Only 53% Say Capitalism Better than Socialism

[Toro]

Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.

Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.

Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.

There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.

Rasmussen Reports™: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere

Come on, capitalism!

 

[elvis]

Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.

Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.

Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.

There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.

Rasmussen Reports™: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere

Come on, capitalism!

I would like to know how the questions were asked. Those are staggering numbers.

 

[xsited1]

The Nanny State is almost complete. I had hoped the Entitlement Generation wasn't above 30%, but it was not to be. Each year it gets higher and higher. Eventually, we'll have too many "socialistic thinkers" to live free.

 

[mash107]

Slowly becoming a George Orwell novel D:

 

[NOBama]

Sheez, we need to raise the voting age.

 

[alan1]

What will they do when there is nobody left to feed off of?

 

[Bullypulpit]

There's nothing wrong with capitalism. It's just that the GOP is more interested in establishing an oligarchy than in preserving the Republic. Their notion of unregulated free-markets presupposes a rational society...which we clearly lack.

 

[mash107]

There's nothing wrong with capitalism. It's just that the GOP is more interested in establishing an oligarchy than in preserving the Republic. Their notion of unregulated free-markets presupposes a rational society...which we clearly lack.

But the GOP is as much of interventionist as the Democrats... as Bush has plainly proven. The batch of Republicans we've seen recently wouldn't know free markets if it hit them in the head. The control of our money supply, by a central bank, is the anti-thesis to a free market. Think of how many wars were funded by the notion that the federal government can print any amount of money whenever it wants. Iraq, itself, wouldn't have been invaded if there was no money to be printed to fund it. The invasion of our privacy, through spying, wouldn't happen, again, without a central bank printing the money to fund it. Think of the hundreds of millions that have died in wars as a result of the command economy last century. Think of the millions that live in poverty because of the inflation produced by a command economy. Command economies should remain an unfortunate relic of the past, but it seems, we are eager to regress to a point in time where our King decides who can own property, what we are to do with our property, and how we are to make a living. In essence, we haven't had free markets since 1913, and only sparingly before then.

Now a gold standard has it's shortcomings. But it's certainly a lot better than what we have currently. Although, there have been times where dictators have done away with the standard, in order to pursue war (i.e. Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, etc), it does restrain government power a lot better than the last 35 years of fiat has shown.

Rationality has nothing to do with freedom. Every person will act differently, spend or save differently, and that's assumed in a free society. There isn't a mold every person should fit into. In my eyes, anyone that supports economic regulations, if were to remain consistent on their belief government can control its subjects like the days of monarchies, must believe that regulations of their private behavior is acceptable as well.

The dictator would surely say, "Speech must be regulated! Press must be regulated! Right to protest must be regulated! Privacy must be regulated! And, lastly, property must be regulated!" For some bizarre reason, property regulations are deemed okay, despite it being the most regressive and intrusive regulation of them all (I'd rather be able to eat than be able to do things privately, slightly), yet any infringement of the other freedoms we have are quick to draw the ire of the bulk of our population, as they should. But in actuality, there is no difference between economic freedom and civil freedom. You can't have a free republic without unregulated, undisturbed, free markets. It's impossible. If you want your leaders to control property, you are submitting to them the most awesome and ultimate power, and that is not how you achieve freedom. The best option is to let the individuals control their destiny, of course, through the unregulated free-market.

 

[Maple]

Socialism defined- government control of the production and distribution of goods. In other words spreading your wealth to others.

Capitalism defined- economic system of private ownership of capital.

I think that this poll demonstrates that people really don't understand what socialism is, because if they did they certainly would not think that it is anywhere near as good as capitalism.

In the end socialism punishes success and rewards failure, capitalism rewards success and punishes failure.

Margaret Thacther, " Socialism works fine until you run out of other people's money."

 

[auditor0007]

Socialism defined- government control of the production and distribution of goods. In other words spreading your wealth to others.

Capitalism defined- economic system of private ownership of capital.

I think that this poll demonstrates that people really don't understand what socialism is, because if they did they certainly would not think that it is anywhere near as good as capitalism.

In the end socialism punishes success and rewards failure, capitalism rewards success and punishes failure.

Margaret Thacther, " Socialism works fine until you run out of other people's money."

This poll is stupid, and you are correct. When most people think of socialism, they think of European countries and their policies. While European countries do spread the wealth to a greater degree than happens in the US, they are not socialist. They do have more government run programs and higher taxes, but free enterprise is still the main driving force of their economies.

The only real difference between the US and most of Europe is that those governments offer some type of national healthcare as does Canada. Does anyone here think Canada is a socialist country? I sure don't. Now there are very valid arguments for and against national healthcare, but having it does not make a country socialist.

 

[neurosport]

i have some good news and some bad news

bad news - at this rate socialism is going to win

good news - by then you will be dead

lol

 

[editec]

How would ANY of us know?

We've never seen examples of either of those in action.

Personally I doubt either of them, in their pure theoretical guise, are workable systems.

Every theoretical economic system has flaws, folks.

If we were robots (or angels) who didn't care weren't selfish, and were willing to play by the rules no matter how they affected us, any and every economic system would work.

People are voting on things they don't really understand here.

They're voting on which myth they like best, in my opinion.

