17 ms·

Made in the USA: Socialism for the Rich. Capitalism for the Rest

181 points by nobody9999 6y ago

kanwisher 6y ago
NyTimes doesn't let any international IPs to see any articles. Last newspaper I would ever give money to.
- dakna 6y ago
  Which newspaper would you give money to?
- chokeartist 6y ago
  They aren't a newspaper. They are a media gatekeeper.
- cbg0 6y ago
  I have no problem reading the article from Europe. You can get rid of the paywall with the "Skip The Paywall" extension if you are using Chrome.
- input_sh 6y ago
  Just open in private/incongito/porn tab.
- hiq 6y ago
  https://www.nytimes3xbfgragh.onion/2021/01/26/opinion/us-capitalism-socialism.html https://www.nytimes3xbfgragh.onion/2021/01/26/opinion/us-cap...
- 0xy 6y ago
  Ironically, paying NY Times is quite literally cash for billionaires. Your money is subsidizing Carlos Slim's investment and his agenda. Similarly, the Washington Post is a mouthpiece for Jeff Bezos, and all cash made just subsidizes his own investment and agenda. Neutral corporate media is a contradiction.
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    Which news sources do you consider reputable then?
    - 0xy 6y ago
      Almost none. PBS is known to lie and stealth retract stories when caught, including in one instance by calling an innocent bystander a "white nationalist" after they were attacked in a car by someone brandishing a gun during a protest (evidence was stealth removed). AP has issued multiple retractions for whopping lies, including using images of kids in cages and claiming they were under the Trump administration, when the images were taken during the Obama administration (afterwards they nuked all evidence, of course).
- jimmaswell 6y ago
  why should an American newspaper be expected to bend over backwards for GDPR? blame European regulations for this.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    Is it that hard to comply with for a newspaper of all things? It's not like it's a European court ruling compelling them to say or do anything Orwellian
  - kebman 6y ago
    Bend over backwards? Isn't the The New York Times already GDPR compliant?
  - flohofwoe 6y ago
    The NYTimes paywall has nothing to do with Europe or the GDPR though.
  - Broken_Hippo 6y ago
    This isn't from GDPR. Those sites just get blocked. This is a definite paywall. If I open it in a private tab, I get no paywall - but yet, find a page seemingly compliant with GDPR, complete with options to opt out of some cookies. Most major websites comply with GDPR, by the way - the more local they are, the more likely it is that I can't see them. So if my sister sends me an article from her local news site, I probably can't see it. Food Network is the biggest site that doesn't exactly work with GDPR: I can't see anything from the American site whatsoever, but can see the british one, who of course, doesn't show the recipe from the American site.
nobody9999 6y ago
While I'm not a huge fan of Tom Friedman, I thought his take on how we've handled downturns over the past few decades was relevant here. Especially with respect to the smaller numbers of startups and the impact of the big players either buying or snuffing out potential competitors among those startups. Changing the incentive structures around startups, competition and markets propping up so-called "zombie" companies[0] seems like a fertile area for discussion, especially on HN. [0] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/z/zombies.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/z/zombies.asp
- snarf21 6y ago
  It is also clear that the SEC and FTC have been absent for the 21st century. As long as Wall Street calls the shots, the consumer is screwed.
  - aNoob7000 6y ago
    I think a big issue is company mergers and acquisitions. For a while now, the bigger is better mentality has ruled. Additionally, we've let too many companies buy up competitors. For example, Facebook purchased Instagram and Visa tried to buy Plaid.
- specialist 6y ago
  I'm also very concerned about the decline of small businesses. It seems to me that any faction claiming to be "pro-business" would champion policies encouraging new business formation, especially smaller and more local. Stupid obvious stuff like access to capital, helping with health insurance and other benefits, tax holidays like what Amazon enjoyed. There's no shortage of ideas.
nobody9999 6y ago
Furthering the discussion... https://archive.vn/ENV7y https://archive.vn/ENV7y
anewaccount2021 6y ago
When will this meme die....we have socialism for everyone Stimulus checks, extended UI, rent and mortgage forbearance etc etc etc. And it won't stop because it can't.
- input_sh 6y ago
  Are workers owning the product of their labour and managing the company democratically? If not, it's not socialism, it's welfare. It's really, really not complicated and the way the term has been stripped out of its meaning (primarily in the US) is just awful.
  - DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
    > (primarily in the US) afaik _only_ in the US? or are there any countries where the socialist bogey man is used this way by countries without a working social safety net? - Paying 20% of your paycheck to insurance = good capitalist affordable. - Paying 4% of your paycheck to Medicare = bad communist too expensive Americans are the most propagandized people in the world. -- @LeftistCEO the US agitprop machine doesn't even distinguish between communist and socialist - both terms are used interchangeably. Bernie Sanders and how he is viewed is a great example here: his policies would have been considered moderate in socialist Europe of the 60ies/70ies (and especially in the often cited "well working" model of socialist Sweden, Denmark Norway).
- orangecat1 6y ago
  The meme will probably die when it's no longer true, and when we actually fix the massive economic inequality that exists in our society. The things you listed are not really socialism (rent and mortgage forbearance is not socialism; socialism would be getting rid of the whole landlord/renting system entirely, replacing it by some form of public ownership). And these things are only occurring during a global pandemic, and are not par for the course in our society.
- FranzFerdiNaN 6y ago
  This isnt socialism. Its amazing how especially Americans seem to think that socialism is the government doing stuff, and the more the government does the more socialism it is.
Miner49er 6y ago
