4 ms·

Accelerated transition to it likely does. Gradual transition probably doesn’t. In social market economies redistribution is relatively strong but it can become

Accelerated transition to it likely does. Gradual transition probably doesn’t. In social market economies redistribution is relatively strong but it can become even stronger, to the point where it’s indistinguishable from socialism. If done carefully while rewarding entrepreneurial initiative and penalizing rent seeking, it may be even not that bad.

matheusmoreira 1y ago
> Gradual transition probably doesn’t. My country's current president had the exact same idea: install socialism in Brazil slowly to get people used to it so they don't launch a counter-revolution. We are currently a dictatorship of the judiciary and very much en route to become a Venezuela tier country. People work nearly half a year just to pay taxes and I'm not even accounting for inflation. The future already seems hopeless and bleak and he hasn't even fully won yet. > If done carefully while rewarding entrepreneurial initiative and penalizing rent seeking "Careful" is the understatement of the century. Many a socialist has tried, only to discover they are on the wrong end of the Laffer curve. Nobody really enjoys being utterly crushed by taxes in order to pay for the welfare of people they couldn't care less about. Taxes are tolerated because people believe they will indirectly benefit from it. Taxpayers expect taxes to be converted into useful infrastructure and services for everyone, themselves included. Socialism in practice is actually just wealth redistribution: taking from productive people to give to the poor and unproductive. Quite literally. Very often they find a way to exclude you based on your means. If you're rich or even middle class, it's not for you.
- ivan_gammel 1y ago
  Your reasoning is a fallacy of generalization of a bad example. Move to Europe and see how it might work. I pay a lot of taxes, but I do see value in paying them. > Socialism in practice is actually just wealth redistribution: taking from productive people to give to the poor and unproductive. This is wrong. Poor people can be productive. If salary inequality is high, the workers earn bare minimum doing most of the job while managers get their bonuses. Landlords may capture significant share of their income despite being absolutely unproductive. In such cases socialist policies may simply minimize inverse redistribution (exploitation).
  - matheusmoreira 1y ago
    > Move to Europe and see how it might work. The welfare states of Europe are unlikely to keep working much longer if too many people start moving there in order to benefit from them. > Poor people can be productive. I didn't mean to imply they couldn't be. They are distinct groups. I meant to say that socialism frequently targets the poor with charity, and straight up demands that the unproductive be taken care of. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Socialism demands that you work for others at no benefit to yourself. Nothing wrong with such charity, provided that people freely choose to engage in it. Socialism seeks to force the costs of it upon everyone whether they want it or not, turning it into a burden. It's easy to be the good guy when others are paying for it. > Landlords may capture significant share of their income despite being absolutely unproductive. Are landlords not responsible for the maintenance of the property? > In such cases socialist policies may simply minimize inverse redistribution (exploitation). Minimization of exploitation is just normal regulation, not socialism. I agree that this is necessary. Billionaires are a sign people are exploiting a lack of regulation in some area. Surveillance capitalism is my favorite example.
    - ivan_gammel 1y ago
      >The welfare states of Europe are unlikely to keep working much longer if too many people start moving there in order to benefit from them. I'm not proposing everyone to move. :) Besides, immigration crises are costly, but long-term effects of immigration are positive. It's not the migration itself is evil, it's how fast and why people move. >Socialism demands that you work for others at no benefit to yourself. Some results of your work will always be owned by others at no benefit to yourself. Socialism is not unique here. It also does not demand that all your work is for others (by definition, working people are supposed to be primary beneficiaries). >Socialism seeks to force the costs of it upon everyone whether they want it or not, turning it into a burden It is not unique property of socialism. Only in anarchy this is not happening, all other systems with a government do that. You pay taxes no matter what. >Are landlords not responsible for the maintenance of the property? They are incentivized to spend as less as possible on it to maximize profits and they won't spend more than you pay, so effectively they are just redistributing some share of your money towards maintenance.

matheusmoreira 1y ago

> Gradual transition probably doesn’t. My country's current president had the exact same idea: install socialism in Brazil slowly to get people used to it so they don't launch a counter-revolution. We are currently a dictatorship of the judiciary and very much en route to become a Venezuela tier country. People work nearly half a year just to pay taxes and I'm not even accounting for inflation. The future already seems hopeless and bleak and he hasn't even fully won yet. > If done carefully while rewarding entrepreneurial initiative and penalizing rent seeking "Careful" is the understatement of the century. Many a socialist has tried, only to discover they are on the wrong end of the Laffer curve. Nobody really enjoys being utterly crushed by taxes in order to pay for the welfare of people they couldn't care less about. Taxes are tolerated because people believe they will indirectly benefit from it. Taxpayers expect taxes to be converted into useful infrastructure and services for everyone, themselves included. Socialism in practice is actually just wealth redistribution: taking from productive people to give to the poor and unproductive. Quite literally. Very often they find a way to exclude you based on your means. If you're rich or even middle class, it's not for you.

ivan_gammel 1y ago
Your reasoning is a fallacy of generalization of a bad example. Move to Europe and see how it might work. I pay a lot of taxes, but I do see value in paying them. > Socialism in practice is actually just wealth redistribution: taking from productive people to give to the poor and unproductive. This is wrong. Poor people can be productive. If salary inequality is high, the workers earn bare minimum doing most of the job while managers get their bonuses. Landlords may capture significant share of their income despite being absolutely unproductive. In such cases socialist policies may simply minimize inverse redistribution (exploitation).
- matheusmoreira 1y ago
  > Move to Europe and see how it might work. The welfare states of Europe are unlikely to keep working much longer if too many people start moving there in order to benefit from them. > Poor people can be productive. I didn't mean to imply they couldn't be. They are distinct groups. I meant to say that socialism frequently targets the poor with charity, and straight up demands that the unproductive be taken care of. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Socialism demands that you work for others at no benefit to yourself. Nothing wrong with such charity, provided that people freely choose to engage in it. Socialism seeks to force the costs of it upon everyone whether they want it or not, turning it into a burden. It's easy to be the good guy when others are paying for it. > Landlords may capture significant share of their income despite being absolutely unproductive. Are landlords not responsible for the maintenance of the property? > In such cases socialist policies may simply minimize inverse redistribution (exploitation). Minimization of exploitation is just normal regulation, not socialism. I agree that this is necessary. Billionaires are a sign people are exploiting a lack of regulation in some area. Surveillance capitalism is my favorite example.
  - ivan_gammel 1y ago
    >The welfare states of Europe are unlikely to keep working much longer if too many people start moving there in order to benefit from them. I'm not proposing everyone to move. :) Besides, immigration crises are costly, but long-term effects of immigration are positive. It's not the migration itself is evil, it's how fast and why people move. >Socialism demands that you work for others at no benefit to yourself. Some results of your work will always be owned by others at no benefit to yourself. Socialism is not unique here. It also does not demand that all your work is for others (by definition, working people are supposed to be primary beneficiaries). >Socialism seeks to force the costs of it upon everyone whether they want it or not, turning it into a burden It is not unique property of socialism. Only in anarchy this is not happening, all other systems with a government do that. You pay taxes no matter what. >Are landlords not responsible for the maintenance of the property? They are incentivized to spend as less as possible on it to maximize profits and they won't spend more than you pay, so effectively they are just redistributing some share of your money towards maintenance.