bjoh249
Rookie
- May 5, 2017
- 20
- 1
- 1
This is for the economic illiterates on here who think Democratic-Socialism is not the same thing as socialism. This is also for those who keep touting Canada and the Nordic countries as examples of socialism working when these countries really are not socialist.
Democratic socialism - Wikipedia
"Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a SOCIALIST ECONOMIC SYSTEM, involving a combination of political democracy with SOCIAL OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION.
"Democratic socialism REJECTS the social democratic view of reform through state intervention within capitalism, seeing capitalism as inherently incompatible with the democratic values of freedom, equality and solidarity. Democratic socialists believe that the issues inherent to capitalism can only be solved by TRANSITIONING FROM CAPITALISM TO SOCIALISM, by SUPERSEDING PRIVATE PROPERTY WITH SOME FORM OF SOCIAL OWNERSHIP, with any attempt to address the economic contradictions of capitalism through reforms only likely to generate more problems elsewhere in the capitalist economy."
"Democratic socialism is defined as having a socialist economy in which the means of production are SOCIALLY AND COLLECTIVELY OWNED alongside a politically democratic system of government."
The Democratic Socialists of America defines democratic socialism as A MOVEMENT TO ELIMINATE CAPITALISM by evolving a "SOCIAL ORDER BASED ON POPULAR CONTROL OF RESOURCES AND PRODUCTION..."
What Caused Venezuela's Collapse Is No Mystery — Except To Economically Illiterate Journalists
What Caused Venezuela's Collapse Is No Mystery — Except To Economically Illiterate Journalists
A
Reprints
Economics: Why is it that reporters keep scratching their heads about Venezuela's descent into extreme poverty and chaos? The cause is simple. Socialism. End it and you will end the misery.
When the New York Times wrote about Venezuela's ongoing collapse a year ago, it described how the country was suffering "painful shortages … even of basic foods," and how "electricity and water are being rationed, and huge areas of the country have spent months with little of either."
Here is how the Times explained the reason for Venezuela's dire situation: "The growing economic crisis (was) fueled by low prices for oil, the country's main export; a drought that has crippled Venezuela's ability to generate hydroelectric power; and a long decline in manufacturing and agricultural production."
There's no mention — not one — of the fact that Hugo Chávez tried to turn Venezuela into a socialist paradise, policies that his successor Nicolás Maduro has continued. The Times' coverage is par for the course.
Venezuela was never a model free market economy. A couple decades ago, the Heritage Foundation gave it a 59.8 ranking on its Index of Freedom — which measures how free or government-controlled an economy is. That put it at the edge of being "moderately free."
Then Chavez nationalized the oil industry, agricultural operations, transportation, power generation, telecommunications, steel production, banks. Today Venezuela is the third least free economy in the world, ahead of only Cuba and North Korea.
As a direct result of those actions, Venezuela went from being on the wealthiest countries in South America — one rich in natural resources — to a country where people are literally fighting for scraps of food. Last year, Venezuela's economy shrank 18%. The unemployment rate is 25% and climbing. Inflation could reach 2,068% next year. Riots have become routine.
As we have noted many times in this space, it is socialism, not oil prices or the weather or greedy businessmen or any other such factor that's to blame for Venezuela's economic crisis. This is what socialism produces. Always and everywhere. It is as close to an iron law of economics as there can be.
Yet reporters continue to obfuscate, if not totally ignore, this economic reality when they try to explain to readers what is going on down there.
The Los Angeles Times says that it's only "anti-government protesters" who "blame Venezuela's economic crisis on the policies of Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chávez." While "supporters of the government say the culprits are a drop in international oil prices as well as 'corrupt' business leaders."
There's no attempt made by the reporter to say who is right.
An explainer by the Associated Press says the "oil boom and bust" is to blame for the crisis. "The plunge in world oil prices has left the government owing money across the board, from foreign airlines to oil service companies. Most of the anti-poverty gains made under Chavez have been erased and people are grappling with severe food and medicine shortages."
USA Today said that the reason Venezuelans were resorting to hunting dogs and pigeons for food was because "although Venezuela has the world's largest petroleum reserves, the country has suffered from a combination of lower oil prices and tight limits on dollar purchases that have cut off vital food and most other imports. The result has been a plunging economy and the world's highest inflation rate — above 700%."
Others blamed a drought for the country's problems. The Wall Street Journal reported last spring that "the newer hardships are water scarcity and increasingly critical power blackouts — a byproduct of the lack of water in a country dependent on hydroelectric dams."
Why do reporters ignore the obvious? We'd surmise that it's largely because liberal journalists are infatuated with the idea of socialism.
Here's how the AP lovingly described Chavez: "a political outsider promising to upset the old order and funnel some of the country's enormous oil wealth to the poor. Poverty rates fell sharply during his administration, and many people continue to see him as a beloved Robin Hood figure who gave them houses, free health care, better education and a place at the table in government."
That list of "accomplishments" reads like the Democratic Party platform.
It is their unwillingness to admit that socialism can't work that drives so many mainstream journalists to look for something, anything, else to blame when socialist economies invariable fail.[/quote]
Denmark Tells Bernie Sanders It's Had Enough Of His 'Socialist' Slurs
Denmark Tells Bernie Sanders It's Had Enough Of His 'Socialist' Slurs
Reprints
The Danes apparently have grown weary of Sen. Bernie Sanders insulting their country. Denmark is not a socialist nation, says its prime minister. It has a "market economy."
Sanders, the Democratic presidential candidate who calls himself a socialist, has used Denmark as the example of the socialist utopia he wants to create in America. During the Democrats' first debate last month, he said "we should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway, and learn from what they have accomplished for their working people."
While appearing in New Hampshire in September, Sanders said that he had "talked to a guy from Denmark" who told him that in Denmark, "it is very hard to become very, very rich, but it's pretty hard to be very, very poor."
"And that makes a lot of sense to me."
So because something makes sense to him, he has the right to force that system on people who don't want it? Isn't that what he's saying?
But we digress. This is about Danes being offending by Sanders using the word "socialist" to describe their form of government. And who can blame them, especially when the free world has had enough of national socialists and Soviet socialists and North Korean socialists and Cuban socialists?
While speaking at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, the center-right Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said he was aware "that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism."
"Therefore," he said, "I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."
Rasmussen acknowledged that "the Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens," but he also noted that it is "a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish."
To that we'll add that Sweden, another of Sanders' inspirations, has for decades quietly moved away from its cradle-to-grave form of government welfare. And the Swedes are better off for having done so, just as the Danes will continue to be better off as their government overhauls its welfare state.
If Sanders is going to continue to use these nations to guide his governing philosophy, he should base his policy positions on what they really are, not what he thinks they are or wants them to be. These countries have learned a harsh lesson. They don't deserve to be Berned again.
Nordic model - Wikipedia
The Nordic model (also called Nordic capitalism[1] or Nordic social democracy)[2][3] refers to the economic and social policies common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland and Sweden). This includes a combination of free market capitalism with a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level.[4][5] The Nordic model began to earn attention after World War II.[6]
Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all share some common traits. These include support for a "universalist" welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labor and employers negotiate wages and labor market policy mediated by the government;[7] and a commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets and free trade.[8]
Democratic socialism - Wikipedia
"Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a SOCIALIST ECONOMIC SYSTEM, involving a combination of political democracy with SOCIAL OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION.
"Democratic socialism REJECTS the social democratic view of reform through state intervention within capitalism, seeing capitalism as inherently incompatible with the democratic values of freedom, equality and solidarity. Democratic socialists believe that the issues inherent to capitalism can only be solved by TRANSITIONING FROM CAPITALISM TO SOCIALISM, by SUPERSEDING PRIVATE PROPERTY WITH SOME FORM OF SOCIAL OWNERSHIP, with any attempt to address the economic contradictions of capitalism through reforms only likely to generate more problems elsewhere in the capitalist economy."
"Democratic socialism is defined as having a socialist economy in which the means of production are SOCIALLY AND COLLECTIVELY OWNED alongside a politically democratic system of government."
The Democratic Socialists of America defines democratic socialism as A MOVEMENT TO ELIMINATE CAPITALISM by evolving a "SOCIAL ORDER BASED ON POPULAR CONTROL OF RESOURCES AND PRODUCTION..."
What Caused Venezuela's Collapse Is No Mystery — Except To Economically Illiterate Journalists
What Caused Venezuela's Collapse Is No Mystery — Except To Economically Illiterate Journalists
A
Reprints
Economics: Why is it that reporters keep scratching their heads about Venezuela's descent into extreme poverty and chaos? The cause is simple. Socialism. End it and you will end the misery.
When the New York Times wrote about Venezuela's ongoing collapse a year ago, it described how the country was suffering "painful shortages … even of basic foods," and how "electricity and water are being rationed, and huge areas of the country have spent months with little of either."
Here is how the Times explained the reason for Venezuela's dire situation: "The growing economic crisis (was) fueled by low prices for oil, the country's main export; a drought that has crippled Venezuela's ability to generate hydroelectric power; and a long decline in manufacturing and agricultural production."
There's no mention — not one — of the fact that Hugo Chávez tried to turn Venezuela into a socialist paradise, policies that his successor Nicolás Maduro has continued. The Times' coverage is par for the course.
Venezuela was never a model free market economy. A couple decades ago, the Heritage Foundation gave it a 59.8 ranking on its Index of Freedom — which measures how free or government-controlled an economy is. That put it at the edge of being "moderately free."
Then Chavez nationalized the oil industry, agricultural operations, transportation, power generation, telecommunications, steel production, banks. Today Venezuela is the third least free economy in the world, ahead of only Cuba and North Korea.