> Socialism for the Rich. Capitalism for the Rest. This is an unfortunate saying, that further perpetuates misunderstanding of what socialism is.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  What pray tell is socialism?
  - Miner49er 6y ago
    The workers owning the means of production, it's not government handouts. "Socialism for the Rich" should be phrased as "Welfare for the Rich", IMO.
    - hoseja 6y ago
      Are you sure you're not mixing up socialism/Marxism/communism/...?
      - Miner49er 6y ago
        Pretty sure, yeah. The first line of Wikipedia's page on socialism: "Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and democratic control or workers' self-management of enterprises." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
        lm28469 6y ago
        This is exactly what I'm talking about in my other comment. Look at the french definition on wiki for example: "The word socialism covers a very diverse set of currents of thought and political movements1, whose common point is to seek a fairer social and economic organization. The original goal of socialism is to achieve social equality, or at least a reduction of inequalities2 and, especially for the Marxist-inspired currents, to establish a classless society. More broadly, socialism can be defined as a political tendency, historically marked on the left, whose basic principle is the aspiration for a better world, based on harmonious social organization and the fight against injustice. Depending on the context, the word socialism or the adjective socialist can qualify an ideology, a political party, a political regime or a social organization."
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lettergram 6y ago
I have to say, this isn’t about socialism vs capitalism. There is corruption so deep into our government that it appears the vast majority of taxes feed it. Most of the regulations are there because your senator / reps were bribed.. I mean mean lobbied. Look at the recent covid relief bill, sending money random places throughout the world. I suspect it’s laundered back to politicians, honestly. If you wonder why there is a BLM (communist) movement or the “Make America Great Again” movement. Both are centered around fixing this broken, corrupt system. Most Americans recognize this and are trying to organize solutions. The powers that be, don’t want to give it up. Hence there has been a coordinated effort to manipulate news, social media shutting down decent and yes, even some claim voter fraud (for instance, zuckerberg funded non-profits to the tune of $500m; which funded private “satellite” ballot collection locations in PA).
- gurleen_s 6y ago
  Why qualify BLM with communism? It’s very clearly a social movement, and while there are plenty of socialists and communists involved, they are not actively advocating for a communist state.
  - iaHN 6y ago
    Many people see BLM as a conduit for the redistribution of power and wealth towards minorities and thus communist.
    - lm28469 6y ago
      Are you hinting that wanting to reduce inequalities makes you a communist ?
      - iaHN 6y ago
        A large portion of our society thinks so: https://www.peninsuladailynews.com/letters/letter-blm-is-a-racist-communist-movement/ https://www.peninsuladailynews.com/letters/letter-blm-is-a-r... https://www.foxnews.com/politics/blackburn-rips-blms-trained-marxists-as-threat-to-us-day-after-calling-on-omar-to-resign https://www.foxnews.com/politics/blackburn-rips-blms-trained... https://www.foxnews.com/media/giuliani-stupid-communist-de-blasio-nyc-trump https://www.foxnews.com/media/giuliani-stupid-communist-de-b...
jlkuester7 6y ago
“Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the rest” seems like just another way of describing "trickle-down economics" (or at least of describing the results of that strategy in western economies). To be clear, you can do a lot worse than western economies have done over the last 50 years, but I agree with Friedman that we need to refocus our efforts so that the wealth-gap does not continue growing out of control. This, of course, does not have to mean doubling down on the welfare state, but as Friedman said: "cash assistance to only the most vulnerable and more investments in infrastructure that improve productivity and create good jobs." But the tricky part is to do this without unfairly rewarding/propping up anti-consumer monopolies. We need a new era of trust-busting! My main measure for the long-term success of any economic theory is whether or not it causes a distribution of power across the middle class. If the middle class does not grow in size (relative to the whole population) and in its percentage share in the total wealth/power then I don't think you have a very good system.
- hanniabu 6y ago
  Trickle down economics never worked and they knew it never would. Trickle up economics on the other hand would actually stimulate the economy. The top hoards while the bottom spends.
  - me_me_me 6y ago
    Yes and somehow everyone in power is 'convinced' that the bottom will spend that money on crime and burn the rest. Its obvious that the trickle down system was designed to suck up the wealth from the middle class. Its been proved to not work even by the IMF. But it persists as it still helps to keep the status quo.
cs702 6y ago
This isn't new. Here's John Kenneth Galbraith, writing about it in January 1987: > There is insurance of bank deposits and the further certainty that any large corporation, if in danger, would be bailed out. Modern socialism, as I've elsewhere said, is when the corporate jets come down on National and Dulles airports.[a] Who loses? Startups, small businesses, and the non-wealthy -- that is, the masses who cannot count on government largess to rescue them. [a] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1987/01/the-1929-parallel/304903/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1987/01/the-192...
nobody9999 6y ago
An unfortunate title seems to be redirecting what could be a productive discussion about stuff that's relevant to HN users: Increasing barriers to entry for startups due to increased concentrations of cash/power stifling competition and innovation. What changes in incentives improve the ability of startups to survive and thrive in an environment dominated by a few, cash-rich and competition-hating mega-corps?
- superbcarrot 6y ago
  HN is about a lot more than just startups.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >HN is about a lot more than just startups. Of course it is. I just thought I'd point up (given the title of the referenced article doesn't provide any real context) the startup angle as a direction for discussion. No one needs to take that up, of course. But as the submitter I thought it worthwhile to mention.
