Why Do Young People Find Socialism So Attractive?
To anyone over the age of 40, the growing appeal of socialist policies within the younger generations can be confusing. To us, this nation's capitalist system has provided the highest standard of living the world has ever seen, while "socialism" repeatedly leads to totalitarian governments like China and the USSR and destroys once prosperous nations like Venezuela. One must wonder if our younger generations live in the same world as we do. Do they not see the same things we see?
The answer to these questions is a resounding no. The younger generations are growing up in a nation and a world vastly different from the ones in which Americans over the age of 40 were raised. What they see is therefore filtered through an equally offset lens.
People over the age of 40 saw their parents and grandparents work stable jobs for the entirety of their careers — often with a single parent earning enough to support an entire family. They saw their parents pay into Social Security, and then those same parents drew on those funds upon retirement. Their parents had college degrees without debt. They could access health care without concern that it would bankrupt them. They trusted the safety and competence of the public education system. They trusted elected officials to be honest and to obey the laws of the offices given to them. If their parents failed economically, there was a familial and religious culture that could combine with government programs to help them.
American children today have largely seen the opposite. American workers are routinely replaced by imported foreign workers and by outsourcing to foreign lands. Immigrants and illegal aliens massively drive down labor costs, requiring both parents to work to sustain an ever shrinking family. Everyone pays into Social Security, but no one under the age of thirty believes that it will remain in place for him to draw from when needed. The cost of college is unsustainable. No one trusts elected officials. Everyone feels that a single injury or illness will destroy his finances for decades. For many of us, it feels as if the prevailing sentiment of the now multicultural society is to cheer for our economic failure.
The America of today is starkly divided into two groups: a group that already accesses America as a socialist entity and a group that pays for that system but has no access to it.
For the first group, America is already a largely socialist government. Members draw their subsistence from government welfare programs and can receive as much as $1,000 a month for simply not committing crimes. Health care is largely subsidized or simply free, as the recipients either have no money or cannot be traced due to their lack of registration with the government. Food and housing are often subsidized as well, through federal or state programs. They are also given preference in access to education and access to programs to offset the cost of that education. Many of them who receive those benefits are citizens of other nations residing here illegally, but they still receive both the preferential access and offset costs denied to citizens and even veterans.
For the second group, they and their parents have paid into this system through taxes for their entire lives, yet they have seen few, if any, of the benefits to that payment. They are on no government programs. While violent illegal aliens are protected from prosecution, members of this second group receive harsh punishment for even minor nonviolent offenses. Any injury results in massive costs, and they are always fighting to keep jobs with shrinking wages and no security.
To members of this second group, the implementation of government policies that promise them at least a minimal return on the payments they are making into that system is a relief. This is how the younger generation of Americans view a "socialist" model, and this is why they see potential in it.
To young Americans, a system that promises minimal access to equality with other classes living in the U.S. is preferable to a capitalist model that robs them of all funds, all options, and all dignity while providing benefits only to other groups. Access to a terrible health care system is still better than one that will bankrupt you if you touch it. Access to a low-quality but free university system may still be preferable to one that is inaccessible due to race and will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars if you are given the ability to attend. The guarantee of a poorly funded safety net is still better than one that isn't there at all.
The younger generation of Americans do not fear a totalitarian state, where they pay into a system in which the benefits can be accessed only by those with government influence, because younger Americans are already living in that state. The only difference is that those who are receiving the benefit of their labor are not some elite class of rulers from among their own people, but rather those who have the political and cultural power to redirect that wealth. This is namely a migrant class that has become the dominant force in American politics as well as other groups that have been able to establish power to give themselves legal preferences in education, contracting, and protections.
To pull the younger generation back from the lure of "socialism," we must demonstrate both that the rule of law still applies within the U.S. and reassert equality under the law — without delay and without exception. The government must also provide a minimal level of care and benefits for those who pay into the system without allowing threats of violence to pull those resources to citizens of other nations or to be used disproportionately on those who rely solely on those benefits for generations without efforts to rise above those benefits.
In short, the government must cease working for others and once again work for its citizens and stop calling that "socialism."
Lagarde: World May Face
a ‘Monopoly Problem’ in the Future
A Problem in Advanced Economies
IMF Predicts No Recession
Viking
Economics by George Lakey
by Melville House
Part of Trump
tax bill bonanza for the
wealthy
TRUMPERNOMICS:
The Trickle Up to the Rich Economy
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/12/congress-passes-tax-windfall-for-super.html
"It will, in fact, no more
provide decent-paying jobs and improved wages than the previous tax “reforms”
carried out over the past three-and-a-half decades. The Reagan tax cuts of 1981
and 1986, Bill Clinton’s capital gains tax cut in 1997 and George W. Bush’s tax
“reform” of 2001 were all part of a ruling class offensive against the working
class, which included sweeping attacks on wages, jobs, pensions, education,
health care, housing and other social benefits."
