A Majority Of Millennials Now Reject Capitalism, Poll Shows (washingtonpost.com) 1080
A new poll shows that a majority of young people do not support capitalism. The study was conducted by Harvard University, which polled young adults ages 18-29. It found that 51 percent of those polled rejected capitalism, that is to say, they did not support it. Only 42 percent said they support capitalism -- there was a margin of error of 2.4 percentage points. When asked what alternative system they would prefer, there wasn't a clear winner. Just 33 percent said they supported socialism. When talking about politics or economics, it can get complicated and the poll does little to shed light on what parts of capitalism young people dislike or what parts of socialism young people like. It does appear to suggest young people are frustrated with the status quo and are more focused on the flaws of free markets.
Wait until they start making a bit of money (Score:5, Insightful)
All of a sudden, they will 'support capitalism', whatever that even means.
Re:Wait until they start making a bit of money (Score:5, Insightful)
That's kinda the thing though isn't it. The current economic situation is that a greater number of people can't make "a bit of money". Many have argued the point of "what's wrong with large wealth inequality?" and this is the answer: it turns public opinion against capitalism. And without popular opinion on your side...you get the guillotine.
Re:Wait until they start making a bit of money (Score:5, Insightful)
That's kinda the thing though isn't it. The current economic situation is that a greater number of people can't make "a bit of money". Many have argued the point of "what's wrong with large wealth inequality?" and this is the answer: it turns public opinion against capitalism. And without popular opinion on your side...you get the guillotine.
Not to mention that the wealth of a nation lies in the general public. If you want a wealthy nation you need to empower individuals over corporations/oligarchs.
Re: (Score:3)
You are not wrong in that the pioneers should not be hindered. Problem is that you cannot equate materialistic success with pioneering: In a pioneer, the rest of us profit from his or her success without any taxation being involved.
Microsoft revolutionized the PC marked, Apple the smartphone market and Bell revolutionized telecommunication. Whether they actually invented the necessary technology or not, I think we can all agree that it was them who got the avalanches going.
So back then yes, we could have do
Re:Wait until they start making a bit of money (Score:4, Informative)
The public is just as guilty. When we shout that everybody should have a mortgage, and everybody should be able to go to college, everybody will be bearing the brunt of the price increase that accompanies all those subsidies and risk-taking. There is no such thing as a free lunch, but try explaining that to people with voting rights.
Re: Wait until they start making a bit of money (Score:4, Insightful)
When machines do all the plumbing, make all the roads, grow all our food, run all the electrical wiring, do all the welding, and collect all the trash, to list just a handful, I'll believe that. Anyone who says you NEED a college education is clearly missing not one but many job sectors in their search for jobs. There are literally thousands of these types of jobs that drive our economy. People doing these jobs make a decent living. Not likely anyone is going to get rich doing them, but to say those jobs require a college education or we could survive in the world we know it without those jobs is just ridiculous.
Re:Wait until they start making a bit of money (Score:5, Insightful)
This. The Millennials aren't just somehow uneducated or misguided. They have been pissed upon from great height. The capitalists who did the pissing have nobody to blame but themselves.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
They will wait a long time . . .
"A Majority Of Capitalists Now Reject Millennials , Poll Shows"
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense. For you to be correct, there can not be anyone earning money who dislikes capitalism. As that is clearly not the case, you are wrong. Of course it's comforting to you to think that these people are just like you, as that means you can stop taking their criticism seriously and not have to think about it.
It's all relative (Score:3, Insightful)
People only see and evaluate their experiences; what they have lived. If you put these same college students into another system for a couple months they might change their tune.
All it takes is a trip to Eastern Europe for any American to realize their world is pretty darn good. But given modern politics we might have to bring the Post-Soviet style problems to America firsthand before they can realize the situation.
Re:It's all relative (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's all relative (Score:5, Insightful)
Millennials just expected the same thing that their parents and grand-parents and great-grand-parents had. Consider that their parents were probably doing well in the 80s when they were kids. House prices were booming, the move towards taking on massive debts to buy stuff was in full swing and a lot of people did really well for themselves. My own parents bought a house which more than doubled in value in two years.
Of course it couldn't last. Things started going wrong in the 90s and came to a head in 2008. By then the previous generation had already set themselves up with assets and wealth, and the millennials took the brunt of it. The education that their parents got for free or at low cost is now going to put them in massive, long term debt. Unpaid internships are common, and wages are low. Property prices are insane and now everyone is talking about controls on debt and public spending and polluting because it was always a bad idea, but of course they aren't going to hand back any of the benefits they got out of it during the good times.
Millennials are the first generation in nearly a century to be economically worse off than their parents. Unlike the great depression that affected most people, this time the boomers have managed to largely protect themselves. It's no wonder there is a feeling of resentment.
Re:It's all relative (Score:5, Insightful)
Holy crap. Were you even around in the 1980s? Interest rates were around 20% [wikimedia.org]. Home prices were stagnant from about 1979 til the late 1990s [cornerston...stment.com]. We took on massive debts to buy stuff because it was the only way you could afford to own a house. Taking out loans to buy a huge house (or second home) to turn it into a giant credit card from appreciating real estate prices didn't become a thing until the 2000s.
If that's the rose-colored glasses through which Millennials view the past, no wonder they're dissatisfied. They're comparing their current reality to a past nirvana which never existed.
If you ask me, capitalism works better than any other system I've seen tried, with a few exceptions. One of those exceptions is that certain goods remain scarce regardless of how much demand there is for it. A good example is housing (or at least housing in locations where people want to live). With the shift from single-income households in the 1950s to two-income households in the 1980s, you would've expected a smaller share of total household income to go to housing, with a greater share left over to be spent on quality of life things like entertainment. Instead what happened is that housing in desirable locations remained scarce (there is only so much real estate). So competing dual-income households bid up home prices, and the second income went almost entirely into paying for the higher home price.
The cost of higher education has gone through the roof because of a toxic combination of (1) socialists' desire to subsidize it to make it more affordable, and (2) capitalists' desire to leave it regulated by market forces. The compromise they came up with was the subsidized student loan. You still had to pay for the school, but you could do so by borrowing money at below normal interest rates.
