Be Careful What You Wish For

[Agnapostate]

You're describing the faults with crony corporatist/socialist state we have. We haven't had free markets since 1913, and only sparingly before then. You must be one old man if you were around in 1913, otherwise you can't blame a system we do not remotely have.

Describing the state as "socialist" is absurd; describing it as both "socialist" and "corporatist" is more absurd still.

 

[mash107]

You're describing the faults with crony corporatist/socialist state we have. We haven't had free markets since 1913, and only sparingly before then. You must be one old man if you were around in 1913, otherwise you can't blame a system we do not remotely have.

Describing the state as "socialist" is absurd; describing it as both "socialist" and "corporatist" is more absurd still.

Wiki: "Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

When our government has full control of all the banks by arm of the Federal Reserve, then the state owns and administers the means of production. Production can not occur without capital, obviously, and capital is under direct control of the Fed. That falls under the very definition of Socialism. Moreover, the distribution of said capital is being skewed too. With artificially low interest rates, the consumer is less willing to save and spend in the future, and more willing to spend in the here and now. That skew is a misdirection of resources, and again, satisfies the very definition of Socialism.

Unless you're an advocate for a different type of socialism, we don't have anything less than that right now.

 

[Agnapostate]

Wiki: "Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

When our government has full control of all the banks by arm of the Federal Reserve, then the state owns and administers the means of production. Production can not occur without capital, obviously, and capital is under direct control of the Fed. That falls under the very definition of Socialism. Moreover, the distribution of said capital is being skewed too. With artificially low interest rates, the consumer is less willing to save and spend in the future, and more willing to spend in the here and now. That skew is a misdirection of resources, and again, satisfies the very definition of Socialism.

Unless you're an advocate for a different type of socialism, we don't have anything less than that right now.

You've used Wikipedia (and distortion of Wikipedia, at that), in order to make a poorly conceived argument. Socialism necessitates collective ownership of the means of production; it follows that any legitimate form of "collective" ownership requires collective administration of the aforementioned means of production. Our current economic framework is quite obviously not open to the nature of participatory management of the means of production that socialism entails, which is the same reason that the state capitalist Soviet Union was not socialist, for instance.