A mixed economy, of course--please feel free to look it up, if you do not believe me--is one that incorporates elements of both capitalism and socialism; it is not the pure capitalism advocated by Adam Smith. The Welfare State (initiated by FDR) brought us to precisely this. Note: I will admit to a bit of hypocrisy here, as I do receive a Social Security check. (I do not live upon it--I have it direct deposited into savings--but that is really not quite the point.)
no Democrats are communists as Sanders proves but are going slowly or incrementally knowing that Republican freedom still matters in America thanks to our genius Founders and their Constitution.
why hypocritical?they force you to pay into the system at gunpoint so you might as well take your share of the waste as they dole it out to you. Paying and not taking your share would be dumb.
Jame M does not have the slightest of what is a communist. But I can state without a doubt those on the Alt Right support Trump, Putin, and Russia.
1) main interest of Republicans is freeing Americans from govt ie taxes and welfare spending 2) since the top 1% pay 42% of taxes we must cut their taxes to be fair and to grow the economy 3) do you assume we must always raises taxes on the rich no matter high they already are??
Main interest since Jefferson , first Republican, is to cut govt ie taxes and spending. You have learned this 37 times now. Must we go for 38?
we don't want to harm any industries since they provide the jobs and products we need for survival. We do want capitalism however since it forces industry to provide the best jobs and products in the world just to survive. Do you understand?
EddyB does not understand capitalism at all. Right, James M? TJ, founder of the Republican Party that became the Democratic-Republican Party that became the Democratic Party, had a huge fear of big business.
Yeahright. Well, the choice within capitalism is apparently either what we had around 1900-1932 or what FDR produced with his "socialism" that saved capitalism. And every other capitalist country found the same thing, -that they needed to introduce social programs to soften capitalisms rather rough edges and make it humane. But introducing social programs is not an introduction of socialism, which is worker ownership and control of business. But some hard-core capitalist proponents are so desperate over our "impure capitalism" that they freak out over every humane detail of it. BTW, if such social programs are so bad, find me ONE COUNTRY whose capitalism is "pure" enough to suit you. Just one.
I think coverage is only one measure of a system's merit. Here is a better one and I have indicated who is leading the US or EU: Percent of people covered. EU How much is covered. EU Cost. Is it low-cost of the healthcare provided and affordable? EU Are costs rising slowly instead of rapidly? EU Results. How much healthier are people from the system? EU Customer service? How available are doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies to customers. EU What is the speed of getting healthcare? US What is the quality of healthcare? US What is the level of technology of the drugs and procedures? US What is the amount of technological advancement and innovation? US
Why would capitalism be just what existed in America "around 1900-1932"? (And, by the way, the Great Depression did not begin anywhere nearly so early as 1900.) For the entire nineteenth century--as well as the latter part of the eighteenth century--capitalism in America did not appear to need rescuing by some hybrid...
That is actually a quite good outline. The only point with which I would disagree is cost--at least, as regarding myself. (I cannot extrapolate to the entire US, in this regard.) My healthcare plan is a PPO--it drastically reduces the "Submitted Charges," to a "Plan Allowance" (by contractual agreement, I am sure)--and it pays 85 percent of the Plan Allowance to doctors; and 100 percent for hospitalization. (Of course, the doctors' charges are separate here; and it pays the usual 85 percent in this regard.) And it has an annual out-of-pocket cap of $1,000.
monetary policy was always a huge problem and now thanks to Friedman that problem appears to be solved. Capitalism is great but didn't naturally lead to good monetary policy.
I didn't say it was. The remainder of my post filled it out more and explained what I was saying, which I thought agreed with what you had said. I didn't say it did. But as it reached the latter 1800s and transitioned into the early 1900s, it became ruthless and brutal to workers. That set it up for needing to be rescued by FDR.
There is an old saying: "'But' is a word that essentially means, 'Ignore everything that I've said up to this point; here comes the real scoop"...
Are you suggesting, then, that the views set forth by Adam Smith are anachronistic today--and that they were even in "the latter 1800s"?
Medicare, like Social Security is available to all. Eligibility requires 40 quarters or 10 years of work. They are both purchased by their recipients, and unlike true government welfare spending programs cannot pay out more to current recipients than what is being collected from prospective future recipients.
Although Wilson, in 1913 laid most of the groundwork for what FDR did, followed by LBJ even more massively and costly.
Again, 1913 was the turning point. Prior to 1913, with a sound currency inflation when it occurred was offset by a period of deflation, and bubbles were more free to inflate/deflate independent of one another. Centralization of control over the economy of the Nation as a whole is like each individual local and State economy being a balloon inside of a Federal government regulated vacuum jar which results in bursting some bubbles by increasing the vacuum to aid the expansion of others.
A simple yes or no would suffice--and would have been, in any case, more concise (just one word, instead of four). But perhaps you were, instead, wanting to do rhetorical battle. If so, I should probably note that I have no desire to do rhetorical battle with anyone--on any political forum. I will discuss--even debate--but not angrily battle others. If the latter is what you desire, then you might just as well place me on your "Ignore" list...
Medicare (both Part A and Part B) is "available" to those at least 65 years of age (or 62, at a reduced amount.) It is also available to those who are younger, and have retired on disability.
You are correct that Wilson was a liberal; and that LBJ's "Great Society" was a leap to the left--in a basically center-right country...
There was no depression in 1913 (although there was a recession then). As for your last sentence, above, it is unclear to me whether you are arguing for or against [c]entralization of the economy. (Let me just say that I strongly oppose a strong central government.)
Then why are you being confrontative? I need not comment on Adam Smith. My words were self-explanatory and they were neither rhetorical nor confrontative. Either you are interested in discussion/debate or you are not.
