A Progressive Says... " Five Economic Reforms Millennials Should Be Fighting For"

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

If anyone has ANY doubts as to whether the progressive movement, and it's socialist agenda is ALL about turning this nation into a SOCIALIST country you really, realty need to NEED to read this.

Now I get that capitalism in the USA has really botched things up in a big way. Government, in cahoots with business, has developed a huge crony capitalist system whereby subsidies (the taxpayers money) prop up businesses that otherwise would fail.

Businesses (industries) cry for regulations that hamper their better competitors from more effectively, and at a lower cost, serving their customers at a higher level of efficiency.

Labor unions, now clamoring for a ridiculously high minimum wage see no correlation between the effect of increased costs to the businesses and the effect it will have on the price of product or service to the consumer.

Our government, and it hasn't been just the democrats, has been moving towards European style democratic socialism (or if you prefer economic fascism)for many a year. American progressives are pushing this agenda in the media, government, and yes even business.

I suppose, as the USA is a representative democracy, when the majority in the country are able to elect enough representatives and senators in the 50 states and the federal government they will succeed in turning this country into the socialist utopia they dream of.

I guess the truth is, very few things remain static, including politics and government as we have seen over the course of our Nation's history. So, unless saner minds can prevail and find a way to re-energize our once vibrant capitalist system in a way that benefits the broad majority we will be looking at "The United States of New Europe".

Our federal system of government was set up so the people would always have a voice. That vice has moved us to where we are mow. Progressives are gaining a louder voice and are gaining strength because their antagonists have failed to provide a better mouse trap of late.

Following is a list of five things Jesse A. Myerson of Rolling Stone proposes the progressives need to have as their sgenda and vigorously pursue.

1) Guaranteed Work for Everybody
2) Social Security for All
3) Take Back The Land
4) Make Everything Owned by Everybody
5) A Public Bank in Every State

If any of this sh*t scares the h*ll out of you (it certainly does me) I highly suggest reading the complete article below the fold.

Via: Memeorandum


  1. That's one heck of an interpretation of that article there, Les. That said, much of what he proposes is not generally espoused by most progressives (the vast majority of American progressives are not as socialistic as you think), and it's pipe dreaming anyway. It's simply not going to happen here. Yes, it is generally socialistic, but only a fool automatically assumes everything socialistic is therefore de facto bad, just as only a fool assumes everything capitalistic is bad (hence, American progressives are generally not that socialistic). Much of this is done around the world and is considered a good thing by all concerned.


  2. I'm wondering if you fully digested what I wrote.

    Sure, the progressive agenda spans a wide band of thought, just as the conservative and libertarian agenda does.

    Myerson is one on what I call the wacko fringe of the progressive thougjt/agenda band.

    I do believe it is quite possible the agenda could take hold if conservatives and libertarians (and business and industry) fail to develop alternatives that work.

    I view Myerson and others of the ilk as warnings.

    1. I think you're being reactionary. Myerson is not really that far out at all. Many other countries engage in these ideas and it's been mostly good for most of them. This is not a warning, it does not have to be a line of dominoes heading for communist hell, and your synopsis of these ideas is over-simplified, misleading and wrong anyway.

      Just the same, his ideas are not widely accepting in the progressive community in America today. There are two reasons for this. First, they are politically unrealistic, and second, they are not all necessarily good ideas. Whether they are "socialistic" or not is not a concern for progressives, beyond that creating the political impossibility. It's a shame that this is the main concern for conservatives and libertarians, but they are more concerned with ideology than results, and that's just the reality with them.


    2. You of course are entitled to your opinion jmj. which this time is so GD ridiculous it leaves me in awe at its absurdity.

      PS: Stick with the boilerplate stuff, you do it well.

      Carry on.

  3. You have nothing to say about the concrete arguments in the article?

    Just shiver at the mere thought of that word "socialism"?
    Not getting us anywhere, RN.

  4. 1) I don't shiver at shit, I prepare to clean it up.

