The point was correlating deaths and socialism v capitalism, and then it went on to list various sources of deaths. That was what my point was addressing, and which seems to have been confused.

Sorry - my comment was meant to be continued in the comment below. To add, there have been billions spent on stimulus as well as bailing out corporations. This isn't black and white.

Hi, Mark. Thanks for the comment. We always appreciate differing opinions in the comments on our videos. Let me be clear: I wasn’t using socialism as a vague generalization or a term of political abuse — rather, I was applying the literal dictionary definition of the word, which entails government ownership of the factors of production, distribution, and exchange. Definition from Webster follows: "SOCIALISM (1) any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (2) a system of society or group living in which there is no private property (2b) a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state (3) a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done" I don’t want to take away anyone’s social security checks or cancel Medicare or Medicaid. (To the contrary: I believe capitalism requires strong social safety nets to survive and thrive.) As I wrote above, when I refer to socialism, I’m specifically referring to government ownership of the factors of production, distribution, and exchange, as in the Webster definition. The WSJ article below provides a compendious thumbnail sketch of the murderous 20th Century history of this ideology. Note: As the Webster definition points out, Marxist theory construes socialism as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism. https://www.wsj.com/articles/100-years-of-communismand-100-million-dead-1510011810?st=fbkxhbvdzhrfuv7&reflink=article_copyURL_share

This is in response to both Mark M. and Ash. I agree with Ash that socialism, as he is defining it, is distinct from what you see in mixed economies like Sweden, the US or France. I remember taking two classes on the History of the Soviet Union and the History of Revolution in college in the years just before the Wall fell. At least one of those classes was taught by two avowed Marxist professors. And what they were talking about regarding socialism had more to do with institutional ideology than anything else. None of the mixed economies I mentioned above have an avowed institutional allegiance to socialism in rejection of market-based outcomes like, say, Venezuela or the Soviet Union. When I think about Europe and the US, I think of countries on a continuum regarding how often market-based outcomes are preferred to non market-based ones. But, they all accept that some activities should be funded via the 'common pot' rather than subjecting people to a market-based outcome. Ostensibly, this is because government can provide some services better than the private sector in terms of social equity. For example, where I grew up, local pools run by the city were free, financed through city taxes. The same was true for garbage collection. I was surprised when a friend in Connecticut revealed that they hired private companies to collect garbage. Schools and the military are almost always 'common pot' collectives in all market-based economies. Would I call that 'socialist'? No. I would say, it's part and parcel of mixed capitalist systems. So, if Bernie Sanders is advocating for 'public pot' health care insurance, that's not socialism either. It's a policy choice consistent with the choices many market economies have made, most advanced societies except the US, in fact. I think Ash and I are on the same page on this.

And yet many Europeans see themselves as democratic socialist. The old sand box is washed away. DLS

Corrections “Democrat-run cities” / “do not shrug the hatred”

I have felt what we are witnessing politically is the exhaustion fo the Democrat Party’s repeated “New Deal” dealing from under the deck with the same only card plays (tricks). The rioting shows the Party’s desperate inability to lead in an original direction, being hide bound to “New Deal” redux.ad nauseum and repeated to the same degree by sock-puppet media.

I guess we will not be able to agree. I feel this is the death of the Republican Party. Time will tell. DLS

David, respectfully, that is a distinction without a difference.

Richard T. - Love the Henry Fielding quote from Tom Jones. Respectfully also, in this case the distinction is with a major difference. I believe strongly in both capitalism and democratic socialism. They are not mutually exclusive. Capitalism is the engine that taxes to the government. Representative legislatures provide funds for social goods to its citizens like highways and defense. The difference between Denmark and the US is not in kind, but degree. DLS

There are no differences in socialism forms at the end. They all start as a good will proposition of a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth. That's bull, when it's start failing, that is the moments the governments become huge and omnipotent that eventually send everyone that disagrees to Gulags. Socialism doesn't work in any forms. 'The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money' - M. Thatcher

David T. - Please name a country that is only capitalist. Thanks. DLS

I think the problem is one of defining socialism. The Scandinavian model works pretty well, here you have a capitalistic framework for a socialist welfare state. High taxes, lots of benefits, larger middle class and lower wealth disparity. Most businesses are privately owned. This is the socialism that mainly grew out of the industrialization of Germany in the second industrial revolution. I live in Norway and happily pay my taxes, because I know that my family and I get a solid safety net (Free university, free healthcare, 10 month paid parental leave, subsidized drugs etc.) Socialism as in Marxist-Leninist ideology as a mold for government is still as repulsive to me as fascism though.

I don't think the model works well, since it's not sustainable. Sweden, Denmark and Finland have been running deficits from 2011 and demographics will make the situation worse. The taxes are a burden and result in brain drain to more reasonably taxed juristictions. Norway might have an advantage with its natural resources though.

One of the best Daily Briefings in a while. Great summary of all the stimulus packages.

David, I find I agree with many of your well reasoned comments. This one is bang on. Ash and Ed missed the opportunity to point this out during the briefing. Ash, You also swung and missed with the socialist comment. Despite the misses, you had a very impressive batting average this outing. Batters don't hit a home run every time at bat, but it is nice to see you swinging for the fences. Ed, Footie fans are great and deserving fans who have something to watch this summer. For the rest of us, the shortened baseball season looks like it will be shorter than expected and the Olympics will not absorb every waking minute for two weeks. I never thought I would say this, hockey and basketball, may make the summer more bearable. If not, this was a very good briefing, TGFRVTV! Regards, John

John M. - Thanks. I think most of my comments are only common sense. A starting point to activate smarter and wiser people. DLS

Hi Brent - I think your conflating deaths, ideologies and politics a bit loosely. There are some interesting comments below from firsthand experience regarding "socialist" countries in Europe. Did you forget "socialist" Germany? No country is without blame that's for sure. You can't equate lives with dollars, yet to add to your comment it would be interesting to see which country is the biggest "giver" - aid donor, philanthropic, whatever its called - dollar wise - capitalist America (or whatever other force is driving it - religion? ) would be up near the top if I was to take a guess. I know I would prefer to live in a capitalist economy anyway. When it comes to economics, I don't believe RV is claiming to be ideologically neutral either. Perhaps politically. Interesting debate nevertheless.

Agreed. Very disappointing.

Agree with Brent E that is - not with Matt D.

Hi, Brent. I clarified my position above in response to Mark’s comments.

Yes Ash, but you have not answered the question of how many have died from capitalism, and who is counting those deaths. As always the victors write history, and omit difficult truths.

Do you mean perhaps how many deaths is the US responsible for? Correlating the actions of the nation state to capitalism is questionable? Its like saying how many people have you killed from your trading/investing? A less violent analogy - maybe Ash, Ed and the RV team should assign thumbs up/down on their internal social forum agenda. Would that work better?

Aside from the lazy political label conflation, there was a palpable shift in narrative... leaving many of us to wonder, what about the reckoning we were expecting, what about the fiscal policy risk, what about the insolvency.....?

Derrick R, where do you see the shift in narrative. more specifically? Is it from bullish to bearish or vice versa? And in what context?

Ed thanks for answering. To me it felt that you and Ash were overwhelmed by the Fed's ability, and while you didn't address how you see the rest of the year playing out from this lens specifically enough, my feeling was that you went from bearish to bullish..

Derrick, I am definitely not bullish in the way my friend Tyler Neville is. I am a bond guy and I tend to look at downside risk. And I still see considerable downside risk. That’s certainly bullish for Treasuries. But it’s not bullish economically. From a suspension of disbelief perspective, I am on guard for more positive outcomes. 100%. But my macro view still sees most of the economic risk on the downside, including in Europe where a second viral wave has begun. Can central banks mitigate these problems? To a degree, yes. They can’t make them go away. I hope that gives you more color.

Makes sense, thank you for clarifying!

Derrick, this is almost two weeks old but it encapsulates my view fairly well https://pro.creditwritedowns.com/p/political-impasse-over-jobless-claims The difference today is that we've seen unadjusted claims fall for two weeks. And that's good. But this is more than offset by the fiscal cliff.

Peter, you must have misinterpreted something. Nowhere did I imply you need to belly up to the bar and drink the punch the Fed is serving. How did you get that impression?

Not only that but, the delivery what somewhat more of a lecture than admitting hey we were wrong

Meh, we all overestimated the impact of the virus (not saying it is not bad) and underestimated the power of the Fed. Looks like there is plenty more road to kick the can.

Not clear where you see the shift in narrative. I write about the economy multiple times a week very consistently. Could you be more specific.

Exactly! I think everybody knows the Fed does indeed serve the people that elect them - the Fed regional governors are elected by the banks in that region. The Fed serves the banks pure and simple.

Sweden is more capitalist then we are . they have bigger safety net .. They are not Socialists. Sanders is a Communist . China is a thug state. the world needs to put a wall around them. You need to read more or something......

steve h. - The safety net in Sweden is socialism. I am not smart enough to know for sure what Senator Sanders is. Not sure a wall would do any good with China. I think that a wall is our thing. I certainly do need to read more. DLS

Not ‘all property’, the means of production. In the Soviet Union, people still had personal property

Jacob. Agreed. I clarified my comments below in response to Mark M.

Denmark isn't Socialist. Same with Sweden. Both of these countries, despite a high level of wealth redistribution, feature very open/free markets and unobtrusive governments. The ease of doing business is generally higher in these countries than most other developed economies.

Hi, Nathaniel. Thanks for the comment. In my view, I wouldn’t consider Denmark or Sweden socialist. Both are capitalist countries with private property rights — but with broader, deeper, and, frankly, more effective social safety nets than we have in the US. Denmark is very different, as you rightly point out, from Venezuela. RV produced a documentary about Venezuela in 2018. It was terrifying. YouTube link below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qdO2pFoGgw

Stewart: Agreed

Griffin... have you ever heard the saying about the Camel's nose under the tent? BTW the European model is a mess...

Hi, HK. Fed media blackout. We talk about it in the first five minutes of the video.

@RV, Thank you for mentioning why the video was pulled.

I had the exact same thought. Undercuts your argument when you pick the worst possible examples and leave out countries with a higher standard of living than US currently has (not my personal POV, it’s supported by relevant data across key quality of life metrics).

Social programs as in a social welfare state like Western Europe is not socialist. All these countries have open markets, open economies and small governments in percentage of their GDP. Socialism is the opposite of that: price controls, closed markets, high taxes and big government. I am living in Argentina right now, originally from The Netherlands. Argentina seems to have taken a socialist path which will eventually lead to a Venezuela-like economy. And I can tell you that has absolutely nothing to do with a welfare state under a free market capitalist system.

agreed. my only beef with otherwise excellent and thought-provoking discussion. Social democrats in Europe had nothing to do with bolsheviks, which literally took the democrat part out of the definition. Neither did 20th-century Communist regimes had anything to do with Communism in the Marx/economics sense. they were dictatorships I am bewildered though by US politicians calling themselves socialists given the lack of understanding among the general public. Those early metaphors on how to process the Fed (2 am call, Georgetown metro) were awesome for my sanity. thank you

I am Swedish and have spent time in Russia. The commentators are spot on.

They are societies based on capitalism that have added some social programs on top.