Why do people think socialism is so great?Look at Venezuela.

Why do people think socialism is so great for America if this is happening in Venezuela?

You Won't Believe What We Saw In Socialist Venezuela
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOQb7Y5QVO8

#NeverBernie #NeverHillary Trump/Johnson 2016.

---------------------------PS Happy Memorial days respect fallen service members.-----------------------------

We take the same oath that our service members take when we register to vote.Socialism will fall.

 

Socialism is one of Venezuela's problems, but it's not the main one. The real problem has been the ineptness of two autocratic leaders, first Chavez and now Maduro. Most of Venezuela's economy is in private hands, but the autocratic rule is so inept that even the country's main brewery had to shut down, because it can't get the foreign exchange to import hops (Who would want to live in a country without beer?!!)

We have a would-be autocrat running for president here in the USA. Maybe we should look at Venezuela before voting for someone who promises a strongman government in our country.

 

Obama is a autocratic leader.I might need beer if Hillary/Bernie wins Bernie is a boarder line communist and is autocratic as will.And Hillary will she just crooked.Basically Hillary sounds autocratic as will.Did you hear about Gary Johnson winning the Libertarian nomination?Have a good holiday and remember the fallen soldiers.

 

I wish that the people who make these wild, unsubstantiated accusations would learn to write. Not being able to spell "borderline" is excusable, but misspelling "well" (twice)?

 

`
`
One can ask the same question about democracy in Brazil.

 

Why do you think conservatism is so great?
It's never worked, anywhere.

 

Who are these people who thinks it is great? There once was a strong socialist movement in this nation, during the great depression but a socialist group today would be so bare in numbers.

But what we do know, is that a mixed economic model, driven by capitalism, but with a strong Commons, works out the best for the non elites. Today, we still have the programs that represent the Commons, like Social Security, unemployment insurance, and social safety nets. But capitalism isn't going anywhere, and no one wants socialism, which is the gov't ownership of the means of production of all goods and services and their distribution.

I think the trouble here is that many people, on the right, do not understand what socialism really is. So they confuse mixed models, like here in the US, and in many parts of Europe, the Nordic nations with socialism, when it is a horse of a different color altogether.

What is devastating the working people in America, the middle class is not socialism, it is this kind of capitalism we have now, which is a neoliberal capitalism, gilded age capitalism that does not provide living wage jobs but only seeks to max out banking and corporate profits, which has given us a gilded age disparity in income. And it is not sustainable. It has generated this very nontypical election cycle, where the hard time working people are having making ends meet with our part time low wage jobs and a loss of security, is creating anger and unrest.

Capitalism is great, but only if it is regulated wisely as it once was. Neoliberalism deregulated it so that the non elites could max out profits and open borders free trade literally did what Perot tried to warn us about. The giant sucking sound of living wage jobs leaving this nation, with low wage service sector work, replacing the good jobs. So socialism doesn't work but neither does neoliberal driven capitalism, if the economy is supposed to allow a people to support themselves by their work. What did work, was replaced, the FDR economic model dismantled. So thank the change Reagan brought you. And which every president has supported, neoliberalism. So if and when the gov't owns all means of goods and services, and its distribution, you can then blame it on socialism.

 

Sanders is an FDR Progressive, and represents what helped to create the largest middle class in the history of the world, in America. But the democratic party stopped being progressive with Clinton, and joined in with the neoliberalism the GOP brought back from the Gilded Age in 1981.

That no one recognizes sanders as another FDR, is troublesome, for it clearly is a lack of a decent education. Which is quite prevalent today, since many get their education from propaganda, and were never educated enough to be able to discern propaganda.

 

Socialism works only until the resources have been drained by all the freeloaders. Currently, there is hardly any incentive for the lazy poor living on loads of entitlements to work and contribute to society.

 

Or in the U.S., for that matter. No system will be perfect, but socialism literally contradicts hundreds of years of economic theory and has repeatedly failed in practice, predictably, during that same time.

You socialists know deep down that you haven't studied economics. You've used your time studying biology and cosmology, so that you can be condescending to Christians. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself if you think your opinion about the economy is any more valid than a Christian's opinion on evolution. Take a class for pete's sake.

 

Some people think that Reagan's tax incentives set the stage for the sustained massive growth experienced in the 90s, and you seem intelligent enough to understand that it was undoubtedly a contributor. What do you think the result would have been if we had skipped the giant sucking sound of free trade? Wouldn't Reagan's policies have continued to benefit the non elites if their jobs had not been sent to oppressed laborers in droves?

Did the FDR model not immediately begin to look ineffectual in the 70s as soon as the rest of the world began to recover from WW2? Was Reagan nevertheless supposed to simply accept the malaise and not try a new direction?

 

Saint ronnie and trickle down give to rich is the reason our economy sucks now.
Conservatism is the reason we USED to be great and not anymore.

The right can not handle an economy, they never could and history is proof of that.

 

Thank you for your contribution. I'm sure the economics textbooks are being rewritten as we speak after this remarkable insight.

I hope the fact that you have already covered every aspect of this debate so precisely will not discourage others from posting their own justifications for socialism, which I am still eager to hear.

 

Hey, I love baseball but still watch the Cubs every year. Socialism is practiced in varying degrees all across the world. Venezuela is a mess because of inept leaders, it has nothing to do with universal health care or free colleges or higher progressive taxes.

 

Here's more:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nikolas-kozloff/south-americas-leftist-im_b_10174060.html

South America’s Leftist Implosion: Let the Debate Begin
05/27/2016 08:54 pm ET | Updated 2 days ago

Nikolas Kozloff
Author, ‘Revolution! South America and the Rise of the New Left’

BEYHAN YAZAR VIA GETTY IMAGES
From Venezuela to Brazil to Argentina, the political left is crumbling, raising real questions about the durability of South America’s so-called “Pink Tide.” In Caracas, the future of Chávez protégé Nicolás Maduro remains unclear amidst plunging world oil prices, rampant inflation, power shortages and scarcity of basic goods. Opposition politicians have collected almost two million signatures calling for a recall referendum which could oust the president from power. In Argentina meanwhile, voters recently rejected Kirchner protégé Daniel Scioli in favor of Mauricio Macri, thus shattering the Peronist party’s lock on power. Macri disdains the foreign policy maneuverings of his predecessors, that is to say power couple Néstor and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who lined up behind Venezuela and Cuba. By contrast, Macri is seen as much more partial to the United States.

Though certainly significant, such developments pale beside tectonic change in Brazil, which up until recently was the largest ostensibly leftist country in the wider region. There, lawmakers ousted Workers’ Party President Dilma Rousseff so as to place her on trial for alleged financial wrongdoing. According to the Guardian, the new center-right administration in Brasilia seeks to “soften the definition of slavery, roll back the demarcation of indigenous land, trim house building programs and sell off state assets in airports, utilities and the post office. Newly appointed ministers also are talking of cutting healthcare spending and reducing the cost of the bolsa familia poverty relief system.”

An Unflattering Picture

The significance of such developments cannot be under-stated. Whatever its flaws, the South American left was the most potent and well-organized force of its kind throughout the world and its possible implosion could have ripple effects. Without Brazil as a central buttressing force, constructing a viable, cohesive and continental-wide leftist project could prove daunting. In Chile, socialist president Michelle Bachelet is foundering halfway through her second term, having failed to secure an ambitious social agenda. Indeed, news reports suggest that Bachelet has “stalled” amid corruption scandals and economic slowdown linked to the global fall in commodity prices. Recently, frustration over Bachelet’s stalled educational reforms prompted students to disguise themselves as tourists in an effort to infiltrate La Moneda, the presidential palace. Once inside, they launched a protest.

Whether Andean populist outliers Bolivia or Ecuador really present any viable reason for hope at this point is open to doubt and that is putting it mildly. In the early days, Evo Morales was known for his strong anti-imperialist and environmental credentials. However, despite social gains Bolivia is still caught in the resource trap and depends highly on the export of raw materials such as minerals. In 2013, the Bolivian president came under withering criticism from Indians when he announced plans to build a roadway through the TIPNIS park and rainforest. When indigenous peoples launched a protest, claiming the highway would lead to illegal logging and land grabs, Morales called out the police who brutally attacked the demonstrators’ makeshift camp. The BBC notes that “some of the indigenous leaders, environmentalists and activists who helped put Evo Morales in power have criticized him, arguing that his policies seem to favor the wealthy, light-skinned minority.” In the end, a shame-faced Morales was forced to shelve the project.

Meanwhile, though the government’s socialist policies initially antagonized many in the wealthy eastern lowland province of Santa Cruz, and regional leaders even led a campaign for greater autonomy, “Morales’s relationship with the Santa Cruz business leaders has improved and there is growing respect in Santa Cruz for his growth agenda.” Furthermore, allegations that Morales used improper influence to favor a Chinese construction company damaged his standing. A former girlfriend of Morales holds an important position at the firm, which landed lucrative contracts with the Bolivian state. Recently, it seems Morales narrowly lost a vote when a referendum was called which would have allowed him to stand for a fourth term.

If Morales’ leftist credentials have come under fire, then it could be said that President Rafael Correa of Ecuador is even more suspect. Like Bolivia, Ecuador is caught in the resource trap and specifically petroleum exports. In 2013, Correa pulled the plug on the so-called Yasuni-ITT initiative, which would have spared biologically rich Yasuni national park from oil drilling. Now, with oil prices slumping, Ecuador faces even more pressure to expand the Amazonian oil frontier because Quito owes crude to China. Correa has auctioned off new blocs of Amazon territory to Chinese firms, which has in turn sparked controversy.

Last year, thousands protested government expansion of the oil frontier, as well as other issues including repression of freedom of speech and the president’s proposed amendment to the constitution which would have allowed him to be re-elected indefinitely. Correa responded by sending in the police, tear gassing demonstrators and conducting arbitrary arrests. In another draconian move, the Guardian reports that Ecuadoran authorities may have broken the law by spying on environmentalists, indigenous groups and political opponents who opposed oil exploitation in the Amazon. Perhaps reading the writing on the wall, Correa himself decided last year not to seek a fourth term in office.

Spineless Political Leaders

Though such developments are unflattering to be sure, they shouldn’t come as any great surprise. Indeed, sensitive U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks paint a vain, narrow-minded and crass picture of many South American leftist leaders. The cables, which cover correspondence from the Bush and Obama eras, suggest that continental-wide leftist unity was not really in the cards and anti-imperialist rhetoric was only skin deep. If social movements had any high ideals about their leaders, they probably jettisoned such illusions after reading through Washington’s correspondence with its various embassies throughout the hemisphere.

Take, for example, Lula and Dilma’s Workers’ Party, which secretly sought to outflank Venezuela throughout the wider region. In 2006, Brazilian diplomats traveled to Peru where they expressed grave concern about Chávez’s rising influence. Lula’s team also sought to sideline some of Chávez’s more innovative proposals such as the so-called “Bank of the South.” Meanwhile, Lula’s Defense Minister Nelson Jobim said that Brazil and the U.S. should develop joint contingency plans to counteract Chávez. Other cables demonstrate how the Workers’ Party sought to ingratiate itself with Washington while downplaying links to “outdated” leftists. In yet other correspondence, Lula’s team expressed grave misgivings about Evo Morales, and specifically the prospect of a Bolivian-Venezuelan radical alliance.

Fellow leftist leaders scarcely emerge from WikiLeaks correspondence in a more positive light than their counterparts in Brazil. Take, for example, Bachelet of Chile who sat down with the Americans at La Moneda presidential palace to explain that not all South American leaders were dangerous populists. Moreover, Bachelet added, Argentina under the Kirchners lacked “credibility.” Needless to say, Bachelet ordered her security team to work with the FBI in an effort to monitor restive Mapuche Indians in Chile. Over in Argentina meanwhile, the Kirchners were similarly cynical and sought to distance themselves from Venezuela in private meetings with U.S. officials. What is more, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner sought to limit Venezuela’s influence within newly-created Bank of the South.

Self-Satisfied New York Times

Predictably, the establishment press is already pouncing on the left’s failures in order to push its own wider hemispheric agenda. The New York Times has found it difficult to contain its own satisfaction at recent turn of events. That’s hardly surprising given the Times’ historic agenda for Latin America, predicated on right wing notions of free trade and U.S. military assistance. In April, 2002 the Times backed “respected business leader” Pedro Carmona, who overthrew Chávez in a short-lived coup. Santiago-based Times correspondent Larry Rohter expressed satisfaction over Chávez’s forcible removal by the Venezuelan opposition. “Chávez was a left-wing populist doomed by habitual recklessness,” Rohter wrote, adding that the Venezuelan leader’s fall could not “be classified as a conventional Latin American military coup.”

