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.
And yes, nationalization happens all over and probably always will.
There is the crux of it - it happens all over. Just because Venezuela is completely mismanaged does not mean that their economy failed because of socialism. It failed because of it's complete reliance on oil. If all socialisms failed there would be a lot more failure right now.
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.
And yes, nationalization happens all over and probably always will.
There is the crux of it - it happens all over. Just because Venezuela is completely mismanaged does not mean that their economy failed because of socialism. It failed because of it's complete reliance on oil. If all socialisms failed there would be a lot more failure right now.
So the old, well we have not tried and we could implement it correctly argument. Venezuela, the USSR, Cuba, E Germany, Maoist China, Argentina, pre reform India, etc, etc. Yep that shit works you just need the right set of idiots to attempt it.
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.
And yes, nationalization happens all over and probably always will.
There is the crux of it - it happens all over. Just because Venezuela is completely mismanaged does not mean that their economy failed because of socialism. It failed because of it's complete reliance on oil. If all socialisms failed there would be a lot more failure right now.
So the old, well we have not tried and we could implement it correctly argument. Venezuela, the USSR, Cuba, E Germany, Maoist China, Argentina, pre reform India, etc, etc. Yep that shit works you just need the right set of idiots to attempt it.
No, that is not the same thing. Let me try to make this even simpler for you to understand.
Just because A is B and B is not good does not mean that A failed because of B. A failed because of C in this case.
I am not sure why this is so hard for you all to grasp. It is like any post other than "I love America! SOLDIERS!!! CAPITALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" is somehow sacrilege to the majority of the people here. Just because I don't wear that on my sleeve and call a spade a spade doesn't mean I am trying to show support for SOCIALISM or TERRORISM or CANADA.
Step back for a second and logically try to understand my point without getting defensive for capitalism. Venezuela is a socialism that failed because it's economy is entirely dependent on oil and oil is not doing well. Maybe it would have failed on its own in time by virtue of being a socialism but that is not what happened here. Looking at a variety of oil-heavy economies, including other socialist welfare states, we see that economic diversity is a key factor in their success right now. Venezuela has been poorly managed under Chavez (which is not even considering Maduro) but that is a specific case that has lead to their downfall now, not an intrinsic property of socialism. Being a socialism likely helped enable Venezuela's economy to become so focused on one commodity but again, that is very specific to Venezuela and the failing is due to being focused on one commodity.
@Mad_Son is struggling worse than Sledog and Hondo in this thread.
Please elaborate. Basically I've posted facts, which Houston actually responded to with facts, but all they did was talk about how bad Venezuela is, not actually point to the cause of the failure. Everyone else has just sort of arm-waived.
@Mad_Son is struggling worse than Sledog and Hondo in this thread.
Please elaborate. Basically I've posted facts, which Houston actually responded to with facts, but all they did was talk about how bad Venezuela is, not actually point to the cause of the failure. Everyone else has just sort of arm-waived.
You can call it whatever you like, but when the national government starts taking over industries and running them long-term they run them into the ground, as the goals of the govt are not the same as the goals of the company (i.e. a simplistic example being milk in Venezuela...private milk farmers and companies made milk and sold it at a profit, incentivizing more production of milk year over year and keeping the people fed. The govt took it over and priced milk less than the cost to produce it to "help" the people, and I'm sure it did short-term but long term fewer people dairy farmed and the milk production went way down.) Hell...look here at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Whenever govts run companies, they end up misallocating capital far worse than (almost) any incompetently run private company could as the goals of the govt are far different than the goals of a company in an industry...there are historical and current examples all over the world of this. In Venezuela, no other industries existed because there was no incentive to diversify (due to the govt running/controlling them either directly through ownership or indirectly through cost controls/other extreme regulations). In China, you see the opposite where the govt is throwing away money hand over fist trying to diversify into areas they have no clue how to run/do, causing all sorts of other problems (and eventually they are going to have a lot of issues).
And if you are now trying to argue true socialism somehow doesn't involve govt ownership of industries have at it...you are just going to have to re-write a lot of history.
