Christina Elson, the executive director of the Center for the Study of Capitalism at Wake Forest University, told Business Insider that many young people had embraced an idea she calls "safety capitalism."
Ah yes, the executive director for the center for the study of capitalism says young folks want capitalism.
Come the fuck on.
Oh yeah. That sounds like exactly the person who would come up with a stupid fucking buzzword to get an article written they can use to show they understand capitalism extra well.
"You hear about 'billionaires should be outlawed' â that really isn't the issue," Elson previously told BI regarding Gen Zers' concerns. "The issue is the bottom. What is the appropriate bottom living standard for an American citizen, and what role should the government have in ensuring that people don't fall below that?"
Yes, this sad situation over here has absolutely nothing to do with sociopathic pursuit of a high score in our totally unflawed economic system.
What is the appropriate bottom living standard for an American citizen, and what role should the government have in ensuring that people don't fall below that?"
Wow. She really said those words. Like with a straight face.
Absolutely knew she was going to get quoted and then said these words.
They could not possibly have more regressive framing - gross. What a sad attempt at sleight of hand.
The lack of safety net is a feature of late-stage capitalism, not a flaw.
It was also a feature of early stage capitalism. But instead of analysing features, it's better to orginize and fight for political change
Exactly, but my point is their view isn't big enough, it's the entire system that facilitates this to be the case. We need political change on a foundational level, like getting rid of 2 senators per state and the electoral college.
I agree with you in principle, but honestly, if we can get countries like the U.S. in the same position as Scandinavia in terms of a social safety net, that would be such a vast improvement over the status quo and it would be far easier to achieve.
Yep, I don't understand this. Do people really think the euro countries aren't built upon capitalism?
Lol "safety capitalism" the editors wouldn't even let them say socialist. Just the state of the world in 2024 -fight harder, people. I personally can't handle what this shit does to my blood pressure anymore
I think it's a smart move actually. The right is really good at turning a good word/description into "pure evil." They killed socialism so keep the dynamics and change the name.
It's like the morons that were asked if they liked Obamacare and if they liked the affordable care act. It's the same thing but people said they hate Obamacare but liked the affordable care act... Right wing brainwashing at its finest...
I feel like that's the reason I tend to preach anarchism over communism in general and don't doubt you're right about the statistics and propaganda playing into perception but I can't help but feel like here that comes off as rehabilating the image of capitalism. We can make a softer bed of knives or make one out of foam- I know which one I'm choosing
Ain't no one getting excited about any kind of capitalism any more đ¤Žđ¤˘
Except those that profit by it ... and that group will shrink as the middle class is torn apart.
The middle class is gone friend. For 99% of America two educated working full-time adults don't earn the same purchasing power as one of their grandfather's.
Anyone who insists that there's a middle class is delusional
Any home owner is delusional if they think their home ownership would survive a single cancer diagnosis.
The system is designed to ensure that you'll lose everything by the end, no matter what. The only peaceful resistance we have left is to refuse to breed, denying them more chattal.
My friend, we can all stop going to work before we stop breeding.
Let there be lots of fucking!
Oh I never said no fucking, just no babies. There be ways, Im telling ya, there be waaaaaays.
If we are just cogs in their machine with no chance of meaningful existence; why the fuck should we harbor the cost of our replacements? That's just another subsidy to them, and I cant fucking stand seeing the people who SHOULD pay, MORALLY, have everything gifted to them. It's fucking disgusting.
My friend, they've convinced you you are trapped and can't take everything back.
You made me look! It looks like the younger demographics (under 30) were about evenly split on favorable/disfavorable views of both capitalism and socialism in 2022. Pew Research Link
It skews more toward capitalism for each older age bracket, which makes intuitive sense. Regardless, some interesting stats in there.
We dont have capitalism, we have some corporate-government oligarchy where we keep giving them more power for some reason. They let us yell about a couple little things while they keep circulating the power by taking our rights.
