Your severe exaggeration weakens your critique. I read the comments here before the actual article and after reading yours I expected the article to devolve into a juvenile defense of communism at the end. The author blames the problem in part on capitalism, but there was a distinct lack of "no true Scotsman" fallacy toward socialism.
Your anti-socialism bias is far more overt and absurd than the article's vague anti-capitalism bias. You got so bent out of shape at the mere mention of socialism in a positive light that you made up an argument that the article didn't put forth just so you could accuse the author of a fallacy. I don't know what to call this. It's not even a strawman. It's intellectually dishonest.
I'm sorry that my writing isn't clear enough to differentiate between my criticism of the article whining about capitalism and then socialism good because reasons, _And_ my anticipatory response to everyone trying to defend socialism because it hasn't been done correctly yet.
This doesn't make me think more highly of your argument. You're so close-minded that your "anticipatory response" is to simply assume that no one has a defense of socialism except a "true Scotsman" appeal.
I'm also left to assume from your comments that you think socialism and communism are the same thing. The defenders of socialism rarely say that no one's done it correctly. They instead point to the myriad of socialist programs in other countries that they consider successful (e.g. Canadian healthcare, German education, even US food stamps).
The USA pays 71% of the costs of defending NATO. European socialist countries don't have to pay that, so naturally, with that subsidy, they would have no problem giving out free stuff.
The US has many socialist programs: Social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, welfare, etc. Every social program the government funds is socialist by definition.
I also feel like there's just no relevance here anyway. Greece is part of NATO and bankrupt. Norway is part of NATO and thriving. NATO membership is clearly not the major determining factor for the health of a socialist nation.
I'm having trouble deciding if I'm being trolled or if your political views are just willfully one-sided.
No, I'm just willfully educated in economics. The money has to come from somewhere. If you print it, then its going to come out of the pockets of savers.
You've succeeding in convincing me that you're not a troll. The opinions you're espousing are just too uninteresting and the non sequiturs aren't even infuriating, just pointless and confusing.
Your anti-socialism bias is far more overt and absurd than the article's vague anti-capitalism bias. You got so bent out of shape at the mere mention of socialism in a positive light that you made up an argument that the article didn't put forth just so you could accuse the author of a fallacy. I don't know what to call this. It's not even a strawman. It's intellectually dishonest.