The Solicialist Utopia of Venezuela has Issues...
Comments
-
Never heard of it but I believe you. I would trust most anything over the NYTTierbsHsotBoobs said:
Friday Harbor Journal.OZONE said:
Name a more credible journalistic source with the circulation they have.unfrozencaveman said:
Your source is the New York Times?OZONE said:
The biggest entitlement out there is the excessive military spending that is far above and beyond what we need for self defense.Sledog said:
There is a whole lot more to "entitlements" than food stamps. Such as Section 8, Welfare, WIC, Obozo care, Obozo phones, yada yada yada.TierbsHsotBoobs said:Does this thread need Keeley?
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. -
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...Mad_Son said:
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.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
If they were fully capitalistic, it is very unlikely that they would be entirely dependent on oil.Mad_Son said:
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.ttu_85 said:
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.Mad_Son said:
Why do you hate facts?ttu_85 said:
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.Mad_Son said: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.
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?
And no, no other question as I think I can answer them just fine.
Hope this helps.
Hope that helps.
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.
-
Big black cock is your source?HoustonHusky said:
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...Mad_Son said:
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.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
If they were fully capitalistic, it is very unlikely that they would be entirely dependent on oil.Mad_Son said:
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.ttu_85 said:
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.Mad_Son said:
Why do you hate facts?ttu_85 said:
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.Mad_Son said: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.
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?
And no, no other question as I think I can answer them just fine.
Hope this helps.
Hope that helps.
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. -
That's your other browser window.2001400ex said:
Big black cock is your source?HoustonHusky said:
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...Mad_Son said:
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.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
If they were fully capitalistic, it is very unlikely that they would be entirely dependent on oil.Mad_Son said:
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.ttu_85 said:
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.Mad_Son said:
Why do you hate facts?ttu_85 said:
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.Mad_Son said: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.
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?
And no, no other question as I think I can answer them just fine.
Hope this helps.
Hope that helps.
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. -
Wut?HoustonHusky said:
That's your other browser window.2001400ex said:
Big black cock is your source?HoustonHusky said:
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...Mad_Son said:
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.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
If they were fully capitalistic, it is very unlikely that they would be entirely dependent on oil.Mad_Son said:
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.ttu_85 said:
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.Mad_Son said:
Why do you hate facts?ttu_85 said:
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.Mad_Son said: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.
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?
And no, no other question as I think I can answer them just fine.
Hope this helps.
Hope that helps.
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. -
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.HoustonHusky said:
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...Mad_Son said:
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.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
If they were fully capitalistic, it is very unlikely that they would be entirely dependent on oil.Mad_Son said:
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.ttu_85 said:
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.Mad_Son said:
Why do you hate facts?ttu_85 said:
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.Mad_Son said: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.
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?
And no, no other question as I think I can answer them just fine.
Hope this helps.
Hope that helps.
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... -
Also, this may interest you as a related topic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nationalizations_by_country -
Ty is a loser.RaceBannon said:
Ty was coach of the year POTDOZONE said:
If you say so, well, actually, maybe not...TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Friday Harbor Journal.OZONE said:
Name a more credible journalistic source with the circulation they have.unfrozencaveman said:
Your source is the New York Times?OZONE said:
The biggest entitlement out there is the excessive military spending that is far above and beyond what we need for self defense.Sledog said:
There is a whole lot more to "entitlements" than food stamps. Such as Section 8, Welfare, WIC, Obozo care, Obozo phones, yada yada yada.TierbsHsotBoobs said:Does this thread need Keeley?
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.
"The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization."
The NY Times wins.
Why do you hate winners? -
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...Mad_Son said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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...Mad_Son said:
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.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
If they were fully capitalistic, it is very unlikely that they would be entirely dependent on oil.Mad_Son said:
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.ttu_85 said:
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.Mad_Son said:
Why do you hate facts?ttu_85 said:
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.Mad_Son said: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.
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?
And no, no other question as I think I can answer them just fine.
Hope this helps.
Hope that helps.
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...
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... -
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.dhdawg said:
I agree. he didn't destabilize Syria by being a sissySledog said:
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.dhdawg said:
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.Sledog said:
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.2001400ex said:
Huh? We have more in service right now and all other countries combined.Sledog said:
Talk tttu_85 said:
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.Mad_Son said: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.
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.dhdawg said:
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.RaceBannon said:
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 wind2001400ex said:
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.salemcoog said:
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.ttu_85 said:
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.PurpleJ said:
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.salemcoog said:
There are no profitable sewage systems. Some Government is needed.Fenderbender123 said:Government can't run shit well. No surprise.
