Mixed Economy

[Lafayette]

HOUSE OF CARDS

A Swedish socialist high school teacher told me that he objected to mandatory accounting on the grounds that the math would make Capitalism seem logical to the students.

Ridiculous! Of course the capitalists would object to the competition. The peons must be kept ignorant.

Ridiculous, yes! The Swedes are generally a highly intelligent people.

And enough of this Capitalism-shat. It is what it is! Quite simply the use of capital as an intermediary of exchange within a functional economy. That it has generated billionaires in the US is not the fault of "capitalism" (which was indeed the mechanism) but of a singular party that brought down drastically upper income taxation post-Kennedy in the US. See Federal Tax Rate History below

If you think that Capitalism was a "dominator" element to any economy - as was considered by the Communist faction in Europe before WW2 - then you got-it-wrong! Subsequent reconstruction of a ruined German economy to become a first-rate European-economy today happened within a decade after the war ended. And it happened under both Socialist and Rightist party-heads.

It was typically Socialist-leaning parties in Germany that were winning the elections of the Head-of-state in post-war Germany. (Let's not forget that post-WW2 the Russian Army also occupied Berlin at the time and was just a small jump from the border with Poland then a Communist entity. (Which has since matured and other parties are finding "room" with the German people for their "points-of-view".)

And to my eyes Sweden has not changed one-iota in its attachment to Managed Capitalism to maintain an economy that has a very high content of "social-privileges" managed by the Swedish government". It's uniquely in the US that Capitalism now dominates the Right so much its main-party goes haywire when it thinks that any threat appears (even at the state-levels) that might alter its political-dominance.

And let's get this straight:
*The American people still think - now some three-quarters of a century AFTER WW2 - that Communism dominates in Eastern Europe. Which is a colossal mistake. What is happening there is the domination of one-man rule in Eastern-European states and Russia. They cannot relent their grasp on one-man rule because the present heads-of-state are scared shatless of the personal consequences that might happen.
*In general, throughout their remaining Russian-oriented "colonies" in the east, most would like to approach the European Union to better their economies. Because that is where the Demand is for cheaper products especially farm-produced!

Putin is soooo detested by the general-public, which is the reason he is sticking to power. Because those that became automatic millionaires overnight (including Putin himself*) are scared shatless that with a change in government (elected by the people) they might go to jail as well for their personal exploitation of government owned properties/businesses in the past that made them millionaires ....

*His daughter bought a very expensive farm not far from Bordeaux in France. (See Reuters here.) Why did she do that? To have "somewhere else to go" in case her father's house-of-cards came tumbling down.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Then by the definition of Dcon, the Internet is to be depreciated because it exists since the 1990s?

The Internet would be the infrastructure of communication and storage. It would probably be classified as Capital Goods, Dcap not Dcon.

I suspect that during the 90s and Naughts the predominant ownership and quantity of technology switched from universities to profit driven corporations.

 

[Lafayette]

I suspect that during the 90s and Naughts the predominant ownership and quantity of technology switched from universities to profit driven corporations.

Not a bad outcome if those who profited most were to give some of their millions to universities.

But that aint-gonna-happin is it ... ?

 

[OscarLevant]

I tend to think a mixed economy with both generous welfare from government along with private market innovation seems to be pragmatic and viable. It captures more 'positive externalities' like education and healthcare than an exclusively private market and is more charitable. The slight problem I find with socialist thinking is that a free market isn't feudal. People are free to dollar vote and buy from cooperative businesses. Redistributive taxation seems to be working where it's tried compared to a collectivised communal sort of economy.

I wrote an essay on this subject on different forum. But, due to the 5000 character limit on his forum, I am unable to post it, here.

However, I can link to it, I post under a different avatar on the other forum:

Politics of the center. What is it?

There's a pendulum in politics. Swing too far to the left, it rebounds, and swings too far to the right. and vice versa, in a never ending going from...

www.politicalforum.com

 

[OscarLevant]

SURPRISE! SURPRISE!

