Talk About Marriage banner

81 - 100 of 506 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,752 Posts
Unbridled capitalism? In the USA? The meltdown of 2008 caused by capitalism?
I would say the 2008 meltdown was caused by the actions of people considered to be capitalists, do you agree?
Such claims reveal total ignorance about how government regulations/laws (aka government central planning)
There is a lot of ground btw financial regulations/laws and government central planning of the economy. Do you agree?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
74 Posts
This has been an interesting topic...

The word entitlement has been thrown around a bit. Once upon a time it was an elite-focused word and today, not so much as it is implied to a generation and not a status base in wealth or position.

As I look across the greater region I live in, we are short in many blue-collar skills... yet education has just recently begun to stop pitching the "everyone must consider university or you are doing yourself an injustice" approach.

My community needs more plumbers and electricians, and carpenters... not 4-year degree holders yet it seems we struggle to fill jobs that require such effort because our schools give such skills little value of "status" when honest work is just that, honorable yet with hard at times and you will suffer some of the elements, albeit at $95 an hour (what I paid my last plumber).

Plumbers probably have a much different perspective of socialism than teachers and I think rural and urban millennials have a much different perspective of it as well.

I raised two millennials, one (D1) has a Bachelor's (Psychology) from Big City U and then took that degree and applied it to a Physical Therapy Assistant boot camp (two years crammed into 18 months). I told D1 from the beginning that her degree was her's to own and as long as she was in school and passing classes, I would cover her logistics (food, rent, insurances) and that we had a partnership as her loving sponsor. She graduated with a 3.9 average owing $2,000 dollars having worked the entire time. She never took our generosity for granted and her efforts at the end showed that she had to stand on her own feet for what she really wanted. In fact, when she signed up for her Physical Therapy Assistant class I was so impressed with her efforts in her first 4 years that I gifted her tuition from my half of the proceeds of the sale of my house during the divorce of my last marriage and her and her spouse figured out the rest. She is now graduated and living in another state because the city she was in was over-inflated in all things and there in new city is earning a fair and healthy for-the-area living and living within her means.

This was not the governments responsibility... when she was starting her PTA classes I was entering my divorce and at the final I was down to my last $20k of accessible cash in the bank and when I saw the amount of interest the feds were going to charge to loan her the same amount I was appalled, this is not in the best interest of anyone yet we keep telling our youth that this debt is essential to success.Thankfully I could make it work and the timing worked out as it should have, family support to help the costs as the government did not, could not, and should not have her back.

But then I am libertarian that way...

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have." is a statement I believe in.

Same for corporations, too bad they are often one and the same.

I want to go back to the ending of my bolded portion of my paragraph above because I think this escapes most thoughts of entitlement. We think we deserve to have jobs or opportunity in places where there aren't any and need many things we do not and I see this time and time again. From those I work with that have massive unnecessary debt for homes, toys, vacations that trickles expectations down to the community.

Desire for more things than we really need often give us unmindful paths for wealth and status...

So how much is enough? Is not owning a modest home by retirement good enough that now if we are not there by an earlier age deemed lacking in some generational measure of success?

Why do we look so hard to the external for our needs and blame the same for our failure to have what we think we want or deserve? Do we think we have arisen above the need to suffer? Believing this would cause much more suffering in the long run as we believe we deserve to be happy and when we aren't, we feel we are owed it.

The American Dream is successfully offered every day. When we marginalize it by thinking everyone should get this success as opposed to remembering that it is not the success but the opportunity of the attempt and the possibility at success that is the dream, we might see it differently... believing you are owed something is a sure way to suffer by trapping yourself in hidden ego.

Our version of a successful life needs to be a healthy one, not one made up with demands of wealth or status... benevolence is quickly lost when money or power becomes the focus.
Man this is an amazing post. So many things we need to relearn.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,385 Posts
I would say the 2008 meltdown was caused by the actions of people considered to be capitalists, do you agree?

There is a lot of ground btw financial regulations/laws and government central planning of the economy. Do you agree?
It wasn’t a bug of capitalism, it was a feature.

This is how capitalism works. It doesn’t care about you, or the economy, or anything else. It’s simply math.

Which is why I’m so curious as to why people deify it. It’s a tool that is useful in many circumstances, not useful in many others.

It’s not an ideology, it’s a wrench.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,560 Posts
It wasn’t a bug of capitalism, it was a feature.

