Socialism is so bad that it allows poor people to live. Horrible true story

[Mastrhiggins]

This thread is people trying to convince other people who have already made up their minds about capitalism and socialism.  


Meanwhile, no nation in the world is 100% of either.  Well, maybe North Korea.

[1715026943]

1715026943

[1715026943]

1715026943

[1715026943]

1715026943

[1715026943]

1715026943

[coins4commies]

Somalia is the only one that is 100% either.


NK was destroyed by capitalism

almost all loans in the 1960s were accepted from socialist states while loans in the 1970s included a huge amount from capitalist states.


Foreign Loans and Grants (US$ Million)

           USSR           China   Other    OECD Members   Subtotal
Before 1948   53.0   -   -   -53.0
1953-60   609.0   459.6   364.9   -   1,883.5
(Grants)   (325.0)   (287.1)   (364.9)   -   (977.0)
1961-70   558.3   157.4   159.0   9   883.7
1971-80   682.1   300.0   -   1,292.2   2,274.1
1981-90   508.4   500.0   -       -   1,008.4
Total   2,409.8   1,417.0   523.9   1,301.0   6,102.7
Source: "North Korea’s External Debts: Trend and Characteristics, Korea Focus" (KDI Review of the North Korea Economy, March 2012, published by the Korea Development Institute)

They were doing great in the 50s and 60s until capitalist loans drowned the country in debt

[TECSHARE]

America Will MAKE BRITAIN GREAT AGAIN! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vpm63bZYuo

[BADecker]

The only socialism there is, is in prisons. People who don't like socialism move out. People die everywhere... not only in socialism.

[BADecker]

Somalia is the only one that is 100% either.


NK was destroyed by capitalism

almost all loans in the 1960s were accepted from socialist states while loans in the 1970s included a huge amount from capitalist states.


Foreign Loans and Grants (US$ Million)

           USSR           China   Other    OECD Members   Subtotal
Before 1948   53.0   -   -   -53.0
1953-60   609.0   459.6   364.9   -   1,883.5
(Grants)   (325.0)   (287.1)   (364.9)   -   (977.0)
1961-70   558.3   157.4   159.0   9   883.7
1971-80   682.1   300.0   -   1,292.2   2,274.1
1981-90   508.4   500.0   -       -   1,008.4
Total   2,409.8   1,417.0   523.9   1,301.0   6,102.7
Source: "North Korea’s External Debts: Trend and Characteristics, Korea Focus" (KDI Review of the North Korea Economy, March 2012, published by the Korea Development Institute)

They were doing great in the 50s and 60s until capitalist loans drowned the country in debt

The capitalist loans were instantly repaid.

The so-called borrower signed the promissory note, thereby giving it value. The banker across the table took the note (as a loan to the bank) and deposited it in a private bank account. Then he withdrew the same amount in cash or bank check form, and repaid the loan. But he told the dumb patsy that the repayment money was a loan from the bank, and that the patsy would have to repay the loan plus interest over the term.

Check the banks audited ledgers. This is exactly what they show.

[Naida_BR]

The only socialism there is, is in prisons. People who don't like socialism move out. People die everywhere... not only in socialism.

The fact is the way they die.
It is very sad to consider socialism an equal political way of ruling such as all the others that exist right now.
People don't have the same skills, we are different... So socialism cannot work.

[BADecker]

The Soul of Man Under Socialism, by Oscar Wilde - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XjrEOJ0C4FbRiQzb_MPgWWLq1ocPQe4v/view.

[mOgliE]

I find it terrifying you are teaching other people. Who taught you how to source? I see a meaningless picture.

You got precise figures and dates on a measured graphic. You don't need source, you need to see if you can find your own contradicting source.

But it's not like you could as you don't seem to be able to use Google.

[TECSHARE]

I find it terrifying you are teaching other people. Who taught you how to source? I see a meaningless picture.

You got precise figures and dates on a measured graphic. You don't need source, you need to see if you can find your own contradicting source.

But it's not like you could as you don't seem to be able to use Google.

There are kids in 5th grade who know how to source. Apparently neither of you do. That isn't a source, its a picture with ZERO substantiation. Go back to grade school.

[mOgliE]

There are kids in 5th grade who know how to source. Apparently neither of you do. That isn't a source, its a picture with ZERO substantiation. Go back to grade school.

It's a graphic with direct informations. Can't you read a graphic?

