Venezuela's president admits economy has failed

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Imagine if we didn't have capitalism and the wealth human innovation has created was spread fairly?

Yup, your utopia where everyone starves equally.

But at least they're equal.

 

[untermensche]

Shooting people for daring to actually use money was a nice touch though.

Delusion.

There were large areas that functioned without money however.

Under penalty of death, yes.

Total nonsense, never happened, pulled from your ass.

It is all you have, your delusions and love of dictatorship.

 

[untermensche]

Imagine if we didn't have capitalism and the wealth human innovation has created was spread fairly?

Yup, your utopia where everyone starves equally.

Yes, without the dictatorships inherent to capitalism we will all starve. Then we will fly unicorns to the moon.

People are starving all over the capitalist world already, in Guatemala and Mexico and Indonesia and Haiti and many other places.

A lot of people go hungry in the US every day.

What feeds a lot of people in the US are government programs. Without some socialism a lot more people would go hungry.

Imagine is we did away with Social Security as capitalists have wanted for decades how many more people would be hungry.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So? A newspapers value lies in it's trustworthiness. That's the product they're selling. Newspapers have a sharp divide between the editorial staff and bussiness side. They don't mess with each others territory. If the owners would meddle in the newspapers content it would be fucked. Because it'd be less trustworthy. Which leads to less ad revenue = sad owner.

Which means nothing when they're more interested in pushing a viewpoint than in making money.

= crazy conspiracy theory.

Al Jazeera ranks high in trustworthiness measurements. The owners obviously care more about that than pushing their viewpoints. How about just dealing with the fact that there are Muslim owners of news agencies who care more about the truth than pushing their Muslim agenda?

- - - Updated - - -

Can we not turn every thread into a Palestine/Israel thread?

 

[angelo]

That's a load of hogwash and if you care to open your eyes you'd see it too. They're living under the oppression of Hamas not the Israelis who are doing nothing more than defending themselves. If the blockades from Israel and Egypt were to end tomorrow, the whole of Gaza would become just a launching pad for even more deadly weapons than just rockets. Arabs in general will never accept a Jewish state living side by side with an Arab/Palestinian State.

The oppression from Israel is what has driven a group like Hamas into power.

You put people in prison and abuse them and some gang will arise to resist the oppression.

Why not Google the Hamas charter, or Hezbollah as well for that matter?

 

[angelo]

I presume you're aware that Al Jazera is owned by the ruling family of Qatar?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_controversies_and_criticism

So? A newspapers value lies in it's trustworthiness. That's the product they're selling. Newspapers have a sharp divide between the editorial staff and bussiness side. They don't mess with each others territory. If the owners would meddle in the newspapers content it would be fucked. Because it'd be less trustworthy. Which leads to less ad revenue = sad owner.

Most if not all adds on Al Jazera, both newspaper and TV adds are aimed at Muslims in one form or other. There's a reason for that.

 

[angelo]

What we have had since WWII is Americans somewhat free to advance, free from attack, and other systems that may have been better if allowed to grow attacked because they didn't submit to the US system.

The Geeks attacked, the Iranians, the Vietnamese and Cambodians, the Cubans and Chileans, the Nicaraguans and the Venezuelans, the Guatemalans and the Haitians, and many others.

Human innovation gave humans the modern world, not capitalism.

Capitalism allowed a few to prosper far more than others. That is all it has done. It is a system of power not a system that creates innovation.

Imagine if we didn't have capitalism and the wealth human innovation has created was spread fairly?

And do pray tell. Where's the capital for the innovation come from if not from capitalism ?

 

[DrZoidberg]

What we have had since WWII is Americans somewhat free to advance, free from attack, and other systems that may have been better if allowed to grow attacked because they didn't submit to the US system.

The Geeks attacked, the Iranians, the Vietnamese and Cambodians, the Cubans and Chileans, the Nicaraguans and the Venezuelans, the Guatemalans and the Haitians, and many others.

Human innovation gave humans the modern world, not capitalism.

