Socialist candidate Ocasio-Cortez once saw herself as Smithian capitalist, viewed feminism as 'relic

This young lady sounds like she doesn't know what she believes, or just parrots the line from what ever crowd she is in the company of to start with....In any case, her sudden rise, and acceptence of the democrats just shows that they are desperate....

 

Seems her current course gets her into power which is why she probably took it.. Keep cheering this loser on Progressives.

 

The fear Ocasio-Cortez generates in the Conservatives mind makes me laugh a lot.

She wants universal health care, more protection for workers, a social safety net for the poor.

In short, she wants the US to resemble Canada, UK, France, Germany, Spain, Australia, Norway etc....

All communist countries....

 

Yes, it's so obvious that they got their marching orders from right wing bat crap crazy sites to go on a crusade to expose her "evil intentions".

 

The US will never be a Socialist country

 

Please don't use words you don't know how to define.

 

Don't be silly, she herself defines herself a Socialist...Maybe she doesn't know what that is.

 

Socialist candidate Ocasio-Cortez once saw herself as Smithian capitalist, viewed feminism as 'relic

No doubt politics ruins a lot of otherwise good people.

 

This might seem inconsistent if you are unfamiliar with the politics of some of the countries from around the world that outrank the US in the free market index, which includes Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland, Ireland, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, the UK, and Netherlands.
https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

These are countries that use free market economics to build revenue, and then use a portion of that revenue to create social programs. Contrary to what many assume, there are different uses of the title "socialist". In many cases self described socialists do not believe in the economics of socialism (like what exists in Venezuela) , but are still supporters of the welfare of socialism (like what exists in most of the first world).

A prime example of this are the many countries I listed who outrank the US in free market economics, but still maintain sufficient social programs.

 

She is an idiot and an imbecile.

 

Those countries are not only much smaller than the US, but also limit in much stricter ways their immigration into their countries...

 

Its easier to spend money on socialist programs when you have the US to pay for your defense.

Maybe if they want to protect us we can spend less on defense.

I notice you also didn't list the ones that didn't work, Cuba, Venezuela, the Soviet Union.

Hmmm, all nations we weren't protecting.

Interesting isn't it?

 

Its easier to spend money on socialist programs when you have the US to pay for your defense.

Maybe if they want to protect us we can spend less on defense.

I notice you also didn't list the ones that didn't work, Cuba, Venezuela, the Soviet Union.

Hmmm, all nations we weren't protecting.

Interesting isn't it?

 

Actually, unlike the US, many of those countries do have open borders. To live in and work in those countries is a short and easy process, however to gain citizenship is a much longer process.

Here is the open border index ranking


1 Singapore
2 Hong Kong SAR
3 Sweden
4 Switzerland
5 Denmark
6 Germany
7 Netherlands
8 Canada
9 United Kingdom
10 France
11 Finland
12 Luxembourg
13 Austria
14 New Zealand
15 United States

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/top-50-countries-on-the-open-border-index.html

As you can see, many of the countries who outrank the US in free market economics also outrank the US in the open border index... in fact, most of them do, Iceland and Ireland were the only countries I listed who do not

 

Agreed. When you listen to her talk, she really just comes off as a phenomenally stupid individual.

 

I think you misread the conservatives position on this buck toothed little bimbo. Most of think she should be the poster child for the democrat party. She alone can convert more voters to the republican party than all the Trump rallies combined.

 

Actually, I was referring to them specifically when I mentioned the economics of socialism, and I even mentioned Venezuela directly. My whole point was that there are multiple uses of the title "socialist" and that many of the people who use the title are against the economics of socialism, but are supporters of the welfare of socialism. These are people who support capitalist economics as a means of paying for social programs.

Venezuela and Cuba do not use capitalist economics, they use socialist economics. In fact, they are the two bottom counties on the free market index

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/top-50-countries-on-the-open-border-index.html

The reason why I mentioned Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland, Ireland, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, the UK, and Netherlands specifically is because they are all countries who outrank the US in free market index, who also maintain sufficient social programs. Venezuela, Cuba and the Soviet Union do not outrank the US in the free market economics, hence why they are less prosperous than the other countries I listed

duh

 

So you have two sets of examples using the same system and one set works and the other doesn't.

That tells me that the factor isn't actually socialist economic programs, its something else.

If they worked they would work everywhere.

Therefore, America adopting these systems are not a guarantee of success without identifying what the other contributing factors are.

If we don't have those then no socialist policy would matter since its not the deciding factor in success.

 

The factor is very much about economics, hence why the countries at the bottom of the free market index are poor, and the countries at the top of the free market index are prosperous. The countries with the most sufficient social programs are all countries who use the revenue of free market economics to pay for it. If you don't have free market economics, you simply cannot maintain sufficient social programs

These are not the same system, the market aspect is crucial to a country's prosperity

 

And Trump is a former democrat who was as late as 2008 donating to Hillary Clinton and later remarked that she was a good secretary of state. Before that he supported universal healthcare and believed that religion was just myths. Reagan was a former democrat and was a New Deal supporter.

 

You are selectively picking statistics, there are plenty of things that we lead the world in also.

But perhaps we aren't leading in your preferred statistic because America leads the world in immigrants.

Perhaps if we end that then we will improve.

You have no evidence it won't.

 

Trump said just a few years ago that Hillary was the best SOS EVER!

 

Actually, immigration is a part of free market economics. Economists believe that when labor demands are met, it allows for an economy to grow. What economists in the US are currently arguing for is more immigration, not less. As a percentage of population, the US ranks between 19th and 24th in immigration.

In fact, 9 out of the 10 countries I listed who outrank the US in the free market index also outrank the US in immigration intake per capita
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1aU9YXZMOIQa2tWcm9uV2NuQmw5MXY2bVRRVVRIam1ZcVBr/view

and 8 out of 10 of the countries I listed who outrank the US in the free market index also outrank the US in the open border index

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/top-50-countries-on-the-open-border-index.html

However, the key component in this immigration is distinguishing immigration for work from immigration for citizenship. We can open up more to immigrants on work permits, as immigrants on worker's permits are not given the same entitlements as citizens. For this reason, immigration for citizenship must be a longer process.

As for selectively picking statistics, you are half correct. That is to say, I am only using countries with free market economics as an example, because free market economics is the key method to a nation's prosperity. If you don't use free market economics, you simply cannot sustain sufficient social programs

 

Actually we rank first in total immigrants, to the tune of around 46 million.

My point is that there are many factors involved with the world rankings.

For instance, why does the US have the greatest amount of high quality universities, why have we had the most inventions, why have we won more Nobel prizes than anyone else, why do we have the highest number of self made millionaires, why has America won more medals in the Olympics than any other nation, why do we have the highest number of books published every year, why are we first in the world giving index (charity).

So maybe these socialistic policies actually stifle individuality and drive.

Sure they may rank higher in well being or happiness than us but certainly not in creativity or drive.

Like I said, this thread is about picking selective rankings, it doesn't take into account everything that contributes to humanity.

 

You're making no distinctions for the per capita rate, the US doesn't come close to having the largest intake of immigration in terms of country size and overall population. Overall yes, but that is also because the US is the largest first world country on the planet.

As long as we are on the subject of Nobel Prize winners, 1/3rd of every American who has won the Nobel Prize immigrated to the US, and essentially every American who has won the prize in economics argues that the US should take in more immigrants, not less. It is illogical to put the US's education system on a pedestal only to go against the consensus of its own intellectuals.

and for the record, in terms of the US's rate of nobel prize winners per country size, the US ranks 17th.