Unfortunately, college tuitions are one of these goods that remained scarce. Lots of people want to send their kids to an Ivy League school, but those schools only admit a certain number of students each year. So supply was more or less fixed. Consequently, allowing kids to shift their future earnings into the present via loans just increased demand (more of them could afford college). And what happened is what naturally happens any time you have fixed supply and increased demand - people bid up the cost of tuition.
At this point, it's too far gone for a simple fix. But what needs to happen is:
That'l
Re:It's all relative (Score:5, Insightful)
All it takes is a trip to Eastern Europe for any American to realize their world is pretty darn good. But given modern politics we might have to bring the Post-Soviet style problems to America firsthand before they can realize the situation.
Okay, so they take a trip to Eastern Europe. On the way they go through Western Europe, and come back convinced even more that they're being fed a rotten load by their predecessors.
Questions they might have:
Why are we expected to take on so much debt for college?
Why am I expected to fund my own retirement when my predecessor got a defined benefits package that I'm paying for?
Why is healthcare so expensive?
Why can't companies show a little bit of loyalty to us?
etc...
Re:It's all relative (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is of course horseshit, the countries with the highest standards of living and least inequality are the socialist northern European ones.
Re:It's all relative (Score:4, Insightful)
It's always good too look all the current options that currently exist, and never try to invent a better way to do things. That's why I'm telegraphing this over ShinyWires, the best wires we could find when stringing the telegraph. I rode to the office on FastHorse, bred of the finest horses and therefore the best possibel ground transportation
Look, I think it makes sense to look at exsiting countries... including Scandanavian ones and Portugal. We can learn from everywhere.
ALso, I went through Eastern Europe. It was awesome, as someone with hard currency to spend!
Re:It's all relative (Score:5, Insightful)
All it takes is a trip to Eastern Europe for any American to realize their world is pretty darn good.
You mean, like going to Prague and seeing the magnificent architecture and so on? You see only what to see, it seems; I'm sure we can come to the States and find areas marred by the most shameful poverty, rife with drug dealers, prostitutes and gun violence. And then we can go "Look, that's what Capitalism does". Why not try to cultivate an open mind instead? I think that is what young people criticise more than anything else - the closed minds and prejudice of people who just don't give a damn, and prefer to explain problems away.
When you have to compare yourself to others who don't do very well, it's probably because can't find good arguments for your opinion. And I think you do America an injustice - sure, your society has many faults, but there is also so much good, especially when you look at ordinary people. There is some truth in the cynical, old saying, that it is the scum that rises to the top; it is probably not irrelevant to observe that scum is what you get when a pond is stagnant and polluted - the cure often involves reducing the influx of nutrients and increasing the flow of water through the system. Make of that what you want :-)
Both capitalism and socialism are important ingredients in a well-functioning society; it is self-evident (I hope) that we have to care for the weakest in some way, we have to provide education, healthcare etc, simply because it is better for society as a whole, as well as for the individual - all of which are arguably "socialist" in nature. And it is just as obvious that we need the be allowed the opportunity to aspire to do better than the average, and wealth is a strong motivator - which is essentially what capitalism is about. What we can't have, if we want society to be basically fair and viable in the long term, is all-out Socialism or Capitalism; when it becomes ideology rather than common sense, that's when it stops working.
Re:It's all relative (Score:5, Informative)
How much experience do you have in Eastern Europe?
I am an American, slightly older than a millennial, but also not a Gen-Xer, and I went to Eastern Europe, and I've stayed there (going on years 8 now).
I earn a 1/3 of what I earned in the US for a similar programming job.
Jobs are plentiful, and there's more demand for developers than there are available people.
I don't need a car, and unlike the cities in the US where you can get away without a car, I'm not paying a premium to live there.
When I need to use a taxi, I rarely spend more than $15 and that's for a 30-40 minute ride to the airport.
If I'm just going around town, it's usually between $2 - $8.
When I rented I paid about $500 month for an apartment in the city center + about $100 for utilities and internet (120 Mb/s).
Now that I own my own property with the money I saved on my Eastern European wages, I spend about $200 a month on taxes and utilities.
My monthly grocery bill for 2 people is between $150 - $200, and we eat well. Because my wife prefers it we get mostly organic veggies and fruits, and high quality cuts of meat. If we wanted to we could cut this bill between 1/4 and 1/2 if we didn't shop at the fancy markets.
If we go out to a restaurant in the touristy part of town that caters to expats, we're hard pressed to spend more than $20 a person on dinner and drinks.
My tax rate is about the same as it was in the US (24.5%).
I have both "free" healthcare and private health insurance (I pay less than $50/month pre-tax for that),
When I need to go to a doctor, I just show them my ID card, I've never had to pay money for anything, not even a deductible (this includes 1 time that I had to have for surgery). Normally I can see the doctor the next day, at most 3 days (and it's a bit longer for me, as i need an English speaking doctor, as I'm not fluent enough for them to allow me to visit a native speaker, to make sure there are no misunderstandings).
The time I needed surgery it took 3 weeks total to arrange.
When my kids are ready for university, it'll be free.
My wife decided to change careers and went back for another Master's degree at the best university in the country for free, Actually better than that, since she was doing very well, she earned a stipend after her first year, and we also received a number of discounts on things for her being a student.
After all of my bills are paid, my left over is 2 - 4 times as much as I was able to save in the US, despite making a lot more money.
So I'm not sure if a visit to Eastern Europe will have quite the impact on their thoughts about how things in the US are going as you think it will.
Re:It's all relative (Score:5, Insightful)
maybe you need to visit the socialist countries of norway, finland, sweden, germany, netherlands ...
Re:It's all relative (Score:5, Funny)
How do you double the value of a Trabant? Fill the gas tank!
Socialism is powerful, powerful stuff. So powerful it managed to spread laziness, poverty, and hideously poor engineering in a country populated entirely by Germans.
Re: (Score:3)
Social programs != socialism. The countries you mentioned are capitalist countries with robust welfare.
Re: It's all relative (Score:3, Insightful)
Your definition of socialist is very different to mine then.
