Socialism, American-Style
nytimes.com
Socialism, American-Style
1–10 of 108 posts
Re: Socialism, American-Style
#2> The fund collects and invests proceeds from the extraction of oil and minerals in the state.
This is not at all "Socialism".
BTW, state-owned factories almost always failed (numerous examples in 20th century Europe).
Re: Socialism, American-Style
#3> The fund collects and invests proceeds from the extraction of oil and minerals in the state. This is not at all "Socialism". BTW, state-owned factories almost always failed (numerous examples in 20th century Europe).
I wonder about the state owned investment funds and if there is a parallel to state owned factories. Norway has a giant sovereign wealth fund built off of its oil industry, but does it perform as well as a private fund would? What about the California pension funds. I understand that they get screwed by their private equity and hedge investments all the time. I wonder if they weren't public funds if they would have more clout on wall street and could work out better deals to get better returns.
Re: Socialism, American-Style
#4Many of these examples might be more specifically seen as a variety of Georgism [1]. There are a bunch of variants, but the general idea is a claim that everyone has a right to their share of proceeds from economic rent, especially land rent and mineral wealth, in some forms also proceeds from utility-like infrastructure. Since everyone is held to own an equal share of these by right, the revenues should be either distributed equally to everyone as "shareholders" (as in the Alaska dividend), or used to finance public goods.
There are some overlaps with socialism, especially social-democratic models of government. But clearly the full social-democratic program is nowhere near popular in conservative areas of the US. If you look at why only these specific ideas are popular in those areas, one commonality is that they have a Georgist feel to them. Or at least, I'll propose that as a hypothesis.
Re: Socialism, American-Style
#5> Moreover, contrary to conventional opinion, studies of the comparative efficiency of modern public enterprise show rough equivalency to private firms in many cases. (They aren’t perfect, of course: Many public agencies, boards and corporations that control enterprises are not fully accountable or transparent in their operations.)
Companies get efficient if they have to. Competition is one way to force their hands. (There might be others, like public oversight?) Private vs public ownership doesn't make too much of a difference.
Re: Socialism, American-Style
#6Many of these examples might be more specifically seen as a variety of Georgism [1]. There are a bunch of variants, but the general idea is a claim that everyone has a right to their share of proceeds from economic rent, especially land rent and mineral wealth, in some forms also proceeds from utility-like infrastructure. Since everyone is held to own an equal share of these by right, the revenues should be either di…
We must also take into account what the alternative is. If the alternative presented to Gerogism is that the natural resources would be taxed, and these proceeds will be spent by the government, many conservatives and libertarians will side with the Georgists. The conservatives and libertarians are not necessarily supporters of basic incomes or similar schemes, they are often simply against increased (discretionary) government spending, and believe that distributing the funds to the people will have cause less market distortion and malinvestment.
Re: Socialism, American-Style
#7State-managed capitalism and socialism are not the same thing. Putting a state-run monopoly in private hands (which is what's usually done), instead in state-run hands ... where the risks and profits are held by the same entity instead of the public bearing the risk and the private sector getting the profits? That's socialism? No...
This guy's a professor of political economy ... what a terrible word choice he's using.
According to him, not blindly gifting away the collectively-held public commons into the hands of private capital to sell it back to us is now called "Socialism".
What's next? Insisting cities which build private sports stadiums with public funds participate in profit sharing instead of just presenting the stadium with a little bow on top to some billionaire? Woah, Socialism cometh!
The real thing that's happening is that people want a fair shake... "If we're going to be on the hook in the bad times, then we should see some of the good time too." The companies that were bailed out with public funds now have record private profits ... that's the problem. It's got zilch to do with socialism.
Re: Socialism, American-Style
#8> The fund collects and invests proceeds from the extraction of oil and minerals in the state. This is not at all "Socialism". BTW, state-owned factories almost always failed (numerous examples in 20th century Europe).
> BTW, state-owned factories almost always failed (numerous examples in 20th century Europe).
Industrial factories, yes. Local utilities seem to do well enough in Europe.
I wonder if there's a principled difference?
Re: Socialism, American-Style
#9Many of these examples might be more specifically seen as a variety of Georgism [1]. There are a bunch of variants, but the general idea is a claim that everyone has a right to their share of proceeds from economic rent, especially land rent and mineral wealth, in some forms also proceeds from utility-like infrastructure. Since everyone is held to own an equal share of these by right, the revenues should be either di…
We must also take into account what the alternative is. If the alternative presented to Gerogism is that the natural resources would be taxed, and these proceeds will be spent by the government, many conservatives and libertarians will side with the Georgists. The conservatives and libertarians are not necessarily supporters of basic incomes or similar schemes, they are often simply against increased (discretionary)…
I agree that's probably a factor. But I think many conservatives in these cases also prefer a nonprofit or dividend-type model to a more libertarian-style private-ownership model. The Tennessee-valley opposition to privatizing the TVA is an example.
And in Alaska, the choice isn't only between paying out a dividend and letting the government keep the money. Alaska could simply abolish the severance tax entirely, and just let private mineral-rights owners reap the full profits. But that's not popular at all, even among people who identify as conservative. My suspicion, besides people voting their interests (probably a significant factor) is that unlike in the case where someone creates a product through their own labor, in the case of oil extraction, there is doubt that private land or rights owners really "deserve" the full profits from exploiting a resource they didn't create, but for various historical reasons happen to now own. Rather it seems to be more popular to allow them a profit on their extraction effort, but recapture some of the underlying value of the mineral asset for the people in general. (Texas also has a severance tax based on this kind of rationale, in its case used to fund government in partial lieu of an income tax.)
Re: Socialism, American-Style
#10San Francisco rent control policy is another example of weird and conflicting policies in the U.S. I can't believe a policy like that is in place in the United States!