I know I have at least, erm, 2 educated readers, so thought I’d post a question I’ve been puzzling over. My wife asked what ‘Socialist’ means, and I quickly responded with “I don’t know”. Now that wasn’t really true – I had some understanding about ‘controlling the means of production’ on the one hand, and ‘taking care of the vulnerable’ on the other – but I didn’t know what the actual definition is. To the dictionaries!

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Those two alternatives seemed to cover most of the dictionary definitions I could find. Now using a dictionary to define a political position is somewhat foolish, but it’s well suited to defining a word. Assuming, then, that the dictionary defines the word accurately, it seems clear that Britain is not a Socialist country (even under Labour, which dropped the Clause IV part of its platform calling for the nationalization of industry some years ago) , even if it sometimes has Socialist tendencies. So what is the word? Socialish? Socialesque? Bleeding-heart-liberalist?

Browsing the Internets, I came across this piece from a pro-whatever-the-President-says group

If the opposition to personal accounts is not simply partisan (and that indeed may be the case), then there are only two explanations for the arguments being advanced by certain Democratic leaders in Congress. One, they believe that Americans are simply not smart enough to be given the option to select from among a handful investments choices. (Note the word “option,” since the accounts are voluntary). Two, those making the argument believe they can gain political advantage by scaring future retirees into thinking it’s more likely they would be cast adrift in the sea without a compass, rather than, in reality, earning enough money to buy their own boat.

Or three, the happy Democratic politician/investors mentioned in the preceding paragraphs understand that the acceptance of risk is a function of security; they can all afford to put lots of money in stocks because a) they have lots of money, and b) because Social Security will be there for them if their investments go south. That’s what the ‘Security’ in ‘Social Security’ means.

Under President Bush’s Social Security reform plan, the management and investment options of personal accounts would be strikingly similar to those of the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP)

A pretty bold statement; the President has repeatedly said that he doesn’t have a plan, and that he wants open discussion with all (well, most) options on the table. So insofar as the President doesn’t have a plan, the plan that he doesn’t have is strikingly simlar to the TSP.

the TSP’s most conservative fund, the bond index fund, has produced a 4.58 percent real annual rate of return, more than double the paltry 1 to 2 percent rate of return under Social Security.

I always wonder if that rate of return covers all the other benefits that you get from Social Security, but can’t find info either way. Nonetheless, a guaranteed return of 1 to 2 percent over inflation, plus a guaranteed, inflation-protected, lasts-as-long-as-you-do annuity at the end of it, is pretty good. Especially when it can serve as the core of your investment strategy, allowing you to put money into the higher risk, higher reward markets safe in the knowledge that you won’t starve.