BM since you're still on your Socialism Rant.

[sacharlie]

Can you name a country that implented any programs with any hint of socialism(however slightly) that the USA has not gone all apeshit over with embargos?

[Burgerman]

You must clarify and explain what that means. In detail. Or I dont know what you are talking about. Too many ambiguous terms, no quantification, definition, no reasons given.

EG. ALL countries have some socialism. So the answer would obviously be every country. Inc the US... But I am sure thats not what you mean.
And define "apeshit" as in what/reasons why/how much/which products/?
Define embargo in the sense you mean in detail. There are lots of types and reasons for embargos. And some are quantity or quality related. Some related to health, animal cruelty, economics, saving the planet, as well as politics.

And explain how its relevant to what and why? Because a question that indistinct and broad has no answer.

Eg taxing the rich, taxing businesses IS socialist. The more you do the more socialist you are. Its a nessassary evil that stunts the growth of the economy. To help feed the poor or pay for infrastructure. The secret is the right balance. Which as it turns out is always very low in rich countries and extremely high in more socialist ones, making everyone poor which is self defeating. An having an embargo IS socialist in that its the opposite to uncontrolled natural free trade.


**************


FREE TRADE WITH NO GOV INTERFERENCE AND NO TAX IS CAPITALISM.
PEOPLE HAVE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND MONEY AND CHOICE TO EMPLOY OTHERS. IT MAKES YOU AND THE COUNTRY RICH. ALL PRICES FOR GOODS AND LABOUR ARE DETERMINED BY MARKET FORCES. GOV DOES NOT INTERFERE.

SOCIALISM IS THE OPPOSITE TO EVERYTHING ABOVE.
ANYTHING THAT DISTORTS THE MARKET LIKE TAXING THE RICH TO REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH OR MIN WAGE, OR TRADE RESTRICTIONS OR EMBARGOS F***S UP THE NATURAL MARKET BALANCE/DRIVE... AND YOU MAKE LESS MONEY OVERALL. THE COUNTRY GETS POORER. STANDARD OF LIVING FALLS.

[sacharlie]

WOW! Figured ya wouldn't answer the question, but to be so long winded about not answering...LOL.


Your lack of understanding economics is on full display with your below statement.

Eg taxing the rich, taxing businesses IS socialist.

[Burgerman]

Wrong. You are clueless. And showing why this conversation is pointless.

FREE TRADE WITH NO GOV INTERFERENCE AND NO TAX IS CAPITALISM.
PEOPLE HAVE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND MONEY AND CHOICE TO EMPLOY OTHERS. IT MAKES YOU AND THE COUNTRY RICH. ALL PRICES FOR GOODS AND LABOUR ARE DETERMINED PURELY BY MARKET FORCES. GOV DOES NOT INTERFERE.

SOCIALISM IS THE OPPOSITE TO EVERYTHING ABOVE.
ANYTHING THAT DISTORTS THE MARKET LIKE TAXING THE RICH TO REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH OR MIN WAGE, OR TRADE RESTRICTIONS OR EMBARGOS F***S UP THE NATURAL MARKET BALANCE/DRIVE... AND YOU MAKE LESS MONEY OVERALL. THE COUNTRY GETS POORER. STANDARD OF LIVING FALLS.

The secret is the right balance.

There wasnt anything anyone could answer in your question. Far too ambiguous. The "long winded" reply, was MY attempt to try to explain to someone as clueless as you appear to be on the subject, just why that was. But it's like trying to explain physics to my dog.
Which country has the most blue in it? Can you answer that? It's equally well defined.

And as usual you DID NOT ANSWER ANYTHING ABOVE THAT WOULD HAVE CLARIFIED YOUR QUESTION. Because you obviously dont understand it yourself or you wouldnt have asked what you did to begin with... You are as usual, just wasting my time.

So long as Socialists can leech off any functioning free market, they can continue to exist. The problem with socialism is they always run out of other people's money.

[Burgerman]

OK I will reply at your level.

Can you name a country that implented any programs with any hint of socialism(however slightly) that the USA has not gone all apeshit over with embargos?

All current 215 countries worldwide have "hints" or more socialism including the US. So define "programs" and "hint". So I can understand your question.

Define "apeshit" accurately.
Define "embargos" accurately. Give a SPECIFIC example to answer. All embargos are for many different varied and complex reasons. As mentioned in the long version you cant understand/read.

Because at the moment its a meaningless question. So no?

[Lord Chatterley]

WOW! Figured ya wouldn't answer the question, but to be so long winded about not answering...LOL.


Your lack of understanding economics is on full display with your below statement.

Eg taxing the rich, taxing businesses IS socialist.

If socialism is so great why would they need to trade with capitalist countries?

Why couldn't they just abolish the price system, free themselves of "exploitation" and become modern paradises on Earth?

LC

[Burgerman]

Because they would starve and have nothing. And the lights would go out?

This is the result of wealth redistribution. Thats what sacharlie thinks is a good plan. As I said a long time ago. If socialists understood economics there would be no socialists. And today, there are actually almost non left. Most of those poor (and I mean poor in food, money, goods, housing, fuel, etc) people in socialist economies will tell you loud and clear how much better capitalism is! Those countries all went broke eventually and turned to the free market because its the only system that WORKS and makes people have food, heat, and can afford to look after the poor.

But theres a massive resurgence of the IDEAS of this marxist/socialist with liberal values added on, in rich western democracies by the young and the over educated elites. And colleges and with dumb people like corbin who was holding up venuzuala as a shining example of socialism to show that it could work. He seems to have tried hard to forget about that today! And now cant even point to ONE SINGLE SUCCESSFULL socialist economy. Because the redistribution of wealth always ends up in the same way. DESPERATE and nothing to eat/buy/empty shops.

[Lord Chatterley]

He's forgotten, has he? Good job I'm here to remind him!
LC

[Burgerman]

Yep, he forgot on purpose. Like all marxists he couldnt find any examples of wealth sharing that "worked", because it never does. Apart from venuzuela. And proudly showed the world how wonderful it was! Until it ran out of other peoples money.

And now perfectly predictably, low and behold, non of them have any food, medical supplies, heat, or anything else! Other than wheelbarrows to put the money in when they hear of a shop that might have a loaf of bread.

Redistribution of wealth. Works like a charm! It never fails to equalize things... It does that well. Downwards till they are all equal. What a tit.

[Sully]

"APESHIT" a crude slang term meaning an animalistic form of crazy. Usually understood by the context of the way the term is used.

We do understand that there is no such thing as Utopia or the ultimate form of Socialism. There are degrees of socialism that can be incorporated into a moderate form of Capitalism that can be successful. However, this kind of economic philosophy is can be compared with the oceans tides in constant flux.

Hugo Chavez of indigenous Indian descent saw what "he" thought was unforgivable and preventable poverty among his people tried to rectify that poverty. The way of life that these indigenous peoples was drastically changed when the Europeans invaded their homes. They actually lived in their own Utopia of a sort. And while his socialist ideas were obvious folly. His successor has no such noble ideals, he is simply a dictator, exacerbating an already desperate situation. He will fail as he is already in the process of that, and it will likely cause his demise. There is no turn back for him.

Who actually owns any nations resources? Oil, gas, minerals, etc etc.? In some US States when you own the land, you have no rights to anything under that soil. NOT even the Water found there.

We have an interesting situation in the USA. Unsettled land/not privately owned. Who has the right to use such land? Who has the right to simply walk over it? Who has the right to graze cattle on it or manage it? If it is open land and owned by the government, can individuals harvest any minerals from those lands? How about trees? Should corporations assume ownership of such minerals or resources?

[Burgerman]

Hugo Chavez of indigenous Indian descent saw what "he" thought was unforgivable and preventable poverty among his people tried to rectify that poverty. The way of life that these indigenous peoples was drastically changed when the Europeans invaded their homes. They actually lived in their own Utopia of a sort. And while his socialist ideas were obvious folly. His successor has no such noble ideals, he is simply a dictator, exacerbating an already desperate situation.

Whilst a dictator isnt ideal, a socialist dictator which he most definitely is, means poverty, no food, no goods, no roof over your head. While a capitalist dictator could make the most oil rich country on the planet extremely rich. Meaning money available to support the poor. An a high standard of living for the whole society. His failure was thinking that giving money to the poor (taken from the rich, from business as all socialists do) would make them richer. When the opposite was actually true. It just reduced the standards of living till nobody had anything. As always.

