• doingthestuff@lemmy.worldEnglish
    51·
    1 hour ago

    The way I see it is that we don’t have enough anti-monopoly legislation. If we guaranteed small businesses could get products at the same prices as megacorps and we broke up businesses that took too much market share we could have small business again. Regulation is also too punitive. Lower taxes, lower compliance and permit fees. The government has a spending problem and the people need to tell them to fuck off and cut their spending in half, then add half of what they cut back into public services, not spending on wars or deep state letter orgs dedicated to spying on its own citizens.

  • dohpaz42@lemmy.worldEnglish
    41·
    3 hours ago

    If we’re forced to have capitalism, can we at least use the social kind?

    A social market economy is a free-market or mixed-market capitalist system, sometimes classified as a coordinated market economy, where government intervention in price formation is kept to a minimum, but the state provides significant services in areas such as social security, health care, unemployment benefits and the recognition of labor rights through national collective bargaining arrangements. Source

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      5·
      3 hours ago

      I personally have no problem with capitalism dealing with non essentials, but essentials should be nationalized.

    • Dagwood222English
      42·
      2 hours ago

      In my opinion, using terms like ‘capitalism’ or ‘socialism’ or ‘fascism’ is a losing game for anyone except the Right.

      The second you use those terms you get forced into a fight about the definitions and get sidetracked from the actual issues at hand.

      Substitute other terms instead. Don’t say “Why can’t we have Socialist healthcare like Sweden?” say “why can’t we have the kind of health care Eisenhower offered in 1956?”

      • dohpaz42@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        24 minutes ago

        I am going to disagree with you on this. Here’s why:

        No one forces anyone to fight about anything. It’s a choice you make. If you find yourself in a conversation with someone who is unwilling to hear reason, then you can choose to continue or you can walk away.

        I also disagree with avoiding certain words simply because you’re concerned how other people will react to them (of course exceptions apply). Now if you can find a simpler, less controversial, way to express yourself, by all means keep it simple. Using “$5 words” in an attempt to make yourself sound smart or better than somebody else is counterproductive. And, in most cases whether you talk about “Socialist healthcare in Sweden” or “health care Eisenhower offered” is moot, because a bad actor is going to twist your words regardless.

        Finally, in the context of this thread, we are specifically talking about Capitalism, so it makes little sense to skirt around the term. Some might as well embrace it and explore it as far as we can.