Socialism

[Siege]

It's not the communist view. Socialists accept the private market and the inequality that comes with it.

True.  But I think countries like the Scandinavians view equality as a goal as well.

And as an aside it's relatively easy to maintain functioning markets redistributive government simultaneously.

Like the soviets did?

[Admiral Yi]

Like the soviets did?

The Soviets had very limited functioning markets for very limited times.

[CountDeMoney]

Because history has abundantly shown that the profit motive and the price mechanism are the most efficient way of allocating resources to create the goods and services that maximize human satisfaction, and a more efficient way of incentivizing productive behavior than ballets about tractors or bayonets and gulags.

Bah.  There has to be a happy medium somewhere between unrepentant, society-destroying greed and dysfunctional, myopic central planning.  One that doesn't involve explosives or guillotines.

[Valmy]

Bah.  There has to be a happy medium somewhere between unrepentant, society-destroying greed and dysfunctional, myopic central planning.  One that doesn't involve explosives or guillotines.

[garbon]

Because history has abundantly shown that the profit motive and the price mechanism are the most efficient way of allocating resources to create the goods and services that maximize human satisfaction, and a more efficient way of incentivizing productive behavior than ballets about tractors or bayonets and gulags.

Bah.  There has to be a happy medium somewhere between unrepentant, society-destroying greed and dysfunctional, myopic central planning.  One that doesn't involve explosives or guillotines.

Yeah for the most part we have it.

[Admiral Yi]

Bah.  There has to be a happy medium somewhere between unrepentant, society-destroying greed and dysfunctional, myopic central planning.  One that doesn't involve explosives or guillotines.

That's reassuring.

[The Brain]

Swedish Socialists are married to the idea of everyone being equally wealthy. In their view if not everyone gets an increase in wealth then no one should get one.

[CountDeMoney]

Bah.  There has to be a happy medium somewhere between unrepentant, society-destroying greed and dysfunctional, myopic central planning.  One that doesn't involve explosives or guillotines.

Yeah for the most part we have it.

[lumbergh]Mmmm, yeah...[/lumbergh]

[The Brain]

A major problem in Sweden is that we only have Socialist parties in parliament. There is no right wing option anymore since the Moderates (used to be the major conservative party) turned Red.

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah for the most part we have it.

We have a system that prohibits a range of behavior.  We are still left with only one way to incentivize productive behavior: money.

[derspiess]

A major problem in Sweden is that we only have Socialist parties in parliament. There is no right wing option anymore since the Moderates (used to be the major conservative party) turned Red.

What about the Sweden Democrats

[crazy canuck]

Yeah for the most part we have it.

We have a system that prohibits a range of behavior.  We are still left with only one way to incentivize productive behavior: money.

Not really.  Money is a major component but non monetary benefits like flexibility in hours of work can also work wonders to increase productivity. 

[alfred russel]

Or more to the point the needs of the donors who believed they were transfering wealth into heaven. 

I have a more cynical view of history, I think. Individuals may have donated out of sincere belief of course, but I think the church maintained its wealth and power for roughly 1,500 years because of the secular role it played. One key part of that was the charitable mission.

In practical terms it doesn't make much sense to leave the social safety net in the hands of non democratic clerics that discriminate against elements of society (such as members of other sects, non believers, and "sinners"),as we moved into the industrial age the system was increasingly challenged and had to be changed.

[Admiral Yi]

Not really.  Money is a major component but non monetary benefits like flexibility in hours of work can also work wonders to increase productivity.

Rigid work hours are part of the unpleasantness of work that necessitate compensation to perform it.

I suspect if you started up a company and offered totally flexible work times and no pay the applicant pool would not be very deep.

[crazy canuck]

In practical terms it doesn't make much sense to leave the social safety net in the hands of non democratic clerics that discriminate against elements of society (such as members of other sects, non believers, and "sinners"),as we moved into the industrial age the system was increasingly challenged and had to be changed.

An interesting case study to demonstrate your point would be the transformation in Quebec from a Province in which the Church had a signficant role to the rather insignfiicant role it now has.