Discussion in 'Current Events' started by XXJefferson#51, Nov 27, 2020.
Socialism routinely fails to feed their own people, which is a fundamental failure.
It is in fact what you expressed even if not in so many words
No, that's what you inferred. I'm telling you your inference is false. No biggie. If you want to go back to the argument, fine. I forgot what it was.
Having the means to do something is pretty important to the end result.
I agree but buying stock is hardly the same as actually producing something.
Your conclusions are based on faulty assumptions. FIRST, if we accept the stated, "fact," that, "socialism is a failed system...tried 42 times...42 failures," according to Whole Foods' CEO, in the OP, then we must logically recognize that other, very successful economies, in nations with Socialist POLICIES, means that having such policies is NOT considered the same thing as having a Socialist SYSTEM. The standard of living for Swedes, for example, is higher, & extends to a greater portion of the society, than in the U.S. Therefore, its socialist policies do not make it Socialist, in the aforementioned appraisal. Canada has socialist elements within its system, including socialized medicine, but could in no way be considered a country of, "trickle-up poverty." Clearly, therefore, that country's system, also, does not qualify it as one of these 42 failures, hence it is not being considered a socialist system, for the purposes of the damning evaluation of Whole Foods' CEO, on which you are basing your own statements.
This brings us to the SECOND, undoing flaw in your argument. None of the well-known proposals by, "progressives (Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, etc.)" go AS FAR as converting the U.S. system even to the equivalent of any of those other systems, which are economic successes, & so which must fail to meet the OP's bar for being, "socialist." Therefore it is ERRONEOUS for you to connect these socialist policy PROPOSALS, with transforming our system into a, "Socialist," one. In other words, you are criticising something which no one (at least in the public eye) is advocating.
The policies that I take it you are against-- universal health care, free college, affordable & available child care, and so forth-- do not, by the source you are relying on to discredit them, make the U.S. system, a Socialist System. These programs, once more, are socialist in nature, but many other countries have similar policies, & beyond, yet are not being considered, "socialist," because, as with Germany or Great Brittan (to name a couple more), these nations' systems could, in no way, be considered failures. So it is a bait-&-switch type of argument that you are offering here.
No it is in fact what you expressed and implied. AOC is a member of congress you said she is a nobody.
Can't weasel your way out of it.
If that is how you feel fine but dont lie about it
Actually it does. When a company sells its stock to people at any time and it sells for more than it originally was worth it gives the company additional capital do run and expand their business with.
So how does the production happen without the means provided? Your hairsplitting is irrelevant to the reality of the vital role of investors to the health of the s economy.
As if nothing was produced in order to get the money to invest in the first place. All of my investments except reinvested dividends and capital gains are generated from earned income.
And you subscribe more importance to investors than to people who actually do the work.
Does anyone really take AOC seriously?
Separate names with a comma.