
Why Young Americans Are Giving Up on Capitalism - prostoalex
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/16/why-young-americans-are-giving-up-on-capitalism/
======
dalke
I liked the turn of phrase "Capitalism, in other words, holds less appeal in
an era when the invisible hand feels like a death grip."

The article is very clear that the term capitalism wasn't defined in the
survey, so "What do these category-based questions really tell us, then, about
the allegiance of youth to ideologies? Nothing." Instead, it says to look to
the policy question to get a sense of what young Americans think.

My interpretation - young Americans reject neoliberalism. But as the article
comments:

> “Neoliberal” has gone from a term that describes an advocate of specific
> economic and political policies to an insult hurled indiscriminately on
> social media.

Err, _blush_.

The end is also nicely put:

> You do not need a survey to ascertain the plight of American youth. You can
> look at their bank accounts, at the jobs they have, at the jobs their
> parents have lost, at the debt they hold, at the opportunities they covet
> but are denied. You do not need jargon or ideology to form a case against
> the status quo. The clearest indictment of the status quo is the status quo
> itself.

------
WalterBright
Consider the software business. It's probably the most free market industry in
existence, with a near total lack of government regulation, standards,
interference, subsidies, price fixing, licensing, and oversight (with the
exception of the disastrous patent system).

And look at the results: an ongoing, decades long explosion of new products,
innovation, millions earning a great living, costs of software relentlessly
driven to literally zero, revolutionary new technology every couple of years -
does anyone think that could be made better with socialism?

On the other hand, the industries with the most government intervention seem
to be doing the worst - finance, health care, higher education.

~~~
cgm616
The software market, the Internet market, the entire ecosystem, it's working
because the price of entering is lower. This isn't because of lesser
regulation or a lack of standards and oversight, it's because over the past
decade it has become so easy for anyone with an Internet connection to
contribute. Not necessarily make the next best software business, but
contribute to open-source (a decidedly un-capitalistic idea), provide opinions
and give insight, and share.

This ability for anyone to connect and share with thousands of other people
exactly as we are now is exclusive to this internet platform. That is the
driver of success, of innovation, of technology and future. Every other media,
every other market, is prohibitive to newcomers. There's a reason that
disrupting a market is so praised, because it is something most everyone who
tries, fails.

On the Internet, in software, disruption is the name of the game. It's a brand
new sandbox that anyone can play in.

~~~
WalterBright
> This isn't because of lesser regulation or a lack of standards and
> oversight, it's because over the past decade it has become so easy for
> anyone with an Internet connection to contribute.

If the government required anyone writing software to have a license, and a
permit, and have the result be approved by an agency before it was
distributed, there'd be orders of magnitude less people entering the business.

~~~
y4mi
you're not required to have a licence to do whatever you want in your home as
well.

you can make your own chairs, furniture, oven, whatever...

its just easier to share your homemade products/code with the community over
the internet, which makes software development _look_ less regulated.

and you sure as hell won't be able to get a job outside of startups/web
development without a license either.

~~~
WalterBright
> in your home

That's why I mentioned "distribute".

> without a license

I don't know any software engineers who have a license, or that a permit is
required, or government approval of any sort.

You can bake cookies for yourself all you want, no problem. Try and sell them,
and you need to get permits, inspections, etc. Try and cut hair, you need a
license.

~~~
y4mi
licenses such as LPIC and its windows equivalents hold a surprising
significance in (dev-)ops. and the java certificate is often a requirement
from what i've seen on my job hunts.

i admit that i can't say anything beyond this though.

~~~
WalterBright
Those are not licenses, as in they are not required by law for anything. I
wrote a commercial Java compiler a while back for Symantec, and no permits nor
license nor review whatsoever was required by the government to do it.

As for running my own software business, my only involvement with the
government is registering the business and paying the taxes.

------
thescribe
My first knee jerk argument was 'no true scotsman' capitalist edition, but
that got me thinking.

Capitalism is basically markets on a large scale, and some form of market will
exist as long as a single person has opportunity costs and performs some sort
of optimization. Markets will always be with us in some form. How could we
even go about opting out? Being dissatisfied with capitalism as a concept
seems like being dissatisfied with gravity.

~~~
dwiel
That's like saying that hierarchy will always be around so being dissatisfied
with it as a concept is like being dissatisfied with gravity (in feudal
times). There are matters of degree. Genuinely curious: feudalism is to
hierarchy as ? is to capitalism.

I think maybe some people think feudalism : hierarchy :: capitalism : markets.

~~~
thescribe
I hadn't considered it that way, so thank you for a second point of view. I
had been thinking of capitalism as the 'natural state' or lack of power being
applied.

My best shot: Feudalism is to hierarchy as usury is to capitalism.

~~~
quonn
Capitalism is not a natural state at all. It needs a sophisticated society, a
rule of law, police and a majority who believe it is just. If this were not
so, the disadvantaged would simply take or steal what they think they deserve.

~~~
humanrebar
> Capitalism is not a natural state at all.

It's more natural than centrally planned economies, which absolutely require
rule of law, police, etc.

Capitalism is 1) that the relative value of choices needs to be determined and
2) those values are best crowdsourced.

If the rule of law breaks down, people will still trade, they will just trade
for things that cannot be stolen or reneged on. Things like honor or
reputation. This obviously eliminates the efficiency of a common currency, but
at the end of the day, choices still have various priorities and the world is
too complicated for even the smartest people to evaluate all the choices for
everyone.

Anyway, those are the natural laws. Choices need to be made. Crowdsourcing is
best when evaluating prices, especially regarding common goods and services.

------
ChuckFrank
Capitalism see labor as a cost, and though outsourcing, overseaing, and
automation attempts to drive that cost to as close to zero as possible. The
fundamental problem is that people derive great benefit and satisfaction from
their labor, their participation in production, and the knowledge of a job
well done. Capitalism, over a long time, will always deny people that
satisfaction. Young people can feel that truth in their everyday. It's
Capitalism's fundamental, and intrinsic flaw. Work matters, and it is not a
cost, it is a benefit.

~~~
afarrell
> it is not a cost, it is a benefit

This has a pretty strong diminishing returns effect.

~~~
ChuckFrank
How so? I don't see any diminishing returns. Pay a living wage for good work,
forever.

~~~
afarrell
People derive satisfaction from their labor, but they also derive fatigue,
frustration, and dismay from it. There is a reason why people generally demand
a for doing non-hobby projects. This means it is, on balance, a cost.

------
runT1ME
Sure, you can blame it on capitalism if you want, but pay close attention to a
recurring theme in this article such as

" The minimum wage, which peaked in 1968, would have reached $21.72 in 2012
had it kept pace with _inflation_."

Along with "Prestigious jobs are increasingly clustered in cities where _rent_
has tripled or quadrupled"

This is not a mystery. QE and inflation is a _direct_ wealth transfer from the
poor to the rich. It's basic math and I'll repeat myself once again. When the
upper middle class and rich can leverage themselves into assets that grow
proportionally to inflation, they get richer and poor people get poorer. This
is in addition to the fact that inflation is often a lopsided event from the
top down (Fed lends to banks, which then lend to consumers etc.)

~~~
ytim
Can you elaborate on how QE and inflation is a direct wealth transfer from
poor to rich? Do you mean that QE funds upper class purchase of assets with
cheap debt versus inflation's havoc on lower income savings/purchasing power?

And isn't QE ultimately beneficial to the poor, in that it's funding labor
that would otherwise go unused during a recession (for example)?

~~~
skissane
The phrase "direct wealth transfer" might be too strong, but it's clear that
in many cases inflation has a disproproportionate impact on low income people
than on high income people. Higher income earners are more likely to obtain
regular pay-rises than lower income earners, so inflation has less of a
negative impact on their pay. Lower income people tend to spend the vast
majority of their income on meeting their basic needs, so any decline in real
income has an immediate negative impact on their standard of living. Higher
income people tend to allocate much more of their income to saving or
investment, so a reduction in their real income has a much smaller impact on
their standard of living. If an economic change makes the poor poorer, while
the rich stay where they are (or even get richer), is it wrong to call that a
"wealth transfer"?

------
kinai
Maybe because except for the 1% most of the population feels the negative
effects of it? Doesn't take a genius to see how broken the system is

~~~
partiallypro
They do? Global poverty is at an all time low. Things only the 1% had 10 years
ago are now in the hands of almost every single individual, information no one
had access to 30 years ago is now available to everyone in milliseconds. I'd
say capitalism is doing just fine.

