Atheists: What if Trump addressed your issues in America. Would you vote for him?

[Peebothuhlu]

Example

Trump: Nobody respects Atheists like i do. Believe me. I will win bigly, and Atheists are the most wonderful people.

Well... it's a nice example.

But, since I'm not an American, I don't really care what the American Prime Minster says. Y'know, like I don't care what the President of Canada comes out with.

Cheers!    

Not at work.  

[Chad32]

I'd vote for anyone who enacted policies that actually helped me, instead of gutting regulations and giving money to people and corporations that already have the lion's share of money. We just went through a primary where people constantly asked Bernie how we're going to pay for medicare for all, yet when the stock market crashed they suddenly have over 4 trillion dollars to pump into it.

This. And there's lots of other stuff to consider too, like whether something like UBI should be phased in, what to do about climate change and how best to replace capitalism (because frankly given what we've seen over the last twelve years that system of economics is broken beyond repair).

This isn't even capitalism anymore. If it were, the failing banks and companies would just downsize or disappear. Rather this is corporatism, which is basically socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor.

[GUBU]

A ultimately self-destructive system that can overwhelm and submerge other theoretically more stable systems while it lasted is all powerful despite its instability.     The fate of any system that eschew what makes capitalistic system powerful in favor of some other aesthetic concern is very likely to be crushed by someone else’s capitalism.

What can I say, the bad drives out the good on a regular basis.

---

This isn't even capitalism anymore. If it were, the failing banks and companies would just downsize or disappear. Rather this is corporatism, which is basically socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor.

That's all capitalism ever was.

[Chad32]

A ultimately self-destructive system that can overwhelm and submerge other theoretically more stable systems while it lasted is all powerful despite its instability.     The fate of any system that eschew what makes capitalistic system powerful in favor of some other aesthetic concern is very likely to be crushed by someone else’s capitalism.

What can I say, the bad drives out the good on a regular basis.

---

This isn't even capitalism anymore. If it were, the failing banks and companies would just downsize or disappear. Rather this is corporatism, which is basically socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor.

That's all capitalism ever was.

Is it? I thought it was supposed to be better than that. There's supposed to be an air of competition, and if you fail, then good luck next time.

[Ranjr]

OP, no.  But if Trump and cronies caught the 19 and died, it might bring me to Jesus.

[Mr Greene]

Well that's actually Mercantilism which was demonstrated to be wrong by the 18th Century and was the reason we developed Capitalism.
Though obviously noone told the politicians and certain corporate leaders about this who still try to push mercantile agendas and call it capitalism.

For those that don't know Mercantilism pushes towards large corporate monopolies dominating the economy.
Capitalism opens up markets to allow competition between a large number of companies to keep prices low and encourage innovation.
As a rule of thumb if someone starts talking about 'increasing market share' or 'restricting foreign competition' you're listening to a mercantilist.

[GUBU]

What can I say, the bad drives out the good on a regular basis.

---

That's all capitalism ever was.

Is it? I thought it was supposed to be better than that. There's supposed to be an air of competition, and if you fail, then good luck next time.

Not really, no. There's lots of talk about how that under capitalism there would be lots of competition. But the only real rule in capitalism is that no external body can tell you what to do with your capital. And when there are no rules limiting what the big boys can do, the best result ends up being a cartel. As best evidenced in the way the US economy worked in the "roaring" 20's, or what happened with mergers and acquisitions in the 90's and noughties.

Hence why, if you really want competition you want a strongly regulated economy.

[The Valkyrie]

Of Trump addressed all my concerns, directly and personally, I still wouldn't vote for the prick.

[Anomalocaris]

If trump addressed all my concerns, there wouldn’t be a trump to vote for.

---

This. And there's lots of other stuff to consider too, like whether something like UBI should be phased in, what to do about climate change and how best to replace capitalism (because frankly given what we've seen over the last twelve years that system of economics is broken beyond repair).

This isn't even capitalism anymore. If it were, the failing banks and companies would just downsize or disappear. Rather this is corporatism, which is basically socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor.

You are mistaking what you think ought to happen under capitalism with what capitalism is.

But what you think ought to happen is in absolutely no way an intrinsically likely outcome under capitalism.     The goal of capitalist is to be monopolistic, anti-competitive, and oligarchical.      No one ever said capitalism thrives on noble goals. And least no one who could be attempted to be respected.   That is not capitalism.   Capitalism is a system where means of production are privately owned and managed for profit.

The strength that capitalism is it facilitates the ability to utilize societal resources more efficiently, effectively, and innovative at a time when the society itself is at the leading edge of social, economic and technological development and have to one else’s path to follow.

If a society is backwards and has the benefit of being able to tread in the foot steps of others, highly capitalist system often is not as effectively to enabling the society to catch up.   Statism often works better.   Hence communism starting from relatively backward social base often are able to achieve an period of impressive growth rate hard to match by more orthodox capitalist societies. 

But if the society is near the cutting edge of technological and economic development, and must feel its way forward, some capitalist societies are able to handily pull ahead of all non-capitalist systems.   This maight be said to be what brought down soviet communism after it had achieved the Herculean task of pulling russia from agrarian backwardness to a industrially and technological developed superpower.

You might say if you are already advanced, who cares if someone else is a little more advanced.   The problem is the threat of winner taking all is very real.   At the end of the Cold War, the winner came close to taking all.    The Russians took 25 years to gather their wits and finally, more or less, stopped being further reduced to poverty and geopolitical irrelevancy.

---

Is it? I thought it was supposed to be better than that. There's supposed to be an air of competition, and if you fail, then good luck next time.

Not really, no.  There's lots of talk about how that under capitalism there would be lots of competition.  But the only real rule in capitalism is that no external body can tell you what to do with your capital.  And when there are no rules limiting what the big boys can do, the best result ends up being a cartel.  As best evidenced in the way the US economy worked in the "roaring" 20's, or what happened with mergers and acquisitions in the 90's and noughties.

Hence why, if you really want competition you want a strongly regulated economy.

In a strongly regulated economy, competition is likely half hearted.    Winner taking all, or nearly all, is what makes competition earnest.