Liberal Forum

Termin8tor » 17 Jul 2019 1:29 pm » wrote:
Well gosh, why would anyone be surprised by the obvious results of decades of history?
Socialism fails? Who'da thunk?

Not in Singapore, jackass.

It's doing well in every sector, all of which are socialized. The government even owns the means of production on behalf of the people. And it has wisely allowed limited free enterprise activities, at the macro-level. I could not have set it up better.

Cannonpointer » 17 Jul 2019 1:28 pm » wrote:

Termin8tor » 17 Jul 2019 1:26 pm » wrote:How many years has it been since you answered one single one of my questions?

I asked you this in my last post. Either answer it or **** you, your questions, your **** and your lies.

Singapore's health care and retirement systems, backed by assets of value owned in private accounts, are freer than the US systems of S.S., Medicare and Medicaid, wackjob.

All government controlled Ponzi Schemes with zero assets.

Which do you prefer?

I QUITE prefer the economic model of Singapore, and aconsider it vastly superior to our own, you jackass.

I am a socialist. Duh.

Oh, so it's, guffaw, "socialist" when citizens have ownership of their retirement and health savings in private accounts backed by actual assets.

But not socialism when the US government has zero assets for its retirement and health care programs and the funds were spent years and years ago by government politicians.

Not even you can be that freaking stupid, so you must be off your meds.

Termin8tor » 17 Jul 2019 1:33 pm » wrote:
Oh, so it's, guffaw, "socialist" when citizens have ownership of their retirement and health savings in private accounts backed by actual assets.

It's socialist when the government owns all of the land and the lion's share of the means of production.

And it's working.

And you can't stand it, so you try to rebrand it ("You" meaning Heritage).

Cannonpointer » 17 Jul 2019 1:34 pm » wrote:

Termin8tor » 17 Jul 2019 1:33 pm » wrote:
Oh, so it's, guffaw, "socialist" when citizens have ownership of their retirement and health savings in private accounts backed by actual assets.

t's socialist when the government owns all of the land and the lion's share of the means of production.

Are you blind, stupid or lying?

Or all three?

citizens have ownership of their retirement and health savings in private accounts backed by actual assets.

Termin8tor » 17 Jul 2019 1:42 pm » wrote:
Are you blind, stupid or lying?

Or all three?

citizens have ownership of their retirement and health savings in private accounts backed by actual assets.

I agree. And I think it is very wise of the government to arrange it so.

It's socialist when the government owns all of the land and the lion's share of the means of production.

I am delighted that they have allowed limited free enterprise and SOME property ownership (not real property, but bank accounts and lease holds). Singapore has proved that socialism CAN work, if the government is benevolent, and interacts and engages at the macro level with capitalism.

Cannonpointer » 17 Jul 2019 1:45 pm » wrote: I agree. And I think it is very wise of the government to arrange it so.

It's socialist when the government owns all of the land and the lion's share of the means of production.

The government doesn't own the means of production, wackjob.

Individual citizens own almost all if it, other than real estate.

Some is owned outright, like the countless small business in that country or bonds or stock market holdings or bank accounts.

Some through their private retirement and health savings accounts.

Termin8tor » 17 Jul 2019 2:44 pm » wrote: The government doesn't own the means of production, wackjob.

You are an economic illiterate.

The government owns Temasek - a multinational conglomerate of corporations which generate wealth for Singapore, allowing it to have low taxes because the government owns the means of production.

You've been given links - do you need them again? I can link you directly to Temasek's site if you've been unable to do your research before mouth ****, or I can link you to wiki - please express your preference and stop prevaricating.

YOU ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST.

Termin8tor » 17 Jul 2019 2:44 pm » wrote:
The government doesn't own the means of production, wackjob.

Individual citizens own almost all if it, other than real estate.

Some is owned outright, like the countless small business in that country or bonds or stock market holdings or bank accounts.

Some through their private retirement and health savings accounts.

Temasek is a holding company that belongs to the government of singapore - as does all of the land they confiscated from citizens. Check their web site, dufus.

Government ownership of the means of production - up to the extreme of confiscating all real property in the name of the state and leasing it back to citizens - is socialism.

You're intellectually dishonest.

Cannonpointer » 17 Jul 2019 2:51 pm » wrote: You are an economic illiterate.

Termin8tor » 17 Jul 2019 2:56 pm » wrote:

Temasek is a holding company that belongs to the government of singapore - as does all of the land they confiscated from citizens. Check their web site, dufus.

Government ownership of the means of production - up to the extreme of confiscating all real property in the name of the state and leasing it back to citizens - is socialism.

You're intellectually dishonest.

Cannonpointer » 17 Jul 2019 2:51 pm » wrote: You are an economic illiterate.

The government owns Temasek - a multinational conglomerate of corporations which generate wealth for Singapore, allowing it to have low taxes because the government owns the means of production.

