xzylocybin said:

that lost revenue is peanuts compared to the 9 trillion deficet increase we had under obama, more than all past presidents combined. If that is the only example you can come up with than I consider it a point for capitalism, considering the list of failed socialist and communist states could make a decent sized paragraph.

---

That increase is because of the Great Recession which occurred under a Republican President.  Note how debt/GDP started going back down under Obama:



And now it's going to skyrocket again thanks to the Republican tax cuts for the rich.

xzylocybin said:

And those bankers who caused that recession consistently donate millions of dollars to democratic candidates including Clinton and  Obama. It had nothing to do with conservative policies.

---

Deregulation of the banks isn't conservative policy? 

xzylocybin said:

Why does the graph stop at 2007?

---

xzylocybin said:

America is not a failed state, even our homeless have Iphones.

---

xzylocybin said:

Im going to take that as a no you can't think of any examples

---

xzylocybin said:

the 2008 recession was caused by elite democrat bankers whose lending practices were anything but conservative

---

xzylocybin said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

xzylocybin said:

the 2008 recession was caused by elite democrat bankers whose lending practices were anything but conservative

---

Do you have a source proving elite bankers were democrats?

---

78% of their political contributions have been to democrats, and the rest was mostly to mccain the rhino

---

ApostleofAzathoth said:

Although the private sector's share in the economy has indeed grown since 1990, the majority of the economy is still in the public sector.

---

ApostleofAzathoth said:

China does not have a free market economy

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

xzylocybin said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

xzylocybin said:

the 2008 recession was caused by elite democrat bankers whose lending practices were anything but conservative

---

Do you have a source proving elite bankers were democrats?

---

78% of their political contributions have been to democrats, and the rest was mostly to mccain the rhino

---

Do you have a source proving elite bankers were democrats?

---

xzylocybin said:

the 2008 recession was caused by elite democrat bankers

---

qman said:

Come on Fal, don't play dumb. We know that the bankers pay off politicians on BOTH sides, why are making this a R vs D issue?

---

ApostleofAzathoth said:

qman said:

I think it's important to define the terms before we go forward.  Something tells me he wouldn't accept the current State's that define themselves as "socialist".

---

qman said:

Just more semantics here. Let me ask, what nation does have "a free market economy"?

---

I am getting mixed messages here...

---

The Ecstatic said:

Good luck, comrade OP. I've been trying to drill terms into these morons' heads for years, and they still cant get past "the more a government does things, the more socialister it is."

---

The Ecstatic said:

Good luck, comrade OP. I've been trying to drill terms into these morons' heads for years, and they still cant get past "the more a government does things, the more socialister it is."

---

qman said:

The Ecstatic said:

Good luck, comrade OP. I've been trying to drill terms into these morons' heads for years, and they still cant get past "the more a government does things, the more socialister it is."

---

The OP defines the terms to suit his needs, I can understand why you gravitate towards that line of reasoning.

When I ask for specific examples of those terms, I don't get a response.

---

relic said:

qman said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

xzylocybin said:

the 2008 recession was caused by elite democrat bankers whose lending practices were anything but conservative

---

Do you have a source proving elite bankers were democrats?

---

Come on Fal, don't play dumb. We know that the bankers pay off politicians on BOTH sides, why are making this a R vs D issue?

---

xzylocybin said:

the 2008 recession was caused by elite democrat bankers

---

---

ApostleofAzathoth said:

The Ecstatic said:

Good luck, comrade OP. I've been trying to drill terms into these morons' heads for years, and they still cant get past "the more a government does things, the more socialister it is."

---

Thanks! I don't blame them. It can be hard to question your views after being subjected to years of anticommunist propaganda.

qman said:

The Ecstatic said:

Good luck, comrade OP. I've been trying to drill terms into these morons' heads for years, and they still cant get past "the more a government does things, the more socialister it is."

---

The OP defines the terms to suit his needs, I can understand why you gravitate towards that line of reasoning.

When I ask for specific examples of those terms, I don't get a response.

---

Mate, the only people here using non standard terms for these words here are you, and the guy with the naked cat avatar. Socialism is a mode of economic production in which the workers control the means of production (land, buildings, tools, machines, infrastructure etc.) either through direct democratic control (which is what anarchists and other libertarian socialists advocate) or through a workers state (what Leninists advocate). Most Marxists (only one kind of socialist) add the condition that markets must also be abolished for socialism to be established, but many types of socialists disagree with this (classical anarchists/libertarians, market socialists, etc). The existing state providing social services is not socialism under any definition.

An example of direct worker control over the means of production could be seen in the worker cooperatives that exist throughout capitalist society. Whether or not worker cooperatives on their own can constitute socialism is a contentious issue.

Examples of nations or regions that elusively practiced worker control have existed in revolutionary Catalonia and the Paris Commune. These never lasted for very long. Whether this was due to lack of organization or to victimization by outside influence, or both, remains another contentious issue.

An example of indirect worker control by means of a workers state can be seen in any number of the Marxist-Leninist states that have existed throughout history: the USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.

---

"These never lasted very long"

Exactly, which really means these concepts only exists in the theoretical world and nothing more, what does that tell you? 

"Marxist-Leninist states that existed throughout history: the USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam"

Again, more failures. What does that tell you? 

You're embracing an social-economic system that only works in theory, but doesn't work in the real world. You're ignoring the key aspect of the problem, humans nature.

What do you think happens when you leave certain people in charge of distributing the equality throughout an economy?  They don't do such a good job, why would you expect otherwise?

I get it, you're very idealistic about how to fix the horrible unfair world, but humans don't function under these rules. 

