The great reset VII: Capitalism for the rich and Socialism for the poor

[Ghost1776]

The Great Reset VII: Capitalism for the Rich and Socialism for the Poor | Mises Institute

Michael Rectenwald takes on the progressive canard of "socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor," in which the government protects the wealthy but throws

mises.org

The Great Reset VII: Capitalism for the Rich and Socialism for the Poor​

3 HOURS AGO

Michael Rectenwald
The standard leftist refrain about “advanced capitalism” is that it amounts to “socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.” Like most leftist notions, this idea represents almost the exact opposite of the truth. The system they refer to is anything but socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Capitalists do not want socialism for themselves and capitalism for the rest. Capitalists seek profit, which can only come under a capitalist system.


3 generations each generation got worse with the teachings of “ Hate your nation” — Hate being white—this is Communism———-taught right in your public school system and now they teach you to hate whitey at your jobs.
Like Coke.

They deny and they lie as soon as ppl pick up on this and learn they really do lie through their teeth you’ll see you’ve all been played as fools. Those of you who can’t see what we all keep trying to tell your sleeping selves.

 

[Donald H]

A great topic for discussion!
But it might be a little too sophisticated for most. I'll leave it for now so we can hear others howling out their support or their opposition. Then if the topic gets legs, perhaps we can include China's record of making both work together with support from both sides?

 

[Concerned American]

The Great Reset VII: Capitalism for the Rich and Socialism for the Poor | Mises Institute

Michael Rectenwald takes on the progressive canard of "socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor," in which the government protects the wealthy but throws

mises.org

The Great Reset VII: Capitalism for the Rich and Socialism for the Poor​

3 HOURS AGO

Michael Rectenwald
The standard leftist refrain about “advanced capitalism” is that it amounts to “socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.” Like most leftist notions, this idea represents almost the exact opposite of the truth. The system they refer to is anything but socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Capitalists do not want socialism for themselves and capitalism for the rest. Capitalists seek profit, which can only come under a capitalist system.


3 generations each generation got worse with the teachings of “ Hate your nation” — Hate being white—this is Communism———-taught right in your public school system and now they teach you to hate whitey at your jobs.
Like Coke.

They deny and they lie as soon as ppl pick up on this and learn they really do lie through their teeth you’ll see you’ve all been played as fools. Those of you who can’t see what we all keep trying to tell your sleeping selves.

View attachment 634072

Socialism cannot exist without capitalism. In support of this statement--Who pays for the social benefits without capitalism.

 

[sparky]

Like Coke.

~S~

 

[sparky]

A great topic for discussion!
But it might be a little too sophisticated for most.

especially>>>>

In short, everything that is taught about capitalism and socialism, like most everything else that is taught in general, is the inverse of the truth.

~S~

 

[Donald H]

especially>>>>

In short, everything that is taught about capitalism and socialism, like most everything else that is taught in general, is the inverse of the truth.

~S~

Only for stupid people it's the inverse. Both systems are crystal clear on their meaning even though pure socialism isn't practiced anywhere in the world.

 

[Winston]

The Great Reset VII: Capitalism for the Rich and Socialism for the Poor | Mises Institute

Michael Rectenwald takes on the progressive canard of "socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor," in which the government protects the wealthy but throws

mises.org

The Great Reset VII: Capitalism for the Rich and Socialism for the Poor​

3 HOURS AGO

Michael Rectenwald
The standard leftist refrain about “advanced capitalism” is that it amounts to “socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.” Like most leftist notions, this idea represents almost the exact opposite of the truth. The system they refer to is anything but socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Capitalists do not want socialism for themselves and capitalism for the rest. Capitalists seek profit, which can only come under a capitalist system.


3 generations each generation got worse with the teachings of “ Hate your nation” — Hate being white—this is Communism———-taught right in your public school system and now they teach you to hate whitey at your jobs.
Like Coke.

They deny and they lie as soon as ppl pick up on this and learn they really do lie through their teeth you’ll see you’ve all been played as fools. Those of you who can’t see what we all keep trying to tell your sleeping selves.

View attachment 634072

What an over simplified article that ignores reality. Here is the thing, capitalism can work, provided a market is truly "free", and large enough to result in both adequate profits and reliable competition. Now, a free market is not free from government regulation, it is free from rent seeking. That is the definition that Adam Smith proposed long ago and it still holds true. While government is often a means of rent seeking, political contributions in order to get the government to provide barriers to entry, protect monopolies or oligopolies, or refuse to enforce Taft-Hartley protections are classic examples.

