I don’t understand why republicans are so selective about the definition of socialism

[Andylusion]

But do you not see that you yourself are falling for the same "No True Scotsman" fallacy?

You are claiming that El Salvador is not socialist despite clear evidence that it is. You do realize that government confiscated thousands of acres of land, and redistributed them to peasants? How do you take people's capital, give it to people who haven't earned it... and call that Capitalist?

It did this because the US pressured them to do it.

They didn't abolish private enterprise, MOST of the land is owned by a few landowners, and the country is basically designed to provide consumer goods to the US.

You just aren't very smart, are you?

Let us even say that you are right, and there is evidence that the US supported land confiscation and redistribution. In fact, let us even suggest that the US created the entire policy. And let us even say that the US pressured the country to adopt the policy.

What part of that, changes anything I said? None of it does. Socialism, is socialism whether the US promotes the policy or not.

Taking land from land owners, and redistributing it to other people, is socialism, whether the US supports it or not.

The US supporting something, does not magically make it capitalist. If China decided to nationalize all the steel companies in the entire country, and the US supported this.... that wouldn't magically make nationalizing companies, a capitalist policy.

So none of that matter. The bottom line is, a socialist policy, and many other socialist policies across El Salvador, are socialist in nature, whether the US had anything to do with it or not.

From each according to their ability, and to each according to their need, is socialist. Taking land from those who have, to give land to those who have not, is a terrible system, that rarely has a positive outcome. It didn't work in Venezuela, and it didn't work in El Salvador.

Did they abolish rich people and redistribute ALL the land? Or did they just redistribute SOME land? Sorry, man, El Salvador is a Capitalist paradise.

By that logic, there is no such thing as socialism. You realize that China had private farms? You realize that the Soviet Union had private farms?

In fact, even North Korea has private farms from what I understand.

Stop being ridiculous. Everyone everywhere, understands that electing a government that openly supports socialism, and having that government confiscate private property, and dole it out to people who did not earn or purchase it.... that's socialism to everyone with any cognitive ability.

If you are right now, trying to deny that, then all you are doing is indicating that you are simply not smart enough as a human being, to be involved in this discussion.

 

[Andylusion]

I wonder if any nation has a pure economy? Our economy has changed over the years and continues to change. That which seems to work best is some of each type, and we expand and contract each to fit our own particular needs and problems. Most Americans probably do not respond to the "fear" words that are used to frighten Americans into using an economic practice that is not good for America.

Well yes, it doesn't frighten Americans, but it should. Socialism has destroyed every single country that it has ever been instituted in.

How fast it destroys that nation, is entirely dependent on the level of socialism inflicted on the economy. But whether slow, or fast, it ends up destroying every single nation that tries it.

It required 70 years to destroy the Soviet Union, but it still destroyed it.
It required barely 2 decades to destroy Venezuela, but it still destroyed it.
It required 40 years to wipe out Greece, but it still wiped out Greece.

And every capitalist economy in the world, that still has significant socialist policies, all of them, without fail, have problems in their socialized areas.

Our economy is less capitalist than it was in the past. Nevertheless, it is still capitalist in nature. That doesn't change the fact the Social Security and Medicare have unfunded liabilities that top $122 Trillion dollars. An amount of money, that like Greece, will implode our nation if we continue on the socialist path.

 

[Andylusion]

Irrelevant. Toyota in the US, is non-union. Period. Doesn't matter what they do in Japan, anymore than it matters what GM in Japan does. General Motors Japan, Ltd in Japan, did not file bankruptcy in Japan. GM in the US did.

Most of Toyota is in Japan and Unionized.
Most of GM is in the US and failing, because of the greed of the corner offices.

Again comparing US unions to unions around the world, is not always a valid comparison. Unions in Germany for example, are very pro-business. They understand that without profits, and growth, the company fails, and everyone is unemployed. Thus don't attack management, and make ridiculous and unreasonable demands, and get the company closed like Hostess.

