How Socialism Ruined My Country

[bripat9643]

Your talking about the effects of war. The OP shows that Brazil took the same course the Democrats would like to take the US economy on. The Op pretty much lays out the recipe for economic disaster pretty well.

So, am I to understand your position, that when capitalist countries go to war, especially economic wars like Iraq, that this isn't the impact of capitalism on countries?

Ok so heres a problem I see with the socialist model. There is corruption in any system. With people it is always inevetable that some will use favors to get around the rules for themselves and their company. In a capitalist system, things are "run" by the free market. In that case, it works out well that the government sets up regulatory measures to keep things in check. Even then though there can be corruption, but at least there is a division in political parties and branches of government. and we can hope that they also keep each other in check.

But in a Socialist system, say Venezuela for example, The government is the one running things to a much greater extent than the market system is. So then if the government becomes corrupt, who is there left to hold the government accountable? No one. It's like having the fox taking care of the hen house so to speak.

Here's the thing. If you have Capitalism, it will fail. No state has managed to have pure capitalism and survive. Monopolies will be created, corruption will be insane, etc.

So Capitalism needs to have regulation in order to make it function.

Could it not be that Socialism could work that way too? The problem is that most, if not all, Socialist systems have been implemented through force, there's the first problem. Capitalism through force doesn't always work either, ask Zimbabwe.

Capitalism will fail? really? So the revolutionary take off of personal computers and smart phones occurred in which country? The United States a mostly capitalist country? or did it happen in one of those socialist countries where the government is involved in every aspect of their citizens lives?

There is a reason many great technological advances have happened here. It's because people have incentive, and the freedom to act on their incentive and imagination. Socialist countries are much more restrictive.

We dont have pure Capitalism here , and of course we need regulations but those regulations sometimes become duplicitous and often are just ways of collecting revenues off the back of someone trying to start a business. Some people never make it off the ground because the process can take too long depending on the city or state they live in. Yeah, of course any Large society is going to need regulation and most sane conservatives will agree with that, but what they dont want is stupidity and over bearing regulations which is MORE of what you get in socialist systems.

Lets say it does take a little socialism along with a mostly capitalist system to be effective. When you have "government" types running things you will have disconnect and inefficiency ... just take a look at the VA system. It's because you have beurocrats running things who dont have Expertise in the field they are working in.
When the system is run by the free market, so to speak, people will be hired to do the job who know what the hell they are doing. FedX is NEVER going to hire a government beurocrat to run operations at one of their headquarters, but it is possible you could get a guy or gal who started lower down, rose up through the ranks, Knows the way things are supposed to work, and that person will be much better in a leadership position. What you get in more socialist systems are unqualified people put in charge of things. If that happens in a free market system the company will not survive. When the government it self is in charge, all they simply need to do is raise taxes or print more money... Like Zimbabwe.

Another example of what Im talking about is K-Mac Industries Corp. They own hundreds of Taco Bells and KFC across Texas, Ark, and some other states in the south and I believe they are the largest and most successful Taco Bell Franchise in the US. The president of the company Sam Fiori started out as a fry cook in one of the Taco Bells and worked his way up. Thats not going to happen in a socialist country.

Socialism is simply fair , democratic capitalism with a good safety net. NOT communism.

The Uk seems to think they invented the internet...

Socialism is capitalism?

It always cracks me up when you say that.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

 

[danielpalos]

So, am I to understand your position, that when capitalist countries go to war, especially economic wars like Iraq, that this isn't the impact of capitalism on countries?

Ok so heres a problem I see with the socialist model. There is corruption in any system. With people it is always inevetable that some will use favors to get around the rules for themselves and their company. In a capitalist system, things are "run" by the free market. In that case, it works out well that the government sets up regulatory measures to keep things in check. Even then though there can be corruption, but at least there is a division in political parties and branches of government. and we can hope that they also keep each other in check.

But in a Socialist system, say Venezuela for example, The government is the one running things to a much greater extent than the market system is. So then if the government becomes corrupt, who is there left to hold the government accountable? No one. It's like having the fox taking care of the hen house so to speak.

