filter: 💡 🐘 🏟 👽🕒🐦 📺 💰


You've incorrectly paraphrased my statement to adapt it to include private property. I was discussing free markets. > Free markets are compatible with a number of economic systems including some forms of socialism. Free markets are compatible with a form of market socialism where the economy is still composed of free enterprises making decisions on what to create for consumer markets. You can even use capital markets for the financing. But, importantly, the concept of _capitalist private property_ isn't retained in the same way it is under capitalism. Under market socialism the ownership of any company is ultimately retained by the general public. The good thing about this is that the general public can override decisions that aren't in their best interest even though they may be in the company management's immediate interest. In a large fraction of businesses, market decisions would continue unchanged from the way they'd run under capitlaism, but society could want the flexibility to override detrimental decisions or to redistribute excessive profits. As a topical example, you may have heard of the Line 3 oil pipeline being built by Enbridge, Inc. Even though the pipeline is an environmental hazard and will actually have a lower ROI for the public in terms of energy returned on investments when compared to an equivalent investment in renewables, the company is still going forward because they have the property rights and the company itself will see a profit. In a market socialist environment, the company's management could more easily be overridden for the public good.