Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That's a thorny matter. Constructions are subjected to building codes, banks are subjected to capital or reserve requirements. Food is also subjected to quality controls set by regulations.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
Before what time?You're really twisting yourself into pretzels in order to defend socialism, Bernie Bro.
"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
www.visualcapitalist.com
One thing you have to realize is that the government screws up EVERYTHING, and never....ever is itYou'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.
I think it's best that I stop right now and not even register disagreement on that!One thing you have to realize is that the government screws up EVERYTHING, and never....ever is it
cost effective.....ever. It's wasteful and there is no oversight.
You can disagree all you want.I think it's best that I stop right now and not even register disagreement on that!
We may be able to pursue some other discussion some time?
As I said in the OP , there is a public education system in place. That and a Federal Highway system... believe it or not, there are countries where most of the highways are privately owned and operated.There is Zero socialistic policies in america. Nothing here even approaches socialism. So the point is meaningless.
That's not socialism. Neither is social security, Medicare, nor Medicaid but some idiots don't like thoseAs I said in the OP , there is a public education system in place. That and a Federal Highway system... believe it or not, there are countries where most of the highways are privately owned and operated.
Saying That the Plutocracy Creates Jobs Is Like Saying That Vampires Create BloodPublic 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.
If the Corpies Own a Man's Work, They Own That ManHorse 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.
Why isn't a simple matter? Is that what you were told?That's a thorny matter. Constructions are subjected to building codes, banks are subjected to capital or reserve requirements. Food is also subjected to quality controls set by regulations.
I know not all regulations are necessary or desirable. But drawing the line between superfluous and cumbersome regulations and those that are actually needed is not a simple matter.
How is having a service in the public sector, not socialism?That's not socialism. Neither is social security, Medicare, nor Medicaid but some idiots don't like those
What service people haven't paid into is socialism?How is having a service in the public sector, not socialism?
Walk me through your ratinale.
Whenever there is a sector where it is not privately owned it is socialism. All citizens fund public schools ( to a degree) and have access to them ( even if they don't use them).What service people haven't paid into is socialism?
Complete failure would happen. Private industry can't meet any kind of demand.Whenever there is a sector where it is not privately owned it is socialism. All citizens fund public schools ( to a degree) and have access to them ( even if they don't use them).
In a purely capitalist system there would be no public education and no federal highways, they would be privately owned and maintained.
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?
Task,That question is widely debatable, no? It's a question of degree, and each of us has our own opinion about that. I believe that just about every country in the world today is a mixed economy, with a few exceptions that are considered predominately gov't controlled and therefore labeled as a socialist country. China, Cuba, and North Korea might be examples of what most people consider to be socialist, even though even they do have some degree of capitalism. But they are also centrally controlled economies to a high degree and thus considered to be socialists.
The rest of us are of a mixed variety that essentially have two objectives: one is profit and economic growth plus job creation with the help of private entities or companies and other is to provide social welfare programs. Which is where the differences in opinion kick in, those who want a larger gov't with greater gov't intervention to provide more social welfare. I don't think there is any metric or even a set of metrics that can be used to determine where an economy is on the continuum of socialist vs capitalist policies. History shows us that swinging too far one way or the other can lead to problems. Witness the robber barons in the US back in the 1800s where capitalism was mostly unrestrained and Sweden in the 1970s and 80s where their economy went to hell in a handbasket due to a too large gov't with a too large social welfare system that they could not maintain.
Task,
Thanks for engaging in an actual debate. I am aware of the extreme inequality fueled by the era of the robber barons. I was unaware that Sweeden had economic trouble in the 70's and 80's . I'll look into it.
I agree most countries are mixed economies. In China the Statee and SEO are responsible for 40% of gdp and 60% of employment.
I think a country can be labeled socialist if the government is responsible for more than 40% of GDP and employment or if tax revenues > 40% of GDP.
In that regard, I would also call Finland, Belgium , France and Denmark Socialist. The tax revenue in China is amazingly low: it varies from 8% to 10%. This allows its firms to have lower prices (along with their undervalued currency). And then, of course, the SEOs provide part of the government's income. It's a good strategy for commercial expansion.
Regarding Cuba and North Korea I personally label them as failed communist dictatorships.
Restrict doing business with long-term trading partners? NoI wonder what difference it would make whether or not a country is labeled a socialist state. Who is going to really care, business is business and is going to get done anyway, right? Maybe through a 3rd party. Would the US restrict doing business in some way with Finland, Belgium, France, and Denmark, or maybe downgrade their most-favored nation (MFN) status because they are deemed to be socialist states? Assuming the WTO allowed that to happen, that is. One would hope not.
I would rather take the approach: well, countries X and Y are using it and it works
That was a long rant to bash the Swedish policies.Does it? What about country Z? Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, how's it going there? Maybe it depends on each situation and a number of factors other than the economic model and how much socialism a country has. Let's talk about Sweden for a minute. Who BTW vehemently deny being socialist.
As early as 1950, Sweden had become the fourth‐richest country in the world, and there was nothing mysterious about its progress. Sweden was also the fifth‐freest economy at that time, according to an analysis by Robert Lawson and Ryan Murphy at the O’Neil Center for Global Markets and Freedom at Southern Methodist University’s Cox School of Business. In 1950, taxes were just 21 percent of Sweden’s gross domestic product (GDP), lower than in the United States, and roughly 10 percentage points below the level in countries like Britain, France, and West Germany.
So, what happened next? They fucked it up. The Swedish Social Democrats thought that Sweden was uniquely suited to be a generous welfare state. It was a wealthy country with competitive businesses that could fund it all. They also had homogenous populations with a strong work ethic, noncorrupt civil services, and a high degree of trust. If it did not work there, it would be difficult to believe it could work anywhere. Slowly but steadily, the Social Democrats intervened in education and health care and created social security systems that provided pensions, unemployment, paternal leave, and sick leave benefits. Most benefits were proportional to the amount paid in so that the middle class would have an interest in supporting the system.
But soon, with coffers filled and riding on an international socialist wave, the Social Democrats accelerated their takeover of business and civil society. Between 1960 and 1980, public spending more than doubled, from 31 to 60 percent of GDP, and taxes skyrocketed. The government started regulating businesses and the labor market in detail. The Social Democrats even began experimenting with a system to socialize major companies, “the wage earners’ fund.”
Talent and capital stormed out of Sweden to escape taxes and red tape. Swedish businesses moved headquarters and investments to more hospitable places. IKEA left for the Netherlands and Tetra Pak for Switzerland. Björn Borg and other sports stars fled to Monaco. The famous novelist Vilhelm Moberg, who had settled in Switzerland, complained that the Swedish government was a “monster without morality or sense of poetry.” The legendary filmmaker Ingmar Bergman left for Germany after having been falsely accused of tax evasion.
“This is hell,” Prime Minister Olof Palme said behind closed doors, referring to the wage earners’ fund that he couldn’t even get himself to believe in. The Swedish economy, which had gotten used to outpacing all the other industrialized economies, now started lagging behind them significantly. In 1970, Sweden was 10 percent richer than the G7- group of wealthy countries on a per capita basis. In 1995, it was more than 10 percent poorer. During that period, not a single net job was created in Sweden’s private sector.
The bottom line is that socialist policies didn’t even work in Sweden. Massive government intervention had undermined not only productivity and innovation but also the very foundations that made Sweden look like the best place to experiment with it. The celebrated work ethic remained intact for those who had grown up under a system of free markets and personal responsibility, but it was eroded in new generations who had only experienced high taxes when they worked and generous benefits when they didn’t. The people were turning into “a population of cheats,” exclaimed a disappointed Gunnar Myrdal.
Man, does that sound familiar. The share of Swedes who said it is acceptable to lie to obtain public benefits increased from 5 percent in 1960 to 43 percent in 2000. After generous sick leave benefits were implemented, Swedes who were objectively healthier than any other population on the planet were suddenly “off sick” from work more than any other population — suspiciously often male workers during hunting season and big, international sport events.
For a while, a debt‐ and inflation‐fueled boom kept the economy crawling along. But when that ended in 1990, Sweden suffered a spectacular crash. Unemployment surged and the budget deficit soon reached 11 percent of GDP. For a few days in 1992, the Central Bank tried to defend the Swedish currency with an interest rate of 500 percent.
So, what did they do? Market reform. This was the conclusion of people across the political spectrum. A center‐right government under Prime Minister Carl Bildt from 1991 to 1994 implemented a radical reform agenda to get Sweden back to its classical model. And Social Democrats also embraced many of these reforms. They reduced the size of the government by a third and implemented a surplus target in public finances. They reduced taxes and abolished them on wealth, property, gifts, and inheritance. State‐owned companies were privatized, and markets in financial services, electricity, media, telecom, and others were liberalized. Sweden also joined the European Union to get tariff‐free access to its most important markets. In Brussels, Sweden became a leading voice for fiscal restraint and deregulation.
Sweden implemented choice and competition in the public sector and created a school voucher system. And, to the disbelief of foreigners, Social Democrats and center‐right parties agreed to end the pay‐as‐you‐go system in social security and replace it with defined contributions and private accounts. Now pension payments are dependent on the development of the economy, not on politicians’ promises. It was transformational. Between 1980 and 2000, Sweden improved by 2 points on the 10‐point scale of the Economic Freedom of the World Index, compared to 0.5 for the Reaganite United States and 1.8 for Thatcherite Britain. Of course, Sweden started from a lower level, but it was still a fairly steep climb.
Since then, the Swedish economy has once again outpaced its neighbors. Even though the reforms were painful for many sectors and groups, they were a boon for the general public. Between 1970 and 1995, when the world thought of Sweden as a worker’s paradise, inflation ate almost all their wage increases. Since 1995, on the contrary, real wages have increased 65 percent.
Public spending and taxes are now down to normal West European levels. Social spending is 26 percent of GDP, compared to 29 percent in Belgium and 31 percent in France. But it is still much higher than in the United States. The Swedish government provides citizens health care, childcare, free colleges, and subsidized parental and medical leave. How? The tax system is not built to squeeze the rich — they are too few, and the 1970s showed that the economy is too dependent on them. Instead, Sweden squeezes the poor. They are loyal taxpayers, they can’t afford tax attorneys, and they never move their assets to the Bahamas.
Ninety‐seven percent of Swedish tax revenue from incomes comes from proportional payroll taxes and flat regional taxes, set at around a third of everybody’s income. Just 3 percent of the total income tax revenue comes from “taxing the rich” specifically. The U.S. system is much more progressive. According to the latest Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development comparison, the top 10 percent in the United States pay 45 percent of the income taxes. In Sweden, they pay less than 27 percent. If Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D MA) complain that the U.S. rich don’t pay their “fair share,” they would really hate the Swedish model. In addition, more than a quarter of government income derives from taxes on consumption, in which the poor pay just as much as the rich for every item bought. This includes a 25 percent value‐added tax on most goods.
So that is the real story of the Swedish model. Laissez‐faire economics turned a poor backwater into one of the richest countries on the planet. Then it experimented with socialism briefly in the 1970s and ’80s. This made the country famous, but it almost destroyed it. And learning from this disaster, the left and the right have, in relative consensus, liberalized Sweden’s economy more than other countries, even though it is still far from its classical liberal past.
https://www.cato.org/policy-report/january/february-2020/swedens-lessons-america
