You need to first learn the definition of socialism. After you have done that (assuming you are able to read) you will realize that social programs are not the same as socialism. Also, capitalism doesn’t go totally bankrupt. Whatever that means.
Europe struggling to grow?
- Thread starter snarlcakes
- Start date
my grasp of definitions is just fine.
you got caught lying your ass off, or being totally ignorant of capitalism's constant need to be bailed out by the taxpayer, or more likely both.
you either have zero understanding of anything economic, and capitalisms' total dependence on socialism to bail it out on a regular basis, or are just flat dishonest.
and i will call you out for lies and/or total ignorance on the subject.
you think you can make a case for capitalism that hasn't had to be bailed out by socialism on a semi regular basis, good luck with that.
you can't, because it hasn't happened ever in the US.
you don't get to make up your own facts.
try just going with personal insults in the future.. that's what the other liars who can't back their lies do.
maybe Florida and other states need to mandate teaching the history of capitalism in the US, and some basic economics.
neither capitalism nor socialism can successfully exist for long absent the other.
never could, and never can. they each require and are dependent on the other.
Last edited:
Most happy countries in the world: Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden
Must really suck to be so happy. Nothern Europe seems a happy place.
Happiest Countries in the World 2024
worldpopulationreview.com
Mono-ethnic countries that have historically been very anti-immigrant.
The standard definition of the word. The public owns the means of production, rather than private ownership.
Last edited:
just can't stop lying can you.
conservatives really need to let go of constantly lying, but then that is all they have much of the time.
A), that isn't the standard definition of the word, though if you included "or regulated" you would have ONE of several definitions.
and that "or regulated" thing matters.
B) exactly where or when did i ever advocate govt ownership of the means of production, which by your own words i would have had to for you to accuse me of being a "socialist"?
C), perhaps what you should be more far more concerned with, is when "private ownership of the means of production" owns the govt, rather than the public owning the govt.
because that's the current business/govt relationship we are existing under.
should we tag this as "capitalistic democracy"?
It’s literally from Wikipedia. They do add regulated in some definitions.
So, you’re not for socialism? That’s great. Socialism sucks and leads to more deaths and poverty. It’s ridiculous anyone would want socialism.
There is an easy answer if your concern is private companies have too much influence on government. Shrink the f#cking government. Why do you always advocate for the opposite?
Lol…this was at least funny. Pretty pretty please can you at least respond to one question. Are you a socialist or communist?
Hold up, the US has the highest poverty rate of any developed country and we're definitely not a socialist country.
So when someone says 'socialism leads to more deaths and poverty' that doesn't explain why our poverty rate is the highest.
Secondly we've been a tremendous success of capitalism, no doubt at a total level. We consume like no other and our whole identity is as much consumerism as it is fair market capitalism.
When you take the US out of the group, capitalistic societies have had a hit or miss track record of success, just like the socialist economies that we love to point to.
Actually the second largest economy is a hard core socialist state (China) and the projected largest future economy is considered a softer socialist state (India).
As IGW pointed out above, they both (in my strong opinion) need each other to sustain each other. They coexist and keep each other in check for the most part.
One example of both is unemployment programs. The theory of collecting money in good times to be available to the working public during inevitable economic downturns is a socialist program, and we've had several recessions but we haven't had any depressions since the program was initiated (knock on wood).
As far as the OP, European nations are typically held up as a quality of life comparison. Their transit infrastructure is superior. Their city planning is superior to ours and because of it they have more social and efficiently built cities. Their train system, their roadways, their bike access and their walkability are all infinitely better than here.
For example public transit is faster than driving a car. Which incentivizes people to use public transit and in turn takes individual cars off the road.
Bike infrastructure is built to be as efficient, safe and timely as car...and with the explosion of ebikes on the market now hills don't matter anymore so more people can take advantage of biking (plus they are super fun to ride).
America built everything around the car. So the excludes kids, elderly, disabled, etc and makes it incredibly tough to get around if you don't have a damn car.
We have sprawling miles of asphalt, empty parking lots, 16 lane highways that can be miserable to drive from the congestion and every city, particularly suburbs are basically indistinguishable from each other (they all look the same, have the same stores and restaurants) as we went all in on a car dependent lifestyle back in the 50's.
But that's another topic for another time.
Last edited:
The United States is the envy of the world economically, as we should be. 12 months of shrinking inflation, now at 3%. GDP growth outperforming all economic predictions, unemployment at the lowest level in 50 years, record wage growth.
Let’s recognize that.
Let’s recognize that.
Look inward first. He should first look at his own government energy policies. But it’s easier to blame someone else
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I'm not sure the language y'all are using helps. In today's world, using terms like capitalism and socialism in a binary way doesn't seem relevant. It might be better to talk about free markets, government-controlled or -directed markets, regulations, and redistribution of wealth.
For example, you cite China as a "hard core socialist state" and projected to be the world's largest economy soon. But you didn't mention that the reason for that is China's turning to free markets and private property more over the last four decades, along with govt. determined "central planning" of targeted investment in particular areas (not allowing the invisible hand to dictate this). Those efforts have led to more people being lifted out of poverty than any other single governmental policy decision in history. But it doesn't appear that they achieved this through redistribution of wealth.
Lifting 800 Million People Out of Poverty – New Report Looks at Lessons from China’s Experience
Over the past 40 years, China has lifted nearly 800 million people out of poverty, accounting for more than 75 percent of global poverty reduction in the same period, according to a new report released on Thursday.
www.worldbank.org
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not sure the language y'all are using helps. In today's world, using terms like capitalism and socialism in a binary way doesn't seem relevant. It might be better to talk about free markets, government-controlled or -directed markets, regulations, and redistribution of wealth.
For example, you cite China as a "hard core socialist state" and projected to be the world's largest economy soon. But you didn't mention that the reason for that is China's turning to free markets and private property more over the last four decades, along with govt. determined "central planning" of targeted investment in particular areas (not allowing the invisible hand to dictate this). Those efforts have led to more people being lifted out of poverty than any other single governmental policy decision in history. But it doesn't appear that they achieved this through redistribution of wealth.
Lifting 800 Million People Out of Poverty – New Report Looks at Lessons from China’s Experience
Over the past 40 years, China has lifted nearly 800 million people out of poverty, accounting for more than 75 percent of global poverty reduction in the same period, according to a new report released on Thursday.
I love this reply and topic even though I'll admit I'm not the best mind on the topic of the Chinese economy, defined as a socialist market economy (or as the slogan China uses of socialism with Chinese characteristics).
Yes you made me do a little homework for this reply.
My understanding is a critical distinction is that the state is typically the largest shareholder of Chinese companies, therefore meaning the state controls the decisions made by the company vs a small group of people like an individual CEO or a board.
Which means the utility of the company is for the state, not for the private owners.
To your point, they have expanded private economic zones and have allowed for individuals to become very wealthy (China has the second most amount of billionaires) but these billionaires tend to be members of the communist party and they have to prove their utility and answer to the state.
Which I took as your point about the state being the hand vs the proverbial invisible hand of the market.
Which is why socialist China is an interesting comparison to the US imo. Both are not pure socialist or capitalist countries but they have different blend levels.
Compare that to the so called 'Nordic model'. Which is described as more of a social democracy which calls for a stronger social base need focus within the context of capitalism/market economy. The Nordic model in general sees healthcare, welfare, education (and in Finland shelter) as a public utility while letting the markets do their thing on consumables, etc.
Of course their tax rates are higher but their quality of life, life expectancy and overall health is rated higher while crime, particularly violent crime is much lower.
The Nordic model is closer to what the American left looks at (in my opinion of course) as far as the level of blend between the entry level concepts of socialism and capitalism.
It's like a bath tub with a hot and cold faucet that a person has to blend to get the temperature it wants.
That's a much more entertaining conversation to me.
Thanks for the discussion!
some great points, especially your points regarding the Nordic model.
that said, most only see "capitalism" through a grossly idealistic lens of a heavily regulated capitalism in a purely competitive market.
they think of "capitalism" in terms of a company striving to make a better mousetrap at a better price.
while that aspect exists in markets with no barriers to entry, it's only a tiny fraction of what capitalism is, as there are few markets with no barriers to entry, and less every day.
99.5% of consumer spending is in markets with barriers to entry, so when Joe Citizen thinks "capitalism", what he's picturing is the model that accounts for half of one percent of consumer spending..
not the capitalistic model that accounts for 99.5 percent of consumer spending.
and only considering the "consumer spending" side of the equation, and not taking into account the "worker earning" side of the equation as well.
the very nature of capitalism is for it to eliminate all regulation and completely eliminate competitive markets.
as necessary as they are to consumers and workers, regulation is just bad business for ownership and competitive markets are terrible business for ownership, vs un or under regulated and non competitive markets.
unregulated monopoly (duopoly/oligopoly), or as close to it as possible, becomes literally the primary goal of every capitalistic entity far above all other goals combined, not making a better mousetrap at a better price.
no need to be a better mousetrap or a cheaper mousetrap, if you're the only mousetrap on the market.
and while homeowners can learn to live with the mice as a cap on prices, that isn't the case for necessities like food and transportation and healthcare and housing and utilities.
and for those not paying attention, said necessities, which are also the markets most monopolized today, are where we see inflation.
the unregulated monopoly/duopoly becomes the worst case scenario for both consumers and workers, for the same reason it's the best case scenario for ownership.
as for the Nordic model "public utility" type industries you mentioned, in many cases beside govt itself handling those, a very good alternative to govt itself running those, is the well regulated, including price regulation, monopoly.
the well regulated monopoly is often the superior model for said "public utility" industries, including healthcare, and an underused model today.
the well regulated monopoly also works really great for ownership.
that said, once capitalistic entities are given the ability to buy govt, all safeguards for consumers and workers and the non dominant industry player(s) go out the window, and capitalism becomes analogous to nuclear power with no safeguards or controls or off switch.
capitalism has literally no off switch and no ability to self regulate, so only works for long when sufficiently regulated by the govt, which can't happen if capitalism gains the power to regulate the govt vs the opposite.
whether capitalism is good or bad, or how good or bad, is 100% dependent on it's being sufficiently regulated from the outside.
Last edited:
Can’t wait to check in on the zero growth Eurozone in 10 years. Let’s see how well things are going then.
Europeans Are Becoming Poorer. ‘Yes, We’re All Worse Off.’
An aging population that values its free time set the stage for economic stagnation. Then came Covid-19 and Russia’s war in Ukraine.www.wsj.com
Unfortunately, larger governments and more regulations have consequences. Thankfully, the U.S. has a Conservative Party.
Thread by @itsolelehmann on Thread Reader App
@itsolelehmann: I'm German. 16 years ago, the EU and US economies were neck and neck. Today, the US economy is 50% larger than the entire EU combined. Here's the devastating truth behind Europe's ongoing economic su...…
threadreaderapp.com
Thanks, Joe!
Thread by @itsolelehmann on Thread Reader App
@itsolelehmann: I'm German. 16 years ago, the EU and US economies were neck and neck. Today, the US economy is 50% larger than the entire EU combined. Here's the devastating truth behind Europe's ongoing economic su...…
