Jim Carrey tells Democrats: ‘We have to say yes to socialism’

[Pogo]

Nor does most of the country.The Right still hasn't quite figured out that (a) this all lies on a continuum, and (b) the word "socialism" no longer scares people, partially because the Right has so over-used it..

`
The anachronistic far right still equates socialism with communism and fascism.
`

And stupid fucking moronic white rich leftists cannot see that socialism morphs into totalitarianism, which inevitably morphs into feudalism.

You don't get shit you stupid fucking ignorant ass.

Still waiting for one loser on the left to explain to all of us why so many are so desperate to get here from those socialist paradises.

Go ahead, you miserable fucking hack.

Try explaining it.

Yep, there it is again --- feudal Norway. Totalitarian hell. Even as we speak they're jumping on rafts heading southwest to immigrate, with of course a quick stop in Greenland to go shopping.

SMH

Check out the racists always bringing up how everything is white people's fault always bringing up the only countries with higher density of white people. Notice how these racists never bring up Mali, Burundi, Nigeria, Venezuela, Liberia, Turkey etc as great successes in "socialism."


Sorry Bernie Bros But Nordic Countries Are Not Socialist
The myth of Nordic socialism is partially created by a confusion between socialism, meaning government exerting control or ownership of businesses, and the welfare state in the form of government-provided social safety net programs. However, the left’s embrace of socialism is not merely a case of redefining a word. Simply look at the long-running affinity of leftists with socialist dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela for proof many on the left long for real socialism.

To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs.

A third example of Nordic commitment to free markets can be found in Sweden which has complete school choice. The government provides families with vouchers for each child. These vouchers can be used to attend regular public schools, government-run charter schools, or private, for-profit schools. Clearly, the use of government funds to pay for private, for-profit schools is the opposite of socialism.

We can also confirm these isolated facts by looking at a comprehensive measure of capitalism relative to socialism. The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based, pro-free market, think tank, compiles a worldwide ranking of countries called the economic freedom index. Its website explains that its ranking “is an effort to identify how closely the institutions and policies of a country correspond with a limited government ideal, where the government protects property rights and arranges for the provision of a limited set of “public goods” such as national defense and access to money of sound value, but little beyond these core functions.” Clearly, a socialist country should perform poorly in any ranking based on these principles.

What we find, however, is the Nordic countries rank quite high on this index of economic freedom. In fact, while Hong Kong and Singapore top the list and the U.S. ranks 12th, we can find the Nordic countries in quite respectable rankings. Denmark ranks 15, Finland 17, Norway 25, and Sweden 27. In terms of numerical scores, Sweden is only 5% lower than the U.S. For further comparison, South Korea and Japan, both considered fairly pro-free market, rank 32 and 39, respectively.

Socialism can take the form of government controlling or interfering with free markets, nationalizing industries, and subsidizing favored ones (green energy, anyone?). The Nordic countries don’t actually do much of those things. Yes, they offer government-paid healthcare, in some cases tuition-free university educations, and rather generous social safety nets, all financed with high taxes. However, it is possible to do these things without interfering in the private sector more than required. It is allowing businesses to be productive that produces the high corporate and personal incomes that support the tax collections making the government benefits feasible. The Nordic countries are smart enough not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.



First, it is worth noting that the Nordic counties were economic successes before they built their welfare states. Those productive economies, generating good incomes for their workers, allowed the governments to raise the tax revenue needed to pay for the social benefits. It was not the government benefits that created wealth, but wealth that allowed the luxury of such generous government programs.

Second, as evidence of the lack of government interference in business affairs, there is the fact that none of these countries have minimum wage laws. Unions are reasonably powerful in many industries and negotiate contracts, but the government does nothing to ensure any particular outcome from those negotiations. Workers are paid what they are worth, not based on government’s perception of what is fair.

------------------------------------------


Not only do American left wing morons (dumbest people on earth, especially the white left wing females) keep bringing up the Nordic countries as the socialists successes (predictable as hell with the losers) but they show their stupidity by doing it.

That's a lotta extra words for nothing more than a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Your kilt underwear is showing laddie.

 

[Sunsettommy]

There are many failures of Nationalized Socialism in history, here is a sampling:

Why Socialism Failed: A 2018 Update,’ Part I

New Zealand’s reforms and lessons for Washington

Venezuela's Failed Socialist Experiment

Fidel Castro's Economic Disaster In Cuba

How China Became Capitalist

 

[g5000]

Hitler didn't say that, retard.

That quote is from a 1926 (you couldn't even get the year right) pamphlet written by Gregor Strassor. His pamphlet went on to say:

The spirit of our National Socialist idea has to overpower the spirit of liberalism and false democracy if there is to be a third Reich at all! Deeply rooted in organic life, we have realized that the false belief in the equality of man is the deadly threat with which liberalism destroys people and nation, culture and morals. violating the deepest levels of our being!

We have to reject with fanatical zeal the frequent lie that people are basically equal and equal in regard to their influence in the state and their share of power! People are unequal, they are unequal from birth, become more unequal in life and are therefore to be valued unequally in their positions in society and in the state!


Strassor was assassinated on Hitler's orders in 1934.


You have to be a very special kind of retard to fall for the hoax that Nazis are left wing.

We are marching in support of gay rights, ObamaCare, gun control, undocumented immigrants, affirmative action, and multiculturalism!