You can call it whatever you like, but when the national government starts taking over industries and running them long-term they run them into the ground, as the goals of the govt are not the same as the goals of the company (i.e. a simplistic example being milk in Venezuela...private milk farmers and companies made milk and sold it at a profit, incentivizing more production of milk year over year and keeping the people fed. The govt took it over and priced milk less than the cost to produce it to "help" the people, and I'm sure it did short-term but long term fewer people dairy farmed and the milk production went way down.) Hell...look here at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Whenever govts run companies, they end up misallocating capital far worse than (almost) any incompetently run private company could as the goals of the govt are far different than the goals of a company in an industry...there are historical and current examples all over the world of this. In Venezuela, no other industries existed because there was no incentive to diversify (due to the govt running/controlling them either directly through ownership or indirectly through cost controls/other extreme regulations). In China, you see the opposite where the govt is throwing away money hand over fist trying to diversify into areas they have no clue how to run/do, causing all sorts of other problems (and eventually they are going to have a lot of issues).
And if you are now trying to argue true socialism somehow doesn't involve govt ownership of industries have at it...you are just going to have to re-write a lot of history.
Nice rant. But I have a question. Who in America is trying to nationalize businesses?
You can call it whatever you like, but when the national government starts taking over industries and running them long-term they run them into the ground, as the goals of the govt are not the same as the goals of the company (i.e. a simplistic example being milk in Venezuela...private milk farmers and companies made milk and sold it at a profit, incentivizing more production of milk year over year and keeping the people fed. The govt took it over and priced milk less than the cost to produce it to "help" the people, and I'm sure it did short-term but long term fewer people dairy farmed and the milk production went way down.) Hell...look here at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Whenever govts run companies, they end up misallocating capital far worse than (almost) any incompetently run private company could as the goals of the govt are far different than the goals of a company in an industry...there are historical and current examples all over the world of this. In Venezuela, no other industries existed because there was no incentive to diversify (due to the govt running/controlling them either directly through ownership or indirectly through cost controls/other extreme regulations). In China, you see the opposite where the govt is throwing away money hand over fist trying to diversify into areas they have no clue how to run/do, causing all sorts of other problems (and eventually they are going to have a lot of issues).
And if you are now trying to argue true socialism somehow doesn't involve govt ownership of industries have at it...you are just going to have to re-write a lot of history.
Nice rant. But I have a question. Who in America is trying to nationalize businesses?
"Democratic Socialism" doesn't nationalize businesses. It's worse. It nationalizes you and me. Fuck that shit.
You can call it whatever you like, but when the national government starts taking over industries and running them long-term they run them into the ground, as the goals of the govt are not the same as the goals of the company (i.e. a simplistic example being milk in Venezuela...private milk farmers and companies made milk and sold it at a profit, incentivizing more production of milk year over year and keeping the people fed. The govt took it over and priced milk less than the cost to produce it to "help" the people, and I'm sure it did short-term but long term fewer people dairy farmed and the milk production went way down.) Hell...look here at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Whenever govts run companies, they end up misallocating capital far worse than (almost) any incompetently run private company could as the goals of the govt are far different than the goals of a company in an industry...there are historical and current examples all over the world of this. In Venezuela, no other industries existed because there was no incentive to diversify (due to the govt running/controlling them either directly through ownership or indirectly through cost controls/other extreme regulations). In China, you see the opposite where the govt is throwing away money hand over fist trying to diversify into areas they have no clue how to run/do, causing all sorts of other problems (and eventually they are going to have a lot of issues).
And if you are now trying to argue true socialism somehow doesn't involve govt ownership of industries have at it...you are just going to have to re-write a lot of history.
So the thing is, I agree with most of what you've said there. I don't want to get into a discussion of what true socialism means. Just as counter examples you look at say USPS and that is a well run government business, Statoil does fine too in Norway. The issue is as you have noted the goals of private enterprise being different than a state run entity. The government's business shouldn't be running business, but as implied the concept of socialism is broad and seems to be a big sticking point here. Empirically there are a lot of socialisms doing fine now, but the purely oil-centric welfare states are having problems. I don't see this discussion really moving beyond the central points of you showing there are a lot of examples where socialism is bad and me arguing that socialism as a generality is not the culprit of Venezuela's downfall, even if Chavez did use some socialist principles to make the Venezuelan economy less diverse.
