The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
The Unfavorability of Socialism
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From YouGov, socialism favorability scores* by various demographic characteristics:

Some Bernie Sanders supporters may be glad to shed the “democratic” pretension, but most Americans never thought it fit to begin with.

Does spending infinity trillion dollars on monetary and fiscal stimulus while facing an old neo-liberal warhorse instead of a self-described socialist change the America-will-never-be-a-socialist-country electoral game plan? Guess we’ll find out.

* Computed by doubling the percentages strongly favorable, adding the percentages somewhat favorable, subtracting the percentages somewhat unfavorable, and subtracting twice the percentages strongly unfavorable

 
Hide 79 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Whaaa? How does this square up with the numbers in your recent post Sympathy for the Socialism. You had me all down in the dumps, and now “the skies above are clear again …” Hey, if I wanted this roller-coaster of emotions, I could get off the internet and buy a couple of different bottles of pills:

    (Listen to the verse at the end – instead of “bottle of red, bottle of white”, I’m pretty sure Billy Joel sings “bottle of reds, bottle of whites … whatever kind of mood you’re in tonight”. What a fantastic song writer!)

    • Replies: @Adam Smith
    A bottle of Secobarbital, a bottle of Dextroamphetamine...

    Glad to hear your skies are clear again...
    , @Vendetta
    The survey in the last one didn’t use the word socialism. Socialist policies are popular, the word socialism is not.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Branding matters. This goes a long way in explaining it:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li4PG7nmlyM

    Sanders lost. He couldn't have handled winning, anyway. But the ghost of Sanders will win.
  2. If the number for Asians is anything close to the others category, it is truly sad, considering Asian-Americans were at one time some of the most staunch anti-communists along with Cuban-Americans.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    Lots of recent arrivals from China who <3 the CCP.
    , @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    Why does that surprise you?

    "Asians" are an alien people incompatible to live with whites; and certainly incompatible with the ideas of the founders, who created a country for their own people to live freely.

    Not sure why you seem to present being "staunchly anti-communist" as a good reason to allow an alien tribe to live among us. Assimilation is only skin deep.

    On TOP of everything else, the vast majority of "Asians" have dual loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party. Just because they're quiet and commit few crimes doesn't make them a model minority. They hate us just as much as the blacks.
  3. That survey wold be interesting if we had the slightest idea what people think of when they hear the word socialism.

    The extreme negative views of the over-65 age group are likely to be simply a vestige of the Cold War fear of evil commies wanting to get their hands on our precious bodily fluids.

    Quite a few of those with supposedly negative views of socialism probably support lots of socialist policies, as long as they’re not associated with those scary words Socialism and Communism.

    This survey is like asking people if they have favourable views of justice and freedom. It all depends on how the individual defines those terms. Most people would say they have favourable views on freedom, even the ones who are keen to take away freedoms from Bad People.

    • Replies: @iffen
    “Words are all we have.”

    ― Samuel Beckett
    , @nebulafox
    Looking at it soberly, nobody seriously has proposed an alternative to the current market system we've got. A nation like Sweden heavily regulates market mechanisms: they don't try to actively prevent them. So, if Sweden is indeed "socialist", then maybe the term isn't that helpful of a describer.

    You'd have to go back to actual Communist countries for people who seriously tried to abolish market mechanisms, and considering what a miserable failure Communism turned out to be, nobody wants to ape them. Even the throwback holdouts like North Korea and Laos have embraced market mechanisms-Kim Jong Un deleted any reference to Marxism at all in the DPRK's Constitution back in 2013.

    >Quite a few of those with supposedly negative views of socialism probably support lots of socialist policies, as long as they’re not associated with those scary words Socialism and Communism.

    Your average American voter is not a moderate. Your average American voter contains a mixture of far-left, far-right, and common sensical/a-ideological views, which tends to be quite alien from the political class.

    The problem with a lot of left-wing politicians in the US has traditionally been that they've forgotten they aren't dealing with Europeans. You'd be surprised what people will advocate if dressed up correctly. But with the increasing Europeanization of American politics-especially for the young-maybe this might change in any event. Certainly the notion tying health care to your employer to the extent that the US does is going to take a massive dent in popularity with this pandemic.

  4. @dfordoom
    That survey wold be interesting if we had the slightest idea what people think of when they hear the word socialism.

    The extreme negative views of the over-65 age group are likely to be simply a vestige of the Cold War fear of evil commies wanting to get their hands on our precious bodily fluids.

    Quite a few of those with supposedly negative views of socialism probably support lots of socialist policies, as long as they're not associated with those scary words Socialism and Communism.

    This survey is like asking people if they have favourable views of justice and freedom. It all depends on how the individual defines those terms. Most people would say they have favourable views on freedom, even the ones who are keen to take away freedoms from Bad People.

    “Words are all we have.”

    ― Samuel Beckett

  5. @dfordoom
    That survey wold be interesting if we had the slightest idea what people think of when they hear the word socialism.

    The extreme negative views of the over-65 age group are likely to be simply a vestige of the Cold War fear of evil commies wanting to get their hands on our precious bodily fluids.

    Quite a few of those with supposedly negative views of socialism probably support lots of socialist policies, as long as they're not associated with those scary words Socialism and Communism.

    This survey is like asking people if they have favourable views of justice and freedom. It all depends on how the individual defines those terms. Most people would say they have favourable views on freedom, even the ones who are keen to take away freedoms from Bad People.

    Looking at it soberly, nobody seriously has proposed an alternative to the current market system we’ve got. A nation like Sweden heavily regulates market mechanisms: they don’t try to actively prevent them. So, if Sweden is indeed “socialist”, then maybe the term isn’t that helpful of a describer.

    You’d have to go back to actual Communist countries for people who seriously tried to abolish market mechanisms, and considering what a miserable failure Communism turned out to be, nobody wants to ape them. Even the throwback holdouts like North Korea and Laos have embraced market mechanisms-Kim Jong Un deleted any reference to Marxism at all in the DPRK’s Constitution back in 2013.

    >Quite a few of those with supposedly negative views of socialism probably support lots of socialist policies, as long as they’re not associated with those scary words Socialism and Communism.

    Your average American voter is not a moderate. Your average American voter contains a mixture of far-left, far-right, and common sensical/a-ideological views, which tends to be quite alien from the political class.

    The problem with a lot of left-wing politicians in the US has traditionally been that they’ve forgotten they aren’t dealing with Europeans. You’d be surprised what people will advocate if dressed up correctly. But with the increasing Europeanization of American politics-especially for the young-maybe this might change in any event. Certainly the notion tying health care to your employer to the extent that the US does is going to take a massive dent in popularity with this pandemic.

    • Replies: @songbird

    with the increasing Europeanization of American politics-especially for the young
     
    I would say the reverse, that European politics are being Americanized through the injection of race, though naturally there are limits to the analogy.

    Meanwhile, the socialization of American politics is different than what the traditional acceptance of the word socialism in Europe entails, as its demographic base differs and therefore, by function, its characteristics are different.
    , @snorlax

    Kim Jong Un deleted any reference to Marxism at all in the DPRK’s Constitution back in 2013.
     
    Not true.

    If, as a drinking game, you took a sip every time the word "socialism" or "socialist" appeared in the latest version of the "Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea," you'd be dead.

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Socialist_Constitution_of_the_Democratic_People%27s_Republic_of_Korea_(2016)

    , @Curmudgeon
    In addition to what dfordoom notes, I would add that I discovered, almost 50 years ago, that what passes for "socialism" in the US was (is?) considered normal every day good government in Europe. If you care about your citizens' health, you have a universal health care system. If you want to compete in the world, you have to educate your children. Unemployment takes money out of the economy. Full employment is the goal, and meaningful employment is important to your well-being.
    I would add, that the co-operative movement was huge in Europe 50 years ago, including Sweden. Co-operatives are the basis of socialism. Today's Sweden, however, is not the Sweden of 5o years ago, when immigration was frowned upon, and those who were allowed in, integrated or were deported. The same could be said for the other Scandinavian countries.
    The most heavily regulated are employment and safety standards. I recall seeing a man jack hammering concrete on a street. He had safety goggles, hearing protection, and special overalls, things unheard of in North America at the time. Employment standards were typically 4 weeks vacation with pay, per year, plus about a dozen paid statutory holidays per year. North America was a backwater, comparatively.
    Was it more expensive? Yes, but income disparity was more compressed. The lowest paid weren't falling behind like they were in North America. They were traveling for vacation, just as the high income earners.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    A market-based system with a large amount of redistribution seems to be what the modal American wants. UBI is the most straightforward mechanism for getting there. Charles Murray was a couple of decades early, Andrew Yang a couple of years early, but I think it's coming.
  6. Hilary Clinton would have won if that’s the reasoning. Your average American voter contains a mixture of far-left, far-right, and common sensical/a-ideological views, which tends to be quite alien from the political class.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Did Hillary Clinton ever embrace the term "socialism"? I don't think she did.
  7. The groups that are most favorable to socialism are blacks and those under thirty. The group that is least favorable to socialism are white males over 45. When people in general think of socialism they probably think of young black men impregnating young black women and then the government giving the women welfare to raise their kids. So that would be why younger blacks would support it and the older white males who have higher incomes and more assets and who are paying the taxes for the welfare state would oppose it.

    Something like government bailouts for big corporations is socialism for the rich but a lot of people don’t think of that as socialism even though it is. Socialists would be better off focusing on opposing this sort of thing rather than just being hostile to rich people in general.

    • Replies: @botazefa

    So that would be why younger blacks would support it and the older white males
     
    I'd argue that the average survey respondent, whether black American or white, doesn't have any idea what socialism is or how it would or would impact their individual lives.
    , @Jay Fink
    I have thought it through more than most of my fellow white males over 45 but I don't see giving welfare to mothers as socialism. It is something I passionately oppose, but it's totally status quo. Everyone from a conservative Republican to a neoliberal will keep giving handouts to mothers, especially single mothers, and pretty much no one else.

    I see Socialism as a system that would allow other people besides single mothers to have a safety net. This is why Bernie Sanders had appeal to me. I want one extreme or the other. Either cut off everybody or give to everyone in need.

  8. @Achmed E. Newman
    Whaaa? How does this square up with the numbers in your recent post Sympathy for the Socialism. You had me all down in the dumps, and now "the skies above are clear again ..." Hey, if I wanted this roller-coaster of emotions, I could get off the internet and buy a couple of different bottles of pills:

    (Listen to the verse at the end - instead of "bottle of red, bottle of white", I'm pretty sure Billy Joel sings "bottle of reds, bottle of whites ... whatever kind of mood you're in tonight". What a fantastic song writer!)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hxx8IWIvKg0

    A bottle of Secobarbital, a bottle of Dextroamphetamine…

    Glad to hear your skies are clear again…

    • Thanks: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    A bottle of Secobarbital, a bottle of Dextroamphetamine…
     
    That does give the listener a lot more detail, but then there is the question of the meter.

    No, you and I better stick to economics and let Bill Joel stick to songwriting. ;-}
  9. Not sure how useful polling this word is – most people don’t really know what it entails so they can be unfavorable towards it in theory but like a lot of the individual policies that are socialist.

    • Agree: botazefa
  10. @nebulafox
    Looking at it soberly, nobody seriously has proposed an alternative to the current market system we've got. A nation like Sweden heavily regulates market mechanisms: they don't try to actively prevent them. So, if Sweden is indeed "socialist", then maybe the term isn't that helpful of a describer.

    You'd have to go back to actual Communist countries for people who seriously tried to abolish market mechanisms, and considering what a miserable failure Communism turned out to be, nobody wants to ape them. Even the throwback holdouts like North Korea and Laos have embraced market mechanisms-Kim Jong Un deleted any reference to Marxism at all in the DPRK's Constitution back in 2013.

    >Quite a few of those with supposedly negative views of socialism probably support lots of socialist policies, as long as they’re not associated with those scary words Socialism and Communism.

    Your average American voter is not a moderate. Your average American voter contains a mixture of far-left, far-right, and common sensical/a-ideological views, which tends to be quite alien from the political class.

    The problem with a lot of left-wing politicians in the US has traditionally been that they've forgotten they aren't dealing with Europeans. You'd be surprised what people will advocate if dressed up correctly. But with the increasing Europeanization of American politics-especially for the young-maybe this might change in any event. Certainly the notion tying health care to your employer to the extent that the US does is going to take a massive dent in popularity with this pandemic.

    with the increasing Europeanization of American politics-especially for the young

    I would say the reverse, that European politics are being Americanized through the injection of race, though naturally there are limits to the analogy.

    Meanwhile, the socialization of American politics is different than what the traditional acceptance of the word socialism in Europe entails, as its demographic base differs and therefore, by function, its characteristics are different.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    I'm really not sure about that: the long-term future of the American Right in particular seems a lot more Front National than Contract With America or Cato Institute. It's also going to be more secular, which some leftists have belatedly realized might not be such a good thing for them.

    Whether this is good, bad, or a mix depends on who you are.

  11. @Mark G.
    The groups that are most favorable to socialism are blacks and those under thirty. The group that is least favorable to socialism are white males over 45. When people in general think of socialism they probably think of young black men impregnating young black women and then the government giving the women welfare to raise their kids. So that would be why younger blacks would support it and the older white males who have higher incomes and more assets and who are paying the taxes for the welfare state would oppose it.

