DescentBB

...as evidenced in Venezuela, the socialist utopia of South America:

[youtube]UOQb7Y5QVO8[/youtube]

except that they had a crony system with an unchecked strongman....more like what Cruz and Trump offer than anything of Bernie Sanders

No slick, they had a system were they got votes by promising the poor they would be taken care of and a political system where intimidation and arrests of the opposition was the norm. Worked only as long as the oil prices were high.
Crazy Bernie is the same way promising the young that their college education will be free...just vote for me.

Yea, this is what the real thing tends to look like, while not hiding behind a good healthy capitalist economy.

so what you are saying Spidey is that Sanders' model(scandanavian, capitalism with strong social safety nets) is workable, and that Venezuela has no real pertinence, unless we're just socialist-bashing for some reason today?

Why on earth would they want to nationalize a natural resource when a private business could own the benefits?

And the OP shows the fallacy of what you are posting Vander.

Nah, it just means a poorly run country makes a bad example for pretty much everything except a poorly run country.

So the old Soviet Union is also a bad example.

woodchip wrote:Crazy Bernie is the same way promising the young that their college education will be free...just vote for me.

There is no reason education shouldn't be free. Tuition costs are artificial and thanks to the Internet the price of quality educational resources that reach millions of people is trivial in comparison to what we spend on other national resources. It's really a no-brainer if you know anything about the education system.

Lets see. Employer has 2 candidates with a BS in eng. One has his degree from joe blow online college, the 2nd has his degree from M.I.T.. Which do you think he will choose. And if it is so trivial, why is there 1.2 trillion in college loan debt? So the govt paying out another trillion is going to help pay down the national debt? Wack jobs like you are why we have 20 trillion in debt as it is.

The education system in Venezuela is probably free.

Vander wrote:Nah, it just means a poorly run country makes a bad example for pretty much everything except a poorly run country.

Venezuela suffers from a lack of economic diversity, definitely a symptom of socialism and government run industry.

I somehow doubt you would cut a capitalist economy that kind of slack.

Ok I see you don't really know anything about this. My guess is that you don't have much recent education and have been feed a bunch of crap since you got out of school.

woodchip wrote:Lets see. Employer has 2 candidates with a BS in eng. One has his degree from joe blow online college, the 2nd has his degree from M.I.T.. Which do you think he will choose.

That's no longer a valid comparison since MIT released Open Courseware. You can now go to Joe Blow Online College and supplement all your materials with MIT Open Courseware and be just as qualified as someone with a degree from MIT. The people hiring engineers know this. Online course quality is now matching and surpassing brick and mortar schools. Name recognition doesn't go as far as it used to these days. The Internet changed everything.

woodchip wrote:And if it is so trivial, why is there 1.2 trillion in college loan debt?

The short version: It's because the private sector has been siphoning off the government for decades. The long version involves the cultural effects of periodic large and small recessions along with the privatization of Sallie Mae and lack of timely action by the government to stop the problem when it had the chance. Education is a business and businesses own the US government. That's far from ideal.

woodchip wrote:So the old Soviet Union is also a bad example.

Sure. You should stop thinking in absolutes, like that old Soviet Union. Spidey likes to say that successful socialism is dependent on capitalism. I would suggest that if that is true, the opposite is also true; successful capitalism is dependent on socialism. There are things which are served poorly by private ownership and free market capitalism, just as there are things which are served poorly by public ownership and central planning. And everything is served poorly by corruption, cronyism, and bad judgement, which are manifestations of power, not ideology. Our aim should be the application of the proper tool to the proper targets. It seems silly to me to think that just because a hammer is great at driving nails, that it's the best tool for inserting screws.

I still see no reason the line be placed at health care and education for things that should be produced at no profit.

It’s totally arbitrary.

If the markets are broke…fix them.

.............

No Vander, actually my argument is that government redistribution is dependent on a healthy capitalist economy…but for the sake of this discussion I will stop making that distinction.

If you and slick want to keep calling it socialism, I can’t win…

Heh.

Vander wrote:Spidey likes to say that government redistribution is dependent on a healthy capitalist economy. I would suggest that if that is true, the opposite is also true; a healthy capitalist economy is dependent on government redistribution.

Works for me! What are regulations, if not government redistribution? Of course, the devil is in the definition of "healthy."

I would agree with your little quote there, up until the “redistribution” becomes detrimental.

As I have always said…proper balance is important.

........

Well, healthy in this context, only needs to mean productive enough to have plenty of resources to redistribute.

As I understand you don’t believe any capitalist economy could actually be “healthy”.

Vander wrote:Heh.

Vander wrote:Spidey likes to say that government redistribution is dependent on a healthy capitalist economy. I would suggest that if that is true, the opposite is also true; a healthy capitalist economy is dependent on government redistribution.

Works for me! What are regulations, if not government redistribution? Of course, the devil is in the definition of "healthy."

Vander's avatar should at least reflect his ideals: http://minlyn.talons43.ca/files/2015/10 ... 00x500.jpg

It does.

