Do people understand the difference between a socialist program, and socialist economy?

[HereticBD]

Sounds like people need to grow up

Or Bernie and his crew should work on better branding.

 

[tramendous]

Or Bernie and his crew should work on better branding.

Youre right. You need to slow down when a large portion of youre audience is retarded

 

[HereticBD]

Youre right. You need to slow down when a large portion of youre audience is retarded

The "retarded" people looking at history, and realizing that socialism doesn't work?

Funny how Obama didn't even endorse the new Socialist Democrat who won in New York, ain't it? He must be one of those retards you speak of.

 

[tramendous]

The "retarded" people looking at history, and realizing that socialism doesn't work?

Funny how Obama didn't even endorse the new Socialist Democrat who won in New York, ain't it? He must be one of those retards you speak of.

Youre doing that thing about socialist policy = communism. I already said youre right. They need to be more careful with their branding because their audience has a lot of stupid people with knee jerk reactions to that word.

Social media? Blarrrrrgh communism lmao

 

[surrealworlds]

The same could be said of every single country in the planet. Ultimately is government who keeps a track of who owns what inside a border, ergo everyone is socialist.

Please, educate yourself.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Guess the name of the biggest, most costly socialist enterprise in the US. The means of production are owned entirely by the state and every single worker is paid with monies they did not actually generate through their own labor.

Hint: The head aparatchiks control it out of this building.

Spoiler

 

[Rod1]

Please, educate yourself.

Enlighten me plz.

 

[surrealworlds]

Enlighten me plz.

If you are truly under the belief that every government in the world is a socialist government i dont think i can. Read a book. Hell, just read the thread title. Im pretty sure this thread was made with you in mind.

 

[Rod1]

All I saw was a baby that would have died didn't die.

That baby would had also died in America. In fact its most likely he would had considering most insurance companies dont cover experimental procedures and nobody would had shelled the dough for the couple in America.

 

[Rod1]

If you are truly under the belief that every government in the world is a socialist government i dont think i can. Read a book. Hell, just read the thread title. Im pretty sure this thread was made with you in mind.

No, i said that according to your definition it is

A market economy by definition isnt socialist.

 

[ocean size]

Funny how Obama didn't even endorse the new Socialist Democrat who won in New York, ain't it? He must be one of those retards you speak of.

that's a stretch mate

 

[Jack V Savage]

No, i said that according to your definition it is

A market economy by definition isnt socialist.

I don't think that's true. See the Singapore (or Norway) example. The public owning the means of production doesn't preclude a market economy.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

We became "socialists" right around the Great Depression. That's when the government realized that the economic fallout was too much for the private sector to manage on it's own. In response, the public sector stepped in and provided welfare in various forms for the masses.

But in many ways, almost every Western nation in history has run socialist programs.

It's nice to believe that we can avoid introducing such programs but it will never work so long as we're also taxing the populace.

It does kind of highlight though the collective fantasy that was so well sold in the 80's and 90's that the US in the mid 20th century was a paradise of pure capitalism, that people now look back to a "golden age" that by modern standards they would decry as a communist hell hole.

Someone like Sanders would bar his more modern social views be a pretty unremarkable democrat circa the 60's or 70's on domestic policy IMHO.

 

[surrealworlds]

No, i said that according to your definition it is

A market economy by definition isnt socialist.

So your stance is China is a market economy? Got it. I'd recommend you read a book again but i doubt you will.

 

[Rod1]

So your stance is China is a market economy? Got it. I'd recommend you read a book again but i doubt you will.

China is for the most part a market economy, yes, at least in the Special Economic Zones which concentrate the vast majority of economic development.

 

[Rod1]

I don't think that's true. See the Singapore (or Norway) example. The public owning the means of production doesn't preclude a market economy.

Socialist and market economy arent as people pointed out, qualitative in nature, even in the most radical communist countries like North Korea there are market elements to their economy in the form of the black markets and even in the most capitalistic countries in the world government administers industries like defense, pensions or healthcare.

As to the Singapore case, its irrelevant whether the government owns the land in a nominal way, governments own the entirety of the land in a defacto way all around the world.

If i buy a bunch of land in America im still bound to the government in who i can trade the land to and what i can do with it, and the government still charges me property taxes so even if i supposedly "own" land in reality im more like renting land or having it leased to me.

Sovereign funds are usually administered privately, so while the government technically owns them in practice they work like every other fund and they tend to be limited in scope of how they can be spent with.

I agree 100% that everything can be called "Socialism" or as in the opposite boogeyman "Neoliberalism" depending on how you look at it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Socialist and market economy arent as people pointed out, qualitative in nature, even in the most radical communist countries like North Korea there are market elements to their economy in the form of the black markets and even in the most capitalistic countries in the world government administers industries like defense, pensions or healthcare.

Market elements don't make a market economy.

As to the Singapore case, its irrelevant whether the government owns the land in a nominal way, governments own the entirety of the land in a defacto way all around the world.

Well, it's more accurate to say that property rights are divided to different extents.

Sovereign funds are usually administered privately, so while the government technically owns them in practice they work like every other fund and they tend to be limited in scope of how they can be spent with.

I'm not following this line of thought at all. The gov't owns them, not just technically. The growth and benefits from them are the property of the public. Obviously someone has to actually make allocation decisions. That's going to be true in any conceivable arrangement. And in the last sentence are you referring to withdrawal limits? That seems necessary to ensure the continued existence of the funds and not something that in any way detracts from their character as public owned.

I agree 100% that everything can be called "Socialism" or as in the opposite boogeyman "Neoliberalism" depending on how you look at it.

That's not what I'm saying, and not true. My point is narrower: That public or worker ownership of the means of production does not preclude a market-based economy.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

China is for the most part a market economy, yes, at least in the Special Economic Zones which concentrate the vast majority of economic development.

Honestly China is one of the most ruthless market economies on earth, just because it retains a lot of the aurthoritan apparatus of Maoism doesn't mean its run in such a fashion.

Welcome to the glories of people poisoning baby milk for a better profit margin.

 

[Rod1]

Market elements don't make a market economy.

Of course it doesnt, but the opposite isnt true either.

Well, it's more accurate to say that property rights are divided to different extents.

In a dejure basis, in a defacto basis they are not, Singapore leases you land and charges you a rent over it, the US government "sells" you land and charges your a tax over it.

What you can do with said land is extremely regulated by government on both cases.

I'm not following this line of thought at all. The gov't owns them, not just technically. The growth and benefits from them are the property of the public. Obviously someone has to actually make allocation decisions. That's going to be true in any conceivable arrangement. And in the last sentence are you referring to withdrawal limits? That seems necessary to ensure the continued existence of the funds and not something that in any way detracts from their character as public owned.

As you said it, the "government" owns it, yet it is administered just like a private investment fund usually with its own regulatory framework and whose only difference is that profits are added back to the fund instead of stockholders.

In practice the community isnt really administering these funds, a market economy does.

That's not what I'm saying, and not true. My point is narrower: That public or worker ownership of the means of production does not preclude a market-based economy.

Public ownership of things doesnt necesarily means socialism either.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Of course it doesnt, but the opposite isnt true either.

The opposite being "a market economy doesn't make market elements"? ???

In a dejure basis, in a defacto basis they are not, Singapore leases you land and charges you a rent over it, the US government "sells" you land and charges your a tax over it.

What you can do with said land is extremely regulated by government on both cases.

In the U.S., you have far more rights on the land, and you can sell permanent titles to it. The leases run out, and the value of your ownership drops to zero (drops as the lease matures). It's very different.

As you said it, the "government" owns it, yet it is administered just like a private investment fund usually with its own regulatory framework and whose only difference is that profits are added back to the fund instead of stockholders.

Um, the difference between private ownership and public ownership is that the private owner receives all the benefit from owning it when there is private ownership, and the public receives the benefit from owning it when there is public ownership. Also, the administrator is working for the public when there is public ownership and working for the private owner when there is private ownership. Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

In practice the community isnt really administering these funds, a market economy does.

Yeah. What do you think "administering" means? Maybe that's the issue?

My point is that public ownership of the means of production is not incompatible with a market economy. Are you just agreeing?

Public ownership of things doesnt necesarily means socialism either.

Sure it does.