Socialism

Socialism Is Back, and the Kids Are Loving It

How dangerous is the democratic socialist resurgence?

|

For decades, democratic socialism was an old man's ideology. Its adherents were aging hippies, old-time union organizers, and folks who fondly remembered the pre-'60s left. As recently as 2013, the average member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) was 68 years old. Even today, the ideology's best-known spokesperson, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), is 77.

But Sanders is suddenly an outlier. Today, most DSAers are young: The average member is 33. The ideology's second-best-known spokesperson, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.), is just 29. And the DSA's ranks have grown larger as well as younger. Socialist gatherings buzz with youthful energy, and they are taking place all over the country.

This movement is flexing its political muscles, having helped elect a number of candidates to office—most famously Ocasio-Cortez, who has quickly become a prominent voice in Congress. The DSA has every intention of shifting the "Overton window" of American politics far to the left. And if we're not careful, it might succeed.

Despite his own advanced age—and even though he's not a member of the group himself— Sanders is by far the person most responsible for bringing this wave of young people into the DSA. His groundbreaking 2016 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination helped spread socialist ideas to a generation born after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

"Bernie Sanders is who introduced me to socialism," says Alex Pellitteri, co-chair of New York City's chapter of the DSA's youth arm, the Young Democratic Socialists of America. "I was a Democrat, I was a liberal, but I had never really crossed that line to socialism."

Essentially, Sanders has done for democratic socialism what Ron Paul did for libertarianism in the late '00s: make it an exciting, cool, radical alternative to the mainstream parties' staid orthodoxies. Just as Paul challenged other Republicans' commitment to waging increasingly unpopular wars, Sanders slammed Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton for her Wall Street ties, her hawkish foreign policy, and her general lack of left-wing bona fides. Clinton won the nomination, but Sanders put up a much better fight than expected—a testament to the popular appeal of the ideas he was proposing.

Those ideas included a single-payer health insurance system, free tuition for all college students, a federal minimum wage of $15 an hour, and a more progressive tax system that confiscates wealth from the richest 1 percent and redistributes it to everyone else. Such proposals are particularly popular with younger Americans. According to a 2018 Harvard Institute of Politics poll, 55 percent or more of 18- to 29-year-olds support a $15-an-hour federal job guarantee, free college tuition, and Medicare for All. In a Harris Poll this year, 73 percent of millennial and Gen Z respondents thought the government should provide universal health care, and about half said they'd prefer to live in a socialist country. While Americans overall have a much more favorable view of capitalism than socialism, Americans between 18 and 24 do not: 61 percent have a positive reaction to the word socialism, compared to 58 percent for capitalism.

One reason for this is that people like Sanders have studiously worked to get a softer definition of socialism into circulation. Throughout the 20th century, the word evoked either the working class directly seizing the means of production or the government nationalizing industries, setting prices, and reducing or abolishing the right to own private property. The latter was much more common in practice, and the countries that took that route—the Soviet Union, mainland China, the Eastern European states, etc.—had horrific human rights records. Socialist regimes found it necessary to negate a whole host of individual rights and to arrest or murder dissidents in order to realize their ends.

But the founders of the DSA rejected Soviet-style socialism. They had more in common with the socialist parties of Western Europe, which established generous welfare states and sometimes nationalized industries, but which operated within the boundaries of a democratic political system, not a one-party police state. In 1962, future DSA founder Michael Harrington quarreled with the authors of the Port Huron Statement, a leftist student manifesto, because he felt they hadn't denounced the Soviet Union in strong enough terms. About a decade later, Harrington's former faction of the Socialist Party split off to form the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, which later merged with another organization to become the DSA.

When today's most prominent democratic socialists are asked to explain their ideology, they tend to skimp on the substantial structural questions and lean on paeans to dignity, generosity, and equality. Sanders has defined democratic socialism as "the understanding that all of our people live in security and dignity" and "a government and an economy and a society which works for all." Ocasio-Cortez defines it as "democratic participation in our economic dignity."

It shouldn't be surprising that democratic socialism, reduced to a set of pleasant-sounding buzzwords and some proposals to give more people free stuff, is having a moment.

And what a moment it is. "When Harrington died in 1989," The Nation observes, "his organization hadn't grown much beyond the 6,000 aging members it had had at its founding." After a quarter-century, the members were even more aged and little else had changed. The DSA's official magazine, Democratic Left, had 6,700 subscribers in 2016.

A year later, in the wake of Sanders' first presidential campaign, the magazine had more than 28,000 paid subscribers. By 2018, it had 46,000. The organization now claims about 50,000 members. Many of them are concentrated in New York City, but DSA chapters can be found in 180 towns across the country.

The success of democratic socialism is much broader than just one organization. The socialist magazine Jacobin, founded in 2010 by Bhaskar Sunkara, increased its circulation from 10,000 in 2015 to 40,000 in 2018. The socialist podcast Chapo Trap House, which debuted in March 2016, is now the second most popular account on the crowdfunding platform Patreon, and its hosts rake in an average of $123,500 in donations per month.

Democratic socialists have won electoral victories too. The DSA is not a political party and does not run its own candidates, instead endorsing Democrats and independents who it feels are sufficiently committed to socialism. (Sex and the City actress Cynthia Nixon, for instance, received the DSA's endorsement in her unsuccessful 2018 primary run against New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.) In the 2016 and 2017 elections, DSA-backed candidates won a smattering of races around the country, including a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates. And in 2018, Ocasio-Cortez, a 20-something organizer and complete political unknown, won a stunning Democratic primary victory over incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley. She became an overnight sensation, and in the general election she was one of two DSA members to capture House seats. Rashida Tlaib (D–Mich.) was the other.

Ocasio-Cortez's savvy use of social media has generated tons of press coverage. She now has more Twitter followers than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.). Conservative websites and cable channels love to pillory her, but that has only helped her become one of the most visible members of Congress.

Sanders is the only major 2020 presidential candidate to self-identify as a democratic socialist. But most of the Democrats have signed on to DSA-friendly policies. Sens. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.), Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D–N.Y.) have joined Sanders in backing Medicare for All. The Green New Deal, Ocasio-Cortez's pie-in-the-sky plan to tackle climate change while creating public works projects, has been endorsed by a host of candidates: Sanders, Warren, Harris, Gillibrand, Sens. Cory Booker (D–N.J.) and Amy Klobuchar (D–Minn.), and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro.

If the centrist standard-bearer, Vice President Joe Biden, wins the Democratic nomination, it will be a setback for the movement. But democratic socialists are not pinning all their hopes on the presidency, even as they work to install Sanders in the White House. They are patiently growing their ranks, expanding their influence, and increasing their cultural cachet.

So far, the strategy is working. If you assumed that socialism's appalling 20th century failures would relegate it permanently to the ash heap of history, you were wrong.

NEXT: The Law of the Ice Cream Tub Licker

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Socialism is so 1917.

    1. ITT, Tony gets bent over, figuratively, not like he does to pay the rent.

    2. Socialism is a fairy tale filled with lovely free trinkets.

    3. Remember circa 2014 – 16 when Reason insisted that the libertarian moment was at hand, since Millennials held all these socially liberal values? Remember how all the right-libertarians said that was crazy because kids’ beliefs about gay marriage said dick about how much they wanted government interfering in every part of our lives?

      Yeah fun times.

      Maybe a little introspection is due on the side of Reason. Maybe instead of spending all that time metaphorically patting the precious little millennial heads with words of encouragement, they should have focused on ideas. Instead, they continue to play the same identity politics as the rest of the national pundits. It isn’t about free markets and free minds, articles regularly focus on the people- those stodgy old republicans and democrats, and the precious youth who carry the light of our future in their blessed little hearts.

      1. A wise man said this 89 years ago & it rings truer than ever!

        “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types — the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution.”

        ― G.K. Chesterton, 1930

    4. So, Robbie:

      We get it! Your not to keen on socialism!

      But you believe that the current system is just? You don’t want “a more progressive tax system that confiscates wealth from the richest 1 percent and redistributes it to everyone else.”?
      How about the current system that confiscates the taxes of 85% of us chump taxpayers and redistributes it to the top 15%, is so great in your view?

      What about large corporations not paying any taxes while small closely held cprporations get raped by the IRS? You find that reasonable? I’m a small business owner and I don’t! But, hey, you’re just a journalist, right? You don’t have to worry about making payroll or paying FICA, wage taxes, workers’ comp insurance, liability insurance, etc., do you?

      What about large corporations receiving tax abatements from cities, that will never, ever pay, for themselves, while small businesses and average citizens have to pay for these abatements. And, small businesses can’t get loans to expand?

      What about banks getting almost free money from the Fed while charging their customers, particularly their credit card consumers up to 28% interst – and no real competition!

      Is that your idea of great time and free enterprise? If so, you better stop drinking the Cool Aid!

      As Steve Windwood wrote and sang: “Come down from your throne, and leave your money at home! Somebody must change!”

  2. Socialism: More sequels than Nightmare on Elm Street, and a greater death toll.

    1. Great comment, and true. Why don’t AOC and her blithering idiot followers just go to a socialist company and give it a try. I PROMISE they will be back on the next flight if they do so. AOC is enormously uneducated, as are all supporters of Socialism. Even the relatively non-crooked Socialist countries (Norway and Denmark for example) are not even CLOSE as good to live in as the U.S., and I know this for a fact as I know two women, one each from these countries, and they wouldn’t go back if you paid them a million dollars. Oh, and if they went back to their respective countries with that ill-gained money, the governments there would take about 99% of it.

      1. “I know two women one each from these countries”

        Bernie’s ideas cost too much. However this particular argument is not at all convincing.

      2. Even the relatively non-crooked Socialist countries (Norway and Denmark for example)

        There’s half of the appeal of socialism to young people right there–you’re defining it incorrectly. The Scandinavian countries aren’t socialist–they’re free market countries taxes that are,yes, too high and safety nets that are, yes, too expansive, but they aren’t socialist. To equate Norway to the Soviet Union is an idiot’s undertaking.

    2. After 100 years of the worst political death toll caused by an ideology, new generations are oblivious of it because their professors tend to be “Socialists”

  3. “Socialist regimes found it necessary to negate a whole host of individual rights and to arrest or murder dissidents in order to realize their ends.”

    And this is always the case. Only force and coercion can get people to give up their individuality, their autonomy.

    1. I dunno. I think there are plenty of people willing to give up their individuality and autonomy for their dream system, and those are the ones the ones running that system will use to force and coerce everyone else into line. Call them true believers, Brownshirts, the Red Guard, or whatever, they’re the head breakers for totalitarians.

      1. I would WELCOME an authoritarian state as they desire…as long as THEY are not in charge.

        Teach them lessons.

        Only way some people will learn is to ruin them. I can say “This is oppression is a really, really bad idea”, but they’re convinced THEY will be the oppressing as they have been doing so in college. Make them feel oppression…REAL oppression, not the BS Soave empathizes with so…and you might see a change.

        1. That’s big talk from a guy whose side has been getting curb-stomped in the American culture war for 60 or 70 years.

          Open wider, clingers. Your liberal-libertarian betters have even more American progress to shape against your wishes and efforts.

          1. That’s big talk from a guy who put up his best and watched her get curb stomped by a clown TV show host.

          2. Open wider, bigoted asshole, so we can jam Trump down your throat again.
            Fucking loser; grow up and act like an adult.

            1. You can rant and mutter all you like, Sevo, and you will continue to toe the line set by your betters. Culture wars have consequences, especially for the right-wing losers.

              1. Lol. You gonna cry us all to death while you cower and piss in your pants when the first gunshots ring out you effete little princess?

              2. Arty, we all know you have an 8×10” glossy of Trump next to your bed, which you bitterly masturbate to as you plow your own asshole with a giant dildo, wishing all the while that The Donald was porking you.

                Maybe you can get together with Tony and roleplay that shit while you two deviants fuck each other.

    2. As for younger folks, they are for Socialism for two reasons:
      1.)They have no clue what it really is.
      2.)They have no clue about Socialism’s death count.

      1. Yeah, younger folks are always for socialism. I can recall a time when I thought that European style welfare state seemed like a good enough idea, at least. What changed it for me was both a strong individualist impulse and also a much better understanding of what motivates people and creates wealth. A lot of these young people will grow out of it. I just hope it’s enough of them and soon.

    3. This is also why “democratic socialism” is an oxymoron. It’s impossible because democracy implies you can change your mind.

      But you can’t change your mind when “we’re all in this together” because then we wouldn’t all be in this together.

      Ergo Comrade, you are not allowed to express your opinion because it is inherently unstable to the socialist paradise we in the ruling class are building for you.

      1. Correct. It is why they should be called socialist democrats as there eventually cannot be socialism in a democratic process.

      2. Yes Socialism requires compliance not debate. Democratic Socialism is impossible.

  4. Young people are ignorant assholes. News at 11.

    1. We may be in an even more precarious position than in the past socialist uprisings. People seem to be moving from being the provided for to the providers at a later age than before. Socialism is always more attractive to the former.

      1. Won’t somebody please think of the man-children?

        1. Don’t forget the baby-mommas.

        2. Some of the things that would help man-children are right up libertarian alley.
          End social security in a politically viable way. Now.
          Stop forcing young people to fund it, even if it is semantics, and then wait for the non-funders to outweigh the dying off boomers and kill it completely.

          Deflation would also help, but I’m not certain what libertarians think of that.

          1. I believe most honest libertarians would go right along with that. Of course there is always those who disend when their own gov check is on the line. Perhaps S.S. funds be transferred to their rightful owners.

  5. I was a Democrat, I was a liberal, but I had never really crossed that line to socialism.

    Yeah you had.

    1. I know, right. So has about 90% of the Republican party. They just don’t know it yet.

      1. You make no sense, H.H. Can you provide some proof?

        1. The military budget, Medicare, social security. Ask any republican what they think about cutting that budget.

          1. Seriously….. LOL… You’re going to try and piggion-hole national defense as “socialism”?? Which coincidentally is the very force created to curb dictators and socialists from invading and controling the U.S.

            Do you not realize the U.S. is the U.S. because of “national”(<-hint;hint) defense?? The states didn't unite (hint hint: "United States") so Jobless Joe could steal food stamps from Working Willie.

        2. Gladly, my friend.

          We see Bernie and others shaking their fists, claiming all sorts of things that sound unabashedly socialistic, but seldom do we identify how they have come to the point of promising healthcare, safety, and free college to everyone. Whenever a republican responds, he uses some terrible argument that reveals himself to be a “babey socialist” like, as Ted Cruz argued against Bernie Sanders, “You don’t have a right to healthcare. You have a right to access healthcare.”

          You see, republicans have the same entrenched misunderstandings that have ultimately led the dems to where they are now: a complete misconception of natural rights theory. Both parties treat rights as something that politicians just make up when enough people start pushing for them. But, If our rights are self-evident, if they are inalienable, if they come from God rather than man, if we are born with them rather than granted them by some politician, then they consist only as what John Locke described them to be: “life, liberty, and property.” You have a right to your person and your property and the liberties that accompany them. NOTHING ELSE!

          So no, Ted Cruz, you don’t have a right to access healthcare anymore than you do to get bernie’s free healthcare. You don’t get to make up random rights. Once you do, you have boarded the train of progressivism and will never get off. And this infestation of socialism (and socialism is not only an economic term) also applies to things like anti-discrimination laws and income tax, two things that almost all Republicans are solidly in favor of.

          In short, Republicans don’t seem (for the most part at least) to understand that, as Ron Paul said, “All civil rights and liberties are property rights.”

          1. Reminding everyone of Ron Paul’s glorious successes is a sure way to convince everyone of your persuasiveness, practicality, morality, and sure grip on reality.

            1. You should shove a .45 up your ass and pull the trigger.

          2. Ted Cruz, you don’t have a right to access healthcare anymore than you do to get bernie’s free healthcare.

            I read ‘access’ to mean you can freely make an arrangement to have healthcare with any provider.

            1. It’s the difference between positive and negative rights. I am starting to think that the whole idea of positive rights at all is an invention of progressivism.

          3. You can’t formulate freedom of movement as a property right.

            1. What freedom of movement?

  6. Bad ideas never die. Even rent control has made a comeback, FFS.

    1. inter-district *busing* is making a comeback because of a quip during a farcical “debate “. WTF

  7. Bernie himself is a good example of the basic flaw in socialism. Socialism assumes that everybody is going to be fine with the idea that we’re all one big happy family and we’re all going to share and share alike the work and the rewards. But it’s human nature to want to do as little work as possible for as much reward as possible so all these socialists are clamoring for the equal rewards and not a one of them is arguing passionately for equality in the distribution of the workload. Which is why Bernie got his ass kicked out of that commune, he wanted his turn riding in the wagon but refused to take his turn pulling the wagon. Bernie really should be pressed on that episode, he of all people should understand incentives when you have a right to a whole host of free goodies and no corresponding responsibility to provide said goodies.

    1. I commented earlier about a neighbor’s son who thinks he should be paid as much for one hour’s work as everybody else, because an hour is an hour, right? I thought about saying that if I would be paid the same regardless of what work I did, I’d become a self-declared artist and paint circles everywhere. Or maybe ask him if I took 100 hours to build a chair, and he could do it in 10, was my chair really worth 10 times as much? Of course he’d think both ideas were daffy because he knows I earn more doing my real job, but he is incapable of stretching that definition to include himself.

      He’s a reasonably smart kid. He used to be a hard worker. Somewhere he went astray and thinks the world owes him a good life, but it doesn’t work the other way — he doesn’t owe the rest of the world squat.

    2. Good point. That’s why in “hard” socialism, people are forced to work. At least the commies knew that their system required people to work, involuntarily if necessary. Democratic socialists want all the free shit from somebody else. If they ever managed to achieve their goal of wealth equality, then they’d quickly find that it’s not so much fun anymore when you have killed the goose.

  8. From a Koch / Reason perspective, the rise of democratic socialism is actually a good thing. Because although they might disagree with us on minor issues like the minimum wage, democratic socialists are with us on our two fundamental, non-negotiable issues — immigration and abortion access.

    AOC, for example, has been a vocal proponent of #AbolishICE all along. And now she’s helping to publicize the fact that Drumpf has built literal concentration camps in which people are literally forced to drink from toilets. Similarly, Bernie Sanders has always advocated the Koch / Reason / ENB position on abortion access, which is that it should be legal throughout all 3 trimesters.

    #ImmigrationAboveAll
    #LibertariansForAOC

    1. I also doubt democratic socialists would keep Drumpf’s tariffs in effect, and those are absolutely destroying our economy as all Reason regulars know.

      #DrumpfRecession

    2. Your distinction between “minor issues” and “non-negotiable issues” is horrifying. A very significant percentage of libertarians are actually strongly pro life, and pro life because of the libertarian philosophy of non-agression. Take Ron Paul, for an example given by this very article, who was staunchly opposed to abortion.

      “Essentially, Sanders has done for democratic socialism what Ron Paul did for libertarianism in the late ’00s: make it an exciting, cool, radical alternative to the mainstream parties’ staid orthodoxies.”

      Yet, Ron and Bernie could not be further apart on the political spectrum. Anyone that supports a $15 dollar an hour minimum wage, or really any minimum wage is most certainly not a libertarian. Virtually everything these socialists say directly opposes the basic ideals of libertarianism: limited government, individual liberty, and free markets.

    3. OpenMindDRAIN is wrong, and a very poor liar. We have immigration laws, and when you violate them, you go to prison or get returned to your mother country. The U.S., and every other country in the world, has the right to decide who will or won’t be allowed in their borders. You CLEARLY don’t know what a concentration camp is you fool, and you also forget, as most dopes like you do, that the illegal (get that, illegal???) immigrants PURPOSELY brought their kids with them hoping, thankfully wrongly, to FORCE their way in. Think before you post. You’ll still be wrong, but at least you will look 2-3% less stupid.

      1. Lurk more.

    4. Trump always struck me as the kind of guy, were he a girl, to have had an abortion in the third trimester.

      1. If only your mother….

    5. Your repeated insistence that abortion access be relegated to 3 trimesters, indicating it is somehow negated in the 4th, is literally turning this place into The Handmaids Tale, and I no longer feel safe

      1. If a woman doesn’t have the right to terminate until the 133 trimester, Hitler won.
        Also, all women should have the right to choose, not just the postpartum fetus’s “mother”.

    6. Do you actually believe illegals we’re forced to drink from toilets? If so, AOC played you for a fool.

      1. Hey, the blind lead the blind.

    7. “our two fundamental, non-negotiable issues — immigration and abortion access”

      When did reason.com’s comments section become a never-ending joint meeting of Libertarians For Authoritarian, Cruel, Bigoted Immigration Policies and Libertarians For Government Womb Management?

      Carry on, clingers . . . in your natural role as the feckless losers of America’s culture war.

      Until you are replaced.

      By your betters.

      1. You should be beaten to death with a 2×4.

  9. Why would young people want socialism? Maybe because of what they see around them. They see our generation, who had affordable college, who had jobs that provided healthcare and retirement, and who made more in wages (adjusted). And now do we want to help their generation, no we want lower taxes. Do we want to address infrastructure, no! Climate change, no! Rising debt, no! Why not go with socialism, our generation has sucked the life out of capitalism?

    1. So people are losing 25%+ of their income to a government that can’t even do ROADZ, and the problem is low taxes and not enough socialism?

      Sorry, but I don’t go for solutions that give horrible leaders even more command of the economy.

    2. Moderation4ever
      July.6.2019 at 9:42 am
      “…Why not go with socialism, our generation has sucked the life out of capitalism?”

      You really are this stupid; it’s not an act.

    3. All the money in the world in 1995 couldnt buy access to they types of things kids have today.

      They are far richer than the previous generation. They’re just fucking idiots like yourself.

      1. Let them eat cake smartphones.

    4. This 100%.

      And if I were to pinpoint the actual event that turned that generation it was the 2008 crisis and bailout. The most visible beneficiaries of ‘capitalism’ decide that what they really want for themselves is a big government bailout from their own responsibility for creating the crisis. While everyone else can swing on a rope and FYTW. ‘Socialism for me and not for thee’ so to speak.

      And the ONLY two responses to that crisis were the Tea Party and Occupy. The Tea Party quickly turns into an old folks protest about protecting govt entitlements for old white people (Keep Your Hands Off My Medicare) and gimme tax cuts too and then useful idiots for the R’s. Occupy starts as the sort of anarchism that is allergic to taking a bath (mostly offensive to the Get Off My Lawn crowd) but like all anarchism quickly fades.

      Those old socialist farts knew exactly how to leverage that inchoate discontent. Libertarians – who you’d think would understand anarchic protest – crickets. This site itself – crickets ever since that crisis. Apparently libertarianism doesn’t really do ‘free markets’ (where the free used to MEAN something – notably allowing the established to FAIL) or understand how to protect against monetary systems based on debt that fail. All it offers to that generation is pot to gay immigrants who want to marry their guns.

      1. Even the memes that persist today about that 2008 crisis – among THIS ‘libertarian’ (and often racist if R) commentariat – illustrate how bankrupt that version of economic thinking is.

        It was those subprime mortgages to brown people that caused the crisis. Wall St was mainly just a victim of gummint pandering to brown people.

        Umm no. The Myth of the Subprime Crisis.

        1. Racist lefty makes an ass of himself once again:
          “It was those subprime mortgages to brown people that caused the crisis. Wall St was mainly just a victim of gummint pandering to brown people.”
          You made the claim but your cite fell off.

          No, it had nothing to do with the race of the people; it had to do with government, in effect, pumping up the housing market with cheap credit until it ended up with a bubble burst:

          “The Subprime Mortgage Crisis Was Caused By The Housing Market Bubble

          According to Pajarska and Jociene (2014) the subprime mortgage crisis was caused by the credit boom and the housing market bubble. It is argued that the direct cause of the financial turmoil was the steep increase and subsequent sharp decline of housing prices, which in conjunction with poor lending practices, led to large losses on mortgages and mortgage-related instruments in many financial institutions (Pajarska et al., 2014)….”
          https://www.cram.com/essay/The-Subprime-Mortgage-Crisis-Was-Caused-By/FKAYKJGAYHMQW

          1. That link just repeats the same old FAKE meme – even to the extent of calling it ‘the subprime mortgage crisis’ – that subprime created the crisis – with its imputing that govt eliminating ‘red lining’ in the early 90’s (read OVERT RACISM IN LENDING BASED ON ZIP CODES ORIGINATING FROM THE EARLY 1950’s) was the ’cause’.

            Yes obviously the crisis was caused by a decline in lending standards. TO THE MIDDLE CLASS (and most notably flippers and speculative ‘investors’). THEY were the ones who borrowed the most in the runup to that crisis. The subprime owner-occupiers were by 2005 priced out of the housing market. Those flippers/speculators then started to default or dump – breaking the models about predicted default rates and house prices. THEY (along with the new post-crisis all-cash buyers) were the ones who then supported the reinflation of those housing assets via QE1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 – and are still even today bitching about the Feds halting attempts to move back to ‘normal’ from ‘subsidized’.

            Thank you for playing – but you are still the personification of dumb as rock snot. ‘Poor people’ did not cause the fucking crisis. You still insisting that is so is exactly why young people ignore/reject people like you.

            1. “That link just repeats the same old FAKE meme”

              You lose this argument.

            2. Government caused the crisis by telling lenders that loans to unqualified borrowers would be backed by the feds.

              The intentions were to help victims of past racist government policies. As is usual with government sledgehammers, it smashed far more than it helped; in part by pretending it was not meant to help victims of government racism, which meant they couldn’t back only loans for those minorities who would have qualified but for racism, which meant every con man and his dog took advantage of the program, which mean there were far more unworthy loans and a while lot of defaulting.

              Why are collectivists so blind to the evils of government? Why do they think that a government paycheck transforms a bureaucrat into a wise benevolent all-seeing angel?

              1. Government caused the crisis by telling lenders that loans to unqualified borrowers would be backed by the feds

                No it didn’t and those fed-backed loans did not cause the crisis. PRIVATE mortgage-backed securities (which were how banks made their short-term loans to speculative investors and flippers) were what failed.

                The only ‘pseudo-govt’ thing that exacerbated the crisis was the BIS’ Basel 2 Accords which set intl accounting standards for what was considered capital adequacy for banks. But in fact, BIS is almost entirely a captured tool of the major banks (have YOU ever heard of it?) and the US banking system was probably the LEAST affected of any country. What Basel2 did enable was the Wall St huckstering of derivatives and tranches and all the other crap they created that blew up to make it a global crisis.

                1. “No it didn’t and those fed-backed loans did not cause the crisis. PRIVATE mortgage-backed securities (which were how banks made their short-term loans to speculative investors and flippers) were what failed”

                  I’ve read quite a bit that shows otherwise. Apart from bekng your preferred narrative, what evidence do you have? Literally all you’ve done is insist you are correct.

                  1. Read the detailed research article in the above link. It’s by three finance professors (MIT, Duke, Dartmouth) crawling thru the data to write 10-yr anniversary stuff. Or read anything – anything – written before say Sep2008 as the crisis was unfolding. The housing bubble blog I remember was Calculated Risk – their first post re the housing bubble in Jan 2005. That particular blog had thousands more posts over the ensuing couple years.

                    From summer/Sep 2008 on a narrative with a GOAL – to do whatever it took to justify a bailout from DC – took over everything else esp as the story made the mass media.

                    1. What role do you assign to all those unqualified loans backed by government? Do you say they didn’t exist? Do you say they weren’t unqualified?

                    2. What role do you assign to all those unqualified loans backed by government?

                      FFS. Talking about begging the question. Fannie/Freddie didn’t even do the same things Ginnie/FHLB did. F/F didn’t lead Wall St down the rabbit hole of subprime and Alt-A. They followed. And if you don’t understand why, then you can’t possibly understand why govt forcing Fannie/Freddie into conservatorship was part of the bailout. It was not some weird wormhole where gummint takes over gummint in order to protect gummint from itself.

                      Govt distortions/subsidies re housing have had a huge long-term impact on investment/expectations/teat-sucking/trough-swilling and desire to be bailed out while yapping about the wonders of capitalism. Which is hammering that next gen now. But govt had very little to do with the crisis itself. Other than being completely clueless about what to do when it happened. As seemingly are ‘libertarians’ today.

                      The crisis was about the monetary system and its dependence on banks/debt. It was NOT about mortgages. Mortgages were simply how the banking system failed – this time.

                    3. “”Read the detailed research article in the above link””

                      You can’t unless you pay money.

                2. I will agree that the failure of the mortgage-backed securities caused the fall. But would they have failed if the mortgages they were based on where good and not risky as hell? No.

                  The root cause of the securities failure was the ignoring of the risk to loaning money to anyone. Which started with Clinton and the “everyone deserves a house”.

                  So, in your argument – what caused the securities to fail. There has to be a reason they failed.

                  1. Did anyone notice the article determined people with middle and high “reported” income were the cause. Any chance people LIED on their mortgage applications to ensure it would be approved!

                    1. If that ‘high reported income with no documentation’ also had good credit scores, then it was an Alt-A loan. If it was low-income and low/mid credit scores, then it was a subprime.

                      In either case, unless it was a loan to an owner-occupier (and VERY few Alt-A loans were ever owner-occupier, they were almost all private loans to flippers/speculators or ‘cash-outs’ to longer-term (read not in redlined areas) middle-class homeowners who wanted to use their home equity to consume), then Fannie/Freddie (which let’s remember were shareholder-owned corporations from the early 1970’s on) weren’t involved at all. Nor did they ever play much in the ‘liar loans’ and NINJA arena. F/F were NOT government – backed by full-faith-and-credit. They were congress-CHARTERED – which yeah was a minor problem but again didn’t CAUSE one fucking thing.

                      The meme that F/F had govt backing was just Wall St bullshit intended to make THEIR Alt-A and subprime MBS APPEAR to be fungible with Fannie/Freddie MBS. So that they could co-mingle and chop all mortgage loans together and sell THAT crap as AAA-rated.

                      The study is very clear that it WASN’T the owner-occupier loans (whether prime or sub-prime) defaults that did much until after the bubble popped and we were in recession. They didn’t CAUSE the bubble – or pop it. They DECLINED as a % of defaults from 2003 on. It was the Alt-A loans and the ‘home churning’ that created the bubble AND the default problems and inventory that popped the bubble.

                      And hell yet another article – from Aug 2008 before Fannie went under. Where Fannie’s Alt-A portfolio is described (roughly 1/3 from CA/FL – which were flipper country NOT ‘redline’ country). Which was purchased from private originators at the peak of the bubble (usually the sign of the chump in the market not the ones running it) – and it was their increased standards in refusing to buy more Alt-A and taking the hit for what they had already bought -that left the private originators holding the bag of crap they had originated. IOW – exactly the opposite of the meme about them.

                      It’s stunning that 10 years later, people STILL are believing the politically-motivated bullshit about that bubble. Maybe stupid people just prefer to have political ideology explain everything.

                  2. The root cause of the securities failure was the ignoring of the risk to loaning money to anyone. Which started with Clinton and the “everyone deserves a house”.

                    No – lending fraud did not start with Clinton. It is at the core of every bank-driven financial crisis since at least the South Seas bubble. Possibly even the tulip craze.

                    Best article on the TYPES of fraud that were occurring during the bubble was Tanta’s stunningly prescient early 2007 article delineating ‘Fraud for Housing’ from ‘Fraud for Profit’ from the new ‘Fraud for Bubbles’.

                    The ONLY one that could have been affected by the CRA/redlining stuff was Fraud for Housing. Borrowers whose goal for the fraud is to live in a house and ultimately get title. By early 2007, the FBI was saying that 80% of fraud was Fraud for Profit. And Tanta’s own experience said that ‘appraisal fraud’ (part of all three groups but mostly 2nd two) – not borrower fraud – was probably the second biggest.

            3. JFree
              July.6.2019 at 2:23 pm
              “That link just repeats the same old FAKE meme…”
              Poster of constant bullshit expects anyone here to buy more bullshit.

              “Thank you for playing – but you are still the personification of dumb as rock snot.”
              OH, OH! Fucking lefty ignoramus thinks I’m ‘playing’.
              Make the world a better place, shitstain: Fuck off and die.

            4. It didn’t help that by 2005 there were mortgage products that offered zero down purchase money to people with 600 credit scores and required no more than two months worth of proposed monthly mortgage in savings, and with debt ratios as high as 50% of gross income.

              That was a recipe for a very high default rate, yet CMBS bond holders were only being paid a yield around 6% for these products, which realistically would justify a of well over double that to justify the risk, if indeed any achievable rate of return could.

