Venezuela's economic failing has almost nothing to do with the system of government and almost everything to do with the price of oil. That is what happens when your economy is tied to a single, volatile commodity.
So in that case wouldn't the populations about 30 other countries be crashin' stores for in food in border towns So are you goal tending for the shit show that is socialism. I remember breadlines helped bring down the mighty Soviet Union. And wow they had a socialistic eco system too.
Why do you hate facts?
Countries like Saudi Arabia do have huge unemployment and will run out of cash for welfare if oil prices don't increase at which point they will be like Venezuela. Lots of OPEC countries are welfare states because when the government exploits natural resources for cash it goes back to the population. Since oil is about the only thing going on in many OPEC countries they do not have diversified economies and without oil the economic backbone crumbles. Without oil they'd all be shepherds but they have lost that so without oil jobs they have no jobs and without oil money the government isn't funded to carry them. You look at Venezuela as one end member where it has already collapsed, Saudi Arabia in the middle which has high unemployment and is depleting cash reserves and Norway on the other end (oil exporting but non-OPEC welfare state) which aside from having managed their oil fund well, has a much more diversified economy and is doing fine.
Now look at the socialist mecca of Houston where I live and with oil prices down unemployment has increased by 14% in the past year (although it is still a pretty modest absolute rate) and the housing market has tremendously slowed. Houston has a diversified economy much like Norway and has had unemployment from drop 4.3% to 4.9% vs Norway's 4.3% to 4.8%.
Any other questions about the reality of the world or would you just like keep playing pretend?
Uh I hit the point made above that "Venezuela's economic failing has almost nothing to do with the system of government and almost everything to do with the price of oil.". I think you took my post out of context. I was hitting Venezuela situation in particular and those countries you mentioned are not capitalistic states with diversified economies. I live in Austin Tx which has a very diversified eco in which oil and gas is a part and we are fine. So maybe having a (shitty socialistic eco system AND being a 1 commodity eco) is really the worst of both worlds.
And no, no other question as I think I can answer them just fine.
My point about Houston (the socialism thing being sarcasm) was that capitalistic economies are hurt by a dependence on a single commodity. Since Houston and Norway are more diversified than Venezuela and Saudi Arabia they are in better position, irrespective of the form of government/economic system in play. My point about Venezuela's collapse is that if they were fully capitalistic and still entirely dependent on oil they would still be fucked and that the collapse is not because they are socialistic. The merits, or lack thereof, of socialism are entirely unrelated to my thesis.
If they were fully capitalistic, it is very unlikely that they would be entirely dependent on oil.
Venezuela's economic failing has almost nothing to do with the system of government and almost everything to do with the price of oil. That is what happens when your economy is tied to a single, volatile commodity.
So in that case wouldn't the populations about 30 other countries be crashin' stores for in food in border towns So are you goal tending for the shit show that is socialism. I remember breadlines helped bring down the mighty Soviet Union. And wow they had a socialistic eco system too.
And yeah, I get it...they have no sewage! There's traffic problems! Sure, every city has problems...especially in India. And honestly, they do get the sewage out via transportation, and could form a sewage system once it's profitably.
But how can you argue with the fact that so many people in India are eager to move there? It's obviously less of a shithole than all the cities that have a functional government in that country.
It's the same shit with Somalia...Somalia is a shithole, sure...but it's become LESS of a shithole since the government was all but dismantled. That's what people fail to look at...
There are no profitable sewage systems. Some Government is needed.
Pointing to shitholes like Somalia and parts of India and how they may be a little less shitty to live in than their neighbors with the same functioning government doesn't prove anything.
There will indeed need to be some sort of hybrid economy. Capitalism is all based on growth. If it can't grow, it implodes. There are only so many resources on this planet and eventually growth will stop.
Natural resources are commodities, the prices of which are held in check by supply and demand. Scarcity of resources is a check on resource depletion. As the supply lessens, price goes up until it becomes prohibitively expensive for that resource to be used in any profitable venture. The market is then forced to come up with a more viable alternative. We saw this when the scarcity of wood drove the market to respond with the industrial revolution in the 1800s. It will happen again with oil.
Great post and you sited one example among many. Often it is scarcity or depletion that force solutions or alternatives that are better than the original technology. Free market capitalism, with a good dose of rule by law and respect for private property- including Intellectual property, is the best way to consistently find solutions to depletion and scarcity.
CEPT THAT the population has doubled in my lifetime from 4 billion to 8 billion. You can't continue double the population every 40 years and expect to have resources to take care of even those in the richer countries. The raping of these resources at the direction of the World Bank has accelerating this even at a faster rate. The math doesn't add up. I get the whole necessity is the mother of invention argument. But the industrial revolution started here in the US and there was no shortage of wood at that time, here in the US. It wasn't until the 1980's where wood shortages became a problem due to over harvest and no replant.
You can't eat Iphones, cloud data or self driving cars. Unless there are magic bullets to be invented such AS huge advancements in energy efficiency and the ability to produce abundant food supplies in areas with little to no native water, the current system will implode upon itself.
That's exactly why America went from a new country to the most successful, with agriculture and natural resources, we could be self sustaining, and we were.
Then we added in freedom to do as you wish and invent whatever. And some government investment in infrastructure, including the hated post office.
Those all led to a formula of success.
And no @Sledog, no one of influence in America is proposing to be a socialist nation. And no entitlement spending doesn't dwarf military. You do realize that military spending is like 10 times that of food stamps, right? It's amazing how much of a dream world you live in.