This is how capitalism works. It doesn’t care about you, or the economy, or anything else. It’s simply math.

Which is why I’m so curious as to why people deify it. It’s a tool that is useful in many circumstances, not useful in many others.

It’s not an ideology, it’s a wrench.
??? Are you purposely ignoring the definition of the word ideology to make a point (that I obviously missed)?
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
42,539 Posts
??? Are you purposely ignoring the definition of the word ideology to make a point (that I obviously missed)?
Yep

Capitalism -- an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

If a person does not want capitalism, what sort of economic system do they want? Socialism and communism are systems in which the government owns the means of production.

I see a lot of complaining by folks but no solutions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,385 Posts
??? Are you purposely ignoring the definition of the word ideology to make a point (that I obviously missed)?
Sorry if I was being unclear.

There is currently with some an undertone of anti-socialism as if it’s a great evil, with some equivalency with communism, and the idea that capitalism is always good.

Unrestrained capitalism is problematic, as is unrestrained socialism. Capitalism cannot solve every economic problem, and did indeed lead to many economic downturns as people learned to extract vast sums of wealth using capitalism to do so.

Capitalism is not good, nor is it evil. It is a tool, like a wrench. You can use a wrench to turn a nut, and you can use a wrench to hammer a nail clumsily. But it’s better to use a hammer on a nail. Use the right tool for the right job.

Demonize one roll and idealize another, and you’ll end up using one tool to try to solve all problems. Which won’t work very well. All economic tools have their place in a nations tool belt. That was my point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,385 Posts
Yep

Capitalism -- an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

If a person does not want capitalism, what sort of economic system do they want? Socialism and communism are systems in which the government owns the means of production.

I see a lot of complaining by folks but no solutions.
So all schools should be private?

All roads should be toll roads?

Your military should be for profit?

You already use socialist tools. They have their place, even within a capitalist framework.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
42,539 Posts
So all schools should be private?

All roads should be toll roads?

Your military should be for profit?

You already use socialist tools. They have their place, even within a capitalist framework.
This is a good example of why discussions here go way off the deep end. I posted the definitions of capitalism and socialism and you post in reply as though I am advocating for a pure capitalist system.

There are some good things about both capitalism and socialism. And there are bad things about both. Unchecked capitalism tends to lead to monopolies and abuse of workers. There tend to be a few very rich and everyone else be dammed. Socialism unchecked tends to kill human initiative, leads to oppressive control since the government owns and controls everything and leads to the development of a super wealthy class that controls everything and abuses workers.

It seems to me that we can take the good part of each system and user them for their benefits and put controls in place to prevent the problems. The only thing is that the controls need to be revisited constantly to ensure that they encourage good outcomes.

For example, Amazon is an example of a good capitalist endeavor that has now gone off the deep end. In the early 1900's laws were passed to end the era of the Robber Barons. We now need the laws tweaked to end things similar to what Amazon and other big corporations are doing that put harm competition and small business.

The vast majority of businesses in the US are small businesses. They are ignored for the most part. Current laws tend to favor huge corporations and harm small ones.

Having some things government run such as public education, post office, military (required by constitution), make sense. However, just looking at public education, it's become a failure. For the most part it's not providing a good education. I like what Germany does. In Germany, when a kid gradates from high school they not only have an education far superiors to what our private schools in the US give but they also have skills for a job. Most of the jobs in the US that require a college degree only require a high school diploma in Germany. Germany has free college but a smaller percent of there population go to college because it's not job training. Instead college is for specific fields of study that require more education.... like engineering, physics, MD, etc.

Solutions are what people need to be talking about, not blaming some generation as though everyone in the generation is part of a huge hive mind. Making generalizations about groups of people only serves to create division and mistrust.

My solution for our school system is that we adopt a system similar to that in Germany. We can still have private schools, specialized schools, but for the vast majority of students a system like what Germany provides is much better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,385 Posts
This is a good example of why discussions here go way off the deep end. I posted the definitions of capitalism and socialism and you post in reply as though I am advocating for a pure capitalist system.

There are some good things about both capitalism and socialism. And there are bad things about both. Unchecked capitalism tends to lead to monopolies and abuse of workers. There tend to be a few very rich and everyone else be dammed. Socialism unchecked tends to kill human initiative, leads to oppressive control since the government owns and controls everything and leads to the development of a super wealthy class that controls everything and abuses workers.

