Couldn't you say the same thing about every capitalistic society?
Socialism vs Capitalism
- Thread starter Digressions
- Start date
Don’t forget, North Korea is a democracy! It’s right there in the name
Years ago a guy told me you don't fix money problems with more money. It requires a lifestyle change. Never forgot it and it still rings true today. The one thing the left will never seem to grasp. They always think more money will solve societies problems.
And republicans always think more guns will solve gun problems.
Likewise capitalism. Come to think of it, nothing hasn't failed. Ask the Romans.
Once again, I have no clue what you think you’re talking about or what point you think you’re making.Wherein Aloha once again proves that boxes come in extra-mini.
Every nation in history has failed, therefore their economies failed, therefore every economic, social, and political system has failed. Ours will also fail one day.
How long would our society last if we repealed the ACA, welfare, Medicare, and/or Social security?
Assuming we had more of a capitalistic society before those programs began, what was the biggest jump towards a more socialist society, the New Deal, trust busting, unionization?
I feel the Reagan tax cuts were a huge blow to the middle class over the long run. One that we still see today. What if we were to make the tax code less progressive than we did in 1986? How long would it be before the middle class revolted? IOW, how much of our country would the .1% have to own, before the rest of the electorate would change the system? Or did the early 1900's answer that question?
And my point is, ours has too. Hence, programs like Social Security. I didn't have to live through the early 1900's to know that there was a problem with caring for the aging and elderly. I simply realize that those who did, knew there was a problem, and created a solution. The same could be said for our tax code. But one party, which I won't name, doesn't share my empathy.
Many existing countries haven’t failed and have never failed. Our system may fail one day, long in the future, but you don’t know and you don’t know what the replacement will be. Countries and economies that have failed are usually replaced eventually with some sort of democracy with a capitalistic economy. Not true with communist and socialist governments and economies. History is unkind to them - justifiably so.
A long way from pure socialism, yes. But go back to the first 3 posts in the thread. It matters how you define each of these terms. We have a mixture of both. So where do you think we are on the scale?
Our saving grace is our political system. Our economic system has failed, but was changed, because our political system allowed it to change.
Our economic system never failed, it evolved. It's still capitalism.
I'd say we're about a 3 on the scale of capitalism to socialism.
It will fail under a democrat liberal president too. Just as states run by democrats for decades are failing. More proof socialism always fails wherever it has been tried.
I would describe the Great Depression as an economic failure/collapse, wouldn't you? It evolved into a very progressive, for the purposes of this thread, much more socialistic(especially compared to before, and even today)system.
Our political system rescued us from the failure, whereas when other countries have an economic/political collapse, it's often one strongman/despot replacing the old one.
It was a depression that didn't change our economic system from capitalism to socialism. We remained capitalistic.
California has a huge budget surplus. California's economic growth has outpaced the US as a whole since the end of the great recession. This year California's population growth slowed a little, maybe that will let it catch up in housing.
How ridiculous to list 3 of the top 5 GDP states in the nation as an example of something bad.
Illinois has issues, no doubt. But the others, not so much.
I don't have a cartoonish view of Republicans. I have friends and family who have been Republicans since I've known them. I still love them. No person should be pigeonholed. We all, for the most part, only have two parties to associate ourselves with.
If that generalization offended you, it wasn't my intention, but I stand by my contention that much of the progress that was made in the early 20th century has been attacked by the Republican party over the last 40 years...Social security, unions, and progressive income taxes, to name a few.
Republicanism over the last 40 years has been a failure. Trump defeated 17 primary opponents who represented that era. He trashed GHWB, W, McCain, and Romney on his way to the nomination. And where are the intellectual conservatives from that era? This generation's William F. Buckley? Will and Krystol? They're on MSNBC trying to convince Democrats that 80% of their party is more wrongheaded than they were.
The solutions are in the middle, but the goalposts keep moving outward. I don't believe just because someone leans Republican, they fall into some caricature of Trump.
Exhibit A: President Trump and the Republican Congressional Caucus?
Are you seriously joining the cartoon, Aloha?
Trump's final stronghold of supporters is? Conservative Evangelicals. Is that the farce to end all farces or what? And yet, Trump's conservative support remains in the 70s or 80s? Any objective observer knows who and what the cartoon is.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...ce=tw&utm_medium=s1&__twitter_impression=true
I didn't want to start a new thread and thought this was as good a place as any to drop this.
The news coverage around politics is and has been atrocious. (E.g., the horserace stuff, the sensational, etc.) This article (regardless of whether you abhor the proposal) instead offers accurate context around what could be a talking point in the coming weeks.
Many will think these suggestions are radical, unreasonable, unrealistic, and extreme. I'd say two things in response to that. One, I think we have a skewed sense of what's radical, unreasonable and extreme. Much of what we've seen over the past so many years has indeed been extreme and radical, but it's not been presented or reported as such. At least along that spectrum (and this is likely an understatement), the top tax code level addressed by the article pales in comparison. Two, at least as a matter of anchoring, having a bold or aggressive proposal on the table that gets some fair reporting doesn't mean that's a likely outcome, but it does tend to shift the outcome. Without such proposals getting fair reporting, the midpoint for any negotiation shifts dramatically. On that point, it doesn't help if, say, the Democrats always run from such proposals as part of their triangulation. From an outcome standpoint, I think that strategy has been a loser for Democrats for some time. Because we live in a time of swamp fever, it will be difficult to break out of that triangulation mindset, but this might also be the moment where that starts to shift.
https://indiana.forums.rivals.com/t...cal-debate-is-over.162274/page-2#post-2306561
Oddly enough, we had a bit of this conversation one year ago. @Sope Creek
I agree. Without competition many of the benefits of capitalism go right out the window. It is ironic to me that many people who applaud the virtues of capitalism ignore this.
Thank you for sharing. This article definitely belongs in this thread. I started this the day E. Warren announced she was forming an exploratory committee. I didn't do it to support her, but to start a conversation about norms, in a sense. Many people simply think we live in a(almost pure)capitalistic society. By having people put a number on it, 1-10, I thought it might get people to think about some of the less capitalistic aspects of our economy.
Liberal/progressive/socialist views are often dismissed as radical. The thought of a socialist raising the top marginal tax rate to 70% is used as a weapon, a scare tactic, by Fox news and those on the right. They want to use people like AOC, not only to scare Republicans, but to shame Democrats (to your triangulation point).
We've been living with trickle down economics for 40 years. Now, many middle class Republicans are tired of it. They want change. They want to go back in time. They want to Make America Great Again. A time when we had a strong middle class. A time when we actually won something...because we don't win anymore. They want to go back to the late 40's, 50's, and early 60's. They want to MAGA, like it was when the top marginal tax rate was 93%.
You left out a lot of facts about the 93% tax rate. There was plenty of tax loop holes that don’t exist today.Thank you for sharing. This article definitely belongs in this thread. I started this the day E. Warren announced she was forming an exploratory committee. I didn't do it to support her, but to start a conversation about norms, in a sense. Many people simply think we live in a(almost pure)capitalistic society. By having people put a number on it, 1-10, I thought it might get people to think about some of the less capitalistic aspects of our economy.
Liberal/progressive/socialist views are often dismissed as radical. The thought of a socialist raising the top marginal tax rate to 70% is used as a weapon, a scare tactic, by Fox news and those on the right. They want to use people like AOC, not only to scare Republicans, but to shame Democrats (to your triangulation point).
We've been living with trickle down economics for 40 years. Now, many middle class Republicans are tired of it. They want change. They want to go back in time. They want to Make America Great Again. A time when we had a strong middle class. A time when we actually won something...because we don't win anymore. They want to go back to the late 40's, 50's, and early 60's. They want to MAGA, like it was when the top marginal tax rate was 93%.
Name a few, please. IIRC, Mitt Romney's ETR was 13% when he ran for president. I wonder what DJT's was?
Thank you for sharing. This article definitely belongs in this thread. I started this the day E. Warren announced she was forming an exploratory committee. I didn't do it to support her, but to start a conversation about norms, in a sense. Many people simply think we live in a(almost pure)capitalistic society. By having people put a number on it, 1-10, I thought it might get people to think about some of the less capitalistic aspects of our economy.
Liberal/progressive/socialist views are often dismissed as radical. The thought of a socialist raising the top marginal tax rate to 70% is used as a weapon, a scare tactic, by Fox news and those on the right. They want to use people like AOC, not only to scare Republicans, but to shame Democrats (to your triangulation point).
We've been living with trickle down economics for 40 years. Now, many middle class Republicans are tired of it. They want change. They want to go back in time. They want to Make America Great Again. A time when we had a strong middle class. A time when we actually won something...because we don't win anymore. They want to go back to the late 40's, 50's, and early 60's. They want to MAGA, like it was when the top marginal tax rate was 93%.
Trickle down economics is the biggest con ever. You may as well go gamble your money away hoping to feel like a winner.
I don't know about the tax laws in the 50s....but the effective tax rates were never close to the published marginal rates. Even until the 80s tax reform, one could deduct all types of things like meals and entertainment, auto expenses, country club memberships, etc....
In reality....things haven't changed that much.
Last edited:
I know one thing that should be repealed. The Citizens United legislation. That's how you get dirty corrupt individuals that dont care about democracy, only of benefiting their special interests group. The U.S people have dimishing value as more money gets flooded in for favors. In that way, a socialistic approach to a capatlist society would help the American PEOPLE and not multibillion dollar corporations claiming to be a person.
I'm not sure that tells us a ton. Maybe the top 1% shouldn't be the only focus. This article (which I can't vouch for) shows different numbers the greater the wealth concentration.I don't know about the tax laws in the 50s....but the effective tax rates were never close to the published marginal rates. Even until the 80s tax reform, one could deduct all types of things like meals and entertainment, auto expenses, country club memberships, etc....
In reality....things haven't changed that much.
Regardless, historical rates are only so helpful (though certainly relevant to the conversation). We should primarily focus on rationales and effectiveness to outcomes and not get overly hamstrung by ideology. E.g., what if we limited the number of deductions and set the top marginal rate at 50% for those making in excess of, say, $7 million? You'd still need critical details and exceptions, of course. (I'm not proposing this, by the way; I don't have enough info to do so. But why wouldn't something like that be as rational as anything else discussed in our context-free debates?)
Similar threads
