Why The Left Loves Socialism

[thereisnospoon]

I liked being in a socialist organization, the military...

Except the military is not a socialist organization.

Sorry... it's just NOT.

When did you serve? Because it is a socialist organization...The farmer analogy is a dictatorship...

No, it's NOT a socialist organization in any aspect. If you had to compare it with a governmental organization it would be totalitarian fascism. Nothing in the military is ever done for the collective, including the oath you take to serve. If the military were socialist you wouldn't have ranks, all ranks would be the same, everyone working for a common cause. Pay would be the same, duties would essentially be the same. And if it were socialist, all this would be happening to serve the common good of the group, but the military doesn't serve it's own interest, it serves the interest of the country, by it's very definition.

So you can CALL it that if you like, but it's no different than you calling it a ham sandwich... it only demonstrates what a moron you are.

the USSR had ranks

Jesus Christ.....Non sequitur. Grasping at straws.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This OP might be a little wordy, so I will go ahead and tell you, if you don't like wordy OPs, you may want to pass this one up and move along. It is intended to address a burning question that many on the right side of the political spectrum have had for a while about the left's fascination with socialism and socialist policies. To answer tough questions, it sometimes takes more than a paragraph. So, forgive me for the length and try to muddle through to glean the overall point.

I watched an old movie the other day. It was from 1949, called The Green Promise, starring a young Natalie Wood as a child and a middle-aged Walter Brennan as her father. In the story, he was a widower with 4 children, three daughters and a son, and he was a farmer. The five of them worked together to make their farm life work and the father was really big on having these "family meetings" where they would routinely vote on various issues and decisions. At first, this is presented as a proud and virtuous way to handle things, democracy in action as opposed to the iron-fisted tyranny of the father. Everyone working together for the common good. It was the perfect model of Democratic Socialism in every respect.

Okay... So the youngest daughter (Natalie Wood), meets this young boy her age, I am guessing they are around 12-13ish... His name is Buzz. Now, Buzz has done very well for himself at his young age. He has a herd of cattle and a prize bull worth over $1,000. He started with two calves his father sold him on credit, which he has long since paid for. She admires he has done this on his own at his age, and she starts thinking about doing the same thing with a couple of lambs. One of the protagonists in the story is a County Extension Agent who is trying to help the farmers in his community with advice and mentors to the young people by introducing them to the 4-H Club. He kind of puts the notion in the young daughter's head that she can do the same thing as Buzz and raise two lambs into her own flock of sheep.

Her oldest sister is kind of taking on the role of matriarch, is on her side. She explains how she understands how it's important for her to do this because it's her individuality and sense of self-accomplishment. The middle sister is unsympathetic because she is a suck-up to the father for attention. So this issue of her getting two lambs to raise on her own finally comes to a "family meeting" where a vote will be cast on what they should do. The father has his mind set on purchasing a tractor, even though it's something they really can't afford. And this is where the model of Democratic Socialism goes awry.

The father begins the meeting with a little lecture to his young daughter that her idea of raising two lambs on her own is selfish and it must be because she doesn't love the rest of her family. Greed is the only reason he can see for her wanting to do this. He then demands the family show hands if they oppose the idea. The older daughter speaks up, asking why not show hands in favor first, and he quickly shoots back... it doesn't matter! Of course, he has already raised his hand in opposition, and the suck-up middle daughter raises her hand. His son, sits there contemplating the situation... he is going to be the deciding vote and he has to live with his dad. You can tell that he begrudgingly votes with the dad, which seals the deal. The father goes on to lobby through his idea of buying a tractor and the little girl's dream is crushed.

Now, as fate would have it, the father is injured severely on the farm and the older daughter has to take over running the farm. So she ends up approving the young daughter's plan if she can raise the money to buy the initial lambs. She does so with the help of the County Extension Agent. A lot of other things take place as well but the father finally comes to realize the error of his ways and this is where I gained some insight into why I believe the left is so fascinated with Socialism, and why most people are so enamored.

In his confessional, he admits that his reluctance to allow his children to be independent, the reason he insisted on everyone working together as a cooperative unit, was because he was afraid to compete, afraid of his own lack of ability. As long as everyone was working for the common cause, he felt secure, he didn't have to worry about being left alone to fend for himself. This is where I realized what lies behind this modern Democrat Socialist view of the world and what is motivating it. These are people who are afraid to compete as individuals because they have no confidence in their own ability. They feel more secure as part of a supporting cast who can carry most of the load and where their underachievement can be hidden. They are unwilling to let that go, even though it stifles individuality and sense of self-accomplishment for others.

