Yes they do. Bloomberg's ideas are favoring socialism over hard core capitalism and a party system.

Do you have a different definition of socialism than the one I posted? What part of "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" do you think a super capitalist like Bloomburg supports that? Bloomburg is a super rich guy that spent over 150 million dollars of his own money in the last two NYC mayors elections. Do you really think that this guy thinks it would be a good idea for the government to take over his businesses?

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/socialism

Bloomberg is advocating giving people a say in how businesses will operate. If businesses are taxed more or told by the government how and how much to produce, that is advocating socialsim. I never said Bloomberg will make USA completely socialist but his comments are advocating it, precisely the definition above.

Bloomberg said himself he is going to give away most of his wealth to charity.

There are socialists in France and elsewhere. There are Communists in China. Yet in all those countries there are private companies.

Big, I understand that you are actually in NYC. I am sure you have read more about Bloomburg and his idea than I have. The fact remains that the statement in your first post or the link in your first post do not support your title. You can tell me all about Bloomburg and what he has said in the past but where is the references?

8224,

What Bloomberg said seemed to me as socialist. So, I made this thread. Take it or leave it. And he clearly states in the article that the two main party system doesn't work.

When Big referred to Bloomberg as advocating socialism, I thought he was being facetious--emulating or mocking the talk radio personalities who toss off labels to disparage, without regard to accuracy or meaning.

8224, that's a terrible definition of socialism in your dictionary (whatever it is). I suppose they define capitalism as a form of government in which everyone is given the freedom to produce according to his efforts.

From Oxford English Dict:

socialism (sou.Saliz'm). a. Fr. socialisme (1832), or independently f. social a. + -ism. See also next. The early history of the word is somewhat obscure. The first use of Fr. sociaed in common. to have been in the Globe of 13 Feb. 1832, where it was employed in contrast to personnalito. In its modern sense it is variously claimed for Leroux or Reybaud, writing within three or four years after this. A different account, assigning the priority of this use to England, is given in the Encycl. Brit. (1887) XXII. 205; according to this the word originated in 1835 in the discussions of a society founded by Robert Owen.

1. A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all.

2. A state of society in which things are held or used in common.

the government should control the means of production and distribution of goods

Because he said we should put narrow interests aside (corporation interests) and work for the common good (interests of all the people).

Say corporations want more foreign workers but the government doesn't let them. That's controlling means of production.