You've been given links - do you need them again? I can link you directly to Temasek's site if you've been unable to do your research before mouth ****, or I can link you to wiki - please express your preference and stop prevaricating.

YOU ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST.

I didn't comment on who owns the holding company, nor does that matter much. Its value is miniscule relative to the country's overall wealth.

I commented on the cumulative assets in Singapore, almost all of which is owned by private citizens.

The government doesn't own the means of production, wackjob.

Individual citizens directly or indirectly own almost all if it, other than real estate.

Some is owned outright, like the countless small business in that country or bonds or stock market holdings or bank accounts.

Termin8tor » 17 Jul 2019 2:58 pm » wrote:
I didn't comment on who owns the holding company, nor does that matter much. Its value is miniscule relative to the country's overall wealth.

I commented on the cumulative assets in Singapore, almost all of which is owned by private citizens.

The government doesn't own the means of production, wackjob.

Individual citizens directly or indirectly own almost all if it, other than real estate.

Some is owned outright, like the countless small business in that country or bonds or stock market holdings or bank accounts.

You done, dick sucker?

Temasek is owned by the government of Singapore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temasek_Holdings

...

https://www.temasek.com.sg/en/index.html

2 requirements ONLY for Socialism:

1- You cannot own private property. The concept is everyone owns it.

2- You cannot own a private business, the concept being everyone owns it.

Why are the main ingredients of communism- lite always missing.

Communism:
1- All of the above

2- Government by terrorism of its own citizens.

Titties N Beer » 18 Jul 2019 9:34 am » wrote:2 requirements ONLY for Socialism:

1- You cannot own private property. The concept is everyone owns it.

2- You cannot own a private business, the concept being everyone owns it.

Why are the main ingredients of communism- lite always missing.

Communism:
1- All of the above

2- Government by terrorism of its own citizens.

Even clemjob admits the first condition exists. The second condition is de faco reality for the majority of workers, as their pay checks are spoken for, leaving them little opportunity to amass capital. They have high taxes and high regulations. The workers, I mean - not multinational corporations. Multi-national corporations are lightly taxed and regulated - which is one reason why Heritage slobbers on Singapore's cock. The other reason is Singapore's tremendous fnancial success, using a highly socialistic model, with a mere leavening of capitalism.

It is imperative to the capitalist agenda that no socialist state be successful. When one is, they hire narrative producers to rebrand it - problem solved.

Mind you, I quite admire Singapore's deft navigation of the divide between socialism and capitalism. It has found a way to exploit the merits of the former without drawing the ire of the latter - a brilliant move.

Cannonpointer » 18 Jul 2019 9:42 am » wrote: Even clemjob admits the first condition exists. The second condition is de faco reality for the majority of workers, as their pay checks are spoken for, leaving them little opportunity to amass capital. They have high taxes and high regulations. The workers, I mean - not multinational corporations. Multi-national corporations are lightly taxed and regulated - which is one reason why Heritage slobbers on Singapore's cock. The other reason is Singapore's tremendous fnancial success, using a highly socialistic model, with a mere leavening of capitalism.

It is imperative to the capitalist agenda that no socialist state be successful. When one is, they hire narrative producers to rebrand it - problem solved.

Mind you, I quite admire Singapore's deft navigation of the divide between socialism and capitalism. It has found a way to exploit the merits of the former without drawing the ire of the latter - a brilliant move.

Singapore has 5 million people....hell it is a couple islands

I do love the Singapore noodles my local Chink eatery serves.

Cannonpointer » 18 Jul 2019 9:42 am » wrote:

Titties N Beer » 18 Jul 2019 9:34 am » wrote:2 requirements ONLY for Socialism:

1- You cannot own private property. The concept is everyone owns it.

Even clemjob admits the first condition exists.

Lies the psychotic.

Termin8tor » 18 Jul 2019 6:39 pm » wrote: Lies the psychotic.

Apparently, the dick sucker is preteding "property" means a bicucle again.

Property means a house, you niggling little queer. Now, shut the **** up and go back to ignoring me, you truck stop blow job artist.

Cannonpointer » 18 Jul 2019 6:45 pm » wrote:

Termin8tor » 18 Jul 2019 6:39 pm » wrote:Lies the psychotic.

Apparently, the dick sucker is preteding "property" means a bicucle again.

Property means a house, you niggling little queer. Now, shut the **** up and go back to ignoring me, you truck stop blow job artist.

I quoted the dictionary definition, wackjjob.

What did you cite? The shrieking voices in your empty head.

Termin8tor » 18 Jul 2019 6:54 pm » wrote:
I quoted the dictionary definition, wackjjob.

What did you cite? The shrieking voices in your empty head.

Get off my dick, princess. People owned the clothes on their back in communist china -didn't mean it was capitalist, you wheedling little dick sucker.

Again, too rich a critique of hypocrisy to lose.