Picking apart reams of data to determine how much of a nation's wealth is owned by the government is an interesting exercise, but that's not the sole metric by which "socialism" can be measured.
thefederalist.com/2018/08/17/deb…
thefederalist.com/2018/08/17/deb…
It would be quite possible to have a socialist system in which the government does not technically "own" any of the nation's industries, but controls its wealth by taxing the living daylights out of a nominally free market.
In fact, socialism largely took root in America through the hidden tax burden of regulation. Americans pay a vastly higher tax burden than they either collectively or individually believe they do.
Socialism also does not simply involve having a generous welfare state, although when the welfare system grows large enough, the lines inevitably begin to blur. Aspiring socialists love to portray the system as super-duper-welfare, but that's not what it means, or how it ENDS.
It would be possible to have a roaring free-market capitalist economy with a strong "safety net" welfare system. That's more or less what Americans on both sides of the aisle think of as the ideal system: a booming economy rich enough to take care of the needy.
Socialism is not about taking care of those who cannot fend for themselves. Socialism sees EVERYONE dependent on government programs as the cost of various goods is "socialized," i.e. spread to everyone through compulsive government force.
Socialists masquerade as welfare advocates to get started, because they know compassionate people respond to such appeals. In bad times, it's easy to believe too many people have it rough. In good times, it's easy to believe we can afford to take care of all those who do.
But to achieve real socialism, WORKING PEOPLE must become dependent on government programs. Those who can feed themselves must nevertheless be given bread by the State, and forced to pay for the bread given to others.
Medicine is the ideal angle of attack for socialists because they have little trouble convincing people that it's too expensive, everyone needs "help" to pay for it, no one should be forced to shoulder the burden of high medical bills, etc.
Medicine also makes for a good political football because few voters really understand how it works, and medical providers are easily demonized as outrageously rich and insensitive.
One of the core problems with socialism is that it blinds people to the real cost of goods and the reason why they are expensive. Cost is hidden by the lie that goods are suddenly "free" because the government "provides" them. Corruption becomes rampant in politicized markets.
Most dangerous is that people lose their right to REFUSE under socialism. You can't take your business elsewhere. You can't demand changes to the broken socialist system. You can only cross your fingers and hope political pressure eventually brings small improvements.
And there you have one of the deadly flaws in imposing socialism on a country as large as America: the political pressure that might actually change a moribund socialized system is almost impossible to muster. The elite can too easily defend themselves by buying off tribes.
So you can't escape a socialist system, reform is difficult, and repeal is all but impossible because even unhappy defendants can be easily terrorized into fighting to defend it - "right-wing radicals want to kill you by taking away your medicine!"
Socialism devours your freedom in those obvious ways, and it dilutes freedom in a more subtle way: the subjects of socialism are effectively blinded to true cost and value. They can't exercise economic freedom because they're forced to accept the lie that goods are "free."
This leaves the victims of socialism unable to use the truly effective tools of economics, like competition. No one has to compete for the business of socialist serfs. At best, they compete for the favor of ruling political elites, which is entirely different.
You can't make goods cheaper by socializing the cost. You can only really do that by increasing supply, quality, and efficiency through competition. Socialist systems accumulate MORE administrative fat and corruption cancer, not less. They tend to grow less efficient over time.
Result: the problem was rising medical costs, but the socialist "solution" gives you even higher costs PLUS a doctor shortage.
investors.com/politics/edito…
That's the inevitable outcome of socializing anything. /end
investors.com/politics/edito…
That's the inevitable outcome of socializing anything. /end