The Left is and always has been for hundreds of years pro-people.

The Right is and always has been for hundreds of years pro-wealth.

Did you miss that in your studies (if any) of history since the French Revolution ?!

I liked being in a socialist organization, the military...

Except the military is not a socialist organization.

Sorry... it's just NOT.

The military is a fascist socialism.

Everybody eats in the mess hall. Everybody.

Everybody gets health care.

Everybody gets retirement.

Nobody has any say except the Admirals and Generals.

Wow....Are you off the wall

 

[thereisnospoon]

Considering Americans don't even have a socialist party I would say they don't love it all. A better question might be why are right wingers so paranoid and afraid of socialism?

Now why would Purple Owl lie, other than that is typical of Marxism/Socialism/Fascism/Liberalism/Progressivism? They even have their own website. I think soon, that there will be a war like the one back in the late 1800's between ideology. Those that believe in God and Guns against those who believe in government and don't like guns. Guess who will win?


Socialist Party USA - Home

THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control - a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society... where working people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically-controlled public agencies, cooperatives, or other collective groups.; where full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work; where workers have the right to form unions freely, and to strike and engage in other forms of job actions; and where the production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. We believe socialism and democracy are one and indivisible...

Just shows how stupid people have to be, to believe that Socialism would be good for them.

Of course socialism always ends the same way, just look at Venezuela.

View attachment 106273

there is also an american nazi party..... why does the right love fascism?

Check the roles on The American Nazi Party. They are full of liberals and Dems.
Same with The KKK. Founded by Dems, populated by Dems, supported by Dems.
Dems are closet racists and bigots who had to go underground after The GOP passed The Civil Rights Act.

they switched sides after the civil rights act everyone knows that.... fascism is right wing as all dictionaries and encyclopedia say and other than not liking to be affiliated with genocide your a fascist

No it is not. Fascism is collectivism. Left wing

 

[thereisnospoon]

Socialism has never worked....and never will. Econ 101

Be honest, it's okay, I don't think the conservatives will toss you under the bus as a CINO. Admit you never enrolled in or took Econ 101.

Socialism, a dream you will never realize, is a failure.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Isn't that a rather convenient bit of word salad and mental masturbation. Additionally, americans subsidize the lower pricing of pharmaceuticals available to Canadian nationalized healthcare consumers as the pharmaceutical corporations jack up rates on americans to recover the “losses” the Canadian healthcare system negotiates them down to.

Sorry it was too many words for you to digest, it was only two paragraphs. One of the primary reasons pharmaceutical companies charge high prices is to recoup the cost of research and development of new drugs. These costs are high because we have an impeccable standard that is required for drug approval in America. Again, you are comparing the Rolls Royce with the Chevy.

Oh for fucks sake, look, I've been in big pahrma for decades. We spend far more these days on marketting than R&D, the industry has globalized as have the regulatory bodies, harmonizing regulations, and the nations that produce the most drugs also consume the most. What american pharma does now is me too life style drugs like Cialis and patent mining.

Non-prescription medicines, of which the great majority are over-the-counter sales for self-medication, accounted for an additional US$ 33.9 billion of sales in 2000. Adding together the prescription and non-prescription sales gives a global medicines total of just over US$ 316 billion in 2000, which compares reasonably with the calculated 1999 consumption total of US$ 317.6 billion in Table 4.1.

Available data on global medicine sales show a similar pattern of skewness towards high-income countries as do production and consumption data. In 1999, 15% of the world’s population lived in high-income countries, 49% in middle-income and 36% in low-income countries. Once again, the disparity between sales and population is dramatic: at the top end, approximately 15% of the world’s population bought almost 90% of the world’s medicines; at the bottom end, over one-third of the world’s population bought less than 1% of the world’s pharmaceuticals. For the half of the world’s population who live in middle-income countries, their share in total sales accounted for a little over 10% in 2000. Table 4.3 shows a remarkable concentrating trend in the global shares of both individual countries, such as the USA and Japan, and of the top 10 markets as a group, which accounted for 62.4% of global sales in 1976 and 98.7% in 2000. Table 4.3 also shows strong concentration even within the high-income countries. In 2000, over 95% of global sales were concentrated in the top 10 pharmaceutical markets: USA, Japan, France, Germany, UK, Italy, Spain, Canada, Brazil and Mexico. In India, which was in the top 10 in 1985 but not in 2000, sales were estimated to be US$ 3.4 billion in 2000.
The World Medicines Situation: Chapter 4. World pharmaceutical sales and consumption

