POLL 49%+ of 'Millennials'choose Socialism over Captialism.

[wellwisher]

The US is a free market, with some government induced socialism. On the negative side, the government props up this socialism with huge federal deficits. This is not a sustainable solution. The US is able to get away with this unstable debt situation, because the US dollar is the international currency for business and banking. The world allows this instability only because destabilizing the dollar by calling in the debt would hurt everyone in the world. Socialism debt is very selfish of the US since it hurts the world.

The free market within the US, provides similar services, normally attributed to socialism, such as health care for its employees. It provides this as benefits to employees. This is part of the supply and demand dynamics of the free market used to attract and maintain skilled workers. If the cost of these benefits gets too high, businesses can go belly up, or will need to increase prices to stay solvent. This situation operates with current resources, rather than cheat the future, as does US government induced socialism debt, that rapes the world.

The main reason for the deficit differences between free market benefits and government socialism is the free market is designed to increase wealth, whereas government never turns a profit. The free market can provide benefits without deficits, because the free market is designed to have a growing pool of wealth; GNP. Governments have to dip into a tax pool, that has a huge leak in the bottom, due to systematic inefficiencies that are not allowed by the free market. Tax increases to fund socialism never works in the long term since it moves money from where it gets a positive rate for return; free market, to where it gets a negative rate of return, so that is borrowing is needed. This is why Government led Socialism never works in the long term.

The free market owns the goose that lays the golden eggs, with these golden eggs allowing wealth and GNP to increase. Profit and benefit both come from these golden eggs. In Socialism, the Government takes over the goose, but does not know how to get it to lay eggs, since it never turns a profits and also kills all the private sector incentive with taxes and regulation so GNP declines. They eventually need to kill the goose for a one time windfall, and then decline into a socialism dictatorship. This is what happened to Venezuela.

If you consider how shady the Democrat party has been acting over the past three years and how they are the ones pushing socialism, US decline would be inevitable. How many more $trillions in taxes and debt are proposed? The real goal is the rapid decline into the final criminal paradise of a dictatorship, which can spy on its citizens, and will railroad anyone who complains too loud.

 

[Lyndon]

So why are more socialized countries in Europe so much more successful and have happier populations with much less poverty etc.

 

[Stevicus]

The US is a free market, with some government induced socialism. On the negative side, the government props up this socialism with huge federal deficits. This is not a sustainable solution. The US is able to get away with this unstable debt situation, because the US dollar is the international currency for business and banking. The world allows this instability only because destabilizing the dollar by calling in the debt would hurt everyone in the world. Socialism debt is very selfish of the US since it hurts the world.

The free market within the US, provides similar services, normally attributed to socialism, such as health care for its employees. It provides this as benefits to employees. This is part of the supply and demand dynamics of the free market used to attract and maintain skilled workers. If the cost of these benefits gets too high, businesses can go belly up, or will need to increase prices to stay solvent. This situation operates with current resources, rather than cheat the future, as does US government induced socialism debt, that rapes the world.

The main reason for the deficit differences between free market benefits and government socialism is the free market is designed to increase wealth, whereas government never turns a profit. The free market can provide benefits without deficits, because the free market is designed to have a growing pool of wealth; GNP. Governments have to dip into a tax pool, that has a huge leak in the bottom, due to systematic inefficiencies that are not allowed by the free market. Tax increases to fund socialism never works in the long term since it moves money from where it gets a positive rate for return; free market, to where it gets a negative rate of return, so that is borrowing is needed. This is why Government led Socialism never works in the long term.

The free market owns the goose that lays the golden eggs, with these golden eggs allowing wealth and GNP to increase. Profit and benefit both come from these golden eggs. In Socialism, the Government takes over the goose, but does not know how to get it to lay eggs, since it never turns a profits and also kills all the private sector incentive with taxes and regulation so GNP declines. They eventually need to kill the goose for a one time windfall, and then decline into a socialism dictatorship. This is what happened to Venezuela.

