Progressive Propaganda: The Socialism Edition

[P@triot]

The only people who support socialism are the uneducated/ignorant who have never lived under it and never studied it.

The most dramatic shift happened in the state of Florida, where the Hispanic population consists of a large number of Cubans and Venezuelans. Despite the rise in socialist popularity among our youth, those with the most direct personal experience with left-wing government came out hard against it.

Educated/experienced people want no part of socialism. They understand it is a failed ideology.

Racial Divisions May Be Trounced With Potential Rise of Normal Coalition

A Republican Party focused on moving beyond harmful racial divisions and improving the plight of working Americans now seems possible.

www.dailysignal.com

 

[DBA]

I would add the caveat that "educated" folks in the US are more indoctrinated than actually educated. Americans who have experienced Socialism and Communism first hand in their native countries do NOT vote for Democrats. They aren't that stupid. Unfortunately, many natives of the US "educated" class are that stupid.

 

[Zorro!]

FREE THE MARKETS: How to Fix Capitalism. Why do half of younger Americans want to live in a socialist country? It’s not just because of the nonsense spewed in schools, says Edward L. Glaeser.

Over the past 40 years, insiders have increasingly captured the American economy—from homeowners opposed to new housing construction near them to incumbent firms that benefit from the overregulation of employment to interest groups that have transformed the federal government into the equivalent of a pension system with a nuclear arsenal.

Socialism is a con by Insiders to fleece Outsiders

The young are usually outsiders; the bill for the insiders’ triumph has been laid in their laps. The Covid-19 pandemic reinforces this dynamic. Middle-aged teachers, protected by powerful unions, Zoom their classes from the comfort of their homes, and students get lost in the shuffle. The mortality risk of the disease to the young is tiny; yet they are told to give up the freedom of their youth to protect the rest of us. . . .

The Socialism Con

What many young people today don’t realize is that socialism is a machine for empowering insiders.

Capitalism, from its inception, was designed for outsiders, but it’s been corrupted by politicians and special interests. To make it attractive again to young outsiders, Glaeser proposes restoring four fundamental freedoms.

Start with the right to learn, which precedes the other freedoms. Insider control over traditional K–12 education is, at present, too strong to achieve any radical reform within existing schools. Charter schools sadly remain a niche product, so pushing for their expansion—and for greater school-choice options more broadly—is necessary. Another alternative that could open up new education opportunities would be vocational training that bypasses the school system entirely. Washington could pay for programs inculcating marketable skills—from plumbing to computer programming. These programs could be competitively sourced, meaning that labor unions and community colleges and for-profit entrepreneurs could compete to offer them. But providers would get paid only if students learned real skills. Access to vocational vouchers could go not only to teenagers but also to displaced workers, or to anyone without a solid job.

Second, we should establish a stronger right to work. All employment regulations should undergo rigorous cost-benefit analysis and have automatic sunset provisions. The Social Security system should also be made friendlier to the young. The payroll taxes that fund Social Security could be eliminated for those under 30 and phased in later in life. Younger workers and their employers would initially pay nothing into the system. That shift would eliminate a large tax-related barrier to hiring the young and make it more financially attractive for young people to work. That reform would reduce revenues, true; but raising the age of retirement could offset the lost funds.

Third, Americans need greater freedom to sell and to launch new businesses, especially of the non-digital kind. The Internet’s platforms may make it easy to sell goods these days, but services and experiences are provided live and thus are often highly regulated. The next generation’s entrepreneurs should be able to create abundant opportunities outside of eBay—above all, in poorer areas. The path to liberating physical entrepreneurialism is clearer in cities, since more customers are clustered together for creative local service providers. But starting a business should be easier everywhere.

The need to ease business regulations is particularly acute as America attempts to recover from the economic dislocation caused by Covid-19. America’s small businesses entered into the pandemic typically with only a tiny cushion of cash. Government loans, coming through the Paycheck Protection Program, offered a lifeline to many, but thousands of small businesses will still close their doors. The best way to preserve our vital small-business ecosystem is not to throw money at every struggling business but instead to make it as easy as possible for new businesses to open after the pandemic has passed.

As with employment regulations, a top-to-bottom review of business regulations, subjecting them to ruthless cost-benefit analysis, would be welcome, but that could take years. A speedier approach might be to experiment with entrepreneurship districts. They could combine one-stop permitting with shared maker spaces and targeted training programs. The permitter could be made accountable for the speed of the process.

