Calling all Bernie Sanders supporters

If you think that China is a socialist country, then you've already tipped your hand that you don't know what you're talking about.

"But their ruling party is the Communist Party!!!1!"

In what ways is china not socialist?
 
Who would Bernie choose as a VP? People say Warren but I don't see the old white, northeastern ticket working?
 

Did you find that compelling? While you're in the process of negotiating a deal, of course you're going to support it. If at the end of the process--and we're not even there yet--you don't get what you want, you're not necessarily going to support it. Are people who already have a firm anti-TPP stance saying that they oppose any deal with countries in the region or that they oppose something specific? Seems that there might be a disconnect there.
 
The automation boogeyman. If you work in industry you know how far we are from the type of automation that will make a sudden terrible jolt on the economy. It will be constant and steady giving the economy and world plenty of time to react accordingly. If that is the reason you are using to elect bernie Sanders you'll have to do better.

His robot reply had nothing to do with my point anyway. It sounds cool to be lazy and not have to do any work, but sedentary lifestyles combined with a diet rich in processed foods is what leads to our obscene rate of heart disease. Most people in this country work jobs where they sit all day long and eat shit.

But as to the automation point, you're still going to have the need for experts in cardio thoracic surgery. People who would otherwise be surgeons or anesthesiologists would now be consulting tech nerds and overseeing the automated processes.
 
Last edited:
If you think that China is a socialist country, then you've already tipped your hand that you don't know what you're talking about.

"But their ruling party is the Communist Party!!!1!"

You're totally right. Calling a country that is currently in the midst of a campaign to silence all of it's country's human rights lawyers a Communist country is just stupid.


China has adopted a capitalistic economic strategy, mainly because it works, while remaining entirely old school Communist both socially and politically.
 
Bernie Sanders is essentially the ideological equivalent of the Republican party under Eisenhower circa 1956.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsr...ublican-party-vs-todays-tea-party-republicans
The Eisenhower Republican Party vs. Today’s Tea Party Republicans:
In 1956, the Republican Party boasted that under Eisenhower “the Federal minimum wage has been raised for more than 2 million workers.” Today, the Texas Republican Party wants to “repeal the minimum wage.” It's nothing crazy, and nothing that didn't already work before.

In 1956, the Republican Party promised to “extend the protection of the Federal minimum wage laws to as many more workers as is possible and practicable.” Today, the lead Republican in the Senate on labor issues wants to abolish the minimum wage.

In 1956, the Republican Party proudly stated that under Eisenhower “Social Security has been extended to an additional 10 million workers and the benefits raised for 6 1/2 million.” Today, the Texas Republican Party wants to abolish Social Security.

In 1956, the Republican Party platform pledged that it would work to “assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex.” Last year, every Republican in the Senate voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act to assure equal pay for equal work.

In 1956, the Republican Party boasted that under Eisenhower “the protection of unemployment insurance has been brought to 4 million additional workers.” Today, the Republican Party wants to end unemployment benefits for hundreds of thousands of Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

In 1956, the Republican Party was proud that under Eisenhower, “unions have grown in strength and responsibility, and have increased their membership by 2 million.” Today, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said that abolishing the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency in charge of protecting the rights of workers, would be considered “progress.”

In 1956, the Republican Party said “the protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of the Eisenhower Administration.” Today, Republican Governors and legislators have undermined collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio and other states.

In 1956, the Republican Party pledged to “maintain and continue the vigorous administration of the Federal prevailing minimum wage law for public supply contracts.” Today, the Republican Party wants to repeal prevailing wage laws and significantly cut the pay of millions of workers.

In 1956, the Republican Party platform stated “Republican action created the Department of Health, Education and Welfare as the first new Federal department in 40 years.” Today, the Texas Republican Party wants to abolish the U.S. Department of Education.

Similar to Eisenhower he wants to institute government sponsored work programs, heavily progressive tax policies, and get military spending under control.
 
