I think many NTs also struggle with social situations.

[Mary Terry]

Raising prices in response to increased demand is not exploitation. It's how capitalism works and why countries that have embraced capitalism are so successful. Laws that prohibit raising prices during emergencies (falsely called "price gouging") actually harm the communities the laws were intended to protect. For example, when "price gouging" laws prohibit raising the price of fuel during a hurricane warning, those first in line buy more fuel than they need, resulting in others getting nothing and being unable to evacuate, which can literally kill them. Without "price gouging" laws, the price would increase, people would buy less, and everyone would have enough fuel to evacuate. These laws exist because too many people rely on their feelings instead of their brain, which, as is often the case, harms others.

Capitalism must be regulated or it can be as evil as pure communism and socialism can be. I don't think there is a single country in the entire world that has a pure form of capitalism, communism or socialism. All countries borrow some aspects of their economic system from other systems.

In the US, we have socialized medicine (Medicaid, Medicare, Veterans Administration, publicly funded hospitals), socialized income (social security, SS disability income), and socialized emergency services (fire departments), etc.

 

[Judge]

Capitalism must be regulated or it can be as evil as pure communism and socialism can be. I don't think there is a single country in the entire world that has a pure form of capitalism, communism or socialism. All countries borrow some aspects of their economic system from other systems.

In the US, we have socialized medicine (Medicaid, Medicare, Veterans Administration, publicly funded hospitals), socialized income (social security, SS disability income), and socialized emergency services (fire departments), etc.

In essence there are no "free market" economies any more. Leaving comparable economies such as Spain or America a moot point whether one favors capitalism or socialism when it comes to the size and influence of their public sector versus their private sector.

Which amount to only mixed economies. With few if any true "command" economies on the globe.

 

[Shevek]

In essence there are no "free market" economies any more. Leaving comparable economies such as Spain or America a moot point whether one favors capitalism or socialism when it comes to the size and influence of their public sector versus their private sector.

Which amount to only mixed economies. With few if any true "command" economies on the globe.

In the textbooks, capitalism, socialism, and communism all work well at sharing things fairly. In the real world, all three systems wind up with a few greedy people beating the system. We evolved in a world where there was so little sugar, salt, fat, and wealth that it was safe to want as much as possible. Now, we see the result of shelves full of unhealthy snack food, but the damage is localized. However, wealth is now generated in vast amounts by agriculture and technology, and it tends to concentrate, not kill the host, evading or corrupting every limit we have tried.

 

[arithmetic]

Hi Matthias; Shevek ~
It looks to me that greed is a really important part of what humanity-as-a-whole is, and that greed will find a way regardless of what political or ideological system it lives in.
It's almost as though I were praising greed... greedy people certainly are survivors.
Yet despite that I admire some aspects of greed, I've found that there's a lot more to living on Earth than simply owning stuff.

I was desperate in my early 30's.
I'd tried so hard to get a life that works - I had managed to get semi-professional qualifications and I was working and studying to get into professional engineering. Yet I could not believe that I could be loved - my mother had rejected me - and I was terribly lonely. I sought answers in spiritual writings.
One day the thoughts went round and round in my head so hard that somehow I spun off out of sheer desperation and looked beyond the Real.
I had a huge satori experience... I became a mystic. I became certain of a person who is, sometimes, weakly and wrongly, called "God". That is not their name!
I think it's OK for me to call that person my Friend. Being with my Friend is enough, and more than enough.
If I didn't have my Friend I suppose I would have a whole lot of confused ideas about right and wrong. If I weren't myself I might get my ideas from some reference such as the Christian Bible.
I'd rather just find things to do that please my Friend, and where that's concerned, greed for things looks just alien to me.

Anyway, I think that's why and hints at how people sometimes try and live in theocracies. Tibet.

