Venezuela: how the socialist paradise turned into debt and hyperinflation hell

[Merkava]

Infracted. Don't discuss moderation in public, you have been warned for this enough times.

Also for the record, you are making stuff up about Endus infractions being overturned. Posting with that kind of deliberate negative agenda is not tolerated either.

Well, let's be fair here, and let's do it in public so everyone can clearly understand. The subject of Endus' merits as a moderator was introduced by Endus himself, (clearly in vioaltion of the rule against discussing moderation) when he posted this

It's pretty much entirely because they can't separate my personal political outlook from my role here as a moderator. I enforce the website's rules, so I must be an authoritarian. Which is a pretty damned silly thing to argue. I don't even make up the rules, here; I just apply them. And this is a private website, not a government operation.

Tony then, in direct reply to Endus, criticized moderation (which I'm sure violates the rule against discussing moderation), which I'm sure you've read, to which Batman replied

Seen plenty of people disagree with endus and do so in a perfectly civil manner. Then there's those who disagree and begin flinging ad hominems as if they're some kind of valid argument tactic then cry when they get infracted. Hell you're doing it RIGHT NOW, the ad hominem and the crying

again clearly breaking the rule against discussing moderation.

This was followed by Tony again criticizing moderation, (and receiving the infraction) with the final post discussing moderation coming from Batman when he said this,

About 1/3 of my infractions have come from Endus as well. Clearly he hates me too. Such bias!

So. We have a moderator introducing the subject of moderation, and two posters commenting on it two times each. One positively, one negatively. And one infraction being issued. The clear message this sends is that it isn't the discussion of moderation that gets you in trouble here, (hell, even moderators themselves can bait the thread by introducing that topic into the thread whenever they wish) but it's the criticism of moderation that gets you in trouble.

The rules should be changed to read that while discussion of moderation is against the rules, it will most often go unpunished, but criticism of moderation will get you banned.

Again, let's have rules written concisely, and enforced fairly and uniformly. Thanks.

Edit - I'm discussing moderation. I'm also posting off topic. But multiple people, including a moderator, have clearly done so in this thread before me without infraction, so I would hope that gets taken under consideration before you infract me.

[Xarkan]

Well, let's be fair here, and let's do it in public so everyone can clearly understand. The subject of Endus' merits as a moderator was introduced by Endus himself, (clearly in vioaltion of the rule against discussing moderation) when he posted this

That does not really discuss any moderation but rather the nature of the job of moderation. Moderation being in nature authoritarian. Same as being a police man is in fact by nature authoritarian. You can seem authoritarian by becoming in function an authority. People may be surprised to find out that there exists non authoritarian socialist police men simply because they see the badge and not the person

That is what Endus said using moderation and himself as an example.. edit: and obviously he used himself as an example because it was the assumption that people thought of him that way not the general.. example is a bad word

[Merkava]

That does not really discuss any moderation but rather the nature of the job of moderation. Moderation being in nature authoritarian. Same as being a police man is in fact by nature authoritarian. You can seem authoritarian by becoming in function an authority. People may be surprised to find out that there exists non authoritarian socialist police men simply because they see the badge and not the person

That is what Endus said using moderation and himself as an example.. edit: and obviously he used himself as an example because it was the assumption that people thought of him that way not the general.. example is a bad word

Are you trying to tell me that the prohibition against the discussion of moderation doesn't apply to discussing the job of moderation? Open a thread. Title it something like "What qualities are needed to be a successful MMO-Champion Gen OT moderator." I'll participate. But send me a PM before you post it, cuz I'm gonna bet it's not going to stay open very long.

[Xarkan]

Are you trying to tell me that the prohibition against the discussion of moderation doesn't apply to discussing the job of moderation? Open a thread. Title it something like "What qualities are needed to be a successful MMO-Champion Gen OT moderator." I'll participate. But send me a PM before you post it, cuz I'm gonna bet it's not going to stay open very long.

It would probably die because of people discussing actual instances of moderation rather than the function.

I will however claim that the only reason i could get an infraction for what i said is because i am outside the topic of the thread

Edit: I can survive that infraction so feel free to report me

[Deleted]

A truly market-based economy can't actually "run out of other people's money," because the money should be based on the sum of goods and services available on the market. If you "run out of other people's money," it's because the market failed, which may or may not be related to the economic policy that underpinned that market.

True. You know what else is true? Socialism negatively affects market based economy because it forces redistribution of goods and services to least contributing population of society thus needlessly burdening productive population. History shows that it is related to the economic policy that does infact underpinned that market, that being socialism and the curelty of "no child left behind".

Granted that doesnt mean socialism is entirely bad. It's entirely bad when it's not brought back down to earth by capitalism.

[Stormspellz]

Well, as Thatcher said, Socialism fails when it runs out of other peoples money.

Venezuela is certainly a good case study of the truth of that statement.

which has always been a stupid saying, great sound bite material, little substance.

[Xarkan]

True. You know what else is true? Socialism negatively affects market based economy because it forces redistribution of goods and services to least contributing population of society thus needlessly burdening productive population. History shows that it is related to the economic policy that does infact underpinned that market, that being socialism and the curelty of "no child left behind".

Granted that doesnt mean socialism is entirely bad. It's entirely bad when it's not whipped into discipline by capitalism.