It's an export-oriented state capitalist system. It's far closer to a fascist system than a socialist one. The distribution of wealth is terrible.

So it's just like every other Communist Society has been in practice?
 
So it's just like every other Communist Society has been in practice?

Uh...post Cultural Revolution China is about as communist as the DPRK is democratic.

That is to say, in name only.
 
So it's just as ridiculous to call Scandinavian countries socialist. In many ways they are more capitalist driven than the United states.

Not really. Every single major "corporation" in China is owned by China.
 
So it's just like every other Communist Society has been in practice?

You're identifying social overreach and silencing of dissent as the earmark of an economic policy instead of any kind of economic indicator. And that's why any economist would laugh at you. And you're also trying to move the goalposts from "socialist state" to "communist society," which is just a silly term anyways.

So it's just as ridiculous to call Scandinavian countries socialist. In many ways they are more capitalist driven than the United states.

giphy.gif

Go home, you're drunk.
 
Uh...post Cultural Revolution China is about as communist as the DPRK is democratic.

That is to say, in name only.

Despite the fact that all of it's major corporations are state owned?
 
You're identifying social overreach and silencing of dissent as the earmark of an economic policy instead of any kind of economic indicator. And that's why any economist would laugh at you. And you're also trying to move the goalposts from "socialist state" to "communist society," which is just a silly term anyways.

For the third or fourth time in this thread, all of China's corporations are owned by China. Please explain to me how that differs from traditional Communist economic policies. I'll wait.
 
Not really. Every single major "corporation" in China is owned by China.

China is not in Scandinavia. China is in Asia. Scandinavia is in Northern Europe.

Also, you're wrong again. Only half of China's industry is state-owned and, in fact, their private sector is outgrowing their public sector.

The average output growth for state-owned industrial companies since 2008 was 9.2%, whereas private companies nearly doubled that at 18.2%

From, you know, The Economist

http://www.economist.com/news/busin...gely-underestimated-china-unstated-capitalism

EDIT:
For the third or fourth time in this thread, all of China's corporations are owned by China. Please explain to me how that differs from traditional Communist economic policies. I'll wait.

lol, so clueless. I'll post some more information. By the way, state dictation of corporate infrastructure isn't the earmark of socialism or a "Communist Society"

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-10-14/private-companies-are-driving-china-s-growth

http://english.caixin.com/2014-10-30/100744910.html
 
You're identifying social overreach and silencing of dissent as the earmark of an economic policy instead of any kind of economic indicator. And that's why any economist would laugh at you. And you're also trying to move the goalposts from "socialist state" to "communist society," which is just a silly term anyways.



giphy.gif

Go home, you're drunk.

Nearly all Scandinavian countries rank higher in business, monetary, and investment freedom. The Scandinavian governments spend only a few percentage points more of gdp than the United states.

But no China isn't socialist at all but Scandinavian countries are true blue socialist.
 
Despite the fact that all of it's major corporations are state owned?

China has a mixed economy, it hasnt been centrally planned since the 60s. Private enterprise is very much alive and well, and their growing income inequality should make that abundantly clear.
 
China is not in Scandinavia. China is in Asia. Scandinavia is in Northern Europe.

No shit? He was comparing China and Scandinavia. I was disagreeing with him.

Also, you're wrong again. Only half of China's industry is state-owned and, in fact, their private sector is outgrowing their public sector.



From, you know, The Economist

http://www.economist.com/news/busin...gely-underestimated-china-unstated-capitalism

a "private company" doesn't mean the same thing in China that it does in the US. The Shagang group, the largest "privately owned" company in China, is majority controlled by the State itself.
 
Last edited:
China has a mixed economy, it hasnt been centrally planned since the 60s. Private enterprise is very much alive and well, and their growing income inequality should make that abundantly clear.

"Private industry" in China isn't nearly as "private" as it's being portrayed in this thread.
 
Back
Top