Select to expand quote

japie said..

evlPanda said..

japie said..
What the wealthy elite want for the world is a brand of socialism...

Honestly I've written a dozen things, and changed them. I can't explain how wrong that is.

"Rich capitalists, the mega wealthy, are behind a push for ....socialism."

Debbie O'Hara sums it up quite succinctly: newswithviews.com/Ohara/debbie27.htm

I urge EVERYBODY to go to this site and read some of the articles.

I found another doozie.
"who put Frankenstein in charge", where our excellent author discusses the evil of repealing sodomy laws and mutilation of penises.

Superb! This site is awesome .....even the adds are nutbox.

I just found her bio:

Debbie O'Hara is a homeschooler and avid reader. She has held a position in management in the aerospace industry in Southern California. She left the business world to become a full time mother. Doing the research necessary to provide a comprehensive homeschool curriculum led her to a keen interest in the direction of our country. She has had numerous letters published in her local newspaper and she and her children are active in the political process both locally and nationally. She is a wife and mother of eight children.

So Strawman, Oh Witless One, you've brought out your standard response to anything which is written that you disagree with. Google a critic and use that to counter the argument.

Firstly let me tell you how I found the article. I Duckagogo'd "the elite push for socialism" and this was the second article to come up. Being a working man I have limited time on my hands to type on my phone whilst waiting for my truck to be loaded. I skimmed through the article and though to myself, yes, that is pretty much my understanding of the situation, and flicked it off.

I was aware that there was some religious nonsense at the end of the article but I was basically responding to Evil. Being in a hurry I did not take into account that you were lurking around an inner Melbourne coffee bar nursing one of your cheap port hangovers waiting to make a dill of yourself.

So what I have done now that I have finished work is I have taken the pertinent points of the article and cut and pasted it below. I know it is a little too much to ask but do you think you could restrain yourself from replying in your usual banal fashion. If you have anything pertinent to say try framing it within the rules of logic.

My premise is that there are wealthy elites who are promoting socialism and that the reason they are doing so is pretty much summed up in the excerpt from the article .

" America is being socialized and everyone knows it. Most people seem to grudgingly accept socialism as being inevitable, but is it really? What the average person has a hard time figuring out is why super rich people like the Kennedys, Fords, and Rockefellers promote socialism. Aren't wealthy people supposed to be "greedy capitalists"? Don't they have a lot to lose in a socialist system? Isn't it a paradox that the rich would try to destroy "free enterprise" and promote socialism?

In order to answer those questions we must understand what socialism is. The wealthy promoters of socialism have propagandized the masses into believing a different definition of socialism than what the term means in actual practice. While we have been led to believe that socialism is a "share-the-wealth" program, nothing could be further from the truth as Allen points out in his book "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" because the very rich like the Rockefellers, Fords and Kennedys have no intention of dividing up their own wealth with anyone. Their personal riches are protected in family trusts and tax-exempt foundations so that they pay little or nothing in taxes. These hypocrites talk about their concern for the downtrodden by promoting every socialist program imaginable in order to increase YOUR taxes. If these people really cared about the poor, shouldn't they be willing to set an example by giving away their own fortunes instead of yours?

I don't doubt that there are wealthy people who have shared their wealth with others, but that doesn't explain the actions of the super rich like the Rockefellers, Fords and Kennedys who hold up altruistic motives for their socialist objectives while their actions betray them.

So if the goal of socialism isn't altruistic, then how does this system benefit the wealthy?

To understand what attracts some of the super rich to socialism, we need to look not at the phony theory put out by the socialist promoters in America, but at socialist countries in action. As Allen points out, these are the Communist countries. Communists refer to their own countries as socialist because the goal of communism IS socialism. (How many people would still accept socialism as inevitable if they knew that it was the goal of communism?) When looking at the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba and many other nations we can see that socialism is really a small clique of a few elites at the top. These elites rule with an iron fist over the rest of the peoples in their country. This oligarchy controls all of the country's wealth, all of its production and even the very lives of its people. Socialism is not a share-the-wealth program at all, but a way for the very rich to be able to protect their own wealth and at the same time to be able to control yours!

The goal of socialism is power. As Allen proves quite conclusively in his book, it is a con game to get people to surrender their freedom to an all-powerful, all-encompassing, collectivist government. Socialism is not a movement of the downtrodden masses like its promoters tell us, but a movement of the economic elite. So for the super rich to be promoting socialism is not a paradox at all because the real "greedy capitalists" are those at the top who espouse socialism! They are what we would call "monopoly capitalists". With free enterprise capitalism, everyone has the opportunity to accumulate his or her own wealth or capital. In a socialist system, the monopoly capitalists own and control all of a country's capital while the people who do all the work are not allowed to accumulate wealth for themselves.

In our socialist system here in the United States, the wealth that we work so hard to create and are not allowed to accumulate is transferred to the government through various means. One means, of course, is taxes. Some taxes are out in the open like your income tax, property tax, excise tax, sales tax, etc. Then there is the deceitful and corrupt Federal Reserve System (it is not federal, has no reserves and is not a system) that creates a hidden tax called inflation, which is the most insidious tax of them all.

It is through this corrupt system that most of our wealth is confiscated. The Federal Reserve is not a branch of the government like most people think, but a cartel of rich bankers in league with government in order to protect their own interests.

A large portion of the wealth that is collected from the people in a socialist system goes to finance the goals of the power elite. You can see this in action in the United States. For many years now the power elite has had control of the main stream media, entertainment, education, our government and much more. They buy politicians and special interest groups with the money they have confiscated from us in order to help them push through their own devious agendas. Tyrannical judges are appointed to overturn the will of the people when politicians aren't able to accomplish the job.

^^ Cripes dude you really need to go outside and smell the roses....or the seabreeze....

Select to expand quote

japie said..
So Strawman, Oh Witless One, you've brought out your standard response to anything which is written that you disagree with. Google a critic and use that to counter the argument.

Firstly let me tell you how I found the article. I Duckagogo'd "the elite push for socialism" and this was the second article to come up. Being a working man I have limited time on my hands to type on my phone whilst waiting for my truck to be loaded. I skimmed through the article and though to myself, yes, that is pretty much my understanding of the situation, and flicked it off.

I was aware that there was some religious nonsense at the end of the article but I was basically responding to Evil. Being in a hurry I did not take into account that you were lurking around an inner Melbourne coffee bar nursing one of your cheap port hangovers waiting to make a dill of yourself.

So what I have done now that I have finished work is I have taken the pertinent points of the article and cut and pasted it below. I know it is a little too much to ask but do you think you could restrain yourself from replying in your usual banal fashion. If you have anything pertinent to say try framing it within the rules of logic.

My premise is that there are wealthy elites who are promoting socialism and that the reason they are doing so is pretty much summed up in the excerpt from the article .

" America is being socialized and everyone knows it. Most people seem to grudgingly accept socialism as being inevitable, but is it really? What the average person has a hard time figuring out is why super rich people like the Kennedys, Fords, and Rockefellers promote socialism. Aren't wealthy people supposed to be "greedy capitalists"? Don't they have a lot to lose in a socialist system? Isn't it a paradox that the rich would try to destroy "free enterprise" and promote socialism?

In order to answer those questions we must understand what socialism is. The wealthy promoters of socialism have propagandized the masses into believing a different definition of socialism than what the term means in actual practice. While we have been led to believe that socialism is a "share-the-wealth" program, nothing could be further from the truth as Allen points out in his book "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" because the very rich like the Rockefellers, Fords and Kennedys have no intention of dividing up their own wealth with anyone. Their personal riches are protected in family trusts and tax-exempt foundations so that they pay little or nothing in taxes. These hypocrites talk about their concern for the downtrodden by promoting every socialist program imaginable in order to increase YOUR taxes. If these people really cared about the poor, shouldn't they be willing to set an example by giving away their own fortunes instead of yours?

I don't doubt that there are wealthy people who have shared their wealth with others, but that doesn't explain the actions of the super rich like the Rockefellers, Fords and Kennedys who hold up altruistic motives for their socialist objectives while their actions betray them.

So if the goal of socialism isn't altruistic, then how does this system benefit the wealthy?

To understand what attracts some of the super rich to socialism, we need to look not at the phony theory put out by the socialist promoters in America, but at socialist countries in action. As Allen points out, these are the Communist countries. Communists refer to their own countries as socialist because the goal of communism IS socialism. (How many people would still accept socialism as inevitable if they knew that it was the goal of communism?) When looking at the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba and many other nations we can see that socialism is really a small clique of a few elites at the top. These elites rule with an iron fist over the rest of the peoples in their country. This oligarchy controls all of the country's wealth, all of its production and even the very lives of its people. Socialism is not a share-the-wealth program at all, but a way for the very rich to be able to protect their own wealth and at the same time to be able to control yours!

The goal of socialism is power. As Allen proves quite conclusively in his book, it is a con game to get people to surrender their freedom to an all-powerful, all-encompassing, collectivist government. Socialism is not a movement of the downtrodden masses like its promoters tell us, but a movement of the economic elite. So for the super rich to be promoting socialism is not a paradox at all because the real "greedy capitalists" are those at the top who espouse socialism! They are what we would call "monopoly capitalists". With free enterprise capitalism, everyone has the opportunity to accumulate his or her own wealth or capital. In a socialist system, the monopoly capitalists own and control all of a country's capital while the people who do all the work are not allowed to accumulate wealth for themselves.

In our socialist system here in the United States, the wealth that we work so hard to create and are not allowed to accumulate is transferred to the government through various means. One means, of course, is taxes. Some taxes are out in the open like your income tax, property tax, excise tax, sales tax, etc. Then there is the deceitful and corrupt Federal Reserve System (it is not federal, has no reserves and is not a system) that creates a hidden tax called inflation, which is the most insidious tax of them all.

It is through this corrupt system that most of our wealth is confiscated. The Federal Reserve is not a branch of the government like most people think, but a cartel of rich bankers in league with government in order to protect their own interests.

A large portion of the wealth that is collected from the people in a socialist system goes to finance the goals of the power elite. You can see this in action in the United States. For many years now the power elite has had control of the main stream media, entertainment, education, our government and much more. They buy politicians and special interest groups with the money they have confiscated from us in order to help them push through their own devious agendas. Tyrannical judges are appointed to overturn the will of the people when politicians aren't able to accomplish the job.

it's funnier the second time

and maybe in future don't google "the elite push for socialism".........try something like " am I a conspiracy theorist" or "what is illusory pattern theory" or even "how much do ferrets cost".

Japie, petermac and tonyabbott
Here is where you are being conned. The wealthy elite have preyed on your search for conspiracies. Here is an article below to consider and to consider more critical thinking backed by science:

False belief
more and more of what we do in the real world is being recorded and digitised, and from there algorithms can easily infer what we believe before we even express a view. In turn, this enormous pool of stored belief is used by algorithms to make decisions for and about us. And it's the same reservoir that search engines tap into when we seek answers to our questions and acquire new beliefs. Add the wrong ingredients into the Big Data recipe, and what you'll get is a potentially toxic output. If there was ever a time when critical thinking was a moral imperative, and credulity a calamitous sin, it is now.

All in there own words. What part of this is difficult to understand?

When will our political class begin to take these people seriously and their agenda, at their word??

READ ON --

A frank admission that laid bare the stealth agenda behind climate alarmism, Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted during a February 2015 press conference in Brussels that the UN's real purpose in promoting climate fear is to kill off capitalism:

"....This is the first time in human history that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally changing [getting rid of] the economic development model that has reigned since the Industrial Revolution...."

