Which is better capitalism or socialism?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, you are not well educated on this topic, you should stop posting:


How many millions starved to death under Stalin? 3 -5 million during the Holodomor?
How many millions starved to death during Mao's great leap forward? 30-40 million?
How many people are dying in North Korea?


These are not socialist countries. Stalin and Mao were COMMUNISTS. Kim is a dictator. His country isn't a functioning anything. Not capitalist, not socialist, no even really communist, it is chaos.

This is what happens when you have dictators instead of democracy. Ahem.

Clearly a Bernie Sanders supporter. What’s the different between socialism and democratic socialism?…….Nothing.

Um, everything. At their very core. Democratic socialism doesn't actually seek government-owned enterprises, rather to retain private ownership but tax/subsidize the hell out of them to achieve policy goals.

If you don't understand this very basic, 101 thing, maybe you should sit out the rest of the discussion as it's obviously over your head.

You’re living in a govt controlled fantasyland. If you’re going to tax/subsidize and overregulate the hell of them like Democrats do, the incentive to start businesses, invest, innovate, etc will decrease significantly. Poof….lots of taxpaying jobs that could have been never happen. Please try to understand basic 101 economic theory as well as the history of the world. Start with what occurred with Sweden’s economy when they deregulated their economy, lowered taxes, passed business friendly laws, etc.

Toots, I suspect the difference between us (besides my superior intellect compared to yours) is that I have ACTUALLY HAVE LIVED in countries like this (New Zealand, Sweden, Germany). And you couldn't be more wrong.

Most Democratic Socialist countries are highly entrepreneurial. Mainly because workers aren't tied to jobs because they need health insurance.

Sorry go re-educate yourself and revisit those countries. I’ve lived abroad in Europe as well. All those countries you listed have capitalist economies. Please try to keep up. You’re embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which is better, capitalism or socialism? Gee, what a novel question – I don’t think humans have ever considered that one.

If only there were some data we could look at — like if there were some country that went from not existing to being the most prosperous in the history of the world in the span of 100 years — maybe then we could look to see how they did it and which economic system they used.

Are you trying to reference the US? We weren’t even close to the most prosperous in the world by 1876.

Yes, we were. By 1876, the US was the wealthiest nation on a per capita basis, though the British Empire was still wealthier in absolute terms since it was larger. By the start of WWI in 1914, the US was the wealthiest overall, even allowing for the larger size of the British Empire.

Think about that - from not existing to the most prosperous ever in 100 years! That's the power of capitalism.

Due to capitalism? Or slavery? That was made on the backs of enslaved people. And you have no way of disentangling that from your analysis.

The Romans had slaves, the Mongols had slaves, the Brits had slaves, etc. of all races. We should go back and ask them all for reparations. Fortunately we evolved as the human race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which is better, capitalism or socialism? Gee, what a novel question – I don’t think humans have ever considered that one.

If only there were some data we could look at — like if there were some country that went from not existing to being the most prosperous in the history of the world in the span of 100 years — maybe then we could look to see how they did it and which economic system they used.

Are you trying to reference the US? We weren’t even close to the most prosperous in the world by 1876.

Yes, we were. By 1876, the US was the wealthiest nation on a per capita basis, though the British Empire was still wealthier in absolute terms since it was larger. By the start of WWI in 1914, the US was the wealthiest overall, even allowing for the larger size of the British Empire.

Think about that - from not existing to the most prosperous ever in 100 years! That's the power of capitalism.

Due to capitalism? Or slavery? That was made on the backs of enslaved people. And you have no way of disentangling that from your analysis.

The Romans had slaves, the Mongols had slaves, the Brits had slaves, etc. of all races. We should go back and ask them all for reparations. Fortunately we evolved as the human race.

Defensive much? You just brought up reparations out of nowhere. If someone touts the greatness of the Roman/Mongol/British empires the analysis should account for what went into it before you conclude it's great. Same for us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m very worried about the direction of our country. There seems to be an accelerating drift toward socialism with the forced distribution of wealth. The famous quote about socialism working until you run out of other people’s money keeps coming to mind. What are people’s thoughts on this?

My thought is....is there someone with too much time on their hands starting all these threads just to get people riled up for their own entertainment? Or is someone or some organization funding an effort to go on various popular message and discussion boards and start threads to get people riled up to increase the perception of strong political divides, reduce confidence in the government, and generally contribute to the negative climate in the US?

There was a great podcast posted last week here in the Money forum. The take-away as it applies to this thread is that 70% of Americans are basically centrist and want to get along. But there is 15% extremists on the left and 15% extremists on the right who live in an echo chamber of their own beliefs and are highly vocal and demonizing, making the 70% fearful of speaking out. This makes the country seem more divided than it is.

I don't see how that can be true when somehow the 15%managed to get rid of my daughter's abortion rights.

, forgive student loans with taxpayer money for individuals who signed an individual contract to pay the loans back, printed trillions of dollars resulting in runaway inflation, allow rampant crime to explode with little legal repercussions, attempt to ban gas stoves, provide free health care to illegal aliens, etc etc

Back up your claims.

Who printed the money? PPP and ERTC was approved under Trump, right? Did you or your employer take this money? Not that I think it was the wrong thing to do. But yes it has consequences.
Who is banning gas stoves? BANNING. link?
Free health care to illegals? How do tax payers pay for that. link?
Open border? Who just tanked the border legislation?
Crime is trending down. https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/p00099/nypd-january-2024-citywide-crime-statistics

You just spew hate talking points with no research behind your mental diarrhea because you come from a place of fear and hate, not reason and facts.

Biden officials PROPOSED to ban gas stoves to cow tow to the climate activists. Well know fact. Just see the well circulated video of VP Harris standing in front of her gas stoves telling all of us we can’t have one.https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/13/house-passes-bill-block-gas-stove-ban-00100492

Free health care to illegals — go visit an ER in a major city. Liberal California govt just passed legislation to provide minimum health care to illegals because it would be cheaper than them going to an ER.https://apnews.com/article/health-california-immigration-gavin-newsom-medicaid-b09edcb2b89ab041b520f431f8aab4b6

Open Border - you clearly haven’t been paying attention if you were not aware of the millions of illegal aliens who have entered the country in the first 3 years of the Biden administration in an effort to fundamentally change the demographics of the country to keep Dems in power. The legislation you were referred to just happened in the last two months. What’s your excuse for the first 3 years of this disastrous Presidency?

Crime —- you posted a link from an ultra liberal city that is on the defensive because people and businesses are moving out (also due to ridiculous tax rates). Here’s a link referring to San Francisco. https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/03/politics/san-francisco-crime-rate-what-matters/index.html

1) We probably SHOULD ban gas stoves. They're dangerous and cause cancer. I'm not really sure how you fools made this a partisan issue. Yeah, yeah, yeah, you want your "rights" but when your rights infringe on my safety and my wallet, screw your "rights."

2) I love that you want to keep illegal immigrants sick. You really want the cook at the restaurant you frequent to have untreated hepatitis? YOU DO YOU.

3) Biden doesn't have an "open border" policy. That's just a lie, especially given the completely invented bullshit about trying to deliberately change the demographics of the country. Also, by all accounts, Biden's presidency has been extraordinarily successful. Just this week he was ranked 18th among all presidents. You know who was dead last? His predecessor.

4) Crime is down across the country. In nearly all major cities. I have no idea what you're prattling on about, but your fear narrative around crime is bloody hysterical. But by all means, run on it in 2024. It sure netted you wins in 2023's Virginia elections. LOL

Note the key word you cite….”illegal”. Come to our country legally. Their first action was to break the law.

I really don't GIVE A SHIT. They're here, they're doing jobs Americans don't want to do, they're paying taxes including FICA when they'll never get benefits, and in many cases they're fixing my food in restaurants. I want them to be healthy. Why you don't is beyond me.

Your stupidity is breathtaking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, you are not well educated on this topic, you should stop posting:


How many millions starved to death under Stalin? 3 -5 million during the Holodomor?
How many millions starved to death during Mao's great leap forward? 30-40 million?
How many people are dying in North Korea?


These are not socialist countries. Stalin and Mao were COMMUNISTS. Kim is a dictator. His country isn't a functioning anything. Not capitalist, not socialist, no even really communist, it is chaos.

This is what happens when you have dictators instead of democracy. Ahem.

Clearly a Bernie Sanders supporter. What’s the different between socialism and democratic socialism?…….Nothing.

