Socialism din't work in Sweden and it won't work here. (1 Viewer)

Bullseye said:

Sorry, no. This litany of alleged "socialist" programs is a vapid, desperate attempt to cloak real socialism. As I said above just because a service is provided by the government doesn't make it "socialist". The accepted definition of "socialism" doesn't mention any of those items.

Click to expand...

Err, yes it does. That is literally the definition.

Socialism: Means of production of goods & services are owned by the government or communally.
Capitalism: Means of production of goods & services are owned by private entities.

For example,

Medicare/Medicaid are services (medical insurance) where the means of production and its distribution is controlled by the government rather than a private insurer.
The VA is a service (medical care) where the means of production and its distribution is controlled by the government rather than a private health care provider.

Rogue Valley said:

And what is REAL socialism?

Click to expand...

I've given the definition several times. Once again for possible comprehension: Socialism is a political/economic system where the government owns or controls the means of production and distribution. Or as Merriam Webster puts it:

1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Click to expand...

I don't see any of the list of wonderful "socialism" attributes ultmd listed above.

Rogue Valley said:

And where today in the world is REAL socialism employed?

Click to expand...

Who said there were any REAL world success stories? The opposite is true. Socialism has failed wherever it's been tried.

Bullseye said:

I've given the definition several times. Once again for possible comprehension: Socialism is a political/economic system where the government owns or controls the means of production and distribution. Or as Merriam Webster puts it:

I don't see any of the list of wonderful "socialism" attributes ultmd listed above.

Who said there were any REAL world success stories? The opposite is true. Socialism has failed wherever it's been tried.

Click to expand...

Where is pure socialism employed in the world today?

Didn't think you would provide an answer to the question. And you didn't

AlbqOwl said:

One more time. Social programs and socialism are NOT the same thing.

Click to expand...

Yes, they literally are. Our social programs create and deliver both goods & services to economic actors that participate in economic markets.

Medicare/Medicaid - for example - is a service (health insurance) that can supplement or supplant private insurance.
However the government here is deciding,

1. How much to produce (coverage maximums, qualified procedure, etc.)
2. How much it costs to produce (salaries, administration, overhead)
3. How much to price it (premium amounts or even to waive)
4. How to distribute it (eligibility criteria)

All of that decision-making is controlled by the State via either administrative or legislative processes.

The Democrats embrace Democratic Socialism. The Republicans embrace Corporate Socialism

I know which version of socialism I prefer.

brothern said:

Yes, they literally are. Our social programs create and deliver both goods & services to economic actors that participate in economic markets.

Medicare/Medicaid - for example - is a service (health insurance) that can supplement or supplant private insurance.
However the government here is deciding,

1. How much to produce (coverage maximums, qualified procure, etc.)
2. How much it costs to produce (salaries, administration, overhead)
3. How much to price it (premium amounts or even to waive)
4. How to distribute it (eligibility criteria)

All of that decision-making is controlled by the State via either administrative or legislative processes.

Click to expand...

She'll disagree, not present any evidence, and then bug out. SOP.

Bullseye said:

I don't see any of the list of wonderful "socialism" attributes ultmd listed above.

Click to expand...

I just laid out an example below for Medicare/Medicaid.
Pick another program from ultmd's list. I can lay that one out for you too.
It may not make sense to you that a check in the mail or benefits given by the government is what in economics is considered a good or a service, but that is exactly what it is.

brothern said:

Medicare/Medicaid - for example - is a service (health insurance) that can supplement or supplant private insurance.
However the government here is deciding,

1. How much to produce (coverage maximums, qualified procure, etc.)
2. How much it costs to produce (salaries, administration, overhead)
3. How much to price it (premium amounts or even to waive)
4. How to distribute it (eligibility criteria)

All of that decision-making is controlled by the State via either administrative or legislative processes.

Click to expand...

ONeuli said:

Every big initiative will have unintended consequences. That's life. The question is whether it's a net positive or a net negative. Generally, socialistic policies have been a net positive. For example, consider the Great Society programs of Johnson. We've had a huge decline in poverty rates, and a big improvement in nearly every measure of public well-being since then. Similarly, consider Social Security, which has made elder poverty almost a non-issue, where once it was an epidemic. Or consider the New Deal programs that regulate things like banking and the stock market, and have given us longer, stronger growth cycles, and shorter and shallower recessions. They're all net positives. By comparison, the unintended negative consequences of rolling back socialistic programs (e.g., cutting tax rates for the rich) are things the right is utterly incapable of seeing or acknowledging, but they generally outweigh any positive results, giving us things like soaring deficits and run-away wealth inequality.

Click to expand...

Johnson's Great Society initiatives passed in 1965 when the official poverty rate was roughly 17%. Poverty has been redefined with higher standards of affluence for defining it it several times since, and nevertheless the poverty rate has pretty much fluctuated between 11 and 15% after 50+ years and roughly $25 TRILLION dollars spent on anti poverty programs. Using the standards used in 1965, the poverty rate would probably be higher now than it was then.

So what do you think? Are we getting our money's worth? Doesn't look like it to me. The poverty rate without any new government programs dropped from 12.7% in the last year of the Obama Administration to below 12% currently.

I don't deny the anecdotal evidence of people who have benefited from The Great Society initiatives in a positive way. But the only significant overall accomplishment from Johnson's War on Poverty was to make millions of Americans dependent on government who probably would not have been without those programs.

Has it all been negative? Of course not. But President Trump's approach seems to be much more effective without making people dependent on government and allowing them to do for themselves and enhance their belief in themselves and enhance their self respect and sense of accomplishment. And in the process overall incomes, net worth, family wealth etc. are now rising again after years of decline and/or stagnation.

A properly regulated capitalism with maximum freedom while respecting individual liberty and enforcing human rights will always beat socialism everywhere it is tried.

The bottom line in this argument is---------------------------Venezuela!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

brothern said:

I just laid out an example below for Medicare/Medicaid.
Pick another program from ultmd's list. I can lay that one out for you too.
It may not make sense to you that a check in the mail or benefits given by the government is what in economics is considered a good or a service, but that is exactly what it is.

Click to expand...

You can spin all you want, not of his items fits the definition of socialism.

brothern said:

Yes, they literally are. Our social programs create and deliver both goods & services to economic actors that participate in economic markets.

Click to expand...

Total jabberwocky.

brothern said:

Medicare/Medicaid - for example - is a service (health insurance) that can supplement or supplant private insurance.
However the government here is deciding,

1. How much to produce (coverage maximums, qualified procedure, etc.)
2. How much it costs to produce (salaries, administration, overhead)
3. How much to price it (premium amounts or even to waive)
4. How to distribute it (eligibility criteria)

All of that decision-making is controlled by the State via either administrative or legislative processes.

Click to expand...

Sorry, no. That doesn't qualify as socialism. Jabberwocky again.

Rogue Valley said:

Where is pure socialism employed in the world today?

Didn't think you would provide an answer to the question. And you didn't

Click to expand...

Yes, I did. NOWHERE in the world is "pure" socialism employed. I didn't think my last sentences were that difficult to understand. Guess I was wrong.

Bullseye said:

Total jabberwocky. Sorry, no. That doesn't qualify as socialism. Jabberwocky again.

Click to expand...

Could you explain to me a real-word example what you understand is meant by: "collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

brothern said:

Err, yes it does. That is literally the definition.

Socialism: Means of production of goods & services are owned by the government or communally.
Capitalism: Means of production of goods & services are owned by private entities.

For example,

Medicare/Medicaid are services (medical insurance) where the means of production and its distribution is controlled by the government rather than a private insurer.
The VA is a service (medical care) where the means of production and its distribution is controlled by the government rather than a private health care provider.

Click to expand...

As I said; the government providing services does not comprise socialism.

brothern said:

Could you explain to me a real-word example what you understand is meant by: "collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

Click to expand...

Pretty straight forward. Read it again.

Bullseye said:

I've given the definition several times. Once again for possible comprehension: Socialism is a political/economic system where the government owns or controls the means of production and distribution. Or as Merriam Webster puts it:

I don't see any of the list of wonderful "socialism" attributes ultmd listed above.

Who said there were any REAL world success stories? The opposite is true. Socialism has failed wherever it's been tried.

Click to expand...

You know, we can go back and forth about how to define "socialism".



If you have such a hangup about the word, we can stop using it. Bernie is just interested in "the Nordic model". He uses the word "socialism" to describe it. That's probably a marketing error on his part, because it's a pretty ambiguous word which is used in all sorts of ways, and so creates a lot of misunderstanding and makes Americans really nervous. So forget socialism. Let's talk about the Nordic model, because it doesn't have all the baggage that comes with the word "socialism". That's all anyone is really talking about.

"I think we should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway, and learn what they have accomplished for their working people."
-Bernie Sanders

Click to expand...

Nordic model - Wikipedia

Bullseye said:

As I said; the government providing services does not comprise socialism.

Click to expand...

When the Soviets distributed coupons for citizens to buy sugar and bread ... that's not socialism?

Bullseye said:

Pretty straight forward. Read it again.

Click to expand...

No, no. We're not talking about my understanding. We're trying to understand what your understanding of the word "socialism" is.

If you can't actually provide an example, I think that starts to solve what the problem here is.

Casca XV said:

Quality of Life? In other words you have never been to Europe.

Click to expand...

The USA has quite poor quality of life compared to most, more socialist, Western nations.

Unless you're super rich. Then the USA kicks ass, cause that's who you've voted to help election after election after election after....

ataraxia said:

Not really.

Norwegians tell Trump: We don't want to come to your s***hole country | The Independent

Click to expand...

Those Norwegians seem to know what they're talking about. From the article:
Meanwhile, Kathinka Froystad addressed the President directly, saying: “Dear Mr President, I am glad you enjoyed meeting my prime minister, but I am quite happy where I am and would not even dream of settling down in the US during your s***hole, racist and misogynist regime.”

JustHanging said:

The USA has quite poor quality of life compared to most, more socialist, Western nations.

Unless you're super rich. Then the USA kicks ass, cause that's who you've voted to help election after election after election after....

Click to expand...

Yes. If you are a kid born to a poor family here, you may have trouble accessing a basic education, getting a nutritious meal even once a day, or just avoid dying of easily treated medical conditions.

But if you are in a rich family, heck you can get the best nose jobs and boob jobs money can buy in the whole world.

brothern said:

No, no. We're not talking about my understanding. We're trying to understand what your understanding of the word "socialism" is.

If you can't actually provide an example, I think that starts to solve what the problem here is.

Click to expand...

I gave a specific definition. What more can I do?

JustHanging said:

The USA has quite poor quality of life compared to most, more socialist, Western nations.

Unless you're super rich. Then the USA kicks ass, cause that's who you've voted to help election after election after election after....

Click to expand...

No, on average they don't have a better quality of life.

Many European countries and Canada kind of get away with a huge welfare state because the US is providing around 90% of their military security.

In other words we are subsidizing them.

That is why Germany and others are so pissed at Trump for insisting they finally pay their fair share into NATO.

If the US military disappeared tomorrow most of Western Europe would go bankrupt immediately.

Casca XV said:

No, on average they don't have a better quality of life.

Many European countries and Canada kind of get away with a huge welfare state because the US is providing around 90% of their military security.

In other words we are subsidizing them.

That is why Germany and others are so pissed at Trump for insisting they finally pay their fair share into NATO.

If the US military disappeared tomorrow most of Western Europe would go bankrupt immediately.

Click to expand...

They have a much better quality of life

ataraxia said:

You know, we can go back and forth about how to define "socialism".

View attachment 67258718

If you have such a hangup about the word, we can stop using it. Bernie is just interested in "the Nordic model". He uses the word "socialism" to describe it. That's probably a marketing error on his part, because it's a pretty ambiguous word which is used in all sorts of ways, and so creates a lot of misunderstanding and makes Americans really nervous. So forget socialism. Let's talk about the Nordic model, because it doesn't have all the baggage that comes with the word "socialism". That's all anyone is really talking about.



Nordic model - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

No, its not socialism. The part your wiki article leaves out is that they get a way with a huge welfare state because the US provides around 90% of their military defense. If they start having to pay for it themselves they would go bankrupt almost immediately.