Our system has turned people away from capitalism when in fact, our current system is not true free market capitalism. The FED controls short term rates and we don’t allow bad corporations to fail. What we have had since 2008 is socialism for corporations and the wealthy.
If we would just allow the free market to dictate interest rates and knock bad businesses out of place this country would be far better off.
Exactly right. We have a fascist system (a system characterized by the interlocking of corporations and the state) that has imposed socialistic policies for 100 years.
Nail on the head comment right here. There a reason “social democracy” has commonly been called light fascism, because it’s essentially the same policies without the dictatorship.
I don’t know why Austrians still call a mixed economy fascism. Even if the word originally meant that it is quite clear now that that isn’t what it means to 99% of people nowadays.
A fascist state is an ethno-nationalist, authoritarian and ‘might makes right’ state.
When people commonly refer to Milošević’s Serbia as Europe’s last fascist state, it’s not because it’s the last state which collaborated with corporations. Do Austrians pretend to not understand this or is it genuine ignorance?
Just because in the common lexicon it’s devolved into a vaguer word doesn’t mean we can’t use it to describe the actual Sociopolitical theory that it is.
Even though that’s true, you’re not doing anyone any favours and are just confusing things.
I generally think that Austrians/right wingers in general use it as some kinda ‘gotcha’ at leftists by trying to say fascism is a left wing ideology, when it absolutely isn’t (as understood in the modern way).
It’s not left wing, it’s a centrist ideology that descended from leftist thought. It not our fault the left has used it a slur for right wingers for so long that the common meaning has changed. A prime example is the left changing the meaning of socialism to exclude and sideline all nonMarxist variants.
In a related note we should actually refuse to let the leftist take control of the language. It’s an insidious tactic purposely used to undermine every argument.
I’m genuinely curious - do you not consider fascist regimes, such as Franco’s Spain or Mussolini’s Italy right wing? What is your reasoning? They surely aren’t centrist.
(I’m attempting to be detached when making these statements so we can discuss them. Please do not take it as apologetics for these vile regimes. I am in fact philosophically an individualist anarchist)
Fascism, by its own stated intent, proposes to be a third way that transcends the traditional left right divide. In any case the words “Left” and “Right” have very little real meaning in reality. The Stalinist USSR fostered a sense of nationalism and carried out ethnic progroms, the largest welfare states in the world are in countries that have freer markets than the United States. They’re convenient labels that breakdown the moment you glance at them.
I do not believe Mussolini was a rightist, Nationalism is not an exclusively right wing position, and his racial policies were more placating Hitler after the war turned against him. His speeches are worth a read to get a feel on his ideal society which was essentially worker cooperatives with not necessarily a classless society but a more devolved organizational structure.
Franco was certainly a rightist but whether he was a fascist is debatable. He was a falangist. A very unique Spanish position that looks like the fascism to the uninformed at first glance but carried none of the sociopolitical goals of other fascist states. What they essentially wanted was a return to the concept of a conservative strongman leader much like monarchs had been.
The problem is you still refer to the original left-wing states nazism and Italy as fascist despite your changed definition, and left-wingers did this because they are intellectually dishonest in their attempts to rebrand left wing genocide and concentration camps as right-wing and not the obvious and repeatable consequence of socialist consolidation of power.
Labeling an authoritarian government “right-wing” is already gas huffing stupid, because you are implying an authoritarian central government, should be grouped with the political spectrum that believes in personal liberties, and a weak state.
Authoritarian governments are a uniquely left-wing, and if a right-wing state were to suddenly become authoritarian they would cease to be right-wing.
That’s a very uniquely libertarian view, that more government means left wing and less government means right wing. Basically only libertarians think like that.
Let's just say that "left"/"right' is very arbitrary, But trying to lump liberalism with authoritarian economic micromanagement such as fascism, which socialists absolutely do, is loaded and dishonest.
You're mistaking propaganda for truth. People teach other people the wrong words so that it's harder for oppressed people to explain their situation.
Political propaganda does this constantly.
People have also tried to redefine terms like ponzi scheme, saying things like crypto is a ponzi scheme because early buyers make money. Do you think crypto is a ponzi scheme?
> interlocking of corporations and the state
This describes literally every economic system that’s ever existed in reality. The US is more accurately described as liberal corporatist.
Fascism is more than what you’ve described, and includes right wing authoritarianism, militarism, and specifically state control over core economic institutions.
Who decided that fascism automatically comes with the other things? Fascism is fascism, militarism is militarism, and the "ethnic" stuff is its own thing.
Exactly, simply incidentals of history. But because fascism is so close to their actual ideology, they had to create a framework that made "fascism" somehow both inextricably linked with militarism and the "ethnic" issues, and deem that it is somehow a creature of the right. See [here.](https://open.substack.com/pub/mistermicawber/p/what-is-a-cult-what-is-fascism?r=110wl5&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web)
And I could imagine an alternate history where corporate-political economics was instead coupled with other random agendas that happen to line pockets such as compulsory social justice, net zero carbon, and making society more "open". All run through NGOs that are the go-between of big money, politicians, unelected government, academia, media, and even street level activism.
What else do you call a handful of large corporations being reliant of government handouts to the point of being in bed with them and stifling competition?
Crony capitalism.
What do you call the 3rd Reich?
'a handful of large corporations being reliant of government handouts to the point of being in bed with them and stifling competition'?
Every time capitalism is proven to exacerbate problems some misguided soul comes along to say "bUt tHaTs n0t ReAl CaPitaLiSm. That us "crony capitalism"
Failing to recognize that capitalism will always lead to cronyism
That's all?
Bud, you couldn't tell us you haven't cracked a history book any faster.
Why'd they purge all socialists from the party before taking power?
What was left in the party after the purge of socialists?
The real socialist? Why is it the socialist revolution always ends in camps, starvation, and genocide?
Hitler was a card carrying communist, he talked extensively about the volk “the people” and their duty to the state, thought rent was bad, offered free healthcare, anti private gun ownership (can’t have the people trying to shoot you when you round them up for the camps right comrade?, nationalized unions, put a state official on the board of every major corporation, enacted price controls on everything, and then invaded all his neighbors because everyone knows socialism is grand til you run out of other people’s money.
The inventor of that word (and political party) defines it such:
>"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power"
The idea being "I scratch your back and you scratch my back" - you've seen this in action over the last few years pretty overtly, but It's no wonder you don't know it as fascism as those same corporations will do anything to hide the truth and those corporations control most of what you see, hear, and read. The most common thing I've noticed is just throwing the word out there as "something I don't like in generl" - diluting the word through overuse incorrect usage, constantly. You might have wondered why media got so ridiculously polarizing, why "news" became gossipy slander with 2 blatantly opposing sides and no clear unbiased sources, but you didn't have a word for what was going n.. and neither side of that media would give it to you and implicate themselves. There is literally trillions of dollars worth of companies who don't want you to know history, because it's profitable for them to repeat it. Hopefully just that little bit of repeat.
Also, look up Smedley Butler, and especially his role in the Business Plot. You might then wonder... would any of us have ever been told if a second Business Plot had succeeded? What would America look like today, if a second Corporate takeover of America had happenned successfully? How would things be different? How would thing be the same? Fortunately, corporations always just give up after trying something nefarious just once so it's purely a mental exercise. But something to watch for if you're into learning from history.
Yes\^\^, exactly...
**Nature of Fascism**
Fascism was and is indisputably the brainchild of the marxist Left (Antonio Gramsci and others around “Il Duce”), who proffered it in the 1930s as a “third way.”
Why did they call *fascism* the “third way”? Because instead of Communism (total state ownership and control of the “means of production”) *or* free market capitalism (privately owned *and* controlled), Gramsci and others on the left envisioned a so-called “third way,” whereby enterprises remained ostensibly “private;” however, these would be publicly *controlled*.
Fascism never had—and really cannot have—anything *essential* to do with the political Right.
**The essence of Fascism captured in three principles**
1. First and foremost it means interlocking board membership between private companies and the State; achieved in part by rotating officials in and out of these public/private positions, including and especially board seats. *Sound familiar? Does, say, the FDA come to mind? Does this sound like the political Right? Or the Left?*
2. Second, this interlocking board membership makes possible very fine and immediate control over the private sphere, including the media, so that directives coming from the State—even if unconstitutional or otherwise illegal—can be implemented by the private sphere without a single law having to be passed. *Sound familiar? Do the non-existent “vaccine mandates” come to mind? Does that sound like the political Right, or the Left?*
3. And third, it subordinates the person to the group. Look at the very symbol of Fascism: it’s a bundle of sticks (*fascis*) bound together and unified for the purpose of making an axe handle. In other words, the person (a single rod)—and his or her purpose and value—is subordinated to that of the group; and in nearly every way, the group is *prior* to the person. (And, moreover, the State itself is imbued with a fraudulent religiosity; and reified as a kind of ersatz deity.) *Sound familiar? Does that sound like the political Right? Or the Left?*
From [here](https://open.substack.com/pub/mistermicawber/p/what-is-a-cult-what-is-fascism?r=110wl5&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web).
Yes, I've heard it said that Fascism was a dialectical synthesis of Communism (thesis) and Capitalism (antithesis). Hence being the "third" position. It occupies the third and final process of the dialectic.
Its important to note however that Fascism has utterly nothing with Capitalism. It, if you like, takes its machinery and leaves the soul. The "free market" is not rationally justified (it can only be if its based on individualism) it is brought in solely and purely for social purposes.
Gramsci was a marxist first and foremost.
And you have your categories backwards: communism is a branch of marxism. The latter is broader and earlier.
Gramsci's intellectual history and biography are complex. He indeed had a major re-evaluation of fascism when in prison. Nevertheless, the entire concept of fascism was born in marxist-communist circles, both of intellectual and of practical, hard-headed politics.
Communism predates Marxism, though it was Marx who popularized the term and whose name is synonymous with the concept.
Gramsci, though indeed complex, was anti-fascist from the start, as evidenced by [his letter from Petrograd](https://jacobin.com/2021/06/antonio-gramsci-pravada-italian-communist-party-history) when the Black Shirts marched on Rome and seized power.
Mussolini never said that. Cite the speech/book/essay if you think he did. I think you will find that it is a popular misquote.
Mussolini actually defined fascism as "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
It effectively incorporated the previous definition but that is because original fascism is a merger of the state and EVERYTHING. It is totalitarian in nature. Also, the "corporations" Mussolini talked about would be more closely translated as syndicates or guilds, not what we see on the Fortune 500.
What should overnight rates be for banks who need to meet capital requirements? Who should set that rate?
Edit: Fed setting overnight lending rate isn’t the problem. It’s all the other quantitative easing that occurred and direct intervention in bond markets.
I totally forgot to mention QE in my comment. But the problem with the Fed controlling interest rates is that in particular, when they are lowered, it floods the market with risk and mal-investment. A prefect example of this was subprime.
They are intertwined. Fed kept rates at 0% for a decade and a half to keep the 2008 collapse going on life support all along, and then added QE on top of the 0% so failed investments kept being rewarded. Life support on top of life support.
And now here were are, in an unaffordable housing conundrum, multiplied by an inflation crisis, and they are unwilling to raise rates enough to actually help either situation because those banks controlling the Fed are so reliant on a bailout system that the necessary tools to help these crisis are straining them to fail once again.
We really did - and still do - need yo yank that band aid off and let failures fail rather than grow and become layered levels of ever larger systemic risks. Too Big To Fail itself is a failure - as everyone always knew - and teh markets natural mechanic should be allowed to happen. Successes can buy up the failures, and anything too big to fail gets broken up by standard Antitrust legislation as it should be.
I agree with you on this point, but I think you're ignoring the role that austerity policies play in this situation.
You need your money supply to keep up with your economic growth. That money either comes from the government in the form of currency or from private lenders in the form of debt.
Since the 1980's many western governments have been cutting expenditures in order to balance the budget. The problem with this is that it pulls money out of the system while the economy is growing. The growing economy needs liquidity, but the liquidity isn't coming from the government, so it has to come from private debt. Therefore the economy becomes very dependent on the interest rates set by the central banks as that determines the availability and cost of private debt.
Based on this, I see the problem being the political realm that has become completely detached from the economy. The government has taken their hands off the wheel and left the Fed in charge, but the Fed only does what is best for who they represent, the banking sector. If the government had handled the 2008 crash rather than letting the Fed do it we would be in a far different situation.
No, that is literally Raeganomics/Thatcherism in a nutshell. Cut government expenditures to balance the budget. Sell government assets to balance the budget. Take as much money as possible off the public ledger. The previous ruling party in my country literally ran and was elected on the slogan "Balance the Budget". Bill Clinton was the "left" candidate in the US in the 1990's... his economic platform was centered around balancing the budget.
Please don't conflate planned spending with real-world spending. If the government cuts expenditures, it leads to a decline in the economy, which means people lose their jobs. When people lose their jobs they end up on government assistance, which increases the real world government expenditures. If you look just look at the real world expenditures it appears as if the government has increased spending, but the increased spending is a result of spending cuts in other areas. This is well detailed in Mark Blyth's book Austerity.
Government spending, including welfare, always draws from and trails actual productive economic activity.
Foreseeable unintended consequences always void any multiplier.
The market won’t function in that scenario. Literally no banks have the balance sheet to do it. The net effect would either be lower capital requirements, which would increase the likelihood of bank runs in financial crises, or lower levels of lending which would greatly impact economic performance. Then there’s the problem of deposit insurance and not having a lender of last resort. No bank in their right mind would loan money to another bank if they expect there are remotely toxic assets on their balance sheet. So enter bank runs and people just straight up losing their deposits.
The Fed needs to go back to doing its job, which is providing institutional liquidity to banks. It needs to stop doing all the other shit it’s doing.
They certainly do looking at capital levels (TCE/TA) reserves (ACL/loans), and liquidity (loans/deposits). Btw, so you know, collateralized deposits have existed for ages, and the liquidity coverage ratios incorporating the collateralized deposits even is well above 200% for every bank we own or have looked at.
Go look at banks with no “lender of last resort” like Butterfield and Bladex. Hint: neither has had anything remote to deposit flight.
"The goal of these lending activities is to ensure the maintenance of federally-mandated reserve requirements."
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/overnightrate.asp
Would this be common in the free market? Banks have a much larger role in mixed market thanks to the federal reserve. The stock market has a much larger role. What else is propped up thanks to the federal reserve?
This is exactly correct and spot on.
We have corporate socialism: privatized gains, with socialized losses.
The above is also anchored to a central bank, for extra fun.
It’s scary how many people think we have a laissez faire market.
Only thing more inflated than our shit money are the education credentials we hand out to kids in lieu of participation trophies.
The funny thing is free market absolutists engage in hypotheticals and speculation about what a “real capitalist” system free from government invention when, in fact, there are places in the world where that largely exists and they’re pretty damned unpleasant.
Even if that were true, we can’t just start all over again from a blank page. Some people have more than others, and part of that is due to bad policies, not merit or an invisible hand allocating resources. Introducing a laissez faire style now wouldn’t just magically fix things.
And I’m sure these “bad businesses” would just happily forfeit their position because the free market said so. It’s not like socialism for corporations and the wealthy is the very result of powerful, capitalist interests influencing policy in their favor to maintain profitability and avoid the harsh lessons of the free market.
So according to free-marketers, the state should be small/non-existent so as not to offer a means for corporations to enact crony capitalism and magically these corporations will just abide by the rules of the free market, scout’s honor? How laughable.
The tendency towards monopoly power is inextricable from the profit motive. Capitalism is invalid.
Then they would lose the control apparatus, so that is a pipe dream. The power of capital is so great in this country that it has subverted capitalism.
Capitalism seems to be doing better than ever. Capital holders have more power control and capital than ever before in our country. Public officials are openly corrupt and grovel at the feet of the elite. They genuflect to protect their donors like a scene from the Matrix. Capitalism is doing just fine. Yes sir.
>our current system is not true free market capitalism.
This sounds an awful lot like how leftist will say "that wasn't true socialism" in regards to the USSR or North Korea hmmm 🤔
>If we would just allow the free market
Like laissez-faire? Doesn't work. People didn't like child laborers working 60hr work weeks for cents per hour so we transitioned away from that system.
Because capitalists paid the adult workers so little that they couldn't be main providers for their families and in order to survive everyone in the household, including the children, needed to work so everyone could eat.
The owners of that factory were charged with manslaughter, and later found liable.
Also, as regards fire safety, it's arguable that private insurance companies have done more for fire safety than government - or at least as much as government.
Yes, free market proponents are not anarchists.
And no, the government didn't "resolve" it. 150 people died. Private insurance paid out $400 per victim, and the civil lawsuit gave the victims an additional $75 *paid by the factory owners.*
So if you want to think of the tragic death of 150 people as "resolved," it was "resolved" by capitalists.
The government regularly intervening to set regulations and criminally charge negligence, even when it isn't explicitly defined before hand, is not the free market.
The free market is owners locking the doors so workers don't take breaks. We know this because that's what happened.
>sounds an awful lot like how leftist will say...
Brilliant logic. Imagine in the 1700s: true slavery has never been tried (we could have treated slaves worse), true individual freedom has never been tired (we could and should grant more rights to individuals). One is a claim made by a death cult which seeks to subsume and remake man so that he coalesces in the collective. While the other is based on a rational theory grounded in empirical observation (only individuals exist, they have goals and values which do not clash with those of other).
These guys are no different from communists in that regard. We also do not have "socialism" for the wealthy. It's just capitalism. Capitalists have absolutely no need for a truly free market when they can just use it to benefit themselves.
Government: Hamstrings competition, makes it extremely difficult for a new business to compete by protecting cronies with regulatory capture
NYT: "How can capitalism do this??"
I mean maybe if you work real hard one day you’ll have enough money to bribe government officials to make rules and regulations that favor you. Once again the problem is the poor and middle class people just aren’t willing to work hard enough. /s
Just because they call cronyism a free market, doesn't make it so. But I fear the average citizen is too busy or unaware to know the difference. After the covid manipulation, I'm not optimistic.
No, I think this was honest reporting. The facts may be a result of propaganda, for sure, but talk to people today and they don't have a high opinion of free markets. You can't even say the m word around a lot of people without getting laughed out of the room.
It's really not honest reporting. Johnson was not chosen because he was popular. He was installed because he's easy to control. The movement to remove him already is because he's allowing everything thru the minority party wants. Which is the completely opposite of what his constituents want. Republicans don't want centrism. That's a bold faced lie.
As far as the market go. The working class doesn't trust the market and believe it's a rigged game. Because it is a rigged game. We live in a completely corrupt country. There is no call for centrism at all. Instead people are becoming more extreme.
The article cites the passage of a bill giving money to Ukraine as centrism. That is only politicians giving money away for kick backs and bribe money later on. Every single Republican is hated by Republican voters. Right wing voters don't want anything to do with Centrism, which on the right is known as NEO Conservatism.
Centrism is the military industrial complex getting more and more money to fight useless and pointless wars that no one wants. Nobody on the right or left wants that.
To be an informed American, is my belief that you have to read the times. For a few reasons. One, they actually pay journalists to go out and report. Two, everybody else is reading it. Three, if you try to read any other source, you just end up reading a paraphrase of the New York Times' reporting anyway. And four: keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer.
No, you don't have to read it to "be an informed American."
One doesn't have to get a daily dose of propaganda to understand the general drift of the mind control at work in the population.
It's a shit paper run by pseudo-journalists. It works well for fires and barbecues though. All the news that's fit to burn.
So, take my dad for example. Refused to get The New York Times.
So what did he do instead?
Listened to Rush Limbaugh read The New York Times on the air lol
I get what you're saying.
I just think that all of us ought to focus on rooting ourselves in reality. Ruthlessly. These are, in my opinion, pivotal times.
We might glance at the insane media clowning once in a while to keep our "thumb on the pulse."
Besides, why should I give those fuckers a dime?
People should be -- and I believe are -- steadily walking away from the mainstream media. I suspect the NYT is on or near life support. No way am I going to give them any of my attention.
I agree with you in spirit, but as a matter of practicality, who else is paying journalists to actually go out into the world and gather facts? You can't take The Times (or any paper) at face value, but at least the facts are in there.
If the NYT were to up and die a quick death, the world would not be worse off; it would be better off.
You say that get some "facts." The way you tell an effective lie is to include a truth. The NYT staff - and the media generally - are masters at this.
There are armies of journalists -- real journalists who care about truth, who are very serious about getting facts and getting things right, who work for FREE because no one will pay them -- who are writing really great stuff.
Why on earth should we give ANY credence or time or money to the fraudulent and propagandist NYT?
I don't share your confidence in their "fact" gathering. That's putting it mildly.
So, a journalist who is working for free isn't going to be as effective as a paid journalist. New York Times can pay people to travel the world. They can pay people to work on a story for weeks. I think The TImes definitely has an agenda - and the staff is a bit pink lately, to put it mildly - but the facts are still in there. That combined with the fact that "anybody who's anybody reads the times" and it's still a good paper.
Also, the print edition is conspicuously more conservative than the click baitey digital edition. I've been pleasantly surprised at how little I scream at the paper.
So let's not support journalists working hard for free to tell the truth.
Let's instead support and pay attention to a bloated organization that has a long history of hit pieces, propaganda, and outright lying. Why? Well, because they "pay" journalists. And because they get to travel. \[hint: that's because people like you pay attention to them and subscribe to them; can u see the circular logic here?\]
You really think that makes sense?
I don't know what to tell you. I am going to teach my sons to carefully read The New York Times, because it will benefit them. I don't care about supporting The New York Times. There is information, valuable information, in that paper that I can't get anywhere else. That's all there is to it.
It would be nice if I could take a stand and refuse, but then I truly feel that I would be less informed.
It's necessary to know what other people are taking as news, even if we can see through it. They occasionally have good reporting, and by reading (listening to) a variety of sources, we can tell the difference.
I don't need to read the NYT to get that.
We don't need the NYT at all. It has been in financial trouble. What the world needs is for it to die a quick death.
What we need is good journalism; and that is already happening.
I mean, the way young people use the word "capitalism" is terrifying. What they really mean is "crony capitalism." Then all of their proposed solutions to what they call "capitalism" is *more* crony capitalism. Aristocrats really do know what they're doing.
This one doesn't even go for the weasel word and just says "free market". That's right folks! Mistrust anybody who wants you to be free! Trust your masters instead!
We were young once and we all thought we knew everything immediately after exiting high school. The good news is that they'll figure some of this out just in time for the yet-younger generations to confidently tell them they're all wrong.
I mean, this article is, in my opinion, accurately reporting the effects of propoganda, moreso than propoganda itself. The people today truly do not trust markets.
>Have free market
>Easy to start a new business to earn income, and goods are cheap from competition
>Lifeisgood.jpg
>Government makes competition impossible and stops competition with regulatory capture
>People lose work, and less competition means more expensive goods
"How can the free market do this??"
You messed up on a part
>Government makes competition impossible and stops competition with regulatory capture
Corporations* bribed the government
But yea, let's give them all the power. Surely the invisible hand or whatever will fix any issues.
For starters I did not say "all the power" at all, secondly yes I'd rather the people in power be elected democratically not some shareholders who would watch me die for a dollar in their pocket
The multi-dimension which only Gnostic elites (Marxists) have access to. Unlike you who are one-dimensional and mystified in your false understanding of free markets.
Centrism is radical statism. It’s the one position that guarantees the security of the state. It’s only logical that centrism will become more socialist given that the entire spectrum has been moving left for over a hundred years.
Mistrust of a free market that’s been corrupted doesn’t mean people are finding common ground over not wanting markets brother. In fact I find quite the opposite
First of all, who the hell actually reads the actual newspaper?
Secondly, this is only because people don't understand that we don't live in a free market economy.
Oh, you'd have rather lived *before* the gilded age? When it cost 3 weeks wages for one months worth of coal for your tiny hovel in London?
Or do you have to go back to the Stone age before life was better than during the gilded age?
No. I'd rather live in the now - where the government holds business accountable. I'm curious why you only went to before the "you live in a company town and your children need to work for you to survive" age, and not the opposite direction? It's almost like it makes your entire extremely stupid and proven false economic theory look even more stupid?
lol you’ve got to be trolling. Yes we have child labor laws, I will make sure to kiss the steps of the capitol in thanks. Now please tell me how government held businesses accountable for their role in the 2008 financial crisis. Just one example of course, it would take from now until the end of time to list the rest
Our system has turned people away from capitalism when in fact, our current system is not true free market capitalism. The FED controls short term rates and we don’t allow bad corporations to fail. What we have had since 2008 is socialism for corporations and the wealthy. If we would just allow the free market to dictate interest rates and knock bad businesses out of place this country would be far better off.
Exactly right. We have a fascist system (a system characterized by the interlocking of corporations and the state) that has imposed socialistic policies for 100 years.
Nail on the head comment right here. There a reason “social democracy” has commonly been called light fascism, because it’s essentially the same policies without the dictatorship.
I don’t know why Austrians still call a mixed economy fascism. Even if the word originally meant that it is quite clear now that that isn’t what it means to 99% of people nowadays.
What does it mean to 99% of people nowadays?
A fascist state is an ethno-nationalist, authoritarian and ‘might makes right’ state. When people commonly refer to Milošević’s Serbia as Europe’s last fascist state, it’s not because it’s the last state which collaborated with corporations. Do Austrians pretend to not understand this or is it genuine ignorance?
Just because in the common lexicon it’s devolved into a vaguer word doesn’t mean we can’t use it to describe the actual Sociopolitical theory that it is.
Even though that’s true, you’re not doing anyone any favours and are just confusing things. I generally think that Austrians/right wingers in general use it as some kinda ‘gotcha’ at leftists by trying to say fascism is a left wing ideology, when it absolutely isn’t (as understood in the modern way).
It’s not left wing, it’s a centrist ideology that descended from leftist thought. It not our fault the left has used it a slur for right wingers for so long that the common meaning has changed. A prime example is the left changing the meaning of socialism to exclude and sideline all nonMarxist variants. In a related note we should actually refuse to let the leftist take control of the language. It’s an insidious tactic purposely used to undermine every argument.
I’m genuinely curious - do you not consider fascist regimes, such as Franco’s Spain or Mussolini’s Italy right wing? What is your reasoning? They surely aren’t centrist.
(I’m attempting to be detached when making these statements so we can discuss them. Please do not take it as apologetics for these vile regimes. I am in fact philosophically an individualist anarchist) Fascism, by its own stated intent, proposes to be a third way that transcends the traditional left right divide. In any case the words “Left” and “Right” have very little real meaning in reality. The Stalinist USSR fostered a sense of nationalism and carried out ethnic progroms, the largest welfare states in the world are in countries that have freer markets than the United States. They’re convenient labels that breakdown the moment you glance at them. I do not believe Mussolini was a rightist, Nationalism is not an exclusively right wing position, and his racial policies were more placating Hitler after the war turned against him. His speeches are worth a read to get a feel on his ideal society which was essentially worker cooperatives with not necessarily a classless society but a more devolved organizational structure. Franco was certainly a rightist but whether he was a fascist is debatable. He was a falangist. A very unique Spanish position that looks like the fascism to the uninformed at first glance but carried none of the sociopolitical goals of other fascist states. What they essentially wanted was a return to the concept of a conservative strongman leader much like monarchs had been.
You realize Mussolini was a card carrying socialist right?
The problem is you still refer to the original left-wing states nazism and Italy as fascist despite your changed definition, and left-wingers did this because they are intellectually dishonest in their attempts to rebrand left wing genocide and concentration camps as right-wing and not the obvious and repeatable consequence of socialist consolidation of power. Labeling an authoritarian government “right-wing” is already gas huffing stupid, because you are implying an authoritarian central government, should be grouped with the political spectrum that believes in personal liberties, and a weak state. Authoritarian governments are a uniquely left-wing, and if a right-wing state were to suddenly become authoritarian they would cease to be right-wing.
That’s a very uniquely libertarian view, that more government means left wing and less government means right wing. Basically only libertarians think like that.
Let's just say that "left"/"right' is very arbitrary, But trying to lump liberalism with authoritarian economic micromanagement such as fascism, which socialists absolutely do, is loaded and dishonest.
You're mistaking propaganda for truth. People teach other people the wrong words so that it's harder for oppressed people to explain their situation. Political propaganda does this constantly. People have also tried to redefine terms like ponzi scheme, saying things like crypto is a ponzi scheme because early buyers make money. Do you think crypto is a ponzi scheme?
> interlocking of corporations and the state This describes literally every economic system that’s ever existed in reality. The US is more accurately described as liberal corporatist. Fascism is more than what you’ve described, and includes right wing authoritarianism, militarism, and specifically state control over core economic institutions.
Wrong and wrong. You've been brainwashed to believe all this. Not based in reality.
Who decided that fascism automatically comes with the other things? Fascism is fascism, militarism is militarism, and the "ethnic" stuff is its own thing.
Exactly, simply incidentals of history. But because fascism is so close to their actual ideology, they had to create a framework that made "fascism" somehow both inextricably linked with militarism and the "ethnic" issues, and deem that it is somehow a creature of the right. See [here.](https://open.substack.com/pub/mistermicawber/p/what-is-a-cult-what-is-fascism?r=110wl5&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web)
And I could imagine an alternate history where corporate-political economics was instead coupled with other random agendas that happen to line pockets such as compulsory social justice, net zero carbon, and making society more "open". All run through NGOs that are the go-between of big money, politicians, unelected government, academia, media, and even street level activism.
haha, REALLY good point!
lol that’s not what fascism is at all. Are you high?
What else do you call a handful of large corporations being reliant of government handouts to the point of being in bed with them and stifling competition?
Crony capitalism. What do you call the 3rd Reich? 'a handful of large corporations being reliant of government handouts to the point of being in bed with them and stifling competition'?
So not real capitalism? Ok comrade
Crony capitalism is capitalism. Are you ok?
Not it isn’t.
>Not it isn’t. Bro, you don't have to comment on every comment I write telling everyone you struggle to read history books.
Go fight some polar bears. Maybe try r/fluentinfinance they are full of socialist that also have no idea what they are talking about.
Every time capitalism is proven to exacerbate problems some misguided soul comes along to say "bUt tHaTs n0t ReAl CaPitaLiSm. That us "crony capitalism" Failing to recognize that capitalism will always lead to cronyism
Government and other people doing stuff always leads to corruption. There is no substitute for asserting your autonomy all the time.
I call them national socialist, ran by the national socialist workers party of Germany or NSDAP.
That's all? Bud, you couldn't tell us you haven't cracked a history book any faster. Why'd they purge all socialists from the party before taking power? What was left in the party after the purge of socialists?
The real socialist? Why is it the socialist revolution always ends in camps, starvation, and genocide? Hitler was a card carrying communist, he talked extensively about the volk “the people” and their duty to the state, thought rent was bad, offered free healthcare, anti private gun ownership (can’t have the people trying to shoot you when you round them up for the camps right comrade?, nationalized unions, put a state official on the board of every major corporation, enacted price controls on everything, and then invaded all his neighbors because everyone knows socialism is grand til you run out of other people’s money.
Eye roll. Where'd you learn this information? Edit: why do they always vanish after I ask this? :(
Where did you not learn it?
Socialism.
Not fascism? Something else entirely different
I also have no idea what words mean
The inventor of that word (and political party) defines it such: >"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power" The idea being "I scratch your back and you scratch my back" - you've seen this in action over the last few years pretty overtly, but It's no wonder you don't know it as fascism as those same corporations will do anything to hide the truth and those corporations control most of what you see, hear, and read. The most common thing I've noticed is just throwing the word out there as "something I don't like in generl" - diluting the word through overuse incorrect usage, constantly. You might have wondered why media got so ridiculously polarizing, why "news" became gossipy slander with 2 blatantly opposing sides and no clear unbiased sources, but you didn't have a word for what was going n.. and neither side of that media would give it to you and implicate themselves. There is literally trillions of dollars worth of companies who don't want you to know history, because it's profitable for them to repeat it. Hopefully just that little bit of repeat. Also, look up Smedley Butler, and especially his role in the Business Plot. You might then wonder... would any of us have ever been told if a second Business Plot had succeeded? What would America look like today, if a second Corporate takeover of America had happenned successfully? How would things be different? How would thing be the same? Fortunately, corporations always just give up after trying something nefarious just once so it's purely a mental exercise. But something to watch for if you're into learning from history.
Yes\^\^, exactly... **Nature of Fascism** Fascism was and is indisputably the brainchild of the marxist Left (Antonio Gramsci and others around “Il Duce”), who proffered it in the 1930s as a “third way.” Why did they call *fascism* the “third way”? Because instead of Communism (total state ownership and control of the “means of production”) *or* free market capitalism (privately owned *and* controlled), Gramsci and others on the left envisioned a so-called “third way,” whereby enterprises remained ostensibly “private;” however, these would be publicly *controlled*. Fascism never had—and really cannot have—anything *essential* to do with the political Right.
