Flavors of Capitalism vs. the sound bite society

[Nakosis]

Sadly, it’s a given that our society’s collective ability to think has been reduced to sound bites. Sigh.

That said, I’d like to think that perhaps in the upcoming elections, Dems could offer up a few simple distinctions about economic systems.

For instance could they talk about “Eisenhower Capitalism” vs, “Trump Capitalism”?

I'd suppose if folks would stop complaining about capitalism. IOW democratic socialism is just another form of capitalism. So no one is talking about getting rid of capitalism just altering its implementation.

 

[Augustus]

I'm just thinking that a phrase like "Eisenhower Capitalism" (given that Ike was in the GOP), might be a powerful sound bite for the Dems.

It's not very powerful as it doesn't have any real degree of resonance with most people.What does it even mean?

 

[icehorse]

It's not very powerful as it doesn't have any real degree of resonance with most people.What does it even mean?

Well sound bites are sound bites, so "resonance" is important. I kind of thought that invoking a GOP president might resonate.

As for what it means: strong STEM support, strong unions, high taxes on the rich, Glass-Steagall(sp?) in place, strong middle class..

(BTW, HNY Augustus!)

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd suppose if folks would stop complaining about capitalism. IOW democratic socialism is just another form of capitalism. So no one is talking about getting rid of capitalism just altering its implementation.

Ambiguity is a problem.
Of those who advocate "socialism", how many want the dictionary
definition (which excludes capitalism), & how many want the version
which has capitalism fueling social welfare programs?

We should note that in the RF "Socialist Only" forum, it excludes
those of us who favor capitalism with social welfare programs
like the Scandinavian Model. So do they really want the extreme?

 

[Nakosis]

Ambiguity is a problem.
Of those who advocate "socialism", how many want the dictionary
definition (which excludes capitalism), & how many want the version
which has capitalism fueling social welfare programs?

We should note that in the RF "Socialist Only" forum, it excludes
those of us who favor capitalism with social welfare programs
like the Scandinavian Model. So do they really want the extreme?

Well when you ask, you are told we already have "socialism" but also hear criticism of capitalism in the same breath.

So ambiguous when it's beneficial to your argument, unambiguous when it isn't.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well when you ask, you are told we already have "socialism" but also hear criticism of capitalism in the same breath.

So ambiguous when it's beneficial to your argument, unambiguous when it isn't.

I endeavor to use a consistent definition.
To which argument of mine do you refer?

 

[halbhh]

Sadly, it’s a given that our society’s collective ability to think has been reduced to sound bites. Sigh.

That said, I’d like to think that perhaps in the upcoming elections, Dems could offer up a few simple distinctions about economic systems.

For instance could they talk about “Eisenhower Capitalism” vs, “Trump Capitalism”?

There's an idea!

It's probably a lot more succinct and easier than me trying to lead with Georgism (probably the best form of capitalism equality Georgism - Wikipedia).

Even if I start with "Natural resources like the air, waters, the land, and all that is in it, belong to all of the people", even then...it's sorta abstract sounding maybe.

But the golden age of Eisenhower, that's easier to relate to -- a great way to communicate.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm a neo-post-paleo-arch-nouveau-libertarian.

And can rotate your head 360 degrees as well, no doubt.

 

[Revoltingest]

And can rotate your head 360 degrees as well, no doubt.

I can.
But the body has to accompany it.
(I can't do that Linda Blair in-the-Exorcist trick.)

 

[Stevicus]

Sadly, it’s a given that our society’s collective ability to think has been reduced to sound bites. Sigh.

That said, I’d like to think that perhaps in the upcoming elections, Dems could offer up a few simple distinctions about economic systems.

For instance could they talk about “Eisenhower Capitalism” vs, “Trump Capitalism”?

Or FDR capitalism. Even Republicans have spoken highly of FDR.

 

[sun rise]

Capitalists...the good ones...understand that they are responsible, PERSONALLY, for the welfare of their fellow men and women.

I think that's wonderful. And if they contributed enough so that we did not need government programs, I would be supremely thrilled. But that's not the case.

And the problem goes beyond charity. Roads need to be built and maintained. Teachers need to be paid a decent wage. And many other things need to be done by government. And that requires that the government uses taxes.