Sources are needed to check informations, not to understand them.

And it's funny how you talk a lot about my education while not considering the fact that I might, just might, have a good one. In science.

[fatnet]

why argue about one political system if each of us can live in political system he likes without the monopoly of the same-state jurisdiction on the current piece of land, welcome to the panarchy

[TECSHARE]

There are kids in 5th grade who know how to source. Apparently neither of you do. That isn't a source, its a picture with ZERO substantiation. Go back to grade school.

It's a graphic with direct informations. Can't you read a graphic?

Sources are needed to check informations, not to understand them.

And it's funny how you talk a lot about my education while not considering the fact that I might, just might, have a good one. In science.

Some times you guys make it so easy its not even worth responding. Its like getting into a boxing match with a baby. If you win so what, you beat up a baby, if you lose you got beat up by a baby. Just because you got a piece of paper from some institution doesn't make you educated. Considering you can't even define a source, I am not going to hold my breath on your "good one, In science." Besides you have already played the Ethos card, I know you are an engineer, and that is somewhat terrifying. Hopefully you are engineering things that won't kill people when they inevitably collapse.

[JaredKaragen]

There are kids in 5th grade who know how to source. Apparently neither of you do. That isn't a source, its a picture with ZERO substantiation. Go back to grade school.

It's a graphic with direct informations. Can't you read a graphic?

Sources are needed to check informations, not to understand them.

And it's funny how you talk a lot about my education while not considering the fact that I might, just might, have a good one. In science.

Some times you guys make it so easy its not even worth responding. Its like getting into a boxing match with a baby. If you win so what, you beat up a baby, if you lose you got beat up by a baby. Just because you got a piece of paper from some institution doesn't make you educated. Considering you can't even define a source, I am not going to hold my breath on your "good one, In science." Besides you have already played the Ethos card, I know you are an engineer, and that is somewhat terrifying. Hopefully you are engineering things that won't kill people when they inevitably collapse.

FYI its not hard to take the little bit of effort and research information given to you;   this is what you are supposed to learn in school so you can get that degree you speak of the honest way.

no offense meant, but people playing the ignorant card when it comes to rebuttals;  aren't discussing and are exacerbating the nonsense....

Likened to reading the following list in this photo;  and not accepting the information because there aren't fancy blue links to articles or names listed.


(FYI: I picked this photo specifically as a troll example)

[TECSHARE]

As anyone who knows anything about statistics knows, it is very easy to jack with charts and graphs to make them look more impressive than they really are. This chart appears to be one of those cases, but the problem is there is no source, and it is not my job to waste my time researching his point for him. Coins4commies clams to be a teacher, and the fact that he still doesn't know how to source and reference but is "educating" others is quite disturbing.

[JaredKaragen]

As anyone who knows anything about statistics knows, it is very easy to jack with charts and graphs to make them look more impressive than they really are. This chart appears to be one of those cases, but the problem is there is no source, and it is not my job to waste my time researching his point for him. Coins4commies clams to be a teacher, and the fact that he still doesn't know how to source and reference but is "educating" others is quite disturbing.

You wouldn't be researching his point for him;  he made his point.  You would be researching for your own benefit;  not his benefit.   Don't pass the buck off on others... and don't cloud that situation when it's a clear cut as this short paragraph.

This is why I specifically chose the troll I used as my example.   With minimal effort, most of those people can be identified with a basic background in general american history... but most people who read that specific one;  do nothing to verify any of it and speak against it because of their beliefs; and instantly dismiss it's message with no regard to logic and discourse. (in my own experience)

I understand its not easy to research;  but don't put someone down without verifying anything first; you have no basis to prove him wrong (by your own words).  Take the effort to be able talk to someone that way; with substantiating facts that are relevant.

Don't be so quick to dismiss things that are contrary to your beliefs.  They may be fact.  Refusing to accept statement and treating it as if it isn't fact without first having substantiated that stance..  is not a good thing.  It creates chaos.

[TECSHARE]

As anyone who knows anything about statistics knows, it is very easy to jack with charts and graphs to make them look more impressive than they really are. This chart appears to be one of those cases, but the problem is there is no source, and it is not my job to waste my time researching his point for him. Coins4commies clams to be a teacher, and the fact that he still doesn't know how to source and reference but is "educating" others is quite disturbing.

