Socialism: Because Then Everything Will Be Perfect?

Just because our system of government and capitalism isn’t perfect, that doesn’t mean we should return to a feudal system, which is what centralized Socialism leads to.

There is going to be inequalities in any system, including America, but at least in we still take care of our people and even illegal residents. 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez I'm Woke

OCASIO-CORTEZ IS RIGHT: NO AMERICAN SHOULD BE TOO POOR TO LIVE – AND THEY AREN’T

By  | Jul 5, 2018

….

Let’s look at what it’s really like to be poor in the Land of the Free:

  • 80% have air conditioning.
  • 94% have Internet access.
  • 75% have an automobile – a third have two or more vehicles.
  • Half of poor families have a video game system.
  • 66% have cable television.

What about the basic essentials, like food and housing? That’s easy enough:

  • 83% of poor households reported having enough to eat.
  • 96% of underprivileged families reported their children were never hungry at any time.
  • 42% of poor households own their homes.

Moreover, the average poor American has more living space than the average middle- or high-income person in the U.K., France, and Sweden. Also, consumption of vitamins and minerals is the same as the those in the wealthier brackets.

Should an American fall on hard times, they have access to a generous welfare system, paid for by the capitalist model. Despite claims that the U.S. allows the impecunious to perish on the streets or starve in their homes, the government has spent trillions of dollars over the last 50 years on entitlements, healthcare, and social-benefits programs that can easily surpass those of Scandinavian states.

The rectitude and efficacy of welfare can be debated, but the government gives citizens money to purchase unhealthy food and smartphones – and a basic income guarantee is all but inevitable. That’s how wealthy the U.S. is.

Read More: https://www.libertynation.com/ocasio-cortez-is-right-no-american-should-be-too-poor-to-live-and-they-arent/

Solving Problems by Taking More of Your Stuff – Should Work Just Fine: NOT!

alexandria ocasio cortez all your money are belong to us

What Democratic Socialists Don’t Get

NY socialist candidate wants to solve problems with the same tools that created them
Valentin Schmid  July 9, 2018

What prompted the 16,000 primary voters (out of 292,000 eligible in the Queens/Bronx 14th district) to vote for Ocasio-Cortez over her competitor, who only got 11,800 votes? Free stuff and anti-Trump rhetoric. Free education, medical care and a federal jobs guarantee (free stuff), as well as the abolishment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE (anti-Trump).

“I understand the economic crises people are facing in New York City; we can’t afford to live in the neighborhoods that our families have called home for generations, including my own family,” she told Vice News.

But her own family background is far from “working class” as she describes on her campaign page, as the Daily Mail reports. Although Cortez was born in the Bronx and lived there until age 5, her father—an architect who ran his own business—moved the family to posh Westchester County, where she attended Yorktown high school. Cortez, who attended Boston University, only moved back to the Bronx after her father died, making money as a waitress and bartender—working class after all.

Either way, for her and her family, the days of not being able to afford to live in the Bronx, or anywhere else for that matter are most likely over. If elected representative, Cortez will enjoy the benefits of “earning” $174,000 base pay for 120-150 days of “work,” a budget of $1.2 million for staff and travel expenses, as well as insider trading privileges.

If she is smart, she can use some of that free time to take lessons from Democratic Rep. Judy Chu from California, who built up a net worth of more than $3 million day-trading the S&P 500 with call and put options since her first election in 2009.

Not bad for 16,000 votes; and at least one Bronx family won’t have economic issues again for the near future. Of course, it remains to be seen how many people turn out for her in this year’s midterm election.

Socialist Confusion

As for her politics, Cortez demonstrates the same delusional lack of understanding of history and economics that other socialists exhibit, most recently and notably Bernie Sanders.

“I don’t believe that in a moral and wealthy America, people should be too poor to live,” she told Qatari-funded AJ+.

This is why she promises the free stuff to poor people, as well as government job guarantees. “I will not compromise on the future that I think is best for this country,” she tells Vice. Given these statements, it sounds awfully like she thinks she is the wise central planner who knows what’s best for everybody. The wise central planner who so far has never materialized for all socialist and communist societies and has brought about misery and death. That this lesson of history is lost on Cortez and her backers of the Democratic Socialists who openly state that “communism is good,” is sad but hardly surprising.

New York Socialism

It is more surprising Cortez hasn’t noticed that the city of New York, where all those poor people who can’t afford to live in the houses they wish to live in, has mostly been ruled by democratic mayors since the 1850s, with the occasional Republican in between, —mayor Bloomberg notwithstanding. It is similar though less clear cut for New York State.

Or may we say she hasn’t noticed because she lived most of her life in Westchester County rather than the Bronx?

Either way, her policies reflect the same socialist delusion, whether it’s on the local or federal level: The problems of poverty and unaffordable housing, according to Cortez, don’t exist because of the thousands of failed government initiatives but because there hasn’t been enough of them.

Of course, the subtleties of supply and demand, as well as investment and production, are probably lost on Cortez, but let’s go through the example of real estate, which is a good one.

Let’s start with the basics. Real estate prices are high because of a corrupt monetary system, supported and sanctioned by the state. The Fed and private banks print money out of nothing which goes to them and their cronies first. They buy up assets like stocks and real estate on the cheap while the working man’s wages go up last, if at all.

Because money can be created out of thin air by private banks, and the state accepts it as payment for taxes, this is not free-market banking, but rather a corrupt private-public hybrid more akin to Marx’s centralization of money and credit than to Rothbardian free and fully-reserved banking.

In case something goes wrong in this operation, like it did in 2008, the state stands ready to bail out the private banking system with taxpayer money voted for by Democrats and Republicans alike. Although Cortez is critical of Wall Street, her vision of the banking system probably will eliminate private banks altogether and fuse them with the state. The outcome of that operation certainly won’t be pretty either.

Second, decades of city interference in the housing market has punished private developers who want to build affordable housing of lower quality. Why? Because the city, through rent controls, sets prices too low which always and by definition leads to shortages in supply of the desired product. Let’s say to recoup investment and make a modest profit, a developer needs $100 in rent per month from an affordable housing unit. If the city says the maximum he can charge is $50, there won’t be any development of affordable housing.

Since the developer doesn’t want to give up his job, there will be more development of real estate where the regulations don’t apply, like the thousands of luxury condos currently under construction in Manhattan funded by money created out of nothing in the state-sanctioned, fractional-reserve banking system.

Read More: https://www.theepochtimes.com/what-democratic-socialists-dont-get_2587709.html

Socialism is a Ponzi Scheme Meant to Centralize Control and Redistribute Wealth to the Top

The Hard Truth About Socialism

While the Merriam-Webster dictionary may define Socialism as “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods” – the practical reality is much different. Stefan Molyneux outlines the basic logical flaws in socialist theory which dooms its implementation.

Your support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate

The Globalist Long Game – Redefine Liberty Activism As Evil “Populism”

4 legs good, 2 legs bad

One of the most favored propaganda tactics of establishment elites and the useful idiots they employ in Marxist and cultural-Marxist circles is to relabel or redefine an opponent before they can solidly define themselves.  In other words, elites and Marxists will seek to “brand” you (just as corporations use branding) in the minds of the masses so that they can take away your ability to define yourself as anything else.

Think of it this way: Say you want to launch an organization called “Movement Blue,” and you and others have gone through great struggle to grow this organization from the ground up.  However, just as your movement is about to achieve widespread recognition, someone else comes along, someone with extensive capital and media influence, and they saturate every outlet with the narrative that your movement is actually more like “Movement Red,” and that Movement Red is a terrible, no-good, bad idea.  They do such a good job, in fact, that millions and millions of people start calling you “Movement Red” without even knowing why, and they begin to believe all the negative associations that this label entails.

Through the art of negative branding, your enemy has stolen your most precious asset — the ability to present yourself to the public as you really are.

Negative branding is a form of psychological inoculation.  It is designed to close people’s minds to particular ideas before they actually hear those ideas presented by a true proponent of the ideas.  But beyond that, negative branding can also be used to trick groups and movements into abandoning their original identity.

For example, the concept of economic freedom for individuals –the freedom from overt government interference or government favoritism for certain people over others, the freedom to compete with ideas and ingenuity to build a better business and a better product, the freedom to retain the fruits of one’s labor — used to be widely referred to as “free markets”, as defined by Adam Smith.  The very basis of free market philosophy was to remove obstruction and economic oppression from the common man in order to inspire a renaissance in innovation and prosperity.  The problem is, you rarely hear anyone but libertarians talk about traditional “free markets” anymore.

Though Karl Marx did not coin the term “capitalism,” he and his followers (and editors) are indeed guilty of the pejorative version now used.  It has always been Marxist propagandists who have sought to redefine the idea of “free markets” in a negative way, and the use of the term capitalism is how they did it.  They have been so effective in their efforts that today even some free market proponents instead refer to themselves as “capitalists.”

While “free markets” denote freedom of the common man to pursue a better life through productivity and intelligence and merit, “capitalism” denotes a monstrous and blind pursuit of wealth and power without moral regard.  One gives the impression of fairness, the other gives the impression of tyranny.