Not stopping there, the Times lambasted my first book Hugo Chávez: Oil, Politics and the Challenge to the U.S. on the pages of the business section no less. “Socialism hasn’t worked,” intoned sage Times expert Roger Lowenstein, so why can’t “Marxist” Kozloff and Chávez just wake up and endorse the free market, rather than consider innovative trade policies which go outside the usual corporate channels? Now that the left is crumbling in South America and pro-business leaders are coming back to power, the Times is salivating. Shifting political landscapes, the paper notes, “offers the United States an opportunity to jump-start its relationship with several neighbors that have historically regarded Washington as neglectful, imperial — or both.” It would be “foolish,” adds the Times, for the U.S. to pass up the opportunity of signing trade pacts with the likes of Argentina or Brazil. In the event that new rightist governments have difficulty protecting U.S. investment, they can always turn to Washington for more military aid. Indeed, the Times touts human rights violator Colombia no less as “evidence of the potential of sustained security partnerships.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nikolas-kozloff/south-americas-leftist-im_b_10174060.html

South America’s Leftist Implosion: Let the Debate Begin
05/27/2016 08:54 pm ET | Updated 2 days ago

Nikolas Kozloff
Author, ‘Revolution! South America and the Rise of the New Left’

BEYHAN YAZAR VIA GETTY IMAGES
From Venezuela to Brazil to Argentina, the political left is crumbling, raising real questions about the durability of South America’s so-called “Pink Tide.” In Caracas, the future of Chávez protégé Nicolás Maduro remains unclear amidst plunging world oil prices, rampant inflation, power shortages and scarcity of basic goods. Opposition politicians have collected almost two million signatures calling for a recall referendum which could oust the president from power. In Argentina meanwhile, voters recently rejected Kirchner protégé Daniel Scioli in favor of Mauricio Macri, thus shattering the Peronist party’s lock on power. Macri disdains the foreign policy maneuverings of his predecessors, that is to say power couple Néstor and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who lined up behind Venezuela and Cuba. By contrast, Macri is seen as much more partial to the United States.

Though certainly significant, such developments pale beside tectonic change in Brazil, which up until recently was the largest ostensibly leftist country in the wider region. There, lawmakers ousted Workers’ Party President Dilma Rousseff so as to place her on trial for alleged financial wrongdoing. According to the Guardian, the new center-right administration in Brasilia seeks to “soften the definition of slavery, roll back the demarcation of indigenous land, trim house building programs and sell off state assets in airports, utilities and the post office. Newly appointed ministers also are talking of cutting healthcare spending and reducing the cost of the bolsa familia poverty relief system.”

An Unflattering Picture

The significance of such developments cannot be under-stated. Whatever its flaws, the South American left was the most potent and well-organized force of its kind throughout the world and its possible implosion could have ripple effects. Without Brazil as a central buttressing force, constructing a viable, cohesive and continental-wide leftist project could prove daunting. In Chile, socialist president Michelle Bachelet is foundering halfway through her second term, having failed to secure an ambitious social agenda. Indeed, news reports suggest that Bachelet has “stalled” amid corruption scandals and economic slowdown linked to the global fall in commodity prices. Recently, frustration over Bachelet’s stalled educational reforms prompted students to disguise themselves as tourists in an effort to infiltrate La Moneda, the presidential palace. Once inside, they launched a protest.

Whether Andean populist outliers Bolivia or Ecuador really present any viable reason for hope at this point is open to doubt and that is putting it mildly. In the early days, Evo Morales was known for his strong anti-imperialist and environmental credentials. However, despite social gains Bolivia is still caught in the resource trap and depends highly on the export of raw materials such as minerals. In 2013, the Bolivian president came under withering criticism from Indians when he announced plans to build a roadway through the TIPNIS park and rainforest. When indigenous peoples launched a protest, claiming the highway would lead to illegal logging and land grabs, Morales called out the police who brutally attacked the demonstrators’ makeshift camp. The BBC notes that “some of the indigenous leaders, environmentalists and activists who helped put Evo Morales in power have criticized him, arguing that his policies seem to favor the wealthy, light-skinned minority.” In the end, a shame-faced Morales was forced to shelve the project.

Meanwhile, though the government’s socialist policies initially antagonized many in the wealthy eastern lowland province of Santa Cruz, and regional leaders even led a campaign for greater autonomy, “Morales’s relationship with the Santa Cruz business leaders has improved and there is growing respect in Santa Cruz for his growth agenda.” Furthermore, allegations that Morales used improper influence to favor a Chinese construction company damaged his standing. A former girlfriend of Morales holds an important position at the firm, which landed lucrative contracts with the Bolivian state. Recently, it seems Morales narrowly lost a vote when a referendum was called which would have allowed him to stand for a fourth term.