    2) I would gladly point out constructive (concrete) points. If I saw any.

    3) We already have soft socialism. So your point? I don't think we need much more.

    4) Getting us no where? Then the focus should shift to realistic goals from progressives.

  5. I grudgingly agree with the lefties. We don't have socialism here, we have progressive government corporatism. The rich and well-connected enjoy a life of little government control, all the while whining about two Americas, Elysium, etc, when indeed there are two Americas (they live in the upper half) and they also live in their exclusive Elysiums, enjoying the best of everything, including health care, while advocating government socialism (the equal spreading of miser) for rest of us schlubs.

    And there are millions of dummies down here in Lower America cheering it on, thinking the fatcats are fighting for them.

    The article Les cited was typical leftwing claptrap. Stale boilerplate feel-good auto-fellatio.

    Myerson should have added in unicorns and a rainbow's end in every back yard.

    1. Reality, we already have soft socialism. Fact, we continue to slowly move further in that direction. Fact 2, politicians on both sides of the aisle have conditioned citizens for more. Fact 4, there is likely no turning back from statism.

      Reality 2, it is what it is.

      Unicorns and rainbows indeed Silver.

      Question, is there a possibility of a silent underground growing in America?

    2. Les: I doubt it. You can't fight Santa Claus, especially when the entire political establishment is pulling his sleigh.

    3. Could it be great Monied interests, call them the pull peddlers that are fueling the sleigh known as crony capitalism. Or if you prefer Corporatism.

  6. "Take back the land" is scary as hell: not even barely disguised power-lust for the ruling elites to steal all real estate from the people. That isn't liberalism, it's real hard-left fascism. And every time this happens (Marxist land reform)., millions die. Here is one of history's famous examples of when #3 is implemented.

    As for #4, what it really means is nobody owns anything, except for those at the very top. The North Korea system. Glad that Jersey, as a liberal, is distancing himself from this article which fully embraced the policies that led to the worst horrors of the 20th century. Except for his odd "Much of this is done around the world and is considered a good thing by all concerned." statement? Because in places where this is implimented, the government controls all media and regulates expression as well, so everyone "officially" loves it.

    1. jmj is naive dmarks. I hear too much kool aid does that to people. Of any and all political persuasions.

    2. The Tragedy of the Commons is what would happen from #4. If everybody (or nobody) owns something, it quickly falls apart (overfishing in the oceans, public housing, etc.). Just ask any former resident of the old Soviet Union.

  7. And RN, any real motion towards Myerson's proposals to make those who already have the power have much more more power and control over our private lives will only give strength to the militia types and send people running to gun stores. Perhaps... with reason, this time. This is truly evil shit, and it wipes out hundreds of years of hard fought progress to chain in the abuses of the state and protect the rights of people to run their own lives.

  8. The libertarians are clearly concerned with the results and the reality of this.

  9. Well, at least this young man is throwing ideas out there, which is a lot more than what we see from the two major political parties and their various and well financed think tanks.

    Then if you sit down and look at his points you have to ask yourself:

    1. If capitalism is so great why can't it create jobs for everyone? I mean every conservative loves to demand that everyone get a job so what is the difference in a progressive that demands that the economic system create a job for everyone? The result is the same.

    2. Social Security for all....not much to say there and no real dispute from anyone.

    3. Take back the land, okay that one is a odd one, but then again, when we look at how much debt is created to fund building of sports stadiums and industrial parks just for two examples, all of which goes to publically support private enterprise....how many towns have TIF (tax incremental financing) to rebuild historic districts and or downtowns? He has a point whether you want to admit it or not.

    4. Make everything owned by everybody....okay, he jumped off the ledge on this one.

    5. Public Banks; actually I support this idea and have written about allowing the USPS to establish an infrastructure bank (http://taospeaks.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/re-inventing-government/)

    So, all in all he is kicking ideas around and four out of five are ideas we need to think about...that makes his batting average a lot higher than anyone elses....not bad for one guy.

