be easier to operate a profitable food truck in Flint, Michigan so that it is easier to find a job building software that solves food safety problems for folks in places like Flint, Michigan. Currently, there is not enough anticipated revenue from doing that. Poorer people get fewer votes on which problems (like being hungry for lunch) and metaproblems (like running a food truck) get solved by the free market.
UBI also would make more centrally-decided solutions like education easier to provide. Kids learn better when they have less-stressed parents and aunts who run local businesses.
I want it to be easier to operate a profitable food truck in Flint, Michigan so that it is easier to find a job building software that solves food safety problems for folks in places like Flint, Michigan. Currently, there is not enough anticipated revenue from doing that. Poorer people get fewer votes on which problems (like being hungry for lunch) and metaproblems (like running a food truck) get solved by the free market.
UBI also would make more centrally-decided solutions like education easier to provide. Kids learn better when they have less-stressed parents and aunts who run local businesses.
Universal health care/medicare for all would in my opinion be the most impactful help small businesses and startups could get.
So many people stuck in jobs just because they can’t risk losing health coverage.
So many people stuck in jobs just because they can’t risk losing health coverage.
I think we can have both. But let's end income tax, and move to a single land-value tax to cover everything.
Let's do at most two things at a time so that we do them well.
HN is about a lot more than just startups.
>HN is about a lot more than just startups.
Of course it is. I just thought I'd point up (given the title of the referenced article doesn't provide any real context) the startup angle as a direction for discussion.
No one needs to take that up, of course. But as the submitter I thought it worthwhile to mention.
Of course it is. I just thought I'd point up (given the title of the referenced article doesn't provide any real context) the startup angle as a direction for discussion.
No one needs to take that up, of course. But as the submitter I thought it worthwhile to mention.
This isn't new. Here's John Kenneth Galbraith, writing about it in January 1987:
> There is insurance of bank deposits and the further certainty that any large corporation, if in danger, would be bailed out. Modern socialism, as I've elsewhere said, is when the corporate jets come down on National and Dulles airports.[a]
Who loses? Startups, small businesses, and the non-wealthy -- that is, the masses who cannot count on government largess to rescue them.
[a] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1987/01/the-192...
> There is insurance of bank deposits and the further certainty that any large corporation, if in danger, would be bailed out. Modern socialism, as I've elsewhere said, is when the corporate jets come down on National and Dulles airports.[a]
Who loses? Startups, small businesses, and the non-wealthy -- that is, the masses who cannot count on government largess to rescue them.
[a] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1987/01/the-192...
Furthering the discussion...
https://archive.vn/ENV7y
https://archive.vn/ENV7y
Think isn't too much new stuff, lot's of people have been saying it years regarding the bailouts. What stuck out for me was the quote about Zombie companies. I've heard it mention before but seemingly 19%(!!!) of all listed companies are now zombie companies. Is this true? Is it because of Covid-19 this year or was it always this bad? How can this go on?
For instance, Sharma wrote in July in a Wall Street Journal essay [0] titled “The Rescues Ruining Capitalism,” that easy money and increasingly generous bailouts fuel the rise of monopolies and keep “alive heavily indebted ‘zombie’ firms, at the expense of start-ups, which drive innovation.” And all of that is contributing to lower productivity, which means slower economic growth and “a shrinking of the pie for everyone.”
[...]
In the 1980s, “only 2 percent of publicly traded companies in the U.S. were considered ‘zombies,’ a term used by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) for companies that, over the previous three years, had not earned enough profit to make even the interest payments on their debt,” Sharma wrote. “The zombie minority started to grow rapidly in the early 2000s, and by the eve of the pandemic, accounted for 19 percent [1] of U.S.-listed companies.” It’s happening in Europe, China and Japan, too.
[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rescues-ruining-capitalism-...
[1] https://www.axios.com/zombie-companies-us-e2c8be18-6786-484e...
For instance, Sharma wrote in July in a Wall Street Journal essay [0] titled “The Rescues Ruining Capitalism,” that easy money and increasingly generous bailouts fuel the rise of monopolies and keep “alive heavily indebted ‘zombie’ firms, at the expense of start-ups, which drive innovation.” And all of that is contributing to lower productivity, which means slower economic growth and “a shrinking of the pie for everyone.”
[...]
In the 1980s, “only 2 percent of publicly traded companies in the U.S. were considered ‘zombies,’ a term used by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) for companies that, over the previous three years, had not earned enough profit to make even the interest payments on their debt,” Sharma wrote. “The zombie minority started to grow rapidly in the early 2000s, and by the eve of the pandemic, accounted for 19 percent [1] of U.S.-listed companies.” It’s happening in Europe, China and Japan, too.
[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rescues-ruining-capitalism-...
[1] https://www.axios.com/zombie-companies-us-e2c8be18-6786-484e...
How does one define rich though? This is always the rub. I mean, if you look at the performance of the stock market over the past decade and also all the ppl getting rich with GME and Tesla options on WallStreetBets, it's hardly only the 1% who are benefiting. Maybe the top 20% or more. I think it is more like high-IQ people who are getting rich, and it is people who have low/average IQs, who have low-paying jobs and without nice tech jobs or stock portfolios, who are falling behind .So that is probably 60-70% of the country.
