Actual definition of the US economic model - TODAY

[SDTiger9]

Enlightenment is the pursuit of truth. Willing to challenge the status quo….. with proper intent.

We toss around words and concepts throughout our lives while the intended definition changes yet we apply the same label even though it’s no longer representative of the actual definition.

“THE US IS A CAPITALIST COUNTRY”.

Is it today? Was it?
Explain your answer and/or provide the economic model it actually is.

hint: Americans have a labeling and brand obsession. So take your time.

 

[Moral]

With the current relationship between corporate powers, corporate bailouts, government subsidies, government contracts, and plutocrats funding stuff like a ballroom and joining Trump at the inauguration as well as his trip to China, I am going to say the US is a crony capitalist/capitalist country that is trending towards technofuedalism.

 

[Aardvark86]

State capitalism.

Fundamentally, the economic mechanism is "capitalism" in that private parties still retain ownership of most private and business assets (and on a basis that is more diversified than we sometimes think), markets still play predominant roles in setting prices, and individual participants still play a predominant role in determining the goods and services (and quantities thereof) introduced into the market.

But, "state" in the sense that: governmental policy, regulation, and funding represent a dominant thumb on the scale with respect to the prioritization of "favored" goods and services; for certain goods and services (eg, health care, defense and public utilities), the government itself may actually be a dominant participant in those markets rather than a mere regulator; and in a few narrow areas, the government may actually set prices and quantities. (BTW, Srinivasan's "Americana," which I mentioned in another book thread, provides some nice and non-judgmental case studies of this.)

 

[fatpiggy]

It’s just a battle between the two. You can’t have a pure capitalist system, as that would imply no government. No government would be anarchy and society is much better off with government setting guidelines and making the rules.

On the flip side communism doesn’t work. It’s a failed experiment.

Politics is the the fight between the two and if we are honest the battle has landed us in a pretty good place overall.


I am a fan of limited government, not no government.

Governments are just a necessary distortion to markets. How much is necessary? Let the debates begin and welcome to politics.

 

[Moral]

It’s just a battle between the two. You can’t have a pure capitalist system, as that would imply no government. No government would be anarchy and society is much better off with Government setting guidelines and making the rules.

On the flip side communism doesn’t work. It’s a failed experiment.

Politics is the the fight between the two and if we are honest the battle has landed us in a pretty good place overall.


I am a fan of limited government, not no government.

Governments are just a necessary distortion to markets. How much is necessary? Let the debates begin and welcome to politics.

 

[fatpiggy]

What didn't you understand? Are you stupid or something?

 

[Moral]

What didn't you understand? Are you stupid or something?

I'm honestly not sure you even said anything.

 

[HoggI74]

The only place where Communism has worked well is the NFL. The crappier your team plays the better players you get to pick from next year. Revenue sharing and salary caps and no competition...

 

[Moral]

The only place where Communism has worked well is the NFL. The crappier your team plays the better players you get to pick from next year. Revenue sharing and salary caps and no competition...

Who is talking about communism? Other than @fatpiggy randomly bringing it up. The thread is about which economic model the US is currently in and communism is not relevant in the least.

 

[HoggI74]

Who is talking about communism? Other than @fatpiggy randomly bringing it up. The thread is about which economic model the US is currently in and communism is not relevant in the least.

I meant to quote piggy...mea culpa...

 

[fatpiggy]

Who is talking about communism? Other than @fatpiggy randomly bringing it up. The thread is about which economic model the US is currently in and communism is not relevant in the least.

Democrats sure have communist tendencies. I agree they are more socialist policies now. I view socialism as in between capitalism and communism. Socialism is just communist lite.

In the extreme or limit, democrats tax and spend policies are communist. I know "in the limit" is a difficult concept for some and so they will ***** and complain about the statement. Im not saying their current policies are communist, but i think they would eventually get there if given enough time.

Transpose that with Republicans who generally prefer free domestic markets, tax cuts, growth, i.e capitalism.

I don't think it's random to bring it up. I think it's a valid argument that our current political system is a struggle between the two, and that ultimately we have ended up in a good place.

 

[Moral]

Democrats sure have communist tendencies. I agree they are more socialist policies now. I view socialism as in between capitalism and communism. Socialism is just communist lite.

