# Cheap, convenient and almost gone: Uber, DoorDash and similar apps



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

https://www.sfchronicle.com/enterta...nt-and-almost-gone-Uber-DoorDash-14545572.php
Normally, I don't eat a lot of takeout. But a couple of weeks ago, I started downloading food delivery apps with a vengeance.

GrubHub? Sure.

Caviar? Sounds great.

DoorDash? Why not?

As soon as I added these apps, they started sending me coupons and treats.

Five dollars off your first order, promised one. Free delivery fees for your first five orders, swore another. All offered enough for a free meal - $25, $30 or even more - if I talked someone else into signing up for their services. I also noticed that each app had an additional list of specials when I opened it, along with a suite of restaurants that provided free delivery whether I was a new customer or not.

So far, I've tried a few of them. All of them are pretty good when it comes to both cost and convenience. On the off occasion when I've been too overwhelmed to deal with making dinner, I'll scroll through the perks on offer that day and take advantage of the best deal.

I've decided to do this now because* I know all of these goodies will be disappearing very soon - from my phone, from your phone and from the overall economy.*

The reason is simple. Remember all of those IPOs that were supposed to bring a tsunami of tech wealth to wipe out what's left of the Bay Area's housing, lifestyle and culture this year?

Yeah, that's not how it went.

Uber was supposed to have the biggest IPO of the year. Instead its stock has dropped 30% since that IPO, it's laying off hundreds of employees, reporting billions of dollars' worth of losses, and fighting the state of California to avoid paying benefits to its drivers. Analysts are saying that Uber and its closest competitor, Lyft, have "no path to profitability."

WeWork - another company that was supposed to lead to massive "liquidity events" - was the latest to stumble into this crucible. For years, co-founder Adam Neumann put on a song-and-dance show so good, WeWork had a $47 billion valuation. Then regular investors got a look at the company's laughable prospectus and dreadful financials. Now Neumann is out of a job and WeWork is out of the IPO race altogether.

WeWork may be a New York-based company, but the impacts of having reality set into the consumer tech marketplace will be felt by anyone who's grown dependent on the relatively affordability of these services. That includes lots of people in the Bay Area.

Venture capitalists are talking about learning "lessons" from the WeWork debacle about "working to mitigate" risk. We recently learned Airbnb, another startup unicorn with IPO ambitions whose investors have previously touted its profitability, is actually losing money.

Unfortunately, what that means for the average consumer is that the prices and availability of all those fun, convenient services that take the edge off of urban life are about to change - dramatically.

Looking for a cheap Uber ride?

Good luck getting one of those a year from now. Just like any other public company looking to make its numbers, Uber's going to figure out how to raise prices.

Grown dependent on grocery delivery and meal kits?

I've got some bad news about *Blue Apron (valuation down 95% since its IPO)* and Instacart (we have no idea if it's profitable, but it's facing stiff competition and - let's face it - grocery delivery has historically been little more than a money suck).

Suspending the need to schedule basic daily tasks, like cooking your own meals, because you can just get another coupon from a meal delivery app?

Need I remind you how suddenly Munchery closed its on-demand meal service earlier this year?

The party can't last forever, and this isn't a tragedy. Some form of honesty - or, failing that, profitability - should remain a basic business tenet for companies looking to survive.

But at some point, the venture capital subsidies are going to run out, and we'll all be left to pay the true cost of conveniences that were, historically, luxuries.

On the one hand, it'll be interesting to watch all of these hotshot newcomers to San Francisco who thought their lives would be fashioned around commuting in an Uber and taking regular keg breaks in their cute co-working spaces realize that they'll have to learn how to ride Muni and set up a workspace at the public library.

On the other hand, I'm determined to yank every freebie out of companies while I still can.

Who'll have the better deal tonight, Postmates or Delivery.com?

_Caille Millner is a San Francisco Chronicle staff editor and writer. Email: [email protected] Twittercaillemillner_


----------



## LADriver (Aug 28, 2014)

jocker12 said:


> https://www.sfchronicle.com/enterta...nt-and-almost-gone-Uber-DoorDash-14545572.php
> Normally, I don't eat a lot of takeout. But a couple of weeks ago, I started downloading food delivery apps with a vengeance.
> 
> GrubHub? Sure.
> ...


Fable Economics. You hear it here first. You own me.


----------



## O-Side Uber (Jul 26, 2017)

Omg Moms will have to start cooking their family meals and take the kids to and from school !!!! Oh no!!! It’s the apocalypse !!!


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

She doesn’t look like a ditz but she sure as heck writes like one.


----------



## nonononodrivethru (Mar 25, 2019)

jocker12 said:


> https://www.sfchronicle.com/enterta...nt-and-almost-gone-Uber-DoorDash-14545572.php
> Normally, I don't eat a lot of takeout. But a couple of weeks ago, I started downloading food delivery apps with a vengeance.
> 
> GrubHub? Sure.
> ...


A microcosm of socialism.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

nonononodrivethru said:


> A microcosm of socialism.


What socialism?


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

nonononodrivethru said:


> A microcosm of socialism.


... actually, isn't it a microcosm of capitalism?
I mean, capitalism is doing what it does best.
It allows people to have an idea, AND TRY IT.
And, if the buyer doesn't like the offer, he has the right to not buy it.

And then if enough buyers agree 
... that great idea of a company fails.

That's capitalism.
Viva la capitalism.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

UberBastid said:


> isn't it a microcosm of capitalism?


"Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterized by social or governmental ownership" / "A system of society or group living in which there is no private property"

Again, what socialism?



UberBastid said:


> And, if the buyer doesn't like the offer, he has the right to not buy it.


So, you think in socialism, a buyer *is forced to buy* because it doesn't have another product choice?


----------



## mrpjfresh (Aug 16, 2016)

I think they all figured that because drivers happily helped finance their company using their own equity that (public) investors would simply follow suit and they'd all get rich. They miscalculated... badly. There was a good article I read recently comparing this IPO craze of money losing "tech" companies to the late 90s dot com bubble. The author summed it up by calling it the not com bubble because these companies claim they are tech companies but at their heart, they don't really do shit. Another company could easily come along with their own software and poach Uber/Lyft's entire driver and customer base. Instead of the average Joe investors who were wiped out in the dot com bubble, this time around it is the rich VC and private investors who Uber (and others) strung along and scammed into thinking they had a viable business model.

The author of this article is simply saying what I've read from other, intelligent posters on here for _years_. Uber was simply an IPO cash grab scheme and once the VC money dries up and they get their wits about them, the party of cheap, private rides will be over. It is embarrassing, quite frankly, to see corporate _still _putting on their song and dance and trying to save the unsaveable, slashing and scamming all in a desperate attempt to stop the tremendous bleed of money.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

mrpjfresh said:


> I think they all figured that because drivers happily helped finance their company using their own equity that (public) investors would simply follow suit and they'd all get rich. They miscalculated... badly. There was a good article I read recently comparing this IPO craze of money losing "tech" companies to the late 90s dot com bubble. The author summed it up by calling it the not com bubble because these companies claim they are tech companies but at their heart, they don't really do shit. Another company could easily come along with their own software and poach Uber/Lyft's entire driver and customer base. Instead of the average Joe investors who were wiped out in the dot com bubble, this time around it is the rich VC and private investors who Uber (and others) strung along and scammed into thinking they had a viable business model.
> 
> The author of this article is simply saying what I've read from other, intelligent posters on here for _years_. Uber was simply an IPO cash grab scheme and once the VC money dries up and they get their wits about them, the party of cheap, private rides will be over. It is embarrassing, quite frankly, to see corporate _still _putting on their song and dance and trying to save the unsaveable, slashing and scamming all in a desperate attempt to stop the tremendous bleed of money.


"A key issue here is that "tech" has morphed from one element of a larger business toolkit into a *quasi-ideological/religious "movement" *based on inherent virtues that the "non-tech" world lacks. As the broader Silicon Valley world has convinced itself that it is the avatar of progress and economic growth, and that "industry disruption" is virtuous regardless of actual impacts, most of the journalists and industry analysts embedded in that world have devolved from critical, objective thinkers to advocates and cheerleaders for "our side."Uber's narrative was designed to evoke these *emotive/tribal loyalties*, by portraying itself as *the heroic defender of progress*, *innovation and disruption*, engaged in mortal battle with the "evil taxi cartel" and the corrupt government regulators fighting to prevent the entrepreneurs who were using advanced technology to provide the world with better taxi service at lower prices. Despite hard evidence ($3 billion losses in year seven, massive failure of Uber China, no efficiency or scale driven margin improvements) many find it difficult to abandon the framing they bought into years ago."