Well, what you describe as not capitalism actually is capitalism...
Theoretically, in the sort of free-market capitalism conservatives claim to espouse, the endless handouts and tax breaks to corporations would not happen.
Part of the issue is that people like them think that the government is a business and should compete like any other business, but that is not part of a free-market capitalist system as they supposedly envision.
Not that I agree with any of it, I'm a socialist. But, unlike them, not a socialist for corporations.
People like to pretend a bunch of other things are part of capitalism that have nothing to do with it.
That's Capitalism, lmao
How is the biggest government in history of the world capitalism?
Corporations entrenching their power via statist means is a function of Capitalism. As Capitalists gain power over markets, they too gain influence over the state.
The government itself is only an issue if it's a bourgeois state, like it is in America. A bourgeois state will act in the interests of the bourgeoisie over the Proletariat and petite bourgeoisie, because the few that make up the bourgeoisie have more money and influence than the entirety of the Proletariat when it comes to political and media influence.
The state intervention is not part of capitalism, that is the exact opposite. You can say it is an inevitable consequence and I would agree to some extent, but what is happening in america is a corrupt system having nothing to do with capitalism. When the federal government controls the currency supply, and takes something like 5 trillion out of the system, that is nothing capitalistic to that.
You seem to not understand what Capitalism is.
Capitalism doesn't simply mean "markets."
Capitalism is a Mode of Production by which individual Capital Owners buy and sell Capital, with which they pay wage laborers to use said Capital to produce Commodities in an M-C-M' circuit, where M is a money supply, C is the commodity produced using M money, and M' is the greater sum of Money.
The federal government being twisted by Capitalists that have grown to excessively large statuses with dragon hoards of their own in order to protect their interests is 100% the result of Capitalism.
The corruption absolutely is due to Capitalism, and to pretend it isn't is intentional blindness.
I agree with most of what you are saying, but I disagree that it is a necessary part. Corruption is inherent in every system that I am aware of, but it doesnt need to be part of it. Right now, we could reduce the federal government to 1/10th of what it is with no problems, and that would be closer to true capitalism. The system currently just recirculates the money to the rich because the governmet is so big and it controls what we do.
There is no one true capitalism.
I get it, but things are more and less capitalistic, and we are quite far from capitalism.
On the contrary, we are one of the most Capitalist nations on the planet.
You're frankly wrong.
The federal government provides invaluable services that help the Proletariat, such as social safety nets. These cannot be gotten rid of. Same with the education system. Same with union protections, minimum wage, OSHA, and other invaluable worker protections.
If we went to a more Laissez-faire system (we have true Capitalism now, Laissez-faire is no more "true," just less statist), we would have far more problems, and the state would build itself back even more exploitative and ruthless.
You have to abolish Capitalism to get rid of its corruption.
The discussion on if what the government does is good or bad is a separate discussion, I am just pointing out that almost all of it is not necessary for the function of the economy. And the bigger the government is, the more they control what we do, and the more the power get taken from us and given to the wealthy directly from the government power, which is the opposite of capitalism.
Almost all of it is necessary.
The bigger the government does not actually mean your liberties are taken away. Single Payer Healthcare would be a massive expansion of government yet would give far more freedom to the people than the current Capitalist pharmaceutical industry. Government size doesn't correlate with increased control and decreased rights, Capitalism does.
The wealthy building government to further entrench them is Capitalism at work, it is not the opposite.
I'm not sure why you don't understand this, you're literally on an anti-capitalist structure to avoid the issues of Capitalist Reddit.
I agree that it can be big but also benefit the people more which is why the Scandinavian countries are higher typically on the economic freedom index. I dont think that is what our government is. Literally the biggest issue I have in my work (real estate and housing) is the government. The government is what makes housing expensive and devalues your wages, and none of that needs to happen, its all anti-capitalist policy decisions that happen because the government is so big.