The problem is that capitalism has been so successful that everyone feels
entitled to its gains instantaneously. Because of global trade wealth can
easily become concentrated because market expansion pushes up capital
availability and equity of people who have it. Most people in the top echelon
of wealth hold it in stocks. That's why when we have a crisis (like 2008) the
wealth gap collapses.

~~~
ridgeguy
On your last point: from a historical chart [1] of U.S. net household wealth
(in a 2014 Economist article), it seems the wealth gap didn't collapse or even
moderate its increase in 2008. Indeed, it's reached the same territory which,
in 1917, inspired the passage of progressive income and estate taxes in the
U.S.

[1] [http://cdn.static-
economist.com/sites/default/files/inequali...](http://cdn.static-
economist.com/sites/default/files/inequality1108a_1.png?1415284532)

~~~
partiallypro
That chart is misleading, because it's measuring the top .01%, and the caption
gives me the interpretation that it has an agenda.

Here's a more leveled look: [http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2009/09/15/wealth-
inequality-shr...](http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2009/09/15/wealth-inequality-
shrinks-during-financial-crisis-study-says/)

There's no doubt it re-accelerated after the crisis, but a lot of that has to
do with credit conditions and tight money for the poor, and loose money for
the rich.

~~~
ridgeguy
Thank you for the link. I think the numbers quoted don't indicate a collapse
in the wealth gap around 2008.

The WSJ article includes this observation: "The world is still staggeringly
unequal, with the tiny sliver of those with $5 million or more in assets (we
don’t have the exact number but it’s clearly a select club) owning more than
the total population of those with $100,000 or less."

Perhaps there was a small inflection in the evolving wealth gap curve around
2008, but it seems minor and transitory. The article's numbers seem consistent
with that.

------
curiousgeorgio
Asking people who are not thriving in a capitalistic economy (as numerous as
they may be) what they think about capitalism is like asking the weakest sheep
what they think about survival of the fittest. _Of course_ they're going to
associate the idea with hardship and injustice. No surprise there.

But I feel it, and I feel for everyone affected by it (and I'm not implying
that those people are necessarily weak, by the way). Unfortunately, there will
always exist some degree of disparity in resources and prosperity in society
(at least, any "free" society), and a "fair" system is just one that provides
opportunities for everyone; it doesn't give to those who aren't deserving (and
of course, the definition of "deserving" is very much up for debate). But if
those who do contribute more to society aren't rewarded any more than those
who don't, then fairness ceases to exist.

What many people (especially the younger generation) fail to recognize is that
capitalism is both the problem _and_ the solution here. The real problem is,
our current form of capitalism functions nothing like true "free market"
capitalism. In a free market, education would be cheaper (you think the
government subsidies, grants, scholarships, etc are doing anything but raise
the price of tuition?). Every industry and business would have to prove their
value to the masses (rather than certain players getting preferential
treatment from government subsidies); otherwise our dollars would be voted
elsewhere. As long as the government could ensure a level of _transparency_ ,
we'd all get what we pay for, and of course, charities would still be able to
do tremendous good in giving aid to the less fortunate (those who may be down
on their luck, but not deadbeats). I truly believe that America's economic
situation would be improved by those two things: increased transparency, and
more freedom in the market.

When I hear someone blaming capitalism for their economic hardships, I like to
imagine that person years in the future, now successful, having earned their
way to a decent living. I imagine telling that person "ok, congratulations,
but you didn't believe in capitalism, so give me all your wealth - I promise
I'll look after it". And at that point, I can't imagine any response other
than a resounding string of 4-letter words telling me to get lost.

~~~
muhfuhkuh
>In a free market, education would be cheaper (you think the government
subsidies, grants, scholarships, etc are doing anything but raise the price of
tuition?)

Government subsidies, grants and scholarships were absolutely available in
massive supply even 20 years ago, when annual college tuition for in-state
public schools averaged about 10k (including room & board and books). The
student loans didn't make it more expensive; the influx of students did. It's
not the kids fault they were sold a bill of goods by their boomer parents, the
media, and even employers about college being the only way to avoid fast food
or ditch digging as a career.

>I truly believe that America's economic situation would be improved by those
two things: increased transparency, and more freedom in the market.

