Kill all your gommies

>kill all your gommies
>be the only good latino country by far

Really makes you think, huh...

Other urls found in this thread:

bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-39039170
youtu.be/puwO_NfUJTs
m.imgur.com/A2fZpCk
pewglobal.org/2009/11/02/chapter-7-nationalism/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>kill some commies, the rest fled from the dictatorship
>after the dictatorship end, the commies come back to the country
>commies make the country good after being one of the worse shitholes in latin america

Really makes you think, huh...

What about puerto rico
or panamá
or uruguay

we've had this thread before. deja vu

GO CHILE!

I've just been in this place before

This, good post!

But Texas isn't latino

Isn't him basically kicking you out of your spot as the best?

...

you moron .
That's Austin.

It is actually the other way around. But Chile will keep his first spot for a couple of years more.

BROWN

After Pinochet left, Chile elected a stream of neo-liberalists which were still very much pro-capitalism.

The Commies never even got close to the government thanks to Pinochet.

He was always watching.
He may still be watching now after death.

Really makes me think:

bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-39039170

>throw a few commies out of helicopters
>turn all leftists into martyrs now
>now all of Latin America hates America and has a more positive view of socialism/communism

What would have happened without Pinochet
>communism fails
>people naturally become pro America and pro capitalism, like in Poland

>Capitalism lends itself to less predictably in the markets and more wild short term economic swings

Brilliant observation there dipshit. Socialism has less economic swings than capitalism, but it ultimately grows much slower in the long term.

The stock market does the same thing every few years where there's a correction and a huge drop occurs, but it recovers soon enough and keeps growing.

Even after Communism fails, it's only the people who actually lived under it who vehemently oppose it. Their kids and grandkids will stupidly try it again citing "WASNT REAL SOCIALISM!"

Either way, Communists are a scourge that can never be completely killed off. Only thwarted for a few decades.

if people try to go back there maybe is because Capitalism is not that awsome. Just sayin.

Look at actual polls from Eastern Europe. The younger generation has less communist nostalgia than the older people.

No, it's because capitalism makes them so prosperous and spoiled that they think, "I want more, why do all those rich people have more money than me?" and then they try and steal money from people who work harder than them, and piss away their comfy society in favor of breadlines and mass starvation.

No is because the majority of people are ignorant or stupid and forget these things. It is easier to find communism as the quickest solution to your problems if you don't know any better or don't really care.

youtu.be/puwO_NfUJTs

WTF?! I thought it was illegall to beat old men to death in the U.S.

But the former communist countries that are more well off have way less communist nostalgia than the ones that stayed poor. Ukraine is the only post commie country that is poorer than they were in 1990, it's not a coincidence that they also have one of the highest rated of Soviet nostalgia. Poland and the Baltics have done the best under capitalism, and have the least communist nostalgia.

Yes that too. There has been more venezuelan inmigration recently and they absulutely hate communism. And to think they are coming here but decades ago they were so prosperous and had a lot of potential.

>decades ago they were so prosperous

bullshit.

...

wena nido

> Venezuela's like cut at 2014

Where do you guys think it is on the chart these days with Nicolas "el conductor" Maduro?

>Best Latino country
>not United States

>people actually think this
Russia didn't have their revolution because they were rich, they had a revolution because they were poor. Millennials are 20% poorer than boomers were at the same age, and have way more debt from college and housing costs while barriers to entry for most careers have risen. That is why people are dissatisfied with capitalism.

the "puerto rico and panama are good countries" meme has to stop already.

>puerto rico
American clay.

>panama
The reason it's wealthy is because it's a tax haven, exactly like Switzerland or Luxembourg.
Also:
>be panama
>get paper'd

>uruguay
Shitty copy of Brazil.

Weren't colombians the ones migrating there in the past as opposed as today? I thought Venezuela had a good economy in the 80's and before that too.

dat Greek bubble starting at 2000

>Weren't colombians the ones migrating there in the past

yeah, because something they call violence.

It was scary to grow up here.

>uruguay
>Shitty copy of Brazil

you really shouldn't talk about things you know jack shit about.

It's probably better than Brazil, but you can't compare Uruguay with Chile, Che.

It most be bellow Colombia by now.

>>commies make the country good after being one of the worse shitholes in latin america

The transition between feudalism and industrialization between WW1 and WW2 for Russia was not Communism that got them there. It was more aptly planned and strategically targeted capitalism like China's current system and the US during the mid to late 1800s.

Communism post industrialization has been a complete and utter failure every time it's been tried. The only reason why pre-industrialization government planning works is because capitalism has already laid the groundwork for how to achieve the next level of modernization.

Chile confirmed communist wtf i hate chile naw

you again!

I couldn't give a flying fuck about chile, Uruguay is nothing like Brazil, they don't even speak the same language.

