(05-22-2019 03:26 PM)king king Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 02:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 01:55 PM)king king Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 12:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 11:31 AM)king king Wrote:  You missed the point of my post in that previous posters ascribed socialism to always ending in prisons/gulags/totalitarianism. I simply pointed out that it doesn't always, eg socialism in Scandinavian countries has not ended up that way. If you'd like to discuss those differences, let's do that. I dont care what the title is, I was making a distinction to posts WITHIN the thread.

And I am making a different distinction. Social democracy in Scandinavian countries is not about government redistribution of income and wealth, it's about basically a capitalist economy with a safety net. Everybody benefits and everybody pays.
That's different from Bernie's and AOC's (among others') "democratic socialism." They have conveniently crafted a name that sounds sorta like social democracy, but really isn't. They are talking about massive government redistribution. And where you have massive redistribution, you end up needing to use force, because people don't having what they earned taken away. And that leads inevitably to secret police, gulags, and totalitarianism, whether intended or not.
Name a country that has crossed the line into collectivism that hasn't ended up with totalitarianism.

My post was responding to Dust My Broom, Owl.
To your point, collectivism = communism? That's a different argument than I'm making. I'm not arguing that communism doesn't equal totalitarianism. It most assuredly does.
The Nordic Model shows a penchant for the people to choose higher tax burdens to provide for a redistribution of wealth for the betterment of all. Capitalism can live within socialism but cannot within communism. Hence why this is true in Scandinavia. I'd argue that we also live in a socialist/capitalist hybrid here in the states whereby we've allowed social programs to be funded from taxation.
Medicare/Medicaid are taxpayer funded social programs for healthcare, and by some estimates Medicaid paid for 40% of all US births in 2013 (Link here). I'm sure it's higher now than in 2013 with the introduction of the ACA. Is there much difference between the "state" administering the program and the "state" funding the program with direct payments to doctors?

Funding social programs is not socialism. There are plenty of non-socialist countries that provide extensive social programs. It becomes socialism when the objective shifts from primarily providing a safety net to primarily redistributing income and wealth on a massive basis.
That's the difference between social democracies like Sweden and the democratic socialism of Bernie or AOC. Obviously the social democracies' policies accomplish some mild redistribution. But it is minimal because 1) their tax structures are flatter and less "progressive," and 2) benefits are generally available to all, rather than being restricted by "means testing." The European social democracies typically provide both a more comprehensive safety net at the bottom and a more tax efficient way to earn a return on investment at the top. That's not socialism.
And massive redistribution triggers the secret police and gulags. Why? Because people don't like having what they earned taken from them and redistributed, so that has to be compelled by force.
So whether you say you are for secret police and gulags or not (and what politician in his/her right mind would claim to favor such things), if you favor massive redistribution of income and wealth, then you favor totalitarianism and secret police and gulags--because the only way to achieve massive redistribution is through force.

Except that in the Nordic countries the people have chosen massive redistribution of wealth to serve the greater need without ever needing to use strongarm tactics.

Except if you look at their actual policies, they are not as redistributive as what we have. Their top individual tax rate is slightly higher, but their tax rates for the lower and middle classes are much, much higher. And they get around 25% of their tax revenues a "regressive" consumption tax. And their corporate tax rate is only 22%. Plus their welfare programs are universal rather than "means tested." By comparison, we have a "progressive" income tax structure, no consumption tax, a corporate income tax that used to be almost twice as high (and is still somewhat higher when state taxes are included), and very focused and "means tested" welfare programs. Our tax and welfare systems are much more redistributive than theirs are. And yet they get a more equal dispersion of income and wealth than we do.

Also they have a very small population, roughly 10 million, and until the influx of Muslim refugees, they were pretty homogeneous. As far as their health care, it's generally considered good, once you get in, but their wait times are off the charts bad.

(05-22-2019 05:59 PM)king king Wrote:  According to Sweden's Minister of Finance, equal distribution of wealth is Paramount to their success.

But they don't achieve more equal dispersion of income and wealth through massive redistribution. As I have pointed out above, their tax and welfare programs are structured to be less redistributive than ours. When you provide a comprehensive safety net within a capitalist framework, that seems to produce less inequality than massive redistribution. What massive redistribution drives is capital flight, which ultimately deprives the lower and middle classes from opportunities to move upward. That's when you need the secret police and the gulags.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...it-do-that

Interesting discussion on why some might be giving up on capitalism.

"...On three fronts, then, the promise of a better future, which lies at the heart of capitalist psychology and theory, is being challenged. The question is whether that promise can be restored within a capitalist framework – with, say, wage insurance, redistribution and a carbon tax – or whether the system itself comes into question...."

(05-22-2019 11:56 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 11:19 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 06:34 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Hey Light Brights.....


What do you think Social Security, MediCare, and Medicaid are?????????

It's too bad they don't have an X (traditional Left right) and a Y graph ( O point with the median IQ of 100) with the quadrants. Graph a scatter plot of lib/cons vs. IQ. This room would solidly be in Quadrant 4.



https://www.nasi.org/learn/social-securi...l-security

Nearly nine in ten Americans (85%) say Social Security is more important than ever to ensure that retirees have a dependable income. ... About 8 in 10 (77%) say it is critical to preserve Social Security even if it means increasing the Social Security taxes paid by working Americans.


but muh socialism......................................

Medicaid is straight up socialism using tax dollars to fund income redistribution. The last time I checked however...I and my employer pay into the other two systems.

It's still socialism and they all poll above 70%. The op is bullchit................... Just pointing that out......

Very similar to the oranged hair emperor saying we will never be a socialist country. The neanderthals cheer not realizing we've been a socialist country for about 80 years.

The problem with this poll is that those 70% do not understand what socialism really is. As Owl has pointed out... True Socialism is about income redistribution..even to the point of the use of force. Do we have some forms of that now? Yes..but nothing like true Socialism. Ill even go as far as saying that some level of income redistribution is necessary. I..and I bet most everyone else has no problem with a portion of the fruits of their labor going to support those that "truly" can not provide for themselves.

(05-22-2019 03:26 PM)king king Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 02:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 01:55 PM)king king Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 12:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 11:31 AM)king king Wrote:  You missed the point of my post in that previous posters ascribed socialism to always ending in prisons/gulags/totalitarianism. I simply pointed out that it doesn't always, eg socialism in Scandinavian countries has not ended up that way. If you'd like to discuss those differences, let's do that. I dont care what the title is, I was making a distinction to posts WITHIN the thread.

And I am making a different distinction. Social democracy in Scandinavian countries is not about government redistribution of income and wealth, it's about basically a capitalist economy with a safety net. Everybody benefits and everybody pays.
That's different from Bernie's and AOC's (among others') "democratic socialism." They have conveniently crafted a name that sounds sorta like social democracy, but really isn't. They are talking about massive government redistribution. And where you have massive redistribution, you end up needing to use force, because people don't having what they earned taken away. And that leads inevitably to secret police, gulags, and totalitarianism, whether intended or not.
Name a country that has crossed the line into collectivism that hasn't ended up with totalitarianism.

My post was responding to Dust My Broom, Owl.
To your point, collectivism = communism? That's a different argument than I'm making. I'm not arguing that communism doesn't equal totalitarianism. It most assuredly does.
The Nordic Model shows a penchant for the people to choose higher tax burdens to provide for a redistribution of wealth for the betterment of all. Capitalism can live within socialism but cannot within communism. Hence why this is true in Scandinavia. I'd argue that we also live in a socialist/capitalist hybrid here in the states whereby we've allowed social programs to be funded from taxation.
Medicare/Medicaid are taxpayer funded social programs for healthcare, and by some estimates Medicaid paid for 40% of all US births in 2013 (Link here). I'm sure it's higher now than in 2013 with the introduction of the ACA. Is there much difference between the "state" administering the program and the "state" funding the program with direct payments to doctors?

Funding social programs is not socialism. There are plenty of non-socialist countries that provide extensive social programs. It becomes socialism when the objective shifts from primarily providing a safety net to primarily redistributing income and wealth on a massive basis.

That's the difference between social democracies like Sweden and the democratic socialism of Bernie or AOC. Obviously the social democracies' policies accomplish some mild redistribution. But it is minimal because 1) their tax structures are flatter and less "progressive," and 2) benefits are generally available to all, rather than being restricted by "means testing." The European social democracies typically provide both a more comprehensive safety net at the bottom and a more tax efficient way to earn a return on investment at the top. That's not socialism.

And massive redistribution triggers the secret police and gulags. Why? Because people don't like having what they earned taken from them and redistributed, so that has to be compelled by force.

So whether you say you are for secret police and gulags or not (and what politician in his/her right mind would claim to favor such things), if you favor massive redistribution of income and wealth, then you favor totalitarianism and secret police and gulags--because the only way to achieve massive redistribution is through force.

Except that in the Nordic countries the people have chosen massive redistribution of wealth to serve the greater need without ever needing to use strongarm tactics.

True Socialism seems to be tolerated in places of low population and similar racial and cultural backgrounds. Let these places become more like America and watch what happens.

(05-24-2019 07:41 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 03:26 PM)king king Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 02:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 01:55 PM)king king Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 12:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And I am making a different distinction. Social democracy in Scandinavian countries is not about government redistribution of income and wealth, it's about basically a capitalist economy with a safety net. Everybody benefits and everybody pays.
That's different from Bernie's and AOC's (among others') "democratic socialism." They have conveniently crafted a name that sounds sorta like social democracy, but really isn't. They are talking about massive government redistribution. And where you have massive redistribution, you end up needing to use force, because people don't having what they earned taken away. And that leads inevitably to secret police, gulags, and totalitarianism, whether intended or not.
Name a country that has crossed the line into collectivism that hasn't ended up with totalitarianism.

My post was responding to Dust My Broom, Owl.
To your point, collectivism = communism? That's a different argument than I'm making. I'm not arguing that communism doesn't equal totalitarianism. It most assuredly does.
The Nordic Model shows a penchant for the people to choose higher tax burdens to provide for a redistribution of wealth for the betterment of all. Capitalism can live within socialism but cannot within communism. Hence why this is true in Scandinavia. I'd argue that we also live in a socialist/capitalist hybrid here in the states whereby we've allowed social programs to be funded from taxation.
Medicare/Medicaid are taxpayer funded social programs for healthcare, and by some estimates Medicaid paid for 40% of all US births in 2013 (Link here). I'm sure it's higher now than in 2013 with the introduction of the ACA. Is there much difference between the "state" administering the program and the "state" funding the program with direct payments to doctors?

Funding social programs is not socialism. There are plenty of non-socialist countries that provide extensive social programs. It becomes socialism when the objective shifts from primarily providing a safety net to primarily redistributing income and wealth on a massive basis.

That's the difference between social democracies like Sweden and the democratic socialism of Bernie or AOC. Obviously the social democracies' policies accomplish some mild redistribution. But it is minimal because 1) their tax structures are flatter and less "progressive," and 2) benefits are generally available to all, rather than being restricted by "means testing." The European social democracies typically provide both a more comprehensive safety net at the bottom and a more tax efficient way to earn a return on investment at the top. That's not socialism.

And massive redistribution triggers the secret police and gulags. Why? Because people don't like having what they earned taken from them and redistributed, so that has to be compelled by force.

So whether you say you are for secret police and gulags or not (and what politician in his/her right mind would claim to favor such things), if you favor massive redistribution of income and wealth, then you favor totalitarianism and secret police and gulags--because the only way to achieve massive redistribution is through force.

Except that in the Nordic countries the people have chosen massive redistribution of wealth to serve the greater need without ever needing to use strongarm tactics.

True Socialism seems to be tolerated in places of low population and similar racial and cultural backgrounds. Let these places become more like America and watch what happens.

There’s no reasoning with that one. He will believe his incorrect view of Nordic politics until he dies. It doesn’t matter if you point out that 90% of Swedish property is privately owned or the tax burden falls heaviest on their middle class. He’s tied himself to that “massive wealth redistribution” idea, and he’s determined to go down with it.

As for true socialism, it’s not what they practice in Scandinavia. Their social democracy relies heavily on government transparency and accountability, which we know better than to expect from our own country.

(05-24-2019 08:47 AM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  

(05-24-2019 07:41 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 03:26 PM)king king Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 02:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 01:55 PM)king king Wrote:  My post was responding to Dust My Broom, Owl.
To your point, collectivism = communism? That's a different argument than I'm making. I'm not arguing that communism doesn't equal totalitarianism. It most assuredly does.
The Nordic Model shows a penchant for the people to choose higher tax burdens to provide for a redistribution of wealth for the betterment of all. Capitalism can live within socialism but cannot within communism. Hence why this is true in Scandinavia. I'd argue that we also live in a socialist/capitalist hybrid here in the states whereby we've allowed social programs to be funded from taxation.
Medicare/Medicaid are taxpayer funded social programs for healthcare, and by some estimates Medicaid paid for 40% of all US births in 2013 (Link here). I'm sure it's higher now than in 2013 with the introduction of the ACA. Is there much difference between the "state" administering the program and the "state" funding the program with direct payments to doctors?

