Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One last one, and then a good day to you. Hope this also helps, but I'm becoming less optimistic...
A simple definition, "Capitalism is an economic system and an ideology based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit."
Given this definition, as long as private ownership, production and operation for profit is pervasive (like it is in America), then whatever else might also occur, like say the bailout of a failed business that is also for many about protecting profits and/or realizing future profits, does not suddenly mean that America no longer embraces an ideology based on private ownership blah, blah, blah...
Maybe what you should do is find any definition of capitalism that prevents the likes from occurring, because as long as ownership, production and profit making is in the hands of the private sector, like it is here in America (where 40 percent of the wealth is in the hands of 1 percent who own it), then you can bet that as long as a buck is going to be protected and/or made, with or without the help of government, then that's most certainly allowed -- if not encouraged -- here in America!
The government owned GM for awhile. Where do we find that in Capitalism. You require an exact fit for one but get all squishy over the other.
Nowhere in Capitalism do we find the government taking over business nor bailing out failed businesses by taking from others.
I feel that asking you where in Capitalism we find the government bailing out a failed business is a good one but so far you have ignored it.
Anyone else?
Patience, patience...
Seems it is also important to note that if we're going to get into these terms describing political and economic theory, a bit more time than what it takes to spit out a bumper sticker answer should be allowed. So much for thank you. Anyone else? Please!
Now back to the title of this thread as I sign off...
True the Dow breaks 25,000, but also NOT TRUE this means Trump is anything of the sort!!!
The government owned GM for awhile. Where do we find that in Capitalism. You require an exact fit for one but get all squishy over the other.
Nowhere in Capitalism do we find the government taking over business nor bailing out failed businesses by taking from others.
Wrong again...
Pointing at what is proper definition of these terms is perhaps to require "an exact fit," at least to better understand the truth of these matters (politics/economics), better than further confusing these issues with more confusion anyway. Nothing "squishy" about how the U.S. government is involved in/with private/capitalist enterprise either!
Only thing "squishy" here is your understanding about the topics you are trying to address...
Might say the government "took over business" as you do, but again that's not really what happened, not long-term anyway. Those were government loans intended to extend -- save -- the life of our auto manufacturing industry, not take it over, as proven by the fact those companies paid back those loans (with interest) and ownership remains in private hands, not government. What's not capitalistic about that?
Have you any idea how many government loans are made to help businesses? That mean we don't adhere to the principles of capitalism here? Does the fact that we have a food stamp program also mean we are not capitalist? You going to argue that means America is socialist instead? Argue away, but that's all a little to "squishy" for anyone who knows that America and most countries are not so all black or white in these regards.
We can argue what is good public policy or not, why and why not. Sure, but to argue the right or wrong of a policy, because it is "socialist" and/or not "capitalist" like you are trying to do makes little sense to people who know what these terms actually mean, especially in the context of just about every modern advanced society that tends to be a good mix of several "isms" rather than entirely one or another.
Wish it were all as simple as you want to make it, but just ain't...
I was watching CNN a couple months ago and economist predicted the stock will start to fall in the fall of 2018 ,and that we could be in recession in 2019 possibly making Trump a 1 term president. I personally have no idea what will happen next or if Trump will be re-elected, impeached or whatever. What I do know is the last recession we had was 10 years ago in 2008.
Every president seems to have inherited a recession or have a recession occur in there first term. Reagan had recession in his first term, Bush Sr had a recession occur in his first term making him a 1 term president. Clinton inherited a bad economy ,and Bush Jr had mild recession in his first term as well. Of course we already what know what Obama had to deal with. So my question to all of you is do you honestly believe Trump is just gonna breeze by these four years without a recession? I've stated before every president since Reagan had a recession in there first term it would be a miracle if one does not happen for 14 years. I don't know time will tell if Trump is just riding Obama's coattails like some you are claiming or If he will actually create up to 25 million Jobs in a decade.
