Ocasio-Cortez cardboard

Or even the most basic of economics...

Worse, she did study economics.

Must have failed.

Maybe she worked her way through the classes on her knees...

Trumpers are just sooo intimidated by strong women, aren't you?

Not really. She shows her ignorance of her college field by supporting socialism, which is financially destitute.

Except that Socialism is non-existent in American politics.

*breath in*

no

America's politics leans much more to the right than any other Western country, with the result that you don't have a left wing party.
And that most things labelled "socialist" in the US are not socialist. Universal healthcare, for example.

It's called socialized medicine though...

EVERY developed country has universal healthcare EXCEPT the USA, where you have to choose between bankruptcy and dying. And these are often countries more free and democratic than the US, and definitely not "socialist".

But yet the US is the richest and most developed.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/developed-countries

*Me trying to figure out how on earth that's relevant*

Nope, Qatar is the richest. You rank 11th.

https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/richest-countries-in-the-world

You don't even make the top 10 developed countries.

I would like you to tell me what source you got that from

Because Qatar has a GDP of 183 million which seems like a lot until you take into account the United States 32 trillion

The first article is ranking richness on international dollar which describes the amount of spending money they have compared to the US dollar which is not how you compare how rich a country is, GDP is. Also if you want to hand over the reigns to the government to decide what happens be my guest but when the bureaucrats get nothing done don't come crying back to me.

Only by Republican fear mongers.

You do realize America's government system is not a democracy right?

Socialism is flawed, but a basic living fee is probably the best system. It combines the better parts of both

Hahahaha says the leftists that derides every conservative woman that speaks.

Is that what you're Jack Henoff to?

Congratulations Montresor. You have made me laugh so hard i feel like my gut might explode. That is one extra follower for you

Why do I care if you can have children or not.

Looks like you're gonna have to adopt.

Your the one that’s snipped.

No, you!

She didn't even know the three branches of government when she became a representative

Is that kinda like Trump thinking there was a Department of the Environmental (the DEP)? https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-doesnt-know-basic-things-about-our-government_n_57068186e4b053766188e566

I bet you guys think trickle down economics is amazing

OP hayes socialism despite being a poor slob who would benefit immensely from socialism. Sad. Truly f**kin sad

I hayes socialism too. No one benefits from socialism immensely except the elites. The rest are slaves.

Seal of Approval - 4z05qo.jpg (click to show) Upvoted!

... except that she's not a socialist, nor is Sanders or ANY elected American official or major political party.

:/

Just a fact.

she's an idiot

According to Webster, "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

I have PayPal. Message below with your info and I'll take the $5 happily.

wait a minute, that's socialism? why does everyone get so frothy in the pants about it? also I was joking about the $5. SORRY!

Cheapskate.

Socialism cannot work because what happens is instead of the community owning everything through private property, the central planning apparatus that runs the economy (the government) always winds up viewing the people as subjects. Then it becomes tyranny. Look at the USSR, Venezuela, and Cuba. All of those were centrally planned socialist or communist economies. None of them succeeded.

Why is this? Simple. Socialism fails to take into account human nature. We are greedy MOFO's, and like to get as much power and wealth as possible. For those of us without morals, and sadly there are many, it is no great trick to worm into power in a centrally planned (socialistic) economy. At that point it becomes the tyranny I mentioned before.

Interesting.I'm going to attempt to have a real debate with you so please take into consideration what I am about to say. Socialism is not a central component to any government. In fact, democracy and capitalism depend on certain aspects of socialism. Also it isn't the socialism that failed, it was human nature that failed. Capitalism and democracy, without socialism is also tyranny.

I appreciate your commitment to civility. That's rare here. :)

Now, to business. The core difference between capitalism and socialism is that capitalism utilizes human greed and runs off market-based interactions between private property owners. That reliance on greed is its strength; if someone want something that someone else has, and there is a market to facilitate legal trade, then they will negotiate a mutually beneficial deal.

Socialism on the other hand disavows, either to a large degree or entirely, markets. Instead it emphasizes that 'everyone owns everything', and that the common good should be the goal of everyone. Directing the work of the populace is an entity of some sort, ensuring that whatever society needs is being made. This is the ideal system, because it would mean everyone is being selfless and helping others, but we know that most people are not selfless. Like I said, it is inevitable that pure socialism becomes a dictatorship. So yes, you are correct that human nature, and not the theoretical system, is the problem. However, something working only in theory is a rather large problem that we cannot surmount on any practical level, and therefore is not worth trying to defend (IMO).

Now, you noted that we utilize aspects of socialism today, and that unchecked capitalism can also become tyranny (presumably through monopolies). There again you are correct. We are not a purely capitalistic laissez-faire (Free hand) economy, but a mixed one with free capitalistic markets and socialistic education and welfare programs (welfare is, after all, a redistribution of formerly private property in the form of money). This is not inherently a bad thing. In fact, I think our fusion of free markets and private property with basic social programs is a good thing and a large part of why America is the best country on earth.

My primary argument against socialism, the fact that it can't work as a national system because of human nature, has been beaten to death at this point. I'll leave you with these thoughts and see what you think.

wow you know stuff, we can have a debate about facts. So rare. I have heard a lot of people talking shit about socialism and have not yet come across anyone who knows what the words even mean! Thats why I usually just talk shit until people go away.

Now, I understand pretty much everything you said, but America is vulnerable to the same failures of human nature that any past government is socialist or not. The other thing I'm not clear on is you are comparing socialism and capitalism as if they are a forms of government and not components of a government. Would you agree then, that a healthy democracy depends on a balance of certain aspects of capitalism and socialism?

You're welcome. I enjoy constructive dialogue and have muted most of the political trolls here, so it's always good to have a wholesome conversation so long as we agree to disagree.

Correct, America is human and humans can fail. That's just a given.

The reason I compared them as if they were forms of government is that a government tends to be reflected by its economics, or vice versa. If you have a centrally planned (socialist) government, then you have to have a large and powerful central government to manage the economy. If you have a market-based economy, then your government will be smaller and less intrusive (because it doesn't control what people decide to do with the economy, it merely enforces laws to ensure that markets are fair by busting monopolies, etc).

In answer to your question at the end, then yes I do. A purely market-based economy is actually inefficient and has never been adopted by any country. What most capitalistic economies do is have a government (in the case of the U.S, a democratically elected one) to ensure that there are markets that are fair and free from monopolies and such. Then the government will 'dip its toes into the water' and use tax money to help push the economy in certain places. For example, the U.S Federal government has been massively subsidizing corn production in the U.S for years and years. The markets left alone would not make so much corn, but we use it for a lot of things and the Feds want to ensure the U.S is a player in the corn market. The government is setting a production target and incentivising it with money, which is a soft form of central planning. That is not how capitalism is supposed to work and is closer to socialism's centrally-planned nature, but it is good for the U.S.

Did any of that make sense?