The right ignores that people are members of society and have responsibilities as members of society. Instead the focus is on what is mine, is mine.

That's why I'm a "social democrat" or "democratic socialist" (depending on what name people want to call my positions. I think that the health is a social responsibility while allowing for individual add-ons (Swiss system), that government has a role in unemployment, education and other such items.

I also find the concentration of wealth in few and fewer hands is a social cancer that sooner or later will be attacked and mitigated. The present trend can't and won't continue forever.

 

[icehorse]

Or FDR capitalism. Even Republicans have spoken highly of FDR.

I'm less familiar with FDR's stuff. I remember things like the CCC. But if FDR's stuff was largely inline with current plans, then that might be good.

Although - one advantage of using Ike is that Ike was in the GOP - that would be harder for the GOP to counter than FDR.

 

[Nakosis]

I endeavor to use a consistent definition.
To which argument of mine do you refer?

Sorry, meant you in general sense. Didn't want to ruffle any particular posters feathers.

 

[dianaiad]

I think that's wonderful. And if they contributed enough so that we did not need government programs, I would be supremely thrilled. But that's not the case.

They contribute more than the liberals do.

And they do it more efficiently. I guess my biggest problem is with the Dems demanding that the rich folks "Pay their fair share," when in fact nearly 40% of the taxes are paid by the top 1%, and nearly 60% of all income taxes are paid by the top 5%.

So I have to ask just what 'fair share' actually means?
Has it occurred to anybody that if they didn't have to PAY nearly 60% of the taxes, they would probably contribute more to private charities?

And the problem goes beyond charity. Roads need to be built and maintained. Teachers need to be paid a decent wage. And many other things need to be done by government. And that requires that the government uses taxes.

Now that's true...and that's what government is FOR. However, I haven't noticed the liberals getting all hot and bothered about infrastructure. It's all about welfare programs.

The right ignores that people are members of society and have responsibilities as members of society. Instead the focus is on what is mine, is mine.

What part of 'the right gives more to charity than the left does" seems to have gone whoosh? In other words, the above statement simply isn't true. As I have pointed out earlier in this thread, you won't find many, if any, articles even from the most left leaning publication that does not acknowledge that the 'right' gives more to charity than the left. the difference is that the left is given a 'pass' because they contribute to secular charities (like Kids Wish Charities, which gives a whoppin' three cents to 'kids' for every dollar it collects, and refuses to allow contributions to the LDS Welfare fund, which gives 100% of all contributions to the programs it supports, because it's run by a church and contributions to churches somehow 'don't count."

That's why I'm a "social democrat" or "democratic socialist" (depending on what name people want to call my positions. I think that the health is a social responsibility while allowing for individual add-ons (Swiss system), that government has a role in unemployment, education and other such items.

I also find the concentration of wealth in few and fewer hands is a social cancer that sooner or later will be attacked and mitigated. The present trend can't and won't continue forever.

Well, do you oppose the FACT that the wealth of the few makes up 60% of the taxes collected? Or are you one of those who think that anybody richer than you should have his/her wealth confiscated...and, perhaps, given to you instead?

(sorry about that...I get frustrated. I keep HEARING about how the 'rich don't pay their fair share,' when in fact they pay MORE taxes than the rest of the population of the USA, combined.

 

[icehorse]

So I have to ask just what 'fair share' actually means?
Has it occurred to anybody that if they didn't have to PAY nearly 60% of the taxes, they would probably contribute more to private charities?

Their companies make heavy, heavy use of "the commons". We educate their workers, we maintain the roads, we provide police and fire departments, we provide a power grid, and on and on. All of these services are struggling while they make huge profits. This is simply not a sustainable model. So their "fair share" is whatever it takes so that the entire system is healthy. The system was extremely healthy under Eisenhower, and the wealthy paid much higher taxes than they do now. And don't forget, the wealthy will not stay wealthy when the consumers they rely on have been reduced to poverty.

 

[Stevicus]

Uh....that's not why the right starts yelling 'socialism.' We start yelling because....well....

there is this political cartoon about the difference between conservatives and liberals, at least as expressed in the USA.