    1. Tao: Interesting points
      1) It doesn't create jobs for everyone because it is not totalitarian. Capitalism doesn't go the extra mile to make "jobs for everyone" and create labor camps and forced conscription (common in strongly socialist systems)

      2) I have a major dispute with "social security for all". This is because I oppose welfare for teh rich. The government should only provide this for the needy, and let those of means pay for themselves.

      3) Why not just instead stop forcing taxpayers to pay for stadiums? Go the other direction? Instead of throwing our hands in the air and more fully embracing this form of crony capitalism

      5) I strongly oppose this. Banks should be run by the people, not the State. Private banks, well regulated, and disperse the Fed. That is the direction we need to move in. The Occupy movement, which was generally fascist in that it typically wanted more state control over people's lives, had the right idea on one thing: they favored much more use of credit unions. This is a great idea. Credit unions are small, decentralized, and are definitely not state-run (you used the euphemism "public") banks.

      So, all in all, he is kicking around ideas that move is away from the direction we should be moving in. Not liking the team he is batting on, in a baseball game between the interests of the ruling elites and the interests of the ruled.

    2. First off, when you jump out with terms like "totalitarian" "labor camps" and "forced conscription" or and lets not forget "strongly socialist systems" I get all confused....

      I can't help but be confused because at the same time I know that you consider countries like Germany and the Nordic European countries to be "socialist" so I cannot help but ask, where are the labor camps in Germany? Where is forced conscription in Sweden?

  10. TAO: Why can't 'capitalism' create jobs for everyone?

    Ask Obama. His government controls the market

    1. If Obama and his government controlled the market then wouldn't it seem that Obama would make unemployment disappear? Wouldn't it seem that he would raise everyone's wages?

      You want to believe that "government" controls everything, if that was the case then the financial meltdown of 2008 wouldn't have happened....

      Now, if you would rather want to argue that the government is controlled rather than in control that would be something to discuss.

  11. Do they Silver? I'm not so sure they do. Any more than Bush controlled the markets.

    I refer you back to my prior response.

    1. Les: The government is firmly in control of the market, has been since the dawn of progressivism 100 years ago. That's what makes leftwing attacks on 'capitalism' and 'free markets's such a joke.

      They deride 'trickle down' economics, but are perfectly happy when it is government tinkling down upon their heads.

      We are a crony crapitalist nation.

  12. What’s the difference between ignorance and apathy? (Answer: “I don’t know and I don’t care.”)

    Perhaps a bit of sarcasm sums up my frustration with this post. Les, you steadfastly make this same assumptions every time: Your tendency to view liberalism and progressivism as some monolithic threat against capitalism and democracy – something akin to that dreaded “socialism” word - when in fact there is a spectrum of opinion among liberals as much as there is a spectrum of opinion among conservatives and … yes, even among some hardcore right-wingers.

    First, you assume Jesse Myerson speaks for me, or that Myerson represents the views of all liberals. This is not the case. You mistook a shoddy opinion piece from one person as liberal gospel. It isn’t. This is an example of gratuitous stereotyping and false attribution.

    Yes, there are generally, and mutually, acknowledged problems with regards to economic inequality, a shrinking middle class, less social mobility, strains in the social safety net, and, in the minds of many, a faraway American Dream that has become more fable than real. These are facts. The social metrics are real. And the situation turns grimmer with each passing year.

    I scan conservative blogs and find the very same concerns all too often expressed by liberals: Corporatism and a rampant plutocracy that is turning us, not into a shining exemplar of democracy and opportunity, but into a corrupt kleptocracy. Thus begin the empty recriminations and finger pointing, with each side ignoring systemic problems spanning decades - while accusing the other in formulaic and stereotypically partisan terms. How intellectually dishonest! How self-defeating!

    I am disappointed. I expected better.

    1. Actually (O)CT(O)PUS my friend I would not be so presumptuous as to assume Myerson speaks for you, or any other specific individual progressive.