Uh, guy, if you are going to lie about Hostess, there's no point talking to you. Hostess went out of business because one Venture Capitalist firm after another looted it for years, with the INTENT of bankrupting it, selling off the assets and taking a profit.

Then you don't know what you are talking about, yet again.

Hostess went out of business, because of the Unions.

To doubt that, is ridiculous, because when they were liquidated, they were bought up and reopened as a non-union plant, and were profitable.

Your article while factually accurate on the numbers, is woefully lacking in comprehension. Yes, they had debt. No kidding. The question isn't did they have debt. Of course they had debt stupid... you don't go bankrupt if you don't have debt.

The question is, why did they have debt? The question isn't did they have Venture Capitalist firms. Of course they had Venture Capitalist firms, you idiot. That's what happens when your business is failing... you sell out to a Venture Capitalist firm.

Do you not know that the current owners of the profitable Hostess plant is a Venture Capitalist firm? So Venture Capitalist isn't the problem either.

The question is why did the original owners sell out Hostess to begin with? Because of the Unions. They sold off, because they looked at the numbers, looked at the union contracts, looked at the cost. They realized they were in a bad situation, and decided they wanted out.

Then the VC firms step in, try their best to turn the company around, and you whiny and cry about it, because you are ignorant and stupid.

The VC firm, setup a turn around plan, that was mathematically doable, and would turn the company profitable. They presented this to the Unions, with a clear statement, that this is what was required to succeed. They additionally said, very directly that if the Union refused to accept the turn-around plan, that the company would have no choice but to close.

The Unions refused, the plant was liquidated, and all the Union members were unemployed. The new owners reopened the plant with the exact same equipment... exact same products.... exact same trucks and distribution system. The only thing that was different, is the new Venture Capital firm said directly "Union need not apply". No Union was to be allowed in the plant.

And what a shock.... shock I say... Shock I proclaim! SHOCK I AM!..... It was profitable.

Sorry, but you are just ignorant sir. You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[JoeB131]

By that logic, there is no such thing as socialism. You realize that China had private farms? You realize that the Soviet Union had private farms?

You're right. There is no such thing as socialism or capitalism. There are just various shades of gray in between. El Salavdor is closer to capitalism than socialism.

Your article while factually accurate on the numbers, is woefully lacking in comprehension. Yes, they had debt. No kidding. The question isn't did they have debt. Of course they had debt stupid... you don't go bankrupt if you don't have debt.

The problem was, who they owed the Debt to. The various venture capital companies that swapped Hostess around ran up huge debts paying themselves and investors, and didn't invest in new equipment, and asked the workers to keep taking pay and benefit cuts to pay for it.

The VC firm, setup a turn around plan, that was mathematically doable, and would turn the company profitable. They presented this to the Unions, with a clear statement, that this is what was required to succeed. They additionally said, very directly that if the Union refused to accept the turn-around plan, that the company would have no choice but to close.

the VC companies looted the places, which is what they do. You don't take the huge profits before you "turn the company around", which is exactly what they did.

 

[JoeB131]

How fast it destroys that nation, is entirely dependent on the level of socialism inflicted on the economy. But whether slow, or fast, it ends up destroying every single nation that tries it.

It required 70 years to destroy the Soviet Union, but it still destroyed it.
It required barely 2 decades to destroy Venezuela, but it still destroyed it.
It required 40 years to wipe out Greece, but it still wiped out Greece.

I think your history is a little confused.

The USSR didn't fall because of "Communism". It fell because the 200 million NON-Russians didn't want to be ruled by Russians. The fall of the USSR is no more a failure of "Socialism" than the fall of the British Empire was a failure of "Capitalism".

Venezuela- we've been imposing economic sanctions on them for nearly 20 years now for picking a form of government we don't like and backed two coups. But you leave that part out.

For Greece, what wiped out Greece was that by joining the EU, it gave up it's own economic sovereignty, and Germany pretty much abused it. Normally, under the circumstances Greece had, they could devalue their currency and attract economic activity. But because they were stuck with the Euro and Germany pretty much screwed them at every opportunity, they were kind of stuck.

