A successful socialist economy

[Trausti]

Huh? Why would a healthy young person need to frequent healthcare? For what?

Because it's best for everyone?
Including you, when you aren't so young? Or if you have a car accident?

Does anyone ever choose to "frequent health care"? I certainly haven't. I avoided it like satan.
Did pretty well, actually. Naturally healthy, ate good food, lots of exercise. I don't deserve to be as healthy as I am, given all the drugs and alcohol and sex and insane driving and extreme sports and dancing...

But there you have it.
Tom

Well, okay. The question was whether access to healthcare is an impediment to young entrepreneurship. Why would it be?

 

[Derec]

That's just a stupid way of arguing. Let's create a rubber definition of socialism that only applies to failed economies. That way socialism is always a failure. Hooray. A win for capitalism.

On the contrary, saying that socialism is any system that has more generous social spending than US is using a rubber definition and is stupid. For one, it includes many capitalist economies, like for example Sweden.
My definition, the actual definition, is cleaner:
Capitalism is an economic system where means of production are mostly privately owned and controlled.
Socialism is an economic system where means of production are mostly publicly owned and controlled.

When the concept of socialism was born in the 19'th century and as socialist political parties took power around the world and through trial and error the meaning of word evolved. In the 19'th century socialism and communism were synonyms. In the beginning of the 20'th century the two concepts split apart. You're talking about communism.

The two concepts are related. Communism is the ideal end stage of socialism where the state itself withers away. That's why the actually existing countries controlled by communist parties were called "socialist" and not "communist". Communism hasn't been achieved yet.
There are many jokes about the distinction, like this Radio Yerewan joke:

This is Armenian Radio. Our listeners asked us, "When the final phase of socialism, namely communism, is built, will there still be thefts and pilfering?"
We're answering: "No, because everything will be already pilfered during socialism."

But even that's starting to slide considering what's happening in China. In China the government officially owns everything. But in practice they, very much, respect private property.

China is a weird case. They have pretty much abandoned socialism except for show and for single party dictatorship.

And there's no country on Earth where the government isn't legally able to seize private property if it's considered in the best interest of the government. Otherwise, how could we build infrastructure.

So all countries are socialist now? Existence of public works does not make otherwise capitalist systems socialist, and neither does tolerance of small businesses turn otherwise socialist countries capitalist. It's about whether public or private ownership of production predominates in the economy.
Post-Tito Yugoslavia was still socialist even though they allowed very small private businesses to operate because the economy was still mostly public. Sweden is still capitalist even though the government plays a bigger role than in the US.

Any country with social welfare, if we're to be strict about definitions, is a socialist country. But I think that's a bit silly, because it just confuses what we're talking about.

It would be silly. Which is why Sweden is by no means a socialist country. It's like with Denmark where their PM was quick to contradict Bernie when he called them "socialist".
Denmark's prime minister says Bernie Sanders is wrong to call his country socialist

"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism," [Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen] said. "Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."
In Rasmussen's view, "The Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish."

This article sums up the evolution of the concept.

Socialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The very first paragraph of the article agrees with me.

Socialism is a left-wing[1] political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership[2][3][4][5] of the means of production,[6][7][8][9] as opposed to private ownership.[5][10][11] It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems.[12] Social ownership can be public, collective, or cooperative.[13] While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism,[14] social ownership is the one common element.[2][10][11] Socialisms vary based on the role of markets and planning in resource allocation, on the structure of management in organizations, and from below or from above approaches, with some socialists favouring a party, state, or technocratic-driven approach. Socialists disagree on whether government, particularly existing government, is the correct vehicle for change.[15][16]

To stubbornly cling to a definition of socialism that hasn't been relevant for over a hundred years... is just silly on a discussion forum. What's the point with doing that?

I think the definition that focuses on public/socialized ownership of means of production as defining characteristic of socialism is very much relevant. On the other hand, defining socialism as any economy with higher taxes and more generous public spending than the US has is quite silly.

 

[Derec]

Communism means public ownership of means of production. Sweden is not communist.

Communism is, in Marxism, the end stage of socialism. It's not something separate from it. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was controlled by the Communist Party. But the country was not called Communist, but Socialist, because Communism had not been achieved yet.

But you are right, Sweden is not communist. It is not socialist either.

 

[TomC]

Well, okay. The question was whether access to healthcare is an impediment to young entrepreneurship. Why would it be?

No it wasn't.
You are the one who keeps conflating young with entrepreneurship.

If a 30ish parent would like to start a business, would the Capitalist Health Care System be an impediment?

Yeah, it would. And you know it.

Or, at least you would if you had any idea what life in the USA is like. And how much better life is for entrepreneurs in socialist places like Canada or Sweden or Australia.
Tom

 

[skepticalbip]

To stubbornly cling to a definition of socialism that hasn't been relevant for over a hundred years... is just silly on a discussion forum. What's the point with doing that?

You need to find another word to describe Sweden's economic system. It isn't socialist. Personally I would call it capitalistic with a generous safety net. The original definition of socialism has certainly been relevant in the recent past and still is in some countries. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics only recently collapsed, China is still primarily socialist but has recently opened up to limited private businesses, Cuba is still socialist as a whole but has, after the death of Fidel, allowed some to compete as individuals, Venezuela became socialist in 1999 and still is, etc.

 

[Trausti]

If a 30ish parent would like to start a business, would the Capitalist Health Care System be an impediment?

Yeah, it would. And you know it.

Why? Unless you each shit and don't exercise, there's really no reason to be anxious about access to healthcare. Being unhealthy is a choice.

 

[Derec]

I agree the term socialism is being misused. Democratic socialism would be a more appropriate term, but even that one would be or is heavily targeted by the right wing in the US.

The only difference between democratic socialism and revolutionary socialism is how they intent to bring about the change - via the democratic process or via a proletarian revolution.
But do not be deceived - democratic socialists also believe that means of production should be collectively owned. It is not the same as social democracy, which is the best way to describe countries like Sweden.
From the constitution of Democratic Socialists of America:

We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, gross inequalities of wealth and power, discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, disability status, age, religion, and national origin, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo. We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships.

The DSA leaders know who they are, even if some of their more public-facing members (like AOC) either don't or are just playing dumb.

Why not just say that we need a much better safety net for all. There is no reason why capitalism can't be better regulated. There is no reason why monopolies can't be broken up.

More regulation is not necessarily better. The baby formula shortage was largely due to too much regulation. FDA has been regulating baby formula more severely than other food which served as a high barrier for other manufacturers to enter.
And what monopolies in the US do you think exist that need to be broken up? Standard Oil and AT&T were broken up in their day, and there are anti-trust laws on the books.
None of this makes it socialism though.

There is no reason why the richest citizens and largest corporations shouldn't be expected to pay more taxes, since they benefit more than the rest of us from the infrastructure and business centered laws. There is no reason why a country as wealthy as the US can't provide a more generous safety net,

We can debate what the proper level of taxation and spending should be of course. Does not make it socialism.
And note that TANSTAAFL - there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. It's not like Sweden's system is without its problems either.

I will add one more point. It's easier to get a small, less diverse country to agree on what's best for the majority of its citizens, then it is to get a huge, extremely diverse, very divided country to agree on much of anything. The US is almost like 50 little countries with different ideas on how to govern. Don't get me started.

True.

 

[Toni]

Huh? Why would a healthy young person need to frequent healthcare? For what?

Because it's best for everyone?
Including you, when you aren't so young? Or if you have a car accident?

Does anyone ever choose to "frequent health care"? I certainly haven't. I avoided it like satan.
Did pretty well, actually. Naturally healthy, ate good food, lots of exercise. I don't deserve to be as healthy as I am, given all the drugs and alcohol and sex and insane driving and extreme sports and dancing...

But there you have it.
Tom

Well, okay. The question was whether access to healthcare is an impediment to young entrepreneurship. Why would it be?

Intelligent young women see their health care provider annually for a pap smear, to review/renew any prescriptions for birth control, to ensure that they are up to date on vaccinations, etc.

Seeing a medical provider when you are healthy ensures that you have access to health care professionals who know you and your history well enough to provide immediate or urgent care and to ensure you are seen by any appropriate specialists should the need arise.

Men's health care is as important as women's health care. Young healthy men should also establish a relationship with a health care provider for the same reasons (aside from not needing a pap smear).

 

[Toni]

I agree the term socialism is being misused. Democratic socialism would be a more appropriate term, but even that one would be or is heavily targeted by the right wing in the US.

The only difference between democratic socialism and revolutionary socialism is how they intent to bring about the change - via the democratic process or via a proletarian revolution.
But do not be deceived - democratic socialists also believe that means of production should be collectively owned. It is not the same as social democracy, which is the best way to describe countries like Sweden.
From the constitution of Democratic Socialists of America

We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, gross inequalities of wealth and power, discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, disability status, age, religion, and national origin, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo. We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships.

Why not just say that we need a much better safety net for all. There is no reason why capitalism can't be better regulated. There is no reason why monopolies can't be broken up.

More regulation is not necessarily better. The baby formula shortage was largely due to too much regulation. FDA has been regulating baby formula more severely than other food which served as a high barrier for other manufacturers to enter.
And what monopolies in the US do you think exist that need to be broken up? Standard Oil and AT&T were broken up in their day, and there are anti-trust laws on the books.
None of this makes it socialism though.