 

[arithmetic]

... I've seen I wasn't very clear about how this contributes to your discussion, @Matthias and @Shevek.
I meant to say that the answer to this social problem of greed lies in the hearts of the individuals who make up society. I meant to say that Tibet is a special geological area on high mountains in which people experience life differently to our experience of life on the lowlands, and that the experience they have is conducive to theocracy.

I probably would have liked to ramble on about how if someone goes to the top of a mountain when they are in despair they will come away lighter, and that meditating on top of a mountain does things which I cannot describe for fear of being thought irresponsible.

 

[Matthias]

Capitalism must be regulated or it can be as evil as pure communism and socialism can be. I don't think there is a single country in the entire world that has a pure form of capitalism, communism or socialism. All countries borrow some aspects of their economic system from other systems.

In the US, we have socialized medicine (Medicaid, Medicare, Veterans Administration, publicly funded hospitals), socialized income (social security, SS disability income), and socialized emergency services (fire departments), etc.

My post was primarily focused on setting fair laws based on sound reasoning (such as the freedom to set a fair market price when supply and demand are imbalanced) versus passing laws based on emotion (government price controls and rationing through "price gouging" laws which is inefficient and harmful).

Capitalism refers to a system where the people have the freedom to control the means of production and distribution. Individuals decide what products they want to produce and how much to charge for their goods and services. In contrast, socialism is an authoritarian system where a centralized government run by a small group of elites controls the means of production and distribution, deciding what products people are allowed to purchase and how much everything costs.. In other words, socialism is the exact opposite of freedom and capitalism because it takes away people's rights to make their own decisions in favor of government control by a chosen few.

 

[Mary Terry]

My post was primarily focused on setting fair laws based on sound reasoning (such as the freedom to set a fair market price when supply and demand are imbalanced) versus passing laws based on emotion (government price controls and rationing through "price gouging" laws which is inefficient and harmful).

Capitalism refers to a system where the people have the freedom to control the means of production and distribution. Individuals decide what products they want to produce and how much to charge for their goods and services. In contrast, socialism is an authoritarian system where a centralized government run by a small group of elites controls the means of production and distribution, deciding what products people are allowed to purchase and how much everything costs.. In other words, socialism is the exact opposite of freedom and capitalism because it takes away people's rights to make their own decisions in favor of government control by a chosen few

Anti-price gouging laws are intended to ensure that people in emergency situations (like Cat 5 hurricanes and raging wildfires) can buy food at normal prices including baby food, medications, water and gasoline/fuel. They are short term restrictions on capitalistic greed. Housing shortages are not "emergencies" within the meaning of anti-gouging laws. I note that Trump is now planning to ban the purchase of single-family homes by corporations which want to use them as rental properties, in order to free up housing stock for home buyers. In a purely capitalistic state, no such law would be implemented, would it?

Capitalism in the US was based on slavery until the Civil War ended slavery. Slavery was the means of production and distribution. It was evil, as you well know. So "pure" capitalism was altered or regulated by outlawing slavery. The capitalism model was altered by legal means for the betterment of everyone.

Socialistic aspects of the US economy and government enable us to have medical care, fire and police protection, a military, a financial safety net for the poor, public education, and other things.

I am not a socialist or communist. I believe democratic and regulated capitalism is best but I'm not blind to the realities of abuses in a capitalistic society. I hope you're not blind to abuses, either.

 

[Matthias]

Anti-price gouging laws are intended to ensure that people in emergency situations (like Cat 5 hurricanes and raging wildfires) can buy food at normal prices including baby food, medications, water and gasoline/fuel. They are short term restrictions on capitalistic greed. Housing shortages are not "emergencies" within the meaning of anti-gouging laws.

When the government forces people to sell those items at artificially low prices during emergency situations, people buy more than they need, resulting in many people ending up with nothing. When stores are allowed to raise prices to the new market rate (based on supply and demand - falsely called "price gouging"), people limit their purchases to what they need, resulting in more people being able to purchase the items they need. To get around ridiculous "price gouging" laws, store often impose rationing, which doesn't work well because everyone's needs are different. After disasters (during the rebuilding phase), supplies are often unavailable because the cost often exceeds the amount "price gouging" laws allow stores to sell the product, which would cause a business to lose money on each item sold.

