Below is my column in The Hill on the importance of capitalism to not just the foundation but the future of our Republic. The Trump Accounts could prove critical in the revival of capitalism in the United States.
Here is the column:
Capitalism is under attack from classrooms to town halls to voting booths. According to polls, a rising segment of the population is calling for socialism or even communism as young people embrace a radical chic in the country. And this week, another socialist looks ready to join a growing “squad” in Congress.
On our 250th anniversary, the fight over capitalism and economic freedom could prove critical to the future of this republic. However, there is an unexpected change that could help reverse this trend.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently announced that one million families have already signed up for the new tax-privileged Trump Accounts, which will be seeded with $1,000 in taxpayer funds for children born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028.
With an anticipated 25 million participants, the initiative is one of the most ambitious and potentially impactful in U.S. history. But its true impact may be far greater than the wealth that it could generate for families. It may just be the determinative factor in preserving this Republic in this century.
This month, Simon and Schuster released my new book on the founding and the future of the American republic — “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.” The book asks whether this unique republic can survive in the 21st century amid growing economic, political, and social challenges.
What many celebrating our 250th anniversary do not appreciate is that this is also the 250th anniversary of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, released around the same time as the Declaration of Independence. The book was not a great success in Great Britain. In addition to its foundational support for capitalism, it challenged the mercantilist policies of the British Empire and supported the claims of the colonies in seeking greater economic freedoms.
Smith, however, was immediately embraced by the founders, who saw his work as the perfect economic theory to advance their political theory. Ours was the first Enlightenment Revolution based on a belief in natural rights that came from God, not governments.
Yet, the founders knew that true individual liberty could not be achieved without economic freedom. Smith’s idea of the “invisible hand” offered an idea of individual economic freedom where whole economies were driven by the individual tastes and choices of citizens.
The combination would prove transformative, as the U.S. became not only the world’s oldest large-scale democracy but also history’s greatest economy. We will need that combination in the years to come to maintain what I call a “liberty-enhancing economy.”
The book looks at the expected impact of new technology, from robotics to AI, in the possible creation of a large population of unemployed, unproductive citizens. The question is how the likely state support for a large segment of our population will change their relationship to the government, changing the dynamic of what it is to be a citizen.
The danger of a “kept citizenry” is that we will lose the essential independence that our founders wanted to instill in new Americans from their government.
As we face these challenges, we are seeing a rise in support for socialism and communism in the West. It is the rage among young people who have no experience or memory of the socialist governments that collapsed in the prior century. Their understanding of socialism comes from armchair revolutionaries in colleges and the sloganeering of figures like Zohran Mamdani about introducing them to “the warmth of collectivism.”
That brings us back to the Trump accounts. The insidious aspect of past socialist systems is that their consistent failure often resulted in demands to “double down,” to increase state subsidies, nationalizations, and central planning. For their part, citizens can become accustomed to government support.
When socialist François Mitterrand came to power in France in 1981, promising a “rupture with capitalism,” he quickly destroyed the country’s economy. However, he continued to dazzle French citizens with promises of free money, even appointing Andre Henry as the Minister of Free Time to assist citizens in their new socialist leisure.
The same seductive appeal is evident today in the U.S. and other Western countries. Sixty-five percent of Democratic voters have a favorable view of socialism. An even greater percentage of young Britons want to live under socialism, and 72 percent favor nationalization of industries.
Capitalism was key to the success of the American Republic, and it will be even more important in the coming years. As jobs are wiped out through robotics and AI, we will have to shift to homocentric jobs and productivity to preserve not just economic but also political liberty.
We cannot preserve that liberty as some arts-and-crafts citizenry, entertained with state-subsidized leisure and distractions. The $6.25 billion gift of Michael and Susan Dell (now augmented by dozens of corporations) could offer the single best hope for the survival of our system. Millions of young people will be able to experience the benefits of investments, savings and, most importantly, economic independence.
It has the benefit of being a tangible lesson about capitalism — not simply an abstraction pulled from the pages of the Wealth of Nations. As socialist experiments replicate the failures of past eras, these accounts will offer a stark contrast for a rising generation. It is an investment that must be extended beyond 2028 to inculcate values of economic and political independence in the 21st century.
For young Americans, there has been a continual barrage of anti-capitalist sentiments. However, there is still muscle memory in this country of the gifts that free markets brought to a free people.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Adam Smith was 250 years ago, when once is seemed thing were limitless, there were no boundaries, the wealth of the planet wasn’t mapped out, …
Things have Changed, it’s all accounted for with exception of perhaps the Oceans Depths, the Moon, the Stars, we have mapped the Limits.
“Capitalism is under attack from classrooms to town halls to voting booths. …” – JT
The population of the 13 colonies in July 1776 was approximately 2.5 million people, today the U.S. population is projected to reach approximately
349 million. That’s an increase of 13860%.
[349 – 2.5 = 346.5 / 2.5 x 100 = 13860% increase]
The ‘change’ (pressures to adapt) are due to changing population levels in the U.S. and the World.
As the socio-political demographics change so does the Social Contract. The relationship of the Population to Socio-Political Demographics intertwined.
Things will Change over 250 years and beyond.
Ref.: % Check:
https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/algebra/percentage-increase-calculator.php
Anonymous,
To the extent that change is a factor, it only makes the works of Smith and the scottish enlightenment MORE revelvant.
Coases law – from the late 50’s states that the lower friction is the more free markets will outperform any other solution to any problem,
and that includes problems tht we beleive are the exclusive domain of government.
What changed over the past 250 years and what has changed since Coases law in the 50’s is that Coases the friction that makes coases law less than perfectly true hs decreased rapidly.
If John Adams wanted something he had to make it, travel to a village and buy it or have someone make it, or order it from England or elsewhere.
The Free markets that Adam Smith proved in 1776 outperformed everything else ever conceived, were cumbersome. slow and full of inefficiencies at the time Smith Published “an inquiry into the wealth of nations”.
By the time Coases law was published the efficiency of the economy had dramatically improved by orders of magnitude.
Coases law effectively says the more efficient the economy gets the more absolutely true the free market economics of Smith works – even for things neither smith nor anyone else imagined.
Today it is 75 years since Coase, and friction has diminished even more than it had in the 150 years between Smith and Coase.
So absolutely things have changed ALOT since the american revolution.
And all of those changes make the ideas and principles of the scottish enlightenment – whether Smith’s free market economics, or Locke’s social contract work even better than they did 250 years ago – when they proveably worked better than anything else.
Re: John Say
Coase Theorem illustrates equilibrium achieved through economic efficiency (reduced to the Best Bargain in an available Market economy).
I depart from Ronald Coase in that ‘somethings can’t be bargained’, the terms of the ‘externality’ will not allow it (They simply will not deal/come to the table).
‘Population’ is such a factor , wherein it reaches a level that is: un-sustainable given the limited amount of bargain-able resources.
“it would not (sic) be possible for private individuals to make choices that can solve the problem of market externalities because of the unsustainable limits” *
(re. Because they have reached the Limit i.e.: -Out of Stock-)
So then the decision becomes a balance between: Population Conservation (private individuals competing for resources) and Conservation of Limited Resources.
Life is a Struggle.
* Coase theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem
“the terms of the ‘externality’ will not allow it ”
I have not heard anything that is purportedly an “externality” that I actually agree is.
