Does America need a bit of Socialism

[Nervium]

Yes. But it also needs quite a bit more state capitalism.

And no, I don't mean like that.

You mean, state intervention I guess, or you mean like, PR China?

[Ragnarum]

Socialism, communism, and capitalism aren't philosophies to me primarily. I see them each as tools in a toolbox that used properly can do what is best for society at large.

Some markets are best served by different methods.

Food, for example, is a fungible good with lots of variety, and you don't really need a shitton of capital to make it. It is therefore IMO best served by capitalism.

Electricity and utilities in general tend to be capital intensive, and competition in the market is usually fraught with serious inefficiencies. Therefore I think they are best served in a communist fashion by being government owned and operated, so that no private entity is in a position to abuse a monopoly position.

Healthcare is good example of mixing the two. Doctors provide competable services, but it's in the public's best interests to have patients subsidized to some degree. For one, the benefits usually outweigh the costs, and another is that people can often suffer from ailments that aren't their fault.

So yes, I think America needs a bit of socialism, but I want it to be added by someone who has a brain and knows what they're doing. They are tools, and should be treated as such. Someone blindly following them as a philosophy is going to make a mess.

State capitalism then?

Yes. But it also needs quite a bit more state capitalism.

And no, I don't mean like that.

You mean, state intervention I guess, or you mean like, PR China?

Kind of.
If you stick someone competent in power who can handle all that money, then you would probably get better allocation of funds and a more efficient system.

[Divair]

Socialism, communism, and capitalism aren't philosophies to me primarily. I see them each as tools in a toolbox that used properly can do what is best for society at large.

Some markets are best served by different methods.

Food, for example, is a fungible good with lots of variety, and you don't really need a shitton of capital to make it. It is therefore IMO best served by capitalism.

Electricity and utilities in general tend to be capital intensive, and competition in the market is usually fraught with serious inefficiencies. Therefore I think they are best served in a communist fashion by being government owned and operated, so that no private entity is in a position to abuse a monopoly position.

Healthcare is good example of mixing the two. Doctors provide competable services, but it's in the public's best interests to have patients subsidized to some degree. For one, the benefits usually outweigh the costs, and another is that people can often suffer from ailments that aren't their fault.

So yes, I think America needs a bit of socialism, but I want it to be added by someone who has a brain and knows what they're doing. They are tools, and should be treated as such. Someone blindly following them as a philosophy is going to make a mess.

State capitalism then?

Do you have any clue what state capitalism is?

[America Libertaria]

It's useful because iving standards tend to move with per-capita GDP, so that changes in living standards are readily detected through changes in GDP.

No. Correlation does not equal causation. If you want to play it simple and and simple rely on one statistic (what a horrible idea), then the least you could do is use HDI. Even then, that's just being intellectually dishonest.

it's just a statistical fact that when GDP per capita changes so does the standard of living. It does not necessarily mean that when GDP per capita goes up that living standards go up, but it is used to detect when living standards are changing.

[Divair]

No. Correlation does not equal causation. If you want to play it simple and and simple rely on one statistic (what a horrible idea), then the least you could do is use HDI. Even then, that's just being intellectually dishonest.

it's just a statistical fact that when GDP per capita changes so does the standard of living. It does not necessarily mean that when GDP per capita goes up that living standards go up, but it is used to detect when living standards are changing.

Except that's simply not the case. You can have scenarios in which GDP per capita goes up, but standard of living goes down because all the new wealth created goes towards those who already have maximum standards of living (see: the rich).

[Saiwania]

Not that GDP is a particularly good measure of.. well.. anything.

It measures how rich one country is compared to another, which is what I think matters.

[America Libertaria]

Socialism, communism, and capitalism aren't philosophies to me primarily. I see them each as tools in a toolbox that used properly can do what is best for society at large.

Some markets are best served by different methods.

Food, for example, is a fungible good with lots of variety, and you don't really need a shitton of capital to make it. It is therefore IMO best served by capitalism.

Electricity and utilities in general tend to be capital intensive, and competition in the market is usually fraught with serious inefficiencies. Therefore I think they are best served in a communist fashion by being government owned and operated, so that no private entity is in a position to abuse a monopoly position.

Healthcare is good example of mixing the two. Doctors provide competable services, but it's in the public's best interests to have patients subsidized to some degree. For one, the benefits usually outweigh the costs, and another is that people can often suffer from ailments that aren't their fault.

