About Socialism

You need to refer to the economic research directly. Western Capitalism is split into liberal democracy, social democracy and Anglo-Saxon. The difference is the link between institutions and poverty alleviation. Now there are complexities. For example, the UK has a more effective welfare state than the US. However, it starts with greater pre-welfare inequality. There are also some question marks over whether specific countries should be deemed liberal or social democratic. However, there's no denying the obvious: Anglo-Saxon economies twin low social mobility with high poverty (as illustrated by LIS data)

 

Capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive, by definition.

 

Completely untrue.

We HAVE a mixed system in the US...

 

Naff all to do with a mix of socialism and capitalism. The mixed economy refers to the economic spectrum (from laissez faire to command economy). To confuse that with socialism makes no sense. Capitalism can be a command economy. Capitalism cannot, and maintain stability, be laissez faire. Indeed, the very existence of capitalism is typically the result of interventionism.

For socialism you have to talk about a change in the economic paradigm such that workers have ownership and control of the means of production. And no, government pishing about to stabilise capitalism doesn't count!

 

One is the system of the country

Socialism is a system favored by the Democratic party and it appears they have no plans to quit trying to install it.

 

Democrats are socialist? Crikey, the economic education (i.e. illiteracy) of the US is something to behold!!!

 

Pure capitalism is a term used by those abusing the economic spectrum. It has no political economy validity.

 

If it ain't pure...what is adulterating it?

 

You've already been informed. The idea of "pure capitalism" and "pure socialism" is drivel. Its nothing more than corruption of the economic spectrum. That spectrum refers to the level of interventionism. It has nothing to do with socialist political economy or understanding of capitalist reality.

To sum up, you're talking utter cobblers!

 

As founded, the system was a well designed capitalist system.

Capitalism only means free market. Men are unencumbered from Government in handling their economic affairs.

Take trade unions though. Founded to lay rules onto the workers. Some see it as laying rules on firms, but those would be rules made in bargaining. Rules laid on the workers often if not always are imposed by a collection assembled to lay rules on workers created by the union bosses.

It really was early past 1900 when Democrats came up with this notion the had the ability to create a new system. And some call it Socialism I prefer the more honest term, authoritarianism.

This has produced the argument that Socialism is only when the government owns the market (boiled down, that is all it means)

Take two parties in question. If the republicans want to stand their ground, as they do, keep the founders system, they can be called capitalists.

Democrats blow millions of man hours to discard the founders system and replace it with their own system that while true does not completely impose socialism, it dismantles the free market.

Many of us see it like hens roosting. The hen is too young to lay eggs But the Democrats fully expect the eggs to be laid. And upon the laying, they the have control of the eggs. They will decide, as would government, what to do with those eggs and if the government keeps the eggs or passes them out.

Farm controls show how it works. When FDR took a firm to task for marketing chickens, it showed how FDR thought.

FDR in this case failed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.L.A._Schechter_Poultry_Corp._v._United_States

 

Which ... while patently incorrect, has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I said.

How do you answer to what I actually said?

 

How do you rate those other A-S economies - Canada, Australia, and New Zealand?

 

They cannot work together. Literally.

 

No you don't. You have 'pure' capitalism. Your social programs are luxuries afforded by same.

 

We're just dealing with various levels of "innocence". The free market cannot exist for capitalism. It was reliant on interventionism for its existence and its reliant on interventionism for its survival.

 

They simply think that's what they want. In reality, they'd absolutely hate it.

 

Already have. Anglo Saxon stands out. We can whine about differences with the likes of Canada, but ultimately there is nothing here that stands out relative to the likes of social democracy.

 

They're also low mobility/high poverty?

 

There's certainly differences, particularly over mobility. However, there's nothing to reject the Anglo Saxon tag and its distinction with the other two types. Of course its lazy language. Its really about various degrees of neoliberalism. Europe, for example, has supported neoliberalism but its restricted within its domestic nations (and often focuses on neoliberalism with its bilateral agreements, imposing harm on foreigners)

 

Was that a yes, or a no? It's early morning here and I'm sans coffee.

 

Respond to the comment. Don't bore me.

 

The same reason the decline in the percent of people in poverty slowed in the last half century is a big part of the reason for wealth inequality. Government sells its services to the highest bidder and big companies know a good lobbyist is worth his weight in gold. When regulations are passed requiring new paperwork and compliance costs, the big companies benefit because they have the infrastructure to handle it without a noticeable loss of profit or market share. The smaller companies in the given industry are hurt by the new regulations and the marginal companies are forced out of business. Big businesses will often lobby for legislation and regulation of its industry because it limits competition from smaller firms and provides a barrier to entry for startups. If just anybody can setup a lemonade stand an entrepreneur could start with virtually nothing and grow it into a competitor to established companies. If you have to have a license, a food handling certificate and a storefront, that cuts out all the people that could start such a business with little money.

If there was a real free market without the government choosing winners and losers, you'd have a lot more rich people and fewer ultra wealthy. That isn't to say wealth inequality is a bad thing. Bill Gates and Michael Dell got where they are primarily by providing products that virtually every person in the western world has happily paid hundreds or thousands of dollars to acquire. They might not be quite as rich as they are if the government wasn't putting its thumb on the scales but all the transactions between microsoft and the citizens of the world have been voluntary, so Gates' wealth is mostly honestly gotten. Add to that the fact that while Gates was getting rich he carried a companies worth of employees with him, making a huge number of other people wealthy in the process. Finally, his products have made everyone who uses them more productive and therefore richer as well.

 

You are absolutely WRONG. Like so many Americans, you fall victim to the Cold War propaganda that taught Americans that socialism & communism were the same thing or at best, different stages of the same thing. But like all propaganda, lies were mixed into the message. Communism & capitalism ARE diametrically opposites & mutually exclusive. Socialism is a blending of socialist & capitalist ideas, designed to work in a positive pragmatic way for the benefit of society as a whole. Communist countries had a habit of calling themselves socialist because they knew socialism was far more respected by the public. Communist states were just as guilty & successful at convincing the public that socialism & communism were the same or nearly so, as the capitalist nations were. But the truth is--& especially now--that socialism & capitalism share many traits & work together nicely in many of the countries open-minded enough to blend them. America would be improved along with the quality of life of most Americans, if we did more blending of socialist ideas with our established capitalist system. The conservative/Republican resistance to that blending does a major disservice to our country & its people.

 

You're playing word games.

Socialism has no economic component? Huh?

 

No you are. Add the word "pure" and pretend comment.

Socialism transforms the economic paradigm, obviously. It requires more, mind you, than just government interventionism.