Is a 60-40 private/public split a "free enterprise system?"

I’ve posted some version of this before.

How much does the government intervene in the free market?

  • Gov’t owns over 40% of the US land
    The Federal Government owns (nat. forests etc.) 28% of all the land in the United States. Add in land owned by states and municipalities and the combined Gov’t owns over 40% of the US.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands

  • Total US government spending, federal, state, and local, is ~36% GDP.
    https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/percent_gdp

  • Gov’t borrowing sucks 40% of capital out of the capital markets.
    US federal debt us $19 trillion, plus there are $10 trillion in state and local debt and unfunded pension liabilities.
    http://www.usdebtclock.org/
    I forget how the denominated is calculated, but by one measure total goverment debt is ~40% of all the money saved and invested by Americans. (The “crowding out effect” : “Ya coulda created jobs, opened a steel mill or a pizza shop but instead, you invested in government bonds”).

  • 17% of the US workforce is employed by the government.
    http://news.gallup.com/poll/141785/gov-employment-ranges-ohio.aspx
    That number does not include private contractors such as road crews working for private construction companies, engineering firms who upgrade navy ships etc…

That’s
40% of all the land,
35% of all the spending,
40% of all the capital and
17% of the workforce.
Apparently “capitalist economy” means 60% capitalist, 40% government.

Is THAT a “free enterprise system?”
.
.
.

Footnote:
Did anyone ever chant “40% is not enough?”
The US government mandates health insurance be employer provided and the plans must meet certain heavy-handed criteria.
Healthcare is 18% of the U.S. economy.
Fine, just take 18% of the 60% ya left us.

40% of all land is misleading. As a government of the people, we own that land. National parks and the like are maintained and protected for the people, the govt doesnt own them.

As for healthcare, aside from Medicare and the VA, the govt doesn’t run healthcare. The ACA helps set up people with private insurance. When I was on it, my health card said “Group Health”, a private company; not “Uncle Sam’s Health”.

Nothing misleading about 40% of the land.

That’s what the government owns. The fact that you approve of the purpose the goverment uses it for does not change the number to 39%.

As for healthcare (18% of the economy) the gov’t runs insures the medicaid, medicare, the VA, retirement homes, hospitals, and clinics. It also directly insures the 17% of the population who work for it.

Commanding that the rest of healthcare be employer provided and commanding what form it should take is not the same as direct ownership tho. That’s why I put it in a footnote.

Is there a nation out there for whom that split is more favorable to the private sector?

Good question.

Off the top of my head, I dunno.

I just disagree with how you characterize it. It’s owned by the public, under the stewardship of the govt. That’s a more accurate description. Actual govt ownership would be found in a dictatorship, and is not what we have.

So insfar as our government can be said ti own property, then our gov’t owns 40%.

Sheesh Splitting semantic hairs.

Given what I’ve seen market types say about Singapore, yes.

It’s important.

Makes as much sense as saying “all government spending is for the common good, (except in a dictatorship) therefore it’s not really government spending.”

It is a rationalization, a vacant attempt to justify behavior typically used when logic-based reasons do not exist.

oh… come on…

I’m sure Stalin would have said something similar about the land and factories in the Soviet Union.

Most of that land is out west, and the government bought it up to encourage settlement because it wasn’t worth anything.

Even today, the land that government owns out there, not many people want.

Except this is The USA, a representative republic, not a dictatorship; Pol Sci 101. You unwittingly reinforce my point, in a dictatorship like that, the govt DOES own the land.

Yes and 40% of all the spending is done in common, so government spending shouldn’t really count.

40% of all the liquid capital exchanged as loans in capital markets borrowed by us in common so government borrowing should not really count.

Got it.

Now pretend the free market does things as free individuals and the government grabbed commu-nal market does not. ( 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner if need be.)

You will be happy to know therefore that defense spending is now free, since it is for the common defense… in a democracy.

Ditto the cost of building prisons.
rolleyes.

This represents a lot of the land out west. Dry. By dry I mean 10 inches of water or less per year in rain/snowfall.

By dry I mean it’s hard to get a well permit to get water from the ground

Yes it does. As such, 40% of the land bring owned by government has significantly less “crowding out effect” than the government borrowing 40% of the bond market or whatever.

It’s a bad argument, but it doesn’t make his conclusion incorrect. I view “public land” as unowned. Your position makes it impossible for something to be unowned or to be unclaimed, something that is perfectly conceivable.

The mid-Atlantic is not privately owned. Is it owned by some invisible world government?