Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (320376)	1/12/2007 8:39:00 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573857

Why doesn't it make sense to you? For the reasons I gave in my post. The statement was the following: "S. Americans are moving towards socialism because democracy by and in itself has failed them" I don't see the reasons you claim but I will explain it to you. Democracy + capitalism have failed poor S. Americans that's why they are moving towards socialism. They had thought that under a democracy their leaders would protect them from the excesses of the rich. They did not. Instead, those leaders lined their own pockets. They aren't? At least six new leaders are socialists. I would say that's pretty decisive. Even the socialist leaders (leaders of socialist, or social democratic parties) are in a number of cases allowing free market reforms to continue. That is not unusual under socialism. Once again Tim, you have drunk the koolaid. Socialism has never been the bugaboo that that the right makes it to be. In fact, capitalism is not incompatible with socialism. Socialism leeches out some of the excesses of capitalism which I see as a good thing. There are exceptions, there are cases where nationalization is happening, and the countries are moving more toward socialism, but the continent as a whole isn't making a decisive more in that direction. The move towards nationalization is more of a move towards communism, not socialism. And its mostly Chavez who is making that move although there are rumblings in Peru and Bolivia as well. 3 - To a large degree what has failed them is socialism. No. Who has failed them are their rich leaders. And the way many of their rich leaders failed them was to put in place socialist policies. No. No. No. Listen carefully, Tim, because you keep getting it very wrong. The rich leaders of S. America have been lining their pockets......they have taken advantage of their power to make themselves richer at the expense of their poorer constituents. American examples are Cunninghma of CA, Delay of TX, Taft in OH. To a lesser degree than S. America, capitalism in this country is breeding excesses both in corporations and in gov't. We have a problem too.