More pedantics? You could have taken a shot at answering some of the questions concerning this mechanism you seem to imply, but you didn't go there. Just as you didn't go anywhere near the implications of who's a socialist and who's not, but instead chose a romp in the weeds over your idealized version of "federal". If you want to be taken seriously, you need to start acting like it. You wasted an initial presumption on jerk-like posting and now need to make a comeback. We'll see if you are up to that.
I still stick by what I said regarding federal and I still think that your use, and the restless stubborness to engage in the topic is wrong. But lets move on. By all means, lets dive into the matter.
Let me point out ways in which you will need to do better than this. You have not become an authority on socialism by virtue of current residence in Europe. Trying to claim status as an expert on such a basis is dishonest. You are complaining that things accepted as proven in your own mind may not be in mine. That's for sure. Your job would be to show why the conclusions you've reached are well-based and rational in their derivation. Maurice Sendak-style images of leeches are not going to get the job done. Got anything else?
No, you are correct. Living in Europe does not make me an authority in this matter. But living in Europe, plus the fact that i have taken time t to study the situation does make me qualified to speak of it. Anyway, I don't even know who Maurice Sendak is.
You've already walked away from two opportunities to do just that. Wllingness not noted.
Look buddy. socialism comes in many forms and it has many applications. Especially in regards to how the economy is handles you have everything from state planned economy to market socialism as the way to go. I want to know which kind of socialism you want us to discuss because there are a lot of variations. Do you want to discuss Social nationalism, national socialism, democratic socialism, lenninism etc... pick the one you consider closest to your heart and lets discuss that one. I am not an expert on all branches but I am always willing to learn and study. From my study so far, all socialist business models, even the ones based the freest of market ideas, is a failure.
Just like there are a lot of variations in how a capitalist economy is to be run. There is laissez-faire, interventionist, free market, corporate capitalism, etc.
The capitalist economic model which is used in most of Europe, including the so called, socialist paradises of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, is social-market economy. Social-market economy has NOTHING to do with socialism. It is a capitalist ideology by which the state intervenes little in the financial part in terms of market stability but assures several rights and powers to the individual, and not the company. This is opposed to corporate capitalism which empowers the company to a great deal. The scandinavian peninsula is not a socialist heaven... it is just considered such. It is in fact, a capitalist heaven in which social measures are successfully implemented. But this is not because of the socialist ideology which plays little part but takes a lot of credit... it is because the Scandinavian people there are a good, hard-working, educated people who prize taking responsibility for their actions and thrive to create a good community for themselves. It is not the merit of socialism, but rather, patriotism.
So. If you want to discuss socialism, pick a socialist ideology and we can discuss that one.
This sort of thing is why I do not hold out much hope for you at the present time. Argument by proclamation? That's simply laughable.
I'll just skip this one entirely.
It doesn't sound to me like you understand very well what money is either. On this level, capitalism needs a lot of money -- money which it must extract from welfare uses to devote to the formation of ever more capital. Capital in capitalism is a bit like the church during the Dark Ages, sucking up ever more wealth that would have been used for necessities by serfs and devoting it instead to the construction of ever more grand but utility-lacking cathedrals and of course, comfy lifestyles for the priestly class. What I suppose you would call "socialist intrusions" are necessary on this level to prevent such "malinvestment" in the modern world.
I understand exactly what money is. capitalism cannot suck up money. It is a system. It is an agreement basically which all of us agree to uphold. That's it. The money goes to whoever the system empowers. If you are talking about corporate capitalism, because a lot of power goes to the corporations, yes, they become the ones who garner a lot of the money. If you discuss the nordic model of market economy, then surprisingly, you get the same result but in a more decent and humane way. A proper way. However, the nordic model of market economy cannot work in the USA if you implement it today. Also, corporate capitalism is more or less a doctrine that has sprung out of the communist mentality.
In perhaps more elegant terms, there is nothing at all within free-market economics that assures socially desirable or even socially acceptable outcomes. Markets are by definition amoral. They do not care what damage they might do so long as they can find or remain in what they experience as an equilibrium. "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." That's Adam Smith with a warning that free markets are ever targets for manipulation and exploitation by the actors within them, all of course to their own benefit and the detriment of all others. Even he called for micro-level "intrusion" on such and other accounts.
I generally agree with this paragraph. But the premise you started it on is more fitting if it is a continuation of what I wrote above, rather than your own paragraph.
Then there is the longstanding historical example of laissez-faire macro practice having resulted in nothing but one long series of collapses, panics, scares, and depressions. All that has ever succeeded in calming the waters and introducing even remotely durable periods of macro-level consistency has been managed capitalism -- what latter-day right-wingers want to call socialism.
I don't support laissez-faire. Laissez-faire is not the only capitalist ideology out there. There are numerous others as I have presented. Not all capitalist ideologies are good for this day and age but no socialist ideology is good for any day and age whatsoever.
Your desire to run away from the "who's a socialist" data is meanwhile understandable as the distribution is rather shocking in its clarity. People nearly everywhere have made decisions in the matter of whether to rely on the public or private sector for the provision of goods and services that are very different from the ones we have made here. The data strongly suggest that the US has in fact undervalued the marginal utility of public sector production. Recent debates of the cost and effect of national health care systems should have highlighted that problem. Our profit-driven, private-sector dominated systems deliver at least nearly the worst levels of overall health care and do so at the highest levels of cost. Everywhere else relies more on "intrusions" into health care-related markets, and they get better and cheaper heath care for their trouble. The point seems to be lost on assorted free-market ideologues, however.
Ok, granted... the USA way of doing business stinks. Change it. The nordic model won't work until the population becomes more united and more educated... which cannot happen in the USA out of various reasons. On the other point you made... Europe is not a socialist continent. It is often described as such, even by me, to avoid making entire paragraphs of points. Europe is a continent that promotes capitalism, mainly social-market capitalism which is a mixed economic model. It does however have successful running social programs that are not the result of socialism but rather, the result of patriotism. People making good work and trying to do the best they can for their people. This is why with the huge wave of immigration from africa and arabia, certain programs are starting to show cracks. France is rated for instance #1 in healthcare... but it is slowly slipping into #2 after Norway -> Norway, not being part of the EU, has managed to hold a grip on the unwanted wave of immigration to its own leasure... though the grip wasn't tight enough.
So, I will see your supercilious "leeches" ramblings and put a few actual theses on the table for you. First, it is capitalism, not socialism, that drains wealth away and devotes it to non-welfare purposes. Second, free-market micro-level notions come out of the box offering no protection against amoral markets or against deliberate market-rigging by unscrupulous profiteers. Third, laissez-faire approaches have never known macro-level success and have been easily overshadowed by more "intrusionary" approaches. Fourth, utility evaluations in the US are so out of line with those of the rest of the economically successful world as to suggest that we have indeed missed something. Feel free to deal with one or more of those if you can.
