Nanabozho

Socialism is the ideology that takes a system which has lifted billions out of absolute poverty in a couple of centuries, notices some inequality still exists, and decides the solution is to hand the entire economy to the same people who can’t keep a DMV line moving. It starts with “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” which is a polite way of saying the productive get punished and the unproductive get a claim on their output. Once you announce that success will be confiscated and failure will be subsidized, you are surprised when ability migrates and need expands. Every serious attempt at comprehensive central planning runs into the economic calculation problem: without market prices generated by voluntary exchange, planners have no way to know what to produce, how much, or with what. They substitute politics, queues, and shortages. Bread lines become a feature, not a bug. The historical record is not subtle. The Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, North Korea, Venezuela under Chávez/Maduro, and Cuba all produced the same pattern: initial enthusiasm, rapid destruction of capital and incentives, agricultural collapse or chronic shortages, political repression to keep people from leaving, and eventually either collapse or a quiet reintroduction of market elements to avoid mass starvation. The body count and the GDP-per-capita numbers are public. The response from remaining true believers is almost always some variant of “that wasn’t real socialism,” which is the ideological equivalent of “the operation was a success but the patient died.” Modern variants (democratic socialism, market socialism, “socialism with Nordic characteristics”) usually retreat into “we just want Nordic outcomes.” Those countries are high-trust, high-human-capital capitalist economies with generous welfare states financed by oil, tech, and trade. They rank near the top of economic freedom indexes, protect property rights, and run private enterprise as the engine. Calling them socialist is branding, not analysis. When actual socialists gain real power over large parts of an economy—price controls, nationalizations, heavy capital controls—the results look more like 1970s Britain or contemporary Venezuela than Denmark. The incentive problem is not a right-wing talking point; it is basic behavioral reality. People respond to expected rewards. When the residual claimant on effort is a distant bureaucracy or a political committee, effort declines, innovation slows, and corruption rises. Capital flight and brain drain follow. The people who stay and thrive are often those skilled at navigating political favor rather than those skilled at producing things customers want. Meanwhile, the most vocal socialists in wealthy countries tend to be employed in sectors insulated from market discipline (academia, NGOs, government, media) while consuming the smartphones, antibiotics, and logistics networks produced by the system they claim to hate. Socialism’s core promise—equality of outcome through collective ownership—has repeatedly delivered equality of misery plus a new ruling class with better dachas. Capitalism has repeatedly delivered unequal but rising living standards for the bottom. That is an empirical observation, not a vibe. If the goal is less poverty, the data favor the system that lets people keep most of what they create and exchange it freely.

This is so cool

🤣

100% accurate. The entire country knows it.

Quite the self own. Explains a lot though.

As he screams FIGHT ICE! what a laughable twat.

Cut down the rainforest to build a highway.... ....for people to come protest cutting down the rainforest. If that isn't the most left wing shit I've ever heard.

This right here will singlehandedly move Iowa to one of the best states to purchase a home in.

Pathetic

I thought no one was above the law though? She clearly lied and swindled her way not only into this country, but into Congress. Hold her accountable to the fullest extent of the law.