Venezuela: la mierda hits el ventilador

[iolo]

There is nothing utopian about wanting rule by the majority social class. You do not find such societies existing because the capitalist armies murder those who support them, as you very well know.

We call it utopian because is a dream world that can't actually exist.

What always happens is that such societies start out stealing from the rich but soon run out of rich to steal from and then they fall apart.

Total bullshit, as you very well know. Your masters describe any of your colonies that break free as 'socialist' because your mugs have been brainwashed into destroying such societies. Actual socialism is rule by the people who do all the work and produce all the goods, and is utterly incompatible with your thieving system. That's why your masters have always murdered any socialists who look anywhere near to establishing democracy.

 

[skepticalbip]

We call it utopian because is a dream world that can't actually exist.

What always happens is that such societies start out stealing from the rich but soon run out of rich to steal from and then they fall apart.

Total bullshit, as you very well know. Your masters describe any of your colonies that break free as 'socialist' because your mugs have been brainwashed into destroying such societies. Actual socialism is rule by the people who do all the work and produce all the goods, and is utterly incompatible with your thieving system. That's why your masters have always murdered any socialists who look anywhere near to establishing democracy.

You apparently didn't listen to the American socialists like Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Bernie Sanders, etc. when they were praising the socialist utopia being established in Venezuela when Chavez was nationalizing industries and farms. Life looked good for the people of Venezuela until the wealth created by those capitalist enterprises were burned through. Then the inevitable collapse began and those American socialists conveniently forgot about Venezuela. Do these American socialists not know what socialism is? Or is is that it isn't "real socialism" unless it actually works? If the latter then there is no evidence that "real socialism" can ever be anything but a wet dream but never a reality.

 

[LordKiran]

Total bullshit, as you very well know. Your masters describe any of your colonies that break free as 'socialist' because your mugs have been brainwashed into destroying such societies. Actual socialism is rule by the people who do all the work and produce all the goods, and is utterly incompatible with your thieving system. That's why your masters have always murdered any socialists who look anywhere near to establishing democracy.

You apparently didn't listen to the American socialists like Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Bernie Sanders, etc. when they were praising the socialist utopia being established in Venezuela when Chavez was nationalizing industries and farms. Life looked good for the people of Venezuela until the wealth created by those capitalist enterprises were burned through. Then the inevitable collapse began and those American socialists conveniently forgot about Venezuela. Do these American socialists not know what socialism is? Or is is that it isn't "real socialism" unless it actually works? If the latter then there is no evidence that "real socialism" can ever be anything but a wet dream but never a reality.

I don't see why poor economic planning is something specific to socialism when you can see it anywhere and everywhere. Free Market Capitalism is still responsible for the largest economic crisis in history last time I checked. It's also largely responsible for societal scourges like the opioid epidemic by the by.

 

[dismal]

I don't see why poor economic planning is something specific to socialism

You do get that socialism is a centrally planned economy? Whereas a market economy does not require planning beyond putting certain rules in place and letting prices communicate information to to buyers and sellers?

 

[LordKiran]

I don't see why poor economic planning is something specific to socialism

You do get that socialism is a centrally planned economy? Whereas a market economy does not require planning beyond putting certain rules in place and letting prices communicate information to to buyers and sellers?

Poor economic planning is not specific to socialism. The chaos of the free market is in itself a poor form of planning because it's comparable to just betting everything on black and hoping for the best. Believe it or not, we as a society have a vested interest in maintaining the machinery of our economy and making sure it doesn't break. A recession or depression is a failure to do just that.

You'll also note that I specify free market capitalism, which is something we do not have and never will because that would be batshit crazy

 

[skepticalbip]

You apparently didn't listen to the American socialists like Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Bernie Sanders, etc. when they were praising the socialist utopia being established in Venezuela when Chavez was nationalizing industries and farms. Life looked good for the people of Venezuela until the wealth created by those capitalist enterprises were burned through. Then the inevitable collapse began and those American socialists conveniently forgot about Venezuela. Do these American socialists not know what socialism is? Or is is that it isn't "real socialism" unless it actually works? If the latter then there is no evidence that "real socialism" can ever be anything but a wet dream but never a reality.

I don't see why poor economic planning is something specific to socialism when you can see it anywhere and everywhere.

It isn't just a matter of poor economic planning. It is basing an economic system on an ignorance of human nature too.

But to your "poor economic planning"... Under a free market, a company that has poor economic planning will collapse but that company's competitors will benefit so goods and services to the population are not interrupted. Under a socialist system, poor economic planning by the central committee results in a collapse of the entire economy.

Free Market Capitalism is still responsible for the largest economic crisis in history last time I checked. It's also largely responsible for societal scourges like the opioid epidemic by the by.

The "largest economic crisis in history" wasn't the result of a free market being in place but a problem resulting from crony capitalism (government interference in the market and favoritism).

 

[dismal]

You do get that socialism is a centrally planned economy? Whereas a market economy does not require planning beyond putting certain rules in place and letting prices communicate information to to buyers and sellers?

Poor economic planning is not specific to socialism. The chaos of the free market is in itself a poor form of planning because it's comparable to just betting everything on black and hoping for the best. Believe it or not, we as a society have a vested interest in maintaining the machinery of our economy and making sure it doesn't break. A recession or depression is a failure to do just that.

You'll also note that I specify free market capitalism, which is something we do not have and never will because that would be batshit crazy

You would at least agree that the more you centrally plan an economy, the more the economy can be centrally planned badly?

If I don't centrally plan the bread industry I can't fuck up the central plan for bread, right?

Does it not at least occur to you how royally fucked up it is that in a relatively prosperous nation people can't get bread?

This is the amount of central government planning it takes for there to be bread on the shelves: none.

Venezuela has government determined exchange rates, government controlled grain imports, government controlled farms, government controlled bread prices, and government nationalize bakeries. It takes a lot of unnecessary effort to ensure a population can't get bread.

 

[LordKiran]

I don't see why poor economic planning is something specific to socialism when you can see it anywhere and everywhere.

It isn't just a matter of poor economic planning. It is basing an economic system on an ignorance of human nature too.

But to your "poor economic planning"... Under a free market, a company that has poor economic planning will collapse but that company's competitors will benefit so goods and services to the population are not interrupted.[1] Under a socialist system, poor economic planning by the central committee results in a collapse of the entire economy.

Free Market Capitalism is still responsible for the largest economic crisis in history last time I checked. It's also largely responsible for societal scourges like the opioid epidemic by the by.

The "largest economic crisis in history" wasn't the result of a free market being in place but a problem resulting from crony capitalism (government interference in the market and favoritism).[2]

1. Sure up until the successful businesses coalesce further and further until you have only have a few major companies left. If there isn't an outside force to put the foot down, maintain and enforce market diversity, any economic system you practice is inherently unsustainable. It may sound strange, but it is possible for a business to become too successful.

2. Croney capitalism? Perhaps partially. Though mostly it was the result of rampant and unrestricted speculation that permeated all layers of American society until the bubble burst.

- - - Updated - - -

Poor economic planning is not specific to socialism. The chaos of the free market is in itself a poor form of planning because it's comparable to just betting everything on black and hoping for the best. Believe it or not, we as a society have a vested interest in maintaining the machinery of our economy and making sure it doesn't break. A recession or depression is a failure to do just that.

You'll also note that I specify free market capitalism, which is something we do not have and never will because that would be batshit crazy

You would at least agree that the more you centrally plan an economy, the more the economy can be centrally planned badly?

If I don't centrally plan the bread industry I can't fuck up the central plan for bread, right?

Does it not at least occur to you how royally fucked up it is that in a relatively prosperous nation people can't get bread?

This is the amount of central government planning it takes for there to be bread on the shelves: none.

Venezuela has government determined exchange rates, government controlled grain imports, government controlled farms, government controlled bread prices, and government nationalize bakeries. It takes a lot of unnecessary effort to ensure a population can't get bread.

The point is that there's a happy medium somewhere in the middle. The answer isn't as simple as "Socialism bad, capitalism good." or the reverse. There needs to be a balance between private interests and public interests.

 

[dismal]

The point is that there's a happy medium somewhere in the middle. The answer isn't as simple as "Socialism bad, capitalism good." or the reverse. There needs to be a balance between private interests and public interests.

How much government control over the bread industry is too much?

Do you support government determined exchange rates, government controlled grain imports, government controlled farms, government controlled bread prices, and government nationalized bakeries?

 

[LordKiran]

The point is that there's a happy medium somewhere in the middle. The answer isn't as simple as "Socialism bad, capitalism good." or the reverse. There needs to be a balance between private interests and public interests.

How much government control over the bread industry is too much?

Do you support government determined exchange rates, government controlled grain imports, government controlled farms, government controlled bread prices, and government nationalized bakeries?

Nah.

I do support nationalized civil amenities, such as schools and hospitals and fire stations though, because a profit motive does not reliably coincide with the social well-being of the country in industries where our social well-being is the chief concern.

I support job guarantees with wages and benefits that ensure people who work in the public sector are able to maintain the American standard of living such as it has historically been, and also force private employers to compete for labor.

I support government intervention (Very broadly) when used to maintain and enforce market diversity, this means breaking up companies deemed "Too large to fail" because it is unwise to have an economy putting too many eggs in too few baskets regardless of circumstance and what's more, time and time again we have seen that an unregulated market cannot be relied upon the maintain itself indefinitely.

An economy is ultimately a tool for the distribution of wealth, a tool that exists to serve us all, and like any other tool, we can craft it to suit our needs. There was a time when this wasn't anathema to Conservative thought as a whole.

 

[dismal]

How much government control over the bread industry is too much?

Do you support government determined exchange rates, government controlled grain imports, government controlled farms, government controlled bread prices, and government nationalized bakeries?

Nah.

So, Venezuela has these things. This the problem. The government is involved in things where it should not be involved, and is making those things worse to the point people are starving.

It's not just an academic point.

An economy is ultimately a tool for the distribution of wealth, a tool that exists to serve us all, and like any other tool, we can craft it to suit our needs.

