Yu Jing is a hot mess

Remember when this was a thread about Yu Jing Sectorials?

Good times...

 

After all this malarkey, what I would actually like to hear from you @Zewrath is your reasoning for why social democracy isn't a form of socialism.

I would specifically like you to address the explicit social democracy goals of income redistribution, and then market regulation with explicit social-welfare aims (like capping the allowed cost of medical supplies, let's use that as a specific example please).

[EDIT: Thread hijacking sucks, sorry to have contributed to it as just pointed out by DeltaDash @Zewrath I hope we can have this discussion over a beer sometime instead. I'm genuinely interested in right-wing answers to the question above.]

 

Yeah, crap, sorry man. We'll take it elsewhere.

 

By this quote alone, you do not understand Social Democracy by any strecth of the word.

Social Democray does not have income redistribution as a goal in any way shape or form.

It's a capitalist country with a welfare model.
Having tax founded hospitals is not wealth redistribution.
Having tax founded schools is not wealth redistribution.
Having tax founded roads and maintenance is not wealth redistribution.

It's bizare that you constantly bang on about me being a 'simpleton' yet you do not grasp this simple concept.

We are not a socialist country you moron, and yes I take it personal, because other morons, like Bernie Sanders have damaged our reputation by being as stupid as you are.
We had to have our prime minister come out publically several times because of idiots like Bernie and the hosts from Fox News constantly calling us socialists.
This damages our image and economy as foreign investors have been pulling out because of this shit.

 

I don't know if yu-jing is a hot mess, but this topic sure is...

And I think Yu-jing does a good job at representing its identity through its sectorials. White banner is a bit of an eyebrow raiser on some aspects (Shang-ji is awesome, but is canibalizing all of jujiak's design space), but that's it.

 

You seem to have missed payments to the unemployed, family subsidies, subsidy of home-owner purchases, and payments to the elderly. Especially the Active Labor Market Policy which Denmark is really well-known for in European government studies.

This is income redistribution.

Your other examples (roads and bridges etc.) are not social-welfare programs. Address what I just listed above, and how it is not income redistribution.

 

Had the idea that WBA get a Tiger with Parachutist (Dep. Zone) been floated a million times before? I'd been off the forums for a couple of months.

I'd like to see it on the shotgun or hacker profile because I have the models but only really use them as paramedics.

 

Eh... what the [fluffy pudding] in [jizzed electrofish] we are [kitties] doing here.
Looks like [rainbow fairies] peace of [cosmic flower]...

I think, lots of things were told and now time for peace. Not piss.

 

For your convenience @Zewrath , actual definition of social democracy from a reputed source that is not Wikipedia:

Badie, Bertrand; Berg-Schlosser, Dirk; Morlino, Leonardo, eds. (2011). "Social Democracy". International Encyclopedia of Political Science. 8. SAGE Publications. p. 2423.

"Social democracy refers to a political tendency resting on three fundamental features:
(1) democracy (e.g., equal rights to vote and form parties),
(2) an economy partly regulated by the state (e.g., through Keynesianism), and
(3) a welfare state offering social support to those in need (e.g., equal rights to education, health service, employment and pensions).

Item 2 could be socialist, could be not, very broad (I would argue that Denmark does fit in there for several reasons, including the power of collective bargaining in the country, which is a really cool example of non-governmental social governance extracting concessions directly from capital in a very productive way)

Item 3 is textbook socialist. Providing economic support to the unemployed is socialist, as is subsidizing the cost of medicine or capping the cost of it artificially. It's market intervention with social-good purpose, as well as actual provision of payments to the needy.

 

Also, never called you a simpleton. You're great at Infinity, clearly a bright guy. Your understanding of political economics is not great though.

 

This should be going on in the Nomads forum, probably end up Kuang Shi for it in the State Empire.

 

Did I use the word communism?

 

Yeah. Unfortunately, people assume Yu Jing is socialist when it's just an authoritarian state that's a constitutional monarchy, because they see Chinese people and think "communism" and conflate communism with socialism. It has about as much resemblance to modern-day PRC as the British Empire at its height does to the modern UK.

 

So you're saying this is not from wiki, but you're copying the source from the wiki page you just provided.
I can't make this stuff up.

