Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Socialism fact of the Day: Venezuela inflation tops 43,000%
DerekJohnson
Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 68,396 
in Tug Tavern
Comments
-
Be afraid. Socialism is coming to a politician near you.
-
you had to edit that?2001400ex said:Be afraid. Socialism is coming to a politician near you.
-
Both Norway and Venezulea are gas pump countries. Both are socialist as well. One has a higher GDP per capita than the US and the other does not.
-
Listen here shitdick.DerekJohnson said:
you had to edit that?2001400ex said:Be afraid. Socialism is coming to a politician near you.
-
Also Norway is very diversified whereas oil is about 95% of Venezuela's economy.
-
does the state own everything in norway?
-
Someone here understands socialism. What politician in America is asking for the state to own everything?Pitchfork51 said:does the state own everything in norway?
-
No, no es socialismo.YellowSnow said:Both Norway and Venezulea are gas pump countries. Both are socialist as well. One has a higher GDP per capita than the US and the other does not.
The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism
and for a whole host of other reasons I could cite. Norway is closer to the petro-state model of the middle east than it is to Venezuela. It's a false equivalence to point to both as examples of the same economic model. -
It’s not REAL socialism
-
Semantics. Then we need to reach an agreement in the Tug about what is "socialism" and what is "communism". Yella Snow rules have always been that if there is wealth transfer payments involved- e.g., welfare state in the US and the social democracies of Europe - then this is mixed economy, socialism. State ownership of means of production and heavy central planning = communism.UW_Doog_Bot said:
No, no es socialismo.YellowSnow said:Both Norway and Venezulea are gas pump countries. Both are socialist as well. One has a higher GDP per capita than the US and the other does not.
The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism
and for a whole host of other reasons I could cite. Norway is closer to the petro-state model of the middle east than it is to Venezuela. It's a false equivalence to point to both as examples of the same economic model. -
To Doogbot's article's point, only real fucktards want means of production to be run by the state. APAG already summed this up in another thread, but a mix of capitalist and welfare elements are probably the ideal. Venezuela bullshit is a Hondo play by the conservative crowd.
-
The "Scandinavian" model is a Hondo take by the progressive crowd. It's a 10,000 ft view of a mixed economy that is rich from selling a resource to the rest of the world that progressives try to point to as "successful democratic socialism" even though it's no such thing.WilburHooksHands said:To Doogbot's article's point, only real fucktards want means of production to be run by the state. APAG already summed this up in another thread, but a mix of capitalist and welfare elements are probably the ideal. Venezuela bullshit is a Hondo play by the conservative crowd.
I don't agree that a mix of capitalism and (state run) welfare are the ideal. I think the government is inherently a terrible buying agent and is nothing but super inefficient at such projects. It also restricts the freedoms of those it purports to help while distorting the market and crowding out private competition for the rest of us.
The only times I see the government as being "the least bad option" are when you have significant negative externalities in a free market such as the military or the environment. -
Are you opposed to some amount of wealth transfer: Yay or Nay?UW_Doog_Bot said:
The "Scandinavian" model is a Hondo take by the progressive crowd. It's a 10,000 ft view of a mixed economy that is rich from selling a resource to the rest of the world that progressives try to point to as "successful democratic socialism" even though it's no such thing.WilburHooksHands said:To Doogbot's article's point, only real fucktards want means of production to be run by the state. APAG already summed this up in another thread, but a mix of capitalist and welfare elements are probably the ideal. Venezuela bullshit is a Hondo play by the conservative crowd.
I don't agree that a mix of capitalism and (state run) welfare are the ideal. I think the government is inherently a terrible buying agent and is nothing but super inefficient at such projects. It also restricts the freedoms of those it purports to help while distorting the market and crowding out private competition for the rest of us.
The only times I see the government as being "the least bad option" are when you have significant negative externalities in a free market such as the military or the environment. -
I was going to chime in but Doog Bot is putting in a Yeoman's effort here. Carry on. Is ClassicalLiberalDoog available?
-
There are some schools of thought that a basic universal income in lieu of all the other myriad of transfer payments would have better overall outcomes. I’ve been back and forth on the idea depending on my level of alcohol consumption at any given point in time.YellowSnow said:
Are you opposed to some amount of wealth transfer: Yay or Nay?UW_Doog_Bot said:
The "Scandinavian" model is a Hondo take by the progressive crowd. It's a 10,000 ft view of a mixed economy that is rich from selling a resource to the rest of the world that progressives try to point to as "successful democratic socialism" even though it's no such thing.WilburHooksHands said:To Doogbot's article's point, only real fucktards want means of production to be run by the state. APAG already summed this up in another thread, but a mix of capitalist and welfare elements are probably the ideal. Venezuela bullshit is a Hondo play by the conservative crowd.
I don't agree that a mix of capitalism and (state run) welfare are the ideal. I think the government is inherently a terrible buying agent and is nothing but super inefficient at such projects. It also restricts the freedoms of those it purports to help while distorting the market and crowding out private competition for the rest of us.
The only times I see the government as being "the least bad option" are when you have significant negative externalities in a free market such as the military or the environment. -
I am very intrigued by UBI and believe it may become necessary because of the robot menace. The guvmint is good at writing checks but a terrible buying agent as @UW_Doog_Bot states. It's be a lot more efficient to just give people the money and let the free market work from there.MikeDamone said:
There are some schools of thought that a basic universal income in lieu of all the other myriad of transfer payments would have better overall outcomes. I’ve been back and forth on the idea depending on my level of alcohol consumption at any given point in time.YellowSnow said:
Are you opposed to some amount of wealth transfer: Yay or Nay?UW_Doog_Bot said:
The "Scandinavian" model is a Hondo take by the progressive crowd. It's a 10,000 ft view of a mixed economy that is rich from selling a resource to the rest of the world that progressives try to point to as "successful democratic socialism" even though it's no such thing.WilburHooksHands said:To Doogbot's article's point, only real fucktards want means of production to be run by the state. APAG already summed this up in another thread, but a mix of capitalist and welfare elements are probably the ideal. Venezuela bullshit is a Hondo play by the conservative crowd.
I don't agree that a mix of capitalism and (state run) welfare are the ideal. I think the government is inherently a terrible buying agent and is nothing but super inefficient at such projects. It also restricts the freedoms of those it purports to help while distorting the market and crowding out private competition for the rest of us.
The only times I see the government as being "the least bad option" are when you have significant negative externalities in a free market such as the military or the environment. -
I dont disagree about "Scandanavian Socialism" eitherUW_Doog_Bot said:
The "Scandinavian" model is a Hondo take by the progressive crowd. It's a 10,000 ft view of a mixed economy that is rich from selling a resource to the rest of the world that progressives try to point to as "successful democratic socialism" even though it's no such thing.WilburHooksHands said:To Doogbot's article's point, only real fucktards want means of production to be run by the state. APAG already summed this up in another thread, but a mix of capitalist and welfare elements are probably the ideal. Venezuela bullshit is a Hondo play by the conservative crowd.
I don't agree that a mix of capitalism and (state run) welfare are the ideal. I think the government is inherently a terrible buying agent and is nothing but super inefficient at such projects. It also restricts the freedoms of those it purports to help while distorting the market and crowding out private competition for the rest of us.
The only times I see the government as being "the least bad option" are when you have significant negative externalities in a free market such as the military or the environment. -
* Norway's wealth is largely driven by extracting a valuable natural resource. Sweden actually makes some shit that people in N. Seattle and other parts of the world want to buy. Not sure what the Danes export...cookies? Queso?UW_Doog_Bot said:
The "Scandinavian" model is a Hondo take by the progressive crowd. It's a 10,000 ft view of a mixed economy that is rich from selling a resource to the rest of the world that progressives try to point to as "successful democratic socialism" even though it's no such thing.WilburHooksHands said:To Doogbot's article's point, only real fucktards want means of production to be run by the state. APAG already summed this up in another thread, but a mix of capitalist and welfare elements are probably the ideal. Venezuela bullshit is a Hondo play by the conservative crowd.
I don't agree that a mix of capitalism and (state run) welfare are the ideal. I think the government is inherently a terrible buying agent and is nothing but super inefficient at such projects. It also restricts the freedoms of those it purports to help while distorting the market and crowding out private competition for the rest of us.
The only times I see the government as being "the least bad option" are when you have significant negative externalities in a free market such as the military or the environment. -
Damone chimes in to state that he's not going to chime in. It's what he likes to do.MikeDamone said:I was going to chime in but Doog Bot is putting in a Yeoman's effort here. Carry on. Is ClassicalLiberalDoog available?
-
I posted without comment. Let that sink it.DerekJohnson said:
Damone chimes in to state that he's not going to chime in. It's what he likes to do.MikeDamone said:I was going to chime in but Doog Bot is putting in a Yeoman's effort here. Carry on. Is ClassicalLiberalDoog available?
-
YellowSnow said:
Both Norway and Venezulea are gas pump countries. Both are socialist as well. One has a higher GDP per capita than the US and the other does not.