It ain't like Grandma's blood pressure medication is coming from a Congolese witch doctor if we question the power structure. And again, Canadians get the same drugs americans do at systemically, consistently 1/2-1/3 the price. And american pharma then comes at americans to make up the difference.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Considering Americans don't even have a socialist party I would say they don't love it all. A better question might be why are right wingers so paranoid and afraid of socialism?

Democrats are the Socialists.

GOP is the fascist.

Fascism is actually a Leftist Ideology.

your either retarded or insane which is it?

The Dimscum holds these values:

You as an indivdual have a right to own another human being, that is until you are called out on it and forbidden from owning someone because of Emancipation and Then The Civil Rights Act that Republicans Freed the Slaves with.
Afterwhich Ownership of People is transferred to The Government.

Dems are the party that brought you The Trail of Tears. Slavery. Lynchings. Fire Hoses. Rosa Parks being Forced To Ride In The Back of The Bus. Segregation, The KKK and Policies of Dependency, and The Doctrine of Benevolent Paternalism.

They are the ultimate party of oppression.

Funny how Evil Men like to suppress Truth by claiming that the Truth Teller is insane.

The DNC is a hate group. Always has been, always will be.

so who changed all the history books to make seem like republicans were racists? was it the jews?

What is written in text books for the indoctrination of young minds can be changed. What cannot be changed, which is the undoing of the left, are the facts.

 

[Rustic]

Isn't that a rather convenient bit of word salad and mental masturbation. Additionally, americans subsidize the lower pricing of pharmaceuticals available to Canadian nationalized healthcare consumers as the pharmaceutical corporations jack up rates on americans to recover the “losses” the Canadian healthcare system negotiates them down to.

Sorry it was too many words for you to digest, it was only two paragraphs. One of the primary reasons pharmaceutical companies charge high prices is to recoup the cost of research and development of new drugs. These costs are high because we have an impeccable standard that is required for drug approval in America. Again, you are comparing the Rolls Royce with the Chevy.

Oh for fucks sake, look, I've been in boi pahrma for decades. We spend far more these days on marketting than R&D, the industry has globalized as have the regulatory bodies, harmonizing regulations, and the nations that produce the most drugs also soncume the most. What american pharma does now is me too life style drugs like Cialis and patent mining.

Non-prescription medicines, of which the great majority are over-the-counter sales for self-medication, accounted for an additional US$ 33.9 billion of sales in 2000. Adding together the prescription and non-prescription sales gives a global medicines total of just over US$ 316 billion in 2000, which compares reasonably with the calculated 1999 consumption total of US$ 317.6 billion in Table 4.1.

Available data on global medicine sales show a similar pattern of skewness towards high-income countries as do production and consumption data. In 1999, 15% of the world’s population lived in high-income countries, 49% in middle-income and 36% in low-income countries. Once again, the disparity between sales and population is dramatic: at the top end, approximately 15% of the world’s population bought almost 90% of the world’s medicines; at the bottom end, over one-third of the world’s population bought less than 1% of the world’s pharmaceuticals. For the half of the world’s population who live in middle-income countries, their share in total sales accounted for a little over 10% in 2000. Table 4.3 shows a remarkable concentrating trend in the global shares of both individual countries, such as the USA and Japan, and of the top 10 markets as a group, which accounted for 62.4% of global sales in 1976 and 98.7% in 2000. Table 4.3 also shows strong concentration even within the high-income countries. In 2000, over 95% of global sales were concentrated in the top 10 pharmaceutical markets: USA, Japan, France, Germany, UK, Italy, Spain, Canada, Brazil and Mexico. In India, which was in the top 10 in 1985 but not in 2000, sales were estimated to be US$ 3.4 billion in 2000.
The World Medicines Situation: Chapter 4. World pharmaceutical sales and consumption

It ain't like Grandma's blood pressure medication is coming from a Congolese witch doctor if we question the power structure. And again, Canadians get the same drugs americans do at systemically, consistently 1/2-1/3 the price. And american pharma then comes at americans to make up the difference.

Go live in Canada then

 

[thereisnospoon]

the USSR had ranks

Their military wasn't a socialist organization.

whether thats true or not has nothing to due with ranks.... maybe an anarchist army would have no ranks but I dont think thats ever existed.

Stop insisting. Its not good.

 

[rdean]

Socialism
Karl Marx
Marxism
Union of Soviet Socialist Republicans
KGB
Vladimir Putin
Donald Trump
Russian involvement
Tax cuts for the rich
Socialism

Circular Facts.

 

[Fenton Lum]

And

Isn't that a rather convenient bit of word salad and mental masturbation. Additionally, americans subsidize the lower pricing of pharmaceuticals available to Canadian nationalized healthcare consumers as the pharmaceutical corporations jack up rates on americans to recover the “losses” the Canadian healthcare system negotiates them down to.

Sorry it was too many words for you to digest, it was only two paragraphs. One of the primary reasons pharmaceutical companies charge high prices is to recoup the cost of research and development of new drugs. These costs are high because we have an impeccable standard that is required for drug approval in America. Again, you are comparing the Rolls Royce with the Chevy.

Oh for fucks sake, look, I've been in boi pahrma for decades. We spend far more these days on marketting than R&D, the industry has globalized as have the regulatory bodies, harmonizing regulations, and the nations that produce the most drugs also soncume the most. What american pharma does now is me too life style drugs like Cialis and patent mining.

Non-prescription medicines, of which the great majority are over-the-counter sales for self-medication, accounted for an additional US$ 33.9 billion of sales in 2000. Adding together the prescription and non-prescription sales gives a global medicines total of just over US$ 316 billion in 2000, which compares reasonably with the calculated 1999 consumption total of US$ 317.6 billion in Table 4.1.

Available data on global medicine sales show a similar pattern of skewness towards high-income countries as do production and consumption data. In 1999, 15% of the world’s population lived in high-income countries, 49% in middle-income and 36% in low-income countries. Once again, the disparity between sales and population is dramatic: at the top end, approximately 15% of the world’s population bought almost 90% of the world’s medicines; at the bottom end, over one-third of the world’s population bought less than 1% of the world’s pharmaceuticals. For the half of the world’s population who live in middle-income countries, their share in total sales accounted for a little over 10% in 2000. Table 4.3 shows a remarkable concentrating trend in the global shares of both individual countries, such as the USA and Japan, and of the top 10 markets as a group, which accounted for 62.4% of global sales in 1976 and 98.7% in 2000. Table 4.3 also shows strong concentration even within the high-income countries. In 2000, over 95% of global sales were concentrated in the top 10 pharmaceutical markets: USA, Japan, France, Germany, UK, Italy, Spain, Canada, Brazil and Mexico. In India, which was in the top 10 in 1985 but not in 2000, sales were estimated to be US$ 3.4 billion in 2000.
The World Medicines Situation: Chapter 4. World pharmaceutical sales and consumption

It ain't like Grandma's blood pressure medication is coming from a Congolese witch doctor if we question the power structure. And again, Canadians get the same drugs americans do at systemically, consistently 1/2-1/3 the price. And american pharma then comes at americans to make up the difference.

Go live in Canada then

Aw, no ammo at all?

 

[Rustic]

And

Isn't that a rather convenient bit of word salad and mental masturbation. Additionally, americans subsidize the lower pricing of pharmaceuticals available to Canadian nationalized healthcare consumers as the pharmaceutical corporations jack up rates on americans to recover the “losses” the Canadian healthcare system negotiates them down to.

Sorry it was too many words for you to digest, it was only two paragraphs. One of the primary reasons pharmaceutical companies charge high prices is to recoup the cost of research and development of new drugs. These costs are high because we have an impeccable standard that is required for drug approval in America. Again, you are comparing the Rolls Royce with the Chevy.

Oh for fucks sake, look, I've been in boi pahrma for decades. We spend far more these days on marketting than R&D, the industry has globalized as have the regulatory bodies, harmonizing regulations, and the nations that produce the most drugs also soncume the most. What american pharma does now is me too life style drugs like Cialis and patent mining.

Non-prescription medicines, of which the great majority are over-the-counter sales for self-medication, accounted for an additional US$ 33.9 billion of sales in 2000. Adding together the prescription and non-prescription sales gives a global medicines total of just over US$ 316 billion in 2000, which compares reasonably with the calculated 1999 consumption total of US$ 317.6 billion in Table 4.1.

