They trade with nearly every other country on the planet. They have shortages because of their shitty government and economic system.
“ . . . because their nomenklatura (pigs at the top) take their cut/slice of the pie first. The citizens of Cuba get to fight over the leftovers/scraps.
You might be able to make the argument that Cuba has more difficulty getting things like farm equipment and certain types of medical equipment because of the embargo but it has nothing to do with why the shelves of the grocery stores are always empty and why there is always shortages for things like toilet paper and meat. Kobe as usual has his head up his ass.
That wasn’t the argument at all. The original post was about “real” socialism and had Italy, Greece and Spain. In fact Cuba wasn’t even part of the original argument.
You’re doing great, Bob.
It came in early in the thread primarily because of what is currently going on in Cuba.
Now do Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Canada, France and Switzerland.
You're too stupid to understand, in many cases, these countries are more capitalist than the CSA today.
The grand majority of the Left in the US would prefer European style “socialism.” Are you against that?
If they feature extremely small governments and the social safety net is run by privatized companies, I would be open to the idea. Eventually, the notion needs to be honestly discussed as one day life could be pretty simple for most human beings.
Now do Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Canada, France and Switzerland.
All the US needs to do is find a benevolent world hegemon to subsidize our own defense and keep peace in the world and boom! Social safety nets paid for.
Onto what we can learn from Europe Per your request:
Germany – Literally paying for the rest of the EU’s socialism at the expense of the German Taxpayer. Lulz
Sweden – Has moved away from “social democracy” and liberalized markets after their own “great society” failures. Fastest growing income inequality in Europe btw. Also, every household has a gun. I’ll take that part.
Netherlands – One of the highest and most progressive tax rates. One of the MOST unequal societies on the face of the Earth. Just another of the 1,000+ examples of the failure of progressivism to “redistribute” wealth and make “equality”.
Denmark – Literally has no minimum wage. Ok!
Norway – Essentially a Northern member of the United Arab Emirates. Ranked #7 for ease of business as well.
Austria – Home to the Austrian school of Economics. I’m completely on board with taking Hayek’s advice on how to manage our economy. Are you?
Canada – A healthcare system that literally doesn’t function without the relief valve of their southern neighbor’s healthcare system being within driving distance. Don’t believe me? Why is the US one of the top medical tourism destinations in the World? I’ll give you a hint what the primary driver of that is.
France – Anemic growth, public unions that light people on fire over benefits, alternating between providing and needing subsidized by other EU members. We too could have all of this and maintain a super low economic mobility score of a class society!
Switzerland – Also lots of guns, also literally the black bank of the world. I guess the US should just become the world’s money launderer to subsidize health care?
Pretty much all “universal healthcare” is “rationed healthcare” where the government decides who gets scarce resources. This means lines and bureaucratic death panels unless of course, you are well connected or a government official. We all know how meritorious government employment and promotion is.
School choice is pretty much the singular highest correlated variable in all of the European countries that outperform the US in education. Sounds good!
All of Europe was suffering from terrible economic growth BEFORE the pandemic and we were looking at the potential 2nd death of the European Union, negative interest rates, bailouts, etc. during a global growth period. The European Model!
“There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. .... [T]here can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. ... Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individual in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision.
"Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. There are many points of detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and those wishing to super-cede it by something different will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make competition more or less ineffective. But there is no incompatability in principle between the state’s providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom.
"To the same category belongs also the increase of security through the state’s rendering assistance to the victims of such ‘acts of God’ as earthquakes and floods. Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken.
“There is, finally, the supremely important problem of combating general fluctuations of economic activity and the recurrent waves of large-scale unemployment which accompany them. This is, of course, one of the gravest and most pressing problems of our time. But, though its solution will require much planning in the good sense, it does not — or at least need not — require that special kind of planning which according to its advocates is to replace the market.
"Many economists hope, indeed, that the ultimate remedy may be found in the field of monetary policy, which would involve nothing incompatible even with nineteenth-century liberalism. Others, it is true, believe that real success can be expected only from the skillful timing of public works undertaken on a very large scale. This might lead to much more serious restrictions of the competitive sphere, and, in experimenting in this direction, we shall have to carefully watch our step if we are to avoid making all economic activity progressively more dependent on the direction and volume of government expenditure. But this is neither the only nor, in my opinion, the most promising way of meeting the gravest threat to economic security.
"In any case, the very necessary effort to secure protection against these fluctuations do not lead to the kind of planning which constitutes such a threat to our freedom.”
“There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. .... [T]here can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. ... Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individual in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision.
"Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. There are many points of detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and those wishing to super-cede it by something different will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make competition more or less ineffective. But there is no incompatability in principle between the state’s providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom.
"To the same category belongs also the increase of security through the state’s rendering assistance to the victims of such ‘acts of God’ as earthquakes and floods. Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken.
“There is, finally, the supremely important problem of combating general fluctuations of economic activity and the recurrent waves of large-scale unemployment which accompany them. This is, of course, one of the gravest and most pressing problems of our time. But, though its solution will require much planning in the good sense, it does not — or at least need not — require that special kind of planning which according to its advocates is to replace the market.