Gas Pump Socialists sport hipster skinny jeans and beanies. They drive Bentleys, too. -
I'd rather see UBI than the vast bureaucracy of government agencies. As a replacement to those I would be all for it. It will never be that though because of entrenched interests. It will be sold to us as an alternative and then end up a bloated mess like so many other government "services" for the poor.YellowSnow said:
* Norway's wealth is largely driven by extracting a valuable natural resource. Sweden actually makes some shit that people in N. Seattle and other parts of the world want to buy. Not sure what the Danes export...cookies? Queso?UW_Doog_Bot said:
The "Scandinavian" model is a Hondo take by the progressive crowd. It's a 10,000 ft view of a mixed economy that is rich from selling a resource to the rest of the world that progressives try to point to as "successful democratic socialism" even though it's no such thing.WilburHooksHands said:To Doogbot's article's point, only real fucktards want means of production to be run by the state. APAG already summed this up in another thread, but a mix of capitalist and welfare elements are probably the ideal. Venezuela bullshit is a Hondo play by the conservative crowd.
I don't agree that a mix of capitalism and (state run) welfare are the ideal. I think the government is inherently a terrible buying agent and is nothing but super inefficient at such projects. It also restricts the freedoms of those it purports to help while distorting the market and crowding out private competition for the rest of us.
The only times I see the government as being "the least bad option" are when you have significant negative externalities in a free market such as the military or the environment.
Simple question to ponder. Which thing do the poor have better access to, cell phones or healthcare? Which one has a freer market?
Also, automation will only be a substitute for human labor when human desires for goods stop being exponential. Until then it is complimentary to human labor, not a replacement. People saying automation will end human jobs are falling for the same fallacies that those who thought the industrial revolution would end the job market fell for. As long as resources are scarce and demand increases with supply there will be jobs for people. They will just be better, more creative, and interesting jobs than before. None of that is bad for any of us. Except maybe Hondo because...Hondo. -
Agree that it (UBI) would be difficult to near impossible to implement. But still, in theory, it could work better as a replacement of the existing welfare state. But the left will never sign off on this, so I don't spend too much time on it.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I'd rather see UBI than the vast bureaucracy of government agencies. As a replacement to those I would be all for it. It will never be that though because of entrenched interests. It will be sold to us as an alternative and then end up a bloated mess like so many other government "services" for the poor.YellowSnow said:
* Norway's wealth is largely driven by extracting a valuable natural resource. Sweden actually makes some shit that people in N. Seattle and other parts of the world want to buy. Not sure what the Danes export...cookies? Queso?UW_Doog_Bot said:
The "Scandinavian" model is a Hondo take by the progressive crowd. It's a 10,000 ft view of a mixed economy that is rich from selling a resource to the rest of the world that progressives try to point to as "successful democratic socialism" even though it's no such thing.WilburHooksHands said:To Doogbot's article's point, only real fucktards want means of production to be run by the state. APAG already summed this up in another thread, but a mix of capitalist and welfare elements are probably the ideal. Venezuela bullshit is a Hondo play by the conservative crowd.
I don't agree that a mix of capitalism and (state run) welfare are the ideal. I think the government is inherently a terrible buying agent and is nothing but super inefficient at such projects. It also restricts the freedoms of those it purports to help while distorting the market and crowding out private competition for the rest of us.
The only times I see the government as being "the least bad option" are when you have significant negative externalities in a free market such as the military or the environment.
Simple question to ponder. Which thing do the poor have better access to, cell phones or healthcare? Which one has a freer market?
Also, automation will only be a substitute for human labor when human desires for goods stop being exponential. Until then it is complimentary to human labor, not a replacement. People saying automation will end human jobs are falling for the same fallacies that those who thought the industrial revolution would end the job market fell for. As long as resources are scarce and demand increases with supply there will be jobs for people. They will just be better, more creative, and interesting jobs than before. None of that is bad for any of us. Except maybe Hondo because...Hondo.
Healthcare purchasing decisions aren't exactly analogous to buying cell phones, but I am very much in favor of something like HSA accounts for non catastrophic medical expenses, and then insurance for that which it should be intended- i.e., shit that will bankrupt you. Health insurance now is like using auto insurance to pay for a fucking oil change. So, so FS (fucking stooped @dnc )....
I agree that there will still be jobs for people post A.I. and rise of the machines; but in my view it's a bit lazy for us to say that just because the creative destruction which has happened since the IR has to date created new and better jobs, that this will always be the case. There's no way to predict exactly how this will play out. -
Just copy the best healthcare system (best quality for lowest price) and call it a day.
Work on modifying that later but Jesus Christ just fix it for God's sake. -
Since your're way left Hondo I was wondering if your burger joint pays a "living wage".2001400ex said:Be afraid. Socialism is coming to a politician near you.
-
Day job/night job.DerekJohnson said: -
Only God can judge me.DerekJohnson said: -
-
$15 is a good deal..... You give me a lot of credit.DerekJohnson said:
