Why doesn't socialism work?

One article ??? Behind a paywall ???

Explain how creative destruction morphs capitalism into socialism.

 

And quote after quote from Schumpeter. You clearly lied that you read his work, didn't you?

Why would I? I don't believe that's the case. You're the one that peddled creative destruction, even though that assumes socialism is the outcome.

This is a lesson in your lack of reading. You've been told what to say. You've just been told by idiots.

 

So you cannot explain it. That says it all. All you have are half baked ideas which you cannot explain. Hilarious.

 

You seem to think people haven't figured out you're full of it.

I invite anyone who thinks Marxism-Leninism is irrelevant to read:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism

Fortunately for humanity, Marxism-Leninism is headed for the scrapheap of history. Its demise has breathed life into a reconsidered socialism.

Why would I comment on your trash talk (see above)? I don't care what you think and have in all honesty addressed my comments to other people who aren't here with the primary goal of finding people who they think they can insult and get away with it.

 

No sacrifice is too great to save your beloved greedy idiot mega Rich from paying their fair share, right?

 

What on earth are you blubbering now? I referred directly to Schumpeter and how you are peddling lies. That you won't admit that you have been forced to peddle lies is your own weakness. Try grunting elsewhere mind you. I find that kack particular bobbins.

 

Your emoji is all you have.

HAHAHAHAHA! Wikipedia, the god send of right wing grunt.

Aren't you following your irrelevance? You're the one rambling about an irrelevant Marxism-Leninism? I've informed you how feasible socialism has developed and how it makes your comments particularly irrelevant. Its as if you can't construct a valid argument...

"Government is socialism" is trash comment. Its a plea that only characterizes ignorance. I merely pity your inability to be honest.

 

Based on your post, I get the impression you're of the Ayn Rand clan of conservatives, where every man for himself is the way to go. When the U.S. had no whites living west of the Mississippi River, that philosophy would have found a comfortable home, but today with every available square foot of space occupied by over 330 million Americans, I can think of no scenario any scarier than having every individual being an individual in that sense.
1. How many kids take a class that can open them up to earning over $100,000. / yr right out of college? None, unless you're the kid of a famous or powerful person, in which case the doors of opportunity will open wide for you. Like most (possibly all) conservatives or Republicans, you are quick to find fault & lay blame, rather than help find solutions. I see that as a common trait among those groups. But finding fault & laying blame is a dead end path. It leads nowhere. Nothing is solved. Nothing is fixed. The only result is to widen the gap between you & those you blame. Nobody wins.
2. In an economy where simple dumpy houses cost $500 to $700 thousand dollars, how do you avoid living in a place you can't afford? That's precisely the reality millions of young couples are dealing with now. Instead of finding fault, how about offering some solutions?
3. I'm shocked to hear a conservative voice speaking for communal living. That's new. I'm a liberal who values their privacy. What on Earth are we coming to?

 

Again no explanation. You are exposed. Sad.

 

Every square foot ?? That’s funny.

Entry level chemical engineer in San Francisco is $137K.

 

The Sedin twins, Henrik and Daniel, two great Swedish hockey players who starred for the Vancouver Canucks in the National Hockey League have retired and still live in Vancouver. When they played for the Canucks, they went home for the summer. I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to live in Canada to escape Swedish taxes.

 

What in the world are you talking about? I asked why socialism doesn't work, and even specifically excluded the Nordic countries Bernie is constantly citing.

Here it is again from the OP since I suspect you're too lazy to go look: "I don't mean capitalist countries like Denmark with a large safety net, taxpayer funder medical care, and education."

And forgive me, but are you an angry Bernie Bro?

 

Why don't you start a leftist party? I think you'd get hundreds of votes, maybe even thousands.

 

There is a reason Bernie doesn’t have a party.

 

Few things political make me LOL. That one actually did. I think you may be the first person to have noticed this.

 

It’s probably occurred to a lot of Democrats.

 

I would hardly call Carroll Quigley a crackpot, nor many of the other credible sources who have for decades said the same thing.

I know Frank Vanderlip himself wrote about the founding meetings.

Are you not familiar with the Aldrich Bill, and why it failed?? Which led to the Money Trust rigging the 1912 election by running Teddy Roosevelt as a third party candidate (backed by Morgan money), which split the Republican vote ensuring Wilson would defeat Taft.

Wilson was a bought and paid for puppet for the Money Trust. Col. Edward Mandell House lived in the White House and guided all legislation and preparations for WW I. It was House who wrote the 14 Points.

