3 ms·

The current system is capitalism. The degradations are part of capitalism in practice. If you only accept categories that are theoretically pure, you cannot s

by gress 12y ago

The current system is capitalism. The degradations are part of capitalism in practice. If you only accept categories that are theoretically pure, you cannot speak about the real world.

nickff 12y ago
Governments have been increasing their regulation and redistribution for over a hundred years now, yet we still call the system "capitalism". At what point will we agree that the Western nations have either blended or socialist systems?
- gress 12y ago
  I think we all agree that western nations do not have some kind of pure form of libertarianism. That's why we call it capitalism, and not libertarianism.
  - nickff 12y ago
    How much government regulation, redistribution, and ownership is required before we call it socialism? I am not saying that socialism or mixed systems are bad, but I would like the system we are in to be accurately described. It seems that many of the bad things which occur are ascribed to capitalism, when they should be attributed to the mixed (or socialist) economy we actually inhabit in the west.
    - gress 12y ago
      Surely that's why libertarians make a distinction. Capitalism is the word we use for the various systems that we inhabit in practice. The things that you are calling 'socialism' are the products of democracy.
      - josu 12y ago
        Nowadays the public expenditure of many European countries is above 50% of the GDP. This is, more than 50 cents of every monetary unit are being expropriated and distributed according to a central planning. Even for the US, the figure is around 40%.
- erichocean 12y ago
  > At what point will we agree that the Western nations have either blended or socialist systems? A good line in the sand would be: whenever a government spends more of its revenue on social transfers than on the legislative, military, and judicial branches combined, it's either a blended or a socialist form of government.

by gress 12y ago

The current system is capitalism. The degradations are part of capitalism in practice. If you only accept categories that are theoretically pure, you cannot speak about the real world.

nickff 12y ago

Governments have been increasing their regulation and redistribution for over a hundred years now, yet we still call the system "capitalism". At what point will we agree that the Western nations have either blended or socialist systems?

gress 12y ago
I think we all agree that western nations do not have some kind of pure form of libertarianism. That's why we call it capitalism, and not libertarianism.
- nickff 12y ago
  How much government regulation, redistribution, and ownership is required before we call it socialism? I am not saying that socialism or mixed systems are bad, but I would like the system we are in to be accurately described. It seems that many of the bad things which occur are ascribed to capitalism, when they should be attributed to the mixed (or socialist) economy we actually inhabit in the west.
  - gress 12y ago
    Surely that's why libertarians make a distinction. Capitalism is the word we use for the various systems that we inhabit in practice. The things that you are calling 'socialism' are the products of democracy.
    - josu 12y ago
      Nowadays the public expenditure of many European countries is above 50% of the GDP. This is, more than 50 cents of every monetary unit are being expropriated and distributed according to a central planning. Even for the US, the figure is around 40%.
erichocean 12y ago
> At what point will we agree that the Western nations have either blended or socialist systems? A good line in the sand would be: whenever a government spends more of its revenue on social transfers than on the legislative, military, and judicial branches combined, it's either a blended or a socialist form of government.