- afarrell 6y ago
  Honestly, this is the biggest reason I want UBI. I want it to be easier to operate a profitable food truck in Flint, Michigan so that it is easier to find a job building software that solves food safety problems for folks in places like Flint, Michigan. Currently, there is not enough anticipated revenue from doing that. Poorer people get fewer votes on which problems (like being hungry for lunch) and metaproblems (like running a food truck) get solved by the free market. UBI also would make more centrally-decided solutions like education easier to provide. Kids learn better when they have less-stressed parents and aunts who run local businesses.
  - kmos17 6y ago
    Universal health care/medicare for all would in my opinion be the most impactful help small businesses and startups could get. So many people stuck in jobs just because they can’t risk losing health coverage.
cudgy 6y ago
This article is completely hypocritical to be coming from Tom Friedman. He has been one of the primary cheerleaders for globalism which has been a major driver of corporations gaining more favor from the government. This favor has been in the many forms including favorable trade deals (to China and the companies that manufacture there), ignoring the environmental impact of manufacturing in China which hurts all people especially the citizens of China, lax immigration enforcement (which led to more competition for the workers and cheaper labor for the companies), and ultra low interest rates that make it difficult for people to save money without buying overpriced assets and accepting extended risk.
- bildung 6y ago
  International trade agreements, taxation of corporations and interest rates are all distinct issues. Trade agreements are not the reason Amazon and Google aren't paying taxes, and neither are the current interest rates.
  - TearsInTheRain 6y ago
    I disagree that they are distinct issues. Ultra low interest rates inflating their market cap gives them access to capital and in turn power to lobby for favorable tax policies, trade policies etc.
    - bildung 6y ago
      Of course it all happens in the same economy, so the outcome of a can affect b. But if something develops into a problem for society, it should be acted on directly, which is possible for all the points at hand here: * If uber-profitable companies abuse their wealth for lobbying, then stop allowing these kinds of lobbying. The current system with PACs an Super PACs and so on is unique to the US, it essentially is a societal decision to have a system like that. * If FAANG companies are very profitable (see p/e ratios) but don't pay taxes, then fix tax law. * If money is cheap because there is no demand for it to invest into new businesses etc., then raise minimum wages and invest into infrastructure at federal and state level, to induce demand. Remember that low interest rates mean companies have no need to borrow money. This is a common misconception, but low interest rates are a consequence of the current economical climate, not its cause - if money were in demand interest rates wouldn't be so low, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rate_of_interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rate_of_interest ) * if employers employ illegal immigrants to do tax fraud, then enforce the tax law. The tax fraud part has nothing to do with the immigration, small business tax fraud works perfectly fine with exclusively Americans employed in the company.
cheaprentalyeti 6y ago
I'd rephrase it thus: over the last thirty years, the rich become rich by being the subset of "business" that actually gets to be capitalists. Manufacturing is only allowed overseas and only the importing companies make money, while the rest of us get screwed over by the depreciating currency.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  Serious question: what is the definition of "capitalist" in this context? Also, don't forget that there's more to the economy than manufacturing - what about the service-sector, intangibles, finance, the information sector, creative arts, and so on?
Igelau 6y ago
I have something very important to tell you about wealth inequality... and you can read it as long as you're a paid subscriber!
paulpauper 6y ago
How does one define rich though? This is always the rub. I mean, if you look at the performance of the stock market over the past decade and also all the ppl getting rich with GME and Tesla options on WallStreetBets, it's hardly only the 1% who are benefiting. Maybe the top 20% or more. I think it is more like high-IQ people who are getting rich, and it is people who have low/average IQs, who have low-paying jobs and without nice tech jobs or stock portfolios, who are falling behind .So that is probably 60-70% of the country.
- gruez 6y ago
  >I mean, if you look at the performance of the stock market over the past decade and also all the ppl getting rich with GME and Tesla options on WallStreetBets, it's hardly only the 1% who are benefiting. Maybe the top 20% or more. Technically if you own any stock you're benefiting. If we go by that metric that's almost 50% of people. However, the better question is how the ownership is distributed. One source says the top 1% own 56% of stocks, which paints a less rosy picture that what you're suggesting (that the gains are distributed among the top 20%). https://financialpost.com/investing/how-americas-1-came-to-dominate-stock-ownership https://financialpost.com/investing/how-americas-1-came-to-d...
- nip180 6y ago
  I know plenty of people benefiting from the stock market with average and less than average IQs. This is a matter of classism not intelligence. If you have enough money to invest your benefiting, and the more money you have to invest the more you are benefiting. Of course, there are a few outlier founders, CEOs, and stock traders that are benefiting much more then average. What separates these outliers from others isn’t IQ, because there are plenty of people with very high IQs that are doing about average economically.
- whoknew1122 6y ago
  The people making currently making money off meme stocks doesn't equate to 20% of the country. And there's no direct evidence that those people are getting 'rich.' Outside of the few whales that are profiting off the (somehow?) legal pump and dump scheme that is WallStreetBets. Rich is having a high networth. It's a lot more dependent on what social class in which you were raised (and therefore what networks you can access, and what role models you have) than your IQ.* My IQ puts me easily in the 95th precentile of tested individuals, but I grew up poor to two alcoholic high-school dropouts. On the other hand, I have a friend who grew up with CEO father who sits on boards of major public companies. This friend spent college (at a lower-to-mid tier school) as a D1 athlete pounding beers while dealing and using massive amounts of cocaine. This friend will tell you I'm the smartest person he's ever met. He's said it to multiple of his contacts while in my presence. He pulls in hundreds of thousands of dollars a month due to his daddy's connections, while I scratched and clawed my way to rise above my station and get hired by a FAANG. *This is completely ignoring that IQ is based off an extremely biased, standardized test and a horrible proxy for intelligence.
chanakya 6y ago
This is mostly clickbait. The only evidence that's presented that the govermnent is practicing "socialism for the rich" is the statement of an investment banker, of all people. He also says that government intervention "stimulates the stock market" rather than the "real economy", and the "best evidence" is that the stock market is rising during the pandemic and startups have been dying. Meanwhile, in the real world, government money during the pandemic is going to individuals who need it and to small businesses. Which is exactly as it should be as we deal with a bad situation. It's a good thing that the stock market remains high, as the economy hasn't taken the big tumble in the US that it has in many other countries.
paulpauper 6y ago
This is the part I disagree >This is all actually making our system more fragile. >Now that so many countries, led by the U.S., have massively increased their debt loads, if we got even a small burst of inflation that drove interest on the 10-year Treasury to 3 percent from 1 percent, the amount of money the U.S. would have to devote to debt servicing would be so enormous that little money might be left for discretionary spending on research, infrastructure or education — or another rainy day. >Sure, we could then just print even more money, but that could threaten the status of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency and raise our borrowing costs even more. The evidence suggests the system is stronger than ever. The US stock market and economy outperformed much of the rest of the developed and remerging world post-Covid in spite of a lot of deaths. It is not the absolute debt that matters so much, but rather the interest paid on debt relative to GDP, which is very low and has been falling for a long time. Rising interest rates does not mans that the debt will be harder to service, because the economy will also be growing more too. There is also huge demand for treasuries by pensions and sovereign funds, which should keep rates very low for a long time to come.
- username90 6y ago
  The stock market will stay healthy as long as people believe that putting their money in the stock market is the best course of action. That doesn't mean that the economy is actually doing great, just that people don't see any other options with better returns.
- paulis 6y ago
  I'm not sure of your source for net interest payments. The CBO shows them mostly as flat since 2002. And while net interest may have stayed flat recently that is because interest rates are historically low. We are borrowing more money than ever. See https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56910 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56910 Debt as a % of GDP has been rising since 2000. Our ability to fund our government has been lacking every year since 2001, typically with a deficit each year between $500B and 1.5T a year. We are fortunate to have super low interest rates so that our net interest payments stay low while we spend an incredible amount of money we don't have. Part of the health of the economy now depends on excess government spending (which we can't raise enough revenue to fund). So when interest rates rise, which they will do in time, our net interest payments will rise as well. While our net interest payments rise, our ability to cut government spending or raise taxes seems unlikely to be able to match it. Furthermore, your assertions that economic growth will cover the rise in interest payments does not seem to be a given to me. We have had solid economic growth over the last 20 years, however, our ability to fund our government spending has not changed at all. See the year after year deficits we always run. CBO estimates that by the end of the decade, net interest payments will double compared to today, reflecting the thought that we are enjoying historically low rates currently: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56542 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56542
apexalpha 6y ago
Think isn't too much new stuff, lot's of people have been saying it years regarding the bailouts. What stuck out for me was the quote about Zombie companies. I've heard it mention before but seemingly 19%(!!!) of all listed companies are now zombie companies. Is this true? Is it because of Covid-19 this year or was it always this bad? How can this go on? For instance, Sharma wrote in July in a Wall Street Journal essay [0] titled “The Rescues Ruining Capitalism,” that easy money and increasingly generous bailouts fuel the rise of monopolies and keep “alive heavily indebted ‘zombie’ firms, at the expense of start-ups, which drive innovation.” And all of that is contributing to lower productivity, which means slower economic growth and “a shrinking of the pie for everyone.” [...] In the 1980s, “only 2 percent of publicly traded companies in the U.S. were considered ‘zombies,’ a term used by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) for companies that, over the previous three years, had not earned enough profit to make even the interest payments on their debt,” Sharma wrote. “The zombie minority started to grow rapidly in the early 2000s, and by the eve of the pandemic, accounted for 19 percent [1] of U.S.-listed companies.” It’s happening in Europe, China and Japan, too. [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rescues-ruining-capitalism-11595603720 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rescues-ruining-capitalism-... [1] https://www.axios.com/zombie-companies-us-e2c8be18-6786-484e-8fbe-4b56cf3800ac.html https://www.axios.com/zombie-companies-us-e2c8be18-6786-484e...