Fourth, we need more freedom to build. Since the Clinton administration, I have regularly interacted with officials at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and they’ve always wanted to reduce the local barriers to building that push up prices. Their wishes have had almost no influence, largely because land-use decisions at the local level are not easy to control from Washington—and the notion that HUD would preside over local building permits is a little scary, anyway. State legislatures are the natural intermediate institutions that can push localities to build more. In many cases already, state governments have reduced the power of local land-use controls. The best federal approach in this area would be to deploy financial incentives to encourage state legislatures to do the right thing. Federal transportation spending is partially meant to build the infrastructure needed by new construction. If a state isn’t allowing any construction in high-demand areas, shouldn’t the federal government reduce its infrastructure support? Use money to nudge states—and let states nudge communities.

 

[P@triot]

FREE THE MARKETS: How to Fix Capitalism. Why do half of younger Americans want to live in a socialist country? It’s not just because of the nonsense spewed in schools, says Edward L. Glaeser.

Over the past 40 years, insiders have increasingly captured the American economy—from homeowners opposed to new housing construction near them to incumbent firms that benefit from the overregulation of employment to interest groups that have transformed the federal government into the equivalent of a pension system with a nuclear arsenal.

Socialism is a con by Insiders to fleece Outsiders

The young are usually outsiders; the bill for the insiders’ triumph has been laid in their laps. The Covid-19 pandemic reinforces this dynamic. Middle-aged teachers, protected by powerful unions, Zoom their classes from the comfort of their homes, and students get lost in the shuffle. The mortality risk of the disease to the young is tiny; yet they are told to give up the freedom of their youth to protect the rest of us. . . .

The Socialism Con

What many young people today don’t realize is that socialism is a machine for empowering insiders.

Capitalism, from its inception, was designed for outsiders, but it’s been corrupted by politicians and special interests. To make it attractive again to young outsiders, Glaeser proposes restoring four fundamental freedoms.

Start with the right to learn, which precedes the other freedoms. Insider control over traditional K–12 education is, at present, too strong to achieve any radical reform within existing schools. Charter schools sadly remain a niche product, so pushing for their expansion—and for greater school-choice options more broadly—is necessary. Another alternative that could open up new education opportunities would be vocational training that bypasses the school system entirely. Washington could pay for programs inculcating marketable skills—from plumbing to computer programming. These programs could be competitively sourced, meaning that labor unions and community colleges and for-profit entrepreneurs could compete to offer them. But providers would get paid only if students learned real skills. Access to vocational vouchers could go not only to teenagers but also to displaced workers, or to anyone without a solid job.

Second, we should establish a stronger right to work. All employment regulations should undergo rigorous cost-benefit analysis and have automatic sunset provisions. The Social Security system should also be made friendlier to the young. The payroll taxes that fund Social Security could be eliminated for those under 30 and phased in later in life. Younger workers and their employers would initially pay nothing into the system. That shift would eliminate a large tax-related barrier to hiring the young and make it more financially attractive for young people to work. That reform would reduce revenues, true; but raising the age of retirement could offset the lost funds.

Third, Americans need greater freedom to sell and to launch new businesses, especially of the non-digital kind. The Internet’s platforms may make it easy to sell goods these days, but services and experiences are provided live and thus are often highly regulated. The next generation’s entrepreneurs should be able to create abundant opportunities outside of eBay—above all, in poorer areas. The path to liberating physical entrepreneurialism is clearer in cities, since more customers are clustered together for creative local service providers. But starting a business should be easier everywhere.

The need to ease business regulations is particularly acute as America attempts to recover from the economic dislocation caused by Covid-19. America’s small businesses entered into the pandemic typically with only a tiny cushion of cash. Government loans, coming through the Paycheck Protection Program, offered a lifeline to many, but thousands of small businesses will still close their doors. The best way to preserve our vital small-business ecosystem is not to throw money at every struggling business but instead to make it as easy as possible for new businesses to open after the pandemic has passed.

As with employment regulations, a top-to-bottom review of business regulations, subjecting them to ruthless cost-benefit analysis, would be welcome, but that could take years. A speedier approach might be to experiment with entrepreneurship districts. They could combine one-stop permitting with shared maker spaces and targeted training programs. The permitter could be made accountable for the speed of the process.

Fourth, we need more freedom to build. Since the Clinton administration, I have regularly interacted with officials at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and they’ve always wanted to reduce the local barriers to building that push up prices. Their wishes have had almost no influence, largely because land-use decisions at the local level are not easy to control from Washington—and the notion that HUD would preside over local building permits is a little scary, anyway. State legislatures are the natural intermediate institutions that can push localities to build more. In many cases already, state governments have reduced the power of local land-use controls. The best federal approach in this area would be to deploy financial incentives to encourage state legislatures to do the right thing. Federal transportation spending is partially meant to build the infrastructure needed by new construction. If a state isn’t allowing any construction in high-demand areas, shouldn’t the federal government reduce its infrastructure support? Use money to nudge states—and let states nudge communities.

