Socialism vs Capitalism

EM2

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
7,523
Location
The home of the concrete cow
Those quotes seem to be correlation and assumption, not proof of causation.
I wonder what the relative levels of trust in government are in those countries.
Before you can convince people to pay higher taxes for more public goods you have to make them trust the government to spend it well. Did the Nordic countries waste so much money on nationalised industries?
Norway for one has a huge number of government industries either wholly or partly owned:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway
Some examples are:
Argentum Venture capital
Avinor Airport operation and airspace control
Baneservice Maintenance of railway infrastructure
Bjørnøen Real estate
Central Norway Regional Health Authority Healthcare
Eksportutvalget For Fisk Marketing
Electronic Chart Centre - Cartography
Enova SF 4 Petroleum and Energy Marketing
Entra Eiendom Real estate
Flytoget Railway company
Gassco Natural gas pipes
Gassnova Research
Industrial Development Corporation of Norway Industry
Innovation Norway Innovation
Kompetansesenter for IT i helse- og sosialsektoren Information technology
Kings Bay Research
Mesta Road construction and maintenance
Nationaltheatret Theater
Nofima Research
Norfund Investments in developing countries
Norsk Eiendomsinformasjon Real estate database
Norsk Tipping Lotteries and gambling
Northern Norway Regional Health Authority Healthcare services
Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation Television and radio channels
Norwegian Social Science Data Services Research
Norwegian State Housing Bank Banking
Petoro AS Manages the State's Direct Financial Interest in the petroleum industry
Posten Norge Postal services
Rehabil Manufacturing
Secora Maintenance of coastal infrastructure
Southern and Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority Healthcare services
Statkraft Electricity production
Statnett Electricity lines
Statskog Forestry and real estate
Staur Farm Farm
UNINETT Telecommunications
University Centre in Svalbard Research
Venturefondet Venture capital
Vinmonopolet Retailing of alcoholic beverages
Vy Railway company
Western Norway Regional Health Authority Healthcare services
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
3,602
That is a meaningless list.
Are they big industries, are they monopolies, why are they state companies?
Did they ideologically nationalise the big industries?
 

bramling

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
8,802
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Then spend money on their upbringing.
Inheritance causes inequality in wealth, opportunities, housing, careers.
I would rather have low income taxes and massive inheritance tax. Unfortunately I don’t think it’s all that possible.
I would rather put my savings on a bonfire than allow the state to choose what it is spent on.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
12,124
Location
No longer here
Why don't you do some reading and find out?
You could always reply. I mean, it’s not like you just went on Wikipedia and looked at a list of Norwegian state-owned companies and posted them like it made any sort of point without understanding the context, is it?

I mean, while we’re posting Wikipedia articles, here’s the list of British state-owned enterprises which is just as extensive: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_the_United_Kingdom

...but without any wider context, there is no point in posting it.
 

SteveP29

Member
Joined
23 Apr 2011
Messages
847
Location
Chester le Street/ Edinburgh
Something like unemployment benefit is a safety net to stop people starving, and to give people a helping hand towards finding a new job. It’s not intended to facilitate people purchasing luxury goods like high-spec TVs.
Then why, if it's a safety net, do this current government and it's predecessors after 2010 make you jump through hoops to get it?
If you've worked and contributed, why do you have to almost fight for it?
Do you honestly think you could sit at a computer for 35 hours a week looking for a job?
Have you ever tried or done that?
Do you know how quickly you exhaust all avenues?
That's before you even suggest going round shops and offices dropping in CV's and suchlike, the employment world works so much differently now, companies don't just take people on on a whim, because they've dropped a CV at their door, if companies need staff, they will advertise for them, if not, they won't.

Why have you bought the line from the sh*trags that all unemployed people have 60" TV's and brand new smartphones etc?
Who, in your personal experience, have you seen, that doesn't work, that has them?
How many houses have you been into, where the people living there are unemployed and have a huge TV?
How many of those people who are unemployed already had that TV, or made the purchase with a redundancy payment?
My parents bought a range of household goods that were previously rented (TV and Video Recorder), knackered (Twin Tub and Cooker) with their redundancy payoffs when Caterpillar in Birtley was closed down in 1984, far better to have those things then, to save having to buy them on HP or Finance at those ridiculous 80's interest rates, who's to say that the very same people you're assuming bought 60" TV's etc with dole money didn't do the same?
 

60019

Member
Joined
15 Jan 2020
Messages
21
Location
Adelaide
When was the last time the electorate chose a socialist government here?
1945? Subsequent governments were more socialist than Labour's last two manifestos, but that was the last time a government won election on the promise of increasing nationalisation and then did it. In 1997 Labour promised no new privatisation and to undo rail privatisation, but they lied, so you could count that either way, but that was even more minuscule baby steps back towards even as much socialism as in 1960 than 2019.

Corbyn was caught in a paradox.

He understood that the EU provides a constant source of cheap labour undermining the pay and conditions of the local populace. However, the Tory party were sacrificing the benefits to business of such labour by pampering to the, shall we say, 'concerns' of the electorate over immigration (which, of course, had nothing to do with and were entirely unconnected with, xenophobia).
He should have had enough political understanding based on his long tenure as a Member of Parliament, in which he had fully imbued the nuances appertaining to such matters, to have conveyed his views to the best way that would aid the party of whom he was leader.
His objections to the EU went beyond free movement of labour, and went right back to the basic principles of the single market: it is based on internal liberalisation, and while there's lots of ways to delay or dodge it the rules are designed (thanks, in no small part, to HMG's contributions) to ratchet and the Commission is quite good at enforcing that. Just think back to his 2017 manifesto: an awful lot of the main policies (and all the ones which in isolation had over 50% support) were pointless, forbidden, or unnecessarily expensive thanks to EU rules or other trade liberalisation treaties. The EU is happy with state owned companies provided they act in the market at arm's length from the state, but it doesn't like integrated monopolies or monoliths acting as part of the civil service in things it thinks should be part of the competitive market, which makes a lot of his proposed renationalisations pointless if we remained part of the Single Market. That made a Remain platform implausible, hypocritical, and even less popular than it might have been under a more centrist leader.

At the same time, Labour also depends on people who either support the European Project in principle or derive clear direct personal benefit from the EU in its present form, and many labour supporters regard the EU as a way of slowing down future liberalisation rather than locking in what already exists (because they assume there's no real probability of undoing it, or don't really want to), and even after the much talked-about momentum purges the majority of the parliamentary party was numbered among them and were unenthusiastic about the socialist bits of the manifesto. That made a Leave platform impossible.

Then spend money on their upbringing.
Inheritance causes inequality in wealth, opportunities, housing, careers.
I would rather have low income taxes and massive inheritance tax. Unfortunately I don’t think it’s all that possible.
Having a lifetime income tax would be a neat solution, then inheritance, gifts, capital gains, etc. can be all treated the same as income. The problem is that immigrants and (especially) emigrants would both benefit from that compared to lifelong residents.

I do agree about the problems with skimping on funding for children: lousy schools and poor parenting effectively waste the potential of a substantial chunk of all children, a problem exacerbated by a shortage of training places for essential occupations. That makes immigration necessary, but they have children, and a percentage of them end up under-utilised too, so you have more people needing more immigrants, who have more children…
 

Top