 

[g5000]

There are many failures of Nationalized Socialism in history, here is a sampling:

Why Socialism Failed: A 2018 Update,’ Part I

New Zealand’s reforms and lessons for Washington

Venezuela's Failed Socialist Experiment

Fidel Castro's Economic Disaster In Cuba

That's marxism, retard. Not nazism.

You tards are pathetic.

Honk if you love Obama!

 

[g5000]

I agree socialism sucks.

Just ask anyone who lives under Putin about free speech under socialism, like Pussy Riot. Russia has long been the worst European socialist country. Especially when it comes to free speech.

Just ask all those assassinated reporters.

It makes one wonder why Trump was so anxious to make Putin his best friend!

 

[g5000]

European socialism in action: Pussy Riot got what they deserved: Putin

President Vladimir Putin flatly rejected on Thursday Western criticism of the imprisonment of the Pussy Riot punk protest band, saying its three female members deserved their fate because they threatened the moral foundations of Russia.

 

[Sunsettommy]

There are many failures of Nationalized Socialism in history, here is a sampling:

Why Socialism Failed: A 2018 Update,’ Part I

New Zealand’s reforms and lessons for Washington

Venezuela's Failed Socialist Experiment

Fidel Castro's Economic Disaster In Cuba

That's marxism, retard. Not nazism.

You tards are pathetic.

Honk if you love Obama!

First of all I didn't say a word about Nazism, secondly I am talking about Socialism implemented on a national scale, not a word about Communism which has never existed beyond dusty books.

Why don't you read at least one of the links fella?

 

[g5000]

There are many failures of Nationalized Socialism in history, here is a sampling:

Why Socialism Failed: A 2018 Update,’ Part I

New Zealand’s reforms and lessons for Washington

Venezuela's Failed Socialist Experiment

Fidel Castro's Economic Disaster In Cuba

That's marxism, retard. Not nazism.

You tards are pathetic.

Honk if you love Obama!

First of all I didn't say a word about Nazism

Horseshit. You said "Nationalized Socialism". Did you think you were being clever?

"Nazi" is short for National Socialism. Don't pretend you weren't trying to make a link.

 

[mudwhistle]

Nor does most of the country.The Right still hasn't quite figured out that (a) this all lies on a continuum, and (b) the word "socialism" no longer scares people, partially because the Right has so over-used it..

`
The anachronistic far right still equates socialism with communism and fascism.
`

And stupid fucking moronic white rich leftists cannot see that socialism morphs into totalitarianism, which inevitably morphs into feudalism.

You don't get shit you stupid fucking ignorant ass.

Still waiting for one loser on the left to explain to all of us why so many are so desperate to get here from those socialist paradises.

Go ahead, you miserable fucking hack.

Try explaining it.

Yep, there it is again --- feudal Norway. Totalitarian hell. Even as we speak they're jumping on rafts heading southwest to immigrate, with of course a quick stop in Greenland to go shopping.

SMH

Check out the racists always bringing up how everything is white people's fault always bringing up the only countries with higher density of white people. Notice how these racists never bring up Mali, Burundi, Nigeria, Venezuela, Liberia, Turkey etc as great successes in "socialism."


Sorry Bernie Bros But Nordic Countries Are Not Socialist
The myth of Nordic socialism is partially created by a confusion between socialism, meaning government exerting control or ownership of businesses, and the welfare state in the form of government-provided social safety net programs. However, the left’s embrace of socialism is not merely a case of redefining a word. Simply look at the long-running affinity of leftists with socialist dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela for proof many on the left long for real socialism.

To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs.

A third example of Nordic commitment to free markets can be found in Sweden which has complete school choice. The government provides families with vouchers for each child. These vouchers can be used to attend regular public schools, government-run charter schools, or private, for-profit schools. Clearly, the use of government funds to pay for private, for-profit schools is the opposite of socialism.

We can also confirm these isolated facts by looking at a comprehensive measure of capitalism relative to socialism. The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based, pro-free market, think tank, compiles a worldwide ranking of countries called the economic freedom index. Its website explains that its ranking “is an effort to identify how closely the institutions and policies of a country correspond with a limited government ideal, where the government protects property rights and arranges for the provision of a limited set of “public goods” such as national defense and access to money of sound value, but little beyond these core functions.” Clearly, a socialist country should perform poorly in any ranking based on these principles.

What we find, however, is the Nordic countries rank quite high on this index of economic freedom. In fact, while Hong Kong and Singapore top the list and the U.S. ranks 12th, we can find the Nordic countries in quite respectable rankings. Denmark ranks 15, Finland 17, Norway 25, and Sweden 27. In terms of numerical scores, Sweden is only 5% lower than the U.S. For further comparison, South Korea and Japan, both considered fairly pro-free market, rank 32 and 39, respectively.

Socialism can take the form of government controlling or interfering with free markets, nationalizing industries, and subsidizing favored ones (green energy, anyone?). The Nordic countries don’t actually do much of those things. Yes, they offer government-paid healthcare, in some cases tuition-free university educations, and rather generous social safety nets, all financed with high taxes. However, it is possible to do these things without interfering in the private sector more than required. It is allowing businesses to be productive that produces the high corporate and personal incomes that support the tax collections making the government benefits feasible. The Nordic countries are smart enough not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.



First, it is worth noting that the Nordic counties were economic successes before they built their welfare states. Those productive economies, generating good incomes for their workers, allowed the governments to raise the tax revenue needed to pay for the social benefits. It was not the government benefits that created wealth, but wealth that allowed the luxury of such generous government programs.

Second, as evidence of the lack of government interference in business affairs, there is the fact that none of these countries have minimum wage laws. Unions are reasonably powerful in many industries and negotiate contracts, but the government does nothing to ensure any particular outcome from those negotiations. Workers are paid what they are worth, not based on government’s perception of what is fair.

------------------------------------------


Not only do American left wing morons (dumbest people on earth, especially the white left wing females) keep bringing up the Nordic countries as the socialists successes (predictable as hell with the losers) but they show their stupidity by doing it.

That's a lotta extra words for nothing more than a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Your kilt underwear is showing laddie.

What does a Kilt have to do with Norway?

 

[Theowl32]

`
The anachronistic far right still equates socialism with communism and fascism.
`

And stupid fucking moronic white rich leftists cannot see that socialism morphs into totalitarianism, which inevitably morphs into feudalism.

You don't get shit you stupid fucking ignorant ass.

Still waiting for one loser on the left to explain to all of us why so many are so desperate to get here from those socialist paradises.

Go ahead, you miserable fucking hack.

Try explaining it.

Yep, there it is again --- feudal Norway. Totalitarian hell. Even as we speak they're jumping on rafts heading southwest to immigrate, with of course a quick stop in Greenland to go shopping.

SMH

Check out the racists always bringing up how everything is white people's fault always bringing up the only countries with higher density of white people. Notice how these racists never bring up Mali, Burundi, Nigeria, Venezuela, Liberia, Turkey etc as great successes in "socialism."


Sorry Bernie Bros But Nordic Countries Are Not Socialist
The myth of Nordic socialism is partially created by a confusion between socialism, meaning government exerting control or ownership of businesses, and the welfare state in the form of government-provided social safety net programs. However, the left’s embrace of socialism is not merely a case of redefining a word. Simply look at the long-running affinity of leftists with socialist dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela for proof many on the left long for real socialism.

To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs.

A third example of Nordic commitment to free markets can be found in Sweden which has complete school choice. The government provides families with vouchers for each child. These vouchers can be used to attend regular public schools, government-run charter schools, or private, for-profit schools. Clearly, the use of government funds to pay for private, for-profit schools is the opposite of socialism.

We can also confirm these isolated facts by looking at a comprehensive measure of capitalism relative to socialism. The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based, pro-free market, think tank, compiles a worldwide ranking of countries called the economic freedom index. Its website explains that its ranking “is an effort to identify how closely the institutions and policies of a country correspond with a limited government ideal, where the government protects property rights and arranges for the provision of a limited set of “public goods” such as national defense and access to money of sound value, but little beyond these core functions.” Clearly, a socialist country should perform poorly in any ranking based on these principles.

What we find, however, is the Nordic countries rank quite high on this index of economic freedom. In fact, while Hong Kong and Singapore top the list and the U.S. ranks 12th, we can find the Nordic countries in quite respectable rankings. Denmark ranks 15, Finland 17, Norway 25, and Sweden 27. In terms of numerical scores, Sweden is only 5% lower than the U.S. For further comparison, South Korea and Japan, both considered fairly pro-free market, rank 32 and 39, respectively.

Socialism can take the form of government controlling or interfering with free markets, nationalizing industries, and subsidizing favored ones (green energy, anyone?). The Nordic countries don’t actually do much of those things. Yes, they offer government-paid healthcare, in some cases tuition-free university educations, and rather generous social safety nets, all financed with high taxes. However, it is possible to do these things without interfering in the private sector more than required. It is allowing businesses to be productive that produces the high corporate and personal incomes that support the tax collections making the government benefits feasible. The Nordic countries are smart enough not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.



First, it is worth noting that the Nordic counties were economic successes before they built their welfare states. Those productive economies, generating good incomes for their workers, allowed the governments to raise the tax revenue needed to pay for the social benefits. It was not the government benefits that created wealth, but wealth that allowed the luxury of such generous government programs.

Second, as evidence of the lack of government interference in business affairs, there is the fact that none of these countries have minimum wage laws. Unions are reasonably powerful in many industries and negotiate contracts, but the government does nothing to ensure any particular outcome from those negotiations. Workers are paid what they are worth, not based on government’s perception of what is fair.

------------------------------------------


Not only do American left wing morons (dumbest people on earth, especially the white left wing females) keep bringing up the Nordic countries as the socialists successes (predictable as hell with the losers) but they show their stupidity by doing it.

That's a lotta extra words for nothing more than a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Your kilt underwear is showing laddie.

What does a Kilt have to do with Norway?

lol, I thought it was just me.

 

[g5000]

Nor does most of the country.The Right still hasn't quite figured out that (a) this all lies on a continuum, and (b) the word "socialism" no longer scares people, partially because the Right has so over-used it..

`
The anachronistic far right still equates socialism with communism and fascism.
`

And stupid fucking moronic white rich leftists cannot see that socialism morphs into totalitarianism, which inevitably morphs into feudalism.

You don't get shit you stupid fucking ignorant ass.

Still waiting for one loser on the left to explain to all of us why so many are so desperate to get here from those socialist paradises.

Go ahead, you miserable fucking hack.

Try explaining it.

Yep, there it is again --- feudal Norway. Totalitarian hell. Even as we speak they're jumping on rafts heading southwest to immigrate, with of course a quick stop in Greenland to go shopping.

