Mixed economies Capitalism and Socialism - Where to draw the line?

[Mexicano]

First I want to differentiate between the government system ( monarchy , dictatorship, democracy( with its variations)) and the economic system.
For the economic system, I only want to consider two :
- Capitalism - where the means of production are in the hands of private firms who retain the profits.
- Socialism - where the means of production are owned collectively and ( at least in theory) the profits are distributed among the population.
No country has 100% of its activities in the hands of private firms as a bare minimum government has to carry out some activities to sustain the three powers ( or single power in the case of capitalist dictatorships). And to maintain the rule of law.
Indeed, most countries are considered to be mixed economies

Mixed Economic System: Characteristics, Examples, Pros & Cons

A mixed economic system is one that features characteristics of both capitalism and socialism.

www.investopedia.com

In most countries, other activities are also carried out by public institutions: education, firefighters ,postal services. It is also common to have part of the highways and railway systems as well as water reservoirs managed by public institutions.
Some countries go further and have financial institutions, oil production and electricity production and distribution within the public sector. In most European countries the healthcare sector is managed by the state.
At what point can a country be called socialist? Can this be expressed as a percent of GDP ( e.g when more than 40% of the GDP is in the hands of the public sector) or as a set of sectors that must remain in private hands?

 

[johngaltshrugged]

How about we ditch them both & just go with a free market system with a minimum of common sense regulations?
That's the system I want to see.

You can keep the crony capitalism & socialist robbery to yourself.
They are just flip sides of the same coin designed to give illusions of justice/freedom while guaranteeing the elites will always take the lions share through gaming the system

 

[Mexicano]

How about we ditch them both & just go with a free market system with a minimum of common sense regulations?
That's the system I want to see.

You can keep the crony capitalism & socialist robbery to yourself.
They are just flip sides of the same coin designed to give illusions of justice/freedom while guaranteeing the elites will always take the lions share through gaming the system

Well glad to hear you have an opinion on the subject of economic systems. But that's not the OP's question,rather, how much government intervention in the market is considered socialism?

 

[JGalt]

Public institutions like education, police and firefighter, postal services, highways, railway systems, and water reservoirs are still paid for by working people's tax revenue that's generated by capitalism. Without capitalism, socialism wouldn't even exist.

 

[Mexicano]

Public institutions like education, police and firefighter, postal services, highways, railway systems, and water reservoirs are still paid for by working people's tax revenue that's generated by capitalism. Without capitalism, socialism wouldn't even exist.

Conversely, you could tell that all those activities are only possible because workers provide labor for the company owners and the government or that none of those entrepreneurial activities could be carried out efficiently without the infrastructure investment made by the Government. There is a clear interdependence between the sectors. It is not a one-way street.

 

[Meister]

The government was intended to have enumerated powers laid out by our FF's.
They should have stuck to that. But, now we have an overreaching government
that seems to be run by the big business institutions that hires lobbyists to pay
off the politicians.
Where do we draw the line? we don't, big business dictates that.

 

[johngaltshrugged]

Well glad to hear you have an opinion on the subject of economic systems. But that's not the OP's question,rather, how much government intervention in the market is considered socialism?

Socialism is when the govt/collective own the means of production.
If they don't own it but regulate it so heavily to affect the free market, it is crony capitalism/corporatism

 

[initforme]

There is Zero socialistic policies in america. Nothing here even approaches socialism. So the point is meaningless.

 

[Donald H]

The government was intended to have enumerated powers laid out by our FF's.

That's interesting as it pertains to this topic!
Did your FF's intend to have no government involvement at all?

If so they obviously erred on what could be possible. I would say that if they erred then it would be on account of not having any forethoughs on the future.

Or it could also be that you are misunderstanding their intent or their words?

Can you elaborate with some detailed follow up on your claim?

 

[Meister]

That's interesting as it pertains to this topic!
Did your FF's intend to have no government involvement at all?

If so they obviously erred on what could be possible. I would say that if they erred then it would be on account of not having any forethoughs on the future.

Or it could also be that you are misunderstanding their intent or their words?

Can you elaborate with some detailed follow up on your claim?

The federal government did have involvement, but it was limited.
Their intent was to have a small federal government with enumerated powers.
The States had more power for the needs of the individual states.

 

[TNHarley]

The fed government shouldnt be involved in the market at all.
The States should have common sense regulations to retain the natural rights of the people. Such as the pursuit of happiness, freedom of association, and the right to life.
When the fed gov gets involved, we get discrimination, and they pick the winners and losers. Its a bunch of bullshit.

 

[Donald H]

The federal government did have involvement, but it was limited.
Their intent was to have a small federal government with enumerated powers.
The States had more power for the needs of the individual states.

You're not telling us about anything specific.

Until we hear that we are going to have to put it down to interpretation of the FF's words. Or misinterpretation in some cases.

I was hoping for something that could in some way suggest that government shouldn't be in control of services that can be performed better, more efficiently, and more cost effective by government.

Apparently so far, that just doesn't exist?

I think we can therefore move on to accepting that capitalism can only work when some 'socialism' is included.

 

[JGalt]

Conversely, you could tell that all those activities are only possible because workers provide labor for the company owners and the government or that none of those entrepreneurial activities could be carried out efficiently without the infrastructure investment made by the Government. There is a clear interdependence between the sectors. It is not a one-way street.

Horse shit. What "investment" made by the government? Governments don't have a single cent that didn't come from people involved in capitalism. Nor do governments create wealth of any kind. Everything the government owns came from people exchanging some imaginary government-created currency for goods and services that capitalism itself created.

Capitalism is the natural state of mankind. It existed long before someone had the idea of taking people's money from them in the form of taxes. People bartered what they had, what they made, and what they grew. And then socialism came about out of greed.

 

[Donald H]

The fed government shouldnt be involved in the market at all.
The States should have common sense regulations to retain the natural rights of the people. Such as the pursuit of happiness, freedom of association, and the right to life.

By some stretch of the imagination the individual states can dictate policy to each other state! That then makes the premise of needing a country redundant in the eyes of the extremists at least.

Meister failed to specify anything pertaining to the assertion on the FF's intent. Maybe you can?

When the fed gov gets involved, we get discrimination, and they pick the winners and losers. Its a bunch of bullshit.

But I really doubt you're able to contribute anything when you're always spamming the discussions with you 'bullshit' comment.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

Each type of government has its good points and bad points.

For the "perfect" government though, you have to have one that has the people controlling the government buerocrats, and not the other way around. Doesn't matter what you want to call it.

 

[Mexicano]

Horse shit. What "investment" made by the government? Governments don't have a single cent that didn't come from people involved in capitalism. Nor do governments create wealth of any kind. Everything the government owns came from people exchanging some imaginary government-created currency for goods and services that capitalism itself created.

Capitalism is the natural state of mankind. It existed long before someone had the idea of taking people's money from them in the form of taxes. People bartered what they had, what they made, and what they grew. And then socialism came about out of greed.

Governments don't have a cent? Let's just get this clear the "government" has the monopoly on the issue of currency. Anyone trying to issue currency that is not the government is considered a criminal in any country.
That is narrow money ( M1)
Broad money ( M2) is created through three means
a) Government spending: this creates deposits in bank accounts and increases reserves
b) Government paying interests on bonds
c) Banks issuing loans through the fractional reserve system.

 

[JGalt]

Governments don't have a cent? Let's just get this clear the "government" has the monopoly on the issue of currency. Anyone trying to issue currency that is not the government is considered a criminal in any country.
That is narrow money ( M1)
Broad money ( M2) is created through three means
a) Government spending: this creates deposits in bank accounts and increases reserves
b) Government paying interests on bonds
c) Banks issuing loans through the fractional reserve system.

Currency came about as a subsidization of capitalism. Of course socialists wanted their share, so they made it easier to grab a piece of the action by printing little pieces of paper and minting pieces of metal.

But like I said, before socialism people just exchanged what they made or grew themselves, and capitalism is the natural state of mankind.

 

[TNHarley]

the individual states can dictate policy to each other state

Meister failed to specify anything pertaining to the assertion on the FF's intent. Maybe you can?

Actually, he nailed it. It isnt his fault you dont understand.

But I really doubt you're able to contribute anything when you're always spamming the discussions with you 'bullshit' comment.

Its true. Sorry if words trigger you, FAGAt.

 

[Mexicano]

Currency came about as a subsidization of capitalism. Of course socialists wanted their share, so they made it easier to grab a piece of the action by printing little pieces of paper and minting pieces of metal.

But like I said, before socialism, people just exchanged with they made or grew themselves.

You have the incorrect order of events: Minted coins and Paper bills predate both capitalism and socialism by several centuries.

"By the 11th century, during the Song dynasty, jiaozi (a form of banknote that is widely regarded as the world’s first paper money by numismatists) was being officially printed and issued."

"By the 17th century, London’s goldsmith bankers were issuing receipts as payable to the bearer of the document, as opposed to the depositor (a sentiment echoed on contemporary banknotes with the sentence “I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of X pounds”),"

The History of Paper Money - Clear Junction

Here, we take a look at the history of paper money - from the ideas behind its inception, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of banknotes.

clearjunction.com

 

[JGalt]

You have the incorrect order of events: Minted coins and Paper bills predate both capitalism and socialism by several centuries.

"By the 11th century, during the Song dynasty, jiaozi (a form of banknote that is widely regarded as the world’s first paper money by numismatists) was being officially printed and issued."

"By the 17th century, London’s goldsmith bankers were issuing receipts as payable to the bearer of the document, as opposed to the depositor (a sentiment echoed on contemporary banknotes with the sentence “I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of X pounds”),"

The History of Paper Money - Clear Junction

Here, we take a look at the history of paper money - from the ideas behind its inception, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of banknotes.

clearjunction.com

You're really twisting yourself into pretzels in order to defend socialism. Wait...don't tell me: You voted for Bernie Sanders, right?




"Before that time, historians generally agree that a system of bartering was likely used.45 Bartering is a direct trade of goods and services.

For example, a farmer may exchange a bushel of wheat for a pair of shoes from a shoemaker. However, these arrangements take time. If you exchange an axe as part of an agreement in which the other party is supposed to kill a woolly mammoth, you have to find someone who thinks the tool is a fair trade for having to face down the 12-foot tusks of a mammoth. If this doesn't work, you would have to alter the deal until someone agreed to the terms."

The History of Money: From Bartering to Banknotes to Bitcoin