You’re busy in school with projects and assignments, and it can be difficult to find the time and resources you need to provide you with the best college experience you can get–but that’s where we come in.
Women’s empowerment in many developing countries is in its early phases, but the right policies can set women everywhere on a path toward the same prosperity and freedom enjoyed by women in today’s advanced countries.
Amazon has chosen New York City and Arlington, Virginia, for new corporate headquarters after the cities ponied up more than $2 billion in subsidies to the retail giant.
Workers in the two cities will be winners as labor demand gets boosted, but business subsidies make losers of taxpayers, other businesses and good governance.
Fairness.Subsidies give Amazon an unfair edge other tech firms in New York City and Northern Virginia.
Alternatives.New York and Virginia would have generated more durable growth by cutting business taxes across the board by $2 billion. That would have boosted investment by many businesses, and thus created more balanced prosperity.
Diversity. Industry clusters such as Silicon Valley are successful not because they have big companies, but because they have a start-up culture that nurtures growth companies with venture capital. Rather than favoring big companies, state and local politicians would better spur growth by reducing tax and regulatory barriers to spawn a diversity of new companies.
Corruption. Allowing politicians to hand-out business subsidies at their discretion generates corruption because the hand-outs get swapped for campaign cash and outright bribes.
Bureaucracy. Amazon-style subsidy deals are jobs programs for accountants and lawyers.
Lobbyists. The high-profile Amazon win will inspire more companies to shake down politicians for subsidies.
Dependency.Just as welfare undermines individual productivity, corporate welfare undermines business productivity.
Bad Decisions. Subsidies induce companies to make bad decisions that backfire.
Politics. High-profile subsidy deals are politically risky.
Priorities. State and local governments face serious problems that may sink their economies in coming years such as large unfunded pension costs. They should fix those problems rather than trying to micromanage the economy.
Rather than subsidizing big businesses, the states should aim to create a diverse business ecosystem — an Amazon, if you will — by cutting taxes and regulations for all types of investment. If states adopt low tax rates and repeal unneeded regulations on zoning, licensing, and other activities, growth will take care of itself.
The WTO dispute process is not perfect but, it’s biggest flaw is that it is underutilized. The Trump administration should work with U.S. allies to use the WTO dispute process to press China to fulfill its promises and become more market-oriented.
Eight governors received the lowest grade of “F”: Roy Cooper of North Carolina, John Bel Edwards of Louisiana, Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania, Jim Justice of West Virginia, David Ige of Hawaii, Dennis Daugaard of South Dakota, Kate Brown of Oregon, and Jay Insleeof Washington.
Susana Martinez receives the highest score in this year’s report due to her spending restraint, tax cuts, and steadfast opposition to tax increases. New Mexico’s budget has remained roughly flat in recent years, and Martinez has repeatedly vetoed wasteful spending. She has pursued reforms to make New Mexico more competitive, including cutting the corporate tax rate. With revenues from energy production stagnant in recent years, balancing New Mexico’s budget has been a challenge. But Martinez has held firm against tax increases proposed by the legislature, including vetoing $350 million worth of tax increases last year.
Hi, I just found an amazing tiktok series of a guy explaining the basics of capitalism, socialism, and communism and I just thought I’d share it because I thought it was a great simple summary.
One of the things that I was confused about once I started being interested in politics were the terms “liberal” and “leftist”.
There was obviously a right and left wing. What I knew was that a liberal was a tolerant individual that constantly promoted human rights, and since they were considered to belong to the left, I logically concluded that these two word were synonymous.
It turns out there is a difference, and I thought I’d try to explain it in a relatively simple way for whoever needs it. Let’s start with defining each term:
Liberalism:
A political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise. -Oxford Languages
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. […] Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among Western philosophers and economists. - Wikipedia
Liberalism is a belief in gradual social progress by changing laws, rather than by revolution. -Collin
Leftism:
The political views or policies of the left. -Oxford Languages
Leftism refers to the beliefs and behaviour of people who support socialist ideas. - Collin
An economic posisistion favouring more collectivity/cooperation in making resource using decisions. This can either be done by state planning or using communes. -Urban Dictionnary
The major difference between these two ideologies is the preffered economic system of each. Basically, liberals have nothing against capitalism but believe in law changing and reforming in order to achieve equality. While leftists believe that the only way to atteign true equity would be overthrowing capitalism and adapting an entirely new economic system such as communism or socialism, generally accompanied by a revolution.
“Liberals are not leftists, and there are a few keypoints in understanding the differences betwen the two. Liberalism is an ideology that has a wide array of views but in general it’s in support of universal human rights, democratic governance and market based capitalist economics.