But there are some markets which capitalism is ill suited to support. The pharmaceutical industry comes to mind. The whole opiod fiasco a clear example, companies will spend billions of dollars on research and marketing in order to get a prescription that almost everyone can be prescribed. But they ain't so keen on spending two cents on researching cures or treatment for rare diseases. Honestly, how many cholesterol medications do we need? And vaccines--those pharmaceutical companies could care less about developing a vaccine, there is rarely any "profit" in it.

Matter of fact, capitalism has no place in the health care market. Most modern nations came to that conclusion long ago. The inelasticity of demand is far too high. There is little "substitution" ability. Sometimes the choice is as simple as take this pill or die. Have this operation or die. I mean when you are having a stroke are you really going to shop around for the best deal?

The energy market is another place, high inelasticity of demand, huge barriers to entry, an oligopoly. I mean everyone is bitching about gas prices, go figure. That market has been begging for nationalization for half a century. And again, it has happened in many places around the world. I mean do you really believe that Saudi Arabia has a competitive electricity market? LMAO, they got ONE COMPANY, just like for water and gas. And it, wait for it, OWNED BY THE PUBLIC. Socialism by definition.

But perhaps the best illustration. Airport security. Prior to 9/11 dozens of private companies competed in a "free market" to provide security for airports. They did such a piss poor job at it that two planes slammed into the WTC, one the Pentagon, and another ended up slammed into the ground after passengers took over. So Bush Jr., a Republican no less, NATIONALIZED the airport security industry with something called Homeland Security.

 

[Ghost1776]

What an over simplified article that ignores reality. Here is the thing, capitalism can work, provided a market is truly "free", and large enough to result in both adequate profits and reliable competition. Now, a free market is not free from government regulation, it is free from rent seeking. That is the definition that Adam Smith proposed long ago and it still holds true. While government is often a means of rent seeking, political contributions in order to get the government to provide barriers to entry, protect monopolies or oligopolies, or refuse to enforce Taft-Hartley protections are classic examples.

But there are some markets which capitalism is ill suited to support. The pharmaceutical industry comes to mind. The whole opiod fiasco a clear example, companies will spend billions of dollars on research and marketing in order to get a prescription that almost everyone can be prescribed. But they ain't so keen on spending two cents on researching cures or treatment for rare diseases. Honestly, how many cholesterol medications do we need? And vaccines--those pharmaceutical companies could care less about developing a vaccine, there is rarely any "profit" in it.

Matter of fact, capitalism has no place in the health care market. Most modern nations came to that conclusion long ago. The inelasticity of demand is far too high. There is little "substitution" ability. Sometimes the choice is as simple as take this pill or die. Have this operation or die. I mean when you are having a stroke are you really going to shop around for the best deal?

The energy market is another place, high inelasticity of demand, huge barriers to entry, an oligopoly. I mean everyone is bitching about gas prices, go figure. That market has been begging for nationalization for half a century. And again, it has happened in many places around the world. I mean do you really believe that Saudi Arabia has a competitive electricity market? LMAO, they got ONE COMPANY, just like for water and gas. And it, wait for it, OWNED BY THE PUBLIC. Socialism by definition.

But perhaps the best illustration. Airport security. Prior to 9/11 dozens of private companies competed in a "free market" to provide security for airports. They did such a piss poor job at it that two planes slammed into the WTC, one the Pentagon, and another ended up slammed into the ground after passengers took over. So Bush Jr., a Republican no less, NATIONALIZED the airport security industry with something called Homeland Security.

Well welcome to communisim because as mentioned if this bs isn’t stopped your gonna see what a real live version of communist China looks like. Stalin will look like it was day camp Too. Oh yeah, the rest of us will see what Communism feels like right with you because democratic pricks win by cheating, lying, stealing.

 

[Donald H]

What an over simplified article that ignores reality. Here is the thing, capitalism can work, provided a market is truly "free", and large enough to result in both adequate profits and reliable competition. Now, a free market is not free from government regulation, it is free from rent seeking. That is the definition that Adam Smith proposed long ago and it still holds true. While government is often a means of rent seeking, political contributions in order to get the government to provide barriers to entry, protect monopolies or oligopolies, or refuse to enforce Taft-Hartley protections are classic examples.

But there are some markets which capitalism is ill suited to support. The pharmaceutical industry comes to mind. The whole opiod fiasco a clear example, companies will spend billions of dollars on research and marketing in order to get a prescription that almost everyone can be prescribed. But they ain't so keen on spending two cents on researching cures or treatment for rare diseases. Honestly, how many cholesterol medications do we need? And vaccines--those pharmaceutical companies could care less about developing a vaccine, there is rarely any "profit" in it.

