[Doug64]

Lol. What are these oh so scary "wrong" opinions to which people supposedly are never exposed?

Oh, minor things like the fact that capitalism really does make an entire society wealthier, including the poor; that people aren't poor because other people are evil bigots; that cops really do care about the people they serve, they aren't just armed bigoted thugs on power trips; that the problem with socialism and welfare statism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money; that sort of thing.

[mikema63]

I have to walk by no less than three or four organizations and their booths advocating for those issues. Any economics class your going to take will push classical economic views of capitalism along with the other schools.

Really the only thing you don't hear is the very last because college deals in complex analysis of ideology and beliefs, even the campus libertarians don't usually reduce the complexity of socialist thought down to that kind of simplistic rhetoric.

You get your view of the modern college from websites who only ever post the videos of the craziest left winger they can find that week.

We have all the colors of crazy in real life.

[Doug64]

You get your view of the modern college from websites who only ever post the videos of the craziest left winger they can find that week.

Actually, I get much of my view of modern colleges from the reports of their acquiescence to the latest fascists to emerge violently suppressing speech. Much of the rest comes from the way the colleges themselves seek to suppress speech. It'll be interesting to see how the two conservative student groups suing Berkley do in court. Of course they're in California, so I expect they'll consistently lose until it gets to the Supreme Court.

But we're getting a bit off-topic.

[Doug64]

Here's this week's round-up of polls. Anyone that wants to check out any possible links over the next week can go to the link to the left. (Anyone wanting more details on a particular poll, just ask):

Given the passage of the Republican bill to repeal and replace Obamacare in the House last week, one might have thought that health care would dominate the headlines this week. But news moves fast in the Trump administration.

On Tuesday, President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, who was leading an investigation into Russia’s connection to the 2016 presidential election. Trump in an interview Thursday said he had been considering firing the “showboat” Comey for months, and that the investigation into the “made up” Russian story played into his decision. Rasmussen Reports will release new survey findings about Comey’s firing early next week.

Voters are more convinced that outside forces cost Hillary Clinton the election, but despite the finger-pointing at Comey as one of those forces, Comey is more trusted than Clinton.

Late last year, 40% of voters who felt outside factors cost Clinton the election said Comey’s announcement that the FBI was reopening its investigation into Clinton’s emails was the biggest factor. Twenty-one percent (21%) said Russian interference in the U.S. election was the most likely reason for Clinton’s defeat.

Most disagreed with Comey’s decision last year not to seek a criminal indictment of Clinton for her mishandling of classified information while secretary of State, and 60% agreed with his decision to go public about the FBI’s reopening of the Clinton investigation just before Election Day.

Speaking of Russia, disdain among U.S. voters for Russian leader Vladimir Putin has reached a new high.

As tensions rise with North Korea and Russia, Americans suspect a nuclear war is coming, but they’re also more confident than they have been in years that the United States will still be the world’s dominant power at the end of the century.

As President Trump and the Republicans’ new health care plan makes its way through the Senate, voters admit they like the health care they’re currently receiving but still see the need to fix Obamacare.

Voters tend to believe it’s the government’s job to make sure Americans have health care, even though they doubt the government will do it fairly and question whether taxpayers can afford it.

Support for a single-payer health care system reached a new high despite voters’ views that it will increase health care costs and hurt the quality of care.

Once hot sentiments on the direction of the economy and personal finances following President Trump’s inauguration are now cooling, and so is consumer spending.

While most Americans still say they know someone out of a job, that number has fallen to its lowest level yet, as has the number who know someone who has given up on the job market. But even though the national unemployment rate has fallen to a 10-year low, adults aren’t totally convinced the job market is better than it was a year ago.

Tomorrow is Mother’s Day, but few Americans see it as the nation's most important holiday, and the number who consider motherhood the most important job for a woman is at its lowest level yet.

In other surveys last week:

-- President Donald Trump signed an executive order that seeks to overturn the Johnson Amendment barring tax-exempt organizations like churches from participating in politics or political campaigns. Many worry this blurs the line between church and state, but most voters feel churches and other similar organizations should have a proverbial seat at the political table.