Available data on global medicine sales show a similar pattern of skewness towards high-income countries as do production and consumption data. In 1999, 15% of the world’s population lived in high-income countries, 49% in middle-income and 36% in low-income countries. Once again, the disparity between sales and population is dramatic: at the top end, approximately 15% of the world’s population bought almost 90% of the world’s medicines; at the bottom end, over one-third of the world’s population bought less than 1% of the world’s pharmaceuticals. For the half of the world’s population who live in middle-income countries, their share in total sales accounted for a little over 10% in 2000. Table 4.3 shows a remarkable concentrating trend in the global shares of both individual countries, such as the USA and Japan, and of the top 10 markets as a group, which accounted for 62.4% of global sales in 1976 and 98.7% in 2000. Table 4.3 also shows strong concentration even within the high-income countries. In 2000, over 95% of global sales were concentrated in the top 10 pharmaceutical markets: USA, Japan, France, Germany, UK, Italy, Spain, Canada, Brazil and Mexico. In India, which was in the top 10 in 1985 but not in 2000, sales were estimated to be US$ 3.4 billion in 2000.
The World Medicines Situation: Chapter 4. World pharmaceutical sales and consumption

It ain't like Grandma's blood pressure medication is coming from a Congolese witch doctor if we question the power structure. And again, Canadians get the same drugs americans do at systemically, consistently 1/2-1/3 the price. And american pharma then comes at americans to make up the difference.

Go live in Canada then

Aw, no ammo at all?

It's all about free shit - is it not?

 

[AntonToo]

This OP might be a little wordy

It's also big time silly.

The left loves socialism no more than the right loves anarchy and theocracy.

 

[Fenton Lum]

And

Isn't that a rather convenient bit of word salad and mental masturbation. Additionally, americans subsidize the lower pricing of pharmaceuticals available to Canadian nationalized healthcare consumers as the pharmaceutical corporations jack up rates on americans to recover the “losses” the Canadian healthcare system negotiates them down to.

Sorry it was too many words for you to digest, it was only two paragraphs. One of the primary reasons pharmaceutical companies charge high prices is to recoup the cost of research and development of new drugs. These costs are high because we have an impeccable standard that is required for drug approval in America. Again, you are comparing the Rolls Royce with the Chevy.

Oh for fucks sake, look, I've been in boi pahrma for decades. We spend far more these days on marketting than R&D, the industry has globalized as have the regulatory bodies, harmonizing regulations, and the nations that produce the most drugs also soncume the most. What american pharma does now is me too life style drugs like Cialis and patent mining.

Non-prescription medicines, of which the great majority are over-the-counter sales for self-medication, accounted for an additional US$ 33.9 billion of sales in 2000. Adding together the prescription and non-prescription sales gives a global medicines total of just over US$ 316 billion in 2000, which compares reasonably with the calculated 1999 consumption total of US$ 317.6 billion in Table 4.1.

Available data on global medicine sales show a similar pattern of skewness towards high-income countries as do production and consumption data. In 1999, 15% of the world’s population lived in high-income countries, 49% in middle-income and 36% in low-income countries. Once again, the disparity between sales and population is dramatic: at the top end, approximately 15% of the world’s population bought almost 90% of the world’s medicines; at the bottom end, over one-third of the world’s population bought less than 1% of the world’s pharmaceuticals. For the half of the world’s population who live in middle-income countries, their share in total sales accounted for a little over 10% in 2000. Table 4.3 shows a remarkable concentrating trend in the global shares of both individual countries, such as the USA and Japan, and of the top 10 markets as a group, which accounted for 62.4% of global sales in 1976 and 98.7% in 2000. Table 4.3 also shows strong concentration even within the high-income countries. In 2000, over 95% of global sales were concentrated in the top 10 pharmaceutical markets: USA, Japan, France, Germany, UK, Italy, Spain, Canada, Brazil and Mexico. In India, which was in the top 10 in 1985 but not in 2000, sales were estimated to be US$ 3.4 billion in 2000.
The World Medicines Situation: Chapter 4. World pharmaceutical sales and consumption

It ain't like Grandma's blood pressure medication is coming from a Congolese witch doctor if we question the power structure. And again, Canadians get the same drugs americans do at systemically, consistently 1/2-1/3 the price. And american pharma then comes at americans to make up the difference.

