DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Even Greener Pastures
HTML https://evengreener.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 14195--------------------------------------------------
Socialism Rears It’s Ugly Head.....But, not so fast. Read on.
By: SHL Date: April 9, 2019, 6:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A great article-
Just to start:
„The right-wing organs are aghast that socialism is ceasing to
be a dirty word and that other Democratic candidates besides
self-described socialist Bernie Sanders are embracing a major
role for public institutions. Fox News has been obsessing about
this, and The Wall Street Journal ran a lead editorial Tuesday
(“All Bernie’s Socialists”) that is suitable for framing.
One of the right’s standard themes is to conflate Swedish-style
social democrats with thugs like Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro. The
Journal thinks it has nailed Sanders because it unearthed an
op-ed from 2013 written by Sanders’s recently hired staffer,
David Sirota, that said some kind things about Hugo Chavez’s
economic program.
In fact, Sirota was careful to add that Chavez had failed to
respect human rights and basic democracy. In this, the late
Venezuelan strongman Chavez and his protégé Maduro have a lot
more in common with Donald Trump than with Bernie Sanders.
Keep in mind a couple of things about social democracy, which is
what Bernie Sanders actually has in mind when he embraces
“socialism.”
First, as the recent American experience with hyper-capitalism
has demonstrated, there are several functions that the public
sector actually does more efficiently and more equitably than
the private sector. The public sector works especially well when
it is run by people who actually believe in it, as opposed to
Trumpians who would destroy government, either by design or by
incompetence.
Medicare for All really is a lot more efficient and a lot less
wasteful than the current medical mess. The VA delivers much
higher-quality care at less cost than proposed privatized
substitutes. Public schools, though they have their problems
(especially when there are high concentrations of poor kids), do
better than voucher schools. Social Security, our most
socialistic (and most popular) government program beats any
private competitor cold...“
„Polls show that 49 percent of all millennials have a favorable
view of socialism. That’s because they have been experiencing
American capitalism, up close and personal—meaning unreliable
jobs, expensive housing, vanishing health and pension coverage,
and of course student loans.
With little direct memory of pre-1989 communism, which collapsed
before they were born, young people are not intimidated by old
Cold War shibboleths. This is not good for The Wall Street
Journal or Fox News.“
I‘ll admit I had to look up the word „shibboleths“ in my German
dictionary. I never heard that word before. Plattitüden,
Slogans. Those are German words that don‘t need translations.
HTML https://prospect.org/article/socialism-rears-its-ugly-head
#Post#: 14199--------------------------------------------------
Re: Socialism Rears It’s Ugly Head.....But, not so fast. Read on
.
By: Truman Overby Date: April 9, 2019, 8:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What happened to that great experiment in socialism that the
Democrat party loves so much, Steve? You might remember it, it
was called Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
#Post#: 14202--------------------------------------------------
Re: Socialism Rears It’s Ugly Head.....But, not so fast. Read on
.
By: SHL Date: April 9, 2019, 10:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Who Dini link=topic=959.msg14199#msg14199
date=1554860510]
What happened to that great experiment in socialism that the
Democrat party loves so much, Steve? You might remember it, it
was called Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
[/quote]
I don‘t recall the Democratic Party ever loving the USSR. And, I
was around and voted Democrat back when there was a USSR (I
voted for Jimmy Carter at age 18 in 1976, and again in 1980).
But, I don‘t recall anyone praising the USSR then (other than
recently hearing Jim Jones do so on some old tapes of his).
Praising the USSR? What?
The term „socialism“ got diluted and distorted to the point of
almost meaninglessness because, in the 1950s and 1960s, the two
biggest propaganda agencies in the world, that of the USA and
that of the USSR, agreed on what socialism was, but for opposite
reasons. The USA agreed the USSR was socialist (which it
claimed) to point out how supposedly bad socialism supposedly
was (the USSR was an oppressive totalitarian dictatorship). The
USSR called itself socialist to point out the humanitarian
aspects of the ideology of socialism to new developing countries
in Africa and the rest of the world. The reality was that the
USSR was the polar opposite of socialism. In addition to calling
itself socialist, the USSR also called itself democratic, but
that didn‘t make it democratic of course. Pol Pot called
Cambodia, during his reign of terror on his own people,
„Democratic Kampuchea“, but that surely didn‘t make it
democratic. During that era of the „Killing Fields“, Cambodia
was so bad, it (I think 1975-1979 or so?) it took the Vietnamese
military to invade Cambodia over a border dispute to get rid of
the Khmer Rouge regime. Cambodia was so bad back then, it made
the USSR, or Idi Amin’s Uganda not look so bad. That‘s a pretty
low bar to cross.