Capitalism allowed a few to prosper far more than others. That is all it has done. It is a system of power not a system that creates innovation.

Imagine if we didn't have capitalism and the wealth human innovation has created was spread fairly?

And do pray tell. Where's the capital for the innovation come from if not from capitalism ?

Corporativism? Capitalism is a very specific economic tool. It's also an economic tool that has a tendency to lead to rent seeking, which is something we use market regulation to avoid. Since it's an awful destruction of value and potential growth. Capitalism has a lot of things going for it. But it's by no means the only method by which to raise capital.

 

[untermensche]

That's a load of hogwash and if you care to open your eyes you'd see it too. They're living under the oppression of Hamas not the Israelis who are doing nothing more than defending themselves. If the blockades from Israel and Egypt were to end tomorrow, the whole of Gaza would become just a launching pad for even more deadly weapons than just rockets. Arabs in general will never accept a Jewish state living side by side with an Arab/Palestinian State.

The oppression from Israel is what has driven a group like Hamas into power.

You put people in prison and abuse them and some gang will arise to resist the oppression.

Why not Google the Hamas charter, or Hezbollah as well for that matter?

Why not google decades of Israeli oppression murder and theft.

Oppression creates groups like Hamas.

And it allows them to maintain power in the vacuum.

- - - Updated - - -

What we have had since WWII is Americans somewhat free to advance, free from attack, and other systems that may have been better if allowed to grow attacked because they didn't submit to the US system.

The Geeks attacked, the Iranians, the Vietnamese and Cambodians, the Cubans and Chileans, the Nicaraguans and the Venezuelans, the Guatemalans and the Haitians, and many others.

Human innovation gave humans the modern world, not capitalism.

Capitalism allowed a few to prosper far more than others. That is all it has done. It is a system of power not a system that creates innovation.

Imagine if we didn't have capitalism and the wealth human innovation has created was spread fairly?

And do pray tell. Where's the capital for the innovation come from if not from capitalism ?

You get capital with a rational banking system and through government actions.

Capitalism does not create capital.

Human labor does.

 

[Axulus]

Why not Google the Hamas charter, or Hezbollah as well for that matter?

Why not google decades of Israeli oppression murder and theft.

Oppression creates groups like Hamas.

And it allows them to maintain power in the vacuum.

- - - Updated - - -

What we have had since WWII is Americans somewhat free to advance, free from attack, and other systems that may have been better if allowed to grow attacked because they didn't submit to the US system.

The Geeks attacked, the Iranians, the Vietnamese and Cambodians, the Cubans and Chileans, the Nicaraguans and the Venezuelans, the Guatemalans and the Haitians, and many others.

Human innovation gave humans the modern world, not capitalism.

Capitalism allowed a few to prosper far more than others. That is all it has done. It is a system of power not a system that creates innovation.

Imagine if we didn't have capitalism and the wealth human innovation has created was spread fairly?

And do pray tell. Where's the capital for the innovation come from if not from capitalism ?

You get capital with a rational banking system and through government actions.

Capitalism does not create capital.

Human labor does.

Savings directed toward investment does. Human labor can dig holes and fill them back in. That creates no capital.

Your hated of capitalism stems from your hatred of private property. Private property allows one to be a dictator over that property, which you abhor. No society has ever prospered without strong private property rights. Venezuela's downfall began when the state began routinely usurping private property rights as dictated by Chavez.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Imagine if we didn't have capitalism and the wealth human innovation has created was spread fairly?

Yup, your utopia where everyone starves equally.

Yes, without the dictatorships inherent to capitalism we will all starve. Then we will fly unicorns to the moon.

People are starving all over the capitalist world already, in Guatemala and Mexico and Indonesia and Haiti and many other places.

A lot of people go hungry in the US every day.

What feeds a lot of people in the US are government programs. Without some socialism a lot more people would go hungry.

Imagine is we did away with Social Security as capitalists have wanted for decades how many more people would be hungry.

The problem is your world can't support the large, capital intensive projects. Without them the carrying capacity is reduced--below the current population. Everything equal, everyone dies.