    Something like government bailouts for big corporations is socialism for the rich but a lot of people don't think of that as socialism even though it is. Socialists would be better off focusing on opposing this sort of thing rather than just being hostile to rich people in general.

    So that would be why younger blacks would support it and the older white males

    I’d argue that the average survey respondent, whether black American or white, doesn’t have any idea what socialism is or how it would or would impact their individual lives.

  12. Socialism suffers not just from its association with the Soviet states but also from the conviction of many (e.g., me) that socialists no more interested in the welfare of the working class than the capitalists are. In lieu of empowering the working class (whom many socialists openly despise), they empower a class of empire-building bureaucrats who mooch off the wealth created by the capitalist economy and dole out out the wealth that’s left as they see fit. Their intent is to cement their own power while creating a dependent population who won’t rock the boat. This means they are also enemies of traditional values and the people who support them. Self-supporting, male-headed families who don’t need the socialists’ largesse and resent their intrusions are poison to them. They have made common cause with the neo-liberals to extinguish such people by cutting their economic throats via open borders and outsourcing.

  13. I initially read this headline as “The Unaffordability of Socialism,” which seems to make the point unto itself.

  14. There’s a lot of wiggle room between socialism and not-socialism. Mostly, it’s in how you phrase it and what specific policies you are proposing. Luckily for the U.S. (so far), the democrats have chased out all the smart, attractive and straight white males who could have sold it to the public. They are stuck with trouble-making AOCs and the like. She did a good job of sinking Bernie Sanders this year with her racist grandstanding. Turns out, people don’t like that either.

    Pew, 2018: “Six-in-ten Americans say it is the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage, including 31% who support a “single payer” approach to health insurance, according to a new national survey by Pew Research Center.”

    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/03/most-continue-to-say-ensuring-health-care-coverage-is-governments-responsibility/

    Pew, 2018: “Two-thirds of Americans favor raising federal minimum wage to $15 an hour

    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/30/two-thirds-of-americans-favor-raising-federal-minimum-wage-to-15-an-hour/

    Time, 2016: Most voters favor defense cuts

    https://time.com/4253842/defense-spending-obama-congress-poll-voters/

    Pew, 2017: “Few Americans support cuts to most government programs, including Medicaid

    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/26/few-americans-support-cuts-to-most-government-programs-including-medicaid/

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  15. Colleges have been hotbeds of Marxism for over a generation now. Its not for nothing that Bernie’s base was college kids. Women are more open to this than men.

    The youth and women are what will bring in socialism.

    Capitalism isn’t looking very good nowadays.

    Unemployment goes up by 6.6 Million every week.

    • Replies: @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    "Socialism" is inevitable given the demographic mix of the landmass formerly known as the USA. Remember that politics is partly genetic. The Italians, Jews, and Poles never did assimilate and the only groups voting Republican are English, Scottish, German.

    "Socialism" is also inevitable given the shocking greed displayed by the ruling class. If they didn't put the entire working class out of business, and continue to fuck over new grads by exporting jobs and importing cheap labour, socialism would not be nearly as popular.

    Those white men over 45 should have known this. I guess they were blinded by the $$$ to notice that Juan isn't actually a natural conservative. Any ruling class with a shred of common sense would see that you can't drain the country's economy entirely and not expect poor people demanding change.

  16. @Twinkie
    If the number for Asians is anything close to the others category, it is truly sad, considering Asian-Americans were at one time some of the most staunch anti-communists along with Cuban-Americans.

    Lots of recent arrivals from China who <3 the CCP.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    How many Chinese in the US do not like the CCP but are coerced into helping it?

    It'd be shame if something happened to your family here in Beijing while you're at Stanford. We're worried they may be Falun Gong members. Maybe you could prove they aren't by sending us some sensitive information from the lab you're working in?
  17. the “Socialism” branding is a poor strategic choice.

    however, bleating “SOCIALISM!!?!!?” like a bunch of pussies in response to every Populist Economic proposal is even dumber.

    Josh Hawley–a Republican Senator from Missouri–is now openly advocating for policies that could be reasonably described as “socialist”, and he is extremely correct in doing so.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/congress-should-protect-every-job-in-the-country-during-this-crisis/2020/04/08/5f48e1ac-79cd-11ea-9bee-c5bf9d2e3288_story.html

    a. direct cash payments from the government to citizens
    b. job guarantees on behalf of government
    c. reshoring of jobs incentivized by government funds

    all of these are not only great ideas, they are capable of being *the* dominant Political message for the future, if Populists in the GOP (and for that matter, the DNC) are willing to get over their fears of “SOCIALISM!!!!!11!!”

    “Left versus Right” is no longer a meaningful spectrum; it is “Populists vs Corporatists”.

    currently, both parties are dominated by Corporatists (the Uniparty is real, after all)–the first Politicians in either party to offer a package of “Economic Populism, with none of the Drag Queen Story Hour insanity” will have an opportunity to go as far and as fast as they’d like to go.

  18. @nebulafox
    Looking at it soberly, nobody seriously has proposed an alternative to the current market system we've got. A nation like Sweden heavily regulates market mechanisms: they don't try to actively prevent them. So, if Sweden is indeed "socialist", then maybe the term isn't that helpful of a describer.

    You'd have to go back to actual Communist countries for people who seriously tried to abolish market mechanisms, and considering what a miserable failure Communism turned out to be, nobody wants to ape them. Even the throwback holdouts like North Korea and Laos have embraced market mechanisms-Kim Jong Un deleted any reference to Marxism at all in the DPRK's Constitution back in 2013.

    >Quite a few of those with supposedly negative views of socialism probably support lots of socialist policies, as long as they’re not associated with those scary words Socialism and Communism.

    Your average American voter is not a moderate. Your average American voter contains a mixture of far-left, far-right, and common sensical/a-ideological views, which tends to be quite alien from the political class.

    The problem with a lot of left-wing politicians in the US has traditionally been that they've forgotten they aren't dealing with Europeans. You'd be surprised what people will advocate if dressed up correctly. But with the increasing Europeanization of American politics-especially for the young-maybe this might change in any event. Certainly the notion tying health care to your employer to the extent that the US does is going to take a massive dent in popularity with this pandemic.

    Kim Jong Un deleted any reference to Marxism at all in the DPRK’s Constitution back in 2013.

    Not true.

    If, as a drinking game, you took a sip every time the word “socialism” or “socialist” appeared in the latest version of the “Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,” you’d be dead.

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Socialist_Constitution_of_the_Democratic_People%27s_Republic_of_Korea_(2016)

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    I said Marxism, not socialism. No reference to Communism in there, either. Socialism and hardcore ethno-nationalism aren't incompatible at all, contra Marxist dogma: plenty of Asian countries pulled it off, and even the USSR was much more traditional Muscovite imperium with proletarian slogans than the official propaganda ever admitted. (From Stalin onwards, the USSR was also socially conservative to a degree that would impress many here and shocked many a Western left-wing visitor, despite its atheism.)

    The DPRK is a ethno-nationalist, racialist state: and I mean the real thing, not what the PC Mafia would call "racist". Google BR Myers' "The Cleanest Race" for more. I do have my disagreements. Judging from interviews, Myers tends to downplay the role of Stalinism in the DPRK's historical development and the rationality of the current regime, ethnic supremacism aside: perhaps this is due to his own left-wing background. I also completely disagree with his insistence that how Kim Jong Un personally-as opposed to his father-views the world doesn't matter. But that doesn't change the fact that his basic thesis is totally correct. If you learn some Korean and listen to what the North tells its own people, rather than what it tells the world, you can't doubt that. And nationalism tends to motivate average people to go through sacrifices way more than anything else can: the North Korean regime is still around for a reason.

    (Though as with all subjects, since I'm not an expert on the subject, I defer to other people who are... that's part of the point of commenting here.)

  19. @Twinkie
    If the number for Asians is anything close to the others category, it is truly sad, considering Asian-Americans were at one time some of the most staunch anti-communists along with Cuban-Americans.

    Why does that surprise you?

    “Asians” are an alien people incompatible to live with whites; and certainly incompatible with the ideas of the founders, who created a country for their own people to live freely.

    Not sure why you seem to present being “staunchly anti-communist” as a good reason to allow an alien tribe to live among us. Assimilation is only skin deep.

    On TOP of everything else, the vast majority of “Asians” have dual loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party. Just because they’re quiet and commit few crimes doesn’t make them a model minority. They hate us just as much as the blacks.

    • Replies: @SimplePseudonymicHandle
    Yes yes yes
    All of those Japanese, South Koreans, Taiwanese, Filipinos, Malaysians, Indonesians, Nepalese, Singaporeans, Hong Kongers, Mongolians and Thais, with their "dual loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party", I've heard about them. Oh and India, we must not forget India, huge contingent of Chinese Communist Indians, don't you know?
  20. @Dr. Doom
    Colleges have been hotbeds of Marxism for over a generation now. Its not for nothing that Bernie's base was college kids. Women are more open to this than men.

    The youth and women are what will bring in socialism.

    Capitalism isn't looking very good nowadays.

    Unemployment goes up by 6.6 Million every week.

    “Socialism” is inevitable given the demographic mix of the landmass formerly known as the USA. Remember that politics is partly genetic. The Italians, Jews, and Poles never did assimilate and the only groups voting Republican are English, Scottish, German.

    “Socialism” is also inevitable given the shocking greed displayed by the ruling class. If they didn’t put the entire working class out of business, and continue to fuck over new grads by exporting jobs and importing cheap labour, socialism would not be nearly as popular.

    Those white men over 45 should have known this. I guess they were blinded by the $$$ to notice that Juan isn’t actually a natural conservative. Any ruling class with a shred of common sense would see that you can’t drain the country’s economy entirely and not expect poor people demanding change.

  21. I’m in the mood to not make any friends.

    When it comes to math, the typical American wouldn’t know his asymptote from a hole in the graph, and a similar sentence could be written about their knowledge of pretty much any other topic.

    In short, the typical American is a Dunning-Kruger poster child whose opinion on any topic, other than professional sportsball, should be given zero respect.

    (As an aside, I regard the majority of the UR commentariat to not be typical Americans. Please help me maintain that view.)

    Let me give some examples from my personal experience to back up my viewpoint.

    1) I was recently over hearing a conversation between two boomers (I only mention age for context). At one point, they were talking about Russia and one of the boomers expressed his understanding that Russia is so dictatorial that “the dude with that red mark on his head is still their leader.” He wasn’t being sarcastic! That statement was made in late 2019 after three years of “Vladimir,” “Putin” and “Russia” being the most common words in the American news cycle.

    2) I was recently “conversing” with a boomer feminist/Hillary lover who was complaining about how “sexist” Bernie Sanders is. I asked her if she was aware that the leading Democrat (Biden) had gratuitously insulted a “dog-faced” young woman for asking a reasonable, polite question. She proceed to make excuses for Biden and explain why that isn’t “sexism.”

    3) Not too long ago I was having a talk with an androgynous millennial who was really enthusiastic about all this transmania. I asked “him” if the women doing prison time for non-violent offenses should have to risk sharing a cell with a violent Y-chromosome felon just because the latter claims to be a woman. What followed was a bunch of gibberish that at the end of the day meant siding with the feelings of the violent felon against the physical safety and feelings of the non-violent women.

    4) I have had several conversations in which I have asked Trump haters (I could be described as one, at least after 3 years of this clown) to please explain the key evidence for Russia-gate or Ukraine-gate. Rather than giving me any evidence, they proceeded to get angry and demanded to know why I like Trump.

    5) Many years ago I was talking with a very intelligent peer (who could code like a beast) about all the GWOT infringements on civil liberties. I told him to justify letting TSA goons grope six year old blonde and blue-eyed (clearly non-Muslim) kids or undress wheelchair-bound, diaper-wearing 90 year olds. With a straight he said “they could be AQ members too, there is no way to know!”

    Let me tell you, if people like that are answering surveys like this (and random sampling suggests that is exactly who is responding), no opinion, up or down really, on “socialism” matters one bit. These people are not competent to wipe their own behinds with there endless stock piles of apocalypse toilet paper .

    These are not just drooling morons. In fact, it is worse than that. The typical American is physically, intellectually, and morally repulsive.

    The typical American is an individual happy to pay for the carpet bombing of dirt poor brown people, while jerking off to the televised war porn, but suddenly gets angry about a tiny fraction of those same tax dollars going to make sure a poor kid in American can see a doctor.

    The typical Red team voter doesn’t believe the “government” is competent enough to pay medical bills, but simultaneously believes that same government is competent to destroy and then rebuild the entire nation of Iraq.

    The typical Blue team voter will make excuses for Hillary’s Iraq war vote or her push to destroy Libya and turn it into a failed state with open slave markets, while bleating about how Trump is a mean orange racist man for his Muslim “travel ban.”

    Sadly, typical Americans are the very cattle that our Tribe Inc leaders say they are.

    American is a 21st century Sodom and Gomorrah, an in the flesh Whore of Babylon, and Land of Lucifer. Her collapse is a moral imperative.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    (As an aside, I regard the majority of the UR commentariat to not be typical Americans. Please help me maintain that view.)
     
    The typical American UR reader moved beyond the trite dichotomies you describe about 15 years ago. However, if you're going to continue looking at people through that paradigm, you won't stop seeing them no matter what.

    A case in point. Several weeks back you wrote a long and impassioned reply to one of my comments in which I criticized Bernie Sanders and his supporters. I never responded to that reply because it seemed like you were simply using the occasion to issue a manifesto that was only tangentially related to my point. You spoke as if you had me pegged as a tub-thumping American antisocialist of the GOPe school. If you were at all familiar with my commenting history, you would know I was nothing of the kind.

    I believe in market discipline, yes, but I am also fairly dirigiste on the political economy front. I have advocated nationalizing industry and radically raising wages in order to inflate away the debt while gradually returning to a gold standard. I have advanced several unusual proposals such as eliminating corporate branding, selling raw foodstuffs and chemicals in bulk, and prohibiting private citizens from owning securities. I am a "Prussian Socialist," a Catholic syndicalist, a distributionist, and a feudalist, but I have never anywhere thrown in with American crony capitalism. I simply did not recognize the person you were replying to.

    If you'd like us to help you maintain your high opinion of us, please do take the time to read what we actually write.

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    I can't remember what it was we disagreed on a few weeks back, Mario, but in this comment, man, your examples (1) though (5) are very well written and extremely illustrative! There are lots of people that think this way, or as you note for some, don't have the awareness of politics to separate now from 30 years ago. Are these people the majority of Americans? I think it depends if you get people who have opinions but are extremely ignorant about politics vs. people who know that they don't know much about it.

    Other than some of our differences on this Kung Flu clusterfuck, the wife and I agree because she freely admits (I don't have to tickle her, that means) that she doesn't know squat all about politics. She didn't vote in '16, because I wouldn't help her register without a promise that she'd vote for Trump. (I agree with you on him too. I had every hope for the guy, but he's been a clown.)

    On your very last sentence. I don't wish ill on the American people. I was hoping that by "Her collapse" you meant just the US Feral Government.
    , @Not my economy
    Ok so you basically hate me and my family and you want our living standard to drop out the bottom and many of us likely die...

    What is the word for people like you — Enemy

    How many passports you got dude

    Fuck out of here lmao
  22. @Mario Partisan
    I’m in the mood to not make any friends.

    When it comes to math, the typical American wouldn’t know his asymptote from a hole in the graph, and a similar sentence could be written about their knowledge of pretty much any other topic.

    In short, the typical American is a Dunning-Kruger poster child whose opinion on any topic, other than professional sportsball, should be given zero respect.

    (As an aside, I regard the majority of the UR commentariat to not be typical Americans. Please help me maintain that view.)

    Let me give some examples from my personal experience to back up my viewpoint.

    1) I was recently over hearing a conversation between two boomers (I only mention age for context). At one point, they were talking about Russia and one of the boomers expressed his understanding that Russia is so dictatorial that “the dude with that red mark on his head is still their leader.” He wasn’t being sarcastic! That statement was made in late 2019 after three years of “Vladimir,” “Putin” and “Russia” being the most common words in the American news cycle.

    2) I was recently “conversing” with a boomer feminist/Hillary lover who was complaining about how “sexist” Bernie Sanders is. I asked her if she was aware that the leading Democrat (Biden) had gratuitously insulted a “dog-faced” young woman for asking a reasonable, polite question. She proceed to make excuses for Biden and explain why that isn’t “sexism.”

    3) Not too long ago I was having a talk with an androgynous millennial who was really enthusiastic about all this transmania. I asked “him” if the women doing prison time for non-violent offenses should have to risk sharing a cell with a violent Y-chromosome felon just because the latter claims to be a woman. What followed was a bunch of gibberish that at the end of the day meant siding with the feelings of the violent felon against the physical safety and feelings of the non-violent women.

    4) I have had several conversations in which I have asked Trump haters (I could be described as one, at least after 3 years of this clown) to please explain the key evidence for Russia-gate or Ukraine-gate. Rather than giving me any evidence, they proceeded to get angry and demanded to know why I like Trump.

    5) Many years ago I was talking with a very intelligent peer (who could code like a beast) about all the GWOT infringements on civil liberties. I told him to justify letting TSA goons grope six year old blonde and blue-eyed (clearly non-Muslim) kids or undress wheelchair-bound, diaper-wearing 90 year olds. With a straight he said “they could be AQ members too, there is no way to know!”

    Let me tell you, if people like that are answering surveys like this (and random sampling suggests that is exactly who is responding), no opinion, up or down really, on “socialism” matters one bit. These people are not competent to wipe their own behinds with there endless stock piles of apocalypse toilet paper .

    These are not just drooling morons. In fact, it is worse than that. The typical American is physically, intellectually, and morally repulsive.

    The typical American is an individual happy to pay for the carpet bombing of dirt poor brown people, while jerking off to the televised war porn, but suddenly gets angry about a tiny fraction of those same tax dollars going to make sure a poor kid in American can see a doctor.

    The typical Red team voter doesn’t believe the “government” is competent enough to pay medical bills, but simultaneously believes that same government is competent to destroy and then rebuild the entire nation of Iraq.

    The typical Blue team voter will make excuses for Hillary’s Iraq war vote or her push to destroy Libya and turn it into a failed state with open slave markets, while bleating about how Trump is a mean orange racist man for his Muslim “travel ban.”

    Sadly, typical Americans are the very cattle that our Tribe Inc leaders say they are.

    American is a 21st century Sodom and Gomorrah, an in the flesh Whore of Babylon, and Land of Lucifer. Her collapse is a moral imperative.

    (As an aside, I regard the majority of the UR commentariat to not be typical Americans. Please help me maintain that view.)

    The typical American UR reader moved beyond the trite dichotomies you describe about 15 years ago. However, if you’re going to continue looking at people through that paradigm, you won’t stop seeing them no matter what.

    A case in point. Several weeks back you wrote a long and impassioned reply to one of my comments in which I criticized Bernie Sanders and his supporters. I never responded to that reply because it seemed like you were simply using the occasion to issue a manifesto that was only tangentially related to my point. You spoke as if you had me pegged as a tub-thumping American antisocialist of the GOPe school. If you were at all familiar with my commenting history, you would know I was nothing of the kind.

    I believe in market discipline, yes, but I am also fairly dirigiste on the political economy front. I have advocated nationalizing industry and radically raising wages in order to inflate away the debt while gradually returning to a gold standard. I have advanced several unusual proposals such as eliminating corporate branding, selling raw foodstuffs and chemicals in bulk, and prohibiting private citizens from owning securities. I am a “Prussian Socialist,” a Catholic syndicalist, a distributionist, and a feudalist, but I have never anywhere thrown in with American crony capitalism. I simply did not recognize the person you were replying to.

    If you’d like us to help you maintain your high opinion of us, please do take the time to read what we actually write.

    • Replies: @Big Dick Bandit
    what do you mean by 'eliminate corporate branding'
    , @Mario Partisan

    The typical American UR reader moved beyond the trite dichotomies you describe about 15 years ago. However, if you’re going to continue looking at people through that paradigm, you won’t stop seeing them no matter what.
     
    Mr. Dasein (?), I am well aware that the “typical American UR reader” does not fit into the “trite dichotomies” that are typical of the American electorate. That is why I am a UR regular and very much appreciate this website and many of its commenters.

    And look, I don’t look at people through that simplistic paradigm, unless they give me good reason to believe that the paradigm fits them.

    If you’d like us to help you maintain your high opinion of us, please do take the time to read what we actually write.

     

    And let me be clear: I don’t view you through that paradigm. In fact, I often read your posts when I come across them and often find your perspectives to be interesting even when I disagree.

    For example: without looking it up, I recall a comment of yours from a while back in which you were highly critical of the policies characteristic of European social democracy and yet praised Rabbi Marx for the more esoteric aspects of his philosophy such as dialectical materialism. My thought was: I disagree with his dismissal of many of those policies but this “guy” is different. Very few people would be able to even cite something like that, let alone discuss it.

    So, when I was responding to you I was not of the belief that you fall into some trite category. I don’t mean to boast, but understand that I have a strangely good long-term memory (where I set my keys 2 minutes ago, forget about it) and I gradually gathered after only vaguely reading your comments over time that you’re a kind of “feudal socialist” along the lines of what Marx wrote about it the 3rd chapter of his manifesto. And that is by no means a trite perspective.

    But, in defense of my reply to you from a few weeks ago, let me say that my tone with you was not due to my pigeon holing you, but to what I considered to be your rude dismissal of Bernie bros such as myself. Perhaps I misread your intentions a bit, but you did dismiss those of us who appreciated his presence in the primary as “weak…losers.” My rude tone to you was a response to your rude tone. Unto others, get what you give, yada yada…

    What further got under my skin was that as you bashed Bernie and his bros, you went on to praise Uncle Joe as a person of substance whereas I find him to be a repulsive (and by now clearly senile) individual, who certainly would not even begin to advocate for, or probably even understand, the things like the “gold standard” or “eliminating corporate branding” that you advocate.

    Now, I understand that perhaps your point was that Bernie wasn’t a “real” candidate in the sense that he didn’t even expect or want to win. As things have progressed in the primary since our “argument” it is becoming clearer to me that that in fact is the case and that he is a tool by which the DNC keeps the more stridently leftist hopeful in the party, even if he doesn’t realize it. And long time Bernie supporter Jimmy Dore on YT is saying the same thing now. But if that was your point you could have made it better by expressing it in a more educating and less snarky tone. I probably would have agreed with you and been more respectful in return.

    Also, my “manifesto” on the virtues of a national health insurance system was in response to your characterization of Bernie’s campaign as a pursuit of a “Socialist Utopia.” I wanted to emphasize that many of us Bernie bros see his talking points not in some kind of idealistic framework but as a practical and very workable alternative to what we consider to be the costly, inefficient and irrational status quo. I also wanted to help and encourage those young, naïve, Bernie supporters who might be reading it, and whose hearts are in the right place, to frame their advocacy in a more “economistic” way rather than in moral terms. I saw it as a opportunity to help my fellow “weak losers” stand up for their ideas.

    Anyway, I hope we have a better understanding of each other now. Take care.
    , @Twinkie

    a distributionist
     
    A most redeeming quality!

    https://youtu.be/-4AtBBVZ73U
  23. @Intelligent Dasein

    (As an aside, I regard the majority of the UR commentariat to not be typical Americans. Please help me maintain that view.)
     
    The typical American UR reader moved beyond the trite dichotomies you describe about 15 years ago. However, if you're going to continue looking at people through that paradigm, you won't stop seeing them no matter what.

    A case in point. Several weeks back you wrote a long and impassioned reply to one of my comments in which I criticized Bernie Sanders and his supporters. I never responded to that reply because it seemed like you were simply using the occasion to issue a manifesto that was only tangentially related to my point. You spoke as if you had me pegged as a tub-thumping American antisocialist of the GOPe school. If you were at all familiar with my commenting history, you would know I was nothing of the kind.

    I believe in market discipline, yes, but I am also fairly dirigiste on the political economy front. I have advocated nationalizing industry and radically raising wages in order to inflate away the debt while gradually returning to a gold standard. I have advanced several unusual proposals such as eliminating corporate branding, selling raw foodstuffs and chemicals in bulk, and prohibiting private citizens from owning securities. I am a "Prussian Socialist," a Catholic syndicalist, a distributionist, and a feudalist, but I have never anywhere thrown in with American crony capitalism. I simply did not recognize the person you were replying to.

    If you'd like us to help you maintain your high opinion of us, please do take the time to read what we actually write.

    what do you mean by ‘eliminate corporate branding’

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    I mean we get rid of brand name products for basic foods and chemicals, easing these commodities out of the retail stream and selling them in bulk. An example I've used many times before is to just take a look down your grocery store's cereal aisle. There are a hundred different kinds of cereal on the shelf. On the next aisle, there are two dozen different shapes of mac n' cheese. There are 37 differnt flavors of Doritos.

    Each one of these products needs its own production line. Each one of them needs to be distributed and stocked. Each one is developed, field-tested, and marketed. Each one is sold at a huge markeup to enrich the corporation.

    This is all wasteful and excessive. The amount of wheat that could feed a family for a year could be purchased at a fraction of the cost that same family spends per year on all these corporate products. I think we should eliminate the corporation as a middleman, along with their needless advertising and PR spending, along with their pernicious public influence and SJW culture warring. Let the wheat be sold by a single national agricultural concern. Let it be sold in bulk, by the train car and by the bushel. Let it be consumed directly in that form or turned into value-added products by local bakers and artisans. Get rid of FritoLay, Pepsico, and the big box grocers. Let prices be set by the natural cost of the factors of production and pass that discount along to the end consumer.

  24. @Big Dick Bandit
    what do you mean by 'eliminate corporate branding'

    I mean we get rid of brand name products for basic foods and chemicals, easing these commodities out of the retail stream and selling them in bulk. An example I’ve used many times before is to just take a look down your grocery store’s cereal aisle. There are a hundred different kinds of cereal on the shelf. On the next aisle, there are two dozen different shapes of mac n’ cheese. There are 37 differnt flavors of Doritos.

    Each one of these products needs its own production line. Each one of them needs to be distributed and stocked. Each one is developed, field-tested, and marketed. Each one is sold at a huge markeup to enrich the corporation.

    This is all wasteful and excessive. The amount of wheat that could feed a family for a year could be purchased at a fraction of the cost that same family spends per year on all these corporate products. I think we should eliminate the corporation as a middleman, along with their needless advertising and PR spending, along with their pernicious public influence and SJW culture warring. Let the wheat be sold by a single national agricultural concern. Let it be sold in bulk, by the train car and by the bushel. Let it be consumed directly in that form or turned into value-added products by local bakers and artisans. Get rid of FritoLay, Pepsico, and the big box grocers. Let prices be set by the natural cost of the factors of production and pass that discount along to the end consumer.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    There are a hundred different kinds of cereal on the shelf. On the next aisle, there are two dozen different shapes of mac n’ cheese. There are 37 differnt flavors of Doritos.
     