181 points by nobody9999 6y ago

kanwisher 6y ago

NyTimes doesn't let any international IPs to see any articles. Last newspaper I would ever give money to.

dakna 6y ago
Which newspaper would you give money to?
chokeartist 6y ago
They aren't a newspaper. They are a media gatekeeper.
cbg0 6y ago
I have no problem reading the article from Europe. You can get rid of the paywall with the "Skip The Paywall" extension if you are using Chrome.
input_sh 6y ago
Just open in private/incongito/porn tab.
hiq 6y ago
https://www.nytimes3xbfgragh.onion/2021/01/26/opinion/us-capitalism-socialism.html https://www.nytimes3xbfgragh.onion/2021/01/26/opinion/us-cap...
0xy 6y ago
Ironically, paying NY Times is quite literally cash for billionaires. Your money is subsidizing Carlos Slim's investment and his agenda. Similarly, the Washington Post is a mouthpiece for Jeff Bezos, and all cash made just subsidizes his own investment and agenda. Neutral corporate media is a contradiction.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  Which news sources do you consider reputable then?
  - 0xy 6y ago
    Almost none. PBS is known to lie and stealth retract stories when caught, including in one instance by calling an innocent bystander a "white nationalist" after they were attacked in a car by someone brandishing a gun during a protest (evidence was stealth removed). AP has issued multiple retractions for whopping lies, including using images of kids in cages and claiming they were under the Trump administration, when the images were taken during the Obama administration (afterwards they nuked all evidence, of course).
jimmaswell 6y ago
why should an American newspaper be expected to bend over backwards for GDPR? blame European regulations for this.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Is it that hard to comply with for a newspaper of all things? It's not like it's a European court ruling compelling them to say or do anything Orwellian
- kebman 6y ago
  Bend over backwards? Isn't the The New York Times already GDPR compliant?
- flohofwoe 6y ago
  The NYTimes paywall has nothing to do with Europe or the GDPR though.
- Broken_Hippo 6y ago
  This isn't from GDPR. Those sites just get blocked. This is a definite paywall. If I open it in a private tab, I get no paywall - but yet, find a page seemingly compliant with GDPR, complete with options to opt out of some cookies. Most major websites comply with GDPR, by the way - the more local they are, the more likely it is that I can't see them. So if my sister sends me an article from her local news site, I probably can't see it. Food Network is the biggest site that doesn't exactly work with GDPR: I can't see anything from the American site whatsoever, but can see the british one, who of course, doesn't show the recipe from the American site.

nobody9999 6y ago

While I'm not a huge fan of Tom Friedman, I thought his take on how we've handled downturns over the past few decades was relevant here. Especially with respect to the smaller numbers of startups and the impact of the big players either buying or snuffing out potential competitors among those startups. Changing the incentive structures around startups, competition and markets propping up so-called "zombie" companies[0] seems like a fertile area for discussion, especially on HN. [0] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/z/zombies.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/z/zombies.asp

snarf21 6y ago
It is also clear that the SEC and FTC have been absent for the 21st century. As long as Wall Street calls the shots, the consumer is screwed.
- aNoob7000 6y ago
  I think a big issue is company mergers and acquisitions. For a while now, the bigger is better mentality has ruled. Additionally, we've let too many companies buy up competitors. For example, Facebook purchased Instagram and Visa tried to buy Plaid.
specialist 6y ago
I'm also very concerned about the decline of small businesses. It seems to me that any faction claiming to be "pro-business" would champion policies encouraging new business formation, especially smaller and more local. Stupid obvious stuff like access to capital, helping with health insurance and other benefits, tax holidays like what Amazon enjoyed. There's no shortage of ideas.

nobody9999 6y ago

Furthering the discussion... https://archive.vn/ENV7y https://archive.vn/ENV7y

anewaccount2021 6y ago

When will this meme die....we have socialism for everyone Stimulus checks, extended UI, rent and mortgage forbearance etc etc etc. And it won't stop because it can't.

input_sh 6y ago
Are workers owning the product of their labour and managing the company democratically? If not, it's not socialism, it's welfare. It's really, really not complicated and the way the term has been stripped out of its meaning (primarily in the US) is just awful.
- DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
  > (primarily in the US) afaik _only_ in the US? or are there any countries where the socialist bogey man is used this way by countries without a working social safety net? - Paying 20% of your paycheck to insurance = good capitalist affordable. - Paying 4% of your paycheck to Medicare = bad communist too expensive Americans are the most propagandized people in the world. -- @LeftistCEO the US agitprop machine doesn't even distinguish between communist and socialist - both terms are used interchangeably. Bernie Sanders and how he is viewed is a great example here: his policies would have been considered moderate in socialist Europe of the 60ies/70ies (and especially in the often cited "well working" model of socialist Sweden, Denmark Norway).
orangecat1 6y ago
The meme will probably die when it's no longer true, and when we actually fix the massive economic inequality that exists in our society. The things you listed are not really socialism (rent and mortgage forbearance is not socialism; socialism would be getting rid of the whole landlord/renting system entirely, replacing it by some form of public ownership). And these things are only occurring during a global pandemic, and are not par for the course in our society.
FranzFerdiNaN 6y ago
This isnt socialism. Its amazing how especially Americans seem to think that socialism is the government doing stuff, and the more the government does the more socialism it is.

