What is the difference between Canada and the US re: socialism

[Norgy]

I sincerely doubt either Canada or the US can be said to have any "socialism" worth mentioning, unless socialism is defined as any sort of government financing. Which is turning the whole idea upside down. Socialism in principle is state ownership of the means of production. Norway, even under the current government, would score quite highly for socialism in that respect, with owning shares in several companies, but still, it is just a player in the market. The absence of a market, and particularly prices set by the market, is a trademark of socialism. To each after his own ability and all that.

Just like pure market economies never exist, neither do socialism. After 1989, it has been rather clear the market won, and most countries can be judged on a scale of how much they let the market decide rather than a degree of socialism.

I find this discussion simply silly.

Not very well-worded, am I? I read my post again, and was rather confused as to what I was trying to say.
The issue I tried to some degree to address is government money in a market economy as opposed to state ownership. I don't see the former as socialism. And I don't think the education/university sector is a good example of socialism or lack thereof. Of all the things our taxes are spent on, surely education is the best one. Or at least I hope so.




You have me confused.  You say "The absence of a market, and particularly prices set by the market, is a trademark of socialism.'  Okay.  So the scale is based on the role of the market.  You also argue that "I sincerely doubt either Canada or the US can be said to have any "socialism" worth mentioning," which must mean that the market is the only mechanism they possess for distributing goods and services.  But then you say that "most countries can be judged on a scale of how much they let the market decide rather than a degree of socialism" which is to say that they can be judged on the same scale which defines socialism, but can't be judged on a scale which defines socialism.  I know that's not what you meant.

if the scale is total market -> total command, with socialism being the latter, then surely degree of socialism and degree of market are just the inverse of one another on the same scale.

[grumbler]

Not very well-worded, am I? I read my post again, and was rather confused as to what I was trying to say.
The issue I tried to some degree to address is government money in a market economy as opposed to state ownership. I don't see the former as socialism. And I don't think the education/university sector is a good example of socialism or lack thereof. Of all the things our taxes are spent on, surely education is the best one. Or at least I hope so.

Agreed.  Even Adam Smith thought the government had a role to play in education (and many other areas), and no one thinks of him as a socialist.

[The Brain]

Adam Smith was a follower. Anders Chydenius was the shit.

[Malthus]

I sincerely doubt either Canada or the US can be said to have any "socialism" worth mentioning, unless socialism is defined as any sort of government financing. Which is turning the whole idea upside down. Socialism in principle is state ownership of the means of production. Norway, even under the current government, would score quite highly for socialism in that respect, with owning shares in several companies, but still, it is just a player in the market. The absence of a market, and particularly prices set by the market, is a trademark of socialism. To each after his own ability and all that.

Just like pure market economies never exist, neither do socialism. After 1989, it has been rather clear the market won, and most countries can be judged on a scale of how much they let the market decide rather than a degree of socialism.

I find this discussion simply silly.

Canada has a certain amount of "socialism" in that sense - the government at various levels has large investments in "Crown corporations".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_corporations_of_Canada

To give an example, in Ontario if one wants to buy booze outside of a restaurant, one must* buy it from a chain of stores owned and operated directly by the province of Ontario - the so-called "LCBO" stores.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquor_Control_Board_of_Ontario

*subject to a bunch of exceptions.

This is I would imagine a concept that would be pretty startling to Americans.

[The Brain]

I sincerely doubt either Canada or the US can be said to have any "socialism" worth mentioning, unless socialism is defined as any sort of government financing. Which is turning the whole idea upside down. Socialism in principle is state ownership of the means of production. Norway, even under the current government, would score quite highly for socialism in that respect, with owning shares in several companies, but still, it is just a player in the market. The absence of a market, and particularly prices set by the market, is a trademark of socialism. To each after his own ability and all that.

Just like pure market economies never exist, neither do socialism. After 1989, it has been rather clear the market won, and most countries can be judged on a scale of how much they let the market decide rather than a degree of socialism.

