You may recall that we “abandoned free market principles to save the free market” during the last economic crisis. In fact we literally took ownership of some major financial institutions and bailed out the auto industry. The Federal Reserve has also been using various levers to manage the economy for decades. Whether that makes us “socialist” or not depends on your definition, but you can’t pretend our economic policy is solely determined by the free market.
Yes, but, if you study it in depth, the Federal government showed inordinate restraint in both bailing out the financial institutions while proffering them near-autonomy subsequently. They added some new regulations that is not some wholesale change of pace.
And, similarly, the auto bailout explicitly did not seek to have a government-run auto industry. Those companies are still (largely if not entirely) owned and operated in the private sector.
Indeed. The only response available to the financial crisis was collectivism, so which operates in which framework …
It doesn’t have to be a free market of any kind to be capitalist. And because we have a federal reserve, it doesn’t make it socialist. Basically, capitalism implies that the means of production and distribution are privately owned…which they are, mainly, in the US (this is where ‘mixed economy’ comes into play). Socialism implies that the means of production and distribution are mainly owned by the state. That’s really it, wrt ECONOMIC systems. So, China is still a socialist/communist state, since even though some of it’s means of production and distribution are privately owned, the majority are owned or operated directly or indirectly by the state. The US is a capitalist country wrt our economic system, since mainly the means of production and distribution are privately owned and operated. Technically, of course, both are mixed economies with orientations either more towards capitalism mainly or more towards socialism/communism, mainly.
Our attitude, however, is capitalist. And as to our safety net. Do you know how hard it is to qualify for section 8 housing? Do you know how little food stamps actually supply? Do you know how many things are not covered by medicare/medicaid? Do you know how poorly a degree form East Illinois State University (made up the school) stacks up against a degree from Duke, Emory, Fordam, Pace, NYU or Vanderbilt? I’m not really sure out “safety net” qualifies us to be “a bunch of pinko socialists”.
What is more important in a label, XT, the technical distinction that defines that label or how the people who live under that label actually act and think and behave?
(As allways, you do a very good job of explaining yourself… I am trying to offer a different interpretation)
We have the largest socialist army in the world. Our infrastructure is almost entirely socialist. We have an enormous socialist medical system, retirement system, unemployment compensation system, education system, and the list goes on. Yet we use capitalism to fund the whole thing. Call it whatever you want, this country was founded on socialist principles including a concept of freedom that allows capitalism to flourish as well.
It took us over a decade to form a functioning national government.
“Founded on socialism??”
Over a decade? I’m not sure that thing is functioning yet.
What does that have to do with socialism?
wow … Bill Maher totally on point last night interviewing Bernie Sanders, pretty much all about the word ‘socialist’
Like ‘democracy’ or ‘freedom’, ‘socialism’ is not an all or nothing deal. You can be socialist to varying degrees and in various ways.
Exactly. Any country that has a civil service or public education system or that provides any sort of welfare, retirement, or healthcare subsidy benefits is practicing some form of socialism, since those are socialist concepts. The US is socialist. Sweden is socialist. Sweden is, on average, more socialist than the US. It’s a question of degree, not nature.
Socialism is an economic system. How a country earns its money you could say. Who owns the money-making stuff, government or private.
What you are talking about are social policies. A different beast altogether.
You can have a totally socialist nation where the government owns all the factories, shops businesses etc, with no healthcare, unemployment benefits etc. Like a medieval feudal estate. And you can have a totally capitalist system with loads of big social programs.
Erhm no. By this sort of reasoning, anti-socialist Bismarckian Germany was a socialist state simply because Bismarck instituted basic social insurance programs to appease the working-class and because it had a civil service and public education system like all civilized states.
So where would, say, public school education fit with this; centrally funded, centrally organised?
You are referring to Marxist socialism. No one in 2015 uses the term in this manner.