Does America need a bit of Socialism

[The Empire of Pretantia]

You cannot criticise socialism as being "unbeneficial" because it simply has not happened many times. In Socialist Yugoslavia under Tito, it happened, and Yugoslavia was a stable society with a strong economy.

Autocratic and free-market go well together, I can tell you. Ever heard of Francisco Franco and Augusto Pinochet? They were autocratic yet free-market, and so are many leaders in Africa as well.

Besides that, how can I possibly contribute my own wealth when I have very little wealth? If I could contribute wealth, I would contribute wealth, not a doubt. If I could not, I would not. And I simply cannot contribute any wealth at this point in time. Stop telling me to do things which I cannot, you have no idea who I am and you should stop acting like you do.

Socialism is coercive, capitalism is freedom. Under capitalism if you want to go off and form your own little socialist collective, go ahead, nobody will stop you.

In contrast, under socialism, the iron fist of govt allows no competition to its looting. Which begs the question, if socialism is beneficial, why must it be coercive ?

*Does not know what socialism is*

If the free market is so destructive, why is it peaceful and voluntary ?

Government regulation.

[WRIF Army]

Oh. Sorry...

It's alright

But like I said on the rest of my post. My area is a very special case since it has all the appropriate resources to sustain competition with Wal-Mart. Other parts of the U.S. are not Dallas and hence they cannot be comparable to Dallas.

If I lived in a area in which WalMart was the only option, I would move.

But, anyone making the ridiculous statement that they 'have to shop at WalMart' are not serious.

[America Libertaria]

You cannot criticise socialism as being "unbeneficial" because it simply has not happened many times. In Socialist Yugoslavia under Tito, it happened, and Yugoslavia was a stable society with a strong economy.

Autocratic and free-market go well together, I can tell you. Ever heard of Francisco Franco and Augusto Pinochet? They were autocratic yet free-market, and so are many leaders in Africa as well.

Besides that, how can I possibly contribute my own wealth when I have very little wealth? If I could contribute wealth, I would contribute wealth, not a doubt. If I could not, I would not. And I simply cannot contribute any wealth at this point in time. Stop telling me to do things which I cannot, you have no idea who I am and you should stop acting like you do.

Socialism is coercive, capitalism is freedom. Under capitalism if you want to go off and form your own little socialist collective, go ahead, nobody will stop you.

In contrast, under socialism, the iron fist of govt allows no competition to its looting. Which begs the question, if socialism is beneficial, why must it be coercive ?

If the free market is so destructive, why is it peaceful and voluntary ?

The idiocy in your words has come to a point where I am actually laughing.

[Divair]

It's alright

But like I said on the rest of my post. My area is a very special case since it has all the appropriate resources to sustain competition with Wal-Mart. Other parts of the U.S. are not Dallas and hence they cannot be comparable to Dallas.

If I lived in a area in which WalMart was the only option, I would move.

But, anyone making the ridiculous statement that they 'have to shop at WalMart' are not serious.

Not everyone has enough money to move.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Socialism is coercive, capitalism is freedom. Under capitalism if you want to go off and form your own little socialist collective, go ahead, nobody will stop you.

In contrast, under socialism, the iron fist of govt allows no competition to its looting. Which begs the question, if socialism is beneficial, why must it be coercive ?

*Does not know what socialism is*

He/She is Randian.

I can tell because of her cue word: "looting"

Nobody but an avid Randian would actually compare socialism with looting our pockets. Not even Glenn Beck - and he's as far right satire as it can get.

EDIT: I can't fucking believe they made me say Glenn Beck is actually somewhat rational.

[United Marxist Nations]

They all got back on their feet around the same time; however, since the USSR suffered far greater loss, that would still mean it did so faster:

The strength of the economic recovery following the war varied throughout the world, though in general it was quite robust. In Europe, West Germany, after having continued to decline economically during the first years of the Allied occupation, later experienced a remarkable recovery, and had by the end of the 1950s doubled production from its pre-war levels.[104] Italy came out of the war in poor economic condition,[105] but by 1950s, the Italian economy was marked by stability and high growth.[106] France rebounded quickly and enjoyed rapid economic growth and modernisation under the Monnet Plan.[107] The UK, by contrast, was in a state of economic ruin after the war[108] and continued to experience relative economic decline for decades to follow.[109]
The Soviet Union also experienced a rapid increase in production in the immediate post-war era.[110] Japan experienced rapid economic growth, becoming one of the most powerful economies in the world by the 1980s.[111]

I don't see any statistics proving such a margin exists. Just buzz-words.