The economic model she referred to is free-market capitalism. A year earlier, Figueres revealed what U.S. capitalism must be replaced with when she complained that America's two-party constitutional democracy is hampering the UN's climate objectives.

She went on to cite China's communist system as the kind of government America must have if the UN is to do as it pleases. In other words, for the UN to have its way, America must become a single-party communist society.

Figueres is not alone. Another high-level UN Marxist had comments of his own about the hidden agenda behind "climate change." If you're among those who believe global warming alarmists when they say all they're trying to do is save the planet, what Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer had to say will leave your jaw on the floor.

In a Nov. 14, 2010 interview with Swiss newspaper Neue Z?rcher Zeitung, Edenhofer, co-chair of the UN IPCC's Working Group III, made this shocking admission:

".....One must free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. [What we're doing] has almost nothing to do with the climate. We must state clearly that we use climate policy to redistribute de facto the world's wealth..."

On the same date, Edenhofer added this:

"....Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with protecting the environment. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which [re]distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated..."

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/the_cynical_plot_behind_global_warming_hysteria.html#ixzz610FQZA6R

Climate strike or not the cars are getting bigger all the time. Dodge RAM has made it to Oz.

Select to expand quote

log man said..

japie said..
So Strawman, Oh Witless One, you've brought out your standard response to anything which is written that you disagree with. Google a critic and use that to counter the argument.

Firstly let me tell you how I found the article. I Duckagogo'd "the elite push for socialism" and this was the second article to come up. Being a working man I have limited time on my hands to type on my phone whilst waiting for my truck to be loaded. I skimmed through the article and though to myself, yes, that is pretty much my understanding of the situation, and flicked it off.

I was aware that there was some religious nonsense at the end of the article but I was basically responding to Evil. Being in a hurry I did not take into account that you were lurking around an inner Melbourne coffee bar nursing one of your cheap port hangovers waiting to make a dill of yourself.

So what I have done now that I have finished work is I have taken the pertinent points of the article and cut and pasted it below. I know it is a little too much to ask but do you think you could restrain yourself from replying in your usual banal fashion. If you have anything pertinent to say try framing it within the rules of logic.

My premise is that there are wealthy elites who are promoting socialism and that the reason they are doing so is pretty much summed up in the excerpt from the article .

" America is being socialized and everyone knows it. Most people seem to grudgingly accept socialism as being inevitable, but is it really? What the average person has a hard time figuring out is why super rich people like the Kennedys, Fords, and Rockefellers promote socialism. Aren't wealthy people supposed to be "greedy capitalists"? Don't they have a lot to lose in a socialist system? Isn't it a paradox that the rich would try to destroy "free enterprise" and promote socialism?

In order to answer those questions we must understand what socialism is. The wealthy promoters of socialism have propagandized the masses into believing a different definition of socialism than what the term means in actual practice. While we have been led to believe that socialism is a "share-the-wealth" program, nothing could be further from the truth as Allen points out in his book "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" because the very rich like the Rockefellers, Fords and Kennedys have no intention of dividing up their own wealth with anyone. Their personal riches are protected in family trusts and tax-exempt foundations so that they pay little or nothing in taxes. These hypocrites talk about their concern for the downtrodden by promoting every socialist program imaginable in order to increase YOUR taxes. If these people really cared about the poor, shouldn't they be willing to set an example by giving away their own fortunes instead of yours?

I don't doubt that there are wealthy people who have shared their wealth with others, but that doesn't explain the actions of the super rich like the Rockefellers, Fords and Kennedys who hold up altruistic motives for their socialist objectives while their actions betray them.

So if the goal of socialism isn't altruistic, then how does this system benefit the wealthy?