 

[dblack]

By that logic, there is no such thing as socialism. You realize that China had private farms? You realize that the Soviet Union had private farms?

You're right. There is no such thing as socialism or capitalism. There are just various shades of gray in between. El Salavdor is closer to capitalism than socialism.

So what? I mean, really - why is it SOOO important to liberals to frame it this way?

I actually think it's based on one of the many stories that Democrats are telling themselves lately about why voters are rejecting them. In this case, Democrats are convinced that the only reason voters cold possibly reject socialism is because they've seen too many Cold War movies. They can't conceive of the fact that lots of people have thought about socialism, soberly and rationally, and don't like it.

 

[Cellblock2429]

To them, it’s a completely leftwing ideology when in reality it’s been part of the framework of the country since the beginning. The founders had socialist ideas after all. They basically were leftists. It’s also stupid to say that communism and socialism are the same thing when in reality communism is simply an example of socialism. Socialism itself is a very broad term that can’t be defined simply.

Also, isn’t Trump the bigger socialist than Obama? His bailout to farmers was twice as big as Obama’s bailout. Are republicans going to pretend that isn’t socialism?

/----/ Be schooled, libtard.
"The goal of socialism is communism."- Vladimir Lenin
"We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us." - Vladimir Lenin
"One of the basic conditions for the victory of socialism is the arming of the workers Communist and the disarming of the bourgeoisie the middle class." - Vladimir Lenin
More for your edification: TOP 25 QUOTES BY VLADIMIR LENIN (of 246) | A-Z Quotes

 

[JoeB131]

So what? I mean, really - why is it SOOO important to liberals to frame it this way?

I actually think it's based on one of the many stories that Democrats are telling themselves lately about why voters are rejecting them. In this case, Democrats are convinced that the only reason voters cold possibly reject socialism is because they've seen too many Cold War movies. They can't conceive of the fact that lots of people have thought about socialism, soberly and rationally, and don't like it.

Yes, a lot of you have let the Koch Brothers convince you that you will be just like them if that damned government gets out of your way while they're poisoning your water supply.

 

[Andylusion]

By that logic, there is no such thing as socialism. You realize that China had private farms? You realize that the Soviet Union had private farms?

You're right. There is no such thing as socialism or capitalism. There are just various shades of gray in between. El Salavdor is closer to capitalism than socialism.

Your article while factually accurate on the numbers, is woefully lacking in comprehension. Yes, they had debt. No kidding. The question isn't did they have debt. Of course they had debt stupid... you don't go bankrupt if you don't have debt.

The problem was, who they owed the Debt to. The various venture capital companies that swapped Hostess around ran up huge debts paying themselves and investors, and didn't invest in new equipment, and asked the workers to keep taking pay and benefit cuts to pay for it.

The VC firm, setup a turn around plan, that was mathematically doable, and would turn the company profitable. They presented this to the Unions, with a clear statement, that this is what was required to succeed. They additionally said, very directly that if the Union refused to accept the turn-around plan, that the company would have no choice but to close.

the VC companies looted the places, which is what they do. You don't take the huge profits before you "turn the company around", which is exactly what they did.

The problem was, who they owed the Debt to. The various venture capital companies that swapped Hostess around ran up huge debts paying themselves and investors, and didn't invest in new equipment, and asked the workers to keep taking pay and benefit cuts to pay for it.

Again, you are skipping the question "why". If your claim is that the *ONLY* problem was the VC companies that ran up debt.... then you are indicating there was never a problem until the VCs got involved.

But there was a problem before any VC company was involved, and we know that because the owners sold out. Why did the original owners sell out to the VC companies?

Also, your claim about them not investing in new equipment, is a false implication.

You are implying that someone investing in new equipment, would have made it profitable. Wrong. The new company that is running Hostess right now, did not invest in any new equipment, and the plant was profitable from day 1.... just without Unions.

Second, the Unions themselves prevented investment in the plant.

What is the number one reason for investing in automation? To reduce the number of employees required to achieve production.

The Unions fought against that. They even prevent just getting rid of redundant drivers. If you don't know what that is about, the Unions had a contract the banned the delivery of multiple products with the same truck. Thus you needed two drivers, and two trucks, to deliver product to the same location.

When you have those Union contracts in place, why would you ever invest in new equipment? Well you wouldn't. It's that simple. You wouldn't.

 

[Andylusion]

So what? I mean, really - why is it SOOO important to liberals to frame it this way?

I actually think it's based on one of the many stories that Democrats are telling themselves lately about why voters are rejecting them. In this case, Democrats are convinced that the only reason voters cold possibly reject socialism is because they've seen too many Cold War movies. They can't conceive of the fact that lots of people have thought about socialism, soberly and rationally, and don't like it.

Yes, a lot of you have let the Koch Brothers convince you that you will be just like them if that damned government gets out of your way while they're poisoning your water supply.

Yeah, because they have stopped by my house, and told me about how I'll be just like them, while I watched them pour glowing green goo into the tap water....

You do know we have a section on the forum for conspiracy nuts, right?

 

[Andylusion]

How fast it destroys that nation, is entirely dependent on the level of socialism inflicted on the economy. But whether slow, or fast, it ends up destroying every single nation that tries it.

It required 70 years to destroy the Soviet Union, but it still destroyed it.
It required barely 2 decades to destroy Venezuela, but it still destroyed it.
It required 40 years to wipe out Greece, but it still wiped out Greece.

I think your history is a little confused.

The USSR didn't fall because of "Communism". It fell because the 200 million NON-Russians didn't want to be ruled by Russians. The fall of the USSR is no more a failure of "Socialism" than the fall of the British Empire was a failure of "Capitalism".

Venezuela- we've been imposing economic sanctions on them for nearly 20 years now for picking a form of government we don't like and backed two coups. But you leave that part out.

For Greece, what wiped out Greece was that by joining the EU, it gave up it's own economic sovereignty, and Germany pretty much abused it. Normally, under the circumstances Greece had, they could devalue their currency and attract economic activity. But because they were stuck with the Euro and Germany pretty much screwed them at every opportunity, they were kind of stuck.

No, you are wrong about nearly every single thing you wrote here.

The Soviet Union did not crash because non-russians wanted out. Russians themselves wanted out. I've read stories from inside Russia where people were killing their next door neighbor, in order to eat them... and then getting caught... intentionally... because they had a better chance of getting food in a Russian prison, than as a worker in the workers paradise.

No, you are full of ignorance. The Socialism failed... period. That's why there is no Soviet Union anymore. You can keep repeating your crap, but you are still wrong, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Additionally, you are wrong about Venezuela. No, the US didn't overthrow the Venezuelan government. No, you are wrong.

Further, you are wrong about the Sanctions being the cause of anything. The first sanctions the US imposed on, did not start until 2006. By 2003, there were food shortages across Venezuela. How do you claim that shortages in 2003, were caused by sanctions imposed in 2006?

Subscribe to read | Financial Times

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IF10715.pdf

Further, the first US sanctions were for Arms sales, because they were not cooperating with anti-terrorism laws.

Since 2006, the Secretary of State has made an annual determination that Venezuela is not “cooperating fully with United States anti-terrorism efforts” pursuant to Section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2781). The most recent determination was made in May 2019. As a result, the United States has prohibited all U.S. commercial arms sales and retransfers to Venezuela since 2006.​

Do tell... Please explain how preventing the sale of arms to Venezuela, resulted in mass shortages of food? We all know how farmers use automatic rifles to plant seeds.

The next big sanction was in 2008, that was against two specific people in government involved with funding a terrorist group in Lebanon.

Do tell how sanctions against two specific people caused mass power outages, and food shortages? I'd love to hear your explanation.