Can I ask what age you are?    Many young people embrace this radical approach despite the fact it's never been achievable in all of human history. Hell, the hippie communes of the 1960's couldn't even do it without massive corruption from their fellow hippies.

qman said:

ApostleofAzathoth said:

The Ecstatic said:

Good luck, comrade OP. I've been trying to drill terms into these morons' heads for years, and they still cant get past "the more a government does things, the more socialister it is."

---

Thanks! I don't blame them. It can be hard to question your views after being subjected to years of anticommunist propaganda.

qman said:

The Ecstatic said:

Good luck, comrade OP. I've been trying to drill terms into these morons' heads for years, and they still cant get past "the more a government does things, the more socialister it is."

---

The OP defines the terms to suit his needs, I can understand why you gravitate towards that line of reasoning.

When I ask for specific examples of those terms, I don't get a response.

---

Mate, the only people here using non standard terms for these words here are you, and the guy with the naked cat avatar. Socialism is a mode of economic production in which the workers control the means of production (land, buildings, tools, machines, infrastructure etc.) either through direct democratic control (which is what anarchists and other libertarian socialists advocate) or through a workers state (what Leninists advocate). Most Marxists (only one kind of socialist) add the condition that markets must also be abolished for socialism to be established, but many types of socialists disagree with this (classical anarchists/libertarians, market socialists, etc). The existing state providing social services is not socialism under any definition.

An example of direct worker control over the means of production could be seen in the worker cooperatives that exist throughout capitalist society. Whether or not worker cooperatives on their own can constitute socialism is a contentious issue.

Examples of nations or regions that elusively practiced worker control have existed in revolutionary Catalonia and the Paris Commune. These never lasted for very long. Whether this was due to lack of organization or to victimization by outside influence, or both, remains another contentious issue.

An example of indirect worker control by means of a workers state can be seen in any number of the Marxist-Leninist states that have existed throughout history: the USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.

---

"These never lasted very long"

Exactly, which really means these concepts only exists in the theoretical world and nothing more, what does that tell you? 

"Marxist-Leninist states that existed throughout history: the USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam"

Again, more failures. What does that tell you? 

You're embracing an social-economic system that only works in theory, but doesn't work in the real world. You're ignoring the key aspect of the problem, humans nature.

What do you think happens when you leave certain people in charge of distributing the equality throughout an economy?  They don't do such a good job, why would you expect otherwise?

I get it, you're very idealistic about how to fix the horrible unfair world, but humans don't function under these rules. 

Can I ask what age you are?    Many young people embrace this radical approach despite the fact it's never been achievable in all of human history. Hell, the hippie communes of the 1960's couldn't even do it without massive corruption from their fellow hippies.

---

If you read the links I provided you would know perfectly well that this is nonsense. Real existing socialist nations have provided a better standard of living on average than capitalist nations in proportion to their wealth. The increase in life expectancy in China under Mao was among the most rapid ever recorded. One doesn't need to delve into socialist propaganda to find these statistics; they are provided by the US government!

Economic Development, Political-Economic System, and the Physical Quality of Life by Shirley Cereseto, PhD, and Howard Waitzkin, MD, PhD:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646771/pdf/amjph00269-0055.pdf

An exploration of China's mortality decline under Mao: A provincial analysis, 1950–80 by Kimberly Singer Babiaraz et al.:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4331212/

In regards to my age, I am an 18 year old college student. I hope this helps you feel superior despite obviously not knowing what you are talking about

qman said:

ApostleofAzathoth said:

The Ecstatic said:

Good luck, comrade OP. I've been trying to drill terms into these morons' heads for years, and they still cant get past "the more a government does things, the more socialister it is."

---

Thanks! I don't blame them. It can be hard to question your views after being subjected to years of anticommunist propaganda.

qman said:

The Ecstatic said:

Good luck, comrade OP. I've been trying to drill terms into these morons' heads for years, and they still cant get past "the more a government does things, the more socialister it is."

---

The OP defines the terms to suit his needs, I can understand why you gravitate towards that line of reasoning.

When I ask for specific examples of those terms, I don't get a response.

---

Mate, the only people here using non standard terms for these words here are you, and the guy with the naked cat avatar. Socialism is a mode of economic production in which the workers control the means of production (land, buildings, tools, machines, infrastructure etc.) either through direct democratic control (which is what anarchists and other libertarian socialists advocate) or through a workers state (what Leninists advocate). Most Marxists (only one kind of socialist) add the condition that markets must also be abolished for socialism to be established, but many types of socialists disagree with this (classical anarchists/libertarians, market socialists, etc). The existing state providing social services is not socialism under any definition.

An example of direct worker control over the means of production could be seen in the worker cooperatives that exist throughout capitalist society. Whether or not worker cooperatives on their own can constitute socialism is a contentious issue.

Examples of nations or regions that elusively practiced worker control have existed in revolutionary Catalonia and the Paris Commune. These never lasted for very long. Whether this was due to lack of organization or to victimization by outside influence, or both, remains another contentious issue.

An example of indirect worker control by means of a workers state can be seen in any number of the Marxist-Leninist states that have existed throughout history: the USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.

---

"These never lasted very long"

Exactly, which really means these concepts only exists in the theoretical world and nothing more, what does that tell you? 

"Marxist-Leninist states that existed throughout history: the USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam"

Again, more failures. What does that tell you? 

You're embracing an social-economic system that only works in theory, but doesn't work in the real world. You're ignoring the key aspect of the problem, humans nature.

What do you think happens when you leave certain people in charge of distributing the equality throughout an economy?  They don't do such a good job, why would you expect otherwise?

I get it, you're very idealistic about how to fix the horrible unfair world, but humans don't function under these rules. 

Can I ask what age you are?    Many young people embrace this radical approach despite the fact it's never been achievable in all of human history. Hell, the hippie communes of the 1960's couldn't even do it without massive corruption from their fellow hippies.

---