Why doesn't socialism work?

Socialism has never worked.

 

The problem is that governments ration healthcare to meet budget constraints.

 

You think it is communism. English speaking conservatives don't know what it is.

 

Especially in England because of the conservatives cutting its funding. They are almost as bad as the GOP but it's not close.

 

the worst inequality and upward mobility is not trivia. Try real news have a look around. I caramba

 

You're referring to a concept "creative destruction" which was designed to show how capitalism leads to socialism. That isn't opinion. That's fact. That you don't know that is part of the problem. Right wingers are poorly read. Reading challenges after all...

 

The Rich are getting away with murder because of the GOP. And it is wrecking the non rich. The worst inequality and upward mobility since the twenties at least is not trivia.

 

1. Increasing numbers of college graduates are ending their coursework over $100,000.00 in debt. No generation previous to this one faced that level of indebtedness so early in their lives. Add to that, an average house in California--this is just a small bungalow type of home, costs an average of over $700,000.00 now. How do newlyweds or young couples starting out, deal with these kinds of prices? Rent in most large cities has soared thru the ceiling in recent years. In Los Angeles, or San Francisco, or Seattle, or New York, or most other large cities, just a 200-400 sq ft apartment is renting for $2,000.00 per month or more. Privacy has become un-affordable. Due to low income coupled with excessive housing costs, more & more young couples are starting their married lives living with parents. How is all that NOT a decrease in the standard of living?
2. I disagree. The consistent killing of protective regulations is what led to the abuse that resulted in the Great Recession. If those regulations had remained intact, they would have prevented the economic abuse. Totally unregulated economics is a guarantee of abuse by all those who never care about anything other than their personal accrual of wealth.

 

That would certainly be a significant problem, but even it is not without solutions for those brave enough & committed enough to enact them.

 

That’s complete BS.

 

Just facts. You used Schumpeter's term 'creative destruction'. He was referring to how socialism is created. That you didn't know that, mind you, is delicious. Even poorly read right wingers have value

 

College graduates in Sweden (which are chosen by the government) have just as much debt as US graduates.

The middle class is moving out of California.

Do I have to post my financial crisis post again ??

 

That’s complete BS.

 

But to do that those governments would have to double the taxation which funds healthcare.

 

Is the "reparations" argument far behind??

Sounds like you want to play the role of Robespierre?? Drag any scoundrel with coins in his pocket before The Committee For Public Safety??

You, the majority, the government - none of you has the lawful right to forcibly take property from a citizen who has done nothing.

To do so would be the foremost affront to liberty. How is it you don't understand that??

----------------------------------

I understand that you don't believe in the rule of law or the protection of private property - but they are the principles upon which America was founded.

Perhaps you should seek out a country more inline with your radical views?? Cuba pursued your prescribed remedy. Why not move there?? Beautuful women, great climate, and a ****-ton of social justice.

I read your link from Bernanke.

He cites Friedman, and the facts are correct in an academic sense; but, Friedman is an economist and views such things from an academic and philosophical point of view.

As such, while I agree with the facts as he lays them out, it is merely a two dimensional view.

Which brings me back to my question to you...

Who owns The Federal Reserve??

and another question...

Who wrote The Federal Reserve Act??

You can't understand the crash, depression, etc, without first asking those questions.

 

You seem to react the same way when caught out. I haven't given opinion. I've referred to documented facts. Schumpeter is behind creative destruction. Fact.

This is great stuff though. We're seeing the weaknesses in your reading. Perhaps we should refer to the books that have dictated your stance? Get going! If you mention Animal Farm that would be splendid

 

You are actually saying that creative destruction will result in capitalism turning into socialism ??? That’s hilarious.

Has Apple moved us toward socialism ?? Has Standard Oil moved toward socialism ?? Has the internet moved us toward socialism ?? Has Amazon moved us toward socialism ?? Has Intel moved us toward socialism ?? Has Ford moved us toward socialism ?? Has Toyota moved us toward socialism ??

I would suggest that you review the last three paragraphs of Chapter 7 in “Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy” in which Schumpeter discusses “fringe end cases to be found mainly in the sectors most removed from all that is characteristic of capitalist activity”.

 

No, I'm saying the person that introduced 'creative destruction' used it to refer to how socialism is derived. Crikey, you're not just poorly read are you?

According to Schumpeter's creative destruction? Yes! That you don't really understand the concept is obvious. That you're just parroting from right wing site is also clear. Its a shame right wingers can't actually practice individualism

 

I understand the concept perfectly. To actually argue that creative destruction leads to socialism is bizarre and is obviously comes from some wacko economic interpretation of Shumpeter's work.

I would suggest that you review the last three paragraphs of Chapter 7 in “Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy” in which Schumpeter discusses “fringe end cases to be found mainly in the sectors most removed from all that is characteristic of capitalist activity”.

 

You make no sense. Schumpeter came out with the term and he referred to socialism as the outcome

HAHAHAHA this is a pathetic effort. However, let's go with your desperate Googling. Refer to how you are re-characterising Schumpeter and how suddenly he fits comfortably with right wing knuckle dragging site funded by big business? Good luck!

 

Who cares what you believe about Shumpeter's creative destruction ?? I've seen the Marxist interpretations of his book. It's highly comical.

The benefits of capitalism and the chaotic gale force of creative destruction which comes with it is a maximum rate of productivity growth and resultant growth in the standard of living. Creative destruction will never result in the government control of the economy.

BTW, I have the book right in front of me.

 

I haven't mentioned my views on Schumpeter. I've merely referred to the facts: creative destruction is used to understand socialism's outcome. I've merely asked you to defend your reinvention of Schumpeter. Can't you do that? Are we just going to get you turn into a scared right wing parrot, easily pacified by a blanket covering your cage?

HAHAHAHA!

 

As the reader can tell by the chronology of the posts, Langley is not interested in a intellectually honest debate. All one has to do is look at his previous questions and statements,
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-socialism-work.568704/reply&quote=1071512074

then see his lame dodges and smoke blowing here to know that Langley is incapable of a rational, informed debate on the subject matter. His screen name icon confirms as much. If he can't do better, I'll just ignore him.

 

Oh I've got your number all right....do you think readers can't see what you're doing because you omit a name in your very descriptive response relating to the OP and current events?

Puh-leeze! That dog of yours just won't fly.

 

There aren't many left these days after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the adoption of whatever you might say they have in China. North Korea. Cuba.

Don't be obtuse. Marxism-Leninism is revolutionary socialism.

Gibberish. Socialism (collectivized production) has an extremely difficult time allocating capital efficiently.