No, you are wrong. The US had nothing..>> NOTHING << to do with the crash of Venezuela. Only a fool would ever think otherwise.

And lastly, you are wrong about Greece. First, Greece's economy doesn't need to attract investment, if the economy is doing well. You don't see the US needing to devalue it's currency to attract investment, or Germany, or most Europe for that matter.

Second, devaluing your currency, is a great way to ruin your economy. The idea that you can cause mass inflation, and end up with a booming economy is ridiculous. Did we learn nothing from the 1970s? Stagflation? Brilliant move, devaluing the currency.

Greece was not screwed over by anyone. Greece screwed Greece over. Period.

 

[DOTR]

To them, it’s a completely leftwing ideology when in reality it’s been part of the framework of the country since the beginning. The founders had socialist ideas after all. They basically were leftists. It’s also stupid to say that communism and socialism are the same thing when in reality communism is simply an example of socialism. Socialism itself is a very broad term that can’t be defined simply.

Also, isn’t Trump the bigger socialist than Obama? His bailout to farmers was twice as big as Obama’s bailout. Are republicans going to pretend that isn’t socialism?

Good. Let’s leave all business laws as they were in 1776 and call ourselves socialist. Bernie will be so happy.

 

[JoeB131]

gain, you are skipping the question "why". If your claim is that the *ONLY* problem was the VC companies that ran up debt.... then you are indicating there was never a problem until the VCs got involved.

There wasn't. Venture Capitalist are more like "Vulture Capitalists". We saw that with Romney and Bain. He'd go into a company, leverage out the assets to run up debt to pay off his investors, and then break the company up for it's assets.

But there was a problem before any VC company was involved, and we know that because the owners sold out. Why did the original owners sell out to the VC companies?

Because they put a bag of money in front of them. That's why.

Yeah, because they have stopped by my house, and told me about how I'll be just like them, while I watched them pour glowing green goo into the tap water....

You do know we have a section on the forum for conspiracy nuts, right?

Flynt Michigan... Hardly a conspiracy.

 

[JoeB131]

No, you are wrong about nearly every single thing you wrote here.

The Soviet Union did not crash because non-russians wanted out. Russians themselves wanted out. I've read stories from inside Russia where people were killing their next door neighbor, in order to eat them... and then getting caught... intentionally... because they had a better chance of getting food in a Russian prison, than as a worker in the workers paradise.

really? What crazy bircher website did you hear that on?

Additionally, you are wrong about Venezuela. No, the US didn't overthrow the Venezuelan government. No, you are wrong.

Not for lack of trying. We backed coups in 2002 and 2018.

And lastly, you are wrong about Greece. First, Greece's economy doesn't need to attract investment, if the economy is doing well. You don't see the US needing to devalue it's currency to attract investment, or Germany, or most Europe for that matter.

Again, educate yourself on how Greece got screwed by the EU.

Greece may still be Europe’s sick patient, but the EU is at death’s door | Marina Prentoulis

 

[Andylusion]

gain, you are skipping the question "why". If your claim is that the *ONLY* problem was the VC companies that ran up debt.... then you are indicating there was never a problem until the VCs got involved.

There wasn't. Venture Capitalist are more like "Vulture Capitalists". We saw that with Romney and Bain. He'd go into a company, leverage out the assets to run up debt to pay off his investors, and then break the company up for it's assets.

But there was a problem before any VC company was involved, and we know that because the owners sold out. Why did the original owners sell out to the VC companies?

Because they put a bag of money in front of them. That's why.

Yeah, because they have stopped by my house, and told me about how I'll be just like them, while I watched them pour glowing green goo into the tap water....

You do know we have a section on the forum for conspiracy nuts, right?

Flynt Michigan... Hardly a conspiracy.

But you are missing something there... It is absolutely impossible, no matter how you work the math, to end up with more money, by destroying a profitable and growing company.

The only way you make money on this, is if the company is profitable and growing, then you lost money by breaking it up.

