RichClem » 29 Jul 2014 6:29 pm » wrote: Pinochet didn't seize power to follow free market policies. He prevented a would-be Communist dictator from establishing a Cuba-like dictatorship.

As even the Chilean Left has finally admitted.

Voters in Latin America often vote for Socialists, but every country is so badly dominated by the alliance of the liberal-left with Big Governmentand Big Business that ordinary citizens become so cynical, they don't participate in the democratic process.

However, Honduras is about to follow China's Free Enterprise Zones that brought not only prosperity, but millions of citizens who moved into them.

Success is sometimes emulated.

Most often not, which is why most of Latin America is poverty stricken.

RichClem » 29 Jul 2014 9:25 am » wrote:When did countries ever vote for the free market in Latin America, moonbat?

littlehawk12 » 19 Jul 2014 12:57 am » wrote: More airhead stupidity. You are dumber than a box of rocks.

And how does your husband feel about all that dick you suck for crack every nite?

shintao » 19 Jul 2014 12:41 am » wrote: well idiot it isn't free market *******, and neither is America dumb ****~~~

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[
1][
2] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.[
3][
4] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[
5] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[
6] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[
7]
A socialist economic system is based on the organisational precept of production for use, meaning the production of goods and services to directly satisfy economic demand and human needs where objects are valued based on their use-value or utility, as opposed to being structured upon the accumulation of capital and production for profit.[
8] In the traditional conception of a socialist economy, coordination, accounting and valuation would be performed in kind (using physical quantities), by a common physical magnitude, or by a direct measure of labour-time in place of financial calculation.[
9][
10] On distribution of output there have been two proposals, one which is based on the principle of to each according to his contribution and another on the principle of from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The advisability, feasibility and exact methods of resource allocation and valuation are the subject of the socialist calculation debate.
The socialist political movement includes a diverse array of political philosophies. Core dichotomies within the socialist movement include the distinction between reformism and revolutionary socialism and between state socialism and libertarian socialism. State socialism calls for the nationalisation of the means of production as a strategy for implementing socialism, while libertarian socialists generally place their hopes in decentralized means of direct democracy such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions, and workers' councils[
11] coming from a general anti-authoritarian stance.[
12][
13][
14][
15][
16][
17][
18] Democratic socialism highlights the central role of democratic processes and political systems and is usually contrasted with non-democratic political movements that advocate socialism.[
19] Some socialists have adopted the causes of other social movements, such as environmentalism, feminism and liberalism.[
20]
Modern socialism originated from an 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticised the effects of industrialisation and private property on society. The revival of republicanism in the American Revolution of 1776 and the egalitarian values introduced by the French Revolution of 1789 gave rise to socialism as a distinct political movement. In the early 19th century, "socialism" referred to any concern for the social problems of capitalism irrespective of the solutions to those problems. However, by the late 19th century, "socialism" had come to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy for an alternative post-capitalist system based on some form of social ownership.[
21] During this time, German philosopher Karl Marx and his collaborator Friedrich Engels published works criticizing the utopian aspects of contemporary socialist trends and applied a materialist understanding of socialism as a phase of development which will come about through social revolution instigated by escalating and conflicting class relationships within capitalism.[
22] Alongside this there appeared other tendencies such as anarchism, revolutionary syndicalism, social-democracy, Marxism–Leninism and democratic socialism as well as the confluence of socialism with anti-imperialist and anti-racist struggles around the world. The socialist movement came to be the most influential worldwide movement and political-economic worldview of the 20th century.[
23] Today, socialist parties and ideas remain a political force with varying degrees of power and influence in all continents leading national governments in many countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
That help you *******?

littlehawk12 » 18 Jul 2014 11:42 pm » wrote: LMAO! Thanks for proving my point! ******* Smelly ****!

littlehawk12 » 18 Jul 2014 8:27 pm » wrote: So Cannonhomo lied and made the list out to mean what he wants it to mean, not what it actually means. Thanks for clarifying this.

RichClem » 18 Jul 2014 8:07 am » wrote: Ignoring the actual definition of Socialism; which is either government ownership or effective control by government of the private sector.

That's roughly the opposite of Heritage's ranking.

The psycho also ignores the significant if not massive changes in these countries. Canada, for example, slashed government spending by half relative to GDP and has stated its intent to reform their health care system by Free Market Principles.

Sweden faced economic collapse from the weight of its welfare state roughly 20 years ago and has moved strongly toward Free Market reform ever since.

To cite just two examples.

Are they totally reformed? No, of course not, but ranking high on Heritage's index puts them near the top of the freest, least Socialist countries on Earth.

The ranking is relative, moonbat.
Since when is "proper regulation" thousands of pages if not tens of thousands of pages that micro manage a corporation's behavior, as Obamacare and Dodd-Frank do?

RichClem » Yesterday, 7:08 am » wrote: Can't you even tell believable lies? Clinton had countless affairs, about which I wrote nothing.

Not that the truth ever deters your endless bulls***, I'm obsessed with his felonies and impeachable acts.

The ones you've told literally years of lies denying.


While dishonestly smearing one of his rape victims.

You're truly one twisted, psychopathic individual.