    And you can buy them 24/7, because Walmart never closes. What is the point of that?
  25. A large portion of the commenters here on UR actually are socialists. They don’t call themselves that, but want socialism all the same. Things often said around here from regulars include :

    i) Support for a $25/hr minimum wage.
    ii) Fanatical support for labor unions.
    iii) Hatred of Capitalism.
    iv) General hatred of Trump, combined with significant support for Bernie Sanders.
    v) A support for tariffs
    vi) Boilerplate ‘tax the rich’ screeching.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    I wouldn't necessarily call myself a socialist, but if you can't understand why many people under the age of 35 are deeply hostile to the current economic status quo in the United States, I don't know what to tell you. We have a system that publicizes costs and privatizes gains: essentially, we *have* socialism for government-connected big corporations. The same people who chide the peasants for not having six month emergency funds (not that they shouldn't try to have that) seem to genuinely buy the notion that big corporations shouldn't have a one month one.

    That's not a long-term winning recipe for a healthy society.

    , @Big Dick Bandit
    those commenters are the smart ones.

    then on the other hand, you've got a bunch of drooling limpdicks, heehawing about ""SOCIALIZM!!!!"" while sucking off their corporate masters.

    "muh free markets!" you whine, while your fellow countrymen fill their lives with drugs and porn--no families for them! probably for the best, since all the schools are filled with illiterate El Salvadorians whose parents serve as the cheap labor your glorious Free Market requires to function.
  26. @Mario Partisan
    I’m in the mood to not make any friends.

    When it comes to math, the typical American wouldn’t know his asymptote from a hole in the graph, and a similar sentence could be written about their knowledge of pretty much any other topic.

    In short, the typical American is a Dunning-Kruger poster child whose opinion on any topic, other than professional sportsball, should be given zero respect.

    (As an aside, I regard the majority of the UR commentariat to not be typical Americans. Please help me maintain that view.)

    Let me give some examples from my personal experience to back up my viewpoint.

    1) I was recently over hearing a conversation between two boomers (I only mention age for context). At one point, they were talking about Russia and one of the boomers expressed his understanding that Russia is so dictatorial that “the dude with that red mark on his head is still their leader.” He wasn’t being sarcastic! That statement was made in late 2019 after three years of “Vladimir,” “Putin” and “Russia” being the most common words in the American news cycle.

    2) I was recently “conversing” with a boomer feminist/Hillary lover who was complaining about how “sexist” Bernie Sanders is. I asked her if she was aware that the leading Democrat (Biden) had gratuitously insulted a “dog-faced” young woman for asking a reasonable, polite question. She proceed to make excuses for Biden and explain why that isn’t “sexism.”

    3) Not too long ago I was having a talk with an androgynous millennial who was really enthusiastic about all this transmania. I asked “him” if the women doing prison time for non-violent offenses should have to risk sharing a cell with a violent Y-chromosome felon just because the latter claims to be a woman. What followed was a bunch of gibberish that at the end of the day meant siding with the feelings of the violent felon against the physical safety and feelings of the non-violent women.

    4) I have had several conversations in which I have asked Trump haters (I could be described as one, at least after 3 years of this clown) to please explain the key evidence for Russia-gate or Ukraine-gate. Rather than giving me any evidence, they proceeded to get angry and demanded to know why I like Trump.

    5) Many years ago I was talking with a very intelligent peer (who could code like a beast) about all the GWOT infringements on civil liberties. I told him to justify letting TSA goons grope six year old blonde and blue-eyed (clearly non-Muslim) kids or undress wheelchair-bound, diaper-wearing 90 year olds. With a straight he said “they could be AQ members too, there is no way to know!”

    Let me tell you, if people like that are answering surveys like this (and random sampling suggests that is exactly who is responding), no opinion, up or down really, on “socialism” matters one bit. These people are not competent to wipe their own behinds with there endless stock piles of apocalypse toilet paper .

    These are not just drooling morons. In fact, it is worse than that. The typical American is physically, intellectually, and morally repulsive.

    The typical American is an individual happy to pay for the carpet bombing of dirt poor brown people, while jerking off to the televised war porn, but suddenly gets angry about a tiny fraction of those same tax dollars going to make sure a poor kid in American can see a doctor.

    The typical Red team voter doesn’t believe the “government” is competent enough to pay medical bills, but simultaneously believes that same government is competent to destroy and then rebuild the entire nation of Iraq.

    The typical Blue team voter will make excuses for Hillary’s Iraq war vote or her push to destroy Libya and turn it into a failed state with open slave markets, while bleating about how Trump is a mean orange racist man for his Muslim “travel ban.”

    Sadly, typical Americans are the very cattle that our Tribe Inc leaders say they are.

    American is a 21st century Sodom and Gomorrah, an in the flesh Whore of Babylon, and Land of Lucifer. Her collapse is a moral imperative.

    I can’t remember what it was we disagreed on a few weeks back, Mario, but in this comment, man, your examples (1) though (5) are very well written and extremely illustrative! There are lots of people that think this way, or as you note for some, don’t have the awareness of politics to separate now from 30 years ago. Are these people the majority of Americans? I think it depends if you get people who have opinions but are extremely ignorant about politics vs. people who know that they don’t know much about it.

    Other than some of our differences on this Kung Flu clusterfuck, the wife and I agree because she freely admits (I don’t have to tickle her, that means) that she doesn’t know squat all about politics. She didn’t vote in ’16, because I wouldn’t help her register without a promise that she’d vote for Trump. (I agree with you on him too. I had every hope for the guy, but he’s been a clown.)

    On your very last sentence. I don’t wish ill on the American people. I was hoping that by “Her collapse” you meant just the US Feral Government.

    • Thanks: Mario Partisan
    • Replies: @botazefa

    I can’t remember what it was we disagreed on a few weeks back, Mario, but in this comment, man, your examples (1) though (5) are very well written and extremely illustrative!
     
    You're kidding, right?
  27. @Mario Partisan
    I’m in the mood to not make any friends.

    When it comes to math, the typical American wouldn’t know his asymptote from a hole in the graph, and a similar sentence could be written about their knowledge of pretty much any other topic.

    In short, the typical American is a Dunning-Kruger poster child whose opinion on any topic, other than professional sportsball, should be given zero respect.

    (As an aside, I regard the majority of the UR commentariat to not be typical Americans. Please help me maintain that view.)

    Let me give some examples from my personal experience to back up my viewpoint.

    1) I was recently over hearing a conversation between two boomers (I only mention age for context). At one point, they were talking about Russia and one of the boomers expressed his understanding that Russia is so dictatorial that “the dude with that red mark on his head is still their leader.” He wasn’t being sarcastic! That statement was made in late 2019 after three years of “Vladimir,” “Putin” and “Russia” being the most common words in the American news cycle.

    2) I was recently “conversing” with a boomer feminist/Hillary lover who was complaining about how “sexist” Bernie Sanders is. I asked her if she was aware that the leading Democrat (Biden) had gratuitously insulted a “dog-faced” young woman for asking a reasonable, polite question. She proceed to make excuses for Biden and explain why that isn’t “sexism.”

    3) Not too long ago I was having a talk with an androgynous millennial who was really enthusiastic about all this transmania. I asked “him” if the women doing prison time for non-violent offenses should have to risk sharing a cell with a violent Y-chromosome felon just because the latter claims to be a woman. What followed was a bunch of gibberish that at the end of the day meant siding with the feelings of the violent felon against the physical safety and feelings of the non-violent women.

    4) I have had several conversations in which I have asked Trump haters (I could be described as one, at least after 3 years of this clown) to please explain the key evidence for Russia-gate or Ukraine-gate. Rather than giving me any evidence, they proceeded to get angry and demanded to know why I like Trump.

    5) Many years ago I was talking with a very intelligent peer (who could code like a beast) about all the GWOT infringements on civil liberties. I told him to justify letting TSA goons grope six year old blonde and blue-eyed (clearly non-Muslim) kids or undress wheelchair-bound, diaper-wearing 90 year olds. With a straight he said “they could be AQ members too, there is no way to know!”

    Let me tell you, if people like that are answering surveys like this (and random sampling suggests that is exactly who is responding), no opinion, up or down really, on “socialism” matters one bit. These people are not competent to wipe their own behinds with there endless stock piles of apocalypse toilet paper .

    These are not just drooling morons. In fact, it is worse than that. The typical American is physically, intellectually, and morally repulsive.

    The typical American is an individual happy to pay for the carpet bombing of dirt poor brown people, while jerking off to the televised war porn, but suddenly gets angry about a tiny fraction of those same tax dollars going to make sure a poor kid in American can see a doctor.

    The typical Red team voter doesn’t believe the “government” is competent enough to pay medical bills, but simultaneously believes that same government is competent to destroy and then rebuild the entire nation of Iraq.

    The typical Blue team voter will make excuses for Hillary’s Iraq war vote or her push to destroy Libya and turn it into a failed state with open slave markets, while bleating about how Trump is a mean orange racist man for his Muslim “travel ban.”

    Sadly, typical Americans are the very cattle that our Tribe Inc leaders say they are.

    American is a 21st century Sodom and Gomorrah, an in the flesh Whore of Babylon, and Land of Lucifer. Her collapse is a moral imperative.

    Ok so you basically hate me and my family and you want our living standard to drop out the bottom and many of us likely die…

    What is the word for people like you — Enemy

    How many passports you got dude

    Fuck out of here lmao

    • Replies: @Mario Partisan
    If you are reacting to my last line then I can understand your hostility. It’s a hard thing for me to accept too.

    But if you are objecting to the rest then I do not know what to say.

    Put together my anecdotes describe a completely ignorant populace who believe themselves qualified to pontificate on matters they know nothing about, while they worship politicians who pander to their narcissistic identities, reject politicians who actually talk policies that might do something for them, get off on bombing 3rd world people who pose no threat to them, while they boast about how free they are while they are forced to watch some uniformed moron molest their little girl every time they want to travel.

    These are people who have had opportunity after opportunity to choose peace over war, to be neighbors to their fellow citizens, to resist the incessant push of tyranny. And they always choose wrong.

    Think about it: how much support did Ron Paul, or Nader, or Cynthia McKinney, or Tulsi, or Yang, or Mike Gravel, or Paul Wellstone, or Pat Buchanan or any other half decent person who was on a ballot get from the typical American who couldn’t bother to give two craps about them while those same Americans worshiped literal psychopaths like Hillary or Obama or W or all the endless child murdering oligarchs that they have hooted and hollered for in living memory.

    And my sentiments apply just as much to people in my family as they do yours. Do I hate them? Do I hate you? “Hate” isn’t the right word. I am disgusted with them and I realize that they have the “leaders” that they deserve and there is no point in people like me giving a crap about them. My heart has become cold and hard because that is the disposition required for maintaining my sanity while I watch the fruits of our nation’s sins ripen.
  28. @snorlax

    Kim Jong Un deleted any reference to Marxism at all in the DPRK’s Constitution back in 2013.
     
    Not true.

    If, as a drinking game, you took a sip every time the word "socialism" or "socialist" appeared in the latest version of the "Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea," you'd be dead.

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Socialist_Constitution_of_the_Democratic_People%27s_Republic_of_Korea_(2016)

    I said Marxism, not socialism. No reference to Communism in there, either. Socialism and hardcore ethno-nationalism aren’t incompatible at all, contra Marxist dogma: plenty of Asian countries pulled it off, and even the USSR was much more traditional Muscovite imperium with proletarian slogans than the official propaganda ever admitted. (From Stalin onwards, the USSR was also socially conservative to a degree that would impress many here and shocked many a Western left-wing visitor, despite its atheism.)

    The DPRK is a ethno-nationalist, racialist state: and I mean the real thing, not what the PC Mafia would call “racist”. Google BR Myers’ “The Cleanest Race” for more. I do have my disagreements. Judging from interviews, Myers tends to downplay the role of Stalinism in the DPRK’s historical development and the rationality of the current regime, ethnic supremacism aside: perhaps this is due to his own left-wing background. I also completely disagree with his insistence that how Kim Jong Un personally-as opposed to his father-views the world doesn’t matter. But that doesn’t change the fact that his basic thesis is totally correct. If you learn some Korean and listen to what the North tells its own people, rather than what it tells the world, you can’t doubt that. And nationalism tends to motivate average people to go through sacrifices way more than anything else can: the North Korean regime is still around for a reason.

    (Though as with all subjects, since I’m not an expert on the subject, I defer to other people who are… that’s part of the point of commenting here.)

  29. @Thomm
    A large portion of the commenters here on UR actually are socialists. They don't call themselves that, but want socialism all the same. Things often said around here from regulars include :

    i) Support for a $25/hr minimum wage.
    ii) Fanatical support for labor unions.
    iii) Hatred of Capitalism.
    iv) General hatred of Trump, combined with significant support for Bernie Sanders.
    v) A support for tariffs
    vi) Boilerplate 'tax the rich' screeching.