An economy is a system to allocate resources to human wants and needs. Venezuela is a country with abundant resources and a shitty allocation of them to human wants and needs. That is, it has a shitty economy. Its government does things that basic economic text books advise against, and it gets the exact negative consequences those text books would predict.

If you agree with this, I'm not sure what we are arguing.

 

[LordKiran]

Nah.

So, Venezuela has these things. This the problem. The government is involved in things where it should not be involved, and is making those things worse to the point people are starving.

It's not just an academic point.

An economy is ultimately a tool for the distribution of wealth, a tool that exists to serve us all, and like any other tool, we can craft it to suit our needs.

An economy is a system to allocate resources to human wants and needs. Venezuela is a country with abundant resources and a shitty allocation of them to human wants and needs. That is, it has a shitty economy. Its government does things that basic economic text books advise against, and it gets the exact negative consequences those text books would predict.

If you agree with this, I'm not sure what we are arguing.

I don't care about Venezuela. I care about the notion that any form or practice of socialism is bad by virtue of being socialism. This is the notion you are trying to push; this is the notion I am here to combat.

Also wealth (Again speaking broadly) is a synonym for resources in the context which I said it. Your correction is one without a distinction.

 

[dismal]

So, Venezuela has these things. This the problem. The government is involved in things where it should not be involved, and is making those things worse to the point people are starving.

It's not just an academic point.

An economy is ultimately a tool for the distribution of wealth, a tool that exists to serve us all, and like any other tool, we can craft it to suit our needs.

An economy is a system to allocate resources to human wants and needs. Venezuela is a country with abundant resources and a shitty allocation of them to human wants and needs. That is, it has a shitty economy. Its government does things that basic economic text books advise against, and it gets the exact negative consequences those text books would predict.

If you agree with this, I'm not sure what we are arguing.

I don't care about Venezuela. I care about the notion that any form or practice of socialism is bad by virtue of being socialism. This is the notion you are trying to push; this is the notion I am here to combat.

Also wealth (Again speaking broadly) is a synonym for resources in the context which I said it. Your correction is one without a distinction.

This is a thread about Venezuela. If you have a problem with something I have said about Venezuela in a thread about Venezuela feel free to rebut it or just get the fuck out.

 

[LordKiran]

So, Venezuela has these things. This the problem. The government is involved in things where it should not be involved, and is making those things worse to the point people are starving.

It's not just an academic point.

An economy is ultimately a tool for the distribution of wealth, a tool that exists to serve us all, and like any other tool, we can craft it to suit our needs.

An economy is a system to allocate resources to human wants and needs. Venezuela is a country with abundant resources and a shitty allocation of them to human wants and needs. That is, it has a shitty economy. Its government does things that basic economic text books advise against, and it gets the exact negative consequences those text books would predict.

If you agree with this, I'm not sure what we are arguing.

I don't care about Venezuela. I care about the notion that any form or practice of socialism is bad by virtue of being socialism. This is the notion you are trying to push; this is the notion I am here to combat.

Also wealth (Again speaking broadly) is a synonym for resources in the context which I said it. Your correction is one without a distinction.

This is a thread about Venezuela. If you have a problem with something I have said about Venezuela in a thread about Venezuela feel free to rebut it or just get the fuck out.

No.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRt9x2NDSAU[/youtube]

It's not capitalism, it's not real socialism, what is it?

 

[untermensche]

It's not capitalism, it's not real socialism, what is it?

It was a socialist experiment under Chavez that turned into severe corruption when he died.

How easy to label corruption "socialism" and pretend you are making a criticism of socialism.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRt9x2NDSAU[/youtube]

It's not capitalism, it's not real socialism, what is it?

Libertarianism?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not capitalism, it's not real socialism, what is it?

It was a socialist experiment under Chavez that turned into severe corruption when he died.

How easy to label corruption "socialism" and pretend you are making a criticism of socialism.

It's been corruption from day 1. It's just the cronyism hadn't built up to the incredibly destructive levels under Chavez.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It's not capitalism, it's not real socialism, what is it?

It was a socialist experiment under Chavez that turned into severe corruption when he died.

How easy to label corruption "socialism" and pretend you are making a criticism of socialism.

Not enough Scotsmen in Venezuela?

 

[skepticalbip]

It's not capitalism, it's not real socialism, what is it?

It started out as a real socialist experiment, endorsed and praised by Noam Chomsky, Bernie Sanders, Michael Moore, etc. It was the ideal lauded by American socialists for the first few years. As conditions began getting worse for the general population under Chevez, the American socialists began to pretend that Venezuela didn't exist. Then Maduro, Chavez's hand picked successor, took over after Chavez's death, inherited an economy on the verge of collapse because the nationalized industries and farms had failed under socialist control leaving pretty much only oil as a resource. Soon oil prices dropped and the economy went into a tailspin.

For American socialists, it is only socialism if it works. If it fails like socialist run economies always have then it "wasn't true socialism." Meanwhile the "dream" continues and undoubtedly millions of others will suffer because it will be tried yet again in some other country.