If you want to provide something – I am listening.
‘”Population’ is such a factor , wherein it reaches a level that is: un-sustainable given the limited amount of bargain-able resources.”
The absolute best economist ever on Population – as well as being incredibly good on resource scarcity – because many make your claim that the two are tied, is Julian Simon
And this is his excellent Opus.
https://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/
More people is virtually ALWAYS better. You can not reach unsustainable, and no resources except the human min – “The Ultimate Resource” is truly limited.
Simon and Malthusian population bomb doomsayer Paul Ehrlich bet on the future prices and by extension the scarcity of resources and Simon won decisively.
I have said here over and over that DEFLATION is the norm. EVERYTHING costs less in real dollars over time – including resources without regard for population – or possibly even driven down by increases in population. Many things even cost less over time in Nominal dollars.
The only consequential variable is GOVERNMENT entanglements – the more something is entangled with government the more the nominal price will rise with even the possibility of a rise in REAL prices.
Understanding economics would be far simpler without central bank induced inflation – and that is one of the reasons why the foundations of economics were primarly determined before central banks when mild deflation was a given.
Regardless you can easily factor out central bank inflation by repricing everything in the hours of labor needed to acquire it
That has been going DOWN for almost everything over time. It has gone down even as population has risen.
It has gone down for raw materials – supposedly limited resources, it has gone down for almost everything else.
As Simon concludes in any practical time period there is no such thing as resource scarcity.
There are just limitless resources that we have not figured out how to acquire affordably.
Simon died before Fracking became a big thing. but it is the perfect example of his assertion.
The more scare a resource like oil becomes the higher the price the more people are willing to look at more expensive means to acquire the resource, Eventually the price of the resource and the cost of a more difficult means of recovering will cross. The moment that starts happening the cost of the new means of recovering will start dropping precipitously and the price of the resource will follow – usually going to a lower price that before – because the new method has massively increased supply.
We saw that with Fracking, we saw that with tar sands, and at some time in the future we will see it with the shale out in the dakotas.
There are no limited resources, only resources it is not at the moment worth the cost to extract.
“So then the decision becomes a balance between: Population Conservation (private individuals competing for resources) and Conservation of Limited Resources.”
Per above I politely reject your thesis. The fixation on population – starting with Malthus – wo eventually grasped he was wrong, but not before giving his name to the most common economic fallacy of the modern era, and continuing through the late 20th century has proven completely wrong in the 21st. Economists, demographers, governments are no longer afraid of the population bomb, they are terrified of the bursting of the population bubble.
I am not aware of a single nation ever that has managed population decline without perishing.
There is no economic model – not free markets, not socialism that works with a declining population.
As you seem interested – I would highly recomend reading Simon.
As I recall he estimates that using CURRENT technology – things in actual use if not widespread, that the planet is capable of sustaining 50B people, That with technology that already works in the lab well beyond that. And with technology that does not exist but with certainty will – there is no limit.
John Say, I must differ from those opinions, I don’t believe in “Limitless Resources” or the “Perpetuity of Resources”. To me that’s a fatal mistake.
Population(s) will decline to meet the level of sustainable living (they will find an equilibrium).
You have diligently portrayed that They all believe in “Unlimited Resources” (Fiat). Perhaps that is so that their Markets can continuously operate (perpetuate).
Such as the Markets today (Fiat), We live in a sea of ‘The Greater Fool Theory”.
“I don’t believe in “Limitless Resources””
You are free to disagree, I would suggest reading Julian Simon.
his book is at the link provided and has been made available for free,
though you can buy it on amazon or from prinction press.
but I would ask you to name a single resource that does not exist in the universe in quantities far beyond what humans will need in the next billion years ?
You can argue – but we do not have easy access to those resources – and that is true.
But that has been true of every reseource that ever went in short supply.
And we have never run out of anything.
When demand exceeds supply we ALWAYS find a way to increase supply or substitute.
Fracking is just one example. Simon cites many.
“
“Population(s) will decline to meet the level of sustainable living (they will find an equilibrium).”
The sustainable population level with current technology is about 50B – so no, we are not headed towards a sustainable level.
Absolutely some equilibrium will eventually be reached – but it will NOT be based on some concept like sustainable.
We will see. population is controlled by the human desire to reproduce, that seems disconnected from market forces,
and I do not see a mechanism to bring it into equilibrium.
China spent decades pushing 1 child, and eventually the chinese arrived there. Partly driven by govenrment,
but partly driven by the fact that rising standard of living and lower mortality drives us to concentrate on fewer children.
Now the chines can NOT get birth rates up.
Nor are they alone. China does not actually have the worst current demographics – Japan is worse.
But China has the most rapid rate of decline and will get to “unsustainable” before anyone else.
They are already at a point where atleast the next 20 years of their future is FIXED, they do not currenntly have enough young people to recover, and the birth rate is dropping not rising so there is no fix coming for decades.
Current birth rates in China are 1.0/woman. That is a free fall.
There is no sign of it slowing much less stopping.
I do NOT expect that humans are going to go extinct.
The low birth rates will NOT continue forever.
But 20 years of demographics are baked in EVERYWHERE, and there are no indications of a rapid change which would have to be starting NOW to effect things after 20 years.
To a very limited extent demographic decline can be managed.
But it ALWAYS makes us POORER.
“You have diligently portrayed that They all believe in “Unlimited Resources” (Fiat).”
Who is “they” and what do you think is “fiat” ?
Regardless I am not arguing “beleive” I am arguing that for conditions likely in the next billion years, resources are effectively unlimited as FACT. The only issue is whether it becomes worth to cost to acquire those resources.
They exist regardless.
Man has always figured out how to get what it wants if ww want it badly enough, no matter how hard that is.
Shortages of critical materials will only occur because we are not ready to overcome the obstacles to acquire them.
“Perhaps that is so that their Markets can continuously operate (perpetuate).”
Free markets are actually a relatively knew thing, but human trade is not.
We evolved to free markets, and they work. it is highly unlikely we are going back.
The “They” that are why we have free markets – is all of us. We do not consciously think about them.
But we absolutely expect what free markets provide.
“Such as the Markets today (Fiat), We live in a sea of ‘The Greater Fool Theory”.”
I am not looking to debate the problems of the moment.
Honestly they do not matter over the long run.
Whatever our current problems – they are LESS than are past ones, and more than our future ones.
With potholes and bumps life inexorably improves. That is not changing
John Say – Thank you for the juliansimon.com link, I wasn’t aware of it – much appreciated.
This piece illustrates that importance of Population Management, and the relationship between “Conservatism and Conservation”.
In a world of mapped limited resources “Population Conservation” is critical, hence the Immigration issues that are politically opposed by Liberal and Conservative (polar opposites) will have to face a reconciliation of Conservation of limited resources [Depletion (Liberals) vs. Conservation (Conservatives)].
To wrap your head around this, think of it as the Wildlife Conservation department manages Deer or Ferrell Pig populations to maintain a sustainable/balanced eco system, as it applies to Humans. Farmers and Hunters understand this, that an eco-system has limited resources and the consumption of the resources must be grappled with (Managed).
So here we are in 2026, 250 years after the establishment of our Social Contract renegotiating the terms. The outcome will decide the future of Conservatism-Conservation or continual Liberal-Depletion. Market Economy is secondary (‘currency’ is there so we don’t decline into mayhem and kill each other).