Uh without the military to defeat the Huns and Japs and to exert our power and survive the Cold War there is nothing here but dust in the wind
Self supporting isn't enough. Exporting is needed. We are the breadbasket of the world.
Yeah and if a major world problem like that of world War 2 appears, we can re-open the conversation about raising the military budget and intervening. Building aircraft carriers the Pentagon says they don't need and doing needless wars like Iraq and Libya is not that
It would take to long to switch to war production. Aircraft carriers take years to build, things are a bit more sophisticated than in WWII. If you don't have it uoure not going to have time to build it.
Huh? We have more in service right now and all other countries combined.
So what we have more. That's why we're the United States and at the mercy of no country. Walk softly and carry a big stick. Teddy had it right. Unfortunately we're currently being run by a fucking sissy.
Obama has done interventions in 7 different countries in 8 years. He's currently bombing the fuck out of isis, droning all over the place, and funding the Saudi coalition in yemen. He's still in Afghanistan. But I get it, he's a sissy because he didn't ground invade Syria, stay in Iraq for 50 years and nuke russia
He hasn't done shit. Odd how when others came in they killed all the trucks hauling the oil ISIS supports itself with. He purposely avoids doing much harm to them. He's on their side. He destabilized Syria for them to spread out.
Venezuela's economic failing has almost nothing to do with the system of government and almost everything to do with the price of oil. That is what happens when your economy is tied to a single, volatile commodity.
So in that case wouldn't the populations about 30 other countries be crashin' stores for in food in border towns So are you goal tending for the shit show that is socialism. I remember breadlines helped bring down the mighty Soviet Union. And wow they had a socialistic eco system too.
And yeah, I get it...they have no sewage! There's traffic problems! Sure, every city has problems...especially in India. And honestly, they do get the sewage out via transportation, and could form a sewage system once it's profitably.
But how can you argue with the fact that so many people in India are eager to move there? It's obviously less of a shithole than all the cities that have a functional government in that country.
It's the same shit with Somalia...Somalia is a shithole, sure...but it's become LESS of a shithole since the government was all but dismantled. That's what people fail to look at...
There are no profitable sewage systems. Some Government is needed.
Pointing to shitholes like Somalia and parts of India and how they may be a little less shitty to live in than their neighbors with the same functioning government doesn't prove anything.
There will indeed need to be some sort of hybrid economy. Capitalism is all based on growth. If it can't grow, it implodes. There are only so many resources on this planet and eventually growth will stop.
Natural resources are commodities, the prices of which are held in check by supply and demand. Scarcity of resources is a check on resource depletion. As the supply lessens, price goes up until it becomes prohibitively expensive for that resource to be used in any profitable venture. The market is then forced to come up with a more viable alternative. We saw this when the scarcity of wood drove the market to respond with the industrial revolution in the 1800s. It will happen again with oil.
Great post and you sited one example among many. Often it is scarcity or depletion that force solutions or alternatives that are better than the original technology. Free market capitalism, with a good dose of rule by law and respect for private property- including Intellectual property, is the best way to consistently find solutions to depletion and scarcity.
CEPT THAT the population has doubled in my lifetime from 4 billion to 8 billion. You can't continue double the population every 40 years and expect to have resources to take care of even those in the richer countries. The raping of these resources at the direction of the World Bank has accelerating this even at a faster rate. The math doesn't add up. I get the whole necessity is the mother of invention argument. But the industrial revolution started here in the US and there was no shortage of wood at that time, here in the US. It wasn't until the 1980's where wood shortages became a problem due to over harvest and no replant.
You can't eat Iphones, cloud data or self driving cars. Unless there are magic bullets to be invented such AS huge advancements in energy efficiency and the ability to produce abundant food supplies in areas with little to no native water, the current system will implode upon itself.
That's exactly why America went from a new country to the most successful, with agriculture and natural resources, we could be self sustaining, and we were.
Then we added in freedom to do as you wish and invent whatever. And some government investment in infrastructure, including the hated post office.
Those all led to a formula of success.
And no @Sledog, no one of influence in America is proposing to be a socialist nation. And no entitlement spending doesn't dwarf military. You do realize that military spending is like 10 times that of food stamps, right? It's amazing how much of a dream world you live in.
Uh without the military to defeat the Huns and Japs and to exert our power and survive the Cold War there is nothing here but dust in the wind
Self supporting isn't enough. Exporting is needed. We are the breadbasket of the world.
Yeah and if a major world problem like that of world War 2 appears, we can re-open the conversation about raising the military budget and intervening. Building aircraft carriers the Pentagon says they don't need and doing needless wars like Iraq and Libya is not that
It would take to long to switch to war production. Aircraft carriers take years to build, things are a bit more sophisticated than in WWII. If you don't have it uoure not going to have time to build it.
Huh? We have more in service right now and all other countries combined.
So what we have more. That's why we're the United States and at the mercy of no country. Walk softly and carry a big stick. Teddy had it right. Unfortunately we're currently being run by a fucking sissy.
Obama has done interventions in 7 different countries in 8 years. He's currently bombing the fuck out of isis, droning all over the place, and funding the Saudi coalition in yemen. He's still in Afghanistan. But I get it, he's a sissy because he didn't ground invade Syria, stay in Iraq for 50 years and nuke russia
He hasn't done shit. Odd how when others came in they killed all the trucks hauling the oil ISIS supports itself with. He purposely avoids doing much harm to them. He's on their side. He destabilized Syria for them to spread out.