Capitalism requires the state to function. Directly with all the laws, regulations, and courts that allow businesses to exist as legal entities, determine who owns private property, contract law, etc. Indirectly, because capitalism tends to collapse every 10 years or so, and without safety nets or bailouts, there would be a revolution.
I agree, but that system you are referring to is a very very small part of the current government. And no, capitalism doesnt just collaspe via revolution every 10 years, its the most stable system.
Capitalism does collapse ~10 years in the U.S., and requires great intervention by the government or federal reserve. E.g. 1981, 1990, 2000, 2008, 2020. I'm arguing that without the intervention or social safety nets, and families started starving, there would be a revolution.
Sigh, the federal reserves is literally the reason "capitalism" is going to fail. If you want I can explain what the federal reserve does and how it harm you, but you guys never seem to want to know that information.
I understand the Fed pretty well. I'm going to assume you listen to the Austrian economic school, or are just a crypto bro, whereas I tend to like the New Keyenesian school; as long as we're keeping a capitalist system. Austrian school lacks mathematical rigor and libertarians just like it just because it's prescriptions align with their ideaology, IMO.
Of all the groups the libertarians are the only ones that actually understand economics. Both of the major parties live in imaginary money land where the fed solves problems and save the world. The issue with the fed is direct and obvious.
safety capitalism has to be the most absurd stand in for socialism or welfare I've ever heard lmao
Really reaching new levels of copium
Who the hell cares, so long as it leads to some fundamental changes
If it is adopted we can refer to it as babby's first socialism, right before the c-suites are rightfully purged and execs replaced with the workers on the floor
those other words have been coopted by the right so i get it
I wouldnt say stand in for socialism unless they're talking about socilism. It sounds like they're talking about capitalism with social benefits.
I dunno. I like the one where the workers vote for who the boss at the factory is and then they all take home a share of the profits.
Workers rights were earned in blood. Not a lot of people know that.
By design
More like return2breakingdownthefactoryownerâsdoorandbeatinghimtodeathinfrontofhisfamily, right? Woof thatâs a mouthful, maybe not. But still,
The latest iteration of the same "younger people more left wing" article newspapers have been writing for 60 years.
Except that that is slowly no longer being the case.
Millennials where promised we get more conservative over time and for many the opposite appears true. Even gen x is in many ways already more left wing then the boomers.
To me it appears as the boomer generation was fed so much propaganda after the war it became ingrained in society, it took a few generations to finally get it out our system but it is starting to happen. The kids will be alright.
Iâve thought a lot about it these past several years and I agree with you. Boomers were so propandized before there were any protections that they had no choice but to be narcissistic and materialistic.
The old will be dragged kicking and screaming into progress, as usual.
that is slowly no longer being the case
Proceeds to agree with the comment that young people are more left
Did you accidentally a word there? Cuz you agree with the guy you're responding to.
The comment above indicated that this is the same old story as it always been. It had a reminiscent of the myth that you become more conservative with age.
The way i see it, this is not the case, times are changing and in many ways they are already different.
So yes i agree that in effect young people are more left but it has nothing to do with biological age. The next generation after z may have a serious chance of being free from the cycle, being about as left as their parents.
I think a more fair statement then âthe young are more
Leftâ would be âpostwar propaganda made people anti-left witch became part of intergenerational trauma.â This is evidenced by how the word socialism can already trigger people into becoming upset, that is not normal.
Who comes up with these words? Boomers inventing their own propaganda
This already has a name: a welfare state or socialism. No need to pull made up terms out of your ass.
I'm fully on board with calling it "safety capitalism" or even "jesus reckoning savior economics" if i get what I want. at this point most of America just tunes out "socialism"
current social safety net is broken
To shreds, you say?
This is the stupidest article I've ever read.
My brain says this is related to Safety Dance, and I don't dance.
I'm here to let you know that you can dance if you want to.
But my friends don't dance...
If they don't dance then... Fuck em.
Sadly, they don't do that, either.
Net? There was a net?
That's not a safety net they are looking for, that's pay me while I fuck off and spend on credit for 20 years.
Ah yes, the executive director for the center for the study of capitalism says young folks want capitalism.
Come the fuck on.
Oh yeah. That sounds like exactly the person who would come up with a stupid fucking buzzword to get an article written they can use to show they understand capitalism extra well.
Yes, this sad situation over here has absolutely nothing to do with sociopathic pursuit of a high score in our totally unflawed economic system.
Wow. She really said those words. Like with a straight face.
Absolutely knew she was going to get quoted and then said these words.
They could not possibly have more regressive framing - gross. What a sad attempt at sleight of hand.
The lack of safety net is a feature of late-stage capitalism, not a flaw.
It was also a feature of early stage capitalism. But instead of analysing features, it's better to orginize and fight for political change
Exactly, but my point is their view isn't big enough, it's the entire system that facilitates this to be the case. We need political change on a foundational level, like getting rid of 2 senators per state and the electoral college.
I agree with you in principle, but honestly, if we can get countries like the U.S. in the same position as Scandinavia in terms of a social safety net, that would be such a vast improvement over the status quo and it would be far easier to achieve.
Yep, I don't understand this. Do people really think the euro countries aren't built upon capitalism?
Lol "safety capitalism" the editors wouldn't even let them say socialist. Just the state of the world in 2024 -fight harder, people. I personally can't handle what this shit does to my blood pressure anymore
I think it's a smart move actually. The right is really good at turning a good word/description into "pure evil." They killed socialism so keep the dynamics and change the name.
It's like the morons that were asked if they liked Obamacare and if they liked the affordable care act. It's the same thing but people said they hate Obamacare but liked the affordable care act... Right wing brainwashing at its finest...
I feel like that's the reason I tend to preach anarchism over communism in general and don't doubt you're right about the statistics and propaganda playing into perception but I can't help but feel like here that comes off as rehabilating the image of capitalism. We can make a softer bed of knives or make one out of foam- I know which one I'm choosing
Ain't no one getting excited about any kind of capitalism any more đ¤Žđ¤˘
Except those that profit by it ... and that group will shrink as the middle class is torn apart.
The middle class is gone friend. For 99% of America two educated working full-time adults don't earn the same purchasing power as one of their grandfather's.
Anyone who insists that there's a middle class is delusional
Any home owner is delusional if they think their home ownership would survive a single cancer diagnosis.
The system is designed to ensure that you'll lose everything by the end, no matter what. The only peaceful resistance we have left is to refuse to breed, denying them more chattal.
My friend, we can all stop going to work before we stop breeding.
Let there be lots of fucking!
Oh I never said no fucking, just no babies. There be ways, Im telling ya, there be waaaaaays.
If we are just cogs in their machine with no chance of meaningful existence; why the fuck should we harbor the cost of our replacements? That's just another subsidy to them, and I cant fucking stand seeing the people who SHOULD pay, MORALLY, have everything gifted to them. It's fucking disgusting.
My friend, they've convinced you you are trapped and can't take everything back.
You made me look! It looks like the younger demographics (under 30) were about evenly split on favorable/disfavorable views of both capitalism and socialism in 2022. Pew Research Link
It skews more toward capitalism for each older age bracket, which makes intuitive sense. Regardless, some interesting stats in there.
We dont have capitalism, we have some corporate-government oligarchy where we keep giving them more power for some reason. They let us yell about a couple little things while they keep circulating the power by taking our rights.
Well, what you describe as not capitalism actually is capitalism...
Theoretically, in the sort of free-market capitalism conservatives claim to espouse, the endless handouts and tax breaks to corporations would not happen.
Part of the issue is that people like them think that the government is a business and should compete like any other business, but that is not part of a free-market capitalist system as they supposedly envision.