-- Thirty-nine percent (39%) of voters said the country is heading in the right direction for the week ending May 4.

-- Voters are not likely to say the average congressional representative shares their views. They’re not even convinced their own representative does.

[Drlee]

Oh, minor things like the fact that capitalism really does make an entire society wealthier,

This is not objectively true.

including the poor;

The concept of "wealthier poor" is laughable. Surely you would not want to make this case. It is self-defeating. Other systems eliminate poverty. Including one proposed by President Nixon.

that people aren't poor because other people are evil bigots;

So you would like to posit that poor people are poor solely because of some character flaw?

While you are at it you wish that colleges would teach that African Americans do not experience a lack of opportunity because of bigotry; historical and present? You want colleges to teach something that is objectively untrue?

that cops really do care about the people they serve, they aren't just armed bigoted thugs on power trips;

So you want the colleges to ignore the few cops who are "little more than armed thugs on power trips"? For you see Doug, departments all over the nation are grappling with this problem and officers are fired or trained every day for this specific problem. That would mean, yet again, you want colleges to ignore these problems and teach that all cops are just fine. They aren't. And they know it even if you don't.

that the problem with socialism and welfare statism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money; that sort of thing.

Colleges do not teach pop-economics. They teach real economics. And in much greater detail than some libertard talking point. Actually your assertion that in socialism or welfare "statism" "sooner or later you run out of other people's money" is not necessarily true. History shows us that in our own country. The truth (were you interested in knowing it, and you aren't) is that all is a matter of the distribution of wealth. In our own country and in my lifetime it used to be much better. In nations all over the world there are myriad examples of advantageous social welfare programs (such as single payer health care) that redistribute wealth and are far more effective than ours. Colleges ought to teach that, inconvenient as it may be by the tools of the wealthy now serving as republican politicians.

Your words are classic examples of the very first step in autocratic rule. First control or get rid of the smart people who can show you for what you really are. I have no doubt that you believe what you say. I have no doubt that you are disinclined to even listen to counter arguments. I have no doubt that your shallow beliefs are leading you to incorrect conclusions but that the strength of those beliefs also lead you to look for scapegoats. Don't condemn good scholarship just because it exposes you to the truth.

And before you use the term "fascist" again, learn what it means. As Cartertonian once said to a poster, "leave no chink in your armor".

[Doug64]

This is not objectively true.

Yes, it is. Compare the per capita GDP of the nations around the world.

The concept of "wealthier poor" is laughable.

Do you really want to compare the poor in the US to the poor in, say, Guatemala?

So you would like to posit that poor people are poor solely because of some character flaw?

There's three words in your sentence I didn't use: "solely" and "character flaw."

While you are at it you wish that colleges would teach that African Americans do not experience a lack of opportunity because of bigotry; historical and present? You want colleges to teach something that is objectively untrue?

Please prove that Blacks and other minorities in the US currently experience a lack of opportunity because of bigotry. My workplace has I don't know how many minorities working there, including upper management. They don't seem to be suffering a "lack of opportunity because of bigotry."

So you want the colleges to ignore the few cops who are "little more than armed thugs on power trips"?

No, I want them to recognize that they are the "few."

Colleges do not teach pop-economics. They teach real economics. And in much greater detail than some libertard talking point. Actually your assertion that in socialism or welfare "statism" "sooner or later you run out of other people's money" is not necessarily true. History shows us that in our own country.

And how many of the socialist and welfare state countries balance their budgets? So yes, sooner or later the bill will come due. As it is right now in Venezuela.

Your words are classic examples of the very first step in autocratic rule. First control or get rid of the smart people who can show you for what you really are.

We've been getting a prime example of that right now, from our nation's newest fascists trying to shut down the marketplace of ideas.

And before you use the term "fascist" again, learn what it means. As Cartertonian once said to a poster, "leave no chink in your armor".