Furthermore, your listed definitions makes several states in the US socialst by your cited standard, which is unbelievable.
Social programs are not socialism my dude, I don't understand why you do not understand this, in fact that seems to be your entire argument:
"Oh, so this is tax funded and some of that tax money goes to support homeless people = socialsm confirmed! Also, you totally don't understand political economics!"

Regarding item 2, this is almost only relevant for union workers like constructions etc.
There's no such thing for people who work in resturants, convenience stores etc. which is because, unlike Bernie Sanders, Denmark understands that a mandated minimum wage literally kills upstarting businesses.

 

The source is the International Encyclopedia of Political Science. Wikipedia cites it. I used it because it was easy, accurate, and you would make the objection you just did to a pretty clearly applicable definition from a reputable source.

You made an attack on source that's really weak: the source is reputable, the definition is clear, and it is not disputable. You decided to say that because I quoted something Wikipedia quoted, it is inaccurate? You're not good at this.

Wow, you're really not up on civics in your own country, are you?

Yes, shop workers have a socialist program in Denmark too. It's your expanded unemployment insurance scheme, the Active Labor Market Policy. You all benefit from it, including shop clerks. It's direct payments to the unemployed as well as retraining assistance. Textbook social welfare program, supported by a non-tax contribution from employers. That last bit is what makes it (dun dun duuuuun) Socialism (non-tax contributions to social welfare scheme, direct payments to individuals to compensate for income differences).

Then there's labor agreements, established by the Kanslergade Agreement as one of the foundation of the welfare state in your country. Like I said repeatedly above, in Denmark labor negotiation for return of capital benefits is handled by labor directly. This is a cool form of outsourcing socialist negotiation with capital owners to a non-governmental agency. This continues to this day. It's a really cool form of social policy negotiation (I had to read a paper about it in grad school when I was studying something adjacent, I'll try to dig it up if you are interested).

It also established, among other things, subsidies for the farming industry. This is bog-standard breadbasket socialism. It was bolstered in the 1960s and "reformed" in the 1990s, but the subsidies are still there.

Whoooah you must have missed some American history stuff, if you ever studied the subject. We had a massive Keynesian intervention with a lot of explicitly socialist programs and tools during the Great Depression, called the New Deal. America was essentially a centrally-planned economy with the government as our largest employer for half a decade.

And funny enough, we DO still have some government interventions in America that could be considered socialist, and they're strongest in really "red" states.

Surprise, it's farm subsidies! Unfortunately, they got turned from their socialist intervention in the New Deal (direct compensation to individuals for loss of market value of goods) into a corporate subsidy when farming moved from family enterprise to megacorporations, but the subsidies stayed (and greatly expanded, in the case of corn). American "socialism" tends to be diverted to corporate benefit.

The same goes for our healthcare programs for the indigent, which as vastly overcharged to compensate for a lot of other uninsured people. But the program is still there, it's just barely viable because corporate interests have latched onto it.

Anyways: Social democracy, inherently a bit socialist. Attempts to claim that it is not so that you can condemn "THA EVILS UHV SOSHULISZM!" are futile, and make you look like you don't know what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]

 

OH! Forgot to say: You Danes have a public health insurance scheme with no-cost basic treatment for everyone who has it.

Even MORE importantly, and the thing you tried to wiggle out of earlier, is that medical service and supply costs are capped by regulation. [EDIT: I just learned that the service part of the fee is negotiated by the physicians' union with the health insurance scheme, which is a cool example of the outsourced-government-regulatory-functions thing allowing two semi-external parties to negotiate what would otherwise just be done through direct government policy in places like France.]

That is bog-standard socialist market intervention in a public-benefit good. It is both social democracy AND flat-out socialist. And you benefit from it, as do shop clerks etc.

(It's also sane and good and what most of the nations that are worth living in do).

 

I'd even wager that only 3rd world countries don't.

 

The US doesn't. They allow medical costs to be "determined by the market" which usually means collusion between major providers and industry groups, with no actual cost reduction due to free-market competition (because medical care is hard to substitute with anything else, even another provider often because you are frequently in crisis when seeking it).

They can charge you $100 for a bag of saline if they want. It's a lot of why I quit the industry, moved to France, got a degree related to what @Zewrath and I are arguing about, and wholeheartedly support socialist intervention in industries with highly-inelastic demand (medicine, defense, public utilities like water and power, and education).