While there is some overlap, this last part is largely what seperates the two. Well meaning liberals do generally want to protect human rights and promote social equality but believe the problems stemmed from our capitalist system can be tweaked and reformed.
Leftists, on the other hand, are fundamentally opposed to capitalism, [they believe] that the problems created by the system are actually not problems at all, rather, they are a sign that the system is working as intended. Crony capitalism* doesn’t exist, ideologically pure free market capitalism* doesn’t exist either, there is only capitalism, and it must be abolished. Liberalism as an ideology believes that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with capitalism, that the problems that exist within a society are the result of bad actors and policies within the system that must be rooted out so the system can function properly. Leftist ideologies understand that the system itself is the cause of the suffering. No amount of reforming can fix the problems in our society. It’s not a matter of bad actors and policies but one of the relations we keep to keep society running.
Perhaps the most succint quote that hilights the differences comes from brazilian Archbishop Hélder Câmara: ” When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist.“ -"Why liberals are not leftists” by Leaflets via Youtube
“An economic system in which individuals and businesses with political connections and influence are favored (as through tax breaks, grants, and other forms of government assistance) in ways seen as suppressing open competition in a free market.” -Merriam Webster
“In its worst form, crony capitalism can devolve into simple corruption where any pretense of a free market is dispensed with. Bribes to government officials are considered de rigueur and tax evasion is common. […] Corrupt governments may favor one set of business owners who have close ties to the government over others.” -Wikipedia
*What is ideologically pure free market society?
“In a capitalistic society, the production and pricing of goods and services are determined by the free market, or supply and demand, however, some government regulation may occur. […] A free market system is an economic system based solely on demand and supply, and there is little or no government regulation.” -Investopedia
Is Free Market the Same as Capitalism?
“A capitalist system and a free market system are both economic environments that are based on the law of supply and demand.
They both are involved in determining the price and production of goods and services. On one hand, capitalism is focused on the creation of wealth and ownership of capital and factors of production, whereas a free market system is focused on the exchange of wealth, or goods and services.” - By Steven Nickolas for Investopedia
“Voters need to understand the fundamental differences between liberalism and leftism. It’s the difference between a candidate who believes capitalism, with just a little refereeing, will eventually provide what working people need, versus a candidate who believes serious intervention in the capitalist economy is necessary.” -The Conversation
That’s about it, I hope I was able to properly explain everything. This is obviously an overview of leftism and liberalism and in no way an in depth analysis of each ideology, though I later probably will dive in deeper.
As I have previously specified, I am a leftist, and I do not think that we can achieve any true change as long as we are under a capitalist system since every “problem” we’ve had is each deeply rooted in capitalism. I would also love to make a post listing some arguments that justify my beliefs, but that’ll be for another time.
Thank you for reading, also, I’ve never really asked you if you had any suggestions but I’d like to see if you guys had any questions about politics, and if I happen to have an understanding in the subject, I’ll try to answer it with a similar kind of post. Okay thanks, bye.
Musk’s real goal has nothing to do with the freedom of others. His goal is his own unconstrained freedom—the freedom to wield enormous power without having to be accountable to laws and regulations, to shareholders, or to market competition — which is why he’s dead set on owning Twitter.
Without a planned economy, there is no way to ensure full employment.
Capitalism consistently operates under capacity. This means empty facilitates, full of productive machinery, while those who could operate it are unemployed.
That’s not an accident.
Competition for jobs drives wages down. If 1000 people are willing and able to fill one post, the employer can choose the cheapest from a large pool of workers, all undercutting the cost of each other’s labour to secure the job.
If there are only a handful of people to do a job, wages cannot be forced down as far.
Near-full employment would leave employers with a very small pool of potential workers, forcing wages to increase or stay the same.
The market drives unemployment, demanding the longest possible hours from the cheapest available labourers.
Workers compete for jobs. Employers choose those who will accept the lowest wage.
As poorer nations entered the market, employers moved jobs en masse to those places. Workers do the same work on very low wages.
This created mass unemployment in the countries where capitalism began.
Without an income, individuals cannot buy what capitalists are selling. Workers in poor countries can’t afford the products of their labour - wages are too low.
Welfare programmes, although they were won by workers, create a consumer base in the countries left behind by industrial capitalists (they enable the unemployed to buy).
The market depends on the capitalist state. They appear antagonistic, but the capitalist state continually saves the market from extinction by its own hand (this is a ’bourgeois dictatorship’).
Maximisation of profit minimises disposable income. Therefore, a ‘free’ market is impossible, as is ‘anarcho-capitalism’ (also known as ‘right libertarianism’).
