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.
[Edit: This means that economies are not binary: socialist/not socialist. They are often a mix of some socialism (government ownership) and some not. We call an economy socialist when the government fraction of production (not purchasing) becomes significant, though there is no bright line (above X% it's definitely socialist).]
Id never assume that usa is socialistic. Neigther is switzerland where the goverment might own 3% of the industry, which is where im from. Id assume only kuba might be considered a socialistic country if you look at these values.
My original point was, that rescuing the banks by the goverment was a socialistic act. Thats where the discussion started and i still need to see an explanation why this is not the case. But i think you might even agree to this.
For all other points i fully agree with you. The goverment does only parts of these functions (healthcare insurance, etc.) . Which doesnt make the country socialistic, but these functions the goverment provides are. (In my point of view)
My key takeaway from this discussion is that in europe socialism is defined broader then in the usa. At least for an average of the people. The part of „govermentally controlled production“ has never really a been part of what i assume to be socialism. I think of it much more in the way as our second largest party the sozialdemokraten do (sp schweiz). But describing that would blow this topic completely.
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.
[Edit: This means that economies are not binary: socialist/not socialist. They are often a mix of some socialism (government ownership) and some not. We call an economy socialist when the government fraction of production (not purchasing) becomes significant, though there is no bright line (above X% it's definitely socialist).]