Go live in Canada then

Aw, no ammo at all?

It's all about free shit - is it not?

Hardly, no.

 

[Rustic]

And

Sorry it was too many words for you to digest, it was only two paragraphs. One of the primary reasons pharmaceutical companies charge high prices is to recoup the cost of research and development of new drugs. These costs are high because we have an impeccable standard that is required for drug approval in America. Again, you are comparing the Rolls Royce with the Chevy.

Oh for fucks sake, look, I've been in boi pahrma for decades. We spend far more these days on marketting than R&D, the industry has globalized as have the regulatory bodies, harmonizing regulations, and the nations that produce the most drugs also soncume the most. What american pharma does now is me too life style drugs like Cialis and patent mining.

Non-prescription medicines, of which the great majority are over-the-counter sales for self-medication, accounted for an additional US$ 33.9 billion of sales in 2000. Adding together the prescription and non-prescription sales gives a global medicines total of just over US$ 316 billion in 2000, which compares reasonably with the calculated 1999 consumption total of US$ 317.6 billion in Table 4.1.

Available data on global medicine sales show a similar pattern of skewness towards high-income countries as do production and consumption data. In 1999, 15% of the world’s population lived in high-income countries, 49% in middle-income and 36% in low-income countries. Once again, the disparity between sales and population is dramatic: at the top end, approximately 15% of the world’s population bought almost 90% of the world’s medicines; at the bottom end, over one-third of the world’s population bought less than 1% of the world’s pharmaceuticals. For the half of the world’s population who live in middle-income countries, their share in total sales accounted for a little over 10% in 2000. Table 4.3 shows a remarkable concentrating trend in the global shares of both individual countries, such as the USA and Japan, and of the top 10 markets as a group, which accounted for 62.4% of global sales in 1976 and 98.7% in 2000. Table 4.3 also shows strong concentration even within the high-income countries. In 2000, over 95% of global sales were concentrated in the top 10 pharmaceutical markets: USA, Japan, France, Germany, UK, Italy, Spain, Canada, Brazil and Mexico. In India, which was in the top 10 in 1985 but not in 2000, sales were estimated to be US$ 3.4 billion in 2000.
The World Medicines Situation: Chapter 4. World pharmaceutical sales and consumption

It ain't like Grandma's blood pressure medication is coming from a Congolese witch doctor if we question the power structure. And again, Canadians get the same drugs americans do at systemically, consistently 1/2-1/3 the price. And american pharma then comes at americans to make up the difference.

Go live in Canada then

Aw, no ammo at all?

It's all about free shit - is it not?

Hardly, no.

Ok, free shit that other people pay for...

 

[Fenton Lum]

This OP might be a little wordy

It's also big time silly.

The left loves socialism no more than the right loves anarchy and theocracy.

Your entire economic system screamed out for socialism a few scant years ago, again, and the entire planet witnessed it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Socialism has never worked....and never will. Econ 101

It actually does work for a while. In the movie it worked very well for a while. Like I said, it was proudly considered virtuous and noble... democracy in action... everyone working together for the common good of the group. What it ultimately did was crush individuality and sense of self-accomplishment.

The Left will proudly showcase the European countries in Scandinavia as these marvelous examples of socialism working... and they will work for 20-30 years in some cases. Eventually, even they will fail.

When you crush individuality and the sense of self-accomplishment, you crush the human spirit... and it's all downhill from there. We know this from experience, the historical record is rife with examples. Trouble is, the Socialists refuse to accept the truth and continue to make excuses for their dismal track record... oh, there was corruption, or this shouldn't have been allowed to happen, or that was the problem but we've FIXED it now... and every generation or so, they trot out a new incarnation of the same failed idea.

Sweden is the current example of the left's socialist utopia but the cracks are already beginning to appear

All of those so called "happy countries" are having to hide their problems.
As with any society which taxes its producers to support a growing number of non-producers, the inevitable is the government runs out of people to tax.
Contributing to the downfall is as individuals see the support system as an easier way to live, they drop out of the labor market to become part of the growing number of the supported. Essentially,. the social safety net makes it comfortable to be a parasite.

 

[AntonToo]

It's mostly never having lived under real Socialism, maybe it's a form of ignorance

No, Frank, it is you right wing yahoos that got no clue what actual socialism is and keep throwing it around to describe what is going on in America.

