Public Ownership of the Means of Production

[Revoltingest]

That's only because if there was a proposal in Congress to have the government to build its own computer factory, the pro-capitalist politicians would throw such a hissy fit in opposition that it wouldn't even get through committee. It would be dead on arrival.

Those damnable capitalists again...always
wrecking every attempt at socialism.

I would suspect corruption. Who would benefit more from an antiquated IRS system? The government or the capitalists?

Ever dealt with the IRS on any matter requiring
extensive communication? This capitalist would
prefer that they be more competent.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I oppose it.
Every country that has replaced capitalism with
socialism has been a hot mess. You seem to be
addressing "socialism-lite", ie, allowing capitalism
for non-essential goods. But this still puts in place
a central power structure characteristic of full blown
socialism...a recipe for authoritarianism & economic
lethargy.

Show me the unregulated free market economy that isn’t a “hot mess” right now. Perhaps we can compare it with the Scandinavian countries following the Nordic Model mixed economy.

It rather seems to me that, in the democratic world, the freer the market the wider the gulf between rich and poor, and the more intense the resultant social problems.

 

[Secret Chief]

Do you support public ownership of the means of production? Why or why not?

For the purpose of this thread, the means of production are essential services, essential utilities, and factories for essential goods. Also, public ownership doesn't necessarily imply state ownership; it could be collective ownership by individual citizens or workers.

To answer the question: I do, but the brand of socialism I support strongly opposes concentration of power in the hands of a one-party state. Instead, I believe public ownership of the means of production should belong to citizens and workers. Furthermore, I believe privately owned means of production should be allowed to exist parallel to publicly owned ones, albeit under sound regulation to reduce exploitation and undue influence of oligarchs.

Yeah, this.

 

[Revoltingest]

Show me the unregulated free market economy...

Why?
That's something that neither
exists, nor has my support.

 

[Debater Slayer]

To "voice opposition" is a weak remedy.
We see how this fares socialist regimes,
eg, N Korea, China, Cuba.
It works better in democratic countries.

I'm not interested in bringing irrelevant examples into the conversation. If you want to address the systems of government in North Korea, China, or Cuba, you'll have to do that with someone who supports them. My own views are clearly laid out in the OP and later posts, and they have nothing to do with any of those.

You don't seem a believer in competition being
able to deliver better prices & products. But
I see that my ability to choose among provides
yields better value than government could offer.
Government, when a sole provider, has no
incentive to improve price or quality.

Government wouldn't be the sole provider; this is also explicitly stated in the OP. Competition is an unreliable method of ensuring that prices stay in line, because it sometimes works and sometimes results in a competition between a few price-gouging entities who all set the baseline of prices too high for the average consumer.

I wonder if they really are overpriced?
Or just higher than you'd like?
Why not just buy a cheaper product
from a socialist source?

There are no socialist sources of such goods right now, because the market is in the hands of private corporations.

As for being overpriced, I don't have insider knowledge of what the profit margins are exactly like, but this source indicates that Nvidia, for example, is currently at some of its highest-ever profit margins:

NVIDIA Profit Margin 2010-2022 | NVDA

This isn't an essential item, at least. I'm just using it to illustrate the point of how damaging it can be when private corporations are allowed to run amok with the prices of essential services and goods.

Of course there is, ie, competition.
It's just a stochastic process, not a government
imposed strictly determined mechanism.

It's also an unreliable mechanism. See above.

A fundamental problem of a command economy is that
power grabbing isn't merely a problem to avoid...it's
a fundamental emergent property, as evidenced every
time a country replaced capitalism with socialism.

The same argument could be made about capitalism and exploitation. Any economic system can go awry if not sufficiently kept in check by opposing forces.

And in every country, there's the emergent property
of their being represented by a government, which
takes on a life of its own, with its own interests, ie,
the interests of those at the helm. Their interests
often don't coincide with the "people".
Again, approach this empirically...how does it play
out in countries?

This is every bit as true of capitalism as it is of any other system. Look at how governments in capitalist countries have wasted trillions of dollars by sending military forces overseas when the average citizen only had limited or distorted input in the whole process. You can practically only choose a candidate from one of two major parties who are both largely after power and money.

Of course there are problems with capitalism.
There are problems with every economic system.
Regulation simply works better than socialism.
The less socialism, the better.

Socialism includes extensive regulation; it just goes a few steps further than the lax regulation of neoliberal systems.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not interested in bringing irrelevant examples into the conversation.

We disagree about what's relevant.
I supported my claim that voicing opposition
in the kind of government that results from
socialism (even socialism-lite) is feckless.

Government wouldn't be the sole provider; this is also explicitly stated in the OP. Competition is an unreliable method of ensuring that prices stay in line, because it sometimes works and sometimes results in a competition between a few price-gouging entities who all set the baseline of prices too high for the average consumer.

If keeping prices stable by decree is the goal,
then I agree socialism is the most effective.
But I favor letting them float with competition,
supply, costs, & demand doing the allocation.
I prefer it to other ways, eg, waiting in line.

There are no socialist sources of such goods right now, because the market is in the hands of private corporations.

A direct answer to a joke question, eh.

As for being overpriced, I don't have insider knowledge of what the profit margins are exactly like, but this source indicates that Nvidia, for example, is currently at some of its highest-ever profit margins:

NVIDIA Profit Margin 2010-2022 | NVDA

Per your link...even if the company made
no profit, you'd get only about a 20% discount.
But then, to achieve that, there'd be no incentive
to make it at all.
Another important measure is after-tax return on
equity. We'd need to know the company's investment
to find out if the return on it is reasonable or not.
But I'm not seeing any price gouging there if their
mark-up is only 20% or so.

This isn't an essential item, at least. I'm just using it to illustrate the point of how damaging it can be when private corporations are allowed to run amok with the prices of essential services and goods.

Do you really believe their profit margin is "amok"?

I'm reminded of a conversation I once had with
an employee. He told me that if Ann Arbor didn't
have rent control, prices would be much higher
than they are. He was surprised to learn that we
didn't have it. Prices were what they were because
of competition in the market.
You don't trust the stochastic process of market
economics. But it efficiently allocates resources.
And all with no one in charge of businesses &
customers, mandating things.

It's also an unreliable mechanism. See above.

You're still not doing a real world comparison
of the alternatives, just listing things you dislike
about capitalism. If we could compare the best
economies under your system against the best
economies under capitalism, that would be
meaningful.

The same argument could be made about capitalism and exploitation. Any economic system can go awry if not sufficiently kept in check by opposing forces.

You could make that argument,
but I've yet to see it.

This is every bit as true of capitalism as it is of any other system. Look at how governments in capitalist countries have wasted trillions of dollars by sending military forces overseas when the average citizen only had limited or distorted input in the whole process. You can practically only choose a candidate from one of two major parties who are both largely after power and money.

Again, I'm making an empirical argument for capitalism.
But you have only criticism of capitalism, & no real
world applications of socialism-lite for comparison.

If you want to convince a skeptic that your approach
is an improvement, you need evidence.

Socialism includes extensive regulation; it just goes a few steps further than the lax regulation of neoliberal systems.

What you'd call "lax", I'd call "extensive".
What you'd call "necessary", I'd call "authoritarian".

Have you ever managed a business?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Do you support public ownership of the means of production? Why or why not?

I oppose. The public (represented by the government) is not in the best position to know how best to maximize the utility of resources -- only those who can (and should, but don't always) profit from that can make that determination.

The public (again represented by government) may well bargain with multiple providers of products and services in order to satisfy its own interests, but so can the public, as individuals acting only for themselves.

Sometimes, the public (represented by government) has an interest in making rules regarding how ownership of the means of production is executed, but this should be as limited as possible, and always objectively justifiable.

 

[Soandso]

Oof, you've said a lot to give me much to think about, but I'll try and keep things short as to not make your eyes bleed with the endless walls of text

How is health care in countries without capitalism,
eg, N Korea, Cuba?

Why are the examples you provide from second and third world autocracies?

That said, I never said capitalism is a bad thing. It has it's place. Not as the public healthcare system, though

Capitalism has fostered research for new drugs
precisely because money can be made. If government
wants to use tax dollars to fund drug research, then it
also can....if it so chooses.

Any reason to believe funding for research via corporate investment would be so much better than funding for research via government investment? Scientists will always look to pierce the veil regardless - they just need the money to do it

If anything, I worry more about how much corporate funding can advance things as their interest extends only as far as their ability to make a profit - either through sales or government grants which end up soaking us through increased taxes or through increasing our national deficite, anyways

Besides, corporate funding for medical progress will always exist regardless of whether corporations have control of public healthcare. Corporate led research exists in more countries than the USA

Government has also done much to make health
care spendy, eg, no tort reform, heavy regulation,
medical device excise tax (not repealed, fortunately),
requiring emergency rooms to provide free primary
care, record keeping bureaucracy.

Name me one country with government control over healthcare where recipients of that healthcare pay as much as we do for the same services. Sure you can say that they pay high taxes, but we are still taxed for healthcare, we pay health insurance prices, AND our costs are still higher than anyone else out there after those health insurance covers the hospital costs. The initial $500 deductible we all pay ends up being higher than most bills in other first world countries in and of itself

Do you have health care insurance?