A decent (though not perfect) thumbnail definition of "ideal" fascism, from Random House Dictionary: "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

[Doug64]

You cannot be that stupid. Don't try that nonsense with me. It won't work. But thanks for this statistic:

t's only with college graduates that the divide really hits, where 53% are/lean Democrat and 41% are/lean Republican.

And then the really educated:

Pew: Democrats lead by 22 points (57%-35%) in leaned party identification among adults with post-graduate degrees.

This is not indoctrination. It is education.

Actually, there was one I missed the first time I looked through the survey. Among White college graduates, 48% are/lean Democrat while 47% are/lean Republican. So yes, I'd say there's the real possibility that the reason for the difference among graduates is indoctrination of minorities.

And with Mother's Day coming up, there's this:

Is being a mother the most important role for a woman to fill in today’s world?

• Yes 47%
• No 32%
• Not sure 21%

Republicans

• Yes 66%
• No 18%
• Not sure 16%

Independents

• Yes 38%
• No 37%
• Not sure 25%

Democrats

• Yes 43%
• No 36%
• Not sure 20%

Married

• Yes 52%
• No 27%
• Not sure 21%

Unmarried

• Yes 43%
• No 37%
• Not sure 21%

Children at home

• Yes 57%
• No 24%
• Not sure 19%

No children at home

• Yes 42%
• No 36%
• Not sure 22%

[Pants-of-dog]

Oh, minor things like the fact that capitalism really does make an entire society wealthier, including the poor; that people aren't poor because other people are evil bigots; that cops really do care about the people they serve, they aren't just armed bigoted thugs on power trips; that the problem with socialism and welfare statism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money; that sort of thing.

If you believe that "the left" (and I assume you are using it in the US sense; i.e. the centre right and Democrats) is scared of these "facts", then you are incorrect. These "facts" are well known to any US person as these are myths that are constantly being parroted in the US, including schools.

Why are you scared that these myths will actually be discussed and deconstructed?

[Drlee]

Yes, it is. Compare the per capita GDP of the nations around the world.

I should stop reading here. This proves nothing except why it is important to take a college level economics class. Your statistic, if analyzed actually proves my point. Tell you what. You do the work and tell me why you are mistaken to post this. I am tired of thinking for my fellow republicans.

Fun fact. Of the 10 nations with the highest per capita GDP, four are absolute monarchies and two are communist states. One has a population smaller than Roy Utah and one with a population about the same as Fresno, California.

Sigh.

There's three words in your sentence I didn't use: "solely" and "character flaw."

What words would you use to describe why people are poor?

Please prove that Blacks and other minorities in the US currently experience a lack of opportunity because of bigotry.

Grow up.

No, I want them to recognize that they are the "few."

They do. You should try to attend one sometime. But then there is this. While you are Googling stuff, try Googling the number of police departments that are under justice department agreements or court consent decrees because of racist police activity. You may learn just how "few" they are.

I am really getting sick of my fellow republicans who simply are to lazy, to stupid, or just too racist to learn what is really going on in this country. There is nothing anti conservative about being concerned for the less fortunate. Good republicans are not in denial about the racism that very much exists in our country. Republicans are not opposed to equal pay for equal work, human rights or effective business regulation. Good republicans are for a balanced budget unlike President Trump and President Bush. Some idiot TEA party people are all of those things but then they are generally not very bright anyway.

[Doug64]

Fun fact. Of the 10 nations with the highest per capita GDP, four are absolute monarchies and two are communist states. One has a population smaller than Roy Utah and one with a population about the same as Fresno, California.

Thanks for that, it gave me a reason to update my spreadsheet (Wyoming used to be the best-performing state, now it's 3rd). Here's how the United States compare to the 54 nations with the highest per capita GDP (PPP). Looking at the list, if you aren't lucky enough to be floating on a sea of oil or be a small country with a commodity or service lots of people are happy to pay a lot for, you want to have a free market economy. You'll notice that not a single communist state appears on the list. China is 104th, Cuba is 131st, Laos is 165th, and North Korea is 211th. And I'm not sure what being a monarchy has to do with being a capitalist country.