In the extreme or limit, democrats tax and spend policies are communist. I know "in the limit" is a difficult concept for some and so they will ***** and complain about the statement. Im not saying their current policies are communist, but i think they would eventually get there if given enough time.

Transpose that with Republicans who generally prefer free domestic markets, tax cuts, growth, i.e capitalism.

I don't think it's random to bring it up. I think it's a valid argument that our current political system is a struggle between the two, and that ultimately we have ended up in a good place.

One thing is clear, you have no idea what communism is.

 

[SDTiger9]

The only place where Communism has worked well is the NFL. The crappier your team plays the better players you get to pick from next year. Revenue sharing and salary caps and no competition...

The NFL is Social Capitalism. The state doesn’t own the NFL.

They utilize a limited license franchise model of 32 owners who have a shared stake in media rights. The value of each franchise is not the same. Even if the Buffalo Bills win the next 3 Superbowls, the value of the Cowboys will still be more. The government isn’t involved. The franchise owners do need to approve the sale (75%, I think) to a new owner. Famously Trump was denied the Buffalo Bills.

We can argue over the “Social Capitalism” tag line but Communism it is not.

 

[Torbee]

The only place where Communism has worked well is the NFL. The crappier your team plays the better players you get to pick from next year. Revenue sharing and salary caps and no competition...

In terms of societal stability, it actually has worked well in China too. At a very steep cost to personal freedoms, unfortunately.

 

[fatpiggy]

One thing is clear, you have no idea what communism is.

Communism - community owned.

North Korea
Cuba
East Germany

Those are all failed communist states.



Definition: Communism is a political, economic, and social ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless society in which the means of production (factories, land, resources, tools) are owned collectively by the community rather than by private individuals or the state.

 

[SDTiger9]

As a sidebar….. we would have never seen Trump as POTUS if the NFL gave him the Bills in 2014.

 

[Moral]

Communism - community owned.

North Korea
Cuba
East Germany

Those are all failed communist states.



Definition: Communism is a political, economic, and social ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless society in which the means of production (factories, land, resources, tools) are owned collectively by the community rather than by private individuals or the state.

And which party in the US is advocating for a classless society and the end to private ownership of land and the means of production?

We are much closer to feudalism than communism. Feudalism being nobility (oligarchs) with the private land holdings and the serfs (working class) having to work for the oligarchy to pay for the land in which they reside. At the current rate of wealth and property consolidation it is much more feasible that at the current trajectory that we land in a neofeudalistic or technofuedalistic society. Unless stuff gets so insanely bad that there is a people's revolution and that movement has also grasped onto mid-19th century Marxist ideology.

 

[SDTiger9]

As a sidebar….. we would have never seen Trump as POTUS if the NFL gave him the Bills in 2014.

 

[fatpiggy]

And which party in the US is advocating for a classless society and the end to private ownership of land and the means of production?

We are much closer to feudalism than communism. Feudalism being nobility (oligarchs) with the private land holdings and the serfs (working class) having to work for the oligarchy to pay for the land in which they reside. At the current rate of wealth and property consolidation it is much more feasible that at the current trajectory that we land in a neofeudalistic or technofuedalistic society. Unless stuff gets so insanely bad that there is a people's revolution and that movement has also grasped onto mid-19th century Marxist ideology.

I knew you were going to have trouble with the idea of "in the limit" .... even after i explained it. Iowa

 

[Moral]

I knew you were going to have trouble with the idea of "in the limit" .... even after i explained it. Iowa

You are trying to use that as a rhetorical shield.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

State capitalism.

Fundamentally, the economic mechanism is "capitalism" in that private parties still retain ownership of most private and business assets (and on a basis that is more diversified than we sometimes think), markets still play predominant roles in setting prices, and individual participants still play a predominant role in determining the goods and services (and quantities thereof) introduced into the market.

But, "state" in the sense that: governmental policy, regulation, and funding represent a dominant thumb on the scale with respect to the prioritization of "favored" goods and services; for certain goods and services (eg, health care, defense and public utilities), the government itself may actually be a dominant participant in those markets rather than a mere regulator; and in a few narrow areas, the government may actually set prices and quantities. (BTW, Srinivasan's "Americana," which I mentioned in another book thread, provides some nice and non-judgmental case studies of this.)

More control of the government by corporations than the other way around, I think.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

It’s just a battle between the two. You can’t have a pure capitalist system, as that would imply no government. No government would be anarchy and society is much better off with government setting guidelines and making the rules.

On the flip side communism doesn’t work. It’s a failed experiment.

Politics is the the fight between the two and if we are honest the battle has landed us in a pretty good place overall.


I am a fan of limited government, not no government.

Governments are just a necessary distortion to markets. How much is necessary? Let the debates begin and welcome to politics.

In a democracy, we want government to be big enough to constrain other concentrations of power.

Which is to say that if you want small government, you need to limit the power of corporations and the very wealthy.

Why is the democracy part important? Because with democracy we have a way to vote out bad politicians and change bad laws. And we have a Bill of Rights controlling how our government exercises power.

The alternative is corporations or plutocrats with no way to vote them out and no constitution restricting their actions.

 

[fatpiggy]

In a democracy, we want government to be big enough to constrain other concentrations of power.

Which is to say that if you want small government, you need to limit the power of corporations and the very wealthy.

Why is the democracy part important? Because with democracy we have a way to vote out bad politicians and change bad laws. And we have a Bill of Rights controlling how our government exercises power.

The alternative is corporations or plutocrats with no way to vote them out and no constitution restricting their actions.

Yes technically we are a constitutional republic and not a democracy I believe.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Yes technically we are a constitutional republic and not a democracy I believe.

Give me a break. How many times do we need to smack down this nonsense?

Somebody else explain it, please. I lack the patience.

 

[fatpiggy]

Give me a break. How many times do we need to smack down this nonsense?

Somebody else explain it, please. I lack the patience.

Yes, the United States is a constitutional republic. What that means:

• Republic: The U.S. is not a direct democracy where citizens vote directly on laws. Instead, the people elect representatives (Congress, President, etc.) to make and execute laws. Sovereignty resides in the people, exercised through elected officials.
• Constitutional: The government’s powers are limited by a written Constitution (ratified in 1788). No branch or majority can legally override its core protections—such as separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, individual rights in the Bill of Rights, and the amendment process.

Key evidence from foundational documents:

• U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…”
• The Founders (Madison, Hamilton, etc. in the Federalist Papers) explicitly designed a republic to avoid the instability of pure democracy. James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10: “A republic… promises the cure for which we are seeking” regarding factionalism.
• The Pledge of Allegiance calls it “the Republic for which it stands.”

Common distinctions people make:

Term	Definition	Applies to U.S.?
Democracy	Rule by the people (can be direct or representative)	Yes (representative democracy)
Republic	Representative government, not direct democracy	Yes
Constitutional Republic	Representative government limited by a constitution	Yes
Pure/Direct Democracy	Citizens vote directly on all laws	No

The U.S. is often called a democratic republic or constitutional republic to emphasize both representation and constitutional limits. It is a democracy in the broad sense (government by consent of the governed via elections), but deliberately not a pure democracy.This structure has been consistent since 1789. Every state is also required to have a republican form of government. Claims that the U.S. is “not a republic” or “just a democracy” usually stem from rhetorical exaggeration rather than the legal or historical reality.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Yes, the United States is a constitutional republic.What that means:

• Republic: The U.S. is not a direct democracy where citizens vote directly on laws. Instead, the people elect representatives (Congress, President, etc.) to make and execute laws. Sovereignty resides in the people, exercised through elected officials.
• Constitutional: The government’s powers are limited by a written Constitution (ratified in 1788). No branch or majority can legally override its core protections—such as separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, individual rights in the Bill of Rights, and the amendment process.

Key evidence from foundational documents:

• U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…”
• The Founders (Madison, Hamilton, etc. in the Federalist Papers) explicitly designed a republic to avoid the instability of pure democracy. James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10: “A republic… promises the cure for which we are seeking” regarding factionalism.
• The Pledge of Allegiance calls it “the Republic for which it stands.”

Common distinctions people make:

Term	Definition	Applies to U.S.?
Democracy	Rule by the people (can be direct or representative)	Yes (representative democracy)
Republic	Representative government, not direct democracy	Yes
Constitutional Republic	Representative government limited by a constitution	Yes
Pure/Direct Democracy	Citizens vote directly on all laws	No

The U.S. is often called a democratic republic or constitutional republic to emphasize both representation and constitutional limits. It is a democracy in the broad sense (government by consent of the governed via elections), but deliberately not a pure democracy.This structure has been consistent since 1789. Every state is also required to have a republican form of government. Claims that the U.S. is “not a republic” or “just a democracy” usually stem from rhetorical exaggeration rather than the legal or historical reality.