I note that Trump is now planning to ban the purchase of single-family homes by corporations which want to use them as rental properties, in order to free up housing stock for home buyers. In a purely capitalistic state, no such law would be implemented, would it?

Capitalism doesn't mean anarchy. Regulations to prevent monopolies or individuals cornering the market are an important part of capitalism.

Capitalism in the US was based on slavery until the Civil War ended slavery. Slavery was the means of production and distribution. It was evil, as you well know. So "pure" capitalism was altered or regulated by outlawing slavery. The capitalism model was altered by legal means for the betterment of everyone.

Capitalism was never based on slavery. Capitalism is the natural way of business, probably since the beginning of time. Slavery was only allowed in southern states. The Republican states in the North that opposed slavery had a better economy. Even in the South, individuals (owners of businesses and plantations) were the means of production and distribution (which refers to who makes the business decisions). Individuals decided what to produce, who to hire, and how much to charge. Slavery meant somewhat cheaper labor, though not much cheaper as business owners had to purchase slaves from their owners in Africa and provide food, housing, and other expenses while they worked for them, which is similar to paying wages indirectly.

Socialistic aspects of the US economy and government enable us to have medical care, fire and police protection, a military, a financial safety net for the poor, public education, and other things.

Under socialism, a big, centralized government would control the healthcare system. The government would hire doctors, set their salary, and determine how much people pay for their services, without individuals having any freedom or input into the process. In the US, Medicare, Social Security, and VA healthcare are benefits that people earn through hard work, not something the government gives away to people who don't deserve it. Forms of welfare, such as Medicaid that you mentioned earlier, is basically forced charity. No one is forced to sign up for it and doctors aren't forced to accept it. While the government used to be more involved, they've found it costs less to hire insurance companies to manage Medicaid benefits, as the profit incentive lowers cost by increasing efficiency. Thus, Medicaid currently operates based on free market principals of capitalism, with private insurance companies setting reimbursement rates and contracting with doctors and hospitals to meet their customer's needs.

 

[Mary Terry]

When the government forces people to sell those items at artificially low prices during emergency situations, people buy more than they need, resulting in many people ending up with nothing. When stores are allowed to raise prices to the new market rate (based on supply and demand - falsely called "price gouging"), people limit their purchases to what they need, resulting in more people being able to purchase the items they need. To get around ridiculous "price gouging" laws, store often impose rationing, which doesn't work well because everyone's needs are different. After disasters (during the rebuilding phase), supplies are often unavailable because the cost often exceeds the amount "price gouging" laws allow stores to sell the product, which would cause a business to lose money on each item sold.

They are not "artificially low prices". They are the prices that were in place before the government ordered you to evacuate because a hurricane or a wildfire is heading toward you. The restrictions on price gouging END when the emergency ends.

Capitalism doesn't mean anarchy. Regulations to prevent monopolies or individuals cornering the market are an important ,

I'm glad you recognize that capitalism must be regulated.

Capitalism was never based on slavery. Capitalism is the natural way of business, probably since the beginning of time. Slavery was only allowed in southern states. The Republican states in the North that opposed slavery had a better economy. Even in the South, individuals (owners of businesses and plantations) were the means of production and distribution (which refers to who makes the business decisions). Individuals decided what to produce, who to hire, and how much to charge. Slavery meant somewhat cheaper labor, though not much cheaper as business owners had to purchase slaves from their owners in Africa and provide food, housing, and other expenses while they worked for them, which is similar to paying wages indirectly.

Capitalism was very much based on slavery. Bartering most likely was the original "economy". Slavery was allowed in all states, including New York. The northern states got rid of slavery, like the British got rid of slavery, before Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, but northerners certainly benefitted from slavery in the south. Cotton, rice and other commodities were grown with slave labor in the South. Raw cotton was shipped to the northern states and to Europe where it was turned into cloth in factories. FYI, plenty of Black people owned Black slaves. You can look it up. One of the largest slave owners in Louisiana was a Black woman. There is no justification for anyone "owning" someone else and people are no longer commodities to be bought and sold.

Under socialism, a big, centralized government would control the healthcare system. The government would hire doctors, set their salary, and determine how much people pay for their services, without individuals having any freedom or input into the process. In the US, Medicare, Social Security, and VA healthcare are benefits that people earn through hard work, not something the government gives away to people who don't deserve it. Forms of welfare, such as Medicaid that you mentioned earlier, is basically forced charity. No one is forced to sign up for it and doctors aren't forced to accept it. While the government used to be more involved, they've found it costs less to hire insurance companies to manage Medicaid benefits, as the profit incentive lowers cost by increasing efficiency. Thus, Medicaid currently operates based on free market principals of capitalism, with private insurance companies setting reimbursement rates and contracting with doctors and hospitals to meet their customer's needs.

We all know what socialism is. Many Americans have advocated for a single payor medical system for a long time. In other words, many Americans want centralized, socialized medicine and do not want private insurance companies. I think it's a great idea. It seems to work fairly well in England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Mexico and Canada.

 

[cooljethro]

Capitalism refers to a system where the people have the freedom to control the means of production and distribution. Individuals decide what products they want to produce and how much to charge for their goods and services. In contrast, socialism is an authoritarian system where a centralized government run by a small group of elites controls the means of production and distribution, deciding what products people are allowed to purchase and how much everything costs.. In other words, socialism is the exact opposite of freedom and capitalism because it takes away people's rights to make their own decisions in favor of government control by a chosen few.

Capitalism refers to a system where the people a wealthy elite have the freedom to control the means of production and distribution.

You seem to have a very naive view of capitalism.

The reality of capitalism is far from any sort of benveolent economic freedom for those subject to its system, especially for the majority of 'regular' folk.

Also, some popular and influential socialist thinkers such as Karl Marx argue that workers should own the means of production, which is exactly the opposite of what you claim socialism is.

A lack of government control in modern economies usually means the rich get to keep all of their riches without much intervention or wealth redistribution that makes things fair for the masses.

 

[Matthias]

They are not "artificially low prices". They are the prices that were in place before the government ordered you to evacuate because a hurricane or a wildfire is heading toward you. The restrictions on price gouging END when the emergency ends.

Forcing individuals to charge below-market prices, meaning a price where demand vastly exceeds supply, is an artificially low price, despite it being the same as an earlier price. My point is just that these laws were passed based on emotions and, as is often the case, harmed the people the laws were intended to help.

Capitalism was very much based on slavery. Bartering most likely was the original "economy". Slavery was allowed in all states, including New York. The northern states got rid of slavery, like the British got rid of slavery, before Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, but northerners certainly benefitted from slavery in the south. Cotton, rice and other commodities were grown with slave labor in the South. Raw cotton was shipped to the northern states and to Europe where it was turned into cloth in factories. FYI, plenty of Black people owned Black slaves. You can look it up. One of the largest slave owners in Louisiana was a Black woman. There is no justification for anyone "owning" someone else and people are no longer commodities to be bought and sold.

The fact that slavery existed in a capitalist country doesn't mean that capitalism and slavery aren't distinct and unrelated. Bartering is an alternative to currency/money. It's still capitalism as individuals have the freedom to produce and set prices. Thus, the original economies were capitalist. However, it seems you are right about slavery in the North. I had to look it up because I didn't remember learning that.

 

[Matthias]

Capitalism refers to a system where the people a wealthy elite have the freedom to control the means of production and distribution.

