As Always, Socialism Impoverished Everyone

[Borgia_dude]

@WuWei

@Borgia_dude

@WuWei

@Borgia_dude

@WuWei

@Borgia_dude

Shouldn’t candidates get in based primarily on merit? Should a parent having gone to the school have any bearing?

Are all legacies not treated equally?

It is a question of a legacy applicant versus a non-legacy applicant.

Two different classes.

That’s the inequity.

That’s an outcome. I said no outcomes. Are not legacies not admitted. Does everyone not have an equal opportunity to apply?

No, it isn’t an outcome. At time of application, candidates are classified into two classes; legacy or non-legacy. Because legacy applicants are afforded preferential status for admissions, it is an inequity.

[e7alr]

@Borgia_dude

@e7alr

The same Nordic group of nations that you claimed were Socialist, yet it was just pointed out are not. Nothing but a case of falsely claiming a socialist foundation that doesn’t exist. And those countries all have small populations and favorable export trade balances that fund their systems. It is easy to pay for a safety net when foreigners are funding a good chunk of your economies by buying your goods.

Well, if they aren’t socialist then we should have no trouble adopting some of their social safety nets, right? No fear of becoming Venezuela.

Maintain our military deterrence, change our economy from one that exports way less than it imports, and produces very little, to one that has a very significant trade surplus and robust manufacturing and you might be able to pay for such silliness. But adopting something that you can’t pay for is just stupid, and will turn you into Venezuela.

[Borgia_dude]

@e7alr

Maintain our military deterrence, change our economy from one that exports way less than it imports, and produces very little, to one that has a very significant trade surplus and robust manufacturing and you might be able to pay for such silliness. But adopting something that you can’t pay for is just stupid, and will turn you into Venezuela.

Yet plenty of other countries have. They must be more capable than us.

[WuWei]

@Borgia_dude

No, it isn’t an outcome. At time of application, candidates are classified into two classes; legacy or non-legacy. Because legacy applicants are afforded preferential status for admissions, it is an inequity.

How do you judge the success of this “preferential treatment”?

How do you know it exists?

[Samson_Corwell]

@DougBH

A unique definition of socialism. If a country is successful economically, it is socialist. If it nationalizes the means of production but fails economically, it is not socialist. Using that odd definition, no country that nationalizes its industries and fails can be socialist. Thus, socialism always succeeds.
And then the article complains about those who select their results and then define socialism based on that selection.
Great article.

That’s exactly how it describes the way conservatives talk about socialism with respect to comparisons between the Nordics and Venezuela.

I have no dog in this fight. I don’t like the term “socialism” or the ways in which it’s used by anyone. I’d wipe out the person who coined the word, if I could.

[WuWei]

@Samson_Corwell

That’s exactly how it describes the way conservatives talk about socialism with respect to comparisons between the Nordics and Venezuela.

I have no dog in this fight. I don’t like the term “socialism” or the ways in which it’s used by anyone. I’d wipe out the person who coined the word, if I could.

I don’t really care for it either, it’s become meaningless if it ever had meaning.

Do feel the Nordic system is feasible here?

What word do you prefer?

[e7alr]

@Borgia_dude

@e7alr

Maintain our military deterrence, change our economy from one that exports way less than it imports, and produces very little, to one that has a very significant trade surplus and robust manufacturing and you might be able to pay for such silliness. But adopting something that you can’t pay for is just stupid, and will turn you into Venezuela.

Yet plenty of other countries have. They must be more capable than us.

No, they just have other economic realities. You, like all socialists sympathizers, just refuse to recognize those realities.

[gooddad409]

@Borgia_dude

@WuWei

@Borgia_dude

@WuWei

@Borgia_dude

Equity is about fairness. Fairness in opportunity.

Ok, give 3 current examples of inequity in the US without mentioning an outcome as proof.

Sure, I’ll give you one. College legacy admissions.

How is that inequitable?

Shouldn’t candidates get in based primarily on merit? Should a parent having gone to the school have any bearing?

That’s been the argument against Affirmative Action for years.

Should a kid get an advantage(over merit) based solely on race?

[Borgia_dude]

@e7alr

@Borgia_dude

@e7alr

Maintain our military deterrence, change our economy from one that exports way less than it imports, and produces very little, to one that has a very significant trade surplus and robust manufacturing and you might be able to pay for such silliness. But adopting something that you can’t pay for is just stupid, and will turn you into Venezuela.

Yet plenty of other countries have. They must be more capable than us.

No, they just have other economic realities. You, like all socialists sympathizers, just refuse to recognize those realities.

Oooh. Socialist sympathizer. I’ve heard we can’t have any of the social programs they have because of our black and Hispanic cultures here in the states. Now I’m hearing it is economic realities. Can you expand?