Who actually owns any nations resources? Oil, gas, minerals, etc etc.? In some US States when you own the land, you have no rights to anything under that soil. NOT even the Water found there.

It doesent matter. As long as it is exploited

We have an interesting situation in the USA. Unsettled land/not privately owned. Who has the right to use such land? Who has the right to simply walk over it? Who has the right to graze cattle on it or manage it? If it is open land and owned by the government, can individuals harvest any minerals from those lands? How about trees? Should corporations assume ownership of such minerals or resources?

As above it really doesent matter as long as it is exploited! If an individual owns a huge oil feild, he will get super rich and sacharlie will want it. But who cares, he employs many people in the process of extracting, refining, and manufacturing or supporting his business. Building plant and machinery, computers. Shareholders for support. Etc. Everyone wins. As long as capitalism means he can profit well from it he will do exactly this. And what does he do with the money? He either invests it (so the government can use it, borrow from it, or businesses and individuals can use it to manufacture everything and build homes and factories and cars etc) or spends it, and other people benefit from the subsequent trade, wages etc. And the oil? It is the means of making society better and to feed itself and allows the high living standards. Same thing if the government own it. As long as they allow capitalist forces to dictate what happens. And they dont remove the "incentives" and give that to the poor.

[Lord Chatterley]

The people who own the raw stuff of nature are the people who first mix their labour with the wilderness to turn this planet which - in it's natural form is deadly to man - into values that are capable of sustaining and enriching man's life.
You cannot just park your camels next to the Empire State Building or an oil field and declare " I own this" on the basis of mere proximity.

Should the US govt - or any other government - own vast ranges of US territory? Nope.

LC

[Lord Chatterley]

"The Evils of Corbyn's Socialism" - Yaron Brook at the taxpayers alliance last weekend.


youtu.be/R5dXY91ZuBQ

LC

[Burgerman]

Watched 1.5 hours. I could swap places with him. He can obviously see and understand how the world works, and gives exactly the same answers and has the same understanding that I do. One area he fails is in explaining how redistribution of wealth makes even the poor worse off.

All socialists should be made to watch things like that before they send us all bankrupt.

[Lord Chatterley]

Hurricane IRMA reaching socialist levels.

LC

[Lord Chatterley]

One area he fails is in explaining how redistribution of wealth makes even the poor worse off.

He wrote a book on that very topic called: "Equal is Unfair."


youtu.be/vGfzAPHikJA

LC

[Lord Chatterley]

A quote from Equal is Unfair by Yaron Brook:

LC

[Burgerman]

What I dont get is how socialist like sacharlie cant see this.

Both in the obvious "I can see that this wont ever work" simply by looking at it. Any serious level of understanding can see this without actually testing it...
And.
By looking at the literal hundreds of attempts at socialism that have already been attempted to any serious degree worldwide throughout history. Showing that it always ends in poverty and starvation and suffering on a monumental scale for all. As well as countless deaths in the end.

Which is why people that would appear to have enough intelligence like Corbin, just CHOOSE to ignore the obvious reasons it wont work, and the enormous amounts of recorded history, and think its a good idea to do it all over again. No amount of reason or logic can help him because he actually doesent CARE if it works or not. Its all about ideals.

[Sully]

So John and LC redistribution of wealth is bad ! OK explain why this is so good that the government should shed its property holdings

For example; -- Should the US govt - or any other government - own vast ranges of US territory? Nope. No one else had previous legal claim to this property so how would you propose to redistribute this property? Just who would you propose to deed the Grand Canyon to? Would you or anyone want to see oil-rigs doting the landscape? An old friend of mine owned a large piece of the Cape Cod National Seashore he farmed that land, almost a hundred years ago. The Dept. of the Interior purchased it oh so, so, long ago. Now YOU would redistribute these properties.

[Burgerman]

For example; -- Should the US govt - or any other government - own vast ranges of US territory? Nope. No one else had previous legal claim to this property so how would you propose to redistribute this property? Just who would you propose to deed the Grand Canyon to? Would you or anyone want to see oil-rigs doting the landscape? An old friend of mine owned a large piece of the Cape Cod National Seashore he farmed that land, almost a hundred years ago. The Dept. of the Interior purchased it oh so, so, long ago. Now YOU would redistribute these properties.