SMH

Check out the racists always bringing up how everything is white people's fault always bringing up the only countries with higher density of white people. Notice how these racists never bring up Mali, Burundi, Nigeria, Venezuela, Liberia, Turkey etc as great successes in "socialism."


Sorry Bernie Bros But Nordic Countries Are Not Socialist
The myth of Nordic socialism is partially created by a confusion between socialism, meaning government exerting control or ownership of businesses, and the welfare state in the form of government-provided social safety net programs. However, the left’s embrace of socialism is not merely a case of redefining a word. Simply look at the long-running affinity of leftists with socialist dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela for proof many on the left long for real socialism.

To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs.

A third example of Nordic commitment to free markets can be found in Sweden which has complete school choice. The government provides families with vouchers for each child. These vouchers can be used to attend regular public schools, government-run charter schools, or private, for-profit schools. Clearly, the use of government funds to pay for private, for-profit schools is the opposite of socialism.

We can also confirm these isolated facts by looking at a comprehensive measure of capitalism relative to socialism. The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based, pro-free market, think tank, compiles a worldwide ranking of countries called the economic freedom index. Its website explains that its ranking “is an effort to identify how closely the institutions and policies of a country correspond with a limited government ideal, where the government protects property rights and arranges for the provision of a limited set of “public goods” such as national defense and access to money of sound value, but little beyond these core functions.” Clearly, a socialist country should perform poorly in any ranking based on these principles.

What we find, however, is the Nordic countries rank quite high on this index of economic freedom. In fact, while Hong Kong and Singapore top the list and the U.S. ranks 12th, we can find the Nordic countries in quite respectable rankings. Denmark ranks 15, Finland 17, Norway 25, and Sweden 27. In terms of numerical scores, Sweden is only 5% lower than the U.S. For further comparison, South Korea and Japan, both considered fairly pro-free market, rank 32 and 39, respectively.

Socialism can take the form of government controlling or interfering with free markets, nationalizing industries, and subsidizing favored ones (green energy, anyone?). The Nordic countries don’t actually do much of those things. Yes, they offer government-paid healthcare, in some cases tuition-free university educations, and rather generous social safety nets, all financed with high taxes. However, it is possible to do these things without interfering in the private sector more than required. It is allowing businesses to be productive that produces the high corporate and personal incomes that support the tax collections making the government benefits feasible. The Nordic countries are smart enough not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.



First, it is worth noting that the Nordic counties were economic successes before they built their welfare states. Those productive economies, generating good incomes for their workers, allowed the governments to raise the tax revenue needed to pay for the social benefits. It was not the government benefits that created wealth, but wealth that allowed the luxury of such generous government programs.

Second, as evidence of the lack of government interference in business affairs, there is the fact that none of these countries have minimum wage laws. Unions are reasonably powerful in many industries and negotiate contracts, but the government does nothing to ensure any particular outcome from those negotiations. Workers are paid what they are worth, not based on government’s perception of what is fair.

------------------------------------------


Not only do American left wing morons (dumbest people on earth, especially the white left wing females) keep bringing up the Nordic countries as the socialists successes (predictable as hell with the losers) but they show their stupidity by doing it.

The Nordic states are most famous for their generous welfare systems: free college, universal health care, long and well-funded parental leave, heavily subsidized child care and much more. But their socialistic tendencies aren’t limited to these policies of “redistribution.” As of 2015, Norway owned roughly 59 percent of the country’s wealth; by contrast, China, which is still considered at least a quasi-communist state by many, owned only 32 percent of its national wealth. In Norway, government also owns about a third of the country’s stock market, along with some 70 businesses valued at almost 90 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. As a result, about 1 in 3 workers in Norway (as well as Denmark) are employed by their respective governments. In Finland, meanwhile, 64 state-owned enterprises make up around 50 percent of national GDP; moreover, more than 90 percent of Finnish workers are covered by union contracts, compared with 89 percent of Swedish workers, 84 percent of Danish workers — and 11.9 percent of American workers.

Opinion | Let’s have a good-faith argument about socialism

 

[g5000]

And stupid fucking moronic white rich leftists cannot see that socialism morphs into totalitarianism, which inevitably morphs into feudalism.

You don't get shit you stupid fucking ignorant ass.

Still waiting for one loser on the left to explain to all of us why so many are so desperate to get here from those socialist paradises.

Go ahead, you miserable fucking hack.

Try explaining it.

Yep, there it is again --- feudal Norway. Totalitarian hell. Even as we speak they're jumping on rafts heading southwest to immigrate, with of course a quick stop in Greenland to go shopping.

SMH

Check out the racists always bringing up how everything is white people's fault always bringing up the only countries with higher density of white people. Notice how these racists never bring up Mali, Burundi, Nigeria, Venezuela, Liberia, Turkey etc as great successes in "socialism."


Sorry Bernie Bros But Nordic Countries Are Not Socialist
The myth of Nordic socialism is partially created by a confusion between socialism, meaning government exerting control or ownership of businesses, and the welfare state in the form of government-provided social safety net programs. However, the left’s embrace of socialism is not merely a case of redefining a word. Simply look at the long-running affinity of leftists with socialist dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela for proof many on the left long for real socialism.

To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs.

A third example of Nordic commitment to free markets can be found in Sweden which has complete school choice. The government provides families with vouchers for each child. These vouchers can be used to attend regular public schools, government-run charter schools, or private, for-profit schools. Clearly, the use of government funds to pay for private, for-profit schools is the opposite of socialism.

