Some really good ideas in that story. Certainly makes the point that trying to "take care of people" "too much" can backfire .
I think there is another side to this picture which is the one of unbridled free enterprise and no effort to protect or assist people who will be exploited in such an environment. The discussion it brings up is asking how much intervention should governments bring to society, what kind and how do we keep checking to keep a good balance.
An interesting email I received, source: unknown.
... (there are exceptions of course, like Paris Hilton).
This is not why socialism fails and has failed in the past, it is just a really stupid story. In fact socialism need not fail at all - just look at Germany and Switzerland.
Germany and Switzerland are mixed economies, not socialist economies.
They are both economies where people are taxed very heavily, and the tax revenues are redistributed across the population. That is what modern socialism is.
Socialism need not exclusively be the extreme some people make it out to be. That in itself is a very black or white way of looking at things, and only liberals think in absolutes.
The correct categorization of these two countries is 'social market economy' AKA 'mixed economy'.
So 'mixed economy' is an absolute, but your assertion that they are socialist economies is not an absolute.
Dear Lord!
That is still an absolute. It would be better to use a scale. Something like this
Socialism ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Capitalism
++++ Australia +++++++++++++++++++ Singapore +++
Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.[2] There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organised within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]
I think there is another side to this picture which is the one of unbridled free enterprise and no effort to protect or assist people who will be exploited in such an environment.
That is still an absolute. It would be better to use a scale. Something like this
Socialism ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Capitalism
++++ Australia +++++++++++++++++++ Singapore +++
Can't really fit a lot of countries on that one, but you get the point. When a country is much closer to one end than another, it makes perfect sense to refer to them as a socialist country - and vice versa.
Australia’s economic freedom score is 83.1, making its economy the 3rd freest in the 2012 Index. Its overall score is 0.6 point higher than last year, reflecting better scores in trade freedom, government spending, and fiscal freedom. Australia is ranked 3rd out of 41 countries in the Asia–Pacific region, and its score is well above the regional and world averages.
The foundations of economic freedom in Australia are strong and well supported by excellent protection of property rights and an independent judiciary that enforces anti-corruption measures effectively. While many large advanced economies have been struggling with growing debt burdens that result from years of heavy government spending, Australia’s gross public debt stands at less than 25 percent of GDP. Budget deficits have been under control owing to prudent public finance management that recognizes limits on government.
Australia’s modern and competitive economy benefits from the country’s strong commitment to open-market policies that facilitate global trade and investment. Transparent and efficient regulations are applied evenly in most cases, encouraging dynamic entrepreneurial activity in the private sector.
Neither does capitalism. Categorizing economies with aspects of both socialism and capitalism as socialist is as asinine as categorizing them as capitalist.
The correct categorization of these two countries is 'social market economy' AKA 'mixed economy'.
Overall really stupid, 0/10.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?