Yeah sure their major organisations are state owned. But instead of thinking of that as socialist you should be seeing that as the biggest company in town.
Socialism for me is having the money spread around the members of society. Thats doesnt happen in china
Re: It's all relative (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's all relative (Score:5, Insightful)
Socialism != Communism.
Socialist policies are about taking care of the people - they're fine with private industry, so long as the private industry is controlled enough that it's still acting to benefit the people.
You want a balance in all things, of course, but a little bit of socialism is a good thing.
Re:It's all relative (Score:5, Informative)
If you're going to quote Marx, I'd recommend getting right to the end of the books. In a Marx-style communist society, there is very little government because everything is owned locally by the workers. Some of the earliest purges in the Soviet Union were of people who subscribed to Marx's vision and opposed the trend towards central control that people like Stalin were pushing.
Oh, and if you're going to argue 'socialism is scary because Marx viewed it as a step on the road to communism' then you might try going back a couple of chapters and remembering that Marx also argued that capitalism was a step on the same road, in between an agrarian economy and socialism.
Re:It's all relative (Score:4, Interesting)
Remind me the critic of Socialist party of Great Britain about Stalin's system in 1936:
http://www.worldsocialism.org/... [worldsocialism.org]
In the article, it showed Stalin just used "socialism" to cover the system that serve the interest of leaders, and leaded to corruptions.
and another one in 1931, which prove Stalinist system was in fact a capitalist state, which was slave-system that workers served the "communist leaders":
http://www.worldsocialism.org/... [worldsocialism.org]
The wage-labour system in Russian State industries, like the system here and elsewhere, is a system of Slavery. The spread of piece-work will intensify the slavery ; it will enable the "Communist" rulers to squeeze more surplus-produce out of Russian workers
And, Marx claimed that capitalism has "historical mission" to change system of production, which when at highest level, become 'communism'. (Note: in Marx theory, there is no step 'socialism', it's invented by Stalin).
Hence, the credit system accelerates the material development of the productive forces and the establishment of the world-market. It is the historical mission of the capitalist system of production to raise these material foundations of the new mode of production to a certain degree of perfection.
Re: (Score:3)
Socialism is just a way point on the road to full communism. Don't believe me, ask Karl Marx. Once people are dependent on their government, how are they going to resist?
... You haven't actually read any Karl Marx, have you? I mean, his theories are horrible, but if you're going to use him in a debate you might want to actually know what he stood for. Then you wouldn't make such dumb statements.
And, looking at history(admittedly, nothing lasts forever), countries haven't fallen into communism from socialism. Just the opposite, actually.
You see, Karl Marx would have called socialism an attempt by the bourgeoisie to placate the proletariat, delaying the inevitable revolut
Re:It's all relative (Score:5, Insightful)
This comment is just the high point of a string of unreflective comments in this thread.
Marx's communism is about empowering the disenfranchised, not making them powerless to resist. While we can argue (and many do) about how useful his ideas actually are, pithy jokes and total misrepresentations don't help us find out what's wrong. In the US, the problem is certainly not communism.
This thread is chock full of people scorning millenials, while ignoring the true and actual problems that exist in our society. It's people who only think in sports teams instead of political discourse: "Go to Eastern Europe to see what socialism does" as if Eastern Europe today is not a product of 25 years of capitalism far less regulated than in the US. "If anything bad is happening, it's not capitalism", the same argument can be made for communism. And while government may create a share of problems, free markets tend to monopolies and rip offs just fine without government intervention. Market failure is part of the vocabulary of capitalist economists for a reason...
Capitalism has strengths (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Capitalism has strengths (Score:5, Informative)
Where Capitalism falls short is if you can't get a job at all or can't start your own business. There is no sympathy for those who can't do well. There is no cushion for rock bottom other than hopefully a supportive family. Fix that while also having people still want to work dirty jobs, and you're on to something.
Sure, that's called socialism.
Ultimately, I think capitalism needs to pragmatically move above its limitations. It generates monopolies -> put pressures into the economy to fight back against them. It devalues people below their basic, human worth -> provide either a basic income or otherwise establish resource allocation outside the capital market. It leaves people unable to afford basic health care -> identify this as a failed market and employ a different allocation system for just basic health care.
Re: Capitalism has strengths (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Socialism looks good on paper. All men are equals working together except a few men who lead them and distribute the goods. But in practice, the leader people start power tripping wanting more and more power. And then they become afraid of the people rallying against them, so they crack down on political dissenters at first sight. Then by doing this, they become a more hated villian, and feel the need to oppress their people more. Socialism on paper looks good, but in history, it hasn't panned out well.
OK, this is the first post I've read today that is close to both theory and practice. But keeping this in mind, how on earth can some idiots use the "socialism"-label as the bogey-man in any political debate but AT THE SAME TIME slap it on run of the mill democratic countries as Norway and Germany? If Sweden was socialist, why should anyone be afraid of it? Make up your minds, please.
I suppose they prefer a anarchosyndicalist commune (Score:5, Funny)
Where than can take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.
By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,-- but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
What parts of capitalism young people dislike (Score:5, Insightful)
At a guess I would imagine the part where they don't get a job, can never buy a house, have a huge student debt loaded on them before they start their careers, and if they say anything bad about their situation, get called greedy and lazy by the people who have rigged the system to ensure they and their privaledged offspring own everything.
Re:What parts of capitalism young people dislike (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed, playing the victim is the millenial signature move.
I'm an engineering manager and interview fresh graduates from the best schools in this country. I have a shocking recruitment budget so I can hire the best. And the best are generally not American.
For the most part, the Americans are technically unremarkable, complain too much, have poor work ethic and can't put down their phone while I'm talking to them.
The Americans are mostly middle class kids who had school programs, facilities, scholarships and pedigrees that their peers from China, India and Russia could only dream of. But the Americans blew their chance by not working hard while believing they're special. Each kid from China grew up with 1000 peers competing for every spot they ever applied for, going all the way back to grade school.
Americans complain about student debt yet spend their 4 years of college partying, while the Russian kids who clawed their way into the US buckle down and study. It takes a single glance tell their resumes apart.