What words would you use to describe why people are poor?

Mostly culture.

[Drlee]

Macao and Hong Kong are China.

[Doug64]

Macao and Hong Kong are China.

And both are semi-autonomous as China tries to avoid killing the geese that lay the golden eggs by forcing them into China's economic and political mold. You cannot properly call them Communist even if the rest of China still officially is. Which is why the CIA World Factbook site lists them separately from the entry on China. Likewise, Puerto Rico has its own entry.

[Drlee]

They are part of the PRC. You can't avoid that. Did you figure out what was wrong with your stats yet?

[MememyselfandIJK]

Thanks for that, it gave me a reason to update my spreadsheet (Wyoming used to be the best-performing state, now it's 3rd). Here's how the United States compare to the 54 nations with the highest per capita GDP (PPP). Looking at the list, if you aren't lucky enough to be floating on a sea of oil or be a small country with a commodity or service lots of people are happy to pay a lot for, you want to have a free market economy. You'll notice that not a single communist state appears on the list. China is 104th, Cuba is 131st, Laos is 165th, and North Korea is 211th. And I'm not sure what being a monarchy has to do with being a capitalist country.

May I point out that the chart does not account for when states take money out of the system and return it in the form of non-monetary goods and services such as healthcare? Or losses due to embargos? Both apply heavily to communist nations. Also I suggest arranging by median, not mean. In the US and other capitalist nations, the mean salary is skewed due to a few people having most of the wealth so a median would be more truly representative of the average person.

To conclude, nations are usually poor due to economic exploitation in the past or present that prevented proper development (Africa, India) or economic barring due to the aftermath of the cold war (DPRK, Cuba). Culture may be a factor but it is a relatively small one. Socialism does lead to a smaller, poorer economy but the wealth is so much better distributed that the average person may be at or above their respective wealth for their percentile in an identical, but capitalist nation where the economy is stronger but a small class owns most of the wealth.

Looking at Wikipedia (I know, not a good source but the best one I could quickly find), the median income per capita (not per household!) is lead by
1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Luxembourg
4. Denmark
5. Finland

As can be seen, aside from Luxembourg (which is insanely rich anyways) the "socialist" (really more welfare-based) Nordic states are all top 5.

[Decky]

All of those nations are capitalist, unless there has been a revolution this morning that I am not aware of?

[Rich]

That's one thing Hitler got right, wiping Luxembourg off the map. When it comes to voting in the EU relative to Luxembourg we're like the Blacks of the Jim Crow south.

[MememyselfandIJK]

All of those nations are capitalist, unless there has been a revolution this morning that I am not aware of?

Yes, but my point is that the Nordics embrace social welfare policies the most in order to somewhat redistribute income. What would happen if we tilt the system to be more socialist (to the point of a mixed economy). According to these trends median income could vastly improve. It is true that many communist nations are poor, places like Cuba are better off then much of Latin America despite heavy sanctions. In fact it ranks 6th out of 20th in Latin American and 68th out of over 200 on the Human development index (considered "High Human Development") despite being a dictatorship (Although the calculation that is used is questionable considering that DPRK is ranked "Medium High" Despite mass starvation).

In short, Socialism is still a viable system that could work especially well in poorer nations where it is essential that resources are evenly distributed in order to prevent need. Capitalism has skewed the distribution of resources so much that it has produced need in even the wealthiest nations.

[Drlee]

There is another danger in comparing incomes.

As I said, 51% of Americans earn less than $30K per year. From this they must pay health insurance. A person in the UK earning $20K is arguably better off than the American worker. Add to this the social programs of more progressive countries and clearly we Americans are not better off than may people in other countries earning much less.

[Doug64]

Here's this week's round-up of polls. Anyone that wants to check out any possible links over the next week can go to the link to the left. (Anyone wanting more details on a particular poll, just ask):

Americans appear to be buying some of the allegations against President Trump despite the lack of any hard evidence so far. Predictably, however, as with most things Trump, there’s an enormous partisan difference of opinion.

