Call me cloistered in my NYC bubble but I don't ever hear anyone say "look at Cuba! What a great system they have there!" Or, "wow, Venezuela was really doing something right." Or "Marx really knew what was up!" What I do hear a lot of is people frustrated and angry that .01% of the population control 90% of the economy (or whatever the number is).
As you stated, I think if there were more of an effort on the part of those controlling so much (whether politicians or billionaires) to address the very real issues of affordable healthcare, housing, education etc. there wouldn't be such a backlash toward the idea of "capitalism." But what we see mostly are very bad actors who have taken advantage of a system built by them for them — stretching and breaking the rules with very little pushback or consequences while demanding everyone else play strictly by the rules and quit complaining so much. Trust in the powers that be has eroded so far there may be no coming back.
I think people are searching for a more equitable system — one that allows for innovation, individuality, freedom (of speech, movement, etc) — all the things you hold up as byproducts of "capitalism" — but at the same time recognizes that our country and the "civilized" world has come as far as it has because of strong community — communities that believe that you are "only as strong as your weakest link."
What is sadly on full display is a system governed and run by people who simply don't like people. The resistance you are seeing to "capitalism" is more a resistance to the selfish people in power that are (or at least seem to be) only out to "get theirs." If we had more charitable, honest leaders across the board (government, business, entertainment, etc) we could expect to see not as much resistance to our economic system.
Also, yes, I went to college 20 odd years ago and don't have a great idea of what is happening on campuses now (my son is 10 but my nieces and nephews seem to be enjoying their experiences) but I certainly don't remember my professors demanding I think any one way. There was a ton of open debate amongst students and professors. The goal, it seemed to me, was to get students to break out of their belief systems and to experience and experiment with different ways of thinking — neither right or left or center or whatever. There was no pressure to think one way or another.
Anyhow, as always, thanks for getting the discussions going!
Thoughtful comment here Andrew. And I don’t think the backlash is really against “capitalism” in the pure sense, it’s against a version of it that feels captured, distorted, or unfair. And I think that’s an important distinction. Because the same system that’s produced real inequality is also the one that has driven massive gains in living standards, innovation, and opportunity over time. Both things can be true at once. Still, even on the worst of days it's better than a system where the state has full control over our lives.
To your point on leadership: I think this is actually the crux of it. Bad actors, whether in business or government, erode trust faster than any abstract economic theory ever could. If people feel the rules aren’t applied evenly, or that success is more about access than merit, they’re going to start looking for alternatives, even if those alternatives are poorly defined. I think we need to actually enforce a lot more rules better and have some new ones (IE politicians can't trade stocks etc).
Where I land is: more competition, fewer artificial constraints, better incentives, and for sure higher expectations for the people at the top. A system that rewards value creation and maintains legitimacy.
And on your college experience, a lot of people had that same experience years ago. The concern is that the center of gravity has shifted since then
Agreed all around. I feel like the tycoons of yesteryear were much more civic oriented, albeit ultimately for their own benefit but their own benefit also benefitted the greater good. If we could see more largesse out of our "leaders" I think people would feel much more comfortable with the idea of a system that has enabled these people to live like royalty. Instead we see them launching themselves and their friends into space : \ I'm not saying the ultra wealthy do not give back at all but it certainly would be great to see more parks built, more public schools, more beaches cleaned up, etc. It would go a long way to helping people remember why our economic and governmental system is still one of the best that's ever existed.
And absolutely politicians should not be able to trade stocks!
Good conversation! Many points echo my sentiments. Bad leadership is at the root of it at every level of society. Andrew, your point of giving back was exemplified by Carnegie’s libraries. It’s a gift that keeps giving versus today’s unaccountable philanthropy.
Could it be that the 62% of Americans under 30 looking favourably at "socialism" are thinking about countries like Sweden, the UK, Australia, and others in Europe rather than the 'catastrophic' states like the Soviet Union, Cuba and Venezuela? There is a middle ground, working quite well (nothing is ever going to be perfect) in many countries. They have capitalist markets, there is incentive to do well and make money, but a portion of taxes go towards a safety net for those in society that need it, healthcare, public services, the arts etc. Is that such a bad thing?