      Perhaps it is my bad for not SPECIFICALLY stating this post is concerning those who share what I CONSIDER to be Myerson'svextreme views within the broad band of liberal thought.

      Sorry you were disappointed. But on this, just as with Robertson, my views shall remain unchanged.

  13. I really like the land tax idea, though. It's a shame we'll never get it here.


    1. What are property taxes? You merely are advocating new ridiculous levels IMNHO.

      Destroying personal property is the goal apparently. You're it won't happen, as it well shouldn't.

    2. RN: The problem is more fundamental. It is with him (or anyone) actually liking taxes. Taxes should be viewed as a necessary evil at best.

    3. Les, that doesn't make sense. Do you know what a land tax is? It wouldn't effect the vast majority of people. They're already paying it.

      And remember, the idea is to change taxes - from this to that. Not to add another one. No one is advocating adding it on top of anything.

      You guys just seem to genuinely have no clue what the hell Myerson is talking about. You're just reflexively are against what he says.


  14. Rational Nation: Labor unions, now clamoring for a ridiculously high minimum wage see no correlation between the effect of increased costs to the businesses and the effect it will have on the price of product or service to the consumer.

    I don't agree with your argument, RN. The minimum wage these workers are clamoring for reflect their cost of living. The cost of labor should reflect what it takes to sustain a worker (food, clothing, shelter, etc). If it isn't then the rest of us have to pay (via welfare programs). Why should the taxpayer subsidize labor costs of business? Those who argue against a minimum wage (thus necessitating welfare programs) argue in favor of Corporate mooching. Why shouldn't business pay the true cost of it's labor and why should we subsidize their costs, RN?

    Dennis: I strongly oppose [state banks]. Banks should be run by the people, not the State. Private banks, well regulated, and disperse the Fed. That is the direction we need to move in. The Occupy movement, which was generally fascist... favored much more use of credit unions. This is a great idea.

    Credit unions ARE a great idea, Dennis. But I also strongly support the idea of state banks. Credit unions and state banks can co-exist. And, with state run banks, the money banks earn lending go back to the people instead of to the fat cats. A state run bank is "by the people", in that government represents people, whereas private banks represent their own bottom line (and often screw the people in their pursuit of more and more profit). I am however, with you (once again) in dispersing the FED. The FED should be nationalized. This would put the people in control of the money supply instead of the greedy fat cats. The Occupy movement supports this fascist control of our currency. Occupy is a 100 percent anti-fascist movement.

    Personally, I don't know how the hell the idea of credit unions being good and state banks being bad can co-exist in the head of the same individual. They are both good in that they both give greater control over our money to THE PEOPLE instead of rich bankers.

    1. Disagree as you like. Cost is always passed on to the consumer sooner or later. Unless efficiency and productivity improvements more than offsets increases on labor costs.

    2. Banks don't cost that much, Les. Just like the piles of cheap land the wealthy are hoarding.


    3. So, RN, what you're saying is that you think Capitalism would fail without the taxpayer subsidizing the labor costs of employers? I'm in favor of more socialism, but socialism for employers is not something I'd support... strange that RN would... or perhaps not. Those who have love for the plutocrats (as Ayn Rand did, believing them to be superior to the rest of us) usually approve when they reach out to buy our politicians in order to rig things in their favor (even though they SAY they don't). Will recently did several posts praising the Indian governments actions (with prodding from the IMF) that enabled the plutocrats to send White collar American jobs to their country. And, although Indian workers benefited, the plutocrats benefited even more (while American workers got the shaft). Will thinks the whole situation is freaking awesome.

    4. No Mr. Sanders it is NOT what I am saying. Except in your mind.

      Try again. Perhaps one day you will get it right.

  15. I could have offered the same critique of the Myerson piece as you. My point is missed again: Why are we working cross purposes and at odds amongst ourselves when we identify the same issues - and should be finding common cause - instead of allowing ourselves to be manipulated (read: "atomized") by special interests that don't want us united?