Re:What parts of capitalism young people dislike (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but he's the catch. You never see the resumes from the typical Chinese or Russian or Indian student who coasted through. You are seeing resumes from the top 20% of US students. You are seeing resumes from the top 0.1 percent of Foreign students.
This probably means... (Score:4, Insightful)
This probably means that a majority of them don't know what capitalism is. Their college professors taught them it was cronyism, fascism, patriarchy, etc., and K-12 probably didn't put it in a good light either. They're ripe with the kind of cognitive dissonance that buys a Che Guevera T-shirt from a vendor and doesn't put 2+2 together.
Re:This probably means... (Score:5, Insightful)
get your head out of your ass. capitalism is the United States of America right now. all the government corruption in the name of money, that's capitalism. letting people die because it's cheaper to pay a few dozen grieving families than a 50 cents more for a switch, that's capitalism. fucking over the global economy so that you can get rich while the world burns, that's capitalism. capitalism is greed and corruption.
your imaginary world where psychopaths wouldn't kill you then sell your children into slavery does not exist.
Re: (Score:3)
Right on the mark, and nicely said.
On the other hand, NOBODY really knows what Capitalism "is" be cause "Capitalism" doesn't really exist as a noun. The word "Capitalism" exemplifies a nominalization (creating a noun out of verbs, which is also a nominalization) and is generalized of behaviors relating to the use of assets. The "is" illustrates the conflicts that exist in the "is" of identity (described by Aristotle and Korzybski). It is no surprise that you can ask a question that has no meaning and people
Re:This probably means... (Score:5, Insightful)
They were taught that what America has today is capitalism. What they see today makes them sick, and rightly so. If you don't want capitalism flushed, you better help it clean up it's act.
The means of production (Score:3)
The only really defining attribute of Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. But if the means of production is owned by a bunch of crony capitalist who are also able to control the political system, then the theoretical ability for individuals to own the means of production is meaningless. I have a theoretical chance of winning the lottery, but on an aggregate scale, that is not a solution to poverty. Capitalism thrives when the means of production are distributed among the population.
"Free" market? (Score:5, Insightful)
Adam Smith was never writing about what's called the "free market". He envisioned small-scale peer-to-peer reputation-driven interaction, not what we have.
We need to stop calling Wall Street crony-ism a free market. It's a rigged market working for a few. How many of you out there have chance to not be haggled down to the very minimum that can be paid? How many people are routinely being awarded bonuses, and are they really contributing that level of worth to society? There you have it - resources divided not by merit, but by political and economic clout.
In other words, we have an unjust power differential, the same problem with the state-collectivized system that we refer to as socialism, but there are very different types of socialism out there and they don't all work like the totalitarian state-collective system of Stalin and Mao. Kerala's example of "land to the tiller" redistributes private ownership to guarantee ownership of the minimum tools and resources necessary to be self-sufficient. European social democracy may have problems, but many of those countries do have a stronger middle class and take for granted people in the USA only wish for. Again, the term is glossing over a lot and leaving key pieces out of the USA's public discourse, quite to the advantage of the ownership class who would keep anything demonized that would loosen their chokehold on the nation's wealth.
The key differences in any society, if you were to ask me, are the levels of equality in distribution, and representation in policy, and of accountability - meaning that corrupt officials and representatives who listen to lobbyists instead of constituents would get kicked out of office. Equality, representation, accountability - not capitalism versus socialism.
In those terms, people don't get hung up over whether government is big or small but whether it's in the public interest. Oligarchy in the form of Wall Street or a Communist party gets identified as oligarchy whatever the label. We remember that the real deal is that the people are in charge and can stop their government from going out of control.
So please, let's start talking in actual useful terms instead of red herrings.
Re:"Free" market? (Score:5, Insightful)
Adam Smith was never writing about what's called the "free market". He envisioned small-scale peer-to-peer reputation-driven interaction, not what we have.
Unrestricted freedom invariably leads to concentration of wealth and power into a few hands.
Re:"Free" market? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Umm... Adam Smith definitely talked about oligopolies... And large scale commodity based transactions. In fact, his work was The Wealth of Nations
the invisible hand of capitalism (Score:4, Interesting)
there wasn't a clear winner (Score:4, Insightful)
Only 42 percent said they support capitalism -- there was a margin of error of 2.4 percentage points. When asked what alternative system they would prefer, there wasn't a clear winner. Just 33 percent said they supported socialism.
Of course there wasn't a clear winner, they are rejecting what the schools and media have told them to reject, but frankly most of them have no bloody idea what they are talking about.
It's ok, they'll grow up and learn.
In my experience dealing with anyone under 30 years old, most of them have absolutely no idea how the economy works, how money works, what the difference between capital investment and expenses are, and so on. What it takes to turn raw materials into a $2 cheeseburger is completely lost on anyone who hasn't actually studied it.
Re:there wasn't a clear winner (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, they have lived within what they were taught is capitalism and don't like it. And no wonder since it dumbed them down even as it overworked their parents and left them no time to be parents. Their parents certainly haven't sung the praise of capitalism since they were too dead tired for singing.
Given that, their rejection of the system that screwed them is probably the smartest thing they have done in their lives.
Riddle me this (Score:5, Insightful)
The reward/optimisation function in capitalism is greed - why act surprised when the end-game is inevitably an oligopoly? All this yada yada about crony capitalism is just a facile rationalisation from people who are unable to provide a clear-cut answer to this simple paradox inherent in a capitalist system. Millennials are seeing through this - and they are seeing through the fact that most ideologically driven systems that fail to take real-world evidence into account, inevitably lead to injustice.
result of abuse (Score:5, Insightful)
Capitalism can mean different things to different people, and the newest generation of voters is frustrated with the status quo, broadly speaking.
can you blame them?
* the two party political system is really just one party with caveats
* their voice in the election has been snuffed out by super delegates
* laws are purchased via bribes aka "campaign donations"
* billions are being funneled into government defense contracts that we don't need
* taxes are being used to subsidise the fossil fuel companies that are destroying the planet
* they are being enslaved by hoisting debt on them before they even get out of college
* a whole lot of bankers just stomped on the global economy and were then bailed out of a problem they created
* multibillion dollar companies dodging paying billions in taxes
* H-1B fellows are being used to replace them in the workforce
* 0.01% of the population has 40% of the total wealth
this isn't a favorable outcome for anyone but aging psychopaths, so it's understandable that they are unhappy.