You can call it whatever you like, but when the national government starts taking over industries and running them long-term they run them into the ground, as the goals of the govt are not the same as the goals of the company (i.e. a simplistic example being milk in Venezuela...private milk farmers and companies made milk and sold it at a profit, incentivizing more production of milk year over year and keeping the people fed. The govt took it over and priced milk less than the cost to produce it to "help" the people, and I'm sure it did short-term but long term fewer people dairy farmed and the milk production went way down.) Hell...look here at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Whenever govts run companies, they end up misallocating capital far worse than (almost) any incompetently run private company could as the goals of the govt are far different than the goals of a company in an industry...there are historical and current examples all over the world of this. In Venezuela, no other industries existed because there was no incentive to diversify (due to the govt running/controlling them either directly through ownership or indirectly through cost controls/other extreme regulations). In China, you see the opposite where the govt is throwing away money hand over fist trying to diversify into areas they have no clue how to run/do, causing all sorts of other problems (and eventually they are going to have a lot of issues).
And if you are now trying to argue true socialism somehow doesn't involve govt ownership of industries have at it...you are just going to have to re-write a lot of history.
Nice rant. But I have a question. Who in America is trying to nationalize businesses?
Hmmmmm, BHO siezed GM. Ordered the firing of the presidents of GM and Chrysler. Where is siezing private companies in the constitution? You tell me who's trying to nationalize business.
You can call it whatever you like, but when the national government starts taking over industries and running them long-term they run them into the ground, as the goals of the govt are not the same as the goals of the company (i.e. a simplistic example being milk in Venezuela...private milk farmers and companies made milk and sold it at a profit, incentivizing more production of milk year over year and keeping the people fed. The govt took it over and priced milk less than the cost to produce it to "help" the people, and I'm sure it did short-term but long term fewer people dairy farmed and the milk production went way down.) Hell...look here at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Whenever govts run companies, they end up misallocating capital far worse than (almost) any incompetently run private company could as the goals of the govt are far different than the goals of a company in an industry...there are historical and current examples all over the world of this. In Venezuela, no other industries existed because there was no incentive to diversify (due to the govt running/controlling them either directly through ownership or indirectly through cost controls/other extreme regulations). In China, you see the opposite where the govt is throwing away money hand over fist trying to diversify into areas they have no clue how to run/do, causing all sorts of other problems (and eventually they are going to have a lot of issues).
And if you are now trying to argue true socialism somehow doesn't involve govt ownership of industries have at it...you are just going to have to re-write a lot of history.
Nice rant. But I have a question. Who in America is trying to nationalize businesses?
I think you are still distracted by your other browser...try and keep up with the actual discussion if you are going to comment on this thread.
@Mad_Son wrote: Empirically there are a lot of socialisms doing fine now, but the purely oil-centric welfare states are having problems.
I would beg to disagree. The socialist countries "doing fine" are more dependent upon population growth to sustain themselves than even the U.S., which has a similar problem. Our sustainability depends on constant growth and expansion of the workers contributing to the overall revenue pot. Europe's over-reliance on immigration, which itself burdens the system when a foreign worker brings along his wife and kids and puts them on the dole, also threatens the existence of certain countries and cultures, as the greater the immigration numbers, the less assimilation that occurs into the "old" society, as opposed to the greater latitude and expansion of the state's resource allocations to the newly arrived groups. And the newly arrived groups are the ones having all the kids.
Almost every socialist system that is today doing "fine" is living on borrowed time and was built upon a cohesive, rather homogeneous population demographic that is rapidly changing, faster than those countries and societies can keep up. It's ironic that Socialism is touted as the "answer" to runaway capitalism (that will destroy itself), when every socialist country depends upon the same "growth" model as capitalism to survive.
Western Euro socialism is built on American capitalism that fuels our military industrial complex that keeps the Euros safe from themselves. It can't last forever. It's also true that Europe needs the migration they have encouraged but they fucked up by not assimilating the immigrants. A mistake we are starting to follow here.
Trump wants to cut off the Euro defense drain so we can get our own socialism in here. And be able to afford it. Along with infrastructure rebuilding.
In hindsight he probably should have challenged Hillary in the Democrat primaries and beat her there, then stomp all over JEB!
