Tony Blair. New Labour. More private financing than thatcher

Socially left and fiscally more market driven than any conservative in the UK

Pretty hard not to mention the Scandinavian countries as prime examples in this type of conversation. I'd say its near impossible not to mention them if you want a valid debate on this topic. But with Cuba its a poor small 3rd world country and definitely not any kind of a player. The only things that they have exceptionally done well is environmental policy, education and healthcare, but even Cuba is moving to a more "capitalist" model in some ways by now allowing citizens to have their own small businesses.

The most successful societies have a mixture of capitalsm/socialsm. It seems reasonable to draw from the positive aspects of both while discarding what doesnt work. Of course we have people on both sides demonizing the other and theyre all wrong.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Bingo. You just won the argument.

You could also characterize it as being that a social safety net is good for capitalism. Things like healthcare and education are what allow your talented poor/sick to be productive where they wouldn't otherwise be. Of course this comes with its own costs, but most western societies have come to the conclusion that they're worth it to varying degrees.

As an example, in Canada despite universal health care, don't manage to include prescriptions somehow as part of the single payer system, this is left up to insurance. Now when you need a drug, someone pays for it. It may be your employer, your own personal insurance, or for seniors the government, or in the last case out of pocket. But someone is paying for it. (And there's a bigger burden if no one is paying)

What difference does it make if the burden of thay payment is collectively placed on the government, businesses, or private individuals? Or more expressly: you can either pay in taxes or as a cost of hiring someone. At least on the government side, you know everyone gets the medicines they need and can do things like bulk purchases. It's a bigger societal cost if people are not getting life saving healthcare.

The GOP and Dems are catch-all parties for various sub-group sand right-left economic issues have become much murkier recently. In many instances rural/urban and geographical divides are more likely to determine economic opinions. A left-right divide still exists, but urban blue state Republicans are much more to the left on a host of economic and social issues than red state rural Dems. Likewise, blue state Dems often support free trade policies which economic nationalists reject. It's become a muddle, with tribe and geography becoming as important as traditional economic dichotomies.

It's interesting that you wrote that because once you have both systems running concurrently you have neither IF you believe in the principles underlying each. It's kind of like saying you support democratic totalitarianism.

Capitalism with Govt. involvement isn't Capitalism, but you could rightly state that successful societies embraced Capitalism early on and with/because of the financial success of that theory later on moved toward socialism. I am going to use this simple definition about what Capitalism so we have a baseline:

"an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market"

Using that definition Capitalism in the US started to wane over 100 years ago.

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

Economists view their field as a science and believe their work is more or less not biased towards any particular ideology. However, as pointed on this poorly titled article economists are attracted to fields of economic study with which they are most comfortable with.

Yet, every society has been like that!! There is a continuum, and demanding complete absolutism in your definition is kind of pointless. if there term as you wish to use it has zero basis in experience.

Double bingo. You nailed it. There are right/left economists. But I can't in my wildest imagination view economics as a "science".

Ever read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? One thing that really stood out to me was the fact that the Guide was the definitive guide to the galaxy. When it differs from reality it is reality that is in error rather than the guide. When someone subscribes to a particular ideology it becomes definitive. A laissez-fair capitalist maintains that the "free market" eventually rights all wrongs and any attempt to intervene is misguided at best and immoral at worst. A communist will only see the unfairness of life and know that only when everyone gives according to their ability and takes according to their needs will we be able to maximize good to society. As I see it capitalism is the most efficient at creating wealth but the least efficient at distributing it. Communism is the least efficient at creating wealth but the most efficient at distributing it. The optimal system to get the most good to the largest number of people is somewhere in the middle. Most systems that actually work have a combination of competitive and cooperative elements.

Next topic: what makes you faster, speed work or long, slow, distance?

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

I'm not convinced that political affiliation determines which economic theory will be embraced. If we look across the globe we can see examples of capitalism being embraced by Communist governments - albeit after the failure of their own experiments. On the other hand, we can find examples of very socialist ideas being embraced in market economies.


All true!

Two examples. Despite what Trump and his followers say, Obama was in charge and the president when the U.S. came back from the brink of the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression, to what where it's at right now - with low unemployment and the whole of the U.S. economy functioning very well and expanding at close to an optimal rate. Yes, it's not perfect, and some are not happy, but like any time of transition and change, there is always people being left behind.

Another example. The only Government in Canada that has truly wrestled a huge, almost credit down-grading debt to the ground, was a Liberal government. It started when Jean Chretian was Prime Minister and Pail Martin was the Finance Minister back in the mid 1990's. As noted we were teetering on the brink, and the GDP to debt ratio was out of control. The federal government buckled down, made some very hard decisions, and started to get things under control on the deficit/debt cycle. We did finally get back to balance under a the Conservative Government, of Prime Minister Stephen Harper about 5 years ago ( who regularly took a lot of credit for it!!), but the whole multi-year process that took probably 15+ years, was started under a Liberal government!

In the U.S. the Republicans are the party that seems to always trumpet about lowering taxes and having a small government. OK - now that they have everything lined up at all three levels of Government - let's see them do that. I'm serious. But you can see the problem - the debt is starting to spiral wildly out of control. The tax system, I am to understand is a mess. If you are looking on the cuts side of things, one of the biggest ticket items, if not the biggest is the military and national security and policing costs - areas that are VERY near and dear, and "don't touch" areas for conservatives in the U.S. They are in a bit of a jam! Best wishes! :)

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog