About Socialism

No, the problem is you don't understand what it means.

 

They do because socialism involves a range of ideas including social democracy. Apparently, you haven't "thought deeply enough" about this. LOL.

 

Actually, it works both ways. The same system requires legal systems, among others, to operate as it becomes more complex.

 

Actually, it's a combination of both capitalism and socialism.

 

Actually not, because public funds may also be used and board members appointed by regulators.

 

Actually, progress involves mixed economies, among others.

 

Not necessarily worker-owned but publicly owned. And profitability may be based on various circumstances.

 

Actually, it's employed in public corporations worldwide.

Also, there is such a thing as partial socialism. We just call them mixed economies.

An all-or-nothing deal is one of those purist fantasies.

 

They don't need to think they're pink because they really are.

 

Oh, the irony.

 

That's why it's state capitalist.

 

Mixed economies.

 

No, it's a theory, and it can be seen in several systems, from mixed economies to governments run by Commie parties.

 

Sometimes.

 

Of course, they do, as there's no way they can reverse diminishing returns.

BTW, limits to growth isn't about bioeconomics.

 

Also, don't forget public corporations. And shared infrastructure, legal systems, military forces, and more.

Of course I can do that, but I don't have to do so.

 

Nonsense reply. Diminishing returns is a short term concept, referring to the impact of adding variable factors of production while keeping others constant. Growth refers to a shift in the production frontier.

Get the basics right!

 

Just ramble about public good delivery. It's not socialism, nor can it be used to support your state capitalism cobblers.

 

Of course, but it still has a material base. Only the incredibly naive will imagine otherwise.

I was never referring to accountancy but practicality. Otherwise, we would have seen your techno-magical vision a long time ago.

 

What's sloppy is trying to quantify at what point a government "overreaches," and that it only takes place if government takes over private enterprises. Actually, it doesn't have to do any of that.

 

Air conditioning is not a paid benefit of the job but is meant to make sure that the worker is productive. That's also what pays for the air conditioning.

The worker does not decide on that but the employers. If the worker doesn't agree, then he's free to leave, and the employers can hire others.

The employer will pay more not because he will be able to get back what he paid for in terms of more productivity but because he will get even more.

The worker usually doesn't fund his own insurance. Rather, it's shared by worker and employer. The same goes for pension plans, social security, etc. Of course, the law may vary across various countries.

Finally, none of these have to do with the point about surplus labor. You need to read up on the concept before discussing it further.

Actually, no. The worker generally does not invest money with the employer and then receives a return on that. Where did you get such an idea?

That's why the claim that the worker can simply produce using only labor is questionable.

 

For global limits to growth, what kind of production frontier did you have in mind? Can we use something like oil production as an example?

 

It's socialist because it involves regulation. It's not used to support state capitalism but capitalism in general.

 

You have repeatedly confused accountancy limitation with economic contribution. Not a lot else to say really!

 

I've already remarked about the problems associated with sustainability. Of course we can refer to contributions by Georgescu-Roegen for helping develop ecological economics (and also aiding Schumpeterian analysis into socialism).

Let me know when you want to apologise for your diminishing returns crass error.