7 ms·

No, the defined economic model in Germany is called "Social market economy", not capitalism. It is one of the systems furthest removed from capitalism that is n

No, the defined economic model in Germany is called "Social market economy", not capitalism. It is one of the systems furthest removed from capitalism that is not yet Socialism (or similar systems). It's a regulated market economic model and it is designed to sit exactly in the middle between laissez faire capitalism and socialism. You can read this up if you like.

dns_snek 1y ago
Yes and North Korea is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Names don't reflect reality. > It's a regulated market economic model So is the USA.
- selfmodruntime 1y ago
  > Yes and North Korea is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Names don't reflect reality. Our model came first, then came the name. I explained it's origins thoroughly, it is rooted in economic theory and it is what is really happening in Germany. It's codified in Articles 20 and 14 of our constitution. Social welfare is among the best in the world and covers a lot, but taxes are high. This would never happen in any free market economic models. I recommend you read up on it a bit before making snarky comments on the internet.
  - dns_snek 1y ago
    What percentage of German companies are owned and managed by its workers? What percentage are owned by capitalists, generating private profits? Are those numbers indicative of socialism or capitalism? > I recommend you read up on it a bit before making snarky comments on the internet. It's not a snarky comment. Regulation and welfare are requirements even in a capitalist economy, otherwise you have people dying on the streets en masse and companies dumping toxic waste next to the fields where you grow food. You're essentially arguing that real capitalism hasn't been attempted yet - that more "freedom" (from regulation), more inequality will somehow fix things. The US has more "freedom" in this sense than Germany - is the average person doing better over there? I don't think so, I certainly don't know any "average worker" currently living anywhere in the EU who would want to swap places. Germany is a capitalist country with strong social welfare. If you think social welfare is a problem, feel free to argue that, but one thing that's not up for serious discussion is its economic model.
    - selfmodruntime 1y ago
      > What percentage of German companies are owned and managed by its workers? This sentence does not apply because "social market economy" does not imply that companies should be owned by their workes. > What percentage are owned by capitalists, generating private profits? This sentence does not apply because a "social market economy" does not forbid the generation of profits. Profits are to be shared with the populace to pay for social policies, which is happening. > Are those numbers indicative of socialism or capitalism? You should really - really - read up on "Soziale Marktwirtschaft" and ordoliberalism before you make a point. If you don't know how they are defined and what they mean, you cannot make a coherent argument. > You're essentially arguing that real capitalism hasn't been attempted yet - that more "freedom" (from regulation), more inequality will somehow fix things. I have not and you are free to cite where I did. > Germany is a capitalist country with strong social welfare. Congratulations, you combine this with "Regulation" and a state mandated "Economic Conscience", you have finally found out what "social market economy" means. It's not "capitalism with X". It's so far removed from the idea of capitalism that we use another term entirely. > but one thing that's not up for serious discussion is its economic model. I encourage you to look up the terms. Again.
      - dns_snek 1y ago
        By your own definitions the USA isn't a capitalist economy due to regulations and their social welfare policies. If that's where you stand then any further discussion is going to be pointless. >> You're essentially arguing that real capitalism hasn't been attempted yet > I have not and you are free to cite where I did. It's a straightforward logical inference. Your definition of capitalism excludes every capitalist economy that has ever existed.
        selfmodruntime 1y ago
        > By your own definitions the USA isn't a capitalist economy due to regulations and their social welfare policies. If that's where you stand then any further discussion is going to be pointless. Those are not my definitions. > It's a straightforward logical inference. Your definition of capitalism excludes every capitalist economy that has ever existed No. A social market economy is capitalism with rules and safety nets, like strong labor protections, healthcare, and pensions, to make sure people are protected from big hardships. The U.S. mostly has free-market capitalism, with fewer regulations and weaker social support. So the main difference is that a social market economy tries to control capitalism to protect people, while the U.S. mostly lets the market run on its own.
geremiiah 1y ago
Sorry, but lol. Germany even makes you pay to be able to piss in a toilet. Even public libraries aren't free! And let's not mention the health care system, which literally has two tiers, one for the poor and one for the rich, with of course the poor-tier being barely functional, and still expensive as fuck. "Social market economy" my ass. Germany is a country led by incompetent extremely paternalistic leaders, the major part of which come from the capitalist class, the rest of which are their Akademiker servants. The only people getting any kind of social benefits are the retired boomers and if you were to do the accounting, even they got massively shafted by the capitalists, because those boomers would be 3x richer if their lifetime savings were properly invested.