Funding social programs is not socialism. There are plenty of non-socialist countries that provide extensive social programs. It becomes socialism when the objective shifts from primarily providing a safety net to primarily redistributing income and wealth on a massive basis.

That's the difference between social democracies like Sweden and the democratic socialism of Bernie or AOC. Obviously the social democracies' policies accomplish some mild redistribution. But it is minimal because 1) their tax structures are flatter and less "progressive," and 2) benefits are generally available to all, rather than being restricted by "means testing." The European social democracies typically provide both a more comprehensive safety net at the bottom and a more tax efficient way to earn a return on investment at the top. That's not socialism.

And massive redistribution triggers the secret police and gulags. Why? Because people don't like having what they earned taken from them and redistributed, so that has to be compelled by force.

So whether you say you are for secret police and gulags or not (and what politician in his/her right mind would claim to favor such things), if you favor massive redistribution of income and wealth, then you favor totalitarianism and secret police and gulags--because the only way to achieve massive redistribution is through force.

Except that in the Nordic countries the people have chosen massive redistribution of wealth to serve the greater need without ever needing to use strongarm tactics.

True Socialism seems to be tolerated in places of low population and similar racial and cultural backgrounds. Let these places become more like America and watch what happens.

There’s no reasoning with that one. He will believe his incorrect view of Nordic politics until he dies. It doesn’t matter if you point out that 90% of Swedish property is privately owned or the tax burden falls heaviest on their middle class. He’s tied himself to that “massive wealth redistribution” idea, and he’s determined to go down with it.

As for true socialism, it’s not what they practice in Scandinavia. Their social democracy relies heavily on government transparency and accountability, which we know better than to expect from our own country.

There's plenty of reason here.

Just because I disagree with someone's point based on my own reading doesn't mean I'm beyond reason. In fact, I didn't respond to Owl's last point specifically so that I could go back and read further on his points.

Based on that reading, the conclusion I've reached is that it's more nuanced than you're making it out to be. Whole swathes of industry are owned and operated by the state and each of these countries ranks among the highest in the world for income equality. I don't disagree that there's a difference between true socialism and social democracy, but I think a more accurate statement would be that they walk that line down the middle in a lot of ways and completely not in others. The people being behind wealth redistribution for the sake of all through social programs gives a certain credence to the notion that you don't have to strongarm people to effect socialist aspects.

I'm still open to having someone explain it further to me. There's much I still have yet to understand about economics for sure.

(05-21-2019 04:44 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:Seventy percent of Democrats say “some form of socialism” would be a “good thing” for the U.S., according to a new Gallup survey.

While socialism is popular among Democratic voters, a majority of voters overall, 51%, say embracing it would be bad for the country, the Gallup survey found.

Just 25% of Democrats said some form of socialism would be “a bad thing for the country as a whole,” according to the survey, which Gallup released Monday.

Among Republicans, 84% of respondents said that embracing some form of socialism would be bad for the U.S.. A plurality of independents, 48%, said the same.

The survey, which was conducted April 17-30 and had a margin of error of six percentage points, marked even more enthusiastic support for socialism among Democrats than in Gallup’s 2018 survey on the same subject.

The survey that year found that 57% of Democrats had a favorable view of socialism. That survey also marked the first time that Democrats had a more favorable view of socialism than capitalism.

Link

Well, pretty much 100% of Democrats are loons. The fact that 30% of them got this question right just confirms that old saying that "Even a blind squirrel can find an acorn once in awhile".

According to one source I found:

However, sometimes the line between 'democratic socialism' and 'social democracy' is blurry. A few years ago in Norway, 37% of the stocks traded on the Oslo stock market were owned by the state. The shares were in good company, as the government also runs the national oil firm Equinor, the largest bank in the country, an aluminum producer, a telephone company, and many other enterprises. In classic market socialist form, income from the state oil company goes into a fund managed for the benefit of the Norwegian people.


https://bigthink.com/politics-current-af...candinavia

That's just Norway. If you delve into Finland and Denmark you can find similar state control of industry. Iceland is probably the closest thing to what you're talking about (social democracy) that I've been able to find.