USA Capitalism is no Longer working

A WAY YET TO GO

I doubt that particular purpose was in the minds of the nation's founders. They were worried far more about an English King who would be coming after them.

Even later in the rest of the 19th century, most of the controversy that ended with the North/South war was regarding slavery. At that time, slaves had no "fundamental human rights". Only whites were afforded that privilege. And it took a while to free the blacks - besides, if they are free, why do they have a lower economic status than whites?

Let's not make the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - both of which were prominent pieces of our colonial liberation - any more than what it was - A Good Start. (Besides, American blacks today are still not at a level of freedom and opportunity as are American whites.)

There is much work to be done to assure Americans all benefit from the same Fundamental Freedoms for which we like to be so proud. Namely, Uncle Sam has still a way yet to go to obtain for all his constituents the same length and breadth of economic opportunity ...

 

you’re right about one thing, American blacks have more hand outs, more assistance, and affirmative action on their side. It’s very lopsided in this regard.

 

And yet they still have negative net worth.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...wealth-than-at-any-time-in-the-past-50-years/

"The top 20 percent of households actually own a whopping 90 percent of the stuff in America — 90 slices of pie! "

And

"Among rich nations, the United States stands out for the extent of its wealth inequality. The top 1 percent in the U.S. own a much larger share of the country's wealth than the 1 percent elsewhere. The American 1 percent gobble up twice as much pie (40 percent) as the 1 percent in France, the U.K., or Canada, and more than three times as much as the 1 percent in Finland."

And

"the bottom 20 percent of households... are actually in a state of pie debt: Their net worth is underwater, meaning they owe more than they have. Combined, the average net worth of the bottom 20 percent of households is -$8,900.

So whatever "affirmative action" has been directed to blacks, it has failed miserably.

And even if Biden wins, the senate will block his ("socialist") plan to raise tax on the wealthy.

It's not sustainable.

The US is increasingly being called "a failed state" by commentators around the globe.

And let's see how "counting all the votes" in this election proceeds....

 

And the story on Wall St. is that "investors" are pleased Biden won't control the senate and hence won't be able to raise taxes on corporations or wealthy individuals.

Given the huge mal-distribution of wealth in the US outlined in the post above, we can see why the US might be termed a failed state, if it's governed solely by the self-interest of "investors", with public infrastructure deteriorating, and social policies (health education) are underfunded.

 

My personal belief regarding American blacks (and the less black but coloured) is that they have "not made an effort". Those who have (by obtaining an advanced degree) are doing very well as middle-class citizens.

I suspect that the fault is in the process of secondary-schooling the responsibility for which is local (state) in nature. We've let the education of our young go to pot, and that responsibility is local/state in nature and not national ...

 

SOCIETAL PHENOMENON

Since the opening of China in the 1990s, it has become patently obvious that the lower levels of "employment" in any developed nation (with a functional industrial output) was going to have serious problems with those on the bottom-rungs of the educational ladder.

Jobs have been exiting the US for both Mexico and the Far-east for quite some time now - about 30 years! And we have no one to blame but ourselves - that is, those we elected to office who did nothing to stem the fundamental changes occurring in lower-level employment.

Democracies are (or should be) all-encompassing. That is, everybody should have the same opportunity to succeed professionally. And at the very least to have a decent standard of living. That has not been the case is many states across the nation. Whyzzat?

Because we have not focused upon the central character of any market-economy, which is the general nature of Demand (for goods/services). That general-nature is dependent critically upon level of education. And more so on the ability to get-up and move to wherever the jobs are found. This sort of flexibility is least prominent in the lower-classes of people who may stagnate where they were born.

This societal-phenomenon of unemployment is not just American in nature. I have seen it in Europe as well. I live in farm-country there and the unemployment levels are staggering, especially amongst the younger generations ...

 

"USA Capitalism is no Longer working"

greedy corporatism has taken over with excessive foreign outsourcing and excessive foreign imports

 

It's economic in nature (systemic) as well as societal (due to the individual) .

Glad to see you acknowledging the terrible unemployment in Europe...

 

"Even if it is true that "capitalism in a certain country is not working", that does not necessarily mean that capitalism (in general) does not work.
To be logical."

that is true, same with socialism, capitalism, corporatism.... it's when greed of the powerful takes over that all of them fail

 

This is no great wonder. The public-sector tends not to be competitive in nature, and thus stagnates when it comes to changes in Demand.

Yes, all valid complaints due to an inability to step-away from a set of beliefs that were installed in post-WW2 economies. There was no need to change, so no change was made in the US. Europe was different because it was repairing itself from WW2. The first National Healthcare Service was founded in the UK in 1949. (See here.)

The great upset in Supply of goods occurred in the 1990s when China exited seriously onto world markets with its very-inexpensive produce. And most of Europe and America (where the key industrialization had taken place) were asleep at what was happening.

The public-sector has no "writ" to enter into private-sector activities. Their activities typically are not competitive in nature. Which is why medical-services now tend to performed by state-run entities - at least in Europe. Where the National Healthcare Systems are price-fixed by governments responsible for providing the services. (And the populations with NHSs want it that way.)

What confuses us, I suggest, is our notion of what is fundamentally a competitive-sector of the economy and what is not. And we need to get that straight in the US. Healthcare is a general necessity and it needs to be run by governments. Ditto post-secondary education. Otherwise both sectors will be beyond the reach of a good many people who simply cannot afford to pay for the services offered. And their lifestyle can be seriously impaired without said services made available without inordinate costs to be payed.

 

Sorry but capitalism is about the private sector...not government. Socialism or nationalism is about the government.
The government might have a program within NASA in which the government hires employees and procures materials, etc. but this is a non-profit venture. Capitalism is rooted in profits because it must pay it's way via profits while government does not.

How people are compensated varies from job to job and employee to employee. How much does an attorney earn if most all of their work is pro bono? There are myriad jobs/careers available and each person must determine their own goals which will further determine where they might live, what education is required, how much they are compensated, etc. This has nothing to do with capitalism.

Capitalism rules in the USA with government filling in the spaces...

 

This is because the public sector does not require profitability and to pay their way so typically the pubic sector is bloated.

IMO the USA was not 'asleep' regarding imports?? The USA for myriad reasons has made conscious choices about what we will and will not produce in the USA.

Everything costs basically the same no matter if provided in the private or public sector. Consumers pay both with the cost of goods and services and taxation. Healthcare will force more government spending which means more taxation on all Americans...nothing is free!

 

Capitalism without the counterbalance of a self-funded public sector* is unsustainable. Both you and Lafayette fail to perceive this.

Proof: imagine a pandemic that forced an economic lock-down for a year or more. In that case government alone would have to fund the living expenses of unemployed workers, as all economic activity except essential production was shut down.

Lafayette is an orthodox neoliberal economist. Unrepayable government debt (accumulated because of the pandemic) will expose the error of his monetarist theory.


* a sovereign currency-issuing government has a treasury and central bank which can issue its own currency, without taxing or borrowing from the private sector.

 

Are we still not examining the role immigration & trade policies have played in this?

I mean, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what will happen if you increase the supply of something. It will decrease prices, and tip the balance between labor and capital.

 

Immigration is a second order issue re a balance between fairness and freedom within the nation, because the border is already difficult to cross.

In the US, 100 people have combined $1 trillion in wealth, while the bottom 20% (c. 60 million people) have negative wealth.

Balanced?

 

No, between labor and land. As Henry George showed 140 years ago in "Progress and Poverty," the Law of Rent implies that cet. par., an increase in the workforce, whether by immigration, births exceeding deaths, or increased workforce participation by women, will reduce wages and increase land rents. Any additional return to capital caused by the reduced wages is competed away, and ends up as land rent. In modern finance capitalism, a large chunk of the increased land rent is taken by banksters as mortgage interest, and another is appropriated by IP monopolists who own access to technology. The key point is that the increased productivity caused by the larger, more efficient workforce does not go to the worker but to the privileged, and the increased productivity caused by investment in producer goods does not go to the investor but to the privileged.

 

Well, not entirely.

Profits are an after-taxation result and in that manner companies contribute to government financing. Taxation of income at the state-level also provides the financing for state-government post-secondary schooling.

Still, what is missing in the US is that - whilst primary- and secondary-schooling are assumed largely by state-governments - there is no such funding "per se" for post-secondary schooling at the national level. In fact, at that level, the DoD consumes half of all Discretionary Spending - see here.

In fact, the DoD is the principle source of both partial and full public-funding for a tertiary-level degree.

From here:

The US thus remains behind in those "services", with Healthcare being the most expensive of any developed nation (because it is mostly private). As for Education (both public and private), the public sector remains remains far too expensive for a great many people. The average state post-secondary education (university level) costs $20K a year (see here) - well beyond the reach of families earning at the Poverty Threshold (of about $26K annual income for a family or four).

That cost keeps a great many students without such a degree and therefore at a family level of income that is pathetically far too low. Exiting poverty is possible in the US, but only with considerable difficulty.

Which is why DoD-recruiting is so popular because the government will fund a post-secondary education:
From here:

Which is fine, if one does not die in battle somewhere ...

 

Before you quote me you should read my posts; I have clearly stated that the private and public sectors are intertwined and even provided many areas in which I believe the public sector has failed to support the private sector...

 

Operating profits can be EBIT but 'net profits' are NOPAT.

Since taxes are a cost of doing business, IMO companies pass the cost of taxation to the consumer...

 

Socialism is about community. It's government of the people, by the people, for the people..... --democracy. .... not government. The government under socialism will be there to protect and preserve the economic form and enforce the laws, just like in capitalist society.

The cost of operation is taken out of earnings. Profit is what's left over after all the bills are paid. So your "because" is flawed.

Oops! The economy has nothing to do with capitalism? it is capitalist businesses and the pressures put on them by capitalist economics that result in varying compensation, different opportunities in different regions, educational content, and compensation so how can you say "this has nothing to do with capitalism"? It's ALL ABOUT capitalism.

Capitalism rules in the USA with government serving the needs of the wealthiest and most powerful capitalists!

 

The problem is the public sector cannot properly 'support the private sector', if public sector (government) funding is restricted to taxation or borrowing from the private sector.

So I will repeat my point about public sector funding, which both you and Lafayette refuse to acknowledge:

* a sovereign currency-issuing government has a treasury and central bank and can therefore issue and spend its own currency (provided the resources/goods/services on which the money is to be spent are available), without taxing or borrowing from the private sector.

 

Socialism is an economic system defined by ownership, not a political one defined by governance.

Except taxes on profits.

 

All economic systems give rise to politics and political systems to support and protect them. So I was referring to a socialist socio-economic system, obviously.

 

I'm not sure I understand your acronyms, but I certainly agree with that second-sentence statement.

Which does not mean I like taxation simply for the sake of taxation - because of the Discretionary Budget pie-chart that I have put up showing that the greater portion of the budget goes to the DoD.

Yes, we need a DoD - but not one that eats away more than half the Discretionary Budget. Whyzat?

Because I think most Americans have not understood the profoundness of what has happened on the Internet, which has destroyed jobs at the local level of merchandise distribution.

Those jobs aint comin' back. Our kids need a higher level of post-secondary education to be able to find jobs requiring a higher set of educational qualifications ...

 

Some rather knowledgeable people disagree with both of you.

From a former senior policy advisor in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and who also served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.....

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/who-pays-the-corporate-income-tax/