We can also confirm these isolated facts by looking at a comprehensive measure of capitalism relative to socialism. The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based, pro-free market, think tank, compiles a worldwide ranking of countries called the economic freedom index. Its website explains that its ranking “is an effort to identify how closely the institutions and policies of a country correspond with a limited government ideal, where the government protects property rights and arranges for the provision of a limited set of “public goods” such as national defense and access to money of sound value, but little beyond these core functions.” Clearly, a socialist country should perform poorly in any ranking based on these principles.

What we find, however, is the Nordic countries rank quite high on this index of economic freedom. In fact, while Hong Kong and Singapore top the list and the U.S. ranks 12th, we can find the Nordic countries in quite respectable rankings. Denmark ranks 15, Finland 17, Norway 25, and Sweden 27. In terms of numerical scores, Sweden is only 5% lower than the U.S. For further comparison, South Korea and Japan, both considered fairly pro-free market, rank 32 and 39, respectively.

Socialism can take the form of government controlling or interfering with free markets, nationalizing industries, and subsidizing favored ones (green energy, anyone?). The Nordic countries don’t actually do much of those things. Yes, they offer government-paid healthcare, in some cases tuition-free university educations, and rather generous social safety nets, all financed with high taxes. However, it is possible to do these things without interfering in the private sector more than required. It is allowing businesses to be productive that produces the high corporate and personal incomes that support the tax collections making the government benefits feasible. The Nordic countries are smart enough not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.



First, it is worth noting that the Nordic counties were economic successes before they built their welfare states. Those productive economies, generating good incomes for their workers, allowed the governments to raise the tax revenue needed to pay for the social benefits. It was not the government benefits that created wealth, but wealth that allowed the luxury of such generous government programs.

Second, as evidence of the lack of government interference in business affairs, there is the fact that none of these countries have minimum wage laws. Unions are reasonably powerful in many industries and negotiate contracts, but the government does nothing to ensure any particular outcome from those negotiations. Workers are paid what they are worth, not based on government’s perception of what is fair.

------------------------------------------


Not only do American left wing morons (dumbest people on earth, especially the white left wing females) keep bringing up the Nordic countries as the socialists successes (predictable as hell with the losers) but they show their stupidity by doing it.

That's a lotta extra words for nothing more than a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Your kilt underwear is showing laddie.

What does a Kilt have to do with Norway?

lol, I thought it was just me.

The poor dumb rubes don't know anything about logical fallacies, Pogo. That's what makes them so susceptible to propaganda bullshit.

 

[Pogo]

`
The anachronistic far right still equates socialism with communism and fascism.
`

And stupid fucking moronic white rich leftists cannot see that socialism morphs into totalitarianism, which inevitably morphs into feudalism.

You don't get shit you stupid fucking ignorant ass.

Still waiting for one loser on the left to explain to all of us why so many are so desperate to get here from those socialist paradises.

Go ahead, you miserable fucking hack.

Try explaining it.

Yep, there it is again --- feudal Norway. Totalitarian hell. Even as we speak they're jumping on rafts heading southwest to immigrate, with of course a quick stop in Greenland to go shopping.

SMH

Check out the racists always bringing up how everything is white people's fault always bringing up the only countries with higher density of white people. Notice how these racists never bring up Mali, Burundi, Nigeria, Venezuela, Liberia, Turkey etc as great successes in "socialism."


Sorry Bernie Bros But Nordic Countries Are Not Socialist
The myth of Nordic socialism is partially created by a confusion between socialism, meaning government exerting control or ownership of businesses, and the welfare state in the form of government-provided social safety net programs. However, the left’s embrace of socialism is not merely a case of redefining a word. Simply look at the long-running affinity of leftists with socialist dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela for proof many on the left long for real socialism.

To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs.

A third example of Nordic commitment to free markets can be found in Sweden which has complete school choice. The government provides families with vouchers for each child. These vouchers can be used to attend regular public schools, government-run charter schools, or private, for-profit schools. Clearly, the use of government funds to pay for private, for-profit schools is the opposite of socialism.

We can also confirm these isolated facts by looking at a comprehensive measure of capitalism relative to socialism. The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based, pro-free market, think tank, compiles a worldwide ranking of countries called the economic freedom index. Its website explains that its ranking “is an effort to identify how closely the institutions and policies of a country correspond with a limited government ideal, where the government protects property rights and arranges for the provision of a limited set of “public goods” such as national defense and access to money of sound value, but little beyond these core functions.” Clearly, a socialist country should perform poorly in any ranking based on these principles.

What we find, however, is the Nordic countries rank quite high on this index of economic freedom. In fact, while Hong Kong and Singapore top the list and the U.S. ranks 12th, we can find the Nordic countries in quite respectable rankings. Denmark ranks 15, Finland 17, Norway 25, and Sweden 27. In terms of numerical scores, Sweden is only 5% lower than the U.S. For further comparison, South Korea and Japan, both considered fairly pro-free market, rank 32 and 39, respectively.

Socialism can take the form of government controlling or interfering with free markets, nationalizing industries, and subsidizing favored ones (green energy, anyone?). The Nordic countries don’t actually do much of those things. Yes, they offer government-paid healthcare, in some cases tuition-free university educations, and rather generous social safety nets, all financed with high taxes. However, it is possible to do these things without interfering in the private sector more than required. It is allowing businesses to be productive that produces the high corporate and personal incomes that support the tax collections making the government benefits feasible. The Nordic countries are smart enough not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.



