As usual, we
get all pumped up by these pols and we start fist-pumping and breast-bumping. It’s
almost better than Perry Como reruns.
Let’s start
with some definitions I found in Wikipedia:
Socialism is a
range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the
means of production and workers' self-management, as well as the political
theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership can be public,
collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.
Capitalism is an
economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are
controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
The main distinction--and an important one--is that capitalism
is run by private owners for profit and socialism is run by social
ownership.
So what does that mean in theory and practice?
In theory, the distinction arises out of what roles we play as
citizens when it comes to who makes the donuts. Notice it is the same people in
either system – the citizens. In socialism, we all come together and decide how
many donuts to make and at what price to sell them. We then create a sharing scheme
to distribute the revenues. In capitalism, we let people self-select so that some
people make and sell the donuts while the rest of us make steel or farm the
land. Those who farm the land don’t share their profits with those who make the
donuts and vice versa.
That’s the theory. What about the practice? I doubt there has
ever been either of these systems working any place at any time. It is impossible
for all of us much less the people in Bloomington to make the donuts together.
What happens in reality is that some folks get selected to do the work. Then
the political process decides who gets what.
Capitalism is never tried either.
Notice that countries have governments and governments never let capitalists
run willy nilly. Governments scoop off their share of the revenues with
something called taxes. And of course they cannot resist regulating these companies
in the name of the people.
So if we never see socialism or capitalism, what’s the big
debate about? The reality is that most modern countries are somewhere on the
socialism/capitalism scale. In some countries the ratio of government to
private is higher; in other countries it is lower. The best most countries can
do is to move the needle at little one way in one year, a little the other way
in another year.
So we are all Sociacaps now. And what we are doing in the
political arena today is to move the needle. The Ds want to move it left. But
in reality it isn’t as theoretical as you might think. Arthur Okun wrote a book
a long time ago called Equality and Efficiency:
The Big Tradeoff. In that book he
wrote that if you want more equality (free schools, free healthcare, etc.), then efficiency
and economic growth will suffer.
That is what the
coming election is about. Will the Ds come up with something that effectively
improves equality without throwing the baby (the economy) out with the dirty
bathwater?
I suspect we will hear a lot about that this year. Thus the need for plenty of JD... and donuts.
"It's (the military) the purest form of socialism we have..." Wesley Clark
ReplyDeleteProbably a lot more to say on the military and socialism. I know when I was in the military I was grossly underpaid and there was not a lot of incentive to be innovative. But there is some competition to get ahead and I would guess that the upper echelons have ways to reward successful efforts and punish those that coast.
DeleteDear LSD. JD and donuts? Yuck. Better JD and pistachios or cashews.
ReplyDeleteCuriosity got the best of the Tuna and he revisited your March ’16 blog. My reply then and yours dealt with compromise which is also a relevant issue—though implied—in today’s blog: Many economies are a blend of capitalism and socialism and got that way via compromise. Your March ’16 reply to me mentioned a possible govomit shutdown due to Rs taking a “principled stance” against D’s policies they “distained” (acktually over coal miners’ health coverage) and that could possibly result in the loss of the Presidency and Senate. The Rs didn’t compromise—the Ds caved—and Rs took the WH and retained the Senate.
I know you’re sympathetic to compromise but if it results in the needle moving left on the economic theory continuum (socialism on the left; capitalism on the right) then the frog (e.g. the U.S. economy, see my March 1, ’16 reply) in the slowly boiling pot will eventually turn belly up.
Yepper, we’re gunna hear a lot more about Sociacap until/through November 3, 2020. Given the socialist-oriented chatter of the dozens of D POTUS hopefuls, the U.S. positive economic growth trend, and DJT’s advocating principled positions I think Rs will feel better about not compromising. On the other hand (and you unnerstand ‘the other hand’ stuff . . . ) a few weak-kneed Senate Rs could throw a boiled frog into the bath water. Frog legs, anyone?
Interesting stuff Tuna. For one thing I would argue that the Rs didn't take the White House. Trump did. The place we are on the dial is from compromise. I don't favor moving it more to the left. I don't think one should compromise by moving it to the left. They can compromise on other things but not that one. But the proof is in the frog legs. We will soon discover what the voters want.
Delete