US lawmakers introduce bill to ban TikTok

[Ag3ma]

The article also doesn't mention why most of the roadblocks are even in place. WIC issues and the extreme over-regulation of baby formula (which bleeds heavily into trade policy, they are sorta one in the same) caused the baby formula shortage in the US. The shortage did not at all happen due to the system of capitalism, which is my main point. Are you gonna say the shortage was caused by an inherit flaw of capitalism?

At face value, the shortage was caused by a supply crunch due to a producer having to shut down a major factory. There are then a wide range of questions that need to be asked as contributory issues. How did the factory get in such bad condition? Why is so much production dependent on so few providers and facilities? Are US food safety standards reasonable? Is US trade policy appropriate? (And so on).

Is this an inherent flaw in capitalism? One might point out that capitalism drives efficiency drives consolidation of industries into a handful of major companies, and likewise for those companies to concentrate production into large facilities: both liable to create larger problems when a company or production facility fails. Potentially of course profit motive is also a factor in why the quality standards in the factory fell and led to infected produce, because it's cheaper to be as lax as possible. So I could argue it's just as reasonable to blame capitalism as it is government regulation.

Is this aspect of capitalism an "inherent flaw"? Broadly, no: cheaper stuff is good, especially for the poor. But then we also have to suck up the downsides, too, as you can't have your cake and eat it with premium quality at budget cost. Capitalism has features that provide both advantages and disadvantages: we accept the trade-offs and try to mitigate the problems.

The bottom line is that it was a complex, multifactorial, systemic problem, and any analysis that attempts to lay the blame on one specific issue is almost certainly either superficial or bogus.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

There was also the bit where the factory owners spent a significant chunk of time arguing that their factory *wasn't* contaminated and how dare the government suggest otherwise and that burned a lot of time because they just...didn't want to pay to sanitize the machines

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Well then good news, China is doing exactly what YOU SPECIFICALLY want them to do
Quarantines, restricted travel, bans on congregating in numbers, etc. All the things you hated and advocated getting rid of and are now blaming the increased cases on us for some reason.
And then they stopped doing that and cases are skyrocketing and you're blaming that on us, somehow.

Neat, we'll just get everybody to get their baby formula information from the German language website instead of it being in english on the box. I mean, everybody speaks German, yeah?

No, they ain't.

Uhh... You don't really read what I say then.

The only things you can implement without stopping society (pre-vaccine) are limiting large indoor public events (conventions, theaters, bars, restaurants, etc.), protecting the vulnerable, and (addition from the last time I said this) letting people stay home when sick for a few days (which should be a normal thing anyway). There's nothing else you can do that will make any meaningful impacts on covid spread that will allow society to still function.

Flattening the curve and trying to eliminate the curve are 2 different things. When you try to do the latter, you get quite a bit more harms added into the mix and then when you let people "free", you'll have a massive surge. The point is to have covid gradually spread so it can be handled well enough.

The people had to have ordered the baby formula online, which is where the english info exists, so why is the US government taking their food they purchased?

At face value, the shortage was caused by a supply crunch due to a producer having to shut down a major factory. There are then a wide range of questions that need to be asked as contributory issues. How did the factory get in such bad condition? Why is so much production dependent on so few providers and facilities? Are US food safety standards reasonable? Is US trade policy appropriate? (And so on).

Is this an inherent flaw in capitalism? One might point out that capitalism drives efficiency drives consolidation of industries into a handful of major companies, and likewise for those companies to concentrate production into large facilities: both liable to create larger problems when a company or production facility fails. Potentially of course profit motive is also a factor in why the quality standards in the factory fell and led to infected produce, because it's cheaper to be as lax as possible. So I could argue it's just as reasonable to blame capitalism as it is government regulation.

Is this aspect of capitalism an "inherent flaw"? Broadly, no: cheaper stuff is good, especially for the poor. But then we also have to suck up the downsides, too, as you can't have your cake and eat it with premium quality at budget cost. Capitalism has features that provide both advantages and disadvantages: we accept the trade-offs and try to mitigate the problems.

The bottom line is that it was a complex, multifactorial, systemic problem, and any analysis that attempts to lay the blame on one specific issue is almost certainly either superficial or bogus.

The government accelerated said driving of industries into major companies via the WIC program. Why would a socialist economy be immune to such things? It's more efficient to have one large specialized department handling baby formula or anything really and the same thing can happen via socialism too. Socialism can also have the opposite issues of being very inefficient and making lower quality products. The pushed narrative that capitalism is bad and socialism is good is a false dichotomy. No reason not to take the pros from each one.

 

[Ag3ma]

The government accelerated said driving of industries into major companies via the WIC program.

Did the government do that - or would it have just happened anyway? As said, it is characteristic of nearly all industries to tend to end up with just a few major players.

I then notice lots of people pointing and complaining that the governmend did this, but very little comment on what the government should have done differently when buying baby formula via WIC. Maybe that's because they don't actually have a better idea.

Why would a socialist economy be immune to such things?

It wouldn't be immune. But it has less ideological drive to do it.

The pushed narrative that capitalism is bad and socialism is good is a false dichotomy.

Indeed it is. But capitalists will tend to call socialism shit, and socialists tend to call capitalism shit. So what?

Most Western socialists are social democrats. Whilst social democracy is in base principle a branch of socialism, in practice it is almost indistinguishable from the lefter end of capitalism (e.g. social liberalism). Most socialists therefore appreciate some capitalist principles just as most capitalists appreciate some socialist principles, and what they're really envisaging is distinctly moderate. They're not saying the entire concept of private ownership, profit motive and competition needs to go, they're just saying they want welfare, healthcare, a modest wealth gap and the rich under safe control of wider society, which are things they don't see when capitalism gets too capitalist.

 

[Silvanus]

It's more efficient to have one large specialized department handling baby formula or anything really and the same thing can happen via socialism too.

He's so close!

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Did the government do that - or would it have just happened anyway? As said, it is characteristic of nearly all industries to tend to end up with just a few major players.

I then notice lots of people pointing and complaining that the governmend did this, but very little comment on what the government should have done differently when buying baby formula via WIC. Maybe that's because they don't actually have a better idea.



It wouldn't be immune. But it has less ideological drive to do it.



Indeed it is. But capitalists will tend to call socialism shit, and socialists tend to call capitalism shit. So what?

Most Western socialists are social democrats. Whilst social democracy is in base principle a branch of socialism, in practice it is almost indistinguishable from the lefter end of capitalism (e.g. social liberalism). Most socialists therefore appreciate some capitalist principles just as most capitalists appreciate some socialist principles, and what they're really envisaging is distinctly moderate. They're not saying the entire concept of private ownership, profit motive and competition needs to go, they're just saying they want welfare, healthcare, a modest wealth gap and the rich under safe control of wider society, which are things they don't see when capitalism gets too capitalist.

The government used to break up monopolies because it was a known problem of capitalism, and the government really doesn't do it anymore. The fact the government accelerated said process shows that socialism isn't inherently better nor does it show it was capitalism's fault.

I don't know that it would have less drive to do it.

Again, I'm referring to people like this guy who are all like "capitalism sucks and socialism is the cure". It took him just below 15 minutes to actually say plainly what socialism is. And yes, he wants private ownership to go. I only know of this channel because a friend posts them and I comment on how bad these videos are and he blindly defends them. This guys just throws paint at the wall hoping some of it sticks.



Most social democratic countries are more capitalist than the US. I'm always like the following meme, why can't we just do what they do basically?

 

[Ag3ma]

The government used to break up monopolies because it was a known problem of capitalism, and the government really doesn't do it anymore. The fact the government accelerated said process shows that socialism isn't inherently better nor does it show it was capitalism's fault.

Does it not do it, or are there no monopolies worth breaking up? The way Western governments tend to deal with monopolies is to not them occur in the first place: takeovers and mergers are prevented, or the combined entity is forced to divest itself of divisions where a monopoly may be created. This happens not infrequently. Localised monopolies may be more tolerated, of course.

Sort of monopolies can exist: for instance, Microsoft has quasi-monopolistic power in the field of computer operating systems. But Microsoft Windows cannot be split up, because it's a single product. (Although Microsoft has of course been fined in several jurisdictions for abusing the power its OS gives it.)

Again, I'm referring to people like this guy who are all like "capitalism sucks and socialism is the cure". It took him just below 15 minutes to actually say plainly what socialism is. And yes, he wants private ownership to go.

