Because it has.
Where has it succeeded?
The list is already known.
Maybe in your delusional mind. Unless you provide evidence, one must assume you are simply blowing smoke.
Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands.
No, lack of implies not enough of something, regardless I had already made myself perfectly clear what I was referring to in a previous post, yet you decided to make an unfounded assumption.
I donāt have to concede anything since I never denied the existence of upward social mobility.
Is the current level of socioeconomic mobility sufficient or insufficient in your mind? Does this issue need to be addressed?
Norway as well.
I knew you would point to the Scandinavian countries. Those are not socialist countries with centralized planning.
North Korea is the best current example of a socialist country with centralized planning.
Here is the thing though your definition of socialism is primarily yours. You are arguing from a perspective of a very strict definition of socialism.
From that persepcrive very few things can really qualify socialism but then from that perspective those on the left or the entire left who advocate social programs, safety nets and government regulations are not advocating socialism but ā¦? What are they pushing for?
Venezuela has far more in common with Scandinavian countries than North Korea.
Seems the standards shift when needed for the sake of argument.
Please donāt insult my intelligence.
Not insulting anyone.
Iām quite confident in this. There is a large private market in Venezuela. Like Scandinavian economies, itās a mix public/private, not centrally planned.
Are you suggesting there are no private market in Venezuela?
Major industries have been nationalized. Venezuela is ruled by an authoritarian dictatorship. Individual freedoms have become almost non-existent. The economic freedom index ranking for Venezuela is 179, just ahead of number 180 North Korea.
Venezuela has more in common with North Korea than it does with any Scandinavian country.
Major industries but not all industries. Like many natural resource rich countries, oil and gas are nationalized. They also nationalized a lot of agriculture. A huge component of the economy is service sector which is private (about 40%. GDP if I recall correctly)
Whether theyāre a dictatorship or not doesnāt matter to their economic system.
Not sure where this conversation is headed. Iāve pretty much got what I wanted and am going to move on.
I agree since you seem to shift definitions based on what suits your argument, itās hard to have a conversation. Inconsistency is not conducive to discussion.
With me it was never about discussing the merits of socialism. My main goal was to once again confirm what I have long suspected. LIBs are comfortable with Socialism as an alternative to capitalism. They donāt readily acknowledge that Socialism is a failed system when it is done properly.
This has nothing to do with socialism.
Thatās because your wrong.
Yes one would have to be a dummy to believe what is typed in the OP.
This thread title is apt.