        2. The crisis lasted for 5 years. Oh my god. They are so fucked. Oh wait the stock market gains and economy have recovered as if the recession didnt happen.

          The only thing that happened was parents raised a bunch of useless pussies who call their parents and ask how to change a light bulb as adults.

          If I have one more parent call me asking why their kid dodnt get a job he was not prepared for…

          1. Oh wait the stock market gains and economy have recovered as if the recession didnt happen.

            Stock market gains are great for people who already own financial assets – read OLD PEOPLE. Manipulated stock price charts (with nary even a ‘correction’ in sight cuz of nanotrading caused by free money to Wall St) suck for those trying to ACQUIRE assets.

            Yeesh. Mark yet another reason why the young can see right through people like you.

            1. You apparently would be surprised at how much stock is owned by pension funds, especially in comparison to direct ownership by old people.

              1. And you apparently would be surprised at how few young workers in a gig economy have significant assets in or claims to a pension fund or a 401k.

                1. JFree
                  July.6.2019 at 3:24 pm
                  “And you apparently would be surprised at how few young workers in a gig economy have significant assets in or claims to a pension fund or a 401k.”

                  FOR THE CHILDRENS, DAMMIT!

                2. BTW shitstain, that’s because most young people are not yet planning on retirement. But they have plenty of time, and if their not as fucking stupid as you, they should do just fine.

                  1. Sadly, a lot of them are stupid. Hence the attraction of socialism.

                3. In your world a young adult should have as much assets as a worker bearing retirement? Go fuck your ignorant communist ass and get out of here.

                  Oh no, they have to start at entry level positions. Not my fault they got told victim study majors were all the rage. Nobody made them take out 100k loans for a useless degree.

                  Are you one of these fucktard children thinking they should be in management right out of college?

                  1. a young adult should have as much assets as a worker bearing retirement?

                    No I’m saying you yapping about the stock market is completely fucking irrelevant (at best) to an entire generation that is being decimated by all those rising asset prices and bubbles that you find so positive.

                    1. JFree
                      July.6.2019 at 7:31 pm
                      “No I’m saying you yapping about the stock market is completely fucking irrelevant (at best) to an entire generation that is being decimated by all those rising asset prices and bubbles that you find so positive.”

                      So you’re lying in the hopes that someone might think lies win arguments?
                      Fuck you and “…an entire generation that is being decimated…”; lefty bullshit.
                      Put up or shut up, you pathetic piece of shit; let’s see some cites about “…an entire generation that is being decimated…”.

            2. JFree
              July.6.2019 at 2:31 pm
              “Stock market gains are great for people who already own financial assets – read OLD PEOPLE. Manipulated stock price charts (with nary even a ‘correction’ in sight cuz of nanotrading caused by free money to Wall St) suck for those trying to ACQUIRE assets. …”

              Fucking lefty ignoramus gets hat handed to him and now falls to ‘FOR THE CHILDREN’ bullshit.
              Please, take poison. And make it a painful sort.

              1. Knowing that you will be replaced by a younger, better, less bigoted American in our electorate is making you cranky, Sevo.

                1. Please kill yourself.

      2. Yeah? How much have your taxes gone up to pay for those bailouts? That’s what I thought.

        Let’s not make martyrs out of ourselves just yet.

        1. You have no clue what the value of that bailout was to Wall St. They received virtually UNLIMITED ($13+ trillion globally last I counted) in free credit to make whatever bets they wanted to make as asset prices fell. They got to keep ALL the profits from the bets that went well and keep them as assets too. They were able to offload ALL the bets that went bad to the Fed’s balance sheet ($3.5 trillion last I counted). And they got to change the mark-to-market rules on their own balance sheets – thus henceforth hiding relevant info from their own shareholders – and so knew, ahead of time, the exact DAY the markets would stop falling and start rising again.

          Rather than economically paying for the consequences of creating that bubble (and all the years of having previously profited from that) on the downside of that bubble; they kept everything and forced everyone else to pay on the downside. Heads I win, Tails I win. And FYTW.

          Taxes ain’t even a baby seal sitting on an iceberg that is 90% below the surface. Anyone who thinks anything govt spends on is ever about taxes is the chump. Taxes are for the little people. If taxes mattered, we wouldn’t have $20 trillion in public debt – which is itself only a small part of the liability the govt has now taken on (and I ain’t talking about Medicare either).

      3. So the government (including the majority of the Democrat party and their presidential nominee) goes against one of the main ideas of a free market (that bad actors will be punished by the market and therefore should be allowed to fail) and prop up bad actors and that is somehow capitalism’s fault?

        Maybe the problem is with the assholes on the left labeling everything that gets done in America as “capitalism”? (It would also help if the assholes on the right would stop labeling everything the government does as “socialism”.)

    5. The answer should never be MORE of what broke it in the first place.

      You are right that that is how people view things. I was having a conversation with a friend about how boomers had wrecked the world. His take was that boomers all got jobs and kept them, and now there’s no jobs for us. I just was confused and said “I don’t think that’s how jobs work”. I feel like this is how deeply a median Democrat voter think about the economy. Should we really be that surprised that they buy DSA snake oil by the crate?

      My take is that boomers on the left think everything can and should be regulated and the boomers on the right think any problem can be fixed by bombs.

      Maybe it’s not helpful to blame the last generation for everything. It might be more constructive for younger generations to be the adults in the room and realize that you don’t cure a cold by standing naked in the rain. We need voluntary institutions, and a correct view of what sorts of thing government can really accomplish (not much).

    6. Yeah more or less.

      The impression I get is that the Democrat and DSA-adjacent type voters view recent history as one of the Boomers benefitting from a whole lot of subsidized goodies, and then when the Boomers were in charge, they wrecked the system, demanded tax cuts for themselves, and lectured their kids to ‘pull themselves up by their bootstraps like their parents did’. A lot of them just want the same type of subsidized goodies that they perceive their parents got, which is why ‘free college’ is such a thing, since in the past, while public college wasn’t ‘free’, it was certainly much more heavily subsidized through both direct grants and state support than it is today.

      1. Bitch, where is my rent? Did you spend it all on the dark web for kiddie porn downloads?

    7. “who had affordable college, who had jobs that provided healthcare and retirement, and who made more in wages (adjusted)” — And……………. Perhaps you should ask yourself; WHAT’S CHANGED!!!

      Socialism came to America!! Think about it. You’re blaming the Result on the Cause instead of addressing the Cause of the Result. For the most recent example just look at Obamacare; Healthcare is now 300% more expensive. Just look at Common Core; Education is now 300% more expensive. Just look at “Everyone deserves a house”. Housing market collapses.

      THIS IS NOTHING NEW!!! Socialism makes things BAD for everyone. Venezuela ring a bell? Its completely idiotic to blame Venezuela’s collapse and hard times on “sucking the life out of capitalism”.

  10. Socialism has always been around the USA since the early 20th Century.

    Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and ObamaCare are all Socialist programs and still around. The government controls much of the means of production in these industries.

    1. Finally, someone who gets it.

  11. At a neighbor’s 4th BBQ, his goofball son started a mini-rant about how rich people are no better than him (he barely survives by selling firewood), his time is as valuable to him as the rich man’s time is to the rich man, so why do rich people get more $ per hour? He’s done and said a lot of goofy stupid things, but I was kind of surprised he could work out that much logic. I almost said something nasty about re-inventing Marx, but like someone smart said, people who talked themselves into something irrationally aren’t going to be argued out of it by logic.

    1. But he deserves it

  12. I like to tell about the time my 7-year old grandson received $20 for his birthday. A little later in the day, he heard me talking about the people who felt that we should be forced to share what we have with people who have less. He thought that sounded like a good idea. So, I said, “Let’s give half of your $20 to someone who doesn’t have $20.” He said, “No, that’s MY $20.”

    The lesson of when good sounding ideas meet reality.

    1. I’ve that exact argument on an adult at work. She was complaining that others have more than her and they need to share. I asked her how much cash she had on hand (which was more than I did). I said, well, since you have more than me, give me enough so that we are equal. She thought I was crazy.

      I asked her what the difference was between her statement and mine. I got a blank look, the a little realization dawned on her that there was no difference. She then just got mad.

      1. I love the ‘mad’ response. “My magical thinking was crashed by your argument! You meanie!”

        People need to learn that’s it okay to be wrong about something, understand that they were wrong, adapt their thinking, and come away a better person.

  13. “So far, the strategy is working. If you assumed that socialism’s appalling 20th century failures would relegate it permanently to the ash heap of history, you were wrong.”

    Which, frankly, suggests that a sufficiently brutal and graphic ad campaign about the Gulags, the Logai, the Killing Fields, and so on would have a salutary effect. Pre-Trump Republicans were too nice to launch such a campaign. Let’s hope Trump isn’t…which is the way I’d bet.

    1. Yeah, that would probably work, today’s youth are more ignorant of actual socialism’s history, than comfortable with it.

      Which is why the left have exerted so much effort to get control of the media, and are currently locking down all the social media sites with algorithmic censorship. By this time next year Trump won’t even be able to give a speech without every channel switching to the Democratic response before he’s finished talking, and a history of socialism ad campaign would be banned as ‘hate speech’.

      1. “a history of socialism ad campaign would be banned as ‘hate speech’.”

        Already happened.
        A Republican candidate for HoR from California put together an ad about the Khmer Rouge and Facebook shut it down

    2. “Fucking lefty ignoramus gets hat handed to him and now falls to ‘FOR THE CHILDREN’ bullshit.”

      cites, too! “Which, frankly, suggests that a sufficiently brutal and graphic ad campaign about the Gulags, the Logai, the Killing Fields, and so on would have a salutary effect. Pre-Trump Republicans were too nice to launch such a campaign. Let’s hope Trump isn’t…which is the way I’d bet.”

      It would invite scrutiny into the US prison system of today. Something ugly is certain to be revealed and no incumbent can benefit from this. Actions… Consequences… Don’t forget if you are planning an election campaign.

  14. It’s “building pyramids of skulls” dangerous, but this is what you get when you let the commies take over the educational system.

  15. It takes real vision to tell children, “Your free shit’s ready!”

  16. I g­­e­­­­t p­­­­a­­­­i­­­­d o­­­­v­­­­e­­­­r $426 1 to 2 h­­o­­u­­r­s w­­o­­r­­k­­i­­n­­g f­­r­­o­­m h­­o­­m­­e w­­i­­t­­h 2 k­­i­­d­­­­s a­­t h­­o­­m­­e. I n­­e­­v­­e­­r t­­h­­o­­u­­g­­h­­t I­­’­­d b­­e a­­b­­l­­e t­­o d­­o i­­t b­­u­­t m­­y b­­e­­s­­t f­­r­­i­­e­­n­­d e­­a­­r­­n­­s o­­v­­e­­r $2­­8k a m­­o­­n­­t­­h d­­o­­i­­n­­g t­­h­­i­­s a­­n­­d s­­h­­e c­­o­­n­­v­­i­­n­­c­­e­­d m­­e t­­o t­­r­­y. T­­h­­e p­­o­­t­­e­­n­­t­­i­­a­­l w­­i­­t­­h t­­h­­i­­s i­­s e­­n­­­­d­­l­­e­­­­s­­s. H­­e­­r­­e w­­h­­a­­t I’v­­e b­­e­­e­­n d­­o­­i­­n­­g……
    http://xurl.es/46ak3

  17. Define “socialism”.

    1. Free shit.
      Is that hard?

      1. Sevo’s sexual encounters with his step-uncle and favorite hound dog in a nutshell.

        1. ‘Tony
          July.6.2019 at 2:17 pm
          ‘Sevo’s sexual encounters with his step-uncle and favorite hound dog in a nutshell.”

          Go fuck your daddy and quit accusing others of your activities.

    2. Like others have said, these younguns are ignorant of socialism’s track record. Part of that is the education racket’s work, afraid to say anything bad about almost everything, except America’s dark side; I can somewhat understand this, since it is always more acceptable to criticize yourself than others. But it leads to history books which smooth over all the much worse wrongs others have done. Hitler killed 6 million Jews; but he lost the war and died in ignominy, so that’s ok. Just don’t mention Stalin having starved 10-20 million and sent millions more to camps, because he won the war. Don’t mention Mao having starved 60 million, because his legacy is still around.

      I don’t blame the educrats directly. I don’t think they set out with this current state of mellow pablum in mind. But this pablum is the natural result of only one educational system, and that was their goal, their reaction to flat-earthers and creationists spouting garbage. Where they erred was in thinking that kind of nonsense would stick, and therefore had to be stamped out. The root cause, of course, is their belief that people are too ignorant, naive, and gullible to be responsible for themselves, and must be guided by the elite. It sometimes surprises me that they can’t see this was the same professed attitude of Europeans towards black, red, and yellow people that led to the colonization they claim to detest so much.

      So socialism never got the rap it deserved, and then along come “Social Democratic” parties, and welfare states implemented by them, and Bernie to redefine “socialism”, and how are the kids supposed to know any better?

      1. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it. – George Orwell “Why I Write”.

        So, the writer of two famous books against totalitarianism was also an advocate of democratic socialism. Did he not – as he himself notes – understand it correctly?

        1. I thought Orwell had turned against socialism in his later years, but never mind.

          They think putting “democratic” in the name makes it the will of the people. Same reason for Democratic Peoples Republic of _________.

          1. Possibly. This was written about four years before his death, so I think that counts as “later years”.

            Orwell was absolutely opposed to totalitarianism in general, and Stalin and the Soviet Union in particular. And he did offer his enthusiastic assistance to the UK and US to that end. However, there is the possibility that he viewed socialism (as he understood it, of course) as not being synonymous with totalitarianism.

            1. Why are you still running this stupid sockpuppet after it was outed Tony?

              1. “Love me or hate me, both are in my favour. If you love me, I’ll always be in your heart… If you hate me, I’ll always be in your mind.”

                William Shakespeare

      2. “Part of that is the education racket’s work,”

        This is a huge part of it. The fact that they still teach kids that FDR was our greatest President is shameful. But what do you expect from the union commies in the public teacher’s unions. They are communist to a man/woman/zhe.

      3. Blame the education system completely. It is run by the left and they don’t teach things like this. We home schooled – which meant we had control of what was taught even though our son went to classes outside of house most of the time.

        I had him take Personal Finance and Economics. The change in his attitude over money, work, free stuff, etc. was awesome to watch. He understand how it really works now and thinks most all of his peers are stupid for what they want.

      1. How many sockpuppets am I? I’ve lost track.

        1. Are you still trying to pretend you don’t run a bunch of socks?

          1. No, but I need your expertise in keeping track of them.

          2. I am not Tony. I have previously traded under a different sobriquet which I’m sure no one gives a shit about.

            1. Either way, just another slaver that belongs face down in a landfill.

  18. The socialist podcast Chapo Trap House, which debuted in March 2016, is now the second most popular account on the crowdfunding platform Patreon, and its hosts rake in an average of $123,500 in donations per month.
    ….Oh the irony

  19. OT:
    “Charles Reich, author of 1970 best seller ‘The Greening of America,’ dies at 91 ”
    […]
    “Sensing a new spirit of enlightenment in the youth revolution of the 1960s, he put his observations into a 1970 book, “The Greening of America,” that sold millions of copies and became one of the defining manifestos of the era of hippies, psychedelic music and love beads.
    The book, which described a new level of consciousness ushered in by young people who defied conventional expectations, was both admired and reviled.
    Reich grew his hair long and moved to San Francisco, trying to hold on to his privacy and dignity, even as he became an intellectual punching bag for a generation of conservative writers who considered him the personification of everything that went wrong with the ’60s….”
    https://www.unionleader.com/news/human_interest/charles-reich-author-of-best-seller-the-greening-of-america/article_5ac81df1-c67c-5286-9bb9-959685e35e78.html

    Pretty sure he was a punching bag for anyone with two brain cells. The book was an unreadable mish-mash of ‘aren’t we wonderful!’ crap; what you get after the joint made two passes around.

  20. Don’t blame Sanders . Assholes like Bill Ayers went into the education business 50 years ago. Students are steeped in this stuff since pre-school. Parents were too lazy to confront it.

  21. If the centrist standard-bearer, Vice President Joe Biden, wins the Democratic nomination, it will be a setback for the movement.

    I’m sure they’ll find enough superdelegates to make this happen. Hillary winning certainly didn’t set back the movement though.

    1. The superdelegates only count this time if nobody wins on the first ballot. With this many candidates, it is possible to go to a second ballot.

  22. Maduro’s the fattest man in the whole of Venezuela. That is if Michael Moore’s not visiting.

    1. It would be deliciously ironic I’d Moore visited and did something to get on Maduro’s bad side and ended up being tortured to death by that commie dictator. Or Sean Penn.

  23. I will agree with the others about the public education system being #1 problem here. Just get government out of education and half the problem is fix. Despite the idea that most younger kid like socialism, private unions are still losing members and the younger generation not joining them which is a telling sign.

  24. Socialism violates the NAP. Nothing more need be said about it.

  25. So at least some socialists claim their motivation comes from wanting economic security for everyone, and therefore can justify taking wealth from people who are more financially successful to give to those less successful.

    I say, OK assholes, let’s accept the moral imperative to ensure broader economic security. But to accomplish that, let’s fuck with the people who would otherwise make choices inclined towards economic failure. No more art and music “career” tracks. No more gender studies and Sanskrit literature majors. No more years in parents’ basements playing online games and blogging. Certainly forcing people into productive activities is no more intrusive than taking away peoples’ wealth.

    1. “Certainly forcing people into productive activities is no more intrusive than taking away peoples’ wealth.”

      Forcing young people to study and pursue fields you approve of is no way to get their support. Neither is telling them about the Maoist or Stalinist demons that disturb you so much. If you want to kill an idea, replace it with a better one.

      1. A free market economy is better though.

        You want a solution to a problem that already has a solution.

        1. It continually amazes me the extreme measures collectivists take to emulate free markets.

          Their sledgehammer flattens everything, so they carve out little divots of varying depth to make exceptions for what they approve of. The market finds ways to work around that, so they add new divots and reshape the previous ones. Rinse, repeat, over and over, the sledgehammer gets heavier and heavier, more and more cumbersome, and never once do they stop and rethink it from scratch.

          Reminds me of something I read about Barnes Wallace, who invented the Dam Busters, some big bombs, some good planes. There was a committee responsible for reducing bomber losses. They had a plan view and had recorded every piece of damage from returning planes so they could debate how much new armor to add and where to prevent that damage. Wallace said they had it all wrong, that since planes with that damage came back, it was not fatal; but since no planes came back with damage in the unmarked areas, that was likely the best place for new armor.

        2. A free-market economy is part of a system that values profit over people, and people like you come along trying to sell that shit sandwich as actually better for people, when it’s obviously not, by evidence and common sense. There’s no point in having an economy at all if it doesn’t care about the well-being of people.

          1. Free market economy actually values people more than any other system. All other systems devalue the person in favor of the system or even worse, the powers that be. But you wouldn’t understand that.

            1. If you’re comparing a laissez-faire system to an authoritarian genocidal regime, sure, arguably it comes out on top. But you wouldn’t be doing that, would you? It would be a terrible sign for the quality of your argument to resort to such horseshit.

              Private-sector enterprises have one goal: maximize profits. Not competing to lower prices or maximize customers, not to produce the best social outcomes, but to maximize profit. And that’s good. It’s a necessary component to the system. But fetishizing it to the extent that you stop believing in a public sector (except for the free shit you think you deserve of course) is just tedious nonsense.

              1. “Private-sector enterprises have one goal:maximize profits”

                That doesn’t change the fact that a free market *system* is the one that values people more than any other system. Stay focused.

                “(except for the free shit you think you deserve of course)”

                Lol projection much?

                1. So why aren’t armed forces and criminal justice best left to nondemocratic market-based means? Why not have free trade in nuclear weapons?

                  And if you think government should run these sectors, why stop there? The military just blows shit up, but that’s so vital to human well-being that we have to keep it in public hands. Why is healthcare different? It’s certainly not because a free market system works better, as has been amply established.

                  1. “Why is healthcare different?”

                    You’re asking why a individual shouldn’t have the right to decide on their own level of care?

                    Seriously? You’re honestly THAT stupid? I mean, your dumb as a post attempt at assuming positions on nukes and the military and then crafting retarded analogies means you are stupid, but you can’t be THAT stupid.

                    1. I’m going to say this slowly so you can attempt to understand at least the small words.

                      Healtchare isn’t a normal market. Nobody *knows* what level of care they want, because nobody *wants* care, they need it. If the market choice before you is pay $40,000 or die, you pay $40,000. No comparing options. No deciding not to buy because you’d rather keep the cash, because not buying means death. That’s not how the market works even by your simplistic utopian bullshit definitions.

                      Of course I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually have an idea of what you’re talking about, because as far as I can tell you haven’t actually explained anything about what you believe.

                    2. Healthcare is absolutely a normal market. There is a limitation on the supply side that raises costs on the demand side. Let me ask you one thing tony so you realize how stupid your inference is…

                      Should government spend a million dollars to extend a persons life for a week of it is possible? Market forces say no. Your paradigm says yes. The problem is your paradigm favored the few over the many and eventually bankrupts the entire system.

                    3. Healthcare is absolutely a normal market. There is a limitation on the supply side that raises costs on the demand side.

                      This is true both in the sense that healthcare, like anything else, is inherently a finite resource (there aren’t infinite doctors who can work infinite hours on infinite patients), but also in that the government actively puts limitations on the supply of healthcare, by limiting the number of new doctors that can be added to the pool of providers. So a prime reason why healthcare costs are higher is that there are an artificially lower number of doctors that there would likely otherwise be under a system in which no such limitations were enacted. In a freer market, there could be more people willing to teach new doctors and more students willing to learn, and therefore more healthcare providers available to the public. This would lower the cost of healthcare, and by extension the costs of insurance.

                    4. So put Jesse down in favor of death panels?

                      As long as they’re run by the market, they’re OK, because whatever happens in the market is good by definition.

                    5. Someone who thinks the government should be in charge of determining healthcare expenditures is in favor of death panels. Charlie Gard could not be reached for comment.

              2. “Private-sector enterprises have one goal:maximize profits”

                Profits only result if you provide what PEOPLE want at a price they want to pay.

                Profit is an indicator of your social success – which is why it’s lauded.

          2. “A free-market economy is part of a system that values profit over people”

            That’s a clown take. A free market economy relies on people being satisfied. The profit comes as a side effect of satisfying the customer.

            God you’re bad at this Esmerelda.

            1. This is like one of the core bits of fucking idiocy that causes me to say you are the least economically literate people in the world. No, the free market has no inherent interest in making people happy. Its interest is in maximizing profits for its individual players, whether they’re in fierce competition or in fierce collusion. There are a million ways to make a profit by making people miserable instead of happy.

              You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about and it’s sad.

              1. “This is like one of the core bits of fucking idiocy that causes me to say you are the least economically literate people in the world”

                Yes Tony, we are aware you don’t understand the primary tenets of a free market economy.

              2. “No, the free market has no inherent interest”

                You should have stopped right there to avoid looking like you stupidly think there is some monolithic thing called the “free market.”

                There isn’t. It is just a bunch of interactions where the individuals seek to satisfy the customer. Which is ANOTHER point in the “look how stupid Tony is” bingo game.

                I never said “happy” idiot. So please do everyone a favor and try to get smarter before you engage in discussing topics that you make clear in your post you don’t fully understand.

                1. “A [monolithic[ free market economy relies [a verb of intent] on people being satisfied [otherwise known as happy].”

                  Why do I bother with you.

                  1. What we wonder is why you think you can make your mistake look like it wasn’t a mistake.

                    You stupidly act as thugh there is such a thing as a monolithic free market. That is comically stupid.

                    Then you insist your usage of the wrong word is OK, e en when two people making a trade can be satisfied without being happy.

                    It’s like you are so desperate to not look stupid that you prolifically????????????????????

                    1. Do you care to make an actual argument about the merits of your policy positions, or are you going to go on until the end of time playing around with childish semantics games and zingers that are genius in your own mind and no one else’s?

                      You’ve not said a single thing of substance on this entire thread except possibly “socialism bad!”

                    2. “Do you care to make an actual argument”

                      I did. You assumed many definitions, insulted me, lied, and moved the goalposts.

                      In other words, you pulled a Tony.

                      So please stop pretending you want a debate, Not one person here believes that is evef your goal.

                    3. I am content to explain to you why your idea, such as they are, are failures, but I am more than willing to be convinced otherwise if someone would actually provide a debate.

                      If all you’re going to do is police semantics and say “Nazis had socialist in their names! Ah ah I win!” then you’re really doing my work for me.

                    4. “I am content to explain to you”

                      Pass.

                      You’re stupid and a liar, who thinks that there is such a thing as a monolithic free market entity of some kind.

                    5. You fixate on word usage but you don’t even know what the fuck you’re talking about. Of course the market is monolithic. You’re talking about it as such. That’s why you’re using the phrase “the market.” In fact it’s not only monolithic, it’s global.

                      Or not. Or it’s a bunch of different moving parts operating in some way that could be described as nonmonolithic.

                      Who the fuck gives a fuck? My god you are tedious. Are you this way in real life? Do you notice that nobody loves you?

                    6. “You fixate on word usage”

                      That’s called pointing out your lies Tony.

                    7. “Of course the market is monolithic. You’re talking about it as such.”

                      Ahahahahahahah a ahahahaj

                      No you fucking cretin!

                      “There isn’t. It is just a bunch of interactions where the individuals seek to satisfy the customer. Which is ANOTHER point in the “look how stupid Tony is” bingo game.”

                      READ dumbass!!

                    8. “Who the fuck gives a fuck?”

                      This is how Tony admits he was wrong. By pretending it doesn’t matter.

                    9. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the only reason you’re polluting these threads with your spittle-flecked horseshit is because you can’t afford insurance for a proper stay in a mental health institution?

                    10. “can’t afford insurance for a proper stay in a mental health institution?”

                      Tony unintentionally admits his reasoning for supporting socialized medicine.

                      I’m sorry you’re poor and mentally ill Tony.

                    11. Tony
                      July.6.2019 at 3:47 pm
                      “I am content to explain to you why your idea, such as they are, are failures, but I am more than willing to be convinced otherwise if someone would actually provide a debate….”

                      You’d need to start by understanding that idea, and you’ve shown yourself to be dumb as a rock with totally no concept of that idea.
                      And now you propose to ‘explain’ it to others?
                      What a fucking idiot.

                    12. This country handles mental healthcare abominably. Thanks for bringing it up. How does your beloved free market deal with mental healthcare and associated antisocial problems?

              3. “Private-sector enterprises have one goal: maximize profits.”

                That and religious homophobia. If it comes between profit and not letting the gays have wedding cakes, then the gays don’t get wedding cakes, and screw profit!

                Yep, it’s all homophobia and profit!

                Well there’s also racism. They’ll always discriminate against minorities over profit. Because profit is less important to them than racism, without government. It’s all homophobia and racism and profit!

                Well, there’s also sexism. And sexual harassment. If it comes between choosing profit, or discriminating against women, or trying to rape people, then it’s discrimination the way.

                But outside of homophobia, racism, sexism, and rape, the only thing corporations care about his profit!

                1. I’m glad we agree that the market, in addition to being unable to cope with the spectrum of human needs by itself, is also irrational.

                  1. Corporations can’t be irrational; they’re not people, remember?

                    1. I think you mean they can’t be rational.

                    2. It’s hard for me to keep straight.

                      Hey, Tony: you’re an inconsistent hack progressive. Is it “corporations aren’t people” or “corporations are evil!”

                      It really can’t be both.

                      Unless you’re retarded.

                      Oh, hi, Tony.

                    3. Corporations are pieces of paper. They’re an agreement that in exchange for government protections, the people in charge will do certain things like maximize shareholder return that are alleged to be good for society.

                      Since the whole point is to be good for society, we should trim the fucking fat and actually make them work to that end. Right now we’ve simply been sold snake oil about how what’s good for the CEO is good for everyone. It’s a social conversation no matter where you slice it.

                    4. Most sane people realize that pieces of paper can’t have “goals” like “earning profit”, “seekBig protection”, or “making agreements.”

                      Only people do those things.

                      Sane people get that.

                      But, how would you know?

          3. Tony
            July.6.2019 at 2:23 pm
            “A free-market economy is part of a system that values profit over people,…”

            Yeah, people really don’t want “profit”; that ol’ nasty “profit” just sneaks up and takes over when no one is looking.
            Perpetually adolescent, and proud of it! That’s our shitbag!

          4. No, idiot. A free market economy values productive people over not so productive people, and divides the profits accordingly. People have to start caring about themselves. Just taking shit to give it to others is not an economy.

            1. And you define productive people as those with wealth, and vice versa. How deliciously circular!

          5. An “economy” doesn’t have feels, Tony. It doesn’t value anything. People value things, people buy and sell, and that activity is known as an “economy”.

          6. How do you make it through the day being such a painfully stupid human being?

        3. “A free market economy is better though. ”

          A free market where people are forced into studying something other than music, art, Sanskrit, and other fields we disapprove of? No more persuasive than regaling youngsters with gruesome details of communist atrocities.

          1. “A free market where people are forced”

            Nope.

            1. “Nope.”

              That’s not an argument and is no more persuasive than telling young people that they are stupid. And they truly don’t give a damn about your feelings about the study of music or art etc.

              1. “That’s not an argument”

                Correct, it was me dismissing your attempt to set the terms of the discussion.

                1. “Correct, it was me dismissing your attempt to set the terms of the discussion”

                  My discussion here is in the form of advice offered to conservatives who would like to persuade young people from supporting socialism: insult and scare mongering won’t work.

                  1. “My discussion here is in the form of advice”

                    Keep it.

                    1. I will keep it, but promise me you’ll put in some thought about how better to dissuade young people from supporting socialism. Your efforts till now are less than impressive and amount to boring insults and tired platitudes. Tu­lpa AKA “Can’t pass as gay,” you’ve always struck me as one of Reason’s wisest and most perspicacious minds. Please don’t let me down now.

                  2. Does anyone here think that you’re anything but a pretentious idiot?

                    1. I’m also well known as a liar, pervert, communist, anti-semite, racist and sexist.

              2. But some young people are stupid, or at least make stupid decisions. I could care less about feelings, mine or theirs. But if some idiot declares they have a passion only for a financially hopeless pursuit, and may even say dismissive things about those who do focus on money, then fuck them. They deserve none of what others have produced.

              3. You’re not forced in the free market. That’s why Tulpa said “nope”.

                1. Earth Skeptic, one of the sharper minds posting here, suggested that young people be prevented from studying faggy subjects like music and art. He’s not talking about ‘the free market.’

          2. How do you not get that he is saying if we’re going down the super planned economy route, the planners get to decide what you study and what careers you pursue, not just how much wealth you’re allowed to acquire?

      2. Nor is taking wealth from people a way to get their support, especially if you claim that the money is for economic losers.

        1. “Nor is taking wealth from people a way to get their support”

          I admit tolerance for economic losers is low. A lot of people who don’t oppose being taxed to fund military adventures bridle at their money going to losers.

          On the other hand, dig this, groups like the Black Panthers were generously financed by wealthy Hollywood types who not only paid there taxes but held Black Panther fund raising parties in their Hollywood homes. What’s the point, after all, of being wealthy if you can’t shower the poor, or better, poor and radical, with cash? The Bolsheviks were funded for years by donations from wealthy liberal bourgeois.

          1. “…A lot of people who don’t oppose being taxed to fund military adventures bridle at their money going to losers. ”

            How far did you carry that strawman, scumbag?

            1. It’s true. Some people resent their money going to losers. Others revel in giving to the poor.

  26. “I was a Democrat, I was a liberal, but I had never really crossed that line to socialism.”

    What line?

  27. Conservatives have to do better than trying to scare young people with tales of communist atrocities and slavery.

    1. So show them the actual evidence of those widespread and horrifying atrocities you’re saying?

      1. “So show them the actual evidence… ”

        Not persuasive. Instead have celebrities from the world of sports, arts and entertainment to show the actual evidence. Have you learned nothing from your life under Capitalism?

        1. “Not persuasive”

          But you’re an idiot, so I can’t understand why you think anyone cares about you making an uninformed proclamation like that.

          1. ” so I can’t understand why you think anyone cares about you making an uninformed proclamation like that.”