>I mean, if you look at the performance of the stock market over the past decade and also all the ppl getting rich with GME and Tesla options on WallStreetBets, it's hardly only the 1% who are benefiting. Maybe the top 20% or more.
Technically if you own any stock you're benefiting. If we go by that metric that's almost 50% of people. However, the better question is how the ownership is distributed. One source says the top 1% own 56% of stocks, which paints a less rosy picture that what you're suggesting (that the gains are distributed among the top 20%).
https://financialpost.com/investing/how-americas-1-came-to-d...
Technically if you own any stock you're benefiting. If we go by that metric that's almost 50% of people. However, the better question is how the ownership is distributed. One source says the top 1% own 56% of stocks, which paints a less rosy picture that what you're suggesting (that the gains are distributed among the top 20%).
https://financialpost.com/investing/how-americas-1-came-to-d...
The people making currently making money off meme stocks doesn't equate to 20% of the country. And there's no direct evidence that those people are getting 'rich.' Outside of the few whales that are profiting off the (somehow?) legal pump and dump scheme that is WallStreetBets.
Rich is having a high networth. It's a lot more dependent on what social class in which you were raised (and therefore what networks you can access, and what role models you have) than your IQ.*
My IQ puts me easily in the 95th precentile of tested individuals, but I grew up poor to two alcoholic high-school dropouts.
On the other hand, I have a friend who grew up with CEO father who sits on boards of major public companies. This friend spent college (at a lower-to-mid tier school) as a D1 athlete pounding beers while dealing and using massive amounts of cocaine. This friend will tell you I'm the smartest person he's ever met. He's said it to multiple of his contacts while in my presence.
He pulls in hundreds of thousands of dollars a month due to his daddy's connections, while I scratched and clawed my way to rise above my station and get hired by a FAANG.
*This is completely ignoring that IQ is based off an extremely biased, standardized test and a horrible proxy for intelligence.
Rich is having a high networth. It's a lot more dependent on what social class in which you were raised (and therefore what networks you can access, and what role models you have) than your IQ.*
My IQ puts me easily in the 95th precentile of tested individuals, but I grew up poor to two alcoholic high-school dropouts.
On the other hand, I have a friend who grew up with CEO father who sits on boards of major public companies. This friend spent college (at a lower-to-mid tier school) as a D1 athlete pounding beers while dealing and using massive amounts of cocaine. This friend will tell you I'm the smartest person he's ever met. He's said it to multiple of his contacts while in my presence.
He pulls in hundreds of thousands of dollars a month due to his daddy's connections, while I scratched and clawed my way to rise above my station and get hired by a FAANG.
*This is completely ignoring that IQ is based off an extremely biased, standardized test and a horrible proxy for intelligence.
do you think you would have gotten the fang job if your IQ were only 100. IQ, although far from prefect, is highly predictive of ability. Sure, not all high IQ people become coders, almost all coders are high IQ.
Yes, I could've with enough persistence. 100 IQ is average. With enough work, someone with an average intelligence can be a successful coder.
I know plenty of people benefiting from the stock market with average and less than average IQs. This is a matter of classism not intelligence. If you have enough money to invest your benefiting, and the more money you have to invest the more you are benefiting.
Of course, there are a few outlier founders, CEOs, and stock traders that are benefiting much more then average. What separates these outliers from others isn’t IQ, because there are plenty of people with very high IQs that are doing about average economically.
Of course, there are a few outlier founders, CEOs, and stock traders that are benefiting much more then average. What separates these outliers from others isn’t IQ, because there are plenty of people with very high IQs that are doing about average economically.
My definition is you are rich if you don't have to work to live. If your continued survival depends on selling your labor for money, you're not rich. If you survive based on the ownership of assets rather than selling your labor, you are rich.
Which is, of course, itself a relative measure. There are probably many on this site with 1 million in assets. With that in the bank, you could live in comfort indefinitely in my part of the Midwest.
NyTimes doesn't let any international IPs to see any articles. Last newspaper I would ever give money to.
Just open in private/incongito/porn tab.
I have no problem reading the article from Europe. You can get rid of the paywall with the "Skip The Paywall" extension if you are using Chrome.
Which newspaper would you give money to?
why should an American newspaper be expected to bend over backwards for GDPR? blame European regulations for this.
Is it that hard to comply with for a newspaper of all things? It's not like it's a European court ruling compelling them to say or do anything Orwellian
This isn't from GDPR. Those sites just get blocked. This is a definite paywall. If I open it in a private tab, I get no paywall - but yet, find a page seemingly compliant with GDPR, complete with options to opt out of some cookies.
Most major websites comply with GDPR, by the way - the more local they are, the more likely it is that I can't see them. So if my sister sends me an article from her local news site, I probably can't see it. Food Network is the biggest site that doesn't exactly work with GDPR: I can't see anything from the American site whatsoever, but can see the british one, who of course, doesn't show the recipe from the American site.