Then, why is life-saving medicine that USED to be relatively cheap so
needlessly expensive? That wasn't government regulation. Turing pharma with
Daraprim, KV pharma with Makena, then doxycycline, etc., the list goes on. I
think this is one place the government should have (and could have, actually)
stepped in but didn't. The invisible hand is so darn arbitrary. Makes
computers and flat-screens so dern cheap, but something that can save our
life? Nah. Go figure!

Another example. I don't recall diamonds being anything but compressed coal. I
don't think it's regulated much if at all (I don't recall the GIA being a
government agency). There is no regulated market for it like there is gold and
other precious metals. Yet, I'll be damned if it isn't expensive as hell. Why?

~~~
tnecniv
> Yet, I'll be damned if it isn't expensive as hell. Why?

People want them and are willing to pay the offered price for them. Just like
truffles that cost $20 for shavings at a fancy restaurant.

------
calimac
Obama is shit. His policies are what have killed the low end entry level
worker. It's honestly ironic. Bush piled on the debt and tanked the economy
then obama takes it to the next level. I don't have time to argue specifics
you can read on your own. I am concerned that youth will not have the compass
of true north that the older generations have. Most of Silicon Valley is full
of topic skewed world views with a dusting of white guilt on top. God help us
all Language is being shifted in a single generation.

~~~
Implicated
I'm not picking sides here, but I generally stop reading someone's opinion on
political matters when they start with blame for the president who presided
during the time they believe the problems started.

Really, Obama himself is solely responsible for this? Not the party, or both
parties, but specifically Barak Obama?

That's a tough sell for me.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
Well it couldn't _possibly_ be all of the fabulously obstructionist Repubs in
Congress that made it their primary mission to oppose the president on
everything and refuse to compromise at all.

------
VladKovac
This isn't some local trend in history, everyone is born with anti-market
bias. We come from small bands of hunter-gatherers with fairness and
egalitarianism built in through reciprocal altruism. The problem is a lot of
market policies _seem unfair_ when you look at them at a glance. That's why
older people become more fiscally conservative (including older liberals)
because you start to understand the underlying mechanisms and the empirical
support of market strategies. Read Bryan Caplan's "The Myth of the Rational
Voter" if you want a more thorough discussion of this.

------
kristopolous
The most interesting thing for me is seeing how the "public comments" section
such as this one has started to shift.

I remember back when nearly everyone defended the system and people were shot
down for suggesting that perhaps those who have power and influence try to
influence and exercise power. (For instance,
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1182518](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1182518),
6 years ago)

I think people still deny that this change has happened which make me think
it's just a temporary thing.

~~~
calimac
the fact that we are living in a racist capitalistic nation does not make your
Communist crap acceptable. Any and every communist experiment ever endeavored
ends in failure and starvation. .. Usually at the hand of an oppressive
tyrant. Take your screwed up world view and start your own communist utopia on
an island far away from here. America is not a communist country. Progress
your way out of this country.

~~~
kristopolous
That's the spirit! Glad there's a few of you left! :-)

Your hostility is perfect!

For the record, I advocate for criticism of all systems and an intellectual
honesty and integrity combined with a willingness to learn, listen, and an
openness to being wrong about, well, everything.

------
patrickg_zill
What we have is no longer free-market capitalism, but "gangster" or "crony"
capitalism.

The only bright spot in the US economy is the one part that hasn't been taken
over via regulatory capture, rent-seeking etc. - the Internet and related
technologies. (Although Comcast, Level3, ATT and the incumbent telecoms are
trying to change that).

This quote is very apt, though over 150 years old:

 __* "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes
it and a moral code that glorifies it. "

------
Mendenhall
I think you could get rid of capitalism and the same problems will occure just
in a different format. Human nature .

------
maker1138
If only people learned history. Look at the comprehensive list of
hyperinflations in modern history. Every single one happened under leftist
rule of the country [1]. Look at Venezuela, Cuba or any other very leftist
state. There's always a rich elite, and a poor underclass.

If only people would learn that its socialistic policies that make the rich
richer and the poor poorer! Capitalism (voluntary trade and respect for
private property) has always improved everyone's lives. What we need is a
transition to more capitalism not less of it. If we keep implementing leftist
policies that sound nice (like min wage, 'free' education, 'free' healthcare,
etc) we'll end up poor like all the other socialist countries before us. It's
time to actually have compassion on the poor and create opportunities through
capitalism.