- - - Updated - - -

So? A newspapers value lies in it's trustworthiness. That's the product they're selling. Newspapers have a sharp divide between the editorial staff and bussiness side. They don't mess with each others territory. If the owners would meddle in the newspapers content it would be fucked. Because it'd be less trustworthy. Which leads to less ad revenue = sad owner.

Which means nothing when they're more interested in pushing a viewpoint than in making money.

= crazy conspiracy theory.

Al Jazeera ranks high in trustworthiness measurements. The owners obviously care more about that than pushing their viewpoints. How about just dealing with the fact that there are Muslim owners of news agencies who care more about the truth than pushing their Muslim agenda?

- - - Updated - - -

Can we not turn every thread into a Palestine/Israel thread?

I'm not trying to make it into a Palestine/Israel thread--Al Jazeera is no longer trustworthy about Arab matters, either.

The problem isn't that the owners are Muslim--the old owners were Muslim, also. The problem is the current owners are players in the terrorism game.

- - - Updated - - -

I presume you're aware that Al Jazera is owned by the ruling family of Qatar?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_controversies_and_criticism

So? A newspapers value lies in it's trustworthiness. That's the product they're selling. Newspapers have a sharp divide between the editorial staff and bussiness side. They don't mess with each others territory. If the owners would meddle in the newspapers content it would be fucked. Because it'd be less trustworthy. Which leads to less ad revenue = sad owner.

Most if not all adds on Al Jazera, both newspaper and TV adds are aimed at Muslims in one form or other. There's a reason for that.

So what? The same was true of the old Al Jazeera, they used to be a quite credible news organization.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So? A newspapers value lies in it's trustworthiness. That's the product they're selling. Newspapers have a sharp divide between the editorial staff and bussiness side. They don't mess with each others territory. If the owners would meddle in the newspapers content it would be fucked. Because it'd be less trustworthy. Which leads to less ad revenue = sad owner.

Which means nothing when they're more interested in pushing a viewpoint than in making money.

= crazy conspiracy theory.

Al Jazeera ranks high in trustworthiness measurements. The owners obviously care more about that than pushing their viewpoints. How about just dealing with the fact that there are Muslim owners of news agencies who care more about the truth than pushing their Muslim agenda?

Al Jazeera is no longer trustworthy about Arab matters, either.

The problem isn't that the owners are Muslim--the old owners were Muslim, also. The problem is the current owners are players in the terrorism game.

Meh... Just because a politician is Arab/Muslim doesn't mean their every attempt at diplomacy is an act of terrorism. That's dumb. The lamest kind of diplomatic analysis. The Arab spring made the Middle-East unstable politically. Qatar would have to be complete idiots if they didn't try to exploit that to increase their influence. But all that is irrelevant to this, because there's no evidence that Qatar is using Al Jazeera as a mouth-piece.

Just because Al Jazeera has recieved criticism, doesn't mean that critique has substance. Trump has made lots of criticism against... all media. That doesn't make that critique reasonable. I haven't seen anything to make me believe Al Jazeera isn't serious about it's journalistic mission.

The Qatari government has set up the ownership structure of Al Jazeera in a way as to guarantee that the Qatari government has no say in how it's run. The Qatari government gave Al Jazeera a massive bank loan with set and favourable interest rates, as to cut all strings. Al Jazeera is NOT dependent on anyone or anything for it's reporting. They're 100% indipendent. Even if the Qatari government would get offended by Al Jazeeras reporting, they don't have any power to do anything about it. Other than purely informal power.

If I'm to stop trusting Al Jazeera I'll have to see something with substance to back up that claim.

 

[angelo]

What we have had since WWII is Americans somewhat free to advance, free from attack, and other systems that may have been better if allowed to grow attacked because they didn't submit to the US system.

The Geeks attacked, the Iranians, the Vietnamese and Cambodians, the Cubans and Chileans, the Nicaraguans and the Venezuelans, the Guatemalans and the Haitians, and many others.

Human innovation gave humans the modern world, not capitalism.

