Ownership and control of the means of production! One can't refer to variation in ownership within a specific economic paradigm (e.g. inefficient labour practices aren't eliminated by the market as they create rent seeking opportunity) A black market isn't capitalism. It is an example of how asymmetric information reduces the ability of government to eliminate market failures. As I mentioned earlier, the weakest element of NIT is that it was constructed around a naive view of government (sparked off by the nonsensical Phillips Curve debate and continued by constructing an economic approach around a crass view of the labour market) What capitalism doesn't need is government intervention to control outcomes.[/QUOTE] - - - Updated - - - You can't understand political economy by referring to the dictionary (otherwise every political economy course would simply have the dictionary as recommended reading)
I believe the biggest problem with a negative income tax is more related to how well some poor manage money, which may be one reason they are poor; and they benefit more from assistance in kind than assistance in cash.
That may be, but knowing what something is is the first step to understanding the process. As I said earlier, social programs do not socialism make, and that is a fact. Excessive intervention can hurt any economic system. But I shall reiterate another earlier comment, socialism, true socialism, has never succeeded for any length of time, and for those that last more than a very short time an authoritative/dictatorship is required to keep the high achievers in line supporting the low achievers.
The definition of socialism is straight-forward: ownership and control of the means of production. However, you can't use that to make any evaluation (unless there is a very specific analysis being undertaken, such as reference to the shirking model). The feasibility of socialism is much more involved. There's no such concept. Intervention needs in capitalism is not a constant (e.g. it obviously increases with market concentration) Feasible socialism is a relatively recent concept. Its built on the socialist calculation debate
I hear you, but I don't agree with you. I have never read of or heard of a successful socialist system outside of authoritarian/dictatorship government, and even then it does not last beyond the people being in a position to eliminate that government. Social programs are not socialism, so if the government does not own or control production, distribution and wealth it is not socialism. In my opinion capitalism with reasonable regulation is the only possible successful economic system lasting over a long period of time.
Government ownership and control is rarely consistent with socialism. Goes back to the correct vocab for it: state capitalism
And yet every reference book I have searched stipulates that Socialism has either government ownership or control of production, distribution and some say wealth. Pardon me if I prefer to believe reference books rather than you.
Is this where you try and use the dictionary to understand political economy again? You'll find the OED provides numerous definitions which are rather time dependent. However, its obvious that government ownership is not a sufficient condition. Were the Tories being socialists when they nationalised Rolls Royce? Of course not!
So I collect $20,000 this year. I spend $30,000. I go to my employer, and demand a $10,000. You have to pay me what my authorized expenditures are! Congress collects an unbelievable $2.5 Trillion dollars... Let me explain to you how large an amount of money that is.... $2.5 Trillion dollars, is more than the entire national GDP of whole country of Brazil, or the UK. In fact.... There are only... FOUR COUNTRIES IN THE WHOLE WORLD WITH A LARGER NATIONAL GDP THAN HOW MUCH WE COLLECT IN TAXES!!!!! And yet.... We have an $800 Billion dollar deficit. In other words.... There are only ***THREE*** countries that have a national GDP that is larger than how much our Federal Government spends. And what's the answer from the left? The tax code is irresponsible. Out of 209 sovereign states on the planet today, our tax code collects more money than the national GDPs of 203 of them. And that's just down right irresponsible! Here's a thought....... maybe.... (gasp).... Federal Spending being greater than the GDP of 204 of them is irresponsible? Cut the spending. There is NOTHING irresponsible about our tax code, except it collecting too much. The spending is irresponsible. The left is irresponsible. You don't spend a bunch of money, and then demand others pay for your dumb policies.
I use the dictionary for definitions. I use my understanding of life to make sense of issues. Part of that understanding of life came from education through Ed.S. Was Great Britain a socialist country because they nationalized some industries? Heading in that direction. I would say that GB's experiments with central planning held back their economy significantly. My experience has been that socialism or any other central planning economy has been a dismal failure. So defining and identifying what things are is one thing, understanding what they mean is entirely different.
Then you won't achieve much understanding, particularly with regards political economy. Suggesting the Tories were 'heading to socialism' really wouldn't be a cunning thing to say. The protection of Rolls Royce of course reflected more general concerns (and firm destruction effects) Then you have no knowledge of Britain. Its neo-liberal (and has been for some time). Its use of central planning only refers to specific periods such as world war (and that was successful in its aims).
I have as much understanding of economic theory issues and politics as you have posted. We may have different experiences, but you chose to leave out the part I wrote about experience and education and suggest I only get information from dictionaries. Any nationalism is a move toward socialism and to deny that is, as you would say, "not cunning.) Protecting a company by nationalization is socialist thinking, and is destructive over the long haul. Yep! and central planning is destructive to the economy of a country over the long haul.
Then you'll acknowledge that using a dictionary to understand political economy is folly. Your comments here exhibit show no sense. First, Britain hasn't adopted central planning (except in WW2; a time where- without central planning- Britain would have fallen). Second, it continues to be painfully silly to call Tories socialist. Nationalisation is neither a sufficient or necessary condition for socialism. Those suggesting otherwise have just confused themselves with the economic spectrum (from laissez faire to command economy)
Of course. Using reference books to satisfy what contemporary definitions has to do only what a thing is, not understanding politics or economics. Whey you got that ridiculous idea to begin with is a mystery to me. I did not say GB has adopted central planning. I said something to the effect that some activities in GB show moves in the direction of socialism. If you want to criticize something I write be my guest, but don't venture to the ridiculous interpretation of what I said, because it suggests it is you who are confused. Nationalism is definitely a component of moves in the direction of socialism. Government ownership or control of production is socialistic.
Using dictionaries for political economy tells me only one thing: a lost argument. You stated "GB's experiments with central planning held back their economy significantly". That is a nonsense statement. This continues to be empty rhetoric. Calling the Tory nationalisation of Rolls Royce 'socialist' is spectacularly silly.
That would mean you don't understand argument. Knowing what the definition of something is goes a long way when discussing what it means. Only in a nonsensical mind. Nationalizing and industry is a move to central planning and is a component of socialism. Calling ANY NATIONALIZATION is a component of socialism is absolutely on target. Nationalization means the government controls that part which is nationalized thus "central planning" of that part is a fact you can't get around.
You're just repeating how the argument is lost! And this just confirms the folly of being reliant on a dictionary! Calling Tories socialist is ludicrous! Again, you just confuse yourself with the economic spectrum. Very tutworthy as its the most basic and crass error
So you discount the validity of dictionary/encyclopedia definitions? I guess you are more of an authority of what definitions are, right? Tories are historically conservative. I did not say they were socialist. I said, and I shall reiterate, if the tories nationalized an industry it is a move toward socialism.(government control) It is you who are confused if you don't recognize that nationalization of industry as a move toward socialism, period.
I couldn't be clearer: you can't use a dictionary to understand political economy Which continues to be a cretinous argument. Does your dictionary say "Tory: a conservative that moves an industry towards socialism"? Of course not. You continue to make the crass error that government=socialism. It doesn't. Nationalisation of Rolls Royce had nothing to do with socialism. To suggest otherwise just shows you the problem of relying on a dictionary for political economy!
And I couldn't be more clear, I DON'T USE A DICTIONARY TO UNDERSTAND POLITICAL ECONOMY. So why do you object to using a dictionary to determine a definition? If you want to see a cretin, go look in the mirror. No it doesn't, nor did I infer it did. Arguing about something I did not say is intellectual dishonesty. Wrong, I have never said or suggested that government = socialism. I said that government controlling production and distribution is socialism. Get your stories straight. What I said has nothing to do with relying on a dictionary for political economy. Nationalization of any industry is a move toward socialism; and that has nothing to do with the dictionary definition of what socialism is. If you want to debate anything I say, make sure you understand what I say before embarrassing yourself. At least be honest enough to acknowledge what I actually say instead of making up things I did not say.
Clearly you do. You brought up the dictionary as if it helped your argument. You've since illustrated that you don't understand the political economy involved by confusing government and socialism. A very basic error. Of course you have. You've stated that the Tory government involvement in saving Rolls Royce was a move towards socialism. That continues to be astoundingly silly standard reference to 'government=socialism' That has already been rejected, as shown by the reference to state capitalism. Didn't your dictionary mention it? Just repetition that a Tory government moved the UK economy towards socialism. They obviously didn't, but this is the sort of silly argument one can expect when one is abusing the dictionary! I'm not convinced you actually realise what you are typing, as illustrated by the nonsensical claim that British 'experiments with central planning' had reduced economic performance.
No I didn't! I brought up the dictionary to make sure you understood I know what the definition of socialism. It is your confusion, because I have never had a problem understanding the difference between government and socialism. Why you keep being confused about what I say says a lot about how much you understand English. It has nothing to do with "saving" Rolls Royce, it has to do with the fact than any government move to nationalize industry is a move toward socialism. You would be kind of dense not to recognize that absolute fact. You are the only one who brought up government=socialism. Is that what you believe? I don't, I understand the difference. Let me help you here. Government is the device which controls the country. It can be socialist or it can just be the entity which protects rights and actions of the citizens. See how easy that is? The dictionary gives a good description of what socialism is, or what capitalism is. Shall I give you a lesson in that too? Here, just to make it easy for you since you can't think well for yourself. Full Definition of SOCIALISM 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done Full Definition of CAPITALISM : an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market Have you got it yet? I know you are slow but those definitions should be easy even for you to understand. I could care less if it was a Tory government or a Labour government which did a move toward socialism by nationalizing an industry. The fact is, nationalizing industry is a move toward socialism. Socialism or a move in that direction ALWAYS reduces the potential for economic performance. I can't believe you are insufficiently intelligent to realize that. Poor Reiver, try again. This time maybe address what I have actually said instead of making it up as you go along. BTW, thank you for making this a more lively discussion even if you are economically challenged.
Do you know what you're typing? You're now essentially saying 'I wanted to show you that I can read a dictionary'. I already knew that chum. You really are a hole digger! Arguing that a Tory government were leading the economy towards socialism informs me that you have a severe problem with it! Again, are you aware of what you're typing? I stated that Rolls Royce nationalisation (used to save Rolls Royce) was in no way an example of socialism. You disagreed. We both know where that disagreement comes from: I don't use a dictionary to hide from political economy and the reality of government policy. I was able to demonstrate just how bland your error is. Is this when you again refer to the dictionary in order to hide from doing what you should be doing? i.e. Making it clear that Rolls Royce nationalisation had nothing to do with socialism and making it clear that Britain 'experimenting with central planning' was made up guff. I 'got' it pages back: you don't understand socialism. Illustrating the level of cluelessness! It is neither a necessary or sufficient condition. We saw that with state capitalism. But you don't understand socialism. Your evaluation is therefore of little consequence.
Yep! I know what I am typing. Do you? Nope, that is not what I said. You are still having difficulty with English. The why do you so completely misunderstand what I say? Of course, trying to get under that rock of your misunderstanding. I am not arguing that at all. I am saying, correctly mind you, that nationalizing industry is a move toward socialism. Why are you having so much difficulty understanding what I say? Do you need some reading lessons? Save Rolls Royce? Nah! I said nationalization of an industry is moving toward socialism. Do I need to interpret the English language for you? Of course I disagreed that I stated anything about saving Rolls Royce, because I didn't say such a thing at all. Maybe you should look at a dictionary so you would know what the definition of socialism as it appears you don't know it on your own. Shall I post the definition again to help you out? Full Definition of SOCIALISM 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done There, now is that so hard? So when you said that a Tory government nationalized Rolls Royce (you did say that right?) and I pointed out that was a move toward socialism, you immediately took to saying things I never said. Why? My error? Don't you know that the government owning or controlling production is the basic definition of what socialism is? Don't you know that nationalizing an Industry is the take over of that industry by the government to control it, and again, that it is part of the definition of socialism? I thought you knew what socialism is, do I need to post the definition again? Do you forget that easily? I only refer to the dictionary to insure that the words defining socialism are easy enough for you to understand. So are you saying now that Rolls Royce was not taken over by the government? Is that what you are saying? Don't you even know what "nationalization" means? Do you need the dictionary definition for that too? Full Definition of NATIONALIZE 1 : to give a national character to 2 : to invest control or ownership of in the national government [/indent] There, can you read that? Do you understand that to nationalize an industry is to take over ownership or control of that industry's production and operation? And that it is a prime example of socializing that industry? If you've got it, and you quote it be sure you quote it exactly like I said it. I do have to agree here, you are proving your clueless on this subject. We also see it as state owned socialism. So are you now saying that state capitalism is heading in the direction of socialism? Does it meet the requirements of the definition? Does the state own/control the production and distribution? Maybe I don't understand socialism, maybe socialism is not government owned or controlled production and distribution. Is that what you are saying? Uh, actually it appears that it is you who does not understand socialism if you don't believe that government owned/controlled production and distribution is socialism; or maybe you don't understand what nationalization is.. You did mean that the government took over control of the production of Rolls Royce, right? Now, when you get over your snit, we can converse again. If all you want to do is insult my intelligence with your BS, Bye. I will find someone who is intelligent to converse with.
Do either of you have an opinion on a NEGATIVE INCOME TAX proposal for the United States??? These economic rants that have nothing to do with the OP are annoying at best. If the desire is to address capitalism v socialism perhaps it would be better to create your own threads as it is annoying for those of us actually addressing the topic of this thread to have to read your posts that are completely unrelated to a negative tax.
