- Joined
- Jun 15, 2021
- Messages
- 7,073
- Reaction score
- 9,716
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Pure capitalism, just like pure socialism, are not viable systems.
And most definitely the US has been a blend since our beginnings as a nation.
Pure capitalism, just like pure socialism, are not viable systems.No it hasn't. Both housing and healthcare are two prominent examples where the state has a lot of control and both of those markets are disasters.
This. Trump's motivations and priorities are very simple:I actually think he may be doing that for personal reasons. I think he wants world leaders to come beg him for relief, so he can feel powerful.
Is that petty and foolish?
Yes.
Pure capitalism, just like pure socialism, are not viable systems.
And most definitely the US has been a blend since our beginnings as a nation.
I think most of our markets have some form of government intervention, and have done for awhile. We subsidize various industries and sectors we deemed necessary, like farming and oil extraction/refining. And more recently, green energy, electric vehicles.You're not addressing the point. If political intervention improves outcomes, why are the housing and healthcare markets complete disasters? They both have heavy government intervention.
I can understand if some of these MAGAs want to do this to themselves.
But the fact that they're screwing their own kids and grandkids just baffles me. It just seems so evil.
Do you consider a government imposing tariffs to be a form of authoritarianism?
You're not addressing the point. If political intervention improves outcomes, why are the housing and healthcare markets complete disasters? They both have heavy government intervention.
Certainly when one person in said government does it with zero checks and balances to stop them.
I am opposed to tariffs. They only harm consumers and there is a better way to do anything that tariffs are supposed to accomplish.
I have some of those in my family and extended family.The ideology that centers on “**** you, I’ve got mine” attracts sociopaths. They don’t care about other people until they are personally affected somehow.
And even heavier corporate lobbying. The housing and healthcare markets are exactly how the rich want them to be.
Do you think the rich wouldn’t use their economic power to continue those systems if the government somehow disappeared?
Congress has the power to stop them, so there goes your "zero checks and balances".
What is this "better way" you are referring to?
Yes, you finally got something right. When buying and selling is controlled by regulation, the first thing to be bought and sold are the regulators. This is a feature of democracy and a fact of life.
How are "the rich" going to prevent people from building houses on their own land without a state?
Instead of tariffs for such industries, the native industries should be subsidized, preferably with a government-run company operating at cost.
It’s not a feature of democracy. Our economy is anything but democratic.
The rich will own the land. The same as they did when they were the previous version of feudal lords.
But let’s think about how much damage he can do using only tariffs. Then imagine if he had control over the entire economy: wages, prices, raw materials, labor markets - every input. That would be a disaster. And we already have a name for that kind of system: socialism, which is public control over the means of production.
Trump is demonstrating to us why socialist countries are so poor - and why their people are often so miserable that the government has to build walls to keep them from escaping.
Ah, the post office model.
Yes it is, and it exists in every democracy on the planet.
One of the reasons that system died out is because people just walked away, and the feudal lords couldn't stop them.
You're not addressing the point. If political intervention improves outcomes, why are the housing and healthcare markets complete disasters? They both have heavy government intervention.
Ah, the post office model.
the US military model
He would prefer Men at Arms serving Feudal Lords… sorry I didn’t use @aociswundumho preferred politically correct terms “private security companies serving wealthy owners”.
Right now there are more people working in private security firms than there are cops. Furthermore, cops don't even provide protection - the supremes have ruled repeatedly that cops have no obligation to protect you or your property.
He would prefer Men at Arms serving Feudal Lords… sorry I didn’t use @aociswundumho preferred politically correct terms “private security companies serving wealthy owners”.
If you want prosperity, and the freedom to buy what you want, from who you want , then the answer is capitalism and largely free markets, not state control or central planning.
Do you believe that "political intervention" is a fungible commodity which is essentially identical in all times and places?
Regulated capitalism historically works best.
Neither is a disaster, at least not for the United States. For South Sudan? Yeah, complete disaster. Burundi? Sure, complete disaster. Liberia? A complete disaster. Yemen? Definitely a complete disaster. Oh, and none of them have significant regulation around either healthcare or housing and all are actual complete disasters.No it doesn't. We have two prominent examples: the healthcare market and the housing market. Both are highly regulated, and both are disasters.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?