Um, everything. At their very core. Democratic socialism doesn't actually seek government-owned enterprises, rather to retain private ownership but tax/subsidize the hell out of them to achieve policy goals.

If you don't understand this very basic, 101 thing, maybe you should sit out the rest of the discussion as it's obviously over your head.

You’re living in a govt controlled fantasyland. If you’re going to tax/subsidize and overregulate the hell of them like Democrats do, the incentive to start businesses, invest, innovate, etc will decrease significantly. Poof….lots of taxpaying jobs that could have been never happen. Please try to understand basic 101 economic theory as well as the history of the world. Start with what occurred with Sweden’s economy when they deregulated their economy, lowered taxes, passed business friendly laws, etc.

Toots, I suspect the difference between us (besides my superior intellect compared to yours) is that I have ACTUALLY HAVE LIVED in countries like this (New Zealand, Sweden, Germany). And you couldn't be more wrong.

Most Democratic Socialist countries are highly entrepreneurial. Mainly because workers aren't tied to jobs because they need health insurance.

Sorry go re-educate yourself and revisit those countries. I’ve lived abroad in Europe as well. All those countries you listed have capitalist economies. Please try to keep up. You’re embarrassing yourself.

More stupidity. I mean, did you go to Trump University or something?

Democratic Socialism HAVE CAPITALIST ECONOMIES, YOU MORONIC DUMBASS. THAT IS THE POINT.

I realize RWNJs are programmed to be afraid of everything, but you really have glommed onto that "s" word, haven't you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, hope your kids aren't in public school, and I really hope you don't plan on Social Security or Medicare. Please don't take unemployment benefits, or complain about potholes. Don't engage in anything that has federal funding, please, which includes higher ed, the arts, medical advances from research.

It's all a one sided understanding with you types, but you're the first to complain about inflation, right? We have inflation due to corporate gouging- they got bail outs and turned around and took advantage of the system by raising prices.
. It's not even capitalism we have, it's a
system of oligarchy.

Our nation has the very rich, supported by tax cuts and benefits, but also we have people literally starving on the street and dying from a lack of health care access. So is this the question you really want to ask today?

You are confused. Capitalism doesn’t mean don’t pay any taxes at all. Certain socialist services are necessary for a functioning capitalist society. And by the way the wealthiest 50% pay most of the taxes in this country so how is it that the wealthy aren’t paying their fair share. But paying taxes so someone’s student debt can be canceled when they alone agreed to their loan is not what capitalists had in mind (unless you want to buy votes). Or paying for illegal aliens’ health care for that matter.

See this is where a compromise could be good. I don't want to pay off someone's student loans either. But why can't we have a (gasp) government program where we give interest free loans for behaviors we want to encourage? Like getting our populace educated. Maybe even incentivize them to study things we need and want more of like science and tech?

As for healthcare, I know illegals don't qualify for any official healthcare plans, so are you talking about people who go to ERs then skip out on the bill? Also, I hope you are not Christian because the whole "care for the poor and sick" thing could create some real cognitive dissonance for you.

I’m Christian. Capitalism, despite its flaws, has moved more people out of poverty and provided health care to more people worldwide than any economic system ever created. Good thing for you is those weight loss drugs would never have been created without Capitalism and free markets.

Can you cite any evidence whatsoever that capitalism has moved more people out of poverty and provided health care? China was one of the 10 poorest countries in the world in 1949 and look at it now. I'm no fan of China but it does show you what can be achieved when you force that sort of system on people and repress individual rights for the 'common good'.

China has a merchantilist / capitalistic economic system with very inefficient state-run industries along actual capitalistic companies. Of course rampant IP theft, currency manipulation, opaque commerce laws that favor domestic companies, requirements for joint ventures with a Chinese company to do business there (and thereby provide another means for IP theft), trade barriers and tariffs, low but quickly rising manufacturing wages etc sure have helped the Chinese economy. Of course it’s America’s capitalistic economy that made China what it is today economically. US corporations shipped millions of manufacturing jobs there the last 3 decades in order to boost profits and provide cheap products for the Anerican consumer.

You make some good points. But I have some questions.

Firstly, if you look at the true definition of communism, are there any actual communist countries? If not, I’m not sure what is the point of this discussion.

