Here's something you might be interested in.
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Economist challenges socialist who spoke at USD
Surveillance on every corner not OK
Professor Chibber at USD
Capitalism vs. Socialism, redux
Prof. Chibber: According to Matthew Lickona, a reporter for the San Diego Reader, you participated in a debate (“Is it time for America to embrace socialism?) with Michael Munger on March 12, 2019 at USD during which you and Prof. Munger discussed capitalism vs. socialism and it appears to me that you made several statements that constituted serious errors, omissions and/or distortions (“Capitalism vs. Socialism: a civil debate between Duke’s Michael Munger and NYU’s Vivek Chibber at USD,” Golden Dreams, March 27).
In order to frame my objections to what you reportedly said please allow me to reach back to some of your earlier pronouncements. In the Socialist Register (Capitalism, Class and Universalism/2014) you insisted that “After a long, seemingly interminable hiatus, we appear to be witnessing the re-emergence of a global resistance to capitalism, at least in its neoliberal guise.
Given this claim how do you explain the finding in NBC’s March 3, 2019 poll (taken from Feb. 24th to 27th) which found that just 18% of all Americans view socialism positively. Was there a great reversal during the last five years or were you just thinking with your heart instead of your head? You went on to opine that “Whatever their crazy disagreements may have been over the past century or so, radicals and progressives have almost always agreed on two basic postulates – that as capitalism spreads, it subordinates all parts of the world to a common set of compulsions; and that wherever it spreads, those who it subjugates and exploits will have a common interest in struggling against it regardless of culture or creed.”
In light of this contention how do you account for the March 2019 WSJ poll which found that only 25% of the American electorate supports socialism? Has there been a lack of compulsion, subjugation and/or exploitation? According to you -- since 1980 85% of the increase in US income has gone to the top 10% but if you were to take the time to research the source of this claim you would find that it comes solely from the work of Piketty & Saez who examined federal tax return data since the imposition of the US income tax in 1913. This historic record is therefore based entirely upon incomes for “tax units” and the composition of these “tax units” has undergone dramatic changes since the 1970s due to single motherhood, smaller family size and a variety of additional sociological factors.
Unlike a sociologist like yourself economists know that since 1960 the US Gini coefficient (which measures inequality) for “All Persons” (i.e. individuals) has remained constant. Therefore, your belief that any increase in inequality is attributable to economic (as opposed to sociological) factors is not supported by the available data. Thus, you should refrain from repeating you misleading statement. The truth is that capitalism reduces inequality rather than exacerbating it! But perhaps worst of all you asserted that “If Swedish-style social democracy is what the right wants to push for, then sign me up.” This of course suggests that you are wholly unaware that for more than forty years Sweden has been steadily moving away from socialism toward a more market -oriented economy.
In 1975 roughly half of Swedish companies were government-owned. Today this figure has been cut in half. From 1981 through 2018 GDP in Sweden averaged only 0.56%. Sweden tried socialism and didn’t like the results that they got. Since 2000 Sweden abandoned its wealth tax, eliminated its property tax, lowered income taxes, reduced corporate taxes, slashed its tax-to-GDP ratio and made sharp cuts in unemployment benefits. In 2009 Sweden’s “stimulus” was a permanent tax cut rather than bailouts, or debt-fueled spending. This tax cut (using mostly tax credits) paid for itself. Today, the Swedes are apparently undeterred. Bloomberg reported on Jan. 16, 2019 that Sweden’s new governing coalition plans new tax cuts into 2020 in order to stoke jobs. On Feb. 1, 2019 Fox Business pronounced that “As Democrats propose tax hikes, Sweden is pushing cuts.” Prof. Chibber. in light of all of these facts may I still sign you up? Lastly, do you count yourself among the progressives or among the radicals?
- Richard W. Burcik
- Pennsylvania
Nix the spy cams
In a perfect world with such an amazing tech, every criminal would be apprehended (“Illegal-vision,” Letters, March 27). But we don’t live in a perfect world. In our world people are biased and they have agendas. Not everyone strive for the welfare for the common all. As you can see in recent times through political extremism, and police brutalities. Don’t forget our recent history of oppression. Surveillance on every street corner should be a good idea, but in reality it is not. It would provide too much power to any one organization. And if the wrong group came into power of it, it could be detrimental. I’m not just talking about people hacking the system for their own use, but people who would infiltrate government organizations by the numbers with political agendas. They would be able to do so much more with this than to just turn a blind eye but pursue another. It is said it would be used to prevent crimes for now. But with a traumatic event and a majority vote, it “will” be use for other oppressive motives. Cameras on every corner is the worst idea and should not be forward.
- ninjaloww12
- Linda Vista
Here's something you might be interested in.
