Capitalism vs Socialism

Your personal experience of one case is perfectly valid, but Seren and I looked at actualised aggregate personal experiences worldwide in cases that span the whole world. You could argue that one number doesn’t adequately represent the complex economics, politic and culture of a country, and you’d have a point, but I think it’s a question of extents. I think a general correlation (even the weak 0.15 co-efficient that I got from my measure) says nothing to less of an extent than a personal preference of France over Finland. Hell, I’d choose France even though I admire Finland greatly, I’ve never met a French person I liked and every Finn I’ve met I liked, I speak a fair amount of French but no Finnish, I’m amazed and fascinated by the Finnish education system being top of the world - just to name a few things, but it’s just too god damn cold up there for too much of the year…

Even if you reject all the (relatively) simple empirical data that’s been brought up here, that alone allows us to reject the hypothesis that there’s a clear global trend of people generally migrating to more Capitalistic countries than Socialistic ones… - as goes the common Capitalist social narrative.

Serendipper…. =D>

Facts: suprising how facts seem to have a liberal bent…

but of course, conservatives have no use for facts because their
“Facts” come from personal biases and faith that because if
they believe in something, it must be true… regardless of the “facts”.

And the real faith of conservatives lies in their fears, bigotry, hate,
anger and lust that they mistake for “facts”.

The world is a harsh and cruel place because their biases and faith
tell them the world is a harsh and cruel place… it doesn’t really matter
what the facts are…and they react to their biases and faith rather then the
“facts” about something…blacks are slow or mexicans are “bad hombres”
and the facts don’t support these myths and biases, but their bias and faith
do support these statements and of course a conserative believes in their
bias and faith far more then “facts”. So of course, Serendipper can present all
the facts in the universe and still conseratives won’t believe it because
the important thing is the bias and faith the conservative hold, not the facts.

Kropotkin

There are some aberrations but the correlation is pretty solid. And that’s just a freedom index composed of journalistic freedom, internet freedom, and other civil liberties. freedomhouse.org/report/methodo … world-2018

France is not so socialist actually. I’ve looked into the taxation in France after the yellow vest protests and found Macron (former investment banker) is a conservative who eliminated the wealth tax and instituted a gas tax (prompting the protests). France has a high vat tax (sales tax) which places a lot of the burden of welfare on the very recipients of the assistance. France has a lot of taxes directed too much to the poor.

The US state of Ohio elected a republican governor who, after deriding his opponent for potentially raising taxes if elected, immediately proposed a gas tax to fix the roads that the corporations use to make profits on the very same people. Privatizing profits and socializing costs is the name of the conservative game. They appeal to “fairness”: you use the roads, you pay to fix them. But they overlook that the trucks are tearing up the roads, so what’s fair is making the corporations who tear the roads up pay the tax to fix them. They don’t want to do that because the idea is to transfer money from the poor to the rich and make the poor think it’s only “fair”. The same sort of game is being played in France. I don’t know much about Sweden.

Read up on the politics of France in the 19th and 20th century.

They do show a pattern and a very obvious pattern: none of the top countries break 60%, yet the bottom countries mostly break 60% except for France and possibly some others that I don’t have the data for.

There is correlation even though I can’t propose a mechanism to explain how government spending correlates to civil and political freedom, except that the same people who demand healthcare and education might also demand other rights for themselves.

But one thing I’ve demonstrated beyond a doubt is that socialism doesn’t mean breadlines and eating your dog.

And that there is no truth in categorizing Venezuela as a socialist country.

Peter, I think your assessment is correct and it reminds me of visiting a conservative friend’s house yesterday, and while showing me around, he continually referenced the warning signs, thickness of the bamboo-barrier surrounding his land, all his guns, and finally I asked him, “Do you have much trouble with thieves around here?” He said no. I thought “Yep, that figures, scared to death for no reason.” He’s a good guy though, just a product of the environment.

What numbers are you talking about this time? In terms of “freedom”, there is no correlation to “private consumption as % of gdp”. It’s all over the place.

Not that “private consumption as % of gdp” represents anything. It’s basically a meaningless number.

What would represent a meaningful measure of “freedom”, economically speaking, if not private consumption?

Demonstrate that claim please.

Phyllo, you just illustrated Peter’s point. If you reject the relevancy and significance of data, then you’ve abandoned reason and evidence in favor of preconceived notions. I don’t mind dialogue, but only when you return to reality; I can’t argue with faith.

Really?

Serendipper used it as a measure of “capitalism”.

Ireland is #5 at the top of the list. Syria is #3 on the bottom.

Saudi Arabia is #10 at the top of the list. Egypt is #10 on the bottom.

What does that mean?

Both Saudi Arabia and Ireland are socialist utopias? The House of Saud runs Saudi Arabia. That’s enough to make any socialist cringe.

Syria is a pinnacle of capitalism? So is Egypt?

That’s hard to believe.

Then it changes to a measure of “freedom”? It doesn’t make sense in that case either. It doesn’t match the list of “most free countries”.

I just showed that in terms of “freedom” #42 France has almost the same % gdp as #1 Finland.

You created a false dichotomy between capitalism and socialism.
Then you attempted to use one number to characterize the capitalism/socialism of countries.

I say bullshit. That number does not represent the level of “capitalism” of a country.

I had the same question and it would be good if you’d answer it.

Actually capitalism here has the meaning of “anti-socialism”, which is a good definition of capitalism in the context of government spending. Essentially, socialist governments are those that spend more money, presumably for the good of society (social) and “anti-socialism” is governments that do not.

Makes sense. Problem?

Why is Saudi Arabia referred to as a “Welfare State”?

Saudi Arabia simply pulls money from the ground and throws it around, hence the government spending and its rank on the list. The ranking doesn’t take into account social justice.

On the other hand, Egypt is capitalist:

Since 2000, the pace of structural reforms, including fiscal, monetary policies, taxation, privatization and new business legislations, helped Egypt move towards a more market-oriented economy and prompted increased foreign investment. The reforms and policies have strengthened macroeconomic annual growth results which averaged 8% annually between 2004 and 2009 but the government largely failed to equitably share the wealth and the benefits of growth have failed to trickle down to improve economic conditions for the broader population, especially with the growing problem of unemployment and underemployment. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Egypt

Trickle-down doesn’t work.

Ireland has some problems, but welfare is robust:

As of December 2007, Ireland’s net unemployment benefits for long-term unemployed people across four family types (single people, lone parents, single-income couples with and without children) was the third highest of the OECD countries (jointly with Iceland) after Denmark and Switzerland.[208] Jobseeker’s Allowance or Jobseeker’s Benefit for a single person in Ireland is €188 per week, as of March 2011.[209] State provided old age pensions are also relatively generous in Ireland. The maximum weekly rate for the State Pension (Contributory) is €230.30 for a single pensioner aged between 66 and 80 (€436.60 for a pensioner couple in the same age range).[210] The maximum weekly rate for the State Pension (Non-Contributory) is €219 for a single pensioner aged between 66 and 80 (€363.70 for a pensioner couple in the same age range). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_o … nd_welfare

No, Venezuela is the pinnacle, but Syria and Egypt are vying.

The freedom index was more of a sidebar. My main argument was delivered by Chomsky. IOW, in addition to the argument, there is also the freedom index.

What doesn’t match it?

That’s two data points. I provided 13.

The top countries are less than 60%, except Portugal.
The bottom countries are greater than 60%, except France and Slovakia.

(60% has the significance of being the median of the range and 62% is the mean. So countries less than 60% are socialistic and countries greater than 60% are anti-socialistic/capitalistic.)

  1. Finland 53.7%
  2. Norway 43.4%
  3. Sweden 44.2%
  4. Canada 57.4%
  5. Netherlands 44.3%
  6. Australia 57.2%
  7. Luxembourg 30%
    8 ) New Zealand 54.4%
  8. Uruguay NA
  9. Denmark 47.5%
  10. Portugal 65.2% ← outlier
  11. San Marino NA
  12. Andorra NA
  13. Barbados NA
  14. Ireland 50.6%
  15. Japan 55.4%
  16. Switzerland 53.6%
  17. Belgium 50.7%
  18. Iceland 50.6%
  19. Austria 51%
  20. Chile 61%
  21. Cyprus 73.1%
  22. Estonia 52.6%
  23. Germany 51.6%
  24. Spain 60.6%
  25. Tuvalu NA
  26. UK 64.1%
  27. Czech Republic 48.8%
  28. Dominica NA
  29. Kiribati NA
  30. Micronesia NA
  31. Slovenia 49.8%
  32. Taiwan 54.2
  33. Malta 45.9%
  34. Marshall Islands NA
  35. Palau NA
  36. Bahamas NA
  37. Costa Rica NA
  38. Lithuania 64.1%
  39. St. Lucia NA
  40. Cape Verde NA
  41. France 53.8% ← outlier
  42. Liechtenstein NA
  43. St Vincent NA
  44. Italy 62.2%
  45. Mauritas 74.1%
  46. Slovakia 53.8% <–outlier
  47. St Kitts NA
  48. Grenada NA
  49. Latvia 60.6%
  50. Belize NA
  51. Croatia 61.7%
  52. US 68%

But as I said, this was merely an interesting sidebar and not my argument. I cannot propose a mechanism to explain the correlation of freedom with government spending. It’s just interesting that freedom is ranked higher in socialists places and lower in business friendly places.