Here's the thing. If you have Capitalism, it will fail. No state has managed to have pure capitalism and survive. Monopolies will be created, corruption will be insane, etc.

So Capitalism needs to have regulation in order to make it function.

Could it not be that Socialism could work that way too? The problem is that most, if not all, Socialist systems have been implemented through force, there's the first problem. Capitalism through force doesn't always work either, ask Zimbabwe.

Capitalism will fail? really? So the revolutionary take off of personal computers and smart phones occurred in which country? The United States a mostly capitalist country? or did it happen in one of those socialist countries where the government is involved in every aspect of their citizens lives?

There is a reason many great technological advances have happened here. It's because people have incentive, and the freedom to act on their incentive and imagination. Socialist countries are much more restrictive.

We dont have pure Capitalism here , and of course we need regulations but those regulations sometimes become duplicitous and often are just ways of collecting revenues off the back of someone trying to start a business. Some people never make it off the ground because the process can take too long depending on the city or state they live in. Yeah, of course any Large society is going to need regulation and most sane conservatives will agree with that, but what they dont want is stupidity and over bearing regulations which is MORE of what you get in socialist systems.

Lets say it does take a little socialism along with a mostly capitalist system to be effective. When you have "government" types running things you will have disconnect and inefficiency ... just take a look at the VA system. It's because you have beurocrats running things who dont have Expertise in the field they are working in.
When the system is run by the free market, so to speak, people will be hired to do the job who know what the hell they are doing. FedX is NEVER going to hire a government beurocrat to run operations at one of their headquarters, but it is possible you could get a guy or gal who started lower down, rose up through the ranks, Knows the way things are supposed to work, and that person will be much better in a leadership position. What you get in more socialist systems are unqualified people put in charge of things. If that happens in a free market system the company will not survive. When the government it self is in charge, all they simply need to do is raise taxes or print more money... Like Zimbabwe.

Another example of what Im talking about is K-Mac Industries Corp. They own hundreds of Taco Bells and KFC across Texas, Ark, and some other states in the south and I believe they are the largest and most successful Taco Bell Franchise in the US. The president of the company Sam Fiori started out as a fry cook in one of the Taco Bells and worked his way up. Thats not going to happen in a socialist country.

Socialism is simply fair , democratic capitalism with a good safety net. NOT communism.

The Uk seems to think they invented the internet...

Socialism is capitalism?

It always cracks me up when you say that.

It is because, nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. A public sector is socialism in action.

 

[danielpalos]

View attachment 140504

When it really matters, only socialism will do; because capitalists will always seek private profit.

 

[Rustic]

Capitalism in the US just recently created The Bush Great Recessoin, and 20 trillion dollars of debt. The US has a president that hands out government jobs to his friends and family like candy on Halloween. He colluded with a foreign adversary to fix the US election. And he and his allies in Congress are working on a tax cut that will cut taxes on the poor by $40 but cut taxes on wealthy people by $1,000,000.

Yeah that shit is working like a well oiled machine in America.

All successful governments are a mix of Capitalism and Socialism. There aren't any Americans volunteering to pay for and pave their own roads, they expect the Society collectively to pay for that. One example out of thousands. People don't equate roads with 'socialism' because they've always been there. Someone has to pay for them, and 95% of the population could not afford to pay for even a 1/4 mile of a paved road.

Everyone that believes they are pure capitalists you need to pry your lips off the socialist teet first. The video in the OP is simple minded and directed at simple minded people. Corruption leads to debt and disaster? Yeah no shit, just check with Wallstreet in September 2008.

If you pay more in taxes, you get a greater tax cut in raw dollars. Define "poor". Most poor and even lower middle class pay no taxes. If they got a tax cut it means they were paid even though they did not pay taxes. I have no problem with that just like I have no problem with the high income earners netting more dollars in a tax cut vs. what get because they are already paying more dollars than I do in taxes. My problem is the Left simply uses this as a vehicle to stir up class warfare to make US more like the failed socialist economies around the world. We have limited socialism. Let's keep it that way.

