We’ve just had our first pure right-wing budget done by our new government, its not their first, but its the first they truly could do whatever they want. I’ve seen this before, in other countries, simply put, the right-wing conservatives and their lot are just not very good at capitalism. As a sosialist I know what beast it is, I’m aware of its shortcomings and I’ve been in position myself to work on these kinds of things to prevent damage to my community.
In my case, I wanted to increase the taxation on property, to avoid financial troubles for the county, but I failed and lost the election to the right, who promptly cut the entire thing…and now, my county is in real dire straits, a firm would be bankrupt by now.
They just keep singing the same tune, cut the taxes, and the coffers will fill, how, no clue, its probably magic.
It’s just flawed logic… that happens to benefit the people that propose it.
Too many taxes restricts commerce, strangles the economy and can drop tax revenues. Therefor, less taxes will free all commerce and raise tax revenues. Thing is, the only people making money tend to be the people at the top and most of that doesn’t go back into the economy. You only need so many cars and boats at the end of the day. The solution only works if taxes are actually strangling the economy, which is rarely ever the case. Otherwise you’re just handing more money to people with money in most scenarios.
Yeah, for people who advocate capitalism it’s clear magic economy is the only thing they get, this piece was written after I yet again have to sit and listen to idiots tell me tax cuts will pay for themselves, just you wait, well fuck you, I don’t play lottery,
My colleagues in the business there isn’t a single on who really think we’ve taxed business to death, they’ve done well, and the goose is really fat on the top now.
This is most easily noticed because luxury articles hasn’t seen a decline n demand the last 20 years…
They are unless you think everyone is somehow falling for some grand trick, and that socialism’s past failures were coincidences, and everyone in the world used a capitalist system because they are unaware of the secret awesomeness of socialism.
I think he’s referring to the fact that vast regions of Europe are successful with a socialist political and social system within a capitalist economic framework.
It all depends on the definition of socialism. Socialism as a purely economic system is indeed incompatible (or mutually exclusive) with capitalism as a purely economic system. But both capitalism and socialism, in many of the ways those are understood, are both economic and political frameworks. Thus a mix of them is actually possible, by cherry picking parts of one and the other. Unless you want to call the socialist governments of Europe not-socialists. But then you are claiming ownership of a term other people are indeed using and identifying with. Many, many people. If you keep using socialism to refer to the former Chinese and Soviet system, you are going to be very misunderstood when talking to many Europeans.
In Europe we sharply distinguish between socialism (which be believe to be somewhat present -in greater or lesser amounts depending on the country-) and communism, which is indeed a failure historically.
And given that China and Europe have both different levels and kinds of socialism present (and they are pretty huge markets), saying that the global economy is solely driven by capitalism might be misguided.
I’m not taking about the left leaning capitalism of Europe. I’m taking about actual socialism, where the state controls the means of production.
Given that the original statement I was responding to criticized “advocates of capitalism” I had assumed there was some suggestion being made that socialism rather than capitalism was a better solution.
Again, we call that left leaning capitalism socialism (and not when it’s right leaning capitalism). Terminology changes meaning with use. Political terminology more so, and capitalism and socialism are indeed not exclusive in many people’s minds. Given that we actually use and understand the term in a practical and not purely theoretical way, I think you ought to change you use of the term or risk being misunderstood.
Again, we call that left leaning capitalism socialism
This seems like a kind of silly term, but even ignoring that, it’s kind of incompatible with Janster’s attack against “people who advocate capitalism”, since the majority of political groups in Europe most certainly advocate capitalism.
Pretty much everyone in the entire world advocates capitalism, because it’s the only functional economic system. There are merely differences on his much to regulate it.
No it doesn’t - literally still means literally, not the opposite. Ditto for Socialism. Ditto for Liberal. Just because a bunch of uneducated folks start using the words incorrectly doesn’t change the meaning of the words.
Those uneducated folks being the leaders and intellectuals of the Socialist Parties of Western Europe? Most of them academics at some point, btw. Your definition of education is really strict, my friend. Like unrealistically so. Or maybe you are using a different definition of education? :P
That is awfully pedantic, words adapt and change. While it may feel nice to hold to some antiquated form of a words meaning, insisting on holding to that meaning when others do not can be pretty silly.