JEWS
were committing
all kind of
crime against humanity
and war crimes
without any accountability
The White House • February 13,
2019
Not one more person should suffer under socialism
“We want to put an end to the
brutal dictatorship that has been affecting the Venezuelan people,”
Three weeks ago, the United
States officially recognized Juan Guaido as the legitimate president of
Venezuela. “We stand with the Venezuelan people in their noble quest for
freedom, and we condemn the brutality of the Maduro regime, whose socialist
policies have turned that nation from being the wealthiest in South America
into a state of abject poverty and despair,” President Trump said in his State
of the Union address last week.
To keep its word, America has
imposed tough sanctions on Maduro and his corrupt associates. The Trump
Administration is blocking assets in the United States controlled by
Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, disconnecting Maduro and his cronies from
their needed revenue sources and protecting crucial assets for the future of
Venezuela.
Here at home, mainstream
Americans are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our own country. From
Venezuela to the historic horrors of Maoist China, Cuba, and the Soviet Union,
socialism turns modern prosperity into primitive scarcity. Even Europe’s Nordic
countries—often held up by American liberals as socialist “success
stories”—reveal the failure of state control: Today, living standards in the
Nordic countries are at least 15 percent lower than in the United States,
according to the Council of Economic Advisers.
“America was founded on liberty
and independence, and not government coercion, domination, and control,”
President Trump told Congress last week. “Tonight, we renew our resolve that
America will never be a socialist country.”
President Trump is standing up
for the people of Venezuela.
White House report: The true
costs of socialism
Costs of Socialism
Council of Economic Advisers
Issued on: October 23, 2018
Today, the Council of Economic
Advisers (CEA) released a report outlining the opportunity costs of socialism
on the macro economy, including standards of living, and the impact on the
Federal budget. Below is the executive
summary.
Coincident with the 200th
anniversary of Karl Marx’s birth, socialism is making a comeback in American
political discourse. Detailed policy proposals from self-declared socialists
are gaining support in Congress and among much of the electorate.
It is unclear, of course, exactly
what a typical voter has in mind when he or she thinks of “socialism.” But
economists generally agree about how to define socialism, and they have devoted
enormous time and resources to studying its costs and benefits. With an eye on
this broad body of literature, this report discusses socialism’s historic
visions and intents, its economic features, its impact on economic performance,
and its relationship with recent policy proposals in the United States.
We find that historical
proponents of socialist policies and those in the contemporary United States
share some of their visions and intents. They both characterize the
distribution of income in market economies as the unjust result of
“exploitation,” which should be rectified by extensive state control. The
proposed solutions include single-payer systems, high tax rates (“from each
according to his ability”), and public policies that hand out much of the
Nation’s goods and services “free” of charge (“to each according to his needs”).
Where they differ is that contemporary democratic socialists denounce state
brutality and would allow individuals to privately own the means of production
in many industries.
In assessing the effects of
socialist policies, it is important to recognize that they provide little
material incentive for production and innovation and, by distributing goods and
services for “free,” prevent prices from revealing economically important
information about costs and consumer needs and wants. To this end, as the then–prime
minister of the United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher (1976), once argued,
“Socialist governments . . . always run out of other people’s money,” and thus
the way to prosperity is for the state to give “the people more choice to spend
their own money in their own way.”
Whether socialism delivers on its
appealing promises is an empirical question. We begin our investigation by
looking closely at the most highly socialist cases, which are typically
agricultural economies, such as Maoist China, Cuba, and the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics (USSR). Their nondemocratic governments seized control of
farming, promising to make food more abundant. The result was substantially
less food production and tens of millions of deaths by starvation. Even if
highly socialist policies are peacefully implemented under the auspices of
democracy, the fundamental incentive distortions and information problems
created by large state organizations and the centralized control of resources
are also present in industrialized countries, as is currently the case in
Venezuela. Lessons from poorly performing agricultural economies under
socialist regimes carry over to government takeovers of other modern
industries: They produce less rather than more.
These countries are examples of a
more general pattern of socialism’s negative output effects. Such outcomes have
also been observed in cross-country studies of the effect of greater economic
freedom—quantified as an index of taxation and public spending, the extent of
state-owned enterprises, economic regulation, and other factors—on real gross
domestic product (GDP). This literature finds a strong association between
greater economic freedom and better economic performance. It suggests that
replacing U.S. policies with highly socialist policies, such as Venezuela’s,
would reduce real GDP at least 40 percent in the long run, or about $24,000 per
year for the average person.
Although they are sometimes cited
as more relevant socialist success stories, the experiences of the Nordic
countries also support the conclusion that socialism reduces living standards.
In many respects, the Nordic countries’ policies now differ significantly from
what economists have in mind when they think of socialism. For instance, they
do not provide healthcare for “free”; Nordic healthcare financing includes
substantial cost sharing. Marginal labor income tax rates in the Nordic
countries today are only somewhat higher than in the United States, and Nordic
taxation overall is surprisingly less progressive than U.S. taxes. The Nordic
countries also tax capital income less and regulate product markets less than
the United States does. However, the Nordic countries do regulate and tax labor
markets somewhat more; thus, American families earning the average wage would
be taxed $2,000 to $5,000 more per year net of transfers if the United States
had current Nordic policies. Living standards in the Nordic countries are at
least 15 percent lower than in the United States.
It may well be that American
socialists are envisioning moving our policies to align with those of the
Nordic countries in the 1970s, when their policies were more in line with
economists’ traditional definition of socialism. We estimate that if the United
States were to adopt these policies, its real GDP would decline by at least 19
percent in the long run, or about $11,000 per year for the average person.
The Nordic and European versions
of socialized medicine have been viewed as so desirable by modern U.S.
socialists that they have proposed nationalizing payments for the healthcare
sector (which makes up more than a sixth of the U.S. economy) through the
recent “Medicare for All” proposal. This policy would distribute healthcare for
“free” (i.e., without cost sharing) through a monopoly government health
insurer that would centrally set all prices paid to suppliers such as doctors
and hospitals. We find that if this policy were financed out of current Federal
spending without borrowing or tax increases, then more than half the entire
existing Federal budget would need to be cut. Or if it were financed through
higher taxes, GDP would fall by 9 percent, or about $7,000 per person in 2022,
due to high tax rates that would reduce incentives to supply the factors of
production. Evidence on the productivity and effectiveness of single-payer
systems suggests that “Medicare for All” would reduce both short- and long-run
longevity and health despite increasing somewhat the population with health
insurance.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/The-Opportunity-Costs-of-Socialism.pdf
###
It's supposed to mean:
NO ONE SHOULD SUFFER UNDER SOCIALISM & ZIONAZISM
Jerzy Chojnowski
Chairman-GTVRG e.V.
www.gtvrg.de
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen