We Need To Harness Capitalism

Axios:

“A lot of CEOs and rich people are coming to the same conclusion — many reluctantly and privately. But the change in tone is noteworthy.

JPMorgan Chase chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon wrote this week in his annual shareholders letter: “Capitalism enables competition, innovation and choice. This is not to say that capitalism does not have flaws, that it isn’t leaving people behind and that it shouldn’t be improved.”

The flashing signals are everywhere:

The data — the unambiguous reality — is sobering and startling: Since 1980, the incomes of the top 1% tripled, the top 10% doubled, and the bottom 60% of prime-age workers were flat.

History — and the past half-decade here and abroad — shows this is a key ingredient of populism.

All of this also makes socialism attractive — to the young, especially, but also to Democrats broadly. …”

Yes, the way you tackle this issue is through creating a populist-progressive coalition like the one created by FDR back in the New Deal era, and the way you do that is by trading political correctness and an immigration moratorium for Universal Basic Income and other redistributive programs that relieve social and economic stress. If the system doesn’t slow down, it will crash.

Note: I would imagine the system crashing would be very bad for the Jamie Dimons of the world. Of course, it would also be bad for ordinary people with families, whose lives would be sucked into a maelstrom of violence, as has often occurred throughout history.

About Hunter Wallace 9297 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

11 Comments

  1. Do not confuse capitalism with free enterprise! Not only are they not the same thing they are mutually exclusive.

    • Please, for us plebs, what is “capitalism” and what is “free enterprise” … articulately stated definitions please. So that we can understand the difference.

      IMO, I suspect that most, if not all, “good muricans” understand both terms to simply mean varying degrees of the love of shekels (burning passion to lukewarm embrace respectively) ,

  2. Just out of curiosity, what’s the origin of that cartoon with the velocipedes and the bicycle?

  3. “Yes, the way you tackle this issue is through creating a populist-progressive coalition like the one created by FDR back in the New Deal era, and the way you do that is by trading political correctness and an immigration moratorium for Universal Basic Income and other redistributive programs that relieve social and economic stress.” No, the way you do that is by tackling the actual problems, not by feel-good policies of “redistribution of wealth,” and the rest of it. Of course an unsustainable system like that would crash and burn, but the families will be hurt more than the oligarchs. UBI is not only economically unsound, but it encourages laziness, and the importing of even more Third World scum to do the jobs that Americans are too lazy to do. Already with the current welfare system, we see not only the economic unsustainability, but also the laziness. The welfare state is already a huge contributor not only to our economic problems, but to the white genocide by displacement. It is the height of insanity to expect that these problems won’t be exacerbated with Welfare for All. BTW, if Yang doesn’t even know what VAT is, he certainly isn’t qualified to be president. Corporations don’t pay VAT, the consumers do (it’s the European version of sales tax). And for 10% VAT to cover $1000 a month for every adult, that means every adult would have to PAY $10,000 worth of purchases.

    • This is a conservative/lolbertarian take.

      I’m a populist. I value social cohesion and economic fairness. I would happily trade student loan debt forgiveness, UBI, Medicare for All, weed legalization and a bunch of these other things for an immigration moratorium and an end to political correctness. As an amateur historian, I have already explained why I think lolbertarian economics is bunk.

      The South from 1865 to 1940 is proof that conservative/lolbertarian economics inexorably leads to mass poverty, oligarchy and underinvestment. We used to have that system here. But anyway, people disagree on these things.

      Carry on. We shall see who was right.

      • “The South from 1865 to 1940 is proof that conservative/lolbertarian economics inexorably leads to mass poverty, oligarchy and underinvestment.”

        Maybe it’s proof that whites are disinclined to invest in black countries. Try to find a supermarket in Camden, New Jersey.

  4. FDR was one of the worst presidents of all time. he permanently crippled the US.

    you’ve simply turned into a moron. that’s all there is to it. and you certainly don’t know anything about history, that’s for sure.

    also, (jamie dimon). obviously.

    • FDR’s foreign policy sucked, but the military spending in WW2 and the Cold War creates the Sunbelt economy. It certainly wasn’t conservatism which was on ice after the Hoover administration.

  5. Can you make a case that ending political correctness in some sort of trade is even vaguely possible?

    It’s part of a virtue signaling and purity spiral, which historically has often taken violence to end, either by people inside the circle worried they’ll be next, or an outside like Napoleon and Stalin changing the rules of the game by force.

Comments are closed.