Lagarde: World May Face
a ‘Monopoly Problem’ in the Future
WASHINGTON—The rising power of a few corporate giants could weaken
investment, deter innovation, and reduce the share of income paid to workers in
advanced economies, according to a new report by the International Monetary
Fund (IMF).
While the overall macroeconomic effects of the rising “monopoly problem”
have been modest so far, further increases in the market power of big companies
could become increasingly negative if they were left unchecked.
The problem could take a bigger toll on economic growth and people’s
incomes in the future, warned the IMF, which urged policymakers to keep the
market competition strong.
Speaking at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, IMF Managing Director
Christine Lagarde talked about the increasing concentration of market power in
advanced economies. She said a small number of highly successful companies
accounted for the “highest price markups.”
According to the IMF, the price markup—how much a company charges for
its products compared with how much it costs to produce—is a good measurement
of market power. When a company’s market power increases, it can maximize its
profits by charging a higher price and reducing its output.
“In other words, there is a “winner-takes-most” dynamic at
play—especially pronounced in the digital economy,” Lagarde said.
“I am not saying that we currently have a ‘monopoly problem.’ But I am
saying that we should take appropriate measures—so that it does not become a
problem.”
Increase in market power would lead a company to reduce its demand for
capital and, therefore, its investment, according to the IMF study. It also
stifles innovation, as the firm would have less incentive to innovate to stay
competitive.
The study also found that increased market power since 2000 has
accounted for at least 10 percent of the drop in the share of labor income in
advanced economies.
Lagarde urged policymakers in countries such as the United States to
take necessary measures to prevent the escalation of the problem in the future.
“That means reducing barriers to entry for new firms and reforming
competition frameworks to ensure a level playing field in all sectors, whether
traditional or high-tech,” she said.
A Problem in Advanced Economies
IMF studied the monopoly problem using data for nearly 1 million
companies from 27 countries—both advanced and emerging markets—since the
beginning of the 2000s.
According to the report, the price markup increases are more
concentrated in advanced economies than in emerging markets. This increase in
markups has taken place in most industries, with the largest among technology
firms. And higher markups have been concentrated among a small number of companies.
Companies with the highest markups raised their average markup by more
than 30 percent since 2000. These companies are more profitable and productive
than their competitors. They also have more intangible assets like patents and
software than others.
“In many markets, the rising market power of the more productive and
innovative companies has been helped by their superior ability to exploit
proprietary intangible assets, network effects, and economies of scale (reduced
costs per unit as output increases),” the report stated.
“In the United States, for example, these high-markup companies have
also expanded in size in relation to their low-markup counterparts,
contributing to a larger increase in aggregate markups compared with Europe.”
The high markup companies may attempt to entrench their positions by
building barriers to entry, such as high customer switching costs, therefore it
is important for policymakers to ensure a level playing field among all
companies, stated the report.
President Donald Trump has been vocal in his criticism of tech giants,
particularly Amazon. In an interview in November 2018, he said his
administration was looking into antitrust violations by Amazon, Google, and
Facebook.
He has also repeatedly accused Amazon of scamming the U.S. Postal Service. And he has been critical of
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, who owns The Washington Post.
IMF Predicts No Recession
The 2019 IMF and World Bank Spring Meetings will be held in
Washington on April 12 through 14.
In its January report, the IMF projected that the global economy would grow at 3.5 percent in
2019 and 3.6 in 2020.
Lagarde said that the global economy is at “a delicate moment.”
The IMF cut its global growth forecast twice since last October due to
slowing Chinese economic growth, the U.S.–China trade war, and financial
worries in emerging markets.
“But, to be clear, we do not see a recession in the near term,” Lagarde
said. “In fact, we expect some pickup in growth in the second half of 2019 and
into 2020.”
Global economic activity is set to benefit from the recent policy
responses, such as the Federal Reserve’s “more patient pace of monetary policy
normalization” and increased stimulus in China, according to her.
HAS AMERICA DESTROYED ITSELF MERELY TO MAKE THE RICH SUPER RICH?
Viking
Economics by George Lakey
by Melville House
This
week, we’re excited to be publishing Viking Economics, George
Lakey’s look at
how the Nordic countries, in a very short span of time, managed to move past
many of the problems faced by nations like the US and UK today — problems with
inequality, infrastructural weakness, the cost of education, and personal
freedom. Today, the people of Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden enjoy widely-shared prosperity, low
crime rates, reliable infrastructure, affordable education, great personal
freedoms — some of the highest standards of living in the world.
Particularly
as both the US and the UK face some of our biggest challenges in a generation —
and, in both cases, under new leadership — Viking
Economicsoffers some
crucial examples of how we might get some things right.
