Poll: Majority of Americans say they would not vote for a "socialist" - Polidicks

Right ok I see. Far out this shit is confusing

I mean, I personally wouldn't vote for a "socialist" either, so I don't see how this is surprising - unless you do a really softball approach to the definition and call Sanders a socialist or something like that. I wouldn't vote for a "capitalist", either, but at the same time I think the free market can be very useful in many areas.

Communism is a specific variant of Socialism that focuses on abolishment of classes, the state, and private ownership in favor of public/common ownership. Again, Socialism is a very broad term.

Thanks, I feel like I finally understand this now. I believe my views lean towards social democracy instead of democratic socialism.

Free markets don't work, ever. All the data supporting free markets is outdated and unscientific

Oh this will be interesting. What sources do you have to back this claim up?

This is so wrong it hurts dude

I'm going to say he has none, there are no free markets currently operating to my knowledge in a "western country" so there's no way to study them in action. A right-wing think tank publishes an index built by them to measure how free the overall market in a country is, all countries have some things to restrict the markets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom

I mean, I'm using "free market" pretty loosely here, but the general idea of "1) Some guy has a good idea 2) Other people can invest in it 3) Profit rewards successful products" makes a lot of sense to me. Are you talking the free market in terms of "no regulation at all" or what are you referring to here. Also honestly, I'm pretty interested in what qualifications you have to make such definite claims - I've got a bachelor's in medicine, but even then, finding heads and tails in medical topics can be difficult, and getting to a point where you can say words like "ever" and "all the data" pretty much don't occur to me. I'm no economist, and I can't claim to have read much research on economics, but the field in general isn't exactly a definite science to begin with.

Oh I knew he wouldn't really have any sources, and I am aware of the point you are making, but I am still curious what would make him want to seemingly orient away from free markets.

Poll: Majority of Americans don't know what's best for them

Poll: Majority of Americans don't understand fascism or other political labels at all because they keep getting spoonfed "definitions" by family members and politicans who are actually social democrats should not label themselves as socialists if they want people who don't understand labels to misunderstand their political stances. There are people that unironically think that fascism is to the left of socialism and that the right-most government is complete anarchy, you need to work as if you're convincing the common denominator at all times to get their votes, and this is why so many of them accepted a lying, stupid silver-spooned simpleton as their current president because they're so easily dooped that a person who has never once in a day of his life been poor could relate to the impoverished.

Socialism is when the government does stuff, and the more stuff it does, the socialister it is

Yes. The only difference between social democracy and democratic socialism is political lineage. Social-democracy is considerably older, dating back to the era of the first international and Marx. Originally, social-democracy was synonymous with socialism and social-democratic parties were where you found radical socialists, except anarchists. This changed with WW1, when the radicals perceived a betrayal of the working class on the part of patriotic social-democratic parties (like the German SPD) that supported the war. They split, destroying the second international, and laid claim to what socialism is. Democratic socialists are born from that split after it discredited itself in a process between the 30s and the 60s, especially in the West after the war (Hungary 1956). Both socialists and social-democrats were seen as people who didn't really care about democracy and practiced a centralized economy. Social-democrats were also becoming more 'pink' and 'neoliberal' as the 20th century moved onward and Western Europe became more prosperous and post-industrial. So, some middle class boomer radicals in the new left era decide they want to create a more liberal alternative to either, in that it would emphasize democracy and decentralization but also reformism (excluding the historic parts of the old left that emphasized those two, like anarchists). This appeals far more to Western liberalism and its post-war middle class political culture. You then get 'democratic socialism'. Today, all you need to know is that it's the catch-all for progressive reaction to perceived failures of 'third way' social liberalism, of which social-democracy is now firmly a part of, which is leading to people digging up old ideologies. There is a similar trend on the right, where conservative reaction to the failures of liberal-conservatism is leading to people digging up an an older, nationalist/traditionalist idea of conservatism.

Markets on their own are inherently unstable. The only people who believe otherwise are economists who view markets from a model that ignores banks, private debt and MONEY. Steve Keen does a pretty good job in explaining it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIaXVntqlUE&feature=youtu.be

You can't say that "all the data supports it" and then post to some 30 minute youtube video. Tudd is, for once in his life, right, you need some academic sources here, which I for one would love to read.

Economics would say you can study parts of an economy as if it was its own economy on itself. Free markets have been tested and proven to be very efficient. even if there are some restricted parts, a strong free market base as most western countries have is very clearly a good thing for the country and its people. I also know this because mercantilism basically went bankrupt because it could not compete.

I said all the data supporting free markets

Whatever, point remains, you need to give us actual scientific sources that show "data supporting free markets is unscientific and outdated" not just claim it and post some youtube video to some channel that obviously has a strong bias.

What do you care about the channel? He's a guest speaker and he's doing all the talking. If you want it on paper the same guy who was in the video has a book on it called 'Debunking Economics'. He's an international award winning economist who predicted the 2008 crash

Yeah see that's what we call an argument from authority. Just because he has awards and just because he predicted something doesn't mean he's right about every single thing he's ever said. A book doesn't mean you're right. Peer-review shows you're right. He may well be right, but you don't get to assert that by claiming "he's an economist so he's right" or "He wrote a book so he's right" or "he's won awards so he's right" There's biologists who have written books and have won awards that deny the fact of evolution, but their ideas are shot down in peer review. That's what I want from you. For example, I can just go: "Richard Salsman is an assistant professor of political economy and a lecturing fellow of political science, who said that John Allison's book "The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure" is correct because he's got letters after his names" The reason why you're not convinced of that stupid sentence is why I'm not convinced of either of those. That's not how science works.

Well that's why you actually bother reading it. His lecture/book isn't him just asserting a list of opinions that you must believe

Why is it so hard to find peer-reviewed sources? Every scientific field has publicly accessible resources. A light googling shows that Chris Auld's paper "Debunking: Debunking Economics" shows a misuse of calculus and lots of false fundamental assumptions in Keen's book. So where are we now? Has Steve responded to these allegations in peer-review or is he too busy writing columns for Russia Today and appearing on talk shows than doing research?

I have actually posted the same threads quite often despite some resentment, and I have quite abit of left-leaning threads despite being a Trump Supporter myself. But I am from Voat, so I am not use to such a high context environment. It is pretty free-for-all over there.

It has nothing to do with being left/right leaning. The fact is that Ben Shapiro has his head shoved up his ass about 99.9% of the time about a lot of things. If you think people hate him because he's right leaning, its the fact he's a dishonest fuck. There is right-leaning people on this forum that are tolerated and that we are fine with discussing. But one thing is for sure, we hate dishonest dipshits who try to skew or manipulate information. Both left and right leaning.

I thought Voat was actually riddled with nazis. So much so it makes it hard for voat to profit

I mean, it is all over the place, but I am not sure how it would ever make a profit since it purposely hosts controversial views. I typically use reddit otherwise.