Friday, November 3, 2017

Daniela Cobos — Millennials Have Had It with Capitalism, New Survey Reveals


Bernie appears to have had an impact.
To obtain this information, the research and data firm YouGov surveyed 23,000 people aged 16 and over. Two of the survey’s findings included that 59 percent of total Americans would rather live in a capitalist country, with 34 percent preferring a socialist nation.
When focusing on millennials, the survey revealed 44 percent of those surveyed would rather live in a socialist nation, compared to 42 percent who would prefer a capitalist country. The socialist movement saw an increase in youth following during Senator Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign, as he advertised a platform of “Democratic Socialism.” 
AlterNet
Millennials Have Had It with Capitalism, New Survey Reveals
Daniela Cobos, International Business Times


9 comments:

Joe said...

Neoliberlism has had an effect. Bernie just says what everybody already knows.

Six said...

The pollsters seem a wee bit biased.

Kaivey said...

Ed Balls, the ex British Chancellor, said the less the government is involved in the economy the better. This is textbook neoclassical economics theory. They say having a fierce competitive private sector produces the greatest wealth for most people (they don't care about those who fall to the bottom, the ones who often turn to crime and drugs and make life miserable for the rest of us. But never mind, the private sector can build loads of prisons and charge us a ton for it, even if it is much cheaper to provide benefits and social support).

But it turns out that Ed Balls and the neoclassical economists theories are all completely wrong, and all the sophisticated complicated maths is wrong too, because the Chinese are zooming at break neck speed into the future with massive infrastructure projects and high speed rail being put in all over the country. Jeff J Brown says how can the West compete with this? It can't.

Ryan Harris said...

Renaissance of world cities against nation states.

peterc said...

Agreed, Kaivey. Growth performances around the world over the past seventy years or so are consistent with the view that growth is primarily driven by components of autonomous demand that do not directly create productive capacity. This autonomous demand is sometimes called Z. Government spending is the chief component of Z. Within resource limits and within the real capacity of the economy to expand in response to rising demand, a brisker growth in Z underpins brisker GDP growth by inducing private investment as enterprises endeavor to adjust capacity to demand. (Similarly, in a socialist economy, faster growth in Z requires a more rapid growth of investment.) This is an inducement to expand capacity in general, including through technical improvements. It is not just an inducement to expand capacity of the same quality as in the past. This is also consistent with the view that stronger growth of autonomous demand contributes to a "high pressure" economy in which enterprises need to compete for market share.

The turn to neoliberalism -- and even the turn to market-type "reform" in the Soviet Union -- saw a significant slowing of growth. OECD averages for the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s were roughly 4%, 5%, 3% and 2% respectively.* Comparing average rates of growth for the periods 1960-1979 and 1980-1999, the growth rates were 3.2% compared with 2.1% for rich countries, 3% compared with 1.7% for developing countries (and the latter figure is propped up by non-neoliberal China and India), 3.1% compared with 1% for Latin America, and 1-2% compared with < 0% for Africa.** In the former Soviet Union, growth rates were high in the period 1950-1973 and progressively lower after that, especially from 1985 onward.*** And we know of course what happened in Eastern Europe with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, or in the west since 2007, or in China in recent times.

There is no contradiction between the idea that growth in Z drives growth in GDP and the observation that stronger sustained growth requires a higher share of investment in GDP. Within the capacity of the economy to respond, a more rapid growth in Z induces an even more rapid growth in private investment in order for capacity to "catch up" to demand. Once capacity catches up, private investment as a percentage of GDP will have risen, and Z as a percentage of GDP will have fallen. Since government spending is a large part of Z, it is also quite possible that government spending as a share of GDP will have fallen as a result of this process.

---

* Ha-Joon Chang, 2007, Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism, Bloomsbury Press, pp. 9-11.

** Stephen Marglin & Juliet Schor, The Golden Age of Capitalism, Clarendon Press, p.1.

*** Numa Mazat & Franklin Serrano, 'An analysis of Soviet economic growth from the 1950s to the collapse of the USSR. http://www.centrosraffa.org/public/bb6ba675-6bef-4182-bb89-339ae1f7e792.pdf

Matt Franko said...

"growth is primarily driven by components of autonomous demand that do not directly create productive capacity. This autonomous demand is sometimes called Z. Government spending is the chief component of Z. "

this is interesting Peter... we have been following Cash Basis withdrawals from the US Treasury account (both for direct consumption and xfer payments) for some years now...

Also, you here: "growth is... driven.." This phrase implies a source... there is always a source in the STEM disciplines...

The liberals/neo-leberals/libertarians wtf seem to lack this ability (bias) to include a 'source' in their attempts at understanding... nothing is ex nihilo...

peterc said...

Yes, Matt, I agree very much that Z (and especially government spending) is the source.

I have a few posts that discuss the idea. Ones discusses a highly simplified model of Z-led growth. Another explains the implications for the investment share in GDP. (The second post is a bit tedious because it spells out how each expression is arrived at.) Both posts draw heavily on work done by others, cited at the second link.

http://heteconomist.com/demand-led-growth-with-cycles-a-simple-model-and-illustration/

http://heteconomist.com/demand-led-growth-government-spending-and-the-investment-share/

Ralph Musgrave said...

If millennials are so anti-capitalism, why don't they set up their own workers' cooperatives perhaps along the lines of the "Mondragon" cooperatives in Spain?

Neil Wilson said...

I get the feeling that the first thing you have to do is get the definition of the Humpty Dumpty words sorted out.