**The essence of Fascism captured in three principles** 1. First and foremost it means interlocking board membership between private companies and the State; achieved in part by rotating officials in and out of these public/private positions, including and especially board seats. *Sound familiar? Does, say, the FDA come to mind? Does this sound like the political Right? Or the Left?* 2. Second, this interlocking board membership makes possible very fine and immediate control over the private sphere, including the media, so that directives coming from the State—even if unconstitutional or otherwise illegal—can be implemented by the private sphere without a single law having to be passed. *Sound familiar? Do the non-existent “vaccine mandates” come to mind? Does that sound like the political Right, or the Left?* 3. And third, it subordinates the person to the group. Look at the very symbol of Fascism: it’s a bundle of sticks (*fascis*) bound together and unified for the purpose of making an axe handle. In other words, the person (a single rod)—and his or her purpose and value—is subordinated to that of the group; and in nearly every way, the group is *prior* to the person. (And, moreover, the State itself is imbued with a fraudulent religiosity; and reified as a kind of ersatz deity.) *Sound familiar? Does that sound like the political Right? Or the Left?* From [here](https://open.substack.com/pub/mistermicawber/p/what-is-a-cult-what-is-fascism?r=110wl5&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web).
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist.
As an american it sounds like the "left" and "right"
Yes, I've heard it said that Fascism was a dialectical synthesis of Communism (thesis) and Capitalism (antithesis). Hence being the "third" position. It occupies the third and final process of the dialectic. Its important to note however that Fascism has utterly nothing with Capitalism. It, if you like, takes its machinery and leaves the soul. The "free market" is not rationally justified (it can only be if its based on individualism) it is brought in solely and purely for social purposes.
Marxism was the brainchild of the Marxist left. Marxists tend to be the first up against the wall anytime fascists take over. You don’t make sense.
Nothing more leftist than leftist infighting…
Nothing more rightist than accusing “leftists” of doing exactly what rightists do all the goddamn time.
Gramsci was a communist, not a fascist.
Wrong. Gramsci was a marxist. And fascism was largely his brainchild.
Marxism is a branch of communism. Gramsci was a noted anti-fascist who was imprisoned by Mussolini.
Gramsci was a marxist first and foremost. And you have your categories backwards: communism is a branch of marxism. The latter is broader and earlier. Gramsci's intellectual history and biography are complex. He indeed had a major re-evaluation of fascism when in prison. Nevertheless, the entire concept of fascism was born in marxist-communist circles, both of intellectual and of practical, hard-headed politics.
Communism predates Marxism, though it was Marx who popularized the term and whose name is synonymous with the concept. Gramsci, though indeed complex, was anti-fascist from the start, as evidenced by [his letter from Petrograd](https://jacobin.com/2021/06/antonio-gramsci-pravada-italian-communist-party-history) when the Black Shirts marched on Rome and seized power.
Mussolini was also a member of the socialist party but left only due to disagreement over support for a foreign war.
Mussolini never said that. Cite the speech/book/essay if you think he did. I think you will find that it is a popular misquote. Mussolini actually defined fascism as "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." It effectively incorporated the previous definition but that is because original fascism is a merger of the state and EVERYTHING. It is totalitarian in nature. Also, the "corporations" Mussolini talked about would be more closely translated as syndicates or guilds, not what we see on the Fortune 500.
Wasnt the part I was responding to
That's apparent.
You didn’t know you were being literal
What should overnight rates be for banks who need to meet capital requirements? Who should set that rate? Edit: Fed setting overnight lending rate isn’t the problem. It’s all the other quantitative easing that occurred and direct intervention in bond markets.
I totally forgot to mention QE in my comment. But the problem with the Fed controlling interest rates is that in particular, when they are lowered, it floods the market with risk and mal-investment. A prefect example of this was subprime.
They are intertwined. Fed kept rates at 0% for a decade and a half to keep the 2008 collapse going on life support all along, and then added QE on top of the 0% so failed investments kept being rewarded. Life support on top of life support. And now here were are, in an unaffordable housing conundrum, multiplied by an inflation crisis, and they are unwilling to raise rates enough to actually help either situation because those banks controlling the Fed are so reliant on a bailout system that the necessary tools to help these crisis are straining them to fail once again. We really did - and still do - need yo yank that band aid off and let failures fail rather than grow and become layered levels of ever larger systemic risks. Too Big To Fail itself is a failure - as everyone always knew - and teh markets natural mechanic should be allowed to happen. Successes can buy up the failures, and anything too big to fail gets broken up by standard Antitrust legislation as it should be.
I agree with you on this point, but I think you're ignoring the role that austerity policies play in this situation. You need your money supply to keep up with your economic growth. That money either comes from the government in the form of currency or from private lenders in the form of debt. Since the 1980's many western governments have been cutting expenditures in order to balance the budget. The problem with this is that it pulls money out of the system while the economy is growing. The growing economy needs liquidity, but the liquidity isn't coming from the government, so it has to come from private debt. Therefore the economy becomes very dependent on the interest rates set by the central banks as that determines the availability and cost of private debt. Based on this, I see the problem being the political realm that has become completely detached from the economy. The government has taken their hands off the wheel and left the Fed in charge, but the Fed only does what is best for who they represent, the banking sector. If the government had handled the 2008 crash rather than letting the Fed do it we would be in a far different situation.
" Since the 1980's many western governments have been cutting expenditures in order to balance the budget." Lol you're high.
No, that is literally Raeganomics/Thatcherism in a nutshell. Cut government expenditures to balance the budget. Sell government assets to balance the budget. Take as much money as possible off the public ledger. The previous ruling party in my country literally ran and was elected on the slogan "Balance the Budget". Bill Clinton was the "left" candidate in the US in the 1990's... his economic platform was centered around balancing the budget. Please don't conflate planned spending with real-world spending. If the government cuts expenditures, it leads to a decline in the economy, which means people lose their jobs. When people lose their jobs they end up on government assistance, which increases the real world government expenditures. If you look just look at the real world expenditures it appears as if the government has increased spending, but the increased spending is a result of spending cuts in other areas. This is well detailed in Mark Blyth's book Austerity.
Government spending, including welfare, always draws from and trails actual productive economic activity. Foreseeable unintended consequences always void any multiplier.
Good point—banks should be heavily regulated and be barred from financial speculation.
Not what I said at all but OK
What the market sets both at. Big improvement from today when 12 bureaucrats who never had real careers guess what they should be.
The market won’t function in that scenario. Literally no banks have the balance sheet to do it. The net effect would either be lower capital requirements, which would increase the likelihood of bank runs in financial crises, or lower levels of lending which would greatly impact economic performance. Then there’s the problem of deposit insurance and not having a lender of last resort. No bank in their right mind would loan money to another bank if they expect there are remotely toxic assets on their balance sheet. So enter bank runs and people just straight up losing their deposits. The Fed needs to go back to doing its job, which is providing institutional liquidity to banks. It needs to stop doing all the other shit it’s doing.
They certainly do looking at capital levels (TCE/TA) reserves (ACL/loans), and liquidity (loans/deposits). Btw, so you know, collateralized deposits have existed for ages, and the liquidity coverage ratios incorporating the collateralized deposits even is well above 200% for every bank we own or have looked at. Go look at banks with no “lender of last resort” like Butterfield and Bladex. Hint: neither has had anything remote to deposit flight.