Of course they do. (Score:5, Insightful)
The last war and/or global economy crisis that truely leveled the playing field is roughly 70 years - two full generations - ago. The market is completely staked out and capital sucktion is rampant. For millenials the game has been rigged from the beginning.
The efficiency of capitalism as we now it continues to decline. Any millenial feels this instictively. To be honest, I have grown more sceptical myself throughout the decades.
To anybody with a brain to think capitalism as we know it has run it's course. When even billionaires, or especially them, start calling it out [politico.com], you can be sure that your strange feeling somethings wrong is spot on.
My 0.02 Euros.
Stop with the false dichotomy (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it's because I've been raised in what the Americans would call a 'socialist' country (Finland) but it always irks me to see capitalism and socialism thrown about as some sort of polar opposites, or capitalism in general being talked about as if it's some single clearly defined ideology.
There are many versions of capitalist economies, and some of them are socialistic. In fact, most all of them are that to a degree, as even the US has a large public sector. Capitalism at its core means nothing more or less than the private ownership of the means of production. If the question was framed "Do you support the right of individuals to own goods provided they pay their share of taxes on them?", the answers would look quite different I reckon.
So the problem is not capitalism as such, the problem is they paying of the fair share of taxes. Neo-liberalism and the fact that the US sliding to the right continuously for the past decades has created this tilted landscape in which gigantic corporations and massively rich individuals have been uplifted to a status in which they're quite openly above governments: bribery and outright buying of bills via lobbying has been made legal (and relatively cheap compared to the profits of these companies), taxes can be circumvented easily if you're wealthy, and megacorps are allowed to wreck havoc to the environment and cause global economic meltdowns without any risk of anyone facing any jail time or even significant fines. They're given fines which are slaps on the wrist compared to the kind of money they can make by continuing illegal operations. To them, it's just a cost of doing business, and the cycle repeats.
So is that capitalism? Well, yes, yes it is, but it's not the one and only true implementation of capitalism, in fact I'd argue it's one of the absolute worst implementations of it possible. It's a corporatocracy/plutocracy. And unless you happen to be one of the chosen few who actually benefits from such a system, there's no rational reason for anyone, on the right or on the left, to support such a model. Even a true conservative should realize that the government allowing legislation as well as elections to be sold to the highest bidder skews the market as it means whoever has the most cash can dictate the rules. That's not how a fair market is supposed to operate, regardless of what one thinks of socialist income redistribution policies.
The tittle would be more appropriately stated: "A majority of millenials now oppose free market/laissez-faire capitalism." And that's only a good thing.
Re: (Score:3)
It's also not even that useful for those at the top. The post war years showed that when you have an economic system where people go to work every day to add to the pool of assets in a society, rather than fight each other over the assets that exist, everyone can literally live like a king. By shifting away from this productive economy to one where the most lucrative jobs are in trading assets between each other in a giant casino, even the rich miss out on things like new products and services, medical adva
Re: (Score:3)
Erm, except for the fact that Sweden and Germany are both socialistic as well, Sweden even remarkably close in many ways to us. I agree that the model(s) of taxation here need to be updated, but you sh
Re:Stop with the false dichotomy (Score:5, Insightful)
Well if the market allows for bribery legally then the market is "too free." And where do you think the corruption comes from? It takes 2 sides for bribery to happen: someone to give and someone to take the bribes.
The corporations have had an active role in corrupting the government(s) and breaking the markets. Obviously the market itself is not to blame, it's just a mechanism; but both the private and the public side have changed the rules of business so that it no longer is what most people consider free or fair.
Corruption is at the root of it, but not just corruption in government, but also on the side doing the corrupting; ie. the wealthy elite who've had the desire to be able to bribe politicians.
Blame Adblock (Score:4, Funny)
How will they ever know what Capitalism truly is if they continue to use Ad Blockers?
Pure capitalism is a failed ideology (Score:4, Insightful)
Furthermore, pure capitalism is leading to its own death because progress is undermining some of the basics of capitalist economy, such as scarcity. Capitalism works because money is valuable. Money is valuable because you can buy stuff with it. Stuff is valuable because there's not enough to cover demand. In a society where basic needs are covered essentially for free, money accumulation becomes much less important. In a society where basic and luxury needs are given for essentially free, money accumulation is way less interesting or compelling to anyone. This, in the short term, leads to a society with an inflated artificial demand. Did you not notice the amount of ads you are subjected to? Yeah, that's why. Of course this is only a temporary solution to a structural problem. Market forces will make sure ads are minimized, and this is something which has a marginal cost of zero, so it will eventually be free for all, which is exactly what is happening with adblockers, and adblocker-blocker blockers. After that, demand will collapse and eventually we will move towards an economy of abundance, not of scarcity. I don't know what that will look like, but certainly it won't be capitalism or communism.
Ask them to define Capitalism first (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd love to see those answers. And then ask if they support it.
Re:Subversion of the West (Score:5, Insightful)
Free market != Capitalism.
I wouldn't call the current unchecked, government-supported oligopoly anywhere close to "free".
Just like traffic laws exist to make sure the sociopaths don't have free reign, the equivalent of economic "traffic" laws need to exist.
Re:Subversion of the West (Score:5, Insightful)
What we have is corporatism, not capitalism.
It usually tries to defend itself by appropriating the NAME of capitalism, which is eroding capitalism's credibility, but it's not capitalism any more than an alien cockroach wearing an Edgar suit is actually Edgar.
Re:Subversion of the West (Score:5, Insightful)
What we have is corporatism, not capitalism.
I think the better term for this is Mercantilism [wikipedia.org], which is pretty much what Adam Smith argued against in The Wealth of Nations. The government makes laws & regulations which appear to be for the purpose of protecting consumers, but actually make it more difficult for other actors to enter the market, thereby reducing freedom of economic choices.
