patrick.net

socal2 says

What's the deal with Venezuela these days? Is this just another example of a country doing Socialism wrong?

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/18/news/economy/venezuela-economy-meltdown/

What is wrong with Argentina these days? Economy is in Meltdown after electing a neoliberal, Inflation drops buying power of Minimum Wage to $430 from $600.
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Argentine-Inflation-Spikes-Under-Macri-Affecting-the-Majority-20160216-0031.html

Closes down Family Farmer's board, their only input into Government policy, to favor Big Agra, which promptly jacked up food prices "Like, to the max."
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Argentine-President-Lashes-out-at-Small-Scale-Farmers-20160212-0020.html

Started negotiating with Wall Street Vulture Funds who want par for debt they brought for pennies, reversing old policy of telling them to fuck off.
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Argentina-is-Feeding-the-Vultures-with-New-Debt-Deal------20160215-0014.html

Brand New President Jacks up his Salary
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Argentinas-Macri-Bumps-up-His-Salary-by-30-20160211-0054.html

Is Argentina running out of toilet paper too? How about Argentina's crime rate? I believe Venezuela has the 2nd highest homicide rate in the world just behind Honduras.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Again, is Venezuela just doing Socialism wrong causing all of this social and economic dysfunction?

socal2 says

Is Argentina running out of toilet paper too? How about Argentina's crime rate? I believe Venezuela has the 2nd highest homicide rate in the world just behind Honduras.

Wow, 1 Death more than the US Virgin Islands, and on par with all it's neighbors, all of whom are top 10% murder rate countries, like right-wing Columbia.

thunderlips11 says

Wow, 1 Death more than the US Virgin Islands, and on par with all it's neighbors, all of whom are top 10% murder rate countries, like right-wing Columbia.

Thought Socialism could fix that with a more equitable society and all that?

Venezuela's homicide rate is almost double of Columbia.

socal2 says

Thought Socialism could fix that with a more equitable society and all that?

It's funny. Unlimited Capitalism proponents are like "It's only been 150 years, give us more time!"

And then they say "You've had a whole decade or so, being opposed by the top 20% of the population at every stage - so where is the socialist utopia!"

thunderlips11 says

t's funny. Unlimited Capitalism proponents are like "It's only been 150 years, give us more time!"

Yes - given more time, Capitalism may even put a bigger dent in worldwide poverty than it already has.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim

Violent crime statistics results from a combination of inter-related socio-economic conditions. To say socialism causes crime is like saying food causes cancer.

Ironman says

It does.

Maybe you should stop eating then.

epitaph says

Violent crime statistics results from a combination of inter-related socio-economic conditions. To say socialism causes crime is like saying food causes cancer.

Funny how we can never blame Marxist movements for the ruin they generate in their societies. What is the difference between Socialism and Communism other than Communism is Socialism with more power?

If we point out that Communist regimes killed hundreds of millions of people and stunted entire generations, we are told "they did Communism wrong!" If we point out that Venezuela is falling apart and one of the murder capitals of the world, we are told "that's not because of Chavez or Socialism!"

Same thing for liberal/progressive policies (Socialism-lite). Is it a coincidence that Cities and States that have been run by Democrats for half a century or longer (Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, Oakland) have some of the highest crime and dysfunction in America?

socal2 says

Same thing for liberal/progressive policies (Socialism-lite). Is it a coincidence that Cities and States that have been run by Democrats for half a century or longer (Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, Oakland) have some of the highest crime and dysfunction in America?

That would explain why 9 of the 10 poorest states are republican and 9 of the 10 richest states are democrat.

bob2356 says

That would explain why 9 of the 10 poorest states are republican and 9 of the 10 richest states are democrat.

Poor states are hard on freeloaders.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

That would explain why 9 of the 10 poorest states are republican and 9 of the 10 richest states are democrat.

Poor states are hard on freeloaders.

