[_vbnz]

Seems weird to pit socialism against free markets.

There's nothing about disallowing private ownership of the Earth's common resources, natural monopolies, etc. that stops having free markets everywhere else.

If anything, allowing that is what corrupts free markets - as even with privatisation, you never have a real free market on the railways, highways, or electricity grid because we can only build a limited number of them and can't support multiple disjoint networks. But those corporations can then use that captive market for an unfair advantage entering other markets / verticals.

I think the best solution would be free markets and liberalisation, except in natural monopolies, and a lot of taxation against accumulated and inherited wealth (not income) to provide a level playing field and economic mobility.

[6510]

> you never have a real free market on the railways, highways, or electricity grid

My philosophy is to have a system that monitors innovation done in a sector and if it is deemed insufficient we turn it into a government department (and pay a reasonable price) The government department is compared to private industry in other countries, if performance is deemed insufficient it will be privatized. (with privatized I don't mean given away for 1 euro) It should continue to have the same employees after the transition unless it switches between public and private and back to fast. Then people should be replaced and shuffled around at all levels.

To use the railroad example, if the company is able to find funds to stay on the cutting edge technically, in service level, price and reliability it should [most definitely] stay a company. If it is just sitting there not doing much of anything besides maximizing revenue we might as well have the government run it.

If we really need the service (as is the case with railroads) and it needs bailing out we give each tax paying person or entity an amount of shares that scales with the amount of tax they paid.

[avereveard]

I'm ok with high taxes for sale and redistribution, but I don't think they have such large impact on economic mobility, at least at the top. After all real tax pressure on companies has been steadily going down, but the rate of change in the fortune 100 had been steadily increasing

[nivenkos]

I mean economic mobility like making it easy for people to switch jobs, move city, work for startups, etc.

So separating healthcare coverage from your employment is one important step, as is providing modern, in-depth STEM + Medicine education so people are able to work in highly skilled jobs where we really need them.

That's a big part of driving disruption and progress.

[pydry]

Economic mobility != fortune 500 companies being swapped out with one another. Even more so as people increasingly opt out of individual stocks and just end up buying VTSAX or similar.

It almost seems like a metric designed to mislead about economic mobility in fact. Where did you read about it?

[MichaelZuo]

Fortune 500 companies are comprised of people who can receive varying pay packages based on their company's performance, the closer to the top they are the more direct this relationship is.

Seems like a decent proxy measurement to me.

[pydry]

>you never have a real free market on the railways, highways, or electricity grid because we can only build a limited number of them and can't support multiple disjoint networks

Search indexes too - the electricity costs alone for running one are prohibitive.

[deadpannini]

They won't always be (prohibitive).

[the_third_wave]

> There's nothing about disallowing private ownership of the Earth's common resources, natural monopolies, etc. that stops having free markets everywhere else.

What are "the Earth's common resources"? Is farmland one of those? What about forests, are those part of those "common resources"? If the answer is "yes" your claim of there not being any hindrance between Socialism and "free markets everywhere else" falls flat since it would not be possible to have a free market in essential goods - food and shelter.

For where it concerns "natural monopolies" I tend to agree. As to "a lot of taxation against accumulated and inherited wealth (not income)" I mostly disagree since this is a big disincentive against saving and living within one's means. Parents who want to take care of their children to help them on their way would be punished for their thriftiness (which turns "income" into "wealth") to finance slackers and spendthrifts, the classical dilemma which gave rise to the likes of Ayn Rand writing "Atlas Shrugged". Such a system does not promote economic mobility either since it takes away the incentive to become mobile - why bother when the state provides "equity"?

[aww_dang]

As the article demonstrates, there's nothing preventing socialists from voluntarily choosing to live in socialist communities, inside of the context of a market oriented economy. The conclusion is that most people simply prefer not to.

[_vbnz]

But what is a "socialist community" in that respect?

The only thing I can think of that's achievable is worker co-ops, and a lot of start-ups are like that for early employees and founders.

[aww_dang]

>To find out what percentage of people especially want to live under socialism, we need a situation where people have a reasonably attractive socialist option and also a reasonably attractive nonsocialist one. If it is not precisely the optimal experiment to answer our question, the Israeli experience with kibbutzim comes as close as the real world can.

[_vbnz]

Yeah, but I think kibbutzim is really extreme, and not how even socialists would want to live.

It's a full commune - more like a cult than normal society. So it's quite a strawman in that respect.

[aww_dang]

Socialists are free to develop other arrangements. Is it a problem of innovation?

The distinction here is that even under a hypothetical laissez-faire ideal, socialists would be free to create their own socialist communities of any type. Whereas within a compulsory socialist economy laissez-faire markets are prohibited.

The laissez-faire ideal can accommodate the socialists' individual choices, but the converse is not true.

[cauch]

Well, the comment you are answering to reacted to your comment saying "The conclusion is that most people simply prefer not to".

I agree that the argument made in the article is a strawman argument: no wanting to live in a kibbutz should not be equated to not wanting to live in a socialist society.

I even wonder how many people with a socialist party membership lived in kibbutz at the period of this article, which would demonstrate that this assertion is ridiculous. As this article implies that kibbutz where promoted by the government, I would say that the government was pro-socialism, and if it was an elected government, it would show that a majority of the population is pro-socialism and yet does not want to live in kibbutz. I wonder how many socialist politicians at the time did not even lived in kibbutz, demonstrating the logical flaw of the argument.

But I also disagree with your argument "laissez-faire ideal is an environment where if X does not take off, it means X is a bad idea or is not wanted". It's like saying "you can choose to be a wolf or a sheep, and in this pen, you have a laissez-faire ideal, and we observe that the majority prefer to be wolves, so it's the proof that a sheep pen is a bad idea". No, it means that as soon as there is a laissez-faire that allow wolves eating sheep, it's better to be a wolf even if your ideal was to be a sheep.