Most major websites comply with GDPR, by the way - the more local they are, the more likely it is that I can't see them. So if my sister sends me an article from her local news site, I probably can't see it. Food Network is the biggest site that doesn't exactly work with GDPR: I can't see anything from the American site whatsoever, but can see the british one, who of course, doesn't show the recipe from the American site.
Bend over backwards? Isn't the The New York Times already GDPR compliant?
The NYTimes paywall has nothing to do with Europe or the GDPR though.
Ironically, paying NY Times is quite literally cash for billionaires. Your money is subsidizing Carlos Slim's investment and his agenda.
Similarly, the Washington Post is a mouthpiece for Jeff Bezos, and all cash made just subsidizes his own investment and agenda.
Neutral corporate media is a contradiction.
Similarly, the Washington Post is a mouthpiece for Jeff Bezos, and all cash made just subsidizes his own investment and agenda.
Neutral corporate media is a contradiction.
Which news sources do you consider reputable then?
Almost none. PBS is known to lie and stealth retract stories when caught, including in one instance by calling an innocent bystander a "white nationalist" after they were attacked in a car by someone brandishing a gun during a protest (evidence was stealth removed). AP has issued multiple retractions for whopping lies, including using images of kids in cages and claiming they were under the Trump administration, when the images were taken during the Obama administration (afterwards they nuked all evidence, of course).
I'd rephrase it thus: over the last thirty years, the rich become rich by being the subset of "business" that actually gets to be capitalists. Manufacturing is only allowed overseas and only the importing companies make money, while the rest of us get screwed over by the depreciating currency.
Serious question: what is the definition of "capitalist" in this context?
Also, don't forget that there's more to the economy than manufacturing - what about the service-sector, intangibles, finance, the information sector, creative arts, and so on?
Also, don't forget that there's more to the economy than manufacturing - what about the service-sector, intangibles, finance, the information sector, creative arts, and so on?
When will this meme die....we have socialism for everyone
Stimulus checks, extended UI, rent and mortgage forbearance etc etc etc. And it won't stop because it can't.
Stimulus checks, extended UI, rent and mortgage forbearance etc etc etc. And it won't stop because it can't.
Are workers owning the product of their labour and managing the company democratically? If not, it's not socialism, it's welfare.
It's really, really not complicated and the way the term has been stripped out of its meaning (primarily in the US) is just awful.
It's really, really not complicated and the way the term has been stripped out of its meaning (primarily in the US) is just awful.
> (primarily in the US)
afaik _only_ in the US? or are there any countries where the socialist bogey man is used this way by countries without a working social safety net?
the US agitprop machine doesn't even distinguish between communist and socialist - both terms are used interchangeably.
Bernie Sanders and how he is viewed is a great example here: his policies would have been considered moderate in socialist Europe of the 60ies/70ies (and especially in the often cited "well working" model of socialist Sweden, Denmark Norway).
afaik _only_ in the US? or are there any countries where the socialist bogey man is used this way by countries without a working social safety net?
- Paying 20% of your paycheck to insurance = good capitalist affordable.
- Paying 4% of your paycheck to Medicare = bad communist too expensive
Americans are the most propagandized people in the world.
the US agitprop machine doesn't even distinguish between communist and socialist - both terms are used interchangeably.
Bernie Sanders and how he is viewed is a great example here: his policies would have been considered moderate in socialist Europe of the 60ies/70ies (and especially in the often cited "well working" model of socialist Sweden, Denmark Norway).
This isnt socialism. Its amazing how especially Americans seem to think that socialism is the government doing stuff, and the more the government does the more socialism it is.
The meme will probably die when it's no longer true, and when we actually fix the massive economic inequality that exists in our society. The things you listed are not really socialism (rent and mortgage forbearance is not socialism; socialism would be getting rid of the whole landlord/renting system entirely, replacing it by some form of public ownership). And these things are only occurring during a global pandemic, and are not par for the course in our society.
No healthcare though?
Besides there's no socialism in most or all of Europe either.
Seeing Bernie-people saying "socialism works just look at Europe" and then pointing at Switzerland for example, is not only worrying but also quite funny.
Besides there's no socialism in most or all of Europe either.
Seeing Bernie-people saying "socialism works just look at Europe" and then pointing at Switzerland for example, is not only worrying but also quite funny.
lettergram(1)
[deleted]
> Socialism for the Rich. Capitalism for the Rest.
This is an unfortunate saying, that further perpetuates misunderstanding of what socialism is.
This is an unfortunate saying, that further perpetuates misunderstanding of what socialism is.
Socialism is a broad term and can cover a wide range of topics.
Everyone who isn't pedantic understands what the title is saying. The current vernacular matters in words like democracy/republicanism/communism/socialism.
Everyone who isn't pedantic understands what the title is saying. The current vernacular matters in words like democracy/republicanism/communism/socialism.
The point is clear, sure, but I'm talking about the continued misuse of the word. Many Americans seem to think socialism is when the government does basically anything. Many people unironically believe Joe Biden is a socialist or communist.