I find this discussion simply silly.

Canada has a certain amount of "socialism" in that sense - the government at various levels has large investments in "Crown corporations".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_corporations_of_Canada

To give an example, in Ontario if one wants to buy booze outside of a restaurant, one must* buy it from a chain of stores owned and operated directly by the province of Ontario - the so-called "LCBO" stores.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquor_Control_Board_of_Ontario

*subject to a bunch of exceptions.

This is I would imagine a concept that would be pretty startling to Americans.

Regional differences in America.

[derspiess]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquor_Control_Board_of_Ontario

*subject to a bunch of exceptions.

This is I would imagine a concept that would be pretty startling to Americans.

Not quite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_stores

[Barrister]

To give an example, in Ontario if one wants to buy booze outside of a restaurant, one must* buy it from a chain of stores owned and operated directly by the province of Ontario - the so-called "LCBO" stores.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquor_Control_Board_of_Ontario

*subject to a bunch of exceptions.

This is I would imagine a concept that would be pretty startling to Americans.

Malthus, I've lived in this country my entire life, and the existence of government owned and operated liquor stores in all jurisdictions save Alberta still startles and amazes me.

[Malthus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquor_Control_Board_of_Ontario

*subject to a bunch of exceptions.

This is I would imagine a concept that would be pretty startling to Americans.

Not quite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_stores

Heh, I was wrong. I had no idea some states in the US did the same thing!

[Caliga]

Pennsylvania does.  Massachusetts doesn't (GAWTA GO TO DA PACKIE STOAH) and neither does Kentucky (GOTTA GIT DOWN TO THE LICKER BARN)

[derspiess]

Malthus, I've lived in this country my entire life, and the existence of government owned and operated liquor stores in all jurisdictions save Alberta still startles and amazes me.

When I was a young kid I had to go with my mom to one of West Virginia's state ABC stores on the rare occasion she was buying liquor for a recipe or gift.  Even though I hadn't developed my political views yet the existence of such stores vexed me because it seemed really odd for the state of West Virginia to own a business.  Plus, why would the state want to sell something to people that will make them drunk?

[derspiess]

Pennsylvania does.  Massachusetts doesn't (GAWTA GO TO DA PACKIE STOAH) and neither does Kentucky (GOTTA GIT DOWN TO THE LICKER BARN)

I don't bother buying liquor in Ohio.  Always buy it in Kentucky where it's cheaper, has a better selection, and with fewer restrictions.

[crazy canuck]

I havent bought liquor at a government store for years.  They still exist.  I just dont know why people continue to shop there. 

[dps]

Malthus, I've lived in this country my entire life, and the existence of government owned and operated liquor stores in all jurisdictions save Alberta still startles and amazes me.

When I was a young kid I had to go with my mom to one of West Virginia's state ABC stores on the rare occasion she was buying liquor for a recipe or gift.  Even though I hadn't developed my political views yet the existence of such stores vexed me because it seemed really odd for the state of West Virginia to own a business.  Plus, why would the state want to sell something to people that will make them drunk?

Yeah, they've got those in NC, too.   WV at least privitized their liquor stores somewhile back, IIRC. 

[Malthus]

I havent bought liquor at a government store for years.  They still exist.  I just dont know why people continue to shop there.

The odd thing about the LCBO stores here in Ontario is that they are usually pretty good. Not at all what I'd have expected from a government-run org.

There is one near my house, and it has a great selection.

[Barrister]

I havent bought liquor at a government store for years.  They still exist.  I just dont know why people continue to shop there.

In Yukon they had quite the scam going.  There was a government liquor store in each town.  But of course one of those towns was Whitehorse, which had over 75% of the entire territory's population.  It had very reasonable prices, but terrible hours (closed at 6).

If you wanted booze after 6 you had to go to a hotel (and only a hotel) to buy "off-sales", which were invariably ~30% more expensive.  And, of course, most of the governing MLAs were in the hotel industry.