If Morales’ leftist credentials have come under fire, then it could be said that President Rafael Correa of Ecuador is even more suspect. Like Bolivia, Ecuador is caught in the resource trap and specifically petroleum exports. In 2013, Correa pulled the plug on the so-called Yasuni-ITT initiative, which would have spared biologically rich Yasuni national park from oil drilling. Now, with oil prices slumping, Ecuador faces even more pressure to expand the Amazonian oil frontier because Quito owes crude to China. Correa has auctioned off new blocs of Amazon territory to Chinese firms, which has in turn sparked controversy.

Last year, thousands protested government expansion of the oil frontier, as well as other issues including repression of freedom of speech and the president’s proposed amendment to the constitution which would have allowed him to be re-elected indefinitely. Correa responded by sending in the police, tear gassing demonstrators and conducting arbitrary arrests. In another draconian move, the Guardian reports that Ecuadoran authorities may have broken the law by spying on environmentalists, indigenous groups and political opponents who opposed oil exploitation in the Amazon. Perhaps reading the writing on the wall, Correa himself decided last year not to seek a fourth term in office.

Spineless Political Leaders

Though such developments are unflattering to be sure, they shouldn’t come as any great surprise. Indeed, sensitive U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks paint a vain, narrow-minded and crass picture of many South American leftist leaders. The cables, which cover correspondence from the Bush and Obama eras, suggest that continental-wide leftist unity was not really in the cards and anti-imperialist rhetoric was only skin deep. If social movements had any high ideals about their leaders, they probably jettisoned such illusions after reading through Washington’s correspondence with its various embassies throughout the hemisphere.

Take, for example, Lula and Dilma’s Workers’ Party, which secretly sought to outflank Venezuela throughout the wider region. In 2006, Brazilian diplomats traveled to Peru where they expressed grave concern about Chávez’s rising influence. Lula’s team also sought to sideline some of Chávez’s more innovative proposals such as the so-called “Bank of the South.” Meanwhile, Lula’s Defense Minister Nelson Jobim said that Brazil and the U.S. should develop joint contingency plans to counteract Chávez. Other cables demonstrate how the Workers’ Party sought to ingratiate itself with Washington while downplaying links to “outdated” leftists. In yet other correspondence, Lula’s team expressed grave misgivings about Evo Morales, and specifically the prospect of a Bolivian-Venezuelan radical alliance.

Fellow leftist leaders scarcely emerge from WikiLeaks correspondence in a more positive light than their counterparts in Brazil. Take, for example, Bachelet of Chile who sat down with the Americans at La Moneda presidential palace to explain that not all South American leaders were dangerous populists. Moreover, Bachelet added, Argentina under the Kirchners lacked “credibility.” Needless to say, Bachelet ordered her security team to work with the FBI in an effort to monitor restive Mapuche Indians in Chile. Over in Argentina meanwhile, the Kirchners were similarly cynical and sought to distance themselves from Venezuela in private meetings with U.S. officials. What is more, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner sought to limit Venezuela’s influence within newly-created Bank of the South.

Self-Satisfied New York Times

Predictably, the establishment press is already pouncing on the left’s failures in order to push its own wider hemispheric agenda. The New York Times has found it difficult to contain its own satisfaction at recent turn of events. That’s hardly surprising given the Times’ historic agenda for Latin America, predicated on right wing notions of free trade and U.S. military assistance. In April, 2002 the Times backed “respected business leader” Pedro Carmona, who overthrew Chávez in a short-lived coup. Santiago-based Times correspondent Larry Rohter expressed satisfaction over Chávez’s forcible removal by the Venezuelan opposition. “Chávez was a left-wing populist doomed by habitual recklessness,” Rohter wrote, adding that the Venezuelan leader’s fall could not “be classified as a conventional Latin American military coup.”

Not stopping there, the Times lambasted my first book Hugo Chávez: Oil, Politics and the Challenge to the U.S. on the pages of the business section no less. “Socialism hasn’t worked,” intoned sage Times expert Roger Lowenstein, so why can’t “Marxist” Kozloff and Chávez just wake up and endorse the free market, rather than consider innovative trade policies which go outside the usual corporate channels? Now that the left is crumbling in South America and pro-business leaders are coming back to power, the Times is salivating. Shifting political landscapes, the paper notes, “offers the United States an opportunity to jump-start its relationship with several neighbors that have historically regarded Washington as neglectful, imperial — or both.” It would be “foolish,” adds the Times, for the U.S. to pass up the opportunity of signing trade pacts with the likes of Argentina or Brazil. In the event that new rightist governments have difficulty protecting U.S. investment, they can always turn to Washington for more military aid. Indeed, the Times touts human rights violator Colombia no less as “evidence of the potential of sustained security partnerships.”