The government own nothing. They represent the voters. The population. The government are simply managing the country as per the voters choices, based on their policies and specific election manifesto etc that you then elected. Trumps wall for eg may require selling or buying of land if it cuts across other peoples property. As such its all of the residents of the US that are allowing the government, as their representatives, to decide what is the best way to manage land for the whole population. For e.g, if the land is of historic or scientific interest to the masses like death valley, or grand canyon. Or if the area is one of natural beauty and requires protection from being turned into a town or a thousand sq miles of crops for the benefit of all, then it will not sell this off. However you need to eat too. So a man must be allowed to OWN the land if he is to farm it.

Foe other areas of land that would make money by selling at the right price to a new business or individuals then it may be sold off, to give the government (the people) money to help pay the bills! Or given free if it may improve the area, or employ lots of people, or is in the national interest in some other way. For eg a road, may involve compulsory property or land purchase for the greater good. Or land may be given to developers building property or manufacturing capability if it is deemed to be advantageous to the masses.

[Lord Chatterley]

Notice that Corbyn never mentions the individual.
All he ever talks about is groups - women, Muslims, blacks, poor, rich, workers, the disabled, unionists: it's as if the individual does not exist.

People like Corbyn and Obama will continue to wreak havoc until we reject their moral premise - watch to the very end.


youtu.be/JeJuySjCL5g

LC

[Burgerman]

Here we go with that same old 200 year old philosophy crap again. She may be right, or more right than wrong, or wrong! Who cares, we dont need it shes just one woman with opinions.

Its enough to look at the plain facts. Or actual results. Or both. Or economic models based on the known facts. Or known history. Or all together. And that shows in black and whitethat:

Socialism, redistribution of wealth, anything that interferes with true free untaxed capitalism always ends up with everyone worse off. And the opposite is also true. But we need some protection from the bottom, out of work, and a taxation system that allows undistorted free trade and wealth, while supplying enough funds for all essential social engineering works like roads, millitary, police, disability support, etc. So we need the most capitalist free trade with huge inequality of wealth, with a little socialism as we can get away with while taxing the top as lightly as we can. Unfortunately the lower 50% dont earn enough to pay their full share so the tax system has to drag down the rich and business to make it work. Limiting wealth overall.

[Burgerman]

Another example of socialist workers. They have a union to exert pressure and get themselves "better" working conditions. In many countries. But this is about france.

They now have a higher minimum wage, more guaranteed holidays, sickness, and maternity time off rights etc, and an almost guaranteed right to never be sacked. So for eg redundancy payments are very high. Didn't they do well for themselves! Well no actually - they did as every socialist idea does, they shot themselves in the foot.

They now have a huge 9.5% unequaled level of unemployment - the greatest in the EU. And low wages as the businesses are not growing or expanding and so many are unemployed. This mass of unemployed has driven wages low of course. Why don't they employ more? The newly elected president Macron, actually bothered to ask them:

"Because we can't fire them, if not required, without it costing us a fortune". "So we don't expand, build a new factory, or take on staff if business is good. Its may be short term demand, we cannot know. As a business we need flexibility. So instead we have to turn away customers and do not employ more workers. Because to get rid of them later if business shrinks, will cost so much that it endangers the core business".

So macron, an independent (but left/very pro EU and liberal believer) has had his reality readjusted a little bit. He now gets it. Is also now in the process of removing many of the UNIONS hard won "workers rights" because he can see that it is HARMING THEM as well as the country! But they are still too ignorant to understand this, so now we now have riots!

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/853 ... CGT-France

[sacharlie]

...true free untaxed capitalism...

Laffin here!
Pie in the sky!
Howlin at the moon!
But if that's your dream I can tell you where to go and how to get there.

[Burgerman]

I expected that even you can understand its not a dream its a simple definition!!!

In a PURE capitalism model means there is ONLY free trade and property ownership. Thats it. Thats all it means. Anything else you may want to do is additional or not capitalism.

