Home› Tug Tavern

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register
Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Socialism fact of the Day: Venezuela inflation tops 43,000%

DerekJohnsonDerekJohnson Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 63,474 Founders Club
in Tug Tavern
theweek.com/speedreads/781952/minimumwage-worker-venezuela-could-afford-5-cups-coffee-each-month--nothing-else
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
«134

Comments

  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    edited June 2018
    Be afraid. Socialism is coming to a politician near you.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • YellowSnowYellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 35,396 Founders Club
    Both Norway and Venezulea are gas pump countries. Both are socialist as well. One has a higher GDP per capita than the US and the other does not.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    DerekJohnson said:

    2001400ex said:

    Be afraid. Socialism is coming to a politician near you.

    you had to edit that?
    Listen here shitdick.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • greenbloodgreenblood Member Posts: 14,412
    edited June 2018
    Also Norway is very diversified whereas oil is about 95% of Venezuela's economy.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Pitchfork51Pitchfork51 Member Posts: 26,949
    does the state own everything in norway?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    Pitchfork51 said:

    does the state own everything in norway?

    Someone here understands socialism. What politician in America is asking for the state to own everything?

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • YellowSnowYellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 35,396 Founders Club
    UW_Doog_Bot said:

    YellowSnow said:

    Both Norway and Venezulea are gas pump countries. Both are socialist as well. One has a higher GDP per capita than the US and the other does not.

    No, no es socialismo.

    The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism

    and for a whole host of other reasons I could cite. Norway is closer to the petro-state model of the middle east than it is to Venezuela. It's a false equivalence to point to both as examples of the same economic model.
    Semantics. Then we need to reach an agreement in the Tug about what is "socialism" and what is "communism". Yella Snow rules have always been that if there is wealth transfer payments involved- e.g., welfare state in the US and the social democracies of Europe - then this is mixed economy, socialism. State ownership of means of production and heavy central planning = communism.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • WilburHooksHandsWilburHooksHands Member Posts: 6,801
    To Doogbot's article's point, only real fucktards want means of production to be run by the state. APAG already summed this up in another thread, but a mix of capitalist and welfare elements are probably the ideal. Venezuela bullshit is a Hondo play by the conservative crowd.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • YellowSnowYellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 35,396 Founders Club
    UW_Doog_Bot said:

    WilburHooksHands said:

    To Doogbot's article's point, only real fucktards want means of production to be run by the state. APAG already summed this up in another thread, but a mix of capitalist and welfare elements are probably the ideal. Venezuela bullshit is a Hondo play by the conservative crowd.

    The "Scandinavian" model is a Hondo take by the progressive crowd. It's a 10,000 ft view of a mixed economy that is rich from selling a resource to the rest of the world that progressives try to point to as "successful democratic socialism" even though it's no such thing.

    I don't agree that a mix of capitalism and (state run) welfare are the ideal. I think the government is inherently a terrible buying agent and is nothing but super inefficient at such projects. It also restricts the freedoms of those it purports to help while distorting the market and crowding out private competition for the rest of us.

    The only times I see the government as being "the least bad option" are when you have significant negative externalities in a free market such as the military or the environment.
    Are you opposed to some amount of wealth transfer: Yay or Nay?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • YellowSnowYellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 35,396 Founders Club
    MikeDamone said:

    YellowSnow said:



    UW_Doog_Bot said:

    WilburHooksHands said:

    To Doogbot's article's point, only real fucktards want means of production to be run by the state. APAG already summed this up in another thread, but a mix of capitalist and welfare elements are probably the ideal. Venezuela bullshit is a Hondo play by the conservative crowd.

    The "Scandinavian" model is a Hondo take by the progressive crowd. It's a 10,000 ft view of a mixed economy that is rich from selling a resource to the rest of the world that progressives try to point to as "successful democratic socialism" even though it's no such thing.

    I don't agree that a mix of capitalism and (state run) welfare are the ideal. I think the government is inherently a terrible buying agent and is nothing but super inefficient at such projects. It also restricts the freedoms of those it purports to help while distorting the market and crowding out private competition for the rest of us.

    The only times I see the government as being "the least bad option" are when you have significant negative externalities in a free market such as the military or the environment.
    Are you opposed to some amount of wealth transfer: Yay or Nay?
    There are some schools of thought that a basic universal income in lieu of all the other myriad of transfer payments would have better overall outcomes. I’ve been back and forth on the idea depending on my level of alcohol consumption at any given point in time.
    I am very intrigued by UBI and believe it may become necessary because of the robot menace. The guvmint is good at writing checks but a terrible buying agent as @UW_Doog_Bot states. It's be a lot more efficient to just give people the money and let the free market work from there.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • WilburHooksHandsWilburHooksHands Member Posts: 6,801
    UW_Doog_Bot said:

    WilburHooksHands said:

    To Doogbot's article's point, only real fucktards want means of production to be run by the state. APAG already summed this up in another thread, but a mix of capitalist and welfare elements are probably the ideal. Venezuela bullshit is a Hondo play by the conservative crowd.

    The "Scandinavian" model is a Hondo take by the progressive crowd. It's a 10,000 ft view of a mixed economy that is rich from selling a resource to the rest of the world that progressives try to point to as "successful democratic socialism" even though it's no such thing.

    I don't agree that a mix of capitalism and (state run) welfare are the ideal. I think the government is inherently a terrible buying agent and is nothing but super inefficient at such projects. It also restricts the freedoms of those it purports to help while distorting the market and crowding out private competition for the rest of us.

    The only times I see the government as being "the least bad option" are when you have significant negative externalities in a free market such as the military or the environment.
    I dont disagree about "Scandanavian Socialism" either
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • YellowSnowYellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 35,396 Founders Club
    UW_Doog_Bot said:

    WilburHooksHands said:

    To Doogbot's article's point, only real fucktards want means of production to be run by the state. APAG already summed this up in another thread, but a mix of capitalist and welfare elements are probably the ideal. Venezuela bullshit is a Hondo play by the conservative crowd.

    The "Scandinavian" model is a Hondo take by the progressive crowd. It's a 10,000 ft view of a mixed economy that is rich from selling a resource to the rest of the world that progressives try to point to as "successful democratic socialism" even though it's no such thing.

    I don't agree that a mix of capitalism and (state run) welfare are the ideal. I think the government is inherently a terrible buying agent and is nothing but super inefficient at such projects. It also restricts the freedoms of those it purports to help while distorting the market and crowding out private competition for the rest of us.

    The only times I see the government as being "the least bad option" are when you have significant negative externalities in a free market such as the military or the environment.
    * Norway's wealth is largely driven by extracting a valuable natural resource. Sweden actually makes some shit that people in N. Seattle and other parts of the world want to buy. Not sure what the Danes export...cookies? Queso?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • DerekJohnsonDerekJohnson Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 63,474 Founders Club
    MikeDamone said:

    I was going to chime in but Doog Bot is putting in a Yeoman's effort here. Carry on. Is ClassicalLiberalDoog available?

    Damone chimes in to state that he's not going to chime in. It's what he likes to do.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.