We will Survive or reach the Death of Us all.
(That’s all the optimism I can afford)
What consequential thinker is still arguing over population ?
While there is not a large body like Julian Simon that grasp an ever growing population is NOT a problem,
nearly everyone understands we are close to peak population and that between 1/3 and 1/2 the world is in decline – some parts approaching very dangerous rapid decline.
The understanding that population growth is not a problem has sufficiently percolated that even most left wing nuts are no longer seeking to force population control on us. China is begging people to have more children.
I am hard pressed to know how to respond to your comment when so much of it is premised on problems caused by rapidly growing populations that no one expects anymore. The number who grasp how bad declinging populations will be is still small.
But who is still worrying about over population ?
I also reject your argument that conservatism and conservation are consequentially related.
Aside from sharing most of the same letters in their words.
MY definition of conservative is the understanding that most new things FAIL.
We should therefore always be cautious about replacing something that works – if imperfectly with something new that sounds good but is not proven at scale.
That is not a rejection of change, just the wisdom to proceed carefully.
Politically it also means that change where possible should occur OUTSIDE of government – the one institution we can not risk failure in is government.
Conservatism is NOT an ideology – it is more a rule of nature – it is simply “most new things fail, proceed carefully, and don’t gamble with other peoples money.
I am not sure how to define “conservation”, the best I can do to frame it, is that it is placing a high relative value on nature and seeking to keep some of it pristine.
Regardless, it is not a principle and it is not a rule, it is just a value and we have myriads of competing values.
Whenever there is an issue with conservation it is a conflict of values – not principles, and not rules or laws of nature.
I am not looking for conflict with you – your posts are well argued, and your disagreement rational.
I have tried to respond in the same way,
I would like to hear more of your argument for your position if you wish to make it.
It is always possible that you will persuade me.
John Say, same here, I’m just old and I tire easy.
I’ll read over and contemplate.
I am 67. I do not feel 67.
Aside from some loss of stamina and minor pains, in most ways I “feel” better than when I was 20.
I have never been seriously depressed or unhappy, but I am happier than I have ever been in my life,
and while decline is inevitable, I expect to be happy for a long time to come.
But ONE thing I have absolutely learned is that most everyone lives better today that 60 years ago.
Adam Smith was 250 years ago, when once is seemed thing were limitless, there were no boundaries, the wealth of the planet wasn’t mapped out, …
Things have Changed, it’s all accounted for with exception of perhaps the Oceans Depths, the Moon, the Stars, we have mapped the Limits.
This is bulldust. As Julian Simon demonstrated over and over again, there are no limits, and we have not mapped anything. There are always more resources to be found; their supply is for all practical purpose infinite.
I’m all for capitalism. But it needs to be modified. To pick a pair of examples,
Google and Amazon built their global empires by reinvesting profits as pre-tax business spending. Look at the havoc. Malls and retail gone, information controlled by three major corporations, and China has us in their bullseye.
This is our American success story.
It is my belief that there should be a tax burden prior to expansion investment, thus encouraging distributions as dividends. This is not Adam Smith’s America anymore. It is self funded retirements, Social Security, medical expenses, and rising state and local taxes to replace revenue generators who vanished. Our solution? Bring in cheaper and cheaper labor!
Excessive efficiency can starve a country.
“I’m all for capitalism. But it needs to be modified. To pick a pair of examples,
Google and Amazon built their global empires by reinvesting profits as pre-tax business spending. Look at the havoc. Malls and retail gone, information controlled by three major corporations, and China has us in their bullseye.”
As Joseph Schumpeter pointed out long ago – the Achilles heal of capitalism is disruption.
That disruption is absolutely positively unequivocally NET positive, but it still hurts some – at least temporarily and humans become anxious with rapid change.
But that does not change the fact that the change is significantly net positive.
Worrying about Amazon and Google is like worrying about GM, US Steel, GE, Chrysler, Armous, Dupont – the largest companies in the US in 1960
in 2024 the top companies were Walmart, Amazon, Apple, UnitedHealth Group, Berkshire Hathaway, CVS Health, Exxon Mobil, Alphabet, McKesson, Cencora
The only fortune top 10 company from 1960 still in the top 10 is Exxon Mobile – which took combining multiple top 10 oil companies from 1960 to stay in the top 10.
Most fortune 500 companies from 1960 are gone. Few of the rest are consequential.
As much concern as you have for Amazon and Google, in 40 years your kids will likely have forgotten them.
Free markets are disruptive, the faster productivity increases the faster we destroy jobs and create new one that pay even more,
and the faster we destroy the biggest companies in the world.
One of the reasons that Big Business LOVES Government regulation is because it slowes creative destruction and protects the behemoths.
Do you really think that Musk, and Bezos, and Larry Page do not understand creative destruction ?
“It is my belief that there should be a tax burden prior to expansion investment, thus encouraging distributions as dividends.”
Why ? If a company makes money it has two choices – distribute some of that as dividends or reinvest increasing the value of the company.
If you invest in a company that invests rather than provides dividends – sell 10% of your stock at the new higher price – you will get the dividend and still own the same total value of stock.
“This is not Adam Smith’s America anymore.”
Actually it is more so than ever.
the faster and more efficient the economy is the more coases law becomes absolute, and the closer to optimal for everyone the free market becomes.
“It is self funded retirements”
Also called investment. Wise people learn early that the most productive use of their effort is investment not labor.
“Social Security”
Called bad investment, but still investment.
“medical expenses”
Called government failure. The only significant areas of the economy were quality declines and cost increases are those most tied to government, education and healthcare.
“rising state and local taxes to replace revenue generators who vanished.”
They all went somewhere. GDP is RISING the tax base for state and local taxes is greater than it has ever been.
If your state or locality has a dwindling tax base it has driven its tax base elsewhere.
“Our solution? Bring in cheaper and cheaper labor!”
There is no limit to the ability of the economy to productively absorb more labor,
or as one of the corollaries of the law of supply and demand states – “supply creates its own demand”
“Excessive efficiency can starve a country.”
Nope.
Standard of living = total human value produced / total human effort expended.
Produce more that humans value with less human effort the higher standard of living is.
The negative is that if you make buggy whips, you will have to find a new job as they become obsolete or automated.
In less than 10 years, when your children might need employment, experts predict A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) could replace more than 50% of every job in the United States.
Without common sense government regulation, this would likely result in the next economic Great Depression.
What would happen first is that the Stock Market would reach record highs – huge profits for corporations’ shareholders by eliminating most human employment.
The “Demand-Side Economics” – unemployed consumers without spending money would quickly collapse Wall Street after the boom. This was one of the top causes of the Great Depression in the early 1900’s.
A.I. could be great curing cancer, Type 1 diabetes, Parkinson’s, etc., but without sufficient government regulation it will destroy the economy here and abroad. This warning was recently made by the CEO’s and founders of A.I. companies.
We may be seeing this happen already, Trump’s tariffs are not resulting in huge hiring of “human” workers. Corporations are instead automating with A.I. and robots – not hiring more human workers.
Capitalism only benefits working class Americans with sufficient government regulation.
The industrial revolution displaces MASSIVE numbers of workers.
it was often terrifying to those involved. But job losses were temporary, the actual result was more jobs not less.