You can call it whatever you like, but when the national government starts taking over industries and running them long-term they run them into the ground, as the goals of the govt are not the same as the goals of the company (i.e. a simplistic example being milk in Venezuela...private milk farmers and companies made milk and sold it at a profit, incentivizing more production of milk year over year and keeping the people fed. The govt took it over and priced milk less than the cost to produce it to "help" the people, and I'm sure it did short-term but long term fewer people dairy farmed and the milk production went way down.) Hell...look here at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Whenever govts run companies, they end up misallocating capital far worse than (almost) any incompetently run private company could as the goals of the govt are far different than the goals of a company in an industry...there are historical and current examples all over the world of this. In Venezuela, no other industries existed because there was no incentive to diversify (due to the govt running/controlling them either directly through ownership or indirectly through cost controls/other extreme regulations). In China, you see the opposite where the govt is throwing away money hand over fist trying to diversify into areas they have no clue how to run/do, causing all sorts of other problems (and eventually they are going to have a lot of issues).
And if you are now trying to argue true socialism somehow doesn't involve govt ownership of industries have at it...you are just going to have to re-write a lot of history.
So the thing is, I agree with most of what you've said there. I don't want to get into a discussion of what true socialism means. Just as counter examples you look at say USPS and that is a well run government business, Statoil does fine too in Norway. The issue is as you have noted the goals of private enterprise being different than a state run entity. The government's business shouldn't be running business, but as implied the concept of socialism is broad and seems to be a big sticking point here. Empirically there are a lot of socialisms doing fine now, but the purely oil-centric welfare states are having problems. I don't see this discussion really moving beyond the central points of you showing there are a lot of examples where socialism is bad and me arguing that socialism as a generality is not the culprit of Venezuela's downfall, even if Chavez did use some socialist principles to make the Venezuelan economy less diverse.
But you are mischaracterizing socialism and companies owned by govt. As your example, Statoil is a company majority owned by the Norway govt, but its a company competing in a global marketplace with a bunch of other companies (and yes its had its fair share of corruption...Petrobras is a shining example of the problems with this kind of set-up). Because Norway owns a majority of Statoil doesn't mean some other Norwegian couldn't start up another oil company, or for that matter diversify the economy there and start up a computer company, a consulting company, or something else.
You are comparing apples and oranges. Socialism by definition means the govt (I.e. the "people") regulate/control the markets itself. True socialism controls the markets for pretty much everything, either directly (i.e. price controls, etc.) or indirectly through control of all of the companies in the markets. And it never works long-term.
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.
And yes, nationalization happens all over and probably always will.
There is the crux of it - it happens all over. Just because Venezuela is completely mismanaged does not mean that their economy failed because of socialism. It failed because of it's complete reliance on oil. If all socialisms failed there would be a lot more failure right now.
So the old, well we have not tried and we could implement it correctly argument. Venezuela, the USSR, Cuba, E Germany, Maoist China, Argentina, pre reform India, etc, etc. Yep that shit works you just need the right set of idiots to attempt it.
No, that is not the same thing. Let me try to make this even simpler for you to understand.
Just because A is B and B is not good does not mean that A failed because of B. A failed because of C in this case.
I am not sure why this is so hard for you all to grasp. It is like any post other than "I love America! SOLDIERS!!! CAPITALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" is somehow sacrilege to the majority of the people here. Just because I don't wear that on my sleeve and call a spade a spade doesn't mean I am trying to show support for SOCIALISM or TERRORISM or CANADA.
Step back for a second and logically try to understand my point without getting defensive for capitalism. Venezuela is a socialism that failed because it's economy is entirely dependent on oil and oil is not doing well. Maybe it would have failed on its own in time by virtue of being a socialism but that is not what happened here. Looking at a variety of oil-heavy economies, including other socialist welfare states, we see that economic diversity is a key factor in their success right now. Venezuela has been poorly managed under Chavez (which is not even considering Maduro) but that is a specific case that has lead to their downfall now, not an intrinsic property of socialism. Being a socialism likely helped enable Venezuela's economy to become so focused on one commodity but again, that is very specific to Venezuela and the failing is due to being focused on one commodity.
Wow good lord you are an arrogant one and not near as smart as you think you are. And BTW, can you even read ? is Venezuela the only failed socalistic example I gave ?. No, one of 7 or 8 quickies off the top of my head.