Even if you could distort this to satisfy your bias, it wouldn’t mean anything.

What’s meaningful is that government spending = nice places to live. And lack of it = crappy places to live.

And people flee places where government spending is less and flock to places where it is more.

No I didn’t. And neither did Chomsky.

Which number would you like me to use? I can slaughter capitalism in any way you’d prefer. It’s a dumb system advocated by dummies. See here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=194612

Why do you want to ally yourself with dummies?

I say that proves Peter’s point.

It represents the lack of government spending, which is an attribute of socialism.

Why should I? You’re trying to make a point. I am not. I’m just saying that your argument is flawed.

So you say. I don’t think that capitalism is “anti-socialism”. False dichotomy. Fabricated opposites.

A monarchy is socialism. If you say so.

Plot the graph and you will see that lots don’t match.

Chomsky thinks that socialism and capitalism is a dichotomy?

I don’t want you to use any number. It’s idiotic.

You used it as a measure of capitalism and socialism.

Hey Sil, what fallacy is that? :slight_smile:

Phyllo: Not that “private consumption as % of gdp” represents anything. It’s basically a meaningless number.
Sil: What would represent a meaningful measure of “freedom”, economically speaking, if not private consumption?
Phyllo: Really?
Me: I have the same question and it would be good if you’d answer it.
Phyllo: Why should I?

You said it’s a meaningless number, so how do you know it’s a meaningless number if you can’t think of a meaningful number?

You made an assertion without evidence or rationale.

So the point you’re trying to make is that my point is wrong. Where is it wrong? Because a few variables out of 50 don’t correlate? Because you say the data is meaningless? Fine. I’ll wager no fair-minded reader will agree with you.

Then what is capitalism? If you don’t think it’s anti-socialism, then you must know what it is, unless you’re just guessing.

What is the opposite of the redistribution of wealth? What is the opposite of government spending? What is the opposite of taxation? What is the opposite of regulation? What is the opposite of government ownership?

The lack of all those things is capitalism.

Sure, it can be. That was the benevolent dictator argument of that joker dude who used to post here. If the dictator is really a good guy, it can work splendidly, but the trouble comes if he’s not.

freedom.jpg

The black line is a 7 period moving average. Freedom declines with government spending in general.

Yes. And he thinks libertarianism = authoritarianism. And the fall of the USSR was a victory for socialism.

There is only empowerment of the people or not. Socialism empowers the people and everything else does not.

You’re right to be scared lol

That’s right, I measured the extent of socialism by virtue of government spending.

Reducing “freedom” or “capitalism” or “socialism” to one number makes no sense.

Why not reduce “life” to one number?

Like the answer to life, the universe and everything … 42.

I already said. If you look at it, you have to wonder how Syria could be near the top of the capitalist heap. Or how could Saudi Arabia, a monarchy which makes money by selling oil, count as socialist.
It’s pretty strange. One would have to examine those countries to determine if they legitimately could be considered socialist. If they could be considered capitalist. And there lots of countries that look strange.

Capitalism exists in harmony with a variety of social programs. They are no polar opposites.

These things don’t have “opposites”.

There was always taxation, regulation, government spending, government ownership of property and enterprises. So that can’t be the definition of capitalism.

Sure. Then the benevolent dictator dies or goes crazy or turns things over to his idiot children, your socialist utopia disappears and you’re screwed.
You might want to call it benevolent despotism rather than socialism.

Your ‘fitted’ line goes up 15% over the range of 34 countries?
There is often a spread of 10% or more between adjoining countries on the list. It oscillates wildly.

Yeah, I don’t want to live in a police state.

I don’t know the full chain of events, but it seems to me the person asserting that private consumption as a percentage of gdp is the best or even a good measure of freedom bears a huge onus. Presumably they asserted this first and Phyllo reacted with skepticism. Sure, he bears an onus for that, but only after the other person backs up what I would tend to agree with Phyllo sounds pretty silly. It seems like a category error. There might be some kinds of correlation, but I would guess glaring counterexamples. And Sil’s question strikes me as almost funny. What would be a good measure if not that. Well, things like can the press criticize the government, is there a right to assemble that actually defends against police and court intervention, is there freedom of speech both legally and in practice. You could look into how women and minorities are treated in courts and by police and even social policing. ETc. IOW look at freedom directly. I am quite sure there are organizations that do this and rank countries. It’s not as easy to plop in a chart, but then, the ease of a measure where you just pop out a number doesn’t make it a good measure.

