This article tends to echo my general views of a muted impact of Presidents on the economy and supposes Sanders wins in 2020. It is a rare circumstance where a President's policies have any impact beyond a psychological superficial 'blip' impact on the Dow in the first few years because industry does not respond to legislative proposals at all, and begins to calculate and calibrate new opportunities available from a new tax code, trade deal or budget in plans that take years to produce a major capital and labor result and those normally will make a series of winners and losers in different industries. The auto industry gets its 'bonanaza' from sweet provision for auto loan industry in a 2018 overhaul , while specific agricultural interests suffer a setback in a farm bill written a year later but both end up being heavily delayed as these industries ever so slowly digest, plan, and implement a response to the news in two year or five year internal long term plans . Now a major flood or drought will impact that same agricultural interest far more directly because its long term investment capital for that long term plan just got soaked Even efforts to support its labor with a minimum wage increase or a bill strengthening union activity will take years as the market will dilute the impact of the impending change from the moment it is passed. Anyway read the article and digest it. Sanders will not produce a grand socialist revolution with his proposals because he is likely to be one of very few democratic socialists to reach Washington in 2020, with a few more in 2022 or and a few more in 2024. Its going to take more than a decade for make up of Congress absorb the new political reality and move sufficiently to the left for his more ambitious plans to come to fruitition assuming that the country itself begins to reflect a more progressive vision and that will require another far left progressive president to succeed him to finish his legislative agenda. In my view, the value in a Sanders election is that a conversation begins here, which looks towards western European socialism for inspiration on policy responses to the economic challenges of wealth concentration and economic disruption secondary to the threat of climate change to upend the prevailing economic models. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/bernie-sanders-tank-economy/606598/?utm_source=msn
Sigh! The nation is not yet ready to put an open socialist into the presidency. The fact that the Dem Party leadership recognizes this is therefore why they are determined to scuttle the Sanders chances. They want to wait until a socialist nominee at least has an even chance of winning the presidency against a standard GOP opponent. But it is also undeniable that eventually the political Left of this nation will finally manage to produce so many entitled hand-outs types via their control of the nation's educational system that eventually a socialist president will happen. But that is at least ten to fifteen years down the line and will require the dying off of a considerable number of the boomer generation first. Have patience.
If Bernie is elected the world will not end. Conservative war-mongers have always been scared silly of any form of socialism. That sort of fear-mongering has been the hallmark of all the Cold War rhetoric and propaganda. Bernie's election will change the trajectory this country travels, and that needs to be done.
Yes it has and has given people a wrong understanding. What they were comparing then was an authoritarian discredited communism with Capitalism. Note how they did not compare authoritarian communism to Democracy...and that is where we have been taken to be ruled by Capitalism or should I say the Oligarchs. The question people should be asking is whether Democracy and Capitalism can co-exist.
Government policies have little to do with affecting the economy. The psychological superficial blip, however, can make a huge difference as you have seen for the past 3 years. Replacing an anti-business president with a pro business one, instilled confidence in business people and that is what caused the economic surge. It had little to do with tax and regulation cuts which were mostly demonstrations about the pro business attitude in the president. Don't brush it off as unimportant. It is the most positive thing federal government can for the economy. If he were to become president, the economy would take an instant and serious downturn and his legislative agenda wouldn't even start. The number of socialists in society are way too small to allow that. You folks make a lot of noise but there aren't enough of you to change the U.S. that much. You have to understand that socialism is autocratic. It puts more power in government and less freedom in the people. At some point the government stops serving the people and the people serve the government. This has occurred everywhere that it has been tried. It is fundamentally un-American. Most Americans value freedom too much. There is no socialism in Europe. All the European countries have capitalist economies. The term you use really translates to very high government social spending and it doesn't fit American values and society very well. It doesn't even look like European social spending. Hopefully you won't have to learn this from experience.
It is democracy and socialism that cannot co-exist. Socialism is autocratic. As a Russian you should know that from personal experience or from the experience of the older generation. In socialism people serve the state as opposed to the state serving the people.
Like I said you were given a lot of wrong information. You were not told to compare their economic system - State Capitalism which was called communism with Democracy. You were told to compare their economic system with Capitalism with the suggestion that that meant Capitalism equals democracy, rights and so on and communism equals authoritarianism. Here is how it works. Democracy is a situation where people are seen as equal. They all have an equal vote and along with that is the presumption of giving equal opportunities as well as protecting minorities from the majority. But Capitalism is not democratic. Lack of regulated Capitalism was one of the things which gave rise to the second world war and in particular fascism as it was seem how well the fascist political went with Corporate Power though at that time the power was with the politicians. Our Leaders did get the message so that after WW2 we had regulated Capitalism. In order to keep Democracy going it is essential that a Government does regulate Capitalism. Otherwise the reality will be that Corporate Power, Oligarchs are the ones who hold the power and they are the people who our Governments answer to. That is the situation now. The US is basically a Managed Democracy. You get your vote every now and then when you are supposed to. The Press appears free though it is Corporate Media and you officially have a free justice system but in the United States only about 5% of people spend their day in court. You are not a functioning Democracy. Corporate Media designs your views and you vote for one of two parties who serve the Oligarchs. Democracy did work when it was social democracy and when Capitalism was kept in check. That was the time we had the greatest rise in standard of living and in social mobility which would be expected in a Democracy. I suspect Bernie may be the US's last chance.