    I wouldn’t necessarily call myself a socialist, but if you can’t understand why many people under the age of 35 are deeply hostile to the current economic status quo in the United States, I don’t know what to tell you. We have a system that publicizes costs and privatizes gains: essentially, we *have* socialism for government-connected big corporations. The same people who chide the peasants for not having six month emergency funds (not that they shouldn’t try to have that) seem to genuinely buy the notion that big corporations shouldn’t have a one month one.

    That’s not a long-term winning recipe for a healthy society.

    • Replies: @Thomm

    We have a system that publicizes costs and privatizes gains:
     
    That is Corporatism, not socialism. Corporatism causes many problems, of course. Part of the problem is that this is a country where lawyers have too much power, and there is no counterbalancing force to their power.

    But the US is not yet a country where it is hard to get rich, or where the tax rates on productivity are prohibitively high.
    , @Twinkie

    We have a system that publicizes costs and privatizes gains: essentially, we *have* socialism for government-connected big corporations.
     
    Funny enough, this is how the Nazis operated their economy - lots of privatization, destruction of small business, guaranteed profits for big corporations, government-military contracts, suppression of labor movements, etc.

    Setting aside the slave labor (we have an illegal immigrant workforce instead), we increasingly have a Nazi economy.

  30. @songbird

    with the increasing Europeanization of American politics-especially for the young
     
    I would say the reverse, that European politics are being Americanized through the injection of race, though naturally there are limits to the analogy.

    Meanwhile, the socialization of American politics is different than what the traditional acceptance of the word socialism in Europe entails, as its demographic base differs and therefore, by function, its characteristics are different.

    I’m really not sure about that: the long-term future of the American Right in particular seems a lot more Front National than Contract With America or Cato Institute. It’s also going to be more secular, which some leftists have belatedly realized might not be such a good thing for them.

    Whether this is good, bad, or a mix depends on who you are.

  31. @Thomm
    A large portion of the commenters here on UR actually are socialists. They don't call themselves that, but want socialism all the same. Things often said around here from regulars include :

    i) Support for a $25/hr minimum wage.
    ii) Fanatical support for labor unions.
    iii) Hatred of Capitalism.
    iv) General hatred of Trump, combined with significant support for Bernie Sanders.
    v) A support for tariffs
    vi) Boilerplate 'tax the rich' screeching.

    those commenters are the smart ones.

    then on the other hand, you’ve got a bunch of drooling limpdicks, heehawing about “”SOCIALIZM!!!!”” while sucking off their corporate masters.

    “muh free markets!” you whine, while your fellow countrymen fill their lives with drugs and porn–no families for them! probably for the best, since all the schools are filled with illiterate El Salvadorians whose parents serve as the cheap labor your glorious Free Market requires to function.

  32. @Intelligent Dasein

    (As an aside, I regard the majority of the UR commentariat to not be typical Americans. Please help me maintain that view.)
     
    The typical American UR reader moved beyond the trite dichotomies you describe about 15 years ago. However, if you're going to continue looking at people through that paradigm, you won't stop seeing them no matter what.

    A case in point. Several weeks back you wrote a long and impassioned reply to one of my comments in which I criticized Bernie Sanders and his supporters. I never responded to that reply because it seemed like you were simply using the occasion to issue a manifesto that was only tangentially related to my point. You spoke as if you had me pegged as a tub-thumping American antisocialist of the GOPe school. If you were at all familiar with my commenting history, you would know I was nothing of the kind.

    I believe in market discipline, yes, but I am also fairly dirigiste on the political economy front. I have advocated nationalizing industry and radically raising wages in order to inflate away the debt while gradually returning to a gold standard. I have advanced several unusual proposals such as eliminating corporate branding, selling raw foodstuffs and chemicals in bulk, and prohibiting private citizens from owning securities. I am a "Prussian Socialist," a Catholic syndicalist, a distributionist, and a feudalist, but I have never anywhere thrown in with American crony capitalism. I simply did not recognize the person you were replying to.

    If you'd like us to help you maintain your high opinion of us, please do take the time to read what we actually write.

    The typical American UR reader moved beyond the trite dichotomies you describe about 15 years ago. However, if you’re going to continue looking at people through that paradigm, you won’t stop seeing them no matter what.

    Mr. Dasein (?), I am well aware that the “typical American UR reader” does not fit into the “trite dichotomies” that are typical of the American electorate. That is why I am a UR regular and very much appreciate this website and many of its commenters.

    And look, I don’t look at people through that simplistic paradigm, unless they give me good reason to believe that the paradigm fits them.

    If you’d like us to help you maintain your high opinion of us, please do take the time to read what we actually write.

    And let me be clear: I don’t view you through that paradigm. In fact, I often read your posts when I come across them and often find your perspectives to be interesting even when I disagree.

    For example: without looking it up, I recall a comment of yours from a while back in which you were highly critical of the policies characteristic of European social democracy and yet praised Rabbi Marx for the more esoteric aspects of his philosophy such as dialectical materialism. My thought was: I disagree with his dismissal of many of those policies but this “guy” is different. Very few people would be able to even cite something like that, let alone discuss it.

    So, when I was responding to you I was not of the belief that you fall into some trite category. I don’t mean to boast, but understand that I have a strangely good long-term memory (where I set my keys 2 minutes ago, forget about it) and I gradually gathered after only vaguely reading your comments over time that you’re a kind of “feudal socialist” along the lines of what Marx wrote about it the 3rd chapter of his manifesto. And that is by no means a trite perspective.

    But, in defense of my reply to you from a few weeks ago, let me say that my tone with you was not due to my pigeon holing you, but to what I considered to be your rude dismissal of Bernie bros such as myself. Perhaps I misread your intentions a bit, but you did dismiss those of us who appreciated his presence in the primary as “weak…losers.” My rude tone to you was a response to your rude tone. Unto others, get what you give, yada yada…

    What further got under my skin was that as you bashed Bernie and his bros, you went on to praise Uncle Joe as a person of substance whereas I find him to be a repulsive (and by now clearly senile) individual, who certainly would not even begin to advocate for, or probably even understand, the things like the “gold standard” or “eliminating corporate branding” that you advocate.

    Now, I understand that perhaps your point was that Bernie wasn’t a “real” candidate in the sense that he didn’t even expect or want to win. As things have progressed in the primary since our “argument” it is becoming clearer to me that that in fact is the case and that he is a tool by which the DNC keeps the more stridently leftist hopeful in the party, even if he doesn’t realize it. And long time Bernie supporter Jimmy Dore on YT is saying the same thing now. But if that was your point you could have made it better by expressing it in a more educating and less snarky tone. I probably would have agreed with you and been more respectful in return.

    Also, my “manifesto” on the virtues of a national health insurance system was in response to your characterization of Bernie’s campaign as a pursuit of a “Socialist Utopia.” I wanted to emphasize that many of us Bernie bros see his talking points not in some kind of idealistic framework but as a practical and very workable alternative to what we consider to be the costly, inefficient and irrational status quo. I also wanted to help and encourage those young, naïve, Bernie supporters who might be reading it, and whose hearts are in the right place, to frame their advocacy in a more “economistic” way rather than in moral terms. I saw it as a opportunity to help my fellow “weak losers” stand up for their ideas.

    Anyway, I hope we have a better understanding of each other now. Take care.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    Well, thank you very much for that. I do believe that a not inconsiderable percentage of the disagreements I have with others here results from misunderstanding one another's terms.

    I do appreciate your comments and I'm glad you're here.
  33. @Mario Partisan

    The typical American UR reader moved beyond the trite dichotomies you describe about 15 years ago. However, if you’re going to continue looking at people through that paradigm, you won’t stop seeing them no matter what.
     
    Mr. Dasein (?), I am well aware that the “typical American UR reader” does not fit into the “trite dichotomies” that are typical of the American electorate. That is why I am a UR regular and very much appreciate this website and many of its commenters.

    And look, I don’t look at people through that simplistic paradigm, unless they give me good reason to believe that the paradigm fits them.

    If you’d like us to help you maintain your high opinion of us, please do take the time to read what we actually write.

     

    And let me be clear: I don’t view you through that paradigm. In fact, I often read your posts when I come across them and often find your perspectives to be interesting even when I disagree.

    For example: without looking it up, I recall a comment of yours from a while back in which you were highly critical of the policies characteristic of European social democracy and yet praised Rabbi Marx for the more esoteric aspects of his philosophy such as dialectical materialism. My thought was: I disagree with his dismissal of many of those policies but this “guy” is different. Very few people would be able to even cite something like that, let alone discuss it.

    So, when I was responding to you I was not of the belief that you fall into some trite category. I don’t mean to boast, but understand that I have a strangely good long-term memory (where I set my keys 2 minutes ago, forget about it) and I gradually gathered after only vaguely reading your comments over time that you’re a kind of “feudal socialist” along the lines of what Marx wrote about it the 3rd chapter of his manifesto. And that is by no means a trite perspective.

    But, in defense of my reply to you from a few weeks ago, let me say that my tone with you was not due to my pigeon holing you, but to what I considered to be your rude dismissal of Bernie bros such as myself. Perhaps I misread your intentions a bit, but you did dismiss those of us who appreciated his presence in the primary as “weak…losers.” My rude tone to you was a response to your rude tone. Unto others, get what you give, yada yada…

    What further got under my skin was that as you bashed Bernie and his bros, you went on to praise Uncle Joe as a person of substance whereas I find him to be a repulsive (and by now clearly senile) individual, who certainly would not even begin to advocate for, or probably even understand, the things like the “gold standard” or “eliminating corporate branding” that you advocate.

    Now, I understand that perhaps your point was that Bernie wasn’t a “real” candidate in the sense that he didn’t even expect or want to win. As things have progressed in the primary since our “argument” it is becoming clearer to me that that in fact is the case and that he is a tool by which the DNC keeps the more stridently leftist hopeful in the party, even if he doesn’t realize it. And long time Bernie supporter Jimmy Dore on YT is saying the same thing now. But if that was your point you could have made it better by expressing it in a more educating and less snarky tone. I probably would have agreed with you and been more respectful in return.

    Also, my “manifesto” on the virtues of a national health insurance system was in response to your characterization of Bernie’s campaign as a pursuit of a “Socialist Utopia.” I wanted to emphasize that many of us Bernie bros see his talking points not in some kind of idealistic framework but as a practical and very workable alternative to what we consider to be the costly, inefficient and irrational status quo. I also wanted to help and encourage those young, naïve, Bernie supporters who might be reading it, and whose hearts are in the right place, to frame their advocacy in a more “economistic” way rather than in moral terms. I saw it as a opportunity to help my fellow “weak losers” stand up for their ideas.

    Anyway, I hope we have a better understanding of each other now. Take care.

    Well, thank you very much for that. I do believe that a not inconsiderable percentage of the disagreements I have with others here results from misunderstanding one another’s terms.

    I do appreciate your comments and I’m glad you’re here.

    • Thanks: Mario Partisan
  34. @Not my economy
    Ok so you basically hate me and my family and you want our living standard to drop out the bottom and many of us likely die...

    What is the word for people like you — Enemy

    How many passports you got dude

    Fuck out of here lmao

    If you are reacting to my last line then I can understand your hostility. It’s a hard thing for me to accept too.

    But if you are objecting to the rest then I do not know what to say.

    Put together my anecdotes describe a completely ignorant populace who believe themselves qualified to pontificate on matters they know nothing about, while they worship politicians who pander to their narcissistic identities, reject politicians who actually talk policies that might do something for them, get off on bombing 3rd world people who pose no threat to them, while they boast about how free they are while they are forced to watch some uniformed moron molest their little girl every time they want to travel.

    These are people who have had opportunity after opportunity to choose peace over war, to be neighbors to their fellow citizens, to resist the incessant push of tyranny. And they always choose wrong.

    Think about it: how much support did Ron Paul, or Nader, or Cynthia McKinney, or Tulsi, or Yang, or Mike Gravel, or Paul Wellstone, or Pat Buchanan or any other half decent person who was on a ballot get from the typical American who couldn’t bother to give two craps about them while those same Americans worshiped literal psychopaths like Hillary or Obama or W or all the endless child murdering oligarchs that they have hooted and hollered for in living memory.

    And my sentiments apply just as much to people in my family as they do yours. Do I hate them? Do I hate you? “Hate” isn’t the right word. I am disgusted with them and I realize that they have the “leaders” that they deserve and there is no point in people like me giving a crap about them. My heart has become cold and hard because that is the disposition required for maintaining my sanity while I watch the fruits of our nation’s sins ripen.

  35. @nebulafox
    I wouldn't necessarily call myself a socialist, but if you can't understand why many people under the age of 35 are deeply hostile to the current economic status quo in the United States, I don't know what to tell you. We have a system that publicizes costs and privatizes gains: essentially, we *have* socialism for government-connected big corporations. The same people who chide the peasants for not having six month emergency funds (not that they shouldn't try to have that) seem to genuinely buy the notion that big corporations shouldn't have a one month one.

    That's not a long-term winning recipe for a healthy society.

    We have a system that publicizes costs and privatizes gains:

    That is Corporatism, not socialism. Corporatism causes many problems, of course. Part of the problem is that this is a country where lawyers have too much power, and there is no counterbalancing force to their power.

    But the US is not yet a country where it is hard to get rich, or where the tax rates on productivity are prohibitively high.

  36. @Intelligent Dasein
    I mean we get rid of brand name products for basic foods and chemicals, easing these commodities out of the retail stream and selling them in bulk. An example I've used many times before is to just take a look down your grocery store's cereal aisle. There are a hundred different kinds of cereal on the shelf. On the next aisle, there are two dozen different shapes of mac n' cheese. There are 37 differnt flavors of Doritos.