It is ridiculous, that people on the left wing, think otherwise. You clearly don't know anything about how venture capital works, are influenced by stupid people pushing lies, to make a partisan case.

Bain capital is a perfect example of this.

The only companies wiped out by Bain Capital, were companies already in decline.

Yes, a few... very few, were profitable when they sold out. But again, there are reasons the owners sold out. The companies may still be profitable, but if you see year over year, that your market share, and profits are declining, and you have no way to rectify that (such as oh I don't know, a bunch of bad union contracts), then you sell out while it is still profitable.

That's exactly what happened with Hostess.

Then you sell out to someone who doesn't realize that the Unions are strangling the company, and then buy the place thinking that you can turn it around. That's what all VC companies do. The owners either want to sell out because they are old, or because they simply don't want to run that company anymore, or because they don't see a way to get the ship turned around. The VC company believes they have a shot of turning the company around.

In this case, they found out the Unions had the company strangled, and so the VC company... as any owner would do... realizes the company is going to fail no matter what, so they might as well get as much money out of it as possible.

Again, you can complain all you want about VC companies... but the plant right now, is run by a VC company. If the entire problem was "Vulture Capitalists" as your ignorant childish, and juvenile ideology put it... then how is it that a VC company is running right now, providing jobs, and is profitable? Can't answer that, I know... but that's what I expect from an idiot saying "Vulture Capitalists".

Because they put a bag of money in front of them. That's why.

Bull. Prove it. Prove they were just sitting there, and a random buyer walked by and dumped bags of money on the table asking for their company.

There are a million companies in this country. You think VC companies are just randomly showing up at every company door, saying "sell us your company"? That's not how it works. The owners made it known they wanted to sell out.

I know this for a fact, because I read interviews with them.

Further, if you want to be more wealthy, the way to do so is to stay the owner or CEO of the company. At the very least, you hire someone to be CEO, and you keep the stock in the company. Every super wealthy person in this world, has done so, by having stock in their respective companies.... Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg, and the list goes on.

There is one reason you sell out... which means you no longer have a majority stock ownership in the company... and that's because you know the company is sinking, and you want out.

 

[Oldstyle]

To them, it’s a completely leftwing ideology when in reality it’s been part of the framework of the country since the beginning. The founders had socialist ideas after all. They basically were leftists. It’s also stupid to say that communism and socialism are the same thing when in reality communism is simply an example of socialism. Socialism itself is a very broad term that can’t be defined simply.

Also, isn’t Trump the bigger socialist than Obama? His bailout to farmers was twice as big as Obama’s bailout. Are republicans going to pretend that isn’t socialism?

You don't have a clue what Socialism IS...do you Billy? It's when government controls the means of production. Bailouts have ZERO to do with Socialism! Those farmers still operate in the Private Sector...the government doesn't "own" them! If you're going to post about things like this...do yourself a favor and educate yourself on the topic BEFORE you post nonsense like this!

 

[Andylusion]

No, you are wrong about nearly every single thing you wrote here.

The Soviet Union did not crash because non-russians wanted out. Russians themselves wanted out. I've read stories from inside Russia where people were killing their next door neighbor, in order to eat them... and then getting caught... intentionally... because they had a better chance of getting food in a Russian prison, than as a worker in the workers paradise.

really? What crazy bircher website did you hear that on?

Additionally, you are wrong about Venezuela. No, the US didn't overthrow the Venezuelan government. No, you are wrong.

Not for lack of trying. We backed coups in 2002 and 2018.

And lastly, you are wrong about Greece. First, Greece's economy doesn't need to attract investment, if the economy is doing well. You don't see the US needing to devalue it's currency to attract investment, or Germany, or most Europe for that matter.

Again, educate yourself on how Greece got screwed by the EU.

Greece may still be Europe’s sick patient, but the EU is at death’s door | Marina Prentoulis

Not for lack of trying. We backed coups in 2002 and 2018.

You can claim we backed coups in 2002 and 2018.... both of which are false.... but you can claim that fine.

Doesn't change the fact we didn't overthrow the governments.

So doesn't matter what you claim we did, or didn't do.... everything that is going on, is due to the government of Venezuela, period.

really? What crazy bircher website did you hear that on?

So you really don't know anything about the Soviet Union, and why it fell.

Sorry, if you know so little, do yourself and favor, and learn something about a system that you claim to support.

Again, educate yourself on how Greece got screwed by the EU.

I've read your link, and many others like it, and those who say the opposite.

The problem with all of those who say that Greece got screwed over by the EU, is that Greece made the choice to join the EU. Without doing that Greece would have been bankrupt back in the 1990s. It was joining the EU that gave more integrity to their bonds. Maybe you don't know this, but the interest rates on Greek bonds were going up dramatically in the 1990s, which is exactly why the lied and fabricated their way into joining the EU.

You can't sit there lie constantly for 10 years, and then cry and whine when everyone finds out.

Further, if your broke brother-in-law shows up after pot smoking, and drinking his money away, and he *demands* that you cover his mortgage.... which is exactly what Greece did, they should up and demanded the more responsible countries of Europe cover their irresponsibility.... you are not just going to pay for your brother in laws failure to act responsible without rules.

You are doing to demand he stop smoking and drinking. You are going to demand he get a job, and earn some money. You are going to demand he take steps to not get in this situation again, and if he refuses, then you are not going to give him money.

Same with Greece. It's pretty easy for you to complain about Germany when Germany would be the one covering the bill. The reality is, Germany and every country in the EU, had the right to demand changes to the Greek economy, or they don't get the money. That's life.

And you can just can-it on the "Greece couldn't print money". I followed the evolution of the Greek crash very closely. There were at a minimum two times, where Greece could have very easily ditched the EU, and ditched the Euro, and started printing out all the crap currency they wanted.

Greece itself refused to do that. And it's obvious why. Their currency would have been worthless, because their economy was worthless.

And you can complain about all those loans, but the reality is, no matter how bad their economy was with the loans, it was a drop in the bucket compared to how bad it would have been without those loans. All those hospitals that reopened, and pension checks that Greece was able to send out, was only due to those bailout loans that Greece got.

All the toddlers in the media screaming how terrible it was for Greece to meet the conditions of those loans, are all pathetic children, that have no idea what would have happened if Greece had refused to meet those conditions, and gotten no loans. Dozens of hospitals closed before they got those loans. Pensioners were left with nothing... absolutely nothing... without those loans.

If you think it would have been better had Greece left the EU...you are absolutely insane.

 

[JoeB131]

But you are missing something there... It is absolutely impossible, no matter how you work the math, to end up with more money, by destroying a profitable and growing company.

Sure there is. The thing is, making a company profitable actually takes work. Going into a company, selling off the assets, you don't get as much, but you get instant gratification, and that's the problem with our whole degenerate version of "Capitalism". It puts investors over workers and consumers.

It's why people like you will be crying in your beer when someone like Commie Bernie gets elected.

 

[Norman]

Socialism never was that great, in fact it has never worked anywhere.

That's what people find problematic about it, not the definition although it is equally as stupid.

 

[JoeB131]

So you really don't know anything about the Soviet Union, and why it fell.

Sorry, if you know so little, do yourself and favor, and learn something about a system that you claim to support.

Yes, I do. An Empire failed, not an economic system. All Empires fall eventually.

The problem with all of those who say that Greece got screwed over by the EU, is that Greece made the choice to join the EU. Without doing that Greece would have been bankrupt back in the 1990s. It was joining the EU that gave more integrity to their bonds. Maybe you don't know this, but the interest rates on Greek bonds were going up dramatically in the 1990s, which is exactly why the lied and fabricated their way into joining the EU.

Oh, I agree, the EU never should have admitted Greece to start with. But they were eager to get into that market, so they let Greece fraud it's way into the EU, and then proceeded to screw them when they got in.

Doesn't take away from the fact that Germany's behavior in insisting on screwing Greece was criminal.