Secondly, while US demand has driven much of the economic growth, you draw attention to a number of measures including tariffs and trade barriers, heavy government regulation favouring domestic companies, etc. I’d add in state subsidisation of industries like EVs and solar power. These definitely aren’t a feature of the free market, but of government control. Does this suggest that ‘controlled capitalism’ might be more effective than pure capitalism?

Thirdly, everyone points out the ‘success stories’ of capitalism but nobody talks about the failures. How about those kids slugging it out in unregulated cobalt mines in the Congo or 12 year olds working in garment sweatshops in Bangladesh? Sure capitalism has given them jobs but that doesn’t feel like a great success story.

Finally, why doesn’t anybody point to success stories that are not pure capitalism? Australia had uninterrupted economic growth for 30 years (admittedly foundering now) and ranks more highly than the US on many non-economic measures like life expectancy, literacy, and even happiness. Yet it has a national Medicare system (as well as private insurance), almost all universities are state-owned, and taxes are much higher. It spends $6,500 per capita on healthcare vs $12,500 in the US with better health outcomes like life expectancy. To become a doctor, you take out about $70-80,000 loans for tuition fees and these are indexed at the CPI and there is no interest. So which is better? Capitalism or communism….or maybe something in between?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which is better, capitalism or socialism? Gee, what a novel question – I don’t think humans have ever considered that one.

If only there were some data we could look at — like if there were some country that went from not existing to being the most prosperous in the history of the world in the span of 100 years — maybe then we could look to see how they did it and which economic system they used.

Are you trying to reference the US? We weren’t even close to the most prosperous in the world by 1876.

Yes, we were. By 1876, the US was the wealthiest nation on a per capita basis, though the British Empire was still wealthier in absolute terms since it was larger. By the start of WWI in 1914, the US was the wealthiest overall, even allowing for the larger size of the British Empire.

Think about that - from not existing to the most prosperous ever in 100 years! That's the power of capitalism.

That's the power of slavery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you even read the articles before you post them?

The article you tout about gas stoves states: "even though there are no federal proposals to outright prohibit the sale of gas stoves under consideration"

Not going to bother with the rest of your post, you are not worth engaging with any further.

There were proposals by this administration but they got canned. Now go crawl back under your WaPo rock.

No they did not. Post a link to where they proposed a ban on gas stoves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which is better, capitalism or socialism? Gee, what a novel question – I don’t think humans have ever considered that one.

If only there were some data we could look at — like if there were some country that went from not existing to being the most prosperous in the history of the world in the span of 100 years — maybe then we could look to see how they did it and which economic system they used.

Are you trying to reference the US? We weren’t even close to the most prosperous in the world by 1876.

Yes, we were. By 1876, the US was the wealthiest nation on a per capita basis, though the British Empire was still wealthier in absolute terms since it was larger. By the start of WWI in 1914, the US was the wealthiest overall, even allowing for the larger size of the British Empire.

Think about that - from not existing to the most prosperous ever in 100 years! That's the power of capitalism.

Due to capitalism? Or slavery? That was made on the backs of enslaved people. And you have no way of disentangling that from your analysis.

The Romans had slaves, the Mongols had slaves, the Brits had slaves, etc. of all races. We should go back and ask them all for reparations. Fortunately we evolved as the human race.

Why are you pivoting to a non sequitur about reparations? This thread is about capitalism and socialism. When a poster points out how successful our first hundred years of capitalism were, one must take a free labor force into account. Duh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which is better, capitalism or socialism? Gee, what a novel question – I don’t think humans have ever considered that one.

If only there were some data we could look at — like if there were some country that went from not existing to being the most prosperous in the history of the world in the span of 100 years — maybe then we could look to see how they did it and which economic system they used.

Are you trying to reference the US? We weren’t even close to the most prosperous in the world by 1876.

Yes, we were. By 1876, the US was the wealthiest nation on a per capita basis, though the British Empire was still wealthier in absolute terms since it was larger. By the start of WWI in 1914, the US was the wealthiest overall, even allowing for the larger size of the British Empire.

Think about that - from not existing to the most prosperous ever in 100 years! That's the power of capitalism.

Due to capitalism? Or slavery? That was made on the backs of enslaved people. And you have no way of disentangling that from your analysis.

The Romans had slaves, the Mongols had slaves, the Brits had slaves, etc. of all races. We should go back and ask them all for reparations. Fortunately we evolved as the human race.