It seems to me that we can take the good part of each system and user them for their benefits and put controls in place to prevent the problems. The only thing is that the controls need to be revisited constantly to ensure that they encourage good outcomes.

For example, Amazon is an example of a good capitalist endeavor that has now gone off the deep end. In the early 1900's laws were passed to end the era of the Robber Barons. We now need the laws tweaked to end things similar to what Amazon and other big corporations are doing that put harm competition and small business.

The vast majority of businesses in the US are small businesses. They are ignored for the most part. Current laws tend to favor huge corporations and harm small ones.

Having some things government run such as public education, post office, military (required by constitution), make sense. However, just looking at public education, it's become a failure. For the most part it's not providing a good education. I like what Germany does. In Germany, when a kid gradates from high school they not only have an education far superiors to what our private schools in the US give but they also have skills for a job. Most of the jobs in the US that require a college degree only require a high school diploma in Germany. Germany has free college but a smaller percent of there population go to college because it's not job training. Instead college is for specific fields of study that require more education.... like engineering, physics, MD, etc.

Solutions are what people need to be talking about, not blaming some generation as though everyone in the generation is part of a huge hive mind. Making generalizations about groups of people only serves to create division and mistrust.

My solution for our school system is that we adopt a system similar to that in Germany. We can still have private schools, specialized schools, but for the vast majority of students a system like what Germany provides is much better.
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. Your point about economics is exactly what I’m advocating for - having capitalism work for society, not the other way around. In places where the free market has more upside than downside, let it rip. In areas where having something be a public good, let that rip. In areas where capitalism is mostly good but also dangerous, restrain it. In areas where socialism is mostly good but also dangerous, restrain it there, too. I think we’re mostly agreeing here. What I’m clumsily trying to point out is that the current tactic of demonizing all forms of socialism, even within capitalism, smacks of identity politics and can lead to some very dark paths - like fascism.

Regarding blaming one generation, I offer that as a counterpoint to blaming millennials for being pissed off and refusing to play the game the way boomers did. The whole point of this thread was “be afraid because Millenials might be communist.” Millennials have ample reasons for behaving the way they do, because many of them realize the game is rigged. I’m a gen X’r, and our version of that was the “slacker generation” but that didn’t work out. Maybe their way will - re-writing the rules of the game, very much like Kirk did with the Kobyashi Maru. And I actually would squarely blame the boomer generation for the failures of public education, because they were the ones calling the ball. And I think they de-funded and de-valued it because they were finished with it, and no longer valued it. I mean, I’ve had arguments with retirees about how they don’t think they should pay taxes that go towards public education, because they don’t use it. Even though they got it from those before them, and society’s future wealth is built upon those that will be in school right now.

I mean, look at what a joke this video is. ‘More on the left force people to believe in same sex marriage than Christians ever forced people to believe in Christ.’ That’s just wild, as if these things are equivalencies. One is a belief that you have a right to have and the other is a right that we believe you should have. And that’s not even covering the communism stuff.

No wonder some Millennials think us oldsters are all ****ed. “Ok, Boomer.” Maybe we are. God, I hope they’re smarter and wiser than we were.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,279 Posts
I would say the 2008 meltdown was caused by the actions of people considered to be capitalists, do you agree?

There is a lot of ground btw financial regulations/laws and government central planning of the economy. Do you agree?
Nope on both.

The meltdown was caused by government mandates and government regulations in the banking sector. It was then further aggravated by enormous government spending to "fix" the problems by bailing out banks and major industries.

The government so controls the banking and financial worlds that it is indeed centrally controlled and planned. We are not to Soviet level central control, but we are closer to that than we are to free market capitalism.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,990 Posts
One (probably unavoidable) problem is that you don't get to vote on particular issues, but basically select one out of a small number of candidates. That ties economic, social, foreign policy and environmental issues together.

We are heading toward a situation where I think the two candidates in 2020 will both be terrible for the country so its not at all clear how I should vote. Neither is even remotely close to what I want.



And that's why we have elections. If enough people want change, all they have to do is vote.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,345 Posts
I have a brother with 30 years professoring who would disagree completely.

Take a look at any state college budget from today and compare it to 30 years ago. You'll see that the states have pulled back so far in funding that tuition was pushed up accordingly. It is in fact the removal of government funding that is mostly responsible for the rising costs to the student population.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Just to follow this up:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/most-americans-dont-realize-state-funding-for-higher-ed-fell-by-billions

"Most Americans believe state spending for public universities and colleges has, in fact, increased or at least held steady over the last 10 years, according to a new survey by American Public Media.

They’re wrong. States have collectively scaled back their annual higher education funding by $9 billion during that time, when adjusted for inflation, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, or CBPP, reports."

https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/statesupport


Here's just the start of the funding decline for some of the nation's top research institutions

Institution Share of revenue coming from state support Change in state support: 1987-2012
University of Illinois at Chicago 52.8% 16.9% -35.9 pts
University of California at Davis 63.4% 30.2% -33.2 pts
University of California at Riverside 66.6% 33.9% -32.7 pts
Georgia State University 67.0% 35.2% -31.8 pts
University of South Carolina at Columbia 52.2% 21.6% -30.7 pts
University of California at Santa Barbara 54.1% 23.4% -30.7 pts
University of California at Santa Cruz 58.9% 28.7% -30.2 pts
University of Houston main campus 55.8% 27.5% -28.3 pts
University of South Florida 69.0% 40.8% -28.2 pts
Wayne State University 54.1% 26.7% -27.4 pts
Michigan State University 45.0% 17.8% -27.2 pts
Rutgers University at New Brunswick 59.6% 32.6% -27.0 pts
University of California at Berkeley 49.4% 22.6% -26.8 pts
University of Massachusetts at Amherst 61.8% 35.1% -26.7 pts
University of Oregon 35.8% 9.3% -26.5 pts
Arizona State University at Tempe 50.2% 23.7% -26.5 pts
University of Florida 56.0% 29.9% -26.1 pts
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 42.3% 16.4% -25.9 pts
University of California at Los Angeles 47.8% 22.2% -25.6 pts
Montana State University at Bozeman 51.4% 25.8% -25.6 pts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,990 Posts
The term "social democracy" is well establishd
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

It is completely different from the similar sounding "democratic socialism"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

Social democracy is a democracy with strong social programs, something I generally support and which looks like the nordic model

Democratic socialism is (*real*) socialism, hasn't every really existed because it turns into communism very quickly - and people die



This is no such thing as a socialist democracy. The countries that you refer to object to being called socialist. They say they are capitalist.

Why? Because people will not willingly give up their right to free enterprise and private ownership without a fight. This always leads to "Reeducation Camps" and or Firing Squads.

Here is a stark example of Socialism (North Korea and South Korea side by side) Also notice China which has allowed Capitalism to rear its ugly head again: Google North Korea & South Korea Satellite Photo at night.

One of Bernie's boys was recently gleefully talking about this on video. By the way, did you know where Bernie Honeymooned? Moscow.

Instead of figuring out how to get "free stuff", Millenials should figure out how to "earn" stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,385 Posts
This is a tough circular problem. Because the same people who complain about old people feeling "entitled to retire" also complain that those old people "won't go ahead and retire so we can get their jobs." I can only assume their higher order thinking skills are lacking or they just think people over 65 should die la-la Star Trek.
It's actually both.

For example, up here many boomers that are retiring are doing so on their pension, and it's falling short. They didn't invest and save for retirement, they assumed (rightly) that the CPP would be there. And it is, but it is far from a complete retirement solution. So retirees soak up the kind of jobs that high school/university kids used to do - baristas, retail, etc kind of jobs. I'm going to have to have my son go work in the small touristy town we have a vacation place in, because he can't find a job here because retirees have many of them filled with more flexible, long term schedules.

Then you have the flip side - the boomers that made it big are also consuming against the same CPP benefits even though they don't need them - and the money is running out, because the number of people drawing on them is rising and the number of people contributing to them is dropping. And people live for longer, so they're drawing on them for a lot longer than when the CPP was set up. This is magnified by many of those same boomers leveraging their large, mostly empty homes to retire (raising housing costs), and tax breaks for those with high investment incomes so they can keep their money longer. This means that many retirees sell their expensive homes and buy what used to be a starter home (downsizing), keeping the profit in a low-tax way, and then living off it. Some of these even supplement their income or alleviate boredom with taking jobs as mentioned above.