I recall I used to get the World Book of Facts back in the
mid-late 70s, you know that paperback that was sort of like
today‘s Wikipedia? You could read about the facts of each
country, and about all sorts of other stuff, what was going on
in a particular country and so on. I‘ll never forget turning the
pages and coming upon Cambodia. Then it said below „Democratic
Kampuchea.“ So I started reading it (it must have been around
1976) and it had this really eerie story. I recall the article
saying something like „Democratic Kampuchea does not have
diplomatic relations with any country. No one is allowed in or
out of the country and journalists are barred. Therefore, there
is very little known about what is going in within the country
as of the date of this publication.“ I recall thinking, „Wow,
that is really creepy. A country in which no one is allowed in
or out and no one knows what is going on in it? How strange?
Fortunately, the Khmer Rouge, by 1979, kept shooting bombs
across the border with Vietnam (which by then was totally taken
over by the Viet-Kong. The Vietnamese got tired of the border
conflict and just invaded Cambodia and liberated the country and
uncovered all that mess that was going on. If it hadn’t been for
them, who knows how long this would have gone on? The same thing
happened in Uganda with Idi Amin, in the same year. He kept
messing around on the border with Tanzania and finally sent
troops in. Tanzanian Troops out-numbered Amin’s by something
like 3-1, and easily repelled the invasion and went on to
liberate Uganda in 3 days, with Amin fleeing to Saudi Arabia. In
fact, my Wikipedia homepage has an article it’s running on this
now since these next few days are the 40th anniversary of that
event. As brutal and horrible a person as Idi Amin was, he was,
as you probably know from history, a strange, clownish, and
buffoonish figure, who adorned himself with medals and awarded
himself fake University degrees. I just started a German
documentary on one of his sons- Amin has in excess of 60
children. Can you imagine any man having 60+ children?? That guy
should be in the Guiness Book of World Records. Gosh, everything
about him was strange.)
So, the point is, a country calling itself socialist doesn‘t
mean any more than a country calling itself democratic.
#Post#: 14204--------------------------------------------------
Re: Socialism Rears It’s Ugly Head.....But, not so fast. Read on
.
By: Irena Date: April 10, 2019, 3:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Who Dini link=topic=959.msg14199#msg14199
date=1554860510]
What happened to that great experiment in socialism that the
Democrat party loves so much, Steve? You might remember it, it
was called Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
[/quote]
I don't have the time to read everything right now, but I'll say
two things.
(1) When Westerners talk about "socialism" or (more correctly)
"social democracy" in positive terms, they almost always have in
mind something like Scandinavia, and almost never Soviet-type
socialism. The two are very, very different.
(2) Eastern Europeans sometimes do remember Soviet style
socialism with nostalgia. That's because, for much of Eastern
Europe, the transition from socialism to capitalism proved to be
a disaster for a very large chunk of the population. After the
collapse of the Soviet Union, male life expectancy in Russia
plummeted by about a decade. That's what I call an absolute
disaster, my friends. No wonder some reminisce about Stalin.
#Post#: 14206--------------------------------------------------
Re: Socialism Rears It’s Ugly Head.....But, not so fast. Read on
.
By: Truman Overby Date: April 10, 2019, 5:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Steve, the democrat party has a very, very long history of
heaping praise on the USSR. I suppose you also wouldn't call
China a communist country. I'm sorry, but you're doing your
usual tactic of ignoring facts and twisting things to suit your
view of things. Your knowledge of political systems and
historical facts is sorely lacking in some respects.
P.S The latest example of the Democrat party colluding with the
Russians is when Bill and Hillary Clinton received millions of
dollars for their self-serving foundation for Bubba giving
exactly one speech for the Russians. Hillary, while secretary of
state, sold off a huge stockpile of a strategic mineral to the
Russians. These are both facts that can be easily verified. And
last but not least, Pres Obama was caught on camera and on a hot
mic telling Putin's right hand man "tell Vlad to be patient,
after I win re-election I can be more flexible." What's that
called, Steve? Some might call that collusion or treason. But
lets not let facts get in the way. Right?
I'm going to drop my participation in this thread. I could have
better results teaching my dog to fly an airplane than trying to
get you to observe facts.
{No problem about the Sad icon. This happens to me sometimes.}
#Post#: 14209--------------------------------------------------
Re: Socialism Rears It’s Ugly Head.....But, not so fast. Read on
.
By: Susan Date: April 10, 2019, 11:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I found this paragraph interesting, although not interesting
enough to go search for facts to support or refute it:
Medicare for All really is a lot more efficient and a lot less
wasteful than the current medical mess. The VA delivers much
higher-quality care at less cost than proposed privatized
substitutes. Public schools, though they have their problems
(especially when there are high concentrations of poor kids), do
better than voucher schools. Social Security, our most
socialistic (and most popular) government program beats any
private competitor cold.