Miner49er 6y ago

> Socialism for the Rich. Capitalism for the Rest. This is an unfortunate saying, that further perpetuates misunderstanding of what socialism is.

paulryanrogers 6y ago
What pray tell is socialism?
- Miner49er 6y ago
  The workers owning the means of production, it's not government handouts. "Socialism for the Rich" should be phrased as "Welfare for the Rich", IMO.
  - hoseja 6y ago
    Are you sure you're not mixing up socialism/Marxism/communism/...?
    - Miner49er 6y ago
      Pretty sure, yeah. The first line of Wikipedia's page on socialism: "Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and democratic control or workers' self-management of enterprises." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
      - lm28469 6y ago
        This is exactly what I'm talking about in my other comment. Look at the french definition on wiki for example: "The word socialism covers a very diverse set of currents of thought and political movements1, whose common point is to seek a fairer social and economic organization. The original goal of socialism is to achieve social equality, or at least a reduction of inequalities2 and, especially for the Marxist-inspired currents, to establish a classless society. More broadly, socialism can be defined as a political tendency, historically marked on the left, whose basic principle is the aspiration for a better world, based on harmonious social organization and the fight against injustice. Depending on the context, the word socialism or the adjective socialist can qualify an ideology, a political party, a political regime or a social organization."

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

lettergram 6y ago

I have to say, this isn’t about socialism vs capitalism. There is corruption so deep into our government that it appears the vast majority of taxes feed it. Most of the regulations are there because your senator / reps were bribed.. I mean mean lobbied. Look at the recent covid relief bill, sending money random places throughout the world. I suspect it’s laundered back to politicians, honestly. If you wonder why there is a BLM (communist) movement or the “Make America Great Again” movement. Both are centered around fixing this broken, corrupt system. Most Americans recognize this and are trying to organize solutions. The powers that be, don’t want to give it up. Hence there has been a coordinated effort to manipulate news, social media shutting down decent and yes, even some claim voter fraud (for instance, zuckerberg funded non-profits to the tune of $500m; which funded private “satellite” ballot collection locations in PA).

gurleen_s 6y ago
Why qualify BLM with communism? It’s very clearly a social movement, and while there are plenty of socialists and communists involved, they are not actively advocating for a communist state.
- iaHN 6y ago
  Many people see BLM as a conduit for the redistribution of power and wealth towards minorities and thus communist.
  - lm28469 6y ago
    Are you hinting that wanting to reduce inequalities makes you a communist ?
    - iaHN 6y ago
      A large portion of our society thinks so: https://www.peninsuladailynews.com/letters/letter-blm-is-a-racist-communist-movement/ https://www.peninsuladailynews.com/letters/letter-blm-is-a-r... https://www.foxnews.com/politics/blackburn-rips-blms-trained-marxists-as-threat-to-us-day-after-calling-on-omar-to-resign https://www.foxnews.com/politics/blackburn-rips-blms-trained... https://www.foxnews.com/media/giuliani-stupid-communist-de-blasio-nyc-trump https://www.foxnews.com/media/giuliani-stupid-communist-de-b...

jlkuester7 6y ago

“Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the rest” seems like just another way of describing "trickle-down economics" (or at least of describing the results of that strategy in western economies). To be clear, you can do a lot worse than western economies have done over the last 50 years, but I agree with Friedman that we need to refocus our efforts so that the wealth-gap does not continue growing out of control. This, of course, does not have to mean doubling down on the welfare state, but as Friedman said: "cash assistance to only the most vulnerable and more investments in infrastructure that improve productivity and create good jobs." But the tricky part is to do this without unfairly rewarding/propping up anti-consumer monopolies. We need a new era of trust-busting! My main measure for the long-term success of any economic theory is whether or not it causes a distribution of power across the middle class. If the middle class does not grow in size (relative to the whole population) and in its percentage share in the total wealth/power then I don't think you have a very good system.

hanniabu 6y ago
Trickle down economics never worked and they knew it never would. Trickle up economics on the other hand would actually stimulate the economy. The top hoards while the bottom spends.
- me_me_me 6y ago
  Yes and somehow everyone in power is 'convinced' that the bottom will spend that money on crime and burn the rest. Its obvious that the trickle down system was designed to suck up the wealth from the middle class. Its been proved to not work even by the IMF. But it persists as it still helps to keep the status quo.

cs702 6y ago

This isn't new. Here's John Kenneth Galbraith, writing about it in January 1987: > There is insurance of bank deposits and the further certainty that any large corporation, if in danger, would be bailed out. Modern socialism, as I've elsewhere said, is when the corporate jets come down on National and Dulles airports.[a] Who loses? Startups, small businesses, and the non-wealthy -- that is, the masses who cannot count on government largess to rescue them. [a] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1987/01/the-1929-parallel/304903/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1987/01/the-192...

nobody9999 6y ago

An unfortunate title seems to be redirecting what could be a productive discussion about stuff that's relevant to HN users: Increasing barriers to entry for startups due to increased concentrations of cash/power stifling competition and innovation. What changes in incentives improve the ability of startups to survive and thrive in an environment dominated by a few, cash-rich and competition-hating mega-corps?