Re:Subversion of the West (Score:5, Insightful)
You should read that Wikipedia link you gave, because Mercantilism wasn't what you described it as. The intention (apparent or real) had nothing to do with protecting consumers
You misunderstood what I wrote.I didn't say mercantilism had anything to do with protecting consumers. I'm saying that our current government system passes laws & regulations under the claim of protecting consumers when the reality is that it protects big business by shielding them from competition. McDonald's & Walmart can afford a minimum wage hike, mom & pop corner stores operating on low margins can't. Almost every form of licensing and regulation helps to give the existing players an advantage over those who are considering entering the market.
Re:Subversion of the West (Score:5, Insightful)
Apples and oranges. You can have a corporatist system that is perfectly capitalist. You can even have a completely corrupt perfectly capitalist system.
"Free" is not part of the technical definition of capitalism. All it means is individual ownership of industry for profit. In the vernacular, people try to impute all sorts of magical properties to capitalism, giving it some quasi-religious sense of moral rightness and justice, but at the end of the day, it just means that the money goes in some guys' pockets, even if it's just a very few guys.
Re: Subversion of the West (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Subversion of the West (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a bit like the "Emperor's nose fallacy." By averaging people's opinion when they have no clue, you don't get any closer to what the best solution might be. But you drown out the experts. See Feynman's chapter on "Judging a book by it's cover"(http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm [textbookleague.org])
Re: Subversion of the West (Score:5, Informative)
Have you ever lived of "government cheese" ? It's not much, you often have to be very very creative to survive on it.
You don't always get it neither: you're not handicapped enough, you have inherited 1/16 of family property (which you can't sell) or have a significant other with a high paying fulltime job.
And if you do finally manage to get it, it binds you to another exhausting set of rules and restrictions.
For me it was eventually just easier to get a job than to plough through all the bureaucracy and this is in socialist paradise (Belgium).
But there are people out there who are discarded by the social system and have to "mooch" of their relatives because
their papers don't have the right stamps or they can't make heads or tails of this always-changing process.
Re: Subversion of the West (Score:4, Informative)
> Have you ever lived of "government cheese" ?
Oh man that is good stuff. I used to have it at my grandmother's - she had plenty of money but kept it well hidden and scammed the system to get subsidized housing, free food, etc. yet miraculously always had the funds to travel and go to the casino. But anyway, that cheese... real American cheese made of mixes of various cheddars and it made the best grilled cheese sandwiches ever. I wish I could buy that exact cheese in supermarkets - I haven't had it since the '80s when my grandmother stopped scamming the system and bought a house in Florida.
But then again I can't blame her... RI has oppressive tax rates relative to what you get for your tax dollars.
Re: (Score:3)
okay, it's more like a 7:0 margin, but that's bad statistics. Also, it's limited by the fact that I only know so many people. (
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe you shouldn't trust myths and instead look for what research says? Or perhaps science is only good when it reinforces your biases?
Taxing those who can afford it more isn't possible in the current US, the very rich and the super-rich can afford to pay for lobbyists and even politicians (often indirectly, avoiding obvious bribes). Even if that factor is ignored the common psyche of the US makes even the poor thinking that the rich shouldn't be taxed harder - as they think that "the American dream" is re
Re: (Score:3)
think that "the American dream" is real and that they someday will be rich too.
It's working for a lot of immigrants in my old neighborhood. Second generation no as much.
Re: Subversion of the West (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Subversion of the West (Score:5, Insightful)
"I don't like capitalism!" he typed on his iPhone or Android phone, and pressed send, where it went out wiressly to a router or a 4G connection, and from there into the massive lightning fast backbone of the Internet. He then settled down to play Tom Clancy's World of Assassins Creed on his X-Station 760 PC with the new 980 graphics card, all of this developed over the past 30 years with trillions in private investment.
"Shall we meet at McDonald's for lunch?" came a message. "Nah, how about Cheepotl or whatever it is?" "Sure. Cya soon."
Re: Subversion of the West (Score:5, Insightful)
Lazy? I know people who are working more than two jobs a week, with 2+ sharing a one bedroom apartment just so they can pay rent and get food on the table.
Lets be real here: The millennials I know work damn hard just to try to survive. It isn't a work ethic or lack of ambition. It is a system that has stopped working for them, and the system blames the millennials for it.
Times are changing, and not for the better. The high paying manufacturing jobs are now in China and Mexico. The jobs for development and IT are being offshored, if not, H-1Bs hired because of the tax benefits and the fact that an H-1B knows he gets deported if fired, so will do anything in his/her power (ethical/unethical) to keep working. On the low end, illegal immigration has slowed down because it is easy to get a H-2B for seasonal work. The only growth sector in the US is corrections officers, and even that is stagnant right now.
I do call bullshit on the taxes. My income tax is a fraction of what it would be under Reagan. In fact, it would be nice if more taxes were collected from corporations before they stash their gains overseas. In times past, companies paid their fair share. Now, the tax burden is on the poorer people who can't afford the biggest loopholes. In fact, I actually pulled tax burdens of people I know and compared them to publically released forms of politicians. Why the hell is someone making minimum wage paying far more taxes than someone making 6-7 digits a year, and paying $0 to Uncle Sam? This isn't "let's soak the rich", but "lets get people to pay their fair share."
tl;dr, I don't blame millennials. Everyone tells them they are fuck-ups, but they work harder than any generation previously, and can barely survive. It is no wonder why they don't like a game they can't win, or even succeed at. Because there isn't any real hope of earning even near what their parents (much less grandparents) did, and for their generation the political system gives them nothing but a middle finger, it is no wonder why seeds from toxic ideologies from Daesh or other extreme sectors are growing fruit, when before 2008, it wouldn't even have been thinkable.
Re: Subversion of the West (Score:4)
And that only applies to Federal tax. The poor pay gasoline taxes, sales taxes, state income taxes (in Illinois at the same rate as a billionaire), cigarette taxes, and their landlord's property tax on the property they live in (you don't believe landlords exist out of the goodness of their hearts, do you?).