Uber kept making losses while maintaining credibility for bringing "the future" in some form or other.

- Uber has a nice business as a status product (Uber Black Car ~ 2010)
- Uber Black may not be profitable, but Uber will displace taxis and be hugely profitable because of technology-driven efficiencies (UberX: 2014-2015)
- UberX may not be profitable, but UberPool will lead to new efficiencies in mass transit (2015-2016)
- UberX may not be profitable, but Uber is a logistics company and will rewrite the rules of delivery (UberEats, various speculative stories, 2013-2015)
- UberPool may not be profitable, but when Uber displaces car ownership the scale of the market will make it profitable (2016)
- Uber with drivers may not be profitable, but driverless cars will make Uber profitable (2014-)
- Driverless cars may not be profitable, but Uber is looking into flying vehicles (2016)


----------



## nonononodrivethru (Mar 25, 2019)

UberBastid said:


> ... actually, isn't it a microcosm of capitalism?
> I mean, capitalism is doing what it does best.
> It allows people to have an idea, AND TRY IT.
> And, if the buyer doesn't like the offer, he has the right to not buy it.
> ...


Free stuff is exciting until it runs out.


----------



## troothequalstroll (Oct 12, 2019)

mrpjfresh said:


> I think they all figured that because drivers happily helped finance their company using their own equity that (public) investors would simply follow suit and they'd all get rich. They miscalculated... badly. There was a good article I read recently comparing this IPO craze of money losing "tech" companies to the late 90s dot com bubble. The author summed it up by calling it the not com bubble because these companies claim they are tech companies but at their heart, they don't really do shit. Another company could easily come along with their own software and poach Uber/Lyft's entire driver and customer base. Instead of the average Joe investors who were wiped out in the dot com bubble, this time around it is the rich VC and private investors who Uber (and others) strung along and scammed into thinking they had a viable business model.
> 
> The author of this article is simply saying what I've read from other, intelligent posters on here for _years_. Uber was simply an IPO cash grab scheme and once the VC money dries up and they get their wits about them, the party of cheap, private rides will be over. It is embarrassing, quite frankly, to see corporate _still _putting on their song and dance and trying to save the unsaveable, slashing and scamming all in a desperate attempt to stop the tremendous bleed of money.


anyone with 1 million to just burn could bury both uber lyft in less than a month just running ads that expose the truth

most people dont like burning that much money

with about 440 million someone could capture 100% of uber lyfts "business" run them out of existence & profit about 400 million per year

most dont want to spend 400 million to be a cab company

uber lyft is nothing but a ponzi scam pure organized crime anyone whos ever driven more than a week knows its 90% fraud


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

jocker12 said:


> So, you think in socialism, a buyer *is forced to buy* because it doesn't have another product choice?


Yes, since in a socialist system all capital (and production) is owned by the government ... yes. If two models of washing machines are made this year. you have a choice between two models made by the same manufacturer. So, no choice.



nonononodrivethru said:


> Free stuff is exciting until it runs out.


Every socialist experiment in the last 50 years has proven that.
Venezuela is learning it right now.
They eating their pets.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

UberBastid said:


> Yes, since in a socialist system all capital (and production) is owned by the government ...


I am sorry to disappoint you.

Which system do you prefer, socialism or communism? Sweden or China?

First, as the definition defines it, socialism is social or government ownership. "Since the Great Depression, Swedish national politics has largely been dominated by the* Social Democratic Workers' Party,* which has held a plurality (and sometimes a majority) in parliament since 1917." - so all the political and economical dominant is socialist even if the frame is a constitutional monarchy, with Carl XVI Gustaf as a king.
"Over 1,300 U.S. companies are present in Sweden, and Sweden is the top location in the Nordics for regional coverage. "

If you want to understand (by witnessing from the distance) how shopping is in a Swedish supermarket, you can watch this video (starting from min.2:29 )





Their supermarket is basically SIMILAR to an American supermarket.

Getting to your "washing machine" example, the Swedish manufacturers are
*Electrolux* (The Electrolux trade name embodies home and professional appliances crafted by the Sweden-based Electrolux Group. This enterprise is the second largest appliance manufacturer in the world with 40 million products sold to 150 countries annually. Aside from Electrolux, other brand names utilized by the company include AEG, Eureka, Frigidaire, Kelvinator, and Zanussi.),
and
*Asko *(Asko is a trade name utilized by the Asko Appliances AB. The company was initiated by a Swedish farmer in 1950 at Vara, Sweden with a washing machine as its first product. Its foremost vision was then was to make an energy- and water-efficient machine that met household standards.)

On *Electrolux*'s website are currently listed *8 washing machine models*, and *ASKO*'s has ...... *17 models* for the Swedish consumers (note the Swedish language on the swedish section of their website)

So WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Second, let's check the cellphone production for China, if you please.

According to the Wikipedia page showing the "List of mobile phone brands by country", *China has 29 brands*

China10.Ormanufactured by Huaqin Telecom Technology Co. Ltd.ChinaAmoiChinaBBKChinaCoolpadsubsidiary of LeEcoChinaCubotChinaGfiveChinaGioneeChinaHaierChinaHisenseChinaHonorsub-brand of HuaweiChinaHuaweiChinaKonkaChinaLeEcoChinaLenovoChinaMeizuChinaNingbo BirdChinaOnePlussubsidiary of BBKChinaOpposubsidiary of BBKChinaSmartisanChinaTCL CorporationChinaTechnology Happy LifeChinaTecno MobileChinaVivosubsidiary of BBKChinaVsunChinaWasamChinaXiaomiChinaZopo MobileChinaZTEChinaZUK Mobile

while the *US has only 13 brands*

United StatesAppleUnited StatesBLU ProductsUnited StatesCaterpillarUnited StatesEssential ProductsUnited StatesFireflyUnited StatesGarminUnited StatesGoogleUnited StatesHPUnited StatesInFocusUnited StatesInfoSonics[2]United StatesMotorola Mobilitysubsidiary of LenovoUnited StatesObi WorldphoneUnited StatesNextbit

Again, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Socialism, my friend, is not about consumer choices, as you wrongly think and post misinformation around here, is about OWNERSHIP (which has NOTHING to do with the product offer and consumer choices, by the way).

And when we go back to Uber, Lyft, rideshare and the gig economy, I am asking you again - What Socialism?


----------



## Matt Uterak (Jul 28, 2015)

Hmmm. I always thought Electrolux was British. Probably because that is the brand my English and Irish relatives owned. Funny how kids make leaps based on little evidence.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

UberBastid said:


> Venezuela is learning it right now.


Oh, and by the way, Venezuela is in the hole not primarily because is a socialist country , but because .... and make sure you sit down - "The proven *oil reserves in Venezuela* are recognized as the largest in the world, totaling 297 billion barrels" and "The 2019 edition of the BP Statistical Review of World Energy reports the total proved reserves of 303.3 billion barrels for Venezuela and 297.7 billion barrels for Saudi Arabia", and somebody (I know, right?) wants to make sure that oil is going to get sold only for US dollars, and not for a different currency.

You better take a break, grab a coffee or a tea and dig this - https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-a-petrodollar-3306358 and this https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeuro


----------



## ABC123DEF (Jun 9, 2015)

mrpjfresh said:


> I think they all figured that because drivers happily helped finance their company using their own equity that (public) investors would simply follow suit and they'd all get rich. They miscalculated... badly. There was a good article I read recently comparing this IPO craze of money losing "tech" companies to the late 90s dot com bubble. The author summed it up by calling it the not com bubble because these companies claim they are tech companies but at their heart, they don't really do shit. Another company could easily come along with their own software and poach Uber/Lyft's entire driver and customer base. Instead of the average Joe investors who were wiped out in the dot com bubble, this time around it is the rich VC and private investors who Uber (and others) strung along and scammed into thinking they had a viable business model.
> 
> The author of this article is simply saying what I've read from other, intelligent posters on here for _years_. Uber was simply an IPO cash grab scheme and once the VC money dries up and they get their wits about them, the party of cheap, private rides will be over. It is embarrassing, quite frankly, to see corporate _still _putting on their song and dance and trying to save the unsaveable, slashing and scamming all in a desperate attempt to stop the tremendous bleed of money.