But so what? Like I said, some people believe the Earth is flat. People believe stuff and make videos and write books and blogs about what they believe. The ability to find someone on the internet with a view different from your own means literally nothing other than people have different ideas about the world than you.

Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the workers. Although how that could be carried out in practice includes a very wide range of possibilities, some of which would be very similar to today's society.

Most social democratic countries are more capitalist than the US. I'm always like the following meme, why can't we just do what they do basically?

That is, of course, total bollocks. Social democratic countries are significantly less capitalist than the USA.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Does it not do it, or are there no monopolies worth breaking up? The way Western governments tend to deal with monopolies is to not them occur in the first place: takeovers and mergers are prevented, or the combined entity is forced to divest itself of divisions where a monopoly may be created. This happens not infrequently. Localised monopolies may be more tolerated, of course.

Sort of monopolies can exist: for instance, Microsoft has quasi-monopolistic power in the field of computer operating systems. But Microsoft Windows cannot be split up, because it's a single product. (Although Microsoft has of course been fined in several jurisdictions for abusing the power its OS gives it.)



But so what? Like I said, some people believe the Earth is flat. People believe stuff and make videos and write books and blogs about what they believe. The ability to find someone on the internet with a view different from your own means literally nothing other than people have different ideas about the world than you.

Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the workers. Although how that could be carried out in practice includes a very wide range of possibilities, some of which would be very similar to today's society.



That is, of course, total bollocks. Social democratic countries are significantly less capitalist than the USA.

The US hardly blocks takeovers and mergers.

There's quite a lot of young people that are socialists. It's "cool" to blame capitalism for all your problems.

Socialism as Popular as Capitalism Among Young Adults in U.S.

Young adults' reaction to the term "capitalism" has grown less positive over the past decade, while their view of socialism has remained steady.

news.gallup.com

Index of Economic Freedom: All Country Scores | The Heritage Foundation

Explore the Index of Economic Freedom to gauge global impacts of liberty and free markets. Discover the powerful link between economic freedom and progress. The 30th edition, once again, illustrates key factors shaping our world's landscape. From @Heritage

www.heritage.org

Denmark to American leftists: We’re not socialist

Democratic Socialists have presented Denmark as the elusive nation where socialism has been successful, and thus a model for the policies they would implement in the United States. Bernie Sanders regularly invoked Denmark during the 2016 presidential campaign, and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez...

www.acton.org

The Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World index ranks Denmark 16th (out of 162 countries). According to the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom, Denmark (ranked 12th out of 180 countries) ranks higher than the US (18th). Denmark generally ranks high on regulation, protection of private property, fighting corruption, flexibility of the labor market and trade, but ranks low on taxes and public spending, which are very high in Denmark compared to other countries.

 

[Ag3ma]

The US hardly blocks takeovers and mergers.

It doesn't generally need to for a number of reasons.

Firstly, companies that own a disproportionate chunk of the market are both few and often difficult to take over (because of their size and thus cost), so such mergers make up a tiny proportion of takeovers and mergers. Secondly, the simple existence of anti-monopoly laws means that companies get legal advice when planning such an acquisition, and either drop the plans or arrange to divest themselves of problematic departments before the state needs to brings the banhammer down.

There's quite a lot of young people that are socialists. It's "cool" to blame capitalism for all your problems.

<shrug>

Index of Economic Freedom: All Country Scores | The Heritage Foundation

Explore the Index of Economic Freedom to gauge global impacts of liberty and free markets. Discover the powerful link between economic freedom and progress. The 30th edition, once again, illustrates key factors shaping our world's landscape. From @Heritage

www.heritage.org

The Heritage Institute's measurement of "economic freedom" covers numerous things that don't define things that are specific to capitalism or socialism. These include factors such as legal efficiency, government efficiency, national debt ("fiscal health"), etc. Fair enough - these all contribute to economic freedom. If your country's in a civil war, its economy is deeply constrained no matter whether it's socialist or capitalist. But it doesn't mean a country becomes socialist the minute it has a civil war that makes it harder to do economic activity.

The Heritage Foundation ranks the USA in the mid-20s. You need to take the Heritage Institute's rankings with a big measure of salt, because it's a highly partisan US right-wing think tank. This introduces two significant problems: firstly, it is not a source of high repute, and secondly, it is heavily biased.

