Comment by selfmodruntime | Hacker News Reader

Comment by selfmodruntime | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> What percentage of German companies are owned and managed by its workers?

This sentence does not apply because "social market economy" does not imply that companies should be owned by their workes.

> What percentage are owned by capitalists, generating private profits?

This sentence does not apply because a "social market economy" does not forbid the generation of profits. Profits are to be shared with the populace to pay for social policies, which is happening.

> Are those numbers indicative of socialism or capitalism?

You should really - really - read up on "Soziale Marktwirtschaft" and ordoliberalism before you make a point. If you don't know how they are defined and what they mean, you cannot make a coherent argument.

> You're essentially arguing that real capitalism hasn't been attempted yet - that more "freedom" (from regulation), more inequality will somehow fix things.

I have not and you are free to cite where I did.

> Germany is a capitalist country with strong social welfare.

Congratulations, you combine this with "Regulation" and a state mandated "Economic Conscience", you have finally found out what "social market economy" means. It's not "capitalism with X". It's so far removed from the idea of capitalism that we use another term entirely.

> but one thing that's not up for serious discussion is its economic model.

I encourage you to look up the terms. Again.

By your own definitions the USA isn't a capitalist economy due to regulations and their social welfare policies. If that's where you stand then any further discussion is going to be pointless.

>> You're essentially arguing that real capitalism hasn't been attempted yet

> I have not and you are free to cite where I did.

It's a straightforward logical inference. Your definition of capitalism excludes every capitalist economy that has ever existed.

> By your own definitions the USA isn't a capitalist economy due to regulations and their social welfare policies. If that's where you stand then any further discussion is going to be pointless.

Those are not my definitions.

> It's a straightforward logical inference. Your definition of capitalism excludes every capitalist economy that has ever existed

No. A social market economy is capitalism with rules and safety nets, like strong labor protections, healthcare, and pensions, to make sure people are protected from big hardships. The U.S. mostly has free-market capitalism, with fewer regulations and weaker social support. So the main difference is that a social market economy tries to control capitalism to protect people, while the U.S. mostly lets the market run on its own.

> A social market economy is capitalism with rules and safety nets, like strong labor protections, healthcare, and pensions, to make sure people are protected from big hardships

so it is not socialism, the whole point of this discussion.

You are way too into polar opposites here. Try thinking difference beyond/before that.

@selfmodruntime Arguing that the existence of regulations makes an economy non-capitalist is something I've only ever seen extreme left and extreme right-wing people make. Everyone else recognizes "capitalism is a system based on private ownership, wage labor, and private capital accumulation" as a fundamental truth, including, like, all experts in this field. Ultimately, you're making a No True Scotsman argument.

Germany's market is an example of welfare capitalism, which is a type of capitalism.

What you're writing reminds me very much of "the USA isn't a democracy, it's a republic!" (as if a republic isn't a type of democracy called "representative democracy")

> @selfmodruntime Arguing that the existence of regulations makes an economy non-capitalist is something I've only ever seen extreme left and extreme right-wing people make.

Good thing I haven't argued that at all. I was arguing that Germany, which calls its economic system "Social Economics" in fact employs this very economic strategy, which is defined as not being straight forward capitalist but as a mixture of capitalism and socialism.

> Germany's market is an example of welfare capitalism, which is a type of capitalism.

Germany's market is per definition not welfare capitalism, but "social economics". This term exists, it is well defined, you can look it up.

exactly, it is like the "this is not capitalism it is corporatism!" argument the libertarians like to make about the US.

> so it is not socialism, the whole point of this discussion.

No, the whole point of this discussion is that someone claimed Germany was capitalist. Which it isn't. It's in between systems.

> This sentence does not apply because a "social market economy" does not forbid the generation of profits. Profits are to be shared with the populace to pay for social policies, which is happening.

Sure. But that is as socialist as it was the National Socialist German Workers Party.

The continued reference to "socialism" here is a strawman. The discussion started with pembrook's complaint https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45512714 and then had selfmodruntime explaining how the system works starting with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45513552 . At no point did either person describe the system as "socialism". selfmodruntime was even explicit in referring to "'Social market economy'... a regulated market economic model [,] designed to sit exactly in the middle between laissez faire capitalism and socialism". But interlocutors continually insisted on dragging it back to "socialism" simply because selfmodruntime denied that it was "capitalism", applying a false dichotomy.

What you, mfru and dns_snek did here is not respectful, open-minded discourse and I'm amazed that selfmodruntime put up with it that long.

I met selfmodruntime at their discussional level. The "USSR guidebook" quote was uncalled for and plain hyperbole. It also was factually incorrect.

I have re-visited and re-read all of my comments. Nowhere did I mention a USSR guidebook anywhere! This must have been from another commenter. Sorry!

Thanks! I am trying to educate only!

> At no point did either person describe the system as "socialism"

> What you, mfru and dns_snek did here is not respectful, open-minded discourse

Give me a break, the original complaint, the one you linked but apparently didn't read, went even further, likening the European economy to communism:

> The USSR was supposed to be a cautionary tale. Not a guidebook!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com