Defensive much? You just brought up reparations out of nowhere. If someone touts the greatness of the Roman/Mongol/British empires the analysis should account for what went into it before you conclude it's great. Same for us.

I haven’t seen Democrats this defensive since they lost the ability to have slaves after the 13th Amendment was passed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which is better, capitalism or socialism? Gee, what a novel question – I don’t think humans have ever considered that one.

If only there were some data we could look at — like if there were some country that went from not existing to being the most prosperous in the history of the world in the span of 100 years — maybe then we could look to see how they did it and which economic system they used.

Are you trying to reference the US? We weren’t even close to the most prosperous in the world by 1876.

Yes, we were. By 1876, the US was the wealthiest nation on a per capita basis, though the British Empire was still wealthier in absolute terms since it was larger. By the start of WWI in 1914, the US was the wealthiest overall, even allowing for the larger size of the British Empire.

Think about that - from not existing to the most prosperous ever in 100 years! That's the power of capitalism.

Due to capitalism? Or slavery? That was made on the backs of enslaved people. And you have no way of disentangling that from your analysis.

The Romans had slaves, the Mongols had slaves, the Brits had slaves, etc. of all races. We should go back and ask them all for reparations. Fortunately we evolved as the human race.

Defensive much? You just brought up reparations out of nowhere. If someone touts the greatness of the Roman/Mongol/British empires the analysis should account for what went into it before you conclude it's great. Same for us.

I haven’t seen Democrats this defensive since they lost the ability to have slaves after the 13th Amendment was passed.

Yep, all those blue states that lost their slaves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which is better, capitalism or socialism? Gee, what a novel question – I don’t think humans have ever considered that one.

If only there were some data we could look at — like if there were some country that went from not existing to being the most prosperous in the history of the world in the span of 100 years — maybe then we could look to see how they did it and which economic system they used.

Are you trying to reference the US? We weren’t even close to the most prosperous in the world by 1876.

Yes, we were. By 1876, the US was the wealthiest nation on a per capita basis, though the British Empire was still wealthier in absolute terms since it was larger. By the start of WWI in 1914, the US was the wealthiest overall, even allowing for the larger size of the British Empire.

Think about that - from not existing to the most prosperous ever in 100 years! That's the power of capitalism.

Due to capitalism? Or slavery? That was made on the backs of enslaved people. And you have no way of disentangling that from your analysis.

The Romans had slaves, the Mongols had slaves, the Brits had slaves, etc. of all races. We should go back and ask them all for reparations. Fortunately we evolved as the human race.

Defensive much? You just brought up reparations out of nowhere. If someone touts the greatness of the Roman/Mongol/British empires the analysis should account for what went into it before you conclude it's great. Same for us.

I haven’t seen Democrats this defensive since they lost the ability to have slaves after the 13th Amendment was passed.

It is sad that you are so dumb that you think this is some kind of gotcha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which is better, capitalism or socialism? Gee, what a novel question – I don’t think humans have ever considered that one.

If only there were some data we could look at — like if there were some country that went from not existing to being the most prosperous in the history of the world in the span of 100 years — maybe then we could look to see how they did it and which economic system they used.

Are you trying to reference the US? We weren’t even close to the most prosperous in the world by 1876.

Yes, we were. By 1876, the US was the wealthiest nation on a per capita basis, though the British Empire was still wealthier in absolute terms since it was larger. By the start of WWI in 1914, the US was the wealthiest overall, even allowing for the larger size of the British Empire.

Think about that - from not existing to the most prosperous ever in 100 years! That's the power of capitalism.

Due to capitalism? Or slavery? That was made on the backs of enslaved people. And you have no way of disentangling that from your analysis.

The Romans had slaves, the Mongols had slaves, the Brits had slaves, etc. of all races. We should go back and ask them all for reparations. Fortunately we evolved as the human race.

Defensive much? You just brought up reparations out of nowhere. If someone touts the greatness of the Roman/Mongol/British empires the analysis should account for what went into it before you conclude it's great. Same for us.

I haven’t seen Democrats this defensive since they lost the ability to have slaves after the 13th Amendment was passed.

It is sad that you are so dumb that you think this is some kind of gotcha.