[1]
[http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/hanke-k...](http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/hanke-
krus-hyperinflation-table-may-2013.pdf)

------
eanzenberg
My 2 cents: Young americans are giving up on capitalism because they are some
of the most impatient people I've ever met. They expect their careers to go
from 0 to 60 in no time without putting in hard work, effort, time and
experience to get the "dream career" they want. They don't see that great
things in life require dedication.

Yes, hello Sander's supporters :)

~~~
angersock
Are you talking about the hard work of people like Bernie Madoff? Or perhaps
Elizabeth Holmes? Or shit, maybe Mark Pincus?

Or maybe we just expect to get paid an honest day's wages for an honest day's
work--you know, 8 hours, M-F, 9-5. Maybe we expect to get some actual equity
in our companies. Maybe we recognize "experience" as mostly just the same
self-serving sonofabitch getting away with taking credit for the
accomplishments of those under them.

Dedication? To the companies of today? Don't make me laugh.

~~~
eanzenberg
Not dedication to companies, but dedication to their craft and skills. Many of
these young kids expect to become masters of their craft in short time and
aren't willing to start at the bottom and work their way up.

------
bunkydoo
I think people should be given a stark choice - either eat government
provisioned rations, take public transport, and live in public housing
(socialism) or contribute to a fluctuating capitalist economy and roll the
dice a bit. Then likely make a bit more money on average, although less
predictable (capitalism)

~~~
rpgmaker
The thing is that capitalism[1] can work reasonably well for almost everyone
_if_ capitalists weren't so shortsighted (and petty). Many Nordic countries
get this right and their populations are the better for it.

------
lossolo
Rate of return on capital is greater than the rate of economic growth over the
long term, the result is concentration of wealth, and this unequal
distribution of wealth causes social and economic instability.

------
apsec112
"Policies like a $15 per hour minimum wage — brought to mainstream attention
not by Sanders, but by striking fast food workers years before — are not
radical, but a pragmatic corrective to decades of wage depreciation. The
minimum wage, which peaked in 1968, would have reached $21.72 in 2012 had it
kept pace with inflation."

This is very, very false. Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage in the US
peaked at $10-11 in the late 1960s
([http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/minimum-wage-
since-...](http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/minimum-wage-
since-1938/)). Adjusted for PPP, the country with the highest minimum wage is
Australia, at $11 per hour (excluding tiny Luxembourg and San Marino; data at
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_count...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country)).
No one has anything remotely like a $22 minimum wage. The _median_ hourly wage
in the US is below $22, ie. more than half of all jobs pay less than that.

~~~
ridgeguy
I take the last quoted sentence to mean that the minimum wage "... _would have
reached_ $21.72...", not that it _did_ reach that. Clearly, it didn't.

The author was illustrating the overall decline in purchasing power of the
inflation-adjusted minimum wage, despite its nominal increase. Hence the
economic decline experienced by minimum wage workers.

------
dmfdmf
Its not young people that matter but the class responsible for educating them,
the intellectuals. Few intellectuals even know what capitalism is and what an
historical achievement it is. Much to the intellectual's dismay on both the
left and right she ain't going away after decades of smears, misrepresentation
and attempts to ignore her arguments.

Cf. Ayn Rand's
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism:_The_Unknown_Ideal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism:_The_Unknown_Ideal)

NB: This is not a book on economics, in this book she makes a _moral_ case for
capitalism based on her ethics of rational egoism, i.e selfishness. She was
not primarily interested in politics or economics except as a consequence of
her work in epistemology and ethics. I urge anyone who cares about the future
of Western Civilization to read her books and judge it for yourself instead of
repeating what others say about her. At the very least it will force you to
examine some of your own premises and worldview, i.e it will make you think,
even if you disagree.

------
angersock
I can't speak for my whole generation, but I used to be nearly ancap in
highschool. We were coming of age a few years after the first dot-com crash,
and it looked like a temporary market correction. The War On Terror still
didn't sound like a joke, technology and the Web were still exciting and
changing and hadn't gone completely walled-garden yet.

The game plan was simple, especially with Boomer parents: do well in
highschool, do well in college, and then either get a good job (Boomer
suggested) or start your own thing (Boomer accepted).

2008 hit, money gets tight for everyone, stock market tanks, and all of us
watch as the bankers get bailed out--the ones with enough friends, anyways. My
first company's accounts got acquired when Chase ate Washington Mutual and
then charged us service fees until they'd drained our meager J2ME game
profits. It was abundantly clear that "capitalism", as being practiced in the
United States, was not a free market.

2011, a bit over three years later, Occupy Wall Street happened. A lot of
protests happened. I saw protests in Houston--after work, of course!--and
would later learn that threatened sniper actions against the protestors were
ignored by the police. In Oakland, police shot an Iraw veteran in the head
with anti-riot gear, landed him in critical condition in the hospital, and
nobody gave a shit. In New York, in Zuccotti, the protests were more a
spectacle for the bankers and finance folks than a serious way of changing the
system, mostly because of the frivolous hippy shit that took it over.

In all cases, they were made fun of by the media until they dissolved from
internal disorganization and distraction. The "We are the 99%" site was
brilliant marketing and had such a clear message of desperation that it
probably could've galvanized the entire Occupy movement, but instead we ended
up with a bunch of environmentalists and progressives and hippies who were all
bitching about their niche agendas and somehow failing to see in their
echochamber intersectionality that they weren't saying anything that 95% of
the rest of the 99% _gave two shits about_.

And now, in 2015, I see that the startup ecosystem and game is basically based
on squeezing labor out of early employees while paying lip service to
"visionary" founders. I see that large companies are bemoaning the lack of
trained devs and yet who are pushing H1B support at the same time that
everybody is pointing out the aggressive "train your foreign replacement"
techniques of those same companies. I see great swaths of the Internet grown
fat upon the domestic surveillance of advertising, a rot so deep that it'll
probably kill off something like half of humanity's accumulated output from
the last few years because it'll suddenly no longer be economical. And in this
total ratfuck, finally, people are starting to go after the perceived
oppressors--ye olde cisthet while males--because that's a more convenient
target than grappling with the forces that put them there and are finding ways
of flaying them still further in pursuit of the all might dollar.

So, yeah, you're damned right I don't believe in capitalism anymore.

------
tehabe
In a capitalist economy there is almost nothing worse than a monopoly. Maybe
this is the issue of capitalism too. It is a monopoly for over 20 years now.
There is nothing anymore to compete with.

------
mikerichards
The democrat party is so far to the left of JFK, that there's no real middle-
ground between the parties anymore. America is at a tipping point right now.
Things could get real nasty in the not too distant future. No wonder there's
so many AR-15s sold and no wonder that the left wants to take them away.

------
ben_jones
Bullshit. Americans are doubling down on Capitalism. They're taking out way
more debt in order to take a chance at "making it big" a.k.a. a middle class
job and a home.

~~~
ChuckFrank
That's not doubling down on Capitalism. That's doubling down on a jackpot
economy. The two things are very different.

------
Shivetya
they should instead be giving up on big government which is undermining
capitalism. it is big government that is holding them back through over
regulation, over taxation, and playing political favorites. the same big
government which has dumped hundreds of billions into education ever since the
DOE was created with no improvement, the same big government which has
expended trillions in its war on poverty with no improvement.

it might be nice to have capitalism again

------
hodwik2
It's really heartbreaking.

As a person who was raised very leftist, and only became a conservative (to
the consternation of all friends and family) in my 20's, I really don't know
how to talk someone out of the left's bubble. I count it a miracle that I
found my way out of leftism. Their politics are so lush and their imagery
vivid. Ours, on the right, are dull, utilitarian, and based on comparatively
dry topics like economics and social psychology.

It's no wonder politics is swinging left, but it is profoundly frightening.
Young Americans, just 5-10 years younger than myself, have reached a new
extreme. I believe the US is about to take a hard dive to the left, and I
don't want my kids to grow up impoverished by it.

I've been looking for a country, to move to, which is more dedicated to
classical liberal/capitalist ideals, and who's young people know and
understand the value of hardwork, sobriety and dedication. Somewhere in Asia,
perhaps?

~~~
kristopolous
I'm curious as to how you characterize "left" and "right" ... what collection
of positions do you attribute to each side?

~~~
rpgmaker
He does seem very confused and somewhat innocent in his way to look at the
world and capitalism in particular.

~~~
kristopolous
I'm pretty sure we're just the confused ones here. left, liberal, democrat,
republican, right, libertarian, socialist, conservative.

Those words are giant tents. I have a book that argues that Hitler was a
"liberal" and another that says free-market military-backed imperialism is
"liberal democracy". I have another that argues the state-communism of China
and the USSR are "conservative".