Sure the meanings of words can change, but what about actual socialism? Is is it supposed to adopt a new name?
Sure the meanings of words can change, but what about actual socialism? Is is it supposed to adopt a new name?
I stopped talking about "socialism" online the day I understood the US and European definitions are completely different
Most people in Europe associate socialism with things like healthcare, paid vacations, &c.
Americans associate socialism with china, cuba, no freedom, gulags and famines...
Just the fact that Biden is called a "socialist" or part of the "radical left" (or even close to the left) by a non negligible portion of Americans tells you all you have to know. America/Biden's socialism is the equivalent of progressive conservatism in Europe
Most people in Europe associate socialism with things like healthcare, paid vacations, &c.
Americans associate socialism with china, cuba, no freedom, gulags and famines...
Just the fact that Biden is called a "socialist" or part of the "radical left" (or even close to the left) by a non negligible portion of Americans tells you all you have to know. America/Biden's socialism is the equivalent of progressive conservatism in Europe
> Most people in Europe associate socialism with things like healthcare, paid vacations, &c.
Absolutely false. Are you American yourself?
As the Danish PM put it,
"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."
Absolutely false. Are you American yourself?
As the Danish PM put it,
"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."
Its a catch all term abuse. We have terms for all those things US call socialism.
Communism, stalinims, totalitarianism.
Socialism suppose encapsulate ideas where you invest into people (social)
so·cial relating to society or its organization.
Investing into ideas that protect and support the very fabric of society, families, healthcare, education, consumer protection - anything that makes it easier for people to prosper and not be abused. It makes people healthy, educated and protected and they will prosper thus creating more wealth.
There was an article here recently that growing up in stable home make you far more successful (avg 75k per year earnings). Its common sense. There will be no next apple created in tent cities of LA.
Communism, stalinims, totalitarianism.
Socialism suppose encapsulate ideas where you invest into people (social)
so·cial relating to society or its organization.
Investing into ideas that protect and support the very fabric of society, families, healthcare, education, consumer protection - anything that makes it easier for people to prosper and not be abused. It makes people healthy, educated and protected and they will prosper thus creating more wealth.
There was an article here recently that growing up in stable home make you far more successful (avg 75k per year earnings). Its common sense. There will be no next apple created in tent cities of LA.
I'd say that most people in Europe (especially in Eastern Europe) associate "socialism" with the failed Eastern Bloc socialist countries. "Social democracy" or "social market economy" would be more correct terms. All current European countries have capitalist economies, they're just more regulated in favour of the people than in other parts of the world. There's a lot of wiggle room between a state-controlled planned economy (traditionally called "socialism") and 18th century style capitalism.
The Socialists and Leftists of the Nordics call it a Social Democracy. The Conservatives and Right Wing of these countries call it a Capitalist Welfare State. Most people over here agree that none of these countries are under Socialist Rule however. Instead they are democracies that are run mostly under capitalism, but with more state-run regulation and taxation than that of the USA. However, as the keen-eyed will see, what you guys pay extra in medical insurance, is kind of like a tax too, so when you add that in, Americans sometimes end up paying more in "tax" than many Europeans.
Even "Communist" China now has a capitalist economy. :)
But they don't have a Democratic government.
What should we call that? Totalitarian Capitalism?
"wiggle room" Exactly right.
I liken it to a control that you can turn to the left or the right. There are an infinite number of degrees in between.
My life experience seems to indicate that the control must be continuously tweaked, like a servo control, to keep a country working. Lock it one place and the system runs out of control.
Side bar hypothesis: Perhaps democracy works merely by chance in that it jerks the control back and forth never allowing a stationary position. (?)
What should we call that? Totalitarian Capitalism?
"wiggle room" Exactly right.
I liken it to a control that you can turn to the left or the right. There are an infinite number of degrees in between.
My life experience seems to indicate that the control must be continuously tweaked, like a servo control, to keep a country working. Lock it one place and the system runs out of control.
Side bar hypothesis: Perhaps democracy works merely by chance in that it jerks the control back and forth never allowing a stationary position. (?)
> What should we call that? Totalitarian Capitalism?
It's typically referred to as "state capitalism"
https://asiatimes.com/2020/08/socialist-or-capitalist-what-i...
It's typically referred to as "state capitalism"
https://asiatimes.com/2020/08/socialist-or-capitalist-what-i...
In Germany I've seen the term "Staatskapitalismus" used for the Chinese system (== state capitalism).
In Belgium, state-controlled planned economy is called "Communism".
"Socialism" is all social security etc. So I actually agree with the parent comment.
So in US, "Communism"=="Socialism", in Western EU !=.
"Socialism" is all social security etc. So I actually agree with the parent comment.
So in US, "Communism"=="Socialism", in Western EU !=.
So by that definition I live in a "socialist country" (Germany) because it has a social safety net? And there I thought I had successfully escaped socialism in 1990 when the wall came down. Crap ;)
(the GDR didn't call itself a "communist country", because the party realized that the poor condition of the economy doesn't quite fit the utopian ideals of "communism", so they invented the term "real socialism" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_socialism) as one of multiple steps towards a glorious communist future, which would be realized "really soon now, just work a bit harder and one day we'll be rewarded with communism" - or something like that at least, of course nobody believed this bullshit, not even the diehard communists themselves).