Excellent post, Zorro!.

 

[initforme]

It's got no foothold here so it's not worth worrying about. We've got no socialist pixies here...never will.

 

[Anomalism]

I bet the OP is the kind of person that thinks universal healthcare is socialism and then conflates it with the governments of murderous dictators in a completely dishonest and delusional attempt to argue against Americans going to the doctor at taxpayer expense.

 

[P@triot]

I bet the OP is the kind of person that thinks universal healthcare is socialism

Jack-ass there thinks universal healthcare “isn’t” socialism

 

[P@triot]

It's got no foothold here so it's not worth worrying about.

Is that why a self-proclaimed socialist (running on socialism) finished second in the DNC primary in 2016 and again in 2020?

 

[Anomalism]

Jack-ass there thinks universal healthcare “isn’t” socialism

I bet you'd also tell me the Scandinavian countries aren't socialist even though they have universal healthcare and expansive social safety nets.

 

[Billiejeens]

The only people who support socialism are the uneducated/ignorant who have never lived under it and never studied it.

The most dramatic shift happened in the state of Florida, where the Hispanic population consists of a large number of Cubans and Venezuelans. Despite the rise in socialist popularity among our youth, those with the most direct personal experience with left-wing government came out hard against it.

Educated/experienced people want no part of socialism. They understand it is a failed ideology.

Racial Divisions May Be Trounced With Potential Rise of Normal Coalition

A Republican Party focused on moving beyond harmful racial divisions and improving the plight of working Americans now seems possible.

www.dailysignal.com

The schools teach that it's great if done properly
And that its just never been done properly.

 

[Billiejeens]

Jack-ass there thinks universal healthcare “isn’t” socialism

I bet you'd also tell me the Scandinavian countries aren't socialist even though they have universal healthcare and expansive social safety nets.

They say that they aren't socialist.

 

[P@triot]

I bet you'd also tell me the Scandinavian countries aren't socialist even though they have universal healthcare and expansive social safety nets.

So let me get this straight - in your (apparently very tiny mind), you can’t possibly have a mix? You couldn’t have, say, socialist healthcare and simultaneously have a capitalist economy? Really?

Dumb shit, universal healthcare is the textbook definition of “socialism”. But a nation, an economy, etc. is more than just their healthcare system.

 

[Billiejeens]

It's got no foothold here so it's not worth worrying about.

Is that why a self-proclaimed socialist (running on socialism) finished second in the DNC primary in 2016 and again in 2020?

Only 2 dems ran in 2016
There was no 2nd in 2020
The establishment anointed biden.

 

[Anomalism]

They say that they aren't socialist.

That's because they're not actually socialist and neither is universal healthcare. That's just what uneducated imbeciles on the right say. What about you though?

Is universal healthcare socialism or not?

Are the Scandinavian countries socialist or not?

Your answers to those questions should be the same.

 

[P@triot]

It's got no foothold here so it's not worth worrying about.

Is that why a self-proclaimed socialist (running on socialism) finished second in the DNC primary in 2016 and again in 2020?

Only 2 dems ran in 2016. There was no 2nd in 2020. The establishment anointed biden.

Psst...Bernie Sanders finished second to Biden.

 

[Anomalism]

So let me get this straight - in your (apparently very tiny mind), you can’t possibly have a mix? You couldn’t have, say, socialist healthcare and simultaneously have a capitalist economy? Really?

So you admit we would still be a capitalist nation if we had universal healthcare and more expansive social safety nets?

 

[BlindBoo]

Democrats are the party of Social Security.

Republicans want you to believe that means they're Socialist from Venezuela.

 

[P@triot]

That's because they're not actually socialist and neither is universal healthcare. That's just what uneducated imbeciles on the right say. What about you though?

Is universal healthcare socialism or not?

Are the Scandinavian countries socialist or not?

Your answers to those questions should be the same.

I always wonder how anyone could possibly vote Dumbocrat. Then I see how dumb they are and I understand why it’s so easy for the party to dupe them.

Anomalism actually believes a nation’s healthcare system dictates what they are. Holy...fucking...shit.

 

[P@triot]

So you admit we would still be a capitalist nation if we had universal healthcare and more expansive social safety nets?

So you admit that “universal healthcare” is the textbook definition of socialism?

 

[Anomalism]

So you admit that “universal healthcare” is the textbook definition of socialism?

I'm not playing games with you. Your blatant dishonesty and double standards have been exposed. Have a nice night dumb ass.