Re: Subversion of the West (Score:5, Informative)
We do seem to have too many people at the bottom who are inherently lazy (all people are lazy to some extent)
If you're an American You're ignorant. [theatlantic.com] Welfare ended in 1996. Unless you're disabled you get no check unless you can PROVE you're looking for work. Oh, were it not for Britain's generous welfare, there would be no Harry Potter.
But you just keep listening to that drug-addled rich hypocrite Rush Limbaugh, fool.
Re: Subversion of the West (Score:4, Insightful)
What the GP fails to understand is that "voluntary exchange for mutual benefit" inevitably leads to corporatism, as controlling the market is benefiting to the owners and managers of the largest corporations; a "free market" does not survive for long when people act in pure self-interest.
Pure capitalism is a pipe dream as theoretical communism, depending too much on the good will of its participants to comply with the rules required to keep the system working (such as ensuring that voluntary exchanges are trully benefital to both parties, and not extortions from the strongest party that "can't be rejected").
Re:Subversion of the West (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Subversion of the West (Score:5, Insightful)
Adam Smith did not support a 100% inheritance tax. He rejected it, and such a tax would be antithetical to capitalism. He was opposed to any inheritance tax on children who still lived in their father's household when he died (because "[t]hat tax would be cruel and oppressive"); he wrote that inheritance tax on "emancipated" or "forisfamiliated" children -- independent adults with their own means and families, with established households -- would be as sustainable as any other tax. Almost all capitalists you'll find today agree with that.
Re:Subversion of the West (Score:4, Interesting)
no one supports an inheritance tax on dependent children.
but what you said is effectively the same as supporting an inheritance tax as it is commonly understood to be.
that is because Adam Smith supported the basic concepts of fair competition* and level playing fields, things which inherited wealth undermine. inherited wealth is a distortion in the market, bestowing on an actor opportunity they didn't gain through the market. and as such Adam Smith was not a fan.
(i'd use the word meritocracy, except meritocracy is not the word to use, unless you define the source of merit carefully; for ex, he didn't believe in merit from assumed position or inherited wealth)
He may have believed such situations as competition and level playing fields should arise naturally through mutual agreement and restraint, but reality has shown they do not, as all it takes is one self-interested person to poison the pot. In point of fact, Adam Smith's views on capitalism and markets based around fair competition dovetail nicely with government rules meant to accomplish and foster such, as what is government but an abstracted form of mutual agreement (at least in in its ideal form), albeit one able to enforce those ideal level competitive fields under force of law ?
(the fact that government itself can be subverted doesn't negate its role; rather it forces upon the users another layer of vigilance, that of maintaining control over their government from those who would subvert it)
Re:Subversion of the West (Score:5, Insightful)
Either you believe in property rights or you don't. If you believe in property rights, a 100% inheritance tax (and even a 1%) is totally unacceptable. If you believe in property rights you have the right do decide what to do with your own property, like, for example, giving it to your designed heirs.
You either believe in false dichotomies, or you don't.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
In my opinion, capitalism is the only market form that works reasonably effective and ensures progress and freedom, but it absolutely needs to be combined with moderate egalitarianism and effective laws to prevent monopolies and cartels.
People discussing these topics often base their arguments on false dichotomies, although it's kind of obvious that a reasonable middle ground needs to be found.
Why? Well, regarding the first point, we can always discuss how much wealth should be transferred and in which way, but that there should be universal agreement that some transfer is necessary. You can show that to almost anyone by explaining the Gini index and asking that person at which point society becomes unjust - people will only disagree about where the point lies, but nobody will honestly and sincerely defend a country with index 1. Insane differences between highest and lowest incomes like we have them now in most industrialized countries (the gap has widened dramatically everywhere in the Western industrialized world, not just in the US) are not in the interest of anyone, and particularly not in the interest of people whose own microeconomic theory predicts that monetary transfers from the rich to the poor always increase overall value due to the diminishing marginal utility of money. Nobody who has reached a certain amount of wealth actually needs more money - the idea is patently absurd. But that doesn't mean you need to deny that differences in salaries can be an important incentive that needs to be kept. A reasonable middle ground is called for.
Regarding the second point about cartels, many so-called markets nowadays do not have enough participants to be free markets. If there are only two telecom companies or two major chip makers who magically have the same price structure, then this does not constitute a real market but rather a quasi-monopoly, for example, and something has to be done about such situations. If somebody claims that this is not necessary, this tends to be based on a lack of understanding of economics and how and under which conditions markets work (or it is based on hidden egoistic motives and ideology, and these two don't count in a general discussion of how society should look like). Again, too much regulation is obviously bad while not enough regulation will lead to cartels and hinders progress by blocking small, innovative companies from emerging. A reasonable middle ground is needed.
These things are not very complicated and far less controversial than they are often portrayed in the media and by politicians. Most of the fighting and arguing in fact results from the ideologization of these topics by political parties and interest groups.
My 2 cents.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is capitalism doesn't ensure progress and freedom. It might ensure it for some, but for society as a whole, capitalism left to its own devices is inherently dangerous. We only have to look back to the beginning of the industrial revolution for some great examples, and continuing forward where companies move quicker than regulation and end up screwing customers over by abusing their market share, etc.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing ensures progress and freedom. ;-)
However, I take it as a fact that capitalist societies have lead to more technical progress and freedom of choice than any other type of system. But if you're talking about the current US, I somewhat agree. IMHO, you've got a big problem. Lobbyism and the more or less fixed two party system have subverted your democracy and its proper division of power. I was thinking about capitalism in a slightly saner system, one that has a number of parties with changing coalitions, stricter laws against corruption, a fairer justice system, stronger anti-cartel laws, a better electoral system, ...
Re: (Score:3)
it will still have problems without a lot of oversight. look at car manufacturers -- now that is some capitalism, right? they want to make money, they need efficiency, they need talent, they need a work pool, they need a global supply chain...and they need oversight or they will get people killed over a frickin ignition switch or ruin the environment even more than we thought because they will lie about emissions tests and the like.
without oversight other companies would hire child laborers---which we are o
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Can you define Socialism? Because all industrialized economies have since degree of Socialism.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that the large drug companies spend only a small fraction of their budgets on R&D, and spend more on marketing. It's small companies and universities [nature.com] that develop half of all new drugs in the US, despite raking in far lower profits.