1) Its description of the USA includes: "Business freedom and rule of law are strong, but the economy is being crushed by reckless government overspending." Well, okay. But why is not saying that about all the many, many other countries with even higher levels of public spending, even according to its own scores?
2) "President Joseph Biden has pursued a radical left agenda aimed at fundamentally transforming both the country and the economy."
3) If we want to see data that looks extremely dodgy: the USA scores zero on Fiscal Health. In context, that's lower than Argentina, Greece and Italy, notorious for their recent crippling debt problems.

The Fraser Institute - which is politically neutral but ideologically very capitalist - ranks the USA in 7th and this is vastly more realistic. The only country of note above it that is regarded as democratic socialist is Denmark. But then, the Fraser Institute is also looking at a number of factors that make it easier to do business but aren't necessarily "capitalism" (again, for instance, efficiency of the legal system). However, I can't help but note that Denmark also has a public sector that accounts for over 50% of its national GDP, where the USA is normally mid-30s%. That's money paying for a very large amount of socialistic public services.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

It doesn't generally need to for a number of reasons.

Firstly, companies that own a disproportionate chunk of the market are both few and often difficult to take over (because of their size and thus cost), so such mergers make up a tiny proportion of takeovers and mergers. Secondly, the simple existence of anti-monopoly laws means that companies get legal advice when planning such an acquisition, and either drop the plans or arrange to divest themselves of problematic departments before the state needs to brings the banhammer down.



<shrug>



The Heritage Institute's measurement of "economic freedom" covers numerous things that don't define things that are specific to capitalism or socialism. These include factors such as legal efficiency, government efficiency, national debt ("fiscal health"), etc. Fair enough - these all contribute to economic freedom. If your country's in a civil war, its economy is deeply constrained no matter whether it's socialist or capitalist. But it doesn't mean a country becomes socialist the minute it has a civil war that makes it harder to do economic activity.

The Heritage Foundation ranks the USA in the mid-20s. You need to take the Heritage Institute's rankings with a big measure of salt, because it's a highly partisan US right-wing think tank. This introduces two significant problems: firstly, it is not a source of high repute, and secondly, it is heavily biased.

1) Its description of the USA includes: "Business freedom and rule of law are strong, but the economy is being crushed by reckless government overspending." Well, okay. But why is not saying that about all the many, many other countries with even higher levels of public spending, even according to its own scores?
2) "President Joseph Biden has pursued a radical left agenda aimed at fundamentally transforming both the country and the economy."
3) If we want to see data that looks extremely dodgy: the USA scores zero on Fiscal Health. In context, that's lower than Argentina, Greece and Italy, notorious for their recent crippling debt problems.

The Fraser Institute - which is politically neutral but ideologically very capitalist - ranks the USA in 7th and this is vastly more realistic. The only country of note above it that is regarded as democratic socialist is Denmark. But then, the Fraser Institute is also looking at a number of factors that make it easier to do business but aren't necessarily "capitalism" (again, for instance, efficiency of the legal system). However, I can't help but note that Denmark also has a public sector that accounts for over 50% of its national GDP, where the USA is normally mid-30s%. That's money paying for a very large amount of socialistic public services.

So what's your ranking/rating to go by for most capitalist countries? I just went with the sources that are most commonly used. Even if you find the perfect parameters to classify countries' economies, places like Denmark or Sweden aren't going to be close to socialist. And the US even with less social programs doesn't mean it's more capitalist either. There's tons of subsidies that greatly effect prices of many products in many markets. Socialism is not some fix to capitalism that keeps getting propagandized.

 

[Silvanus]

So what's your ranking/rating to go by for most capitalist countries? I just went with the sources that are most commonly used. Even if you find the perfect parameters to classify countries' economies, places like Denmark or Sweden aren't going to be close to socialist. And the US even with less social programs doesn't mean it's more capitalist either. There's tons of subsidies that greatly effect prices of many products in many markets. Socialism is not some fix to capitalism that keeps getting propagandized.

There are no "perfect parameters", because capitalism and socialism do not have single, narrow, universal definitions. They are broad descriptions covering dozens of variations-- many of which can overlap. The result is that coming up with rankings for "most capitalist" is a childish impossibility.

So: When you say Denmark and Sweden "aren't close to socialist", what definition are you using? They fit some definitions that exist under that description, but they don't fit others. So which?

 

[Gergar12]

The government used to break up monopolies because it was a known problem of capitalism, and the government really doesn't do it anymore. The fact the government accelerated said process shows that socialism isn't inherently better nor does it show it was capitalism's fault.

I don't know that it would have less drive to do it.

Again, I'm referring to people like this guy who are all like "capitalism sucks and socialism is the cure". It took him just below 15 minutes to actually say plainly what socialism is. And yes, he wants private ownership to go. I only know of this channel because a friend posts them and I comment on how bad these videos are and he blindly defends them. This guys just throws paint at the wall hoping some of it sticks.



Most social democratic countries are more capitalist than the US. I'm always like the following meme, why can't we just do what they do basically?

Because some of the core tenets of some forms of modern socialism are unpopular. Like ending private ownership of personal goods and or limiting technological progress. This guy wants you to go back to the 1960s and be Swiss.

 

[Ag3ma]

So what's your ranking/rating to go by for most capitalist countries? I just went with the sources that are most commonly used. Even if you find the perfect parameters to classify countries' economies, places like Denmark or Sweden aren't going to be close to socialist. And the US even with less social programs doesn't mean it's more capitalist either. There's tons of subsidies that greatly effect prices of many products in many markets. Socialism is not some fix to capitalism that keeps getting propagandized.

I can't precisely rank countries in how capitalist they are, I don't have the expertise and the data. I'm just saying that there's more to a "free market" than capitalism.

At its simplest basis, capitalism is a system where industry is organised around private ownership for profit. Socialism is a system where the means of production are owned by the workers. This means that the two are not necesarily totally at odds, because the means of production can be privately owned by the workers for profit.

However, if we take the idea of "private ownership", capitalist principles would suggest that the more that the rights of private owners are constrained by the state (in the state's role as representative of the collective population), the less capitalist it is. Thus things like taxes and government spending (especially welfare and social services) and many regulations tend to be seen as socialistic. In this probably most historically-relevant, practical and sensible view, the USA is relatively capitalistic compared to others because it is generally low tax and low regulation. Denmark is indeed at core a capitalist country, but with a very wide socialistic streak.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

There are no "perfect parameters", because capitalism and socialism do not have single, narrow, universal definitions. They are broad descriptions covering dozens of variations-- many of which can overlap. The result is that coming up with rankings for "most capitalist" is a childish impossibility.

So: When you say Denmark and Sweden "aren't close to socialist", what definition are you using? They fit some definitions that exist under that description, but they don't fit others. So which?

The literal simplest definitions, keep it simple stupid (KISS).

Capitalism - country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit
Socialism - means of production are owned and controlled by the state

Because some of the core tenets of some forms of modern socialism are unpopular. Like ending private ownership of personal goods and or limiting technological progress. This guy wants you to go back to the 1960s and be Swiss.

His videos are so illogical and he loves side-stepping what he's actually advocating for as much as possible.

I can't precisely rank countries in how capitalist they are, I don't have the expertise and the data. I'm just saying that there's more to a "free market" than capitalism.

At its simplest basis, capitalism is a system where industry is organised around private ownership for profit. Socialism is a system where the means of production are owned by the workers. This means that the two are not necesarily totally at odds, because the means of production can be privately owned by the workers for profit.

However, if we take the idea of "private ownership", capitalist principles would suggest that the more that the rights of private owners are constrained by the state (in the state's role as representative of the collective population), the less capitalist it is. Thus things like taxes and government spending (especially welfare and social services) and many regulations tend to be seen as socialistic. In this probably most historically-relevant, practical and sensible view, the USA is relatively capitalistic compared to others because it is generally low tax and low regulation. Denmark is indeed at core a capitalist country, but with a very wide socialistic streak.

The people I mentioned (like the channel I linked to) that are pushing socialism are not pushing it in the sense that they just want more social programs. They think capitalism is just plain evil and the cause of like all of society's problems. The US is more social than you think. For example, you had people in the US complaining that Canadians were getting $2,000/month during the pandemic when the US was in actuality giving out more than that to help people, but it was just through different means vs a straight $2,000 check to people.

 

[Silvanus]

The literal simplest definitions, keep it simple stupid (KISS).

Capitalism - country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit
Socialism - means of production are owned and controlled by the state

You've already got one of those definitions wrong. And even then, the two definitions you gave aren't even mutually exclusive. Dozens of countries have some trade and industry controlled by private owners for profit, and some not.

His videos are so illogical and he loves side-stepping what he's actually advocating for as much as possible.

He said, without a hint of self-reflection.

 

[Ag3ma]

The people I mentioned (like the channel I linked to) that are pushing socialism are not pushing it in the sense that they just want more social programs. They think capitalism is just plain evil and the cause of like all of society's problems. The US is more social than you think. For example, you had people in the US complaining that Canadians were getting $2,000/month during the pandemic when the US was in actuality giving out more than that to help people, but it was just through different means vs a straight $2,000 check to people.

Canada did a lot more than give $2,000 to some people for 4 months, though. You can't meaningfully compare one Canadian policy of many against the entirety of US policy and argue the US was more generous. Wee also have to consider other issues - size of measures required, and that the built-in welfare systems of many countries can kick in and soften the blow to people without the requirement for new policy anyway.

Yes, the USA has social programs. The USA runs a public health system (albeit where provision for a large chunk of the populace is poor), public education system, pays various forms of benefits to the needy, etc. It's definitely has a significant component of social care... it's just a lot less than many other Western countries have. As said, the US government spends a lot less per head population than most other Western countries, and a lot of that is soaked up by military expenditure and a grotesquely inefficient healthcare system that potentially has the world's worst outcomes per unit cost by a huge margin.

And when we look at tone of debate too: for instance in most of the West, universal healthcare is assumed the natural and right way to be. In the USA, it remains a controversy. Likewise the strength and volume of opposition to all sorts of other social programs is significantly higher in the USA than most other Western countries. So, more capitalist.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Bro if you're not planning on running for office, or in a national security-related job. No one cares about your data.

If no one cares, then why is so much effort put into collecting and analyzing it?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

If no one cares, then why is so much effort put into collecting and analyzing it?

I mean, are corporate advertisers really "people"?

 

[Gergar12]

If no one cares, then why is so much effort put into collecting and analyzing it?

Advertisers may try to entice you to purchase something, but they typically won't resort to blackmail to do so. Personally, I use Tik Tok, but I'm not a fan of its cost-per-click model or the CPC. While economic power is certainly significant, Generation Z is already fond of Shein and using drop shipping to earn income through Chinese industries.

If you work for a government agency or Lockmart, it's best to avoid using Tik Tok. However, if you, like me, work for a small to medium-sized business with no government contracts, then you can use it.

It's a two-way relationship - if you play the blackmail card, you'll lose it. If a future presidential candidate, who belongs to Generation Z, is blackmailed, people will find ways to counterattack by hacking Byte Dance's servers or by using software to reduce Tik Tok's effectiveness as spyware. If the candidate has supporters, they'll likely hack China back. However, at present, the US cyber warfare community is on a leash and the government may not be able to hack China back due to fear of two internets or to not raise tensions(Note: this information may have changed, I can't vouch for its accuracy).

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Canada did a lot more than give $2,000 to some people for 4 months, though. You can't meaningfully compare one Canadian policy of many against the entirety of US policy and argue the US was more generous. Wee also have to consider other issues - size of measures required, and that the built-in welfare systems of many countries can kick in and soften the blow to people without the requirement for new policy anyway.

Yes, the USA has social programs. The USA runs a public health system (albeit where provision for a large chunk of the populace is poor), public education system, pays various forms of benefits to the needy, etc. It's definitely has a significant component of social care... it's just a lot less than many other Western countries have. As said, the US government spends a lot less per head population than most other Western countries, and a lot of that is soaked up by military expenditure and a grotesquely inefficient healthcare system that potentially has the world's worst outcomes per unit cost by a huge margin.

And when we look at tone of debate too: for instance in most of the West, universal healthcare is assumed the natural and right way to be. In the USA, it remains a controversy. Likewise the strength and volume of opposition to all sorts of other social programs is significantly higher in the USA than most other Western countries. So, more capitalist.

I'm not really too hung up on who's more capitalist than the other, just saying the rankings when you look it up says countries like Sweden are more capitalist than the US, and Sweden is definitely not socialist. My main point is wanting socialism is a really radical and extreme view and there's no guarantee it's gonna be any better either.