            You should be able to understand. You care enough to respond to my comment, or my proclamation. If you seriously want to dissuade young people from socialism, you have to do better than the shabby, shopworn, unconvincing, and, yes, frankly insulting effort you’ve put in today with me.

            1. “You care enough to respond to my comment, or my proclamation”

              No, I care about making fun of people for being stupid.

              As you don’t seem to udnerstand, idiot, no one is interested in dissauding idiots like you put of your idiocy. They realize it is a hopeless endeavor, and that you and other idiots like you will have to feel the pain from your choices to get it.

              We’re sad for you. Because you are dumb, and it is going to cost you.

              1. “No, I care about making fun of people for being stupid. ”

                I appreciate your light-hearted approach to a serious subject.

                “As you don’t seem to udnerstand”

                But I do udnerstand. The whole thrust of the article and the comments is to dissuade young people from supporting socialism. My advice is that insults and scare tactics won’t work. You can tell me if you disagree. Insult me even, if you feel it’s necessary.

                1. “The whole thrust of the article and the comments is to dissuade young people from supporting Socialism”

                  Ah, see? You don’t understand. You admit it.

                  Not THESE comments. THESE comments lament that dissusion is wasted effort.

                  READ PLEASE.

                  1. That’s truman; you get bullshit or sophistry. Nothing else.

                  2. “Not THESE comments. THESE comments lament that dissusion is wasted effort. ”

                    And what about THOSE comments? The ones you made only minutes ago telling us how effective it was to ‘show the evidence’ of communist atrocities. If I’ve managed to persuade you that such scare tactics are a ‘wasted effort,’ then my time here has been successful.

                    1. That’s truman; you get bullshit or sophistry. Nothing else.

                2. Everyone’s advice to you seems to be to go play in traffic because nobody’s interested in engaging a smug pseudo-intellectual moron.

                  1. If you want to stem the tide of socialism, my advice to you is to raise the issue of communist atrocities at every opportunity and insult those who disagree with you.

    2. I wish someone while teach them the ridiculousness that is price controls. But, that would require socialists to ”learn.”

      1. “But, that would require socialists to ”learn.”

        If tales of Communist atrocities aren’t enough to scare off young people, telling them they are stupid and ignorant is not going to work either. Put on your thinking cap and see if you can come up with a more persuasive argument.

        1. Why do you think I want to persuade stupid people?

          I don’t teach physics to ducks, and I don’t explain economics to socialists.

          1. “I don’t explain economics to socialists.”

            Maybe you should try. You might even find yourself mounting an actual persuasive argument instead of scare tactics and insult.

            1. “Maybe you should try”

              You don’t understand what he said at all.

              1. Tell me if i missed anything interesting.

                1. Why? You seem pathologically incapable of listening.

                  1. That’s truman; you get bullshit or sophistry. Nothing else.

                    1. “you get bullshit or sophistry”

                      Bullshit and sophistry aren’t to be underestimated. In the end, like it or not, they are more persuasive than the scare mongering and insults you put so much stock in. If life under capitalism hasn’t taught you this lesson, then I just don’t know what to say.

                    2. mtrueman
                      July.6.2019 at 5:46 pm
                      “Bullshit and sophistry aren’t to be underestimated.”

                      truman posted that, and the scumbag thinks he posts something of value.
                      Fuck off.

                  2. Then don’t tell me. Or tell me. Suit yourself.

                2. Probably the part where you were told for n-millionth time that you’re an insufferable bore.

                  1. Thanks for sharing. I’m grateful that you find my comments worth reading and commenting on.

    3. What you call tales, non morons call documented history.

      1. Insults and atrocities. It won’t work. Think more.

  28. If any of these kids would fund a Roth IRA every year they’d be millionaires by the time they retire.

    But, hey, why not just vote for Bernie and take whatever’s coming to you on the other side of bureaucracy?

    If you want socialism when you’re 20, fine. When you’re 30: ok, late bloomer, time to get busy.

    If you’re 40+, you’re an idiot, or love government cheese. Which is both.

    1. You can’t be a millionaire if you die first because you can’t go to the hospital. And hard to manage money without an education. Infant care–let’s just hope those babies have some long bootstraps they can reach, should their parents be neglectful.

      You’re not arguing against what Bernie stupidly calls “socialism,” and what is actually called “the public sector” of a mixed economy, you’re arguing against specific programs. So do so on their merits for god’s sake and stop pretending there are competing theories of how economies work.

      Libertarians are essentially the least educated people about how economies work. It’s what defines them. And then they fill in the gaps in that knowledge with endless smug self-righteousness.

      1. In an unregulated market, catastrophic health insurance for someone in their 20s would be laughably affordable. Even before ObamaCare ruined things, I was able to purchase high deductible insurance for a 20 something employee for under $100 a month. And pre-ObamaCare it was still far more expensive than it needed to be due to central planning. Now it’s even worse.

        1. That might be true except for literally all the evidence in the world.

          The healthcare market is not like any other market. You don’t purchase from it because you want to, but because you need to, and you aren’t weighing price signals when the alternative to buying is death. This isn’t even getting into the economy of illness prevention, which catastrophic insurance does nothing for by definition.

          Another way of saying “catastrophic insurance” is “very high costs out of pocket” for the buyer when they need to get healthcare, and you try to cope with that by sprinkling magic market fairy dust on the talking point.

          1. “libertarians are essentially the least educated people about how economies work. ”

            Yet you can’t tell the difference between insurance and health care

          2. Says: “Libertarians are essentially the least educated people about how economies work. ”

            Then says: “Another way of saying “catastrophic insurance” is “very high costs out of pocket” for the buyer when they need to get healthcare, and you try to cope with that by sprinkling magic market fairy dust on the talking point.”

            I rest my case.

            1. Catastrophic means cheap up-front, expensive when you need it, and doesn’t do anything about prevention or even non-catastrophic healthcare needs, right? This whitewash says nothing about the problem.

              1. “Catastrophic means”

                No one cares how you define anything. It is how you debate and it is tiresome.

              2. Have you ever looked at the specs of a high deductible health insurance plan? Keep in mind these are WAY more expensive than they need to be because of existing government overhead on the industry.

                Even so, it’s nearly impossible to find a deductible higher than 10k.

                But why am I telling you this you know nothing and refuse to learn.

              3. “Catastrophic means cheap up-front, expensive when you need it,”

                HAHAH there’s no ‘expensive when you need it’. You’ve already purchased the coverage. You keep conflating health insurance with health care services.

                1. It means high deductibles. More civilized countries have healthcare you can go get for free (yes, with higher taxes up front). And those people like their systems. You think a $10,000 deductible is affordable for most Americans, especially the ones who can only afford cheap insurance?

                  1. “More civilized countries have healthcare you can go get for free (yes, with higher taxes up front”

                    So not free. Caught lying again.

                    1. No, not free, just significantly cheaper, and with better outcomes.

                    2. “Tony
                      July.6.2019 at 3:14 pm
                      It means high deductibles. More civilized countries have healthcare you can go get for free”

                      “Tu­lpa AKA “Can’t pass as gay”
                      July.6.2019 at 3:29 pm
                      “More civilized countries have healthcare you can go get for free (yes, with higher taxes up front”

                      So not free. Caught lying again”

                      “Tony
                      July.6.2019 at 3:33 pm
                      No, not free,”

                    3. Again with the clever zingers! You caught me! I said free when I meant free at the point of acquiring the service. You win, libertarian healthcare is the best system of all because you caught me in a zinger! Tulpa, genius unparalleled.

                    4. You lied. That’s not a, zinger, just reality.

                    5. “You win”

                      I know. So does everyone else who saw you lie.

                    6. I promise I am not the only one here who finds you excruciatingly tedious. I’d venture that the ones who are smarter than you, and that’s not a high bar, wish you’d shut the fuck up and stop doing damage to their arguments.

                    7. I promise that I don’t care that you, an aspie clown who I consistently kick around and make look stupid, claims to find me tedious. I would expect you to, you can’t enjoy being wrong and looking dumb constantly. I can only imagine how tired you must be of having to resort to insults after your pathetic arguments are destroyed.

                  2. It’s good to see you at least backed down from your hyberbolic nonsense of: “You can’t be a millionaire if you die first because you can’t go to the hospital. ”

                    to

                    “You think a $10,000 deductible is affordable for most Americans?”

                    Which is still nonsense but at least you’re backing off ‘people will die in a free market’ to ‘people will take on some unwanted debts due to bad luck in a free market’. Perhaps there’s hope for you after all!

                    1. But we can’t have a better system than that because… Stalin?

                    2. There you go assuming you get to define what is better.

                    3. So who are you to bitch about what Stalin thought was better?

                      Abject relativism, yet another totally intellectually pristine resort when you have the best ideas.

          3. “That might be true except for literally all the evidence in the world”

            Which you constantly refer to but fail to actually produce, because then it would be taken apart and you’d look stupid for buying into it.

            1. The US is the lone country in the civilized world that doesn’t have universal healthcare, yet healthcare costs are more or less double per capita than those other countries and we have among the worst healthcare metrics. You can google it. The data doesn’t support your stupid little market fetish cult in this particular sector.

              1. I said EVIDENCE not a screed.

                Thanks for proving my point.

                1. When was the last time you cited anything? Or even made a fucking point that could be cited? All you do is call names and act like a cunt.

                  The first google hit should do you, if you’re really interested.

                  1. “When was the last time you cited anything?”

                    Ahahahahaha pulled the trigger too fast on that one fuck boy!!

                    Ahahahahahahah ah eat it.

                    1. Is anyone surprised there is no follow up from Tony here? Nah, he looked incredibly fucking stupid, he’ll ignore it.

                  2. My god you are such a fucking insufferable moron. Stick to molesting your boy cousins in the outhouse, you retarded rube.

              2. “Sorry If You’re Offended, but Socialism Leads to Misery and Destitution
                Socialism is the leading man-made cause of death and misery in human existence.”

                https://reason.com/2018/07/27/sorry-if-youre-offended-but-socialism-le/

                1. Nobody is advocating socialism. Not even Bernie Sanders, even if he’s too precious not to use the word.

                  It doesn’t matter what you call it. We have a mixed economy and always will. These labels exist to exploit your stupidity.

                    1. It’s not. You’re resorting to the lamest of lame arguments: “You want government control of the means of production and all the death and misery that comes with it!”

                      The only spectrum any of us is talking about is the spectrum of capitalism. It won. Be happy. And then maybe one day when you grow up you’ll be able to make an argument for why one industry should be public-sector while another should be private, on the merits based on the evidence. We’re all only talking about a mixed economy. Nobody is talking about socialism except you guys and Bernie Sanders. You know, idiots.

                    2. It is. And you know it. Hence, your word wall mewlingly trying to justify it.

                    3. Don’t you think it’s a bit much to ask me to respond to your posts within a certain timeframe when you’re not even going to read them?

                  1. Tony, he’s right, you’re wrong. Case closed. Now go drink your Drano and get ready to burn in Hell, just as you deserve.

      2. “Libertarians are essentially the least educated people about how economies work”

        This is hilarious coming from a socialist.

      3. “Libertarians are essentially the least educated people about how economies work.”

        Coming from you that’s the highest of compliments.

      4. Umm…
        Mises, Hayek, Friedman. They were sort of libertarians, right?

        1. Not like the guys here who call themselves libertarians. The people you listed, while not considered mainstream economic philosophers and pretty much wrong about everything, at least believed in a social safety net.

          1. That is where the mistake is.

            Friedman did not believe in a social safety net the way you mean it. He was pragmatic and accepted that some sort of welfare state needed to exist because it already did.

            His ideas were more radical than you know. Instead of focusing on economic indicators he talked about freedom.

            If you wish to put up a critique of capitalism then do so. To not be “mainstream” or “mostly wrong” are not going to be convincing to a libertarian audience.

            1. I don’t wish to critique capitalism. I am a capitalist, to the extent that such labels matter. (They’re apparently very triggering in these parts.)

              I wish to debate why a laissez-faire market in healthcare is preferable to some form of universally guaranteed scheme when all the actual relevant evidence suggests it’s just not true.

              The answer is, of course, because libertarians need it to be true in order for their worldview to remain consistent with itself. But that’s not thinking, that’s dogma. It’s more concerned with proving itself right (even as it does a terrible job of that) than with any humans being better off.

              Maybe we’re just not talking about the same thing after all.

              1. “I wish to debate”

                Ahahaahahahhahahahahahahaahahahahha

                Ahahahahahahah

                Why do you always lie.!!!

              2. There is no box of cornflakes in medicine. I have discussed this here before.

                If you all want so called Medicare for all that is what you will get.

                Hopefully I will be out before then. I have no regrets just let me do my job.

                Yes I drew government pay some of that. Not at all bad deal.

                Do you have a contract to offer me? Otherwise we have nothing to discuss.

                1. I truly wish I knew what you were saying in this post because I am tired of my only interlocutor being Tulpa.

                  If you are wondering what scheme I prefer, I can’t get into specifics because it’s complicated and I’m not an expert, but I think a universal scheme is nonnegotiable. I’m not sure we even get to call ourselves civilized if we can’t achieve that.

                  But all such schemes have to deal with reality on the ground, and in this country that means a lot of private-sector money. Pharma is a big parasitic problem that just has to be dealt with, and that goes for many other parasitic, inflated aspects of the entire system, which only exists because of a problem I’ve articulated elsewhere: the healthcare market has a rather captive audience.

                  But I do not, like some misguided Democratic candidates for president, advocate eliminating private insurance. It’s a free country. Sell what you can as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody.

                  Now ask old people if they’d rather go without Medicare and throw themselves into a laissez-faire health insurance market. I’m sure it will take great care of them.

                  1. “Now ask old people if they’d rather go without Medicare and throw themselves into a laissez-faire health insurance market. I’m sure it will take great care of them.”

                    Now there is an impartial test!
                    Hey shitbag! Ever play without loading the dice first?
                    Fuck off.

                  2. The word scheme comes up repeatedly. Three times. Parasitic twice.

                    Old people. What do they want. I figured at 5% around 1.8 mil.

                    I said before that there is no such thing as a pure capitalist medical market. The supply and demand curves are both inelastic. Costs are hidden and unknown at the point of choice.

              3. The economic history and arguments against nationalizing industries, price fixing, price controls, and monopsonies are well documented, as well as the evidence that lifestyle choices and genetics have more to do with health outcomes than anything healthcare related. If socialists could make a compelling argument of why, in the case of medicine, all economic arguments go out the window, then they would.

                But they never do. They just say “PPEOPLE NEED MEDICINE DERP!” as if that’s enough. I’m sorry, what economics principle is that? The “markets can’t satisfy needs efficiently” argument? It’s pure bullshit.

                Because socialists want free shit, love free shit, and will day and do anything to get it, and they don’t really care about efficiency at all. They need to believe that someone else will take care of them, and they’ll believe it as long as anyone like Sanders is selling it.

                Because, whatever happens, they insist on saving nothing, blowing all their money on bullshit, and whining about how unfair life is.

                1. “…Because socialists want free shit, love free shit, and will day and do anything to get it, and they don’t really care about efficiency at all. They need to believe that someone else will take care of them, and they’ll believe it as long as anyone like Sanders is selling it…”

                  As obvious in the case of Tony, they have never matured to the point of taking responsibilities for their lives or their actions.

          2. “The people you listed, while not considered mainstream economic philosophers and pretty much wrong about everything…”

            This from the moron who demanded citations. My god you are such a fucking rube.

      5. When democratic socialism is all about disabled people and orphans, you may have a point.

        As it stands, I don’t really feel like paying for stupid people to go to college, get their stomach’s stapled, and what not, as they spend all their money and whine about ”the man.”

    2. I’m reminded of a quote by one of Robert Heinlein’s characters: “$100 placed at 7 percent interest compounded quarterly for
      200 years will increase to more that $100,000,000 — by which
      time it will be worth nothing. “

  29. Keep ceding the culture to the left, as per the leather jacket’s continued insistence. What’s the worst that could happen?

    1. A committee full of Tonys decides if you get Healthcare.

      Actually, getting tortured and shot like Tony’s preferred system has always done is the worst that could actually happen.

      1. Lately it’s been a committee of Republicans trying to decide if you deserve healthcare. Keep in mind, these are people who think air travel existed in the 18th century.

        1. “Lately it’s been a committee of Republicans trying to decide if you deserve healthcare.”

          Because of your system.

          Stop it Tony. You look even more fucking stupid, just take your “torturing and imprisoning” medicine.