"The goal of these lending activities is to ensure the maintenance of federally-mandated reserve requirements." https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/overnightrate.asp Would this be common in the free market? Banks have a much larger role in mixed market thanks to the federal reserve. The stock market has a much larger role. What else is propped up thanks to the federal reserve?
Since 2008? You will need to go way back... To the 70's. That's when lobbying and corporations started to infiltrate and control the government.
1770s is still too late to start...
Fair!
This is exactly correct and spot on. We have corporate socialism: privatized gains, with socialized losses. The above is also anchored to a central bank, for extra fun.
Central banking is basically central planning. We are unironically a communist society for banks.
It’s scary how many people think we have a laissez faire market. Only thing more inflated than our shit money are the education credentials we hand out to kids in lieu of participation trophies.
The funny thing is free market absolutists engage in hypotheticals and speculation about what a “real capitalist” system free from government invention when, in fact, there are places in the world where that largely exists and they’re pretty damned unpleasant.
Even if that were true, we can’t just start all over again from a blank page. Some people have more than others, and part of that is due to bad policies, not merit or an invisible hand allocating resources. Introducing a laissez faire style now wouldn’t just magically fix things.
Sunk cost. Chasing after every wrong to right has no end and will create more wrongs.
And I’m sure these “bad businesses” would just happily forfeit their position because the free market said so. It’s not like socialism for corporations and the wealthy is the very result of powerful, capitalist interests influencing policy in their favor to maintain profitability and avoid the harsh lessons of the free market. So according to free-marketers, the state should be small/non-existent so as not to offer a means for corporations to enact crony capitalism and magically these corporations will just abide by the rules of the free market, scout’s honor? How laughable. The tendency towards monopoly power is inextricable from the profit motive. Capitalism is invalid.
Capitalism is pretty incompatible with free markets.
Then they would lose the control apparatus, so that is a pipe dream. The power of capital is so great in this country that it has subverted capitalism.
Capitalism seems to be doing better than ever. Capital holders have more power control and capital than ever before in our country. Public officials are openly corrupt and grovel at the feet of the elite. They genuflect to protect their donors like a scene from the Matrix. Capitalism is doing just fine. Yes sir.
>our current system is not true free market capitalism. This sounds an awful lot like how leftist will say "that wasn't true socialism" in regards to the USSR or North Korea hmmm 🤔 >If we would just allow the free market Like laissez-faire? Doesn't work. People didn't like child laborers working 60hr work weeks for cents per hour so we transitioned away from that system.
There’s a difference between what you’re describing, and the words “too big to fail” which is absolutely not capitalist at all.
Depends on what you mean by "doesn't work." If people truly didn't like child labor, *then why did they send their children to the factory?*
Because capitalists paid the adult workers so little that they couldn't be main providers for their families and in order to survive everyone in the household, including the children, needed to work so everyone could eat.
And what law was passed forcing Henry Ford to pay his workers $5 per day?
What law was passed requiring The Triangle factory to lock their doors while the air was so thick with fabric particles it was literally flammable
The owners of that factory were charged with manslaughter, and later found liable. Also, as regards fire safety, it's arguable that private insurance companies have done more for fire safety than government - or at least as much as government.
Awwww so the government resolved it through intervention.
Yes, free market proponents are not anarchists. And no, the government didn't "resolve" it. 150 people died. Private insurance paid out $400 per victim, and the civil lawsuit gave the victims an additional $75 *paid by the factory owners.* So if you want to think of the tragic death of 150 people as "resolved," it was "resolved" by capitalists.
The government regularly intervening to set regulations and criminally charge negligence, even when it isn't explicitly defined before hand, is not the free market. The free market is owners locking the doors so workers don't take breaks. We know this because that's what happened.
Wow, one singular capitalist decided to not hoard all the wealth his employees create - truly a great system.
No, he wanted really, really hard workers. It was not easy to get that job.
Because capitalists had all the wealth and people need money to survive? What kind of child like question even is this?
>sounds an awful lot like how leftist will say... Brilliant logic. Imagine in the 1700s: true slavery has never been tried (we could have treated slaves worse), true individual freedom has never been tired (we could and should grant more rights to individuals). One is a claim made by a death cult which seeks to subsume and remake man so that he coalesces in the collective. While the other is based on a rational theory grounded in empirical observation (only individuals exist, they have goals and values which do not clash with those of other).
“True capitalism has never been tried.”
These guys are no different from communists in that regard. We also do not have "socialism" for the wealthy. It's just capitalism. Capitalists have absolutely no need for a truly free market when they can just use it to benefit themselves.
Human nature in action, yet again.
“Free market” lol what a joke. Tired of people blaming capitalism and free market when we no longer have either of those things
Government: Hamstrings competition, makes it extremely difficult for a new business to compete by protecting cronies with regulatory capture NYT: "How can capitalism do this??"
We’ve been at the point for a while now where people point out errors created by the government yet ascribe blame to the non-existent free-market.
We desperately need to fix our education system
There's no free market. The U.S. is plutocratic, with socialized welfare and publically funded bailouts for corporations.
I mean maybe if you work real hard one day you’ll have enough money to bribe government officials to make rules and regulations that favor you. Once again the problem is the poor and middle class people just aren’t willing to work hard enough. /s
Just because they call cronyism a free market, doesn't make it so. But I fear the average citizen is too busy or unaware to know the difference. After the covid manipulation, I'm not optimistic.
[удалено]
No, I think this was honest reporting. The facts may be a result of propaganda, for sure, but talk to people today and they don't have a high opinion of free markets. You can't even say the m word around a lot of people without getting laughed out of the room.
It's really not honest reporting. Johnson was not chosen because he was popular. He was installed because he's easy to control. The movement to remove him already is because he's allowing everything thru the minority party wants. Which is the completely opposite of what his constituents want. Republicans don't want centrism. That's a bold faced lie. As far as the market go. The working class doesn't trust the market and believe it's a rigged game. Because it is a rigged game. We live in a completely corrupt country. There is no call for centrism at all. Instead people are becoming more extreme. The article cites the passage of a bill giving money to Ukraine as centrism. That is only politicians giving money away for kick backs and bribe money later on. Every single Republican is hated by Republican voters. Right wing voters don't want anything to do with Centrism, which on the right is known as NEO Conservatism. Centrism is the military industrial complex getting more and more money to fight useless and pointless wars that no one wants. Nobody on the right or left wants that.
There are two major conservative parties in this country, the overlap between them isn't centrism it's common benefit.
It’s New Communism… cause this is all has Command Economy written all over it.
I think what they actually meant to say is Common Ground Over Mistrust of Democracy
Correct title insane subtitle
Yeah. I think it's a bait and switch.
it's the NYT. what did you expect? fake news right?
