Whole Foods CEO: Socialism means 'trickle up poverty' that 'impoverishes everything'

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by XXJefferson#51, Nov 27, 2020.

  1. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    49,052
    Likes Received:
    29,169
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Socialism routinely fails to feed their own people, which is a fundamental failure.
     
    XXJefferson#51 and Libby like this.
  2. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,936
    Likes Received:
    2,622
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is in fact what you expressed even if not in so many words
     
  3. ChiCowboy

    ChiCowboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    13,486
    Likes Received:
    6,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  4. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    18,167
    Likes Received:
    17,411
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Having the means to do something is pretty important to the end result.
     
    XXJefferson#51 and Libby like this.
  5. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,596
    Likes Received:
    532
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree but buying stock is hardly the same as actually producing something.
     
  6. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    1,277
    Likes Received:
    549
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2020
  7. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,936
    Likes Received:
    2,622
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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
     
  8. XXJefferson#51

    XXJefferson#51 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2017
    Messages:
    2,895
    Likes Received:
    2,551
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
    Libby likes this.
  9. XXJefferson#51

    XXJefferson#51 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2017
    Messages:
    2,895
    Likes Received:
    2,551
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
    Libby likes this.
  10. XXJefferson#51

    XXJefferson#51 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2017
    Messages:
    2,895
    Likes Received:
    2,551
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  11. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,596
    Likes Received:
    532
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And you subscribe more importance to investors than to people who actually do the work.
     
  12. AKS

    AKS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    7,990
    Likes Received:
    3,326
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Does anyone really take AOC seriously?
     

Share This Page