- selfmodruntime 1y ago
  > Even public libraries aren't free! Because they aren't public. They are provided by a company. > And let's not mention the health care system, which literally has two tiers, one for the poor and one for the rich, with of course the poor-tier being barely functional, and still expensive as fuck This is because of inefficiency, an aging demographic and regulation, not because of capitalism. The "system for the rich" was worse back in the day, and only became "better" for doctors because they adjusted their rates for covered services. In fact, because the "poor tier" insurance companies have not adjusted their rates according to inflation for a long time [1], services are of course getting worse. The average dentist earns 50% of what he earned 1970 adjusted for inflation. [2] This is called the "Punktwert", it hasn't changed since 1980 ([3]) and it is the single most important factor why services are getting worse and worse. No one is getting rich off of GKV members. Not doctors, and certainly not insurance companies. > "Social market economy" my ass. Sorry, no. This is the direct outcome of a social market economy, when the economic motor isn't doing so good, you still have to pay for permanent social gifts that were given to the largest voting class (old people). The government mandated insurance companies are close to being bankrupt because of this exact policy. In fact, they would already be bankrupt if we didn't have a social market economy [4], which pays billions of tax dollars to prop them up. > The only people getting any kind of social benefits are the retired boomers and if you were to do the accounting, even they got massively shafted by the capitalists, because those boomers would be 3x richer if their lifetime savings were properly invested. Well, boomers, pensioners and those close to retirement make up 60% of the voting base. They got what they voted for, good and bad, a social market economic model that bleeds the workers to pay for pensions. That matches the definition of a large welfare system exactly. They also voted pretty clearly against an investment backed pension scheme and have been voting like this for 4 decades now. As always, economic models have disadvantages, and we are finding out now that models close to socialism stop working when you run out of other people's money. [1]: https://www.aerzteblatt.de/archiv/amtliche-gebuehrenordnung-fuer-aerzte-im-fadenkreuz-des-wettbewerbs-284d4a62-17fd-4a44-b964-26a6b1e56485 https://www.aerzteblatt.de/archiv/amtliche-gebuehrenordnung-... [2]: https://praxis-analysen.de/das-verfuegbare-zahnarzt-einkommen-schmilzt-dahin/ https://praxis-analysen.de/das-verfuegbare-zahnarzt-einkomme... [3]: https://www.aerzteblatt.de/news/mehrere-vertragsarztliche-leistungen-ab-2026-nicht-mehr-extrabudgetar-vergutet-1a92aafb-4186-4de4-9f44-ac5d3c999acd https://www.aerzteblatt.de/news/mehrere-vertragsarztliche-le... [4]: https://www.pkv.de/positionen/bundeszuschuss/ https://www.pkv.de/positionen/bundeszuschuss/
kharak 1y ago
Not sure why you are downvoted. Social market economy is the self-description in Germany, it's what you learn in school and how German politicians name the system. The goal of social market economy is to 'correct undesirable effects' of free markets. Depending on your perspective, you categorize it as capitalist, socialist or in-between system.
- selfmodruntime 1y ago
  > Not sure why you are downvoted. Because the reality of this is unpopular for critics of capitalism. Most people rarely have an idea how far removed from laissez faire capitalism European countries are. This doesn't stop critics from ironically mentioning that free markets altogether don't work for example in our renter's market (which is the most restricted market we have). The ill-effects we are now feeling are from strangulating regulation, bad policy and European countries with large welfare states like France or Germany having little moveable capital to invest into infrastructure, because most of it is forever bound to welfare. Note that I'm not critical of welfare, but we have lost the plot that money needs to be earned before it can be redistributed. > Social market economy is the self-description in Germany, it's what you learn in school and how German politicians name the system. All this and also scholars attributing this very real system to be effectively what we have in Germany is not enough for some.
  - dns_snek 1y ago
    > Because the reality of this is unpopular for critics of capitalism. Most people rarely have an idea how far removed from laissez faire capitalism European countries are. No, it's because you keep strawmanning like this for rhetorical effect. Laissez faire capitalism isn't the only form of capitalism that exists and nobody has claimed it to be the form of capitalism that applies to Germany.
  - mfru 11mo ago
    If you ask nearly any person on the street in Germany (or Austria, or Switzerland) which economic system is in effect, they will say it is capitalism. Because it is. The means of production are in the hand of capital. Profit is the driving factor of companies. "Number go up" is still the default goal.