 

There are many socialist countries in the world. Why pick Venezuela as the example? The western European countries would be better examples. Sure, there are failed socialist countries. There are failed Capitalist countries too. . .and Communist ones. It's not hard to find failures at anything, anywhere anytime. The growing discrepancy of wealth between the poor and ultra-rich in the U.S., and it's shrinking middle class isn't something to brag about, and could be regarded as a significant failure. I suspect the massive anger we're experiencing in the current election cycle is a result of this growing economic inequality. What does it matter if your country has the most successful economic system in the world if you, your children, your neighbors, friends, and most of the people you know aren't getting any benefit from it?

 

Most of the Western European countries aren't socialist. They are heavily regulated market economies/welfare states.

 

Venezuela is not really a socialist country. It is in trouble because it is ruled by an inept, populist autocrat. If you want to see what a real socialist country looks like, check out Norway or Sweden. Both have higher education rates and longer lifespans that we do. They also don't have hundreds of homeless people sleeping in the streets as we do in any major city in the USA. I'm not saying I want to live in Norway or Sweden (I've lived in Sweden and prefer the USA). However, the Swedes and Norwegians in general love living under socialism. My aim is to out that the original poster was wrong in blaming Venezuela's problems on socialism.

 

Thanks for the white flag of surrender.
Attacking the person and ignoring the subject is the standard way cons run from a subject they know nothing about.
Thanks again.

 

Yes, because Socialism. I get it now. Thank you for clarifying.

 

Whoever those "people" might be, they're as naïve as the ones whose dogmatic belief is that unbridled capitalism is "great for America."

All advanced nations combine regulated capitalism with a moral commitment to social welfare.

For realists, those nations provide the paradigm for relative success.

 

The problem, I think, is neither socialism nor capitalism working absolutely in any one area or situation. One or the other may be the better option, but can the same work across all facets of human life? I don't think so.

For example would any one claim the socialist structure of our fire departments has failed? Military and police?

There are plenty of examples of a public model working well somewhere in American society. I do think it is a mistake to discount socislism as a tool to organize some areas of society because it fails in others, and the same for its counterpart.

 

Perfect. So to regulate it effectively, we need to identify the potential pitfalls regulation can have within a global market with asymmetric regulations for other nations, and structure our trade agreements with those nations to both manage the pitfalls and promote globally the high standard of living afforded to our citizens by those regulations.

Right?

- - - Updated - - -

In fact, you might be a socialist one week, and a capitalist the next.

Neither economic perspective is the problem.

Ideologism is the problem.

 

Of course. A reciprocal endeavour that is continually being mutually negotiated whilst each nation provides for the well-being of its citizens.

 

Indeed, in theory. But in real life, those negotiating trade agreements on behalf of U.S. citizens, have allowed the opening of a massive pitfall, in between the wealth of the very wealthiest citizens and the less wealthiest citizens, which continues to deepen and widen each year regardless of which political party is voted into power. In real life, those negotiating trade agreements on behalf of, for instance, China's citizens, had the luxury of starting out with a huge pitfall between the wealthy and the less wealthy, and have only worked to maintain that, without the need to offer its citizens two different parties that nevertheless curiously govern exactly the same, given their decidedly less malleable political system.

Both sides of negotiators have maintained trade deals that only benefit the very wealthiest, and specifically seem to harm the majority of citizens. Followed to its completion, such a trend will establish two distinct classes of human beings, in which upward mobility is almost impossible, and the power of the lower class to have any say in government almost completely nonexistent, and perhaps it already has.

If the two U.S. parties insist that we swear allegiance to some economic perspective (which is not the way perspectives are used in any other science), and we can assume the members are not actually dumb enough to see any value in that for us, it is clear that the great economic debate is merely a ruse to distract from the inevitable peasant class they have prepared for us by executing their globalist agenda. It's not about socialism or capitalism. Both parties utilize both perspectives to steer our society towards that peasant class. The question is, do you support their agenda or not?

I don't, and I support the one candidate who does not pretend that economic perspective loyalty is an appropriate endeavor for voters, but instead promotes using any perspective to produce a favorable outcome for all citizens, Donald Trump.