There is absolutely no limit to our ability to productively employ labor.
Supply creates demand is one of the laws of supply and demand.
If AI destoryed 90% of all jobs, there would still be jobs for everyone. The free market is one thing that is absolutely completely totally NOT zero sum.
Farmers today are 99 times more productive than those 2 centuries ago. in 1776 about 90% of people were farmers. Today it is under 1%,
Yet they feed a nation several hundred times larger. and all those displaced by more efficient farming – are doing something else.
There is absolutely no regulation needed,
and if you want to slow the rate at which Everyone gets better off – the easiest way to accomplish that is to regulate AI.
If AI makes us twice as productive – either as Turley ponders – we will be as well off, but half of us will not work – which is the stupidest choice,
or we will all be nearly twice as well off.
Socialism is not the answer. But, neither is closing one’s mind to the glaring challenges of regulated capitalism. Feel free to label these “imperfections” — but not if that’s a euphemistic token of resignation to just accept the status quo:
• half of young adults don’t feel economically strong enough to enter into marriage
• too many who are married have decided raising children is way beyond their means
• the political majority feels no longer powerful enough to regulate harmful corporate overreach
– our privacy rights are put up for sale in a vast info-broker market
– our children are groomed into social media and video-game addicts
– chemical giants are allowed to poison the environment with forever chemicals decades after the risk is exposed
– young adults are lured into habitual online gambling
– the tobacco giants can reinvent addiction products (vaping, nicotine drinks) as quick as old ones are outlawed
– privacy-invasive software is allowed to spill over into our TVs, personal vehicles, vacuum cleaners…
– AI is destroying livelihoods, making children lazy about learning, and weakening corporate accountability
– Congress is bought off at every stage of possible corrections by corporate lobbyists
The idea that American capitalists have to subordinate their business plans to majority political will is a joke. They only have to live under laws that were devised for a bygone past with natural technological barriers — ones now removed.
Majority will is having a hard time boxing in anything new in the past 40 years.
A pitted deathcage fight between capitalism and socialism is a futile dichotomization trap — nothing more than escapism on both sides. We know that pure capitalism and pure socialism each are exercises in overreach and lead to exploitation, subjugation and loss of freedom.
I thought we had learned coming out of the Teddy Roosevelt years that regulated capitalism was a necessary adaptation to prevent it from cannibalizing a culture steeped in morality and goodwill towards others.
Nothing has changed in that conclusion — except huge, wealthy corporations are once again able to overpower the will of The People in deciding what is good for society. We’re once again finding that votes cast every 2 or 4 years are no match for lobbyist gifting every day of the week.
And that loss of People power is what the left wants to fix — by giving absolute power to “reformists” who have no appreciation for the good that comes from freedom to innovate and be rewarded for it.
It’s the fact that conservatives are conflicted about making calibrated, systematic improvements to regulated capitalism in realtime ( keeping up with technological change ) — that opens the door for revival of 1930s leftist derangements. We’re blindly walking into a dichotomization trap that is self-defeating.
Pbinca: Some of what you say seems correct but this statement is questionable: “The idea that American capitalists have to subordinate their business plans to majority political will is a joke.” Bud Light, Target, and Cracker Barrel in the recent past learned how the majority political will can still affect profits and earnings.
Excellent point – thank you!
Saying young people don’t feel strong enough economically to marry has it backwards. Two incomes has been the gateway to economic stability for decades and remaining single, or having kids before you’re ready, keeps you poor.
HullBobby,
Well said.
I read an article about how conservatives were more likely to marry than liberals. Have kids too. The study found the married couple, even with kids, did better financially in the long run.
One of the problems with the intersectional victim-hood culture of the left, is that discrimination in all forms has near zero effect on peoples success today.
Complete High School
Avoid crime
get a job – any job to start
Make your employer happy.
Delay kids until you can support them
Delay marriage until you can afford it
Do these and you will with near certainty end up rising through two quintiles economically from where ever you start.
This is true if you are white, black, gay, straight, or identify as a furby.
TR was a failure. There is myriads of economic data that demostrates the tremendous economic harm done by the socalled trust busters,
Most of which were just the failed competitors to the capitalists who succeeded, who instead of trying to figure out how to do better figured out how to handicap their more successful compeitors.
The only fetters that capitalism needs are “The rule of law” – that is VERY BASIC.
National security, criminal law, contract law, and tort law.
That is it.
Economic regulation has ALWAYS been net harmful.
Look arround the poorest performance, the most costly, areas of the economy are those most regulated – healthcare and education.
Nothing is more harmful that government where it does not belong.
There are myriads of diatribes here about socialism – and absolutely socialism has some very specific failures,
but the core economic principle is the larger a portion of what is produced government consumes, the slower standard of living rises
That is just simple math. While it is a law of economics, it is more of a mathematical tautology.
WE KNOW that the tax revenue optimizing maximum is marginal tax rates of about 35% – marking tax rates higher than that bring in LESS tax revenue
We do NOT KNOW what the standard of living optimizing maximum government spending/taxes are – but we do KNOW that it is below 20% of GDP. That is HALF the gurrent size of total US government.
I would note that Lincoln won the civil war with total govenrment spending of 8% of GDP.
No large companies do not decide what is best for us. They strive desprately to figure out what WE want.
They got to be massive because hey were better than anyone else at providing us what we want.
In a free market Consumers control the economy.
“CONSUMPTION IS THE SOLE END AND PURPOSE OF ALL PRODUCTION; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. THE MAXIM IS SO SELF EVIDENT, THAT IT WOULD BE ABSURD TO ATTEMPT TO PROVE IT. But in the mercantile system, the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce. ”
Adam Smith
The US economy is littered with the bones of businesses that failed to constantly seek to meet the ever changing demands of consumers.
Where is polariod, Kodak, US Steel ?
Which of the top 10 US businesses in 1960 still exist ? Which are still int he top 10 ?
Do you honestly expect Google, Apple, and Amazon to dominate in 50 years ?
They did not exist a few decades ago.
Just as they slew the giants of the past, they will be slain if they do not constantly serve consumers.
I appreciate the plentitude of the US capitalist society, and I wouldn’t want to change it. However, can’t you see that we are slowly poisoning our food supply with chemicals and micro-plastic chaff? You can deny the latter is happening if that makes you feel comfortable ideologically. But that doesn’t change the fact that it is happening. The consumer-driven economy “demands” many conveniences and comforts in the short-term, the companies competing to supply them, yes. But who in this system is looking out for the long-term “demands” that compete head-on with the short-term ones?
Ask Americans if they want their grandchildren and great-grandchildren to find their livelihoods and health diminished by pollution at the hands of their grandparents’ generation. They’ll all holler “NO WAY!”.
So, how do the companies deliver on THAT demand? If they try, they won’t last that long, being steamrollered by competitors serving the short-term demands. Only if laws are passed to level the playing field will the future-directed company have a chance to contribute successfully.
That’s where wise governing has to step in, and assert the long-term demands over the short-term ones. If that
governing process is made weak, the wrong trade-offs will prevail. Policies need to be effective, but pose no burden on freedom beyond the lightest form of regulation effective to the goal.
