01-07-2018, 11:23 AM
I can't figure out what you're talking about with the 1890s or the
1920s or the 1930s. I can't figure out which decade you're saying is
best, and have no clue what you're reasoning is, other than some
remark made by your great-great-aunt, or something like that. I think
you're trying to take some remark by your uncle's grandmother's third
cousin once removed and use it to prove that socialism is better than
capitalism.
No one claims that Capitalism is always 100% successful. Obviously it
isn't. I think it could be argued that Capitalism is at least 50%
successful all the time. But that's better than Socialism, which is
0% successful, and is 100% certain always to fail because of the
reasons I gave in my last message.
I've spent much of my life listening to leftists claim that Cuba was a
Socialist paradise. I don't see how anyone can say that life in Cuba
was ever better than life in any of the American decades, whether the
1890s, 1920s, 1930s, or other. People in Cuba were starved, jailed,
tortured and economically deprived. That's what always happens in
Socialism unless the country abandons Socialism, as Sweden did.
It's also worth pointing out that Capitalism is the economic system of
Freedom, while Socialism is the economic system of Dictatorship,
Control, and Oppression. That's perhaps another reason why Socialism
has a 100% failure rate.
When Cuba's Socialism collapsed in 2010, I wrote a lengthy article
about it:
** 16-Sep-10 News -- Cuba's seismic shift has global implications
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/x...tm#e100916
As I wrote yesterday, any Socialist economy requires a steady and
growing supply of regulators (bureaucrats) and other people's money.
The bureaucrats make it impossible for people to earn money, so other
people's money is required to keep it from collapsing.
Cuba, of course, had been surviving only because of an endless supply
of other people's money from the Soviet Union and then from Venezuela.
Even with those supplies of money, the Socialist economy collapsed in
2010.
In my 2010 article, I quoted at length the announcement from the Cuba
government. Maybe you should read it:
Nothing could better describe what Socialism does: "burden companies
and productive organizations with services and inflated budgets that
weigh down the economy, are counterproductive, create bad habits and
distort the behavior of workers." It could have been written by
Donald Trump if he didn't have dementia, and wasn't a child, and
wasn't mentally unstable, and if he knew how to read and write.
And the other thing is that Cuba had to lay off hundreds of thousands
of bureaucrats. This is exactly the point that I've been making --
Socialism requires a growing supply of other people's money and
regulators. Even with all the money Cuba was getting, the number of
bureaucrats with inflated budgets that weigh down the economy.
Hahaha. You can't really be so stupid that you actually believe this.
But then again, watching CNN these days, we're treated to one pile of
hysterical garbage after another, so you're right squarely in the
middle of the mainstream.
1920s or the 1930s. I can't figure out which decade you're saying is
best, and have no clue what you're reasoning is, other than some
remark made by your great-great-aunt, or something like that. I think
you're trying to take some remark by your uncle's grandmother's third
cousin once removed and use it to prove that socialism is better than
capitalism.
No one claims that Capitalism is always 100% successful. Obviously it
isn't. I think it could be argued that Capitalism is at least 50%
successful all the time. But that's better than Socialism, which is
0% successful, and is 100% certain always to fail because of the
reasons I gave in my last message.
I've spent much of my life listening to leftists claim that Cuba was a
Socialist paradise. I don't see how anyone can say that life in Cuba
was ever better than life in any of the American decades, whether the
1890s, 1920s, 1930s, or other. People in Cuba were starved, jailed,
tortured and economically deprived. That's what always happens in
Socialism unless the country abandons Socialism, as Sweden did.
It's also worth pointing out that Capitalism is the economic system of
Freedom, while Socialism is the economic system of Dictatorship,
Control, and Oppression. That's perhaps another reason why Socialism
has a 100% failure rate.
When Cuba's Socialism collapsed in 2010, I wrote a lengthy article
about it:
** 16-Sep-10 News -- Cuba's seismic shift has global implications
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/x...tm#e100916
As I wrote yesterday, any Socialist economy requires a steady and
growing supply of regulators (bureaucrats) and other people's money.
The bureaucrats make it impossible for people to earn money, so other
people's money is required to keep it from collapsing.
Cuba, of course, had been surviving only because of an endless supply
of other people's money from the Soviet Union and then from Venezuela.
Even with those supplies of money, the Socialist economy collapsed in
2010.
In my 2010 article, I quoted at length the announcement from the Cuba
government. Maybe you should read it:
Government of Cuba Wrote:> After 52 years, the Cuban Revolution is a living and unshakable
> direction for the nation, and our people's will and determination
> to continue the construction of socialism, and make further
> progress in the development and updating of the economic model we
> must follow, and consolidate the gains achieved. ...
> Cuba faces the urgent need to move forward economically, better
> organize production, enhance productivity and raise reserves,
> improve discipline and efficiency and this is only possible
> through the dignified and devoted to our people. Today, the duty
> of the Cubans is to work and do it well, with seriousness and
> responsibility, and to make better use of resources available to
> better serve our needs.
> In order to update the economic model and economic projects for
> the 2011-2015 period, the guidelines call for the reduction of
> more than 500,000 workers in the public sector and in parallel the
> increase in non-state sector.
> The timetable for implementation [of the reduction] for agencies
> and businesses is the first quarter of 2011. ...
> Our state neither can nor should continue to burden companies and
> productive organizations with services and inflated budgets that
> weigh down the economy, are counterproductive, create bad habits
> and distort the behavior of workers. It is necessary to increase
> production and quality of services, reduce social spending and
> eliminate bulky improper gratuities, excessive subsidies.
> Hundreds of thousands of workers will move to self-employment in
> the coming years.
> Within the state sector, it will only be possible to go to places
> with a historical workforce deficit, such as agriculture,
> construction, teachers, police, industrial workers and others.
> A matter of singular importance is the salary. We must
> reinvigorate the socialist principle of distribution, to pay to
> each according to the quantity and quality of work provided.
> The unity of the Cuban workers and our people has been key to
> maximizing the gigantic edifice built by the Revolution and the
> changes that we are now undertaking she will continue to be our
> most important strategic weapon."
Nothing could better describe what Socialism does: "burden companies
and productive organizations with services and inflated budgets that
weigh down the economy, are counterproductive, create bad habits and
distort the behavior of workers." It could have been written by
Donald Trump if he didn't have dementia, and wasn't a child, and
wasn't mentally unstable, and if he knew how to read and write.
And the other thing is that Cuba had to lay off hundreds of thousands
of bureaucrats. This is exactly the point that I've been making --
Socialism requires a growing supply of other people's money and
regulators. Even with all the money Cuba was getting, the number of
bureaucrats with inflated budgets that weigh down the economy.
(01-06-2018, 12:35 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: > He is the most despotic leader that America has known since at
> least George III, and he makes the corruption of Warren G. Harding
> and incompetence of Dubya look trivial by contrast.
Hahaha. You can't really be so stupid that you actually believe this.
But then again, watching CNN these days, we're treated to one pile of
hysterical garbage after another, so you're right squarely in the
middle of the mainstream.