 

[NOBama]

Socialism defined- government control of the production and distribution of goods. In other words spreading your wealth to others.

Capitalism defined- economic system of private ownership of capital.

I think that this poll demonstrates that people really don't understand what socialism is, because if they did they certainly would not think that it is anywhere near as good as capitalism.

In the end socialism punishes success and rewards failure, capitalism rewards success and punishes failure.

Margaret Thacther, " Socialism works fine until you run out of other people's money."

Thacther was right, and BO is determined to prove it!

 

[mash107]

Socialism defined- government control of the production and distribution of goods. In other words spreading your wealth to others.

Capitalism defined- economic system of private ownership of capital.

I think that this poll demonstrates that people really don't understand what socialism is, because if they did they certainly would not think that it is anywhere near as good as capitalism.

In the end socialism punishes success and rewards failure, capitalism rewards success and punishes failure.

Margaret Thacther, " Socialism works fine until you run out of other people's money."

Thacther was right, and BO is determined to prove it!

Bush and the many Presidents before him did prove it. Hoover proved it especially. Had he been laissez-faire, the depression of 1929 would've ended as swiftly and painless as the depression of 1921, but instead, he intervened and started a horrible depression.

But what I've seen, is when we have a partially mixed/socialist country like the U.S., whenever those socialist elements, like the central bank, cause horrible recessions, like the one we're facing now, freedom is quick to be blamed instead of the true culprit. It's not like one of those 73,000 pages of regulations or the arbitrary increases in the money supply had anything to do with the housing bubble, but freedom and greed, of course! Greed can no more be blamed for a recession than gravity for a plane crash.

We are progressing towards a full economic fascist/socialist state, as people simply don't understand economics as they should.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top]Amazon.com: Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics: Henry Hazlitt: Books[/ame]

That's a great book to start out with.

 

[midcan5]

The thing I find interesting and a bit frightening in this is the fact given bad economic times or say a terrorist attack, people are ready to give up their rights and support dictatorial policies. Saviors come in all shapes and sizes. Consider that it was the economic situation that helped give rise to Hitler and a host of other evil rulers. Imagine had we been attacked a few more times after 911? The anthrax and the shootings in Washington alone had people going nutso. Promise safety and prosperity, no need for peace, and all things are yours.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill

 

[Iriemon]

Socialism defined- government control of the production and distribution of goods. In other words spreading your wealth to others.

Capitalism defined- economic system of private ownership of capital.

I think that this poll demonstrates that people really don't understand what socialism is, because if they did they certainly would not think that it is anywhere near as good as capitalism.

In the end socialism punishes success and rewards failure, capitalism rewards success and punishes failure.

Margaret Thacther, " Socialism works fine until you run out of other people's money."

Thacther was right, and BO is determined to prove it!

... those socialist elements, like the central bank....

Heh heh

 

[mash107]

The thing I find interesting and a bit frightening in this is the fact given bad economic times or say a terrorist attack, people are ready to give up their rights and support dictatorial policies. Saviors come in all shapes and sizes. Consider that it was the economic situation that helped give rise to Hitler and a host of other evil rulers. Imagine had we been attacked a few more times after 911? The anthrax and the shootings in Washington alone had people going nutso. Promise safety and prosperity, no need for peace, and all things are yours.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill

Yes. And that's what has me so worried about Obama. His own chief of staff said let no catastrophe go unexploited, and they are using all their might to wage war against our prosperity and economic freedom, as Bush did on our privacy and civil freedoms following 9/11. It's not fair to blame Obama for the mess he inherited, sure, but when he's spending us into bankruptcy, one has to wonder if he really does want us to become a banana republic.

 

[thinking]

The reason the depression didn't improve under Hoover was because he didn't do anything. WII brought us out of the depression because it created a giant demand. We need our government to create a large demand if we want to come out of this recession quickly.

Capitalism and socialism both have their pros and cons. Is a pure capitalist system the answer? No, and a pure socialist system definitely isn't the answer either. I believe you need a little of both to have a successful economic system.

 

[mash107]

The reason the depression didn't improve under Hoover was because he didn't do anything. WII brought us out of the depression because it created a giant demand. We need our government to create a large demand if we want to come out of this recession quickly.

Capitalism and socialism both have their pros and cons. Is a pure capitalist system the answer? No, and a pure socialist system definitely isn't the answer either. I believe you need a little of both to have a successful economic system.

What's exactly wrong with freedom to make a free system not work? That's analogous to saying, free speech is not the answer, but controlled free speech is.

Onto your second point, Hoover was a huge interventionist. If only he did let the depression in 1929 run its course like the depression in 1921, it would only last a year or so. Instead, Hoover instituted price and wage controls and bailed out farmers. Hoover himself stated campaigning in 1932, "we might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic."

The only answer to depression and misallocation of resources is by allowing those resources to be reallocated as quickly as possible. When government steps in and encourages misallocation that only prolongs the agony, as was apparent for 15 years during the Great Depression. It sadly seems we haven't learned from that lesson.

 

[Bootneck]

Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.

It may be only 53% who believe in capitalism, but when only a paltry 20% don't, there's not a lot to worry about. There will always be socialists hankering to impose their loony left ideals on the majority in most western societies. Think of them as a dose of piles - nothing more than an occasional pain up the arse - that eventually goes away.