Biden's economic plan requires Socialism.

Strathos said:

I'm just using the definition that the OP is using, where he seems to assume that any kind of publicly funded government program means socialism.

Click to expand...

He clarified that: socialism is any kind of publically funded government program benefiting those he doesn't think deserve it.

Speedwell said:

He clarified that: socialism is any kind of publically funded government program benefiting those he doesn't think deserve it.

Click to expand...

Which is every one but those in agriculture it would seem.

Strathos said:

It's a matter of degree. A nation with zero socialist policies would have a government that never did anything at all, or no government whatsoever (i.e. Somalia for quite a while). A nation with nothing but socialist policies is communist. Surely you can agree that the ideal lies somewhere between those extremes.

Click to expand...

A government with zero socialist policy would lack government control of the means of production. PERIOD. Everything else governments do are just normal government functions of every form of government which includes social( not socialist) policies. IMO there is no objectively ideal government. Different populations require different things from their governments. What might be suitable for the citizens of one country would be unsuitable for those of another. People are unique and every individual country is filled with a populace of unique individuals. Any belief that one system would be appropriate and work for them all is a fantasy.

OldWiseGuy said:

Tax funded social programs isn't socialism.

The solution to high healthcare costs is better health. The solution to the cost of higher education is more stringent entry requirements , and reduced levels of guaranteed student loans.

Click to expand...

Which reduces the number of post-secondary students--not a good solution for an undertrained workforce in a technical world.

OldWiseGuy said:

That's not what I said. To repeat, in order for Biden's plan(s) to come to fruition he must somehow take over the economy of the nation, through government ownership of major businesses and industry: socialism. The caveat is that he can't, and his plans will fail.

Click to expand...

Why is it that other modern economies who are out-competing us and still providing a better livelihood for their workers don't have to do it that way?

Albion said:

But are you meaning to agree with that definition?

Click to expand...

I'm showing the logical consequences of that definition.

grasping the after wind said:

A government with zero socialist policy would lack government control of the means of production. PERIOD. Everything else governments do are just normal government functions of every form of government which includes social( not socialist) policies. IMO there is no objectively ideal government. Different populations require different things from their governments. What might be suitable for the citizens of one country would be unsuitable for those of another. People are unique and every individual country is filled with a populace of unique individuals. Any belief that one system would be appropriate and work for them all is a fantasy.

Click to expand...

Again you are confusing market socialism with non-market socialism.

OldWiseGuy said:

That's not my assumption at all.

Click to expand...

Then you're not very good at communicating your points.

OldWiseGuy said:

Under capitalism the government provides money to buy lumber and nails. Under socialism the government builds the house.

Click to expand...

What if the government just built a wall?

OldWiseGuy said:

More than a phrase. He revealed that he wants to provide everything for everyone. To accomplish this he must use all the force of government, which requires adopting a socialist economic scheme.

Click to expand...

I don't see Biden providing "everything for everyone". He is likely trying to provide more than the current government does, but then we're not talking socialism but merely where someone draws the line on taxpayer benefits as a proportion of the budget.

You might also like to consider that while pure capitalism is great at some things, it isn't good at others. And countries which pursue a more hybrid model are able to out-perform the US in many areas.

Consider health care - making healthcare free to citizens means workers are healthier and less likely to be non-productive due to chronic illness. Companies in countries with this system don't have to pay for the health insurance of workers and their families, meaning the cost of production is reduced. Thus, those companies become more competitive compared to companies in the US.

OldWiseGuy said:

This 'technical' world is killing. We need to step back.

Click to expand...

Better shut off your computer then, and disconnect from the internet.

grasping the after wind said:

I think you should both stop pretending socialism is about workers or income equality or providing basic public services. It is only about government control of the means of production. There is nothing about having police, fire departments, roads and utilities that in any way is unique to a socialist government.

Click to expand...

This is true. This is what it actually means. Government should control very little.

OldWiseGuy said:

People with very good healthcare insurance suffer from the health problems as everyone else does. People use health insurance when they're sick, not to improve their health.

Click to expand...

Not really. People who have access to healthcare without a cost barrier are more likely to take advantage of it. They seek help sooner, take advantage of testing for certain issues, and have access to more treatment options.

For example, in Australia people are provided free cancer screening for several more common cancers, which means people will get treated sooner, with less symptoms and far greater chance of recovery, and ironically, far less overall cost to the health system.

OldWiseGuy said:

In fact improvement of general health would negatively affect the healthcare industry, so it's not encouraged.

Click to expand...

I'm not completely convinced of this, but if it were true, surely that's the best argument FOR taxpayer-funded health care.

Strathos said:

You're talking about market socialism as if it was the only type of socialism. Which is a bait and switch since no one in mainstream US politics is suggesting market socialism.

Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to any particular form of socialism, just the underlying principle that for something to be "socialism", it has to involve public (or collective) control over the means of production.

The definition:
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Any variation of socialism has to at least meet this criteria... otherwise it's not socialism at all.


A market economy with an expanded welfare state doesn't amount to socialism.

If you don't want to take my word for it, take it from the PM of Denmark (the country that everyone props up as a 'socialism success story')


I would say a Danish PM has a little better grasp on what kind of system his own country has than 18-25 year old fine arts majors in the US.

Speedwell said:

So you re saying that capitalism does not give every American an equal chance to get ahead.

Click to expand...

No economic system gives, much less guarantees, an equal chance to get ahead.

You have wealthy elite and poor people in every system.

...it just seems to be that under countries that have a market economy, the poor people live a lot better than ones under socialism/communism.

Not saying that everyone is getting a fair shake under capitalism, but certainly more people are getting a fair shake (especially under systems that have some social safety nets in place).


A good indicator would be to evaluate which countries people are trying to get into and which ones people are trying to get out of.

People will risk life and limb to get out of their own countries and into westernized countries with market economies.

How many people are risking it all to relocate to Belarus, Venezuela, or Laos?

The concept of freedom resonates well with people...

OldWiseGuy said:

The solution to high healthcare costs is better health.

Click to expand...

I can think of a number of people just in my close circle of friends who have exceptionally healthy lifestyles and still suffer from chronic health issues. And what about kids? Cancer? Thin diabetics (I know two)? Brain tumors? The list goes on and on. People with very healthy lifestyles still pay $2000/mo for family insurance. You offer no solution. Sounds more like you have yours and don’t really cate about everyone else.

OldWiseGuy said:

The solution to the cost of higher education is more stringent entry requirements , and reduced levels of guaranteed student loans.

Click to expand...

. The solution is not to educate people? And stop competing with other countries or import engineers, nurses, teachers, and, well, everyone who does work that requires an education? Again, sounds like you just don’t care. You’re set and everybody else isn’t your problem.