Thursday, November 11, 2010

The effects of socialism

Here is what happens. An economy is strong and productive because of conservative policy.
Because there is so much wealth, liberals convince everyone that there is enough money to help the poor and others treated "unfair."
Eventually the economy slows and we start having deficits.
Because the people getting stuff from the govt expect it and have a sense of learned helplessness, the cost stays the same or goes up to "help" them.
Deficits grow to the point that the entire economy and govt budget are on the verge of collapse.
You are forced to cut all these govt programs while at the same time the economy has been damaged so bad even more people need the help that is no longer there. 
So while you started with a vast majority of people happy and some struggling, now you have everyone struggling and no help available.
Liberalism can not sustain itself.

Look at France
France braced for second week of strikes, blockades... ^

Look at US:
Raise Retirement Age...


blamin said...

I find it extremely amusing, and telling that Jim, etal, has not responded to this post.

They have no problem championing expanded government when debating current events, but are strangely silent when it comes time to discuss the actual past consequences of those that did exactly that which Jim, etal champion currently!

And that my friend is par for the course.

The Game said...

there is nothing to say when it is laid out so perfectly

Jim said...

"The effects of socialism"

Laid out so perfectly? No, it's chaotic nonsense.

The current economic situation is not in any way an "effect of socialism". It is caused primarily by the housing bubble.

Now, you'll say "if that's true then it's because the Democrats forced banks to lend to people who shouldn't have qualified."

This is untrue, of course, because no bank has ever been forced to lend to an un-credit-worthy entity.

The opposite is true. "Banks" were ALLOWED to lend to anybody they could get to sign on the dotted line because there was little or no oversight or regulation and the banks could immediately sell the loans and offload the risk to companies who bundled them up and sold them on the market.

This is not socialism. It's "free market" capitalism at its worst as evidenced by the fact that in the end the benefactors of these economic policies did and still are getting huge bonuses and the majority of the wealth of the country is now in the hands of fewer and fewer people.

Socialism is nowhere in this equation.

There. I've commented because you felt no "liberal" was rising to the challenge. So I lowered myself to it.