I do, thankfully. Very good health insurance, in fact. When all was said and done, I only had to pay $1000 dollars and $500 dollars for the deductible, which was way less than the thousands I would have had to pay, but for someone living paycheck to paycheck such as myself, that stings

When profit is eliminated, there are still such
problems, eg, England, where staff strike cuz
of over-work & poor conditions.
Health care is a huge portion of a country's
expense, & it's a problem to address without
being wedded to all private or all public solutions.

Every system has problems, but our problems are far worse. When health becomes a business, it makes business decisions. This includes using old equipment, understaffing, and cutting corners wherever possible just to save/make money

A hospital nearby where I live had recently been bought up by a new conpany, and they layed off a bunch of workers. This is standard practice in business, but in health this is dangerous

One of the ER techs in this hospital literally had to call 911 because they were so overworked and understaffed that people were dying in their gurneys while they were waiting to be dealt with inside the ER itself. Here is the story from the nurse who called 911 - it's a good and informative read

I’m The “Nurse Who Called 911” For Help With Unsafe Staffing - Here's My Story | Opinion.

Keep in mind, this hospital is owned now by the largest hospital chain in America (CommonSpirit Health). I could pull up more mishandlings by them, such as the giant covid outbreak it had from the company trying to save money on masks and other protective equipment, or the fact they were hacked and patient information (including mine) was stolen due to using outdated software, but like I said, I'd like to keep it short

Passion is OK....unless it inspires anyone to hug me.

Hey, it's your own fault for being the kind of person passionate people like to hug. That's a you problem

 

[Revoltingest]

Why are the examples you provide from second and third world autocracies?

Good question.
It's because in discussions of socialism v capitalism,
I find empiricism more valuable than hypotheticals,
theory, & partisan criticism. So we must use real
world examples of how each plays out. While there
are ranges from best to worst, I like to compare
best to best. Of socialist examples, there are
few, so the best are also among the worst.

 

[Revoltingest]

Any reason to believe funding for research via corporate investment would be so much better than funding for research via government investment?

I'm not claiming that either is better.
But our government chooses against spending
money on such research. Private industry does
because there's profit to be made.

Scientists will always look to pierce the veil regardless - they just need the money to do it

But someone must provide resources
& pay. Industry fills the vacuum.

If anything, I worry more about how much corporate funding can advance things as their interest extends only as far as their ability to make a profit - either through sales or government grants which end up soaking us through increased taxes or through increasing our national deficite, anyways

If we're to be "soaked", it's because of new
useful drugs...which wouldn't have otherwise
existed. Now, if government takes on the role
of researching new drugs, we could talk about
competition between them all.
Oh, let's note that capitalism provided the best
Covid 19 vaccines the fastest. Not all bad, eh.

Name me one country with government control over healthcare where recipients of that healthcare pay as much as we do for the same services. Sure you can say that they pay high taxes, but we are still taxed for healthcare, we pay health insurance prices, AND our costs are still higher than anyone else out there after those health insurance covers the hospital costs. The initial $500 deductible we all pay ends up being higher than most bills in other first world countries in and of itself

I do, thankfully. Very good health insurance, in fact. When all was said and done, I only had to pay $1000 dollars and $500 dollars for the deductible, which was way less than the thousands I would have had to pay, but for someone living paycheck to paycheck such as myself, that stings

Every system has problems, but our problems are far worse. When health becomes a business, it makes business decisions. This includes using old equipment, understaffing, and cutting corners wherever possible just to save/make money

A hospital nearby where I live had recently been bought up by a new conpany, and they layed off a bunch of workers. This is standard practice in business, but in health this is dangerous

One of the ER techs in this hospital literally had to call 911 because they were so overworked and understaffed that people were dying in their gurneys while they were waiting to be dealt with inside the ER itself. Here is the story from the nurse who called 911 - it's a good and informative read

I’m The “Nurse Who Called 911” For Help With Unsafe Staffing - Here's My Story | Opinion.

Keep in mind, this hospital is owned now by the largest hospital chain in America (CommonSpirit Health). I could pull up more mishandlings by them, such as the giant covid outbreak it had from the company trying to save money on masks and other protective equipment, or the fact they were hacked and patient information (including mine) was stolen due to using outdated software, but like I said, I'd like to keep it short

Hey, it's your own fault for being the kind of person passionate people like to hug. That's a you problem

Much text there.
Suffice to say that there's much room for improvement.
Stage a coup, put me in charge of Ameristan, & watch
utopia blossom.

 

[Yerda]

Do you support public ownership of the means of production? Why or why not?

As a rule of thumb I support public ownership and control of public goods. The reason is that services and goods are generally better and more efficient when private interests are sidelined. We can't trust private interests to maintain public goods.

In principle, I prefer worker cooperatives to capitalist production but I accept that the profit motive can achieve things that are difficult or unlikely otherwise. I don't accept that government ownership of consumer goods is typically a good idea.