The continued reference to "socialism" here is a strawman. The discussion started with pembrook's complaint https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45512714 https:

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.