Here’s a
brief excerpt to read on the longship ride over to your local bookstore to buy a copy; please try not to get herring on it.
Like most
Americans today, Norwegians a century ago didn’t like the results of a wealth
gap: the hunger and poverty, the crime, elderly friends warehoused or left in
isolation, young people without hope of a good job. Norwegians also didn’t like
the attitudes that went with inequality: an inclination toward arrogance among
higher-income people and the feeling among lower-income people that they were
losers, defeated by the system.
Early in
the twentieth century, Norway had the formal institutions of parliamentary
democracy, but ordinary people were not empowered: they did not set the
direction of their society. The direction was set, instead, by the economic
elite, through the political parties they dominated and the businesses they
ran. Career options were limited, and there was little social mobility.
The
differences between then and now are striking: If you’re a Norwegian teenager
today and the job you’re interested in pursuing doesn’t require higher
education, you can choose among good public vocational courses. If you learn
better in a hands-on apprenticeship mode, publicly supported programs help you
do that. If, instead, you prefer to develop a talent in art or music, or follow
a career at sea or in engineering, you can attend a free post-secondary school.
Paid
maternity and paternity leave (including for adoptive parents) is built into
the system, and your job is held until you return. After the leave is over,
child support is increased if you choose to be a full-time parent. If your
choice is to go back to work, affordable childcare is available.
Extensive,
subsidized public transport means that you probably won’t need a car to get to
work. High educational standards prevail in big-city schools, as well as in the
suburbs. Small towns receive subsidies to make them attractive for people who
might otherwise feel forced to live in a city for cultural amenities, again
increasing your options. The economy subsidizes family farming both for its own
sake and for food security, so farmers can earn a reasonable income, another
freedom denied in many industrialized countries.
The
government offers free vocational counseling, education, and job-training
resources for people seeking a career change, and entrepreneurialism is
encouraged through free health care and a public pension for all: In Norway,
you have the freedom to fail without becoming a failure.
Money
doesn’t dominate the political system, so citizens are freer to participate
meaningfully in political life—and they’re more likely to be exposed to
newspapers with a variety of points of view, because journalism is subsidized
to avoid a narrowing of perspective. According to Freedom House, in 2013,
Norway was tied with Sweden at number one in the world for freedom of the
press. Denmark was sixth, and Iceland was tenth. (The United States was
twenty-sixth.) Indeed, this approach to public life has a long lineage in the
region: Sweden was the first country in the world to establish freedom of the
press—in 1766.
The
Nordics are among the longest-living people in the world, and older citizens
continue to benefit from an economy designed for personal freedom. The Global
Watch Index studied ninety-six countries and rated Norway as the best place to grow old, followed closely by Sweden.
The pension system enables you to live at home with health aides or in a senior
living facility. You don’t need to fear hunger or lack of medicines or of
health care. Every small town has a music and culture center where you can
enjoy the arts and pursue your hobbies.
The crime
rate is very low, partly because societies with high equality tend to
experience less crime. Even in their largest city, Norwegians enjoy a
remarkable degree of freedom from fear about personal safety.
Designing
an economy that supports freedom and equality pays off in happiness, judging
from the Vikings’ descendants making the top ten in the UN’s International
Happiness Index. In 2015, the ratings showed Denmark, Iceland, and Norway sharing first
place with Switzerland, while Sweden was close to its cousins.
The
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), composed of
thirty-four of the most-developed nations, compared life satisfaction
experienced by the people in each country in 2013. The OECD found Norway second, Iceland third, Sweden fourth, and
Denmark fifth.
And yet
in spite of all this security and support, the Nordic yen for adventure has not
disappeared. Americans, too, have a strong yearning for both freedom and
equality, so the Nordic desire for both isn’t surprising. What is surprising,
though, is that they went ahead and built an economy to serve those values.
That’s the story in this book.
Like
their Viking ancestors, the moderns made mistakes in their explorations.
Iceland’s financial collapse of 2008 was a spectacular error, and, as I’ll
describe, back in the 1980s, the Norwegians and Swedes made a series of serious
economic mistakes. The Nordics haven’t built a utopia: Norwegians see
themselves as “a nation of complainers,” and this book doesn’t shy away from
the challenges that face them and their Nordic cousins.
Still,
it’s useful for us as outsiders to observe the Nordics’ expeditions and to use
them to reflect on our own situations. There are many important lessons to be
learned.
Part of Trump
tax bill bonanza for the
wealthy
"The $100 billion figure is not so much a record as it is
another dimension in corporate plunder."
“It has been estimated that the cost of an iPhone, retailing for
around $650 to $700, is made up of $220 for the components and $5 for the labor
of assembly.”
"In the past week, at least one prominent Republican,
Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, has publicly admitted that
the tax bill was sold under false pretenses."
No comments:
Post a Comment