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

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.
 
The opposite is "the existence of socialist elements doesnt makes it a socialist economy".

OK. No problem with that.

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.

I can't say about what it sounds like to you, but obviously in fact it is quite different.

It is not, what "public ownership" means however is highly debatable.

How so?

Not necesarily.

This sounds a lot like an argument with @Greoric but in reverse.

Absolutely necessarily. It's true by definition.

Just trolling now? I literally don't know what you're getting your panties in such a bunch about. In what possible way am I arguing like Greoric?
 
I can't say about what it sounds like to you, but obviously in fact it is quite different.

Example A : Government uses revenue to buy shares and sets up an autnomous company with the mandate "Create profit" and throws it into a healthy free market. The company for all intents and purposes is acting like any other corporation except that its main shareholder is government

Example B: There is a 100% ban on private companies dealing with product X (lets say oil), so company B doesnt has a mandate and has an effective monopoly on Oil. So the supply and the prices arent following market forces, they are distributed entirely at the whim of a government official.

In example A which is how Statoil operates, the "community" doesnt has a say at all on how things are distributed, the market does and these government companies follow a profit capitalist mentality.

In example B of course a whole of of mess happens like in Venezuela where 1 Euro can buy 4 million liters of gas.


Just because you slap "public" on something, doesn't means it actually is.

Absolutely necessarily. It's true by definition.

Just trolling now? In what possible way am I arguing like Greoric?

Because you are arguing that something that in practice is a private company operating in a free market enviroment is "socialist" just because it gives its profits to the government.

Taxes already mean that every company gives a part of its profits to the government in the case of a whole owned public company is indistinguishable from a company that would be paying a 100% tax rate to the same government.
 
Example A : Government uses revenue to buy shares and sets up an autnomous company with the mandate "Create profit" and throws it into a healthy free market. The company for all intents and purposes is acting like any other corporation except that its main shareholder is government

Example B: There is a 100% ban on private companies dealing with product X (lets say oil), so company B doesnt has a mandate and has an effective monopoly on Oil. So the supply and the prices arent following market forces, they are distributed entirely at the whim of a government official.

LOL! Yes, the difference we're discussing is not the nature of the company; it's who owns it. Likewise, if I own a piece of land, I make the decisions about what to build on it, and if the gov't owns the land, someone involved with make decisions about development. That doesn't mean the public doesn't own the land. Think this through more.

Just because you slap "public" on something, doesn't means it actually is.

Right, but if the public owns it, that means it's is public-owned. It's not the label but the function.

Because you are arguing that something that in practice is a private company operating in a free market enviroment is "socialist" just because it gives its profits to the government.

How does that make me like that Greoric? That's just a true statement by definition.

Taxes already mean that every company gives a part of its profits to the government in the case of a whole owned public company is indistinguishable from a company that would be paying a 100% tax rate to the same government.

Again, this is just bizarre. "I owe 5% of my profits to Joe" is fundamentally different from "I owe 100% of my profits to Joe." In one case, I have a deal with Joe. In the other, Joe is the owner.
 
LOL! Yes, the difference we're discussing is not the nature of the company; it's who owns it. Likewise, if I own a piece of land, I make the decisions about what to build on it, and if the gov't owns the land, someone involved with make decisions about development. That doesn't mean the public doesn't own the land. Think this through more.

You dont have absolute freedom about what you can build or not, whether you lease or own the land.

Right, but if the public owns it, that means it's is public-owned. It's not the label but the function.

Yes, that doesnt means the community owns it though.

How does that make me like that Greoric? That's just a true statement by definition.

Because Greoric solutions involve things that are by function pretty much the same as government but with a label called "private".

Again, this is just bizarre. "I owe 5% of my profits to Joe" is fundamentally different from "I owe 100% of my profits to Joe." In one case, I have a deal with Joe. In the other, Joe is the owner.

So if government raised corporate tax rate to 51% does that means the entire country suddenly becomes socialist since government would get the majority of profits off all economic endeavors in the country.
 
It's past time to bring Big Pharma to heel, so many of their abuses take place simply because government allows them to.

The level they've stood to benefit from publicly funded and conducted research even compared to most other sectors is laughable. It's the universities and government labs who not only explain the mechanisms for disease and develop therapy strategies but also validate the drug targets and sometimes even identify the prototype compound before the intellectual property is transferred to the private sector for development. There's hardly an FDA approved drug in this decade that the NIH didn't have a hand in.

The NIH, which US taxpayers fund to the order of $35 billion a year. It's a resource they're allowed to utilize carte blanche and there's no intellectual property rights for scientific research, be it in condensed matter physics, bio-chemistry, molecular biology, genetics or any other field. That's not to say the developer shouldn't be allowed to reap a share of spoils for their creations or not have them protected, just that the overall benefits are disproportionate and could probably do well to be spread across the breadth of society a little more than they are.

In terms of patents on the whole across all industries, not only are they difficult to enforce but the transactional costs are exceedingly high these days. The flip side to this is how difficult that makes it for innovative small businesses and even when they do breakthrough, they're often quickly gobbled up and the patent becomes owned by an entity which put up neither the original funding nor research. It's not a massive problem but there's something to be said for class gaps in patenting and it's hardly surprising the majority of holders come from affluent families.
Excellent post. I also agree strongly with your sentiment about "spread across the breadth of society a little more".
 
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.
These are the same idiots who say:

1. Healthcare isnt a right
2. Businesses are free to turn down anyone for any reason

Then bitch about a hospital refusing to provide care to the baby.
 
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.

Ok. But did that baby die?
 
It's not important look at economies as socialist, communist, capitalist, etc.

It's better to look at economies in light of interventionist or non interventionist (and whatever scale in between the two).

In every major economy, the government intervenes in varying degrees to the detriment of the economy.
 
Reading this thread...

Obviously not. There are still a lot of people who play with themselves just thinking about the so-called "free market economy" because if the taxes "finally" get low enough, then they'll be a millionaire too! That bias is hard to break, and I'm convinced they'd never be happy until that tax number reaches zero.

Nevermind wage stagnation and the lowest taxes we've ever seen for the super wealthy. That can't be part of the problem...
 
We could have a lot more intelligent conversations around here if we talked about socialism as a scale rather than a vector.
Typical conversations are like: "UHC would solve a lot of problems" "That's some socialist crap. You want to end up like Venezuela?"
Improved conversations would be like: "What's a better direction for Health Care in the US to change towards: something more Libertarian or something more Socialized?"
 
We could have a lot more intelligent conversations around here if we talked about socialism as a scale rather than a vector.
Typical conversations are like: "UHC would solve a lot of problems" "That's some socialist crap. You want to end up like Venezuela?"
Improved conversations would be like: "What's a better direction for Health Care in the US to change towards: something more Libertarian or something more Socialized?"

Or something more specific. "Should we have a system more like Japan's or Canada's or the U.K.'s or Somalia's?" Might make more sense to just ditch "socialism" altogether given how it doesn't really convey any information. I've seen variations of this:

"I'm a socialist, and I think we should be like the Nordic countries."
"Well, actually Nordic countries are super capitalist not socialist."
"Let's be like Norway, then, and have the gov't start a SWF that controls three-quarters of wealth in the country and is worth over $200K per person."
"No, Chairman Mao, that's socialism."
"So what about Denmark? Over 28% of GDP is social expenditures! And almost a third of their workforce is employed by the gov't. Let's do that!"
"What's next, gulags?"
 
Or something more specific. "Should we have a system more like Japan's or Canada's or the U.K.'s or Somalia's?" Might make more sense to just ditch "socialism" altogether given how it doesn't really convey any information. I've seen variations of this:

"I'm a socialist, and I think we should be like the Nordic countries."
"Well, actually Nordic countries are super capitalist not socialist."
"Let's be like Norway, then, and have the gov't start a SWF that controls three-quarters of wealth in the country and is worth over $200K per person."
"No, Chairman Mao, that's socialism."
"So what about Denmark? Over 28% of GDP is social expenditures! And almost a third of their workforce is employed by the gov't. Let's do that!"
"What's next, gulags?"
Slightly off topic, a while back, there was an argument about whether or not there should be a minimum wage. Someone argued that unemployment would be lower without it, which makes sense, but doesn't really address quality of life. I decided to look into countries without minimum wage laws and was surprised that there were several Nordic countries without minimum wage laws and with very low unemployment compared to other European counterparts. When I dug deeper, I found out that in those countries, there is an effective minimum wage in different industries, and it's set by industry unions and collective bargaining. They're effective wages and benefits, as well as quality of life metrics, are light years beyond the US.
But we can't have a conversation about unionization without the word Socialism coming up.
 
?, isn't the Military and LEO technically a Socialist program?

so why isn't that part of the budget usually counted when people refer to Socialist programs or social expenditures as part of GDP
 
Slightly off topic, a while back, there was an argument about whether or not there should be a minimum wage. Someone argued that unemployment would be lower without it, which makes sense, but doesn't really address quality of life. I decided to look into countries without minimum wage laws and was surprised that there were several Nordic countries without minimum wage laws and with very low unemployment compared to other European counterparts. When I dug deeper, I found out that in those countries, there is an effective minimum wage in different industries, and it's set by industry unions and collective bargaining. They're effective wages and benefits, as well as quality of life metrics, are light years beyond the US.
But we can't have a conversation about unionization without the word Socialism coming up.

People often make the mistake of thinking our high wages are by law, not because of strong unions.
When I was done in high school in 95 I worked a year to make money for travelling. Built fridges for a year. Walked straight from school to the factory floor. 0 training. 37 hour week. 40k a year. 6 weeks paid vacation. In 95. Thanks commie unions.
 
People often make the mistake of thinking our high wages are by law, not because of strong unions.
When I was done in high school in 95 I worked a year to make money for travelling. Built fridges for a year. Walked straight from school to the factory floor. 0 training. 37 hour week. 40k a year. 6 weeks paid vacation. In 95. Thanks commie unions.

that totally wouldnt work in Murka because Murka has brown people that fvk everything up and its like the biggest country in the world.

Didnt you know that you Commie-Dane?
 
Back
Top