UK and EU are slowwlllly becoming more socialist than capitalist, so much government control and regulation (lots of it really suicidal). But yes can we please stress the part where we note that capitalism and free markets are what creates any wealth in the first place that might fund social programs. I fear we are not doing a great job of this.
I live in the UK and it is not becoming more socialist at all. I don't know what you are reading, but it is simply not the case. Regulation is there to stop bad actors and protect the public, within the capitalist free market, there can be a balance. It doesn't have to be black or white.
Yeah agree on the last part for sure, as long as the policies aren't constricting freedoms and chilling innovation. Anecdotally, heard unrest from several of my UK friends on the rising tax situation which they aren't too pleased with. Also seen some data that suggests less economic freedom (ie https://www.forthcapital.com/us/articles/record-9-500-millionaires-expected-to-leave-the-uk-this-year), and read stories of entrepreneurs expressing frustration. Of course we have that in America, too.
Respectfully, it's very difficult to educate a generation of kids about the "global successes of capitalism" when the wealth gap is as extreme as it is in this country. You're never going to be able to convince people that are already working hard and can't get ahead that if they just work a little harder everything will pan out. I don't disagree with you that socialism isn't the answer but what we have is not a pure capitalist society. Crony capitalism at best. The fact of the matter is we've socialized the losses and privatize the Gains for the beneficiaries of this system so many times while those companies farm out the jobs that used to make it possible to "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" that the under 35ish working class is disillusioned. What we're doing is unsustainable and if there are politicians telling them there's a way to survive without working their hands to the bone they're gonna vote for it. That's to say nothing of the non trivial % of gen z that doesn't want to work at all and will vote for it whether it's the best option or not
I understand - thus I mentioned we have to address the problems our politicians created. And we shouldn't be obnoxious to young people like the boomers have been with the various gaslighting commentary, they are partially to blame for why young people want socialism too if we're being honest.
You know what also really helps is having friends who escaped living under a socialist regime, these people make great educators. Even someone not doing as well as they'd like in America is so far better off than anyone under any socialist regime. We can fix our problems you'd never fix anything there without major, violent change. We don't have to do that.
Reading your comment I think we're enough on the same page honestly (that socialism is still a worse option for everyone).
I accidentally posted my response after the first sentence. No amount of history lessons or even first hand accounts from friends is going to make people forget the fact that the system being pitched to them is not working for them.
Yeah makes more sense now I edited to give a better response. Unlike the boomers I am not going to simply brush off what you say. It's valid, and we should work on fixing it. I can do another post on solutions for why young people shouldn't give up. Doomerism isn't good either
I don't disagree. I try to hire as many young people as I can and teach them a trade that they can make a living at. But let me give you an anecdotal example of what I'm talking about. I have a 25 year old kid that's been working for me for 6 years. Extremely gifted carpenter. Made $85k last year. Wife made probably $50k. No kids but want them. Can't buy a house in a neighborhood they'd want to raise a family in and the houses in the shit neighborhoods the mortgage would still be $2500 a month with a big down payment. Granted this is Austin and there are cheaper places to live but the wages are lower. And Austin by no means is the most expensive city in the country either. Now multiply that times millions of other kids his age in cities across the country. It's hard to spin that and not trying to isn't doomerism. It's reality. And as long as we keep widening the gap with this k shaped economy it's going to get worse. I have a feeling we're on the brink of another big print to bail out this private credit fiasco that's going to further devalue the currency and make it that much harder on them. It'll be worse w Gen a.
History shows us that this goes 1 of 2 ways. Either there's a reset that makes it easier for them to work hard and succeed or this ends with violence. As painful as the first might be for those of us that were born in an era that made it possible for us to accumulate wealth I still think the former is preferable.
I think we're in agreement but it's important to recognize the reality these kids are facing even when they are doing the right thing. 1/2 ton pickup trucks cost $70k. That's a years salary for most people. It's just not sustainable.
Once again, you're assuming "socialism" means "communism". Folks more often use "socialism" to refer to the social systems of the EU.
And you're assuming that the root cause of an overall population study is your favorite topic of college campuses despite no evidence that college students are moving the needle of the overall population.