To understand what attracts some of the super rich to socialism, we need to look not at the phony theory put out by the socialist promoters in America, but at socialist countries in action. As Allen points out, these are the Communist countries. Communists refer to their own countries as socialist because the goal of communism IS socialism. (How many people would still accept socialism as inevitable if they knew that it was the goal of communism?) When looking at the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba and many other nations we can see that socialism is really a small clique of a few elites at the top. These elites rule with an iron fist over the rest of the peoples in their country. This oligarchy controls all of the country's wealth, all of its production and even the very lives of its people. Socialism is not a share-the-wealth program at all, but a way for the very rich to be able to protect their own wealth and at the same time to be able to control yours!

The goal of socialism is power. As Allen proves quite conclusively in his book, it is a con game to get people to surrender their freedom to an all-powerful, all-encompassing, collectivist government. Socialism is not a movement of the downtrodden masses like its promoters tell us, but a movement of the economic elite. So for the super rich to be promoting socialism is not a paradox at all because the real "greedy capitalists" are those at the top who espouse socialism! They are what we would call "monopoly capitalists". With free enterprise capitalism, everyone has the opportunity to accumulate his or her own wealth or capital. In a socialist system, the monopoly capitalists own and control all of a country's capital while the people who do all the work are not allowed to accumulate wealth for themselves.

In our socialist system here in the United States, the wealth that we work so hard to create and are not allowed to accumulate is transferred to the government through various means. One means, of course, is taxes. Some taxes are out in the open like your income tax, property tax, excise tax, sales tax, etc. Then there is the deceitful and corrupt Federal Reserve System (it is not federal, has no reserves and is not a system) that creates a hidden tax called inflation, which is the most insidious tax of them all.

It is through this corrupt system that most of our wealth is confiscated. The Federal Reserve is not a branch of the government like most people think, but a cartel of rich bankers in league with government in order to protect their own interests.

A large portion of the wealth that is collected from the people in a socialist system goes to finance the goals of the power elite. You can see this in action in the United States. For many years now the power elite has had control of the main stream media, entertainment, education, our government and much more. They buy politicians and special interest groups with the money they have confiscated from us in order to help them push through their own devious agendas. Tyrannical judges are appointed to overturn the will of the people when politicians aren't able to accomplish the job.

it's funnier the second time

and maybe in future don't google "the elite push for socialism".........try something like " am I a conspiracy theorist" or "what is illusory pattern theory" or even "how much do ferrets cost".

You should read Gary Allen's book "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" Strawman.

If you did you might realise that the "socialism" which you so staunchly support has been financed by mega rich American capitalists for at least the last one hundred years and since the Bolsheviks took over Russia early last century. This is not a conspiracy. It is a fact.

One could probably be justified making the statement that communism would likely have died a natural death without their support.

Your ignorance of this history is what makes it possible for the same people to use Climate Change as a very powerful tool to achieve their social engineering agenda.

In the process it might occur to you to ask why they have poured money into this particular project. You can rest assured that it is not because they have a burning desire to improve the lot of humanity as a whole!

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..
All in there own words. What part of this is difficult to understand?

When will our political class begin to take these people seriously and their agenda, at their word??

READ ON --

A frank admission that laid bare the stealth agenda behind climate alarmism, Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted during a February 2015 press conference in Brussels that the UN's real purpose in promoting climate fear is to kill off capitalism:

"....This is the first time in human history that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally changing [getting rid of] the economic development model that has reigned since the Industrial Revolution...."

The economic model she referred to is free-market capitalism. A year earlier, Figueres revealed what U.S. capitalism must be replaced with when she complained that America's two-party constitutional democracy is hampering the UN's climate objectives.

She went on to cite China's communist system as the kind of government America must have if the UN is to do as it pleases. In other words, for the UN to have its way, America must become a single-party communist society.

Figueres is not alone. Another high-level UN Marxist had comments of his own about the hidden agenda behind "climate change." If you're among those who believe global warming alarmists when they say all they're trying to do is save the planet, what Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer had to say will leave your jaw on the floor.

