Capitalism's Crashes Are Getting Worse & Worse

My oh my! I think maybe you are only trolling because I don’t believe that anyone who joins a discussion forum dedicated to ”politics” can be so limited on political knowledge and saturated with so much foolishness. I can assume you think the U.S. fought the Nazis single-handedly and the rest of Europe just sat in dark corners yearning for Capitalism and waiting for the Yanks to come and rescue them from Fascism and Communist proposals.

So it is your conviction that Ho Chi Minh rushed into Vietnam and forced the population at gunpoint to revolt against the French occupation and later deny them their dream of American-style Capitalism? The democratic elections that offered Ho Chi Minh the leadership of Vietnam was “fake news” huh?

Shazam! Just think of all of those political philosophers, statesmen, and ministerial gurus who insist on differentiating between Communism and Socialism, but there you stand alone (a genius among geniuses) to correct them their errors. Golly!

Anyway, thank you for the opportunity to practice my English .... a language the Nazis told us we'd be forced to learn if they would lose the war.

 

What a stupid thread. Everything from blaming it on capitalism to "getting worse" is just moronic.

 

Start your own thread. You can call it, "Capitalism's Successes Are Getting Better & Better" then you can avoid your anguish and you won't feel it necessary to contribute to this thread.

 

It's not that capitalism is failing. If you say capitalism and free markets together, we don't have that. We have economic intervention. We have a planned, controlled economy. We have central economic planning by a central bank. We have inflationism. They have a believe in deficit fanance. And a welfare state. To compare that to free market capitalism is laughable. It's nothing of the sort.

They're Keynesians. Not free market capitalists. And Keynesianism is succeeding. It is succeeding because it is ultimately designed to fail and gradually move society into a more socialist system.

 

As stated in the Constitution, establishing justice is one of its purposes; another is provide for the common defense. Doing either of these requires government spending but none have any connection with socialism whatsoever. A "social contract" neither means nor defines nor determines socialism.

 

Neither Canada, France, Japan, nor Australia can correctly be called socialistic. The same goes for Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Ditto for Obamacare.

 

Free markets by their very nature cannot fail.
Free markets adjust based on supply and demand. If a company or sector of the economy goes under. It is because of problems related to supply and demand

 

This is a bit off track, but you evidently have bought the Obamacare propaganda hook, line, and sinker. For instance medical costs for the average individual and family went way up -- their cost rise did not do any bending down. Instructive was the CBO estimates of government costs for Obamacare: its first estimate, just after the law was passed, was an annual savings of about $200 billion. Two years later, just before the Exchanges opened, CBO estimated an annual cost of $1.4 TRILLION.

Obamacare is a framework to go after costs primarily by edict and decree, not by any mechanical function other than silly show-off things like limiting administrative costs. Limiting costs was predominately instituted through the absolute dictatorial IPAB (since killed, IIRC) rationing and limiting medical services, initially in Medicare. But that misses the forest for the trees. The primary goal of Obamacare was neither to limit costs nor improve medical care, though these were hoped for but icing on the cake. Its fundamental goal was to give government much more control over an individual's medical care and services on the theory that if you control a person's health you control the person.

 

the Russians used violence to put in communism after world war II in every single Eastern European country. That's the only way communism has ever been put in through violence not elections. Ho chi Minh was never elected although obviously he would have been in the 1956 election that was promised. It's too bad we forced him into the arms of the Russian and Chinese communists.I have a masters in history so I think I have a clue thanks LOL.

 

Funny how they all think they're socialists. Excepti the English-speaking countries of course where that is poison thanks to right wing propaganda and resultant confusion... Like yours. ''we're all socialists now!"--president of Finland when ObamaCare passed.

 

Unbelievable. You know absolutely nothing at all.

 

Yes the cost curve has bent down. it needs a lot of work that's all they could get passed.I don't give a damn what the CBO said was going to happen or what the Republicans said was going to happen or what the insurance companies said was going to happen. Try what actually happened for crying out loud LOL

 

Instead of trolling tell me what actually happened. LOL. What country are you in to be so misinformed? I'm guessing hungary or Poland with a right-wing no doubt misinforming people as usual and going after their worst instincts....

 

Or the usual GOP corrupt bubbles and busts like they have every time they get 8 years. 1929 1989 2008 and probably 2023 if Trump gets re-elected...

 

Communism is a dictatorship, socialism is democratic. Every other difference comes from that.

 

the Vietnamese would vote for Ho chi Minh because he wanted to get the colonists and Americans out. They trusted him on what kind of economy he wanted.

Actually I know the Russians won world war II.

 

It is not 100% but in fact it was the US who nearly single-handed fought the Nazis in Europe and Africa, with a fair amount of good fighting by the Brits. But Europe was not hiding and hoping for capitalism. They were quite simply hoping against enslavement.

Ho Chi Minh did not rush into Vietnam at all -- he was always there. And he secured absolute power not with any election but not with a lot of violence either. Ho Chi Minh was very popular with the people especially over his protecting them pretty well during WWII. The people did not dream of any American-style capitalism at all; most were quite pleased with the government of Ho. All Ho wanted and asked for was, after all his help and efforts on the side of the West -- mostly the French -- during WWII was to be given his country back..... as the French had promised but later reneged.

