Cost of living ! Great Topic! The world does not just include our country and no other countries but, can you tell me Rick which leader of any country has done more to damage his on country than Trump.He open's his mouth and, out comes lie after lie.No President i have seen elected has said our electoral system is worse than China's or most third world countries.I ask one question if we survive Trump for three more years ?Next President what kind of weight is he or she going to have to carry.
Putin has probably done more damage to Russia than Trump has to America. Orban was bad in Hungary. Generally, Trump is slightly better than the worst dictators!
They do have much higher taxes, which allows for heavily subsidized health care and college tuition, but perhaps more important, far more equitable access to these offerings across the socioeconomic spectrum. But most of these are still free societies with otherwise free-market capitalism (although regulations are likely more onerous than in the US).
At least that is my understanding
If that's Democratic Socialism, sign me up, maybe?
Actually why can't we look for the best aspects of almost libertarian capitalism and true democratic socialism (as exists in western European democracies) and come up with reforms in the US that target minimum 'suffering' across our society (a decent minimum standard of access to healthcare, clean air & water, affordable housing, childcare, college education - all at 'reasonable' cost) without putting caps on how wealthy someone can get? This should be part of our journey on achieving a more perfect union, as the phrase goes
Do they call it democratic socialism in Europe? That is a toxic phrase here in the US. After all, the USSR was a collective of "socialist" republics. What we're really talking about is better ways to manage capitalism. I'm working on ways Democrats can banish "socialism" from their lexicon forever, and replace it with .... ?
Suggestions welcome! We're talking about managed capitalism. Capitalism should be part of the phrase. Capitalism ... 😁
I fully agree about the toxicity of the "social" or "socialist" or "socialism" label in our country. The problem is "unfettered capitalism". When Mamdani says "I have a problem with capitalism", doesn't he realize how many voters he's losing? Plus his real problem is with unfettered or unregulated capitalism. I like the "managed capitalism" term much better and I agree that 'capitalism' must be part of the label for whatever system Dems talk about.
(BTW some of the things Trump is doing, like having the US gov't take a financial stake in corporations or putting his finger on the scale for his super-rich buddies, is kinda the old 'socialism' thing all over again, but ofc his base is fine with whatever he says/does bc it's him saying/doing it!)
And to answer your first question, no, they don't widely call it democratic socialism in most of Europe. But I know Norway is referred to as a 'social democracy' which appears to be their label for what you or I would call 'managed' or 'appropriately regulated' capitalism in these here parts (not that this latter label - quite a mouthful - would ever fly in practice!).
One description I've heard is that in true communist countries, nobody could become a billionaire as there's no free enterprise etc but the State would try to make sure everyone got basic needs met (but the experiment didn't quite work out that well in the USSR and the Eastern bloc now, did it?!!). In unfettered capitalism, anyone can become a billionaire but there would be no social safety net, so you could have extreme wealth and lots of extreme poverty co-existing. In a happy medium / ideal system, you'd have free markets and vigorous competition, allowing anyone to become a billionaire, but you'd also have enough of a social safety net that there are no pockets of sustained extreme poverty.
I fail to understand why our pols can't pursue this kind of happy medium (like managed capitalism) and why they instead tend to gravitate towards one of the extremes.
Europe has a lot of problems but I think overall they seem to have done better than the US on lowering the disparities between the rich and the poor while still having free markets and competition etc.
Cost of living ! Great Topic! The world does not just include our country and no other countries but, can you tell me Rick which leader of any country has done more to damage his on country than Trump.He open's his mouth and, out comes lie after lie.No President i have seen elected has said our electoral system is worse than China's or most third world countries.I ask one question if we survive Trump for three more years ?Next President what kind of weight is he or she going to have to carry.
Putin has probably done more damage to Russia than Trump has to America. Orban was bad in Hungary. Generally, Trump is slightly better than the worst dictators!
Health care and college tuition are next to nothing in those other countries. But all good to know. Thnx
Excellent point. More coming on this in the future, it's a huge deal.
They do have much higher taxes, which allows for heavily subsidized health care and college tuition, but perhaps more important, far more equitable access to these offerings across the socioeconomic spectrum. But most of these are still free societies with otherwise free-market capitalism (although regulations are likely more onerous than in the US).
At least that is my understanding
If that's Democratic Socialism, sign me up, maybe?
Actually why can't we look for the best aspects of almost libertarian capitalism and true democratic socialism (as exists in western European democracies) and come up with reforms in the US that target minimum 'suffering' across our society (a decent minimum standard of access to healthcare, clean air & water, affordable housing, childcare, college education - all at 'reasonable' cost) without putting caps on how wealthy someone can get? This should be part of our journey on achieving a more perfect union, as the phrase goes
Do they call it democratic socialism in Europe? That is a toxic phrase here in the US. After all, the USSR was a collective of "socialist" republics. What we're really talking about is better ways to manage capitalism. I'm working on ways Democrats can banish "socialism" from their lexicon forever, and replace it with .... ?
Suggestions welcome! We're talking about managed capitalism. Capitalism should be part of the phrase. Capitalism ... 😁
I fully agree about the toxicity of the "social" or "socialist" or "socialism" label in our country. The problem is "unfettered capitalism". When Mamdani says "I have a problem with capitalism", doesn't he realize how many voters he's losing? Plus his real problem is with unfettered or unregulated capitalism. I like the "managed capitalism" term much better and I agree that 'capitalism' must be part of the label for whatever system Dems talk about.
(BTW some of the things Trump is doing, like having the US gov't take a financial stake in corporations or putting his finger on the scale for his super-rich buddies, is kinda the old 'socialism' thing all over again, but ofc his base is fine with whatever he says/does bc it's him saying/doing it!)
And to answer your first question, no, they don't widely call it democratic socialism in most of Europe. But I know Norway is referred to as a 'social democracy' which appears to be their label for what you or I would call 'managed' or 'appropriately regulated' capitalism in these here parts (not that this latter label - quite a mouthful - would ever fly in practice!).
One description I've heard is that in true communist countries, nobody could become a billionaire as there's no free enterprise etc but the State would try to make sure everyone got basic needs met (but the experiment didn't quite work out that well in the USSR and the Eastern bloc now, did it?!!). In unfettered capitalism, anyone can become a billionaire but there would be no social safety net, so you could have extreme wealth and lots of extreme poverty co-existing. In a happy medium / ideal system, you'd have free markets and vigorous competition, allowing anyone to become a billionaire, but you'd also have enough of a social safety net that there are no pockets of sustained extreme poverty.
I fail to understand why our pols can't pursue this kind of happy medium (like managed capitalism) and why they instead tend to gravitate towards one of the extremes.
Europe has a lot of problems but I think overall they seem to have done better than the US on lowering the disparities between the rich and the poor while still having free markets and competition etc.
Sorry for going on and on...