The lack of socialism adversely affects a market based economy because it causes the resources to belong to too few people thus adversely affecting the capacity of the potential costumers to spend and thus limiting the production itself.. Or something along those lines. Without redistribution you can only sell iPhones to people who sell their kidneys.

[Deleted]

The lack of socialism adversely affects a market based economy because it causes the resources to belong to too few people thus adversely affecting the capacity of the potential costumers to spend and thus limiting the production itself.. Or something along those lines. Without redistribution you can only sell iPhones to people who sell their kidneys.

Also true... That's why you never go full retard in either direction. Which begs the question. Why countries that have those kind of issues dont just stop, look at European countries like UK, Germany etc and ask themselves "I think it's high time we all became moderates and use thousands of years worth of Europe history as reasons why."

[Xarkan]

Also true... That's why you never go full retard in either direction. Which begs the question. Why countries that have those kind of issues dont just stop, look at European countries like UK, Germany etc and ask themselves "I think it's high time we all became moderates and use thousands of years worth of Europe history as reasons why."

Several European countries became moderate by virtue of multi party systems that did not hand the entire power to whoever had the most votes causing policy to be dictated by compromise. While modern media is tearing that apart (because conflict gives better ratings than compromise) there is probably a lesson in that somewhere.

[nanook12]

This thread is stupid. Can't we just talk about how hot Venezuelan women are instead?

[Forogil]

Several European countries became moderate by virtue of multi party systems that did not hand the entire power to whoever had the most votes causing policy to be dictated by compromise. While modern media is tearing that apart (because conflict gives better ratings than compromise) there is probably a lesson in that somewhere.

There is something in that, but it is more complicated.
UK didn't historically have a multi party system - and still have worked ok. And compromise in multi-party systems fail if two parties corruptly share power, as in e.g. Austria.

[Chrysia]

True. You know what else is true? Socialism negatively affects market based economy because it forces redistribution of goods and services to least contributing population of society thus needlessly burdening productive population. History shows that it is related to the economic policy that does infact underpinned that market, that being socialism and the curelty of "no child left behind".

Granted that doesnt mean socialism is entirely bad. It's entirely bad when it's not brought back down to earth by capitalism.

And literally nobody, Bernie included, is advocating for the complete removal of capitalist systems in our economy.

[Kuntantee]

It has been established that Venezuela is not a socialist paradise. Not sure why this thread is still active.

[Sorrior]

I have to confess, I'm actually a millennial. I just made the cut being born in 1983 but I'm a conservative, gun-toting, church-going, tax-paying, five-kids-raising, war-fighting, hipster-loathing.............. millennial! I do like video games though. I suppose that's why I still get to hang out.

Sooooo a conservative cliche?

[TwoNineMarine]

Wait.

Wait.

According to some on here governments can't be corrupt and have never gone corrupt. And we humans are suddenly much better people then those that have suffered under corrupt governments in that past so this couldn't possibly happen in this day and age.

Am I doing this right?

[Deleted]

Sooooo a conservative cliche?

Yep basically like hipsters but on the other side

[Scathbais]

you believe that nonsense? and ask yourself what caused the crash of 1929? you didnt have a single policy of your dreaded socialists in place infact you had RECORD low taxes and a boom like never seen before on Wall Street it was pure capitalism. at its best many would say. yet that collapsed like nothing we have seen before or since.

That tells you all you need to know about how wonderful unregulated capitalism is for a country. if you endorse that insanity i hope you go bankrupt someday just due to the gambling on wall street failed and they need a sucker to pay it, and when that sucker is YOU i hope you enjoy going bankrupt due to others gambling with YOUR money.

1929 had nothing to do with Capitalism (neither did the current financial crisis) and had everything to do with investors, businesses and governments ignoring the fact that investing is associated with risk. Investors ignored risk and when the bubble burst, those with the most exposure to the capital markets lost fortunes and helped destabilize and ALREADY weakened economy.

I don't think Capitalism means what you think it does my friend.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Sooooo a conservative cliche?

I'm guessing that was an attempt at an insult. But yes, I'm a conservative cliche, just like you're probably a liberal cliche. Seeing as liberalism and it's associated ideologies are far more ubiquitous in our culture and on this forum than the conservative, I'm much more of a rebel and independent thinker than any of you.

[Sorshen]

It has been established that Venezuela is not a socialist paradise. Not sure why this thread is still active.

Because lack of education on the subject?

[Vyxn]

The creation of a currency isn't really a reflection of authoritarian government.

Let's be clear; "authoritarianism" is a specific type of government. It isn't a scale from "anarchy" to "authoritarian", where any form of government is authoritarian to some degree.

A liberties-minded government, democratically elected, that enacts policy primarily to protects its citizens freedoms, is decidedly anti-authoritarian. That they pass laws is not somehow a push towards authoritarianism.

It's just governance. You need to be able to draw a distinction between the two.

the more a government takes control of elements in its society the more authoritarian that government becomes by the very nature of being in control

- - - Updated - - -

It has been established that Venezuela is not a socialist paradise. Not sure why this thread is still active.

it isn't now but when Chavez first come to power and implemented socialism and took government control of its industries it was praised as a socialist paradise, but now that has fallen all apart like socialism always eventually will people forget about the praise Venezuela received just a decade ago. It is the history of now forget what was said 10 years ago

- - - Updated - - -

And literally nobody, Bernie included, is advocating for the complete removal of capitalist systems in our economy.

Sanders has advocated for the same polices that put Venezuela in the position it is in now