You wouldn't be researching his point for him;  he made his point.  You would be researching for your own benefit;  not his benefit.   Don't pass the buck off on others... and don't cloud that situation when it's a clear cut as this short paragraph.

This is why I specifically chose the troll I used as my example.   With minimal effort, most of those people can be identified with a basic background in general american history... but most people who read that specific one;  do nothing to verify any of it and speak against it because of their beliefs; and instantly dismiss it's message with no regard to logic and discourse. (in my own experience)

I understand its not easy to research;  but don't put someone down without verifying anything first; you have no basis to prove him wrong (by your own words).  Take the effort to be able talk to someone that way; with substantiating facts that are relevant.

Don't be so quick to dismiss things that are contrary to your beliefs.  They may be fact.  Refusing to accept statement and treating it as if it isn't fact without first having substantiated that stance..  is not a good thing.  It creates chaos.

If you will notice I never claimed it was wrong. Also it is considered standard in any research or debate that the one making an argument has the burden of proof of anything they present, which includes the requirement of a reference. There is not even a name of the organization that produced it FFS. Sorry, but I don't just blindly believe pretty graphs. This is a continual pattern with him being unable to source his material. I have no trouble doing research, but as I stated I am not spending my time to prove his argument for him, and him refusing to source, especially as a teacher, is intellectually lazy and would not be acceptable practice in any grade school. Regarding the bold part, sorry that is literally the exact opposite of acceptable practice in any academic setting. This is how people determine fact, not by assuming information is substantiated just because it is presented.

[JaredKaragen]

If you will notice I never claimed it was wrong. Also it is considered standard in any research or debate that the one making an argument has the burden of proof of anything they present, which includes the requirement of a reference. There is not even a name of the organization that produced it FFS. Sorry, but I don't just blindly believe pretty graphs. This is a continual pattern with him being unable to source his material. I have no trouble doing research, but as I stated I am not spending my time to prove his argument for him, and him refusing to source, especially as a teacher, is intellectually lazy and would not be acceptable practice in any grade school. Regarding the bold part, sorry that is literally the exact opposite of acceptable practice in any academic setting. This is how people determine fact, not by assuming information is substantiated just because it is presented.

You have been clear that you wont accept it citing: "I am not spending my time to prove his argument for him" as a basis for your stance on the "non-research and bash em for giving input" approach; not everyone in the world is college educated, and most people who come out of college don't have a real "education".  They have a certificate.
So again I will repeat:

You are not out to prove his argument for him, he made his argument.   You are dismissing it out of lazyness.  Plain and simple.  Its clearly in your replies, so own up to it.

I bet if it was a claim that was similarly unsubstantiated that supported your stance; you would be diligent to verify it; had someone said it was false or brushed off what you consider to be truth.  But this paragraph is purely speculation.

See where this is going yet?  Or am I gonna have to hear the same thing repeated again ignoring what I have pointed out more than once?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5ZDgz8MO1M

[TECSHARE]

If you will notice I never claimed it was wrong. Also it is considered standard in any research or debate that the one making an argument has the burden of proof of anything they present, which includes the requirement of a reference. There is not even a name of the organization that produced it FFS. Sorry, but I don't just blindly believe pretty graphs. This is a continual pattern with him being unable to source his material. I have no trouble doing research, but as I stated I am not spending my time to prove his argument for him, and him refusing to source, especially as a teacher, is intellectually lazy and would not be acceptable practice in any grade school. Regarding the bold part, sorry that is literally the exact opposite of acceptable practice in any academic setting. This is how people determine fact, not by assuming information is substantiated just because it is presented.

You have been clear that you wont accept it citing: "I am not spending my time to prove his argument for him" as a basis for your stance on the "non-research and bash em for giving input" approach; not everyone in the world is college educated, and most people who come out of college don't have a real "education".  They have a certificate.
So again I will repeat:

You are not out to prove his argument for him, he made his argument.   You are dismissing it out of lazyness.  Plain and simple.  Its clearly in your replies, so own up to it.

I bet if it was a claim that was similarly unsubstantiated that supported your stance; you would be diligent to verify it; had someone said it was false or brushed off what you consider to be truth.  But this paragraph is purely speculation.

