All countries in the world have mixed economies. (Except maybe Somalia or North Korea.)
The US has a fair amount more publically owned sectors than Europe, which eg has privatized postal services.
The US has a fair amount more publically owned sectors than Europe, which eg has privatized postal services.
Though the extent of it really matters, I always hear "Norway is a capitalist country" when their economy is primarily in the hands of the state, more than for example Venezuela.
But people tend to point to Venezuela, and not Norway, as an example of a failed state owned economy.
It's not really about "sectors" of the economy that are publicly owned but actual economic output. The money in the US is produced and it is in the hands of private individuals most of it. In Norway near 70% of it is produced and in the hands of the state. Obviously Norway is a particular example because they're a country that relies on natural resources extraction. But you can look at other similar countries in terms of their exports (Australia, Chile) and see how the Norwegian model differs.
The USPS, for example, is a service. It's not really a business, it doesn't have to be profitable it ideally has to be sustainable but I wouldn't say it's a necessity. Not only that, it subsidised private businesses like Amazon.
Can you please provide some sources backing up your claim? What metric did you use?
The metrics that I would use, like the Index of Economic Freedom by The Heritage Foundation, seem to contradict your claim.
The fact that the state owns some companies in key industrial sectors and has stakes in others does not mean that the country's economy is primarily in the hands of the state.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_governm...
https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/03/09/how-capitali...
And I mean, yeah, nordic countries for sure participate in the free-market... but Capitalism is defined by private ownership; so when you have such important portions of your economy be collectively, socially or communally owned (state, coops, labour unions) it's misleading to use such labels so lightly. These are mixed-economies, and I would even go as far as to say they're more socialist than capitalist.
Socialism does have a bad reputation though. So I don't blame for these countries to label themselves as "capitalist"; i mean, it's better for business.
There is a big difference between governments owning things vs. exclusions to citizens owning things.
USPS is profitable, though. (even if Congress messes with their retirement accounting to make it look worse)
If they subsidize anyone it's China, because we forced them to do that by signing the UPU treaty. After that it's people who buy forever stamps.
I am not sure the word & associated baggage can be rescued from the 20th century at this point.
Also, people just get on here and disagree with Keynes?
In most cases, workers can own the means to production as many corporations are public. They just have to risk their capital to buy a share of the company - like every other owner.
A thing being true throughout an economy and it being permitted by the formal rules are not the same thing.
Socialism is not merely where some workers do control some of the means of production, but where the entirety of the means of production are cobtrolled by the workers by virtue of their being workers.
If some people who happen to work also happen to have a private property relationship to some capital sufficient to be on par with their labor in terms of importance in their personal relation to the economy, then they are just petit bourgeois in a capitalist economy.
There are worker coops, customer coops, and state owned companies in the US.
Also you're still trying to argue against Keynes and your statement would make China and Vietnam capitalist, which would be a surprise to them. Not to mention Lenin's NEP mixed economy.
nb the people who "control" the means of production in the US are the voters, who can get the government to pass laws regulating it. It doesn't matter if you "own" it ie are equityholders. Although we have that too, in the form of our worker-owned index fund company Vanguard.
Well they are. Just because they wave red flags and call themselves "socialist" doesn't make it true, for the same reason North Korea is precisely none of "democratic", "people's", or a "republic" despite its assertions otherwise.