I can't draw worth a hoot...but...

two men are walking down the road; a conservative and a liberal. The conservative says "We have to do more to help the poor!"
The Liberal says "Yes! You DO!" and he reaches into the conservative's back pocket, grabs his wallet, removes all the money in it, and says "there! The poor are helped!"

....and if you don't get the point of that joke, well....

It just so happens that Republicans are more charitable than Democrats. EVERYBODY agrees with that. Left leaning articles attempt to get around this by saying that Republicans (conservatives) give more to their churches...which for some reason don't count even though most charities that help actual people are funded BY churches) and Democrats (liberals) give more to secular charities. Which do count. You know...like the local art museum and/or theater, the organization devoted to rescuing terrier/chihuaha mixes, the local fund for erecting a monument to Johnny Appleseed? THEY count.

the prime example of this that one account uses is the Mitt Romney Vs. Obama giving. It was noted that Romney gave away a far higher percentage of his income than Obama did...but then dismissed that by saying that 80$%of Romney's contribution went to the Mormon church (which according to the liberals, doesn't count) where Obama gave to the Sidwell Friends School and the United Negro College fund, which DO count. Now contributions to the United Negro College Fund DO 'count,' definitely, as to contributions to the Red Cross...but since when should contributions to his daughters VERY pricey and private school count?

And why don't contributions to the Mormon church 'count?" Yes, 10% of Romney's income was 'tithing,' and went to church administration costs. However, anything over and above that (and Romney contributed nearly 30% of his income) went to the 'welfare fund,' 100% of which went directly to those who needed aid. You know, food, shelter, mortgage and rent payments. Even the Red Cross doesn't send 100% of it's income to the programs it supports.

So why doesn't his 20% contribution to what is arguably the best and most efficient welfare program in the USA 'count"? Why is it dismissed?

Capitalists...the good ones...understand that they are responsible, PERSONALLY, for the welfare of their fellow men and women.
Socialists figure that the capitalists are correct. They ARE responsible for the welfare of their fellow men and women, and what's more, the socialists are going to see to it that the capitalists not only pay for everything, they'll do it the way the socialists WANT them to do it.

In the mean time, the liberals (and socialists, a bit further down the line) will contribute their considerably lower percentage of charitable giving to tax-exempt charities that have absolutely nothing to do with helping other people...and volunteer, comparatively, far fewer personal hours.

It's not about donations to charity, it's about economic policy. Liberals are mostly capitalists, too, and for the most part, they've supported the same basic framework of our economic system as conservatives do. Conservatives also ostensibly support some measure of a safety net and social welfare system, although they seem to want to spend less on such programs than liberals typically do.

It's not really about "charity" or "bleeding hearts," although I do find it interesting when conservative Christians criticize liberals because they have a heart and have compassion for other human beings. As if Christianity views that as a bad thing.

But it's really about maintaining the political stability within society. It's not about charity or giving away free stuff. If too many people are left out in the cold, then it increases the chances of crime, or even political radicalism or revolution.

US policy has been largely focused on global issues, and this is the primary reason for doing everything possible to maintain domestic tranquility and internal political stability, with the larger goal of maintaining globalism and our alliance system. It wouldn't do very well for us or our allies in the world if there were too many disaffected Americans causing crime and/or rioting in the streets because they're not paid enough or they can't afford the basic necessities of life. America would be paralyzed if it ever came to that.

Hopefully, it won't ever come to that, but I think we should be mindful of the consequences that may occur if we continue to allow our economic policy to be set by those who are too myopic and too greedy for America's good. And I say this about both the Democrats and the Republicans.

 

[Stevicus]

I'm less familiar with FDR's stuff. I remember things like the CCC. But if FDR's stuff was largely inline with current plans, then that might be good.

Although - one advantage of using Ike is that Ike was in the GOP - that would be harder for the GOP to counter than FDR.

Eisenhower didn't really rock the boat too much, as he essentially maintained the progressive policies of FDR and Truman, which continued with JFK and LBJ. Eisenhower would probably be considered a "RINO" in today's political climate.

 

[sun rise]

So I have to ask just what 'fair share' actually means?

As has been proven, many now pay less a percentage of their income than their secretaries do. That's utterly unfair.