See where this is going yet?  Or am I gonna have to hear the same thing repeated again ignoring what I have pointed out more than once?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5ZDgz8MO1M

Lol. Ok. That's not a "citing", it is a graph with no citation. Sure he made an argument, a totally unsubstantiated one. You are quite confused. Sorry but you have everything ass backwards. Also I think you have problems reading because he was the one claiming to have a college degree, I think such arguments are nonsense (appeal to authority) unless it applies to the field he is arguing.

I am dismissing it because this is the standard lazy way this individual makes arguments all the time. If he doesn't care enough to show me where the information came from I don't care enough to bother to look it up because he doesn't believe in his argument enough to provide a source. I do in fact source my arguments, especially when asked. Feel free to check out my post history. Sourcing information is considered very basic levels of requirements in debate. I realize it goes no where, just like Socialism, which is why I am giving it exactly as much energy as it deserves. You have fun being confused an indignant though.

Here, have some actual citations:

https://www.techsling.com/2017/10/citationreferencing-important-education/
https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2017/05/16/why-cite/
https://librarybestbets.fairfield.edu/c.php?g=496653&p=3399372

[JaredKaragen]

no worries whatsoever... sometimes I have to be the proponent of evil to get a little more paint on the picture so to speak.... hopefully nothing was taken personally.

Anytime I see some sort of lacking statement/statistic, I take the time to go in and attempt to verify the validity of their statements....   and it kinda rubs me wrong people dismiss things so easily... no matter how farse they can be... not unless you actually know the details about what they are obviously incorrect about.



As a prime example;  people are all up in arms right now about the citizenship questions on the national census....

You search for census forms, and all the major search engines give you results that seem to back up the claims that they weren't asked in previous years, and that its crazy and racist or whatever the #@$% that the question of citizenship is being asked....


But if you were to find the actual historical forms; you would see all the questions that are omitted from the PDF's that are commonly returned in search results [today] for lets say the year 2000....  these newly drafted 3 page PDF's are presented as original;  but they are recently created.    I actually have filled out the census form many times in the last 10+ years personally.   These questions are indeed on them, and here's the prime example of the real census forms that were sent out and filled out on 2000-2002: https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/methodology/questionnaires/Quest00to02.pdf?# As these are the real forms.

Trying to find those actual forms... took me quite a bit of work;  which I totally feel for you because that's the exact position he was putting you in to... but it doesn't excuse the need to verify claims regardless of the citations if you are truly intent on understanding the other side and not just pushing your perspectives onto them in a one sided argument/discussion on your end.

[TECSHARE]

no worries whatsoever... sometimes I have to be the proponent of evil to get a little more paint on the picture so to speak.... hopefully nothing was taken personally.

Anytime I see some sort of lacking statement/statistic, I take the time to go in and attempt to verify the validity of their statements....   and it kinda rubs me wrong people dismiss things so easily... no matter how farse they can be... not unless you actually know the details about what they are obviously incorrect about.



As a prime example;  people are all up in arms right now about the citizenship questions on the national census....

You search for census forms, and all the major search engines give you results that seem to back up the claims that they weren't asked in previous years, and that its crazy and racist or whatever the #@$% that the question of citizenship is being asked....


But if you were to find the actual historical forms; you would see all the questions that are omitted from the PDF's that are commonly returned in search results [today] for lets say the year 2000....  these newly drafted 3 page PDF's are presented as original;  but they are recently created.    I actually have filled out the census form many times in the last 10+ years personally.   These questions are indeed on them, and here's the prime example of the real census forms that were sent out and filled out on 2000-2002: https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/methodology/questionnaires/Quest00to02.pdf?# As these are the real forms.

Trying to find those actual forms... took me quite a bit of work;  which I totally feel for you because that's the exact position he was putting you in to... but it doesn't excuse the need to verify claims regardless of the citations if you are truly intent on understanding the other side and not just pushing your perspectives onto them in a one sided argument/discussion on your end.

I enjoy a good debate, but I am not going to put too much energy into it if it is not based in logic. You said you yourself take time to verify the validity of people's statements, but how do you do that without a source? I am not devoting more energy to his argument than he is willing to, to prove HIS point for him. If you can't explain your position in simple terms and provide sources for your claims then you probably don't actually know what you are talking about. Ignoring this fact is just a waste of time and energy. People like Coins4commies often avoid or just neglect completely to make citations, because they know I will actually read and deconstruct them, something they never bothered to do in the first place. They then pretend I am being unreasonable for demanding they support their claims with a source, declare themselves correct, and move on to the next distraction.