Does anyone have facts at hand which would address how accurate
or not his observations are in the above paragraph?
#Post#: 14210--------------------------------------------------
Re: Socialism Rears It’s Ugly Head.....But, not so fast. Read on
.
By: Truman Overby Date: April 10, 2019, 11:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Susan link=topic=959.msg14209#msg14209
date=1554913212]
Social Security, our most socialistic (and most popular)
government program beats any private competitor cold.[/i]
[/quote]
This one is easy to refute. Simply take a look at any ten-year
rolling average of the return generated in the stock market
versus the same amount that would accumulate by paying into
Social Security since it was founded in 1939. You'll be ahead by
light years investing your own money. But again, Steve will
refute this with some sort of distorted set of 'facts.'
#Post#: 14211--------------------------------------------------
Re: Socialism Rears It’s Ugly Head.....But, not so fast. Read on
.
By: Susan Date: April 10, 2019, 12:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, I think it is a little more complicated than that. The
average individual investor does not get the average return of
the stock market because they have a tendency to buy and sell
too much. I saw a study by Fidelity Investments that showed
that clients who forgot about their accounts tended to do better
than the average individual investor. I believe the figure of
what the average individual investor has received over the long
haul has been more in the neighborhood of 3%. Even Bill Gates
started sponsoring workshops for his Microsoft millionaires
recommending passive investments because they were being taken
advantage of financial advisors charging high fees and giving
little results. The advantage of Social Security is that it does
not rely on people using good sense and saving their money. I
hate to say it but a large number of people just do not make
good financial decisions. Maybe they should make something
mandatory for those who have not accumulated a certain amount of
savings by certain ages.
#Post#: 14212--------------------------------------------------
Re: Socialism Rears It’s Ugly Head.....But, not so fast. Read on
.
By: SHL Date: April 10, 2019, 12:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Who Dini link=topic=959.msg14210#msg14210
date=1554913695]
[quote author=Susan link=topic=959.msg14209#msg14209
date=1554913212]
Social Security, our most socialistic (and most popular)
government program beats any private competitor cold.[/i]
[/quote]
This one is easy to refute. Simply take a look at any ten-year
rolling average of the return generated in the stock market
versus the same amount that would accumulate by paying into
Social Security since it was founded in 1939. You'll be ahead by
light years investing your own money. But again, Steve will
refute this with some sort of distorted set of 'facts.'
[/quote]
I‘ve never invested in any stocks and when my dad did he lost a
lot of money, so I don‘t know what statistics you have to back
this wild claim up, unless you want to point to the über-rich,
the upper 1% who don‘t need to invest to be rich anyway, but do
so for fun. For them it‘s like gambling at the 10 cent slot
machines a Vegas for 10 minutes. It‘s never going to affect
their lives in a negative way. Most people never invest in the
stock market and have no money to do so. But, when they lose
through taxes their social security deduction at least they know
they will have something partially able to provide a means of
survival should they become disabled or too old Work. People
shouldn’t have to die at their desks working at an advanced age
just to be able to eat.
#Post#: 14213--------------------------------------------------
Re: Socialism Rears It’s Ugly Head.....But, not so fast. Read on
.
By: Truman Overby Date: April 10, 2019, 12:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Susan link=topic=959.msg14211#msg14211
date=1554916080]
Well, I think it is a little more complicated than that. The
average individual investor does not get the average return of
the stock market because they have a tendency to buy and sell
too much. I saw a study by Fidelity Investments that showed
that clients who forgot about their accounts tended to do better
than the average individual investor. I believe the figure of
what the average individual investor has received over the long
haul has been more in the neighborhood of 3%. Even Bill Gates
started sponsoring workshops for his Microsoft millionaires
recommending passive investments because they were being taken
advantage of financial advisors charging high fees and giving
little results. The advantage of Social Security is that it does
not rely on people using good sense and saving their money. I
hate to say it but a large number of people just do not make
good financial decisions. Maybe they should make something
mandatory for those who have not accumulated a certain amount of
savings by certain ages.
[/quote]
Yes, I agree that most people are not good financial stewards.
Emotion rules most individual investors. I'm merely arguing that
the market has outperformed SS. Moreover, I believe that one of
the essential defining characteristics of freedom is the right
to make mistakes. Some people make mistakes with their money.
Some don't. Why should everyone in the US be penalized by being
forced into a sub-standard financial instrument because some
people can't make proper financial decisions?
Perhaps more importantly, most people will who pay into SS will
not receive back the full amount they paid into the system, let
alone interest. And millions of others will receive far more
back than they paid into it. Most likely, the majority fall in
this last category. Who would say that's fair? Not I.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page