(the GDR didn't call itself a "communist country", because the party realized that the poor condition of the economy doesn't quite fit the utopian ideals of "communism", so they invented the term "real socialism" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_socialism) as one of multiple steps towards a glorious communist future, which would be realized "really soon now, just work a bit harder and one day we'll be rewarded with communism" - or something like that at least, of course nobody believed this bullshit, not even the diehard communists themselves).
> So by that definition I live in a "socialist country"
Depending on the definition you want to use. If you want to use "socialism" as the opposite of "capitalism" then of course no, Germany isn't a "socialist country".
The being said Germany is a fairly "social" country in my book, very similar to France. They very often put the emphasis on the group rather than the individual (taxes, education, public infrastructures, health care, work/life balance, &c.)
But again we're mostly talking semantics and local usage of words here, the underlying principles are very easy to tell apart (I doubt anyone could tell with a straight face that Germany and the US are running on the same principles for example.) now some people use the word "socialism" to describe that or part of it
In France 20th century socialists fought a lot for workers rights, abolishing the death penalty, depenalizing homosexuality, warranting liveable minimum wages, earlier retirement age, paid vacations, paid parental leaves, &c, many of the rights we take for granted nowadays are direct or indirect achievements of socialists, which is logical since Europe (mostly invented and) soaked in socialism for the last 150+ years. That being said, yes modern France or Germany "socialism" evolved from their early definition but I still believe they're indefinitely more socialist than the US.
I feel like many people get trapped in the socialism = communism, communism = never worked, hence communism = bad, hence socialism = bad, as if it was a binary thing. I guess we could argue about the exact meaning of "socialism" in 2020 but I doubt we can argue that "socialism" deeply marked a lot of European countries
Depending on the definition you want to use. If you want to use "socialism" as the opposite of "capitalism" then of course no, Germany isn't a "socialist country".
The being said Germany is a fairly "social" country in my book, very similar to France. They very often put the emphasis on the group rather than the individual (taxes, education, public infrastructures, health care, work/life balance, &c.)
But again we're mostly talking semantics and local usage of words here, the underlying principles are very easy to tell apart (I doubt anyone could tell with a straight face that Germany and the US are running on the same principles for example.) now some people use the word "socialism" to describe that or part of it
In France 20th century socialists fought a lot for workers rights, abolishing the death penalty, depenalizing homosexuality, warranting liveable minimum wages, earlier retirement age, paid vacations, paid parental leaves, &c, many of the rights we take for granted nowadays are direct or indirect achievements of socialists, which is logical since Europe (mostly invented and) soaked in socialism for the last 150+ years. That being said, yes modern France or Germany "socialism" evolved from their early definition but I still believe they're indefinitely more socialist than the US.
I feel like many people get trapped in the socialism = communism, communism = never worked, hence communism = bad, hence socialism = bad, as if it was a binary thing. I guess we could argue about the exact meaning of "socialism" in 2020 but I doubt we can argue that "socialism" deeply marked a lot of European countries
> So by that definition I live in a "socialist country"
Not really the country like that, but the parties Christian Social Union and Social Democratic Party, we would name it "socialistic". Anyone in that party would be a "socialist", but not a "communist". So if they would deliver the Chancellor, we would say the country is run by a socialist.
I didn't know about "real socialism". So glad you're all part of EU now :).
Not really the country like that, but the parties Christian Social Union and Social Democratic Party, we would name it "socialistic". Anyone in that party would be a "socialist", but not a "communist". So if they would deliver the Chancellor, we would say the country is run by a socialist.
I didn't know about "real socialism". So glad you're all part of EU now :).
> Most people in Europe associate socialism with things like healthcare, paid vacations, &c.
What? No they don't, at least not in Germany. Here, "socialism" is primarily associated with the Soviet Union and the GDR (East Germany).
"healthcare, paid vacations", in contrast, is not associated with any particular political system, because it's understood to be the baseline, or taken for granted. At best, it's associated with the "Sozialstaat". Note that the term "sozial" in German does not mean "socialism", but rather "caring for others"; it's an antonym to "anti-social", not to "capitalistic".
What? No they don't, at least not in Germany. Here, "socialism" is primarily associated with the Soviet Union and the GDR (East Germany).
"healthcare, paid vacations", in contrast, is not associated with any particular political system, because it's understood to be the baseline, or taken for granted. At best, it's associated with the "Sozialstaat". Note that the term "sozial" in German does not mean "socialism", but rather "caring for others"; it's an antonym to "anti-social", not to "capitalistic".
> it's understood to be the baseline, or taken for granted.
First off it's not in a very large part of the world (including the US). Read about the history of workers rights for example. These things didn't materialise out of thin air and are closely related to socialism ideals and social movements of the early 20th century
> Note that the term "sozial" in German does not mean "socialism", but rather "caring for others"
Which is exactly what I'm describing and includes "healthcare, paid vacations, &c."
I'm not a German history expert but in France most of the "social" (hint) progress came from the "socialist" parties with Leon Blum &co for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Léon_Blum
> André Léon Blum was a French socialist politician and three-time Prime Minister.
> gave workers the right to strike
> initiated collective bargaining
> legislated the mandating of 12 days of paid annual leave
> legislated a 40-hour working week (outside of overtime)
> raised wages (15% for the lowest-paid workers, and 7% for the relatively well-paid)
> stipulated that employers would recognise shop stewards.
> ensured that there would be no retaliation against strikers.
First off it's not in a very large part of the world (including the US). Read about the history of workers rights for example. These things didn't materialise out of thin air and are closely related to socialism ideals and social movements of the early 20th century
> Note that the term "sozial" in German does not mean "socialism", but rather "caring for others"
Which is exactly what I'm describing and includes "healthcare, paid vacations, &c."
I'm not a German history expert but in France most of the "social" (hint) progress came from the "socialist" parties with Leon Blum &co for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Léon_Blum
> André Léon Blum was a French socialist politician and three-time Prime Minister.
> gave workers the right to strike
> initiated collective bargaining
> legislated the mandating of 12 days of paid annual leave
> legislated a 40-hour working week (outside of overtime)
> raised wages (15% for the lowest-paid workers, and 7% for the relatively well-paid)
> stipulated that employers would recognise shop stewards.
> ensured that there would be no retaliation against strikers.
> No they don't, at least not in Germany.
my experience is very different. maybe an indicator that the info-bubble is stronger than we believe and it all depends on where and _what_ we are.
The "Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands" (SPD) literally has "socialist" in its name. Not once have I heard anyone claiming that they're linked to communism or Soviet Russia.
my experience is very different. maybe an indicator that the info-bubble is stronger than we believe and it all depends on where and _what_ we are.
The "Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands" (SPD) literally has "socialist" in its name. Not once have I heard anyone claiming that they're linked to communism or Soviet Russia.
I wouldn't associate "social" and "social democracy" with "socialism" though (maybe that's because I've grown up in a socalist country - the GDR), and I wouldn't call SPD members "socialists", they're called "social-democrats". There seems to be an internal controversy between the SPD's left and right wing about the term "democratic socialism" though, which once was a stated future goal of the party.
> The "Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands" (SPD) literally has "socialist" in its name.
It literally does not.
It literally does not.
"Sozialdemokratisch" isn't the same as "sozialistisch"="socialist" in German usage.
> Just the fact that Biden is called a "socialist" or part of the "radical left" (or even close to the left) by a non negligible portion of Americans tells you all you have to know. America/Biden's socialism is the equivalent of progressive conservatism in Europe.
Observations about the left/right alignment of American politicians are, naturally, made in the context of American politics. It makes little sense to compare Joe Biden's politics to European candidates. He is compared to Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump. Compared to them (even compared to Clinton and Obama), he is significantly farther left.
Imagine how well the converse of the argument would track for a European. "You know that candidate on the Right who wants to abolish your state-run healthcare system? You can tell that's not a radical position--just look at how many Americans prefer a private system!"
Observations about the left/right alignment of American politicians are, naturally, made in the context of American politics. It makes little sense to compare Joe Biden's politics to European candidates. He is compared to Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump. Compared to them (even compared to Clinton and Obama), he is significantly farther left.
Imagine how well the converse of the argument would track for a European. "You know that candidate on the Right who wants to abolish your state-run healthcare system? You can tell that's not a radical position--just look at how many Americans prefer a private system!"
What pray tell is socialism?
Historically: A non-hierarchial concept where workers own the fruits of labor by pumping them through a hierarchy of central power who decides how the fruits are dispersed (mostly to parties sympathetic to the central power).
The workers owning the means of production, it's not government handouts. "Socialism for the Rich" should be phrased as "Welfare for the Rich", IMO.
> The workers owning the means of production
This has lost a lot of its relevance since when it was originally coined in XIX century. I mean, what are the means of production in companies like CD Project Red? The laptops and workstations? Employees can easily afford them. Since we've moved beyond the factory-based model of capitalism, it's become clear that it's not the control of means of production that is the central issue.
This has lost a lot of its relevance since when it was originally coined in XIX century. I mean, what are the means of production in companies like CD Project Red? The laptops and workstations? Employees can easily afford them. Since we've moved beyond the factory-based model of capitalism, it's become clear that it's not the control of means of production that is the central issue.
I think it's still a useful term. To make a company socialist, all you have to do is distribute the companies shares to the workers, rather than shareholders. Now you have a co-op and the workers own the means of production, and can vote on the board of directors or set it up however, since they own it.
> I mean, what are the means of production in companies like CD Project Red?
The means to deploy knowledge. This ranges from a robust social safety net (healthcare, childcare, housing, food, etc) to as you say laptops and workstations.
> Employees can easily afford them.
For a very specific set of Employees, this is true. For others the outlay for even a derelict hand-me-down laptop is the difference between making this months rent and not.
