Interesting charts. Younger people seem to realize that cooperation and coordination are more significant for well-being than competition. Older people seem to have more a knee-jerk reaction to "socialism" and "capitalism."
Zero Hedge
Americans Aged 18-29 Have A More Favorable Response To Socialism Than To Capitalism
Tyler Durden
34 comments:
Intereting ... because my sense these days is that Americans in the 30 - 40 group tilt libertarian/capitalist.
this is interesting Tom as if you look at TV viewership, these younger folks are who should be focused on for future growth..
imo CNBC having these old farts on like jack Welch, Warren Buffet, Alan Simpson, Ken Langone, Marc Faber, the list is endless... nobody who is a younger person even knows who these old gasbags are or even cares about these morons or what they have to say... there is no growing audience for these decrepit misanthropes and their ramblings...
Yet CNBC keeps dragging them out of the freezer and propping them up there and watching their audience drop... somebody at COMCAST has got to see this and straighten this out...
I think there is an untapped younger TV/media audience out there that can be reached with a bit of a true alternative message on political economy...
rsp,
I'm in this age group, and I, for one, am definitely in favour of socialism than the crony capitalism I've witnessed in recent years.
Zero hedge? that place is crawling with raving "Austrians", gold bugs,conspiracy theorists, libertarian robber barons and other assorted creeps. The amount of disinformation there is unbelievable.
Right Andy, I think younger folks look at all of these older generation as "economic failures" to a great extent... it probably seems to these younger folks that these old farts f-ed the economy up royally... so why a big media outlet would want to ignore that and keep banging the old failed drum I find hard to understand... rsp,
I think there is an untapped younger TV/media audience out there that can be reached with a bit of a true alternative message on political economy...
Exactly, the MSM out of touch on this. Driving the younger people to net, which is al ow-cost opportunity to present new thinking. I think that the old media are about to go the way of the dodo.
In addition to the above, we have terms that mean different things to different people. 18-29, you didn't grow up during the Cold War, really, and you didn't see the term "socialism" thrown around with relation to the Warsaw Pact. There was no Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The only relationship people in that (my) age group have with the term "socialism" is that it's constantly thrown around by people on TV who are obviously idiots - people who get us into wars and can't win them, people who seem to wreck the economy and then have the temerity to insult the jobless, etc. Those same jerks proceed to praise the virtues of capitalism.
I think what the poll really shows is that a lot of people who publicly claim to adore capitalism are worthless monsters who do a disservice to their alleged cause.
Right this stuff is so old that it almost seems 19th century not even 20th century stuff... it's also interesting to observe that a lot of these old farts never seem to retire... think about like Alan Simpson? wtf with that guy, he should be playing golf or fishing everyday... these morons just cant quit... rsp,
If socialism is so wonderful, there must be some historical examples. Can anyone here point out some current or historical examples in which a country had/has a socialist economy that is better than the US?
"If you are not a socialist in your 20s you don't have a heart, if you are a socialist in your 40s you don't have a brain" - Sir Winston Churchill
Capitalists are wolves in sheep's clothing. Socialists are sheep in wolves clothing.
A mixed economy, like the one is practiced in Germany, is the sweet spot to be sought after IMO. Labor, business and the state all work together in Germany to form the most prosperous and socially stable country on the planet.
Anyone? Anyone?
Quote: "If you are not a socialist in your 20s you don't have a heart, if you are a socialist in your 40s you don't have a brain" - Sir Winston Churchill"
I'm close enough to the 29 year olds to have a more favorable response to "Socialism" due to capitalist types quoting old British Imperialist as if we should listen to that Tory Bastard.
In fact, virtually everything these capitalist types say is 19th century British Social Darwinism, Southern Confederate Calvinism, or some other kind white male European Chauvinism in "free market" code speak and you would have to be an absolute idiot to fall for it.
It is kinda sad to see the old foggies hanging on to the belief that cronyism is somehow new to capitalism we just need to get back to the "real capitalism" to "restore America." It's even sadder when you meet black libertarian types who want the repeal of the civic rights act.
I believe that the issue of economic justice is connected to racial justice and the reject of "capitalism" is directly related to the younger generation's anti-racism.
"It is kinda sad to see the old foggies hanging on to the belief that cronyism is somehow new to capitalism "
Yeah. You are correct. There is no cronyism in socialism or communism such as in China.
Blahahahahahahahahha
Well, according to the right, the Scandinavian countries are "socialist" states and they are off the top of the charts in performance in comparison with the US.
The problem with the framing of the Capitalism v. Socialism debate is the fallacy of the excluded middle. The fact is that modern economies are mixed economies, either purely capitalistic (private ownership of means of production) nor purely socialistic (state ownership of means of production).
What the poll suggests is an emotional reaction to the propaganda for "capitalism" as younger people don't see the present system working for them, and many of them don't trust private corporations to improve their lot by reducing the scope of govt.
And they are correct in this perception. The goal of corps is not to improve the economy or build a better future, but rather to enhance shareholder value short term. The majority of youth doesn't see the latter leading to any improvement for them. In fact, it is undermining their future, e.g., through negative externalities and short term (short-sighted) narrow planning.
Labor, business and the state all work together in Germany to form the most prosperous and socially stable country on the planet.
Right, by running a mercantilist policy that is destroying Europe. Oh, and financially repressing the workers, too.
Yeah. You are correct. There is no cronyism in socialism or communism such as in China.
Cronyism and corruption are endemic to all systems if they are not regulated due to institutional effects.
The big problem with all political institutions that have ever been devised is that they either select sociopaths as leaders or enable sociopaths to hijack the system.
Changing political or economic systems is immaterial. Institutions need to be devised to ID and exclude the sociopaths. In fact, this is done on a periodic basis due to system failures, but then the sociopaths worm in and manage to get the rules changed.
The only thing that can change this ultimately is a raising of the general level of collective consciousness. Ancient tribes were "socialistic" and they had gates set up culturally for excluding sociopaths. But with the advent of surplus economies, this ended.
Ancient tribes were also functioning on a much smaller scale. We need to scale this kind of social mechanism up.
Actually the survey is also good at showing how effective propaganda can be. People 65 and over have a 72% negative attitude towards “socialism” and yet they receive a guaranteed income (Social Security) have a single payer healthcare system (Medicare) and guaranteed long-term care (via Medicaid). If that’s not socialistic then I don’t know what is.
"If you are not a socialist in your 20s you don't have a heart, if you are a socialist in your 40s you don't have a brain" - Sir Winston Churchill
It must always be pointed out that Churchill said no such thing.
Is it fair to say that the baby boomer generation has done a poor job at making the America they were given a better place for their children?
Is it simply that properity fosters complacency? And while complacent, the baby boomer generation allowed this country to creep toward more and more fascist tendencies?
"Well, according to the right, the Scandinavian countries are "socialist" states and they are off the top of the charts in performance in comparison with the US."
Well, according to the definition of socialism, Scandinavian countries are not "socialist".
"The problem with the framing of the Capitalism v. Socialism debate is the fallacy of the excluded middle. The fact is that modern economies are mixed economies, either purely capitalistic (private ownership of means of production) nor purely socialistic (state ownership of means of production)."
Agreed.
"Economists and politicians have long pointed to Sweden as a role model because of its successful combination of generous welfare benefits and high-tech capitalism."
The above quote is from this website. http://www.sweden.se/eng/Home/Business/Economy/
So maybe a better definition of the economy in Sweden is capitalism with high taxes.
Therefore, so far, the answer to my original question is "no".
Tom said:
"Right, (Germany) by running a mercantilist policy that is destroying Europe. Oh, and financially repressing the workers, too."