None of this is a secret.

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

Regardless, here is a quite from Quigley's book that lays out what the goal of establishing the central bank was:

The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.

- Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope

 

YOU struck out on Commercial Loan Collateral!

So you moved the goal posts to International Trade where you struck out for the SECOND time.

Then you moved the goal posts to Small Businesses where you strucj out for the THIRD time!

NOW you are desperately SWINGING at fireflies because even your latest links contain PROOF that banks are SECURING those loans with ASSETS of a different kind which is just another form of COLLATERAL!

Sad because you REFUSE to learn from ANY of the above that banks are NOT in the business of taking NEEDLESS RISKS giving you money just because you can BS them about how successful you are going to be selling Trump Steaks in the future.

That you CONTINUE to DISQUALIFY yourself is NOT my problem.

Have a nice day!

 

Agreed. But, so what?

Life was always that way and likely always will be ...

 

I'm amazed at your inability to see the consequence of this sentiment.

 

I don't forgive right wing BS artists. Posts #2479, 2480. You place communist countries along with socialists ones...Sanders is a democratic socialist. Big difference.
For your education: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/06/29/what-the-right-gets-wrong-about-socialism/

 

Life can, and does change, though......so your point is?

kungfuliberal posted:

Thanks for the link. Very informative article.

 

FIRST PAST THE POST

Let's just say both.

I'm almost sure that what brought about a Donald Dork was the preceding 8 years during which the US underwent an economic-recession shock the nature of which had not been seen since the 1930s. Let's not forget that Donald Dork LOST THE POPULAR-VOTE to Hillary by a highly significant margin of 2%!

In any bona-fide democracy, the popular-vote is the ONLY truthful measure of public sentiment regarding the election of candidates for office.

Anecdote: When Europe was tasked with rebuilding its democracies post-WW2 its founders came to have a look at the country that did the most to liberate them from the Nazis. Not one came back from that visit with the intention of copying in their country the Electoral College or its misfit first-past-the-post voting rule.

Which considers as EC-winner (of all the state's EC-votes) only the candidate with the most popular-votes! All other candidate-votes are literally destroyed - that is, they do not count at all! (So, in our state, if you voted for a loser of the presidential election, your vote does not even count in the state's Electoral College!)

Pray tell, what sort of democracy can that be? The one outta-hell that five times in the nation's history has elected as PotUS the loser of the popular-vote ... ?

PS: Nonetheless, to be perfectly exact, some elements of the Irish Senate are indeed selected by the vote of an "Electoral College". Don't ask my why.

 

Certainly the history of the formation of the Fed in 1913, including secret meetings of the famous Jekyll Island cabal, is incredibly byzantine.

https://eh.net/book_reviews/the-gre...rm-nelson-aldrich-and-the-origins-of-the-fed/

"Senator Aldrich was joined by 6 of the wealthiest bankers in the world Paul Warburg, Frank Vanderlip, Benjamin Strong, Charles Norton, Henry Davidson & Abe Andrews and over the next 9 days created the federal reserve system. Originally named the “Aldrich Bill”, it was later renamed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913."

Guess whose interests they had in mind?......

The closest to real reform of the FED, in the public interest, came in 1946, when a bill was introduced to make full employment mandatory, but repubs and southern dems insisted on the primacy of the market and adopted a "maximum employment" mandate for the Fed, instead.

That's why MMT's* time has come: it includes a Job Guarantee funded by a consolidated government sector consisting of treasury and central bank operating in a coordinated fashion.

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=9392

Understanding central bank operations

In the September 2008 edition of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review there was an interesting article published entitled – Divorcing Money from Monetary Policy.

It demonstrated why the account of monetary policy in mainstream macroeconomics textbooks (such as Mankiw etc) from which the overwhelming majority of economics students get their understandings about how the monetary system operates is totally flawed.

etc.... required reading for Ph.D level macroeconomists.

* here is a link to a one-page Q and A explanation of MMT (Modern Monetary Theory).

https://theglobepost.com/2019/03/28/stephanie-kelton-mmt/

Also available in free pdf form: Warren Mosler's "7 Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy".

https://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf

 

So dollar for dollar, those who use the programs that tax dollars support, pay in the least, if at all, and those least likely to use the programs, pay in the most, should pay in even more, based on the idea that somehow, people are entitle to what they have.

Does that cover it?