I think it's a real tell that all the "great success of capitalism" are built on atrocities. That poster is clearly scared to look into that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, hope your kids aren't in public school, and I really hope you don't plan on Social Security or Medicare. Please don't take unemployment benefits, or complain about potholes. Don't engage in anything that has federal funding, please, which includes higher ed, the arts, medical advances from research.

It's all a one sided understanding with you types, but you're the first to complain about inflation, right? We have inflation due to corporate gouging- they got bail outs and turned around and took advantage of the system by raising prices.
. It's not even capitalism we have, it's a
system of oligarchy.

Our nation has the very rich, supported by tax cuts and benefits, but also we have people literally starving on the street and dying from a lack of health care access. So is this the question you really want to ask today?

You are confused. Capitalism doesn’t mean don’t pay any taxes at all. Certain socialist services are necessary for a functioning capitalist society. And by the way the wealthiest 50% pay most of the taxes in this country so how is it that the wealthy aren’t paying their fair share. But paying taxes so someone’s student debt can be canceled when they alone agreed to their loan is not what capitalists had in mind (unless you want to buy votes). Or paying for illegal aliens’ health care for that matter.

See this is where a compromise could be good. I don't want to pay off someone's student loans either. But why can't we have a (gasp) government program where we give interest free loans for behaviors we want to encourage? Like getting our populace educated. Maybe even incentivize them to study things we need and want more of like science and tech?

As for healthcare, I know illegals don't qualify for any official healthcare plans, so are you talking about people who go to ERs then skip out on the bill? Also, I hope you are not Christian because the whole "care for the poor and sick" thing could create some real cognitive dissonance for you.

I’m Christian. Capitalism, despite its flaws, has moved more people out of poverty and provided health care to more people worldwide than any economic system ever created. Good thing for you is those weight loss drugs would never have been created without Capitalism and free markets.

Those drugs would absolutely have been created...but what's interesting is that you are fine with a Danish company (Novo Nordisk) extracting massive profits by selling those drugs in the US at prices that are probably 50x what they are allowed to sell in Denmark.

I don't think there should be price controls on drugs...but there should be Most Favored Nation pricing which is very common in many industries. Basically, you either sell the drug for the same price to everyone, or you need to sell the drug for the lowest price that you are willing to sell it in any other 1st world country (we will exempt 2nd and 3rd world countries).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, you are not well educated on this topic, you should stop posting:


How many millions starved to death under Stalin? 3 -5 million during the Holodomor?
How many millions starved to death during Mao's great leap forward? 30-40 million?
How many people are dying in North Korea?


These are not socialist countries. Stalin and Mao were COMMUNISTS. Kim is a dictator. His country isn't a functioning anything. Not capitalist, not socialist, no even really communist, it is chaos.

This is what happens when you have dictators instead of democracy. Ahem.

Clearly a Bernie Sanders supporter. What’s the different between socialism and democratic socialism?…….Nothing.

Um, everything. At their very core. Democratic socialism doesn't actually seek government-owned enterprises, rather to retain private ownership but tax/subsidize the hell out of them to achieve policy goals.

If you don't understand this very basic, 101 thing, maybe you should sit out the rest of the discussion as it's obviously over your head.

You’re living in a govt controlled fantasyland. If you’re going to tax/subsidize and overregulate the hell of them like Democrats do, the incentive to start businesses, invest, innovate, etc will decrease significantly. Poof….lots of taxpaying jobs that could have been never happen. Please try to understand basic 101 economic theory as well as the history of the world. Start with what occurred with Sweden’s economy when they deregulated their economy, lowered taxes, passed business friendly laws, etc.

Toots, I suspect the difference between us (besides my superior intellect compared to yours) is that I have ACTUALLY HAVE LIVED in countries like this (New Zealand, Sweden, Germany). And you couldn't be more wrong.

Most Democratic Socialist countries are highly entrepreneurial. Mainly because workers aren't tied to jobs because they need health insurance.

Sorry go re-educate yourself and revisit those countries. I’ve lived abroad in Europe as well. All those countries you listed have capitalist economies. Please try to keep up. You’re embarrassing yourself.

More stupidity. I mean, did you go to Trump University or something?

Democratic Socialism HAVE CAPITALIST ECONOMIES, YOU MORONIC DUMBASS. THAT IS THE POINT.

I realize RWNJs are programmed to be afraid of everything, but you really have glommed onto that "s" word, haven't you?

Please take your meds.