I think their success came largely through their social arrangements between the state, business and labor more so than cannibalizing Europe:
http://www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de/en/economy.html
More on Germany:
"In contrast to the situation in a free market economy, the state is not passive and actively implements regulative measures.[57] Some elements, such as pension insurance, universal health care and unemployment insurance are part of the social security system. These insurances are funded by a combination of employee contributions, employer contributions and government subsidies. The social policy objectives include employment, housing and education policies, as well as a socio-politically motivated balancing of the distribution of income growth. In addition, there are provisions to restrain the free market (e.g. anti-trust code, laws against the abuse of market power etc.). These elements help to diminish many of the occurring problems of a free market economy"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy
Bear,
I dont look at MMT as socialism...
Promoting a policy of having the govt sector currency issuer provide adequate balances to the non-govt to assure fully adequate "human exchange" perhaps if you are from left or to "do good business" perhaps if you are from the political right is not "socialism" imo...
rsp,
"Therefore, so far, the answer to my original question is "no"."
Your original question seems to presume a 100% socialist system which as far as I know no one has seriously advocated for.
The "poll" of young people re their reaction to the word "socialism" does nothing more than illicit a pavlovian response that has been pounded into us over our lifetimes.
Capitalism good, socialism bad.
The US has always been a hybrid system and there has never been a successful "pure capitalism" in history to my knowledge. The debate today is over moving from a hybrid system to pure capitalism.
So your question is somewhat moot.
We've never had pure capitalism, nor has anyone else.
We've never had pure socialism, nor has anyone else.
How can we compare the two?
I would point out that all of that 19th century "philosophising" about 'socialism' and 'capitalism' etc was conducted in the context of a system that utilized an exogenous form of "money" which no longer is in use...
so a lot of that stuff is pure garbage as far as what it means to us today... rsp,
Therefore, so far, the answer to my original question is "no".
Can you point to a modern developed economy that is not a mixed economy?
Do you understand what the fallacy of the excluded middle is?
I think their success came largely through their social arrangements between the state, business and labor more so than cannibalizing Europe
Think again. Hint: Germany runs an export economy favored by the low euro in comparison to a high DM. Exploitation of the system.
Tom, you can front that myth if you desire, as Yanis Varoufakis does, but never heard a peep regarding it before the financial meltdown. Nice try though.
Yet the interdependence of the European economies is already so great that no individual country, with the theoretical exception of Germany, feels able to pursue expansionary policies on its own, because any country that did try to expand on its own would soon encounter a balance-of-payments constraint. The present situation is screaming aloud for co-ordinated reflation, but there exist neither the institutions nor an agreed framework of thought which will bring about this obviously desirable result. It should be frankly recognised that if the depression really were to take a serious turn for the worse – for instance, if the unemployment rate went back permanently to the 20-25 per cent characteristic of the Thirties – individual countries would sooner or later exercise their sovereign right to declare the entire movement towards integration a disaster and resort to exchange controls and protection – a siege economy if you will. This would amount to a re-run of the inter-war period.
Wynne Godley, Maastricht and all that (LRB, v. 14, n. 19, 8 OCT 92)
Sorry, Tom, but I'm a mixed economy advocate who happens to see Europe's problem as far more complex than the popular Germany bashing meme from the sour grapes peanut gallery. But if it makes you feel any better I'm certain you won't recognize the EU a few years out. I'm with Ilargi Meijer. The whole damn thing never should have formed in the first place.
Tom,
Malmo brings up YV... looks like he contributed to the UFAA NYC meeting on Oct 27th via video submission here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVTtdyrqn9c&feature=plcp
Sez he is doing economic consulting to SYRIZA of some sort...
rsp,
TEhe EZ either has to go for a fiscal union, which is essentially a political union — which would be a big mistake in my opinion, as "shotgun wedding: — or else a restructuring or disbanding. Politically, a fiscal-/political union and a disbanding seem off the table, so some restructuring will be put in place to keep the thing going. But eventually, the EZ either has to unite (federate) politically or can the EMU and declare the euro experiment over.
Post a Comment