A way to approach fair is to get rid of all socialism for the rich with special tax breaks and have them pay a modestly progressive income tax.

Why should people who work for a living have to pay a larger percentage of their wages in taxes compared to the idle rich who "clip coupons" and sit around doing nothing productive.

 

[dianaiad]

It's not about donations to charity, it's about economic policy. Liberals are mostly capitalists, too, and for the most part, they've supported the same basic framework of our economic system as conservatives do. Conservatives also ostensibly support some measure of a safety net and social welfare system, although they seem to want to spend less on such programs than liberals typically do.

It's not really about "charity" or "bleeding hearts," although I do find it interesting when conservative Christians criticize liberals because they have a heart and have compassion for other human beings. As if Christianity views that as a bad thing.

No, I think that most conservatives view this the way I do....with a really skeptical view of the hypocrisy. I figure that if the liberals were really concerned about other human beings, they would DO something about it; contribute their own money and time to charity, not simply insist that the conservatives do more...and when it is pointed out that they are being hypocrites, they try to fix it so that the charities that conservatives support somehow 'don't count."

When I see a liberal who is just as willing to spend HIS time or HER money for charity as the conservative s/he is criticizing, I don't criticize him/her. S/he has a right to say her piece. However, when I see criticism from liberals like the one you just leveled..."conservative Christians criticize liberals because they have a heart and have compassion for other human beings?" As if liberals, with their programs of taking other people's money and time to support their pet causes while THEY spend neither money NOR time on them? Where is the compassion for other human beings in that?

I have nothing but respect for the liberal who rants about safety nets and welfare programs...if that liberal is working at a homeless shelter dishing out soup and blankets. I have NONE for the liberals who go on about safety nets and welfare programs, if all that liberal does is rant and keeps his money and his time for himself. Unfortunately, the studies show that liberals DO keep their money and time to themselves, and insist that the conservatives, who do volunteer hours and funds, are the mean ones.

I think "whited sepulchers" is the appropriate term.

But it's really about maintaining the political stability within society. It's not about charity or giving away free stuff. If too many people are left out in the cold, then it increases the chances of crime, or even political radicalism or revolution.

Agreed. It's how this is addressed that is the dividing line.

US policy has been largely focused on global issues, and this is the primary reason for doing everything possible to maintain domestic tranquility and internal political stability, with the larger goal of maintaining globalism and our alliance system. It wouldn't do very well for us or our allies in the world if there were too many disaffected Americans causing crime and/or rioting in the streets because they're not paid enough or they can't afford the basic necessities of life. America would be paralyzed if it ever came to that.

Hopefully, it won't ever come to that, but I think we should be mindful of the consequences that may occur if we continue to allow our economic policy to be set by those who are too myopic and too greedy for America's good. And I say this about both the Democrats and the Republicans.

Well, yeah. I keep forgetting...y'all probably think of me as a die hard Republican, but I'm not. I'm a libertarian, because there ARE some things about the Republican party I don't like much.

It's just that I get really tired of being told how mean spirited I am, how selfish, how less than compassionate..when study after study shows that conservatives DO contribute more in money, and a WHOLE lot more in time, than liberals do. So...conservative Christians aren't criticizing liberals because 'liberals have a heart and are compassionate.' They do so because the liberals DON'T. Have a heart, that is. Or, if they do, they want to solve the problems by using someone ELSE'S money...and that someone else is already contributing more money and time to charity than that "compassionate liberal' is.

 

[gnomon]

Don't forget the sprinkles of corporatism.

Such as....hey....our local government is going to hand out millions to a private company.....such as a sports enterprise.....to use local dollars to attract a professional team to drain local dollars needed for necessary infrastructure....

What do you call that? Oh yes, corporatism, in which the state or local interest groups hijack the mechanisms of capitalism in order to generate finances for specific local groups or the local governments interest which exceeds the financial interest of the local economy.

Yeah...that's my own definition of an economic idiot but it is what happens whenever major cities vie for the sports industry in building stadiums which drain the local economy for the support of interest groups or provide subsidies to large organizations....such as Amazon.....to build their facilities when those industries could damn well afford to take the risk upon themselves.