SomeGuy wrote:
long time guy wrote:
SomeGuy wrote:
A mixed economy traditionally describes its components. Manufacturing, service, financial, consumption etc.
Anyways, socialism =/= wealth redistribution or saftey nets or large scale organization of labor as we see in Europe. At it's core it calls for the ownership of capital and production by the community, in theory and government in practice. We had more in common with that during the 1940's with the advent of the command war economy. I would say we now have a pretty heavily centrally planned economy, not by outward force, but by more subtle means.
A mixed economy is one in which there are some socialist/marxist/communist elements (whichever you prefer) and some capitalist elements. The United States particularly since the New Deal ever has pretty much had one. You are correct that pure capitalism has never really existed and definitely doesn't exist today. Any sector in which the means of production is controlled by govt in theory has to be socialist/marxist/communist. You can make the argument that pure socialism has never existed either. That is why most people simply conflate the three because to distinguish would be splitting hairs.
You are contradicting yourself if you suggest that the govt had neither capitalism nor a mixed economy during the 50's. that really isn't possible.
That's fair, let me clarify my initial response to Ikesouth and maybe this will make more sense...he put forth the thought that it was because of a "mixed" economy in the 1950's that the middle class prospered so. i.e. capitalism and socialist elements were the factors in the explosive, albeit short lived, strength of the middle class. That's what I disagreed with. I believe we need to actually define what we're talking about concerning "socialism" before moving forward. In this context is it high tax rates and redistribution via transfer payment, services and national projects etc or the traditional clinical definition. If it's the former than I would need for you or Ike to lay out what you believe were the socialist-lite elements at play during the 50's. I'd say you'd be more accurate in saying LBJ took it closer to that mark with the Great Society and even more accurate from 2006 and on.
Most government jobs are essentially socialist. I know that technically the workers don't control the means of production but when you factor in other aspects you could easily make the argument that Government jobs are based in Socialism.
During the 1950's i'm guessing that there were more government jobs available than there today. I would have to look it up but I'm guessing that there were both more govt jobs and more govt programs. No hard facts pure speculation. Didn't live then but it just seems like there were more programs and jobs available during the earlier years.
I know that the ratio of CEO to avg worker pay was much lower. CEO to avg worker pay was something like 10 to 1. Now it is in the hundreds. That definitely creates a bit of a socialist feel.
I also forgot this aspect of 50's Socialism. Union Membership. Much greater percentage of country's workforce. Actually the 1950's had the greatest percentage of people of belonging to unions than any decade in the country's history. Right now Unions make up 7% of the workforce last I checked
_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