As a direct result of those actions, Venezuela went from being on the wealthiest countries in South America — one rich in natural resources — to a country where people are literally fighting for scraps of food. Last year, Venezuela's economy shrank 18%. The unemployment rate is 25% and climbing. Inflation could reach 2,068% next year. Riots have become routine.
As we have noted many times in this space, it is socialism, not oil prices or the weather or greedy businessmen or any other such factor that's to blame for Venezuela's economic crisis. This is what socialism produces. Always and everywhere. It is as close to an iron law of economics as there can be.
Yet reporters continue to obfuscate, if not totally ignore, this economic reality when they try to explain to readers what is going on down there.
The Los Angeles Times says that it's only "anti-government protesters" who "blame Venezuela's economic crisis on the policies of Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chávez." While "supporters of the government say the culprits are a drop in international oil prices as well as 'corrupt' business leaders."
There's no attempt made by the reporter to say who is right.
An explainer by the Associated Press says the "oil boom and bust" is to blame for the crisis. "The plunge in world oil prices has left the government owing money across the board, from foreign airlines to oil service companies. Most of the anti-poverty gains made under Chavez have been erased and people are grappling with severe food and medicine shortages."
USA Today said that the reason Venezuelans were resorting to hunting dogs and pigeons for food was because "although Venezuela has the world's largest petroleum reserves, the country has suffered from a combination of lower oil prices and tight limits on dollar purchases that have cut off vital food and most other imports. The result has been a plunging economy and the world's highest inflation rate — above 700%."
Others blamed a drought for the country's problems. The Wall Street Journal reported last spring that "the newer hardships are water scarcity and increasingly critical power blackouts — a byproduct of the lack of water in a country dependent on hydroelectric dams."
Why do reporters ignore the obvious? We'd surmise that it's largely because liberal journalists are infatuated with the idea of socialism.
Here's how the AP lovingly described Chavez: "a political outsider promising to upset the old order and funnel some of the country's enormous oil wealth to the poor. Poverty rates fell sharply during his administration, and many people continue to see him as a beloved Robin Hood figure who gave them houses, free health care, better education and a place at the table in government."
That list of "accomplishments" reads like the Democratic Party platform.
It is their unwillingness to admit that socialism can't work that drives so many mainstream journalists to look for something, anything, else to blame when socialist economies invariable fail.[/quote]
It idealizes envy.
It rationalizes theft.
It idealizes state power.
It penalizes accomplishment.
It rewards indolence.
It promotes obedience to the state.
It encourages dependence on the state by treating citizens as children.
It dismisses the protection of individual rights with a vague appeal to the “collective good” or “public good.”
It has repeatedly led to economic collapse, oppression, poverty and starvation.
Denmark Tells Bernie Sanders It's Had Enough Of His 'Socialist' Slurs
Denmark Tells Bernie Sanders It's Had Enough Of His 'Socialist' Slurs
- KERRY JACKSON
- 11/09/2015
Reprints
The Danes apparently have grown weary of Sen. Bernie Sanders insulting their country. Denmark is not a socialist nation, says its prime minister. It has a "market economy."
Sanders, the Democratic presidential candidate who calls himself a socialist, has used Denmark as the example of the socialist utopia he wants to create in America. During the Democrats' first debate last month, he said "we should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway, and learn from what they have accomplished for their working people."
While appearing in New Hampshire in September, Sanders said that he had "talked to a guy from Denmark" who told him that in Denmark, "it is very hard to become very, very rich, but it's pretty hard to be very, very poor."
"And that makes a lot of sense to me."
So because something makes sense to him, he has the right to force that system on people who don't want it? Isn't that what he's saying?
But we digress. This is about Danes being offending by Sanders using the word "socialist" to describe their form of government. And who can blame them, especially when the free world has had enough of national socialists and Soviet socialists and North Korean socialists and Cuban socialists?
While speaking at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, the center-right Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said he was aware "that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism."
"Therefore," he said, "I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."
Rasmussen acknowledged that "the Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens," but he also noted that it is "a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish."
To that we'll add that Sweden, another of Sanders' inspirations, has for decades quietly moved away from its cradle-to-grave form of government welfare. And the Swedes are better off for having done so, just as the Danes will continue to be better off as their government overhauls its welfare state.
If Sanders is going to continue to use these nations to guide his governing philosophy, he should base his policy positions on what they really are, not what he thinks they are or wants them to be. These countries have learned a harsh lesson. They don't deserve to be Berned again.
Nordic model - Wikipedia
The Nordic model (also called Nordic capitalism[1] or Nordic social democracy)[2][3] refers to the economic and social policies common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland and Sweden). This includes a combination of free market capitalism with a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level.[4][5] The Nordic model began to earn attention after World War II.[6]
Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all share some common traits. These include support for a "universalist" welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labor and employers negotiate wages and labor market policy mediated by the government;[7] and a commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets and free trade.[8]
Last edited:
