5 ms·

All countries in the world have mixed economies. (Except maybe Somalia or North Korea.) The US has a fair amount more publically owned sectors than Europe, whi

All countries in the world have mixed economies. (Except maybe Somalia or North Korea.) The US has a fair amount more publically owned sectors than Europe, which eg has privatized postal services.

jerojero 3y ago
Yes. This is correct. Though the extent of it really matters, I always hear "Norway is a capitalist country" when their economy is primarily in the hands of the state, more than for example Venezuela. But people tend to point to Venezuela, and not Norway, as an example of a failed state owned economy. It's not really about "sectors" of the economy that are publicly owned but actual economic output. The money in the US is produced and it is in the hands of private individuals most of it. In Norway near 70% of it is produced and in the hands of the state. Obviously Norway is a particular example because they're a country that relies on natural resources extraction. But you can look at other similar countries in terms of their exports (Australia, Chile) and see how the Norwegian model differs. The USPS, for example, is a service. It's not really a business, it doesn't have to be profitable it ideally has to be sustainable but I wouldn't say it's a necessity. Not only that, it subsidised private businesses like Amazon.
- astrange 3y ago
  > The USPS, for example, is a service. It's not really a business, it doesn't have to be profitable it ideally has to be sustainable but I wouldn't say it's a necessity. Not only that, it subsidised private businesses like Amazon. USPS is profitable, though. (even if Congress messes with their retirement accounting to make it look worse) If they subsidize anyone it's China, because we forced them to do that by signing the UPU treaty. After that it's people who buy forever stamps.
  - jerojero 3y ago
    Sorry, my bad. Point still stands though, services don't necessarily need to be profitable because they're there for a different reason.
- honzabe 3y ago
  > I always hear "Norway is a capitalist country" when their economy is primarily in the hands of the state, more than for example Venezuela. Can you please provide some sources backing up your claim? What metric did you use? The metrics that I would use, like the Index of Economic Freedom by The Heritage Foundation, seem to contradict your claim. The fact that the state owns some companies in key industrial sectors and has stakes in others does not mean that the country's economy is primarily in the hands of the state.
  - jerojero 3y ago
    Someone else has already posted a good source for it. But I just wanted to add here that the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank particularly known for pushing "free-market economics" (read as: neoliberal policies of hyper-privatisation) so obviously it's on their best interest to label countries such as the nordic ones more capitalist than socialist. And I mean, yeah, nordic countries for sure participate in the free-market... but Capitalism is defined by private ownership; so when you have such important portions of your economy be collectively, socially or communally owned (state, coops, labour unions) it's misleading to use such labels so lightly. These are mixed-economies, and I would even go as far as to say they're more socialist than capitalist. Socialism does have a bad reputation though. So I don't blame for these countries to label themselves as "capitalist"; i mean, it's better for business.
  - Nevermark 3y ago
    It wouldn't be a contradiction to live in a country where most productive enterprises were owned by the state, but where individuals still had great economic freedom. There is a big difference between governments owning things vs. exclusions to citizens owning things.
  - indigo945 3y ago
    The Index of Economic Freedom is based on ideological arguments, not material analysis. Norway's government revenue makes up about 60% of its GDP [1], in part due to its share in oil, gas and fishing - this is in the top ten in the world. Venezuela actually has the lowest share of government revenue in the world, at about 5% of GDP [1], the black markets caused by hyperinflation probably playing a part here. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_government_spending_as_percentage_of_GDP https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_governm...
Paul-Craft 3y ago
Socialism is when workers own and control the means of production. Capitalism is the opposite. There is no such thing as a "mixed economy." Social programs are not exclusive to socialism.
- worrycue 3y ago
  > Socialism is when workers own and control the means of production. In most cases, workers can own the means to production as many corporations are public. They just have to risk their capital to buy a share of the company - like every other owner.
  - Paul-Craft 3y ago
    You missed the second part of that definition. Both parts must be satisfied. Workers do not control any public companies that I am familiar with.
    - worrycue 3y ago
      If they are owners, they control it as much as the other owners - following the same rules; which I believe in most companies is the majority get the final say.
    - astrange 3y ago
      If the workers control a company it's not a public company. That's what "public" means. There are worker coops, customer coops, and state owned companies in the US.
      - Paul-Craft 3y ago
        This is true, but workers do not broadly own or control the MoP in the US. Thus, the US is not socialist. It is not a "mixed" economy, because there is no such thing.
        astrange 3y ago

All countries in the world have mixed economies. (Except maybe Somalia or North Korea.) The US has a fair amount more publically owned sectors than Europe, which eg has privatized postal services.

jerojero 3y ago

Yes. This is correct. Though the extent of it really matters, I always hear "Norway is a capitalist country" when their economy is primarily in the hands of the state, more than for example Venezuela. But people tend to point to Venezuela, and not Norway, as an example of a failed state owned economy. It's not really about "sectors" of the economy that are publicly owned but actual economic output. The money in the US is produced and it is in the hands of private individuals most of it. In Norway near 70% of it is produced and in the hands of the state. Obviously Norway is a particular example because they're a country that relies on natural resources extraction. But you can look at other similar countries in terms of their exports (Australia, Chile) and see how the Norwegian model differs. The USPS, for example, is a service. It's not really a business, it doesn't have to be profitable it ideally has to be sustainable but I wouldn't say it's a necessity. Not only that, it subsidised private businesses like Amazon.

astrange 3y ago
> The USPS, for example, is a service. It's not really a business, it doesn't have to be profitable it ideally has to be sustainable but I wouldn't say it's a necessity. Not only that, it subsidised private businesses like Amazon. USPS is profitable, though. (even if Congress messes with their retirement accounting to make it look worse) If they subsidize anyone it's China, because we forced them to do that by signing the UPU treaty. After that it's people who buy forever stamps.
- jerojero 3y ago
  Sorry, my bad. Point still stands though, services don't necessarily need to be profitable because they're there for a different reason.
honzabe 3y ago
> I always hear "Norway is a capitalist country" when their economy is primarily in the hands of the state, more than for example Venezuela. Can you please provide some sources backing up your claim? What metric did you use? The metrics that I would use, like the Index of Economic Freedom by The Heritage Foundation, seem to contradict your claim. The fact that the state owns some companies in key industrial sectors and has stakes in others does not mean that the country's economy is primarily in the hands of the state.
- jerojero 3y ago
  Someone else has already posted a good source for it. But I just wanted to add here that the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank particularly known for pushing "free-market economics" (read as: neoliberal policies of hyper-privatisation) so obviously it's on their best interest to label countries such as the nordic ones more capitalist than socialist. And I mean, yeah, nordic countries for sure participate in the free-market... but Capitalism is defined by private ownership; so when you have such important portions of your economy be collectively, socially or communally owned (state, coops, labour unions) it's misleading to use such labels so lightly. These are mixed-economies, and I would even go as far as to say they're more socialist than capitalist. Socialism does have a bad reputation though. So I don't blame for these countries to label themselves as "capitalist"; i mean, it's better for business.
- Nevermark 3y ago
  It wouldn't be a contradiction to live in a country where most productive enterprises were owned by the state, but where individuals still had great economic freedom. There is a big difference between governments owning things vs. exclusions to citizens owning things.
- indigo945 3y ago
  The Index of Economic Freedom is based on ideological arguments, not material analysis. Norway's government revenue makes up about 60% of its GDP [1], in part due to its share in oil, gas and fishing - this is in the top ten in the world. Venezuela actually has the lowest share of government revenue in the world, at about 5% of GDP [1], the black markets caused by hyperinflation probably playing a part here. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_government_spending_as_percentage_of_GDP https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_governm...

Paul-Craft 3y ago

Socialism is when workers own and control the means of production. Capitalism is the opposite. There is no such thing as a "mixed economy." Social programs are not exclusive to socialism.

worrycue 3y ago
> Socialism is when workers own and control the means of production. In most cases, workers can own the means to production as many corporations are public. They just have to risk their capital to buy a share of the company - like every other owner.
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  You missed the second part of that definition. Both parts must be satisfied. Workers do not control any public companies that I am familiar with.
  - worrycue 3y ago
    If they are owners, they control it as much as the other owners - following the same rules; which I believe in most companies is the majority get the final say.
  - astrange 3y ago
    If the workers control a company it's not a public company. That's what "public" means. There are worker coops, customer coops, and state owned companies in the US.
    - Paul-Craft 3y ago
      This is true, but workers do not broadly own or control the MoP in the US. Thus, the US is not socialist. It is not a "mixed" economy, because there is no such thing.
      - astrange 3y ago