I defy you to indicate any such implication from my response. There is all manner of socialism in every system out there (public roads, free education, parks etc etc)
This is where this discussion always goes. Somebody (in this case, you) comes up with a watered down definition of “socialism” which includes infrastructure (infrastructure responsibility is the government’s, whether you’re a socialist or capitalist, doesn’t matter), education (not free in the least, paid for by property taxes on a graduated scale based on valuation, and besides, is not an example of the government taking over a means of production), and parks? PARKS? That’s all you’ve got?
Here, let me help: SOCIALIZED WELFARE AND SHARED FACILITIES ARE NOT EXAMPLES OF “SOCIALISM”.
Socialism is when the government takes over a productive enterprise and decides it’s going to own it and run it. If the social service depends on taxation, it’s no longer a “means of production”.
Example: Social security is not a “means of production”; it can’t stand on its own two feet without taxation. Medicare is not a “means of production”; it can’t stand on its own two feet without taxation. Infrastructure is not a “means of production”; it requires taxation (bonds, usually) in order to be created.
Now, if we moved to a health care system where all health care professionals, hospitals, and clinical facilities were employed by or owned by the government….. THEN you’d have an example of socialism, because they had taken over a means of production that stood on its own two feet WITHOUT taxation, and brought it under government control. But we don’t.
You accuse me of using a “Fox News definition”. I have no idea, since I don’t have cable. But, use a real definition of socialism, and not one that you’ve pulled from some crap lefty agitprop website. The discussion will go better if you do.
My logic? You are a supply-sider. You reject “the virus” of socialism adamantly. Care to modify your stance? I’m all ears.
Good. Rejecting socialism means that you embrace something else. That “something else” is simply capitalism, for my part. “Demand side” and “supply side” economics are both parts of capitalism. You can believe in one, or the other, or in my view, EITHER, depending on the economic realities on the ground at the time you want to implement policy.
In my view, anyone who says they are a “demand sider” or a “supply sider” and that the other side NEVER WORKS is a moron. If there is unmet demand in the economy and taxation/policy/regs are preventing that demand from being met, you better damn well be a supply sider if you want to fix the problem. OTOH, if there’s overSUPPLY in an economy and taxation/policy/regs are preventing that supply from being allocated, you better become a demand sider pretty quick.
It;s really not all that difficult. As Keynes said, “When the facts change, I change my mind.” The problem is that in our politics today, nobody ever changes their mind. They dig into their positions like a bull fixin’ to charge, and they’ll never change for nothin’.
Pardon my French. Just plug in “supply side” for “trickle down.”
Best not. The definition of even those two items is not the same. They are not synonyms. Trickle down is a special situation within supply side thought which assumes a condition where the rich are sitting on their money AND investment capital in the economy is hard to come by. Certainly not the situation we see today. But it WAS the situation at various times in the past, which is why (best example) the Harding/Coolidge tax cuts pulled us out of the WW1 recession, and kicked off the Roaring 20’s.
Educated Fox News elitist wannabees are buying it hand over fist.
See above. No cable. And even when I did, years ago, I found all of their pundits unwatchable. I hate to break it to you, but there is nothing radical about the way I view economics. You can paint it as “extreme” all you like, but that’s just because you disagree with it. What I propose is pretty garden variety stuff; standard economics that leans libertarian/monetarist/Austrian, because I’m biased towards individual self-determination rather than collective action, but certainly doesn’t ignore the demand side, if the situation warrants. Von Mises probably would have called ME a socialist, because I’m not an Austrian purist.
As for the “who’s paying you” bit? Okay, so I stooped. Sue me.
Ignore you seems to be more apropos.