On the flip side, the fastest growing city in India has no functional government.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/gurgaon/Fastest-growing-city-slowest-moving-too/articleshow/49265874.cms
http://ideas.ted.com/skyscrapers-but-no-sewage-system-meet-a-city-run-by-private-industry/
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...
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.
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.
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.
Self supporting isn't enough. Exporting is needed. We are the breadbasket of the world.
Building aircraft carriers the Pentagon says they don't need and doing needless wars like Iraq and Libya is not that
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country
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 -
HoustonHusky said:
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.Mad_Son said:
And yes, nationalization happens all over and probably always will.HoustonHusky said:
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...Mad_Son said:
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.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
If they were fully capitalistic, it is very unlikely that they would be entirely dependent on oil.Mad_Son said:
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.ttu_85 said:
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.Mad_Son said:
Why do you hate facts?ttu_85 said:
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.Mad_Son said: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.
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?
And no, no other question as I think I can answer them just fine.
Hope this helps.
Hope that helps.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization -
Mad_Son said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.Mad_Son said:
And yes, nationalization happens all over and probably always will.HoustonHusky said:
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...Mad_Son said:
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.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
If they were fully capitalistic, it is very unlikely that they would be entirely dependent on oil.Mad_Son said:
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.ttu_85 said:
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.Mad_Son said:
Why do you hate facts?ttu_85 said:
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.Mad_Son said: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.
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?
And no, no other question as I think I can answer them just fine.
Hope this helps.
Hope that helps.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization -
ttu_85 said:
No, that is not the same thing. Let me try to make this even simpler for you to understand.Mad_Son said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.Mad_Son said:
And yes, nationalization happens all over and probably always will.HoustonHusky said:
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...Mad_Son said:
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.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
If they were fully capitalistic, it is very unlikely that they would be entirely dependent on oil.Mad_Son said:
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.ttu_85 said:
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.Mad_Son said:
Why do you hate facts?ttu_85 said:
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.Mad_Son said: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.
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?
And no, no other question as I think I can answer them just fine.
Hope this helps.
Hope that helps.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization
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.TierbsHsotBoobs said:@Mad_Son is struggling worse than Sledog and Hondo in this thread.
-
Mad_Son said:
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.TierbsHsotBoobs said:@Mad_Son is struggling worse than Sledog and Hondo in 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?HoustonHusky said: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. -
"Democratic Socialism" doesn't nationalize businesses. It's worse. It nationalizes you and me. Fuck that shit.2001400ex said:
Nice rant. But I have a question. Who in America is trying to nationalize businesses?HoustonHusky said: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.HoustonHusky said: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. -
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.2001400ex said:
Nice rant. But I have a question. Who in America is trying to nationalize businesses?HoustonHusky said: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. -
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.2001400ex said:
Nice rant. But I have a question. Who in America is trying to nationalize businesses?HoustonHusky said: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. -
@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! -
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.Mad_Son said:
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.HoustonHusky said: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 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. -
Mad_Son said:
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.ttu_85 said:
No, that is not the same thing. Let me try to make this even simpler for you to understand.Mad_Son said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.Mad_Son said:
And yes, nationalization happens all over and probably always will.HoustonHusky said:
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...Mad_Son said:
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.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
If they were fully capitalistic, it is very unlikely that they would be entirely dependent on oil.Mad_Son said:
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.ttu_85 said:
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.Mad_Son said:
Why do you hate facts?ttu_85 said:
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.Mad_Son said: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.
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?
And no, no other question as I think I can answer them just fine.
Hope this helps.
Hope that helps.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization
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.
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. -
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?Sledog said:
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.2001400ex said:
Nice rant. But I have a question. Who in America is trying to nationalize businesses?HoustonHusky said: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.
A lot of people are in a dream world on this thread. -
Abundance?TierbsHsotBoobs said:@Mad_Son is struggling worse than Sledog and Hondo in this thread.
That is the troika of ignorance. And economic idiots dream team. -
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.2001400ex said:
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?Sledog said:
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.2001400ex said:
Nice rant. But I have a question. Who in America is trying to nationalize businesses?HoustonHusky said: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.
A lot of people are in a dream world on this thread.
Oh but they donated a lot of money. Bond holders got ten cents on the dollar. -
Um. No.Sledog said:
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.2001400ex said:
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?Sledog said:
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.2001400ex said:
Nice rant. But I have a question. Who in America is trying to nationalize businesses?HoustonHusky said: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.
A lot of people are in a dream world on this thread.
Oh but they donated a lot of money. Bond holders got ten cents on the dollar.
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/gm/ownership-summary