Under capitalism, everyone, including the poor, can start a business, produce, and sell their goods and services. Examples would be a 10 year old running a lemonade stand and a homeless person starting a business shoveling driveways.

You seem to have a very naive view of capitalism.

The reality of capitalism is far from any sort of benveolent economic freedom for those subject to its system, especially for the majority of 'regular' folk.

Capitalism is responsible for most of the wealth of regular folk. There is a stark contrast between capitalist countries and socialist countries. Recently, China became the world's largest economy after embracing capitalism, lifting hundreds of millions of regular folk out of poverty.

Also, some popular and influential socialist thinkers such as Karl Marx argue that workers should own the means of production, which is exactly the opposite of what you claim socialism is.

The only way they can get people to support socialism is to lie about what it involves, often by claiming the exact opposite of what it entails. Everyone is equal, with those in charge, of course, being "more equal" than others.

Socialism has failed wherever it has been tried. Without propaganda, no one would support it.

A lack of government control in modern economies usually means the rich get to keep all of their riches without much intervention or wealth redistribution that makes things fair for the masses.

You mean those who work the hardest and contribute the most to the economy get to keep what they earned? How unfair! Forcing the hardworking to give the fruits of their labor to those who contribute little or nothing to the economy has always discouraged people from contributing to the economy, resulting in a lower standard of living for everyone (except for the elites who run the socialist government).

 

[UFO]

Capitalism was very much based on slavery.

The fact that slavery existed in a capitalist country doesn't mean that capitalism and slavery aren't distinct and unrelated. Bartering is an alternative to currency/money. It's still capitalism as individuals have the freedom to produce and set prices. Thus, the original economies were capitalist.

The academic approach:

The capitalism, without any political or ideological annotations, purely as part of economic theory, is an abstract concept describing mechanics of any economy based on the market-guided trade and production. As such, it does not suggest how good or bad the system is. It does not give recommendations how the system should work. It just describes how it works at basic fundamental level.

What you are mostly talking about is the implementation, which includes how wealth distribution is weighted, by what means, by what tools, how it is regulated or not regulated, who benefits from it and why etc. Enter different political and ideological driven principles like neoliberalism, libertarism, reaganism, mercantilism, or just ad hoc politics and slavery. Even social democracy is a method to implement capitalism.

I would say that you are arguing if the hammer (the capitalism as a theoretical economic model) can be blamed for doing a bad carpentry (the economy and the society resulting from the implementation of capitalism).

 

[UFO]

Also, some popular and influential socialist thinkers such as Karl Marx argue that workers should own the means of production, which is exactly the opposite of what you claim socialism is.

The only way they can get people to support socialism is to lie about what it involves, often by claiming the exact opposite of what it entails. Everyone is equal, with those in charge, of course, being "more equal" than others.

Same thing as with the capitalism. The socialism is more abstract concept. Communism is an ideal of the end, thought still an abstract. Then you have an implementation like marxism, leninism, stalinism, maoism...

 

[vergil96]

Hm. It was a thread about something else.

However, it's best to be specific.

capitalism

an economic and political system in which property, business, and industry are controlled by private owners rather than by the state, with the purpose of making a profit

In this sense, capitalism is merely a description on the free market. As it has been pointed out before in the thread, (almost) no contemporary state is purely capitalist or purely socialist. Both systems result in pathologies if left to their own devices. What works best is a free market economy with state interventions.

I also don't think price gauging during natural disasters serves well the affected communities as a whole. I'd rather look at the outcome than stick to a system or ideology.

I think it's a great idea. It seems to work fairly well in England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Mexico and Canada.

Listening to what Americans say and being from the EU, having state-owned healthcare does work out better. Where I live, there are both options: NHS and private insurances.

 

[Mary Terry]

Forcing individuals to charge below-market prices, meaning a price where demand vastly exceeds supply, is an artificially low price, despite it being the same as an earlier price. My point is just that these laws were passed based on emotions and, as is often the case, harmed the people the laws were intended to help.

