Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

revertothemiddle t1_is0dr1g wrote

Reply to comment by big_whistler in why is our government so ignorant in Rhode Island? just because the weather is warm during the summer does not mean that the homeless go away. why do they wait until the cold weather to go and fix the problem? they never gets fixed?! we obviously need more shelters unless bike path. by [deleted]

There are plenty of homeless people in non-capitalist places. I grew up in a communist country and homelessness there was far worse. But I hear your point about how intractable the problem is and how states have few good options. Is there a place that has a good handle on the problem? Maybe we can learn from them.

12

dgroach27 t1_is0k6ce wrote

Denmark. Capitalism is not designed to help the houseless

−2

dionidium t1_is0qvm8 wrote

> “I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy,” Rasmussen said.

-- Danish PM Lars Løkke Rasmussen

Denmark is a market economy with high marginal tax rates that plows the unmatchable productivity gains experienced under capitalism into social programs. That's what's called "social democracy" or "democratic socialism" in some circles, but it is in no useful sense, "not capitalist." It's a market economy.

16

dgroach27 t1_is0s9ic wrote

I can understand how you thought that I was saying Denmark wasn't capitalist, that was not my intention. I was stating Denmark handles houseless people well. Then separately I was stating that capitalism is not designed to deal with houselessness.

5

dionidium t1_is0suqi wrote

Thanks for clarifying. :)

5

dgroach27 t1_is0ujin wrote

With that said, the things that Denmark does to help its houseless population are not very capitalist.

5

dionidium t1_is0wunp wrote

There is unfortunately a lot of confusion about these words. People use the term Socialism to mean "the existence of social programs paid for with taxes" and they also use the term Socialism to mean "a planned economy." This means in practice that "socialism" isn't always the opposite of "capitalism."

Some examples:

  • When the government pays for your health care that can be "socialism," but it's not anti-capitalist.
  • When the government makes it illegal to own private property that can be "socialism" and it is more or less anti-capitalist.
  • When the government raises your taxes to spend more on welfare programs that can be "socialism," but it's not necessarily anti-capitalist.
  • When the government makes it illegal to make a profit selling widgets that can be "socialism," and it's explicitly anti-capitalist.

When people say they want to "capitalism is the problem" often what they are really thinking is that the government should provision more services. What they want is universal healthcare or increased spending on other social programs. But that's not in any sense anti-capitalist. That's just taxing economic activity to pay for the social programs you want.

That's what Denmark does.

They are a capitalist country with high taxes that spends a lot on social programs. Some people call that increased spending "socialism," but crucially they still allow markets. You can still be a capitalist in Denmark. Most people there work for private corporations/businesses. Etc, etc.

Some people insist that restricting free markets isn't Socialism, it's Communism, and such people get very upset if you don't use the correct term. But the point is that there is not widespread agreement about how to use these terms and, further, people deliberately deploy these terms in ways that advance their political goals (whether pro- or anti-socialism/capitalism), so it's important always to be clear about what you're saying.

2

dgroach27 t1_is12mig wrote

>When the government pays for your health care

That is removing consumers from the private healthcare economy while not maximizing profit. Not very capitalist.

>When the government makes it illegal to own private property

Not socialism.

>When the government raises your taxes to spend more on welfare programs

Higher taxes means less money to spend in the capitalist market and welfare programs allow people to get services that aren't being maximized for profit. Not very capitalist.

>When people say they want to "capitalism is the problem" often what they are really thinking is that the government should provision more services. What they want is universal healthcare or increased spending on other social programs. But that's not in any sense anti-capitalist. That's just taxing economic activity to pay for the social programs you want.

People are wanting universal healthcare because due to the capitalist market abusing consumers with insane prices. They know people need insurance so they know they can get away with charging what they do for it. Classic example of capitalism being the problem.

Having workers have more control over the means of production is what, at its most simplest, what socialism is.

2