3 ms·

I'm not for unbridled capitalism, but if you have ever tried to start a business in even a slightly regulated field (medical, construction, chimney cleaning, a

I'm not for unbridled capitalism, but if you have ever tried to start a business in even a slightly regulated field (medical, construction, chimney cleaning, a restaurant, general contracting, just being a handyman), the amount of regulation is incredible and overwhelming. Software development doesn't count - it's probably the least regulated field in the country. Even being a hairdresser requires licensing and venue requirements in most states - minorities have been sued for just trying to do hairdressing in their own homes for a few bucks. Is it fair to call the US a capitalist country? Honestly, I don't think so. It's a weird disastrous mishmash of socialism, capitalism, and English bureaucracy. It's just "more capitalist" than other countries who at least have the intellectual honesty to more fully commit to a system.

ttoinou 3y ago
It's the same all around the world. But rules are usually less applied
sh34r 3y ago
There is nothing socialist about the US. The workers do not own the means of production. Labor union membership is in the single digits. We have some very limited vestiges of social democracy, but social democracy is not socialism. Socialists and social democrats were not allies. Google the meme: “SocDems killed Rosa.” What you’re observing is what unregulated capitalism will always devolve into. It goes by many names: capitalism, crony capitalism, neoliberalism, corporatism, oligarchy, fascism. But the idea is the same. Labor is violently oppressed. The State only serves the interests of capitalists. The State and Capital are often indistinguishable. There is no competition. There are structural barriers that stifle small businesses and enrich rent seeking trusts. It’s a new Gilded Age, brought to life by a new Lochner era for the Supreme Court. I have good news and bad news: this system, whatever you call it, is extremely unstable. Its collapse is inevitable, well within the span of a single human lifetime.
- anonym29 3y ago
  >There is nothing socialist about the US Except for the half of the entire federal budget that is spent strictly on wealth redistribution to enhance equity between the rich and the poor - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Seriously, these three programs are fully half of all federal spending. Not to mention all the state wealth redistribution programs, that cover housing (section 8), food (food stamps), education (public school system for k-12, pell grants above), utilities (utility vouchers), healthcare (ACA), telecom ("obamaphones", broadband vouchers), and more. I've seen estimates that in the most progressive states, welfare benefits can amount to as much as $42,000 a year for a small family. You can argue that on a PPP & CoL basis, that isn't much money in e.g. Bay Area (where that is well below poverty level), but that's also a global top 10% income. To say there is "nothing" socialist about the US is disingenuous, politicized, and pedantic at best. There is substantial social wealth redistribution and there exist substantial worker protections in the USA. You can find plenty of countries with a FAR less socialist nature. In fairness, it is likewise hyperbolic to describe the USA as a communist or even "fully" socialist country.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I would add that significant portion of the remaining budget is spent on defense, which is a classic economic public good utilized by every citizen.
    - anonym29 3y ago
      Defense spending accounts for only a little over a third of what remains, or a bit over a sixth of all spending. Grossly eclipsed by wealth redistribution. We also spend about a sixth on interest payments. Everything else the entire federal government does combined is only about one sixth the federal budget.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Indeed. There will be fascinating to see an analysis of how much of the federal budget goes towards programs that all citizens and or do utilize. I suspect the numbers would shock a lot of people
pc86 3y ago
I'm not sure you're fully connected to reality if you think medicine is "slightly regulated."
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  I apologize. I was under the misimpression (though I should have clarified) that it required a specialized license just to deliver medicine to, say, a retirement home from a pharmacy in some states; which appears to be incorrect.
  - pc86 3y ago
    What I mean is that just about every aspect of medicine - teaching it, studying it, practicing it, research - is all very highly regulated with a lot of oversight both internally from those already licensed, and the government. Outside of things like finance or defense you'd be hard pressed to find anything more regulated.

ttoinou 3y ago

It's the same all around the world. But rules are usually less applied

sh34r 3y ago

There is nothing socialist about the US. The workers do not own the means of production. Labor union membership is in the single digits. We have some very limited vestiges of social democracy, but social democracy is not socialism. Socialists and social democrats were not allies. Google the meme: “SocDems killed Rosa.” What you’re observing is what unregulated capitalism will always devolve into. It goes by many names: capitalism, crony capitalism, neoliberalism, corporatism, oligarchy, fascism. But the idea is the same. Labor is violently oppressed. The State only serves the interests of capitalists. The State and Capital are often indistinguishable. There is no competition. There are structural barriers that stifle small businesses and enrich rent seeking trusts. It’s a new Gilded Age, brought to life by a new Lochner era for the Supreme Court. I have good news and bad news: this system, whatever you call it, is extremely unstable. Its collapse is inevitable, well within the span of a single human lifetime.

anonym29 3y ago
>There is nothing socialist about the US Except for the half of the entire federal budget that is spent strictly on wealth redistribution to enhance equity between the rich and the poor - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Seriously, these three programs are fully half of all federal spending. Not to mention all the state wealth redistribution programs, that cover housing (section 8), food (food stamps), education (public school system for k-12, pell grants above), utilities (utility vouchers), healthcare (ACA), telecom ("obamaphones", broadband vouchers), and more. I've seen estimates that in the most progressive states, welfare benefits can amount to as much as $42,000 a year for a small family. You can argue that on a PPP & CoL basis, that isn't much money in e.g. Bay Area (where that is well below poverty level), but that's also a global top 10% income. To say there is "nothing" socialist about the US is disingenuous, politicized, and pedantic at best. There is substantial social wealth redistribution and there exist substantial worker protections in the USA. You can find plenty of countries with a FAR less socialist nature. In fairness, it is likewise hyperbolic to describe the USA as a communist or even "fully" socialist country.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I would add that significant portion of the remaining budget is spent on defense, which is a classic economic public good utilized by every citizen.
  - anonym29 3y ago
    Defense spending accounts for only a little over a third of what remains, or a bit over a sixth of all spending. Grossly eclipsed by wealth redistribution. We also spend about a sixth on interest payments. Everything else the entire federal government does combined is only about one sixth the federal budget.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      Indeed. There will be fascinating to see an analysis of how much of the federal budget goes towards programs that all citizens and or do utilize. I suspect the numbers would shock a lot of people

pc86 3y ago

I'm not sure you're fully connected to reality if you think medicine is "slightly regulated."

gjsman-1000 3y ago
I apologize. I was under the misimpression (though I should have clarified) that it required a specialized license just to deliver medicine to, say, a retirement home from a pharmacy in some states; which appears to be incorrect.
- pc86 3y ago
  What I mean is that just about every aspect of medicine - teaching it, studying it, practicing it, research - is all very highly regulated with a lot of oversight both internally from those already licensed, and the government. Outside of things like finance or defense you'd be hard pressed to find anything more regulated.