So on the one hand you have entry level jobs being taken up, while housing costs also go up, especially for entry level homes. CPP is being drained at the same time that education costs are going up (again, tax breaks for the wealthy and reduced investment in education). It's a whammy all over the place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,385 Posts
Instead of figuring out how to get "free stuff", Millenials should figure out how to "earn" stuff.
They are. They are doing it in ways that many boomers just don't like, is the problem.

Better watch out when they are a force to be reckoned with as a voting block, because I have a feeling they'll be coming after high income earners and retirees in exactly the same fashion that they had their education slashed, job market become insecure, and housing costs spiral out of control.

https://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/the-millennials-a-new-generation-of-employees-a-new-set-of-engagement-policies/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2018/11/08/the-rise-of-the-millennial-and-why-theyre-changing-work-for-the-better/#1d2a85275e12
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/238073/millennials-work-live.aspx
https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/the-disconnect-between-baby-boomers-and-millennials-when-it-comes-to-work-ethic
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,385 Posts
Just to follow this up:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/most-americans-dont-realize-state-funding-for-higher-ed-fell-by-billions

"Most Americans believe state spending for public universities and colleges has, in fact, increased or at least held steady over the last 10 years, according to a new survey by American Public Media.

They’re wrong. States have collectively scaled back their annual higher education funding by $9 billion during that time, when adjusted for inflation, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, or CBPP, reports."

https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/statesupport


Here's just the start of the funding decline for some of the nation's top research institutions

Institution Share of revenue coming from state support Change in state support: 1987-2012
University of Illinois at Chicago 52.8% 16.9% -35.9 pts
University of California at Davis 63.4% 30.2% -33.2 pts
University of California at Riverside 66.6% 33.9% -32.7 pts
Georgia State University 67.0% 35.2% -31.8 pts
University of South Carolina at Columbia 52.2% 21.6% -30.7 pts
University of California at Santa Barbara 54.1% 23.4% -30.7 pts
University of California at Santa Cruz 58.9% 28.7% -30.2 pts
University of Houston main campus 55.8% 27.5% -28.3 pts
University of South Florida 69.0% 40.8% -28.2 pts
Wayne State University 54.1% 26.7% -27.4 pts
Michigan State University 45.0% 17.8% -27.2 pts
Rutgers University at New Brunswick 59.6% 32.6% -27.0 pts
University of California at Berkeley 49.4% 22.6% -26.8 pts
University of Massachusetts at Amherst 61.8% 35.1% -26.7 pts
University of Oregon 35.8% 9.3% -26.5 pts
Arizona State University at Tempe 50.2% 23.7% -26.5 pts
University of Florida 56.0% 29.9% -26.1 pts
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 42.3% 16.4% -25.9 pts
University of California at Los Angeles 47.8% 22.2% -25.6 pts
Montana State University at Bozeman 51.4% 25.8% -25.6 pts
Here's some versions of a millenial response:
https://www.edx.org/school/harvardx
https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

When you can't win by the rules, change them. Meritocracy is viewed very differently by some of today's youth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
632 Posts
Just to follow this up:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/most-americans-dont-realize-state-funding-for-higher-ed-fell-by-billions

"Most Americans believe state spending for public universities and colleges has, in fact, increased or at least held steady over the last 10 years, according to a new survey by American Public Media.

They’re wrong. States have collectively scaled back their annual higher education funding by $9 billion during that time, when adjusted for inflation, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, or CBPP, reports."

https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/statesupport


Here's just the start of the funding decline for some of the nation's top research institutions

Institution Share of revenue coming from state support Change in state support: 1987-2012
University of Illinois at Chicago 52.8% 16.9% -35.9 pts
University of California at Davis 63.4% 30.2% -33.2 pts
University of California at Riverside 66.6% 33.9% -32.7 pts
Georgia State University 67.0% 35.2% -31.8 pts
University of South Carolina at Columbia 52.2% 21.6% -30.7 pts
University of California at Santa Barbara 54.1% 23.4% -30.7 pts
University of California at Santa Cruz 58.9% 28.7% -30.2 pts
University of Houston main campus 55.8% 27.5% -28.3 pts
University of South Florida 69.0% 40.8% -28.2 pts
Wayne State University 54.1% 26.7% -27.4 pts
Michigan State University 45.0% 17.8% -27.2 pts
Rutgers University at New Brunswick 59.6% 32.6% -27.0 pts
University of California at Berkeley 49.4% 22.6% -26.8 pts
University of Massachusetts at Amherst 61.8% 35.1% -26.7 pts
University of Oregon 35.8% 9.3% -26.5 pts
Arizona State University at Tempe 50.2% 23.7% -26.5 pts
University of Florida 56.0% 29.9% -26.1 pts
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 42.3% 16.4% -25.9 pts
University of California at Los Angeles 47.8% 22.2% -25.6 pts
Montana State University at Bozeman 51.4% 25.8% -25.6 pts
Could this just mean that they are getting more money from other than state support. I am in one of the states mentione here and am currently paying for the final semester from our state run system. My state has not decreased how much they contribute. The President of the system has been quoted several times saying he is increasing the number of out of state students to incease the income to the school. Could holding funding flat while costs increase explain this as well.