I'd LOVE to read the article that you mentioned...if you can find a link!


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

ABC123DEF said:


> I'd LOVE to read the article that you mentioned...if you can find a link!


Here is one (Not sure if it's the same one. If paywall, open in a private window)
Unprofitable Companies Are Raising the Most IPO Cash Since the Dot-Com Era


----------



## troothequalstroll (Oct 12, 2019)

UberBastid said:


> Yes, since in a socialist system all capital (and production) is owned by the government ... yes. If two models of washing machines are made this year. you have a choice between two models made by the same manufacturer. So, no choice.
> 
> 
> Every socialist experiment in the last 50 years has proven that.
> ...


& 20% of kids in amerikkka go to bed hungry, 120+ million on food stamps

all isms work on paper, capitalism only benefits 1% of people & supposedly its the best lol

till an ism comes out that benefits 50.1% of people they all fail

im sure eating dog or cat is healthier than fast food, processes food, factory farmed tortured meat, & whatever craps in the impossible incredible franken crapp they trying to shove down peoples throats

plus i love me some genral tsos cat i mean chicken


----------



## nonononodrivethru (Mar 25, 2019)

jocker12 said:


> Here is one (Not sure if it's the same one. If paywall, open in a private window)
> Unprofitable Companies Are Raising the Most IPO Cash Since the Dot-Com Era


You are a fool. Socialism is free stuff. Socialism is political bureaucrats stealing money from the producers of wealth and destroying any and all incentives for investment and innovation. Socialism is "one for you, three for me" politicians who CAN'T make money on their own, so they seize it from others. Socialism is Bernie Sanders who has never made a penny of anything but public money. Socialism is a brain drain. Socialism is what gave France their worst economy in centuries with Francois Hollande. Socialism is the looming lesson for all millennials that will blow up in their faces when the economy is trashed and you're all unemployed.

There are opportunities for a new direction . . . maybe a hundred years from now. BUT WE AIN'T THERE YET.

Half of the world has barely learned to read. Critical thinking is not your generation's strength. If a global conflict came, you would shit your pants.


----------



## amazinghl (Oct 31, 2018)

Last couple of times, I looked at airbnb prices, it was more expensive than a standard hotel for 2 people. I got a hotel room instead.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

nonononodrivethru said:


> You are a fool.


If your comment is not sarcasm, I'll be very, very, very careful, because my comment you are reacting to, has no "socialism" reference. It's a Bloomberg article/comparison about/between the dot.com IPO's and today's IPO's.



nonononodrivethru said:


> Socialism is free stuff.


In capitalism, when the consumer gets free stuff, the consumer is the product.
In socialism, the only free stuff is labor, situations in which (to give an example) teenagers are exempt from school en masse because the entire school was scheduled to harvest the strawberries or the grapes, while the agricultural workers (organized in state-controlled cooperatives) were on strike.


----------



## nonononodrivethru (Mar 25, 2019)

jocker12 said:


> If your comment is not sarcasm, I'll be very, very, very careful, because my comment you are reacting to, has no "socialism" reference. It's a Bloomberg article/comparison about/between the dot.com IPO's and today's IPO's.
> 
> In capitalism, when the consumer gets free stuff, the consumer is the product.
> In socialism, the only free stuff is labor, situations in which (to give an example) teenagers are exempt from school en masse because the entire school was scheduled to harvest the strawberries or the grapes, while the agricultural workers (organized in state-controlled cooperatives) were on strike.


I'm reacting to all of your comments. And this comment simply further reinforces my opinion that you are a fool. I don't care what a Bloomberg article says; the very peddlers of socialism are the liberal scum who would benefit financially from it. It's changing the rules after you've already made your wealth. It's turning the current liberal wealth into an aristocracy. Go learn a little bit of history.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

nonononodrivethru said:


> And this comment simply further reinforces my opinion that you are a fool.


Would you agree with this statement - "_Socialism is not about consumer choices; is about OWNERSHIP (which has NOTHING to do with the product offer and consumer choices, by the way)._"



nonononodrivethru said:


> the very peddlers of socialism are the liberal scum


So, socialists are liberals? (Please give me an example from that history you say you know, oh, so well.) - I'm afraid you've got them all mixed up, so better say was sarcasm and I'll welcome it.