In a Nov. 14, 2010 interview with Swiss newspaper Neue Z?rcher Zeitung, Edenhofer, co-chair of the UN IPCC's Working Group III, made this shocking admission:

".....One must free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. [What we're doing] has almost nothing to do with the climate. We must state clearly that we use climate policy to redistribute de facto the world's wealth..."

On the same date, Edenhofer added this:

"....Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with protecting the environment. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which [re]distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated..."

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/the_cynical_plot_behind_global_warming_hysteria.html#ixzz610FQZA6R

I love how in the face of over-whelming evidence of socialism's failures in countries like the USSR, China, Cuba etc the useful idiots refuse to accept the facts: "oh that's not socialism, that's communism".

Right. Because if only you got the right people, the nice people, in power then none of that would have happened.

Select to expand quote

Poida said..
Japie, petermac and tonyabbott
Here is where you are being conned. The wealthy elite have preyed on your search for conspiracies. Here is an article below to consider and to consider more critical thinking backed by science:

False belief
more and more of what we do in the real world is being recorded and digitised, and from there algorithms can easily infer what we believe before we even express a view. In turn, this enormous pool of stored belief is used by algorithms to make decisions for and about us. And it's the same reservoir that search engines tap into when we seek answers to our questions and acquire new beliefs. Add the wrong ingredients into the Big Data recipe, and what you'll get is a potentially toxic output. If there was ever a time when critical thinking was a moral imperative, and credulity a calamitous sin, it is now.

If only there was a way to get a peak at the other side of the argument and confirm what's being published...

"Gary Allen debunked"
"Socialist conspiracies debunked"
"Transcript of Edenhofer interview"

www.henrymakow.com/2019/09/climate-change-hidden-agenda.html

Select to expand quote

japie said..

evlPanda said..

japie said..

What the wealthy elite want for the world is a brand of socialism...

Honestly I've written a dozen things, and changed them. I can't explain how wrong that is.

"Rich capitalists, the mega wealthy, are behind a push for ....socialism."

Debbie O'Hara sums it up quite succinctly: newswithviews.com/Ohara/debbie27.htm

"America is being socialized and everyone knows it." I stopped there.

That is as wilfully ignorant and as pathetic an attempt to support bias confirmation as is the fantasy belief that "What the wealthy elite want for the world is a brand of socialism..."

You are over the rainbow. Flat earth is that way.

...but allow me to retort:

"I don't doubt that there are wealthy people who have shared their wealth with others, but that doesn't explain the actions of the super rich like the Rockefellers, Fords and Kennedys who hold up altruistic motives for their socialist objectives while their actions betray them."

They are all dead. Long dead.

These days it might be better to point to Bill Gates or Elon Musk.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..
I love how in the face of over-whelming evidence of socialism's failures in countries like the USSR, China, Cuba etc the useful idiots refuse to accept the facts: "oh that's not socialism, that's communism".

Right. Because if only you got the right people, the nice people, in power then none of that would have happened.

Both socialism and capitalism have succeeded and failed in many countries. The nordic countries are of course a shining example of socialism's successes, capitalism was introduced to Russia after communist USSR collapsed, and if you ever want an example of hyper capitalism 90s Russia is it. Mexico is a shining example of capitalism failing, or is that an example of "oh that's not capitalism, that is crony capitalism"?

And on and on. You can pick example of failures and successes for both systems.

What you'll find is that some entities work best as privately owned enterprises, and some entities work best as state owned enterprises. And sometimes a mix. Tech companies, schools, resources, media, military, law, energy, transport are all examples to think about. Some work better as public entities, some work better as private entities, sometimes it's either/or, and sometimes it will vary from culture to culture.

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
www.henrymakow.com/2019/09/climate-change-hidden-agenda.html

www.goldmansachs.com/insights/pages/taking-the-heat.html

Select to expand quote

evlPanda said..
I stopped there.

It's remarkable to me that people who demand critical thinking and a fair shake of the information stick always seem to refuse to get past their own uppity bug bears and actually read from the other side of the fence.