So yes, I think America needs a bit of socialism, but I want it to be added by someone who has a brain and knows what they're doing. They are tools, and should be treated as such. Someone blindly following them as a philosophy is going to make a mess.

State capitalism then?

You mean, state intervention I guess, or you mean like, PR China?

Kind of.
If you stick someone competent in power who can handle all that money, then you would probably get better allocation of funds and a more efficient system.

What? Do you know what state capitalism is?

[Ragnarum]

State capitalism then?

Do you have any clue what state capitalism is?

Yes. Why do you ask? From what I gather he indirectly puts the idea that state capitalism would be easier to handle.

[United Marxist Nations]

I don't find them my cup of tea because he goes into a slippery slope for the sake of a story.

It's a slippery slope that's real. That's why it's amazing. He simplifies Stalinist ideology for the masses.

No, he doesn't; never does it mention dialectical materialism, universal healthcare, education, housing, or employment; never does it mention that the proletariat should be universally armed. If anything, it doesn't even attempt to touch Marxism-Leninism.

[Divair]

Not that GDP is a particularly good measure of.. well.. anything.

It measures how rich one country is compared to another, which is what I think matters.

Define rich.

Do you have any clue what state capitalism is?

Yes. Why do you ask? From what I gather he indirectly puts the idea that state capitalism would be easier to handle.

Define state capitalism.

It's a slippery slope that's real. That's why it's amazing. He simplifies Stalinist ideology for the masses.

No, he doesn't; never does it mention dialectical materialism, universal healthcare, education, housing, or employment; never does it mention that the proletariat should be universally armed. If anything, it doesn't even attempt to touch Marxism-Leninism.

You realize your argument about economic development is about as valid as the argument the Nazis use, yes?

[United Marxist Nations]

It measures how rich one country is compared to another, which is what I think matters.

Define rich.

Yes. Why do you ask? From what I gather he indirectly puts the idea that state capitalism would be easier to handle.

Define state capitalism.

No, he doesn't; never does it mention dialectical materialism, universal healthcare, education, housing, or employment; never does it mention that the proletariat should be universally armed. If anything, it doesn't even attempt to touch Marxism-Leninism.

You realize your argument about economic development is about as valid as the argument the Nazis use, yes?

How?

[America Libertaria]

it's just a statistical fact that when GDP per capita changes so does the standard of living. It does not necessarily mean that when GDP per capita goes up that living standards go up, but it is used to detect when living standards are changing.

Except that's simply not the case. You can have scenarios in which GDP per capita goes up, but standard of living goes down because all the new wealth created goes towards those who already have maximum standards of living (see: the rich).

Your point? I said when GDP per capita is changing so do living standards. And as I said above when per capita GDP goes up that does not necessarily mean living standards go up as well. It is merely to detect when change is occurring not whether the change is good or bad.

[Escasia]

Socialism, communism, and capitalism aren't philosophies to me primarily. I see them each as tools in a toolbox that used properly can do what is best for society at large.

Some markets are best served by different methods.

Food, for example, is a fungible good with lots of variety, and you don't really need a shitton of capital to make it. It is therefore IMO best served by capitalism.

Electricity and utilities in general tend to be capital intensive, and competition in the market is usually fraught with serious inefficiencies. Therefore I think they are best served in a communist fashion by being government owned and operated, so that no private entity is in a position to abuse a monopoly position.

Healthcare is good example of mixing the two. Doctors provide competable services, but it's in the public's best interests to have patients subsidized to some degree. For one, the benefits usually outweigh the costs, and another is that people can often suffer from ailments that aren't their fault.

So yes, I think America needs a bit of socialism, but I want it to be added by someone who has a brain and knows what they're doing. They are tools, and should be treated as such. Someone blindly following them as a philosophy is going to make a mess.

That's not communist. If a government and private entities even exist, it can't be. What you're talking about is just nationalization, which again has nothing to do with socialism in that context or communism ever.

Also, communism/socialism and capitalism are like oil and water. You can't have a society with elements of both. Either you have one or you have the other, because their central features are completely contradictory.

[Divair]

Define rich.


Define state capitalism.



You realize your argument about economic development is about as valid as the argument the Nazis use, yes?

How?

No economic development isn't the norm. It's the exception. To stop it requires utter failure in every regard. Even North Korea is developing economically. To claim the USSR was tolerable because they provided some services is about as valid as claiming the Nazis were tolerable because they provided some services.

[New Connorstantinople]

What would you propose?

What would I propose concerning what?

As to what accurately helps rate a country's economic health.

[Divair]

Except that's simply not the case. You can have scenarios in which GDP per capita goes up, but standard of living goes down because all the new wealth created goes towards those who already have maximum standards of living (see: the rich).

Your point? I said when GDP per capita is changing so do living standards. And as I said above when per capita GDP goes up that does not necessarily mean living standards go up as well. It is merely to detect when change is occurring not whether the change is good or bad.

What if GDP per capita changed, but those who benefited are already at the top and don't see an increase in standard of living, and there's no decrease?

[Divair]

What would I propose concerning what?

As to what accurately helps rate a country's economic health.

Economic health? That's entirely different. We can look at inflation, unemployment, real GDP growth rate, foreign reserves, foreclosures, investment, stock markets.. The list goes on and on.

[United Marxist Nations]

How?

No economic development isn't the norm. It's the exception. To stop it requires utter failure in every regard. Even North Korea is developing economically. To claim the USSR was tolerable because they provided some services is about as valid as claiming the Nazis were tolerable because they provided some services.

The Nazis didn't provide rights, they provided privileges; the first is applied to the whole population, the second is only applied to a favored group (in this case, "Aryans"). Further, the Nazis only produced economic growth for the purpose of destroying ethnic groups they didn't like; the USSR produced economic growth because it would make the people in the country better able to live.

EDIT: Also, your comment implies that the USSR's economy advanced upon ordinary lines; it did not, it's economy advanced at an exceptional rate.

[New Connorstantinople]

You seriously mean to propose that out of 300,000,000 not a single american knows what communism is?

Of course not.

I'm not going to say everyone knows, and its silly to say no one knows, so let's stop this silliness.

[New Connorstantinople]

As to what accurately helps rate a country's economic health.

Economic health? That's entirely different. We can look at inflation, unemployment, real GDP growth rate, foreign reserves, foreclosures, investment, stock markets.. The list goes on and on.

True enough.

[Divair]

No economic development isn't the norm. It's the exception. To stop it requires utter failure in every regard. Even North Korea is developing economically. To claim the USSR was tolerable because they provided some services is about as valid as claiming the Nazis were tolerable because they provided some services.

The Nazis didn't provide rights, they provided privileges; the first is applied to the whole population, the second is only applied to a favored group (in this case, "Aryans"). Further, the Nazis only produced economic growth for the purpose of destroying ethnic groups they didn't like; the USSR produced economic growth because it would make the people in the country better able to live.

Or because, like every country in history, they pursued self-interest.

[United Marxist Nations]

The Nazis didn't provide rights, they provided privileges; the first is applied to the whole population, the second is only applied to a favored group (in this case, "Aryans"). Further, the Nazis only produced economic growth for the purpose of destroying ethnic groups they didn't like; the USSR produced economic growth because it would make the people in the country better able to live.

Or because, like every country in history, they pursued self-interest.

It was in the interests of the whole country that the USSR's economy should advance.

[Divair]

Or because, like every country in history, they pursued self-interest.

It was in the interests of the whole country that the USSR's economy should advance.

Except for those they invaded, killed, oppressed, and whatnot.

[United Marxist Nations]

It was in the interests of the whole country that the USSR's economy should advance.

Except for those they invaded, killed, oppressed, and whatnot.

I will not defend the invasions or deportations; I will; however, defend the rapid industrialization, as it was necessary to modernize the country in such a short amount of time. If anything, the rapid advancement put an end to the cycle of famines in that part of the world; after 1946, there were no famines in the USSR, and the last one was mostly caused by war-damage.

[Waideland]

Economic health? That's entirely different. We can look at inflation, unemployment, real GDP growth rate, foreign reserves, foreclosures, investment, stock markets.. The list goes on and on.

True enough.

And of course most of those have been stagnant, or in decline since the neo-cons, and the socialist Democrats have taken over. I don't remember the last time I heard about an economic law being passed that wasn't just a handout, or a kickback to someone, or some industry. Nearly everything that has good economic numbers at this point is either being propped up by government monopoly money, or spun by the flawed way the government gathers and presents the data.