Does anyone follow Bernie Sanders and his run for the presidency?

[Ruth]

It didn't work very well in the USSR, was a disaster in Nazi Germany and has failed everywhere else. Name me a few of these "many" countries you claim are shining brightly from socialism.

I haven't looked them up to write them yet but there sure are some.

 

[Ruth]

Cuba and China are two of them.

 

[psalms 91]

For socialism I remember one of the WScandinavian countries that does very well under this type of system

 

[Ruth]

For socialism I remember one of the WScandinavian countries that does very well under this type of system

Yes, I read that as well.

 

[Highlander]

In an American society, if you discover gold in your backyard -- and you do not live on government property -- you can hire a lawyer to arrange to sell the mineral rights and make lots of money from the fees you will receive from the company that you make the arrangement with. It's known as the American Dream.

 

[Highlander]

Cuba is one of the most poverty stricken nations on the planet. And China rules its subjects with an iron fist. Neither is an example of the "successes" of socialism.

 

[Hammster]

I like this guy a lot. He has so many brilliant ideas and a heart of gold. He really cares about the underdogs.

Robin Hood is great for movies, but not real life, especially when one cannot determine who is really rich and who is really poor.

Reagan was right when he said the nine scariest words are "we're from the government, and we're here to help".

 

[Hammster]

For socialism I remember one of the WScandinavian countries that does very well under this type of system

That is until you start digging deeper and find out it's not all it's cracked up to be.

 

[Hammster]

Cuba and China are two of them.

Those are communist countries. And the human rights in China are terrible.

 

[Highlander]

One thing that is notable about some of the nations that some people like to present as successful socialist nations -- some are under the protection of other, larger nations and, as a result, do not have to dedicate a major portion of their gross national product to fund a military defense, etc.

 

[charis en excelcis]

Self declared, non-Marxist socialist governments:Bangladesh, Guyana, India, Portugal, Tanzania. Countries with capitalist economies and heavy socialistic programs: Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, New Zealand, Belgium. Communist countries: China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba. North Korea is in a class of it's own.

 

[tango]

For socialism I remember one of the WScandinavian countries that does very well under this type of system

Norway does very well in many respects, although the price of stuff there will make your eyes water and their suicide rate is spectacularly high. Admittedly it peaks during the winter months when there is no daylight at all (i.e. instead of night-dawn-day-dusk-night the cycle goes night-dawn-dusk-night), but clearly the people living there don't feel sufficient hope to tough it out until spring.

It's also interesting that even at their prices the bars often seem to be full. Back in 2002 a pint of beer cost the equivalent of about $8-10 but people were lined up paying it.

One thing Norway does seem to have done very well with is their investments using the income from oil sales. Instead of using it on spending programs or pork barrel projects it has been put into a sovereign wealth fund, and from what I gather the fund had to be split into two because it was so large it needed more oversight. I forget where I read it but recall its value either going over $1trn or being projected to go over $1trn before long.

 

[tango]

Well one thing is sure, capitalism in its present form is not working for most but only for a privileged few

The problem is that capitalism is paired with government intervention. Under a truly free market inefficient players would be shaken out by competition, companies that made bad decisions would fail and go bankrupt and be replaced with new companies. Companies that charged too much or offered shoddy goods would fail and be replaced by companies that charged less and offered more. Sooner or later the market would find the sweet spot where margins were high enough to be worth bothering with but low enough to stop new entrants doing the same for less.

As soon as the government intervenes it becomes harder to compete. A new company has more legal hoops to jump through, more taxes to pay, more administration to deal with, all of which makes it much harder to get started in the first place. A universal minimum wage makes it harder for a startup to offer its first employees a low wage from the outset with the promise of higher wages or stock options or whatever else if the business flies. Of course that sort of arrangement only works for people who don't need a wage right off the bat, but that group of people includes people with low living costs as well as the already wealthy.

Ultimately when a system ends up with one group of people exploiting another it's inevitable that government steps in, at which point what usually happens is little more than the pendulum swinging too far before self-correcting anyway. So when bosses exploit their staff the government steps in to protect workers but before long unscrupulous and lazy workers start to exploit the company, and before long the pendulum swings.

 

[Josiah]

Sanders is well intentioned, but is a socialist. He really is not electable. But his soaring poll numbers are a very instructive reflection of just how bad a candidate Hillary is.

Agree with all of that. His poll numbers show how DESPERATE many Democrats are.

The Republicans have too many choices, the Democrats - none.

 

[psalms 91]

Yet given Trump the dems would win

 

[Highlander]

Agree with all of that. His poll numbers show how DESPERATE many Democrats are.

The Republicans have too many choices, the Democrats - none.

Hi Josiah,

I agree with BOTH of us. LOL

 

[Hammster]

Yet given Trump the dems would win

While it's possible, I don't think it's a given.

 

[Forgiven1]

I know a Democrat who says she has no choice, she doesn't like either one. Now me, I have too many choices, but am working on narrowing it down.

 

[tango]

Yet given Trump the dems would win

The last article I read reckoned Trump would defeat any of the Democrat candidates by a wide margin.

 

[psalms 91]

stand sto reason because whoever wins has to be a disaster as this country will go down so that actually makes sense