There is only one way to assure "fairness" or "equitability" in any economy - and it is by means of taxation. Which does not infer that we tax the rich to feed the poor!

(FYI) One never infers, one implies. Others can draw inferences by such implications. So, let's see what your proposal is.

It is evident from the above that there is no "common basic-value for below standard cost-of-living" across the US. Nonetheless, each state can know fairly well how much it costs basically to get by in most of its cities and towns. It can therefore have a very good idea of what is a decent Minimum Income that can be assured by the state (if funded also by the US government).

Which is a a big IF because such a national system of basic income assurance has never be tried. The US has a hodgepodge of state individual/family subsidy systems. Neither is such employed in Europe - though government subsidies there are far more progressive than in the US.

Milton Friedman, the famous libertarian economist, supported a negative income tax. I think that is a good idea. The gov sets a floor, which could vary according to regions but with a set floor as a minimum

What's the tradeoff? Crime-levels, that's what. Whether a people want more crime or not (silly notion!), the rate of criminality is closely linked to personal/family income. Don't believe that?

Then try this list of countries descending in order (from highest to lowest) crime-rates. Surprise, surprise! High-paying economies demonstrate also higher crime rates ... !

You never posted the list.

 

[OscarLevant]

Food is more important than healthcare or education, and all of the famines which occurred during the 20th century were caused by public ownership/control of the means of production regarding food.

A mixed economy doesn't equal state operated farms. It's a mixed economy, remember? The gov does what it does best, the private sector does what it does, best.

The sky-high housing prices in the US are caused entirely by local governments restricting competition via planning and zoning regulations, and by the federal government control over interest rates.

Such effects housing, of course, but the prime mover is location desirability.

 

[OscarLevant]

Essentially they are marxists that want to get there incrementally.

Here are some links:

9 questions about the Democratic Socialists of America you were too embarrassed to ask

DSA, now the largest American socialist organization since World War II, is hosting its national convention in Chicago.

www.vox.com

Democratic Socialists of America - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The DS do not control the DP, they do influence it, but there will never be true socialism in America.

However, Republicans are now control by right wing extremists.

 

[OscarLevant]

No, he's correct . In the end, all progressives and liberals all support commie values. Do you believe healthcare is a right, and should be provided by the state? How about food, water, shelter, transportation, internet service, etc? The truth is, you and every other progressive believes people should receive goods and services according to their needs. You also believe in progressive taxation, where people are robbed by the state according to their ability to pay. You're all commies to one degree or another.

A mixed economy is not 'commie values'.

I've stated my position, here. And I challenge you to rebut anything I've written on the subject.
(due to the 5k character limit on this forum, I can't post it, but I wrote about it, here: )

Politics of the center. What is it?

There's a pendulum in politics. Swing too far to the left, it rebounds, and swings too far to the right. and vice versa, in a never ending going from...

www.politicalforum.com

 

[OscarLevant]

Should people get healthcare according to their needs?

Should people be taxed according to their ability to pay?

But that's isn't to say this is 100% of the economy.

It's a mixed economy, there will still be plenty of free enterprise to go around.

 

[Lafayette]

HIGH CRIME RATE COUNTRIES

You never posted the list.

Here it is: Countries with the Highest Crime Rates (from here):

The countries with the ten highest crime rates, expressed in per 100,000 people, globally are:

1. Venezuela (83.76)
2. Papua New Guinea (80.79)
3. South Africa (76.86)
4. Afghanistan (76.31)
5. Honduras (74.54)
6. Trinidad and Tobago (71.63)
7. Guyana (68.74)
8. El Salvador (67.79)
9. Brazil (67.49)
10. Jamaica (67.42)

Developed country crime-rates are different, meaning they trend around about the same average rate. First of all, however, is defining what-is-a-developed-countries. And that would look like this: What's considered a developing country?

From the Wikipedia "Developing-Country" link here:

A developing country is a sovereign state with a less developed industrial base and a low Human Development Index (HDI) relative to other countries. ... The World Bank classifies the world's economies into four groups, based on Gross National Income per capita: high, upper-middle, lower-middle, and low income countries.

Europe and the US are "developed nations" so they are set appart. Nonetheless, they are comparative:

STAT	European Union	United States
Murders > Per 100,000 people	1.71 Ranked 101st.	5.9 Ranked 63th. 3 times more than European Union
Murders > WHO	1.96 Ranked 130th.	5.6 Ranked 88th. 3 times more than European Union

SOURCES: UN Office on Drugs and Crime, UN Survey of Crime Trends, from here.

That above is a very good reason to live in Europe !?!

France (where I live) is "special". Namely, in France one cannot own a gun with the sole-exception being hunters with shotguns. And if you would like to see the crime-rates compared to the US with which I must contend then go here: Crime Stats: compare key data on France & United States

Murder rate:

Murder rate

France: 1.31

USA: 5

 

[Lafayette]

FAT-ARSES

A mixed economy doesn't equal state operated farms. It's a mixed economy, remember? The gov does what it does best, the private sector does what it does, best.

Such effects housing, of course, but the prime mover is location desirability.

When was the last time there was a food-shortage in the US? Quite likely never except before the 20th century.

There's not been a generalized food-shortage in the US since a long, long time. There are, however, selected shortages of some kinds of food that may be due to specifice production-rates of that particular food at any given time.

But, food is not a problem in the US. In fact, it is the opposite of food that is a problem. See comparative overweight statistics (from here):

What percentage of the US are overweight?

More than one-third of adults in the United States are obese. In the United States, 36.5 percent of adults are obese. Another 32.5 percent of American adults are overweight.

That is, almost 70% of Americans are seriously overweight. Wakey-wakey ... !

 

[aociswundumho]

A mixed economy doesn't equal state operated farms. It's a mixed economy, remember? The gov does what it does best, the private sector does what it does, best.

What does the government do better than the private sector?

Such effects housing, of course, but the prime mover is location desirability.

My point is that it's just another example where government intervention makes things worse.

 

[aociswundumho]

But that's isn't to say this is 100% of the economy.

But should people get healthcare according to their needs?

Should people be taxed according to their ability to pay?

It's a mixed economy, there will still be plenty of free enterprise to go around.

Sure, but the less free enterprise the worse things get.

 

[ttwtt78640]

But that's isn't to say this is 100% of the economy.

It's a mixed economy, there will still be plenty of free enterprise to go around.

It would increase annual federal spending by at least 50%.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Is it an economy if the economists cannot suggest something as simple as mandatory accounting in the schools and cannot report the annual depreciation of the consumer trash that is sold.

How many automobiles do Americans trash every year?

 

[Lafayette]

YOU JUST DON'T GIVE A DAMN!

What does the government do better than the private sector?

It allows people live on a "stipend" whilst they look for another job? Which is the very least we-the-sheeple should expect of a "government"!

Or, more simply, governments can also support training-courses whereby people can learn skills that industry needs to hire.

My point is that it's just another example where government intervention makes things worse.

Bollocks your "government intervention" that makes things worse. When you are at the bottom and forced by Covid to stay home because your job has closed, just what-in-hell is one supposed to do? Even in normal times (and there is no Covid) just what-in-hell is one supposed to do whilst they are looking for another job? How do they survive as a family if there is no government subvention to pay the food and housing?

Your response shows that you-do-not-give-a-damn-about-how-the-poor-are-forced-to-live. Presumably you have a "middle-class existence" and you are doing "just fine" ... selfish hog that you are!

People like you do not understand that nobody wants to live in poverty but some are forced to do so out of circumstance. According to the US Census Bureau's American Community Survey 2018 One-year Estimates, 13.1% of Americans lived below the poverty line. And there is no doubt that that level will probably exist for a long time since the Economic Structure that once employed them has gone to China!

America has turned from a Manufacturing Economy (that employed a great many people) to a Services Economy where those who work have work-qualifications that they learned after leaving high-school (if they were lucky!)

Uncle Sam is going through a turmoil that it did not expect (and it should have)! All those jobs it once had in manufacturing were wiped out by the Chinese-junk Americans love to buy because they are so cheap!

