Socialism: Good On Paper, Not In Reality

[JiGGaMaN]

the only thing i disagree with is your definition of socialism: your clarified version was "let me clarify, when gov gets involved in the economy, you have a socialist nation".

then you go on to admit the government builds roads, provides welfare, postal service are public initiatives performed by the government. that means according to your statement, the U.S. government has been socialist since the beginning. Then you disagree with that definition, even though you are the one who provided it. What im trying to say is you need to define what you consider socialist more accurately.

[jamyjamjr]

the only thing i disagree with is your definition of socialism: your clarified version was "let me clarify, when gov gets involved in the economy, you have a socialist nation".

then you go on to admit the government builds roads, provides welfare, postal service are public initiatives performed by the government. that means according to your statement that the U.S. government has been socialist since the beginning. But then you disagree with that definition, even though you are the one who provided it. What im trying to say is you need to define what you consider socialist more accurately.

what does gov funded roads and postal service have to do with socialism?? i never said a such thing..

capitalism can be capitalism because the government doesn't get involved with business... i never said anything about roads..

im leaning more towards the government buying out/financialy supporting our bank system..

there must have been a misunderstanding..

when it comes down to welfare and medicare, that is a SOCIALIST philosophy....

im sure u misunderstood what i was saying jigga...

[JiGGaMaN]

what does gov funded roads and postal service have to do with socialism?? i never said a such thing..

capitalism can be capitalism because the government doesn't get involved with business...

you realize you did not say government being involved in business, you just said government being involved with the economy, which all governments are. Do you see why it was an ambiguous statement now?

[jamyjamjr]

you realize you did not say government being involved in business, you just said government being involved with the economy, which all governments are. Do you see why it was an ambiguous statement now?

by economy i felt you would understand the business aspect being effected.. (i can see why you would take it like that).. so be it..

[JiGGaMaN]

by economy i felt you would understand the business aspect being effected.. (i can see why you would take it like that).. so be it..

heres the most basic of economic models

GDP=Y=C+I+G (consumption + investment + government spending

i dont see why i wouldnt.

[Prada]

heres the most basic of economic models

GDP=Y=C+I+G (consumption + investment + government spending

i dont see why i wouldnt.

lol, good 'ol macroeconomics.

Dont forget GNP

[JiGGaMaN]

lol, good 'ol macroeconomics.

Dont forget GNP

i will never foget GNP.

[Prada]

the only thing i disagree with is your definition of socialism: your clarified version was "let me clarify, when gov gets involved in the economy, you have a socialist nation".

then you go on to admit the government builds roads, provides welfare, postal service are public initiatives performed by the government. that means according to your statement, the U.S. government has been socialist since the beginning. Then you disagree with that definition, even though you are the one who provided it. What im trying to say is you need to define what you consider socialist more accurately.

In "pure capitalism" like Adam Smiths invisible hand, roads, water, sewage, et cetra, would be paid for based on usage or to have access. In the US that is already somewhat the case. However there are common things like defense that are paid by all citizens in the best interest of citizens but technically that too could be privatized totally.

[JiGGaMaN]

In "pure capitalism" like Adam Smiths invisible hand, roads, water, sewage, et cetra, would be paid for based on usage or to have access. In the US that is already somewhat the case. However there are common things like defense that are paid by all citizens in the best interest of citizens but technically that too could be privatized totally.

oh i know. with 4 university economics credits i am the most qualified economist on this board, lol. my point was government spending makes up a significant portion of any economy, and that the term 'socialist' is used too broadly.