Capitalism loses out to Socialism, per Heritage Foundation Post #6265 • Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 23 Jul 2014 10:42 am » wrote:But let's use YOUR claim. Two? And you use them depending on what partisan point you are trying to push.

It's odd that with two to choose between, BOTH of your "definitions" of socialism allow the government (of Singapore, and Singapore only) to own the means of production and still not fall within the parameters of your all-new, Heritage inspired definitions, son.

Everyone on this board can remember that Obama investing America's money in GM equaled socialism. America was not the ONLY investor, as is the case with Singapore's sovereign wealth fund - just one investor among many, with no day-to-day oversight of the company. The only differences between what Obie did and what Singapore does are these two:

1. Obie only invested a piddling amount in the market, and
2. You called what Obie did "socialism."

Here's a hint, moonbat. Comparing one Socialistic action by Obama with an entire country's economy makes no sense whatsoever.

And not that you'll pay the slightest attention to reality, Heritage's index is relative. If Singapore ranks near the top infreedom, then de facto it is among the least Socialist in the world.

To fairly and accurately judge Singapore's system, you must compare it to, say, Italy or France or Greece or other more strongly Socialist countries.

But you're not fair or accurate, obviously.