          1. You never blame Republicans for anything. How lucky for them.

            Their entire healthcare plan for years has been “undo what the black man did,” period. You’d think if there were a free-market alternative, they’d latch onto it and get the social metrics in their political favor. I wonder why they can’t? Some Yale student cried about a Halloween costume and that prevented them from being competent at legislating a free-market healthcare system, is that it?

            1. “You never blame Republicans for anything”

              Chemjeff wants you to cite that.

              I get it. Holding you accountable sends you into “BUT WHAT ABOUT THEM!!!” mode. Which you hate because your example relies on people being ignorant of the fact the the Republicans you cannot stop blaming for everything are working with a system your boy implemented.

              1. My boy? I didn’t even think you had a mask to slip. Get a grip.

                If you can pass a law, you can repeal it, and that’s literally the only thing they’ve been trying to do. That failure, of course, is not their fault any more than their failure to have any credible ideas about healthcare policy.

                You could just be a libertarian, you know. There’s no need to lick Republican ballsack. It doesn’t do your philosophy any good. It makes you seem like a sad hack and a liar.

                1. “My boy?”

                  Yup. Your boy. Soy your pants about a colloquialism.

                  And then insult me while you all but admit that what I said was true.

                  1. You said what I said, that Republicans are feckless cunts, except you licked their nutsacks for the effort and were racist about it.

                    1. You do realize how stupid you look saying “your boy” is racist? It’s like how stupid you look saying “happy” is the same as “satisfied”.

                      And, we’re still waiting on that evidence.

                    2. No Tony, you stupid cherry picking illiterate retard

                      ““You never blame Republicans for anything”

                      Chemjeff wants you to cite that”

                    3. There’s some evidence for the topic at hand. To date, all you’ve linked to is a ridiculous screed from this same magazine about evil communist atrocities, as if that has anything to do with anything.

                      That you’re a pathetic Republican shill is self-evident.

                    4. “To date, all you’ve linked to is a ridiculous screed”

                      Well, you at least have the self awareness to realize how stupid you look claiming I don’t cite anything.

                      Of course, you’ve stupidly assumed the Chemjeff side of the argument where you simply deny the evidence because you don’t like it.

                      And of course, have all but admitted you were lying when you said “You never blame Republicans for anything”

                    5. You’re the one so autistically fixated on semantics that you think it substitutes for any actual argument. So don’t get pissy when someone calls you out on a word you use to describe a black man.

                    6. “You’re the one so autistically fixated on semantics”

                      No Tony, you just live in a world where you think you get to define everything, and don’t get called on it.

                      Words mean things. I’m sorry you’re butthurt about that.

                    7. By the way, is anyone really surprised that the moment Tony realizes he doesn’t get to demand we adhere to his definitions, his argument turns into a bitchy whine fest.

                    8. “So don’t get pissy when someone calls you out on a word you use to describe a black man”

                      So first hit on Google DOESN’T end the discussion?

                      Make up your mind.

                    9. Tony
                      July.6.2019 at 3:32 pm
                      “First google hit>

                      Gee, shitbag, why didn’t you just link to Wiki?
                      Fuck off and die.

        2. Tulpa “a committee of assholes will decide if you get Healthcare”

          Tony “Yes that’s true, now listen to how fucking stupid I am that I regurgitate Twitter trash”

        3. Actually, it did. The Montgolfier Brothers were flying in hot air balloons as early as 1783. They couldn’t control where they went, but they traveled there anyway, much as America is traveling politically today.

        4. 1800s is 19th century, Tony

          1. Oh, which war were we talking about? Trump was confused on that point too.

  30. The commentariat “we’re discussing socialism, vis-a-vis Healthcare”

    Tony ” NO! I want to talk about TRUMP and how excessively online I am!!!”

  31. My millenial son was a big Bernie Sanders fan last time around.

    We went together to the BMV yesterday. After over an hour standing in line we left frustrated. He had checked and called but still did not have all of the correct paperwork. Then one has to wait all that time, be given a clipboard form, wait again, we have all been there.

    After spending the afternoon wasting our time. He was ranting about how inefficient the process was. Why can’t it be like at in and out burger or chick fil a where if the line gets long they just go out with something and start processing. Why can’t it be like ordering pizza?

    We know why because capitalism always wins. The government doesn’t care if we have to line up like cattle.

    I asked him about his political views again. “I am basically an anarchist” he said. “Aha. We are not so different you and I on that”

    Not sure he saw the connection and how Bernie Sanders is far from an anarcho-communist. He does not even have that going for him. Social democrats somehow manage to take the worst from both and make it into an undigestible sandwich.

    1. Comrade Bernie-Man has wild and anarchic hair that refuses to be tamed by a comb and pomade.

  32. Is this not completely at odds with what Zilvinas Silenas was saying on the recent podcast? I’m asking because I only read the title, not the article.

    I love you, Robby *smooch*

    1. That was a decent podcast. I didn’t agree with the man on everything, but he gave Gillespie some pushback on globalism. I just wish they went deeper into the issues rather than Gillespie changing the subject when it ran against his beliefs.

  33. The right and libertarians, not that there’s much difference, especially in the comments section here, are poisoning the argument against “socialism” by screaming about Venezuela and the Soviet Union when the DSAs are chasing policies that are common or universal in the rest of the first world countries, and tax levels still below where they were in the first half of the previous century right here. As someone who really only agrees with the social/civil libertarian policies, I thank you for it.

    1. “policies that are common or universal in the rest of the first world countries”

      Is that supposed to be an argument? Why do leftists think “everyone else is doing it” means ANYTHING? They obviously do, because Tony and you can’t help but regurgitate it constantly.

      1. Because they’re illiberal illiterate copy cats.

    2. Were you wearing a Che t-shirt while typed this?

      1. while you typed.

        I can’t even tease right.

    3. It sure would suck if someone had bothered to gather and analyze the data of the last 100 years to show that tax revenue averages around 18% of GDP in any given year, even at those higher rates, showing that if socialist like you were serious, you’d have to police state the shit out of people to raise more taxes to pay for all of these supposed “universal” programs. Oh wait, Veronique De Rugy has done that multiple times right here at Reason.

      I wonder how long all of those generous social benefits would last once Uncle Sugar had to withdrawl from those first world countries and they were forced to provide for their own national and trade defense? What, you don’t think we can provide all of those benefits and be the world police/hall monitor do you?

      (We’ll just completely ignore the fact that the US government already spends 25% of it’s budget on healthcare, which is in line with what Canada and the UK spend.)

  34. Conservatives love socialism too!

    /burp.

  35. “Is that supposed to be an argument?”

    It doesn’t have to be an argument. You can vote for Bernie Sanders or not. It doesn’t depend on your winning or even constructing an argument. On the other hand, if you want to dissuade young people from voting socialist, a convincing argument might help your case.

    1. The entire existence of this publication makes such arguments.

      Maybe they should read it more.

      Or better yet….just plain old read.

      1. “The entire existence of this publication makes such arguments.”

        I don’t see young socialists being dissuaded from support of socialism by these arguments. In fact the article tells us that support for socialism among the young is actually growing.

        “Or better yet….just plain old read.”

        I just got through telling you that insults and scare tactics are not as effective at persuading people as you think they are.

        1. I didn’t specify this article. I said Reason as a whole.

          1. I don’t think Reason has a good grasp on young people. They cater to the middle aged and elderly. That’s why these ‘kids these days’ articles, and this is not the only one, fall flat to my not so young ears.

            1. You get bullshit or sophistry from truman. That’s all and that’s the total of his capabilities.

            2. The articles resonate quite well with my millennial ears, as well as those of my friends. Even my wife, who voted for Bernie in the 2016 primary, recognizes that nothing is free. Perhaps your problem is that Reason caters to more intelligent people, which doesn’t include you

              1. “recognizes that nothing is free”

                Where does this nothing is free stuff come from? You’re not the first to make this claim. Though the other guy put ‘free’ in quotes. As in nothing is ‘free.’ You sure you don’t mean ‘free?’

                1. Maybe if Democrat politicians weren’t promising free shit and their retarded fans weren’t demanding free shit (healthcare, education, you name it), people wouldn’t make the argument that nothing in life is free. Just a thought.

                  1. “people wouldn’t make the argument that nothing in life is free.”

                    ‘Nothing in life is free’ is a slogan. A tired trope, in the words of another commenter. It’s not an argument.

              2. I do really think that many Reason contributors here make excellent arguments on behalf of curtailing our government’s military misadventures, arguing against the disastrous war on drugs, opposing the criminalization of prostitution and the countless stories of local child social service enforcers run amok but much of the writing pertaining to economic issues of the day misses the mark big time. Perhaps wealthy, elderly Ivy leaguers like John Stossel may not have a good take on issues pertaining to working class folk under 50.

                1. “Oppose military misadventures, support drug legalization, stop harassing prostitutes, and let parents raise their kids without government interference.

                  “Vote socialist!”

  36. “It doesn’t have to be an argument”

    Then why are you , Tony and other leftists constantly trotting it out? It isn’t an argument? Because it sure looks like Argumentum ad Populum.

    No, let’s put the cards on the table. It IS an argument, just a shitty one that you realized you’d have to defend so you abandoned it.

    1. That’s truman; you get bullshit or sophistry. Nothing else.

    2. You don’t need to argue for socialism any more than you need to argue for a preference for chocolate ice cream over vanilla. If however you want to persuade someone against support for socialism, then an argument may be useful. Just not the arguments I’ve seen presented here again and again.

      1. No, YOU don’t need to argue for socialism any more than YOU need to argue for a preference for chocolate ice cream over vanilla because YOU are evidently a postmodernist. Some of us draw a line between what is objective and what is subjective, meaning that sound reasoning does not permit you to say, “well, I feel that I enjoy the flavor of socialism.”

        1. Tell that to Tulps, who thinks nobody gets to decide what counts as good for human beings. Not even when it comes to healthcare.

          Much the same way as a jelly bean vendor must philosophically contend with the fact that some people don’t like jelly beans, some people don’t want to be fit, healthy, and alive. Thus, the free market is the best in healthcare.

          For some reason the indigent have a preference for illness and early death. Must be a weird coincidence.

          1. Tony
            July.6.2019 at 6:36 pm
            “Tell that to Tulps, who thinks nobody gets to decide what counts as good for human beings. Not even when it comes to healthcare.”

            While shitbag here hopes to use the power of the government to not only decide what is good for people, but force them to do it.
            For some reason, this asshole has an ego the size of Alaska and a brain the size of a pea.
            Fuck off and die, slaver.

          2. Tony, for someone claiming to be an English major, you should probably learn to write in complete sentences rather than fragments. Perhaps then I could understand what you are unsuccessfully attempting to say.

            1. Sentence structure is not going to help imbecility.

            2. Tony was an English major? I would tell him to get his money back if he actually paid his own way.

        2. “well, I feel that I enjoy the flavor of socialism.”

          Good for you. But get the name right. They call it Democratic Socialism. You’ll have plenty of time to get used to it. Unless of course, you can come up with a more attractive alternative.

          1. More trueman. You get bullshit or sophistry. That’s all and that’s the total of his capabilities.

          2. I mean, it’s not technically any kind of socialism because the workers don’t own the means of production….

            Of course, the glorious revolution has never actually made it to that stage in the process every time it’s been tried, but I’m sure it’s just because the right people weren’t in charge.

            1. ” but I’m sure it’s just because the right people weren’t in charge.”

              Because the people in charge were ‘democratic centralists’ rather than democratic socialists.

  37. So the Soave argument is that antichoice prohibitionist nationalsocialism is losing out to international socialism that does not single women out for coercion in violation of 14A or rob and jail guys and gals alike over plant leaves. Is there anything else in the Venn diagram or Nolan chart besides gerontocracy comprising these two variants of 1890s looter mentality?

  38. DSA chapters can be found in 180 towns across the country.

    There are around 20,000 cities in the US–that doesn’t include towns. There are at least 14,000 of them.

    That means that there are DSA chapters in a little over one half of one percent of municipalities in the US.

    There are more chapters of Starfleet than there are chapters of the DSA.

  39. The person who did more for American socialism than anyone other than Norman Thomas was George W. Bush.

    “I abandoned free market principles in order to save the free market”.

    https://thinkprogress.org/bush-ive-abandoned-free-market-principles-to-save-the-free-market-system-eef736df2aff/

    This was a “confession” by a supposed free marketer that freedom doesn’t work. “W” was a plague on liberty greater than any open enemy of freedom. His name should become a curse. The progressives understand this while libertarians ignore it. They pretend that Ron Paul made a difference. Not a single idea of his ever entered the “Overton Window”. “Audit the FED” became a synonym for absurdity.

    Every member of the “Freedom Caucus” who abandoned liberty to kiss the backside of the Tariff King is responsible for socialism’s savior – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her prophet Bernie Sanders.

    Ask yourself why no one names what AOC is actually advocating. It isn’t socialism. She’s advocating economic fascism. Is it any wonder that there are black shirted mobs attacking dissidents? Or that the vast majority of media voices ignore the obvious parallels to the 1930’s?

    1. The country basically agrees with you about Bush, which is why everyone told his brother and the rest of their family to fuck off and go away forever.

    2. W was a progressive too

      1. As were his grandfather,father and brother. Remember when GHW Bush called Reagan’s tax cuts “Voodoo economics”?

        The Bush family, like the Romneys, have always favored big government. George Romney hated Barry Goldwater so much that he didn’t merely refused to endorse Goldwater, but he refused to be in the same state as Goldwater when Goldwater was campaigning.

        What else can you expect from G Romney when he once said that is proudest accomplishment was passing and implementing an income tax for Michigan.

    3. Because if the media actually named what AOC is advocating for, they’d have to admit that we’ve been soft fascist since the 30’s (sometimes being more fascistic than others)?

    4. “W” was a plague on liberty greater than any open enemy of freedom. His name should become a curse. The progressives understand this while libertarians ignore it.

      Easy as hell to blame Bush when you are speaking 10 years later and the R’s have STILL not said one damn specific thing that they would have done differently and have STILL not DONE one damn thing to prevent the same thing from happening again.

      Hell – here’s the EASY problem we had then. The entire banking system was within two days (maybe one week – outside) of shutting down and locking shut. That means no paychecks, no ATM’s, no vendor payments, bank runs at every bank. Any banker who tells you they were and would have been ok then is lying. No bank remains standing when every other bank is going under.

      So what’s your solution? Implementable in a week or two at the outside (any more than that and you better add how your gonna stop the looting/rioting that would break out nationwide). Should be easy – you’ve had ten years to figure out the solution.

  40. It’s going to take a lot more to dissuade young people from pursuing socialism than the comments I’m reading here which sound something like you’d hear from a table full of financially comfortable, out of touch elderly men sitting around a diner, drinking their coffee at 6 in the morning. People who foam at the mouth at the mere mention of socialism despite the fact they know little or nothing about it other than what Fox and Friends tells them.

    1. Yawn. Nice try.

      Yes, this is where some commenters here get their information. All from Fox News. I smell some projection.

      Honestly and seriously, presumptuous lefties need to get a new shtick.

      Socialism is pure bunk and there’s a satisfactory body of evidence backing this assertion up going back to the late 19th century.

      Now start over and argue in good faith and you’ll find out just how literate and informed the brass here can be.

      1. You’ll need something more than “Socialism is pure bunk ” and other similar pejoratives to bring young adults over to your side. It’s boring, repetitive and far from compelling. More and more younger Americans are unable to buy a home, find a good job, get out of debt and simply cannot acquire the same middle class lifestyle their parents had. If the commenters here from Reason are the last line of defense against Socialism taking hold in America; you don’t have a chance.

        1. You’re repeating a bunch of tired tropes.

          Socialism won’t solve any of those issues that’s for sure.

          The thing is, James, is only an illiterate wants to be shown why socialism is bad. Like I said, peruse around Reason. There’s hundreds of articles discussing this. As well as commenters offering their insights.

          Let’s start with one simple axiom: There’s no such thing as ‘free’ anything.

          I hope you’re a misguided young man and not a male adult who still entertains notions that socialism can be ‘good’.

          1. “You’re repeating a bunch of tired tropes.”

            Q: And why are those tropes tired?
            A: Because of all that work they do winning elections.

            “There’s no such thing as ‘free’ anything.”
            Well, yet another tired trope, You should have closed with that and axed the disingenuous advice.

            1. This is trueman. You get bullshit or sophistry. That’s all and that’s the total of his capabilities.

              1. Thanks for giving me a pass on not providing you with a cite.

                1. This is trueman. You get bullshit or sophistry. That’s all and that’s the total of his capabilities.

            2. It’s not a tired trope.

              It’s a fact of life and humanity. What goods and services come free?

              Socialism runs contrary to human nature.

              1. “It’s not a tired trope. ”

                No, it’s three tired tropes in 4 sentences.

                1. James_R
                  July.6.2019 at 11:29 pm
                  “I hear the 100 million dead claim used routinely by those on the right. I don’t recall Marx suggesting the use of genocide to promote his ideas while reading Das Kapital. People are increasingly looking for answers to help them cope with the disastrous effects of neoliberalism and it doesn’t sound as though people like you can offer them any assistance.”
                  I don’t recall commie shits like you making sense and you’re proven again that commie shits are fucking ignoramuses.
                  Is that understandable to someone with such limited mental capabilities, you commie shit?
                  ————————
                  “People are increasingly looking for answers to help them cope with the disastrous effects of neoliberalism and it doesn’t sound as though people like you can offer them any assistance.”
                  And commie shits like you find mass murder of more assistance than I-phoned and prosperity.

                  1. Sorry, response to wrong imbecile.

                    1. Here’s the response to the troll:
                      This is trueman. You get bullshit or sophistry. That’s all and that’s the total of his capabilities.

        2. “…More and more younger Americans are unable to buy a home, find a good job, get out of debt and simply cannot acquire the same middle class lifestyle their parents had. ..”
          Put up or STFU.
          I’m tired of reading lefty taking points; cites or fuck off.

        3. The younger generations are screwed. Their screwing is permanent and irreversible. It is simply the way it is. Even going full bore into Socialism won’t unscrew them, but it will let them have revenge on the older generations – just like Mao’s Cultural Revolution. And revenge can be a very satisfying thing. Everyone is entitled to a little revenge.

    2. James_R
      July.6.2019 at 8:16 pm
      “…People who foam at the mouth at the mere mention of socialism despite the fact they know little or nothing about it other than what Fox and Friends tells them.”

      One more fucking lefty ignoramus.
      Yeah, no one here has ever read about the 100,000,000,000 dead as a result of commie shits like you.

      1. That’s the part of the equation that should, you know, give pause to people like James.

        ‘Why come no one explain why socialism is no good?’

        Give us more besides 100 million dead!

        Again, there are no shortage of books and literature available detailing all this. I find it hard to believe someone who claims to be literate would not be aware of this.

        1. I hear the 100 million dead claim used routinely by those on the right. I don’t recall Marx suggesting the use of genocide to promote his ideas while reading Das Kapital. People are increasingly looking for answers to help them cope with the disastrous effects of neoliberalism and it doesn’t sound as though people like you can offer them any assistance.

            1. Who can argue with a neoliberal think tank funded by billionaires who support socialism for the wealthy?

              1. Ah, yes, the n-word again. I mean “neoliberal,” not the word Karl Marx used.

                Or do you assert that Marx was not in fact a racist?

                1. Hayak described his beliefs as neoliberal. I would not be surprised if Marx would be considered racist by the current youth of this country. No more so than honest Abe or FDR.

                  1. James_R
                    July.7.2019 at 12:43 am
                    “Hayak described his beliefs as neoliberal. I would not be surprised if Marx would be considered racist by the current youth of this country. No more so than honest Abe or FDR.”

                    Are you familiar with the phrase “non-sequitur”? You just managed to show your IQ is right there with Bernie.

                    1. Are you familiar with the term “non-seqeutor” because it doesn’t seem as though you do.

                    2. James_R
                      July.7.2019 at 1:03 am
                      “Are you familiar with the term “non-seqeutor” because it doesn’t seem as though you do.”

                      My goodness! Fucking lefty grammar nazi can’t even spell:
                      “non sequitur”
                      https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur
                      Pathetic, but predictable.

              2. James_R
                July.7.2019 at 12:13 am
                “Who can argue with a neoliberal think tank funded by billionaires who support socialism for the wealthy?”

                Those of us who read rather than watch CNN, MSNBC, check Vox and Huffpo, you fucking ignoramus.
                Here’s the cite for the claim: “The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression”
                Like that fucking idiot truman, you’ve yet to provide a cite for any of your claims, starting with “IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!”
                Put up or shut up and fuck off.

                1. “Those of us who read rather than watch CNN, MSNBC, check Vox and Huffpo”…………….Wow! Huffpo? You are a well read individual.

                  “Here’s the cite for the claim: “The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression”………………An intelligent person wouldn’t use a book with such a biased sounding title to back up a claim that no other researcher agrees with.

                  “’You’ve yet to provide a cite for any of your claims, starting with “IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!”………….I never made such a claim. You just made that up.

          1. “I don’t recall Marx suggesting the use of genocide to promote his ideas while reading Das Kapital. People are increasingly looking for answers to help them cope with the disastrous effects of neoliberalism and it doesn’t sound as though people like you can offer them any assistance.”
            I don’t recall commie shits like you making sense and you’re proving again that commie shits are fucking ignoramuses.
            Is that understandable to someone with such limited mental capabilities, you commie shit?
            ————————
            “People are increasingly looking for answers to help them cope with the disastrous effects of neoliberalism and it doesn’t sound as though people like you can offer them any assistance.”
            And commie shits like you find mass murder of more assistance than I-phoned and prosperity.
            I notice you’ve yet to provide any cites to your lefty lies about “THE CHILDRENS!!!”.
            Fuck off and die. Make the world a better place.

            1. I must say, sevo, your attitude leaves something to be desired.

              You’ve been urging more suicides than the Sorrows of Young Werther.

              1. Nothing which would not help humanity.

                1. OK, then, Little Miss Sunshine.

                  1. I aim to make the world a better place.

          2. And once more:
            “… it doesn’t sound as though people like you can offer them any assistance.”
            This from a fucking ignoramus defending a system which lead to the murder of 100,000,000,000.
            There are those who claim that being a lefty is ‘intelligent’; they are deluded or self-deluded.
            Hey, James? You been busted. Please fuck off and die.

            1. You’re a class act Sevo. The more people like you who tell people like me to “fuck off and die” the more support people like Bernie Sanders receives. Trolls like you are a great gift to the Socialist movement. Keep it up and the libertarian party might just get another whopping 1% at the next presidential election.

              1. James_R
                July.7.2019 at 12:28 am
                “You’re a class act Sevo. The more people like you who tell people like me to “fuck off and die” the more support people like Bernie Sanders receives. Trolls like you are a great gift to the Socialist movement. Keep it up and the libertarian party might just get another whopping 1% at the next presidential election.”

                You’re a fucking commie shit, James. If assholes like you are to carry the day, it simply means that humanity is too stupid to survive.
                And I note (as we all do ) that you’ve yet to provide one cite to support you asinine claims.
                Are you proud of yourself, you commie shit? Do you think spreading lies, as you do, is of benefit to humanity?
                I don’t know how old you are, but the world would be a better place if your mom could have had an abortion.
                Fuck off and die.

                1. Yes!! Say that same old
                  elderly, boomer diatribe as you can to as many under 40 people you interact with and socialism will be a lock. You are a Bernie supporter and you don’t even know it.

                  1. James_R
                    July.7.2019 at 12:58 am
                    “Yes!! Say that same old
                    elderly, boomer diatribe as you can to as many under 40 people you interact with and socialism will be a lock. You are a Bernie supporter and you don’t even know it.”

                    Yes!! Promote the same lies in the hopes of making lies true!
                    Fuck off and die, you pathetic excuse for humanity; the world would be far better off if you mom chose abortion.
                    Still looking for those cites you can’t seem to find, commie shit.

                    1. Like I said; the more trolls ike you open your mouths, the more support Bernie gets. Keep it up. Maybe that’s your game. Maybe that’s what trolls like you really want. Tell all the youth of this country that ‘you got yours’ and they should just keep working their 2 or 3 jobs and shut up.

                    2. Sevo curses and tells people he disagrees with to kill themselves; that’s his schtick.

                      Meanwhile, socialists talk about love and community and shiny happy people holding hands.

                      You can avoid the sevos, but when socialists are in power it will be hard to avoid them, and their happy plans to fix your life.

                    3. James_R
                      July.7.2019 at 1:26 am
                      “Like I said; the more trolls ike you open your mouths, the more support Bernie gets. Keep it up. Maybe that’s your game. Maybe that’s what trolls like you really want. Tell all the youth of this country that ‘you got yours’ and they should just keep working their 2 or 3 jobs and shut up.”

                      Like I said, commie shits like you can’t post without lying.
                      Fuck off and die.

  41. Joe Biden will not only never be president, he will never even be the nominee.

  42. I am making a good salary online from home.I­’­ve made $97,999 so for last 5 months working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportun­i­t­y I h­e­a­r­d a­b­o­u­t a­n­d I­’­v­e m­a­d­e s­u­c­h g­r­e­a­t m­o­n­e­y­.I am genuinely thankful to and my administrator, I­t­’s’ r­e­ally user friendly and I’m just so happy that I f­o­u­n­d o­u­t a­b­o­u­t i­t …….
    Visit site:: >>>> http://xurl.es/ucrux

  43. The point that trueman and James-r and others have made is that the presentations of the arguments against socialism do not seem convincing to the young. “100 million dead” vs “free shit” is not winning. (sadly)

    Nick got it right in the recent podcast: China is a better example. When it was purely communist/socialist it was an economic disaster, but when it ‘let a thousand flowers bloom’ by adopting some capitalist policies it raised 500+ million out of poverty. The ChiComs are still murderous thugs, but they have allowed enough economic freedom to inspire people to work creatively to get rich.

    1. Maybe excursions to Venezuela would help as well.

    2. The “thousand flowers” campaign was a ruse to out dissidents who were then rounded up and summarily shot. This was decades before liberalization, if you want to call it that. Good to see the “what is Aleppo” party living up to its standard bearer.

      1. Much better to be in the “grab em by the pussy” party or the “what, you mean like with a cloth?” party.

    3. The point that trueman and James-r and others have made is that the presentations of the arguments against socialism do not seem convincing to the young.

      EXACTLY. Because “socialism” is being defined as “the free shit that the Boomers got in the past” and “the free shit that Western European nations routinely get”. It doesn’t take much to see that Western Europe is not full of gulags.

      Screaming about “100 million dead” does no good, as that is not the type of socialism that Democrat-types, or even most DSA types, are advocating for. “Free college for everyone” will not lead to gulags and death camps. “Free college for everyone” is a BAD IDEA on its own merits, and screaming about gulags will not persuade anyone to give up the idea.

      1. “Free college for everyone” will not lead to gulags and death camps.

        What happens if I refuse to contribute my fair share to the pool so that everyone can go to college to free?

        It won’t lead to gulags for bootlicking fellow travelers like you – at least not until the purges start. But it’ll be so much more fun when it does. You can’t underpin your entire ideology on revolutionary violence and then pretend there will be no revolutionary violence just so long as everyone acquiesces to your revolution.

      2. Screaming about “100 million dead” does no good, as that is not the type of socialism that Democrat-types, or even most DSA types, are advocating for.

        Concentration of power in small groups most certainly will lead to 100 million dead, as it has so frequently. But most people believe that they can contain the evil genie after it’s out of the bottle because the right people will be in charge this time. Sadly they are wrong. Human nature has not changed.

    4. “The point that trueman and James-r and others have made is that the presentations of the arguments against socialism do not seem convincing to the young. “100 million dead” vs “free shit” is not winning. (sadly)”

      Nothing will convince people who are stupid enough to believe they’re going to be in the “gets free shit” group, not the “gets to be in the 100 million dead” group.

  44. Aren’t you the stupid little bitch who wrote in 2016 that Bernie Sanders was the most libertarian candidate in the race? When your wife’s done fucking Chad you should see if he can teach you how to change a tire.

  45. One test for arrogant little socialists, at least in academia: tell them the college will pool all their grades and test scores, and then distribute the averages to all students. Because, fairness and equality.

    1. +1000

  46. Relevant:
    The meaning of socialism, as explained by one Trump voter
    https://twitter.com/keithboykin/status/1147301694952411136

    1. It is really important what one deranged voter thinks. Yep.

      Do you want thousands of examples of leftist drivel?

  47. In his excellent treatise on socialism (“The Problem with Socialism”), Thomas DiLorenzo points out that socialism breeds entitlement expectations. Young persons raised in socialist environments think that the world owes them a living, even if they choose not to work for it. In socialist societies, people that work are in effect the slaves of those that don’t.

    Socialized medicine has reduced health care standards whenever & wherever it’s been tried. DiLorenzo also tells people why that happens. And a moment’s reflection on DiLorenzo’s revelations will turn the lights on for even the most obtuse among us.

    Why do you think Congress exempted itself from the provisions of the ACA? It’s because as Orwell pointed out in his dystopian novel, “Animal Farm,” some people are more equal than others.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/358550/congresss-exemption-obamacare-john-fund

  48. This comment thread really is instructive.

    It is simply stunning that so many commenters here don’t seem to understand the most basic notion of socialism. The reason it’s been around for 150+ years and never seems to go away and never will go away until that basic notion is COUNTERED by an alternative.

    Socialism has an explanation for ‘what to do’ in the event of a crisis of capitalism. Everything in their philosophy is built around the assumption that that crisis will happen. That crisis is as inevitable as the sun rising tomorrow. They spend ungodly amounts of time/effort figuring out plans and what-if’s and such. They are, so to speak, the preppers of ‘capitalist crisis’ – with bug-out bags ready to go. In their case however those bug-out bags are not intended to escape society into some utopia in the woods but to transform it.

    It doesn’t matter whether it worked in the past. Or whether it will work in the future. They aren’t responsible for what someone else’s grandparents did somewhere else and no one can predict the future. What matters is that a)they are able to recognize said ‘crisis’ immediately and b)they recognize WHO ELSE sees that as a crisis so c)they can immediately whip out their bug-out bag and go down the to-do checklist

    While their opposition can apparently spend more than a decade denying that there is a crisis, denying that anyone is being structurally harmed by the status quo, asserting that even if people are being harmed by said status quo it is because they are morally delinquent people not because of anything structural. Etc. And no of course they don’t have a bug-out bag or the slightest clue what to do next or where to go or even what they want. They are the perfectly blind and stupid ‘conservative’ that Hayek decried.

    And just as Hayek observed:
    It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments

    The R’s here are clearly stuck on stupid and cannot possibly do anything other than what they are already doing. Pee into the wind and whine about getting soaked. Rinse and repeat forever. Nothing else is now possible within that tent except possibly peeing more forcefully into the wind. They are now a Monty Python sketch.

    The D’s are doing a better job than I would have expected of coopting the socialists and in so doing very effectively killing off the G’s or DSA’s or SWP’s or whatever.

    Hopefully actual libertarians and classical liberals can focus on those issues – and that demographic – and figure out the ‘liberal’ alternative vision – and create/coopt the institutions that can make it actionable. Otherwise it’s game set and match.

    1. People like comforting delusions. More at 11.

      You had to waste 500 words shitting out that brilliant insight?

      1. I’m paid by the word

      2. See most blokes they go to ten and where do you go from there?

        What we do is go to 11. It is one louder.

        1. Great for that extra push over the cliff

    2. “…denying that there is a crisis, denying that anyone is being structurally harmed by the status quo, asserting that even if people are being harmed by said status quo it is because they are morally delinquent people not because of anything structural.”

      It sounds as if you’re not fully familiar with Reason’s articles or the comments. Just as one example, type “debt denialism” into the Reason search engine:

      https://reason.com/search/debt+denialism

      This is hardly an endorsement of the status quo, it’s more like a warning that the ship is heading for the iceberg.

      “Hopefully actual libertarians and classical liberals can focus on those issues – and that demographic – and figure out the ‘liberal’ alternative vision – and create/coopt the institutions that can make it actionable.”

      Reason and other libertarian groups have been laying out their vision for quite some time – agree with these ideas or not, I can’t see how anyone would confuse it with endorsing the status quo.

      1. Incidentally, what solution do socialists have to sticking today’s young people for the bill for the current national debt?

        To say that current socialists are in denial about the debt crisis is an understatement.

