Millennial Americans seem to believe socialism is better than capitalism. Will they eventually end capitalism once and for all?
There is no possible way that the United States will ever become a fully Socialist state. The term is so misunderstood and vilified, even by people who should know better, that those who oppose it would never allow that to happen.From the article:"A major new report from the Pew Research Center, 'Millennials in Adulthood: Detached from Institutions, Networked With Friends,' notes that people between 18 and 33 are the first generation in the modern era to have 'higher levels of student loan debt, poverty and unemployment, and lower levels of wealth and personal income than their two immediate predecessor generations (Gen Xers and Boomers) had at the same stage of their life cycles.' This, even though they are the 'best-educated cohort of young adults in American history.'"I guess it could be possible that this is the first generation in the modern era to be so devoid of a work ethic and a sense of personal responsibility, that they have brought this on themselves. I guess that's a possibility. Or is it simply true that "For these young people, the meritocratic social contract—the idea that hard work and academic achievement will be rewarded with economic security—is breaking down"? Perhaps that be all end all of capitalism isn't working the way it used to?My question to the countless people who post alarmist questions about a phalanx of crazy-eyed Socialist tearing down the noble edifice of US capitalism is, "Why do you worry so much about something that has almost no chance of happening, at least in your lifetime?" According to the article, "A 2011 Pew poll even found that people between 18 and 29 had a more favorable view of socialism (49 percent) than capitalism (46 percent)." Is that 3% (which isn't even 3% of the entire population) going to tip the scales sufficiently to overthrow the 228 year status quo? Especially when they're so lazy and are all just sitting around waiting for Uncle Sugar to provide them food, shelter and medical care?EDIT: It occurred to me after I submitted my answer, that the OP's question was neutral as far as advocating for or against the queried proposition. Therefore I have edited the last paragraph so as it does not directly address the OP.
How did the "Robber barons" help America if capitalism always works better?
http://mises.org/daily/2317 Market entrepreneurship is a hallmark of genuine capitalism, whereas political entrepreneurship is not. Liberals, as usual, are unable to see the vast differences. They erroneously lump the 2 together. In some cases, of course, the entrepreneurs commonly labeled "robber barons" did indeed profit by exploiting American customers, but these were not market entrepreneurs. For example, Leland Stanford, a former governor and US senator from California, used his political connections to have the state pass laws prohibiting competition for his Central Pacific railroad. Rockefeller for instance devised means of eliminating much of the incredible waste that had plagued the oil industry. His chemists figured out how to produce such oil byproducts as lubricating oil, gasoline, paraffin wax, Vaseline, paint, varnish, and about three hundred other substances. In each instance he profited by eliminating waste. One of Rockefeller's harshest critics was journalist Ida Tarbell, whose brother was the treasurer of the Pure Oil Company, which could not compete with Standard Oil's low prices. She published a series of hypercritical articles in McClure's magazine in 1902 and 1903, which were turned into a book entitled The History of the Standard Oil Company, a classic of anti-business propaganda. The fact Standard oil was so efficient allowed them to have lower prices. The lower prices forced it's competitors to retaliate the only way they could: Government anti-trust legislation. They assumed Standard oil and companies like it, were able to reduce prices due to a war chest of profits. However, this wasn't true at all. Common sense tells us with lower prices, they couldn't possibly have enough of a war chest to force competition out of business. In the 1930's the American Petroleum Institute (an industry trade association) lobbied for various regulatory schemes to restrict competition and prop up prices; it did not even pretend to be in favor of capitalism or free enterprise. The institute even endorsed the use of National Guard troops to enforce state government production quotas in Texas and Oklahoma in the early l930s. To economists, "predatory pricing" is theoretical nonsense and has no empirical validity. SO ... This begs the question; who were the real robber barons? Government or capitalists?
What specific and unique aspects of the American society and economy make it impractical or even impossible to institute European-style democratic socialism in the USA?
330 million people from nearly as many back grounds in a territory that covers nearly every conceivable environment.First, it isn't Demcratic Socialism over there (for the most part). It's Social Democracy, a very different animal. The former is public ownership of the means of production. The latter is a welfare state funded by free market capitalism. The USA actually is a social democracy.Social Democracy isn't universal in how it is administered. Some places provide all of your needs, at an immense tax rate to pay for said services. Others look to provide the bare minimum to provide a safety net, but not a platform.So, why doesn't the US have a more robust social welfare program? Well, a few reasons.First, it really isn't the federal government's job. Provide for the common defense means the big government has to provide. Promote the general welfare means something different. It's ambiguity let's your imagination run wild. I could argue that Social Security and Medicare shouldn't exist at the federal level and have a pretty solid base to work from.Second, those little facts of life I started with make running welfare programs a bit tougher. The ACA worked great in Massachusetts when it was a state level program designed specifically for that state. Try to upscale it, and it's a disaster. My analogy is throwing a party. Throwing one for ten people is easy. Throwing one for one hundred is a very different animal. In the USA, I think it points out that the ACA helped 11 million people. That isn't even five percent of the population. Three million people is still not quit 1%. So, it's hard for us to really get a keen grasp on cost to benefit.Finally, that diversity think gets in the way. I go back to the scale thing. If 1% of the population is anarchist, that's 3 million people. They can get damned loud If they manage to organize. It's just a drop in the bucket really.So, cost, scale and no particular mandate at the federal level means it's super difficult to expand the welfare state. Personally, I think if we focused on state level institutions rather than national, we'd all be a lot happier. At least you'd have the opportunity to move if you don't like what's going on, yet still live in the USA.
Do you think that Obamacare will end up in the United States Supreme Court?
Donald, hi If it doesn't - the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave is over with... That what a total control of government, achieved d euro by hussein obama really means...