----------



## troothequalstroll (Oct 12, 2019)

nonononodrivethru said:


> You are a fool. Socialism is free stuff. Socialism is political bureaucrats stealing money from the producers of wealth and destroying any and all incentives for investment and innovation. Socialism is "one for you, three for me" politicians who CAN'T make money on their own, so they seize it from others. Socialism is Bernie Sanders who has never made a penny of anything but public money. Socialism is a brain drain. Socialism is what gave France their worst economy in centuries with Francois Hollande. Socialism is the looming lesson for all millennials that will blow up in their faces when the economy is trashed and you're all unemployed.
> 
> There are opportunities for a new direction . . . maybe a hundred years from now. BUT WE AIN'T THERE YET.
> 
> Half of the world has barely learned to read. Critical thinking is not your generation's strength. If a global conflict came, you would shit your pants.


yeah i guess the automakers, homebuilders, banks, insurance companies, tesla, airlines, amazon, walmart didnt get bailed out with trillions(corporate welfare socialism) get tax subsidies from tax payers so they wouldnt all go out of business

the last 700+ billion bailout so "companies" wouldnt go bankrupt could of put solar panels on every roof in amerikkka that could benefit employing millions & reducing peoples bills, energy dependence, benefit the environment, but of course tesla, ford, gm, aig, fanny may, freddie mac all deserved it more because if their great business accumen lol

capitalism isnt working for anyone but crooks

no actual business can compete look at tv all the apps are offering free delivery who can compete with free, free trial get a free mattress delivered, first ride free, free scooter rental, buy a phone get 1 free, notebooks, tvs all less than costs because they comevpreloaded with adware stalkerware "free trial" programs, this is all predatory illegal & unsustainable

real humans cant give out free products & services all day to compete


----------



## nonononodrivethru (Mar 25, 2019)

The drivel on this thread is why all of you want handouts.

What's the population of Sweden? Demographics? Iceland? Denmark?

Idiots.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

nonononodrivethru said:


> The drivel on this thread is why all of you want handouts.


Whynot address and clarify your confusing statements before moving forward - "So, socialists are liberals? (Please give me an example from that history you say you know, oh, so well.)"


----------



## nonononodrivethru (Mar 25, 2019)

If you seriously think that I need to explain that socialists are liberals, then you are absolutely out of your mind.

Socialism has its roots in communism. Conservatism and communism do not go hand-in-hand. Liberalism and communism, however, do go hand-in-hand.

How far removed from reality are you to not realize that socialism is basically extreme liberalism?

Name me one conservative in the modern era that runs on a socialist platform? Are you on crazy pills?


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

nonononodrivethru said:


> If you seriously think that I need to explain that socialists are liberals


Trolling and narcissism don't compensate for the lack of education. When knowledge is replaced by fantasies, one can say we live on Mars, drink chlorophyll and photosynthesize like plants.

A simple Google search for "famous American liberals" (to keep it familiar) returns big names like George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison or Benjamin Franklin. Have you heard about them?.... Because according to your "logic" all of them were.... get ready for it.... socialists.

Also, the most famous socialists like Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels or Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, according to "your" logic" were ... cough, cough.... liberals (and I have to cover my face because this is the funniest joke I've ever heard in a very long time).

More than that, by saying liberals are socialists (and vice-versa), consequently (according to the same brilliant "logic") socialism is liberalism, and socialist countries like Venezuela, China, North Korea or Vietnam (to mention a few) are .... and I bet nobody will be able to keep a straight face to this one .... LIBERAL countries? Hahahaha.....

Have you ever heard about ANARCHISM?
"_Anarchists tend to see capitalism as a system of abuse and exploitation, an unjust, coercive system through which the property-owning ruling classes steal from working people and monopolize wealth._" while "_Libertarians, on the other hand, are its diehard defenders, the "radicals for capitalism,"_
*Now pay attention* - "_So while both *anarchism and libertarianism* want a free society, they appear to call for diametrically opposed economic systems, *socialism and capitalism* respectively_."