Most voters now believe the president tried to shut down the probe of any connections between his associates and the Russians but are confident the FBI will thoroughly investigate the matter despite the firing of Director James Comey.

Voters aren’t overly impressed with Comey’s performance as FBI director, but just over half disagree with Trump’s decision to fire him. Interestingly, while Democrats have consistently blamed Comey as one of the main reasons for Hillary Clinton’s defeat last November, they are now far more supportive of the job he has done than other voters are.

Former Vice President Joe Biden said Thursday night that he never thought Clinton was “the correct candidate. … I don’t think she ever really figured out [why she was running].” Right after the election, voters by a 48% to 35% margin said the results were more a vote against Clinton than a vote for Trump.

Trump’s daily job approval rating remains in the mid-40s.

The same partisan divide seen on the Comey questions also impacts views of the economy. While it's fallen to a 10-year low, Americans remain closely divided over where the unemployment rate is headed from here. Republicans are far more confident that unemployment will be even lower in a year’s time, while Democrats are noticeably less cheery.

Although most Americans still say they know someone out of a job, that number has fallen to its lowest level in surveys over the past several years, as has the number who know someone who has given up on the job market.

But 10% believe their job could be done by a robot, with another 11% who are not sure.

In the wake of the international WannaCry cyberattack, voters believe more strongly than ever that such attacks should be seen as an act of war.

Voters are even more worried about the safety of America’s computer network, but most recognize, too, that attacks of this nature can’t be totally avoided.

In other surveys last week:

-- Thirty-seven percent (37%) of voters say the country is headed in the right direction.

-- Seventy-six percent (76%) think employers and individuals should be allowed to buy health insurance plans across state lines, although it’s not now permitted by Obamacare. Congressional Republicans support the change, saying the increased competition will drive down the cost of insurance.

-- Americans view teaching as a more important profession than being a doctor but think doctoring is a much better job to go into.

-- Eighty percent (80%) see a doctor regularly, and 93% of those adults trust that doctor -- the highest level of trust measured yet.

May I point out that the chart does not account for when states take money out of the system and return it in the form of non-monetary goods and services such as healthcare?

You mean when the government takes cash out of your pocket to give it back in the form of good or services that the government determines that you need? When it isn't giving you someone else's cash, instead. But you are right, it doesn't take into account how much people pay in taxes versus how much they receive in services. But it might not be as skewed as you think, the US tax burden is more heavily weighted toward the top than other nations. According to the Washington Post a few years ago, in the US the top 10% made 33% of the income and paid 45% of the taxes, compared to, say, the UK where the top 10% earned 32% of the income and paid 39% of the taxes.

Or losses due to embargos? Both apply heavily to communist nations.

AFAIK, only one Communist country is under embargo. And neither explain what's happening in Venezuela.

Looking at Wikipedia (I know, not a good source but the best one I could quickly find), the median income per capita (not per household!) is lead by
1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Luxembourg
4. Denmark
5. Finland

As can be seen, aside from Luxembourg (which is insanely rich anyways) the "socialist" (really more welfare-based) Nordic states are all top 5.

You probably shouldn't stop at the top five, here's the rest of the top ten:

6. United States
7. Canada
8. Australia
9. Netherlands
10. Germany

So for median income the United States beats out all but Luxembourg and the Nordic countries. And that's the US average, not by state. Note that this doesn't take into account taxes and government payouts, I'll have to see if I can figure that out when I have some time.

As I said, 51% of Americans earn less than $30K per year. From this they must pay health insurance. A person in the UK earning $20K is arguably better off than the American worker. Add to this the social programs of more progressive countries and clearly we Americans are not better off than may people in other countries earning much less.

NHS faces 'humanitarian crisis' as demand rises, British Red Cross warns

[Drlee]

You really don't get it. You post some nonsense about British under-funding without realizing that they cover each and every person in the UK. Free. You post a very easy fix. They would have to be short double what they spend to catch up with us.

I am tired of so-called conservatives who simply can't get their heads out of the sand.

(I did not read your article because, as everyone can see, it is irrelevant.