• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

why should today's youth be loyal to capitalism?

tacomancer said:
This article is very insightful and got me thinking about why we are seeing someone like Bernie Sanders' rise in popularity:

Peggy Noonan: Socialism Gets a Second Life — The Patriot Post



Particularly this line hits the mark, I think. For those, including many people my age, in their thirties, the example of the economy has been anything but friendly towards folks our age or younger. We struggle to find decent and meaningful work and to feel like full participants in the greater society.

We have a great generation that is not being fully utilized and there is resentment being built up about the current system as a result of that under utilization.

People may complain that Sanders is socialist, but here the real question, why should this generation feel any loyalty to a more pure form of capitalism given that their experience with capitalism has been poor? Everything we know about human nature suggests that people will not stick with a system that they don't feel to be a full member of. Why would the expectation of today's youth be any different from that basic understanding of human nature?

Personally, I seem to be doing pretty well in today's economy (I could be doing better, but I survive, have little debt, eat well, and am not living hand to mouth), but most of my friends, some of whom are more talented than I am, are not. Honestly, I don't blame them for seeking a system where they feel like they will be a full participant in society.
Click to expand...

This (your title) has definitely been my view for at least 10 years now....even before the last crash. Why would some kid who got everything for free from mom and dad embrace capitalism when he moves out of the house and barely makes enough money to pay the rent?

If someone making $10 an hour in some no-skill job with few prospects suddenly is given a choice to vote for someone who says he will give them $15 an hour plus let them go to school for free...it's a no-brainer.

Hell, I might even take that deal, and I make way more than $15 an hour. BUt, the prospect of free school sounds awful good. I'd like to study Ancient Roman Poetry and Sexual Practices.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Because, they went much harder on cutting govt spending, aka austerity, in a time of depressed demand...whereas we did not...in spite of GOP efforts to go that route. Sanders is not arguing for austerity, quite the opposite.
Click to expand...

They also failed to ease credit conditions in an appropriate time period, lack a fiscal transmission mechanism, and still (Germany) stoke mercantilist sentiment.
 
Why would an unemployed or low-paid young person be loyal to a system that failed him?
 
Fruityfact said:
You sound like spoiled youth, this coming from an individual only a few years older than you.
Correct me if i'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Sure thing if that's what you want to call it.

It sure as hell doesn't change my particular position.
 
Heinrich said:
Why would an unemployed or low-paid young person be loyal to a system that failed him?
Click to expand...

They shouldn't...and more than likely won't be.

That's part of the problem I've been mouthing off about.
 
Heinrich said:
Why would an unemployed or low-paid young person be loyal to a system that failed him?
Click to expand...

well, as neither system guarantees or promotes employment or high wages... I suggest they are barking up the wrong tree over what system to be loyal too.
 
tacomancer said:
All of these responses are well and good, in the abstract, but again, people are not seeing much in the way of personal benefit, but a hostile job environment, so my question still stands... Why be loyal to a system that isn't working for them?

Perhaps another way of asking the question is "What can capitalism do for these folks to engender support?"
Click to expand...

a better question is

what are they doing for themselves?

other than bitching that the system isnt "fair"
 
Kushinator said:
Government grants property rights.
Click to expand...
well, that's your opinion... I think it's enough to say that our government protects private property rights... no need to go into a debate about where our rights come from.




Pure capitalism (laissez faire) has never actually existed outside of the nomadic era. Laissez faire is often confused with the enlightenment period; government was intervening throughout England, France, Prussia, Ottoman Empire, etc... well before the Declaration of Independence was written, and long after.
Click to expand...
that's true... which is why it's false to assert any of our problem stem from "pure capitalism".



Do you believe a BIG and UHC is an example of casting private property rights away?
Click to expand...
BIG, no... UHC, possibly.... it would depend entirely on how UHC system is set up and delivered.



Well, except for that whole unemployment thing! Socialism gained traction in the 19th century because factory workers in [insert your metropolitan area] would lose their jobs when banks in Amsterdam, Antwerp, and London would fail. Unemployment, by definition, is involuntary.
Click to expand...
sometimes Unemployment is involuntary, not always.
for instance, I'm unemployed right now... totally by my own choice.... millions of folks are voluntarily unemployed as we speak.

Socialism doesn't inherently change the nature of employment... it inherently changes the ownership of property by abolishing private property rights.