Socialism is a share the wealth concept that can be implemented in a number of different ways but it has a flaw, The 80/20 rule. For example 80% of innovation comes from only 20% of the population, or 80% of revenues come from only 20% of the customers, or 80% of tax revenues come from 20% of the pop etc, etc. They teach this in business school and science for a reason. It explains a great deal about nature, economics, business, and human nature. Socialism is idealistic idiocy that collapses when set against this law and its human nature component.
Do you really think the productive class wants share the fruits of their risk and labor evenly ? and over time ?. Do you think they are cool with taking risk just to have their gains, should they have them, jacked by a share it all gov. Hell no. But you keep on living the idiots dream buddy people have since the mid 1800's and it hasn't done much compared to capitalism.
You can call it whatever you like, but when the national government starts taking over industries and running them long-term they run them into the ground, as the goals of the govt are not the same as the goals of the company (i.e. a simplistic example being milk in Venezuela...private milk farmers and companies made milk and sold it at a profit, incentivizing more production of milk year over year and keeping the people fed. The govt took it over and priced milk less than the cost to produce it to "help" the people, and I'm sure it did short-term but long term fewer people dairy farmed and the milk production went way down.) Hell...look here at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Whenever govts run companies, they end up misallocating capital far worse than (almost) any incompetently run private company could as the goals of the govt are far different than the goals of a company in an industry...there are historical and current examples all over the world of this. In Venezuela, no other industries existed because there was no incentive to diversify (due to the govt running/controlling them either directly through ownership or indirectly through cost controls/other extreme regulations). In China, you see the opposite where the govt is throwing away money hand over fist trying to diversify into areas they have no clue how to run/do, causing all sorts of other problems (and eventually they are going to have a lot of issues).
And if you are now trying to argue true socialism somehow doesn't involve govt ownership of industries have at it...you are just going to have to re-write a lot of history.
Nice rant. But I have a question. Who in America is trying to nationalize businesses?
Hmmmmm, BHO siezed GM. Ordered the firing of the presidents of GM and Chrysler. Where is siezing private companies in the constitution? You tell me who's trying to nationalize business.
Who owns GM and Chrysler right now? Under what bill did the government at one point have some influence/ownership in them? What would have happened to both if the government didn't step in?
A lot of people are in a dream world on this thread.
You can call it whatever you like, but when the national government starts taking over industries and running them long-term they run them into the ground, as the goals of the govt are not the same as the goals of the company (i.e. a simplistic example being milk in Venezuela...private milk farmers and companies made milk and sold it at a profit, incentivizing more production of milk year over year and keeping the people fed. The govt took it over and priced milk less than the cost to produce it to "help" the people, and I'm sure it did short-term but long term fewer people dairy farmed and the milk production went way down.) Hell...look here at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Whenever govts run companies, they end up misallocating capital far worse than (almost) any incompetently run private company could as the goals of the govt are far different than the goals of a company in an industry...there are historical and current examples all over the world of this. In Venezuela, no other industries existed because there was no incentive to diversify (due to the govt running/controlling them either directly through ownership or indirectly through cost controls/other extreme regulations). In China, you see the opposite where the govt is throwing away money hand over fist trying to diversify into areas they have no clue how to run/do, causing all sorts of other problems (and eventually they are going to have a lot of issues).
And if you are now trying to argue true socialism somehow doesn't involve govt ownership of industries have at it...you are just going to have to re-write a lot of history.
Nice rant. But I have a question. Who in America is trying to nationalize businesses?
Hmmmmm, BHO siezed GM. Ordered the firing of the presidents of GM and Chrysler. Where is siezing private companies in the constitution? You tell me who's trying to nationalize business.
Who owns GM and Chrysler right now? Under what bill did the government at one point have some influence/ownership in them? What would have happened to both if the government didn't step in?
A lot of people are in a dream world on this thread.
The government illegally siezed a private company. The union owns them now. Oh yeah they donated lots of money to BHO. They would have gone bankrupt and broken the stranglehold of some of the Union contract sections that kept a group of employees that don't work receiving their salaries that was almost as large as the actual workforce.
Oh but they donated a lot of money. Bond holders got ten cents on the dollar.
You can call it whatever you like, but when the national government starts taking over industries and running them long-term they run them into the ground, as the goals of the govt are not the same as the goals of the company (i.e. a simplistic example being milk in Venezuela...private milk farmers and companies made milk and sold it at a profit, incentivizing more production of milk year over year and keeping the people fed. The govt took it over and priced milk less than the cost to produce it to "help" the people, and I'm sure it did short-term but long term fewer people dairy farmed and the milk production went way down.) Hell...look here at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Whenever govts run companies, they end up misallocating capital far worse than (almost) any incompetently run private company could as the goals of the govt are far different than the goals of a company in an industry...there are historical and current examples all over the world of this. In Venezuela, no other industries existed because there was no incentive to diversify (due to the govt running/controlling them either directly through ownership or indirectly through cost controls/other extreme regulations). In China, you see the opposite where the govt is throwing away money hand over fist trying to diversify into areas they have no clue how to run/do, causing all sorts of other problems (and eventually they are going to have a lot of issues).
And if you are now trying to argue true socialism somehow doesn't involve govt ownership of industries have at it...you are just going to have to re-write a lot of history.
Nice rant. But I have a question. Who in America is trying to nationalize businesses?
Hmmmmm, BHO siezed GM. Ordered the firing of the presidents of GM and Chrysler. Where is siezing private companies in the constitution? You tell me who's trying to nationalize business.
Who owns GM and Chrysler right now? Under what bill did the government at one point have some influence/ownership in them? What would have happened to both if the government didn't step in?
A lot of people are in a dream world on this thread.
The government illegally siezed a private company. The union owns them now. Oh yeah they donated lots of money to BHO. They would have gone bankrupt and broken the stranglehold of some of the Union contract sections that kept a group of employees that don't work receiving their salaries that was almost as large as the actual workforce.
Oh but they donated a lot of money. Bond holders got ten cents on the dollar.
Comments
Whenever govts run companies, they end up misallocating capital far worse than (almost) any incompetently run private company could as the goals of the govt are far different than the goals of a company in an industry...there are historical and current examples all over the world of this. In Venezuela, no other industries existed because there was no incentive to diversify (due to the govt running/controlling them either directly through ownership or indirectly through cost controls/other extreme regulations). In China, you see the opposite where the govt is throwing away money hand over fist trying to diversify into areas they have no clue how to run/do, causing all sorts of other problems (and eventually they are going to have a lot of issues).
And if you are now trying to argue true socialism somehow doesn't involve govt ownership of industries have at it...you are just going to have to re-write a lot of history.
I would beg to disagree. The socialist countries "doing fine" are more dependent upon population growth to sustain themselves than even the U.S., which has a similar problem. Our sustainability depends on constant growth and expansion of the workers contributing to the overall revenue pot. Europe's over-reliance on immigration, which itself burdens the system when a foreign worker brings along his wife and kids and puts them on the dole, also threatens the existence of certain countries and cultures, as the greater the immigration numbers, the less assimilation that occurs into the "old" society, as opposed to the greater latitude and expansion of the state's resource allocations to the newly arrived groups. And the newly arrived groups are the ones having all the kids.
Almost every socialist system that is today doing "fine" is living on borrowed time and was built upon a cohesive, rather homogeneous population demographic that is rapidly changing, faster than those countries and societies can keep up. It's ironic that Socialism is touted as the "answer" to runaway capitalism (that will destroy itself), when every socialist country depends upon the same "growth" model as capitalism to survive.
Trump wants to cut off the Euro defense drain so we can get our own socialism in here. And be able to afford it. Along with infrastructure rebuilding.
In hindsight he probably should have challenged Hillary in the Democrat primaries and beat her there, then stomp all over JEB!
You are comparing apples and oranges. Socialism by definition means the govt (I.e. the "people") regulate/control the markets itself. True socialism controls the markets for pretty much everything, either directly (i.e. price controls, etc.) or indirectly through control of all of the companies in the markets. And it never works long-term.
A lot of people are in a dream world on this thread.
That is the troika of ignorance. And economic idiots dream team.
Oh but they donated a lot of money. Bond holders got ten cents on the dollar.
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/gm/ownership-summary