5 ms·

Most people also use the word capitalism incorrectly. The capitalism-socialism dichotomy is largely an invention of Marxists. Many who oppose socialism do so be

Most people also use the word capitalism incorrectly. The capitalism-socialism dichotomy is largely an invention of Marxists. Many who oppose socialism do so because they prefer a society where individual justice is not overshadowed by "collective justice". The idea is that people are expected to work for their benefits, save up money to form capital and then invest that capital to create a safety net for themselves. Most people on the conservative side are not opposed to helping people who can't help themselves or giving people who did their best but fell on hard times, a break, through bankruptcy. If a country has a large amount of natural resources like Norway, it can be somewhat successful in dispensing with individual excellence. For example, Qatar has the highest per capita income in the world. However, this may not be sustainable since natural resource eventually run out. For example : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nauru#Modern-day_Nauru https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nauru#Modern-day_Na... Norway used its oil profits to create a sovereign wealth fund and invested it in stocks. What is the system called when dispensable income is used to form capital which is then invested in other ventures to create additional revenue streams ? I would call it capitalism. If all countries where Norwegian money is invested decided to become socialist and seized their property, Norway will not be upheld as a socialist success, would it ?

Gravityloss 8y ago
> If a country has a large amount of natural resources like Norway, it can be somewhat successful in dispensing with individual excellence. I'm not sure what is meant by this? I would assume that the more resources the government or the community has, the more they can support people's talents. You can invest more in education and arts. > Norway used its oil profits to create a sovereign wealth fund and invested it in stocks. What is the system called when dispensable income is used to form capital which is then invested in other ventures to create additional revenue streams ? I would call it capitalism. True, that's a good point, it's state level capitalism. If instead the oil money went into tax cuts, what would one call that policy then? Antisocialism?
- kwhitefoot 8y ago
  > If instead the oil money went into tax cuts, what would one call that policy then? Antisocialism? Perfect!
- antipropaganda 8y ago
  > I'm not sure what is meant by this? I would assume that the more resources the government or the community has, the more they can support people's talents. You can invest more in education and arts. Just investing in arts and education is not enough to bring about people's talents : https://www.heritage.org/education/report/does-spending-more-education-improve-academic-achievement https://www.heritage.org/education/report/does-spending-more... > True, that's a good point, it's state level capitalism. > If instead the oil money went into tax cuts, what would one call that policy then? Antisocialism? You have missed the point here : even by Marxist standards, Norway's success is due to capitalism. It is better to think about economies in terms of the amount of economic freedom each permits. Capitalism-Socialism dichotomy is largely just fiction.
  - js2 8y ago
    The Heritage foundation wants a fully privatized school system: > One promising way to improve resource allocation is to give parents the ability to use their children's share of public Education funding to choose the right school for their children. Children benefiting from school choice programs have higher test scores than their peers who do not benefit from school choice. Or could it be that parents who would use vouchers are the same parents who are actively involved in their children’s education so those are the same kids who would do better anyway? “It Turns Out Spending More Probably Does Improve Education”: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/nyregion/it-turns-out-spending-more-probably-does-improve-education.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/nyregion/it-turns-out-spe... That said, my understand is that “it’s the teachers, stupid”. Systems that have better teachers, through a combination of means (better pay, better prestige, better training and continuity) have the best outcomes: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/social-sector/our-insights/how-the-worlds-best-performing-school-systems-come-out-on-top https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/social-sector/our-insigh... So yes, pouring money into the system isn’t a magic fix, especially if none of it goes to teacher salaries.

Gravityloss 8y ago

> If a country has a large amount of natural resources like Norway, it can be somewhat successful in dispensing with individual excellence. I'm not sure what is meant by this? I would assume that the more resources the government or the community has, the more they can support people's talents. You can invest more in education and arts. > Norway used its oil profits to create a sovereign wealth fund and invested it in stocks. What is the system called when dispensable income is used to form capital which is then invested in other ventures to create additional revenue streams ? I would call it capitalism. True, that's a good point, it's state level capitalism. If instead the oil money went into tax cuts, what would one call that policy then? Antisocialism?

kwhitefoot 8y ago
> If instead the oil money went into tax cuts, what would one call that policy then? Antisocialism? Perfect!
antipropaganda 8y ago
> I'm not sure what is meant by this? I would assume that the more resources the government or the community has, the more they can support people's talents. You can invest more in education and arts. Just investing in arts and education is not enough to bring about people's talents : https://www.heritage.org/education/report/does-spending-more-education-improve-academic-achievement https://www.heritage.org/education/report/does-spending-more... > True, that's a good point, it's state level capitalism. > If instead the oil money went into tax cuts, what would one call that policy then? Antisocialism? You have missed the point here : even by Marxist standards, Norway's success is due to capitalism. It is better to think about economies in terms of the amount of economic freedom each permits. Capitalism-Socialism dichotomy is largely just fiction.
- js2 8y ago
  The Heritage foundation wants a fully privatized school system: > One promising way to improve resource allocation is to give parents the ability to use their children's share of public Education funding to choose the right school for their children. Children benefiting from school choice programs have higher test scores than their peers who do not benefit from school choice. Or could it be that parents who would use vouchers are the same parents who are actively involved in their children’s education so those are the same kids who would do better anyway? “It Turns Out Spending More Probably Does Improve Education”: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/nyregion/it-turns-out-spending-more-probably-does-improve-education.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/nyregion/it-turns-out-spe... That said, my understand is that “it’s the teachers, stupid”. Systems that have better teachers, through a combination of means (better pay, better prestige, better training and continuity) have the best outcomes: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/social-sector/our-insights/how-the-worlds-best-performing-school-systems-come-out-on-top https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/social-sector/our-insigh... So yes, pouring money into the system isn’t a magic fix, especially if none of it goes to teacher salaries.