The US is now (at 84% of all the workforce) within a Services Economy where other job-qualifications are required. And so?

And so Uncle Sam had better get of his fat-ass and start teaching to whomever needs those qualifications at zero-cost! That means very low cost of both post-secondary schooling (at universities) but also work-qualifications (like driving a bulldozer) to whomever wishes to learn the trade ... !

 

[Lafayette]

Is it an economy if the economists cannot suggest something as simple as mandatory accounting in the schools and cannot report the annual depreciation of the consumer trash that is sold.

How many automobiles do Americans trash every year?

We let the state decide how to "teach our young" the skills necessary to succeed, and they failed miserably.

We as a nation have not understood how a formation DOES NOT STOP AT HIGH SCHOOL. But proceeds right-along into learning skills that will allow them to pursue a decent lifetime of earned income!

Since the 1990s our world has changed - and changed-deeply! Manufacturing Industries have shrunk from the more than half-of-all-jobs to less than 15%! All the rest that create work for Americans are in the Services Industries and need a further post-secondary training/education to master!

And that education should be free, gratis and for nothing whilst encompassing the entire workforce that is leaving secondary-schooling every year! Where does Uncle Sam get the money to do that in the states? By reducing the DoD-budget and better employing the funds in state-level reeducation of our youth!

High-school just isn't good enough anymore to ensure that our people can find decent jobs by which to live and bring up a family! But if kids want to learn a trade at near the end of high-schooling, they should be permitted to do so!

The states nonetheless are very likely able to provide job-training in selected trades, which (if necessary) government funding should be allowed to assist them to perform. What is a trade-school in the US? This:

A trade school (also known as a technical school) is a postsecondary educational institution designed to train students for a specific job in a skilled trade-career. Most importantly, a trade school offers hands-on training to prepare students for actual work in their chosen field.

 

[ttwtt78640]

We let the state decide how to "teach our young" the skills necessary to succeed, and they failed miserably.

We as a nation have not understood how a formation DOES NOT STOP AT HIGH SCHOOL. But proceeds right-along into learning skills that will allow them to pursue a decent lifetime of earned income!

Since the 1990s our world has changed - and changed-deeply! Manufacturing Industries have shrunk from the more than half-of-all-jobs to less than 15%! All the rest that create work for Americans are in the Services Industries and need a further post-secondary training/education to master!

And that education should be free, gratis and for nothing whilst encompassing the entire workforce that is leaving secondary-schooling every year! Where does Uncle Sam get the money to do that in the states? By reducing the DoD-budget and better employing the funds in state-level reeducation of our youth!

High-school just isn't good enough anymore to ensure that our people can find decent jobs by which to live and bring up a family! But if kids want to learn a trade at near the end of high-schooling, they should be permitted to do so!

The states nonetheless are very likely able to provide job-training in selected trades, which (if necessary) government funding should be allowed to assist them to perform. What is a trade-school in the US? This:

I agree that more educational (tuition?) assistance should be offered. However, I don’t think that government alone should be in charge of it. I prefer that employers (job creators?) be given more (or even total) power in that process, perhaps by allowing (some percentage of?) employer provided tuition assistance (or reimbursement) to be treated as a tax credit (rather than merely a business cost deduction).

The government is very poor at guessing which educational offerings are going to be marketable in the private sector, while employers are very aware of what skills they desire to add to their workforce.

 

[psikeyhackr]

We let the state decide how to "teach our young" the skills necessary to succeed, and they failed miserably.

We as a nation have not understood how a formation DOES NOT STOP AT HIGH SCHOOL. But proceeds right-along into learning skills that will allow them to pursue a decent lifetime of earned income!

Since the 1990s our world has changed - and changed-deeply! Manufacturing Industries have shrunk from the more than half-of-all-jobs to less than 15%! All the rest that create work for Americans are in the Services Industries and need a further post-secondary training/education to master!

And that education should be free, gratis and for nothing whilst encompassing the entire workforce that is leaving secondary-schooling every year! Where does Uncle Sam get the money to do that in the states? By reducing the DoD-budget and better employing the funds in state-level reeducation of our youth!