Your own "evidence" makes it clear that the US is both a democracy AND a republic. Also correctly referred to as a democratic republic.

People who say we're a republic, NOT a democracy - as you did - are regurgitating a false dichotomy.

If you honestly didn't realize that, now's your chance to stop.

Or you could double down. That's always fun.

 

[fatpiggy]

Your own "evidence" makes it clear that the US is both a democracy AND a republic. Also correctly referred to as a democratic republic.

People who say we're a republic, NOT a democracy - as you did - are regurgitating a false dichotomy.

If you honestly didn't realize that, now's your chance to stop.

Or you could double down. That's always fun.

You are correct, i apologize. A constitutional republic is a form of democracy. I should have left off the part about not a democracy.

We are indeed a constitutional republic. We are a republic because we have representatives and its constitutional because we are limited by the constitution. This still falls under the umbrella of democracy and I apologize for misspeaking. We are obviously not a pure democracy which is what i was speaking about.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You are correct, i apologize. A constitutional republic is a form of democracy. I should have left off the part about not a democracy.

We are indeed a constitutional republic. We are a republic because we have representatives and its constitutional because we are limited by the constitution. This still falls under the umbrella of democracy and I apologize for misspeaking. We are obviously not a pure democracy which is what i was speaking about.

"Constitutional republic" is OK. "Constitutional democracy" is OK. More correct than either (because it doesn't allow for misinterpretations) is "constitutional democratic republic."

The most correct colloquialism for now is "democracy." Because when you say "democracy" we Americans understand that to mean our system, where we vote for our choice of representatives whose job it is to run the government on our behalf. In theory, at least.

 

[fatpiggy]

"Constitutional republic" is OK. "Constitutional democracy" is OK. More correct than either (because it doesn't allow for misinterpretations) is "constitutional democratic republic."

The most correct colloquialism for now is "democracy." Because when you say "democracy" we Americans understand that to mean our system, where we vote for our choice of representatives whose job it is to run the government on our behalf. In theory, at least.

fair enough

 

[Aardvark86]

fair enough

Once again, Jesus for the Miracle, as the "democracy v republic" pissing match has been resolved!!!!

 

[fatpiggy]

Once again, Jesus for the Miracle, as the "democracy v republic" pissing match has been resolved!!!!

I indeed misspoke. I am glad he caught me. Nothing like this place to keep you on your toes

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

The two hallmarks of capitalism are that

1. The means of production are owned by private concerns (people, businesses, etc), not by the government, and
2. Market forces determine pricing, production, income and more (through supply and demand balance for instance)

I think we are largely still adhering to #1, despite the orange socialist who occupies the White House investing in Intel et al.

#2 is a stretch. There are so many special interests that have regulatory protection across vast swathes of society. Take healthcare, those on the right say we have to keep it a capitalist model…but there is nothing capitalist about it. You have deep pocketed interests that leverage all kinds of non-market shenanigans to keep competition down.

Net net I see us as capitalist adjacent. We have private ownership, but the market is not truly free. The largest companies have managed to stake out protected positions via regulation, political donations, Citizens United et al.

 

[1Clemson]

As a sidebar….. we would have never seen Trump as POTUS if the NFL gave him the Bills in 2014.

If Trump got the Bills in 2014, today they would be spoken about / as relevant as the Canton Bulldogs or the NJ Generals.

 

[SDTiger9]

If Trump got the Bills in 2014, today they would be spoken about / as relevant as the Canton Bulldogs or the NJ Generals.

He and Jerry Jones would be verbally accosting each other in the media for ***** n giggles. And we’d ALL eat up DJT, the NFL owner. His Howard Stern show calls were legendary.

 

[Aardvark86]

Coincidentally, a friend just forwarded this piece. I don’t buy all of it, but it dabbles around the edges of the economy question discussion

When government replaces choice | The Opinion Pages

Americans sense something is off in how decisions are made. Prices rise without clear signals; public systems feel unresponsive, and major policy shifts seem to occur without clear votes or accountability. More and more, decisions that once belonged to individuals and families are made...

theopinionpages.com

 

[JMNSH0]

Mercantilism