America Is Already There

[Nakosis]

I can't speak for the OP, but the intent of socialism is to agree on collective programs and processes to spread wealth and access (education, health, etc) across communities. It's not to change peoples personalities. At most, it might reduce some of the reward for greed.

You first have to create the wealth before it can be distributed. Capitalism is the best system of wealth creation. How does social create the wealth that is to be distributed?

Systematic reform is basically the opposite of idealism. If you think you can convince people to be 'less greedy', then it's you who are being idealistic.

Socialism is not a systematic reform. It is a drastic change in economic structure. Not that I am necessarily against it. I just don't understand how it is any better. If it is social programs you want then capitalism can create the wealth to support them.

Socialism tries to eliminate competition, which reduces the motivation for innovation. Innovation creates value which increases the wealth available in the economic system.

I'm not saying people can't be innovative in a socialist system but there is no longer any need for it. If the system stagnates it will have less and less wealth to distribute. Eventually, the wealth runs out.

 

[Nakosis]

The benefit is in spreading the money, the opportunities, and the control of commerce out among everyone who engages in it. How can you not see the benefit of this?

Socialism has to enforce non-competition. The only way it can do this is by taking control out of the hands of the individual. I don't see any way around that.

 

[SomeRandom]

It varies greatly in America, near as I can tell. Their funding models are mighty strange to our eyes, and commonly linked to local property taxes, amongst other sources.

Public schools in poor areas here commonly get additional funding to try and offset various disadvantages. That's not always the case in the US. Heck, I'm not even sure its often the case. As you can imagine, property taxes are higher in affluent areas.

Word of caution on all this though...it varies, state to state, so I'm talking very generally here.

Yeah the US model has always looked rather “unbalanced” to me. I didn’t know it was based on property tax, I assumed it had something to do with more disadvantaged areas being negatively affected, just not why they were specifically.
I guess we Aussies are used to the idea that it’s ultimately the federal Government’s responsibility, because they literally spend our taxes on education. Whereas I’ve seen many an American scoff at what they call “government overreach.”

 

[SomeRandom]

To be clear, though, the Canadian system is quite different to Australia.
We have universal healthcare, and long waits for public hospitals to perform elective procedures (for example).
But people can access private hospitals, either via private health insurance were all encouraged to have via taxation, or by paying.

My understanding of the Canadian system is that almost all hospitals operate based on a single public funding model. To an Australian (like both myself and @SomeRandom ) that means they operate similarly to public hospitals in Australia.

Good levels of care everyone can access, bad wait times for non emergency procedures, etc.

Accessing US hospitals is somewhat like an Australian choosing to pay for a private hospital.

Not arguing anything, here, just trying to clarify differences as I understand them for @SomeRandom (mostly).

As much as I will complain about our public health system, it literally kept my father alive for years and without crippling debt. Yanks meanwhile have to pay for ambulances (I assume if they’re not insured.)Wtf?
What’s that joke? If Breaking Bad were remade in literally any other civilised country, it would be a slice of life series about a man getting cancer treatment.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Public schools in poor areas here commonly get additional funding to try and offset various disadvantages. That's not always the case in the US. Heck, I'm not even sure its often the case. As you can imagine, property taxes are higher in affluent areas.

I got to go to one of the better performing high schools in Indiana. I don't knkw what teacher salary was (several had other income sources), but the differences In education standards and curriculum compares to the nearby city schools was appalling. My highschool basically set me up to be on par with the first year at uni and into a second year. My friends from the city schools were much further behind in most areas.

 

[Revoltingest]

As much as I will complain about our public health system, it literally kept my father alive for years and without crippling debt. Yanks meanwhile have to pay for ambulances (I assume if they’re not insured.)Wtf?
What’s that joke? If Breaking Bad were remade in literally any other civilised country, it would be a slice of life series about a man getting cancer treatment.

Breaking Bad started out as being about making money to cover
medical care. But his real motive came out later in the series.

My inner pedant had to say this.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They have to buy the materials? Wtf?

Yup. They don't have enough furnished to them amd they cant make do with what they have. So to ensure their class has enough they spend their own money.

 

[SomeRandom]

Yup. They don't have enough furnished to them amd they cant make do with what they have. So to ensure their class has enough they spend their own money.

Well I mean, I commend them on their dedication if nothing else

 

[SomeRandom]

Breaking Bad started out as being about making money to cover
medical care. But his real motive came out later in the series.

My inner pedant had to say this.

Lmao. Fair enough. But it’s a storyline that only works (even if temporarily) in the US.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You are making my point. Your "worth" is subjective. Not that I am belittling the work your wife does, but the economy doesn't care about subjective value. The economy cares about the creation of wealth. Obviously, chasing after money is not the most important thing in life however wealth has to be created to support programs like the ones for mental health. So your work is actually more important. Without the wealth you create, there would be no money to support the mental health programs.

That's an incestuous proposition, though. You're suggesting that in a money driven system (capitalism) money is a subjective measure of worth because without it you can't do anything else.

Whilst true, it's the very constraints of the system that make it so.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't understand the baby step. I'm not personally against socialism, I just don't understand where people see the benefit.

There are lots of points, but to make it easier for both of us considerp per capita health costs in the US.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You first have to create the wealth before it can be distributed. Capitalism is the best system of wealth creation. How does social create the wealth that is to be distributed?




Socialism is not a systematic reform. It is a drastic change in economic structure. Not that I am necessarily against it. I just don't understand how it is any better. If it is social programs you want then capitalism can create the wealth to support them.

Socialism tries to eliminate competition, which reduces the motivation for innovation. Innovation creates value which increases the wealth available in the economic system.

I'm not saying people can't be innovative in a socialist system but there is no longer any need for it. If the system stagnates it will have less and less wealth to distribute. Eventually, the wealth runs out.

You don't need to be fish or fowl though. No countries are. All countries run a mix of socialism and capitalism. The mix...and even moreso the perception...in the US strangely and incorrectly (imho) champions the market. It's almost religious at times.

 

[Nakosis]

There are lots of points, but to make it easier for both of us considerp per capita health costs in the US.

Single-payer can be done in capitalism.

I'll give you some points though as I think health, education and welfare are important enough to a priority for any modern country.
I think we should consider at least providing a minimum level of these and we kind of do. Sure we can improve them. However, I'm not sure how socialism would be able to support the costs.

 

[Nakosis]

You don't need to be fish or fowl though. No countries are. All countries run a mix of socialism and capitalism. The mix...and even moreso the perception...in the US strangely and incorrectly (imho) champions the market. It's almost religious at times.

Ok, so then no one is getting rid of capitalism right? We want to keep it around, right?

 

[Nakosis]

That's an incestuous proposition, though. You're suggesting that in a money driven system (capitalism) money is a subjective measure of worth because without it you can't do anything else.

Whilst true, it's the very constraints of the system that make it so.

Mmmm... Ok, StarTrek. I'm not against it. In the meantime. Capitalism.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Ok, so then no one is getting rid of capitalism right? We want to keep it around, right?

That's about as valid as saying 'OK, so then let's admit socialism is already here, right? We want to keep it around, right?'

But in case it's required, let me be clear about MY position (I can't speak for others).
All countries are running some mixture of market-driven capitalism, and socialism. The mix varies greatly, but I can't think of any country running a pure-market capitalism without interference. Nor can I think of a socialist country not involved in market capitalism.

Pure capitalism and pure socialism are ideological positions, but pragmatically neither truly exist (at least, for all intents and purposes).
So no, I'm not suggesting the US throws out capitalism and becomes an idealistic socialist utopia.

What I'm suggesting is that the aversion to the word 'socialism' and the manner in which capitalism and socialism are mixed in the USA is leading to sub-optimal outcomes for US citizens.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Single-payer can be done in capitalism.

I mean...I'm Australian. Of course it can be done, there are plenty of places already doing it. But it's not about being 'done in capitalism' or 'done in socialism'. Those are ideological window dressings. It's about providing quality healthcare to citizens.

I'll give you some points though as I think health, education and welfare are important enough to a priority for any modern country.
I think we should consider at least providing a minimum level of these and we kind of do. Sure we can improve them. However, I'm not sure how socialism would be able to support the costs.

Australia is not what you'd call a socialist country, is it? But we have far more social programs...and incidentally our health system runs at a far lower cost per capita. If you don't like our model and mix, there are plenty of others to choose from, most of which are cheaper than the US model, and lead to better objective outcomes in terms of healthcare.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Mmmm... Ok, StarTrek. I'm not against it. In the meantime. Capitalism.

Not sure I get the Star Trek reference. My geekness lies in other realms.

 

[Watchmen]

This sort of fear mongering is one reason the far left is so unattractive.

 

[Nakosis]

Not sure I get the Star Trek reference. My geekness lies in other realms.

Sorry, the idea being anything you want gets built by computers and robots. So no one actually has to work. No one needs to work unless they want to.

post-scarcity-economics

Here's a reference if you have the time.
The Economic Lessons of Star Trek’s Money-Free Society

I suspect this may be something we are heading towards. 100 or so years in the future.