So that's why msss, alabama, tenn, west va have some of the highest percentage of food stamp users in the country. That good old fashioned conservative government at work creating wealth and opportunity. Sure, right. Too bad you don't know how percentages work so you have no clue what I'm saying.

bob2356 says

So that's why msss, alabama, tenn, west va have some of the highest percentage of food stamp users in the country.

1/3 of all welfare goes to Calif with 12% of the population of the United States.

California is third among states in per-capita spending on welfare:
$179
New York leads the nation:
$256

socal2 says

Thought Socialism could fix that with a more equitable society and all that?

You do realize that the USA uses plenty of socialism. The biggest socialist program in all of human history is the US military. Do you want to get rid of that?

The second biggest socialist program is Social Security. Do you want to get rid of that? 99% of retired people don't.

socal2 says

thunderlips11 says

t's funny. Unlimited Capitalism proponents are like "It's only been 150 years, give us more time!"

Yes - given more time, Capitalism may even put a bigger dent in worldwide poverty than it already has.

Capitalism has done absolutely NOTHING to reduce poverty. Commerce reduces poverty, not capitalism.

Commerce is not capitalism, and capitalism is not commerce. Learn the difference. Every economic system has commerce.

Commerce increases productivity by allowing specialization. Commerce promotes peace by making war less profitable than peaceful, voluntary exchange. Commerce increases technological progress through specialization, which also then increases productivity.

Capitalism does not do ANY of these things.

When people like socal2 say capitalism is really great, they aren't talking about capitalism, but rather commerce, and they don't even understand the difference.

bob2356 says

That would explain why 9 of the 10 poorest states are republican and 9 of the 10 richest states are democrat.

California is considered one of the 10 richest states.

Yet California has the highest poverty and income equality in the nation.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article2916749.html

Dan8267 says

Capitalism

I expect Paul Whiteman, Tom McCahill and Fred Waring all considered themselves capitalists. If it was good enough for them, it's good enough for me.

Ironman says

If it wasn't for the military, you wouldn't have the freedom to post all the naked pictures of your old, fat boyfriends from Georgie's here.

Your statement is empirically false. America has not fought a defensive war since the revolution, and the military would be used in suppressing any modern revolution, i.e. they'd be the British in a second American revolution.

The main thing that protects America is that we have only two bordering nations, both of which are allies and extremely friendly with us. Neither would even think of going to war with America today because commerce is orders of magnitude more profitable than warfare.

Ironman says

Dan8267 says

The second biggest socialist program is Social Security.

Sure it is... a tax and fund that people paid into for 50 years before they can see or collect a dime is socialism?

And the military is the FIRST LARGEST. So once again, would you end the military or even reduce it 90% so that its in line with the next 10 biggest military spenders in the world? Unless your answer is an unreserved and resounding "HELL YES!" then you are pro-socialism just like Bernie Sanders.

Once again CIC demonstrates his complete ignorance and inability to think.

P N Dr Lo R says

I expect Paul Whiteman, Tom McCahill and Fred Waring all considered themselves capitalists. If it was good enough for them, it's good enough for me.

Appeal to authority carries no weight. Economics, like all disciplines, is subject to the scientific method. If experimental results do not confirm the theory, then the theory is wrong. Experimental results have contradicted capitalist theory.

Furthermore, capitalism and free markets are mutually exclusive. You cannot uphold both principles as capitalism inevitably results in owners of the means of production using their power to control markets, eliminate actual and potential competitors, and structure the law to maintain their power. This is an intrinsic property of capitalism.

Ironman says

OK Knucklehead... Since you're such a rabid Bernie socialist supporter, if you reduce the military 90%, what do you do with 1.3 MILLION current activity duty service people who are receiving this "socialism".

The same thing that happens with anyone else on welfare. They are fit and able to work. They should get a job in the private sector and contribute to the GDP!

By the way, soldiers get paid jack-diddley-shit. The vast majority of the military budget goes to war profiteers who gauge the tax payers with useless overpriced tanks the army doesn't want but is forced to buy.

Dan8267 says

and structure the law to maintain their power. This is an intrinsic property of capitalism

Sounds good to me. Do you really think those who work and live under socialism don't do the same thing?

Ironman says

But they get the full complement of socialism Bernie is proposing, and then some.... Free healthcare, free college, free room and board, free travel around the world, a check each month, free pension..

I was going to make the same point, but you did it better.

Ironman says

Dan8267 says

The same thing that happens with anyone else on welfare. They are fit and able to work. They should get a job in the private sector and contribute to the GDP!

Sure thing, just add them to the current 94 million not working, since jobs are so plentiful under your current liberal presidential leadership.

So then, you are for welfare. The military is just non-productive welfare with the risk of being killed or maimed for life. It would be better just to write checks to people for not fighting in wars or doing work.

Ironman says

But they get the full complement of socialism Bernie is proposing, and then some.... Free healthcare, free college, free room and board, free travel around the world, a check each month, free pension.... Sounds like it's a perfect socialist program (in Bernie's world).

The cost of grades 1 through 12 are socialized. Why not socialize higher education in a world in which higher education is as necessary today as high school was 50 years ago?

There are many ways to fix the housing industry that have nothing to do with socialism.

Finally, the vast majority of military spending is not on the soldiers. Defense contractors make the most money.

P N Dr Lo R says

Do you really think those who work and live under socialism don't do the same thing?

No one "lives under socialism". Socialism is not an economic model. It is a tactic. Furthermore it is a tactic we use in defense, transportation, sewer systems, education, fire fighters, the police, the national guard, border control, etc. If we were to eliminate all socialist programs our society would collapse in a single day.

If you want to experiment in a society that shuns socialism, start by cutting all funding for defense, fire fighters, the police, the national guard, the coast guard, and border control. Oh, and that means no fence. Fences are socialism.

Also, outlaw all pollution. Pollution is socializing the costs of production across a population transcending the users of the good or service being produced. Pollution is the worst and most perverse form of socialism -- you see, I don't think all socialism is good -- and is the first thing that should be eliminated. Start with coal power plants. If you are against socialism but not pollution, you're simply a hypocrite.

Dan8267 says

Furthermore it is a tactic we use in defense, transportation, sewer systems, education, fire fighters, the police, the national guard,

Those aren't socialism, they're called infrastructure and city services, universally understood as the responsibilty of any self-respecting town or city, funded by taxes. Welfare of the kind that prevailed under John Lindsay in New York between 1965 and 1973 where people were recruited to join the welfare roles, no strings attached, no interview, no home visit, just have a pulse and three or four illegitimate children, no expectation of working or owing anything back to society, that's socialism.

Dan8267 says

Capitalism has done absolutely NOTHING to reduce poverty. Commerce reduces poverty, not capitalism.

Because it shouldn't--no economic system is established to reduce poverty but to get people the things they want and like. I don't believe under any other system but capitalism I could have bought an 85 year old record in Decatur, TX for $3, $2 off the asking price because it had a lam, thinking I could possibly get $50-$75 for it because of its genre. I put it on eBay for ten days and an hour before the auction ended the bid was $250, which astounded me. When the auction ended an hour later I was even more astounded when the 13th and final bid was $2,901, the 12th $2,800 and 11th $800. I had stumbled across what turned out to be only the 6th copy still in existence of a record pressed in 1927, but not released until 1932 and in only 400 copies due to the Depression. Nor could a socialist system have provided my friend Kurt Nauck with the opportunities to build starting from scratch some ten or 15 years ago what are today the two largest vintage record auctions in the world:

http://www.78rpm.com/

http://www.selfrelianceexpo.com/speakers/kurt-nauck/

Only capitalism allows the free-wheeling, entrepreneural opportunities to get the things you want and like and someone else to make money from it.

Dan8267 says

The cost of grades 1 through 12 are socialized. Why not socialize higher education in a world in which higher education is as necessary today as high school was 50 years ago?