I'm not defending communism, I'm center left. I have no qualms about saying communism utterly failed and shouldn't be tried again.

I'm just saying, there's deeper reason that people are disaffected with the current implementation of capitalism than "they're just le spoiled rich kids".

Almost all of what corruption and cheating in the stystem that occurs under modern capitalistic neo-liberalist countries in the west is because of the potential for private entities to exploit the existence of government.

The bailouts and "Stimulus packages" were absolute horseshit corporate welfare but they could occur because corporations actually trick lefties in to expanding the government.

Clinton signed a bill back in the 90s that pretty much caused the housing crisis because it guaranteed the government would back defaulted mortgage loans for banks if they hand them out to irresponsible lazy poor people, and liberals went along with it because it was sold as "Yay! Poor people get to afford houses!", and the banks just went to town on this handing out loans to any retard they could find since the government gave them a safety net, and 15 years later we had a huge bubble pop which caused the biggest recession in ages.

The banks were obviously unethetical, but the government is what enabled it in the first place. If you take away the motivation to be responsible, people will stop being responsible, and it's true for corporations as well.

>actually being a libertarian
There were a lot of different factors that caused the housing crisis, leftists and rightists contributed pretty equally to it.

The government is not the primary reason corporations act unethically. Corporations were acting unethically long before the welfare state. And it's a two way relationship between the government and corporations today, corporations enable the state just as much as the state enables the corporations.

>le poor people are just lazy meme
Kys

> Implying Uruguayan people have Brazilian culture and speak Portuguese
...

>libertarians hate the poor

Nice try Camila Vallejo.

Wrong image, but whatever

What am I supposed to conclude when he uses that kind of rhetoric? That he loves the poor and totally doesn't blame them for the housing crisis?

¿Qué significa mae?

I'm not a libertarian because I'm not naive and ignorant of the inevitable existence of geopolitics and nation-States.

Countries compete just as much as private entities do. If you just get rid of the government entirely, we'll just ultimately form governments again because it's an optimal centralization of power and power gives you leverage to compete better. Geopolitics is capitalism in another form.

Domestically and socially though, you'd actually progress faster if you just got rid of social spending entirely, but that's basically impossible, and they do serve a purpose of keeping the portion of the populace with very little ability or ambition to achieve in life content enough to not attempt a stupid Revolution or feel motivated enough to even vote. That's why liberals don't vote but right-wingers do. So many of them are just too fucking lazy. They'd win every damn election if all of them actually voted.

It's all about being pragmatic.

I think we already had this argument yesterday.

The fact of the matter though us that most white liberals are very well off finacially and socialism would ironically fuck them over. Also capitalism is better than socialism at dealing with scarcity of resources. There are legit retards who think undet socialism everyone would magically own an iPhone.

>mae
No soy tico

>I'm not a libertarian because I'm not naive and ignorant of the inevitable existence of geopolitics and nation-States.
Libertarians don't ignore that dumbass we are not anarchists.

Maybe you had it with someone else, because I don't remember it.

>I'm not a libertarian
>I'm a speshul snowflake who just happens to agree with libertarians economically
Idk why you even hold pseudo social Darwinist views when authoritarian regimes like Pinochet's always end up getting overthrown because they're unstable. Darwinism selects against them.

Look at the actual data for how people voted by socio economic status. Poor people voted for Clinton, rich people voted for Trump. And yes, rich people would get fucked over by Soviet style socialism. But western European style socialism benefits a lot of rich people, my family included.

Also meant to reply here

A free economy helps everyone, not just the rich. A poor person today lives like a king in the past or even better. Just because someone doesn't believe in material equality doesn't mean we are evil. Making resources and products more aviable for everyone is a good thing.

Greece... I...

I don't hate the poor. Both my parents were poor. They worked their asses off to move up in the world. I do however dislike laziness, and a lot of people are poor simply because they don't give effort in life.

Some people can motivate themselves, but a lot of people need to be motivated by outside forces. Even the commies knew their system would work without threatening people with the gulag. Capitalism is the most humane version of getting people to work because it's all on yourself to succeed in life.

It's not lack of empathy, it's just experience. Far more people suffer and die from naive idealism than under "mean old capitalism". The best way to help people is teaching them to help themselves.

If you genuinely believe that then I don't think you hate the poor. My problem was with the other guy who clearly resented the poor because liberals sympathized with them too much.

So major spikes in unemployment are caused by people just deciding to be lazy all at once? Sure, some poor people are lazy, but you'll find that in all economic brackets. I grew up in a very upper middle class school and there were a lot of lazy, entitled rich kids.

The fact that the poverty rate can go down because of non libertarian government policy shows that poverty isn't just caused by people being lazy.