Vander wrote:Why on earth would they want to nationalize a natural resource when a private business could own the benefits?

So much wisdom you speak of vander.

http://www.alternet.org/story/152118/5_ ... has_failed

Any giant, unchecked bureaucracy is ultimately doomed to fail, whether it be socialist or capitalist in nature. Just as a giant socialist government will ultimately become a nest of cronyism, power consolidation and abuse, so goes the same with capitalist governments. Humans act the same no matter what system they run, so one system is never inherently better than the other because the same failings and human quirks will ultimately affect them both, in the same fashion. A far larger percentage of people are starting to think that our current form of capitalism is now failing us, the people.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-capitalism-failing

The difference between capitalism and socialism is…socialism has some systemic (intrinsic) flaws, but capitalism only fails when government doesn’t do a proper job.

Spidey wrote:The difference between capitalism and socialism is…socialism has some systemic (intrinsic) flaws, but capitalism only fails when government doesn’t do a proper job.

Wrong, capitalism has just as many systemic/intrinsic flaws as socialism. They are two sides of the same coin. Both are tools, and in various cases one or the other will simply be the wrong tool for the job. Either one taken to the extreme will invariably fail.

No, it’s not wrong…all of the faults in capitalism can be corrected by proper regulation…not so with socialism.

Edit:

It’s true both systems have systemic flaws, I probably should have worded that differently.

The difference is capitalism can be corrected, socialism cannot.

Spidey wrote:No, it’s not wrong…all of the faults in capitalism can be corrected by proper regulation…not so with socialism.

Edit:

It’s true both systems have systemic flaws, I probably should have worded that differently.

The difference is capitalism can be corrected, socialism cannot.

why not? As noted, a truly decent modern system incorporates both systems into an overall political/economic model.

Bernie isn't trusted:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ns/477045/

...although I would question their support of Trump as well.

Socialism and capitalism cannot be melded because the two systems are diametrically opposed, ask any true socialist, and they will tell you socialism must “replace” capitalism.

Now a redistribution/welfare state can be combined with regulated capitalism to make a working system.

See you kind of forced me back into the semantic debate, so using socialism to mean a redistribution system, then yes, you would be correct.

But I was speaking to the OP context of socialism here.

So yes, pseudo socialism can work combined with capitalism, provided you don’t use too much, because we already have evidence of the inherent problem with socialism, showing its ugly head.

I’m wondering why nobody has asked me what inherent problem I am talking about. It has been recognized by most people including progressives. The problem was studied to death with the USSR, and it’s still seen in socialist countries to this day.

You kinda asked the question, but chose to load it as well, so I have answered the loaded part.

Spidey wrote:No, it’s not wrong…all of the faults in capitalism can be corrected by proper regulation…not so with socialism.

Edit:

It’s true both systems have systemic flaws, I probably should have worded that differently.

The difference is capitalism can be corrected, socialism cannot.

BS. This is why so many Americans are deluded by what they think is a system that's the best in the world. Krom summarized it best, either system can be corrupted by those in power. Neither system has a lock on angelic behavior. All systems are run by greedy humans. Elect a Republican as president, and what remains of those nice financial regulations will be out the door and those who are powerful in our capitalistic system will reap even more tax rewards while heaping most of the debt on the middle class and poor.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... -on-taxes/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/j ... regulation

http://thehill.com/regulation/250522-re ... gop-debate

Just because something is not fixed, doesn’t mean it can’t be.

Same with ANY system. The best systems adapt by incorporating the best working ideas from many systems, not just ONE system. Hybrid systems are more adaptable because they can easily respond to change. One ideology will always eventually topple under it's own weight, because by it nature, it craves continuity and momentum and is thus resistant to changing direction. Unfortunately, our current form of capitalism will either eventually fail under the weight of it's own abuses and bloat, or be brought down by angry revolution of people that want out from under it's thumb, and not just in this country either.

And what makes you think one corruptible system can fix another?

Because they have different strengths and weaknesses and can compliment one another.

So the result becomes incorruptible?

Did anyone ever claim it would?

Tc’s premise is that any system’s main problem is its corruptibility, so how do you fix that problem by combining one corruptible system with another corruptible system.

Seems more logical to fix the corruption issue instead.

My original point was that socialism has a flaw that cannot be fixed, that problem has nothing to do with corruption, which was a sidetrack made by tc.

Tc called BS on my premise because capitalism is being corrupted, but my point had nothing to do with the fact that any system can be corrupted.

Spidey wrote:Tc’s premise is that any system’s main problem is its corruptibility, so how do you fix that problem by combining one corruptible system with another corruptible system.

The trick is combining three or more corruptible systems.

Wow, you’re a freakin genius…who knew.

Spidey wrote:Wow, you’re a freakin genius…who knew.

It's how our government is set up. Checks and balances.

Are you sitting down, because I hate to break it to you, but…it’s not working.

Don’t believe me…just ask tc, and if I recall correctly, wasn’t it you that said “business owns the government” unless you don’t consider that a form of corruption.