Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (326160)	2/16/2007 7:47:44 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1578096

Socialism can be defined as ownership of the means of production by the state. That doesn't mean everything is owned by the state, but state ownership would be significant. That was the definition of socialism that I was using in the post you responded to. I recognize it isn't the only definition of socialism. "Social-welfare states" that have high taxes and extensive social programs are also called socialist. Not that I'm a fan of such policies but the blog post I linked to wasn't really about such states or policies. Its about collective ownership. As for Niger, I am unclear what kind of economy it had but if it has been a communist society the gov't could not have restricted the use of trees without the approval of the people. I don't think I'd call Niger a communist country. Certainly its no North Korea. It could be considered to have had socialist/communist policies in regards to trees, and probably other things as well, but not across the economy generally, even if it was hardly a bastion of market freedom. If it had been a communist country the government would control the trees (at least if it wanted to).