    Each one of these products needs its own production line. Each one of them needs to be distributed and stocked. Each one is developed, field-tested, and marketed. Each one is sold at a huge markeup to enrich the corporation.

    This is all wasteful and excessive. The amount of wheat that could feed a family for a year could be purchased at a fraction of the cost that same family spends per year on all these corporate products. I think we should eliminate the corporation as a middleman, along with their needless advertising and PR spending, along with their pernicious public influence and SJW culture warring. Let the wheat be sold by a single national agricultural concern. Let it be sold in bulk, by the train car and by the bushel. Let it be consumed directly in that form or turned into value-added products by local bakers and artisans. Get rid of FritoLay, Pepsico, and the big box grocers. Let prices be set by the natural cost of the factors of production and pass that discount along to the end consumer.

    There are a hundred different kinds of cereal on the shelf. On the next aisle, there are two dozen different shapes of mac n’ cheese. There are 37 differnt flavors of Doritos.

    And you can buy them 24/7, because Walmart never closes. What is the point of that?

  37. @nebulafox
    I wouldn't necessarily call myself a socialist, but if you can't understand why many people under the age of 35 are deeply hostile to the current economic status quo in the United States, I don't know what to tell you. We have a system that publicizes costs and privatizes gains: essentially, we *have* socialism for government-connected big corporations. The same people who chide the peasants for not having six month emergency funds (not that they shouldn't try to have that) seem to genuinely buy the notion that big corporations shouldn't have a one month one.

    That's not a long-term winning recipe for a healthy society.

    We have a system that publicizes costs and privatizes gains: essentially, we *have* socialism for government-connected big corporations.

    Funny enough, this is how the Nazis operated their economy – lots of privatization, destruction of small business, guaranteed profits for big corporations, government-military contracts, suppression of labor movements, etc.

    Setting aside the slave labor (we have an illegal immigrant workforce instead), we increasingly have a Nazi economy.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    There are similarities: the polycratic ineptitude and morass of bureaucracy is definitely one of them. You have an essentially capitalist system overlain with confusing, often mutually contradictory command structures from the state. The major difference is that in the Third Reich, the Party's overall authority on issues deemed related to state security, politics, etc, was absolute and businesses that did not comply to what the Party demanded for its ideological goals were fair game for nationalization. Here, CEOs had no more say on matters than the laborers did, as the rehauling of the German economy in 1936 and 1937 over private sector objections demonstrates. The deal between the state and the tycoons, both in Germany and Italy, was implicitly but unmistakably predicated on the latter recognizing the absolute supremacy of the former in the political sphere. In some cases, this degenerated into outright protection rackets: Robert Ley's DAF is a great example of that.

    Put another way, in Nazi Germany, if businessmen decided there was a profit for doing for a potentially hostile foreign power what a lot of American businessmen did for China in the 1990s or spread opoid addiction and undermined the potential strength of the military as a result, they'd quickly end up dead, or in a camp wishing they were dead. Not many wanted to, because German nationalism, but that underlying reality was still there. And here, we best stop, before I go down a dark mental road.

  38. @Intelligent Dasein

    (As an aside, I regard the majority of the UR commentariat to not be typical Americans. Please help me maintain that view.)
     
    The typical American UR reader moved beyond the trite dichotomies you describe about 15 years ago. However, if you're going to continue looking at people through that paradigm, you won't stop seeing them no matter what.

    A case in point. Several weeks back you wrote a long and impassioned reply to one of my comments in which I criticized Bernie Sanders and his supporters. I never responded to that reply because it seemed like you were simply using the occasion to issue a manifesto that was only tangentially related to my point. You spoke as if you had me pegged as a tub-thumping American antisocialist of the GOPe school. If you were at all familiar with my commenting history, you would know I was nothing of the kind.

    I believe in market discipline, yes, but I am also fairly dirigiste on the political economy front. I have advocated nationalizing industry and radically raising wages in order to inflate away the debt while gradually returning to a gold standard. I have advanced several unusual proposals such as eliminating corporate branding, selling raw foodstuffs and chemicals in bulk, and prohibiting private citizens from owning securities. I am a "Prussian Socialist," a Catholic syndicalist, a distributionist, and a feudalist, but I have never anywhere thrown in with American crony capitalism. I simply did not recognize the person you were replying to.

    If you'd like us to help you maintain your high opinion of us, please do take the time to read what we actually write.

    a distributionist

    A most redeeming quality!

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    Distributism is an economic theory asserting that the world's productive assets should be widely owned rather than concentrated.

    Developed in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, distributism was based upon the principles of Catholic social teaching, especially the teachings of Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum novarum (1891) and Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo anno (1931). It views both capitalism and socialism as equally flawed and exploitative, and it favors economic mechanisms such as cooperatives and member-owned mutual organizations as well as small businesses, and large-scale antitrust regulations.
     
    If you don't feel like reading about that, Twinkie, you can always tell us once again how grounded your understanding of Christianity is in authentic doctrinal antecedents. Oh, and your history education---mention that, too.

    Your grace throughout this little discussion of ours has been exemplary. Nothing so befits a God of the Copybook Headings such as yourself as the making of Hollywood-mediated death threats in a public forum. Now that is the irony that commands the "unironic respect" of all and sundry! And how beautifully ironic it was. You didn't mean it; could not possibly have meant it. Why, no man with your military and intelligence training could ever possibly be so undisciplined as to wear his emotions on his sleeve like that, and to leave evidence in place where it could not be easily erased. I tell you I wasn't scared for a moment, even if you are the Internet's Toughest Korean. But, just in case your boss wants to try any rough stuff, you tell him I ain't no Salvadorean insurgent.

    Hey, look! I can do Hollywood too!

    Ta-ta.
  39. @Mark G.
    The groups that are most favorable to socialism are blacks and those under thirty. The group that is least favorable to socialism are white males over 45. When people in general think of socialism they probably think of young black men impregnating young black women and then the government giving the women welfare to raise their kids. So that would be why younger blacks would support it and the older white males who have higher incomes and more assets and who are paying the taxes for the welfare state would oppose it.

    Something like government bailouts for big corporations is socialism for the rich but a lot of people don't think of that as socialism even though it is. Socialists would be better off focusing on opposing this sort of thing rather than just being hostile to rich people in general.

    I have thought it through more than most of my fellow white males over 45 but I don’t see giving welfare to mothers as socialism. It is something I passionately oppose, but it’s totally status quo. Everyone from a conservative Republican to a neoliberal will keep giving handouts to mothers, especially single mothers, and pretty much no one else.

    I see Socialism as a system that would allow other people besides single mothers to have a safety net. This is why Bernie Sanders had appeal to me. I want one extreme or the other. Either cut off everybody or give to everyone in need.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  40. @Twinkie

    We have a system that publicizes costs and privatizes gains: essentially, we *have* socialism for government-connected big corporations.
     
    Funny enough, this is how the Nazis operated their economy - lots of privatization, destruction of small business, guaranteed profits for big corporations, government-military contracts, suppression of labor movements, etc.

    Setting aside the slave labor (we have an illegal immigrant workforce instead), we increasingly have a Nazi economy.

    There are similarities: the polycratic ineptitude and morass of bureaucracy is definitely one of them. You have an essentially capitalist system overlain with confusing, often mutually contradictory command structures from the state. The major difference is that in the Third Reich, the Party’s overall authority on issues deemed related to state security, politics, etc, was absolute and businesses that did not comply to what the Party demanded for its ideological goals were fair game for nationalization. Here, CEOs had no more say on matters than the laborers did, as the rehauling of the German economy in 1936 and 1937 over private sector objections demonstrates. The deal between the state and the tycoons, both in Germany and Italy, was implicitly but unmistakably predicated on the latter recognizing the absolute supremacy of the former in the political sphere. In some cases, this degenerated into outright protection rackets: Robert Ley’s DAF is a great example of that.

    Put another way, in Nazi Germany, if businessmen decided there was a profit for doing for a potentially hostile foreign power what a lot of American businessmen did for China in the 1990s or spread opoid addiction and undermined the potential strength of the military as a result, they’d quickly end up dead, or in a camp wishing they were dead. Not many wanted to, because German nationalism, but that underlying reality was still there. And here, we best stop, before I go down a dark mental road.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Good point about the party supremacy and the consequences of trading with foreign enemies.

    However, there were instances in which the large corporations in Germany refused contracts for projects that were considered nationally important by the Nazi leaders, without any negative repercussions. Thought the Nazis considered themselves the senior partners in the relationship, they did see the big businesses as partners nonetheless.
  41. @nebulafox
    There are similarities: the polycratic ineptitude and morass of bureaucracy is definitely one of them. You have an essentially capitalist system overlain with confusing, often mutually contradictory command structures from the state. The major difference is that in the Third Reich, the Party's overall authority on issues deemed related to state security, politics, etc, was absolute and businesses that did not comply to what the Party demanded for its ideological goals were fair game for nationalization. Here, CEOs had no more say on matters than the laborers did, as the rehauling of the German economy in 1936 and 1937 over private sector objections demonstrates. The deal between the state and the tycoons, both in Germany and Italy, was implicitly but unmistakably predicated on the latter recognizing the absolute supremacy of the former in the political sphere. In some cases, this degenerated into outright protection rackets: Robert Ley's DAF is a great example of that.

    Put another way, in Nazi Germany, if businessmen decided there was a profit for doing for a potentially hostile foreign power what a lot of American businessmen did for China in the 1990s or spread opoid addiction and undermined the potential strength of the military as a result, they'd quickly end up dead, or in a camp wishing they were dead. Not many wanted to, because German nationalism, but that underlying reality was still there. And here, we best stop, before I go down a dark mental road.

    Good point about the party supremacy and the consequences of trading with foreign enemies.

    However, there were instances in which the large corporations in Germany refused contracts for projects that were considered nationally important by the Nazi leaders, without any negative repercussions. Thought the Nazis considered themselves the senior partners in the relationship, they did see the big businesses as partners nonetheless.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    >However, there were instances in which the large corporations in Germany refused contracts for projects that were considered nationally important by the Nazi leaders, without any negative repercussions.

    Interesting: was this before or after 1937?
  42. @Twinkie
    Good point about the party supremacy and the consequences of trading with foreign enemies.

    However, there were instances in which the large corporations in Germany refused contracts for projects that were considered nationally important by the Nazi leaders, without any negative repercussions. Thought the Nazis considered themselves the senior partners in the relationship, they did see the big businesses as partners nonetheless.

    >However, there were instances in which the large corporations in Germany refused contracts for projects that were considered nationally important by the Nazi leaders, without any negative repercussions.

    Interesting: was this before or after 1937?

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Privatization_and_business_ties

    The rhetoric of the Nazi regime stated that German private companies would be protected and privileged as long as they supported the economic goals of the government - mainly by participating in government contracts for military production - but that they could face severe penalties if they went against the national interest. However, such threats were rarely carried out in practice, and "companies normally could refuse to engage in an investment project designed by the state without any consequences."[68] Private firms refused government contracts and directions on many occasions. In 1937, de Wendel, a coal mining enterprise, refused to build a hydrogenation plant. In 1939, IG Farben denied a government request to increase its production of rayon and refused to invest in a synthetic rubber factory despite this being an important project for the regime. Froriep GmbH, a company producing machines for the armaments industry, successfully demanded cheap credit from the Nazi government under a threat of cutting back investment if its demand was not met.[69] The regime generally used monetary incentives, such as guaranteed profits, to persuade businesses to support its goals, and freedom of contract was generally respected even in projects important for the war.[70] According to historians Christoph Buchheim and Jonas Scherner, the reason why businesses sometimes refused these incentives was out of long-term profitability considerations. The government usually tried to persuade them to join military projects, but firms were worried about overcapacity in case the armaments boom would end. They did not want to commit themselves too much to war-related production for the future.[71]
     
  43. @nebulafox
    >However, there were instances in which the large corporations in Germany refused contracts for projects that were considered nationally important by the Nazi leaders, without any negative repercussions.

    Interesting: was this before or after 1937?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Privatization_and_business_ties

    The rhetoric of the Nazi regime stated that German private companies would be protected and privileged as long as they supported the economic goals of the government – mainly by participating in government contracts for military production – but that they could face severe penalties if they went against the national interest. However, such threats were rarely carried out in practice, and “companies normally could refuse to engage in an investment project designed by the state without any consequences.”[68] Private firms refused government contracts and directions on many occasions. In 1937, de Wendel, a coal mining enterprise, refused to build a hydrogenation plant. In 1939, IG Farben denied a government request to increase its production of rayon and refused to invest in a synthetic rubber factory despite this being an important project for the regime. Froriep GmbH, a company producing machines for the armaments industry, successfully demanded cheap credit from the Nazi government under a threat of cutting back investment if its demand was not met.[69] The regime generally used monetary incentives, such as guaranteed profits, to persuade businesses to support its goals, and freedom of contract was generally respected even in projects important for the war.[70] According to historians Christoph Buchheim and Jonas Scherner, the reason why businesses sometimes refused these incentives was out of long-term profitability considerations. The government usually tried to persuade them to join military projects, but firms were worried about overcapacity in case the armaments boom would end. They did not want to commit themselves too much to war-related production for the future.[71]

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    Fascinating: I suppose I should have guessed that there's be similar corruption mechanisms to ensure the loyalty of private sector that there were with the generals.

    Definitely not how I'd handle things if I had absolute power...
  44. @Adam Smith
    A bottle of Secobarbital, a bottle of Dextroamphetamine...

    Glad to hear your skies are clear again...

    A bottle of Secobarbital, a bottle of Dextroamphetamine…

    That does give the listener a lot more detail, but then there is the question of the meter.

    No, you and I better stick to economics and let Bill Joel stick to songwriting. ;-}

    • Replies: @Adam Smith
    Indeed... That is a very awkward lyric...

    This one flows a little better...

    Livin' on reds, vitamin C, and cocaine

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pafY6sZt0FE
  45. @Achmed E. Newman

    A bottle of Secobarbital, a bottle of Dextroamphetamine…
     
    That does give the listener a lot more detail, but then there is the question of the meter.

    No, you and I better stick to economics and let Bill Joel stick to songwriting. ;-}

    Indeed… That is a very awkward lyric…

    This one flows a little better…

    Livin’ on reds, vitamin C, and cocaine

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    "... All a friend can say is "ain't it a shame."

    Thank you. I am quite familiar*, Mr. Smith.

    .

    * You've gotta scroll down a ways.
  46. @Achmed E. Newman
    I can't remember what it was we disagreed on a few weeks back, Mario, but in this comment, man, your examples (1) though (5) are very well written and extremely illustrative! There are lots of people that think this way, or as you note for some, don't have the awareness of politics to separate now from 30 years ago. Are these people the majority of Americans? I think it depends if you get people who have opinions but are extremely ignorant about politics vs. people who know that they don't know much about it.

    Other than some of our differences on this Kung Flu clusterfuck, the wife and I agree because she freely admits (I don't have to tickle her, that means) that she doesn't know squat all about politics. She didn't vote in '16, because I wouldn't help her register without a promise that she'd vote for Trump. (I agree with you on him too. I had every hope for the guy, but he's been a clown.)

    On your very last sentence. I don't wish ill on the American people. I was hoping that by "Her collapse" you meant just the US Feral Government.

    I can’t remember what it was we disagreed on a few weeks back, Mario, but in this comment, man, your examples (1) though (5) are very well written and extremely illustrative!

    You’re kidding, right?

  47. @Adam Smith
    Indeed... That is a very awkward lyric...

    This one flows a little better...

    Livin' on reds, vitamin C, and cocaine

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pafY6sZt0FE

    “… All a friend can say is “ain’t it a shame.”

    Thank you. I am quite familiar*, Mr. Smith.

    .

    * You’ve gotta scroll down a ways.

  48. @Twinkie

    a distributionist
     
    A most redeeming quality!

    https://youtu.be/-4AtBBVZ73U

    Distributism is an economic theory asserting that the world’s productive assets should be widely owned rather than concentrated.

    Developed in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, distributism was based upon the principles of Catholic social teaching, especially the teachings of Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum novarum (1891) and Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo anno (1931). It views both capitalism and socialism as equally flawed and exploitative, and it favors economic mechanisms such as cooperatives and member-owned mutual organizations as well as small businesses, and large-scale antitrust regulations.

    If you don’t feel like reading about that, Twinkie, you can always tell us once again how grounded your understanding of Christianity is in authentic doctrinal antecedents. Oh, and your history education—mention that, too.

    Your grace throughout this little discussion of ours has been exemplary. Nothing so befits a God of the Copybook Headings such as yourself as the making of Hollywood-mediated death threats in a public forum. Now that is the irony that commands the “unironic respect” of all and sundry! And how beautifully ironic it was. You didn’t mean it; could not possibly have meant it. Why, no man with your military and intelligence training could ever possibly be so undisciplined as to wear his emotions on his sleeve like that, and to leave evidence in place where it could not be easily erased. I tell you I wasn’t scared for a moment, even if you are the Internet’s Toughest Korean. But, just in case your boss wants to try any rough stuff, you tell him I ain’t no Salvadorean insurgent.

    Hey, look! I can do Hollywood too!

    Ta-ta.

    • Replies: @anon
    True Distributism has never been tried.
    , @Twinkie
    1. I am a big fan of distributism.

    2. You can’t take a joke.
    , @Twinkie
    By the way, I think a person who follows distributism is called a distributist, not a distributionist. You were so busy with your spittle-flying haranguing about how emotional I was, you didn’t even note what little I quoted of you.

    Maybe you should read a bit more of Chesterton and Belloc.
  49. @nebulafox
    Looking at it soberly, nobody seriously has proposed an alternative to the current market system we've got. A nation like Sweden heavily regulates market mechanisms: they don't try to actively prevent them. So, if Sweden is indeed "socialist", then maybe the term isn't that helpful of a describer.

    You'd have to go back to actual Communist countries for people who seriously tried to abolish market mechanisms, and considering what a miserable failure Communism turned out to be, nobody wants to ape them. Even the throwback holdouts like North Korea and Laos have embraced market mechanisms-Kim Jong Un deleted any reference to Marxism at all in the DPRK's Constitution back in 2013.

    >Quite a few of those with supposedly negative views of socialism probably support lots of socialist policies, as long as they’re not associated with those scary words Socialism and Communism.

    Your average American voter is not a moderate. Your average American voter contains a mixture of far-left, far-right, and common sensical/a-ideological views, which tends to be quite alien from the political class.

    The problem with a lot of left-wing politicians in the US has traditionally been that they've forgotten they aren't dealing with Europeans. You'd be surprised what people will advocate if dressed up correctly. But with the increasing Europeanization of American politics-especially for the young-maybe this might change in any event. Certainly the notion tying health care to your employer to the extent that the US does is going to take a massive dent in popularity with this pandemic.

    In addition to what dfordoom notes, I would add that I discovered, almost 50 years ago, that what passes for “socialism” in the US was (is?) considered normal every day good government in Europe. If you care about your citizens’ health, you have a universal health care system. If you want to compete in the world, you have to educate your children. Unemployment takes money out of the economy. Full employment is the goal, and meaningful employment is important to your well-being.
    I would add, that the co-operative movement was huge in Europe 50 years ago, including Sweden. Co-operatives are the basis of socialism. Today’s Sweden, however, is not the Sweden of 5o years ago, when immigration was frowned upon, and those who were allowed in, integrated or were deported. The same could be said for the other Scandinavian countries.
    The most heavily regulated are employment and safety standards. I recall seeing a man jack hammering concrete on a street. He had safety goggles, hearing protection, and special overalls, things unheard of in North America at the time. Employment standards were typically 4 weeks vacation with pay, per year, plus about a dozen paid statutory holidays per year. North America was a backwater, comparatively.
    Was it more expensive? Yes, but income disparity was more compressed. The lowest paid weren’t falling behind like they were in North America. They were traveling for vacation, just as the high income earners.

  50. Audacious Epigone —

    Consumer prices are currently dropping:

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-consumer-prices-post-largest-125040499.html

    That 0.4 in a month is a drop in prices of 4.8% if it were annualized.

    In 2008, I though we would get big inflation from the Fed interventions. Not so. I had to learn that credit-money being destroyed can easily exceed money creation by the Fed.

    I loaded up on gold after 2008 and nothing interesting happened. It was humbling and I learned to give heavier weight to empirical data.

    AE, you are an empiricist extraordinaire. I suggest to apply this to the inflation/deflation question.

    “Let’s see what the data say.”

    • Agree: snorlax
    • Replies: @snorlax
    Yes, ZeroHedge "buy gold" late-night talk radio economic theories have less than zero (i.e. you can make money betting on the opposite) predictive power as pertains to reality.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Food prices went up 0.3%. Annualized that approaches 4%. That's with most restaurants shuttered, and that number is going to keep going up. The headline figure was pulled down drastically by airline travel and oil because no one is flying or driving. What we effectively have with the shelter-in-place orders are artificial shortages of these things. When production is down, the only way to avoid price inflation is through shortages. That's what we're seeing now, but we're already seeing price increases in things people are still buying.
  51. @Intelligent Dasein

    Distributism is an economic theory asserting that the world's productive assets should be widely owned rather than concentrated.

    Developed in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, distributism was based upon the principles of Catholic social teaching, especially the teachings of Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum novarum (1891) and Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo anno (1931). It views both capitalism and socialism as equally flawed and exploitative, and it favors economic mechanisms such as cooperatives and member-owned mutual organizations as well as small businesses, and large-scale antitrust regulations.
     
    If you don't feel like reading about that, Twinkie, you can always tell us once again how grounded your understanding of Christianity is in authentic doctrinal antecedents. Oh, and your history education---mention that, too.

    Your grace throughout this little discussion of ours has been exemplary. Nothing so befits a God of the Copybook Headings such as yourself as the making of Hollywood-mediated death threats in a public forum. Now that is the irony that commands the "unironic respect" of all and sundry! And how beautifully ironic it was. You didn't mean it; could not possibly have meant it. Why, no man with your military and intelligence training could ever possibly be so undisciplined as to wear his emotions on his sleeve like that, and to leave evidence in place where it could not be easily erased. I tell you I wasn't scared for a moment, even if you are the Internet's Toughest Korean. But, just in case your boss wants to try any rough stuff, you tell him I ain't no Salvadorean insurgent.

    Hey, look! I can do Hollywood too!

    Ta-ta.

    True Distributism has never been tried.

  52. I’m so glad that the people responsible for destroying the economy and spreading unwarranted panic and tyranny around the world are at least taking their positions with an appropriate sense of gravity.

    If Dr. Anthony Fauci is featured in an SNL skit, he wants Brad Pitt to play him.

    Spread this around please.

  53. @Achmed E. Newman
    Whaaa? How does this square up with the numbers in your recent post Sympathy for the Socialism. You had me all down in the dumps, and now "the skies above are clear again ..." Hey, if I wanted this roller-coaster of emotions, I could get off the internet and buy a couple of different bottles of pills:

    (Listen to the verse at the end - instead of "bottle of red, bottle of white", I'm pretty sure Billy Joel sings "bottle of reds, bottle of whites ... whatever kind of mood you're in tonight". What a fantastic song writer!)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hxx8IWIvKg0

    The survey in the last one didn’t use the word socialism. Socialist policies are popular, the word socialism is not.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    This is exactly right. There are a lot of lessons in this humble post that aren't explicitly spelled out, but they're there.
  54. @Intelligent Dasein

    Distributism is an economic theory asserting that the world's productive assets should be widely owned rather than concentrated.

    Developed in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, distributism was based upon the principles of Catholic social teaching, especially the teachings of Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum novarum (1891) and Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo anno (1931). It views both capitalism and socialism as equally flawed and exploitative, and it favors economic mechanisms such as cooperatives and member-owned mutual organizations as well as small businesses, and large-scale antitrust regulations.
     
    If you don't feel like reading about that, Twinkie, you can always tell us once again how grounded your understanding of Christianity is in authentic doctrinal antecedents. Oh, and your history education---mention that, too.

    Your grace throughout this little discussion of ours has been exemplary. Nothing so befits a God of the Copybook Headings such as yourself as the making of Hollywood-mediated death threats in a public forum. Now that is the irony that commands the "unironic respect" of all and sundry! And how beautifully ironic it was. You didn't mean it; could not possibly have meant it. Why, no man with your military and intelligence training could ever possibly be so undisciplined as to wear his emotions on his sleeve like that, and to leave evidence in place where it could not be easily erased. I tell you I wasn't scared for a moment, even if you are the Internet's Toughest Korean. But, just in case your boss wants to try any rough stuff, you tell him I ain't no Salvadorean insurgent.

    Hey, look! I can do Hollywood too!

    Ta-ta.

    1. I am a big fan of distributism.

    2. You can’t take a joke.

  55. @Intelligent Dasein

    Distributism is an economic theory asserting that the world's productive assets should be widely owned rather than concentrated.

    Developed in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, distributism was based upon the principles of Catholic social teaching, especially the teachings of Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum novarum (1891) and Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo anno (1931). It views both capitalism and socialism as equally flawed and exploitative, and it favors economic mechanisms such as cooperatives and member-owned mutual organizations as well as small businesses, and large-scale antitrust regulations.
     
    If you don't feel like reading about that, Twinkie, you can always tell us once again how grounded your understanding of Christianity is in authentic doctrinal antecedents. Oh, and your history education---mention that, too.

    Your grace throughout this little discussion of ours has been exemplary. Nothing so befits a God of the Copybook Headings such as yourself as the making of Hollywood-mediated death threats in a public forum. Now that is the irony that commands the "unironic respect" of all and sundry! And how beautifully ironic it was. You didn't mean it; could not possibly have meant it. Why, no man with your military and intelligence training could ever possibly be so undisciplined as to wear his emotions on his sleeve like that, and to leave evidence in place where it could not be easily erased. I tell you I wasn't scared for a moment, even if you are the Internet's Toughest Korean. But, just in case your boss wants to try any rough stuff, you tell him I ain't no Salvadorean insurgent.

    Hey, look! I can do Hollywood too!

    Ta-ta.

    By the way, I think a person who follows distributism is called a distributist, not a distributionist. You were so busy with your spittle-flying haranguing about how emotional I was, you didn’t even note what little I quoted of you.

    Maybe you should read a bit more of Chesterton and Belloc.

  56. @DanHessinMD
    Audacious Epigone --

    Consumer prices are currently dropping:

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-consumer-prices-post-largest-125040499.html

    That 0.4 in a month is a drop in prices of 4.8% if it were annualized.