First, it is worth noting that the Nordic counties were economic successes before they built their welfare states. Those productive economies, generating good incomes for their workers, allowed the governments to raise the tax revenue needed to pay for the social benefits. It was not the government benefits that created wealth, but wealth that allowed the luxury of such generous government programs.

Second, as evidence of the lack of government interference in business affairs, there is the fact that none of these countries have minimum wage laws. Unions are reasonably powerful in many industries and negotiate contracts, but the government does nothing to ensure any particular outcome from those negotiations. Workers are paid what they are worth, not based on government’s perception of what is fair.

------------------------------------------


Not only do American left wing morons (dumbest people on earth, especially the white left wing females) keep bringing up the Nordic countries as the socialists successes (predictable as hell with the losers) but they show their stupidity by doing it.

That's a lotta extra words for nothing more than a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Your kilt underwear is showing laddie.

What does a Kilt have to do with Norway?

Probably very little. It is however a reference back to the cited No True Scotsman Fallacy, so it shows me neither one of you actually read the post ----- which was about a logical fallacy, not about "Norway".

 

[Sunsettommy]

There are many failures of Nationalized Socialism in history, here is a sampling:

Why Socialism Failed: A 2018 Update,’ Part I

New Zealand’s reforms and lessons for Washington

Venezuela's Failed Socialist Experiment

Fidel Castro's Economic Disaster In Cuba

That's marxism, retard. Not nazism.

You tards are pathetic.

Honk if you love Obama!

First of all I didn't say a word about Nazism

Horseshit. You said "Nationalized Socialism". Did you think you were being clever?

"Nazi" is short for National Socialism. Don't pretend you weren't trying to make a link.

Hitler NEVER created a socialistic state, as capitalism still existed. He was NEVER a socialist!

I am talking about Socialism implemented at the NATIONAL level, you are truly ignorant and stupid to continue to twist what I mean into your NAZI crap. Germany under Hitler was NEVER a Socialist state.

Were the Nazis Socialists?

"In his 2010 book Hitler: A Biography, British historian Ian Kershaw wrote that despite putting the interests of the state above those of capitalism, he did so for reasons of nationalism and was never a true socialist by any common definition of the term:

[Hitler] was wholly ignorant of any formal understanding of the principles of economics. For him, as he stated to the industrialists, economics was of secondary importance, entirely subordinated to politics. His crude social-Darwinism dictated his approach to the economy, as it did his entire political “world-view.” Since struggle among nations would be decisive for future survival, Germany’s economy had to be subordinated to the preparation, then carrying out, of this struggle. This meant that liberal ideas of economic competition had to be replaced by the subjection of the economy to the dictates of the national interest. Similarly, any “socialist” ideas in the Nazi programme had to follow the same dictates. Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state."

 

[Theowl32]

And stupid fucking moronic white rich leftists cannot see that socialism morphs into totalitarianism, which inevitably morphs into feudalism.

You don't get shit you stupid fucking ignorant ass.

Still waiting for one loser on the left to explain to all of us why so many are so desperate to get here from those socialist paradises.

Go ahead, you miserable fucking hack.

Try explaining it.

Yep, there it is again --- feudal Norway. Totalitarian hell. Even as we speak they're jumping on rafts heading southwest to immigrate, with of course a quick stop in Greenland to go shopping.

SMH

Check out the racists always bringing up how everything is white people's fault always bringing up the only countries with higher density of white people. Notice how these racists never bring up Mali, Burundi, Nigeria, Venezuela, Liberia, Turkey etc as great successes in "socialism."


Sorry Bernie Bros But Nordic Countries Are Not Socialist
The myth of Nordic socialism is partially created by a confusion between socialism, meaning government exerting control or ownership of businesses, and the welfare state in the form of government-provided social safety net programs. However, the left’s embrace of socialism is not merely a case of redefining a word. Simply look at the long-running affinity of leftists with socialist dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela for proof many on the left long for real socialism.

To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs.

A third example of Nordic commitment to free markets can be found in Sweden which has complete school choice. The government provides families with vouchers for each child. These vouchers can be used to attend regular public schools, government-run charter schools, or private, for-profit schools. Clearly, the use of government funds to pay for private, for-profit schools is the opposite of socialism.

We can also confirm these isolated facts by looking at a comprehensive measure of capitalism relative to socialism. The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based, pro-free market, think tank, compiles a worldwide ranking of countries called the economic freedom index. Its website explains that its ranking “is an effort to identify how closely the institutions and policies of a country correspond with a limited government ideal, where the government protects property rights and arranges for the provision of a limited set of “public goods” such as national defense and access to money of sound value, but little beyond these core functions.” Clearly, a socialist country should perform poorly in any ranking based on these principles.

What we find, however, is the Nordic countries rank quite high on this index of economic freedom. In fact, while Hong Kong and Singapore top the list and the U.S. ranks 12th, we can find the Nordic countries in quite respectable rankings. Denmark ranks 15, Finland 17, Norway 25, and Sweden 27. In terms of numerical scores, Sweden is only 5% lower than the U.S. For further comparison, South Korea and Japan, both considered fairly pro-free market, rank 32 and 39, respectively.

Socialism can take the form of government controlling or interfering with free markets, nationalizing industries, and subsidizing favored ones (green energy, anyone?). The Nordic countries don’t actually do much of those things. Yes, they offer government-paid healthcare, in some cases tuition-free university educations, and rather generous social safety nets, all financed with high taxes. However, it is possible to do these things without interfering in the private sector more than required. It is allowing businesses to be productive that produces the high corporate and personal incomes that support the tax collections making the government benefits feasible. The Nordic countries are smart enough not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.



