First of all, capitalism sent all that industry to China in the first place, actually changing China to capitalism as it went. It ain’t China’s socialism that drives their industry, it’s Western capitalism. (How do you like to say it? We’re done here?)
Point is that things like militarism, environmentalism, things like abortion policy, other social justice issues….sit apart from the economic system. You can conflate matters any way you like, but once a country, regardless of their economic policies, moves from an agrarian economy to an industrial one, their carbon emissions from that point on are highly correlated with standard of living and human development. If you want your people to be more prosperous, you’re going to have to make a mess; and if you try to prevent them from becoming more prosperous, you’re going to be out of power.
It seems to me that what these “democratic socialists” (oxymoron, of course, but lets not digress) want is an authoritarian society where certain policy priorities are placed beyond the reach of the democratic process, because the democratic process and corporatism have become synonymous in their minds. They’re not, of course.
It’s all about the indispensable need for external regulation on the automatic excesses of capitalism. You can call it socialism, or you can call it common sense, but somebody has to stop the pollution before it kills more folks, resources and landscapes than it already has.
Thank you for confirming my prior paragraph.
Ain’t no credible academic on the planet go along with Hitler as a socialist in terms of economic models, so save it for the choir.
Not sure how Hitler got into the discussion, but socialism is government ownership of the means of production, while capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. There are areas of grey between the two, obviously; what we do in the West is remove the right to make certain business decisions from the business by regulating them (so, that’s a shade of grey closer to the private ownership side), while what they do in China is to put government representatives on the boards of corporations to influence decisions (that being a shade of grey closer to the socialism side; the only time the US has taken corporate control to that level, IIRC, is the time when the government took temporary ownership of GM after the meltdown.)
Hitler added a different dimension to the above scale. Because Hitler’s objective was “we do what we must to further the military development of the state”, he had no need to pursue any specific economic ideology. So, Hitler didn’t need to actually own a business to control it, making the fact that Nazi Germany didn’t engage in public ownership a distinction without a difference.
Put another way, socialism is government ownership of the means of production. Hitler had government control of the means of production without ownership, which in practice leads to the same end.
In his biography of Hitler, Ian Kershaw sums this up pretty well:
Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state.
So, here’s what you can take back to *your* choir: Sound economics requires private ownership of business and a basic infrastructure of regulatory control to insure that all actors in the free market have a fair playing field to compete on. That basic infrastructure certainly includes things like environmental laws which require corporations to clean up their own messes, health and safety regulations which require corporations to fix people should they break them, and financial regulations which enable corporations to bail themselves out should they make a financial mess. All other sorts of regulations we can debate about, but in general, regulations shouldn’t be used to force behaviors which are still in debate within society, or when the cost of compliance has a negative ROI and limited social utility.
The cuts to the actual Medicare recipients happens no matter what because Reps (and the Dems, truth be told both) want that money for the fat cats, the elites, the super-haves (as 30 years of a burgeoning wealth divide, wage stagnation and corporate capture of govt. do clearly indicate).
Unfortunately, you’ve picked a bad example to make your point. Medicare is funded by a payroll tax; there is no way to get a Medicare budget cut back to the “fat cats” unless the payroll tax gets cut. Nobody gets richer because the GOP wants to spend less on Medicare.
You are trying to cherry pick a market force aspect out of a public health care system that is extremely regulated and far and away more efficient than the US model. Hint: It ain’t the “shoppers’ shopping” between the Netherlands four major insurance company options that drives the savings in the Dutch model. It’s the regulation.
False dichotomy. It’s regulation AND shoppers shopping AND some other factors that keep their prices down. The Dutch understand that by incenting people to make smart financial choices in choosing their providers, they can control, to some extent, the health care inflation rate. Obviously, they view health care as a social utility, and regulate their system accordingly.
And don’t even try to blame US healthcare costs on wag-the-dog Medicare billing practices.
Point is that health care hyperinflation in the US escalated a couple of years after Medicare was passed, after which about 45% of all health care billings in the US were paid for with a government check.
Yeah, it’s worse that zero sum (r>g). Here’s hoping your nest egg hatches before they topple your tree, as well.
Over the last two decades, the biggest gut check I’ve had about my nest egg is when some far-left Democrats started floating the notion that the government ought to be able to access, in some fashion, 401K balances. There’s far more risk to my personal accounts from “democratic socialists” who think I’ve saved up more money than I need than from anyone on the conservative side of the political spectrum; they just try to steal my money by selling overpriced annuities.
But, at any rate, having lived abroad and being well familiar with how to get my assets on the ground and legally untrackable, if the socialists ever get control, both myself and my money will be someplace else lickety-split. No need to worry.