I agree these polls are usually nonsense and often the questions lead to specific answers so the pollster can sell the poll. I was getting repeat calls from one pollster, but I found the questions too frustrating. The issues were too complex for simple yes/no answers. I tried to get in touch with the person crafting the questions and they stopped bothering me. This fits my model of human nature where we think we understand more than we do, so our brain function doesn't freeze up under the weight of unresolved questions. These pollsters like people to answer without thinking about the questions.
On the subject of economic systems, I may be over simplifying this but IMO the important distinction between chaos and stability or economic growth is property rights. Simply put people must be allowed to own stuff. If they work hard and earn more stuff, they need to keep most of that or why bother.
Of course we need rule of law to protect property rights, otherwise warlords or whatever will just take what they want from those who have. A central government is needed to provide this rule of law to protect individual property rights. The cost of this central government must be paid for by the people who are protected by the rule of law.
There are alternate views on how to "fairly" extract this support for the central government. Simply taking wealth from people who previously "earned" it is not a long term strategy since this wealth will run out. Charging people based on the cost of supporting them would never work, because they simply don't have the money to pay their way. A progressive income tax has so far proved an acceptable way to extract more money from the higher earners to subsidize the lower earners. Unlike some perpetual caste system, these low earners have the opportunity to rise above their humble means and become major contributors themselves.
The $64T question is "not" how do we extract the maximum revenue from earners to redistribute (ala Laffer curve, etc), but what is the proper role of central government. I submit that beyond protecting our property rights all else is secondary. Nobody disputes the value of a safety net to prevent abject poverty and to help people who are situationally challenged.
Our current administration is messing with the recipe which has worked so well for the last few hundred years and while not a long time in the grand scheme of history, I don't consider it a failed experiment quite yet. From where I sit it looks like the current credit /banking situation is being manipulated to suggest a deeper flaw in the economic system.
Of course opinions vary....
JR
On the subject of economic systems, I may be over simplifying this but IMO the important distinction between chaos and stability or economic growth is property rights. Simply put people must be allowed to own stuff. If they work hard and earn more stuff, they need to keep most of that or why bother.
Of course we need rule of law to protect property rights, otherwise warlords or whatever will just take what they want from those who have. A central government is needed to provide this rule of law to protect individual property rights. The cost of this central government must be paid for by the people who are protected by the rule of law.
There are alternate views on how to "fairly" extract this support for the central government. Simply taking wealth from people who previously "earned" it is not a long term strategy since this wealth will run out. Charging people based on the cost of supporting them would never work, because they simply don't have the money to pay their way. A progressive income tax has so far proved an acceptable way to extract more money from the higher earners to subsidize the lower earners. Unlike some perpetual caste system, these low earners have the opportunity to rise above their humble means and become major contributors themselves.
The $64T question is "not" how do we extract the maximum revenue from earners to redistribute (ala Laffer curve, etc), but what is the proper role of central government. I submit that beyond protecting our property rights all else is secondary. Nobody disputes the value of a safety net to prevent abject poverty and to help people who are situationally challenged.
Our current administration is messing with the recipe which has worked so well for the last few hundred years and while not a long time in the grand scheme of history, I don't consider it a failed experiment quite yet. From where I sit it looks like the current credit /banking situation is being manipulated to suggest a deeper flaw in the economic system.
Of course opinions vary....
JR