This is how I’d describe a well-functioning society that is sustainable indefinitely into the future. And my read of the Preamble “….secure the Blessings of Liberty for Ourselves and our Posterity” insists we enjoy no more freedom now than we can honestly estimate will be also enjoyed by posterity.
That is the America of the Founder’s vision. It’s not pure Adam Smith. I’ll leave it to you to decide if we’re living up to that vision.
However, can’t you see that we are slowly poisoning our food supply with chemicals and micro-plastic chaff?
No, we are not. There is NO EVIDENCE that these are poisons, or harmful in any way. It’s just left-wing propaganda to frighten people away from progress that will make them better off, because socialism thrives on misery.
It’s the exact same thing as when the USSR, in the post-WW2 period, launched a Gramscian campaign in the USA to make people miserable, by discouraging them from moving to the suburbs (the song “Little Boxes” was written by communist Malvina Reynolds and popularized by communist Pete Seeger, on orders from Moscow), and by promoting ugly public art to depress people. Likewise Rachel Carson and everything that flowed from her lies, was the work of the USSR. Today’s Green movement is a KGB operation that went Berserker after the USSR collapsed and was no longer there to control it.
Oops, that last comment was me. I forgot to click the annoying envelope icon.
“can’t you see that we are slowly poisoning our food supply with chemicals and micro-plastic chaff? ”
I do not doubt this. I do question how consequential that is.
Progess has NEVER been perfect. sidestepping your claims above – human environmental polution spiked as a result of WWII,
That was a temporary and deliberare choice. Since then we have worked to improve. I disagree with the way that was accomplished – frankly post war the return to the trend of improvement was inevitable. But I do not disagree with the end.
Regardless if WE decide that there are problems with our food supply – the market will fix that.
The free market ultimately delivers everything that is possible at our current standard of living while concurrently raising our standard of living.
If you beleive our food supply is poisoned – then produce and sell food that is not. If people value they they will buy it and pay more for it.
I think people buy and pay more for lots of things I think are STUPID. But I do not care.
If you want “whole grain gluten free fair trade sugar free Kashi” – the market will provide – whether I think you are stupid or not.
If your issues regarding the food supply are important – or even if they aren’t and people merely decide they are – then the free market WILL solve the problem.
“You can deny the latter is happening if that makes you feel comfortable ideologically.”
I am not denying anything – beyond that WHATEVER bug you and others have up your ass,
if it is a real problem OR if it is merely significantly perceived as a problem — the free market will solve it.
What choice of coffee did you have in 1930 ? Probably just black, or cream and sugar.
What choice did you have in 1970 ? Folgers, Maxwell house, ……
What choice do you have today ? Hundreds of different beans, fresh ground or not, french press or otherwise, myriads of ways your coffes can be produced – Starbucks makes a fortune giving you hundreds of different choices of coffee.
Why ? Because we are afluent enough that the market can deliver us practically individual choices.
That is how things work – the higher standard of living rises the more of the choices we want we get.
Government uninvolved. Did government have anything to do with expanding your coffee choices ?
“But that doesn’t change the fact that it is happening. The consumer-driven economy “demands” many conveniences and comforts in the short-term, the companies competing to supply them, yes. But who in this system is looking out for the long-term “demands” that compete head-on with the short-term ones?”
Long term, short term Our wants and needs are in control, and the choices we have expand as standard of living rises.
I would note the ONLY difference between what I am arguing and what you are arguing is HOW what we want is met.
YOU wish to have people dictate to government, I want people to seek to have the free market meet their needs.
YOUR approach is a blunt instrument, that does not dynamically adjust. mine happens automatically shifting as our values change.
Your worried about a bunch of things – if you are correct and enough people are also worried about those things – then there is a market for a food supply that does not contian the things you are worried about.
“Ask Americans if they want their grandchildren and great-grandchildren to find their livelihoods and health diminished by pollution at the hands of their grandparents’ generation. They’ll all holler “NO WAY!”.”
When has that ever happened ? Further please tell me what person today can see 40- years into the future well enough to manage production today ?
There absolutely will be problems in the future – they may even be the ones you mention – but we will deal with them when we confront them for real, when real people care enough about real problems to move the market to address them.
That will happen faster and more accurately than anythng some pannel of experts in washington can concoct.
“So, how do the companies deliver on THAT demand? ”
As they always have – when there is a real demand – whether the probelm is real or not, and people are afuluent enough to afford the solution the market will deliver it – if people want.
As I said to you – if you think there is a problem with food supply – go produce and sell food without that problem.
If enough share your view – they will buy your food. They will do that whether your perceived problem is real or not.
“If they try, they won’t last that long, being steamrollered by competitors serving the short-term demands.”
On what planet do you live?
Go to the cereal aisle in the grocery store – there are HUNDREDS of choices of breakfast food.
BTW this is the exact opposite of what the anti-trust people a century ago told us.
“Only if laws are passed to level the playing field will the future-directed company have a chance to contribute successfully.”
Nonsense. Government never levels the playing field. it just tilts it to favor an interest.
The playing field is NEVER level, without govenrment – if ALWAYS favors what people want that they can afford.
But the higher standard of living rises the MORE choices we get. The higher stadnard of living rises the more ever smaller portions of the market get their wants and needs met affordably.
This is actual reality. I used coffee as an example – but pick ANYTHING the results are the same.
“That’s where wise governing has to step in, and assert the long-term demands over the short-term ones. If that
governing process is made weak, the wrong trade-offs will prevail. Policies need to be effective, but pose no burden on freedom beyond the lightest form of regulation effective to the goal.”
This is nonsense. What magic makes those we elect wiser than the rest of us ? Whatever wisdom there is in government MUST exist in people. Do you really want government doing things people do not want ? Do you actually think that is wise ?
“This is how I’d describe a well-functioning society that is sustainable indefinitely into the future. ”
Everyone who talks about “sustainability” is pretty much always seeking to lock the world in amber as it is – or with a few narrow changes.
You make claims about sustainable – but humans likely have been arround for almost 1M years. during that time we have SLOWLY improved everything. Often it is 2 steps forward one back, but we ultimately fix the steps backward.
Your “sustainability” argue presumes there are well known absolute limits.
There are not. The limits are ONLY at the moment, they are based on our current standard of living and our current vision.
That is it.
Elon Musk wants to go to Mars. That may take years it may take centuries – but do you doubt that is happening ?
In my lifetime ? Probably not.
But people who talk about sustainability – especially as something that should be a governmetn imposed criteria, are clueless.
If we lived as you wish – we would still be burning coal.
Further most everything you want – this pure food supply – never really existed before – maybe there was not plastic and chemicals in the past, but our food supply was far LESS pure then than now. 200 years ago if you did not live on a farm water milk or meat could kill you easily.
“And my read of the Preamble “….secure the Blessings of Liberty for Ourselves and our Posterity” insists we enjoy no more freedom now than we can honestly estimate will be also enjoyed by posterity.”
Would be wrong.
“That is the America of the Founder’s vision.”
Absolutely not. Our founders did not have government impose rules regarding what could be done based on guesses about a future they could not possibly have know.
Your argument ultimately boils down to because I can concoct fears for the future, I can screw up the present.
Even if you actually were right – you can not possibly know everything that will go wrong in the future,
But you CAN easily thwart things that would have been incredible.
“It’s not pure Adam Smith. ”
Of course not – your vision has absolutely nothing to do with economics and it is rooted in trying to prevent the fears you imagine in the future.