So I have no idea what people mean when they use those words.

~~~
hodwik
In discussion of economics, 'left' generally means large-scale government
intervention in markets, while 'right' means truly free-markets based on the
efficient market hypothesis. E.g.
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Politica...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Political_Spectrum2.png)

There is a lot of confusion -- no doubt. This has to do with the new usage of
the term "liberal" to describe Democrats or people on the left, when
historically, liberal meant people on the right, like Libertarians or
Republicans. As a result, we now describe free-market liberalism as "classical
liberalism", to distinguish it from modern "social liberalism".

To further complicate things, pundits on the left have attempted to associate
the uglier side of left politics (namely, fascism) with the right, so you have
a lot of people calling neo-nazis "far-right", when in reality, National
Socialism was a leftist movement. Hitler was a "liberal", in terms of being a
believer in large-scale government intervention in the markets.

Conversely, the USSR was and China is "conservative" in the classical sense.
That is, they believe in government intervention in markets, which was called
conservatism 100 years ago, and is called liberal today.

~~~
kristopolous
Great example. 4 paragraphs of utter nonsense!

They mean nothing in practice because of bizarre narratives like that.

Before taking power, the Nazis caucused with the National Conservatives, the
Free Conservative Party, and the German Conservative Party.

German leftists were first to the concentration camps under the Enabling Act
of 1933. Under the Röhm Putsch, the Nazis killed and outlawed the left-leaning
faction of their party. Under the Commissar Order, Hitler prioritized the
death of leftists in conquered land. Socialists, leftists, liberals and
communists got their own special badges at the death camps
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camp_badge#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camp_badge#Single_triangles))

The USSR and China are autocratic state-run corporatists. They are
conservative in that they are effectively industrialized reactionary feudalism
with integrated propaganda to prevent populist revolution.

And finally, some may enjoy calling an intentionally plutocratic state
liberal, but it's essentially autocracy without coronation ceremonies.

The confusion here isn't that the ideas themselves are confusing. The
historical record is abundantly unambiguous. However some don't like it so
they do revisionism and taxonomy hand-waving to try to confuse people. But
that's the nature of power.

~~~
hodwik2
It's unclear how reminding us that Socialist Fascists locked up Socialist
Democrats is proof that Nazis were somehow secretly Libertarians.

The Nazis nationalized industry. They're Socialists, on the left.

~~~
kristopolous
That's because they were reactionary monarchists. The nationalising was a
throwback to 18th century imperialism. That's a rather extreme form of
"conservative". Its not like we're talking worker self directed cooperatives
regulated by government for the public good.

Marxist in first international was about extending democratic principles to
the organization of labor. When you have a single party dictator snatching up
enterprise, you don't have first international.

Besides, the terms are for camps more than anything. It's an affinity, not a
taxonomy.

~~~
hodwik2
Monarchism is a sort of leftism. It's still about having the state own and
manage industry, rather than spreading its ownership out among many people. In
the end, leftism always ends up looking like Monarchism anyway, to go to your
'affinity not taxonomy' claim.

~~~
kristopolous
No again. It's about syndicalism. Modern monarchism is structurally capital
enterprise. Always has been. Antiquity talks to this. You have hierarchy,
autocracy, authoritarian systems... that's capitalism - combining it with
statecraft and religion, you get monarchism

Calling Nazism, democracies, socialism, and monarchism the same thing is about
as useful a classification as calling them nouns.

It sounds like you think a system free from government would be free from
coercion.

As if places in actual war, without government, is free from coercion or as if
the natural animal kingdom with its dog eats dog nature is free from coercion.