Capitalism allowed a few to prosper far more than others. That is all it has done. It is a system of power not a system that creates innovation.

Imagine if we didn't have capitalism and the wealth human innovation has created was spread fairly?

And do pray tell. Where's the capital for the innovation come from if not from capitalism ?

Corporativism? Capitalism is a very specific economic tool. It's also an economic tool that has a tendency to lead to rent seeking, which is something we use market regulation to avoid. Since it's an awful destruction of value and potential growth. Capitalism has a lot of things going for it. But it's by no means the only method by which to raise capital.

Yes there are other ways. Like Stalin did in Russia. Take everything from the farmers and others to distribute to the general population so that from some estimates up to 20 million people were killed or starved to death.

 

[angelo]

Which means nothing when they're more interested in pushing a viewpoint than in making money.

= crazy conspiracy theory.

Al Jazeera ranks high in trustworthiness measurements. The owners obviously care more about that than pushing their viewpoints. How about just dealing with the fact that there are Muslim owners of news agencies who care more about the truth than pushing their Muslim agenda?

Al Jazeera is no longer trustworthy about Arab matters, either.

The problem isn't that the owners are Muslim--the old owners were Muslim, also. The problem is the current owners are players in the terrorism game.

Meh... Just because a politician is Arab/Muslim doesn't mean their every attempt at diplomacy is an act of terrorism. That's dumb. The lamest kind of diplomatic analysis. The Arab spring made the Middle-East unstable politically. Qatar would have to be complete idiots if they didn't try to exploit that to increase their influence. But all that is irrelevant to this, because there's no evidence that Qatar is using Al Jazeera as a mouth-piece.

Just because Al Jazeera has recieved criticism, doesn't mean that critique has substance. Trump has made lots of criticism against... all media. That doesn't make that critique reasonable. I haven't seen anything to make me believe Al Jazeera isn't serious about it's journalistic mission.

The Qatari government has set up the ownership structure of Al Jazeera in a way as to guarantee that the Qatari government has no say in how it's run. The Qatari government gave Al Jazeera a massive bank loan with set and favourable interest rates, as to cut all strings. Al Jazeera is NOT dependent on anyone or anything for it's reporting. They're 100% indipendent. Even if the Qatari government would get offended by Al Jazeeras reporting, they don't have any power to do anything about it. Other than purely informal power.

If I'm to stop trusting Al Jazeera I'll have to see something with substance to back up that claim.

Seems a little balance is required here!.............................https://www.mintpressnews.com/al-jazeeras-fall-grace-news-outlet-became-tool-state/226092/

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Which means nothing when they're more interested in pushing a viewpoint than in making money.

= crazy conspiracy theory.

Al Jazeera ranks high in trustworthiness measurements. The owners obviously care more about that than pushing their viewpoints. How about just dealing with the fact that there are Muslim owners of news agencies who care more about the truth than pushing their Muslim agenda?

Al Jazeera is no longer trustworthy about Arab matters, either.

The problem isn't that the owners are Muslim--the old owners were Muslim, also. The problem is the current owners are players in the terrorism game.

Meh... Just because a politician is Arab/Muslim doesn't mean their every attempt at diplomacy is an act of terrorism. That's dumb. The lamest kind of diplomatic analysis. The Arab spring made the Middle-East unstable politically. Qatar would have to be complete idiots if they didn't try to exploit that to increase their influence. But all that is irrelevant to this, because there's no evidence that Qatar is using Al Jazeera as a mouth-piece.

It's not because they are politicians. It's because Qatar supports terrorism:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40246734

The Qatari government has set up the ownership structure of Al Jazeera in a way as to guarantee that the Qatari government has no say in how it's run. The Qatari government gave Al Jazeera a massive bank loan with set and favourable interest rates, as to cut all strings. Al Jazeera is NOT dependent on anyone or anything for it's reporting. They're 100% indipendent. Even if the Qatari government would get offended by Al Jazeeras reporting, they don't have any power to do anything about it. Other than purely informal power.

If I'm to stop trusting Al Jazeera I'll have to see something with substance to back up that claim.