“I’ll leave it to you to decide if we’re living up to that vision.”
Your vision – no, thank god. Your vision traps us – honestly into slow decline, because fear stops all improvement, while slowly whittling away at what we have and our ability to sustain it.
I used Coffee as an example.
What happens to our choices of coffee when your concerns about food supply increase the cost of food by a factor of 3 reducing our standard of living in order to deliver the food you want.
You rant that conservatives oppose change – nothing would stiffle the future more than fixating on “sustainability”
Nothing could be more RADICALLY conservative, and in fact have a very high risk of driving us BACKWARDS
You already want to F#$K with food – do you think that is going to make food cheaper or more expensive ?
Let me give you a clue – if it was cheaper it would have happened without government.
Even if it was more expensive AND more appealing to enough people – it would happen automatically.
Things that do not happen without government are ALWAYS expensive and do not have enough support for people to choose to pay for on their own.
And if you make something more expensive without reducing costs elsewhere and Government NEVER reduces costs,
Then all you have done is reduced standard of living.
Must see documentary “Saving Capitalism”: a non-partisan documentary starring conservative Republicans and Bill Clinton’s former economy advisor (the last president to balance the national budget deficit).
The take away, capitalism only benefits the American working class with some government regulations and rules of the road. Capitalism without rules would destroy the middle class of America.
“The take away, capitalism only benefits the American working class with some government regulations and rules of the road. Capitalism without rules would destroy the middle class of America.”
What does this mean ?
Absolutely we need laws. But there is absolutely no positive good EVER served by ANY government involvement specifically in the economy.
What are normally called regulations – economic laws, efforts to control capitalism are ALWAYS negative.
Myriads of economist have proven that in theory and in practice over the past two centuries.
Coases law won a nobel for exactly that proof.
There are 4 requirements from government.
National defense.
Punishing the initiation of force or fraud against others – criminal law.
The use of force to compel those who freely enter agreements to keep them – contract law.
The use of force to compel those who directly harm others to make them whole – Tort law.
Torts are the ONLY legitimate regulation of the economy.
Key to the rule of law portions of all of the above is that they are all a posteriori.
They punish conduct that has already happened,
they do not perscribe non violent conduct a priori.
I would further note that in every case where you can point out some regulation of capitalism that you think has been beneficail.
The exact same benefit has occured elsehwere in the world without any laws.
Why ? because every single “regulation” that we think has been beenifical or successful is really just a luxury that we become able to afford with higher standard of living.
Child labor as an example is the norm everywhere and throughout history -until standard of livinng rises sufficiently that we do not need it and benefit little from it – then it is gone – laws or no laws.
OSHA and workplace safety laws in the US today have pretty close to ZERO relevance.
Nearly every business has heir own worlplace safety laws that are better tailored and more effective.
Why ? Because employers get sued when workers are injured – torts,
and even more consequential because losing skilled workers does significant harm.
Most every employer of non-adminstrative labor has XXX days since last time lost accident signs up all over.
And they reward teams for avoiding time lost accidents
Not out of altruism – but because the loss of skilled labor is expensive.
Capitalism does NOT need regulation and all regulation of capitalism outside the very limited rule of law is not only unnecescary but harmful.
We also need roads, dams, fire and police departments.
Roads have been very successfully built privately the world over. The Brooklynn bridge was the first significant publicly funding bridge in the US, and that only because Boss Tweed and Tammany hall made privately constructing it impossible.
Most dams are privately constructed, Regardless the idiocy that public funds are needed for massive projects is massively false.
The debt of governments throughout the world is funded primarily by private albeit unfortunately highly regulated banks.
Argentina’s massive debt is infamously owned entirely privately.
Basically nearly everything that government borrows money to create is funded privately.
Do you really think that funding a damn is harder than funding massive govenrment debt.
Most fire departments in the US are volunteer – not government. people contribute to them – or subscribe to them.
In the past they were funded by insurance companies. Who even put out fires in buildings they did not insure – because fires spread and it is better to sop them before they get to the buildings you insure.
Most of what you think government MUST provide has been successfully provided without govenrment.
We tend to see that rarely – because governemnt does NOT like competition, and when government gets into anything – it pushes everyone else out.
I cited criminal law as a legitimate domain of government.
ANYTHING that REQUIRES force is the domain of govenrment.
Policing requires force.
prosecuting requires force,
punishing requires force.
Building roads does not.
But of all the things that we could improve by returning them to the free market where they belong.
Infrastructure is at the bottom of the list. As wasteful and inefficient as government infrastructure is
it pales compared to most everything else.
of you want a really excellent history of the real battle between capitalism and socialism – including the failure of the keynesian government regulation argument you are making.
Try the BBC/PBS “The commanding heights: The battle for the world economy”
There is also a book, which is a worthwhile read, but the documentary while using fewer examples and less data tells the story much better.
But if you want to geek out on data supporting the abject failures of both Socialism and Keynesian economics and the fact that the massive gloabl rise in standards of living over the past century has been entirely do to the maximum of “unbridled capitalism” – then get the book.
Smith said that it is not the altruism of the baker or butcher that puts the food on our tables, but the self-interest of the baker and butcher to put food on their tables that motivates them. This simple and self-evident claim undermines the free market and shows the fallacy of collectivism. Remove the motivation for me to put food on my table, and quickly you shall have none either. Interestingly, if you look at the handful of models of communism in the world, whether Cuba or North Korea, the biggest public gripe is a lack of food and essentials. In 1997, President Ronald Reagan, upon observing the starvation in Ethiopia, said, “A hungry child knows no politics.” He was not the first or only one to say this, and it is as true today as ever.
I sit here today retired with greater wealth than I ever dreamed possible. I look back at where I started and where I am now and see the mistakes I made and the decisions that led me to this place. I was never an entrepreneur. I always worked for others. One opportunity that placed me on the trajectory that led me here was the creation of the IRA. Even though I made little money at the beginning of my career, the pretax treatment of the deposits was sufficient incentive to start investing in the market through mutual funds. The incentive was curtailed a few years later but it was enough to get me started on my financial education. There were many ups and downs but I stayed the course throughout my working life into retirement. I came to understand that wealth creation was really about the production of goods and services to meet the needs of others. Money is just a measure of how well you did that. A dollar in the hand of the one that earns it is economic freedom because he chooses how it is spent. That same dollar in the hand of government was taken from the labor of others and makes us less free. I liken government to a bathroom in a business. It is a necessary expense but contributes nothing to the wealth of the nation. It should be kept small, clean and stocked with paper products.
Excellent.
a very good explanation of the value of investing.
I love your bathroom analogy.
I would note – the form of investment is not relevant. IRA’s are fine, but mine has done poorly and I am well off because of other investments.
The tremendous importance of investment – something everyone should learn, is that investment is far more significant than labor.
Just about everyone – from the janitor to Elon Musk starts by making money to invest from their labor.
But the real wealth of nearly everyone even the janitor is from investment.
Even Social Security – which is just about the worst investment there is, and is forced on all of us – is STILL an investment.
And that is much of what the majority of us live off of for a significant part of their lives.
It does not mostly matter what you invest in – there is nothing wrong with IRAs – which are merely having others invest your money for you.
Regardless investment is YOU gaining far more benefit from saved and invested capital than your labor.