*Socialism and communism are about the collective* - "_the doctrinaire, authoritarian, dictatorial, governmental communist system is based on the principle that the individual is essentially subordinate to the collective; that from it alone he has his right and life; that the citizen belongs to the State like a child to the family_" (remember the Borg in the Star Trek movies? - it was the symbol of socialism/communism as a deadly threat to the "United Federation of Planets" - the symbol of capitalism)

*Liberalism is about the individual, *so one can call it "individualism" as opposed to socialism.

Your current confusion comes from the current American political situation (I think you mentioned Bernie), but Bernie is not a liberal, but an independent. On top of that, the political spectrum kept repeating to the American public using heavy and constant propaganda, how the Liberal Party members are liberals, and most of the American people started to really believe that. Problem is, most of the Liberal Party members ARE NOT liberals. You were duped, my friend. That's why you think liberals are socialists and probably conservatives are environmentalists or nationalists.

Follow your own advice, and


nonononodrivethru said:


> Go learn a little bit of history.


Good luck! (because you need it!)


----------



## nonononodrivethru (Mar 25, 2019)

jocker12 said:


> Trolling and narcissism don't compensate for the lack of education. When knowledge is replaced by fantasies, one can say we live on Mars, drink chlorophyll and photosynthesize like plants.
> 
> A simple Google search for "famous American liberals" (to keep it familiar) returns big names like George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison or Benjamin Franklin. Have you heard about them?.... Because according to your "logic" all of them were.... get ready for it.... socialists.
> 
> ...


Dude, learn the difference between classical liberalism and modern day liberals.

This is the education you get when you teach yourself online with Wikipedia.

You're not even worth discussing with at this point.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

nonononodrivethru said:


> Dude, learn the difference between classical liberalism and modern day liberals.
> 
> This is the education you get when you teach yourself online with Wikipedia.
> 
> You're not even worth discussing with at this point.


Whoops.

Now you know what socialism and liberalism are and you're not scared of the dark anymore.

Remember how I've asked you to give examples, and you came back with nothing?

Now we know why!


----------



## nonononodrivethru (Mar 25, 2019)

jocker12 said:


> Whoops.
> 
> Now you know what socialism and liberalism are and you're not scared of the dark anymore.
> 
> ...


Jesus, dude. To compare modern day liberalism to classical liberalism is the most idiotic thing I can imagine.

The framers of the US Constitution and Marx would have ZERO common ground.

I could write an essay on how the Democratic party has evolved into the socialist party and you still wouldn't listen or understand. You're a fourth-rate shuckster.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

nonononodrivethru said:


> the very peddlers of socialism are the liberal scum





nonononodrivethru said:


> Liberalism and communism, however, do go hand-in-hand.


Those Pokemons you're collecting, the liberal ones and the socialist ones, in that augmented or virtual reality you consider "education", are the same and go hand in hand.

Get a book without pictures, and torture yourself by reading it.


----------



## nonononodrivethru (Mar 25, 2019)

jocker12 said:


> Those Pokemons you're collecting, the liberal ones and the socialist ones, in that augmented or virtual reality you consider "education", are the same and go hand in hand.
> 
> Get a book without pictures, and torture yourself by reading it.


Liberalism started becoming extreme socialism with FDR. Modern day liberalism is estranged from its libertarian beginnings.

There hasn't been a liberal constitutionalist in politics in over 100 years.

Socialism is the antithesis of classical liberalism in that it champions more government surveillance and big brother state in the name of social justice. Which is only one of the reasons that contemporary liberals, much like yourself, are completely clueless.

This does not change the fact that contemporary liberals are morphing into fascist communists and they can't even see it.

Liberal vs conservative now more closely aligns to a liberal interpretation of the Constitution vs a conservative framers' intent interpretation of the Constitution. Or progressive hysteria vs conservative prudence.

Liberals now have zero interest in the individual. They are interested in leveling the individual in the name of the collective. They are only interested in the supposed rights of the insane and the so called oppressed--whose rights have never been in jeopardy, only other people's opinions of their depraved, idiotic states of mind; and opinions are protected by the very Constitution that gives them the right to act like hedonistic, self-important fools.

The Constitution does not protect idiots from the truth. The Constitution does not punish the healthy to support the dregs or the fools. Born equal does not guarantee an equal outcome. The healthy are not to blame for the lame and the insane.

Delusion has been attempted as social policy many times in the past. This is nothing new. It never ends well.


----------