    When large voting blocs are turned into fractious and fragmented factions (read "atomized") and fail to defend their mutual self-interests, it is because there are propagandists employing a "divide-and-conquer" strategy - bought and paid for by the plutocracy - to make sure we remain fractious and fragmented.

    If you think in these terms, it might change your frame of reference.

  16. I have no real argument with what you say. However, as individuals, at least for the thinking we must consider and then ultimately determine the course we deem most reasonable. Then comes the difficult part, determing to work together in the pursuit of finding a compromise that all parties can sign on to.

    Much as our founders accomplished in forging the union of the United States.

    Today this seems impossible. For this both parties are responsible. Here's the deal (O)CT(O)PUS, I criticize the conservative positions as much as I do liberals. I have taken positions that have been liberal. Yet I see few liberal blogs criticizing liberal positions and scant few consevatives as well.

    Therein lies the problem IMNHO. The parties, and their followers ought to clean up their own backyards first before moving on to another's backyard.

  17. Silverfiddle teed it up and hit it out of the park. Obama is a crony capitalist corporatist, not a dang socialist (a big government statist, yes, a socialist, no). a) He took massive amounts of cash from the big-wigs at Google and alakazam, Google skated on its anti-trust and illegal manipulation charges less than 2 months into his administration. b) He assigned a fellow by the name of Mark Ernst to craft the new tax preparation law which would have had as one of it's side effects the putting out of business of a lot of small guys and did I mention that Mark Ernst was a former bi-wig at H&R Block? c) He had as his main business adviser GE's Jeffrey Immelt and damned if this whole green energy scam hasn't benefited that company immensely. d) For some strange reason he gave Philip Morris a seat at the table in the crafting of the tobacco bill and that legislation quite literally solidified their status as the #1 tobacco company (they apparently already had the new testing equipment and the smaller companies didn't). e) The stimulus package itself was a veritable grab-bag for corporate America; big tech, big energy, big concrete, big pharma, etc., etc.. To say that this fellow is a socialist is as about as accurate as saying that he bleeds for the little guy.

  18. Jesse Myerson is NOT "the progressive movement." He's one person giving his opinion. Most of us liberals/progressives never heard of him. You shouldn't read one article and then write, "... it's socialist agenda is ALL about turning this nation into a SOCIALIST country "

    That would be like having a liberal write a blog stating the conservative/libertarian movement is embodied by a whacko like Michele Bachmann.

    I consider myself a liberal, but have never thought of much of what Myerson stated, although some of it isn't exactly anything new. David Weigel of Slate explains:

    "The conservative blogosphere/thinkosphere has a new favorite punching bag: an op-ed in Rolling Stone, by Jesse Myerson, endorsing "five economic reforms milennials should be fighting for." Among them: "A job guarantee that paid a living wage," a "universal basic income," buying up bonds to undo the "top 10 percent's ownership of the means of production." Jonah Goldberg's response to the fooferah is pretty nihilistic and pretty true.

    Sometimes it is hard for people to accept that there really aren't many new ideas. Sure, there are new policy innovations and new possibilities created by technology. But the really big ideas about how we should organize society vary between being merely antique and downright ancient.
    But the best proof of this comes to us from Dylan Matthews. Watch what he does—if you notice it, you're smarter than most of the people reading the headline then tweeting through blind rage. Where Myerson describes a nationalization of bonds as a quasi-communist reform, Matthews brands it as "having Social Security invest in the private sector." Where Myerson makes "public banks" sound like something out of the New Economic Plan, Matthews points out that "North Dakota has far more small business lending by its community banks than neighboring states, such as South Dakota or Montana, that lack a public bank."

    The point is that none of the ideas are especially crazy. The outrage is one part economic thinking, 10 parts ideological retrenchment. Happy New Year!"

  19. Forgive me Shaw, but I am offended by your assumption, and frankly (O)CT(O)PUS"s as well that I am ignorant.

    I realize Myerson is the extreme element of the progressive agenda, or put another way the advance guard.

    I spoke the truth about Myerson's extreme anti capitalist views and the progressives of his ilks desire to destroy capitalism in this nation.

    If you, Mr. Sanders, (0)CT(O)PUS, or any other progressive have a problem with this truth and my views on the subject OH WELL. They are true, and I stand by them.

    I find your posting of Mr. David Weige's comment, copied and pasted below rather curios;

    "The point is that none of the ideas are especially crazy. The outrage is one part economic thinking, 10 parts ideological retrenchment."

    I will continue to expose and fight what I consider to be the extreme on both sides of the bulls*it partisan divide.

    It works both ways guys. Sorry. I am a stooge for NO ONE or any movement

    Have great evening.

  20. Les, this is the statement I objected to, and it has nothing to do with anyone's ignorance; it has to do with branding a political group: "... the progressive movement, and it's socialist agenda is ALL about turning this nation into a SOCIALIST country..."

    The "progressive movement" can no more be branded as a movement to bring socialism to this country anymore than the "conservative movement" can be branded as a movement to bring a theocracy to this country.

    Your statement did not qualify the progressives. You branded us all as wanting a socialist agenda. And that's just not true, anymore than the libertarian movement wants to turn this into an anti-religious country.

    Having said that, I wonder if people know that the happiest countries in the world, according to Forbes Magazine, are also countries that deliver national health care: Norway, Sweden, Canada, and New Zealand. In addition, they all enjoy peace, freedom, quality education, and plenty of opportunity.

    The United States, ostensibly the richest and most powerful country on the planet, is not among those listed as countries where their populations are contented.

    Do you think we can learn something from this?

    1. You said Shaw you objected to the following statement made by none other than ME... " "... the progressive movement, and it's socialist agenda is ALL about turning this nation into a SOCIALIST country..."

      Fair enough Shaw. In clarification I said... "I realize Myerson is the extreme element of the progressive agenda, or put another way the advance guard.

      I spoke the truth about Myerson's extreme anti capitalist views and the progressives of his ilks desire to destroy capitalism in this nation."

      I stand by the above statement because I realize, even when some do not, that the drive is a an incremental slow push to change America in Myerson's desired direction.

      Perhaps you do not agree with Myerson or share his radical views and agenda, and I hope you don't. I however WILL SPEAK OUT AGAINST HIS RADICALISM every time I see it raising its UGLY head.

    2. First off RN, you might find it enlightening to realize that in the past, people like Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Senator Bob La Follette (one of our best senators), were all Progressives and I seriously doubt you would call them "socialists."

      You might be better served if you used the following as a guide to the use of the term Progressive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States

      Progressives have done more to protect capitalism (from its self and its own inherent ability to self destruct) and re energize capitalism than any other group.

    3. Les, you've bent over backwards trying to be fair and balanced. Unfortunately, nothing short of absolute capitulation will ever satisfy these statists and so I would recommend that you dust off the fiery libertarian RN and let 'em have it between their heavily bureaucratic eyes.

  21. Will, it is unfortunate but what you say is becoming more obvious to me with each passing day.

    On the flip side the same is true of conservatves and some libertarians. It is CLEAR that BOTH sides want TOTAL capitulation.

    There is NO doubt in my mind at this point but what there is NO way the competing EXTREMES will EVER find COMMON ground. Neither side wants to, they BOTH THRIVE on the CONFLICT they so LOVE.

    It simply is what it is, it will continue to be what it will, and I no longer give a s*it.

  22. taospeaks, you might want to read my response to Will, who just happens to be correct.

    Further, while you may believe I need to be "enlightened" I on the other hand toss right back at you.

    Thanks for the link, I'll surely take a peek at it as soon as I have the time and inclination.

  23. I will let the bizarre words of the person who actually brings up Germany as a defense of the idea that there is never a problem with strong socialism and conscription/forced labor/etc stand on their own. It boggles the mind. Of course, this claim might be no problem at all with someone who has no interest at all in history, or was born after 1989.