 

[Fenton Lum]

And

Oh for fucks sake, look, I've been in boi pahrma for decades. We spend far more these days on marketting than R&D, the industry has globalized as have the regulatory bodies, harmonizing regulations, and the nations that produce the most drugs also soncume the most. What american pharma does now is me too life style drugs like Cialis and patent mining.

Non-prescription medicines, of which the great majority are over-the-counter sales for self-medication, accounted for an additional US$ 33.9 billion of sales in 2000. Adding together the prescription and non-prescription sales gives a global medicines total of just over US$ 316 billion in 2000, which compares reasonably with the calculated 1999 consumption total of US$ 317.6 billion in Table 4.1.

Available data on global medicine sales show a similar pattern of skewness towards high-income countries as do production and consumption data. In 1999, 15% of the world’s population lived in high-income countries, 49% in middle-income and 36% in low-income countries. Once again, the disparity between sales and population is dramatic: at the top end, approximately 15% of the world’s population bought almost 90% of the world’s medicines; at the bottom end, over one-third of the world’s population bought less than 1% of the world’s pharmaceuticals. For the half of the world’s population who live in middle-income countries, their share in total sales accounted for a little over 10% in 2000. Table 4.3 shows a remarkable concentrating trend in the global shares of both individual countries, such as the USA and Japan, and of the top 10 markets as a group, which accounted for 62.4% of global sales in 1976 and 98.7% in 2000. Table 4.3 also shows strong concentration even within the high-income countries. In 2000, over 95% of global sales were concentrated in the top 10 pharmaceutical markets: USA, Japan, France, Germany, UK, Italy, Spain, Canada, Brazil and Mexico. In India, which was in the top 10 in 1985 but not in 2000, sales were estimated to be US$ 3.4 billion in 2000.
The World Medicines Situation: Chapter 4. World pharmaceutical sales and consumption

It ain't like Grandma's blood pressure medication is coming from a Congolese witch doctor if we question the power structure. And again, Canadians get the same drugs americans do at systemically, consistently 1/2-1/3 the price. And american pharma then comes at americans to make up the difference.

Go live in Canada then

Aw, no ammo at all?

It's all about free shit - is it not?

Hardly, no.

Ok, free shit that other people pay for...

If I assumed you have never participated in any healthcare insurance and have never done anything other than pay for all your own healthcare and that of your family's, I might me more inclined to indulge you.

 

[AntonToo]

This OP might be a little wordy

It's also big time silly.

The left loves socialism no more than the right loves anarchy and theocracy.

Your entire economic system screamed out for socialism a few scant years ago, again, and the entire planet witnessed it.

? Our entire economic system screamed out for government takeover of majority of economy???? Must've missed that one.

What I didn't miss is all the screaming about supposedly SOCIALIST Obamacare, you know, that healthcare reform of private insurance companies paying to private healthcare providers.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Socialism has never worked....and never will. Econ 101

It actually does work for a while. In the movie it worked very well for a while. Like I said, it was proudly considered virtuous and noble... democracy in action... everyone working together for the common good of the group. What it ultimately did was crush individuality and sense of self-accomplishment.

The Left will proudly showcase the European countries in Scandinavia as these marvelous examples of socialism working... and they will work for 20-30 years in some cases. Eventually, even they will fail.

When you crush individuality and the sense of self-accomplishment, you crush the human spirit... and it's all downhill from there. We know this from experience, the historical record is rife with examples. Trouble is, the Socialists refuse to accept the truth and continue to make excuses for their dismal track record... oh, there was corruption, or this shouldn't have been allowed to happen, or that was the problem but we've FIXED it now... and every generation or so, they trot out a new incarnation of the same failed idea.

Sweden is the current example of the left's socialist utopia but the cracks are already beginning to appear

All of those so called "happy countries" are having to hide their problems.
As with any society which taxes its producers to support a growing number of non-producers, the inevitable is the government runs out of people to tax.
Contributing to the downfall is as individuals see the support system as an easier way to live, they drop out of the labor market to become part of the growing number of the supported. Essentially,. the social safety net makes it comfortable to be a parasite.

As we hide our own. And apprently we're not smart enough to demand that our leaders examine all the other systems and utilizing aspects of all, modify ours so we no longer have the most expensive system on the planet for relatively shitter outcomes.

But we have industry lobbyists and predatory corporate powers to deal with. And a political system with no intention of serving "the people".