The importance of capital can be trivially explained by a simple example.
10 people paid $25/hr can dig 400ft of ditch/day that is $1/ft
one person paid $50/hr can dig 5000ft of ditch/day with a backhoe – that is $0.01/ft
But the ditch digger with the backhoe is not going to charge $0.01/ft, they are more likely to change $0.50/ft
But someone must buy the backhoe. And it is those who provided the capital for the backhoe – that are going to benefit the most.
9 ditch diggers will have to find new jobs, 1 ditch digger will learn new skills and get paid twice as much,
but those who provided the capital will get 10% of there investment back/yr for the life of the backhoe.
Whaaaat? Can’t you see Smith is a COLONIALIST that advocated for the racist development of the Western World – at least that is what my lefty woke book club agreed was the answer once the bored divorced KARENS told us how to think! Haha, the greatest invention of modern times is the development and flourishment of capitalism and all the silly faux talk of building the Western World on the back of “enslavement” and racist colonialism is pure Bipolar GARBAGE. Not one other economic system can point to a track record of success (Communism – Nope; Socialism- Nope; Shariah – Haha Nope) and HISTORY PROVES IT. All of those systems create HAVES and HAVE NOTS so stop whining about inequity and start thinking and working.
I’m a little confused, the government giving children $1,000 in honor of Dear Leader teaches them independence and freedom, and isn’t socialism? Maybe the kids can use the money for a couple weeks of daycare or give it to Dad to cover that month’s health insurance
You really need to understand the plan. First, no one can touch the money until the child is an adult. Second, the account can easily be added to. People with a working brain should be able to connect the dots between investment and return, but that obviously leaves you out in the cold.
Your comment perfectly encapsulates everything that is wrong with socialism.
IF the parents apply for an account, initially the Treasury Department creates the accounts and seeds it with the $1,000. Likely this is done to prevent fraud, waste and abuse. Later, the parents then roll the monies over into a financial provider with Trump Accounts products. The parents then get to choose how to invest those monies, i.e. mutual funds, ETFs. Parents, friends, family, even employers can contribute up to $5,000 annually. When the child turns 18, they can use the monies for college, trade school, other eligible work programs, training.
If it was socialism, it would be like Social Security. The government takes your money from your pay check in a “tax.” They keep it for you. You have no control over how or if it is invested. And we all know how well the government is with money. Then they give you some of your money back by their determined time/age.
https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/personal-finance/trump-accounts
“. . . the Treasury Department creates the accounts and seeds it with the $1,000.”
The Treasury does *not* create wealth. So who do you think pays for that $1,000?
Who decides how to spend redistributed income is irrelevant. Students decide how to spend (some) of their student loan money, as do food stamp and housing welfare recipients. Yet they are all, just like the Trump accounts, socialist policies.
AS should be self evident here – even those who fully grasp the evil of socialism have still to some extent embraced small elements of socialism or atleast big governemnt.
Trump is NOT even close to a free market capitalist.
he is just incredibly far from a left wing nut socialist.
I agree with almost nothing Trump has done.
I just disagree LESS than with Bush, Obama or Biden.
Trump is the lesser evil by a LONG SHOT.
But as president he is NOT a free market capitalist.
he is just closer than his predescessors.
Prof. Turley
The disruption from technology such as AI today will be no more consequential than the disruption from spinning jennies or industrialization in Adam Smiths time.
Technology does not drive free markets – Free markets drive technology.
Standard of living = production of what we need / human effort needed to produce.
Rising standard of living REQUIRES producing more with less human effort.
rising productivity means rising standard of living.
If you are doing the same thing in the same way for 20 years,
you should not expect your wages to rise, or your life to improve.
AI or ANYTHING that significantly decreases the human effort to produce does NOT raise standard of living.
Standard of living rises when the human resources that are freed by AI are put to other uses – any other use.
But standard of living rises the most if those freed resources are put to uses that humans value greatly.
Nearly every major technological advance has lead to the fear of a large unemployed class that would have to be subsidized
This has never happened. The disruption of human resources that occurs as a result of huge technological advances in productivity
is real, but it is also temporary
One of the corollaries of the laws of supply and demand is that supply creates its own demand.
When a mexican farmer kills a chicken for dinner – 50% of that chicken goes into the garbage when he is done.
When Tyson foods, processes a chicken – 99% of the chicken turns into a product.
The parts that do not become chicken nuggets or boneless things and breasts, turn into dog food or fertilizer or myriads of other products.
In some cases those products are even sold below cost – because it is cheaper to lose money selling them than to haul them away as garbage.
Regardless the point is that “Supply creates its own demand”
An oversupply of human resources will ALWAYS be put to some productive use – and that – not AI or technology is what will raise human standard of living.
This threat to Western Civilization began, of course, with Karl Marx, and received new life in the 1960’s with the emergence of the NeoMarxism of the Frankfurt School, with such enemies of Freedom of Speech such as Herbert Marcuse, who came to the USA, inspiring the radical Left, such as Tom
Hayden, the SDS, and the Weather Underground, now allied with politically correct identitarian politics which is marching through the universities, DEI saturated bureaucracies, the mainstream media, and the Democratic Party. It has further allied with Radical Islam, in the Red/Green intersectional Axis of Evil, bent on destroying Western Civilization, and establishing their respective dystopian dictatorships. This despite the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The Clash of Civilizations is upon us, and the Barbarians are inside the gates.
May the Enlightenment Ideals of Freedom and Liberty continue to shine, and defeat these benighted forces attempting to establish their respective benighted dystopian dictatorships.
Have any of you read the Honor Harrington series of fiction. It was written in the mid 90’s. It speaks to live under socialism.
Every dystopia ever written as well as ACTUAL history speaks to the horrors of life under socialism – whether it is brave new world, Anthem, 1984, animal farm, Atlas Shrugged,
or in real life – The Gulag Archepelego,
Nazi Germany, Stalins Russia, the Khmer Rouge, North Korea, Maoist China
Speaks? No it does not. Socialism was not a concept until Marx made it up.
Perhaps you have heard of the french revolution ? That was an early form of socialism.
Marx did not make up socialism – it significantly predates him.
Did you ever hear of Fourier? There is seldom a beginning fixed in time; ideas ripen, and those who follow often gain their reputations by refining what already existed.
Well said, John.
Not every dystopia ever written. There are plenty of dystopias written by socialists, who assume that capitalism will lead to disaster and only socialism can save the day. Look at most of H. G. Wells’s unreadable crap. But there are examples that are well-written, it’s just that in order to read them you have to temporarily accept their assumptions. Just pretend they’re set in an alternative universe in which things actually work that way.
MH
Orwell was a socialist. His dystopias still are about socialism going amuk.
I am aware of many dystopias that are supposed to be about capitalism running amuck – but that does not hold up in any I am actually aware of.
But if you have an example I will look into it.
It is really hard to get ACTUAL free market capitalism to run amuck without making lots of assumptions that just can not occur in reality.
There are a number of dytopias that are corporatist in nature – but that is not free market capitalism.
Few hate capitalism more than big business.
It is a mistake to beleive that successful capitalists want capitalism.
They KNOW how the succeeded, and they KNOW they are very vulnerable to someone exactly like them.
Big businesses move into rents seeking pretty universally.