[Borgia_dude]

@gooddad409

@Borgia_dude

@WuWei

@Borgia_dude

@WuWei

@Borgia_dude

Equity is about fairness. Fairness in opportunity.

Ok, give 3 current examples of inequity in the US without mentioning an outcome as proof.

Sure, I’ll give you one. College legacy admissions.

How is that inequitable?

Shouldn’t candidates get in based primarily on merit? Should a parent having gone to the school have any bearing?

That’s been the argument against Affirmative Action for years.

Should a kid get an advantage(over merit) based solely on race?

No. But we have racial realities here.

[e7alr]

@Borgia_dude

@e7alr

@Borgia_dude

@e7alr

Maintain our military deterrence, change our economy from one that exports way less than it imports, and produces very little, to one that has a very significant trade surplus and robust manufacturing and you might be able to pay for such silliness. But adopting something that you can’t pay for is just stupid, and will turn you into Venezuela.

Yet plenty of other countries have. They must be more capable than us.

No, they just have other economic realities. You, like all socialists sympathizers, just refuse to recognize those realities.

Oooh. Socialist sympathizer. I’ve heard we can’t have any of the social programs they have because of our black and Hispanic cultures here in the states. Now I’m hearing it is economic realities. Can you expand?

Since ethnicity is not an economic principal, or a part of a math equation, except in the minds of bigots, not really sure where that comes from. As for economic realities, all “social programs” have a price tag attached. Actuarial evaluation of a program, it’s potential funding sources are always the true indicators of the ability to adopt and sustain any government program. Countries with small populations, along with positive inflows of capital from exports, can sustain extensive government programs, funded with the proceeds of their tax base, supported by the foreign payments for their exports.

Try taking some basic economics courses. The ones that stick to math and actuarial analysis, rather than emotional policy options.

[WuWei]

@Borgia_dude

But we have racial realities here.

Which are?

[Borgia_dude]

@e7alr

Since ethnicity is not an economic principal, or a part of a math equation, except in the minds of bigots, not really sure where that comes from.

Sneaky said that blacks and Hispanics hold us back from possibly getting social programs we see in Scandinavia. You’ll have to take it up with him.

[Ceasar]

@Borgia_dude

@WuWei

@Borgia_dude

@WuWei

“Equity” is supposed to level outcomes. Get rid of “gaps”. Bring us closer.

This is where all you conservatives strawman the argument. Carry on!

What’s my strawman?

Liberals have been more proponents of equal opportunities, not enforcing equal outcomes.

[e7alr]

Hogwash, ethnicity/ethnic groups are at best coincidence, never cause, in economic analysis. The economic cost of a benefit, the total percentage of a nation’s population consuming said benefit and the percentage of national wealth required to sustain a benefit are what determines if said benefit is feasible.

[Borgia_dude]

@e7alr

Hogwash, ethnicity/ethnic groups are at best coincidence, never cause, in economic analysis. The economic cost of a benefit, the total percentage of a nation’s population consuming said benefit and the percentage of national wealth required to sustain a benefit are what determines if said benefit is feasible.

I’m in agreement with you. Just throwing out Sneaky’s theory to test it with you.

[e7alr]

@Borgia_dude

@e7alr

Hogwash, ethnicity/ethnic groups are at best coincidence, never cause, in economic analysis. The economic cost of a benefit, the total percentage of a nation’s population consuming said benefit and the percentage of national wealth required to sustain a benefit are what determines if said benefit is feasible.

I’m in agreement with you. Just throwing out Sneaky’s theory to test it with you.

You will find Sneaky is very skilled in the art of elicitation. I suspect good enough to have instructed on the tactic. I always enjoy watching him work.

[Rurudyne]

@WuWei

Which are?

“You cannot discuss race unless you agree to use our Marxist comprehension of race! How can you discuss race without or Marxist comprehension?!?” — paraphrase of that line from The Wall

Marxism > Critical Theory (cultural Marxism) > Critical Legal Theory (Marxist lawfare) > Critical Race Theory (Marxist racism) … which you don’t actually have to be a Marxist to hold to … even as it is inescapably Marxist in nature

[gooddad409]

@Borgia_dude

@gooddad409

@Borgia_dude

@WuWei

@Borgia_dude

@WuWei

@Borgia_dude

Equity is about fairness. Fairness in opportunity.

Ok, give 3 current examples of inequity in the US without mentioning an outcome as proof.

Sure, I’ll give you one. College legacy admissions.

How is that inequitable?

Shouldn’t candidates get in based primarily on merit? Should a parent having gone to the school have any bearing?

That’s been the argument against Affirmative Action for years.

Should a kid get an advantage(over merit) based solely on race?

No. But we have racial realities here.

Such as?

[WuWei]

@Borgia_dude

I’m in agreement with you. Just throwing out Sneaky’s theory to test it with you.

I’m still waiting.

Are you claiming legacy admissions are inequality of opportunity?