Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Finance, the economy & Economics The Debate: Is America’s future capitalist or socialist?

You are dead right! Its starting even now. I watched a thing with an Al Gore thing that explained why there are so many folks from Latin America fleeing. We have been told, by just about everybody, that it has to do with violence and gangs. That is certainly part of it but there is now a huge area of Latin America undergoing drought and they have been experiencing it long enough that they are now running out of food.

As far as I know this is the first disaster but there are sure to be others following. Its a shame that Jackass can't bring himself to explain the true reason for this migration and the fact that its likely to get MUCH WORSE!

http://www.fao.org/in-action/agronoticias/detail/en/c/1024539/

I was familiar with Honduras and Nicaragua in the 1980-90s through my Army associations. One of my compatriots was in Honduras in 1986 and 1996. In that 10 year span he watched the same camp go from jungle to arid biome. He traveled into the country and saw the same thing in other areas he was familiar with and was shocked at how denuded and arid the land had become. That was 20 years ago. It has spread since.

I never meant to infer that lack of resources or expansion of power was a Capitalist thing only. I WOULD say that nothing accelerates resource depletion like capitalism. It is the requirement necessary for capitalism to exist. At least consumer capitalism. I would also say that capitalism has been the singular force that has spread thruout the world, unlike your other examples.
To me anyhow, it's the structure of capitalism that is driving the resource depletion and inequality more than any other factor.
If there's a broad majority thru out the world that wants to have a livable planet and end fossil fuel consumption, restore biodiversity and reduce our impacts on nature but the power collected by a very small minority of capitalists want to preserve the status quo, as we have seen by their holding action thru the political and economic power they wield, then that power structure must go if there is any chance for a future that's not one of life boat politics.
Democratize the enterprise, as Wolff has promoted seems like a good start to counter the accumulated power of capital over the many for the very few.

We have nearly infinite water right off all coasts of every coastal country. All it takes is energy to remove the salt. And surprisingly little energy, too. It takes less energy to desalinate at the Carlsbad California desal plant than it takes to transport fresh water from the Sacramento River to Carlsbad. Every country in the zones that are short of fresh water have adequate ensolation to use PV panels and reverse osmosis or solar distillation facilities to supply fresh water to every citizen, farm, industry, etc.

That "running out of water" myth is really "running out of easy water", as in a river running through the center of town. Fortunately, we humans have technology we can use. We don't need to stick out faces in a stream to drink.

From QUORA - you decide whether or not you think Quora is a good source.

"The proposed Al Khafji desalination plant in Saudi Arabia is planned to provide 60,000[1] cubic meters per day powered by a nearby 15-megawatt solar power generation plant."

"It takes approx. 2.6MJ to evaporate 1kg of water from 15 degrees c. 1kWh is 3,600kJ, so say solar day is defined as 8 hours for energy gathering purposes and we take a year as 365 days we get 3,600kJ x 8 hrs x 365 days = 10,512MJ, enough for 4,043, say 4000kg of water (4000 litres). All on the assumption that the 1kWh is net input energy, not incident solar energy."

Would you characterize this model as capitalist or socialist?

Mesquite Manifesto

https://study.com/academy/lesson/ca...sadvantages-the-underground-economy.html

the differences between the two, as to which is best, has to do, I think, with the competence of the government in charge. In Northern Europe, for instance, the governments are considered to be competent and have the interest of the nation as their goal. In the USA we have a government that, more and more, have their own personal interest as their goals (at least it seems that way to me).

In a perfect world, with a competent government dedicated to the welfare of its citizens socialism might be OK. However, a completely socialist government like that has not, as far as I can tell, ever existed. Seems that a completely central socialist government with those credentials always seems to fail. The trick, I believe is a capitalist socially responsible government wherein the elected class actually act in the best interest of the nation and them that brought them to the party.

At the risk of many frothing at the mouth the USA used to be such a government. But, little by little the greedy capitalists (not all are, you know) have been taking over and I have no idea what we have now. I do know that this nation is incredibly greedy and certainly not taking care of those who need such. Our problem are not that we are a capitalist nation (even though our government supplies a number of social services (including police, firemen, public schools, marginal healthcare, etc)) but that we have allowed, greed to just about take over.

In theory there is really not much all that wrong with either Socialism OR Capitalism. The real problem is with the electorate which, in the end, are responsible for what we are going through. Amongst other stuff my thought is that we have been doing a worse and worse job of educating our youth. Every now and then there always seems to be somebody reporting that X children know little or nothing about how gov works, that high school kids cannot read, spell, write, know where their state capital is, etc. We have all read those stories. I haven't noticed so many these days but, from what I see, I think that is because its become normalized to the point where nobody gives a damn.