Like, well, look at the actual freedoms.

And frankly I find it kind of offensive that freedom to purchase is considered a good measure of freedom, and I find it offensive in the West especially where corporations are intentionally addicting people, for example, to distracting and often unhealthy media and gadgets so they end up, precisely expressing their freedom through buying Nike to feel cool and have an, laughing, individual look, rather than being engaged politically or even personally developmentally. Look, I am free I can buy one of hundreds of breakfast cereals.

If the very notion of what freedom is is undermined, well, then perhaps it is a good measure. But I find it really rather suspicious that we should shift the measure of something onto something else that might correlate sometimes. Why not skip the middleman and measure the thing itself. Sure, its trickier, in this case.

Not reduced, but indicated by one number. It makes no sense to you because it makes your beloved system look bad. Anything putting capitalism in a negative light makes no sense.

We do. It’s called the population statistic.

I explained that. Because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean I’m wrong.

Sure, I’ll concede that, but overall the extent to which a country engages in government spending is a decent measure of socialism and good enough to exhibit trends.

Says who? Capitalism cannot exist in harmony with spreading the wealth. Capitalism is the condensation of wealth whereas socialism is the dispersal of wealth. You cannot say welfare is a capitalist attribute.

Really?

Redistribution / lack of redistribution. Gov spending / lack of gov spending. Taxation / lack of taxation. Regulation / lack of regulation. Gov ownership / private ownership. Socialism / capitalism.

Show me a capitalist who wants more taxes, gov spending, regulation, and government ownership.

I know. That’s what I said. It can work great until it doesn’t.

Whatever the data says is what it says. Check it yourself; I posted the data.

The trend is obvious.

Better be down with socialism then. The police state is a republican thing.

I think you have it backwards. Private consumption is a measure of public consumption by subtraction from 100%. Private consumption is a measure of capitalism, plutocracy, etc or happens to correlate with less freedom. The countries with the lowest private consumption have the highest public consumption.

freedom.jpg

In general, governments that spend more money happen to have more freedom.

70% private consumption = 30% public consumption or government spending. As the chart goes up, government spending goes down. The free countries are to the left.

I’ll redo the chart. I created it on my laptop last night, but I can improve it.

The methodology is here freedomhouse.org/report/methodo … world-2018

It takes into account journalistic freedom, internet freedom, and other civil liberties and political rights.

Norway had the best freedom of the press score in 2017. freedomhouse.org/report/table-c … -fotp-2017

Norway also has one of the highest government spending.

Coincidence? Maybe, but there is a lot of coincidence to swallow.

Estonia has the most internet freedom. freedomhouse.org/sites/default/ … 1_2018.pdf

Estonia also has robust government spending.

Coincidence?

It doesn’t make any system look good or bad because it’s all over the place. It makes one scratch his head and ask “what does it mean, if anything?”

If you call Saudi Arabia socialist, then you are tossing away a key concept of socialism which is that “the people” have the political power.

What you are really saying is that any government that spends a lot of money is socialist.

Apple / lack of apple.

Didn’t you post at least two examples of capitalists who want their taxes raised? (I forget which thread it was in.)
I think that KT spent several pages discussing gov spending and regulation with you. No need for me to repeat it.

That’s why the power has to be in the hands of “the people” instead of the despot. Socialists understand.

I did. I looked up the report. Fortunately you did not need to plot Saudi Arabia on the graph, (or China or Singapore). Freedom scores : Finland 100, Saudi Arabia 7.

That was my lame attempt to move the conversation on to something more productive … if we want freedom, what exactly do we want to be happening? What kind of compromises are acceptable or unacceptable? What are the biggest threats to freedom?

Ok, that might be better, but it seems to me you still should measure the actual freedoms. Harder to get a number, sure, but a vastly better measure. I think his ’ they are all over the place’ is a good argument against it. And to demonstrate that it’s true, you are going to have to figure out the level of freedom directly. I mean, the speed that crickets chirp in the evening in different countries might correlate with freedom somehow, but might as well measure freedom, as well as you can. And yes, I can see where gdp percentages might have more easily argued correlations, but then perhaps humans somehow affect cricket chirping or their spending does, lol. It seems like the kind of statistic that will be used to draw poor conclusions whereas measuring actual freedoms gets you down to the core more directly. Of course there will be controversy and one will have to weigh different freedoms against each other when ranking, but that’s a good debate. One worth having.
I wonder how the USSR and communist China in, say the 70s would have done on that scale. I am guessing that public spending was very high and freedoms rather low.