 

There are millions of non-socialists who call themselves socialists but are either too stupid or too ideologued to know they are not.

 

A friend on mine saw his deductible go from $250 a year to $10,000 a year strictly because of Obamacare. Is this an example of your crying out loud actuality, or of the cost curve bending down????

Do you not care what the CBO estimates said because they showed your "bending down" costs went up by $1.6 trillion a year over just a two year estimation period, or that the CBO is not as good as you at estimating costs?

 

Already agreed in my previous post - Common defense was covered.

The question my post was addressing is "to what degree" is it covered ? How much. Is unlimited spending justified on the basis of "Common Defense"

What I meant by Partially right - Mostly wrong.. is that the portion that is justified for common defense is far less than the portion that is not - the former being "not socialism" - the latter being Socialism.

So give me a number - and justify that number - how much spending is justified for common defense. I gave the example of 2000 Level spending of 300 Billion - which rose to 900 billion under Bush and topped 1 Trillion under Obama.

Was this massive increase justified - what was our return on investment ?

I argue that 300 Billion in 2000 was 5 times more than was required for common defense when you think about it .. just keep the nukes warm. 60 Billion is the entire Russian Military spend today.

but realistically - we should have been able to hold the line at 300 Billion - increasing with inflation. Were we weak and undefended in 2000 ? Some big army at our gates threatening us ?

The US has never been safer than in 2000 - and arguably even safer today - sans the short time period where we had the bomb and Russia did not.

The rest is a massive wealth redistribution racket - Thank (fk) you very much. not you personally.

Our healthcare system socialist - half of it. An unholy Union of Private for Profit Oligopoly and Bureaucracy. What I call the Oligopoly -Bureaucracy Fusion Monster.

At the end of the day - extreme Capitalism and extreme Socialism meet at the far end of the spectrum - in both cases you have a few Elite owning most resources and means of production.

We have taken some of the worst elements of both and combined them into an ugly beast. 3.5 Trillion in 2017 was spent on Healthcare - roughly half public and half private.

To put that figure in perspective - total Fed revenue for the year was 3.6 Trillion. Many other first world nations provide just as good healthcare for half the cost - but I could - and have said to some - If could swap systems tomorrow and pay half the cost - would you do it knowing it was fully socialized medicine ? NO NO NO they say - we don't want Socialism.

We are already have socialism the 1/2 that is paid for by Gov't. An amount that - by itself - is enough to provide Universal HC to every US citizen.

 

I have no problem in the least with people debating what the level of government spending should be for whatever program. That is a perfectly proper utilization of our constitutional system. I merely contended that it has no connection with socialism, which is what this thread is mostly about, and I contended that because it has no connection with socialism.

Our medical system is not socialistic. No medical provider other than the VA is owned by the government. Medicare writing checks to the private medical providers does not make Medicare socialistic. People are not forced to sign up for Medicare. As I have said a jillion times (butting my horns against the dam if you will), writing checks for or paying for IS NOT OWNERSHIP OR SOCIALISM.

Now if we ever get to Medicare for All, as I understand it, that would most likely be true socialism. All the hospitals and clinics would be owned by the government, and all the doctors, nurses, orderlies, et al would be federal employees. Then the government could run our medical system efficiently because they would not have to worry a twit what the people and patients thought or wanted.

 

And your contention would be totally wrong - or you are using some strict and therefore meaningless definition of socialism that has never existed.

Wealth redistribution - forcing citizens to share a portion of their wealth into a collective pot - is socialism. The only thing you can cry to the contrary is - "its not full State ownership". Not even China is full state ownership these days - albeit the Gov't does technically own everything and can do what ever it wants.

You are getting stuck on one particular definition of a "label" - and pretending that it is the only definition that matters. The basis of Socialism is wealth redistribution. This comes in different forms. In its strictest form it is full state ownership. In western Democracy it is partial state ownership - via taxation and regulation - regardless of whether or not there is some provision in the constitution for it.

Our medical system is roughly 50% socialistic - what the frick and frack are you talking about .. the portion that is paid for by Gov't from the collective pot.

Call it socialism - Corporatism - wealth redistribution - call it what ever label you wish. We currently pay double what we should be paying.

 

This crash was directly caused by State governments unconstitutionally shutting down their economies. It had absolutely nothing to do with capitalism.

Capitalism is the only system that creates wealth. Socialism can only exist via stealing wealth.

 

Uncle Ho was a mass murderer ,remember the land reforms?? After he dies the North Vietnamese stopped torturing our POWs.
He was not a benevolent leader..
North Vietnam was liberated by the NLF but that wasn't enough for him he and the murderous viet cong murderer tens of thousands of south Vietnamese in their violent invasion.
Sad day for the world..

 

Sorry Charlie. I'll bang my head against the wall for you one more time, but it will be the last time because you and others are giving me a roaring headache. I am defining socialism as it has been defined by all political and economic academia and by all dictionaries for decades if not centuries. That is "The government OW N E R S H I P of the means of production and distribution in an economy." It is NOT the government P A Y I N G for stuff. Or whether you and even a million others would prefer it or not, it is NOT a red wagon, NOT democracy, and NOT giving a helping hand. Find another acceptable term or go away.