So perhaps Trump supporters can explain why they're so against socialism. Two of the largest three contributing stimulative factors -- massive government spending and the Fed's actions -- would have been considered terrible just four years ago, yet the attacks on socialism (whatever the hell the definition is that the person is using) are only escalating.
Can someone explain this, reasonably, civilly, intelligently, and with original, independent thought?
.
Because all of that stimulus and incentive, if dumped into a socialist system, would not be having similar impact.
Capitalism, for all of its flaws, encourages competition to generate profits, which generates activity. It is this resulting reaction to stimulus that takes these incentives and turns them into results.
If we take away the potential for returns on these efforts, we take away the activity which generates the actual growth.
For all of the govt money pouring in individuals and corporations still have to assume some risk in order to undertake the activities necessary to grow and compete. In the classic risk-return relationship if the return is reduced or removed there will be no reason to take the risk and therefore no activity and therefore no growth.
That would be an argument against real socialism, and I'd certainly agree.
The issue here is that Trump and his supporters are proudly boasting about the economy, when it's clear that
some of the stimulus and assistance to the system is being provided by government spending and Fed intervention - two actions that these same people would have been attacking just four years ago as being socialist.
If they want to brag about the economy - and by the way, that's fine with me, as I pointed out in the OP - at
least they can be intellectually honest enough to admit that this isn't just about tax cuts and deregulation.
But as we're seeing on this thread, they are not. And I'm certainly not surprised.
.
Yes, I know you understand economics and finance, so I wondered a bit why you were asking the question.
Anyhow, I think what we're seeing here is two sides of the same coin, and it boils down to partisanship.
If, as you say, that these actions would have been decried 4 years ago by the same people supporting them now, that's partisanship.
If the same people that supported the previous administration and are still giving it credit for the current economy are criticizing these actions, that's partisanship.
We can argue, I suppose, that other actions of the 2 administrations have distinguished themselves from one another and there I'd have to agree.
Obama was all about Obamacare, carbon credits (the price of energy will necessarily skyrocket he famously said and that factor would have without question have slowed the economy) and other things that took us further down the path of Govt sponsered/controlled this or that (eg. Socialism).
Trump has seemingly gone the other direction on a lot of this. He pulled out of the Paris accord and other things that were in the works that may have impacted the economy negatively, he has rolled back regulations etc., so the argument, I think, can be made that while the inputs in terms of stimulus could be considered similar, it is the playing field that has changed through these actions, and we will hope to see improved returns on this stimulus due to a more friendly to business (less Socialistic) business environment.
True or not, I don't know. It's also pretty clear that the modern brand of capitalism has some serious holes in it which don't by any means guarantee that these benefits will accrue here, as companies take these benefits, use them to their advantage, and then bolt for other venues as soon as those are more lucrative.
