Things Not Going Well in Venezuela, 2.0

[bad_teammate 13224]

40 minutes ago, SDG said:

People being greedy is the primary reason why socialism hasn’t or will never work.  

What does "work" even mean? Of course socialism can work. Under the Soviet program, Russia went from a third-world feudal hellscape to the 2nd most powerful and prosperous nation on Earth. The market reforms post-USSR sunk the Russian economy it took until the mid 2010s for the economy to grow back to the size it was in the late Soviet era, only this time with massive homelessness and unemployment and 80+ billionaires worth $400+B.

Socialist programs work everywhere in the 1st world, including the aforementioned Social Security and Medicare.

But you still haven't explained how genetics factor in.

[Bozo_Casanova 26522]

Irrelevant economic system talk not going away

[Brisketexan 105273]

Irrelevant economic system talk not going away

Labels are all that matters.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Socialist policies are a success in America. They are a success in Europe. They have been successful in all western democracies.

 

Other than bankrupting us, yes they’re a success.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Who should we credit with the successes of socialism? 

Your favorite group, white Northern Europeans.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

19 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Other than bankrupting us, yes they’re a success.  

You mean like the corporate and bank bailouts?

[hpslugga 4062]

7 hours ago, Revolution512 said:

I see you’ve entered stage 3. Good luck 

Evidently that was supposed to mean something.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You mean like the corporate and bank bailouts?

Yeah.  That’s why we’re in debt Comrade.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

[Enchubben 5510]

There is a difference between socialist policies that are public services or safeguards for retirement and socialist policies that directly impact commercial enterprise and healthcare.

The former in limited amounts act a safeguard for many (those that don’t produce the means for retirement in the case os social security) and nearly all in the case of public services like parks, fire departments etc. 

The far left would have us believe that because social security and parks are popular, (I don’t say work because it’s unclear that social security is actually effective, and will be around in 30 years) that the US should go full Venezuela. 

[bad_teammate 13224]

What does "full Venezuela" actually mean?

[hpslugga 4062]

39 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

There is a difference between socialist policies that are public services or safeguards for retirement and socialist policies that directly impact commercial enterprise and healthcare.

The former in limited amounts act a safeguard for many (those that don’t produce the means for retirement in the case os social security) and nearly all in the case of public services like parks, fire departments etc. 

The far left would have us believe that because social security and parks are popular, (I don’t say work because it’s unclear that social security is actually effective, and will be around in 30 years) that the US should go full Venezuela. 

Again, Venezuela’s economy is controlled 70% by the private sector. That inherently negates any claims to socialism. I don’t know why some of you either cannot understand that or will not understand it.

So when you refer to the US “going full Venezuela,” that would mean the government seizing roughly an additional 15-18 or so % of the US economy.

Edited May 4, 2019 by hpslugga

[bad_teammate 13224]

He has no idea what socialism is or what Venezuela's economy is or anything except the talking points he gets from fellow morons.

[bad_teammate 13224]

Maddow's Russian brain worms are so powerful that she's painting John Bolton and Mike Pompeo as sympathetic

 

[Enchubben 5510]

18 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Again, Venezuela’s economy is controlled 70% by the private sector. That inherently negates any claims to socialism. I don’t know why some of you either cannot understand that or will not understand it.

So when you refer to the US “going full Venezuela,” that would mean the government seizing roughly an additional 15-18 or so % of the US economy.

I understand that I don’t trust our government with 15-18% of 20 trillion dollars. That’s trillion, with a t. 

What is healthcare currently, 20% gdp? 

[Enchubben 5510]

18 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

He has no idea what socialism is or what Venezuela's economy is or anything except the talking points he gets from fellow morons.

Lol, name calling, par for the course. Moron is lame though, next time see if you can fit in racist or sexist or homophobic.

But sure, please educate me on why we should be more like Venezuela. It’s going great for them.

[bad_teammate 13224]

6 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Lol, name calling, par for the course. Moron is lame though, next time see if you can fit in racist or sexist or homophobic.

But sure, please educate me on why we should be more like Venezuela. It’s going great for them.

I can't tell you how "more like Venezuela" we should be if you can't even articulate what that means.

What is it you mean by "go full Venezuela"?

[Enchubben 5510]

30 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I can't tell you how "more like Venezuela" we should be if you can't even articulate what that means.

What is it you mean by "go full Venezuela"?

Let’s start with nationalizing industries like healthcare or oil and gas.

[bad_teammate 13224]

6 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Let’s start with nationalizing industries like healthcare or oil and gas.

Both of those are excellent ideas that you can find very successful models for. The vast majority of the world's output and reserves are with nationally-owned oil companies.

[SaucyJack 3500]

PEMEX would have to be No. 1

 

Dumbassery knows no bounds.

[Llano Estacado 1257]

Yeah, Chavez did amazing things with PDVSA. Envy of the world.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

15 minutes ago, Llano Estacado said:

Yeah, Chavez did amazing things with PDVSA. Envy of the world.

You see it was the USA’s fault.  Latin American socialism works great without us imperialists interfering.  

[JimmyJames 12271]

15 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You see it was the USA’s fault.  Latin American socialism works great without us imperialists interfering.  

Not sure what you are trying to argue here sack. Can you give us some examples of Latin American socialism working great without American interference? And no Sweden, Norway, et al aint in Latin America. 

Maybe you’re arguing socialism only works in all white countries. Is that it? 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

11 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Not sure what you are trying to argue here sack. Can you give us some examples of Latin American socialism working great without American interference? And no Sweden, Norway, et al aint in Latin America. 

Maybe you’re arguing socialism only works in all white countries. Is that it? 

I meant what I said.  That socialism in Venezuela only failed because of the USA.  It was poised to dominate but for us.  

[JimmyJames 12271]

23 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I meant what I said.  That socialism in Venezuela only failed because of the USA.  It was poised to dominate but for us.  

I’m still trying to figure out if you’re being serious here sack. Sorry but it just doesn’t seem like you. Plus I don’t see how socialism would be poised to dominate anything if you are. 

[hpslugga 4062]

2 hours ago, Enchubben said:

Let’s start with nationalizing industries like healthcare or oil and gas.

They nationalized oil well before Chavez. They did all that in 1976 when Hugo was just barely discovering what his political leanings were as a 22 year old, Maduro was barely a teenager, and for the US it was a non-issue.

Besides, nationalizing a single resource does not a socialist nation make. Same goes for healthcare. Does anyone here think Israel is a socialist state? How about the UK? France?

And even if you choose to answer those questions, we’re wasting each other’s time anyways because Venezuela is not one of the countries of the world that has full-blown universal healthcare. Their healthcare system is a mix of private and public. In fact, really the only major step the so-called Bolivarians took on that issue was inoculations. Other than that, they’ve been a shit show.

And even if you were completely right in those statements, you’d still have your work cut out for you. Chavez/Maduro neither nationalized the oil (that was done two decades before them) nor healthcare, and even if they did, that still in and of itself does not constitute Venezuela as a socialist state.

I mentioned earlier that the state owns around 30% of the economy. The reason it’s that much is because Venezuela has very little economic diversity (also a pre-Chavez problem) and that 30% number is almost exclusively from the oil industry. So again, when you say “go full venezuela,” understand that people quite reasonably want to know what that means.

[DalTxHornFan 3116]

28 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

 

I mentioned earlier that the state owns around 30% of the economy. The reason it’s that much is because Venezuela has very little economic diversity (also a pre-Chavez problem) and that 30% number is almost exclusively from the oil industry. So again, when you say “go full venezuela,” understand that people quite reasonably want to know what that means.

The cited 30% number not withstanding, it isn't much of a private sector when there are government imposed price controls, currency controls, rationing, confiscation, political and government control over imports and distribution, among other policy trainwrecks.  That's what "go full Venezuela" means.

[SDG 3319]

20 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

The cited 30% number not withstanding, it isn't much of a private sector when there are government imposed price controls, currency controls, rationing, confiscation, political and government control over imports and distribution, among other policy trainwrecks.  That's what "go full Venezuela" means.

I want to live in a society were “rationing” is needed. - Surly....

[atomheartbevo 89777]

5 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

What does "full Venezuela" actually mean?

It’s the opposite of getting a Brazilian - you wax any hair covered by a bikini, and leave everything else outside the bikini line.  

