door4

Sure they could. Just pay for housing for all homeless SF residents. The only reason it doesn't happen is because people with money and power don't care enough to make the material sacrifices required to solve the problem.

The Daily Mail is a tabloid and not worth responding to.

Extreme poverty halved under Chavez. The most vulnerable citizens in Venezuela (poor, indigenous Venezuelans) are the strongest supporters of the socialist government.

Venezuela has had economic problems, relating to their over-reliance on oil revenue (which has always been a problem and has nothing to do with socialism), and bad monetary policy (which again, is not at all related to socialism)

Meanwhile, the US continues to levy harsher sanctions aimed at forcing regime change (ie, so their country is run by a puppet state friendly to US capital), which only makes the crisis worse.

GDP growth under socialism was always comparable with capitalist countries. And even despite being a relatively poor country and being under embargo from the US for nearly 70 years, Cuba has a higher literacy rate and life expectancy than the United States.

Compare the development of China, which is responsible for nearly all of the poverty reduction of the last 30 years, and India, a similarly situated but more market-oriented economy victim to western Imperialism. It's night and day.

I'm not defending any of these regimes (they all certainly had problems), but the argument that socialism "doesn't work" in terms of creating a functional, growing economy is simply not consistent with the historical record. Again, despite controlling most of the global economy and being the wealthiest country in the world, the U.S still doesn't have affordable housing, livable infrastructure, reasonable work environments, and enough food for all its people. Because capitalism never has and never will provide those things.

The difference is that Denmark won't face U.S. aggression for attempting to take care of its poor, but poorer countries in the global south have and will.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...

Romania was an extremely poor country, and that has nothing to do with socialism. It was poor before socialism, and slightly less poor under socialism. Comparing it to living conditions in the U.S. is disingenuous. If this is what Bernie Sanders wants, is Bernie Sanders also planning on somehow destroying 95% of America's wealth, establishing a secret police force and enforcing one-party rule before attempting universal healthcare? Then maybe it'd look like Romania under Ceaușescu.

We have more than enough resources to provide a good living for everyone in this country. Capitalism does not do that, and never will. Only socialism will.