3 ms·

> Yes and North Korea is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Names don't reflect reality. Our model came first, then came the name. I explained it's origi

> Yes and North Korea is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Names don't reflect reality. Our model came first, then came the name. I explained it's origins thoroughly, it is rooted in economic theory and it is what is really happening in Germany. It's codified in Articles 20 and 14 of our constitution. Social welfare is among the best in the world and covers a lot, but taxes are high. This would never happen in any free market economic models. I recommend you read up on it a bit before making snarky comments on the internet.

dns_snek 1y ago
What percentage of German companies are owned and managed by its workers? What percentage are owned by capitalists, generating private profits? Are those numbers indicative of socialism or capitalism? > I recommend you read up on it a bit before making snarky comments on the internet. It's not a snarky comment. Regulation and welfare are requirements even in a capitalist economy, otherwise you have people dying on the streets en masse and companies dumping toxic waste next to the fields where you grow food. You're essentially arguing that real capitalism hasn't been attempted yet - that more "freedom" (from regulation), more inequality will somehow fix things. The US has more "freedom" in this sense than Germany - is the average person doing better over there? I don't think so, I certainly don't know any "average worker" currently living anywhere in the EU who would want to swap places. Germany is a capitalist country with strong social welfare. If you think social welfare is a problem, feel free to argue that, but one thing that's not up for serious discussion is its economic model.
- selfmodruntime 1y ago
  > What percentage of German companies are owned and managed by its workers? This sentence does not apply because "social market economy" does not imply that companies should be owned by their workes. > What percentage are owned by capitalists, generating private profits? This sentence does not apply because a "social market economy" does not forbid the generation of profits. Profits are to be shared with the populace to pay for social policies, which is happening. > Are those numbers indicative of socialism or capitalism? You should really - really - read up on "Soziale Marktwirtschaft" and ordoliberalism before you make a point. If you don't know how they are defined and what they mean, you cannot make a coherent argument. > You're essentially arguing that real capitalism hasn't been attempted yet - that more "freedom" (from regulation), more inequality will somehow fix things. I have not and you are free to cite where I did. > Germany is a capitalist country with strong social welfare. Congratulations, you combine this with "Regulation" and a state mandated "Economic Conscience", you have finally found out what "social market economy" means. It's not "capitalism with X". It's so far removed from the idea of capitalism that we use another term entirely. > but one thing that's not up for serious discussion is its economic model. I encourage you to look up the terms. Again.
  - dns_snek 1y ago
    By your own definitions the USA isn't a capitalist economy due to regulations and their social welfare policies. If that's where you stand then any further discussion is going to be pointless. >> You're essentially arguing that real capitalism hasn't been attempted yet > I have not and you are free to cite where I did. It's a straightforward logical inference. Your definition of capitalism excludes every capitalist economy that has ever existed.
    - selfmodruntime 1y ago
      > By your own definitions the USA isn't a capitalist economy due to regulations and their social welfare policies. If that's where you stand then any further discussion is going to be pointless. Those are not my definitions. > It's a straightforward logical inference. Your definition of capitalism excludes every capitalist economy that has ever existed No. A social market economy is capitalism with rules and safety nets, like strong labor protections, healthcare, and pensions, to make sure people are protected from big hardships. The U.S. mostly has free-market capitalism, with fewer regulations and weaker social support. So the main difference is that a social market economy tries to control capitalism to protect people, while the U.S. mostly lets the market run on its own.
      - brazukadev 1y ago
        > A social market economy is capitalism with rules and safety nets, like strong labor protections, healthcare, and pensions, to make sure people are protected from big hardships so it is not socialism, the whole point of this discussion.
        selfmodruntime 1y ago
        > so it is not socialism, the whole point of this discussion. No, the whole point of this discussion is that someone claimed Germany was capitalist. Which it isn't. It's in between systems.
        NonHyloMorph 1y ago

dns_snek 1y ago

What percentage of German companies are owned and managed by its workers? What percentage are owned by capitalists, generating private profits? Are those numbers indicative of socialism or capitalism? > I recommend you read up on it a bit before making snarky comments on the internet. It's not a snarky comment. Regulation and welfare are requirements even in a capitalist economy, otherwise you have people dying on the streets en masse and companies dumping toxic waste next to the fields where you grow food. You're essentially arguing that real capitalism hasn't been attempted yet - that more "freedom" (from regulation), more inequality will somehow fix things. The US has more "freedom" in this sense than Germany - is the average person doing better over there? I don't think so, I certainly don't know any "average worker" currently living anywhere in the EU who would want to swap places. Germany is a capitalist country with strong social welfare. If you think social welfare is a problem, feel free to argue that, but one thing that's not up for serious discussion is its economic model.

selfmodruntime 1y ago
> What percentage of German companies are owned and managed by its workers? This sentence does not apply because "social market economy" does not imply that companies should be owned by their workes. > What percentage are owned by capitalists, generating private profits? This sentence does not apply because a "social market economy" does not forbid the generation of profits. Profits are to be shared with the populace to pay for social policies, which is happening. > Are those numbers indicative of socialism or capitalism? You should really - really - read up on "Soziale Marktwirtschaft" and ordoliberalism before you make a point. If you don't know how they are defined and what they mean, you cannot make a coherent argument. > You're essentially arguing that real capitalism hasn't been attempted yet - that more "freedom" (from regulation), more inequality will somehow fix things. I have not and you are free to cite where I did. > Germany is a capitalist country with strong social welfare. Congratulations, you combine this with "Regulation" and a state mandated "Economic Conscience", you have finally found out what "social market economy" means. It's not "capitalism with X". It's so far removed from the idea of capitalism that we use another term entirely. > but one thing that's not up for serious discussion is its economic model. I encourage you to look up the terms. Again.
- dns_snek 1y ago
  By your own definitions the USA isn't a capitalist economy due to regulations and their social welfare policies. If that's where you stand then any further discussion is going to be pointless. >> You're essentially arguing that real capitalism hasn't been attempted yet > I have not and you are free to cite where I did. It's a straightforward logical inference. Your definition of capitalism excludes every capitalist economy that has ever existed.
  - selfmodruntime 1y ago
    > By your own definitions the USA isn't a capitalist economy due to regulations and their social welfare policies. If that's where you stand then any further discussion is going to be pointless. Those are not my definitions. > It's a straightforward logical inference. Your definition of capitalism excludes every capitalist economy that has ever existed No. A social market economy is capitalism with rules and safety nets, like strong labor protections, healthcare, and pensions, to make sure people are protected from big hardships. The U.S. mostly has free-market capitalism, with fewer regulations and weaker social support. So the main difference is that a social market economy tries to control capitalism to protect people, while the U.S. mostly lets the market run on its own.
    - brazukadev 1y ago
      > A social market economy is capitalism with rules and safety nets, like strong labor protections, healthcare, and pensions, to make sure people are protected from big hardships so it is not socialism, the whole point of this discussion.
      - selfmodruntime 1y ago
        > so it is not socialism, the whole point of this discussion. No, the whole point of this discussion is that someone claimed Germany was capitalist. Which it isn't. It's in between systems.
      - NonHyloMorph 1y ago