[David Dennison 18944]

10 hours ago, SDG said:

I want to live in a society were “rationing” is needed. - Surly....

You already do. What do you think insurance companies are doing when they deny claims?

[hpslugga 4062]

10 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

The cited 30% number not withstanding, it isn't much of a private sector when there are government imposed price controls, currency controls, rationing, confiscation, political and government control over imports and distribution, among other policy trainwrecks.  That's what "go full Venezuela" means.

That wasn't the argument, though. The "go full Venezuela" phrase was used in conjunction with the oft-repeated myth that Venezuela is a socialist state. That little laundry list you just composed does absolutely nothing to advance that argument because it has absolutely nothing to do with socialism.

"Socialism" is not defined as "when capitalism ceases to run unchecked and unfettered." That description only appropriately indicates that a country isn't some whackjob Ayn Rand/Milton Friedman, anarcho-capitalist nightmare.

Socialism is, as has been explained numerous times before (including here), defined as "workers' control over production." Do we see this in Venezuela? The lot of you that are trying to advance this case that Venezuela is somehow a "socialist state" can't seem to even say the words "no, Venezuela does not facilitate workers' control over production." Their leaders talked the line about it, but they did next to nothing to usher in that sort of economic order. Mere political rhetoric does not define an economic/political system. Regardless of how restricted their private industry is, it does exist and they do control the means of production in 70% of the economy. And in the 30% areas where the state controls it, that's still not socialism. "Workers" and "the state" are not synonyms, taxonomically or otherwise.

It's kinda like if I were to play golf in Norway during the winter and the entire course was covered with ice and it's damn near impossible to knock the ball into the holes, that's still not hockey...even if I were to trot out there with ice skates, helmet, pads and a stick with a blade.

Edited May 5, 2019 by hpslugga

[pyrohornIII 4817]

14 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

The cited 30% number not withstanding, it isn't much of a private sector when there are government imposed price controls, currency controls, rationing, confiscation, political and government control over imports and distribution, among other policy trainwrecks.  That's what "go full Venezuela" means.

Like tariffs?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

On 5/4/2019 at 1:22 PM, bad_teammate said:

What does "work" even mean? Of course socialism can work. Under the Soviet program, Russia went from a third-world feudal hellscape to the 2nd most powerful and prosperous nation on Earth. The market reforms post-USSR sunk the Russian economy it took until the mid 2010s for the economy to grow back to the size it was in the late Soviet era, only this time with massive homelessness and unemployment and 80+ billionaires worth $400+B.

Socialist programs work everywhere in the 1st world, including the aforementioned Social Security and Medicare.

But you still haven't explained how genetics factor in.

The mafia run the Soviet Union used socialism as a police state tactic to keep its citizens under control, impoverished, and needy. You think they were a world power because of a citizen driven socialistic form of gov't ?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Socialism “works” when it’s a bunch of white northern euros.  Of course their economies would be even better and their poors would be wealthier under capitalism.    

[Johnny Sack 8397]

On 5/4/2019 at 12:22 PM, bad_teammate said:

What does "work" even mean? Of course socialism can work. Under the Soviet program, Russia went from a third-world feudal hellscape to the 2nd most powerful and prosperous nation on Earth. The market reforms post-USSR sunk the Russian economy it took until the mid 2010s for the economy to grow back to the size it was in the late Soviet era, only this time with massive homelessness and unemployment and 80+ billionaires worth $400+B.

Socialist programs work everywhere in the 1st world, including the aforementioned Social Security and Medicare.

But you still haven't explained how genetics factor in.

I’m impressed you had the balls to post this bullshit.  

Prosperous?  Da fuck?

Edited May 5, 2019 by Johnny Sack

[Johnny Sack 8397]

ITT we learn that bad teammate thinks the USSR was the second most prosperous country in the world. 

BT, you are just a raging dumb fuck.  And can be ignored. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

I have a good friend who was born in the Soviet Union. Now she is a swinging dick at JP Morgan.  She’s told me all about how prosperous the Soviet Union was.  The shittiest convenience store in the shittiest ghetto in the USA had more on the shelf than Moscow’s finest. 

[hpslugga 4062]

42 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Of course their economies would be even better and their poors would be wealthier under capitalism.    