The fact that slavery existed in a capitalist country doesn't mean that capitalism and slavery aren't distinct and unrelated. Bartering is an alternative to currency/money. It's still capitalism as individuals have the freedom to produce and set prices. Thus, the original economies were capitalist. However, it seems you are right about slavery in the North. I had to look it up because I didn't remember learning that.

I think you just like to argue, Matthias. I don't.

 

[Hypnalis]

I think you just like to argue, Matthias. I don't.

He's right about he economics of slavery in the US and the dynamics of clearing a market that's experiencing unexpected problems providing supplies of necessities.

Cotton gin - Wikipedia
Child labour in the British Industrial Revolution - Wikipedia

OTOH your post #61 was useful. Though only faintly connected to price gouging during "interesting times", and "evil" economics isn't a thing - morality at scale is in the political domain.

 

[Outdated]

Extremism in any form is evil. Capitalism, socialism, religion. The “us and them” mentality that leads to black and white thinking in an extreme form is known as fanaticism, people that won’t listen to reason regardless of all the evidence put before them, surrendering intelligence in favour of soothing confirmations of biased thinking linked to an emotional state.

Australia I think manages to strike a reasonable balance between socialism and capitalism. We have superb social welfare and social health care systems that we are very proud of and yet we are also one of the wealthiest nations on the planet because capitalism is a strong component of our society as well. World’s largest Iron exporter, world’s largest Liquefied Gas exporter, world’s largest exporter of Lithium.

In general the Australian society itself has a much more socialist attitude than many other countries, yet no one would describe us as being a socialist country. We strive for a balance so that the poorest or the least able people in our society don’t get completely left behind to fend for themselves. The disparity in Australia between the richest and the poorest is not as great as it is in some other countries, the majority of our society is still “middle class”.

A popular topic of debate in other countries is Australia’s price cap on medications, and the way in which our government uses it’s bulk buying power to manipulate market prices for drugs so that they are affordable to the poorest in our society. This gets branded as evil, but consider this -

If the pharmaceutical companies weren’t making a stable profit from us they simply would have stopped trading with us many decades ago.

The fast food industry makes another good example of this. In Australia McDonalds doesn’t just have to pay one of the world’s highest minimum wages, on top of that there’s another 12% they have to pay in to the employee’s superannuation (retirement) fund, they have to allow 10 paid sick days a year, they also have to provide 20 days of paid annual leave a year. Naturally they complain about this, constantly and very loudly, yet in a country with a smaller population than the state of Texas they still have more than 1000 outlets. If it wasn’t profitable for them then they simply wouldn’t be here.

 

[Matthias]

I think you just like to argue, Matthias. I don't.

Not at all. I value the truth and like to teach others. While many are unwilling to learn, there are some who want to increase their knowledge.

 

[the_tortoise]

Most of us clearly agree that any socio-political or socio-economic system can be corrupted and transformed by lack of oversight, transparency, and regulation; Allowing for the unrestrained influences of greed, hatred or even simple apathy and lack of compassion, violence, secrecy, and disregard for the rule of law to transform any society into a fascist dictatorship...

...All while the architects, leaders, and maintainers of the transformation continue to call their newly-minted (and eventually perhaps decades old or older) fascist dictatorship a "socialist" or "communist" or "democratic" state....even though in practical real-world terms, it really is not truly socialist or communist or democratic anymore.

The "in name only" phenomenon that has created the incredibly misleading and very ironic definition of "socialism" I think some use...It's a perfect example of "doublespeak" from George Orwell's novel 1984 come to life....

...The basic story elements that make up the sociopolitical world that is the setting in 1984, with all specific details and characters stripped away, had already come to life over and over in the real world before the novel was ever written.

@Matthias

Pure socialism (and communism) place fundamental emphasis on and ideologically prioritize both individual and collective responsibility for both individual and collective human welfare;

They both emphasize collective ownership of shared resources and the means of production by the ordinary people -- not authoritarian dictators.