We need to BREAK Democrats. The plan to decentralize power and Defund them!
– Cut 50% of Fed gov spending
– Move 75% of DC to Heartland
– End fed aid cities, states, college, unions & non-profits
– Cut SNAP 75%
– 2% tax Gross wall street trans & money goes offshore
– 20% duty on ALL imports
– Tax all non-profits anyone gets $100k: colleges, hospitals, etc
– Remove tax credits renewables, affordable housing, etc
– Jail Trump persecutors & Dems protectors, illegal helpers, etc
– Outlaw public union, they are a political army for democrats
– Ban union/company $ politics, only voters can fund politics
– voting 1 day, in person, with ID, I don’t care if you vote, I care if you cheat
– 12 year limit on federal office….judge, president, senate, congress
– Roundup all illegals to raise wages and give Americans Jobs
– END all bonuses financial world till every dime of FED money is paid off
We can certainly hope for at least some of these.
– Cut 50% of Fed gov spending
A start
– Move 75% of DC to Heartland
yup Government needs to reflect the people.
– End fed aid cities, states, college, unions & non-profits
Simplify – End Federal Aid
– Cut SNAP 75%
100%
– 2% tax Gross wall street trans & money goes offshore
nope. You can not prevent the flow of capital, and overall you WANT the freest flow of capital that you can get.
If you make it hard for capital to get out of the US you will make it less likely to come to the US.
Trump has purportedly secured $16T in investment in the US.
We WANT that capital to start russhing out when left wing nuts start making poor choices.
Just as we do not want to interfere with the capital flight from blue states and blue cities.
Capitalism is the carrot and the stick – it rewards everyone – including government for wise choices and punishes them for bad ones.
– 20% duty on ALL imports
NOPE.
We must pay for government somehow, Sales taxes are the most efficient and least economically damaging way to do so,
Tarriffs are a limited form of sales tax. Trump has proven that Tarriffs are among the least damaging form of taxation.
So yes, the funding of government should be by taxes like sales taxes.
All taxes are economically damaging. protectionist tarriffs have proven to damage the industries they protect.
While the goal should be zero or very low tarriffs, Trump does have one thing basically correct.
Tarriffs should be reciprocal – you lower yours we lower ours.
And the goal should be lower not higher.
– Tax all non-profits anyone gets $100k: colleges, hospitals, etc
What does this mean ? Taxes are generally on profits, if an organization is a non-profit – then it has nothing to tax.
While we should not have taxed and tax exempt institutions,
In truth we should not tax businesses at all.
We should have a single tax scheme, not multiple ones,
That has the least unintented consequences
and we should fund government exclusively through sales taxes.
We want zero tax on investment.
– Remove tax credits renewables, affordable housing, etc
Ena ALL subsidies.
– Jail Trump persecutors & Dems protectors, illegal helpers, etc
NO!
Jail lawbreakers. Full due process, and zero concern for politics.
Enforce ALL laws and get rid of laws we do not enforce.
– Outlaw public union, they are a political army for democrats
They are just a bad idea.
– Ban union/company $ politics, only voters can fund politics
NO! Government shoudl stay completely out of how people spend their money.
– voting 1 day, in person, with ID, I don’t care if you vote, I care if you cheat
Absolutely.
– 12 year limit on federal office….judge, president, senate, congress
should be 20 years, but include ANY position that gets a government pay check.
– Roundup all illegals to raise wages and give Americans Jobs
Just not practical. Trump is deporting bout 1M/year.
There are between 35-45M illegal immigrants in the US.
We have fairly effectively shut the border. We should continue that.
That is really important.
We should continue the deportation of illegal aliens that commit crimes.
as well as those caught as we seek and deport those who commit crimes.
We should continue to encourage Self deportation.
But we actually MUST increase legal immigration.
Currently legal immigration into the US is about 1M/yr it must minimally be 2M/yr and probably close to 3M/yr
Mass illegal immigration has negatively impacted the US working class.
But in reality we have more jobs that current citizens can fill, and contra Turleys claims about AI,
We will ALWAYS benefit from more human resources. We just must do so legally.
– END all bonuses financial world till every dime of FED money is paid off
Again – the government should stay out of things that are not any of its business
Maybe the youth of today should study the life of Eugene V. Debs. He also started out as a Democrat and ended up running for president as a socialist 5 times.
You also forgot to mention the failure of the Labor Party in the UK. They basically replaced the Liberals as opponents for the Conservatives. They won Parliament in 1945 and then a series of Labor governments started seizing major industries such as railroads and coal and rapidly contracted the economy of the UK (some people would say they almost destroyed it) before the conservatives got their act together and unraveled the Labor program. They gave Labor such a bad name that Tony Blair had to rename it New Labor and promise they were not socialists. And they are trying to do it again. I guess the only cure for socialism is to live under for awhile. The only problem with Socialism is that once you’re in the program they bring out the big guns to force you to stay in until you have to have another revolution. They really don’t like to give up power once they have it.
Remember NAZI meant the National Socialist German Workers Party (a favorite of Adolph and his boys)
The Wealth of Nations should be required reading in every high school. It’s long, but it’s readable, and it gives a basic grounding in common-sense economics.
For the modern reader here is a condensed modern english somewhat humourous version
https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Nations-Books-Changed-World/dp/0802143423
How is it that the Ivy League students are so much more easily seduced by socialism than the lower income kids at state schools and trade schools? Even with the current problems at the Ivy League, these kids can walk into great jobs because of capitalism, yet they rail against it. They are cutting off their own nose to spite their face. Turning out kids like this is another failure of our elite schools.
The people that went to trade schools and community colleges probably did not have the world given to them by their parents. With that continuing in the Ivy League schools. Earning a living, no matter how hard gives the self satisfying reward of what they have accomplished rather than being handed things.
“. . . Trump Accounts, which will be seeded with $1,000 in *taxpayer funds* . . .” (emphasis added)
A number of Trump policies are pro-capitalist, e.g., a dramatic reduction of government regulations, and a hefty tax cut.
But those Accounts are not one of them. They are a wealth redistribution scheme — aka a *socialist* policy.
Young people are free to embrace Socialism when Capitalism has provided them previously unimaginable material benefits.
Morning Prof. Turley. Is this a guest writer? One of your students’ essays?
Turley was interviewed recently and expounded pretty much this theme.
He claimed to have always had an interest in economics and free markets.
He was also self identifying more as conservative/libertarian than liberal.
Purportedly there is significant similar material in his new book.
From what I have seen his interested and understanding of free markets is relatively new.
While I have not perceived him as a socialist or communist, he has come off as a traditional
60’s liberal who sees government and government benefits having a significant role in the economy.
The failure of every singly facet of the economy that government significantly involves itself with should disuade anyone of
that quasi socialism.
If you want something to be good and affordable – keep government as far from it as possible.
Government has had minimal involvement in advanced technology and the results are incredible value for humans dirt cheap.
The greatest threat to human advancement right now is Washington DC taking the slightest interest in AI or technology.
Nothing will stiffle the benefits more than government help.
Our poorest performing institutions – healthcare and education – both of tremendous importance are also the most heavily entangled with government.
The rise in standard of living delivered by free markets is directly proportionate to the freedom of the markets.
Economic studies throughout the world, and accross the past 250 years prove that true ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE
Queue Olly please.