Of course it's a "stretch". Your intellectual dishonesty stems from a clear refusal to acknowledge that there is almost ALWAYS a difference between theory and practice, especially when dealing with human behavior.
It's not a stretch at all because it's NOT theory. The elements are shown to work IN PRACTICE. That's what you're not getting. They simply haven't been combined in a real life scenario as you seem to suggest is the only thing that matters, which isn't true.
The fact that you don't even recognize your communication style as "arrogance" shows a pathological lack of self-awareness.
Perhaps you should consider that your personal interpretation of my alleged arrogance is an ASSUMPTION on your part. Assuming anything leaves you open to drawing incorrect conclusions, as you've done here.
I'm merely presenting information in a logical manner. If you want to add things in on your own, assume information that isn't there, make assumptions and jump to conclusions, it's on you when you're incorrect, as you are here. There is no arrogance - only your assumption that it exists because it conveniently fits the mold you want to use to attack me.
Try addressing the actual issues instead of focusing on an agenda of personal attack and you might not make those kinds of mistakes.
Just for kicks, tell us all about a time in recorded history where an economic theory worked perfectly within a given population.
No economic theory works perfectly, and I've never suggested that it would. I'm simply saying the proper form of socialism would be much better than the current form of modern American capitalism, which isn't a difficult conclusion to come to if you know anything about economics (especially considering the problems with modern American capitalism right now).
That's never happened. Even the US is a blend of capitalism and socialism.
In a very broad sense, yes, socialism is mixed into modern American capitalism. However, its effects on the whole system are very small, as the wealthy still have all the power to use their wealth to gain more wealth and stay in power.
You've presented a number of statements as "fact", but when those statements are questioned, or you are asked to provide some evidence to back up your statements, you either dismiss the questions as (a) irrelevant, or (b) having already been answered but that the respondent is not capable of understanding your answers because of intellectual inferiority.
NO. Go back and read the thread. There are several instances where I've given specific pieces of information, some of which were specifically asked for, and yet there has been no response to it at all (as I've said, how convenient). You're doing it again right now.
You keep chiding me and others for personal attacks against you. Yet you continuously keep pointing out your superior knowledge (and everybody else's inferior knowledge) on the subject at hand. Your arrogance is a personal attack on everybody who dares question or challenge you. Pot, meet the kettle.
I am merely stating the facts about my own background and knowledge.
You are ASSUMING I think it means I'm superior, which is incorrect.
You are ASSUMING I think everyone else is inferior, which is incorrect.
You are INFERRING arrogance from those ASSUMPTIONS, making it an incorrect inference.
None of those things actually exist except in the minds of those who would rather attack me than have a real debate.
You have continuously refused to answer direct questions with direct answers throughout this thread. Yet you have claimed "victory" from your series of unsubstantiated statements and unproven theories..
When I have given direct answers to direct questions, they are ignored in favor of personal attacks, as you are doing right now yet again. I grow tired of the foolish and childish nature of it all, yet like a passerby who looks at a car wreck, I can't help but be oddly entertained by it all.
The effect of incentives on human behavior are almost impossible to ignore.
That's what we've been talking about (those of us still interested in a real debate, anyway). The incentives are stronger in a proper socialist system so that all workers at a company or organization want to see it succeed because it means more for their own bottom line than in modern American capitalism where only the higher ups in large companies or the owner of a small company sees any real gain from the harder work of those below them. I discussed that at length and even provided a detailed hypothetical example that was completely ignored. If you're interested, it's still there.