I agree. he didn't destabilize Syria by being a sissy
Venezuela's economic failing has almost nothing to do with the system of government and almost everything to do with the price of oil. That is what happens when your economy is tied to a single, volatile commodity.
So in that case wouldn't the populations about 30 other countries be crashin' stores for in food in border towns So are you goal tending for the shit show that is socialism. I remember breadlines helped bring down the mighty Soviet Union. And wow they had a socialistic eco system too.
Why do you hate facts?
Countries like Saudi Arabia do have huge unemployment and will run out of cash for welfare if oil prices don't increase at which point they will be like Venezuela. Lots of OPEC countries are welfare states because when the government exploits natural resources for cash it goes back to the population. Since oil is about the only thing going on in many OPEC countries they do not have diversified economies and without oil the economic backbone crumbles. Without oil they'd all be shepherds but they have lost that so without oil jobs they have no jobs and without oil money the government isn't funded to carry them. You look at Venezuela as one end member where it has already collapsed, Saudi Arabia in the middle which has high unemployment and is depleting cash reserves and Norway on the other end (oil exporting but non-OPEC welfare state) which aside from having managed their oil fund well, has a much more diversified economy and is doing fine.
Now look at the socialist mecca of Houston where I live and with oil prices down unemployment has increased by 14% in the past year (although it is still a pretty modest absolute rate) and the housing market has tremendously slowed. Houston has a diversified economy much like Norway and has had unemployment from drop 4.3% to 4.9% vs Norway's 4.3% to 4.8%.
Any other questions about the reality of the world or would you just like keep playing pretend?
Uh I hit the point made above that "Venezuela's economic failing has almost nothing to do with the system of government and almost everything to do with the price of oil.". I think you took my post out of context. I was hitting Venezuela situation in particular and those countries you mentioned are not capitalistic states with diversified economies. I live in Austin Tx which has a very diversified eco in which oil and gas is a part and we are fine. So maybe having a (shitty socialistic eco system AND being a 1 commodity eco) is really the worst of both worlds.
And no, no other question as I think I can answer them just fine.
My point about Houston (the socialism thing being sarcasm) was that capitalistic economies are hurt by a dependence on a single commodity. Since Houston and Norway are more diversified than Venezuela and Saudi Arabia they are in better position, irrespective of the form of government/economic system in play. My point about Venezuela's collapse is that if they were fully capitalistic and still entirely dependent on oil they would still be fucked and that the collapse is not because they are socialistic. The merits, or lack thereof, of socialism are entirely unrelated to my thesis.
If they were fully capitalistic, it is very unlikely that they would be entirely dependent on oil.
Hope this helps.
Venezuela is a shitty place to do business compared to most countries, but if someone wants to be an entrepreneur there they can be. If you don't want to put up with the hassle and make the money that is their choice. If the people choose to accept the economy the way it is that is their choice. The government allows them to diversify.
There is a whole lot more to "entitlements" than food stamps. Such as Section 8, Welfare, WIC, Obozo care, Obozo phones, yada yada yada.
The biggest entitlement out there is the excessive military spending that is far above and beyond what we need for self defense.
The next two biggest are insurance programs that the majority of the people favor and pay into and self fund because people pay into it.
As the NY Times reported today, red states depend more on fed spending than blue states due.
In conclusion, suck a dick.
Your source is the New York Times?
Name a more credible journalistic source with the circulation they have.
Friday Harbor Journal.
If you say so, well, actually, maybe not...
"The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization."
Wow. I bet you believe ANYTHING the NYT or any other "pulitzer prize" winner tells you. I bet they just love people like you. Question nothing they have won a Pulitzer !!! Whoopy f**king do
Venezuela's economic failing has almost nothing to do with the system of government and almost everything to do with the price of oil. That is what happens when your economy is tied to a single, volatile commodity.
So in that case wouldn't the populations about 30 other countries be crashin' stores for in food in border towns So are you goal tending for the shit show that is socialism. I remember breadlines helped bring down the mighty Soviet Union. And wow they had a socialistic eco system too.
Why do you hate facts?
Countries like Saudi Arabia do have huge unemployment and will run out of cash for welfare if oil prices don't increase at which point they will be like Venezuela. Lots of OPEC countries are welfare states because when the government exploits natural resources for cash it goes back to the population. Since oil is about the only thing going on in many OPEC countries they do not have diversified economies and without oil the economic backbone crumbles. Without oil they'd all be shepherds but they have lost that so without oil jobs they have no jobs and without oil money the government isn't funded to carry them. You look at Venezuela as one end member where it has already collapsed, Saudi Arabia in the middle which has high unemployment and is depleting cash reserves and Norway on the other end (oil exporting but non-OPEC welfare state) which aside from having managed their oil fund well, has a much more diversified economy and is doing fine.
Now look at the socialist mecca of Houston where I live and with oil prices down unemployment has increased by 14% in the past year (although it is still a pretty modest absolute rate) and the housing market has tremendously slowed. Houston has a diversified economy much like Norway and has had unemployment from drop 4.3% to 4.9% vs Norway's 4.3% to 4.8%.
Any other questions about the reality of the world or would you just like keep playing pretend?
Uh I hit the point made above that "Venezuela's economic failing has almost nothing to do with the system of government and almost everything to do with the price of oil.". I think you took my post out of context. I was hitting Venezuela situation in particular and those countries you mentioned are not capitalistic states with diversified economies. I live in Austin Tx which has a very diversified eco in which oil and gas is a part and we are fine. So maybe having a (shitty socialistic eco system AND being a 1 commodity eco) is really the worst of both worlds.
And no, no other question as I think I can answer them just fine.
My point about Houston (the socialism thing being sarcasm) was that capitalistic economies are hurt by a dependence on a single commodity. Since Houston and Norway are more diversified than Venezuela and Saudi Arabia they are in better position, irrespective of the form of government/economic system in play. My point about Venezuela's collapse is that if they were fully capitalistic and still entirely dependent on oil they would still be fucked and that the collapse is not because they are socialistic. The merits, or lack thereof, of socialism are entirely unrelated to my thesis.
If they were fully capitalistic, it is very unlikely that they would be entirely dependent on oil.
Hope this helps.
Venezuela is a shitty place to do business compared to most countries, but if someone wants to be an entrepreneur there they can be. If you don't want to put up with the hassle and make the money that is their choice. If the people choose to accept the economy the way it is that is their choice. The government allows them to diversify.
Hope that helps.
What the hell fantasyland are you living in? The govt has nationalized industry after industry, and the govt and local mafia pretty much shake down and run over any local business owner until they are run out of business. One of many examples...
Venezuela is the fourth worst country in the world in which to try to run a company, according to the World Bank's 2016 Doing Business report.
The organisation found that only South Sudan (civil war), Libya (civil war) and Eritrea (military dictatorship) were judged to be even more difficult. So, according to the World Bank, it is easier to run a business in Syria than it is to do so in Venezuela.
Venezuela's economic failing has almost nothing to do with the system of government and almost everything to do with the price of oil. That is what happens when your economy is tied to a single, volatile commodity.
So in that case wouldn't the populations about 30 other countries be crashin' stores for in food in border towns So are you goal tending for the shit show that is socialism. I remember breadlines helped bring down the mighty Soviet Union. And wow they had a socialistic eco system too.
Why do you hate facts?
Countries like Saudi Arabia do have huge unemployment and will run out of cash for welfare if oil prices don't increase at which point they will be like Venezuela. Lots of OPEC countries are welfare states because when the government exploits natural resources for cash it goes back to the population. Since oil is about the only thing going on in many OPEC countries they do not have diversified economies and without oil the economic backbone crumbles. Without oil they'd all be shepherds but they have lost that so without oil jobs they have no jobs and without oil money the government isn't funded to carry them. You look at Venezuela as one end member where it has already collapsed, Saudi Arabia in the middle which has high unemployment and is depleting cash reserves and Norway on the other end (oil exporting but non-OPEC welfare state) which aside from having managed their oil fund well, has a much more diversified economy and is doing fine.
Now look at the socialist mecca of Houston where I live and with oil prices down unemployment has increased by 14% in the past year (although it is still a pretty modest absolute rate) and the housing market has tremendously slowed. Houston has a diversified economy much like Norway and has had unemployment from drop 4.3% to 4.9% vs Norway's 4.3% to 4.8%.
Any other questions about the reality of the world or would you just like keep playing pretend?
Uh I hit the point made above that "Venezuela's economic failing has almost nothing to do with the system of government and almost everything to do with the price of oil.". I think you took my post out of context. I was hitting Venezuela situation in particular and those countries you mentioned are not capitalistic states with diversified economies. I live in Austin Tx which has a very diversified eco in which oil and gas is a part and we are fine. So maybe having a (shitty socialistic eco system AND being a 1 commodity eco) is really the worst of both worlds.
And no, no other question as I think I can answer them just fine.
My point about Houston (the socialism thing being sarcasm) was that capitalistic economies are hurt by a dependence on a single commodity. Since Houston and Norway are more diversified than Venezuela and Saudi Arabia they are in better position, irrespective of the form of government/economic system in play. My point about Venezuela's collapse is that if they were fully capitalistic and still entirely dependent on oil they would still be fucked and that the collapse is not because they are socialistic. The merits, or lack thereof, of socialism are entirely unrelated to my thesis.
If they were fully capitalistic, it is very unlikely that they would be entirely dependent on oil.
Hope this helps.
Venezuela is a shitty place to do business compared to most countries, but if someone wants to be an entrepreneur there they can be. If you don't want to put up with the hassle and make the money that is their choice. If the people choose to accept the economy the way it is that is their choice. The government allows them to diversify.
Hope that helps.
What the hell fantasyland are you living in? The govt has nationalized industry after industry, and the govt and local mafia pretty much shake down and run over any local business owner until they are run out of business. One of many examples...
Venezuela is the fourth worst country in the world in which to try to run a company, according to the World Bank's 2016 Doing Business report.
The organisation found that only South Sudan (civil war), Libya (civil war) and Eritrea (military dictatorship) were judged to be even more difficult. So, according to the World Bank, it is easier to run a business in Syria than it is to do so in Venezuela.
Venezuela's economic failing has almost nothing to do with the system of government and almost everything to do with the price of oil. That is what happens when your economy is tied to a single, volatile commodity.
So in that case wouldn't the populations about 30 other countries be crashin' stores for in food in border towns So are you goal tending for the shit show that is socialism. I remember breadlines helped bring down the mighty Soviet Union. And wow they had a socialistic eco system too.
Why do you hate facts?
Countries like Saudi Arabia do have huge unemployment and will run out of cash for welfare if oil prices don't increase at which point they will be like Venezuela. Lots of OPEC countries are welfare states because when the government exploits natural resources for cash it goes back to the population. Since oil is about the only thing going on in many OPEC countries they do not have diversified economies and without oil the economic backbone crumbles. Without oil they'd all be shepherds but they have lost that so without oil jobs they have no jobs and without oil money the government isn't funded to carry them. You look at Venezuela as one end member where it has already collapsed, Saudi Arabia in the middle which has high unemployment and is depleting cash reserves and Norway on the other end (oil exporting but non-OPEC welfare state) which aside from having managed their oil fund well, has a much more diversified economy and is doing fine.
Now look at the socialist mecca of Houston where I live and with oil prices down unemployment has increased by 14% in the past year (although it is still a pretty modest absolute rate) and the housing market has tremendously slowed. Houston has a diversified economy much like Norway and has had unemployment from drop 4.3% to 4.9% vs Norway's 4.3% to 4.8%.
Any other questions about the reality of the world or would you just like keep playing pretend?
Uh I hit the point made above that "Venezuela's economic failing has almost nothing to do with the system of government and almost everything to do with the price of oil.". I think you took my post out of context. I was hitting Venezuela situation in particular and those countries you mentioned are not capitalistic states with diversified economies. I live in Austin Tx which has a very diversified eco in which oil and gas is a part and we are fine. So maybe having a (shitty socialistic eco system AND being a 1 commodity eco) is really the worst of both worlds.
And no, no other question as I think I can answer them just fine.
My point about Houston (the socialism thing being sarcasm) was that capitalistic economies are hurt by a dependence on a single commodity. Since Houston and Norway are more diversified than Venezuela and Saudi Arabia they are in better position, irrespective of the form of government/economic system in play. My point about Venezuela's collapse is that if they were fully capitalistic and still entirely dependent on oil they would still be fucked and that the collapse is not because they are socialistic. The merits, or lack thereof, of socialism are entirely unrelated to my thesis.
If they were fully capitalistic, it is very unlikely that they would be entirely dependent on oil.
Hope this helps.
Venezuela is a shitty place to do business compared to most countries, but if someone wants to be an entrepreneur there they can be. If you don't want to put up with the hassle and make the money that is their choice. If the people choose to accept the economy the way it is that is their choice. The government allows them to diversify.
Hope that helps.
What the hell fantasyland are you living in? The govt has nationalized industry after industry, and the govt and local mafia pretty much shake down and run over any local business owner until they are run out of business. One of many examples...
Venezuela is the fourth worst country in the world in which to try to run a company, according to the World Bank's 2016 Doing Business report.
The organisation found that only South Sudan (civil war), Libya (civil war) and Eritrea (military dictatorship) were judged to be even more difficult. So, according to the World Bank, it is easier to run a business in Syria than it is to do so in Venezuela.
Venezuela's economic failing has almost nothing to do with the system of government and almost everything to do with the price of oil. That is what happens when your economy is tied to a single, volatile commodity.
So in that case wouldn't the populations about 30 other countries be crashin' stores for in food in border towns So are you goal tending for the shit show that is socialism. I remember breadlines helped bring down the mighty Soviet Union. And wow they had a socialistic eco system too.
Why do you hate facts?
Countries like Saudi Arabia do have huge unemployment and will run out of cash for welfare if oil prices don't increase at which point they will be like Venezuela. Lots of OPEC countries are welfare states because when the government exploits natural resources for cash it goes back to the population. Since oil is about the only thing going on in many OPEC countries they do not have diversified economies and without oil the economic backbone crumbles. Without oil they'd all be shepherds but they have lost that so without oil jobs they have no jobs and without oil money the government isn't funded to carry them. You look at Venezuela as one end member where it has already collapsed, Saudi Arabia in the middle which has high unemployment and is depleting cash reserves and Norway on the other end (oil exporting but non-OPEC welfare state) which aside from having managed their oil fund well, has a much more diversified economy and is doing fine.
Now look at the socialist mecca of Houston where I live and with oil prices down unemployment has increased by 14% in the past year (although it is still a pretty modest absolute rate) and the housing market has tremendously slowed. Houston has a diversified economy much like Norway and has had unemployment from drop 4.3% to 4.9% vs Norway's 4.3% to 4.8%.
Any other questions about the reality of the world or would you just like keep playing pretend?
Uh I hit the point made above that "Venezuela's economic failing has almost nothing to do with the system of government and almost everything to do with the price of oil.". I think you took my post out of context. I was hitting Venezuela situation in particular and those countries you mentioned are not capitalistic states with diversified economies. I live in Austin Tx which has a very diversified eco in which oil and gas is a part and we are fine. So maybe having a (shitty socialistic eco system AND being a 1 commodity eco) is really the worst of both worlds.
And no, no other question as I think I can answer them just fine.
My point about Houston (the socialism thing being sarcasm) was that capitalistic economies are hurt by a dependence on a single commodity. Since Houston and Norway are more diversified than Venezuela and Saudi Arabia they are in better position, irrespective of the form of government/economic system in play. My point about Venezuela's collapse is that if they were fully capitalistic and still entirely dependent on oil they would still be fucked and that the collapse is not because they are socialistic. The merits, or lack thereof, of socialism are entirely unrelated to my thesis.
If they were fully capitalistic, it is very unlikely that they would be entirely dependent on oil.
Hope this helps.
Venezuela is a shitty place to do business compared to most countries, but if someone wants to be an entrepreneur there they can be. If you don't want to put up with the hassle and make the money that is their choice. If the people choose to accept the economy the way it is that is their choice. The government allows them to diversify.
Hope that helps.
What the hell fantasyland are you living in? The govt has nationalized industry after industry, and the govt and local mafia pretty much shake down and run over any local business owner until they are run out of business. One of many examples...
Venezuela is the fourth worst country in the world in which to try to run a company, according to the World Bank's 2016 Doing Business report.
The organisation found that only South Sudan (civil war), Libya (civil war) and Eritrea (military dictatorship) were judged to be even more difficult. So, according to the World Bank, it is easier to run a business in Syria than it is to do so in Venezuela.
Venezuela's economic failing has almost nothing to do with the system of government and almost everything to do with the price of oil. That is what happens when your economy is tied to a single, volatile commodity.
So in that case wouldn't the populations about 30 other countries be crashin' stores for in food in border towns So are you goal tending for the shit show that is socialism. I remember breadlines helped bring down the mighty Soviet Union. And wow they had a socialistic eco system too.
Why do you hate facts?
Countries like Saudi Arabia do have huge unemployment and will run out of cash for welfare if oil prices don't increase at which point they will be like Venezuela. Lots of OPEC countries are welfare states because when the government exploits natural resources for cash it goes back to the population. Since oil is about the only thing going on in many OPEC countries they do not have diversified economies and without oil the economic backbone crumbles. Without oil they'd all be shepherds but they have lost that so without oil jobs they have no jobs and without oil money the government isn't funded to carry them. You look at Venezuela as one end member where it has already collapsed, Saudi Arabia in the middle which has high unemployment and is depleting cash reserves and Norway on the other end (oil exporting but non-OPEC welfare state) which aside from having managed their oil fund well, has a much more diversified economy and is doing fine.
Now look at the socialist mecca of Houston where I live and with oil prices down unemployment has increased by 14% in the past year (although it is still a pretty modest absolute rate) and the housing market has tremendously slowed. Houston has a diversified economy much like Norway and has had unemployment from drop 4.3% to 4.9% vs Norway's 4.3% to 4.8%.
Any other questions about the reality of the world or would you just like keep playing pretend?
Uh I hit the point made above that "Venezuela's economic failing has almost nothing to do with the system of government and almost everything to do with the price of oil.". I think you took my post out of context. I was hitting Venezuela situation in particular and those countries you mentioned are not capitalistic states with diversified economies. I live in Austin Tx which has a very diversified eco in which oil and gas is a part and we are fine. So maybe having a (shitty socialistic eco system AND being a 1 commodity eco) is really the worst of both worlds.
And no, no other question as I think I can answer them just fine.
My point about Houston (the socialism thing being sarcasm) was that capitalistic economies are hurt by a dependence on a single commodity. Since Houston and Norway are more diversified than Venezuela and Saudi Arabia they are in better position, irrespective of the form of government/economic system in play. My point about Venezuela's collapse is that if they were fully capitalistic and still entirely dependent on oil they would still be fucked and that the collapse is not because they are socialistic. The merits, or lack thereof, of socialism are entirely unrelated to my thesis.
If they were fully capitalistic, it is very unlikely that they would be entirely dependent on oil.
Hope this helps.
Venezuela is a shitty place to do business compared to most countries, but if someone wants to be an entrepreneur there they can be. If you don't want to put up with the hassle and make the money that is their choice. If the people choose to accept the economy the way it is that is their choice. The government allows them to diversify.
Hope that helps.
What the hell fantasyland are you living in? The govt has nationalized industry after industry, and the govt and local mafia pretty much shake down and run over any local business owner until they are run out of business. One of many examples...
Venezuela is the fourth worst country in the world in which to try to run a company, according to the World Bank's 2016 Doing Business report.
The organisation found that only South Sudan (civil war), Libya (civil war) and Eritrea (military dictatorship) were judged to be even more difficult. So, according to the World Bank, it is easier to run a business in Syria than it is to do so in Venezuela.
I already said Venezuela is a shitty place to do business... the nationalization though tends to be foreign enterprises which is less relevant for a native starting a business. Even when the government nationalizes a company it still has been paying generally fair prices for them.
Now the corruption is another story. I have already addressed the way oil funds are managed in an earlier post and cited that as a short coming for Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.
Basically, your issue is with Chavez which you conflate to all socialism which you then say is why Venezuela is failing when really it all comes back to their dependence on oil which some have tried to make the spurious claim that socialism leads to a non-diverse economy. In the unique case of Venezuela you can try to make the claim that the government has lead to a lack of diversification, but again that takes you back to Chavez...
Venezuela's economic failing has almost nothing to do with the system of government and almost everything to do with the price of oil. That is what happens when your economy is tied to a single, volatile commodity.
So in that case wouldn't the populations about 30 other countries be crashin' stores for in food in border towns So are you goal tending for the shit show that is socialism. I remember breadlines helped bring down the mighty Soviet Union. And wow they had a socialistic eco system too.
Why do you hate facts?
Countries like Saudi Arabia do have huge unemployment and will run out of cash for welfare if oil prices don't increase at which point they will be like Venezuela. Lots of OPEC countries are welfare states because when the government exploits natural resources for cash it goes back to the population. Since oil is about the only thing going on in many OPEC countries they do not have diversified economies and without oil the economic backbone crumbles. Without oil they'd all be shepherds but they have lost that so without oil jobs they have no jobs and without oil money the government isn't funded to carry them. You look at Venezuela as one end member where it has already collapsed, Saudi Arabia in the middle which has high unemployment and is depleting cash reserves and Norway on the other end (oil exporting but non-OPEC welfare state) which aside from having managed their oil fund well, has a much more diversified economy and is doing fine.
Now look at the socialist mecca of Houston where I live and with oil prices down unemployment has increased by 14% in the past year (although it is still a pretty modest absolute rate) and the housing market has tremendously slowed. Houston has a diversified economy much like Norway and has had unemployment from drop 4.3% to 4.9% vs Norway's 4.3% to 4.8%.
Any other questions about the reality of the world or would you just like keep playing pretend?
Uh I hit the point made above that "Venezuela's economic failing has almost nothing to do with the system of government and almost everything to do with the price of oil.". I think you took my post out of context. I was hitting Venezuela situation in particular and those countries you mentioned are not capitalistic states with diversified economies. I live in Austin Tx which has a very diversified eco in which oil and gas is a part and we are fine. So maybe having a (shitty socialistic eco system AND being a 1 commodity eco) is really the worst of both worlds.
And no, no other question as I think I can answer them just fine.
My point about Houston (the socialism thing being sarcasm) was that capitalistic economies are hurt by a dependence on a single commodity. Since Houston and Norway are more diversified than Venezuela and Saudi Arabia they are in better position, irrespective of the form of government/economic system in play. My point about Venezuela's collapse is that if they were fully capitalistic and still entirely dependent on oil they would still be fucked and that the collapse is not because they are socialistic. The merits, or lack thereof, of socialism are entirely unrelated to my thesis.
If they were fully capitalistic, it is very unlikely that they would be entirely dependent on oil.
Hope this helps.
Venezuela is a shitty place to do business compared to most countries, but if someone wants to be an entrepreneur there they can be. If you don't want to put up with the hassle and make the money that is their choice. If the people choose to accept the economy the way it is that is their choice. The government allows them to diversify.
Hope that helps.
What the hell fantasyland are you living in? The govt has nationalized industry after industry, and the govt and local mafia pretty much shake down and run over any local business owner until they are run out of business. One of many examples...
Venezuela is the fourth worst country in the world in which to try to run a company, according to the World Bank's 2016 Doing Business report.
The organisation found that only South Sudan (civil war), Libya (civil war) and Eritrea (military dictatorship) were judged to be even more difficult. So, according to the World Bank, it is easier to run a business in Syria than it is to do so in Venezuela.
I already said Venezuela is a shitty place to do business... the nationalization though tends to be foreign enterprises which is less relevant for a native starting a business. Even when the government nationalizes a company it still has been paying generally fair prices for them.
Now the corruption is another story. I have already addressed the way oil funds are managed in an earlier post and cited that as a short coming for Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.
Basically, your issue is with Chavez which you conflate to all socialism which you then say is why Venezuela is failing when really it all comes back to their dependence on oil which some have tried to make the spurious claim that socialism leads to a non-diverse economy. In the unique case of Venezuela you can try to make the claim that the government has lead to a lack of diversification, but again that takes you back to Chavez...
That's a whole lot of stupid. You said it was shitty and then said people can make a buck. Its easier to do that in fucking Civil War-torn Syria right now. The economy itself is shrinking by double digits for the 3rd year in a row. Effin a...
And no, you are wrong. Chavez nationalized the milk production (he seized millions of acres and farms deemed "unproductive" or without "proper titles"...most of the food production, the cement production, etc. What did it lead to? Less overall food, less overall supplies, etc. http://www.euromonitor.com/dairy-in-venezuela/report etc. etc.
The govt took over the industries, the govt then mismanaged the industry, the industry suffered as resources shifted to try and make things outside of the govt management. Its a worldwide story that's happened again and again...look at the Soviet Union (btw...love your "link"...effin Wikipedia). You have to love entries like: 1918 All manufacturing enterprises, many retailing enterprises, any private enterprises, the whole bank system, agrarian sector, others.
Its only one bullet point so it can't be much...
And yes, nationalization happens all over and probably always will. Its the cash grab of the political class to cover up for piss-poor govt policy. Worked well for the former Eastern Bloc... You think all the China overbuilt manufacturing facilities that were built by govt guidance and losing money (thinking they are going to make it up in volume...) make any long-term sense? I love how they are shutting down a bunch of them for a couple weeks just so the G20 conference won't be distracted by the air pollution (and yet morons like Thomas Friedman think we should be more like them). You think all the nationalizations in Argentina made any sense?
Venezuela's economic failing has almost nothing to do with the system of government and almost everything to do with the price of oil. That is what happens when your economy is tied to a single, volatile commodity.
So in that case wouldn't the populations about 30 other countries be crashin' stores for in food in border towns So are you goal tending for the shit show that is socialism. I remember breadlines helped bring down the mighty Soviet Union. And wow they had a socialistic eco system too.
And yeah, I get it...they have no sewage! There's traffic problems! Sure, every city has problems...especially in India. And honestly, they do get the sewage out via transportation, and could form a sewage system once it's profitably.
But how can you argue with the fact that so many people in India are eager to move there? It's obviously less of a shithole than all the cities that have a functional government in that country.
It's the same shit with Somalia...Somalia is a shithole, sure...but it's become LESS of a shithole since the government was all but dismantled. That's what people fail to look at...
There are no profitable sewage systems. Some Government is needed.
Pointing to shitholes like Somalia and parts of India and how they may be a little less shitty to live in than their neighbors with the same functioning government doesn't prove anything.
There will indeed need to be some sort of hybrid economy. Capitalism is all based on growth. If it can't grow, it implodes. There are only so many resources on this planet and eventually growth will stop.
Natural resources are commodities, the prices of which are held in check by supply and demand. Scarcity of resources is a check on resource depletion. As the supply lessens, price goes up until it becomes prohibitively expensive for that resource to be used in any profitable venture. The market is then forced to come up with a more viable alternative. We saw this when the scarcity of wood drove the market to respond with the industrial revolution in the 1800s. It will happen again with oil.
Great post and you sited one example among many. Often it is scarcity or depletion that force solutions or alternatives that are better than the original technology. Free market capitalism, with a good dose of rule by law and respect for private property- including Intellectual property, is the best way to consistently find solutions to depletion and scarcity.
CEPT THAT the population has doubled in my lifetime from 4 billion to 8 billion. You can't continue double the population every 40 years and expect to have resources to take care of even those in the richer countries. The raping of these resources at the direction of the World Bank has accelerating this even at a faster rate. The math doesn't add up. I get the whole necessity is the mother of invention argument. But the industrial revolution started here in the US and there was no shortage of wood at that time, here in the US. It wasn't until the 1980's where wood shortages became a problem due to over harvest and no replant.
You can't eat Iphones, cloud data or self driving cars. Unless there are magic bullets to be invented such AS huge advancements in energy efficiency and the ability to produce abundant food supplies in areas with little to no native water, the current system will implode upon itself.
That's exactly why America went from a new country to the most successful, with agriculture and natural resources, we could be self sustaining, and we were.
Then we added in freedom to do as you wish and invent whatever. And some government investment in infrastructure, including the hated post office.
Those all led to a formula of success.
And no @Sledog, no one of influence in America is proposing to be a socialist nation. And no entitlement spending doesn't dwarf military. You do realize that military spending is like 10 times that of food stamps, right? It's amazing how much of a dream world you live in.
Uh without the military to defeat the Huns and Japs and to exert our power and survive the Cold War there is nothing here but dust in the wind
Self supporting isn't enough. Exporting is needed. We are the breadbasket of the world.
Yeah and if a major world problem like that of world War 2 appears, we can re-open the conversation about raising the military budget and intervening. Building aircraft carriers the Pentagon says they don't need and doing needless wars like Iraq and Libya is not that
It would take to long to switch to war production. Aircraft carriers take years to build, things are a bit more sophisticated than in WWII. If you don't have it uoure not going to have time to build it.
Huh? We have more in service right now and all other countries combined.
So what we have more. That's why we're the United States and at the mercy of no country. Walk softly and carry a big stick. Teddy had it right. Unfortunately we're currently being run by a fucking sissy.
Obama has done interventions in 7 different countries in 8 years. He's currently bombing the fuck out of isis, droning all over the place, and funding the Saudi coalition in yemen. He's still in Afghanistan. But I get it, he's a sissy because he didn't ground invade Syria, stay in Iraq for 50 years and nuke russia
He hasn't done shit. Odd how when others came in they killed all the trucks hauling the oil ISIS supports itself with. He purposely avoids doing much harm to them. He's on their side. He destabilized Syria for them to spread out.
I agree. he didn't destabilize Syria by being a sissy
Sure he was. He armed the guys that became ISIS instead of blowing the shit out of them ourselves. Now he isn't blowing the shit out of them. Proxy wars are not in our control. 'ol Gadhafi was pretty quite after Ronnie dropped bombs on his house. Why did we go there? Just so happens Soros's huge oil company was in country and needed to get out.
Comments
Hope this helps.
You can't make the argument that his FP is weak
Hope that helps.
"The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization."
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36359120
Worse than Syria
Venezuela is the fourth worst country in the world in which to try to run a company, according to the World Bank's 2016 Doing Business report.
The organisation found that only South Sudan (civil war), Libya (civil war) and Eritrea (military dictatorship) were judged to be even more difficult. So, according to the World Bank, it is easier to run a business in Syria than it is to do so in Venezuela.
Now the corruption is another story. I have already addressed the way oil funds are managed in an earlier post and cited that as a short coming for Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.
Basically, your issue is with Chavez which you conflate to all socialism which you then say is why Venezuela is failing when really it all comes back to their dependence on oil which some have tried to make the spurious claim that socialism leads to a non-diverse economy. In the unique case of Venezuela you can try to make the claim that the government has lead to a lack of diversification, but again that takes you back to Chavez...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nationalizations_by_country
The NY Times wins.
Why do you hate winners?
And no, you are wrong. Chavez nationalized the milk production (he seized millions of acres and farms deemed "unproductive" or without "proper titles"...most of the food production, the cement production, etc. What did it lead to? Less overall food, less overall supplies, etc.
http://www.euromonitor.com/dairy-in-venezuela/report
etc. etc.
The govt took over the industries, the govt then mismanaged the industry, the industry suffered as resources shifted to try and make things outside of the govt management. Its a worldwide story that's happened again and again...look at the Soviet Union (btw...love your "link"...effin Wikipedia). You have to love entries like:
1918 All manufacturing enterprises, many retailing enterprises, any private enterprises, the whole bank system, agrarian sector, others.
Its only one bullet point so it can't be much...
And yes, nationalization happens all over and probably always will. Its the cash grab of the political class to cover up for piss-poor govt policy. Worked well for the former Eastern Bloc... You think all the China overbuilt manufacturing facilities that were built by govt guidance and losing money (thinking they are going to make it up in volume...) make any long-term sense? I love how they are shutting down a bunch of them for a couple weeks just so the G20 conference won't be distracted by the air pollution (and yet morons like Thomas Friedman think we should be more like them). You think all the nationalizations in Argentina made any sense?
Effin A...