As for the military, has it ever occurred to you that most of us actually don't want there to be a giant hegemonic power (you) throwing around your military weight in the world?
Re: (Score:3)
Free markets can work in microcosm, and do. The problem is one of scale. Lassaiz-faire fails at the national (or even regional level) because they cease to be free of outside intervention; instead of government intrusion, it is another private entity manipulating the transaction between the vendor and consumer. Modern regulated markets do not unduly impact the freedom of consent between vendors and consumers, but curtail the worst excesses of large corporations under lassaiz-faire.
Re: (Score:3)
"In my opinion, capitalism is the only market form that works reasonably effective and ensures progress and freedom"
If your idea of freedom is taking advantage of others? yes. A free market system is the only one that ensures progress and freedom
A free market system is an economic system based solely on demand and supply, and there is little or no government regulation. In a free market system, a buyer and a seller transact freely only when they voluntarily agree on the price of a good or a service. For e
Capitalism does not protect Freedom (Score:3)
In my opinion, capitalism is the only market form that works reasonably effective and ensures progress and freedom...
Capitalism absolutely does not protect individual freedoms and there are increasing examples of this. Just look at copyrights and patents to see how companies would like to severely restrict our freedom in order to make money. Other companies support laws to prevent grey imports so they can charge more in some countries than others etc. If individual freedom gets in the way of a company making more money then they are only too happy for us to lose it.
Capitalism works when companies are small in size bec
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't blame them either.
I think the only reasonable system possible is one which has private ownership, free and competitive enterprise, and a government providing basic services, ensuring security and regulation, and promoting fairness and equality by e.g. making sure everyone has access to health care and education.
If this is 'capitalism', I'll take it. You can also call it the Rhineland model or social market economics, or whatever you want. I want it :)
What we're seeing now is: .5% per annum), while average income increased by 100%. In other words: the economic growth since the seventies has almost entirely gone to the above-median earners: the top 1% share of income jumped from 10% in the seventies to over 20% now, with a large part of this increase going to the top 0.1% (i.e., not us).
- wage share of income falling relative to capital's share [1]
- real median income stagnant for the past 20 years even though real average income has increased by 25% [2]. Over 50 years median income increased by 25% (not even
- governments are unable to provide basic services because the rich don't pay their fair share of tax [4]
- governments are unable to provide basic services because they are unable to reform entitlement/welfare systems which are in fact transferring money from the relatively poor young to the relatively well-off old [5]
- markets aren't acutally well regulated, especially in the US, and too many industries have (near-)monopolies, causing profits to be historically way too high [6]
In Europe, 'capitalism' means that old people have either permanent contracts with generous benefits, or are already enjoying their equally generous retirement which they entered between 55 and 65. Young people have temporary contracts at stagnant wages, are unable to buy a house because of (1) inflated prices due to government meddling (green belts, mortgage interest deductability); (2) they don't have a permanent contract; and (3) new lending regulations means banks are a lot more stingy than even 10 years ago; and will not retire before 67 on a defined contribution scheme, which is pretty bad news especially given the essentially zero interest rates and government bond yields. In the US (and increasingly the UK), added to this is a nice pile of student debt. If I were young(er), I'm not sure I would think this is such a good bargain...
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
2) https://research.stlouisfed.or... [stlouisfed.org]
3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
5) http://www.economist.com/news/... [economist.com]
5) http://www.economist.com/news/... [economist.com]
Re: (Score:3)
What is rejected? The concept of capitalism or the idea pushed from some political parties.
Much like "Patriotism" do you need to be an American flag waving, car stuck with yellow ribbons to be a patriot? Or can you be a Patriot by concerning yourself with identifying the current problems and challenges in our government and work to fix them to help improve our nation for the long term?
Or Religion? Are they those guys who knock on your door and tell you that you are going to go to hell because of your modern
Re: Good (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't really capitalism in itself but the case that there is too much corruption involved.
Just look at the Wall Street feeding Hillary Clinton - there is a reason why that happens.
Republicans are today pretty weak - more focused on anti-abortion than the real issues that has to be managed. Ever wondered why Trump is so strong? Well, that's because he actually lifts up stuff people really care about, and that's not only the Mexican Wall he promised but a lot of other stuff too. Bernie Sanders is also an example of politicians really trying to change what's going on. Hillary is stronger because she's a woman and backed by Wall Street.
Don't get me wrong, I still think that the whole field is pretty weak this time and holds mostly sandbox level.
- Bernie Sanders - Grumpy old man (Grumpy cat maybe). Not going to win any election unless Hillary gets kicked out on a technicality.
- Hillary Clinton - Probably one of the most corrupt candidates we have seen in a long time.
- Trump - Pretty rude, shaking up the field by alienating everyone and may alienate most people he meets. But may have the force to actually kick out some of the parts of the government that blocks everything.
- Cruz - Too much interested in promoting the stagnant republican agenda.
- Kaisch - Not significant in this election, he's just in to get his name on the lists for the next election.
You won't get the president you need, probably the president you deserve.
Re: Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Bernie Sanders - Not going to win any election
He polls 7-9 points better than Hilary [realclearpolitics.com] vs Cruz and Trump.
Hilary only has a margin of 3 points on Cruz. That's just way too close for comfort.
Re: Good (Score:4, Informative)
- Cruz - Too much interested in promoting the stagnant republican agenda.
Wut?
Are we talking about the same guy that many if not most "establishment" Republicans despise so much they'd prefer Hillary Clinton as POTUS over him?
What I've heard from Cruz is a push to return to the Rule of Law where those in power are actually held accountable and insistence on Constitutional limits on government power. Of course if you get your information and opinions secondhand instead of actually researching things yourself, your confusion is understandable.
Strat
Re: Good (Score:4, Insightful)
The stagnant political agenda based on religious right-wing rules like anti-abortion (which should never be a political issue).
Another issue is that the republican party want to get rid of the network neutrality regulations put in place by FCC.
It's time to clean up the act and adapt in order to make it possible for any citizen to be prosperous, not just those that have rich parents. The middle class is dying and the republican party isn't even admitting it's a problem.
Re: (Score:3)