There is no reason why the richest citizens and largest corporations shouldn't be expected to pay more taxes, since they benefit more than the rest of us from the infrastructure and business centered laws. There is no reason why a country as wealthy as the US can't provide a more generous safety net,

We can debate what the proper level of taxation and spending should be of course. Does not make it socialism.
And note that TANSTAAFL - there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. It's not like Sweden's system is without its problems either.

I will add one more point. It's easier to get a small, less diverse country to agree on what's best for the majority of its citizens, then it is to get a huge, extremely diverse, very divided country to agree on much of anything. The US is almost like 50 little countries with different ideas on how to govern. Don't get me started.

True.

I see you're still confused about the differences between socialism and communism.

 

[Trausti]

Young healthy men should also establish a relationship with a health care provider for the same reasons (aside from not needing a pap smear).

Well, of course. Healthcare is a business. Gotta make up reasons for them to come back.

 

[TomC]

If a 30ish parent would like to start a business, would the Capitalist Health Care System be an impediment?

Yeah, it would. And you know it.

Why? Unless you each shit and don't exercise, there's really no reason to be anxious about access to healthcare. Being unhealthy is a choice.

That's rather stupid.

I realize that there are hypochondriac people out there. But few people decide to be sick.

I got hit by a drunk driver, years ago. Head on, combined impact around 80mph. You think I chose "being unhealthy"?

My high school girlfriend, mother of my only child, had severe phlebitis. You think she chose that?

You said "Being unhealthy is a choice." Do you realize how stupid that makes you look to me?
Tom

 

[Derec]

What a stupid meme! Norway has ~5 million people and produces ~2 Mbbl/d of oil.
I guess if US had oil production of 0.4 bbl/d/person (i.e. about 130 Mbbl/d, much more than world's total), we'd be able to afford Norway levels of largess too.

 

[Toni]

Young healthy men should also establish a relationship with a health care provider for the same reasons (aside from not needing a pap smear).

Well, of course. Healthcare is a business. Gotta make up reasons for them to come back.

Sigh. Good luck to you. Eventually you will likely need health care. Unfortunately, it might be in an ER where they don't know anything about you, any potential underlying conditions, any allergies, any previous diagnosis because of course there won't be any. That niggling little cough will be full blown stage IV lung cancer and you'll have, best case, 9 months to live.

 

[Derec]

You are confusing socialism with communism. Here is a good discussion of the differences: https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/socialism-vs-communism/

I am not confusing anything. That website is grossly confusing socialism and social democracy.

 

[Derec]

I see you're still confused about the differences between socialism and communism.

Communism is the end stage of socialism. You are the one who is confused.
But, as we have seen from the DSA constitution, they are not confused about the meaning of socialism. Not even a little bit.

 

[Trausti]

Young healthy men should also establish a relationship with a health care provider for the same reasons (aside from not needing a pap smear).

Well, of course. Healthcare is a business. Gotta make up reasons for them to come back.

Sigh. Good luck to you. Eventually you will likely need health care. Unfortunately, it might be in an ER where they don't know anything about you, any potential underlying conditions, any allergies, any previous diagnosis because of course there won't be any. That niggling little cough will be full blown stage IV lung cancer and you'll have, best case, 9 months to live.

LOL.

 

[Trausti]

You said "Being unhealthy is a choice." Do you realize how stupid that makes you look to me?
Tom

It is a choice, Tom. Most health issues are caused by diet and lifestyle. If you eat three meals a day, with snacks in between, you're going to be sick. This ain't hard. Think of all the folks who reversed Type 2 diabetes with diet and exercise.

 

[Trausti]

Well, this just can't be true. US Americans don't have UK style healthcare. How can they be entrepreneurs?

The number of new businesses in America is booming

No other rich-world country is experiencing the same rise in entrepreneurship

www.economist.com

 

[TomC]

You said "Being unhealthy is a choice." Do you realize how stupid that makes you look to me?
Tom

It is a choice, Tom. Most health issues are caused by diet and lifestyle. If you eat three meals a day, with snacks in between, you're going to be sick. This ain't hard. Think of all the folks who reversed Type 2 diabetes with diet and exercise.

Nonsense.
My mom ate very sensibly for her entire adult life.

She got cancer.
Twice!

Eating well is a good start. But it's no guarantee.
Tom

 

[Trausti]

You said "Being unhealthy is a choice." Do you realize how stupid that makes you look to me?
Tom

It is a choice, Tom. Most health issues are caused by diet and lifestyle. If you eat three meals a day, with snacks in between, you're going to be sick. This ain't hard. Think of all the folks who reversed Type 2 diabetes with diet and exercise.

Nonsense.
My mom ate very sensibly for her entire adult life.

She got cancer.
Twice!

Eating well is a good start. But it's no guarantee.
Tom

Eating what well? Carbs, processed foods, and seed oils are going to get you. And if you don't exercise, welcome sarcopenia. Of course, cancer can be in the genetic cards. But the notion that aging means you have no option but to be frail and sick is ridiculous.