Finally, you present conservative commentary on the education system as unbiased commentary. That's misleading at best.
I think your first sentence is a big part of frustration I have with the socialism branding. Those countries are fundamentally market economies with strong property rights and high levels of economic freedom, with social programs layered on top. That’s a very different system than what socialism has historically meant.
That said, even within modern versions, you can see policy outcomes that are ...really quite odd. For example, energy decisions in parts of Europe like shutting down nuclear under green socialist political pressure have real consequences (it's been a pretty big economic disaster for Germany). You don’t need gulags for bad policy to have serious, long-term effects.
On the education point: I’m not saying it’s the only driver, but it’s still hard for me to ignore it as a contributing factor. I’d argue we’d be in a healthier place if more of that sat closer to the ideological middle. If the charts were reversed I'd be writing the same posts just with a different list of concerns.
And zooming out a bit: I do think if we did a better job explaining how markets actually work, and how much prosperity they’ve generated globally, we'd see more balanced views (ie, fewer people thinking capitalism is bad/evil, also reflected in this data). The frustration younger generations feel is real (housing, healthcare, cost of living), but the solutions they’re reaching for are often mislabeled or poorly understood. As an entrepreneur you would be uniquely listened to on this topic btw - if you ever wrote a post I'd look forward to sharing/reading.
I agree that the definitions shift, but you have to focus on what people were answering and not what they might have answered with a different definition.
And the outcomes in the EU are no more odd than the outcomes in the US. The EU does not have school shoot epidemics, they don't have medical bill bankruptcies and they have longer life expectancy (mostly due to lower deaths among young people).
I don't think the problem is that people don't understand markets. I think the problem is that the system is working so badly for a lot of people that they would prefer literally anything else. If you work hard but have no prospect for home ownership or retirement, can't afford to have kids or suffer from food/housing insecurity you are going to reach for anything else. That describes the attitudes much more than education.
Call me cloistered in my NYC bubble but I don't ever hear anyone say "look at Cuba! What a great system they have there!" Or, "wow, Venezuela was really doing something right." Or "Marx really knew what was up!" What I do hear a lot of is people frustrated and angry that .01% of the population control 90% of the economy (or whatever the number is).
As you stated, I think if there were more of an effort on the part of those controlling so much (whether politicians or billionaires) to address the very real issues of affordable healthcare, housing, education etc. there wouldn't be such a backlash toward the idea of "capitalism." But what we see mostly are very bad actors who have taken advantage of a system built by them for them — stretching and breaking the rules with very little pushback or consequences while demanding everyone else play strictly by the rules and quit complaining so much. Trust in the powers that be has eroded so far there may be no coming back.
I think people are searching for a more equitable system — one that allows for innovation, individuality, freedom (of speech, movement, etc) — all the things you hold up as byproducts of "capitalism" — but at the same time recognizes that our country and the "civilized" world has come as far as it has because of strong community — communities that believe that you are "only as strong as your weakest link."
What is sadly on full display is a system governed and run by people who simply don't like people. The resistance you are seeing to "capitalism" is more a resistance to the selfish people in power that are (or at least seem to be) only out to "get theirs." If we had more charitable, honest leaders across the board (government, business, entertainment, etc) we could expect to see not as much resistance to our economic system.
Also, yes, I went to college 20 odd years ago and don't have a great idea of what is happening on campuses now (my son is 10 but my nieces and nephews seem to be enjoying their experiences) but I certainly don't remember my professors demanding I think any one way. There was a ton of open debate amongst students and professors. The goal, it seemed to me, was to get students to break out of their belief systems and to experience and experiment with different ways of thinking — neither right or left or center or whatever. There was no pressure to think one way or another.
Anyhow, as always, thanks for getting the discussions going!
Thoughtful comment here Andrew. And I don’t think the backlash is really against “capitalism” in the pure sense, it’s against a version of it that feels captured, distorted, or unfair. And I think that’s an important distinction. Because the same system that’s produced real inequality is also the one that has driven massive gains in living standards, innovation, and opportunity over time. Both things can be true at once. Still, even on the worst of days it's better than a system where the state has full control over our lives.
