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

As a marker, here’s a recent interview with Hudson, discussing our economy going into 2020. Perhaps we could look back and see how relevant he was. He alluded to the dirty little secret of how leftist analysis has been of some use for corporations and governments for some time as it’s more objective than ideological.
Hudson’s has an interesting and storied career working for governments and some of the largest companies in the world.
His parents marxists and he grew with those traditions. Some of the largest companies and governments have had no problems using his skills so they seem to have no objections to his critiques or advise:

the simple fact is that money is based on pure faith - nothing less, nothing more. This happened when we stopped backing money with anything but our word. This is what makes paying it back so necessary. If we don't then our word is worth less than nothing and NOBODY will do business with us.

forgiving debt is a thing that has been done for a very long time but a long time ago (often a religious thing). Our problem is that we can't forgive it - the rest of the world has to forgive us! (REALLY unlikely)

Oh, the only way the resulting debt is going to be dealt with is by raising taxes. Given how congress is 'help' those out of work, etc. its unlikely that said tax raise will be on the very rich so much as those who are already in personal debt up to their eyebrows. This is, incidentally, how the Democrats got painted with the tax and spend thing - basically, by fixing national finances after the Republicans have wrecked them. Won't be any difference next time the Dems take power. My fond hope is that, this time, they will point their fingers at the Republicans everytime they have a chance and never let up. I am sick and tired of them, and their continuous testing of their financial theories, which ALWAYS fail!

The rich are getting bailed out right now to the tune of trillions of dollars.

The market is leveraged to the hilt. The market is majority owned by the wealthy. Saving the market, even if it means killing off surplus human livestock has been openly argued.
One political factions front runner has crowed about his bill to make debt inescapable for most citizens. Which means he has allowed banks to no longer retain risk.

There is no real difference between either political factions as it concerns centering society around a leveraged market. Your only contrasting styles of support. I would go even further and say your simply arguing your own personal opinion with little weight of evidence to back it up.

The reason Republican economic theories always fail is because they are all based on wishful thinking. Trump is the poster boy for this world view. Bush was the earlier version: "We create reality" was what they wanted, but that bumps into the real world and always fails eventually.

This fixation on wishful thinking is one thing that attracts evangelicals.

You really think current modern neoliberal economic theory is solely confined to the Republican Party?
If so, that’s absurd and objectively wrong.

Theories that involve wishing real hard are not as valid as modern neoliberal theories. Those may not be as good as Marxian theories, but it's all a matter of degree. It's like comparing apples to oranges to dog poop.

Ummmm....

You realize that modern neoliberal economics can and have been shown to be demonstrably worse than it’s predecessor ? Economic problems disguised as problems stemming from the opposition political faction when in reality both parties are in broad economic consensus.

Neoliberalism has only gotten underway since the 80’s. Libs treat it as though it is unalterable law of nature instead of an imposed economic sham that it has proven itself to be.

I’m not sure about your dog poop comment. Dismissal and contempt seem to be the reactions to criticism of neoliberal practice. If you benefit from Neoliberal economics any alternative is dismissed as ‘rainbows and unicorns’ or pie in the sky thinking, omitting it’s relatively modern existence and it’s destructive effects on citizens and democracy in its short time. Hudson gives good historical context here.

What’s interesting and most telling is Hudson’s (as well as many other economist) detailed observation that you can’t break free of the encircling unproductive debt economy outpacing the productive economy without some kind of mechanism.

Neoliberals answer to that is economic austerity and precarity for the masses.
Democrats thru means testing and levels of worthiness to public goods access, Republicans thru tax breaks and ruthless cutting of public goods.

The results are the same as both factions are captured by the rent seeking classes. You see most at the rant content to argue over the two different faces of the same coin.

Conservative fiscal policies are simply extensions of their belief that if people are given a chance to do what they want, and their view that people will always do the right thing if they are given a chance. I am on the other side and believe that regulation is necessary. Their fiscal policies, for the most part are grounded in pure greed and little else although they have a pile of nomenclature that, in their theory, explains the 'truth' of it all - it doesn't. All the rest, including the marvelous skill with political and fiscal whiz bang philosophies of some are just offshoots of the above and are, basically, blather.

For me its just basic stuff and I needn't rely on philosophical extensions of what is really quite simple.
I have been having this battle for literally years. The question seeems so simple. In religious terms one side believes in original sin and the other (Republican) does not. Original sin wins! The rest is all blather. Humans need regulation - without that there is only chaos. Everytime we have a Republican administration they eventually prove my point.

Oh, greed is a human trait but can also be seen in the animal kingdom. Dogs are a good example. If you have a dog, and the dog has a favorite toy, try and take it away - the dog will resist, its his/her's! Same with humans. the best dogs are those who are regulated. The worst are not. Same with humans. The problem with politics is that everybody seems to have a different view of the same thing. The progressives, for instance, are determined to have their way RIGHT NOW! Anybody who disagrees is the enemy and they rarely talk to anybody but fellow travelers. They believe in regulation but just go too far. There is a sweet spot, the problem is finding it and then finding agreement. That is, as far as I am concerned the real trick. The problem is in the agreement part - they are not real interested in that and the results, seen in history, are not good and you end up with stuff like Communism AND socialism (dictionary). There is a meme on this stuff that goes something like; "extremes have a habit of coming full circle and meeting in the middle where both sides are different only in nomenclature. One side is seriously regulated and the other is not yet both insist on their way or the highway. Neither really works.

The United States has been, so far, successful because of agreement. Without it we fail. Its really that simple. Our success is because we found middle ground. Extremes, on other side, are the danger and will eventually take us down and either side can do that - if they can.

Uh huh...when the white man came we agreed to take all the land from the Indians, then we agreed to have a revolution, a few years later we agreed to have another war with our former government. We agreed that it was okay to own slaves and we agreed that only white men could vote. Before long we agreed to have a civil war.

Yep just a long string of agreements and seeking the middle ground.

It's made us the successful nation we are today...always remember that behind every successful man is a string of sick and hungry children.

Those were all agreedments - different thing.