I would be cool with that provided that only certain majors would be "free" and the ones that are not expected to generate acceptable return to the government/society should only be offered in private colleges without access to government provided student loans/grants.

dublin hillz says

certain majors would be "free"

So would a medical degree be "free"? Who would actually cover the costs of the "free" education?

dublin hillz says

without access to government provided student loans/grants.

Probably the single source of tuition inflation.

Dan8267 says

Socialism is not an economic model. It is a tactic

Here's what I understand socialism to be. A person has to use the emergency room for an expensive procedure to save their life but hasn't the money to reimburse the professionals, say, the $150,000 that was required. They don't have to pay, but that $150,000 is "socialized" back into the larger medical system, affecting the costs of all other services after that has been done thousands of times over. The same process is applied to other things such as education, which has been common practice for decades, if not centuries. But the setting up of permanent doles out of the general wealth for people who may or may not really be unable to work seems like a waste to me. Someone, somewhere has to be creating the wealth to be redistributed and I don't see a system like that offering a huge incentive to prosper on an individual basis. I think many of the gifted artists of the early 1900's, Noel Coward and Cecil Beaton come to mind, were horrified when after World War II Britain began an almost confiscatory system of taxation to pay for its universal welfare system which included healthcare. I think many fled to this country to avoid that. A college friend of mine who has lived in Germany for the past 38 years likes to make the point when he comes here to visit when someone got sick, if I was home, I wouldn't have any out-of-pocket expenses, I'd just walk in and they'd take care of me. On another occasion, though, he'd say I wish you could see how much they take out of my check each month to pay for this universal coverage.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

So that's why msss, alabama, tenn, west va have some of the highest percentage of food stamp users in the country.

1/3 of all welfare goes to Calif with 12% of the population of the United States.

The source of this information is what other than your anal orifice.

bob2356 says

The source of this information

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2012/jul/28/welfare-capital-of-the-us/

P N Dr Lo R says

Because it shouldn't--no economic system is established to reduce poverty but to get people the things they want and like.

What people want is to not be poor.

A good economic system would make full use of the human resources available to it, maximizing the productivity of every person, and thus ensuring little to no poverty. Capitalism has made your standards low.

P N Dr Lo R says

Only capitalism allows the free-wheeling, entrepreneural opportunities to get the things you want and like and someone else to make money from it.

Feel free to prove that assertion. Make sure to demonstrate that no other economic system could possibly result in commerce, innovation, and technological progress.

You talk about capitalism as if its a religion subject to faith not empirical evidence.

Dan says:

"What people want is to not be poor".

Dumb ass, People want to live a life.

indigenous says

Dan says:

"What people want is to not be poor".

Dumb ass, People want to live a life.

Are you trying to say that people don't want to get out of poverty? That's a stupid statement even for you.

Dan says:

"Are you trying to say that people don't want to get out of poverty? That's a stupid statement even for you."

People don't think about not being ... whatever Tantamount to saying people don't want to be dead.

People have goals, that is what they think about. They don't need or want "help" they want to achieve their goals.

Honey, different people want different things and have different attitudes about life and different values. Your generalizations are vague and not applicable to all people. But there are a few things that do apply to all people:
- nobody wants to be fucked by a porcupine
- nobody wants to be in pain and bad health
- nobody wants to be hungry
- and fucking nobody wants to be poor

If I have to explain that to you then your mother should be arrested for repeatedly dropping you as a child.

Dan says:

"Honey, different people want different things and have different attitudes about life and different values. Your generalizations are vague and not applicable to all people. But there are a few things that do apply to all people:
- nobody wants to be fucked by a porcupine
- nobody wants to be in pain and bad health
- nobody wants to be hungry
- and fucking nobody wants to be poor

If I have to explain that to you then your mother should be arrested for repeatedly dropping you as a child."

No bitch, that is not how it works...

Well that was such a "convincing" argument, there's no point in continue this conversation.