Maybe
Click to expand...
there's no maybe.
saying there is a choice isn't the same as saying one will be successful in pulling it off... it merely means there is a choice at hand... it means you have an opportunity available.
under Socialism ,there can be no such choice.




I get the impression that you're somewhat confused. Socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive, as our current reality exemplifies.
Click to expand...
your personal impressions have no value to me..... but you're free to make an argument based on whatever "current realities" you have in mind.
 
gdgyva said:
a better question is

what are they doing for themselves?

other than bitching that the system isnt "fair"
Click to expand...

anti-capitalists aren't exactly known for being personally invested in bettering their lot in life through personal effort....it's part of the reason they "feel" the system is failing them
 
Thrilla said:
well, as neither system guarantees or promotes employment or high wages... I suggest they are barking up the wrong tree over what system to be loyal too.
Click to expand...
"neither system" suggests that there are only two but, in reality, there are several.
 
Heinrich said:
"neither system" suggests that there are only two but, in reality, there are several.
Click to expand...

we're contrasting Socialism and Capitalism.... which in no way suggests there aren't other systems.

you're free to offer up another system for consideration if you wish.... if not, then your point is rather pointless.
 
That's odd. I don't know anyone that isn't doing about what I would guess they "should be doing", based on the way they live their life. Cancer and tragic accidents aside (I want more public funding of common tragedies..hate me).

Youth are ignorant about how our economy works in terms of engaging the market. We all were, only a rare few have the experience/role models to understand it. They would be slightly wiser to ask why exactly they are unprepared, after some 12 years of education, in one of the most well funded systems in the world.

I mean, it's primarily two factors. Parents + school. That's the primary (non tragic) influences in preparation for a career.

And WTH is up with mentioning wealth disparity? What idiot student listens to political propaganda, and then reasonably despairs at "wealth disparity", when they are a student? STUDENTS ARE POOR< NEWS FLASH. YOU HAVE TO WORK IN A CAREER THAT PAYS< TO EARN INCOME.

How did they get through the school system without being taught this ****? Let me guess...
Yeah, we had a career day in high school, it was a complete joke. Blind leading the blind. That's what we do. Hell, I thought liberals preferred education to be about discovery and exploration and the one chance in their young life to not have to be pressured and be able to explore arts and what not. How is that preparation for corporate America? Guess what, the kids overseas who are actually trying to compete and get ahead, are kicking your ass, enjoy.
 
Last edited:
Heinrich said:
Why would an unemployed or low-paid young person be loyal to a system that failed him?
Click to expand...
Describe very specifically the kid, their background, education, GPA, school focus, where they live, etc.
We may be able to identify which systems they should be questioning. (most likely with a big heap of looking in the mirror).
 
Mach said:
That's odd. I don't know anyone that isn't doing about what I would guess they "should be doing", based on the way they live their life. Cancer and tragic accidents aside.

Youth are ignorant about how our economy works in terms of engaging the market. We all were, only a rare few have the experience/role models to understand it. They would be slightly wiser to ask why exactly they are unprepared, after some 12 years of education, in one of the most well funded systems in the world.

I mean, it's primarily two factors. Parents + school. That's the primary (non tragic) influences in preparation for a career.

And WTH is up with mentioning wealth disparity? What idiot student listens to political propaganda, and then reasonably despairs at "wealth disparity", when they are a student? STUDENTS ARE POOR< NEWS FLASH. YOU HAVE TO WORK IN A CAREER THAT PAYS< TO EARN INCOME.

How did they get through the school system without being taught this ****? Let me guess...
Yeah, we had a career day in high school, it was a complete joke. Blind leading the blind. That's what we do. Hell, I thought liberals preferred education to be about discovery and exploration and the one chance in their young life to not have to be pressured and be able to explore arts and what not. How is that preparation for corporate America? Guess what, the kids overseas who are actually trying to compete and get ahead, are kicking your ass, enjoy.
Click to expand...

we don't educate kids to operate successful within the system... they are taught they are all winners and are entitled to reap the benefits of being a winner.

couple an overinflated entitlement mentality with participation trophies, and you get kids who believe capitalism has failed them and seek to be loyal to a system that celebrates and rewards mediocrity while punishing success, work, and accomplishment.