Not picking on you specifically, just making a general observation.

Select to expand quote

evlPanda said..

Kamikuza said..
I love how in the face of over-whelming evidence of socialism's failures in countries like the USSR, China, Cuba etc the useful idiots refuse to accept the facts: "oh that's not socialism, that's communism".

Right. Because if only you got the right people, the nice people, in power then none of that would have happened.

Both socialism and capitalism have succeeded and failed in many countries. The nordic countries are of course a shining example of socialism's successes, capitalism was introduced to Russia after communist USSR collapsed, and if you ever want an example of hyper capitalism 90s Russia is it. Mexico is a shining example of capitalism failing, or is that an example of "oh that's not capitalism, that is crony capitalism"?

And on and on. You can pick example of failures and successes for both systems.

What you'll find is that some entities work best as privately owned enterprises, and some entities work best as state owned enterprises. And sometimes a mix. Tech companies, schools, resources, media, military, law, energy, transport are all examples to think about. Some work better as public entities, some work better as private entities, sometimes it's either/or, and sometimes it will vary from culture to culture.

True. It's the mix that makes the sum of the parts greater than the whole, and the over-riding secret to the success is the freedom of the people and how answerable the government is to them. You won't get that under a totalitarian government, regardless of which way it leans.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

evlPanda said..

Kamikuza said..
I love how in the face of over-whelming evidence of socialism's failures in countries like the USSR, China, Cuba etc the useful idiots refuse to accept the facts: "oh that's not socialism, that's communism".

Right. Because if only you got the right people, the nice people, in power then none of that would have happened.

Both socialism and capitalism have succeeded and failed in many countries. The nordic countries are of course a shining example of socialism's successes, capitalism was introduced to Russia after communist USSR collapsed, and if you ever want an example of hyper capitalism 90s Russia is it. Mexico is a shining example of capitalism failing, or is that an example of "oh that's not capitalism, that is crony capitalism"?

And on and on. You can pick example of failures and successes for both systems.

What you'll find is that some entities work best as privately owned enterprises, and some entities work best as state owned enterprises. And sometimes a mix. Tech companies, schools, resources, media, military, law, energy, transport are all examples to think about. Some work better as public entities, some work better as private entities, sometimes it's either/or, and sometimes it will vary from culture to culture.

True. It's the mix that makes the sum of the parts greater than the whole, and the over-riding secret to the success is the freedom of the people and how answerable the government is to them. You won't get that under a totalitarian government, regardless of which way it leans.

And of course Totalitarian regimes are always Socialist ones......Sheesh!!! And "freedom" is having the choice to work three minimum wage jobs so you can afford medical insurance......that's freedom!

Select to expand quote

log man said..

Kamikuza said..

evlPanda said..

Kamikuza said..
I love how in the face of over-whelming evidence of socialism's failures in countries like the USSR, China, Cuba etc the useful idiots refuse to accept the facts: "oh that's not socialism, that's communism".

Right. Because if only you got the right people, the nice people, in power then none of that would have happened.

Both socialism and capitalism have succeeded and failed in many countries. The nordic countries are of course a shining example of socialism's successes, capitalism was introduced to Russia after communist USSR collapsed, and if you ever want an example of hyper capitalism 90s Russia is it. Mexico is a shining example of capitalism failing, or is that an example of "oh that's not capitalism, that is crony capitalism"?

And on and on. You can pick example of failures and successes for both systems.

What you'll find is that some entities work best as privately owned enterprises, and some entities work best as state owned enterprises. And sometimes a mix. Tech companies, schools, resources, media, military, law, energy, transport are all examples to think about. Some work better as public entities, some work better as private entities, sometimes it's either/or, and sometimes it will vary from culture to culture.

True. It's the mix that makes the sum of the parts greater than the whole, and the over-riding secret to the success is the freedom of the people and how answerable the government is to them. You won't get that under a totalitarian government, regardless of which way it leans.