Matter of fact, capitalism has no place in the health care market. Most modern nations came to that conclusion long ago. The inelasticity of demand is far too high. There is little "substitution" ability. Sometimes the choice is as simple as take this pill or die. Have this operation or die. I mean when you are having a stroke are you really going to shop around for the best deal?

The energy market is another place, high inelasticity of demand, huge barriers to entry, an oligopoly. I mean everyone is bitching about gas prices, go figure. That market has been begging for nationalization for half a century. And again, it has happened in many places around the world. I mean do you really believe that Saudi Arabia has a competitive electricity market? LMAO, they got ONE COMPANY, just like for water and gas. And it, wait for it, OWNED BY THE PUBLIC. Socialism by definition.

But perhaps the best illustration. Airport security. Prior to 9/11 dozens of private companies competed in a "free market" to provide security for airports. They did such a piss poor job at it that two planes slammed into the WTC, one the Pentagon, and another ended up slammed into the ground after passengers took over. So Bush Jr., a Republican no less, NATIONALIZED the airport security industry with something called Homeland Security.

China may have found the perfect balance. Capitalism that is limited by a communist government body. What do you think?

Not so much on China specifically but on the system they've adopted, which most should be aware of by now.

Does it hamper the working of a capitalist system, or does it ensure that capitalism isn't destroyed by greed?

And what about the communist element. Is it prone to corruption or does it ensure that if somebody cheats to defeat the system, they get their fkng heads chopped off in short order?

Say, capital punishment for people like Bernie Madoff and lesser prison terms for the little schmuck who can't afford a high priced lawyer?

China might be onto something? They've already done enough good to carry them for the next 10 years at least.

 

[Concerned American]

China may have found the perfect balance. Capitalism that is limited by a communist government body. What do you think?

Not so much on China specifically but on the system they've adopted, which most should be aware of by now.

Does it hamper the working of a capitalist system, or does it ensure that capitalism isn't destroyed by greed?

And what about the communist element. Is it prone to corruption or does it ensure that if somebody cheats to defeat the system, they get their fkng heads chopped off in short order?

Say, capital punishment for people like Bernie Madoff and lesser prison terms for the little schmuck who can't afford a high priced lawyer?

China might be onto something? They've already done enough good to carry them for the next 10 years at least.

The Canadian CCP plant has been heard from.

 

[dblack]

A great topic for discussion!
But it might be a little too sophisticated for most.

Then it's probably best you avoid it.

 

[sparky]

What an over simplified article that ignores reality. Here is the thing, capitalism can work, provided a market is truly "free", and large enough to result in both adequate profits and reliable competition. Now, a free market is not free from government regulation, it is free from rent seeking. That is the definition that Adam Smith proposed long ago and it still holds true. While government is often a means of rent seeking, political contributions in order to get the government to provide barriers to entry, protect monopolies or oligopolies, or refuse to enforce Taft-Hartley protections are classic examples.

But there are some markets which capitalism is ill suited to support. The pharmaceutical industry comes to mind. The whole opiod fiasco a clear example, companies will spend billions of dollars on research and marketing in order to get a prescription that almost everyone can be prescribed. But they ain't so keen on spending two cents on researching cures or treatment for rare diseases. Honestly, how many cholesterol medications do we need? And vaccines--those pharmaceutical companies could care less about developing a vaccine, there is rarely any "profit" in it.

Matter of fact, capitalism has no place in the health care market. Most modern nations came to that conclusion long ago. The inelasticity of demand is far too high. There is little "substitution" ability. Sometimes the choice is as simple as take this pill or die. Have this operation or die. I mean when you are having a stroke are you really going to shop around for the best deal?

The energy market is another place, high inelasticity of demand, huge barriers to entry, an oligopoly. I mean everyone is bitching about gas prices, go figure. That market has been begging for nationalization for half a century. And again, it has happened in many places around the world. I mean do you really believe that Saudi Arabia has a competitive electricity market? LMAO, they got ONE COMPANY, just like for water and gas. And it, wait for it, OWNED BY THE PUBLIC. Socialism by definition.

But perhaps the best illustration. Airport security. Prior to 9/11 dozens of private companies competed in a "free market" to provide security for airports. They did such a piss poor job at it that two planes slammed into the WTC, one the Pentagon, and another ended up slammed into the ground after passengers took over. So Bush Jr., a Republican no less, NATIONALIZED the airport security industry with something called Homeland Security.

