FREEDOM of choice....demonstrate socialism's virtue

You shouldn't get frustrated if you'd assume I know what capitalism means. Assume I do. Read what I wrote again within that context.

For the record, I assume you know what it means.

For the most part you have simply stated the obvious about it.

It depends. My point is that capitalism isn't the only means.

 

Personally, I go back to the basic concept for definition...it makes it easier.

Communism - Companies are run by the state, with services provided by the state.
Capitalism - Companies are not state owned, services are provided mostly for profit.
Socialism - Companies are partially state owned, services are provided for profit but focus is not for owners but citizens.

Now, in the US I know we tend to push the capitalist method more...but we do have quite a few instances where it is not totally capitalist.
There are socialist methods in play, although the communist method is not called that, it's simply called government services.
The US is not fully capitalist.

For example, there are subsidies. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac allow capitalist entities to have their mortgages backed by the federal government.
Banks buy capital from the Fed, and pay it back at a low rate....and so on...
Companies often do not fly on their own at all times.

And there's nothing wrong with that. Often companies provide services better.
Sometimes government steps in to provide that which is not done by private
or to provide a "non-biased" service to stabilize the vertical for the greater good.

It's just that the US tries to push the capitalist method more so than most other nations
and avoid using government if possible...and it seems to work for the nation.
It's an ongoing adjustment of balance that all countries have to make, which way they are going to push.

Can the private firms provide services fairly and continuously without fail??
Perhaps...but often it's not available. Social Security. Military. Police force. etc, etc, etc...
These are communistic in method, being fully government provided (paid for by taxes)
Personally I wouldn't want to rely on a fire-dept that was profit oriented.

The problem is...many take an idea to an extreme.
Saying capitalism is good or better...so we should make EVERYTHING fully capitalist, and that's just not true. (and I'm pro-capitalist)
But the other proponent of Socialism and Communism tend to idealize those methods too.

I found a good society has a mixture of all methods...and if people were honest, they'd see that it does work that way.
Often companies are more efficient.
Sometimes government is more reliable.
Sometimes they need to work together.

Do what works.

 

There are other things to this too, rogue49.

What you're discussing is mainly the difference between a free-market economy and a command or planned economy. The macro level. I was thinking more micro level in this case.

What I was referring to was the difference between a company that relies on the "traditional triad" of land, labour, and capital (and seeks to maximize it) vs. a company that defies that reliance (in its own way). These latter companies aren't typically exposed to capital markets, and often they protect themselves from them.

So referring to the triad, there are companies that don't seek (or seek much) external capital or natural capital, relying on generating their own assets. And they aim to keep it that way. As for labour, they often are small, tightly run ships that seek productive leverage through technological means (many of them are Web or related companies).

I'm not saying you're wrong or anything. I'm mostly pointing out more specifically what I meant, which maybe Aceventura didn't quite realize.

While all advanced economies have capitalist (i.e., free market) features, this doesn't mean that all companies need to be operated by capitalists. This is my point.