      2. Beyond licensing and Export-Import Bank (deRugy and AFP’s irrelevant hobby horse), I think Reason/Cato/etc are strong de facto status quo supporters when it comes to economic issues. That focus on debt. OK. What does retirement/elderliness look like post entitlement reform? Is this just another Wall St scam with big numbers and spreadsheet monkeys? Is something ‘libertarian’ going to be done TO someone else by Top Men? I don’t know WTF this vision is or what it’s supposed to look like – and I’m kind of a wonk who would likely support it.

        Without entitlement reform, ‘debt bad’ is just virtue signaling. Without getting out in front of those affected, reform/change doesn’t happen. THEY have to see the vision even if they disagree with it. Big reforms don’t happen on the sly. Corruption happens on the sly.

        1. “Beyond licensing and Export-Import Bank (deRugy and AFP’s irrelevant hobby horse), I think Reason/Cato/etc are strong de facto status quo supporters when it comes to economic issues.”

          You don’t really give any reasons for thinking this way.

          “just another Wall St scam”

          The national debt?

          1. You don’t really give any reasons for thinking this way.

            Here’s one – there isn’t much here that is deregulatory of the sort where the increased market competition might threaten rather than enhance the market power of a room full of donor billionaires. I find that remarkably coincidental – and totally BS for anyone who actually understands how competition works. The narrative re Scott Gottlieb, IP and FDA demonstrates that. There was some stuff when he first came in to FDA re fast-tracking generics and/or eliminating the anti-competitive behavior of patent pharmas that makes it impossible for generics to even prepare applications. That’s a multi-hundred billion distortion in our pharma market but it’s more changes in regulatory focus not pure ‘deregulation’. Once he’s in office – well let’s ignore all that in order to snipe at purer ‘deregulatory’ narrative re petty vaping crap. Export-Import Bank is the same thing really – focus on the petty bullshit instead of far more significant structural protections/distortions/subsidies for the already established.

            “just another Wall St scam” The national debt?

            No – the proposals I’ve always seen here in the US for entitlement reform. Medicare and other healthcare reform is very amenable to some sort of long-term savings (like Singapore does) since expenses are very loaded at the tail-end of life. But anything long-term is gonna mean major overhaul of the entire system from ERISA to employers to portability to insurance regulation to Medicare and still has some welfare component. Sticking some tax-advantaged Wall St run savings account on the front of the current system and painting that as some ‘solution’ is just corruption and BS.

            1. I’m not exactly Reason’s greatest fan, but I don’t see you provide any links to the articles where they supposedly advocate for billionaires at the expense of the masses.

              1. It’s not that they advocate for billionaires. That would be Forbes and Fortune. It’s that that they never seem to advocate for the sort of free market changes that might harm billionaires.

                A few years ago there was a friendly Koch op-ed re Bernie Sanders. Reported on here

                The senator is upset with a political and economic system that is often rigged to help the privileged few at the expense of everyone else, particularly the least advantaged. He believes that we have a two-tiered society that increasingly dooms millions of our fellow citizens to lives of poverty and hopelessness. He thinks many corporations seek and benefit from corporate welfare while ordinary citizens are denied opportunities and a level playing field. I agree with him.

                No shockers there. When both a Koch and Sanders agree that something economically bad is pervasive – well it’s both true and a statement of the glaringly obvious.

                Fast forward three years.

                How much cronyism and rigged system and ‘two tiered future’ could a Sanders supporter tell you about now? And now – well – an entire generation that seems to agree with Koch Sanders Koch AOC.

                The author of this article can’t even seem to mention any of that in this article. Ya think that might be a source of Sanders-type support? Ya think? Must not have got the memo from the Kochs that its ok to admit the obvious. And the commentariat? Well – they mostly seem to be in late-stage dementia walking around in diapers. But considering many can’t even seem to recall what happened in 2008, it’s a safe bet they ain’t absorbing much cronyism, rigged system, two-tier from this site.

                1. That’s a good link you provided – I appreciate you making me aware of it. Had I known of it before, I’d have cited it to you to demonstrate my point, not yours.

                  Your word salad trying to explain away this article is…confusing.

                  How have you rebutted my claim that Reason makes some fundamental criticisms of the status quo? In fact, their criticism goes to the *root* of the matter more than the meanderings of the Sanderses.

                  1. I’m not trying to explain away the article I linked. I’m trying to show the complete disconnect in awareness between that article 3 years ago and the current one. That doesn’t happen where an idea (say exposing cronyism and a rigged status quo because it undermines free competitive markets) is truly central to a philosophy that undergirds a publication.

                    That idea is NOT central to Reason or its audience. It is at best tertiary. A rigged status quo is NEVER tertiary to the ones getting screwed. It is always the primary idea – because it is what’s screwing them.

                    There’s no question in my mind – Reason as is is not going to be remotely useful in selling free markets to that generation. Reason sells ideas of liberty to the comfortable – not to the screwed.

                    IDK if there is any libertarian-type vehicle will fill that vacuum. hope there is – and I have an idea of what it will look like and focus on – but this ain’t it.

                    1. Lots of rhetoric, little evidence.

                      Reason deliberately bends over backwards to appeal to folks like you – it even ran an article saying not to be mean to socialists. And as you yourself showed, it promoted an editorial by one of the dreaded Kochs actually citing common concerns with Bernie.

                      Maybe it’s time for the editors to realize that trying to conciliate people like you is a fool’s errand.

  49. The fall of the Soviet Union is not a consequence of socialism per se, but unrestrained ideology dominating a one-party political system. But this is exactly what exists in America today. The Democratic and Republican establishments are united under neoliberalism and corporate socialism and Trump is the ultimate Manchurian candidate. He says what his supporters want to hear, but in office he represents the corporate powers and the swamp he promised to drain. He has the people (or at least half of the people) behind him and for that reason alone the establishment can never fully trust him. So they have him on a leash, with impeachment ready to be deployed if corporate interests are threatened. But so long as there are tax cuts for the rich and the corporations, and so long as he dutifully serves the military industrial complex, and so long as he gives the Democratic establishment a guilt-complex which they can weaponize against any Democratic candidate who dares challenge the most “electable” Democrat (which they authoritatively assure you is Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden), then the establishment is perfectly happy to keep Trump where he is.

    Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, is a genuine candidate. They know he WILL do what he says on the campaign. They know Tulsi Gabbard as well WILL put a stop to endless regime change wars. This is why the media establishment writes them off, tries to pretend they don’t exist and that they are not relevant. But what they offer is genuine choice for the electorate.

    And it is the concept of CHOICE that is missing from the socialism v capitalism debate. The absence of choice is what makes both system fails. It fails in socialism because the one party state inevitably serves only the interests of the ruling elite. But it also fails in capitalism because capitalists tend to equate market choice with individual property rights. It is the ability to make choices in a marketplace that underpins the power of capitalism. These choices create signalling in the allocation of resources that is generally far superior to what any central planner could accomplish. But while this system does rely on individual property rights, they are not one and the same. All natural resources are in the first instance given to humanity for our collective benefit. The value that exists is a combination of individual effort and nature. Hence, to justify individual ownership it is necessary that individual ownership leaves as much as another can make use of. But in a world that is globalized, where every corner of the Earth has been explored, this is simply not possible. Over time, private property ownership creates entrenched class privileges that are inherited and allow one upper class of people to hold monopolistic power over the working classes. They control the media. They own the politicians. They own almost all the wealth of an entire nation and there is simply no way (other than by exceptions that prove the rule) that ordinary people can compete. Working classes live by a completely different set of rules compared to the top 1%. Working people live under rugged individualism, while the top 1% enjoy corporate socialism.

    Democratic socialism promises to return CHOICE to the American people. Indeed it requires wealth to be “confiscated” from the rich. But that wealth was not earned legitimately or fairly in the first place. The 2008 financial crisis made this absurdly obvious. Corporations were bailed out. Debt was monetized. And through doing this, the wealth of the top 1% increased because they stole from everyone else.

    But this is not the only way in which markets fail. Healthcare, for instance, often has nothing to do with choice and mostly to do with luck. Accidents and genetic diseases are not choices, they are just bad luck. And punishing poor people because they cannot afford to pay for their bad luck does not make capitalism more efficient. This is obvious when you compare nations with socialized medicine that produce health outcomes as good as or superior to the United States at a fraction of the cost. As someone who has used both public and private healthcare I know private is better: but it is better because where I live there is a public system for anything I’m not covered for through private insurance. By itself it is not better because insurance always has exclusions, fine print, possible bankruptcy etc.

    The entire socialism v capitalism debate must be premised on maximizing individual choice and creating a level playing field. This is achieved through a balance of policies that might be described as socialist or capitalist. One-party socialism and unrestrained capitalism inevitably lead to the same thing: the concentration of political power and the abolition of genuine choice for the vast majority of people.

    1. “Trump is the ultimate Manchurian candidate”

      That is a very interesting theory and I would love t subscribe to your newsletter and learn more.

      “Working people live under rugged individualism, while the top 1% enjoy corporate socialism.”

      As a matter of fact, all classes are fairly constricted and regulated by the welfare/warfare/crony capitalist state. I haven’t found many libertarians saying this is a good thing.

      “Healthcare”

      I’m enough of a heretic from libertarianism to support some regulation of health care, though not in the way, and to the extent, it’s done today (which is not a free market system, incidentally – try to sell pure libertarianism to a health insurance company and see them sweat).

      1. Healthcare is dependent on expertise, not individual choice. Healthcare is mostly not a choice. People receive prescribed care from qualified people who know better than they do. Because this care is so dependent on this qualified expertise, their individual choices are not going to generate the kind of efficiencies that exist in other markets. A collective entitlement to care based on need (as assessed by experts) is going to be a more efficient allocation of resources than one based on financial capability. The best system is to have a base level of care provided by a single payer public system (in which scarcity is managed with waiting lists), with a second tier of care provided by private providers so that people with means can direct extra capital towards healthcare at the top end.

        1. In our great cities, car repair is dependent on expertise, not individual choice, so it should be allocated based on the decisions of a panel of experts.

        2. LockeanProviso
          July.7.2019 at 11:34 pm
          “Healthcare is dependent on expertise, not individual choice. Healthcare is mostly not a choice….”

          Neither is eating, you fucking ignoramus.

    2. “Democratic socialism promises to return CHOICE to the American people. Indeed it requires wealth to be “confiscated” from the rich.”

      They stole from us, so elect me and I’ll steal (on your behalf) from them.

      Meet the new boss- same as the old boss. Meh.

      1. Even shorter for the TL:DR crowd: Morality is overrated.

      2. Returning stolen property isn’t stealing.

  50. The young (Millennials and Gen Z) are all for socialism because they are the screwed generations, and they know it. They are constantly reminded that the Boomers stripped the landscape bare like a horde of locusts and left them with just crumbs, costs, and debts. And their screwing is permanent. And when a generation is irreparably screwed, they want revenge.

    1. It’s someone else’s fault! Yeah, that’s the ticket.

      1. The structural issues the country faces today are most definitely the faults of the “Greatest Generation” and the “Baby Boomers”. Or do you think that it’s the children’s fault when their parents spoil them rotten and then throw them into the wild?

    2. So when you’re left with crumbs, costs, and debts, your response is to demand a lot more of all three?

      No wonder these folks get labeled as dimwits.

    3. “The young (Millennials and Gen Z) are all for socialism because they are the screwed generations, and they know it.”

      Lefty talking point; zero evidence. Repeated by lefty ignoramuses.

  51. The Democrats have been communists for over a century. We gave up our natural right to private property and presented the government with a tool to take our wealth with the passage of the 16th Amendment and its progressive income tax. The redistribution soon followed.

    1. The natural right to property is conditional. It is conditional on “at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others”.

      The more wealth people acquire, the less they leave in common for others. Hence, they should pay a greater percentage in tax as compensation.

      All wealth is a mixture of personal effort and natural resource. The former belongs to the individual, the latter to everyone in common. Progressive taxation is legitimate compensation for taking what belongs to the commons.

      1. Certain assets, raw materials, etc. may be, but wealth is never a fixed pie.

        1. I agree wealth is not a fixed pie. But as the pie increases, it simply means you are consuming MORE of what nature has given us. The fact the pie increases does not indicate that someone’s gain is purely from their individual effort. It is always a combination.

          1. So, “you didn’t build that”, eh? Why didn’t you? What did you contribute? Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone; if I want some of his profits, shouldn’t I at least show what I did to deserve them?

  52. Robby, you have caved to the trolls in the comment section. I used to think of you as reasonable but now you lace your diatribe with rhetoric like “confiscating from the 1%” and young people wanting “free stuff”. Are you really this naive or are you pandering to the trolls so that you can beef up your right-wing credentials? People are not attracted to Socialism for simplistic reasons like this. Well, Robby, it’s not working. By trying to play two sides you destroy your credibility as a thinker. I suppose you might as well go all in with the trolls and play the role of the right-wing simpleton. It will at least pay the bills.

    1. OBL, you’ve outdone yourself!

    2. So…either

      -young socialists don’t want free stuff

      or

      -they do but that’s *totally irrelevant* to why they support socialism.

      Which horn of the dilemma will you grasp?

  53. Socialism is a beautiful cake that tastes bad.

  54. I’m not surprised it appeals to the very old and the young. The old often suffer from cognitive decline, and the young haven’t lived enough to know better.

    History demonstrates what Socialism achieves: millions killed, starvation and deprivation, and slavery to authoritarian rule. For oldsters suffering memory loss, that history is fuzzy and forgotten. For young people who depend on their parents, that history is as yet unseen by them but it will work them over soon enough and leave them whimpering and sobbing.

  55. I’m surprised that this article doesn’t even mention, as a cause of young Americans’ increased interest in “socialist” politicians, the thing that every under-35 voter I know rolls their eyes at: years of the GOP screaming “socialist!” willy-nilly.

    For all of their adult lives young voters have heard Republicans describe any incremental tax increase as socialism, and every proposed climate change regulation, and President Obama’s attempt at health-care reform (the core of which had previously been a Republican concept), etc etc. Along with of course existing noncontroversial things like Social Security and Medicare…as my 26-year-old son put it, “The word ‘socialism’ nowadays just means ‘whatever Republicans don’t like’.”

    Pointing to Venezuela, and to historical examples, makes little impact in the teeth of the daily GOP hysterics. A lot of young voters now are just shrugging: “Poor people having basic health insurance is socialism? Okay whatever then, I guess I’m a socialist.”

    1. Paul the Fossil
      July.8.2019 at 5:31 pm
      “…A lot of young voters now are just shrugging: “Poor people having basic health insurance is socialism? Okay whatever then, I guess I’m a socialist.””

      So you’re claiming ‘a lot of young voters’ are ignoramuses? Imagine my surprise!

  56. Another stupid article equating socialism with Democratic Socialism. The fact that they are different terms should clue you in that they mean different things, but you keep pretending they are the same. The people who dont fall for your spiel are just smarter than you.

    1. Spookk
      July.8.2019 at 7:27 pm
      ‘Another stupid article equating socialism with Democratic Socialism.”

      Another stupid lefty trying to square the circle.
      Read history: every murderous commie dictatorship was a ‘democratic socialist’ government.

  57. I guess it should come as no surprise the number of lefty imbeciles, who might have had a chance to learn from history, remain such ignoramuses as to find one lame excuse after the other to hope that *this time*, the pixie dust will fall from the sky, the orchard will grow Franklins and no one will end up starving, or dying waiting for medical care.
    To every one of you: You are the examples of the failure of government schools, and if you get what you want, you’ll get a whole lot more than you claim to want, and you’ll deserve every bit of it.

  58. Rico stirring up a democratic socialist scare.
    “The intellectuals and the so-called idealists were determined to make socialism work. … There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism—by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.” – You Know Who

  59. How odd that as the population of the foreign born and those parented by the foreign born has expanded, the US population becomes more like the rest of the world, and increasingly favorable to socialism.

    1. Yeah how odd them foreigners. And the children of them foreigners and even their children’s children.

      And none of them call me on my birthday.

      Nope. But go on be happy.

      I dunno if they are socialists. Pretty sure free ice cream and pony rides are ok.

  60. If the kids want to be socialists then what’s stopping them? Go for it I say, it is a free country I was always told. If they need a leader I am sure one will show up. Those that don’t want be socialists don’t have to be, they would just be a drag to have around. So move along and good luck to you budding socialists.
    They grow dumb so fast… (sigh)

Please to post comments