dns_snek 1y ago

Yes and North Korea is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Names don't reflect reality. > It's a regulated market economic model So is the USA.

selfmodruntime 1y ago
> Yes and North Korea is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Names don't reflect reality. Our model came first, then came the name. I explained it's origins thoroughly, it is rooted in economic theory and it is what is really happening in Germany. It's codified in Articles 20 and 14 of our constitution. Social welfare is among the best in the world and covers a lot, but taxes are high. This would never happen in any free market economic models. I recommend you read up on it a bit before making snarky comments on the internet.
- dns_snek 1y ago
  What percentage of German companies are owned and managed by its workers? What percentage are owned by capitalists, generating private profits? Are those numbers indicative of socialism or capitalism? > I recommend you read up on it a bit before making snarky comments on the internet. It's not a snarky comment. Regulation and welfare are requirements even in a capitalist economy, otherwise you have people dying on the streets en masse and companies dumping toxic waste next to the fields where you grow food. You're essentially arguing that real capitalism hasn't been attempted yet - that more "freedom" (from regulation), more inequality will somehow fix things. The US has more "freedom" in this sense than Germany - is the average person doing better over there? I don't think so, I certainly don't know any "average worker" currently living anywhere in the EU who would want to swap places. Germany is a capitalist country with strong social welfare. If you think social welfare is a problem, feel free to argue that, but one thing that's not up for serious discussion is its economic model.
  - selfmodruntime 1y ago
    > What percentage of German companies are owned and managed by its workers? This sentence does not apply because "social market economy" does not imply that companies should be owned by their workes. > What percentage are owned by capitalists, generating private profits? This sentence does not apply because a "social market economy" does not forbid the generation of profits. Profits are to be shared with the populace to pay for social policies, which is happening. > Are those numbers indicative of socialism or capitalism? You should really - really - read up on "Soziale Marktwirtschaft" and ordoliberalism before you make a point. If you don't know how they are defined and what they mean, you cannot make a coherent argument. > You're essentially arguing that real capitalism hasn't been attempted yet - that more "freedom" (from regulation), more inequality will somehow fix things. I have not and you are free to cite where I did. > Germany is a capitalist country with strong social welfare. Congratulations, you combine this with "Regulation" and a state mandated "Economic Conscience", you have finally found out what "social market economy" means. It's not "capitalism with X". It's so far removed from the idea of capitalism that we use another term entirely. > but one thing that's not up for serious discussion is its economic model. I encourage you to look up the terms. Again.
    - dns_snek 1y ago
      By your own definitions the USA isn't a capitalist economy due to regulations and their social welfare policies. If that's where you stand then any further discussion is going to be pointless. >> You're essentially arguing that real capitalism hasn't been attempted yet > I have not and you are free to cite where I did. It's a straightforward logical inference. Your definition of capitalism excludes every capitalist economy that has ever existed.
      - selfmodruntime 1y ago
        > By your own definitions the USA isn't a capitalist economy due to regulations and their social welfare policies. If that's where you stand then any further discussion is going to be pointless. Those are not my definitions. > It's a straightforward logical inference. Your definition of capitalism excludes every capitalist economy that has ever existed No. A social market economy is capitalism with rules and safety nets, like strong labor protections, healthcare, and pensions, to make sure people are protected from big hardships. The U.S. mostly has free-market capitalism, with fewer regulations and weaker social support. So the main difference is that a social market economy tries to control capitalism to protect people, while the U.S. mostly lets the market run on its own.

geremiiah 1y ago

Sorry, but lol. Germany even makes you pay to be able to piss in a toilet. Even public libraries aren't free! And let's not mention the health care system, which literally has two tiers, one for the poor and one for the rich, with of course the poor-tier being barely functional, and still expensive as fuck. "Social market economy" my ass. Germany is a country led by incompetent extremely paternalistic leaders, the major part of which come from the capitalist class, the rest of which are their Akademiker servants. The only people getting any kind of social benefits are the retired boomers and if you were to do the accounting, even they got massively shafted by the capitalists, because those boomers would be 3x richer if their lifetime savings were properly invested.