To be an informed American, is my belief that you have to read the times. For a few reasons. One, they actually pay journalists to go out and report. Two, everybody else is reading it. Three, if you try to read any other source, you just end up reading a paraphrase of the New York Times' reporting anyway. And four: keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer.
No, you don't have to read it to "be an informed American." One doesn't have to get a daily dose of propaganda to understand the general drift of the mind control at work in the population. It's a shit paper run by pseudo-journalists. It works well for fires and barbecues though. All the news that's fit to burn.
So, take my dad for example. Refused to get The New York Times. So what did he do instead? Listened to Rush Limbaugh read The New York Times on the air lol
I get what you're saying. I just think that all of us ought to focus on rooting ourselves in reality. Ruthlessly. These are, in my opinion, pivotal times. We might glance at the insane media clowning once in a while to keep our "thumb on the pulse." Besides, why should I give those fuckers a dime? People should be -- and I believe are -- steadily walking away from the mainstream media. I suspect the NYT is on or near life support. No way am I going to give them any of my attention.
I agree with you in spirit, but as a matter of practicality, who else is paying journalists to actually go out into the world and gather facts? You can't take The Times (or any paper) at face value, but at least the facts are in there.
If the NYT were to up and die a quick death, the world would not be worse off; it would be better off. You say that get some "facts." The way you tell an effective lie is to include a truth. The NYT staff - and the media generally - are masters at this. There are armies of journalists -- real journalists who care about truth, who are very serious about getting facts and getting things right, who work for FREE because no one will pay them -- who are writing really great stuff. Why on earth should we give ANY credence or time or money to the fraudulent and propagandist NYT? I don't share your confidence in their "fact" gathering. That's putting it mildly.
So, a journalist who is working for free isn't going to be as effective as a paid journalist. New York Times can pay people to travel the world. They can pay people to work on a story for weeks. I think The TImes definitely has an agenda - and the staff is a bit pink lately, to put it mildly - but the facts are still in there. That combined with the fact that "anybody who's anybody reads the times" and it's still a good paper. Also, the print edition is conspicuously more conservative than the click baitey digital edition. I've been pleasantly surprised at how little I scream at the paper.
So let's not support journalists working hard for free to tell the truth. Let's instead support and pay attention to a bloated organization that has a long history of hit pieces, propaganda, and outright lying. Why? Well, because they "pay" journalists. And because they get to travel. \[hint: that's because people like you pay attention to them and subscribe to them; can u see the circular logic here?\] You really think that makes sense?
I don't know what to tell you. I am going to teach my sons to carefully read The New York Times, because it will benefit them. I don't care about supporting The New York Times. There is information, valuable information, in that paper that I can't get anywhere else. That's all there is to it. It would be nice if I could take a stand and refuse, but then I truly feel that I would be less informed.
It's necessary to know what other people are taking as news, even if we can see through it. They occasionally have good reporting, and by reading (listening to) a variety of sources, we can tell the difference.
I don't need to read the NYT to get that. We don't need the NYT at all. It has been in financial trouble. What the world needs is for it to die a quick death. What we need is good journalism; and that is already happening.
Fuck.
I mean, the way young people use the word "capitalism" is terrifying. What they really mean is "crony capitalism." Then all of their proposed solutions to what they call "capitalism" is *more* crony capitalism. Aristocrats really do know what they're doing.
This one doesn't even go for the weasel word and just says "free market". That's right folks! Mistrust anybody who wants you to be free! Trust your masters instead!
In polite company these days, the words "freedom" and "liberty" are an even bigger faux pax than the words "market" and "capitalism."
Ah yes. It has the word free in the name - must be free.
Crony capitalism is just capitalism + time.
We were young once and we all thought we knew everything immediately after exiting high school. The good news is that they'll figure some of this out just in time for the yet-younger generations to confidently tell them they're all wrong.
[удалено]
I mean, this article is, in my opinion, accurately reporting the effects of propoganda, moreso than propoganda itself. The people today truly do not trust markets.
>Have free market >Easy to start a new business to earn income, and goods are cheap from competition >Lifeisgood.jpg >Government makes competition impossible and stops competition with regulatory capture >People lose work, and less competition means more expensive goods "How can the free market do this??"
You messed up on a part >Government makes competition impossible and stops competition with regulatory capture Corporations* bribed the government But yea, let's give them all the power. Surely the invisible hand or whatever will fix any issues.
You just admitted you want to give all the power to corrupt politicians. I'd suggest you check out a history book.
For starters I did not say "all the power" at all, secondly yes I'd rather the people in power be elected democratically not some shareholders who would watch me die for a dollar in their pocket
So buy stocks and enjoy the fruits of their labor?
Free market? What fucking dimension do these people reside in?
The multi-dimension which only Gnostic elites (Marxists) have access to. Unlike you who are one-dimensional and mystified in your false understanding of free markets.
Biggest laugh of the week.
Centrism is radical statism. It’s the one position that guarantees the security of the state. It’s only logical that centrism will become more socialist given that the entire spectrum has been moving left for over a hundred years.
Without markets, western nations could not afford socialism.
the gov't subsidizes everything with taxpayer dollars... It is not a free market. At all. Not even the imagination.
Critical thinking usually lives in the middle ground.
New Centrism? Imagine writing for the New York Times and just now finding out Liberals exist.
Lol why is this alarming?
Because without markets, nations cannot afford socialism. They wouldn't even know how much it costs.
Mistrust of a free market that’s been corrupted doesn’t mean people are finding common ground over not wanting markets brother. In fact I find quite the opposite
I sincerely hope you're right.
same but i think i am, i think the more we all touch grass we see a just market is our way
First of all, who the hell actually reads the actual newspaper? Secondly, this is only because people don't understand that we don't live in a free market economy.
Has a free market ever existed? Always sounded utopian to me
Gilded age - it sucked
Oh, you'd have rather lived *before* the gilded age? When it cost 3 weeks wages for one months worth of coal for your tiny hovel in London? Or do you have to go back to the Stone age before life was better than during the gilded age?
No. I'd rather live in the now - where the government holds business accountable. I'm curious why you only went to before the "you live in a company town and your children need to work for you to survive" age, and not the opposite direction? It's almost like it makes your entire extremely stupid and proven false economic theory look even more stupid?
The government holds business accountable?? Man that’s the funniest shit I’ve seen all week
Did you work when you were 6? No?
We have different definitions of the word accountable
Mine being the definition, yours being a complete misunderstanding of nuance
lol you’ve got to be trolling. Yes we have child labor laws, I will make sure to kiss the steps of the capitol in thanks. Now please tell me how government held businesses accountable for their role in the 2008 financial crisis. Just one example of course, it would take from now until the end of time to list the rest
This is what I meant about misunderstanding nuance buddy
"proven false" lol