superbcarrot 6y ago
HN is about a lot more than just startups.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >HN is about a lot more than just startups. Of course it is. I just thought I'd point up (given the title of the referenced article doesn't provide any real context) the startup angle as a direction for discussion. No one needs to take that up, of course. But as the submitter I thought it worthwhile to mention.
afarrell 6y ago
Honestly, this is the biggest reason I want UBI. I want it to be easier to operate a profitable food truck in Flint, Michigan so that it is easier to find a job building software that solves food safety problems for folks in places like Flint, Michigan. Currently, there is not enough anticipated revenue from doing that. Poorer people get fewer votes on which problems (like being hungry for lunch) and metaproblems (like running a food truck) get solved by the free market. UBI also would make more centrally-decided solutions like education easier to provide. Kids learn better when they have less-stressed parents and aunts who run local businesses.
- kmos17 6y ago
  Universal health care/medicare for all would in my opinion be the most impactful help small businesses and startups could get. So many people stuck in jobs just because they can’t risk losing health coverage.

cudgy 6y ago

This article is completely hypocritical to be coming from Tom Friedman. He has been one of the primary cheerleaders for globalism which has been a major driver of corporations gaining more favor from the government. This favor has been in the many forms including favorable trade deals (to China and the companies that manufacture there), ignoring the environmental impact of manufacturing in China which hurts all people especially the citizens of China, lax immigration enforcement (which led to more competition for the workers and cheaper labor for the companies), and ultra low interest rates that make it difficult for people to save money without buying overpriced assets and accepting extended risk.

bildung 6y ago
International trade agreements, taxation of corporations and interest rates are all distinct issues. Trade agreements are not the reason Amazon and Google aren't paying taxes, and neither are the current interest rates.
- TearsInTheRain 6y ago
  I disagree that they are distinct issues. Ultra low interest rates inflating their market cap gives them access to capital and in turn power to lobby for favorable tax policies, trade policies etc.
  - bildung 6y ago
    Of course it all happens in the same economy, so the outcome of a can affect b. But if something develops into a problem for society, it should be acted on directly, which is possible for all the points at hand here: * If uber-profitable companies abuse their wealth for lobbying, then stop allowing these kinds of lobbying. The current system with PACs an Super PACs and so on is unique to the US, it essentially is a societal decision to have a system like that. * If FAANG companies are very profitable (see p/e ratios) but don't pay taxes, then fix tax law. * If money is cheap because there is no demand for it to invest into new businesses etc., then raise minimum wages and invest into infrastructure at federal and state level, to induce demand. Remember that low interest rates mean companies have no need to borrow money. This is a common misconception, but low interest rates are a consequence of the current economical climate, not its cause - if money were in demand interest rates wouldn't be so low, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rate_of_interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rate_of_interest ) * if employers employ illegal immigrants to do tax fraud, then enforce the tax law. The tax fraud part has nothing to do with the immigration, small business tax fraud works perfectly fine with exclusively Americans employed in the company.

cheaprentalyeti 6y ago

I'd rephrase it thus: over the last thirty years, the rich become rich by being the subset of "business" that actually gets to be capitalists. Manufacturing is only allowed overseas and only the importing companies make money, while the rest of us get screwed over by the depreciating currency.

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
Serious question: what is the definition of "capitalist" in this context? Also, don't forget that there's more to the economy than manufacturing - what about the service-sector, intangibles, finance, the information sector, creative arts, and so on?

Igelau 6y ago

I have something very important to tell you about wealth inequality... and you can read it as long as you're a paid subscriber!

paulpauper 6y ago

How does one define rich though? This is always the rub. I mean, if you look at the performance of the stock market over the past decade and also all the ppl getting rich with GME and Tesla options on WallStreetBets, it's hardly only the 1% who are benefiting. Maybe the top 20% or more. I think it is more like high-IQ people who are getting rich, and it is people who have low/average IQs, who have low-paying jobs and without nice tech jobs or stock portfolios, who are falling behind .So that is probably 60-70% of the country.

gruez 6y ago
>I mean, if you look at the performance of the stock market over the past decade and also all the ppl getting rich with GME and Tesla options on WallStreetBets, it's hardly only the 1% who are benefiting. Maybe the top 20% or more. Technically if you own any stock you're benefiting. If we go by that metric that's almost 50% of people. However, the better question is how the ownership is distributed. One source says the top 1% own 56% of stocks, which paints a less rosy picture that what you're suggesting (that the gains are distributed among the top 20%). https://financialpost.com/investing/how-americas-1-came-to-dominate-stock-ownership https://financialpost.com/investing/how-americas-1-came-to-d...
nip180 6y ago
I know plenty of people benefiting from the stock market with average and less than average IQs. This is a matter of classism not intelligence. If you have enough money to invest your benefiting, and the more money you have to invest the more you are benefiting. Of course, there are a few outlier founders, CEOs, and stock traders that are benefiting much more then average. What separates these outliers from others isn’t IQ, because there are plenty of people with very high IQs that are doing about average economically.
whoknew1122 6y ago
The people making currently making money off meme stocks doesn't equate to 20% of the country. And there's no direct evidence that those people are getting 'rich.' Outside of the few whales that are profiting off the (somehow?) legal pump and dump scheme that is WallStreetBets. Rich is having a high networth. It's a lot more dependent on what social class in which you were raised (and therefore what networks you can access, and what role models you have) than your IQ.* My IQ puts me easily in the 95th precentile of tested individuals, but I grew up poor to two alcoholic high-school dropouts. On the other hand, I have a friend who grew up with CEO father who sits on boards of major public companies. This friend spent college (at a lower-to-mid tier school) as a D1 athlete pounding beers while dealing and using massive amounts of cocaine. This friend will tell you I'm the smartest person he's ever met. He's said it to multiple of his contacts while in my presence. He pulls in hundreds of thousands of dollars a month due to his daddy's connections, while I scratched and clawed my way to rise above my station and get hired by a FAANG. *This is completely ignoring that IQ is based off an extremely biased, standardized test and a horrible proxy for intelligence.

