socialism in America.

[tomorton]

I think we need to know your definition of a socialist country to answer your question. If it's Venezuela or North Korea, then again, we're in violent agreement. It appears that your definition of socialism as mutually elusive with capitalism isn't the one that most of the western world uses, so you might find yourself a similar pointless arguments frequently!

Careful! or I shall be forced to resort to Wikipedia.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The Germany we see today became as wealthy as it is through capitalism. Its' got some stupid socialist policies but so has everywhere in the western world. Doesn't make them socialists and doesn't make socialism a desirable regime to live under.

Sweden and the rest became wealthy through capitalism (and let's not forget imperialism), not socialism. Sure, they also have some socialist policies, but so does the UK and the US. I guess Japan does too but they're clearly not a socialist country.

Anyway, which socialist countries have become rich? Which have become rich through socialism and stayed socialist?

By the same token, point to a successful pure capitalist country? There is a lot of no true Scotsman fallacy in these discussions across the internet.

I was chatting with a boomer retiree here who was classic in that communism and socialism were the same thing, so Hitler was a communist because of Nazi National "Socialist"..

In a university economics setting, terms and definitions are agreed so people are at least in the same ballpark of understanding each other. One cannot get anywhere useful without some order, either in a capitalist or socialist setting and the *libertarians in Galt's Gulch Chile really learned that lesson.


*Seriously though, how could anyone think libertarian society could work like that, did they even see how Stalin just gamed and dominated the idealistic Bolsheviks? They are different to communist, but like Marx, Rand was not in touch with reality. A similar thing happened with them, a predator screwed them over.


Edited: I wrote this not seeing the last few posts on definition issues. Just to add to the pyre.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

but like Marx, Rand was not in touch with reality. A similar thing happened with them, a predator screwed them over.

I read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead cover to cover. Utter crap. Boring, repetitive pseudo intellectual nonsense. Rand was, and continued to be for the rest of her life, a victim of her early circumstances. As a child, she found herself in a repressive regime behind the Iron Curtain, and then spent her life seeking solace at the opposite extreme. She rather overlooked the middle ground where most of life happens. In driving parlance, she overcorrected. Big time.

As for Rand, maybe it would be understandable for her to have overcorrected if she had remained where she was. But she fled to a capitalist country and then told the capitalists how to be "better" capitalists. That's way over the top, even for those who overcorrect. She just presented the opposite side of the same perverted coin. She didn't just overcorrect; she went ass over teakettle.

She presented a false dichotomy. She balked at the idea of synthesis. By her own account, it was all or nothing for her. Sorry, I don't think her "philosophy" had any redeeming value. Just my opinion.

Yeah, I've got strong opinions about Rand, too.

 

[tomorton]

By the same token, point to a successful pure capitalist country?

The western countries discussed all became wealthy through pure capitalism (and imperialism abroad) - the US did not turn socialist and become rich, it was founded on capitalist ideals with a tightly restricted government and then the people went ahead and made it rich.

But likewise the UK, the western European states, Scandinavia and Japan. They have progressively adopted various socialist style policies but that was after they had become wealthy through pure capitalism.

 

[beerntrading]

The Germany we see today became as wealthy as it is through capitalism.

That and the Marshal Plan. Let's not forget that global growth through the 1970s was largely a byproduct of that massive government spending.

 

[tomorton]

That and the Marshal Plan. Let's not forget that global growth through the 1970s was largely a byproduct of that massive government spending.

I did think of the Marshal Plan when I posted but where do you suppose that money came from?

 

[zdreg]

In the U.S. most people are brainwashed to think the U.S. is the greatest country on the planet,

forget about the rest of the US but Maui is the greatest place on the planet

 

[Sig]

The western countries discussed all became wealthy through pure capitalism (and imperialism abroad) - the US did not turn socialist and become rich, it was founded on capitalist ideals with a tightly restricted government and then the people went ahead and made it rich.

But likewise the UK, the western European states, Scandinavia and Japan. They have progressively adopted various socialist style policies but that was after they had become wealthy through pure capitalism.

So Germany didn't have a penny to their name or any infrastructure to speak of after WWII, Belgium, France, Netherlands not much better. And even if you take Marshall Plan money into account, they were by no means wealthy countries when the Marshall Plan ended. But they have managed to increase the size of their economies by many multiples in the intervening 60 years....without being "pure capitalist" countries.
To put actual numbers to it, let's look at Finland. They went from a GDP of $53B in 1980 to $236B in 2016, per capita GDP from $11,000 to $43,000 (adjusted for inflation). And this huge expansion was during the time they had the most socialist policies in their history. (note the effect is even more dramatic for somewhere like Norway, I chose Finland because there's very little confounding impact from factors like natural resources). Again I think empirically there's little support for the fallacy that wealth only comes from "pure" capitalism and anything not pure capitalism drags an economy down, or that any socialist aspect of an economy are only being propped up by the "pure" capitalists. It is simply not reflected in the real economic data.

Turns out that free at the point of service healthcare, despite the fact that it costs money, can actually save the overall economy a significant amount because of productivity impacts. Turns out sick leave, even though it costs a company money with a naive view, might actually in aggregate save money from fewer contagious illness days and faster recovery times. Turns out keeping the elderly healthy and not requiring them to eat cat food might actually make them less of a drag on an economy, not more. And that's before you put a value on the overall happiness of your population that doesn't have to worry about getting wiped out by medical bills, a stint without a job, or simply old age; GDP isn't everything. It's an Ayn Randian fallacy that only "pure" capitalism creates value.

 

[NeoTrader]

It's simply too damn funny to see leftists/socialists/communists getting triggered like that... And all the hate from these "people" towards people like Ayn Rand is simply a tribute to her and others like her...

Cracks me up... Every time...

 

[zdreg]

All of these countries were either Communist or dictatorships. None were socialist.

and the communist apologists will tell you that none of these countries were communist.
people justify their political views in the face of reality. in psychology it is call cognitive dissonance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance