Are the following statements economic axioms or myths (see details)

These are good points, but somewhat of an oversimplification.

Economic production is an indicator of well-being and progress. It would be a better measure if the negative effects, like pollution and environmental degradation, were included.

Free trade has proven superior to planned economies. Just ask the Russians and the Chinese. Some regulation, however, is necessary.

Free trade among industrial nations works to the benefit of all classes, though the rich do benefit disproportionately. The relationship between poor nations and wealthy ones is more complicated.

Don’t we already have economic globalization?

I agree with the fifth point. Corporations are out to maximize profit. They will not create a clean environment if it is not in their economic interest to do so.

As to the last point, worker owned corporations provide an interesting alternative to the current system

.

worker owned corporations are the very definition of socialism, so that will never fly in the mccarthy west.

Many of the economic problems of the last ten years are precisely because some of those myths were held to be true. But some of the are true.

While GDP may not be a complete measure, no one has come up with a better one to measure a nation’s prosperity.

Free trade does make everyone’s life better, it’s why we have so many goods that didin’t even exist ten years ago.

And globalization was not inevitable, but it does help the entire world.

But unregulated markets are not the most efficient way of running an economy, because there are too many normative problems from unregulated markets. And 5 and 6 have never been even close to true.

@ragingloli , Worker owned companies are not quite socialism. The companies have to make a profit. Part of worker salaries is tied in directly to that profit. There is a wage differential between different types of worker, although that differential is small compared to regular companies. There are a number of worker owned companies, though Mondragon in Spain, with 85,000 employees, is by far the largest. It has been around for a number of years and has been very successful.

@LostInParadise
Where do you get that socialism means non-profit?
Socialism just means that the means of production and distribution are collectively owned and managed by the workers (e.g. worker owned company).

@Yetanotheruser That’s a pretty good list. It seems to me the fundamental myth is that corporations can externalize the costs of resource depletion, pollution, destruction of natural habitat and disposal of ever more junk and that those costs then magically cease to exist. Since the free-market capitalist system requires that the CEO focus on always increasing short-term profits, the stage is set for such cost externalization to soon bring on a dystopia rather like those envisioned by our darkest science fiction writers; or worse, the end of human existence. Here’s a interesting discussion of it by Noam Chomsky.

@ragingloli Socialism actually means government ownership or the means of production and distribution of wealth. Employee ownership is not government ownership. Here’s a list of the 100 largest employee owned companies in the USA. The biggest, Publix Supermarkets, employs 152,000 people. None of the 100 companies are owned by the federal, state or local government; and none are socialistic.

@ETpro
Not, it does not mean government ownership.
Government ownership of the means of production and distribution is state capitalism, the very opposite of socialism.

When I took Investments at the University of California, my professor used to tell us that because the union pension funds owned so much stock, that the workers owned the means of production far beyond Marx’s wildest dreams.

@zenvelo
I take it he is no longer a professor?

@ragingloli , Not to make an issue of this, but here is the definition of socialism. Worker owned companies have been created totally within capitalist corporation-dominant economies, although I can envision forms of government which would pass laws to encourage their formation.

@ragingloli He was an adjunct, never tenured. But he taught Investments for years, he was he token conservative in the Econ dept.

@ragingloli Take that up with the various people who write and edit dictionaries. As the link I provided to Merriam-Webster indicates, they disagree with you.

@ETpro
As I said before, and I am sure you remember, dictionairies give common usage of words, not definitions.

OK, @ragingloli. You are right. Of course, when I say you are “right” my version of the word means you’re so full of it you reek.

And I’m really glad you pointed out that that what the dictionary defines as socialism is actually the exact opposite of it, and you are the only person who knows what socialism really means. Oh, when I say “really glad” that means “deeply disappointed”. You understand, I am sure.

@ragingloli, @ETpro, Let’s keep it down up there on the third floor of the mansion! You are both actually correct.

I have at my disposal an unabridged edition of Webster’s New Twentieth Century dictionary of the English Language (Second Edition© 1958). I refer to this out-of-print tome to escape any real or imagined manipulation of on-line sources!~

Quoting:

socialism, n, 1.The theory or system of the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution by society or the community rather than by private individuals, with all members of society or the community sharing in the work and the products.

End quote.

The current Wikipedia article starts with a similar description, and then continues: “Social ownership” may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.” There is a footnote to that statement that refers to three different forms of socialized ownership: state-owned firms (as referenced by @ETpro), employee-owned (or socially) owned firms (as referenced by @ragingloli), and citizen ownership of equity. I think a good example of non-government owned socialism (small “s” deliberate) is Mondragon Corporation.

Thanks for the reference. There is a section on self-managed economics that covers worker owned companies and several sections describing varying degrees of government control.

It is unfortunate that worker owned companies get thrown into the same definition as state owned companies. That makes it likely that people who have a knee jerk reaction against socialism will not stop to think of the different forms that socialism can take.

@LostInParadise It’s extremely unfortunate they get lumped together. I was fighting that definition because I think worker ownership could be a trend that will resolve many of the ills of classical capitalism without bringing the woes of state ownership inherent in classical socialism or communism.

My sentiments exactly

A free market is a myth.

@Yetanotheruser Amen. It’s free to be taken over by monopolies and trusts.