Our state system has gone on massive expansion programs over the years that my child has been there. They have taken over so many propertys that it is hurting the city they are in. The state does not pay property tax so it is reducing the income to the city.

There has also been a decline in the number of teachers the system employs and an increase in the number of high paying non teacher positions. In my state if you look at the 100 highest paid state employees 95 are from the state university system. Most of these are non teaching positions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,990 Posts
There are somewhat muddy confusions about capitalism vs free market, and socialism vs authoritarian. There are are definitions, but real countries rarely fall 100% into one category.

Capitalism sort of defines the extent of private ownership. All countries I'm aware of put some limits on what people can own (typically no slaves, no nuclear weapons for example).

Free market means that things can be bought and sold for money at a market price. Again there is usually some restriction, on this, for example regulations on what can and can't be sold (narcotics, unsafe aircraft)

Democracy generally means that people get to vote, on either issues, or people - but the real impact of that tends vary. For example an individual resident of California has very little effective voting power in the presidential election because the state is almost certain to vote democratic. Most countries use representative democracies of some sort which also dilutes the power of voters (generally for a good reason).

Authoritarian usually implies non-democratic, and indicates that there are minimal restrictions on the governments power, but there have been democratically elected authoritarian rulers. Usually that doesn't last long


Its all complicate and fuzzy, and its probably more effective to discuss specific policies, rather than trying to label things: Should the government pay fro free medical care for everyone is a much better defined question than whether or not that constitutes "socialism".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,385 Posts
There are somewhat muddy confusions about capitalism vs free market, and socialism vs authoritarian. There are are definitions, but real countries rarely fall 100% into one category.

Capitalism sort of defines the extent of private ownership. All countries I'm aware of put some limits on what people can own (typically no slaves, no nuclear weapons for example).

Free market means that things can be bought and sold for money at a market price. Again there is usually some restriction, on this, for example regulations on what can and can't be sold (narcotics, unsafe aircraft)

Democracy generally means that people get to vote, on either issues, or people - but the real impact of that tends vary. For example an individual resident of California has very little effective voting power in the presidential election because the state is almost certain to vote democratic. Most countries use representative democracies of some sort which also dilutes the power of voters (generally for a good reason).

Authoritarian usually implies non-democratic, and indicates that there are minimal restrictions on the governments power, but there have been democratically elected authoritarian rulers. Usually that doesn't last long


Its all complicate and fuzzy, and its probably more effective to discuss specific policies, rather than trying to label things: Should the government pay fro free medical care for everyone is a much better defined question than whether or not that constitutes "socialism".
Love it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
632 Posts
It wasn’t a bug of capitalism, it was a feature.

This is how capitalism works. It doesn’t care about you, or the economy, or anything else. It’s simply math.

Which is why I’m so curious as to why people deify it. It’s a tool that is useful in many circumstances, not useful in many others.

It’s not an ideology, it’s a wrench.
Your trying to over simplify the problem and blame capitalism. There is plenty of blame to spread. Don't forget the banks being required to give loans to people that they knew could not afford to pay them back (Community Reinvestment Act). People taking loans in excess of the homes value. People taking loans for homes they know they could not afford, the banks bundling the bad loans and good loans so they could kick the can down the road.

Lets not forget Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac backing all these loans and refusals to open their books for audits.

Ultimately it was a consumer driven problem with a bad banking answer. No one forced all these consumers to borrow money they couldn't pay back. The banks made it way to easy to get the money at the insistance of the federal government.
 
81 - 100 of 506 Posts
Top