Just so we’re clear, Cuba was (has been) hit with crippling economic sanctions from what would have been its largest trading partner.
I don’t disagree with you that central planning is not a recipe for economic success, but I’m not sure Cuba’s the best example. Venezuela might be a better one. The former Soviet Union, China, and Southeast Asian economies of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos being even better ones still.
Personally, I’m a free-market socialist. The government should be allowed to own companies that compete in any given industry. If the government company outcompetes the private ones, that’s a sign that that’s a function that government should be doing. If the private companies outcompete the governmental one, that’s a sign that it’s something that should be left to the private sector. If a company gets “too big to fail” and then needs a bailout, the bailout is in the form of a buyout, and now it’s a government company (or merged into the existing government company, if there already is one). It’s the same sort of situation we see now with the USPS successfully competing with UPS and FedEx, except without the government companies being deliberately crippled the way the USPS is.
Too much conflict of interest with the regulators competing with the regulated. Also the government is able to raise virtually unlimited amounts of capital, much of which is involuntarily sourced, which automatically puts it in an ant-competitive position.
So, you left out a few options: If a government owned company outcompetes a privately owned company it could very well mean that regulations were made favoring the government or that the government was able to coerce investors into investing in a company when they would have otherwise invested in a different company. The winner is determined not by who can attract the most investors, but by who can use the force of law to block investors from investing in the competition.
No offense man, but you DO know who the President of the United States is right now, right? 
And that is worse than the present of the Republican party?
I generally agree, though I would consider exceptions when it comes to public-use infrastructure and the production and distribution of essential services like utilities. Where I differ from republicans is that I would consider healthcare an essential service or somewhat like a utility, in need of strong regulation and perhaps some degree of central authority. Controlled monopolies or duopolies might be another viable alternative that strikes the right balance between public need and market-based economics.
But other than that, I’d be in agreement that we don’t need a government option cutting across all sectors of the economy. The opportunities for corruption exist enough as it is now just from giving government the power to regulate industry.
Yeah, a Peepublican criticizing AOC for being less than truthful is like a big leaky 55 gallon barrel of crude oil calling the kettle black.
The typo in the above was originally unintentional, but I like it and I’m going to keep it. And I’ll use it again. It seems like a good moniker for a Trump supporter.
Funny how whataboutism oscillates into and out of favor as a debate tactic.
If no one can debate the topic of the OP, we can let it rest until the next time she sticks her foot in her mouth. So, twenty minutes, at least.
Regards,
Shodan
So you make the government companies follow the same regulations as the private companies. And inequalities would be just as likely to go the other way, like the regulations that the USPS has to work under which would strangle most companies. Yes, there would be opportunity for corruption, but there’s opportunity for corruption in every system. Address the corruption, not the system.
The entire structure of our government is designed around checks and balances built into the system because governments have a unique ability to abuse power. And even then we get Trump. I like the idea of constraining governments proactively rather trusting that the government will police itself if we give it unprecedented powers. YMMV, and it obviously does.
I don’t think referring to the current President is whataboutism. Referring to past Presidents, I would agree with you.
I think you are wrong, and that it is a nearly laboratory-grade example of whataboutism.
We kind of rang the changes on how these kinds of threads run.
[ul][li]She is an exciting new face, inspiring the progressives, which is far more important than nitpicking details. After all, this is a [del]wedding[/del] election! Let’s not spoil it with a lot of petty bickering about who killed who![/li][li]She wasn’t wrong[/li][li]Okay, she was wrong, but she wasn’t WRONG wrong. If you tilt your head and squint your eyes just right, some of what she said was actually right[/li][li]Okay, it wasn’t right, but she was just using hyperbole to inspire, just like FDR. Haven’t you ever hear of hyperbole?[/ul]And, when those didn’t pan out and she said some more bone-headed things, the inexorable[/li][ul][li]What about Trump? How can you possibly support a politician who lies to stir up [del]her[/del] his base? [/ul]Ms. Ocasio-Cortez preempted one of the steps by playing the sexism card, but apart from that, it went pretty much by the book.[/li]
Regards,
Shodan
That may be true, but that’s not why I was asking. I don’t think she is an exciting new face of anything. I think it’s funny that she beat what’s his name in the primary, that’s all. I doubt she knows much of anything but I don’t expect her to know everything about everything, even in subjects she has a degree in.
However, when someone says “The idea of someone as badly misinformed as this with her finger in national politics does concern me a bit, yes.” it makes me wonder how they feel about the current President, since I don’t remember reading you stating this about the current President. If you have, then my bad. If you haven’t, then my next question would be “If you don’t care about how badly misinformed the current President is, why in the world would you care how misinformed a Democratic Primary winner in a Congressional Race is”?
Don’t lump me in with others on this board. I actually want to know what you think, not set up gotchas or whatever.
Yeah, it was so funny that she beat what’s his name. You know, that really famous guy! 
I was talking about economics, not party control. The USA actively suppressed left parties at the same time Stalin actively suppressed dissent in the USSR. Pinochet had a dictatorship that stood for liberal economics without liberal democracy. Capitalism is not necessarily freedom, so don’t sell me freedom and switch in capitalism.
A very, very small fraction of Cubans leave Cuba. Fidel was never overthrown. Maybe the ones who want to leave are just outliers! Has that occurred to you?
He was the OLD new face of the Democratic party!
Capitalism cannot occur without freedom to engage in voluntary exchange. You seem to conflate freedom with democracy.
I don’t speak for Shodan but I am more concerned about democratic socialism than Trump because he is a personality while demsoc is an ideology that has some staying power even amongst a large swath of Trump supporters.
Trump is attacked for being evil all the time, it is assumed that he is bad. Demsocs are assumed to be good, if too idealistic or wet behind the ears.
They are moving the Overton window within the party, but it’s not clear at all whether they are doing it with the general electorate. 2018 and 2020 will tell us a lot about this. Although it won’t be as simple as wins and losses. Trump could very well lose to a hardcore progressive, but given that current polling shows Joe Biden beating him by 15 points without taking any of these hard left positions, you’d have to think a 5 point win by a Liz Warren type would be a warning sign even while Democrats celebrated.
In other news…
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has taken a firm stance against accepting campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry. Sort of - she did accept campaign contributions from JP Morgan Chase, but that doesn’t count, because mumble mumble, and if we don’t allow the local press at our rallies, maybe no one will notice. And has taken an equally principled stand against Uber, which causes suicide and depresses wages. For various values of “principled”.
If she is the face of the progressive socialist movement, she seems to have at least two of them.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t think you can declare Ms. Ocasio-Cortez to be the face of the party based on one victory in one primary in one district. Sure, maybe she doesn’t seem all that bright, but a smart person never would have run in that contest in the first place. She’s 28, maybe she’s got what it takes to get up to speed, maybe she doesn’t. If she does, she’ll do OK, if not then someone smarter will run against her next time. A ditz for a congressperson is readily survivable, more so, at any rate, than one for a President.
As I’ve said elsewhere I don’t regards myself as a democratic socialist. Others might, but then you’re talking about people who use progress liberal communist fascist socialist Democrat as if it were a single noun. I would not, however, mind seeing a few of them in office to balance some of the loons that the Republicans have elected and drag the center back to, well, the center.