6 ms·
Full socialism is the only true answer. Don't provide the elderly a money stipend, provide them medical care, housing, and other basic needs (and probably free
by mjevans 8y ago
Full socialism is the only true answer. Don't provide the elderly a money stipend, provide them medical care, housing, and other basic needs (and probably free rides on public transit infrastructure).
- locacorten 8y agoYes! What could possibly go wrong?
- colordrops 8y agonothing that couldn't be addressed?
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoNothing that couldn't be addressed, if we turn out to be Sweden. Plenty that won't be successfully addressed, if we turn out to be Venezuela or Zimbabwe. Given the current competence of our government - on both sides - I don't think we can count on being Sweden.
- cheez 8y agoPopulation of Sweden: 9.995 million Population of USA: 325.7 million What makes people think any Swedish model can work large scale in the US?
- colordrops 8y agoAll I see is two numbers, and absolutely no argument as to why that makes any difference.
- x3n0ph3n3 8y agoScale matters. If you don't think so, look at Bubble Sort. It works just fine if you're list size is trivially small. Now try running it on a list with a size > 1 million.
- colordrops 8y agoOk, but that still doesn't explain why this particular difference in scale matters.
- cheez 8y agoOK, pick a Swedish program and hypothetically scale it to the USA.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoI think the idea may be that human societies (and governments) don't scale linearly. That's at least plausibly true. Is it a large enough effect to be relevant? I don't know. Or, the idea may be that smaller countries are more socially cohesive (fewer degrees of separation between people), and therefore it's politically an easier sell to ask people to contribute to the welfare of others.
- multibit 8y agoWhat makes you think it won't?
- cheez 8y agoIs there a single country the scale of the US you know of that has the same social structure as Sweden?
- rbritton 8y agoWhile you didn't explicitly claim Sweden is socialist, I think that may be your implication. Please excuse me if I interpreted you incorrectly. Sweden (and other Nordic countries to varying extents) are not socialist. They are market economies first and foremost but offer social programs similar to our own that, at least from an outside perspective, appear for more successful in their goals. Personal views aside (I favor personal freedom and responsibility and the consequences that come of it), the only way I feel you're ever going to achieve any of that here is by addressing human nature. Some subset of the population is only interested in gaining and exerting power over others, others want everything handed to them and don't intend to provide any contribution themselves, another subset wants only to be left alone, and so on. I don't personally see how such disparate views can be reconciled under such a system to avoid the authoritarianism that has always resulted. [0]: https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/ https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/ [1]: https://www.quora.com/Is-Sweden-socialist https://www.quora.com/Is-Sweden-socialist
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoI cited Sweden because Sweden is often claimed as an example of socialism working by people who advocate socialism. I will agree that Sweden does not actually meet the definition.
- hoaw 8y agoSweden has never been distinctly socialist. But it used to be more socialist than today. For instance the Swedish government used to own Absolut Vodka from 1917, when Sweden nationalized the alcohol industry, until 2008.
- harikb 8y agoWhy do people bring up Venezuela for any social experiment? And should humanity give up after one failure (even if we call that).
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoThat's why I also brought up Zimbabwe. Should I also bring up the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)? (If you're going to claim "that wasn't really socialist", I will not argue, but I will point out that they at least claimed to be.) Anyway, the point is not that one should cite Venezuela for "any social experiment". One can cite Venezuela (and Zimbabwe) for the position that having the government controlling the means of production often winds up in poverty. (Socialism is defined as "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole", per dictionary.com.) That's relevant because mjevans not only called for the government to spend a bunch of money, but called for "full socialism".
- ithilglin909 8y agoAs someone who's family is from a former Socialist/Soviet Bloc country, I have to note that "one failure" is a bit of an understatement...
- cazum 8y ago"socialism will never work!" He exclaimed, as the boundless growth of the current economic model pushed the Earth and all its inhabitants toward an entirely needless global extinction event.
- jedmeyers 8y agoAlways better to purge your own population first. Less mouths to feed.
- matz1 8y agoThese thing should be already provided by the government for all citizen, not just elderly.
- nsxwolf 8y agoThat sounds expensive.
- matz1 8y agoIts not, if the said government intention is to take care its citizen
- colordrops 8y agoSo we should stop spending trillions on war and fix the healthcare system, and then there will be more than enough to cover the costs. It's completely absurd that more tax dollars are spent on healthcare per person in the US than any other country and yet it's not covered. Somehow other countries give full coverage with less money - it makes no sense.
- mrep 8y agoDo any countries actually provide that where it has worked out well? A quick Google search for "does Europe have a homeless problem" returns a bunch of articles about growing homeless problems and and they seem to have the most safety nets outside of oil backed economies and socialist economies and the socialist ones are much worse off then capitalism based ones as far as I know.
- flukus 8y agoAustralia, but not quite exactly as stated. We provide a monetary stipend but have heavily subsidized government built housing. We also have free medical care and in some places free public transport (outside of peak hour times). Of course we never eliminated homelessness entirely and due to lack of investment in government housing in recent decades along with skyrocketing real estate prices we have a growing homeless problem. But overall it works out well, I'd rather by poor here than in the US.
- andrewmcwatters 8y agoSocial security, Medicare, general health, income security, and veterans benefits and services take up over 62% of the United States federal budget. How should socialism address this growing problem? What a poignant comment, considering right this very moment, there's a socialist collapse in Venezuela being broadcast.
- socialismb4d 8y agoI’d suggest you look into the details of the external forces (western governments) involvement in undermining the socialist efforts in Venezuela before concluding it failed on its own merits
- adamnemecek 8y agoUs healthcare is insanely overpriced.
- jeffbax 8y agoUS healthcare is complete regulatory capture.
- rootusrootus 8y agoPerhaps we will have to increase the budget somehow. Or print some extra money, as we are already quite willing to do. And is there any particular reason, aside from partisan ideology, to point at Venezuela, which is different in many important aspects from the U.S., instead of one of the very successful Western European nations?
- andrewmcwatters 8y agoBecause our sheer size is more comparable to the EU than it is to take the entire nation and compare to a member state.
- Godel_unicode 8y agoSovereign wealth funds, or the abrupt lack thereof, seem relevant.
- hoaw 8y agoIt isn't really socialism as such though. Doesn't even the US already have these type of programs at least for certain groups? (you would probably need to expand them of course).
- nickthemagicman 8y agoYeah exactly. Calling it Socialism is inaccurate. Socialism is a giant umbrella of political philosophy. More accurate term would be 'regulated calitalism' or a subtype of socialism called 'democratic socialism'. Both of which coexist alongside of capitalism just fine. It's always extremes with people on both sides because most people from either side don't understand what they're talking about.
- roenxi 8y agoThe reason socialism is scary is that there are a lot of great-sounding ideas that, taken to extremes, turn out to lead to everyone starving and the political system becoming vulnerable to dictators. Now, you say '[democratic socialism can] ... coexist alongside of capitalism just fine'. It seems much more likely that it is actually normal socialism with the names of things changed. The issue with socialism is that it vests decision making power with government (topically, the thing that is shut down in America at the moment, showing how reliable governments are). Decision making power can really only be vested with one person. That person might be a capitalist, a politician, a bureaucrat, a worker or a customer. The only system we know reliably works is a capitalist/customer hybrid where major decisions are split between the two (capitalist gets the how, customers the what), with very mild influence from the rest (eg, safety and environmental regulation, wage negotiations with workers). When the government starts making and enforcing allocation decisions like 'everyone must be paid this', 'everyone gets a house' or 'everyone should get medical attention', it doesn't matter what you call it - wealth will be destroyed. If the wealth destruction exceeds the ability of the economy to create wealth, there will be mass suffering. It doesn't matter what it is called.
- nickthemagicman 8y ago
- aantix 8y ago“We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us.”