One last. I have seen any number of attacks on Capitalism. Most have little to do with Capitalism and a lot to do with the incompetence of gov to regulate. The Right, for years, have been trying to 'reduce' gov, have never met a regulation they don't want gone, trying to privatize, etc. FOR YEARS! The Left, on the other hand, has not, as far as I can see, fought back in any really way. They have, everytime they took over, for instance, been forced to cleaned up and fix gov finances and have actually saved the nation. They do this quietly, not reminding anybody how it got that way in the first place. The other side, however, screams and yells, and lies, etc. Not only do they get away with it but they convince because, I believe, there is not a voice raised, on the Left pointing out who did what.

I know, I have pounded this one before. I think it needs pounding. I am sick and tired of the internecine wars of the left, along with the attitude of "my way or the highway" crap. Hillary, for instance, lost, at least in part, because of those from the Left who voted for Jackass. Those fools proved they were ignorant, sly, self indulgent. In spite of that they were indulged (and still are) My fond hope is that this kind of stuff will eventually end - before everything else ends! For that to happen we need somebody willing to actually lead whilst not kissing every butt. Hillary was not the one. She got beat up for over 30 years and publicly stated that she would not respond to "that kind of behavior".

Wow! Didn't mean to go off like that - apologies.............

The left didn't vote for your 'Jack Ass'. Stop scapegoating her awful run.
15-20% of Hillary voters defected to Romney rather than vote for a Black candidate.
You need to stop identifying with 'the left'. Your not and don't know what it is from reading your posts over the years.
That was a hilarious summation of 'Capitalism vs. Socialism' in your provided link. Are you really paying for those classes?

Statistically, my friend, you're "wrong." About ten percent of Trump's vote came from self-identified "liberals". (link.) Now, I confess, we don't know how you would place them on the political continuum, but we do know where they placed themselves. Does that constitute the majority? Certainly not, but then the claim also lacked a bit of clarity. At least some on "the left" voted for Trump, in any event. He only "won" by under 100,000 well-placed votes, and I don't think anyone would claim it was by dint of a well-conceived and -executed campaign.

"Stop scapegoating her awful run." Not sure where that came from, but it cannot be denied, again statistically, that she out-polled Trump by several percentage points. "Awful" is a loaded, value-laden term that, again, lacks the specificity necessary to mount a rational, reasoned response.

"15-20% of Hillary voters defected to Romney rather than vote for a Black candidate." Again, without citations, is hard to know where this comes from, nor what the point is.

"You need to stop identifying with 'the left'. Your [sic] not and don't know what it is from reading your posts over the years." Not sure you know where the "left" is either, my friend. Certainly, jgw is not as far left as thou, but then, who on this forum is? What this discussion illuminates, however, is that there is (notwithstanding your humble opinion) a variety of viewpoints that constitute "The left", philosophically-speaking, in the United States. Most political scientists I know, and I know quite a few, find that the majority of Americans hold views that are typically more "liberal" than "conservative", but measuring those values is difficult because of the myriad variations in "issues" that are considered along those spectrums. Now, I confess, I'm not particularly familiar with your idiosyncratic definitional matrix - what does, in your view, constitute "The left"? Please be specific, it's for posterity. [video:youtube][/video]

"That was a hilarious summation of 'Capitalism vs. Socialism' in your provided link. Are you really paying for those classes?" Are you really arguing against education, now?

Well now NWP,
In case you skipped it, I pretty much spelled out my opinion of what LEFT is in a thread started called 'what left'. I pretty much stated my opinion there and made an argument that there was little traditional left in America any more but the Democratic Party continues to masquerade as one.
Here's a lousy peice straight from queen Hillary's court explaining how democrats need to focus on the Romney Clinton voters:

Focus on the socially liberal fiscally conservative

Not that I agree with this guy or his reflexive rightward strategy to find votes as so much of the New Democrats have persued. The suburban white collar lanyard crowd basically.

If you think the left spectrum of politics went and threw a vote for a Trump your deluding yourself. There is always some shift of alliegance that happens after every primary. Some don't like the eventual winner and shift. Not a big deal except the Hillary wine moms and her devoted following have been screeching about 'it's all Sanders fault!' Since their brains were damaged from Election Day.
Mobilizing your base turnout is politics. She came up short. For a party transformed to one of meritocracy based on resume building it failed miserably and it's corporate centrists having been punching left to hide this failure. It's been equally obtuse in trying to understand why trump won, preferring a legal solution to a political problem.

I'm not against edjucation and think that should be a public good period. It bothers me that so many of the so called left party want to strip it for parts and privatize it.
I thought JGW's online course was pretty ham fisted explaining either capitalism or socialism. From what I saw I think you have as much chance of learning what either topics are presently than I can become an artist by sending in a drawing to a correspondance school. I could be wrong as I hit the paywall and didn't get beyond it.
No, I don't see JGW as 'the left'. Not in as much as I've come to recognize it. Nor do I see the Democratic Party 'the left' with the exception of some insurgent progressives newly elected. There could have been more but were primaried by the Party campaign arm. Too bad. Based on what I've seen so far, they have shown energy, intelligence and purpose. It's my opinion that the party could use more like em. The party prefers not.