Why bother bantering about that nonsense in the first place? There were people making predictions of all sorts back before the election was over. Now too. That will never stop. Google for whatever floats your boat, but why forever waste the time on that sort of playground nana nana nana nonsense instead of focusing our attention on the REASONS Trump is deserving of whatever praise or criticism he is getting TODAY?
Pointing at what is proper definition of these terms is perhaps to require "an exact fit," at least to better understand the truth of these matters (politics/economics), better than further confusing these issues with more confusion anyway. Nothing "squishy" about how the U.S. government is involved in/with private/capitalist enterprise either!
Only thing "squishy" here is your understanding about the topics you are trying to address...
Might say the government "took over business" as you do, but again that's not really what happened, not long-term anyway. Those were government loans intended to extend -- save -- the life of our auto manufacturing industry, not take it over, as proven by the fact those companies paid back those loans (with interest) and ownership remains in private hands, not government. What's not capitalistic about that?
U.S. sells last of GM shares, ending 'Government Motors' era
Where in Capitalism do we find the government owning shares of a supposedly private business?
Quote:
Have you any idea how many government loans are made to help businesses? That mean we don't adhere to the principles of capitalism here? Does the fact that we have a food stamp program also mean we are not capitalist? You going to argue that means America is socialist instead? Argue away, but that's all a little to "squishy" for anyone who knows that America and most countries are not so all black or white in these regards.
We can argue what is good public policy or not, why and why not. Sure, but to argue the right or wrong of a policy, because it is "socialist" and/or not "capitalist" like you are trying to do makes little sense to people who know what these terms actually mean, especially in the context of just about every modern advanced society that tends to be a good mix of several "isms" rather than entirely one or another.
Wish it were all as simple as you want to make it, but just ain't...
I can as easily say "are not food stamps a socialist program so are we not Socialists"?
Everyone supports socialist programs when it benefits them even if they have to call it something else.
No, it was a prediction. NO ONE PARROTS ANYTHING AS FACT......WHEN IT HASN'T HAPPENED.
Predictions is what analysts do, and have been doing for ages. Leading up to the elections, analysts saw market changes, and they based their predictions on what they see, but predictions are just that.....PREDICTIONS.
From the page linked:
Quote:
"However, if Donald Trump were to win, that outcome would have been unexpected and thereby may cause a jump in the equity risk premium."
Quote:
The Citi forecast is one of the first to come out since the FBI revealed the emails and the polls tightened. The research firm Macroeconomic Advisers forecast in early October that a Trump win would result in an 8% drop in U.S. stocks due to uncertainty about his economic and trade policies. The Brookings Institute projects a 10% to 15% plunge in stocks if Trump wins.
CNN is reported on what outside sources were predicting. This was NOT CNN's claim. So stop trying to pin this on them.
Why bother bantering about that nonsense in the first place?
Doesn't fit you narrative, so ad hominem fallacy. We see how it is to your argument.
The exact same people who lined up to claim the economy would crash if Trump was elected, are now loath to give him an inch of credit for it today. It speaks for itself.
I was watching CNN a couple months ago and economist predicted the stock will start to fall in the fall of 2018 ,and that we could be in recession in 2019 possibly making Trump a 1 term president. I personally have no idea what will happen next or if Trump will be re-elected, impeached or whatever. What I do know is the last recession we had was 10 years ago in 2008.
Every president seems to have inherited a recession or have a recession occur in there first term. Reagan had recession in his first term, Bush Sr had a recession occur in his first term making him a 1 term president. Clinton inherited a bad economy ,and Bush Jr had mild recession in his first term as well. Of course we already what know what Obama had to deal with. So my question to all of you is do you honestly believe Trump is just gonna breeze by these four years without a recession? I've stated before every president since Reagan had a recession in there first term it would be a miracle if one does not happen for 14 years. I don't know time will tell if Trump is just riding Obama's coattails like some you are claiming or If he will actually create up to 25 million Jobs in a decade.
What we do know is Trump didn't hit his own target for job growth in his first year. 25 million/10 years is 2.5 million a year. He is about 500 thousand short.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