High-school just isn't good enough anymore to ensure that our people can find decent jobs by which to live and bring up a family! But if kids want to learn a trade at near the end of high-schooling, they should be permitted to do so!

The states nonetheless are very likely able to provide job-training in selected trades, which (if necessary) government funding should be allowed to assist them to perform. What is a trade-school in the US? This:

In the 1930s John Maynard Keynes was talking about a 15 hour workweek for "our grandchildren".

How much do most people have to earn to pay for housing? How many Americans could have had homes paid for by the 90s if every high school graduate knew what Net Worth was since Sputnik and hadn't spent billions on useless variations in automobiles.

IBM sold a computer with an 8085 microprocessor while they marketed the machine with the 8086 as a word processor. What does The Market mean when the buyers cannot evaluate high technology crap.

Can economists evaluate the junk? They just measure the cash flow, how do they know if it is spent stupidly?

 

[psikeyhackr]

We let the state decide how to "teach our young" the skills necessary to succeed, and they failed miserably.

What does SUCCEED mean?

Have a GOOD JOB for life? How many people with good incomes have a Negative Net Worth?

Double entry accounting is 700 years old. If that had been mandatory in the schools since Sputnik how different would economics be by now?

https://www.upi.com/Accounting-collegians-vs-5th-graders/82121056408042/

The Accounting Game: Basic Accounting Fresh From the Lemonade Stand

http://www.exceltip.com/book-1570713960.html

Foolish Book Review: "The Accounting Game" | The Motley Fool

Can a lemonade stand really teach key financial lessons?

www.fool.com

 

[Lafayette]

What does SUCCEED mean?

Look it up in

Have a GOOD JOB for life? How many people with good incomes have a Negative Net Worth?

Double entry accounting is 700 years old. If that had been mandatory in the schools since Sputnik how different would economics be by now?

https://www.upi.com/Accounting-collegians-vs-5th-graders/82121056408042/

The Accounting Game: Basic Accounting Fresh From the Lemonade Stand

http://www.exceltip.com/book-1570713960.html

Foolish Book Review: "The Accounting Game" | The Motley Fool

Can a lemonade stand really teach key financial lessons?

www.fool.com

 

[OscarLevant]

HIGH CRIME RATE COUNTRIES



Here it is: Countries with the Highest Crime Rates (from here):



Developed country crime-rates are different, meaning they trend around about the same average rate. First of all, however, is defining what-is-a-developed-countries. And that would look like this: What's considered a developing country?

From the Wikipedia "Developing-Country" link here:


Europe and the US are "developed nations" so they are set appart. Nonetheless, they are comparative:

STAT	European Union	United States
Murders > Per 100,000 people	1.71 Ranked 101st.	5.9 Ranked 63th. 3 times more than European Union
Murders > WHO	1.96 Ranked 130th.	5.6 Ranked 88th. 3 times more than European Union

SOURCES: UN Office on Drugs and Crime, UN Survey of Crime Trends, from here.

That above is a very good reason to live in Europe !?!

France (where I live) is "special". Namely, in France one cannot own a gun with the sole-exception being hunters with shotguns. And if you would like to see the crime-rates compared to the US with which I must contend then go here: Crime Stats: compare key data on France & United States

Murder rate:

Murder rate

France: 1.31

USA: 5

That was what I was going to say, the only valid comparison are that of the western developed countries

 

[OscarLevant]

FAT-ARSES



When was the last time there was a food-shortage in the US? Quite likely never except before the 20th century.

When was the last time there was a pandemic comparable to COVID? That's the end of that argument.

There's not been a generalized food-shortage in the US since a long, long time. There are, however, selected shortages of some kinds of food that may be due to specifice production-rates of that particular food at any given time.

But, food is not a problem in the US. In fact, it is the opposite of food that is a problem. See comparative overweight statistics (from here):


That is, almost 70% of Americans are seriously overweight. Wakey-wakey ... !

Yes, we are overweight. TV is the issue, we watch too much of it, and TV makes people snack.