The margin of war-damage? The USSR lost 20% of its population, and it's economy was reduced to well-below pre-war levels; the destruction measured in consisted of complete or partial destruction of 1,710 cities and towns, 70,000 villages/hamlets, and 31,850 industrial establishments.

[United Marxist Nations]

It's alright

But like I said on the rest of my post. My area is a very special case since it has all the appropriate resources to sustain competition with Wal-Mart. Other parts of the U.S. are not Dallas and hence they cannot be comparable to Dallas.

If I lived in a area in which WalMart was the only option, I would move.

But, anyone making the ridiculous statement that they 'have to shop at WalMart' are not serious.

Which shows just how out of touch you are with the general population.

[Divair]

I don't see any statistics proving such a margin exists. Just buzz-words.

The margin of war-damage? The USSR lost 20% of its population, and it's economy was reduced to well-below pre-war levels; the destruction measured in consisted of complete or partial destruction of 1,710 cities and towns, 70,000 villages/hamlets, and 31,850 industrial establishments.

How many times am I going to have to repeat this? I'm not arguing about the division of casualties. I'm discussing the economic reconstruction.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

If I lived in a area in which WalMart was the only option, I would move.

But, anyone making the ridiculous statement that they 'have to shop at WalMart' are not serious.

Not everyone has enough money to move.

You don't need money, just a cardboard box and a bag of important things.

[United Marxist Nations]

The margin of war-damage? The USSR lost 20% of its population, and it's economy was reduced to well-below pre-war levels; the destruction measured in consisted of complete or partial destruction of 1,710 cities and towns, 70,000 villages/hamlets, and 31,850 industrial establishments.

How many times am I going to have to repeat this? I'm not arguing about the division of casualties. I'm discussing the economic reconstruction.

Which, according to what I showed you, reached reconstruction at roughly the same time as the other countries.

[Divair]

How many times am I going to have to repeat this? I'm not arguing about the division of casualties. I'm discussing the economic reconstruction.

Which, according to what I showed you, reached reconstruction at roughly the same time as the other countries.

No, it didn't. There is nothing in that paragraph that suggests the USSR's political ideology caused faster economic growth than the other European powers.

[United Marxist Nations]

Which, according to what I showed you, reached reconstruction at roughly the same time as the other countries.

No, it didn't. There is nothing in that paragraph that suggests the USSR's political ideology caused faster economic growth than the other European powers.

I didn't say political ideology did, I said that it was able to reconstruct within roughly the same time-frame as other countries.

[Divair]

No, it didn't. There is nothing in that paragraph that suggests the USSR's political ideology caused faster economic growth than the other European powers.

I didn't say political ideology did, I said that it was able to reconstruct within roughly the same time-frame as other countries.

Which is not what was being discussed in the first place. You claimed the USSR's political ideology resulted in rapid industrialization that was unmatched. You've yet to prove that.

[United Marxist Nations]

I didn't say political ideology did, I said that it was able to reconstruct within roughly the same time-frame as other countries.

Which is not what was being discussed in the first place. You claimed the USSR's political ideology resulted in rapid industrialization that was unmatched. You've yet to prove that.

I didn't say political ideology did, I said that economic policy did; which is what economic policies did all over the world after WWII.

[WRIF Army]

Socialism is coercive, capitalism is freedom. Under capitalism if you want to go off and form your own little socialist collective, go ahead, nobody will stop you.

In contrast, under socialism, the iron fist of govt allows no competition to its looting. Which begs the question, if socialism is beneficial, why must it be coercive ?

*Does not know what socialism is*

If the free market is so destructive, why is it peaceful and voluntary ?

Government regulation.

You mean this regulation: http://www.ethics.harvard.edu/lab/blog/312-risky-drugs

http://www.wanttoknow.info/c/f-bernie-m ... uption-sec

http://www.examiner.com/article/billion ... raud-abuse

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 44913.html

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/ ... blogs&_r=0

The list goes on and on of examples of firms and industries capturing the very regulators who provide oversight.

The optimum solution to lawlessness is not a slap onthe wrist from regulators who insulate offending firms, it is to take the employees and managers responsible to court and throw them in jail if convicted. that would clean up alot of criminal activity.

Today, we have a govt that controls trillions of dollars in tax and regulatory power than invites.... begs for corruption. If govt didn't have the power to pick winners and losers, it could concentrate on enforcing the law, impartially.

[Divair]

Which is not what was being discussed in the first place. You claimed the USSR's political ideology resulted in rapid industrialization that was unmatched. You've yet to prove that.

I didn't say political ideology did, I said that economic policy did; which is what economic policies did all over the world after WWII.

Economic policy as a result of their political ideology. Which you have, in the past, attempted to use as justification for oppression. Which it is not. Especially not on the scale of the USSR.

[WRIF Army]

If I lived in a area in which WalMart was the only option, I would move.

But, anyone making the ridiculous statement that they 'have to shop at WalMart' are not serious.

Which shows just how out of touch you are with the general population.

I am here to help you, tell me what your zip code is and I guarantee that I can find you some viable alternatives to the ebil WalMart.

[United Marxist Nations]

I didn't say political ideology did, I said that economic policy did; which is what economic policies did all over the world after WWII.

Economic policy as a result of their political ideology. Which you have, in the past, attempted to use as justification for oppression. Which it is not. Especially not on the scale of the USSR.

Well, that's implied, as economic policy is determined by political ideology; however, Stalin simply existing wouldn't have done anything; it was the central planning in the economy that rebuilt.

[Divair]

Economic policy as a result of their political ideology. Which you have, in the past, attempted to use as justification for oppression. Which it is not. Especially not on the scale of the USSR.

Well, that's implied, as economic policy is determined by political ideology; however, Stalin simply existing wouldn't have done anything; it was the central planning in the economy that rebuilt.

Not being disputed.

[United Marxist Nations]

Which shows just how out of touch you are with the general population.

I am here to help you, tell me what your zip code is and I guarantee that I can find you some viable alternatives to the ebil WalMart.

There isn't an alternative that doesn't involve driving thirty+ miles and going to multiple stores.

[United Marxist Nations]

Well, that's implied, as economic policy is determined by political ideology; however, Stalin simply existing wouldn't have done anything; it was the central planning in the economy that rebuilt.

Not being disputed.

Good, we're on the same page then, I do believe.

[Divair]

Which shows just how out of touch you are with the general population.

I am here to help you, tell me what your zip code is and I guarantee that I can find you some viable alternatives to the ebil WalMart.

Yes, giving your post code to random strangers on the internet.

What could possibly go wrong?

[Divair]

Not being disputed.

Good, we're on the same page then, I do believe.

Not quite. I'm not the one that's OK with the USSR oppressing the masses in return for economic benefits.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

*Does not know what socialism is*

Government regulation.

You mean this regulation: http://www.ethics.harvard.edu/lab/blog/312-risky-drugs

http://www.wanttoknow.info/c/f-bernie-m ... uption-sec

http://www.examiner.com/article/billion ... raud-abuse

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 44913.html

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/ ... blogs&_r=0

The list goes on and on of examples of firms and industries capturing the very regulators who provide oversight.

The optimum solution to lawlessness is not a slap onthe wrist from regulators who insulate offending firms, it is to take the employees and managers responsible to court and throw them in jail if convicted. that would clean up alot of criminal activity.

Today, we have a govt that controls trillions of dollars in tax and regulatory power than invites.... begs for corruption. If govt didn't have the power to pick winners and losers, it could concentrate on enforcing the law, impartially.

In other words:

1.) We need stricter punishments.
2.) The United States of America has a government that must be equally vast to the territories it rules, and even beyond due to its status as a world power.

That's all I got.

[WRIF Army]

*Does not know what socialism is*

He/She is Randian.

I can tell because of her cue word: "looting"

Nobody but an avid Randian would actually compare socialism with looting our pockets. Not even Glenn Beck - and he's as far right satire as it can get.

EDIT: I can't fucking believe they made me say Glenn Beck is actually somewhat rational.

Thanks for labeling me, I have only read one Rand book (an collection of essays on Capitalism that she edited).

I really wouldn't label myself a Randian. I simply believe that govt uses mob rule to loot the fair gotten wealth of a smaller mob. The worse part of this scheme is the hypocrite looters claim they loot wealth at gun point to help the poor who don't see any improvement in their position.

I would challenge socialists to give 90% of their wealth to the poor if they think this will help alleviate poverty, but of course they won't.

They will only combat poverty under two conditions: 1) other people's money fund this 'war' and 2) they get power and a cut of the loot as a middle man managing this counter-productive moral hazard creating largesse.