You don’t know that, nor have you any evidence to support this silly-assed claim. You only know what you want to believe.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, hpslugga said:

You don’t know that, nor have you any evidence to support this silly-assed claim. You only know what you want to believe.

You commies are so cute.  It will work next time.  We promise.  Well, it does do one thing well.  It reduces income inequality.  Because everyone outside the leaders are all broke as fuck.  

[TheRealRonWeaver? 1258]

I have a good friend who was born in the Soviet Union. Now she is a swinging dick at JP Morgan.  She’s told me all about how prosperous the Soviet Union was.  The shittiest convenience store in the shittiest ghetto in the USA had more on the shelf than Moscow’s finest. 

Well, that settles it. From here on out, everyone’s wasting his/her/it’s/their/xyr breath.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 minute ago, TheRealRonWeaver? said:

 

Well, that settles it. From here on out, everyone’s wasting his/her/it’s/their/xyr breath.

 

I figured the 50s through the 90s settled it.  

[hpslugga 4062]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You commies are so cute.  It will work next time.  We promise.  Well, it does do one thing well.  It reduces income inequality.  Because everyone outside the leaders are all broke as fuck.  

There’s that word again.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Sack is an “I got mine” type of guy, except when he’s helping out black orphans, then he’s a “they now got a little of mine” kind of guy.

He also prefers to rent out his slums to the browns instead of the blacks, but the law may sometimes prevent that from happening. Fucking commies. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

There’s also the lucrative rat fucking operation.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

36 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Sack is an “I got mine” type of guy, except when he’s helping out black orphans, then he’s a “they now got a little of mine” kind of guy.

He also prefers to rent out his slums to the browns instead of the blacks, but the law may sometimes prevent that from happening. Fucking commies. 

Jimmy prefers to keep his money but brag on voting other people’s cash away.  And then telling the poors they are poor because the game is rigged and it’s not their fault so please go ahead and vote for politicians who don’t do shit to help them.  And that’s compassionate.  

[elfenix 34331]

On 5/4/2019 at 5:10 PM, Johnny Sack said:

Yeah.  That’s why we’re in debt Comrade.  

actual answer is all our dumb shit foreign wars we keep tripping over ourselves to get into since the end of WW2.  oh look, here comes another!

[GRHorn 105]

So I know y’all are all debating about how much socialism Venezuela has enacted, but can we agree that outlawing private gun ownership has put the average Venezuelans here in a tough spot? 

[hpslugga 4062]

2 hours ago, GRHorn said:

So I know y’all are all debating about how much socialism Venezuela has enacted, but can we agree that outlawing private gun ownership has put the average Venezuelans here in a tough spot? 

Why would we agree with that?

[berlinerbaer 678]

2 hours ago, GRHorn said:

So I know y’all are all debating about how much socialism Venezuela has enacted, but can we agree that outlawing private gun ownership has put the average Venezuelans here in a tough spot? 

Outlawing gun ownership isn't a socialist policy. It's authoritarian. You don't need to own guns in a well-functioning democracy. The founding fathers put the 2nd amendment in the constitution as a safeguard to democracy, most likely one that has outlived its usefulness.

There's a more important lesson here for you to learn. Under the right-wing illiberal "democracy" you have wet dreams about, you will not be allowed to own guns. They will come for the brown people's weapons long before yours, but they will disarm all of the masses one way or another. Eventually.

[GRHorn 105]

20 hours ago, berlinerbaer said:

Outlawing gun ownership isn't a socialist policy. It's authoritarian. You don't need to own guns in a well-functioning democracy. The founding fathers put the 2nd amendment in the constitution as a safeguard to democracy, most likely one that has outlived its usefulness.

There's a more important lesson here for you to learn. Under the right-wing illiberal "democracy" you have wet dreams about, you will not be allowed to own guns. They will come for the brown people's weapons long before yours, but they will disarm all of the masses one way or another. Eventually.

I didn’t say it was a socialist policy. 

Americans will always be able to own guns. It’s in our culture and it’s one thing we have gotten right. 

20 hours ago, hpslugga said:

Why would we agree with that?

Without any means to defend themselves, overthrowing an authoritarian is more difficult. Thus they remain under the yoke.