And I've got some prime Everglades farmland for sale.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's not because they are politicians. It's because Qatar supports terrorism:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40246734

That guy George Washington.... what a terrorist. Can you believe USA has that terrorist on their money?

Just because a freedom fighter is Muslim, doesn't make them terrorists. Wars are messy.

BTW, Houthi Islam is a home grown form of Yemeni Islam, at odds with twelver Islam, ie Shia Islam. Yet, Iran doesn't seem to have a problem with backing them. Perhaps this isn't about religion, and is just real politik? I think it's pretty clear that Qatar is just backing the Houthi's because they're not Saudi Arabia. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Saudi Arabia has the biggest dick in the area, and they're not afraid of swinging it around indescriminately. No, shit that can annoy certain neighbours.

 

[angelo]

It's not because they are politicians. It's because Qatar supports terrorism:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40246734

That guy George Washington.... what a terrorist. Can you believe USA has that terrorist on their money?

Just because a freedom fighter is Muslim, doesn't make them terrorists. Wars are messy.

BTW, Houthi Islam is a home grown form of Yemeni Islam, at odds with twelver Islam, ie Shia Islam. Yet, Iran doesn't seem to have a problem with backing them. Perhaps this isn't about religion, and is just real politik? I think it's pretty clear that Qatar is just backing the Houthi's because they're not Saudi Arabia. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Saudi Arabia has the biggest dick in the area, and they're not afraid of swinging it around indescriminately. No, shit that can annoy certain neighbours.

A freedom fighter and muslim/Islam are not compatible. Could you name one Islamic freedom fighter? Just one will do!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not because they are politicians. It's because Qatar supports terrorism:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40246734

That guy George Washington.... what a terrorist. Can you believe USA has that terrorist on their money?

Just because a freedom fighter is Muslim, doesn't make them terrorists. Wars are messy.

BTW, Houthi Islam is a home grown form of Yemeni Islam, at odds with twelver Islam, ie Shia Islam. Yet, Iran doesn't seem to have a problem with backing them. Perhaps this isn't about religion, and is just real politik? I think it's pretty clear that Qatar is just backing the Houthi's because they're not Saudi Arabia. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Saudi Arabia has the biggest dick in the area, and they're not afraid of swinging it around indescriminately. No, shit that can annoy certain neighbours.

Freedom fighters attack enemy military/government. Terrorists attack enemy civilians.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's not because they are politicians. It's because Qatar supports terrorism:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40246734

That guy George Washington.... what a terrorist. Can you believe USA has that terrorist on their money?

Just because a freedom fighter is Muslim, doesn't make them terrorists. Wars are messy.

BTW, Houthi Islam is a home grown form of Yemeni Islam, at odds with twelver Islam, ie Shia Islam. Yet, Iran doesn't seem to have a problem with backing them. Perhaps this isn't about religion, and is just real politik? I think it's pretty clear that Qatar is just backing the Houthi's because they're not Saudi Arabia. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Saudi Arabia has the biggest dick in the area, and they're not afraid of swinging it around indescriminately. No, shit that can annoy certain neighbours.

A freedom fighter and muslim/Islam are not compatible. Could you name one Islamic freedom fighter? Just one will do!

Saladin?

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's not because they are politicians. It's because Qatar supports terrorism:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40246734

That guy George Washington.... what a terrorist. Can you believe USA has that terrorist on their money?

Just because a freedom fighter is Muslim, doesn't make them terrorists. Wars are messy.

BTW, Houthi Islam is a home grown form of Yemeni Islam, at odds with twelver Islam, ie Shia Islam. Yet, Iran doesn't seem to have a problem with backing them. Perhaps this isn't about religion, and is just real politik? I think it's pretty clear that Qatar is just backing the Houthi's because they're not Saudi Arabia. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Saudi Arabia has the biggest dick in the area, and they're not afraid of swinging it around indescriminately. No, shit that can annoy certain neighbours.

Freedom fighters attack enemy military/government. Terrorists attack enemy civilians.

So you admit you were wrong?