And how does your economics account for the relative prosperity of all those “socialist” Scandinavian countries?
Although I agree with you, ridicule is not the way to argue. See my recent post.
I can answer that one.
Prager “University” et al use some very tortured logic to claim that all the wealthy countries are really free market libertarian havens, if you squint really hard and ignore the tax rate, welfare provision, regulation, healthcare system, employment laws etc.
Or just use the logic of Venezuela = socialism, anywhere that’s not Venezuela is not socialist. …ignoring that the proposals being made in the US that people holler “Socialist!” about are seen around the (wealthy) word, not only in places like Venezuela
Hard to trust the dictionary nowadays but…
From the dictionary!
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : 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
Who is different people?
There is a huge difference between polices that price folks out of the labor force and then pay folks to be idle and policies that assist with the cost of living.
With the former you have jobs go overseas or filled with illegal labor. You have folks who can’t legally get a job they qualify for but isn’t worth the legally mandated wage. You have folks who instead of being busy doing something productive and learning skills and, just as importantly, values, that would increase their economic worth sit around all day causing mischief.
The jobs are being filled, it’s just who or what is doing them. If we can’t pay someone a wage here to make a trinket that the market will bear then we will will buy it from a literal slave in China. I do find it fascinating we care more about virtue signalling by causing a ruckus over a statue of Jefferson or Lincoln because reasons then we do with slavery in the modern world making products that are probably in the majority of the US’s households.
Secondly, even if the state is paying something the state pays less when the person being assisted is making more than zero. That’s just simple math. And with the additional productivity the supply of goods and services goes up. It’s a win win.
Now, why the fuss? The fuss comes from the lack of the ability to engage in political patronage. Even the early socialists were aware enough to realize you needed people to pull their own weight to the best of their ability. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs "
That’s one superior aspect of communism over social democracy. Communists know you need productivity and can’t just vote into existence wealth. Now, the methods that the communists use to extract said productivity are obviously not the nicest.
My economics don’t. My economics merely state that humans act according to incentives and in a global market where capital can easily flow it will and has easily flowed right to China. So instead of employing our own populace to increase our own productivity and strategic capacity we are transferring knowledge, markets, and productivity to our most formidable strategic competitor we will have had. It’s madness to think about. The Chinese don’t suffer from our softness and are unabashedly and unapologetically nationalistic.
Furthermore, just like freedom/liberty is not necessarily the pinnacle of human civilization strong free markets may not be the pinnacle of human economics. We very well may see a hybrid planned/market economy beat our pro-corporate/buy peace from the lower class hybrid.
The Scandinavian model, btw, does well with a couple of countries in the top 10 of purchasing power parity/capita. But we also see Qatar, Singapore, and the US in there as well. Which is superior? Hell if I know. There are too many variables and no control earth. And in situations where there are multiple variables I cannot definitively state that one is 100% the reason for the outcome unlike others do on other subjects when it fits politics or ideology.
In terms of overall PPP (not per capita) we have China at #1. That’s a big deal. Especially considering the advantages we squandered.
Ultimately, people have this misconception on why Trump won in 2016. Recognizing that the world is a competitive place and that we need to strengthen our strategic competitive capabilities is an overlooked factor.
Now all that said. I have absolutely zero problem with society allocating resources in a way that leads to true gains in productivity. Investments in health, education, infrastructure, are all important. However, we shouldn’t be shy to demand from the citizenry that they take an active role in doing the absolute best for themselves and their families that they can. We treat our adults as if they were toddlers and we do that because our politicians pander for votes.
Venezuelan socialism failed in large part because of authoritarian corruption and over-reliance on its oil, which meant that it lacked an incentive to diversify its economy (Saudi Arabia has had similar problems, though MBS seems to be at least attempting to change).
If people can object to a national health care program “because it’s socialism,” then it’s fair for us to point out that our national highway system, our public fire departments, our public schools, and our military are equally socialist.
When was the last time you built a railway, or a road, or even a house? And did you do it without any currency?
My grandfather, a man with a sixth-grade education, owned a home in New York City, bought a new car every few years, sent his four children to college, had health insurance for the family, and had a good pension plan so he didn’t have to worry about finances in his retirement.
He had a good union job.
Today, Wikipedia tells me that private-sector union membership is around 6%, a fraction of what it was in the post-WWII boom years.
To my mind, that’s definitely a decline.
Currency is definitely useful for facilitating trade. It is not necessary.
If you were stranded on a deserted island would you prefer tools or cash?
If stranded, with whom would you trade?
Exactly. The acquisition of resources and subsequent production are fundamental. Trade and currency are not.
So you want to eliminate the minimum wage and have something like tax credits to get the workers’ income up to a livable level?
This would have the advantage of targeting actual need, whereas the MW is a blunt instrument that largely does not.
As has been discussed ad nauseum on these boards, most people living in poverty either do not work or do not do so full-time/year-round. Most people earning MW do not live in low-income households. And “livable” is a function of household composition, being quite different for two adult roommates vs a single parent of four.
How, exactly, to set up a program efficiently so as to not disincentivize work is probably best left for another discussion.
While the overall poverty rate doesn’t move much, the elderly poverty rate has fallen substantially, largely as a function of of SS. I don’t have data past 2000, so can’t say how that addresses the OP. But that does show an intervention that we can learn from.
Sounds reasonable to me, but I’m not an economist.
OK - so in the US the government contracts with the owners of the means of production. That’s called governance not socialism.
The Grand Coulee Dam was built by three corporations under the management of the Bureau of Reclamation. The government did not own the means of building the dam. It was good governance, not Socialism. The result of building dams in the NW was the electricity that made aluminum and created atomic energy during WW2.
The United States is it’s government.
Meanwhile back on topic:
I believe the OP provides a reasonable summary. So, is Trump to blame for our decline?
I’d say no. Trump is a ghastly result rather than a cause. I am amazed that such a degenerate human being could be presented to the public as a choice for President. And appalled that anyone would vote for him.
The uneducated believe they are being dismissed by the educated. In truth they are and deservedly so. They want a free ride politically because they lack the ambition to educate themselves on our system. Instead they just vote for Trump.
That’s a good counter-argument to the argument that MW should be the sole method of eliminating poverty. However, I haven’t heard many people use that argument.
It’s one device alongside improved social security, access to healthcare, prison reform etc. MW is often high in the list because it’s good for economies and simple and virtually free to implement.
Also, we should mention that even if the majority of poor people are not working, that’s because many are children or elderly and usually supported in part by working relatives. So there’s a “trickle down” effect 
Yeah. I’ve made that argument for years here. Minimum wage accomplishes nothing good and is in fact counterproductive. Universal basic income and/or targeted need based aid should be used instead.
When did America start declining? These charts may help!
I know it’s an oversimplification but I’ve always felt that whatever economic gains we enjoyed during the Reagan administration were mostly a result of productivity increases from the computerization of small and medium-sized businesses.
Much of my opposition to Reagan was probably fueled by the desire to be a contrarian but as the years have passed I have become even more sure of my youthful stance.