First, it is worth noting that the Nordic counties were economic successes before they built their welfare states. Those productive economies, generating good incomes for their workers, allowed the governments to raise the tax revenue needed to pay for the social benefits. It was not the government benefits that created wealth, but wealth that allowed the luxury of such generous government programs.

Second, as evidence of the lack of government interference in business affairs, there is the fact that none of these countries have minimum wage laws. Unions are reasonably powerful in many industries and negotiate contracts, but the government does nothing to ensure any particular outcome from those negotiations. Workers are paid what they are worth, not based on government’s perception of what is fair.

------------------------------------------


Not only do American left wing morons (dumbest people on earth, especially the white left wing females) keep bringing up the Nordic countries as the socialists successes (predictable as hell with the losers) but they show their stupidity by doing it.

That's a lotta extra words for nothing more than a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Your kilt underwear is showing laddie.

What does a Kilt have to do with Norway?

Probably very little. It is however a reference back to the cited No True Scotsman Fallacy, so it shows me neither one of you actually read the post ----- which was about a logical fallacy, not about "Norway".

 

[g5000]

The President of Sweden is a member of the Social Democratic Workers' Party of Sweden.

A socialist.

 

[g5000]

I am talking about Socialism implemented at the NATIONAL level

That's what everyone in this topic has been talking about.

No one was talking about socialism in some village somewhere. Did you not notice the words "Venezuela" and "Canada" and such?

No one says "Nationalized Socialism". That's not a thing.

 

[Pogo]

Yep, there it is again --- feudal Norway. Totalitarian hell. Even as we speak they're jumping on rafts heading southwest to immigrate, with of course a quick stop in Greenland to go shopping.

SMH

Check out the racists always bringing up how everything is white people's fault always bringing up the only countries with higher density of white people. Notice how these racists never bring up Mali, Burundi, Nigeria, Venezuela, Liberia, Turkey etc as great successes in "socialism."


Sorry Bernie Bros But Nordic Countries Are Not Socialist
The myth of Nordic socialism is partially created by a confusion between socialism, meaning government exerting control or ownership of businesses, and the welfare state in the form of government-provided social safety net programs. However, the left’s embrace of socialism is not merely a case of redefining a word. Simply look at the long-running affinity of leftists with socialist dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela for proof many on the left long for real socialism.

To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs.

A third example of Nordic commitment to free markets can be found in Sweden which has complete school choice. The government provides families with vouchers for each child. These vouchers can be used to attend regular public schools, government-run charter schools, or private, for-profit schools. Clearly, the use of government funds to pay for private, for-profit schools is the opposite of socialism.

We can also confirm these isolated facts by looking at a comprehensive measure of capitalism relative to socialism. The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based, pro-free market, think tank, compiles a worldwide ranking of countries called the economic freedom index. Its website explains that its ranking “is an effort to identify how closely the institutions and policies of a country correspond with a limited government ideal, where the government protects property rights and arranges for the provision of a limited set of “public goods” such as national defense and access to money of sound value, but little beyond these core functions.” Clearly, a socialist country should perform poorly in any ranking based on these principles.

What we find, however, is the Nordic countries rank quite high on this index of economic freedom. In fact, while Hong Kong and Singapore top the list and the U.S. ranks 12th, we can find the Nordic countries in quite respectable rankings. Denmark ranks 15, Finland 17, Norway 25, and Sweden 27. In terms of numerical scores, Sweden is only 5% lower than the U.S. For further comparison, South Korea and Japan, both considered fairly pro-free market, rank 32 and 39, respectively.

Socialism can take the form of government controlling or interfering with free markets, nationalizing industries, and subsidizing favored ones (green energy, anyone?). The Nordic countries don’t actually do much of those things. Yes, they offer government-paid healthcare, in some cases tuition-free university educations, and rather generous social safety nets, all financed with high taxes. However, it is possible to do these things without interfering in the private sector more than required. It is allowing businesses to be productive that produces the high corporate and personal incomes that support the tax collections making the government benefits feasible. The Nordic countries are smart enough not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.



First, it is worth noting that the Nordic counties were economic successes before they built their welfare states. Those productive economies, generating good incomes for their workers, allowed the governments to raise the tax revenue needed to pay for the social benefits. It was not the government benefits that created wealth, but wealth that allowed the luxury of such generous government programs.

Second, as evidence of the lack of government interference in business affairs, there is the fact that none of these countries have minimum wage laws. Unions are reasonably powerful in many industries and negotiate contracts, but the government does nothing to ensure any particular outcome from those negotiations. Workers are paid what they are worth, not based on government’s perception of what is fair.

------------------------------------------


Not only do American left wing morons (dumbest people on earth, especially the white left wing females) keep bringing up the Nordic countries as the socialists successes (predictable as hell with the losers) but they show their stupidity by doing it.

That's a lotta extra words for nothing more than a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Your kilt underwear is showing laddie.

What does a Kilt have to do with Norway?

lol, I thought it was just me.

The poor dumb rubes don't know anything about logical fallacies, Pogo. That's what makes them so susceptible to propaganda bullshit.