I am not a democratic socialist. I am a more traditional liberal Democrat who believes that we should not cower before the word, and should grab good ideas, from wherever they come. If they come from Europe and they got attached to democratic socialism 30 years or yesterday ago, I still think we should listen and learn.
Sanders prefers to be called a Democratic socialist rather than an 'open socialist' whatever that is. I am glad to see him owning and rebranding the word. Long overdue. Actually he is pretty far down on my list for presidents and I do agree that there will be electability issues. Just saying they probably aren't warranted to the degree fear-mongering among his opponents suggests.
A democratic nomination process would have nominated Sanders in 2016, and would have Sanders far ahead of any other Democrat in this cycle. But the DNC/DP will anoint someone else even though Sanders would be by far the most effective Democrat in a campaign against Trump. Trump and Sanders would both emphasize the need for radical reform and address the entrenched corruption that has infected our corrupt bipartisan political class, and American voters would finally be given an opportunity to make an informed decision about the best way achieve real substantive reform.
The most radical idea to come from Trump was that wall. He is a total establishment figure promoting nothing but establishment fixes for problems for his 1% fan club and the deplorables that have wallowed in the swamp for decades. Nothing radical about him except his anti-democratic and despotic instincts of executive power.
Suicide as economic policy? Not very novel. Nazi Germany did it. Soviet Russia did it better. And Mao did it best of all. Socializing has its benefits, but socialism only begets screams, blood, bodies, and overburdened cemeteries. And that’s just historical fact: 1) Nazism—6 million plus butchered; 2) Russian Socialism—20 million plus slaughtered; 3) Chinese Communism—60 million plus murdered. And that’s what you’re pinning humanity’s hope on? God, save us from the saints, for truly they’ll sell us out to the devil.
Most people have noticed that the entire establishment, the 17 USG secret police/spy agencies + MI6/FSB..., the MSM, the military industrial complex and its RINO/Democrat warmongers, the DPe/RPe, Wall Street, The Clintons, Soros, Steyer, Bloomberg, The Pritzkers, The Heinz Family, Slim, Shaw et al oppose Trump. The DP party bosses remain the critical opposition to Sanders. Of course, that is very significant, and enough, absent a miracle, to finish Sanders' run for the White House. I certainly wish his campaign well. A Trump Vs. Sanders contest would inevitably address all of the real issues. The other Democrats will be easy for Trump to kick to the curb.
My only fear with most of the Democrats is not economic. 1. They do want to take our guns. And have said so. 2. I oppose ALL new government programs and taxes. We are already spending and taxing too much. The government needs to do less and get out of our way.
The way I described socialism comes from listening and learning. The problem is continually centralizing power. That power is given up by the people the government supposedly serves. We need to be restoring freedom to the people.
You should be fearful. Look at what has happened in those countries where government has more power than the people.
I'm amazed that you know what I was told. I didn't know you were a mentalist. I've lived a long time, been to a lot of places and seen and heard many things. You would do well pay attention to what I say.
The government could do far more good for the people collectively by liquidating failed and wasteful programs and simply transferring the river of revenue to the control individual members of the productive working class. Eliminate a few of the serious critical needs that Big Government inevitably fails to meet and the pressure for "socialist" programs will disappear - forever.
Why look towards European govt for inspiration? As a country we have surpassed them to become the Superpower in the world. Why mimic them? wealth concentration Income equality Income inequality how many ways can the left say Wealth jealousy?
Well that will teach Orwell a lesson... oh wait he was a socialist that wanted workplace democracy. Works pretty well when workers own companies cooperatively.
Apparently Orwell missed a very simple point. Socialism is totalitarian in it's very nature. It's whole purpose is to be totalitarian, something he claimed to loathe.
Interesting perspective - a refreshing breath of air from the normal extremist propaganda narrative. Its funny - people scream about socialized medicine - as if we do not have that here already - rough guess would be half of the total cost is paid for by Gov't which -in 2017 the Total was 3.5 Trillion - the other half paid by the citizen. The Total Federal Revenue for that year was 3.6 Trillion. Now socialized medicine is not that radical for the rest of the world. In fact - it would not be a stretch to claim that all of the civilized and quazi civilized world has it. So forgive me for not conjuring up visions of Nazi Stormtroopes when thinking about socialize medicine. I must confess however that I am a fiscal conservative - ( old style - prior to the religious right taking over) On the table is 3.5 Trillion dollars per year. Some of the best healthcare systems are those in the Western world - Many of these systems are "Socialized Medicine". It is true that these are big bloated inefficient Gov't bureaucracies - but they do it for roughly half the cost. OK - now I see 1.75 Trillion dollars in savings on the table. You mean to tell me that if we were to adopt one of the best these systems straight across the board - some even have private on the side - we could 1) have universal healthcare and 2) Everyone pays zero .. because if the Gov't is already spending 1.75 Trillion - the cost of straight across the board adoption of one of these other systems .. that is enough to pay for the whole thing .. and the individual does not have to pay for any private insurance. 3) Another option would be to reduce each side by half ... Gov't pays half of what it is currently paying - and the citizens pays half. Yeah Earl - its simple Math - they pay half what we do. But hold on here - Stop the Presses woooo woooo woooo - That is way more radical than what Sanders is suggesting that Crazy NAZI socialist. As ridiculous and way beyond NAZI Batsht crazy - as the above plan might be - in the minds of some on the left. It turns out that some of us real fiscally minded believers in the principles of republicanism folks on the right - don't think socialized medicine is such a bad idea. The Conservative Case For Universal Healthcare https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-conservative-case-for-universal-healthcare/