- Joined
- Jul 19, 2010
- Messages
- 58,366
- Reaction score
- 20,948
The opposite being "a market economy doesn't make market elements"? ???
The opposite is "the existence of socialist elements doesnt makes it a socialist economy".
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.
Im sure that leases are by such nature, also cheaper for that very reason. And also i would presume that you actually pay less property taxes in Singapore as a result.
In practice they are the same, the local laws change but government is the ultimate authority on property in terms of use and ownership.
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.
This sounds a lot like the arguments that libertarians say about what would replace government, if it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, tastes like a duck and its in practice you cant tell it apart from a real duck, it is a duck.
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?
It is not, what "public ownership" means however is highly debatable.
Sure it does.
Not necesarily.
This sounds a lot like an argument with @Greoric but in reverse.