Not that I agree with any of it, I'm a socialist. But, unlike them, not a socialist for corporations.
People like to pretend a bunch of other things are part of capitalism that have nothing to do with it.
That's Capitalism, lmao
How is the biggest government in history of the world capitalism?
Corporations entrenching their power via statist means is a function of Capitalism. As Capitalists gain power over markets, they too gain influence over the state.
The government itself is only an issue if it's a bourgeois state, like it is in America. A bourgeois state will act in the interests of the bourgeoisie over the Proletariat and petite bourgeoisie, because the few that make up the bourgeoisie have more money and influence than the entirety of the Proletariat when it comes to political and media influence.
The state intervention is not part of capitalism, that is the exact opposite. You can say it is an inevitable consequence and I would agree to some extent, but what is happening in america is a corrupt system having nothing to do with capitalism. When the federal government controls the currency supply, and takes something like 5 trillion out of the system, that is nothing capitalistic to that.
You seem to not understand what Capitalism is.
Capitalism doesn't simply mean "markets."
Capitalism is a Mode of Production by which individual Capital Owners buy and sell Capital, with which they pay wage laborers to use said Capital to produce Commodities in an M-C-M' circuit, where M is a money supply, C is the commodity produced using M money, and M' is the greater sum of Money.
The federal government being twisted by Capitalists that have grown to excessively large statuses with dragon hoards of their own in order to protect their interests is 100% the result of Capitalism.
The corruption absolutely is due to Capitalism, and to pretend it isn't is intentional blindness.
I agree with most of what you are saying, but I disagree that it is a necessary part. Corruption is inherent in every system that I am aware of, but it doesnt need to be part of it. Right now, we could reduce the federal government to 1/10th of what it is with no problems, and that would be closer to true capitalism. The system currently just recirculates the money to the rich because the governmet is so big and it controls what we do.
There is no one true capitalism.
I get it, but things are more and less capitalistic, and we are quite far from capitalism.
On the contrary, we are one of the most Capitalist nations on the planet.
You're frankly wrong.
The federal government provides invaluable services that help the Proletariat, such as social safety nets. These cannot be gotten rid of. Same with the education system. Same with union protections, minimum wage, OSHA, and other invaluable worker protections.
If we went to a more Laissez-faire system (we have true Capitalism now, Laissez-faire is no more "true," just less statist), we would have far more problems, and the state would build itself back even more exploitative and ruthless.
You have to abolish Capitalism to get rid of its corruption.
The discussion on if what the government does is good or bad is a separate discussion, I am just pointing out that almost all of it is not necessary for the function of the economy. And the bigger the government is, the more they control what we do, and the more the power get taken from us and given to the wealthy directly from the government power, which is the opposite of capitalism.
Almost all of it is necessary.
The bigger the government does not actually mean your liberties are taken away. Single Payer Healthcare would be a massive expansion of government yet would give far more freedom to the people than the current Capitalist pharmaceutical industry. Government size doesn't correlate with increased control and decreased rights, Capitalism does.
The wealthy building government to further entrench them is Capitalism at work, it is not the opposite.
I'm not sure why you don't understand this, you're literally on an anti-capitalist structure to avoid the issues of Capitalist Reddit.
I agree that it can be big but also benefit the people more which is why the Scandinavian countries are higher typically on the economic freedom index. I dont think that is what our government is. Literally the biggest issue I have in my work (real estate and housing) is the government. The government is what makes housing expensive and devalues your wages, and none of that needs to happen, its all anti-capitalist policy decisions that happen because the government is so big.
Reddit is authoritarian not capitalist.
Capitalism requires the state to function. Directly with all the laws, regulations, and courts that allow businesses to exist as legal entities, determine who owns private property, contract law, etc. Indirectly, because capitalism tends to collapse every 10 years or so, and without safety nets or bailouts, there would be a revolution.