 

[aociswundumho]

A mixed economy is not 'commie values'.

I've stated my position, here. And I challenge you to rebut anything I've written on the subject.
(due to the 5k character limit on this forum, I can't post it, but I wrote about it, here: )

Politics of the center. What is it?

There's a pendulum in politics. Swing too far to the left, it rebounds, and swings too far to the right. and vice versa, in a never ending going from...

www.politicalforum.com

From that link:

So, the place where the equilibrium of both forces are achieved is in the center.

Now, this is not to be confused with 'centrism' as a political ideology, so what it is is the right balance of socialism and capitalism. So let me define what I mean by these things.

I mean a government run enterprise is a socialistic enterprise, and a privately run enterprise is a capitalistic enterprise. Most western nations ( if not all of them ) are mixed economies, various ratios of both.

Yes, but it's important to point out that the more socialist a mixed economy is, the worse off the people become. The USSR was technically a mixed economy, as Lenin did allow some capitalism, so that was a situation with a lot of socialism and little capitalism. On the other hand, as Milton Friedman use to regularly point out, living standards in the US and Britain rose the fastest when their economies during the 19th and 20th centuries were close to laissez-faire - that is, a lot of capitalism and little socialism. This is enough evidence by itself to destroy the idea that the optimum ratio of capitalism and socialism is anywhere near 50/50.

Now then. I'm going to make some opinionated declarations, based on my empirical observation of history.

Socialism, without capitalism, will collapse.

Yes, and we have dozens of real world examples to back this claim up.

Capitalism, without socialism, will devour itself.

Where's the historical evidence for this?

So the trick is to understand what each does the best, and let each do just that.

It's a public enterprise versus private enterprise thing.

A public enterprise works better for what I will call, 'the negative markets'.

What do I mean by that?

These are things we need, and needs are things we absolutely must have, though we may, or may not want them.

Okay, you don't want your house to be on fire, so we need a fire department to deal with it.

But the fire department does not have to be run by the government. In the US, 70% of all firemen are volunteers.

You don't want someone to steal or rob you or murder you, so we need to have a \ police, sheriff, and FBI to deal with such things.

The supreme court has held repeatedly that police have no legal obligation to protect you, so the state provides nothing there. Regarding your property, when my friend's house was robbed, I went with him to the police station. They gave him a large pile of forms to fill out, and the officer told us that the chances of them recovering my friend's property were virtually zero. Note also that during the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots, police did nothing to stop looters.

The government, as usual, is a complete failure, so if you want protection for yourself and your property you need to look to the market. You can hire private security firms or even armed guards to protect you. If you can't afford that, the market also provides guns, locks, alarm systems, etc, all sorts of options to fit every budget.

I'll stop here, but I will respond to rest when I get some time later.

 

[OscarLevant]

What does the government do better than the private sector?

Deliver mail to rural areas affordable.

However, it's not so much a question of 'better than' it's a question of what is appropriate to the objective

For example, if the objective is assuring everyone having access to affordable health care, the free market does not cater to those who cannot afford health care.
If a society deems that, in order to be civilized, all citizens should have access to health care, it provides UHC. It doesn't disallow private clinics for those who can afford it, or private hospital.

IN order for a society to guarantee all citizens are educated, public education is created. Private education cannot assure this. It doesn't disallow private education for those who can afford it.

In order to guarantee that every one has affordable transportation, bus lines are created, trams, trolleys, and railways are created. It doesn't disallow for private vehicle ownership, or cabs or limousines.

The point is, so that every one has access to basic needs, spreading the cost across all citizens (according to ability to pay) allows those who cannot afford it to be able to afford it. beyond those basic needs, there is plenty of goods and services available for those who can afford it.

My point is that it's just another example where government intervention makes things worse.

It's a question of finding the balance, the sweet spot, between the two forces. I've written extensively on this here:

Politics of the center. What is it?

There's a pendulum in politics. Swing too far to the left, it rebounds, and swings too far to the right. and vice versa, in a never ending going from...

www.politicalforum.com