To your point on leadership: I think this is actually the crux of it. Bad actors, whether in business or government, erode trust faster than any abstract economic theory ever could. If people feel the rules aren’t applied evenly, or that success is more about access than merit, they’re going to start looking for alternatives, even if those alternatives are poorly defined. I think we need to actually enforce a lot more rules better and have some new ones (IE politicians can't trade stocks etc).
Where I land is: more competition, fewer artificial constraints, better incentives, and for sure higher expectations for the people at the top. A system that rewards value creation and maintains legitimacy.
And on your college experience, a lot of people had that same experience years ago. The concern is that the center of gravity has shifted since then
Agreed all around. I feel like the tycoons of yesteryear were much more civic oriented, albeit ultimately for their own benefit but their own benefit also benefitted the greater good. If we could see more largesse out of our "leaders" I think people would feel much more comfortable with the idea of a system that has enabled these people to live like royalty. Instead we see them launching themselves and their friends into space : \ I'm not saying the ultra wealthy do not give back at all but it certainly would be great to see more parks built, more public schools, more beaches cleaned up, etc. It would go a long way to helping people remember why our economic and governmental system is still one of the best that's ever existed.
And absolutely politicians should not be able to trade stocks!
Good conversation! Many points echo my sentiments. Bad leadership is at the root of it at every level of society. Andrew, your point of giving back was exemplified by Carnegie’s libraries. It’s a gift that keeps giving versus today’s unaccountable philanthropy.
Your next article could be on how America’s wealth enables the socialist policies of the EU. 😆
People don't even get the fundamental principle of capitalism: That every economic transaction is a win-win that creates value for both parties.
Could it be that the 62% of Americans under 30 looking favourably at "socialism" are thinking about countries like Sweden, the UK, Australia, and others in Europe rather than the 'catastrophic' states like the Soviet Union, Cuba and Venezuela? There is a middle ground, working quite well (nothing is ever going to be perfect) in many countries. They have capitalist markets, there is incentive to do well and make money, but a portion of taxes go towards a safety net for those in society that need it, healthcare, public services, the arts etc. Is that such a bad thing?
UK and EU are slowwlllly becoming more socialist than capitalist, so much government control and regulation (lots of it really suicidal). But yes can we please stress the part where we note that capitalism and free markets are what creates any wealth in the first place that might fund social programs. I fear we are not doing a great job of this.
I live in the UK and it is not becoming more socialist at all. I don't know what you are reading, but it is simply not the case. Regulation is there to stop bad actors and protect the public, within the capitalist free market, there can be a balance. It doesn't have to be black or white.
Yeah agree on the last part for sure, as long as the policies aren't constricting freedoms and chilling innovation. Anecdotally, heard unrest from several of my UK friends on the rising tax situation which they aren't too pleased with. Also seen some data that suggests less economic freedom (ie https://www.forthcapital.com/us/articles/record-9-500-millionaires-expected-to-leave-the-uk-this-year), and read stories of entrepreneurs expressing frustration. Of course we have that in America, too.
Interesting, that report is from 2024. Don't think many millionaires are heading to Dubai right now 🤣
Tradeoffs rule everything around us!
Yes, exactly.
Respectfully, it's very difficult to educate a generation of kids about the "global successes of capitalism" when the wealth gap is as extreme as it is in this country. You're never going to be able to convince people that are already working hard and can't get ahead that if they just work a little harder everything will pan out. I don't disagree with you that socialism isn't the answer but what we have is not a pure capitalist society. Crony capitalism at best. The fact of the matter is we've socialized the losses and privatize the Gains for the beneficiaries of this system so many times while those companies farm out the jobs that used to make it possible to "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" that the under 35ish working class is disillusioned. What we're doing is unsustainable and if there are politicians telling them there's a way to survive without working their hands to the bone they're gonna vote for it. That's to say nothing of the non trivial % of gen z that doesn't want to work at all and will vote for it whether it's the best option or not
I understand - thus I mentioned we have to address the problems our politicians created. And we shouldn't be obnoxious to young people like the boomers have been with the various gaslighting commentary, they are partially to blame for why young people want socialism too if we're being honest.