Please note: capitalism and socialism are not systems of governance. They are both socio-political and socio-economic value systems.

Systems of governance describe:

Who has the power to make decisions about laws and regulations, and to create public institutions.

How and why the decision-makers are given the power they have, and how they exercise that power. Also how it can be taken away.

They do not determine what kinds of decisions are made.

They do not determine what kinds (if any) of public institutions and services exist, besides goverment itself -- nor necessarily how they are run.

They do not decide a society's values/morals and priorities.

These last three things are what socio-political and socio-economic value systems or ideologies describe.

A certain ideology can exist in more than one type of system of governance.

And as @Mary Terry pointed out, more than one type of ideology can be used in a single system of governance.

Ideology and system of governance are not the same thing.

In other words, socialism is the exact opposite of freedom and capitalism because it takes away people's rights to make their own decisions in favor of government control by a chosen few.

Capitalism doesn't mean anarchy. Regulations to prevent monopolies or individuals cornering the market are an important part of capitalism.

So much of what you say is just...so inaccurate ...

...your political knowledge seems to consist entirely of misinformation and propaganda.

Have you ever taken a political science class at any level of education?

Or read books from the 17-1800's written by early promoters of capitalism -- people like Adam Smith?

Or read books written by promoters of democratic socialism? Or any other ideology? Whether from centuries past or modern times?

Have you ever dared to read and seriously consider the words of anyone you disagree with and whose ideas offend you?

I have done all of the above.

If you have not, I strongly recommend you do....given you have such strong opinions about socio-political matters...

...you'd be in a much better position to make valid arguments if you educated yourself more thoroughly and actually understood any political viewpoint and philosophy besides just your own.

Socialism has failed wherever it has been tried. Without propaganda, no one would support it.

Nope - wrong again. Canada (where I was born and raised and intend to live until I die) is a socialist democracy. We always have been. (So were many of the indigenous nations in Canada before colonization.)

The UK is also a socialist democracy and has been for a very, very long time.

Both Canada and the UK embrace elements of capitalism as well as socialism. As do many, many other truly democratic nations all over the world.

Political ideology does not have to be all or nothing... this is both a positive and negative:

Positive because it allows a society to take the best parts of an ideology with both good and bad ideas and make good use of the good ideas;

Negative because it allows people to do the doublespeak thing where they take terrible ideas and try to mix them with superficial aspects of an otherwise reasonable philosophy and create a misleading and inaccurately named atrocity. (Like whatever it is you think "socialism" is, that is probably in reality accurately and honestly called "fascist plutocratic/autocratic dictatorship".)

Under socialism, a big, centralized government would control the healthcare system. The government would hire doctors, set their salary, and determine how much people pay for their services, without individuals having any freedom or input into the process.

No. That is misinformation.

First of all, Canada's government is not actually more centralized than the USA's government is.

Second, there are many ways that public healthcare can be implemented.

In Canada doctors still own private practices and even the occasional private specialty hospital -- but they bill the provincial or federal government.

The vast majority of hospitals are public, but only some clinics are public -- most regular doctors' offices are privately owned. Yet thise private clinic owning doctors are still paid mostly or entirely by a public healthcare system.

Doctors (and other types of healthcare provider) are allowed to charge people for services that are not paid for by public health insurance.

Doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, psychologists, dentists, pharmacists, etc are also largely self-regulated by their own professional colleges. For the most part, they decide what practice standards they follow, although the public gets input too -- both via public surveys and direct feedback, and through our elected representatives in goverment that create laws about healthcare provision.

Healthcare providers also have unions and professional associations and they negotiate their pay with reasonable governments (and as citizens in Canada's socialist DEMOCRACY, they and their friends, families, neighbours and patients tend to vote out unreasonable governments that misuse their power and refuse to negotiate in good fairh along with the rest of us ordinary citizens.)