chanakya 6y ago

This is mostly clickbait. The only evidence that's presented that the govermnent is practicing "socialism for the rich" is the statement of an investment banker, of all people. He also says that government intervention "stimulates the stock market" rather than the "real economy", and the "best evidence" is that the stock market is rising during the pandemic and startups have been dying. Meanwhile, in the real world, government money during the pandemic is going to individuals who need it and to small businesses. Which is exactly as it should be as we deal with a bad situation. It's a good thing that the stock market remains high, as the economy hasn't taken the big tumble in the US that it has in many other countries.

paulpauper 6y ago

This is the part I disagree >This is all actually making our system more fragile. >Now that so many countries, led by the U.S., have massively increased their debt loads, if we got even a small burst of inflation that drove interest on the 10-year Treasury to 3 percent from 1 percent, the amount of money the U.S. would have to devote to debt servicing would be so enormous that little money might be left for discretionary spending on research, infrastructure or education — or another rainy day. >Sure, we could then just print even more money, but that could threaten the status of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency and raise our borrowing costs even more. The evidence suggests the system is stronger than ever. The US stock market and economy outperformed much of the rest of the developed and remerging world post-Covid in spite of a lot of deaths. It is not the absolute debt that matters so much, but rather the interest paid on debt relative to GDP, which is very low and has been falling for a long time. Rising interest rates does not mans that the debt will be harder to service, because the economy will also be growing more too. There is also huge demand for treasuries by pensions and sovereign funds, which should keep rates very low for a long time to come.

username90 6y ago
The stock market will stay healthy as long as people believe that putting their money in the stock market is the best course of action. That doesn't mean that the economy is actually doing great, just that people don't see any other options with better returns.
paulis 6y ago
I'm not sure of your source for net interest payments. The CBO shows them mostly as flat since 2002. And while net interest may have stayed flat recently that is because interest rates are historically low. We are borrowing more money than ever. See https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56910 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56910 Debt as a % of GDP has been rising since 2000. Our ability to fund our government has been lacking every year since 2001, typically with a deficit each year between $500B and 1.5T a year. We are fortunate to have super low interest rates so that our net interest payments stay low while we spend an incredible amount of money we don't have. Part of the health of the economy now depends on excess government spending (which we can't raise enough revenue to fund). So when interest rates rise, which they will do in time, our net interest payments will rise as well. While our net interest payments rise, our ability to cut government spending or raise taxes seems unlikely to be able to match it. Furthermore, your assertions that economic growth will cover the rise in interest payments does not seem to be a given to me. We have had solid economic growth over the last 20 years, however, our ability to fund our government spending has not changed at all. See the year after year deficits we always run. CBO estimates that by the end of the decade, net interest payments will double compared to today, reflecting the thought that we are enjoying historically low rates currently: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56542 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56542

apexalpha 6y ago

Think isn't too much new stuff, lot's of people have been saying it years regarding the bailouts. What stuck out for me was the quote about Zombie companies. I've heard it mention before but seemingly 19%(!!!) of all listed companies are now zombie companies. Is this true? Is it because of Covid-19 this year or was it always this bad? How can this go on? For instance, Sharma wrote in July in a Wall Street Journal essay [0] titled “The Rescues Ruining Capitalism,” that easy money and increasingly generous bailouts fuel the rise of monopolies and keep “alive heavily indebted ‘zombie’ firms, at the expense of start-ups, which drive innovation.” And all of that is contributing to lower productivity, which means slower economic growth and “a shrinking of the pie for everyone.” [...] In the 1980s, “only 2 percent of publicly traded companies in the U.S. were considered ‘zombies,’ a term used by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) for companies that, over the previous three years, had not earned enough profit to make even the interest payments on their debt,” Sharma wrote. “The zombie minority started to grow rapidly in the early 2000s, and by the eve of the pandemic, accounted for 19 percent [1] of U.S.-listed companies.” It’s happening in Europe, China and Japan, too. [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rescues-ruining-capitalism-11595603720 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rescues-ruining-capitalism-... [1] https://www.axios.com/zombie-companies-us-e2c8be18-6786-484e-8fbe-4b56cf3800ac.html https://www.axios.com/zombie-companies-us-e2c8be18-6786-484e...