Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

As socialist ideas enjoy somewhat of a resurgence among young Democratic lawmakers and their liberal base in the U.S., a short recap of some of the 'successes' enjoyed by socialist policies in countries around the world:

The average Venezuelan has lost 24 pounds due to food shortages. More than 2 million people have fled the country, which was once the wealthiest in South America.

In 1929, Lenin’s successor Joseph Stalin led the total collectivization of farms – making them all government property. That sparked an all-out famine, during which millions starved to death.

Freedom House’s ranking of press freedoms states that “Cuba has the most repressive media environment in the Americas. ... The Cuban news media are owned and controlled by the state and the independent press is considered illegal.”

In the 1950s India followed the socialist creed and the state seized control of steel, mining, machine tools, water, telecommunications, insurance, and electrical plants. In the 1970s, India went further and added socialism to the country’s constitution, however, poverty remains rampant in India, where the average income per person is around $2,000 per year.

In socialist China in 1956, Chairman Mao Zedong announced a new policy of encouraging dissent and debate. As he put it: "The policy of letting a hundred flowers bloom, and a hundred schools of thought contend.” Anyone who spoke up publicly was punished and often sent to deadly forced labor camps. Mao later publicly boasted that he had “enticed the snakes out of their caves”.

Economist Bryan Caplan said many such leaders only pretend to care about reducing poverty.

“Revolutionary socialists have been far more interested in crushing their favorite scapegoats - businesspeople and the rich - than in alleviating poverty,”

debeda

YEP. And the recurring theme in both socialism and communism is "wealth redistribution" and "fairness and equality". But it is amazing how, time after time, the wealth is "redistributed" to the putative "leaders" of the movement, and the only fairness and equality is that everyone else gets to be equally poor.

dongreen76

I don't know where you were educated, but I was always taught that this country's success so far as being wealthy can be attributed to it's great natural resources ,and geographical location on the globe ,as opposed to it's political economical Ideology.
Also,you keep ranting and raving about liberal leftist politicians such as Sanders,
Cortez, and Obama that want to take the country socialist.To go socialist would go to the right,and you keep referring to them as leftist.You seem to be somewhat ignorant as to what constitutes a rightest political agenda from a leftist political agenda.
Any hooowww,I don't think either of the above mention politicians are flat out thinking of the country advocating or being Marxist .I think their thinking in terms of being something like the `Brits`.
Last I heard they were Democratic Soialist.Its the intelligent thing to do.
Seeing as how the free market system of Capiltilisim went South due to corruption and an egregious mis-use of the free aspect of it .A gross mis-use of an un-ethical engorgment of the prices,creating situations of an un- balance between the patrons(buyers) and sellers; with these economical scenarios comes all kind of social Un-desirable derivatives of such corruption it will be a major factor in contributing to the country's demise.
As I have said before the status quo needs to remember the phrase spoken by Henry Ford,"a model T in every house".This needs to be analyzed and determined what his mind set was that made him innovate the assembly line to turn out the model `T` with a rapid mass production cheapley so that every American could afford one.The key here is -'SO EVERY AMERICAN COULD AFFORD ONE" .This tells us that Ford had a cognizance of the buyer must be able to afford the sellers product.,other wise Ford would not have had his miniture economy of the Ford motor company.

badbob85037

And that is the difference between a subject and a citizen

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

I was educated in many places from a young age. We moved every two years and my education was a patchwork of different schools and approaches to education. Where were you educated?

As for the attribution of American wealth, I disagree entirely. No doubt there are many advantages to being blessed with natural resources and enjoying geographical convenience; without a free market those boons would be meaningless, just ask any starving Venezuelan what he thinks about all the oil wealth his government squandered while trying to impose its socialist utopia on the citizenry.


Do I? I don't recall mentioning any of those names lately but maybe my memory is finally giving up the ghost. Would you mind pointing put to me where I wrote even one of those names in the moderately recent past? I'll wait.


Again, the word 'leftist' is not in my lexicon. I simply don't view political positions from that 'left/right' paradigm. Here's a quick primer on a far more sensible viewpoint:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGL8CiUtXF0


I see. You think that the British form of 'democratic socialism' (an inherent oxymoron, by the way) is 'intelligent'. Have you heard of the British 'National Health Service'? It was hailed as the definitive answer to socialized medicine when the British Parliament passed the 'National Health Service Act 1946'. Well, it's 'changed' a little since then:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2318493/posts


I am not exactly an expert in things of an academic nature when referring to economics, but I can honestly make no sense of that.



Henry Ford understood something fundamental about free market economies; that the division of labor has benefits far beyond the production line. As Ludwig Von Mises famously said: "We owe the origin and development of human society and, consequently, of culture and civilization, to the fact that work performed under the division of labor is more productive than when performed in isolation." He took that to the next level.

That the buyer must be able to afford the product is a given in any transaction, not just in buying one of Henry Ford's 'Model T's. That Ford was able to design his assembly line in such a way as to multiply productivity when compared to his competitors allowed him to not only make his cars affordable but to pay his workers better than any of his contemporaries. He 'cornered the market', forcing his competitors to play catch-up, and making an absolute king's ransom in the meantime.

"You can have your car in any color you want, as long as it's black". Henry Ford.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

That would lean pretty heavily on the right to bear arms. A defenseless people is an easy target for an aspiring dictator. Again, just ask any Venezuelan. Back in 2012, Hugo Chavez's government said that the ultimate aim was to disarm all civilians. They're regretting their decision to play along with that little socialist ruse now.

debeda

debeda

BRAVO Larry!! EXCELLENT post!!

bahmer

Amen and Amen

dongreen76

Once again "YOU PEOPLE" are imployed
to shut up .I being a subject as oppose to a citizen am easily duped is what you are contending.The right-winger would be the loyalist,and the loyalist would be more or less considered the citizen[oxymoronic as hell] Subjective in this case meaning always being responsive to the status quos will - or subjectivity ,to the matters of concern.A citizen would be a member that had input.The king's servants are also his subjects -subjects input has no value . Since my opinions contradicts the status quos/king's why would you comment contrary to the reality of the situation ; other than your stupidity,what would be the reasoning behind this.

In this country the difference between a subject and a citizen is the difference between black and white.
This statement is indigenous to my social predicament,not the color of my skin.I was compelled to say that ,by force of habit.

debeda

dongreen76

Not nesscasarily in this day and age.Have you heard the phrase of predatory lenders,what do you think they are called that for.While you want to perjorisize Ford's chacracter,and say his I deal of the newly invention of the automobile was not that he wanted every American to have the experience of partaking of this wonderful piece of mechanical innovation, but! the motivatig impetus behind him was strictly greed of profit,but my life experience with people like you(and Trump) is that you think everyone is you.

dongreen76

Referring to your statement that says in the communism, socialisim world, or when those that seek to over throw free societies there is always a theme where the leftist or rebellous ones consistently when performing their cou.inherit and redistribute the wealth amongst themselves and none of it is disbursed amongst the proletariat.
There was one whom for the most part on which this situation never manifest.This was Castro of Cuba
To a certain extent ,I would dare not refute that ascertainment.This is inherent by mankind's nature.However, I do not think in a nation that is a real nation as the U S is ,these scenarios could never manifest.You are generally referring to the fly by night banana republic countries that come and go.Do you think those parties of mention in this sophisticated society could perform a Cou,and procure all wealth the country has to offer.Long live Kings Obama,Ortez,and Sanders,you debate like a fool.

debeda

No, I am specifically referring to the results of the enactment and institution of socialism/communism.

dongreen76

Yeah ,why do you feel that after 243 years, you conspiracy [ MCCARTHYIST] type nut that the countries going to pick up and forsake the concepts of Capiltilisim/Democracy.What you are witnessing is a few politicians that are merely acting as precautioneers.