3 ms·

> 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 co

> 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
      You are way too into polar opposites here. Try thinking difference beyond/before that.
    - KPGv2 1y ago
      @selfmodruntime Arguing that the existence of regulations makes an economy non-capitalist is something I've only ever seen extreme left and extreme right-wing people make. Everyone else recognizes "capitalism is a system based on private ownership, wage labor, and private capital accumulation" as a fundamental truth, including, like, all experts in this field. Ultimately, you're making a No True Scotsman argument. Germany's market is an example of welfare capitalism, which is a type of capitalism. What you're writing reminds me very much of "the USA isn't a democracy, it's a republic!" (as if a republic isn't a type of democracy called "representative democracy")
      - mfru 1y ago
        exactly, it is like the "this is not capitalism it is corporatism!" argument the libertarians like to make about the US.
      - selfmodruntime 1y ago
        > @selfmodruntime Arguing that the existence of regulations makes an economy non-capitalist is something I've only ever seen extreme left and extreme right-wing people make. Good thing I haven't argued that at all. I was arguing that Germany, which calls its economic system "Social Economics" in fact employs this very economic strategy, which is defined as not being straight forward capitalist but as a mixture of capitalism and socialism. > Germany's market is an example of welfare capitalism, which is a type of capitalism. Germany's market is per definition not welfare capitalism, but "social economics". This term exists, it is well defined, you can look it up.
brazukadev 1y ago
> 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. Sure. But that is as socialist as it was the National Socialist German Workers Party.
- zahlman 1y ago
  The continued reference to "socialism" here is a strawman. The discussion started with pembrook's complaint https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45512714 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45512714 and then had selfmodruntime explaining how the system works starting with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45513552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45513552 . At no point did either person describe the system as "socialism". selfmodruntime was even explicit in referring to "'Social market economy'... a regulated market economic model [,] designed to sit exactly in the middle between laissez faire capitalism and socialism". But interlocutors continually insisted on dragging it back to "socialism" simply because selfmodruntime denied that it was "capitalism", applying a false dichotomy. What you, mfru and dns_snek did here is not respectful, open-minded discourse and I'm amazed that selfmodruntime put up with it that long.
  - dns_snek 1y ago
    > At no point did either person describe the system as "socialism" > What you, mfru and dns_snek did here is not respectful, open-minded discourse Give me a break, the original complaint, the one you linked but apparently didn't read, went even further, likening the European economy to communism: > The USSR was supposed to be a cautionary tale. Not a guidebook!
  - mfru 1y ago
    I met selfmodruntime at their discussional level. The "USSR guidebook" quote was uncalled for and plain hyperbole. It also was factually incorrect.
    - selfmodruntime 1y ago

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
    You are way too into polar opposites here. Try thinking difference beyond/before that.
  - KPGv2 1y ago
    @selfmodruntime Arguing that the existence of regulations makes an economy non-capitalist is something I've only ever seen extreme left and extreme right-wing people make. Everyone else recognizes "capitalism is a system based on private ownership, wage labor, and private capital accumulation" as a fundamental truth, including, like, all experts in this field. Ultimately, you're making a No True Scotsman argument. Germany's market is an example of welfare capitalism, which is a type of capitalism. What you're writing reminds me very much of "the USA isn't a democracy, it's a republic!" (as if a republic isn't a type of democracy called "representative democracy")
    - mfru 1y ago
      exactly, it is like the "this is not capitalism it is corporatism!" argument the libertarians like to make about the US.
    - selfmodruntime 1y ago
      > @selfmodruntime Arguing that the existence of regulations makes an economy non-capitalist is something I've only ever seen extreme left and extreme right-wing people make. Good thing I haven't argued that at all. I was arguing that Germany, which calls its economic system "Social Economics" in fact employs this very economic strategy, which is defined as not being straight forward capitalist but as a mixture of capitalism and socialism. > Germany's market is an example of welfare capitalism, which is a type of capitalism. Germany's market is per definition not welfare capitalism, but "social economics". This term exists, it is well defined, you can look it up.

brazukadev 1y ago

> 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. Sure. But that is as socialist as it was the National Socialist German Workers Party.

zahlman 1y ago
The continued reference to "socialism" here is a strawman. The discussion started with pembrook's complaint https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45512714 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45512714 and then had selfmodruntime explaining how the system works starting with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45513552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45513552 . At no point did either person describe the system as "socialism". selfmodruntime was even explicit in referring to "'Social market economy'... a regulated market economic model [,] designed to sit exactly in the middle between laissez faire capitalism and socialism". But interlocutors continually insisted on dragging it back to "socialism" simply because selfmodruntime denied that it was "capitalism", applying a false dichotomy. What you, mfru and dns_snek did here is not respectful, open-minded discourse and I'm amazed that selfmodruntime put up with it that long.
- dns_snek 1y ago
  > At no point did either person describe the system as "socialism" > What you, mfru and dns_snek did here is not respectful, open-minded discourse Give me a break, the original complaint, the one you linked but apparently didn't read, went even further, likening the European economy to communism: > The USSR was supposed to be a cautionary tale. Not a guidebook!
- mfru 1y ago
  I met selfmodruntime at their discussional level. The "USSR guidebook" quote was uncalled for and plain hyperbole. It also was factually incorrect.
  - selfmodruntime 1y ago