"Many economists hope, indeed, that the ultimate remedy may be found in the field of monetary policy, which would involve nothing incompatible even with nineteenth-century liberalism. Others, it is true, believe that real success can be expected only from the skillful timing of public works undertaken on a very large scale. This might lead to much more serious restrictions of the competitive sphere, and, in experimenting in this direction, we shall have to carefully watch our step if we are to avoid making all economic activity progressively more dependent on the direction and volume of government expenditure. But this is neither the only nor, in my opinion, the most promising way of meeting the gravest threat to economic security.
"In any case, the very necessary effort to secure protection against these fluctuations do not lead to the kind of planning which constitutes such a threat to our freedom.”
-Hayek
Literally from The Road to Serfdom, now do the rest of it where he talks about a welfare state being another path to serfdom.
Now do Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Canada, France and Switzerland.
Now try listing countries that are actually socialist/communist. Lou Dobbs!!!!
Wait a minute now… I specifically remember you and I having a discussion about nationalized healthcare and I brought up these European (and Canada)countries that are absolutely capitalist but have strong social safety nets and they were “socialist” for that discussion. So what are they?
Canadian healthcare? JFC.
It's not just the price of premiums rising because we are paying for all your friends invading the border, it's the QUALITY of healthcare that suffers, you fucking dolt.
Fucking liberals - always kicking the can down the road, and have zero clue of the consequences of their actions on their crusade.
Comments
You jumped in. Own it.
You’re doing great, Rubber.
Why we have guns and they don't. Founders knew. They had just fought a war against the greatest military power of the time. And won!
Absolutely worthless
Onto what we can learn from Europe Per your request:
Germany – Literally paying for the rest of the EU’s socialism at the expense of the German Taxpayer. Lulz
Sweden – Has moved away from “social democracy” and liberalized markets after their own “great society” failures. Fastest growing income inequality in Europe btw. Also, every household has a gun. I’ll take that part.
Netherlands – One of the highest and most progressive tax rates. One of the MOST unequal societies on the face of the Earth. Just another of the 1,000+ examples of the failure of progressivism to “redistribute” wealth and make “equality”.
Denmark – Literally has no minimum wage. Ok!
Norway – Essentially a Northern member of the United Arab Emirates. Ranked #7 for ease of business as well.
Austria – Home to the Austrian school of Economics. I’m completely on board with taking Hayek’s advice on how to manage our economy. Are you?
Canada – A healthcare system that literally doesn’t function without the relief valve of their southern neighbor’s healthcare system being within driving distance. Don’t believe me? Why is the US one of the top medical tourism destinations in the World? I’ll give you a hint what the primary driver of that is.
France – Anemic growth, public unions that light people on fire over benefits, alternating between providing and needing subsidized by other EU members. We too could have all of this and maintain a super low economic mobility score of a class society!
Switzerland – Also lots of guns, also literally the black bank of the world. I guess the US should just become the world’s money launderer to subsidize health care?
Pretty much all “universal healthcare” is “rationed healthcare” where the government decides who gets scarce resources. This means lines and bureaucratic death panels unless of course, you are well connected or a government official. We all know how meritorious government employment and promotion is.
School choice is pretty much the singular highest correlated variable in all of the European countries that outperform the US in education. Sounds good!
All of Europe was suffering from terrible economic growth BEFORE the pandemic and we were looking at the potential 2nd death of the European Union, negative interest rates, bailouts, etc. during a global growth period. The European Model!
“There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. .... [T]here can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. ... Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individual in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision.
"Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. There are many points of detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and those wishing to super-cede it by something different will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make competition more or less ineffective. But there is no incompatability in principle between the state’s providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom.
"To the same category belongs also the increase of security through the state’s rendering assistance to the victims of such ‘acts of God’ as earthquakes and floods. Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken.
“There is, finally, the supremely important problem of combating general fluctuations of economic activity and the recurrent waves of large-scale unemployment which accompany them. This is, of course, one of the gravest and most pressing problems of our time. But, though its solution will require much planning in the good sense, it does not — or at least need not — require that special kind of planning which according to its advocates is to replace the market.
"Many economists hope, indeed, that the ultimate remedy may be found in the field of monetary policy, which would involve nothing incompatible even with nineteenth-century liberalism. Others, it is true, believe that real success can be expected only from the skillful timing of public works undertaken on a very large scale. This might lead to much more serious restrictions of the competitive sphere, and, in experimenting in this direction, we shall have to carefully watch our step if we are to avoid making all economic activity progressively more dependent on the direction and volume of government expenditure. But this is neither the only nor, in my opinion, the most promising way of meeting the gravest threat to economic security.
"In any case, the very necessary effort to secure protection against these fluctuations do not lead to the kind of planning which constitutes such a threat to our freedom.”
-Hayek
Go chase an ambulance
It's not just the price of premiums rising because we are paying for all your friends invading the border, it's the QUALITY of healthcare that suffers, you fucking dolt.
Fucking liberals - always kicking the can down the road, and have zero clue of the consequences of their actions on their crusade.
Fuck off.