selfmodruntime 1y ago
> Even public libraries aren't free! Because they aren't public. They are provided by a company. > And let's not mention the health care system, which literally has two tiers, one for the poor and one for the rich, with of course the poor-tier being barely functional, and still expensive as fuck This is because of inefficiency, an aging demographic and regulation, not because of capitalism. The "system for the rich" was worse back in the day, and only became "better" for doctors because they adjusted their rates for covered services. In fact, because the "poor tier" insurance companies have not adjusted their rates according to inflation for a long time [1], services are of course getting worse. The average dentist earns 50% of what he earned 1970 adjusted for inflation. [2] This is called the "Punktwert", it hasn't changed since 1980 ([3]) and it is the single most important factor why services are getting worse and worse. No one is getting rich off of GKV members. Not doctors, and certainly not insurance companies. > "Social market economy" my ass. Sorry, no. This is the direct outcome of a social market economy, when the economic motor isn't doing so good, you still have to pay for permanent social gifts that were given to the largest voting class (old people). The government mandated insurance companies are close to being bankrupt because of this exact policy. In fact, they would already be bankrupt if we didn't have a social market economy [4], which pays billions of tax dollars to prop them up. > The only people getting any kind of social benefits are the retired boomers and if you were to do the accounting, even they got massively shafted by the capitalists, because those boomers would be 3x richer if their lifetime savings were properly invested. Well, boomers, pensioners and those close to retirement make up 60% of the voting base. They got what they voted for, good and bad, a social market economic model that bleeds the workers to pay for pensions. That matches the definition of a large welfare system exactly. They also voted pretty clearly against an investment backed pension scheme and have been voting like this for 4 decades now. As always, economic models have disadvantages, and we are finding out now that models close to socialism stop working when you run out of other people's money. [1]: https://www.aerzteblatt.de/archiv/amtliche-gebuehrenordnung-fuer-aerzte-im-fadenkreuz-des-wettbewerbs-284d4a62-17fd-4a44-b964-26a6b1e56485 https://www.aerzteblatt.de/archiv/amtliche-gebuehrenordnung-... [2]: https://praxis-analysen.de/das-verfuegbare-zahnarzt-einkommen-schmilzt-dahin/ https://praxis-analysen.de/das-verfuegbare-zahnarzt-einkomme... [3]: https://www.aerzteblatt.de/news/mehrere-vertragsarztliche-leistungen-ab-2026-nicht-mehr-extrabudgetar-vergutet-1a92aafb-4186-4de4-9f44-ac5d3c999acd https://www.aerzteblatt.de/news/mehrere-vertragsarztliche-le... [4]: https://www.pkv.de/positionen/bundeszuschuss/ https://www.pkv.de/positionen/bundeszuschuss/

kharak 1y ago

Not sure why you are downvoted. Social market economy is the self-description in Germany, it's what you learn in school and how German politicians name the system. The goal of social market economy is to 'correct undesirable effects' of free markets. Depending on your perspective, you categorize it as capitalist, socialist or in-between system.

selfmodruntime 1y ago
> Not sure why you are downvoted. Because the reality of this is unpopular for critics of capitalism. Most people rarely have an idea how far removed from laissez faire capitalism European countries are. This doesn't stop critics from ironically mentioning that free markets altogether don't work for example in our renter's market (which is the most restricted market we have). The ill-effects we are now feeling are from strangulating regulation, bad policy and European countries with large welfare states like France or Germany having little moveable capital to invest into infrastructure, because most of it is forever bound to welfare. Note that I'm not critical of welfare, but we have lost the plot that money needs to be earned before it can be redistributed. > Social market economy is the self-description in Germany, it's what you learn in school and how German politicians name the system. All this and also scholars attributing this very real system to be effectively what we have in Germany is not enough for some.
- dns_snek 1y ago
  > Because the reality of this is unpopular for critics of capitalism. Most people rarely have an idea how far removed from laissez faire capitalism European countries are. No, it's because you keep strawmanning like this for rhetorical effect. Laissez faire capitalism isn't the only form of capitalism that exists and nobody has claimed it to be the form of capitalism that applies to Germany.
- mfru 11mo ago
  If you ask nearly any person on the street in Germany (or Austria, or Switzerland) which economic system is in effect, they will say it is capitalism. Because it is. The means of production are in the hand of capital. Profit is the driving factor of companies. "Number go up" is still the default goal.