> Since we've moved beyond the factory-based model of capitalism
The factory isn't making "widgets" anymore, but it's still there and it's making /something/.
> it's become clear that it's not the control of means of production that is the central issue
Owning the means has, is, and will be the central issue until we are post scarcity.
The means to deploy knowledge. This ranges from a robust social safety net (healthcare, childcare, housing, food, etc) to as you say laptops and workstations.
> Employees can easily afford them.
For a very specific set of Employees, this is true. For others the outlay for even a derelict hand-me-down laptop is the difference between making this months rent and not.
> Since we've moved beyond the factory-based model of capitalism
The factory isn't making "widgets" anymore, but it's still there and it's making /something/.
> it's become clear that it's not the control of means of production that is the central issue
Owning the means has, is, and will be the central issue until we are post scarcity.
Are you sure you're not mixing up socialism/Marxism/communism/...?
Pretty sure, yeah. The first line of Wikipedia's page on socialism: "Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and democratic control or workers' self-management of enterprises."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
This is exactly what I'm talking about in my other comment.
Look at the french definition on wiki for example:
"The word socialism covers a very diverse set of currents of thought and political movements1, whose common point is to seek a fairer social and economic organization. The original goal of socialism is to achieve social equality, or at least a reduction of inequalities2 and, especially for the Marxist-inspired currents, to establish a classless society. More broadly, socialism can be defined as a political tendency, historically marked on the left, whose basic principle is the aspiration for a better world, based on harmonious social organization and the fight against injustice. Depending on the context, the word socialism or the adjective socialist can qualify an ideology, a political party, a political regime or a social organization."
Look at the french definition on wiki for example:
"The word socialism covers a very diverse set of currents of thought and political movements1, whose common point is to seek a fairer social and economic organization. The original goal of socialism is to achieve social equality, or at least a reduction of inequalities2 and, especially for the Marxist-inspired currents, to establish a classless society. More broadly, socialism can be defined as a political tendency, historically marked on the left, whose basic principle is the aspiration for a better world, based on harmonious social organization and the fight against injustice. Depending on the context, the word socialism or the adjective socialist can qualify an ideology, a political party, a political regime or a social organization."
Wikipedia: "Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and democratic control or workers' self-management of enterprise".
Which is not "...characterised by government giving handouts".
Which is not "...characterised by government giving handouts".
But isn't that implied by 'social ownership'? That means, society owns production and thus decides who shares in it? That's where they get conflated, I think.
Unfortunately, pretty much nobody agrees on what socialism means, exactly. Even avowed socialists will sharply disagree on what forms of government 'count as socialism'.
For example: was the USSR socialist? That's the common understanding, but plenty of socialists disagree, arguing that socialism means that workers own the means of production, and that in the USSR, workers didn't really own the factories, not in any meaningful sense, since at the end of the day they were under central government control.
For example: was the USSR socialist? That's the common understanding, but plenty of socialists disagree, arguing that socialism means that workers own the means of production, and that in the USSR, workers didn't really own the factories, not in any meaningful sense, since at the end of the day they were under central government control.
There's some agreement what socialism isn't though.
In particular it isn't "Socialism is when the government does stuff and the more stuff it does, the more socialister it is."
In particular it isn't "Socialism is when the government does stuff and the more stuff it does, the more socialister it is."
This is mostly clickbait. The only evidence that's presented that the govermnent is practicing "socialism for the rich" is the statement of an investment banker, of all people. He also says that government intervention "stimulates the stock market" rather than the "real economy", and the "best evidence" is that the stock market is rising during the pandemic and startups have been dying.
Meanwhile, in the real world, government money during the pandemic is going to individuals who need it and to small businesses. Which is exactly as it should be as we deal with a bad situation. It's a good thing that the stock market remains high, as the economy hasn't taken the big tumble in the US that it has in many other countries.
Meanwhile, in the real world, government money during the pandemic is going to individuals who need it and to small businesses. Which is exactly as it should be as we deal with a bad situation. It's a good thing that the stock market remains high, as the economy hasn't taken the big tumble in the US that it has in many other countries.
I have something very important to tell you about wealth inequality... and you can read it as long as you're a paid subscriber!
“Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the rest” seems like just another way of describing "trickle-down economics" (or at least of describing the results of that strategy in western economies).
To be clear, you can do a lot worse than western economies have done over the last 50 years, but I agree with Friedman that we need to refocus our efforts so that the wealth-gap does not continue growing out of control. This, of course, does not have to mean doubling down on the welfare state, but as Friedman said: "cash assistance to only the most vulnerable and more investments in infrastructure that improve productivity and create good jobs." But the tricky part is to do this without unfairly rewarding/propping up anti-consumer monopolies. We need a new era of trust-busting!
My main measure for the long-term success of any economic theory is whether or not it causes a distribution of power across the middle class. If the middle class does not grow in size (relative to the whole population) and in its percentage share in the total wealth/power then I don't think you have a very good system.