If you consider how shady the Democrat party has been acting over the past three years and how they are the ones pushing socialism, US decline would be inevitable. How many more $trillions in taxes and debt are proposed? The real goal is the rapid decline into the final criminal paradise of a dictatorship, which can spy on its citizens, and will railroad anyone who complains too loud.

I've often heard these arguments in favor of capitalism over socialism.

The one question that seems to go unaddressed, though, is this: If socialism is really so bad, why do capitalists insist on embracing such reckless policies that create instability, class resentment, and which end up forcing the masses into the arms of the socialists?

What many fail to realize is that most people don't just wake up one morning and say "Hey, let's have socialism!" It's usually due to the failures and antagonism brought about through capitalism.

If capitalism was really all that it was cracked up to be, socialism wouldn't even exist. Think about it.

 

[Revoltingest]

If capitalism was really all that it was cracked up to be, socialism wouldn't even exist.
Think about it.

It exists because people tend to have dreams, but not foresight.
They want security more than liberty.
But then when someone takes over & actually imposes socialism
(eg, USSR, Cuba, N Korea, PRC) they discover that much must
be given up for it.

 

[Lyndon]

It exists because people tend to have dreams, but not foresight.
They want security more than liberty.
But then when someone takes over & actually imposes socialism
(eg, USSR, Cuba, N Korea, PRC) they discover that much must
be given up for it.

, What an idiotic comparison, were talking about socialism as in Norway, Sweden France, Switzerland, and youre trying to bait us as supporting some lunatic communist regimes, get real, your kind (capitalists) are way past due date!!

 

[Stevicus]

It exists because people tend to have dreams, but not foresight.
They want security more than liberty.
But then when someone takes over & actually imposes socialism
(eg, USSR, Cuba, N Korea, PRC) they discover that much must
be given up for it.

It exists because people have eyes. People can see there are a lot of people toiling in the fields or factories, earning very little, while people who do nothing but sit behind desks all day are ending up with most of the money. It's obvious to everyone that they're not doing their share of the work, so to see them get most of the reward is offensive to people and is antithetical to most people's concept of work ethic.

 

[Revoltingest]

, What an idiotic comparison, were talking about socialism as in Norway, Sweden France, Switzerland, and.....

You listed capitalist countries.

 

[Revoltingest]

It exists because people have eyes.

But they so often lack experience & reason.
Socialism doesn't deliver what they hope for.
Were they smarter, they'd want capitalism fueling social benefits.
Socialism doesn't work that well.

I'm shocked that no one is attacking me for proposing to them
what amounts to big government of the progressive kind. You
know....high taxes paying for guaranteed income, free health
care, etc.

 

[Lyndon]

You listed capitalist countries.

No, Democratic Socialist countries, which is a mixture of free market capitalism and socialism. Which is the kind of socialism the millenials are talking about, obviously they're not talking about North Korea, China or Soviet Russian government, what do you take us for, idiots???

 

[Revoltingest]

.....what do you take us for, idiots???

I wasn't going to go there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can the right wing be so stupid in their misunderstanding of Democratic Socialism, they don't have an f ing clue what it really is.

Because it is so much easier to defeat a strawman.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because it is so much easier to defeat a strawman.

If someone refers to "democratic socialism" as "socialism", then tis he who sows confusion.
Btw, the former is an awkward name....if it applies to the likes of Scandinavian countries,
they're democratic, but not socialist, ie, gov controlling the means of production.
We need a better term for capitalist countries with generous social benefits.
But I don't have one.

Wait!
Now I do....
"Social Capitalism"

Getting rid of the "ism" after the first one does the job.
Gawd, I'm brilliant. And I'm highly respect by those
who highly respect me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If someone refers to "democratic socialism" as "socialism", then tis he who sows confusion.
Btw, the former is an awkward name....if it applies to the likes of Scandinavian countries,
they're democratic, but not socialist, ie, gov controlling the means of production.
We need a better term for capitalist countries with generous social benefits.
But I don't have one.

Wait!
Now I do....
"Social Capitalism"

Getting rid of the "ism" after the first one does the job.
Gawd, I'm brilliant. And I'm highly respect by those
who highly respect me.