Dan8267 says

A good economic system would make full use of the human resources available to it

Not if the human resources don't want to participate in it. I see able bodied young people every day in the library, using their laptops and the library's computers pursuing their interests--one couple has so many belongings they should pitch a tent. You can't tell me they don't have the mental capabilities to hold down a job if oriented in the right direction. It's just that they live in a society that permits them to live at the very bottom of subsistance and that apparently suits them. They would behave the exact same way if they lived in the Netherlands.

P N Dr Lo R says

Not if the human resources don't want to participate in it.

That excuse doesn't apply to America. Millions of Americans with part-time jobs want full-time work, can't find it

Roughly a quarter of the more than 26 million people working part-time in the United States want a full-time job but can't find one, a reality that has left those workers struggling to pay their bills, according to a new study.

That's a failure of capitalism that results in a GDP that's far lower than it should be. That means the government has to tax YOU more to make up for the tax revenue lost to underemployment.

For Many Americans, 'Temp' Work Becomes Permanent Way of Life

With full-time work hard to find, these workers have built temping into a de facto career, minus vacation, sick days or insurance. The assignments might be temporary — a few months here, a year there — but labor economists warn that companies’ growing hunger for a workforce they can switch on and off could do permanent damage to these workers’ career trajectories and retirement plans.

“It seems to be the new norm in the working world,” said Kelly Sibla, 54. The computer systems engineer has been looking for a full-time job for four years now, but the Amherst, Ohio, resident said she has to take whatever she can find.

There are a lot of perverse incentives for employers to use temps.

Another failure of capitalism.

The real unemployment rate is now about 10% down from a peak 17% shortly after Bush's dismal failure as a president.

Another dismal failure of capitalism. Any decent economic system would keep productivity high and constant with little variation. The supporters of capitalism have extremely low standards.

Other estimates of the real unemployment rate include workers so discouraged that they have given up hope of being employed again even though they desperately want to be. Shadow Stats estimates this unemployment metric to be about 23% as huge sections of the workforce have been permanently laid off and no replacement jobs have been created.

Again, this is a failure of capitalism, plain and simple. The owner class have a perverse incentive to reduce productivity in order to reduce worker bargaining power in order to siphon a greater portion of the economic pie, a pie that the owner class contributes nothing to making.

Dan8267 says

Not if the human resources don't want to participate in it.

That excuse doesn't apply to America.

It's not an excuse, it's a way of life regardless of where they live.

Dan8267 says

Millions of Americans with part-time jobs want full-time work, can't find it

And this would change how under Clinton or Sanders? When their plans call for spending into eternity?

Dan8267 says

The owner class

And which class would you prefer?

P N Dr Lo R says

It's not an excuse, it's a way of life regardless of where they live.

It's an excuse you are making up to condone the failures of capitalism to address systemic poverty, high unemployment, and low productivity.

P N Dr Lo R says

Dan8267 says

Millions of Americans with part-time jobs want full-time work, can't find it

And this would change how under Clinton or Sanders? When their plans call for spending into eternity?

We weren't talking about Clinton or Sanders, but our economic model.

If you want to evaluate the candidates, then it's this simple. Sanders is the only candidate who actually has the interest of the American people in mind rather than his own career, fame, or self-interest. However, even Hilary Clinton is better than any republican candidate. The republican candidates are pure evil and destructive. The quality of life of 99% of Americans would fall under any of the republican candidates, and many lives would be needlessly killed under their chicken-hawk war mongering.

The worst thing to happen to the American middle class was Ronald Reagan. Sanders would start the healing process from the damage Reagan inflicted upon America.

P N Dr Lo R says

Dan8267 says

The owner class

And which class would you prefer?

I would prefer an economic system that rewards innovation, productivity, and progress over one that rewards parasitic control over resources. Such a system, by definition, would not be capitalism or communism. Such a system has not been named yet, but I don't care what it is called. I care about how the system works. As long as you treat economics like a religion instead of like an engineering discipline, you will never understand this.