And of course Totalitarian regimes are always Socialist ones......Sheesh!!! And "freedom" is having the choice to work three minimum wage jobs so you can afford medical insurance......that's freedom!

I very carefully didn't add the political spectrum for the hypothetical totalitarian government but if I had the blood of hundreds of millions on my hands, I'd have a guilty conscience too Comrade Log Manski.

And if your extreme fringe example wasn't taxed at ever increasing rates on the second and third jobs to pay for the socialist utopia, said worker would be bourgeoisie already.

Why is it that people class the Nordic countries as socialist states, rather than capitalist countries with high tax and solid medical and education programs.

The Nords have high levels of entrepreneurship and business owner ship. I don't see them as having larger business government ownership than in Australia.

Yes, we can learn alot from the Nords, but it's not socialism guys.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..
Climate strike or not the cars are getting bigger all the time. Dodge RAM has made it to Oz.

I live a short distance from the shops. Do you think that it would be an ideal shopping vehicle, or would the 6 cylinder falcon be a better choice? I don't want those tree hugging greenies to yell at me, but it has a huge tray which is ideal for the groceries.

Select to expand quote

bjw said..
Why is it that people class the Nordic countries as socialist states, rather than capitalist countries with high tax and solid medical and education programs.

The Nords have high levels of entrepreneurship and business owner ship. I don't see them as having larger business government ownership than in Australia.

Yes, we can learn alot from the Nords, but it's not socialism guys.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

Isn't that like the phrase where any country that calls itself the 'people's republic' surely isn't a republic?

If these countries in your list have 'self identified' as Socialist, I would guess that's what they want people to think. Possibly to hide a totalitarian state/dictatorship.

Aren't the Nordic countries known to have a greater mix of socialism than others? I.e. free or nearly free education and health?

Socialism assumes the vast majority of large businesses or job are government owned. A good social safety net, health care and education I don't believe constitutes to make a socialist country.

Select to expand quote

bjw said..
Why is it that people class the Nordic countries as socialist states, rather than capitalist countries with high tax and solid medical and education programs.

The Nords have high levels of entrepreneurship and business owner ship. I don't see them as having larger business government ownership than in Australia.

Yes, we can learn alot from the Nords, but it's not socialism guys.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

Because if it's successful and kind of socialist regardless of got much capitalism is actually at the heart of the success, you can point and say "see? It works! And isn't it good!"

I don't get why the same people then distance themselves from governments and countries that actual call themselves socialist. I suspect it's because they like the free stuff but not the gulags...

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

bjw said..
Why is it that people class the Nordic countries as socialist states, rather than capitalist countries with high tax and solid medical and education programs.

The Nords have high levels of entrepreneurship and business owner ship. I don't see them as having larger business government ownership than in Australia.

Yes, we can learn alot from the Nords, but it's not socialism guys.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

Because if it's successful and kind of socialist regardless of got much capitalism is actually at the heart of the success, you can point and say "see? It works! And isn't it good!"

I don't get why the same people then distance themselves from governments and countries that actual call themselves socialist. I suspect it's because they like the free stuff but not the gulags...

can you clarify please?

How many socialist operations (government businesses) operate without waste and efficiently in Australia?

Select to expand quote

bjw said..
How many socialist operations (government businesses) operate without waste and efficiently in Australia?

Three. Any more questions?

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..
I don't get why the same people then distance themselves from governments and countries that actual call themselves socialist. I suspect it's because they like the free stuff but not the gulags...

I think that's exactly why.

Why wouldn't you like the idea of free health care, education, and a safe country to live in where people have enough to eat that they don't want to kill you for your meat pie?

Sounds good to me.

The gulags are obviously not much of a benefit, but who wants complete socialism? Innovation seems to come from competition, and capitalism gives you that. I guess Socialism could just copy it though...

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

bjw said..
How many socialist operations (government businesses) operate without waste and efficiently in Australia?

Three. Any more questions?

Haha, great answer!!

The Army, Navy and Air force??