    In 2008, I though we would get big inflation from the Fed interventions. Not so. I had to learn that credit-money being destroyed can easily exceed money creation by the Fed.

    I loaded up on gold after 2008 and nothing interesting happened. It was humbling and I learned to give heavier weight to empirical data.

    AE, you are an empiricist extraordinaire. I suggest to apply this to the inflation/deflation question.

    "Let's see what the data say."

    Yes, ZeroHedge “buy gold” late-night talk radio economic theories have less than zero (i.e. you can make money betting on the opposite) predictive power as pertains to reality.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    While I'm not defending gold retailers--especially if they're selling coins, which are a scam--gold is up 35% an ounce over the last 12 months, while the DJIA is down over 10%. There are very few people who seem to be aware of that, but the difference is staggering given gold's putative function as a store of value.

    There are a couple of ways of reading this. One is that gold is actually an investment for wild speculators who are about to take a haircut, or institutions--including governments--are stealthily buying gold up because they are able to see further over the horizon than we are, and they see the international credit system unraveling soon.

  57. @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    Why does that surprise you?

    "Asians" are an alien people incompatible to live with whites; and certainly incompatible with the ideas of the founders, who created a country for their own people to live freely.

    Not sure why you seem to present being "staunchly anti-communist" as a good reason to allow an alien tribe to live among us. Assimilation is only skin deep.

    On TOP of everything else, the vast majority of "Asians" have dual loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party. Just because they're quiet and commit few crimes doesn't make them a model minority. They hate us just as much as the blacks.

    Yes yes yes
    All of those Japanese, South Koreans, Taiwanese, Filipinos, Malaysians, Indonesians, Nepalese, Singaporeans, Hong Kongers, Mongolians and Thais, with their “dual loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party”, I’ve heard about them. Oh and India, we must not forget India, huge contingent of Chinese Communist Indians, don’t you know?

    • LOL: Yahya K.
  58. “it’s happpppppening—limpdick BoomerCons BTFO”

    Laughing. I attempted to look at your reference. However, it appears that I am required to become a subscriber. Laugh —

    I am sure you did not intend to shill for the WP . . .

  59. The Capitalists are socializing their costs and privatizing profits.

    Corporatism is Socialism for the Rich.

    The Middle Class is being destroyed.

    Some form of Socialism is now inevitable.

    People are realizing the System is Rigged.
    Its all ONE BIG CLUB, and you ain’t in it!

    The System must Collapse. Its too top heavy and insolvent.

  60. @Achmed E. Newman
    Whaaa? How does this square up with the numbers in your recent post Sympathy for the Socialism. You had me all down in the dumps, and now "the skies above are clear again ..." Hey, if I wanted this roller-coaster of emotions, I could get off the internet and buy a couple of different bottles of pills:

    (Listen to the verse at the end - instead of "bottle of red, bottle of white", I'm pretty sure Billy Joel sings "bottle of reds, bottle of whites ... whatever kind of mood you're in tonight". What a fantastic song writer!)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hxx8IWIvKg0

    Branding matters. This goes a long way in explaining it:

    Sanders lost. He couldn’t have handled winning, anyway. But the ghost of Sanders will win.

    • Replies: @Talha

    Sanders lost. He couldn’t have handled winning, anyway. But the ghost of Sanders will win.
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2jPwMM7Do4

    Peace.
  61. @Audacious Epigone
    Branding matters. This goes a long way in explaining it:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li4PG7nmlyM

    Sanders lost. He couldn't have handled winning, anyway. But the ghost of Sanders will win.

    Sanders lost. He couldn’t have handled winning, anyway. But the ghost of Sanders will win.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afam2nIae4o
  62. In Castro’s Cuba, people quietly muttered to one another: “We have three miracles, and three problems. The three miracles are more equalized sports, education, and health services. The three problems are breakfast, lunch, and dinner.”

  63. @Talha

    Sanders lost. He couldn’t have handled winning, anyway. But the ghost of Sanders will win.
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2jPwMM7Do4

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Talha
    The kids are alright...except for those haircuts.

    And with that, I bid you all adieu until some time after Ramada.

    Peace.
  64. @Twinkie
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Privatization_and_business_ties

    The rhetoric of the Nazi regime stated that German private companies would be protected and privileged as long as they supported the economic goals of the government - mainly by participating in government contracts for military production - but that they could face severe penalties if they went against the national interest. However, such threats were rarely carried out in practice, and "companies normally could refuse to engage in an investment project designed by the state without any consequences."[68] Private firms refused government contracts and directions on many occasions. In 1937, de Wendel, a coal mining enterprise, refused to build a hydrogenation plant. In 1939, IG Farben denied a government request to increase its production of rayon and refused to invest in a synthetic rubber factory despite this being an important project for the regime. Froriep GmbH, a company producing machines for the armaments industry, successfully demanded cheap credit from the Nazi government under a threat of cutting back investment if its demand was not met.[69] The regime generally used monetary incentives, such as guaranteed profits, to persuade businesses to support its goals, and freedom of contract was generally respected even in projects important for the war.[70] According to historians Christoph Buchheim and Jonas Scherner, the reason why businesses sometimes refused these incentives was out of long-term profitability considerations. The government usually tried to persuade them to join military projects, but firms were worried about overcapacity in case the armaments boom would end. They did not want to commit themselves too much to war-related production for the future.[71]
     

    Fascinating: I suppose I should have guessed that there’s be similar corruption mechanisms to ensure the loyalty of private sector that there were with the generals.

    Definitely not how I’d handle things if I had absolute power…

  65. @Big Dick Bandit
    it's happpppppening---limpdick BoomerCons BTFO

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2020/04/10/daily-202-gop-senator-s-coronavirus-plan-get-federal-government-to-cover-80-percent-of-wages/5e8ff9a4602ff10d49ae218f/?utm_campaign=wp_the_daily_202&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_daily202

    Trim the spy-tracking crap off your URLs before posting them.

  66. @nebulafox
    Looking at it soberly, nobody seriously has proposed an alternative to the current market system we've got. A nation like Sweden heavily regulates market mechanisms: they don't try to actively prevent them. So, if Sweden is indeed "socialist", then maybe the term isn't that helpful of a describer.

    You'd have to go back to actual Communist countries for people who seriously tried to abolish market mechanisms, and considering what a miserable failure Communism turned out to be, nobody wants to ape them. Even the throwback holdouts like North Korea and Laos have embraced market mechanisms-Kim Jong Un deleted any reference to Marxism at all in the DPRK's Constitution back in 2013.

    >Quite a few of those with supposedly negative views of socialism probably support lots of socialist policies, as long as they’re not associated with those scary words Socialism and Communism.

    Your average American voter is not a moderate. Your average American voter contains a mixture of far-left, far-right, and common sensical/a-ideological views, which tends to be quite alien from the political class.

    The problem with a lot of left-wing politicians in the US has traditionally been that they've forgotten they aren't dealing with Europeans. You'd be surprised what people will advocate if dressed up correctly. But with the increasing Europeanization of American politics-especially for the young-maybe this might change in any event. Certainly the notion tying health care to your employer to the extent that the US does is going to take a massive dent in popularity with this pandemic.

    A market-based system with a large amount of redistribution seems to be what the modal American wants. UBI is the most straightforward mechanism for getting there. Charles Murray was a couple of decades early, Andrew Yang a couple of years early, but I think it’s coming.

  67. @Studley
    Hilary Clinton would have won if that's the reasoning. Your average American voter contains a mixture of far-left, far-right, and common sensical/a-ideological views, which tends to be quite alien from the political class.

    Did Hillary Clinton ever embrace the term “socialism”? I don’t think she did.

    • Replies: @anon
    Did Hillary Clinton ever embrace the term “socialism”?

    Of course not. Don't be ridiculous, she and her handlers obsessively use focus-group testing for anything and everything she says in public. That's what made the 2016 "Basket of Deplorables" blunder so deliciously funny; what focus group did they try that out on ?
  68. @snorlax
    Lots of recent arrivals from China who <3 the CCP.

    How many Chinese in the US do not like the CCP but are coerced into helping it?

    It’d be shame if something happened to your family here in Beijing while you’re at Stanford. We’re worried they may be Falun Gong members. Maybe you could prove they aren’t by sending us some sensitive information from the lab you’re working in?

    • Replies: @snorlax
    That's probably a bigger problem for Hong Kong and Taiwan than it is for us. I'm sure it happens here too but for the most part recent Chinese arrivals are earnestly loyal to the CCP.
  69. @Audacious Epigone
    How many Chinese in the US do not like the CCP but are coerced into helping it?

    It'd be shame if something happened to your family here in Beijing while you're at Stanford. We're worried they may be Falun Gong members. Maybe you could prove they aren't by sending us some sensitive information from the lab you're working in?

    That’s probably a bigger problem for Hong Kong and Taiwan than it is for us. I’m sure it happens here too but for the most part recent Chinese arrivals are earnestly loyal to the CCP.

  70. @DanHessinMD
    Audacious Epigone --

    Consumer prices are currently dropping:

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-consumer-prices-post-largest-125040499.html

    That 0.4 in a month is a drop in prices of 4.8% if it were annualized.

    In 2008, I though we would get big inflation from the Fed interventions. Not so. I had to learn that credit-money being destroyed can easily exceed money creation by the Fed.

    I loaded up on gold after 2008 and nothing interesting happened. It was humbling and I learned to give heavier weight to empirical data.

    AE, you are an empiricist extraordinaire. I suggest to apply this to the inflation/deflation question.

    "Let's see what the data say."

    Food prices went up 0.3%. Annualized that approaches 4%. That’s with most restaurants shuttered, and that number is going to keep going up. The headline figure was pulled down drastically by airline travel and oil because no one is flying or driving. What we effectively have with the shelter-in-place orders are artificial shortages of these things. When production is down, the only way to avoid price inflation is through shortages. That’s what we’re seeing now, but we’re already seeing price increases in things people are still buying.

  71. anon[846] • Disclaimer says:
    @Audacious Epigone
    Did Hillary Clinton ever embrace the term "socialism"? I don't think she did.

    Did Hillary Clinton ever embrace the term “socialism”?

    Of course not. Don’t be ridiculous, she and her handlers obsessively use focus-group testing for anything and everything she says in public. That’s what made the 2016 “Basket of Deplorables” blunder so deliciously funny; what focus group did they try that out on ?

  72. @Vendetta
    The survey in the last one didn’t use the word socialism. Socialist policies are popular, the word socialism is not.

    This is exactly right. There are a lot of lessons in this humble post that aren’t explicitly spelled out, but they’re there.

    • Agree: Big Dick Bandit
  73. They’re having to try to INCREASE gas prices now. Demand has tanked.

    Deflationary pressure can only be curbed with consumer spending.

    You’re onto something with UBI. Payments to the poor may be the only way to increase consumption.

    This Capitalism has failed miserably. Greed never leads to stability.

    Socialism already exists for the Rich with Crony Capitalism.

    The Dow is acting erratically. That Bubble is about to pop no matter how much pumping…

  74. @snorlax
    Yes, ZeroHedge "buy gold" late-night talk radio economic theories have less than zero (i.e. you can make money betting on the opposite) predictive power as pertains to reality.

    While I’m not defending gold retailers–especially if they’re selling coins, which are a scam–gold is up 35% an ounce over the last 12 months, while the DJIA is down over 10%. There are very few people who seem to be aware of that, but the difference is staggering given gold’s putative function as a store of value.

    There are a couple of ways of reading this. One is that gold is actually an investment for wild speculators who are about to take a haircut, or institutions–including governments–are stealthily buying gold up because they are able to see further over the horizon than we are, and they see the international credit system unraveling soon.

    • Replies: @anon
    The ratio of gold to oil is wack. It shouldn't go on much longer. One side or the other will change.

    https://www.macrotrends.net/1380/gold-to-oil-ratio-historical-chart
  75. @Audacious Epigone
    While I'm not defending gold retailers--especially if they're selling coins, which are a scam--gold is up 35% an ounce over the last 12 months, while the DJIA is down over 10%. There are very few people who seem to be aware of that, but the difference is staggering given gold's putative function as a store of value.

    There are a couple of ways of reading this. One is that gold is actually an investment for wild speculators who are about to take a haircut, or institutions--including governments--are stealthily buying gold up because they are able to see further over the horizon than we are, and they see the international credit system unraveling soon.

    The ratio of gold to oil is wack. It shouldn’t go on much longer. One side or the other will change.

    https://www.macrotrends.net/1380/gold-to-oil-ratio-historical-chart

    • Replies: @res
    Thanks. That is dramatic. >2x the previous 80 year high. Also interesting that the high and low both have occurred during the last 20 years.
  76. @anon
    The ratio of gold to oil is wack. It shouldn't go on much longer. One side or the other will change.

    https://www.macrotrends.net/1380/gold-to-oil-ratio-historical-chart

    Thanks. That is dramatic. >2x the previous 80 year high. Also interesting that the high and low both have occurred during the last 20 years.

  77. @nebulafox
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afam2nIae4o

    The kids are alright…except for those haircuts.

    And with that, I bid you all adieu until some time after Ramada.

    Peace.

  78. Gold and Silver have intrinsic value and little industrial uses.

    Oil is a commodity. With no one going anywhere, its tanking.

    Plus Saudi Arabia is pumping their wells dry to pay off debts.

    Oversupply, low demand and market instability.

    Gold is the last resort of investors.

    The System is crumbling…

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS