Socialism

[Cwrw666]

All I've gleaned from this thread is that everyone likes bandying words about like capitalism and socialism without actually stopping to think if they really know what they mean...
I only hope when they're giving brewing advice they have a better knowledge of what they're talking about.

 

[pms67]

The only left wing or right wing I’m bothered about is at Parkhead.
Mon the hoops 😁

 

[Dutto]

I had to laugh my rearend off at the statement that only 13% of the US live under the poverty level. ...........

......... Beer anyone?

Back in 1969 I was helping to commission a new refinery here in the UK for an American company. One of the Americans (a Bob Schleshman) sent over to assist in the commissioning process told me in all seriousness ...

"Some people in Texas are so poor that they have to leave their freezer out on the veranda."

He was talking to a man who at the time couldn't afford a freezer and still doesn't own a veranda! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[simon12]

Like Cwrw666 said there is a problem of how people are defining socialism and to a lesser extent capitalism so heres my attempt to clarify. To start I would like to point out there are no totally fully 100% socialist or capitalist countries so defining is a country is socialist is a bit of a grey area.
With true socialism a key part is all means of production would be cooperatively owned by the state or workers which obviously does not apply to the Scandinavian countries.
This is where I was getting it wrong thinking people who want socialism want the above when really they want greater redistribution of wealth through social policies but keeping capitalism. Most countries in the world have a system with capitalism at its core and varying levels of social policies on top.
America though getting less so is very capitalist having low taxes and low government spending (and regulation) while Norway has huge taxation, high government spending and the government owns large amounts of all large companies based there, while the UK is somewhere in between. So if you want to call a country socialist you need to have some standard that doesn't exist on the amount of wealth redistribution and government control it needs to fit the term or go with if means of production are not cooperatively owned its not socialist.

 

[Thumper]

Americans get loads of space for their money, though. Land is cheap over there.

 

[simon12]

Americans get loads of space for their money, though. Land is cheap over there.

I think the recent popularity of socialism has alot to do with people leaving education and finding property ownership is an unrealistic dream so they want the property wealth redistributed to them. In the UK property prices both buying and letting are an issue for all with very few winners from it.

 

[druid]

Like Cwrw666 said there is a problem of how people are defining socialism and to a lesser extent capitalism so heres my attempt to clarify. To start I would like to point out there are no totally fully 100% socialist or capitalist countries so defining is a country is socialist is a bit of a grey area.
With true socialism a key part is all means of production would be cooperatively owned by the state or workers which obviously does not apply to the Scandinavian countries.
This is where I was getting it wrong thinking people who want socialism want the above when really they want greater redistribution of wealth through social policies but keeping capitalism. Most countries in the world have a system with capitalism at its core and varying levels of social policies on top.
America though getting less so is very capitalist having low taxes and low government spending (and regulation) while Norway has huge taxation, high government spending and the government owns large amounts of all large companies based there, while the UK is somewhere in between. So if you want to call a country socialist you need to have some standard that doesn't exist on the amount of wealth redistribution and government control it needs to fit the term or go with if means of production are not cooperatively owned its not socialist.

Im not sure how you can suggest that the US has low government spending. They are the most indebted nation in the world and continually run enormous deficits. The only thing that has allowed this to go on for so long is the fact that (for now) the greenback is the worlds reserve currency. And one other point of note...since the crash of 08, it would be nigh unto impossible to say that the US is still in a "capitalist" system. The cost of capital (risk) is set by free market forces, not the US federal reserve (which has been happening since 08) This has distorted every single market because the capital is/has been misplaced because the government has taken control....this in itself points to a far different system...

 

[simon12]

Maybe my wording should been America was a very capitalist nation, note I just tried to check how much we and they spend per person, in the UK the government spends just over £9,000 per person but the US figures vary wildly from $10,000 to over $20,000 but even at the lowest they don't spend much less than us.

 

[MyQul]

Dont you need money to be a capitalist? I havent got any so I must be a socialist :lol:

 

[simon12]

Dont you need money to be a capitalist? I havent got any so I must be a socialist :lol:

No thats tax evasion, best way is have and earn no money.

 

[MyQul]

No thats tax evasion, best way is have and earn no money.

Eh? So the reason I haven't got any money is because it's all in offshore accounts in the bahamas?

 

[simon12]

No just if you have no money they can't tax it.

 

[MyQul]

No just if you have no money they can't tax it.

They dont call me Paridise Papers Myqul for nothing you know