What do you think most younger people not ever being able to afford their own property? Or the fact that grocery costs have been skyrocketing to unaffordable levels even if you make good money? All while billionaires are hoarding unfathomable amounts of wealth? Extreme poverty might not be as high globally but regular poverty is gaining traction at record speeds.
You might say that the inequality can be fixed with more regulations, but we started with more regulations (in Canada and the US at least) and they’ve been slowly torn apart by the wealthy over time. How do you guard against that when having vast wealth enables you to trick people into voting against their best interests?
I wouldn’t call myself a communist but capitalism ends in the extreme poverty that you say it solves.
What do you think most younger people not ever being able to afford their own property?
Housing prices are extremely expensive because of government intervention in the market. Local governments have artificially restricted the supply of new housing in order to intentionally make it more expensive. Unironically: the free market would make housing less expensive, like it did when our parents’ generation were buying houses.
Or the fact that grocery costs have been skyrocketing to unaffordable levels even if you make good money
Food inflation would not be solved by state intervention. I don’t think there’s any serious economist who will tell you that food inflation is caused by unfettered capitalism.
All while billionaires are hoarding unfathomable amounts of wealth? Extreme poverty might not be as high globally but regular poverty is gaining traction at record speeds.
Wealth inequality is gaining traction. The standard of living of the average poor American is better today than it was in the 1960s. What has changed is how we feel about it. Wealth inequality makes us mad, but it has not resulted in worse overall living standards on an absolute scale.
How do you guard against that when having vast wealth enables you to trick people into voting against their best interests?
I think we should solve specific problems. Some problems can be solved with more regulation (dismantling monopolies, safeguarding elections) and others can be solved by reducing regulation (taking away authority from local zoning boards, reducing the amount of legal hurdles for building public transportation).
But none of these problems are caused intrinsically by the existence of private property. Various European liberal democracies manage to provide high quality of life for their people without resorting to socialism
capitalism ends in the extreme poverty that you say it solves.
There is no evidence to support your claim. To the contrary, the evidence suggests that since 3rd world countries began liberalizing their markets from the 1970s/80s onward, it has resulted in huge increases in quality of life for their poorest citizens.
The same cannot be said of socialism, which experienced a worldwide delegitimization from the 70s onward as it collapsed under its own inherent contradictions and failed to provide for the people living under it.
Wealth inequality is gaining traction. The standard of living of the average poor American is better today than it was in the 1960s. What has changed is how we feel about it. Wealth inequality makes us mad, but it has not resulted in worse overall living standards on an absolute scale.
How you can manage to speak with your head so far up your own ass is an amazing magic trick. Wealth has been decoupled from productivity for more than 50 years now. That’s just facts.
You should look into the Pinkerton’s and a lot of the horsecrap that was going on in the 1800s in a more purely capitalist system. There are systems that mix “socialism” with “capitalism” that work out pretty well. Socialist systems brought the broken capitalist systems out of the destitute poverty people were in, systems like Unions, New Deal policies and so many others. Regulation saved children’s lives in the early 20th century.
I agree that socialism has never worked, but neither has capitalism. It has ALWAYS been a mixed system that flourishes.
I think you’re mixing terms. Capitalism is the private ownership of property. Socialism is the worker’s ownership of property; often managed by a state (which in theory should be run by the workers). None of the things you mentioned are examples of socialism.
Canada, most of Western Europe, Scandinavia- All have a greater blend of public and private responsibilities. Because there are some areas of interest that *benefit *from monopolies. Single payer health care. Industries vital to national security (resource ownership like Norway or Mexico as an example). Canada’s government-created Telsat celecommunications put the first commercial telecommunications satellite in orbit in the 70s, and now as a former crown corporation is set to have a better high-speed competitor to Starlink operational by 2026. Fire departments. Policing. Schooling. There are lots of examples where a socialist approach is preferable to unfettered capitalism.
Capitalism also gave us The tragedy of the Commons, which is playing out in the environment on a worldwide scale. You want to see poverty? Just wait until climate caused widespread displacement kicks in in earnest.
He is narrowly defining the two terms specifically when it suits his argument, but none of these are socialist systems. Of course, he is ignoring the connection between socialist philosophy and these systems and the groups that fought for these systems and their ideology.
What do you think most younger people not ever being able to afford their own property? Or the fact that grocery costs have been skyrocketing to unaffordable levels even if you make good money? All while billionaires are hoarding unfathomable amounts of wealth? Extreme poverty might not be as high globally but regular poverty is gaining traction at record speeds.
You might say that the inequality can be fixed with more regulations, but we started with more regulations (in Canada and the US at least) and they’ve been slowly torn apart by the wealthy over time. How do you guard against that when having vast wealth enables you to trick people into voting against their best interests?
I wouldn’t call myself a communist but capitalism ends in the extreme poverty that you say it solves.
Housing prices are extremely expensive because of government intervention in the market. Local governments have artificially restricted the supply of new housing in order to intentionally make it more expensive. Unironically: the free market would make housing less expensive, like it did when our parents’ generation were buying houses.
Food inflation would not be solved by state intervention. I don’t think there’s any serious economist who will tell you that food inflation is caused by unfettered capitalism.
Wealth inequality is gaining traction. The standard of living of the average poor American is better today than it was in the 1960s. What has changed is how we feel about it. Wealth inequality makes us mad, but it has not resulted in worse overall living standards on an absolute scale.
I think we should solve specific problems. Some problems can be solved with more regulation (dismantling monopolies, safeguarding elections) and others can be solved by reducing regulation (taking away authority from local zoning boards, reducing the amount of legal hurdles for building public transportation).
But none of these problems are caused intrinsically by the existence of private property. Various European liberal democracies manage to provide high quality of life for their people without resorting to socialism
There is no evidence to support your claim. To the contrary, the evidence suggests that since 3rd world countries began liberalizing their markets from the 1970s/80s onward, it has resulted in huge increases in quality of life for their poorest citizens.
The same cannot be said of socialism, which experienced a worldwide delegitimization from the 70s onward as it collapsed under its own inherent contradictions and failed to provide for the people living under it.
How you can manage to speak with your head so far up your own ass is an amazing magic trick. Wealth has been decoupled from productivity for more than 50 years now. That’s just facts.
Tell me why that’s a bad thing? Why should I care?
You should look into the Pinkerton’s and a lot of the horsecrap that was going on in the 1800s in a more purely capitalist system. There are systems that mix “socialism” with “capitalism” that work out pretty well. Socialist systems brought the broken capitalist systems out of the destitute poverty people were in, systems like Unions, New Deal policies and so many others. Regulation saved children’s lives in the early 20th century.
I agree that socialism has never worked, but neither has capitalism. It has ALWAYS been a mixed system that flourishes.
I think you’re mixing terms. Capitalism is the private ownership of property. Socialism is the worker’s ownership of property; often managed by a state (which in theory should be run by the workers). None of the things you mentioned are examples of socialism.
Canada, most of Western Europe, Scandinavia- All have a greater blend of public and private responsibilities. Because there are some areas of interest that *benefit *from monopolies. Single payer health care. Industries vital to national security (resource ownership like Norway or Mexico as an example). Canada’s government-created Telsat celecommunications put the first commercial telecommunications satellite in orbit in the 70s, and now as a former crown corporation is set to have a better high-speed competitor to Starlink operational by 2026. Fire departments. Policing. Schooling. There are lots of examples where a socialist approach is preferable to unfettered capitalism.
Capitalism also gave us The tragedy of the Commons, which is playing out in the environment on a worldwide scale. You want to see poverty? Just wait until climate caused widespread displacement kicks in in earnest.
None of the things you described are examples of socialism. Socialism is not “when the government does things”
He is narrowly defining the two terms specifically when it suits his argument, but none of these are socialist systems. Of course, he is ignoring the connection between socialist philosophy and these systems and the groups that fought for these systems and their ideology.
Why do you think I put quotations on those terms?