Almost as if you're making the fanciful objectivist argument where everyone is
pathological and greedy, but also upstanding and moral...

~~~
hodwik
Monarchism and capital enterprise may be similar in their internal hierarchy,
outside of some corporate structures, but they are rather unlike monarchies in
one very important way.

A capitalist enterprise (outside of a handful of extremely inelastic markets,
like defense, catastrophic healthcare and public safety) require that people
_choose_ to purchase their product. That is Democratic in nature.

Anarchy is not free of coercion. Fortunately, free markets are not anarchic.
Ballot and autocratic are not the only forms of government. Capitalism is
itself a form of government -- the left intuits this, but are clouded on the
internal forces.

The nature of ballot-organized government, even direct democracy, is _less
democratic_ than that of dollar-voting markets.

Ballot government has much more in common with monarchy. Generally -- you're
choosing a single person,and that person makes choices ostensibly on your
behalf for a number of years. Additionally -- you may get to choose on some
issues once in a while, and watch as your choices are undone by the courts and
legislature.

Conversely, in dollar voting, everyone is making all of the choices all of the
time.

As a result, unencumbered capitalism is a purer form of direct democracy,
which measurably produces a more responsive form of government.

It allows the public to vote directly for specific desires, producing an
organizing impetus which is more respondent to the will of the public than any
other form of government, even direct democracy.

What the left intuits as misrule by business, is actually the result of the
votes of their fellow dollar-voters. It is the wisdom, or folly, of the
people.

~~~
kristopolous
Thanks for the thoughts. Social Sciences are so indeterminable. I appreciate
the civility. I need to disengage from this now however. Plenty to think
about.

------
devishard
I'm not sure I've ever seen someone so readily admit they don't know what the
world "socialism" means.

~~~
durandal1
Quite the opposite, and for the record, I'm a native Swede so I do have quite
the first hand experience. Socialism means that production and distribution
are controlled by the workers, something which isn't true for any state in
Scandinavia. In fact the economies were built through quite liberal market
policies.

~~~
devishard
> Socialism means that production and distribution are controlled by the
> workers

That's not what socialism means. That sounds more like communism.

In capitalism, both basic and non-basic industries are privately owned. In
communism both basic and non-basic industries are publicly owned. In
socialism, basic industries are publicly owned and non-basic industries are
privately owned. Of course there is some argument about what industries are
basic, which makes this more of a spectrum than three distinct categories.

So when you say "mostly liberal states with extensive welfare programs", the
"extensive welfare programs" ostensibly cover most basic industries, while the
"liberal market policies" you mention cover the non-basic industries.

I'm not arguing your knowledge of Scandinavia, I'm saying that's not what
socialism means.

Corporations have tried to politicize the terms in order to vilify socialism
and capitalism, and represent them as oppressive ideologies, but they're just
economic systems, and don't inherently have to be tied to totalitarianism as
they were in the USSR for example.

------
X86BSD
A lot of this is also simply put an issue of fraudulent paper money as well.
Most gas here is $2.21 per gallon. As of today. Here's the rub... Take a pre
1965 quarter. When it was still made with silver. If you take that quarter and
melt it down. That .25 has enough silver to buy a gallon gas in today's silver
price. $2.25 of fake inflated printed out of thin air "money" or a quarter
made of silver. If the currency today was still constitutionally backed by
gold and silver you _could_ actually live acceptably working at McDonald's. So
I say a good chunk of this is the currency.

------
marcoperaza
As Schumpeter argued, capitalism enables its own enemies. Under socialism, the
critics would be too busy trying to get the next meal to theorize critiques of
capitalism. Despite our serious problems, we've never had it so good as in the
last half century. We certainly would be worse off under any other economic
system.

Unfortunately, this is a generation that gets most of their civic awareness
from Hollywood, social media, and a homogenously leftist intelligentsia. Throw
in a crisis and some stagnation, and is it really any wonder that young people
hold such preposterous views?

~~~
devishard
> Under socialism, the critics would be too busy trying to get the next meal
> to theorize critiques of capitalism.

Under capitalism in America there are plenty of people too busy trying to get
the next meal than to do anything else.

People in socialist Scandinavia are generally doing better.

~~~
hodwik2
>" there are plenty of people too busy trying to get the next meal than to do
anything else."

Incredible that they have on average 6 hours per day to watch television,
given how busy you say they are.

~~~
devishard
What is incredible is that you can't conceive of how an average of six hours
of TV watching might allow for many people to watch zero hours of television.

But since you brought it up, maybe you should look into what kind of people
watch >6 hours of television per day.

~~~
hodwik
Poor people, which was exactly my point.

[http://www.marketplace.org/2013/11/04/wealth-
poverty/income-...](http://www.marketplace.org/2013/11/04/wealth-
poverty/income-upshot/behind-data-tv-viewing-and-income)

~~~
devishard
Poor people who are poor because they can't find jobs?

~~~
hodwik
Maybe they shouldn't be watching six hours of TV a day then.