I agree on the limited socialism. Nobody in politics is even promoting 'socialism'. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist but he isn't. He's not advocating for the government to control all the means of production. He's talking about social justice and equality in specific areas like healthcare and I agree that it is a right for humans to have access to adequate healthcare. The newer generations believe this as well. I'm not for the nationalization of industry or business. Certainly they need to be regulated because all human systems move towards concentrating the wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of the many. Just as with a nuclear reactor you need control rods or the reaction burns itself up. This is true for all human systems through all of history. Left unchecked they give us The Bush Great Recession of 2008. Greedy people do not police themselves. They in fact look for never ending ways to cheat and manipulate the system in their favor.

Good response. When you site concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, that's what happens in unchecked Socialism. A true, locked in 1percent is created.

The right wing prefers to "blame the poor" for being poor not the Institutions that create poorness.

Socialism is the institution that makes people the poorest… fact

 

[Rustic]

View attachment 140504

When it really matters, only socialism will do; because capitalists will always seek private profit.

It's none of your business what people make - you fucking control freak…

 

[Markle]

People will say that Socialism doesn't work, but all systems can fail.

As you know, Socialism has always failed. An early form of it was tried in our first permanent settlement, Jamestown. It was started as a communal system where everyone owned all the land, shared all the labor and production. Hundreds died of starvation and disease over several years.

The new governor divided the land among the families. Seeds and implements were also divided and everyone could keep, barter or sell everything they owned paying a small "tax" to the governor to govern and maintain order. Jamestown began to thrive with some not using their seeds but trading or selling them to others in exchange for teaching their children or work making farm implements, shoeing horses helping to build the community.

Long before the terms came into being, Private Property Rights and Capitalism saved the country.

Socialism continues to fail today, see Venezuela.

 

[Markle]

we should get rid of socialist programs helping poor children, such as Medicaid and public education,

Welfare programs are not "Socialist Programs".

Please learn the definition of Socialism.

Welfare programs are the transfer of wealth. No more no less.

 

[LeftofLeft]

If you pay more in taxes, you get a greater tax cut in raw dollars. Define "poor". Most poor and even lower middle class pay no taxes. If they got a tax cut it means they were paid even though they did not pay taxes. I have no problem with that just like I have no problem with the high income earners netting more dollars in a tax cut vs. what get because they are already paying more dollars than I do in taxes. My problem is the Left simply uses this as a vehicle to stir up class warfare to make US more like the failed socialist economies around the world. We have limited socialism. Let's keep it that way.

I agree on the limited socialism. Nobody in politics is even promoting 'socialism'. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist but he isn't. He's not advocating for the government to control all the means of production. He's talking about social justice and equality in specific areas like healthcare and I agree that it is a right for humans to have access to adequate healthcare. The newer generations believe this as well. I'm not for the nationalization of industry or business. Certainly they need to be regulated because all human systems move towards concentrating the wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of the many. Just as with a nuclear reactor you need control rods or the reaction burns itself up. This is true for all human systems through all of history. Left unchecked they give us The Bush Great Recession of 2008. Greedy people do not police themselves. They in fact look for never ending ways to cheat and manipulate the system in their favor.

Good response. When you site concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, that's what happens in unchecked Socialism. A true, locked in 1percent is created.

BS. Reaganist tax rates and policies have done this DUHHHHHHH.....RWers know NOTHING, it appears...

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = The Fed - Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

You completely ignore the economic impact of overregulation, legal liability, unions, and taxes.

Which along with taxes on the rich, the New BS GOP has been cutting for 35 years. You've gotten all you wanted and wrecked the country, dupe, except for the megarich. Thanks for that AND 9/11 thru sheer incompetence, the stupidest wars ever, a corrupt WORLD DEPRESSION, 8 years of mindless obstruction of Dems, and the now the biggest disgrace we've ever had as president. Not to mention the worst bs/hate propaganda machine EVER. I'm guessing this is your high point- it's just too obvious except to the blind and totally brainwashed.

Since you through 9-11 into it, Clinton got hit in '93. What specific steps and programs did he put in place to prevent another attack? The only thing that comes to mind is his Deputy AG sending a memo to prevent the FBI and CIA from sharing information. Bush inherited Clinton's intel and DoD infrastructure. How much incompetence can you logically put on Bush when he inherited 8 years of intel in disarray? Obama was smart enough not to fuck with Bush-Cheney intel infrastructure that they built.

 

[francoHFW]

[QU

Just Reaganism and pander to the rich GOPism continuing to wreck the country duh, and did you hear about the corrupt GOP depression disaster DUHHHHHH. Obama solutions were mindlessly obstructed. You dupes have a whole other planet- amazing....

I don't know about you but I got a nice little Reagan income tax cut. Reagan raised taxes in other areas but most income tax paying families benefited from the income tax reduction and that stimulated Reagan's great economic boom. I also paid less income tax with Bush's income tax reduction. If you didn't get one then you weren't doing it right.

If you benefit from the money paid by other people instead of paying your share then that pretty well makes you a welfare queen, doesn't it? Most of you stupid Moon Bats are in the 49% that don't pay into that $trillion a year income tax pool so I don't know why you greedy little shitheads are bitching.

The thing that you stupid Moon bats can't seem to understand is that the money made by Americans is put to much better use in the productive economy than giving it to some stupid corrupt politicians, who was elected by special interest groups.

The reason why this economy isn't doing as well as it should and the reason why under Obama we had increased poverty, decreased family income and increased income disparity is because almost 40% of the GDP is going for the combine cost of government and that is disastrous to our economy. When is enough going to be enough for you greedy little bastards?

What is really dumbass are you stupid Moon Bats that voted for that Crooked Hillary nitwit who ran on a platform to increase taxes. How dumb was that?

And then state and local taxes were raised to make up for cuts in fed aid- which kill the nonrich- and now the middle class pays more %wise in taxes than the 1%, dupe, and only the rich do well.

EVERYBODY pays taxes, brainwashed functional stupid.

The gov't grew most under Raygun and W, dupe.

 

[francoHFW]

Capitalism in the US just recently created The Bush Great Recessoin, and 20 trillion dollars of debt. The US has a president that hands out government jobs to his friends and family like candy on Halloween. He colluded with a foreign adversary to fix the US election. And he and his allies in Congress are working on a tax cut that will cut taxes on the poor by $40 but cut taxes on wealthy people by $1,000,000.

Yeah that shit is working like a well oiled machine in America.

All successful governments are a mix of Capitalism and Socialism. There aren't any Americans volunteering to pay for and pave their own roads, they expect the Society collectively to pay for that. One example out of thousands. People don't equate roads with 'socialism' because they've always been there. Someone has to pay for them, and 95% of the population could not afford to pay for even a 1/4 mile of a paved road.

Everyone that believes they are pure capitalists you need to pry your lips off the socialist teet first. The video in the OP is simple minded and directed at simple minded people. Corruption leads to debt and disaster? Yeah no shit, just check with Wallstreet in September 2008.

Bush created Obamas 10 trillion debt? what???

The libs have found a way to blame Bush for all of Obama's deficits.

Real tough, too. LOL!

 

[francoHFW]

I agree on the limited socialism. Nobody in politics is even promoting 'socialism'. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist but he isn't. He's not advocating for the government to control all the means of production. He's talking about social justice and equality in specific areas like healthcare and I agree that it is a right for humans to have access to adequate healthcare. The newer generations believe this as well. I'm not for the nationalization of industry or business. Certainly they need to be regulated because all human systems move towards concentrating the wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of the many. Just as with a nuclear reactor you need control rods or the reaction burns itself up. This is true for all human systems through all of history. Left unchecked they give us The Bush Great Recession of 2008. Greedy people do not police themselves. They in fact look for never ending ways to cheat and manipulate the system in their favor.

Good response. When you site concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, that's what happens in unchecked Socialism. A true, locked in 1percent is created.

BS. Reaganist tax rates and policies have done this DUHHHHHHH.....RWers know NOTHING, it appears...

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = The Fed - Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

You completely ignore the economic impact of overregulation, legal liability, unions, and taxes.

Which along with taxes on the rich, the New BS GOP has been cutting for 35 years. You've gotten all you wanted and wrecked the country, dupe, except for the megarich. Thanks for that AND 9/11 thru sheer incompetence, the stupidest wars ever, a corrupt WORLD DEPRESSION, 8 years of mindless obstruction of Dems, and the now the biggest disgrace we've ever had as president. Not to mention the worst bs/hate propaganda machine EVER. I'm guessing this is your high point- it's just too obvious except to the blind and totally brainwashed.

Since you through 9-11 into it, Clinton got hit in '93. What specific steps and programs did he put in place to prevent another attack? The only thing that comes to mind is his Deputy AG sending a memo to prevent the FBI and CIA from sharing information. Bush inherited Clinton's intel and DoD infrastructure. How much incompetence can you logically put on Bush when he inherited 8 years of intel in disarray? Obama was smart enough not to fuck with Bush-Cheney intel infrastructure that they built.

Clinton paid attention- Bush ignored his terror czar.

 

[francoHFW]

So, am I to understand your position, that when capitalist countries go to war, especially economic wars like Iraq, that this isn't the impact of capitalism on countries?

Ok so heres a problem I see with the socialist model. There is corruption in any system. With people it is always inevetable that some will use favors to get around the rules for themselves and their company. In a capitalist system, things are "run" by the free market. In that case, it works out well that the government sets up regulatory measures to keep things in check. Even then though there can be corruption, but at least there is a division in political parties and branches of government. and we can hope that they also keep each other in check.

But in a Socialist system, say Venezuela for example, The government is the one running things to a much greater extent than the market system is. So then if the government becomes corrupt, who is there left to hold the government accountable? No one. It's like having the fox taking care of the hen house so to speak.

Here's the thing. If you have Capitalism, it will fail. No state has managed to have pure capitalism and survive. Monopolies will be created, corruption will be insane, etc.

So Capitalism needs to have regulation in order to make it function.

Could it not be that Socialism could work that way too? The problem is that most, if not all, Socialist systems have been implemented through force, there's the first problem. Capitalism through force doesn't always work either, ask Zimbabwe.

Capitalism will fail? really? So the revolutionary take off of personal computers and smart phones occurred in which country? The United States a mostly capitalist country? or did it happen in one of those socialist countries where the government is involved in every aspect of their citizens lives?

There is a reason many great technological advances have happened here. It's because people have incentive, and the freedom to act on their incentive and imagination. Socialist countries are much more restrictive.

We dont have pure Capitalism here , and of course we need regulations but those regulations sometimes become duplicitous and often are just ways of collecting revenues off the back of someone trying to start a business. Some people never make it off the ground because the process can take too long depending on the city or state they live in. Yeah, of course any Large society is going to need regulation and most sane conservatives will agree with that, but what they dont want is stupidity and over bearing regulations which is MORE of what you get in socialist systems.

Lets say it does take a little socialism along with a mostly capitalist system to be effective. When you have "government" types running things you will have disconnect and inefficiency ... just take a look at the VA system. It's because you have beurocrats running things who dont have Expertise in the field they are working in.
When the system is run by the free market, so to speak, people will be hired to do the job who know what the hell they are doing. FedX is NEVER going to hire a government beurocrat to run operations at one of their headquarters, but it is possible you could get a guy or gal who started lower down, rose up through the ranks, Knows the way things are supposed to work, and that person will be much better in a leadership position. What you get in more socialist systems are unqualified people put in charge of things. If that happens in a free market system the company will not survive. When the government it self is in charge, all they simply need to do is raise taxes or print more money... Like Zimbabwe.

Another example of what Im talking about is K-Mac Industries Corp. They own hundreds of Taco Bells and KFC across Texas, Ark, and some other states in the south and I believe they are the largest and most successful Taco Bell Franchise in the US. The president of the company Sam Fiori started out as a fry cook in one of the Taco Bells and worked his way up. Thats not going to happen in a socialist country.

Socialism is simply fair , democratic capitalism with a good safety net. NOT communism.

The Uk seems to think they invented the internet...

Socialism is capitalism?

It always cracks me up when you say that.

So what is it, dupe?

It's the EU, NZ Oz, Canada- even us with ACA- the only solution to our ridiculous health costs. Well regulated capitalism with a good safety net.