It’s not really socialist at all. It’s in the governments best interest to have owners of properties. This leads to improvements making the capitalization of the country larger. It also develops more property tax capability.
A governments 2 main assets are its people and its land. Ensuring that people have ownership of the land ensures the people will continue to support the government as there’s mutual interest. So subsidizing loans via guarantees isn’t socializing so much as the government investing in itself and protecting its assets.
Socialism is an economic system where the central government owns and controls all production and all distribution of everything. There is no private ownership in that system. If you want choice, that’s capitalism.
Socialism is when all the people of a country put theyr money together to pay for a system. Such as your taxes or a goverment healthcare. The banks have been rescured by such money.
I agree that government is social ownership. But it's mainly about the bulk of things. Does the government own 1% of the factories? Probably not really socialism. Does it own 30%? 70%? 99%?
So, to your examples, the government giving out a loan might be considered socialism for that one loan. But what percentage of the banks does the government own? Or, what percentage of the loans does the government originate? Not a very high percentage. (And, when the government takes over a failing bank, they usually do it not to own the bank, but to get it off their hands as soon as they can.) So I don't see lending as being socialism, even if the government does a few loans here and there.
Medicine... there's Medicare and Medicaid. That's not really socialized medicine. How many doctors' offices does the government own? How many hospitals? What's really socialized is a big section of medical insurance.
Another thing that's largely (but not totally) socialized is higher education. Also airports, but not airlines.
So as you look around at, say, the US, it's not really characterized by socialism. It is, to some degree in some sectors, but the whole economy is not characterized by the government owning the means of production.
Socialism is the social ownership (state ownership) of the means of production.
Social ownership != state ownership. That's only one manifestation of it. Socialism has historically been about common ownership, which implies decentralized, democratically structured worker cooperatives. One existing example today is Mondragon.
So much for the US being considered right wing. US residential mortgages represent one of the largest examples of socialism in action anywhere with nary a complaint from either US party.
reply