A two part question for those considering Socialism

Venezuela's problem was always corruption and Cuba's problem was the Colorado Sugar Beet Lobby.. The US stopped buying Cuban sugar and drove them straight into the arms of the Soviets.

 

Yes you have defined globalism. The point is that middle class America now has to compete with cheaper labor. You can't fix that with income redistribution.

 

What does redistribution of wealth mean? Are we talking about paper money or are we talking about the earth's resources land, food, fibers, etc...? What exactly are we talking about.? I have great interest in this question.

 

The education has to change to compensate toward a more technologocial existence...We already have a shortage on trades like welders, electricians, plumbers etc. So, unless there is another manufacturing boom, then we need more emphisis on Engineers, Computer trades, and Electro-Hydraulics.

 

Oh please....not everything is the fault of America....

 

The Soviets bought ALL of Cuba's sugar crop until the collapse of the Soviet Union.. Facts are just facts.

 

So? That has nothing to do with a forceable takeover of a country through the criminal tactics of Che, and the communist tendencies of Castro...The Castro's destroyed that country, and subjucated its population, those that couldn't escape anyway....But don't tell me, that was America's fault too right?

 

Why do you think Castro was successful? It was because of the corruption and poverty and the US Mafia.. In October of 1960 the US stopped buying Cuban sugar.

http://www.answers.com/Q/How_did_Fidel_Castro_gain_to_power

 

It means government taking money from some people and giving it to others.

 

No, you accepted none so far, and excused yourself away from items that exist without capitalism as a creative force.

Take your randian nonsense to breitbart.

 

From what I've seen you've made it clear you've collected all the clichés about Iraq and are spewing them out here. Anti-war Lefties created these as they always do during every war. Saddam housed and protected terrorists which gave Bush every right to attack him. When the US and its allies arrived in Iraq al-Qaeda was waiting for them. Bush launched the war on Terror and said it would include anyone who protected, gave aid to, or supported terrorists, anywhere. The terrorists are still fighting in Iraq to this day, and you have the cheek to say Bush had no reason to go there!

 

Bush llaunched an illegal war of aggression against a secular stathrre in iraq.

You're just an apologist for the right.

 

You are the one who obviously knows very little about Saddam. We learned our lesson in WWII that if you don't take tyrants like him out the problem only grows larger, until you have a much larger war to fight. In his case he was providing much aid and comfort to al-Qaeda. His own army gave up in one day; it was al-Qaeda who defended Saddam's Iraq from the West. They were our target in the war on terror, or have you forgotten that little detail?

 

AQ wasn't in Iraq. Bush was an absolute fool to invade Iraq. Every American in the Middle East knew it as did diplomats, historians, Arabs, oilmen... and the Europeans.

 

That's a brilliant talk by Milton Friedman there Robert, and it fits perfectly into this thread. All the socialists here couldn't organize a pencil like that if their lives depended on it. Capitalism forms a pencil naturally, easily, without one stupid government committee being involved; that is the power of prices, and of the law of supply and demand. Even as socialists scribble their silly ideas down on a pad, with a pencil, they have no idea how the power of capitalism affects everything they do.

 

"Mixed economy" and "blended economy" are the new fad words being used by Socialists, and they are Socialist-speak for "Bleeding your host". The host is business. Socialists are the parasites who bleed money from businessmen. The idea in a "blended economy" is to take just enough money so as to not kill the host, so that the host may go on creating wealth that can be pillaged. The trouble is that, as with all looters, they become greedy. Or those who replace them become greedy. And eventually they want more. And more. Until they either kill their host or the host moves away, or simply shuts down. Either way that source of moolah is gone, and to make up for it, they take more from all other hosts. Eventually this will bankrupt the country.

 

She wrote fiction and non-fiction, and I guess you read none.

 

Human nature and evolution are two of my favorite subjects. Are you going to make a debate point or just stand there mumbling?

 

Nobody reads Ayn Rand once thy finish HS.

 

You don't listen obviously. As explained before, religions exist. Are you saying that because God doesn't exist the Catholic Church doesn't exist? Think man. According to you, if Scientology is a real thing, as Socialism is, then Thetans exist! Yippee! Are you going to figure this point out or just keep muttering, "Oh, so Socialism isn't real, eh. I see..."? Socialism is as real as religion, Scientology and Voodoo magic. Can it do what is says? No. That's a different matter. Being is one thing. Doing is another. Socialism can't do what it promises, just as Voodoo can't do what it promises. Let me know when the penny drops.

 

You can blather on about all that other crap. I just know based on your arguments about capitalism that socialism can’t exist. Glad you pointed that out for everyone. Thank you.

 

Correct.

You are talking about political capitalism taken on by nations. I am talking about simple, raw capitalism based on trade. That has been going on since the first caveman swapped his spear for a hunk of meat, a hundred thousand years ago. That form of capitalism encompasses and includes yours.

Systems of what? Trade is much older than 2000 years.

Capitalism exploits nobody. A worker is not a bee, and has a choice. He may leave at any time.

If you don’t understand simple trade, and how it is capitalism, then you’ve been studying economics way too long. Try learning some anthropology.

 

Provide an example of a product that exists if capitalism didn't exist.

 

She is a great refresher course as to why you once were republican.

 

Without capitalism Mondragon cannot exist. Everything they designed and sold was influenced and taken from designs already well established by capitalists. They simple copy what is already there.