4 ms·

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” Whereas the current dominant system (whatever one wishes to call it) doesn

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” Whereas the current dominant system (whatever one wishes to call it) doesn't have this problem, because it provides the elites with more highly nuanced, and much more effective ways of siphoning money, power, and hope from the disadvantaged -- and in covering its tracks whilst doing so.

adventured 11y ago
No, the current system produces by far the highest standard of living for the most people. Which is why with the gradual spread of free market systems has resulted in a dramatically increased median global income, dramatically reduced global poverty, and dramatically decreased global inequality. The US, Canada, Australia, Germany, UK, Japan, France, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Singapore, Italy, South Korea - all utilize the free market system to one degree or another, and none of those are remotely close to being Socialist. Nearly all of most prosperous major economies on a per capita basis, those with the highest standard of living, are free market oriented, and anti-Socialist. The US has the fifth highest GDP per capita, and one of the highest median household income levels, as well as nearly the highest median disposable household income level; as well as a median household net wealth level higher than Germany or Sweden. For a nation of 330 million people. Let's see Socialism manage that; the closer you get to actually implementing Socialism, the faster you collapse. Versus: USSR, which struggled to even keep extremely basic grocery store shelves stocked. Cuba. Cambodia. Vietnam. Socialist Germany and Italy of the 20th century. North Korea. Mao's China. Venezuela. You can't show me one single example of Socialism ever working, not after 200 years of disastrous results from every attempt at Socialism. I've got dozens of extremely prosperous examples of the free market working, it has worked in the US for two centuries. There is no contest.
- mirimir 11y ago
  Yes, free markets win. But broad prosperity is unstable, and tends toward inequity. And inequity leads to instability via populism. So prudent free markets include safety nets. That's not working so well in the US, in recent decades.
- colordrops 11y ago
  Socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Every country on your list is also heavily socialist, taking roughly a third to over a half of citizens' incomes to fund social programs. These black and white distinctions are absurd, and insulting to everyone's intelligence.
- beloch 11y ago
  You're thinking in binary of countries as either socialist or not socialist. In reality, socialism is a spectrum, and not exclusive of capitalism. It is also a system used to different degrees in different sectors. Canada, for example, is extremely socialist in some respects, such as healthcare. The UK's welfare state has raised and buried multi-generational families whose members have never had a job in their lives, yet the country's finance sector is the most influential in the world and, quite probably, more libertarian than it really ought to be. Even today, with the affordable healthcare act, the U.S. is one of the least socialist countries in the world, but it's never been completely free of socialism, even in the "better dead than red" era. Take public infrastructure such as power generation as an example. Some sectors are so big and require careful planning decades in advance, and doing things the socialist way (i.e. Taking short-term market interests out of the equation) is often the best way. If we left scientific research entirely to the free market, where would the funding be for curiosity driven, long-term, core science that is typically decades from producing anything remotely commercializable? How would corporations justify the research that led to lasers or carbon nanotubes to a corporate board only interested in the bottom line for the next quarter? Socialist policies make sense in certain areas. Americans are unusual in having turned "socialism" into a dirty word, and most have turned a blind eye to the many benefits it brings them.
  - kafkaesq 11y ago
    You're thinking in binary of countries as either socialist or not socialist. Right-wingers don't care about "socialism" (and they certainly don't care about the living standards in any of these countries). It's just a bugaboo, and a stand-in for the comparatively more micro-scale issues they do care about -- things like progressive taxes, rent control, or (domestic) business regulation generally; and of course welfare and entitlements (for persons less advantaged than themselves), generally. "If you're in favor of, or even not rapidly opposed to ('financial regulation','rent control','zoning',...) then to all intents and purposes, you are the walking reincarnation of Mao, Honecker and Chavez rolled together" is what they're really trying to say when they bring up this cold war stuff.
- kafkaesq 11y ago
  No, the current system produces by far the highest standard of living for the most people. There are a lot of things that could be said about this -- such as the real effect on "living standards" outside of the former imperial core, a.k.a. the rest the world, since "the current system" forced its way in these countries during the era roughly encompassing 1790-1950. (Hint: by some accounts utterly devastating; in general less than 1850 standards; in some cases abysmally worse). Or say, that small matter of the ecological impact of our wonderful system, and the ever-widening cornucopia of goods, pleasures and experiences it produces -- and the very real, imminent, and starkly negative effects this impact will have on "living standards" across much of the planet, not too far off from now. Or heck, even that pesky little subject of not just "stagnating", but declining median living standards in the U.S. generally, over the last 20-30 years. But I wasn't talking about living standards. So it's a completely different subject. Versus: USSR Living standards in modern CIS countries "versus" those the peak socialist years (late 50s - late 70s) would make for a very interesting comparison, indeed. (Again, just as a hint: they've largely plummeted, across the board). Cuba. Cambodia. Vietnam. Socialist Germany and Italy of the 20th century. North Korea. Mao's China. Venezuela. Aside from the naked cherry picking (by listing only "their" basket cases and failures, never "ours"), listing Italy in the same sentence as the GDR, North Korea and Mao's China, in virtually any context, is just... bizarre.

adventured 11y ago

No, the current system produces by far the highest standard of living for the most people. Which is why with the gradual spread of free market systems has resulted in a dramatically increased median global income, dramatically reduced global poverty, and dramatically decreased global inequality. The US, Canada, Australia, Germany, UK, Japan, France, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Singapore, Italy, South Korea - all utilize the free market system to one degree or another, and none of those are remotely close to being Socialist. Nearly all of most prosperous major economies on a per capita basis, those with the highest standard of living, are free market oriented, and anti-Socialist. The US has the fifth highest GDP per capita, and one of the highest median household income levels, as well as nearly the highest median disposable household income level; as well as a median household net wealth level higher than Germany or Sweden. For a nation of 330 million people. Let's see Socialism manage that; the closer you get to actually implementing Socialism, the faster you collapse. Versus: USSR, which struggled to even keep extremely basic grocery store shelves stocked. Cuba. Cambodia. Vietnam. Socialist Germany and Italy of the 20th century. North Korea. Mao's China. Venezuela. You can't show me one single example of Socialism ever working, not after 200 years of disastrous results from every attempt at Socialism. I've got dozens of extremely prosperous examples of the free market working, it has worked in the US for two centuries. There is no contest.

mirimir 11y ago
Yes, free markets win. But broad prosperity is unstable, and tends toward inequity. And inequity leads to instability via populism. So prudent free markets include safety nets. That's not working so well in the US, in recent decades.
colordrops 11y ago
Socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Every country on your list is also heavily socialist, taking roughly a third to over a half of citizens' incomes to fund social programs. These black and white distinctions are absurd, and insulting to everyone's intelligence.
beloch 11y ago
You're thinking in binary of countries as either socialist or not socialist. In reality, socialism is a spectrum, and not exclusive of capitalism. It is also a system used to different degrees in different sectors. Canada, for example, is extremely socialist in some respects, such as healthcare. The UK's welfare state has raised and buried multi-generational families whose members have never had a job in their lives, yet the country's finance sector is the most influential in the world and, quite probably, more libertarian than it really ought to be. Even today, with the affordable healthcare act, the U.S. is one of the least socialist countries in the world, but it's never been completely free of socialism, even in the "better dead than red" era. Take public infrastructure such as power generation as an example. Some sectors are so big and require careful planning decades in advance, and doing things the socialist way (i.e. Taking short-term market interests out of the equation) is often the best way. If we left scientific research entirely to the free market, where would the funding be for curiosity driven, long-term, core science that is typically decades from producing anything remotely commercializable? How would corporations justify the research that led to lasers or carbon nanotubes to a corporate board only interested in the bottom line for the next quarter? Socialist policies make sense in certain areas. Americans are unusual in having turned "socialism" into a dirty word, and most have turned a blind eye to the many benefits it brings them.
- kafkaesq 11y ago
  You're thinking in binary of countries as either socialist or not socialist. Right-wingers don't care about "socialism" (and they certainly don't care about the living standards in any of these countries). It's just a bugaboo, and a stand-in for the comparatively more micro-scale issues they do care about -- things like progressive taxes, rent control, or (domestic) business regulation generally; and of course welfare and entitlements (for persons less advantaged than themselves), generally. "If you're in favor of, or even not rapidly opposed to ('financial regulation','rent control','zoning',...) then to all intents and purposes, you are the walking reincarnation of Mao, Honecker and Chavez rolled together" is what they're really trying to say when they bring up this cold war stuff.
kafkaesq 11y ago
No, the current system produces by far the highest standard of living for the most people. There are a lot of things that could be said about this -- such as the real effect on "living standards" outside of the former imperial core, a.k.a. the rest the world, since "the current system" forced its way in these countries during the era roughly encompassing 1790-1950. (Hint: by some accounts utterly devastating; in general less than 1850 standards; in some cases abysmally worse). Or say, that small matter of the ecological impact of our wonderful system, and the ever-widening cornucopia of goods, pleasures and experiences it produces -- and the very real, imminent, and starkly negative effects this impact will have on "living standards" across much of the planet, not too far off from now. Or heck, even that pesky little subject of not just "stagnating", but declining median living standards in the U.S. generally, over the last 20-30 years. But I wasn't talking about living standards. So it's a completely different subject. Versus: USSR Living standards in modern CIS countries "versus" those the peak socialist years (late 50s - late 70s) would make for a very interesting comparison, indeed. (Again, just as a hint: they've largely plummeted, across the board). Cuba. Cambodia. Vietnam. Socialist Germany and Italy of the 20th century. North Korea. Mao's China. Venezuela. Aside from the naked cherry picking (by listing only "their" basket cases and failures, never "ours"), listing Italy in the same sentence as the GDR, North Korea and Mao's China, in virtually any context, is just... bizarre.