Free trade is just another term for globalism , which Adam Smith could not have conceived of counting sheep in the 1700's Winston

~S~

 

[sparky]

China may have found the perfect balance. Capitalism that is limited by a communist government body. What do you think?

Seen objectively , w/o political stripe, human rights, or environmental restraints, China is hands down the #1 'Capitalist' success this rock has ever been witness to.

Seen as a Keynesian model, they've done exactly what other aspiring countries could not, something isolationist John Keynes could not get his economic head around any more than Adam Smith

~S~

 

[Donald H]

Seen objectively , w/o political stripe, human rights, or environmental restraints, China is hands down the #1 'Capitalist' success this rock has ever been witness to.

China is spending great amounts of money and effort into addressing climate change. They have four times the number of people as the US has and are starting 100 years behind the US.

The human rights abuses in China against Muslim terrorists can't ever equal what the US did to Iraq alone. And the situation in H.K. is gentle compared to what the US has done when it grabbed half of Mexico. What would the US do if Mexico tried to take any of it back.

Seen as a Keynesian model, they've done exactly what other aspiring countries could not, something isolationist John Keynes could not get his economic head around any more than Adam Smith

~S~

They've succeeded far beyond both Keynesian or Supplyside economics by modifying capitalist principles so that it can work for all the people. It's still to be seen whether or not they can avoid widespread corruption.

I think you understand what China has done to achieve the tremendous success you too acknowledge.

Whenever an American mentions human rights abuses and concerns for the enviornment, we have to suspect dishonest motives. Maybe before Iraq and before Trump, they could pull it off as genuine concerns?

 

[Winston]

Seen objectively , w/o political stripe, human rights, or environmental restraints, China is hands down the #1 'Capitalist' success this rock has ever been witness to.

Seen as a Keynesian model, they've done exactly what other aspiring countries could not, something isolationist John Keynes could not get his economic head around any more than Adam Smith

~S~

China is a mixed system. One can hardly call it "capitalist" when dozens of state owned enterprises dominate such markets as steel, road construction, consumer electronics, and wealth management. Even food and spirits have state owned companies taking large market share.

 

[whitehall]

Socialism only works for the rich and powerful. That's the intent.

 

[Donald H]

China is a mixed system. One can hardly call it "capitalist" when dozens of state owned enterprises dominate such markets as steel, road construction, consumer electronics, and wealth management. Even food and spirits have state owned companies taking large market share.

All systems are mixed and even the US is mixed.
It's about what's in the mix.
Canada's and the leading democracies in Europe are likely closer to China's mix than America's.

America chooses to keep it that way but that has to be with ignoring the social disintegration. Trump's coup attempt was an omen that predicts America's collapse and the approach of a new world order.

It's not too late to do something about it, but there's no will being shown yet.

 

[Donald H]

Here's the story for anyone capable of understanding.



The situation can be saved but for how long?

 

[whitehall]

Churchill said it best: "those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it". Only the powerful politically connected benefit from socialism. There are stories of Stalinist trains filled with all sorts of delicacies headed for Russian dachas passing trains full of starved corpses going in the other direction. Noted socialist politician Bernie Sanders enjoys a multi million dollar residence.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

The Great Reset VII: Capitalism for the Rich and Socialism for the Poor | Mises Institute

Michael Rectenwald takes on the progressive canard of "socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor," in which the government protects the wealthy but throws

mises.org

The Great Reset VII: Capitalism for the Rich and Socialism for the Poor​

3 HOURS AGO

Michael Rectenwald
The standard leftist refrain about “advanced capitalism” is that it amounts to “socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.” Like most leftist notions, this idea represents almost the exact opposite of the truth. The system they refer to is anything but socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Capitalists do not want socialism for themselves and capitalism for the rest. Capitalists seek profit, which can only come under a capitalist system.


3 generations each generation got worse with the teachings of “ Hate your nation” — Hate being white—this is Communism———-taught right in your public school system and now they teach you to hate whitey at your jobs.
Like Coke.

They deny and they lie as soon as ppl pick up on this and learn they really do lie through their teeth you’ll see you’ve all been played as fools. Those of you who can’t see what we all keep trying to tell your sleeping selves.

View attachment 634072

You and l Rectenwald are brain dead.
Communists and socialists engage in capitalism, every country on earth does so.
WTF do republicans think everyone wants to live under THEIR version of socialism?