I can't escape the impression that on some level they know exactly what I mean. Witness how fast they scrambled to launch the deflection about "kilts" so as to avoid the point like a warm plate of haggis. And the next move was a gif of frickin' Dan Marino.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I see that most people have no idea what the differences are between Socialism and Communism, here I have an article that shows the obvious differences, from Huffingtonpost:

Capitalism, Socialism and Communism

11/11/2015

By Henryk A. Kowalczyk

SELECTED EXCERPT:

"Communism
Most people have only a vague understanding of the differences between communism and socialism and, incorrectly, these two terms are often used interchangeably. Marx and Engels in their critique of capitalism pointed out that ruthless competition and heartless pursuit of money are immoral as they create exploitation of the masses by the very few privileged ones. As an alternative, they envisioned a classless society, without hierarchy, without currency, without personal property, where people would work in harmony, resolve their problems in friendly discussions, produce enough goods and services, and where each would contribute according to his abilities and receive according to his needs. This community-centered form of social order is called communism.

In the classic view of communism, a communist society was the ultimate goal and destination for humankind. Followers of classic communism realized that it would be impossible to switch to communism directly from a capitalistic system they deemed immoral. They believed that society needed time for transition. During that transition, called socialism, the representatives of people should be in charge of the means of production, and guide the society toward communism. This was the essence of the very existence of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They had their Communist Party of the Soviet Union, but the longer they were in power, the less they talked about transition to communism. In China, their communist party ended up leading the transition to capitalism. "

 

[mudwhistle]

And stupid fucking moronic white rich leftists cannot see that socialism morphs into totalitarianism, which inevitably morphs into feudalism.

You don't get shit you stupid fucking ignorant ass.

Still waiting for one loser on the left to explain to all of us why so many are so desperate to get here from those socialist paradises.

Go ahead, you miserable fucking hack.

Try explaining it.

Yep, there it is again --- feudal Norway. Totalitarian hell. Even as we speak they're jumping on rafts heading southwest to immigrate, with of course a quick stop in Greenland to go shopping.

SMH

Check out the racists always bringing up how everything is white people's fault always bringing up the only countries with higher density of white people. Notice how these racists never bring up Mali, Burundi, Nigeria, Venezuela, Liberia, Turkey etc as great successes in "socialism."


Sorry Bernie Bros But Nordic Countries Are Not Socialist
The myth of Nordic socialism is partially created by a confusion between socialism, meaning government exerting control or ownership of businesses, and the welfare state in the form of government-provided social safety net programs. However, the left’s embrace of socialism is not merely a case of redefining a word. Simply look at the long-running affinity of leftists with socialist dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela for proof many on the left long for real socialism.

To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs.

A third example of Nordic commitment to free markets can be found in Sweden which has complete school choice. The government provides families with vouchers for each child. These vouchers can be used to attend regular public schools, government-run charter schools, or private, for-profit schools. Clearly, the use of government funds to pay for private, for-profit schools is the opposite of socialism.

We can also confirm these isolated facts by looking at a comprehensive measure of capitalism relative to socialism. The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based, pro-free market, think tank, compiles a worldwide ranking of countries called the economic freedom index. Its website explains that its ranking “is an effort to identify how closely the institutions and policies of a country correspond with a limited government ideal, where the government protects property rights and arranges for the provision of a limited set of “public goods” such as national defense and access to money of sound value, but little beyond these core functions.” Clearly, a socialist country should perform poorly in any ranking based on these principles.

What we find, however, is the Nordic countries rank quite high on this index of economic freedom. In fact, while Hong Kong and Singapore top the list and the U.S. ranks 12th, we can find the Nordic countries in quite respectable rankings. Denmark ranks 15, Finland 17, Norway 25, and Sweden 27. In terms of numerical scores, Sweden is only 5% lower than the U.S. For further comparison, South Korea and Japan, both considered fairly pro-free market, rank 32 and 39, respectively.

Socialism can take the form of government controlling or interfering with free markets, nationalizing industries, and subsidizing favored ones (green energy, anyone?). The Nordic countries don’t actually do much of those things. Yes, they offer government-paid healthcare, in some cases tuition-free university educations, and rather generous social safety nets, all financed with high taxes. However, it is possible to do these things without interfering in the private sector more than required. It is allowing businesses to be productive that produces the high corporate and personal incomes that support the tax collections making the government benefits feasible. The Nordic countries are smart enough not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.



First, it is worth noting that the Nordic counties were economic successes before they built their welfare states. Those productive economies, generating good incomes for their workers, allowed the governments to raise the tax revenue needed to pay for the social benefits. It was not the government benefits that created wealth, but wealth that allowed the luxury of such generous government programs.

Second, as evidence of the lack of government interference in business affairs, there is the fact that none of these countries have minimum wage laws. Unions are reasonably powerful in many industries and negotiate contracts, but the government does nothing to ensure any particular outcome from those negotiations. Workers are paid what they are worth, not based on government’s perception of what is fair.

------------------------------------------


Not only do American left wing morons (dumbest people on earth, especially the white left wing females) keep bringing up the Nordic countries as the socialists successes (predictable as hell with the losers) but they show their stupidity by doing it.

That's a lotta extra words for nothing more than a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Your kilt underwear is showing laddie.

What does a Kilt have to do with Norway?

Probably very little. It is however a reference back to the cited No True Scotsman Fallacy, so it shows me neither one of you actually read the post ----- which was about a logical fallacy, not about "Norway".

Norway, Finland, Sweden.....Nordic countries.

Scotland is part of the UK, and pretty much a good example of an economic failure.