Economist challenges socialist who spoke at USD
Surveillance on every corner not OK
Economist challenges socialist who spoke at USD
Surveillance on every corner not OK
Professor Chibber at USD
Capitalism vs. Socialism, redux
Prof. Chibber: According to Matthew Lickona, a reporter for the San Diego Reader, you participated in a debate (“Is it time for America to embrace socialism?) with Michael Munger on March 12, 2019 at USD during which you and Prof. Munger discussed capitalism vs. socialism and it appears to me that you made several statements that constituted serious errors, omissions and/or distortions (“Capitalism vs. Socialism: a civil debate between Duke’s Michael Munger and NYU’s Vivek Chibber at USD,” Golden Dreams, March 27).
In order to frame my objections to what you reportedly said please allow me to reach back to some of your earlier pronouncements. In the Socialist Register (Capitalism, Class and Universalism/2014) you insisted that “After a long, seemingly interminable hiatus, we appear to be witnessing the re-emergence of a global resistance to capitalism, at least in its neoliberal guise.
Given this claim how do you explain the finding in NBC’s March 3, 2019 poll (taken from Feb. 24th to 27th) which found that just 18% of all Americans view socialism positively. Was there a great reversal during the last five years or were you just thinking with your heart instead of your head? You went on to opine that “Whatever their crazy disagreements may have been over the past century or so, radicals and progressives have almost always agreed on two basic postulates – that as capitalism spreads, it subordinates all parts of the world to a common set of compulsions; and that wherever it spreads, those who it subjugates and exploits will have a common interest in struggling against it regardless of culture or creed.”
In light of this contention how do you account for the March 2019 WSJ poll which found that only 25% of the American electorate supports socialism? Has there been a lack of compulsion, subjugation and/or exploitation? According to you -- since 1980 85% of the increase in US income has gone to the top 10% but if you were to take the time to research the source of this claim you would find that it comes solely from the work of Piketty & Saez who examined federal tax return data since the imposition of the US income tax in 1913. This historic record is therefore based entirely upon incomes for “tax units” and the composition of these “tax units” has undergone dramatic changes since the 1970s due to single motherhood, smaller family size and a variety of additional sociological factors.
Unlike a sociologist like yourself economists know that since 1960 the US Gini coefficient (which measures inequality) for “All Persons” (i.e. individuals) has remained constant. Therefore, your belief that any increase in inequality is attributable to economic (as opposed to sociological) factors is not supported by the available data. Thus, you should refrain from repeating you misleading statement. The truth is that capitalism reduces inequality rather than exacerbating it! But perhaps worst of all you asserted that “If Swedish-style social democracy is what the right wants to push for, then sign me up.” This of course suggests that you are wholly unaware that for more than forty years Sweden has been steadily moving away from socialism toward a more market -oriented economy.
In 1975 roughly half of Swedish companies were government-owned. Today this figure has been cut in half. From 1981 through 2018 GDP in Sweden averaged only 0.56%. Sweden tried socialism and didn’t like the results that they got. Since 2000 Sweden abandoned its wealth tax, eliminated its property tax, lowered income taxes, reduced corporate taxes, slashed its tax-to-GDP ratio and made sharp cuts in unemployment benefits. In 2009 Sweden’s “stimulus” was a permanent tax cut rather than bailouts, or debt-fueled spending. This tax cut (using mostly tax credits) paid for itself. Today, the Swedes are apparently undeterred. Bloomberg reported on Jan. 16, 2019 that Sweden’s new governing coalition plans new tax cuts into 2020 in order to stoke jobs. On Feb. 1, 2019 Fox Business pronounced that “As Democrats propose tax hikes, Sweden is pushing cuts.” Prof. Chibber. in light of all of these facts may I still sign you up? Lastly, do you count yourself among the progressives or among the radicals?
- Richard W. Burcik
- Pennsylvania
Nix the spy cams
In a perfect world with such an amazing tech, every criminal would be apprehended (“Illegal-vision,” Letters, March 27). But we don’t live in a perfect world. In our world people are biased and they have agendas. Not everyone strive for the welfare for the common all. As you can see in recent times through political extremism, and police brutalities. Don’t forget our recent history of oppression. Surveillance on every street corner should be a good idea, but in reality it is not. It would provide too much power to any one organization. And if the wrong group came into power of it, it could be detrimental. I’m not just talking about people hacking the system for their own use, but people who would infiltrate government organizations by the numbers with political agendas. They would be able to do so much more with this than to just turn a blind eye but pursue another. It is said it would be used to prevent crimes for now. But with a traumatic event and a majority vote, it “will” be use for other oppressive motives. Cameras on every corner is the worst idea and should not be forward.
- ninjaloww12
- Linda Vista