7 ms·
Perhaps it would be better to talk about the complete failure of planned economies[1] (centralized) VS the success of market economies[2](distributed). I guess
by imnotlost 7y ago
Perhaps it would be better to talk about the complete failure of planned economies[1] (centralized) VS the success of market economies[2](distributed). I guess you could do both systems under a totalitarian regime or a democratic regime.
Most pro-socialist talk in the US today is probably talking about a market economy with a better social safety nets for the regular population (at the cost of the wealthy), something like the Nordic model[3], not a re-imagined Soviet Union.
There's no way any discussion of Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Whateverism on the internet will bear any fruit today. No one even knows what they're talking about.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
- buildzr 7y agoI tend to agree with you that we're past this point and market economies offer bountiful opportunities to perform minor tweaks with major outcomes and improved efficiency, if you're more left leaning that may mean systems like basic income. Even in many countries with socialized medicine, it's quite common to have hospitals operate as businesses, hiring doctors, performing research and marketing and just billing the government and insurance companies in some cases for the resulting healthcare provided in the end. Then I go to reddit and find stuff like /r/latestagecapitalism on the frontpage where they... quite blatantly would rather have a soviet style system and wonder what went wrong.