I agree, but that system you are referring to is a very very small part of the current government. And no, capitalism doesnt just collaspe via revolution every 10 years, its the most stable system.
Capitalism does collapse ~10 years in the U.S., and requires great intervention by the government or federal reserve. E.g. 1981, 1990, 2000, 2008, 2020. I'm arguing that without the intervention or social safety nets, and families started starving, there would be a revolution.
Sigh, the federal reserves is literally the reason "capitalism" is going to fail. If you want I can explain what the federal reserve does and how it harm you, but you guys never seem to want to know that information.
I understand the Fed pretty well. I'm going to assume you listen to the Austrian economic school, or are just a crypto bro, whereas I tend to like the New Keyenesian school; as long as we're keeping a capitalist system. Austrian school lacks mathematical rigor and libertarians just like it just because it's prescriptions align with their ideaology, IMO.
Of all the groups the libertarians are the only ones that actually understand economics. Both of the major parties live in imaginary money land where the fed solves problems and save the world. The issue with the fed is direct and obvious.
That's because all the Communist nations keep failing, and there's only a couple left that haven't already switched to Capitalism.
Which one of these haven't been sabotaged with by a US coup? And let's not pretend there are no failed capitalist countries either
safety capitalism has to be the most absurd stand in for socialism or welfare I've ever heard lmao
Really reaching new levels of copium
Who the hell cares, so long as it leads to some fundamental changes
If it is adopted we can refer to it as babby's first socialism, right before the c-suites are rightfully purged and execs replaced with the workers on the floor
those other words have been coopted by the right so i get it
I wouldnt say stand in for socialism unless they're talking about socilism. It sounds like they're talking about capitalism with social benefits.
I dunno. I like the one where the workers vote for who the boss at the factory is and then they all take home a share of the profits.
Workers rights were earned in blood. Not a lot of people know that.
By design
More like return2breakingdownthefactoryownerâsdoorandbeatinghimtodeathinfrontofhisfamily, right? Woof thatâs a mouthful, maybe not. But still,
The latest iteration of the same "younger people more left wing" article newspapers have been writing for 60 years.
Except that that is slowly no longer being the case.
Millennials where promised we get more conservative over time and for many the opposite appears true. Even gen x is in many ways already more left wing then the boomers.
To me it appears as the boomer generation was fed so much propaganda after the war it became ingrained in society, it took a few generations to finally get it out our system but it is starting to happen. The kids will be alright.
Iâve thought a lot about it these past several years and I agree with you. Boomers were so propandized before there were any protections that they had no choice but to be narcissistic and materialistic.
The old will be dragged kicking and screaming into progress, as usual.
Proceeds to agree with the comment that young people are more left
Did you accidentally a word there? Cuz you agree with the guy you're responding to.
The comment above indicated that this is the same old story as it always been. It had a reminiscent of the myth that you become more conservative with age. The way i see it, this is not the case, times are changing and in many ways they are already different.
So yes i agree that in effect young people are more left but it has nothing to do with biological age. The next generation after z may have a serious chance of being free from the cycle, being about as left as their parents.
I think a more fair statement then âthe young are more Leftâ would be âpostwar propaganda made people anti-left witch became part of intergenerational trauma.â This is evidenced by how the word socialism can already trigger people into becoming upset, that is not normal.
Who comes up with these words? Boomers inventing their own propaganda
This already has a name: a welfare state or socialism. No need to pull made up terms out of your ass.
I'm fully on board with calling it "safety capitalism" or even "jesus reckoning savior economics" if i get what I want. at this point most of America just tunes out "socialism"
To shreds, you say?
This is the stupidest article I've ever read.
My brain says this is related to Safety Dance, and I don't dance.
I'm here to let you know that you can dance if you want to.
But my friends don't dance...
If they don't dance then... Fuck em.
Sadly, they don't do that, either.
Net? There was a net?
That's not a safety net they are looking for, that's pay me while I fuck off and spend on credit for 20 years.