I suggest it is they whom are failing capitalism, and by extension, the rest of us... rather than the other way around.... but whatever, i'm just an old dude and don't know nearly as much as our youth.
 
Thrilla said:
well, that's your opinion... I think it's enough to say that our government protects private property rights... no need to go into a debate about where our rights come from.
Click to expand...

Not an opinion, it is simply a matter of fact. The legal system (government) settles property disputes through various avenues.

sometimes Unemployment is involuntary, not always.
for instance, I'm unemployed right now... totally by my own choice.... millions of folks are voluntarily unemployed as we speak.
Click to expand...

Then you aren't unemployed. You are what is referred to as "not in the labor force" as you are (by choice) not seeking employment. Unemployment does have a meaning, and it is not open to interpretation.

Socialism doesn't inherently change the nature of employment... it inherently changes the ownership of property by abolishing private property rights.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. There can be systems of authoritarian states that control the means of production, like Venezuela, just like there can be social democracies that have programs set in place to alleviate the externalities of market concentration and failure.

there's no maybe.

saying there is a choice isn't the same as saying one will be successful in pulling it off... it merely means there is a choice at hand... it means you have an opportunity available.
Click to expand...

Cyclical unemployment is very real; so yes... maybe.

under Socialism ,there can be no such choice.
Click to expand...

You are painting the term with a very broad brush.

but you're free to make an argument based on whatever "current realities" you have in mind.
Click to expand...

Public education, military, social insurance, medicare, medicaid, USPS..... I can go on and on.
 
tacomancer said:
This article is very insightful and got me thinking about why we are seeing someone like Bernie Sanders' rise in popularity:

Peggy Noonan: Socialism Gets a Second Life — The Patriot Post



Particularly this line hits the mark, I think. For those, including many people my age, in their thirties, the example of the economy has been anything but friendly towards folks our age or younger. We struggle to find decent and meaningful work and to feel like full participants in the greater society.

We have a great generation that is not being fully utilized and there is resentment being built up about the current system as a result of that under utilization.

People may complain that Sanders is socialist, but here the real question, why should this generation feel any loyalty to a more pure form of capitalism given that their experience with capitalism has been poor? Everything we know about human nature suggests that people will not stick with a system that they don't feel to be a full member of. Why would the expectation of today's youth be any different from that basic understanding of human nature?

Personally, I seem to be doing pretty well in today's economy (I could be doing better, but I survive, have little debt, eat well, and am not living hand to mouth), but most of my friends, some of whom are more talented than I am, are not. Honestly, I don't blame them for seeking a system where they feel like they will be a full participant in society.
Click to expand...

The problem with this analysis is that it places blame on what is largely a set of random events, instead of upbringing and faulty expectations.
Guess what, the world has never really been fully capitalist and will never be.

It's a kind of fallacy of a single cause and the solution (Sanders or any other political solutionist) is just the same fallacy.
Fallacy of a single solution.

I'm in this age group and remember all the bs about, "if you dream it, you can become it" or "education is necessary to become x."
All those are unrealistic, faulty tales to tell children, because they end of believing it and to me, this dissatisfaction with life the one of the end results of whimsical thinking.
 
Thread: why should today's youth be loyal to capitalism?

Easy answer.......... have them go live under communist, dictatorships, and socialist governments for a few years.
 
tacomancer said:
All of these responses are well and good, in the abstract, but again, people are not seeing much in the way of personal benefit, but a hostile job environment, so my question still stands... Why be loyal to a system that isn't working for them?

Perhaps another way of asking the question is "What can capitalism do for these folks to engender support?"
Click to expand...

Nothing, if these people are blaming an abstract for their problems, they're blaming the wrong thing.
At this point and at their age, their thinking isn't likely to change to anything more constructive.

Solution, chill your expectations, take jobs that pay, but may not be exactly what you want.
That's life, you have to roll with the punches.
 
Kushinator said:
Not an opinion, it is simply a matter of fact. The legal system (government) settles property disputes through various avenues.
Click to expand...
your 2nd statement here is fact, your previous statement of of government granting rights is opinion.



Then you aren't unemployed. You are what is referred to as "not in the labor force" as you are (by choice) not seeking employment. Unemployment does have a meaning, and it is not open to interpretation.
Click to expand...
yes, i'm including those whom are "officially" listed as " not in the labor force" as unemployed..... if you don't want to entertain the interpretation that " unemployed " means " not employed" that's fine by me... it won't be the first time you refuses to entertain other points besides your own.

Not necessarily. There can be systems of authoritarian states that control the means of production, like Venezuela, just like there can be social democracies that have programs set in place to alleviate the externalities of market concentration and failure.
Click to expand...
well sure, if we ignore the definition of Socialism , and its most basic and important tenants, anything is possible.


Cyclical unemployment is very real; so yes... maybe.
Click to expand...
cyclical unemployment does not negate the choice or opportunity at hand.



You are painting the term with a very broad brush.
Click to expand...
am I?
so despite the very definition of Socialism , and the platforms and agenda of every Socialist party in existence... i'm somehow off in arguing that the abolishment of private property rights ( which negates the choice in question) is incorrect..... ok.



Public education, military, social insurance, medicare, medicaid, USPS..... I can go on and on.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you could go on and on... and i'm sure you might get lucky and hit on something that actually has something to do with the ownership of means of production...I guess we'll see.
if you're not aware, i'm not under the delusion that all welfare and all social programs are "Socialist"... I don't oppose social programs because " dadgummit, that's sochalism!"
welfare =/= socialism
social programs =/= socialism
military =/= socialism
same for medicare, medicaid, and the post office.

literally none of those deal with production, let alone the means of production or any ownership status found therein.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Our wealth inequality is an abomination...and our income inequality is every bit as much an abomination. The juxtaposition of those two insure that the inequality will continue to get worse.

We have allowed capitalism to become a monster that looks like it deserves slaying.

The American far right...which has gone bat-dung crazy...is the driving force pushing us off the cliff. And they blame everything and everyone else.

There are people here who actually think there is no disparity so great that they would see it as unjust...and unworthy of a nation such as we have.

Those people...that thinking...has to be brought under control...or we are going under.

I would hope that the young people mentioned finally come to an understanding that it is not capitalism that is the problem...but the people who want to turn capitalism into the pile of crap it is fast approaching.
Click to expand...

We don't have capitalism.
 
Mach said:
Describe very specifically the kid, their background, education, GPA, school focus, where they live, etc.
We may be able to identify which systems they should be questioning. (most likely with a big heap of looking in the mirror).
Click to expand...

There are millions from all over the United States.
 
Kushinator said:
Government grants property rights.
Click to expand...

Only problem I had this with that whole post. Government doesn't grant property rights, rather Government can recognize it and protect it or not. Property right is a natural right (i.e. God given), without Government you'd still "own" the land you live on and live off.
 
WCH said:
Wanting free **** that others have to pay for is not a sustainable system. Your friends will eventually suffer as they have to pay for these freebies.
Click to expand...

But everyone pays for them.
 
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON SOCIAL DEMOCRACY

tacomancer said:
Peggy Noonan: Socialism Gets a Second Life — The Patriot Post
Click to expand...

A "new life"? Really? Wakey, wakey America!

Social Democracy - not Socialism - has been a keystone-concept in Europe ever since the demise of the Soviet Union in December of 1991 (with its dissolution). The key-attribute of Socialism is having the means of production owned by the state, which a Social Democracy does not entail.

Bernie is a declared Social Democrat, so let's stop painting him with the broad-brush of Socialism. Social Democracy predicates itself based upon a common will for Social Justice and it is not anti-Capitalist.

After all, if we want to replace capitalism, we do what? Go back to what - barter?

If we want to heap all the ills of modern democracy upon Capitalism, be my guest. But because a Reckless Ronnie triggered a massive reduction of upper-income taxation that flooded into Wealth and Net Work, don't blame capitalism. It's like blaming murder upon the gun/knife used to perform it.

Capitalism must be retamed - that is, brought back to an alignment that was first finagled by LBJ (of all people) in the 1960s when he dropped upper-income taxation from the above 90% level down to around 70%. Reagan further chopped them down in the 1980s to below 30%. See here.

The comprehensivetax-rates (after deductions) are, in fact, a sort of flat tax - that varies between 21 to 29% for the top 10% of American taxpayer household. See Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households.

What America needs to return to tax-fairness, which is just one cornerstone of a Social Democracy edifice, is Progressive Income Taxation .

And this is what Bernie, a Social Democrat, is pitching to the American public. Batter up ... !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom