AFAICT, there's never been any economy based on any pure theory, so you're certainly right that they're all some kind of hybrid. What I take issue with is the idea that the US would be better if it worked more like a "socialist" Scandinavian country.
How are Denmark, Norway and Sweden more socialist than the US? AFAICT, they all have stronger property rights than the US. Perhaps we should become more like them because they're less socialist.
"How are Denmark, Norway and Sweden more socialist than the US"
So just to clarify, when I'm referring to these nations as socialist I'm definitely using the more watered down Democratic Socialist/Market socialist meaning.
The Scandinavian nations for instance, in most of them state owned enterprises account for a majority of the nation's GDP (It's something crazy like 86% in Norway).
They all have universal healthcare systems, paid for by taxes and run by local municipalities (The Netherlands run a hybrid model).
Each nation has considerably stronger regulatory apparatuses, Norway again, has higher taxes on high sugar products and strong regulations on advertisement, see the Big Gulp controversy, look at the literature on sugar as an accute toxin and tell me that was the hill for libertarians to die on. Although in defense of the Libs, I'm sure they'd agree we should stop subsidizing big corn.
Their work forces if I recall correctly, are much more unionized than we are, we're talking more than half of their labor forces being in trade unions.
I can go on to other nations like Japan, S.Korea, Germany, NZ and Australia etc. They are almost all more left economically, politically and socially (I think the Asian model is socially conservative).
This is why personally I subscribe to the SucDem model, ironically a restraint on negative freedom, especially for those with power, wealth and affluence can lead to an increase in positive liberty.
What is the SucDem model? Am not sure how state-owned enterprises work. If the State owns a factory, for instance, and pays it's worker, then the State taxes those workers aren't they just paying the State back? Multiple that by all state-owned enterprises, wouldn't it be easier just pay less, don't tax except non-state workers & non-state made good & services and just give them what they need (food, shelter, healthcare, etc). Then their actual pay could be spent on keeping small businesses (non-essentials) going. This is not sarcasm, I really don't understand it.
Just short for Social Democratic, I could've used Dem Soc but there some small discrepancies between the two although they a much more alike than different. The model is implemented in the Scandinavian countries, Canada, Portugal, New Zealand, Japan, S. Korea etc. Just about every wealthy nation that implements it has considerably better ratings on a range of metrics from education to health to life expectancy to crime and so on.
"Am not sure how state-owned enterprises work"
We have some here in the states but it's a bit confusing to be honest. You can think of it on a spectrum ranging from an organization like NPR (I'm not sure if NPR counts as one though) to the Tennesse Valley Authority to the United States Postal Service. But historically the US has generally decided to run with the private business model and state owned enterprises often have to compete with for profit business ventures.
"If the State owns a factory, for instance, and pays it's worker, then the State taxes those workers aren't they just paying the State back"
Haha this was something we used to complain about back in the Army. It never made sense that I was paying federal and NY State taxes even though I was station outside of NY. Yes I agree it's kind of dumb.
"SucGen" (Freudian slip or actual name). I think what may work for those countries, for a variety of reasons (smallness of size or population, homogeneousness, strong work ethics & discipline, etc.). I think we are too diverse along cultural, economic and political spectrums to get there except around the edges.
"State-owned enterprises" I don't know how it works in other countries, but from what I could find is that TVA & others are self-funded, no taxpayer money. Their rates are set by a board & OK'd by Congress. Almost like a non-profit. Corp. for Public Broadcasting (NPR & PBS) get some taxpayer dollars, but not the majority of their funding.
AFAICT, there's never been any economy based on any pure theory, so you're certainly right that they're all some kind of hybrid. What I take issue with is the idea that the US would be better if it worked more like a "socialist" Scandinavian country.
How are Denmark, Norway and Sweden more socialist than the US? AFAICT, they all have stronger property rights than the US. Perhaps we should become more like them because they're less socialist.
"How are Denmark, Norway and Sweden more socialist than the US"
So just to clarify, when I'm referring to these nations as socialist I'm definitely using the more watered down Democratic Socialist/Market socialist meaning.
The Scandinavian nations for instance, in most of them state owned enterprises account for a majority of the nation's GDP (It's something crazy like 86% in Norway).
They all have universal healthcare systems, paid for by taxes and run by local municipalities (The Netherlands run a hybrid model).
Each nation has considerably stronger regulatory apparatuses, Norway again, has higher taxes on high sugar products and strong regulations on advertisement, see the Big Gulp controversy, look at the literature on sugar as an accute toxin and tell me that was the hill for libertarians to die on. Although in defense of the Libs, I'm sure they'd agree we should stop subsidizing big corn.
Their work forces if I recall correctly, are much more unionized than we are, we're talking more than half of their labor forces being in trade unions.
I can go on to other nations like Japan, S.Korea, Germany, NZ and Australia etc. They are almost all more left economically, politically and socially (I think the Asian model is socially conservative).
This is why personally I subscribe to the SucDem model, ironically a restraint on negative freedom, especially for those with power, wealth and affluence can lead to an increase in positive liberty.
What is the SucDem model? Am not sure how state-owned enterprises work. If the State owns a factory, for instance, and pays it's worker, then the State taxes those workers aren't they just paying the State back? Multiple that by all state-owned enterprises, wouldn't it be easier just pay less, don't tax except non-state workers & non-state made good & services and just give them what they need (food, shelter, healthcare, etc). Then their actual pay could be spent on keeping small businesses (non-essentials) going. This is not sarcasm, I really don't understand it.
"What is the SucDem model"
Just short for Social Democratic, I could've used Dem Soc but there some small discrepancies between the two although they a much more alike than different. The model is implemented in the Scandinavian countries, Canada, Portugal, New Zealand, Japan, S. Korea etc. Just about every wealthy nation that implements it has considerably better ratings on a range of metrics from education to health to life expectancy to crime and so on.
"Am not sure how state-owned enterprises work"
We have some here in the states but it's a bit confusing to be honest. You can think of it on a spectrum ranging from an organization like NPR (I'm not sure if NPR counts as one though) to the Tennesse Valley Authority to the United States Postal Service. But historically the US has generally decided to run with the private business model and state owned enterprises often have to compete with for profit business ventures.
"If the State owns a factory, for instance, and pays it's worker, then the State taxes those workers aren't they just paying the State back"
Haha this was something we used to complain about back in the Army. It never made sense that I was paying federal and NY State taxes even though I was station outside of NY. Yes I agree it's kind of dumb.
"SucGen" (Freudian slip or actual name). I think what may work for those countries, for a variety of reasons (smallness of size or population, homogeneousness, strong work ethics & discipline, etc.). I think we are too diverse along cultural, economic and political spectrums to get there except around the edges.
"State-owned enterprises" I don't know how it works in other countries, but from what I could find is that TVA & others are self-funded, no taxpayer money. Their rates are set by a board & OK'd by Congress. Almost like a non-profit. Corp. for Public Broadcasting (NPR & PBS) get some taxpayer dollars, but not the majority of their funding.
Thanks for conversing. I'm learning so much.