Read More: www.alt-market.com/articles/3129-the-globalists-long-game-redefine-liberty-activism-as-evil-qpopulismq

The Goal of Socialists Is Socialism — Not Prosperity

 

About 40 years ago, economist Bruce Yandle went to Washington to work for the Council on Wage and Price Stability, ready to apply his knowledge of economics and educate his fellow workers. After all, he reminisces, one eye-rolling, head-scratching decision after another was coming from government regulators that surely someone versed in economics could expose as stupid, wasteful, and downright ridiculous.

Government Serves the Interests of Government

At some point, Yandle realized that the lay of the regulatory land looked quite different in Washington than it did in Clemson, South Carolina, where he was on the faculty at Clemson University. Regulators — and the representatives of the enterprises they regulated — were not looking to create an atmosphere in which the government tried to find the “optimal” set of regulatory policies that both minimized regulatory costs and allowed for the maximum removal of whatever “externalities” were created.

No, as Yandle writes:

… instead of assuming that regulators really intended to minimize costs but somehow proceeded to make crazy mistakes, I began to assume that they were not trying to minimize costs at all — at least not the costs I had been concerned with. They were trying to minimize their costs, just as most sensible people do.

The more he examined the situation, the more he realized that all of the various actors in the system were acting in their own perceived self-interests — regulators, politicians, and those being regulated — and the combination of their interests created perverse outcomes. The “big picture” view that those on the outside of the situation might have is irrelevant to what actually happens, and understandably so.

Far from the stated goals of the regulators and those involved in the process — that regulation was pursued in order to promote a lofty “public interest” —  the real purpose of the regulatory apparatus is the promotion of the regulatory apparatus. The system exists to preserve and protect itself.

Socialists Are Interested in Control, not Economic Prosperity

As I observe (and participate in) a few discussions on Facebook and elsewhere about socialism, I have come to a few conclusions about the nature of the arguments and the reasons why socialists remain socialists even as we see the utter failure of socialist economies throughout history. Maybe the meme that appears once in a while — “If socialists understood economics, they wouldn’t be socialists” — might be true, but I doubt it. As I see it, the purpose of establishing socialism is to further promote socialism, not improve the lot of a society and certainly not to promote prosperity.

First, and most important, the minds of socialists work differently than do the minds of economists that see an economy as a mix of factors of production, prices, final goods, markets, and entrepreneurs that drive the whole route. Those of us who are economists are fascinated by this process because we see human ingenuity, the coordination of the goals of numerous people, and, when the system works, a higher standard of living for most people.

Socialists, however, don’t see what we see. Instead, they see chaos and unequal outcomes. Not everyone benefits, right? In some situations, someone may lose a job or a way of doing things becomes obsolete. In the end, some people won’t be helped at all, at least not directly, and in the mind of someone that has an organic view of society, the fact that certain entrepreneurial actions taken by some individuals have created goods that meet the needs of others is irrelevant. Society should be providing those goods for free! People should not have to pay for what they need!

Are you a surgeon who had done well financially because you have performed medical miracles for people who desperately needed your services? You have exploited sick people! Are you like Martha Stewart, who became wealthy in part by showing people how to make holiday celebrations better? What about the poor? They don’t have nice houses!

When I first started writing about economics nearly 40 years ago, I was like Bruce Yandle, believing that all that was needed to convince socialists to stop being socialists was a well-reasoned economic argument. You know, explain that entrepreneurs don’t earn profits by exploiting workers, but rather entrepreneurs make workers better off by directing resources to their highest-valued uses. You know, explain how a price system really does result in morally-just outcomes because, in the end, it directs resources toward fulfilling the needs of consumers. And so on.

I still believe the arguments, and over the years have come to understand them even better than I did when I wrote my first article for The Freeman in 1981. (It’s funny how Economics in One Lesson continues to become increasingly relevant to my thinking each time I read it.) However, I believe that the end of all of this activity is — or should be — the improvement of life for people in a way that is not predatory and brings about voluntary cooperation among economic actors. In other words, economic activity is a means to an end, and the end is free people gaining in wealth and standards of living.

A socialist does not and will not see things this way. The end of socialism is not a higher living standard or even making life better for the poor, as much as a socialist will talk about the well-being of poor people. No, the end of socialism is socialism, or to better put it, the ideal of socialism. Once socialism is established, as it was in Venezuela or in the former USSR or Cuba, the social ideal had been met no matter what the actual outcome might be.

Read More: mises.org/blog/goal-socialists-socialism-—-not-prosperity