Corporate Socialism: How America Subsidizes the Wealthy While Neglecting the Public
Unlike real socialism, American socialism is much more deceptive in nature. As a sociologist, it is amazing to hear the inaccurate biases and stigma the average American has associated with socialism. Take healthcare, for instance, although most support a single-payer option. The argument against a universal healthcare system is that the average American doesn't want their taxes to be raised. This is mainly because they don't see that tax money is being spent on them. Rather, they see it as being wasted on "others" because of the media outlets. The focus is on how it is for the poor "who won't get a job because they're lazy."
Making poor people look lazy is important because it justifies the(ir) situation. No one likes to think that hard work and dedication don't pay off, but it often doesn't if you're poor in America. (See the book Nickled and Dimed for more.) The slogans "hard work pays off" and "cheaters never prosper" are brilliantly created fallacies by wealthy capitalists who make money by exploiting the healthcare system.
Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all social programs that Americans find very valuable. Having a government insurance provider would allow those who can't afford healthcare an alternative route to private firms.
Think about it, in any market, if you introduce another competitor (in this case, it's the government) into a market, it forces other companies in the industry to compete--which usually means adjusting their price points (to be lowered). If we had universal health care, it would seriously affect the profit margins of the insurance industry, which (as any average American knows) is an obstacle rather than a conduit in the medical field--because they have an economic incentive to deny claims.
Countries in Europe are considered more "socialist" (again with a negative American stigma), but studies show they are happier and healthier than Americans. The other problem is that industries that should not be run for profit, and have traditionally been run by the state, are being privatized and left in corporate hands--like prisons, the military (e.g., mercenaries), hospitals, and schools.
American socialism is really socialized corporate protectionism (for the super-rich). Look, I work as a waiter (yes, I am wasting some serious talents) and I make very little in wages and do not hold much money (at all) in the stock market. Somehow, I fail to see how if the government had let those banks fail and given the money to me, I'd be worse off. In any real sense, I have no stake in the system. Poor people are not affected by the decision to let banks fail, and thanks to the FDIC, 100,000 dollars is covered by the government anyway. So, what the bail-out really is, is a protectionist move to maintain and sustain a (banking) market which would have failed due to their own malfeasance.
This is true American socialism: corporate welfare where losses are socialized but the profits are privatized. Basically, resource allocation from the government is given to large billion-dollar multi-national corporations that receive preferential treatment and transfer payments because they are "too big to fail" (i.e., those in power would lose money if they went under)--the biggest of which was the 2008 financial-banking bail-out. Other examples include subsidies to oil companies, large agri-business (instead of locally grown organic farms), and the military-industrial-complex.
One of the mouthpieces for this corporate socialism is the "liberal" media, which twists reality into its own prescripted narrative. However, if we ignore the talking heads and look at the system holistically--by realizing corporate welfare is the prevailing trend and basic services are lacking (e.g., healthcare)--we can see how the American government is not a tool for freedom and prosperity but rather a means for big business to fulfill their profitable ends.
Making poor people look lazy is important because it justifies the(ir) situation. No one likes to think that hard work and dedication don't pay off, but it often doesn't if you're poor in America. (See the book Nickled and Dimed for more.) The slogans "hard work pays off" and "cheaters never prosper" are brilliantly created fallacies by wealthy capitalists who make money by exploiting the healthcare system.Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all social programs that Americans find very valuable. Having a government insurance provider would allow those who can't afford healthcare an alternative route to private firms.
![]() |
| If Obama is a socialist... It's for the wealthy elite (source) |
Think about it, in any market, if you introduce another competitor (in this case, it's the government) into a market, it forces other companies in the industry to compete--which usually means adjusting their price points (to be lowered). If we had universal health care, it would seriously affect the profit margins of the insurance industry, which (as any average American knows) is an obstacle rather than a conduit in the medical field--because they have an economic incentive to deny claims.
Countries in Europe are considered more "socialist" (again with a negative American stigma), but studies show they are happier and healthier than Americans. The other problem is that industries that should not be run for profit, and have traditionally been run by the state, are being privatized and left in corporate hands--like prisons, the military (e.g., mercenaries), hospitals, and schools.
American socialism is really socialized corporate protectionism (for the super-rich). Look, I work as a waiter (yes, I am wasting some serious talents) and I make very little in wages and do not hold much money (at all) in the stock market. Somehow, I fail to see how if the government had let those banks fail and given the money to me, I'd be worse off. In any real sense, I have no stake in the system. Poor people are not affected by the decision to let banks fail, and thanks to the FDIC, 100,000 dollars is covered by the government anyway. So, what the bail-out really is, is a protectionist move to maintain and sustain a (banking) market which would have failed due to their own malfeasance.
![]() |
| (Source) |
![]() |
| (Source) |
Thanks for reading! Please comment!
Other Related blog(s): Nouveau Economics, Lyceum Recordz






Comments
Post a Comment