Yes he now has 8% of the African American vote up from 6%. It’s remarkable you can find 92-94% of such a large and diverse diaspora that agrees you’re a bad fit.
The increase in the support levels among Latinx is definitely more substantial, and likely has to do with the fact that the right wing has been ginning up fear around “socialism” to a group historically seriously injured by it. (Bearing in mind of course that the definition of socialism which has caused harm in Latin America is the state owning the means of production, and there is absolutely unequivocally zero support for that among Democrats — who range from center-right to at most a flavor of social democrat).
> the definition of socialism which has caused harm in Latin America is the state owning the means of production, and there is absolutely unequivocally zero support for that among Democrats
A fundamental tenet of ownership is having control of it and the proceeds from it. It's not just the name on the masthead.
And once more literally no democrats count even a little bit as socialists. That notwithstanding it’s utterly disingenuous to equate social democrats with Maduro. The kind of “socialism” espoused by democrats is further right than substantially all of Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Far from failed, folks there enjoy a general higher standard of living than Americans.
> literally no democrats count even a little bit as socialists
1. taxation takes the proceeds from the property - the higher the taxes, the more socialist.
2. Rent control.
3. California specifies the gender makeup of boards of directors.
4. Single payer health care.
There are lots more, these are just examples. You can argue that the benefits of such abrogation makes it worthwhile, but they are socialism. The more of them, the more socialist.
> Far from failed, folks there enjoy a general higher standard of living than Americans.
The US then shouldn't be such a popular destination for immigrants looking for opportunity.
With reference to the definition of socialism: “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods”
1. taxation takes the proceeds from the property - the higher the taxes, the more socialist.
Not a socialist issue, for instance Donald trump raised taxes by capping the SLPT deductions, and imo has nothing to do with the state owning the means of production.
2. Rent control.
Not a federal or Democratic Party policy issue, just a stupid approach to control cost of living. The real answer is just supply and demand, and to permit building. This isn’t partisan it’s bad policy and has nothing to do with the means of production.
3. California specifies the gender makeup of boards of directors.
That has nothing to do with the means of production and isn’t a federal issue.
4. Single payer health care.
Not a left vs right issue IMO any more than a socialized fire department or police department are socialist. This is evident in the fact both democrats and republicans love Medicare which is literal socialized medicine for folks over 65.
My personal opinion is that medical care does not fall under “means of production” and should instead fall under basic infrastructure which supports and facilitates the private ownership of the means of production.
> The US then shouldn't be such a popular destination for immigrants looking for opportunity.
This doesn’t prove or disprove anything. People often come to the US hoping they will do better than average. I suggested on average folks are better off elsewhere and your statement doesn’t prove or disprove that. Worse, immigration was basically wholesale suspended.
Trump doesn't define what socialism is or is not. Taxes are a taking of the proceeds of an enterprise, the more taken the more the owner is defacto the government.
> Not a federal or Democratic Party policy issue
It's local and state Democratic policy, and it certainly is socialistic.
> That has nothing to do with the means of production
Of course it is. It applies to business and how they are run.
> Not a left vs right issue
Of course it is. It comes from the left.
> This doesn’t prove or disprove anything.
Requiring them to all be wrong should perhaps give pause.
Anyway, you're clearly focused on federal socialism. So I'll bring up Biden's plan to spend $2 trillion on all kinds of centrally planned economic initiatives, such as electric car chargers all over the place. The government has tried central planning of energy production and distribution before, back in the 70's. The DOE decided, for each and every gas station in America, how much gas it was allowed to sell. It was a disaster - gas lines and shortages everywhere. This all ended overnight with Reagan's first Executive Order.
And I mean literally overnight the gas lines disappeared and never returned. I remember it well, it was wonderful not to have to plan for an hour wait for gas. The DOE proved simply incapable of putting gas where people needed it.
Do you believe Biden's central economic planners will put the charging stations in the optimal place? I don't. But I suppose we'll see. In any case, it's still $2 trillion worth of socialism.
> This is evident in the fact both democrats and republicans love Medicare which is literal socialized medicine for folks over 65.
Of course Medicare is socialism. You are pushing the idea that Republican actions define socialism. I disagree - socialism is an economic system, and is not defined by who implements it.
First off, the government needs revenue to function. It has to tax something to get it. Taxing pollution "internalizes the externalities" and serves two goals - providing revenue for the government, and discouraging pollution.
Isn't that better than discouraging productive behavior?
> Trump doesn't define what socialism is or is not. Taxes are a taking of the proceeds of an enterprise, the more taken the more the owner is de facto the government.
In a socialist society there is no concept of individual property and therefore no concept of taxation. The concept of taxation is unique to a capitalist society. Beyond that, I'd say that what the taxes are used for defines whether it leans socialist or not.
Further, I disagree, taking the proceeds does not exert control or ownership until the level is substantially higher than it is now. Either way, a business' income apportionment doesn't matter as much these days thanks to the rise of equity.
> [Rent Control] It's local and state Democratic policy, and it certainly is socialistic.
Rent control is interesting, as I firmly disagree with it -- for being bad policy. I can see how this policy diminishes the value of personal property, though I could get behind it if it worked. The most effective approach I've seen that strengthens private property rights while also providing for the average citizen is the Singapore HDB model. [1] 78% of Singaporeans live in HDB government housing, and the rest have zero government imposition whatsoever.
> [California Gender Law] Of course it is. It applies to business and how they are run.
This is a state issue, as you pointed out. I will say though, that I tend to subdivide regulations into "for the greater good" type redistributive regulation (which I think you could make a claim is socialist leaning in a mixed economy), and "capturing externalities" regulation. The free market has shown a total inability to capture externalities, and as such, certain classes of regulation are required for a property functioning market economy. IMO doing so actually net strengthens property rights.
> [Single Payer] "It comes from the left"
I mean, agree to disagree on this one. I see it as the same degree of socialist as a DMV, police station or fire station. A necessity for a functioning free-market economy, and not a business. I believe having a socialized healthcare system strengthens private property ownership, private enterprise and the free market on the whole.
> Do you believe Biden's central economic planners will put the charging stations in the optimal place? I don't.
I don't believe Biden will have "central economic planners" -- the Democrat's will do the same thing government always does in the US. Find a private company, and have them do it.
> The free market has shown a total inability to capture externalities
Yeah, which is why I regularly propose taxes on pollution to "internalize the externalities".
Free market capitalism requires a functioning government, at the least to provide protection of our rights and enforcement of contracts. This requires police, a court system, and a military to defend it all.
Single payer health care is not a necessity for a functioning free market economy, any more than the government must run collective farms.
> Find a private company, and have them do it.
Government contracting is not free market, and suffers from most of the ills of the government doing it directly.
> I don't believe Biden will have "central economic planners"
Of course Biden will. You can't oversee $2 trillion in spending otherwise.
> Single payer health care is not a necessity for a functioning free market economy, any more than the government must run collective farms.
See this is where we disagree. I believe healthcare is necessary for a an functioning capitalist system to exist. I do not describe the existing setup as functional.
Yep for sure, remember how Chiquita had the CIA start the 40 year long civil war in Guatemala? Then the CEO walked out of his 40th story office window in the Pan Am building in New York.
One thing that I found really interesting is the way right wing television is explaining to the public how Trump cannot possibly be racist because he has African-American voters. This is the same way you can’t be racist because if have a black friend.
This cuts both ways as you point out. People vote for all sorts of reasons, and people are willing to overlook racism because they have higher priority issues. Just because the president is a racist doesn’t necessarily make you racist for voting for him. It just means you have things you consider more important.
Having African American voters doesn’t make you somehow not a racist, and voting for a racist doesn’t necessarily make you one. That’s how far the American political system has fallen.
Having a white person who wears their compassion on their sleeve call you racist or 'not black' for a refusal to cosign their hatred of Trump takes the cake. Hard to get over that one.
Not a good look for sure. I’ll wait and judge him by what he does in the next four years though.
That kind of ignorance is nothing compared to literally forcing migrant women to have hysterectomies along the southern border. That’s a different kind of racism. [1]
The increase in the support levels among Latinx is definitely more substantial, and likely has to do with the fact that the right wing has been ginning up fear around “socialism” to a group historically seriously injured by it. (Bearing in mind of course that the definition of socialism which has caused harm in Latin America is the state owning the means of production, and there is absolutely unequivocally zero support for that among Democrats — who range from center-right to at most a flavor of social democrat).