    RN, I've noticed the most on the Left (not all) have lined up to defend the extreme fascist/statist/totalitarian views you brought to light in the parent post.

    1. There are many liberals and or progressives that indeed do not fully support the idiocy of Myerson. However, because he is "one of them" they hesitate to actually criticize his idiocy. As time passes, and more idiots like Myerson become vocal and are given a forum in which to bellow their idiocy it will become mainstream and the masses will clamor for more. AND, just like with the extreme on the right there will be plenty of idiots to satisfy the desire for MORE idiocy.

      Ho Hum, it is what it is and it will be what it will be. Life goes on and the ABYSS grows larger and ever more near. Prepare for whatever it is that you or anyone thinks will ultimately happen to this disintegrating nation of ours.

      I'm off to the gym for a healthy and strenuous workout. That for me has become by far more important that this s*it.

    2. Nice try dmarks....

      The Germany you are referring to was destroyed in WW2, which was what? 1945? That's pretty petty and lame.

      So I guess, following your logic, that we can claim that TODAY the United States is still a racist and bigoted society because in 1945 Jim Crow laws were in effect and we had a two tier society due to the fact that we had separate facilities for blacks and whites.

    3. Nice try on my part and successful to. Perhaps you should not have brought Germany up at all. Germany has moved away from strong socialism (which didn't end in 1945, but continued to devastate the eastern part of the country until 1989).

      Les, in this item, properly describes an extremist who wants us to move in that direction.

      Not sure how the Jim Crow subject you brought up relays to this, Tao.

    4. Yep, I want to figure out what works so well in Germany, labor camps and all, and what is such a glowing success in Norway to name just a few....of course you will continue to focus on "create labor camps and forced conscription (common in strongly socialist systems)" where you cannot point to one single labor camp or forced conscription in either of these countries since 1945.

  24. You keep trying to defend strong socialism, which is indefensible, Tao. Proving Les' point that the extremist in the parent post is far from alone.

    If anything is lame and petty, it is your bringing up the names of two countries in a discussion of the dangers of strong socialism, Tao, and then arbitrarily trying to discount the time in modern history when they were most strongly socialist. Trying and failing. One single such camp since 1945? Oops, Tao. Try several. Death camps, in fact, in Germany for decades after 1945.

    Just one example of documentation: http://www.dpcamps.org/dpcampsgermanysa-so.html

  25. Here are some interesting stats. Germany's total GDP in 1992 was 1.65 trillion Euros and in 2012 it was 2.65 trillion Euros, a 61% increase. Compare that to the U.S. in which we went from a 6.34 trillion dollar economy to a 15.68 trillion dollar economy, a 147% increase. Advantage us.......I would also point out that the income stagnation argument is a bogus one as well. Family income for the middle quintile went up by 35.2 to 43.7% (depending on whether you use the CPI or the Price Deflator Index) between 1979 and 2007. This, while the average family size has actually gone down 21.2% from 1967 to 2006.

  26. "Yep, I want to figure out what works so well in Germany, labor camps and all, and what is such a glowing success in Norway to name just a few..."

    The socialism dmarks is talking about, you know when the government CONTROLS business and PRIVATE property is non exsistant (strong arm socialism) is a BAD thing as dmarks syayes.

    As to Norway, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, and even Finland yeah, I agree. Lets figure out what works and make things better here.


Post a Comment

RN USA is a No Judgement Zone (to steal from Planet Fitness), so please, No Judgement of others. We reserve the right to delete any such comment immediately upon detection.

All views are welcome. As long as the comment is on topic and respectful of others.

Top Posts

Recommended Reading, Thomas Piketty’s best-selling new book, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”...

Our Biggest Creditor {China} Tells Us "The good old days of borrowing are over"

Voltaire's Wisdom...

Mayor Bloomberg Standing Against Goosestepping Insanity...

Donald Trump, Suffering From Dementia of Is He Just a Pathological; Liar?...

The Fingers of God...

The Corrupt SCOTUS...