To be clear, you can do a lot worse than western economies have done over the last 50 years, but I agree with Friedman that we need to refocus our efforts so that the wealth-gap does not continue growing out of control. This, of course, does not have to mean doubling down on the welfare state, but as Friedman said: "cash assistance to only the most vulnerable and more investments in infrastructure that improve productivity and create good jobs." But the tricky part is to do this without unfairly rewarding/propping up anti-consumer monopolies. We need a new era of trust-busting!
My main measure for the long-term success of any economic theory is whether or not it causes a distribution of power across the middle class. If the middle class does not grow in size (relative to the whole population) and in its percentage share in the total wealth/power then I don't think you have a very good system.
Trickle down economics never worked and they knew it never would. Trickle up economics on the other hand would actually stimulate the economy. The top hoards while the bottom spends.
Yes and somehow everyone in power is 'convinced' that the bottom will spend that money on crime and burn the rest.
Its obvious that the trickle down system was designed to suck up the wealth from the middle class.
Its been proved to not work even by the IMF. But it persists as it still helps to keep the status quo.
Its obvious that the trickle down system was designed to suck up the wealth from the middle class.
Its been proved to not work even by the IMF. But it persists as it still helps to keep the status quo.
This is the part I disagree
>This is all actually making our system more fragile.
>Now that so many countries, led by the U.S., have massively increased their debt loads, if we got even a small burst of inflation that drove interest on the 10-year Treasury to 3 percent from 1 percent, the amount of money the U.S. would have to devote to debt servicing would be so enormous that little money might be left for discretionary spending on research, infrastructure or education — or another rainy day.
>Sure, we could then just print even more money, but that could threaten the status of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency and raise our borrowing costs even more.
The evidence suggests the system is stronger than ever. The US stock market and economy outperformed much of the rest of the developed and remerging world post-Covid in spite of a lot of deaths. It is not the absolute debt that matters so much, but rather the interest paid on debt relative to GDP, which is very low and has been falling for a long time. Rising interest rates does not mans that the debt will be harder to service, because the economy will also be growing more too. There is also huge demand for treasuries by pensions and sovereign funds, which should keep rates very low for a long time to come.
>This is all actually making our system more fragile.
>Now that so many countries, led by the U.S., have massively increased their debt loads, if we got even a small burst of inflation that drove interest on the 10-year Treasury to 3 percent from 1 percent, the amount of money the U.S. would have to devote to debt servicing would be so enormous that little money might be left for discretionary spending on research, infrastructure or education — or another rainy day.
>Sure, we could then just print even more money, but that could threaten the status of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency and raise our borrowing costs even more.
The evidence suggests the system is stronger than ever. The US stock market and economy outperformed much of the rest of the developed and remerging world post-Covid in spite of a lot of deaths. It is not the absolute debt that matters so much, but rather the interest paid on debt relative to GDP, which is very low and has been falling for a long time. Rising interest rates does not mans that the debt will be harder to service, because the economy will also be growing more too. There is also huge demand for treasuries by pensions and sovereign funds, which should keep rates very low for a long time to come.
The stock market will stay healthy as long as people believe that putting their money in the stock market is the best course of action. That doesn't mean that the economy is actually doing great, just that people don't see any other options with better returns.
I'm not sure of your source for net interest payments. The CBO shows them mostly as flat since 2002. And while net interest may have stayed flat recently that is because interest rates are historically low. We are borrowing more money than ever.
See https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56910
Debt as a % of GDP has been rising since 2000. Our ability to fund our government has been lacking every year since 2001, typically with a deficit each year between $500B and 1.5T a year. We are fortunate to have super low interest rates so that our net interest payments stay low while we spend an incredible amount of money we don't have. Part of the health of the economy now depends on excess government spending (which we can't raise enough revenue to fund). So when interest rates rise, which they will do in time, our net interest payments will rise as well.
While our net interest payments rise, our ability to cut government spending or raise taxes seems unlikely to be able to match it. Furthermore, your assertions that economic growth will cover the rise in interest payments does not seem to be a given to me. We have had solid economic growth over the last 20 years, however, our ability to fund our government spending has not changed at all. See the year after year deficits we always run.
CBO estimates that by the end of the decade, net interest payments will double compared to today, reflecting the thought that we are enjoying historically low rates currently: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56542
See https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56910
Debt as a % of GDP has been rising since 2000. Our ability to fund our government has been lacking every year since 2001, typically with a deficit each year between $500B and 1.5T a year. We are fortunate to have super low interest rates so that our net interest payments stay low while we spend an incredible amount of money we don't have. Part of the health of the economy now depends on excess government spending (which we can't raise enough revenue to fund). So when interest rates rise, which they will do in time, our net interest payments will rise as well.
While our net interest payments rise, our ability to cut government spending or raise taxes seems unlikely to be able to match it. Furthermore, your assertions that economic growth will cover the rise in interest payments does not seem to be a given to me. We have had solid economic growth over the last 20 years, however, our ability to fund our government spending has not changed at all. See the year after year deficits we always run.
CBO estimates that by the end of the decade, net interest payments will double compared to today, reflecting the thought that we are enjoying historically low rates currently: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56542