01-05-2018, 11:12 AM
(01-04-2018, 01:21 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: > I'm thinking more of European social democrats -- not Chavez,
> Castro, Mugabe, etc. European social democrats see nothing wrong
> with capitalist success. Their socialism needs a strong private
> sector.
> Government operation of manufacturing, retail trade, and
> agriculture does not work well. That is well
> demonstrted. Countries that overthrew Commie rule or seceded from
> the USSR typically sold off the 'socialized' sector to make
> possible a social market society -- and not some Gilded-Age
> nightmare that Trump and company lust for.
> Maybe countries emerging from a feudl order and frontier societies
> need to go through the Gilded stage of development that I
> understand that Trump means in "Make America Great Again". Things
> were great for shysters, slumlords, loan-sharks, and sweatshop
> exploiter in those times. No thanks!
I notice that you didn't take this opportunity to condemn Venezuela's
leaders for their utter destruction of its economy with Socialism.
Here are two articles:
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/...-really-do
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/42...rich-lowry
The first is written by someone on the left, the second is written by
someone on the right. They both have ideological spins, but they
agree on the facts: Sweden turned to Socialism in the 1970s, but then
retrenched in the 1990s, when it became clear that Socialism was an
economic disaster.
This is not a surprise. Socialism has a 100% failure record, and I've
posted the reason many times:
As I've written many times in the past, Socialism is mathematically
impossible as population grows. The number of regulators grows
exponentially faster than the population grows, so by the time you get
to, say, 50-100K people, everyone would have to be a regulator.
When you impose Socialism on an existing wealthy population, as was
done in Sweden and Venezuela, and what Bernie Sanders would like to do
to the US, then it works ok until, as Margaret Thatcher would say, the
government runs out of other people's money. Then disaster ensues.
This is for the same reason. If the population has more than, say,
100K people, then there aren't enough government regulators.
So those are the two relevant economic factors: regulators, and other
people's money. Socialism requires a steady and growing supply of
both. As soon as one or both runs out, the economy is in disaster
territory, which is where Venezuela is today.
A country can save itself from that disaster by retrenching from
Socialism -- as Sweden, Cuba and even Russia have done. North Korea
and Venezuela are what happens when the country leaders refuse to
retrench.
Socialism is the greatest economic disaster in world history. It's
much worse than Naziism or Fascism. In the last century, Socialism
has killed hundreds of millions of people. Socialism has never
succeeded, for the reasons I've given. Socialism has a 100% failure
rate, for the reasons I've given. There is literally nothing worse
than Socialism.
(01-04-2018, 05:39 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: > I voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primaries.
> I was tempted to vote for Kasich out of a dread of Demagogue Don
> until I recognized the futility of doing so.
> Demagogues, Left or Right, are similarly objectionable. All that I
> could see in Trump was an ominous quality of his style of
> governing. I regret to say that this President achieves my fears
> and nothing else.
Sanders is a much worse demagogue than Trump. At least Trump wants to
make America great again, while Sanders just wants to destroy America.
When you voted for Bernie Sanders, you were voting for Venezuela and
North Korea, not for Sweden, which has retrenched. We're all very
lucky that your vote didn't count.