No PURE capitalist system alone in any country can ever exist. Because you have to tax the rich excessively to prop up those like you for starters. Its not a system to run a country its the word used to DEFINE completely FREE TRADE without government interference and for ownership of things and money. But you cant tell the difference between some wish, or a definition so the conversation is pointless. Your OWN country is both the most capitalist anywhere in the world, AND the richest country. Theres a clue there if you care to notice. I your own words, why do you suppose this is? And the opposite is also true with the socialist/poorest ones. And why you dont want to move to any single socialist economy.

In a PURE socialist model, they OWN EVERYTHING including you. Anything you make. Everything you buy. So its ALL TAX. And they tell you what you will have and where you will live/work and what hours.

You cannot actually OWN anything. Not a house, a business, not a car, or the food that you eat. Everything that is made, is setup and controlled by the government. Why do you go to work? Because you are supposed to. If you don't then they make you. Under the socialist system you have no rights, no freedom, cannot own anything. No pure socialist countries can exist either. Everything is a balance. Either Capitalistic or Socialist.

So your comments above make no sense at all. Other than to show you plainly still don't understand the very basics.

[Lord Chatterley]

So John and LC redistribution of wealth is bad ! OK explain why this is so good that the government should shed its property holdings

For example; -- Should the US govt - or any other government - own vast ranges of US territory? Nope. No one else had previous legal claim to this property so how would you propose to redistribute this property? Just who would you propose to deed the Grand Canyon to? Would you or anyone want to see oil-rigs doting the landscape? An old friend of mine owned a large piece of the Cape Cod National Seashore he farmed that land, almost a hundred years ago. The Dept. of the Interior purchased it oh so, so, long ago. Now YOU would redistribute these properties.

A wilderness is not private property. A wilderness only becomes private property when individuals "mix their labour" with it [ to quote John Locke] and removes it from its natural into a marketable asset in some way.
The US has considerable experience in this matter since it was only 300 years ago that the entire continent of North America was wilderness.

The Grand Canyon should be sold off to the highest private bidder.
Should oil wells be allowed? Of course! What power would have the authority to prevent that?
State sanctioned compulsory purchases of private property are illegal - the land should be returned to your friend.

LC

[Lord Chatterley]

...true free untaxed capitalism...

Laffin here!
Pie in the sky!
Howlin at the moon!
But if that's your dream I can tell you where to go and how to get there.

Sure. Abolish all taxes and sack all government employees.

You're welcome.

LC

[Lord Chatterley]

Here we go with that same old 200 year old philosophy crap again. She may be right, or more right than wrong, or wrong! Who cares, we dont need it shes just one woman with opinions.

Its enough to look at the plain facts. Or actual results. Or both. Or economic models based on the known facts. Or known history. Or all together. And that shows in black and whitethat:

Socialism, redistribution of wealth, anything that interferes with true free untaxed capitalism always ends up with everyone worse off. And the opposite is also true. But we need some protection from the bottom, out of work, and a taxation system that allows undistorted free trade and wealth, while supplying enough funds for all essential social engineering works like roads, millitary, police, disability support, etc. So we need the most capitalist free trade with huge inequality of wealth, with a little socialism as we can get away with while taxing the top as lightly as we can. Unfortunately the lower 50% dont earn enough to pay their full share so the tax system has to drag down the rich and business to make it work. Limiting wealth overall.

I don't want to experience the next "noble" experiment to achieve true socialism. I regard all forms of socialism as evil.

LC

[Burgerman]

Then you better hope that retarded moron corbyn doesent get in.

If he does it will be here comes venuzuala, and the leftist morons will blame brexit!

Really, you couldnt make it up. Socialism in anything but mild and very carefully controlled forms should be both illegal and as against the liberal agenda as racism, islamophobia, or sexist, or anti gay etc already are. Bt no these idiots promote it!

The only solutions appear to be desperate poverty and starvation, or real education.

[Lord Chatterley]

Then you better hope that retarded moron corbyn doesent get in.

If he does it will be here comes venuzuala, and the leftist morons will blame brexit!

Really, you couldnt make it up. Socialism in anything but mild and very carefully controlled forms should be both illegal and as against the liberal agenda as racism, islamophobia, or sexist, or anti gay etc already are. Bt no these idiots promote it!

The only solutions appear to be desperate poverty and starvation, or real education.

They don't support Corbyn or oppose fossil fuels because it's practical. They support Corbyn because they think it's the MORAL thing to do.

LC