There is no one set conception of a "socialist economy." The idea ranges from a full-on control economy wherein the government owns all means of production to a relatively free market of local cooperatives. Your question is moot because you haven't defined your terms.
To whit, we already have a "mixed system." It's just that it's a broken mixed system which primarily benefits the wealthy through corporate welfare, inconsistent regulation, and a lack of reasonable consequences for destructive business practices.
^^^ That's a really broad question with no single answer. Like, there really is no one magic bullet to kill income inequality. It's about vast structural reform and community work and all sorts of changes in between.
If I may, I'd like to reverse some of your questions: What do you mean when you talk about a socialist economy? To what degree do you consider it practical on a large scale? What immediate reforms would you seek to move towards greater income equality?
Undramatic it is, but it is a practical small-to-mid-scale application of socialist principles. There was actually a very successful programme under the Labour Party before Thatcher's ascent where the government bought out failing businesses and restructured them as cooperatives, including the motorcycle company Norton-Villiers-Triumph. Which I guess is a bit more interventionist than co-ops simply happening like fairy rings around tree stumps, but they weren't actually nationalised per se. But maybe that makes it even more of a dirty commie plot? *shrug*
You're not asking questions that like, mean anything.
I mean we could think about what would happen, but it won't happen because those are two of the most powerful companies in the world and if you think Disney isn't more powerful than the government you're kidding yourself. Ditto Google.
I couldn't see Google still being what it is if it were a co-op.
Wait, are there any major tech companies that are co-ops?
Regardless, Google's thing seems to basically be 1. control tons of internet traffic thanks to existing market share 2. dominate internet advertising 3. innovate random shit and potentially introduce disruptive tech to advance the digital age or whatever
On the other hand, co-op mentality seems to be very much about long-term sustainability (from a socioeconomic perspective, even if not an environmental one), which really doesn't seem to be a theme I'd associate with the way Google works. Or the tech world in general, tbh.
What would the point of nationalising an entertainment company even be, aside from propaganda?
Well, one possible good intention could be to subsidize artistic creativity by guaranteeing income and allowing people to pursue creative ideas more freely, and guaranteeing income by taxation rather than copyright enforcement.
What would the point of nationalising an entertainment company even be, aside from propaganda?
Well, one possible good intention could be to subsidize artistic creativity by guaranteeing income and allowing people to pursue creative ideas more freely, and guaranteeing income by taxation rather than copyright enforcement.
While I applaud publicly funded art, the potential for blowback from this arrangement is pretty intense. Even the grant system is controversial, let alone having a government institution paying for, I dunno, Fritz the Cat. Not that I would be the one complaining were that to happen. But even so, it likely wouldn't, because you'd have a whole lot of bureaucracy from on high keeping things from getting too "out of hand." Look at what the BBC has done over the years. Now, apply that to the structure of a corporation which has its fingers in as many industries as Disney does. It would be an absolute mess.
government grants are basically stupid in science too. i can only imagine how bad it is when you don't have STEM's weird marketing thing. i don't know what a better system would be.
The economics of intellectual property is certainly an interesting topic, though one that is not the economics people usually think of when they just say "economics". They usually are thinking of country-level macroeconomics and how that relates to their own financial situation.
Comments
To whit, we already have a "mixed system." It's just that it's a broken mixed system which primarily benefits the wealthy through corporate welfare, inconsistent regulation, and a lack of reasonable consequences for destructive business practices.
i mean
whattaquestion
If I may, I'd like to reverse some of your questions: What do you mean when you talk about a socialist economy? To what degree do you consider it practical on a large scale? What immediate reforms would you seek to move towards greater income equality?
Socialism is a worker owned and controlled economy, so what would need to be socialized? Transportation, healthcare, etc?
Wait, are there any major tech companies that are co-ops?
Regardless, Google's thing seems to basically be
1. control tons of internet traffic thanks to existing market share
2. dominate internet advertising
3. innovate random shit and potentially introduce disruptive tech to advance the digital age or whatever
On the other hand, co-op mentality seems to be very much about long-term sustainability (from a socioeconomic perspective, even if not an environmental one), which really doesn't seem to be a theme I'd associate with the way Google works. Or the tech world in general, tbh.
just saying that it's one possible good intention