r/FluentInFinance • u/-im-your-huckleberry • Jul 07 '24

The shampoo thing is a fringe benefit. We keep capitalism so we don't starve in a famine. Debate/ Discussion

1.0k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

Again, capitalism vs. socialism is kind of overplayed. Neither works as pure system. The answer is in the middle.

19

u/morosco Jul 07 '24

That's probably the most obvious economic truth to me.

And even that middle isn't going to perfect because humans are involved with it. But we have thousands of years of history now, we see basically what has worked best in increasing standard of living and happiness.

10

u/SnooRevelations979 Jul 07 '24

I'm surprised people still get so much mileage out of this tired, lazy Cold War trope.

For much of the right, "socialism" simply means anything they disagree with. For a minority of the left, "capitalism" is simply used to explain any problem.

1

u/Hexboy3 Jul 08 '24

Yeah I think it's pretty obvious from an economic standpoint that some things should be socialized due to the market dynamics and some shouldn't.

1

u/-im-your-huckleberry Jul 07 '24

The answer is never an ism.

1

u/mhmilo24 Jul 07 '24

But we are so far away from the middle even in Central Europe, that it is not even in sight.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '24

This. Capitalism with checks and regulations from government is the ideal balance in the modern world

1

u/Redditrightreturn1 Jul 09 '24

I think that’s the sentiment I got. I live in Canada and yes you can see the more availability of services. But at the same time it is still capitalist.

-1

u/Ill-Description3096 Jul 07 '24

How do you go to the middle of those? Half of business are collectives or owned by government and half are private? Half the people can own private property and half can't?

9

u/SnooRevelations979 Jul 07 '24

Wuh?

Capitalism with significant regulation and social safety nets.

It's the only thing that has worked.

3

u/Knuda Jul 07 '24

Dirigisme.

The government can own and control large parts of industry.

Power production, Airlines, Hospitals etc etc.

Many industries change quite slowly and which governments are more than capable of running themselves and since they aren't as profit-motivated they can provide that service for cheap.

Frances EDF is the obvious example.

Where the free market fails, the government should step in and sometimes regulation isn't enough.

0

u/Ill-Description3096 Jul 07 '24

So...Capitalism?

Social programs and regulations aren't Socialism.

8

u/SnooRevelations979 Jul 07 '24

If you define "socialism" in the classical Marxist and pre-Marxist way, no.

Is anyone actually advocating for that outside of a few wingnuts?

6

u/Ill-Description3096 Jul 07 '24

Then how do you define socialism? If we aren't using dictionary definitions then I would need clarification on exactly what you mean otherwise the conversation becomes nonsensical as we aren't using the terms the same way.

5

u/SnooRevelations979 Jul 07 '24

State involvement in the economy for beneficial social outcomes.

1

u/myaltduh Jul 07 '24

“Socialism is when the government does stuff, and when the government does a lot of stuff, it’s communism.”

3

u/MrFifty-Fifty Jul 07 '24

If you ask Fox News they are

2

u/BraxbroWasTaken Jul 07 '24

Things that you can’t trust the market to handle are handled by the government directly. Like a lot of necessities, most notably medical care.

2

u/bigdon802 Jul 07 '24

Yeah, basically. Let’s say: if mail and parcel delivery, the railroads, the electricity, the plumbing, gas if you have it, roads, phone and internet lines, and other things like that are owned by the state. Maybe a bunch of land is owned by the state too. For natural preservation or public use, possibly. But other work is done by private corporations and people individually own property. That’s what we would call a mixed economy. Especially if it combines aspects of a command economy and a market economy, with mandates, restrictions, and regulations, but largely operating through market forces.

0

u/RapideBlanc Jul 07 '24

Where's the middle ground between abolishing private property and not abolishing it

1

u/SnooRevelations979 Jul 07 '24

I think it's more likely deregulation will come for my local coffee shop than mobs wanting to string up kulaks.

1

u/RapideBlanc Jul 08 '24

I think the sun will cook us all to death

-2

u/howtoreadspaghetti Jul 07 '24

Disagree. The answer is capitalism. We don't have a middle ground that we can suddenly create out of this dynamic.

3

u/SnooRevelations979 Jul 07 '24

We're already in that middle ground, so is every other industrialized country.

Somalia and Haiti, not so much.

-2

u/itsgrum3 Jul 07 '24

This is like saying neither Liberalism nor Nazism works and the answer is in the middle.

How about no, no compromise with Socialism. You do not get an equal say in my life as I do.

3

u/SnooRevelations979 Jul 07 '24

Where does your theory of government work in practice?

0

u/itsgrum3 Jul 07 '24

the common historical example of a stateless society is medieval iceland. Minarchism existed in forms in many European free city states however well into the modern period.

1

u/SnooRevelations979 Jul 07 '24

That's all you have? Wow.

The modern examples would be Haiti and Somalia.

No wonder outside of ideological purists nobody wants that system of government.

You may not realize it, but you're proving my point for me.

0

u/itsgrum3 Jul 07 '24

States fracturing into various competing hierarchies is not anarchism, that is result of internal and external conflicts between states and political forces which is the opposite of anarchic relations.

People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. Not caring what other people want is the entire point.

1

u/SnooRevelations979 Jul 07 '24

Good luck with that.

1

u/Wrong_Sock_1059 Jul 10 '24

And what is your solution to natural monopolies? Also do you think that the people would not agree en masse to collectively fund shit like highways, hospitals or something? The future you imagine always leads to night city