You know what also really helps is having friends who escaped living under a socialist regime, these people make great educators. Even someone not doing as well as they'd like in America is so far better off than anyone under any socialist regime. We can fix our problems you'd never fix anything there without major, violent change. We don't have to do that.
Reading your comment I think we're enough on the same page honestly (that socialism is still a worse option for everyone).
I accidentally posted my response after the first sentence. No amount of history lessons or even first hand accounts from friends is going to make people forget the fact that the system being pitched to them is not working for them.
Yeah makes more sense now I edited to give a better response. Unlike the boomers I am not going to simply brush off what you say. It's valid, and we should work on fixing it. I can do another post on solutions for why young people shouldn't give up. Doomerism isn't good either
I don't disagree. I try to hire as many young people as I can and teach them a trade that they can make a living at. But let me give you an anecdotal example of what I'm talking about. I have a 25 year old kid that's been working for me for 6 years. Extremely gifted carpenter. Made $85k last year. Wife made probably $50k. No kids but want them. Can't buy a house in a neighborhood they'd want to raise a family in and the houses in the shit neighborhoods the mortgage would still be $2500 a month with a big down payment. Granted this is Austin and there are cheaper places to live but the wages are lower. And Austin by no means is the most expensive city in the country either. Now multiply that times millions of other kids his age in cities across the country. It's hard to spin that and not trying to isn't doomerism. It's reality. And as long as we keep widening the gap with this k shaped economy it's going to get worse. I have a feeling we're on the brink of another big print to bail out this private credit fiasco that's going to further devalue the currency and make it that much harder on them. It'll be worse w Gen a.
History shows us that this goes 1 of 2 ways. Either there's a reset that makes it easier for them to work hard and succeed or this ends with violence. As painful as the first might be for those of us that were born in an era that made it possible for us to accumulate wealth I still think the former is preferable.
I think we're in agreement but it's important to recognize the reality these kids are facing even when they are doing the right thing. 1/2 ton pickup trucks cost $70k. That's a years salary for most people. It's just not sustainable.
Once again, you're assuming "socialism" means "communism". Folks more often use "socialism" to refer to the social systems of the EU.
And you're assuming that the root cause of an overall population study is your favorite topic of college campuses despite no evidence that college students are moving the needle of the overall population.
Finally, you present conservative commentary on the education system as unbiased commentary. That's misleading at best.
I think your first sentence is a big part of frustration I have with the socialism branding. Those countries are fundamentally market economies with strong property rights and high levels of economic freedom, with social programs layered on top. That’s a very different system than what socialism has historically meant.
That said, even within modern versions, you can see policy outcomes that are ...really quite odd. For example, energy decisions in parts of Europe like shutting down nuclear under green socialist political pressure have real consequences (it's been a pretty big economic disaster for Germany). You don’t need gulags for bad policy to have serious, long-term effects.
On the education point: I’m not saying it’s the only driver, but it’s still hard for me to ignore it as a contributing factor. I’d argue we’d be in a healthier place if more of that sat closer to the ideological middle. If the charts were reversed I'd be writing the same posts just with a different list of concerns.
And zooming out a bit: I do think if we did a better job explaining how markets actually work, and how much prosperity they’ve generated globally, we'd see more balanced views (ie, fewer people thinking capitalism is bad/evil, also reflected in this data). The frustration younger generations feel is real (housing, healthcare, cost of living), but the solutions they’re reaching for are often mislabeled or poorly understood. As an entrepreneur you would be uniquely listened to on this topic btw - if you ever wrote a post I'd look forward to sharing/reading.
I agree that the definitions shift, but you have to focus on what people were answering and not what they might have answered with a different definition.
And the outcomes in the EU are no more odd than the outcomes in the US. The EU does not have school shoot epidemics, they don't have medical bill bankruptcies and they have longer life expectancy (mostly due to lower deaths among young people).
I don't think the problem is that people don't understand markets. I think the problem is that the system is working so badly for a lot of people that they would prefer literally anything else. If you work hard but have no prospect for home ownership or retirement, can't afford to have kids or suffer from food/housing insecurity you are going to reach for anything else. That describes the attitudes much more than education.