The problem is that there is no pure socialism just as there is no pure capitalism. What young people are likely supporting is western European "socialism". Those that oppose such reforms as government healthcare use the term "socialism" incorrectly as a bugaboo so they are in no position to complain when those that support such changes adopt and change the meaning of "socialism" form the various failed models, that were not true socialism either, to the European type.

 

[Revoltingest]

The problem is that there is no pure socialism just as there is no pure capitalism. What young people are likely supporting is western European "socialism". Those that oppose such reforms as government healthcare use the term "socialism" incorrectly as a bugaboo so they are in no position to complain when those that support such changes adopt and change the meaning of "socialism" form the various failed models, that were not true socialism either, to the European type.

The confusion seems to arise when people (both right & left) don't know what
the "means of production" is. Countries either lauded or derided as "socialist"
are typically capitalist because they have market economies, but spend much
money to provide social benefits, eg, health care, guaranteed income. Those
things aren't a "means of production". So while there is always some mixing,
I'd say that plays a small part in the confusion.

 

[Stevicus]

But they so often lack experience & reason.
Socialism doesn't deliver what they hope for.
Were they smarter, they'd want capitalism fueling social benefits.
Socialism doesn't work that well.

I'm shocked that no one is attacking me for proposing to them
what amounts to big government of the progressive kind. You
know....high taxes paying for guaranteed income, free health
care, etc.

They do have experience, but their experience is different. They know what it's like to work, whereas capitalists who were born with silver spoons in their mouths really don't have that experience. They've lived in a world of privilege and luxury all their lives, so of course, they're going to think that capitalism is the greatest system. And they hate socialism because it would mean they would actually have to work for their living, not have it handed to them on a silver platter, which is what they've been used to.

Socialism works rather well for what it does, although it does have different goals from capitalism. Capitalism is set up so that only mafiosi and criminals benefit, whereas socialism is set up for the benefit of all.

Socialism is hated because it requires ethics, honesty, and hard work - and such things do not suit the average capitalist.

 

[Lyndon]

good post!!

 

[Stevicus]

I'm shocked that no one is attacking me for proposing to them
what amounts to big government of the progressive kind. You
know....high taxes paying for guaranteed income, free health
care, etc.

I forgot to address this last part.

I actually think that Keynesianism might be a happy medium between capitalism and socialism, and it appeared that the US was doing rather well under such a system from the time of WW2 up until the early 70s. But the Reaganite capitalists didn't even want that. That's when they started cutting all those programs and getting richer, while the poor got poorer, and the middle class languished and diminished in stagnation.

That's why capitalists have such a PR problem nowadays. Tom Watson's IBM might be what is considered a good version of capitalism, as they treated their employees quite well. Great benefits (not a dime in co-pays or deductibles). Great working conditions, and I hear they used to feed their workers steak and lobster. They prided themselves on having no layoffs for decades. But then it all ended, at which point IBM slowly sunk in prestige.

It seems clear that happy employees = a productive company. Take away their happiness, and the company goes down.

A capitalist like Tom Watson understood this, but why are so many other capitalists so utterly clueless in this department?

 

[Lyndon]

When millenials talk about socialism, they're talking about countries like Sweden and Finland, and people like Bernie Sanders, not North Korea and Kim Jong Il, that's the classic right wing strawman.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

This is good news.

I can not think of any nation that was ruled by a socialist/communism government that I would trade life in the USA. On paper Communism is the most fair form of government. It seems to be a blueprint for paradise! Even though I am an Vietnam era veteran back in that day I was an agnostic/atheist, a socialist and pro-Palestine anti-Israel guy. As the years past I learned the truth about the lie of Palestine and how governments work. Socialism and Communism don't work well in the real world due to mans greed and the lust for power. I think (and pray) Millennial's will grow out grow their love for socialism especially if the USA goes socialist. By then it will be too late.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Nothing to worry about. They don't even know what socialism is. They think a capitalist govt that uses social programs is socialism.

I am hoping that is what it is. As I said when I was that age I too thought socialism would be a good thing. Then I got a job that paid so well I forgot all about it! Well in truth it was a long gradual process.