And my grandpa pulled himself out of poverty too and built up a lot of wealth that I still benefit from. But he was only able to do that because of government programs.

>lazy, entitled rich kids.
First generation rich people do not tend to be like this

Spikes in unemployment are inevitable in capitalism but they happen for a good reason. If an industry or job can't exist without the government subsidizing them, it's probably an inefficient use of resources and the job shouldn't exist in the first place.

We could employ everyone if we reverted to feudalism and sent everyone out to work in the fields, but that'd be completely pointless.

Teachers constantly lobby the government for higher wages, but no increase in spending has ever made the quality of their performances better. Teacher is just about the easiest comfy job you can have. They have no insentive to educate their students better, they get loads of vacation time, and work very short hours with good pay.

Our public education system sucks, but our colleges are fucking top notch. College professors actually have their salaries based on performance, while lower education teachers can play movies every day in their class and keep their jobs and get paid the same as somebody who actually wants to teach their students valuable skills.

I don't even know where to begin with this one. You do know that most of our colleges are state schools, and college professors have unions and get a ton of privileges that provide "perverse" incentives? Like how hard it is for them to lose their jobs after they've worked for a few years.

The quality of college education in the US is still primarily fueled by competition, just in a more complex and nuanced way.

State funding of colleges is inherently competitive because how much money they get is determined by how well they do, how many successful graduates they've produced, and how well they able to push the government to fund them by producing state politicians and success entrepreneurs.

Also, people are actually selective about picking colleges. When you send your kids to grade school, you're in almost every case restricted by where you live and work. College is different and you normally pick the best school you can get in to regardless of location. Tuition makes up the majority of funding college get.

Third, the best universities are private Ivy League schools.

Colleges have tons of insentive to do well. public schools do not.

independence when

Negro, they are both prosper as shit.

You ARE independent.
You want to become another state tho, can't blame them really.

Pinochet was in power from 1973 to 1989
All presidents have been leftist until 2010

Students in private schools perform just as well as students OF THE SAME SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS in public schools. How would that be true it public schools were inherently flawed? And you also completely ignored my point about unions in colleges. And state funding is handled differently in different states.

Those top tier ivy league schools are mostly the best because they're so expensive that only the most dedicated people can afford to go there.

b

In much of the Eastern Bloc people still like communism.

You haven't seen how shitty some capitalist countries are. Talk to someone in El Salvador or Colombia.

>A free economy helps everyone, not just the rich
"Economic freedom" is a meme. What we know as neo-liberal economics is limited to the first world and depends on the exploitation of poorer countries.

Public schools are underfunded and are qualitatively bad for multiple reasons, not least because of the fact that they're sometimes in the centers of decaying urban areas afflicted with multiple problems. It's not sufficient to just blame "muh government lack of incentives" for their shittiness.

teachers were starting to become a big problem.

>You haven't seen how shitty some capitalist countries are. Talk to someone in El Salvador or Colombia.
Ahh yes, El Salvador is surely the best example of capitalism. Sure, there are not a ton of other factors the contribute to those countries to be shitty.

>depends on the exploitation of poorer countries.
What country does Chile, Switzerland, Panama etc exploit?

>its another "LE POOR PEOPLE ARE LAZY XDDDD" poster

>Western european style socialism

they aren't socialist you idiot. the means of production are not publicly owned. they are capitalist with a massice welfare state.

Calm down autismo.

The state owned the means of production and the state were worker council representatives.

>texas leaves mexico
>we're not latino anymore guys
>lmao dudes look at our texmex

>the state owns the means of production
>90% of companies in sweden are privately owned

surely you can not be this dumb. private corporations exist out the ass in western europe

People still refer to it as socialism.

Because they're retarded. They're thinking of Social Democracy which operates within a capitalist economy.

>In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

Soviet Nostalgic eastern Europeans are basically Trump voters. It's old, non college educated, disproportionately rural people who just want to be able to get a job without having an education.

The guy I was arguing with was saying that young, urban, college educated people want communism because they're just spoiled and want even more of other people's money because capitalism has already treated them so well.

Fuck, I'm on my phone and it keeps saying "upload failed" when I try to post the picture that breaks down how Soviet nostalgic people are by age, urban/rural, education level, etc.

govt and major banks is the same thing you fuck face since govt is printing money for the banks

Post it on imgur.

m.imgur.com/A2fZpCk

can I get a source?

>Fuck, I'm on my phone and it keeps saying "upload failed"
I'm seeing a lot of reports on that from various boards, and noting it only seem to affect certain flags.

...So, maybe, a show of flags if you can upload random funny images of Chileans?

pewglobal.org/2009/11/02/chapter-7-nationalism/

They can't help the oil prices though

Nevermind the fact that it all went downhill after the commie died and the aristocrats took back power.