Venezuela confirms bigger bills amid world's highest inflation

[Khelek]

In Argentina's defense, they were doing okay until Kirchner and his wife showed up.

Why are all these socialist fuckups south of the border democratically elected?

People love free things and will elect any numbskull who promises to give it too them. Democracy requires an electorate that understands that there is no free lunch. A good measure of whether a country can remain a free and democratic in the long term is deferral of gratification. People who understand this concept build the most successful societies. These are the people who ask: who is going to pay for all that "free" stuff.

Imagine if the government said they would give you 100 dollars tomorrow, but said they would need to tax you 150 dollars today. Not understanding that is why terrible people in every country get elected.

[Mihalik]

Then point me to a working example of socialism? Because I can point you to functional countries with democracy. Also oil production is in a 14 year record low.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy Pretty much every country in the developed world falls fairly into this category. Including the United States itself.

Sanders identifies itself as the typical European socialist, of which there is a wide range. Hell most of the European center right is further to the left than Sanders is. I am saying this is as an American living in Europe.

Pegging Sanders to one of the half a dozen dysfunctional "socialist" states is disingenuous when he himself doesn't identify with those nations and when his political platform is simply an adaptation of a handful of socialist policies from other western Mixed Economies.

[Theinquisition]

There's really no hope for people who can only view the world through a partisan lens.

Talk about pot and kettle lol

- - - Updated - - -

People love free things and will elect any numbskull who promises to give it too them. Democracy requires an electorate that understands that there is no free lunch. A good measure of whether a country can remain a free and democratic in the long term is deferral of gratification. People who understand this concept build the most successful societies. These are the people who ask: who is going to pay for all that "free" stuff.

Imagine if the government said they would give you 100 dollars tomorrow, but said they would need to tax you 150 dollars today. Not understanding that is why terrible people in every country get elected.

Indeed, that's partially why I was glad when Bernie lost the nomination in the primaries.

[THE Bigzoman]

They were on a bubble. Kirchner only made it worse.

On and off the bubble is the economic norm in South America.

[Mihalik]

Imagine if the government said they would give you 100 dollars tomorrow, but said they would need to tax you 150 dollars today. Not understanding that is why terrible people in every country get elected.

Someone doesn't understand taxation or economies of scale.

[Khelek]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy Pretty much every country in the developed world falls fairly into this category. Including the United States itself.

Sanders identifies itself as the typical European socialist, of which there is a wide range. Hell most of the European center right is further to the left than Sanders is. I am saying this is as an American living in Europe.

Pegging Sanders to one of the half a dozen dysfunctional "socialist" states is disingenuous when he himself doesn't identify with those nations and when his political platform is simply an adaptation of a handful of socialist policies from other western Mixed Economies.

Show me a country not in crippling debt. All these countries are funding their socialism/socialist policies off a combination of wealth generated by the free market in years past, borrowing, and debt. None of these countries, the USA included, are going to be stable in the long run. Fiscal reality will find them and then be ready for either massive depression or war.

[The Stormbringer]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/9efcd39...on-crisis.html

Bernie Sanders must be upset at this development.

Why? Because a stupid nation put all their investments into a single industry? I don't think that has anything to do with Bernie, just Venezuela being too stupid to diversify beyond oil.

[Theinquisition]

Why? Because a stupid nation put all their investments into a single industry? I don't think that has anything to do with Bernie, just Venezuela being too stupid to diversify beyond oil.

Hard to diversify when you, as a entrepreneur, are afraid that the gov't could nationalize your business at a whim. Socialism in action for ya.

[THE Bigzoman]

Why? Because a stupid nation put all their investments into a single industry? I don't think that has anything to do with Bernie, just Venezuela being too stupid to diversify beyond oil.

That and they pissed off their stakeholders/international lenders.

Watching them crawl back to the people they shit on would be funny if it weren't so sad.

[Theinquisition]

That and they pissed off their stakeholders/international lenders.

Watching them crawl back to the people they shit on would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Naaa, they won't, they will just continue to blame the U.S. for all their economic woes, just as they have been.

[The Stormbringer]

Hard to diversify when you, as a entrepreneur, are afraid that the gov't could nationalize your business at a whim. Socialism in action for ya.

When I said the nation, I meant the government. Morons seemed to think the Holy Grail of Oil would carry them forever and didn't even consider planning for shit like this. If they'd bothered building their own damn farms with investments, they wouldn't have their own people starving like they are now.

As to socialism, I'm of the opinion that a pure anything-ism economy is liable to fail, because the world is too complex and issues are too varied for them to work on their own, especially since we have not yet hit the point where robots in factories produce all our needs.

That and they pissed off their stakeholders/international lenders.

Watching them crawl back to the people they shit on would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Right? I mean, I'd laugh as well if not for the countless people suffering because of it.

[THE Bigzoman]

Naaa, they won't, they will just continue to blame the U.S. for all their economic woes, just as they have been.

Fat fuck Chavez is dead.

They'll elect someone who realizes the hole he's dug them in...


Sooner or later.....

[Khelek]

Someone doesn't understand taxation or economies of scale.

I will explain why socialism can work to a limited degree under very specific circumstances, but is a massive failure in every other situation. Socialism as seen in places like Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc are all predicated on two specific requirements. They require both a homogeneous population/culture and high employment. A socialist system can work in theory if all or nearly all citizens believe the same things. They must recognize that to get government benefits they must work and pay taxes to pay for them. They must also realize that people need to work to pay those taxes. If those conditions are met a socialist system can be stable, however since all of those countries have growing debt levels we can see the system is far from stable even at best.

With the influx of refugees into these countries. There population are being inundate with people not capable of working and paying taxes and therefore the system will continue to fall out of balance. This problem arises in every country that does not have that homogeneous culture and work ethic. In these countries the system will break down even faster.

Socialism regardless of scale is not a sustainable system as long as people have the freedom to choose not to work, but if you want a totalitarian state that assigns everyone jobs then mind controls them to believe in the system you might get a successful state assuming the government is run by a super computer and not corrupt politicians.

[Belize]

Well, this isn't a leftist created thread, so...no.

Come on Tony, don't get down to that level of idiocy. You're much better than to get involved in the shit eating contest that is "Us vs them". Even if you think you win, you still lose due to having eaten a mountain of shit.

Not all leftist/liberals are bad, just like not all right wingers/cuckconservatives are bad.

[Mihalik]

Show me a country not in crippling debt. All these countries are funding their socialism/socialist policies off a combination of wealth generated by the free market in years past, borrowing, and debt. None of these countries, the USA included, are going to be stable in the long run. Fiscal reality will find them and then be ready for either massive depression or war.

First of all you are moving goal posts to some arbitrary definition of a "healthy economy". By your own apparent definition of one, there is no free market that would be able to meet that expectation.

Furthermore if you think debt is such an issue then Trump is sure as fuck the wrong choice for the Presidency, especially considering the current stock market boom is 100% tied to the speculation that he will do what Republican Presidents have always historically done, spend on a deficit like there is no tomorrow.

But to address the question of deficit spending, deficit spending isn't inherently bad, actually it is the sign of a healthy economy. The same is true for any company over the Mom and Pop size.

My business at any given time has a debt substantially larger than whatever equity we hold, and our books are more than healthy. And the same is true for every financial institution and so on. Debt is an absolute core and fundational element of capitalism. If you have an issue with debt you need to look into some other form of economic organization. Overburdening yourself with debt and interests is a different question and a genuine risk, and is almost always actually tied to the market's tendency to speculate, and this can only be kept in check with stringent regulations.

[Draco-Onis]

Then point me to a working example of socialism? Because I can point you to functional countries with democracy. Also oil production is in a 14 year record low.

There is no example of a working democracy because most governments figured out a long time ago that the pure isms don't work. All our current governing systems dip their toes in socialism, communism etc, if you know a country that is purely democratic and nothing else enlighten me.

[Jarlathe]

To those defending Bernie:

"These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?"

Quote from Bernie Sanders own website

He has no concept off real world economics.

When they spend their whole life suckling at the government teat, they never do.

[Mihalik]

I will explain why socialism can work to a limited degree under very specific circumstances, but is a massive failure in every other situation. Socialism as seen in places like Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc are all predicated on two specific requirements. They require both a homogeneous population/culture and high employment. A socialist system can work in theory if all or nearly all citizens believe the same things. They must recognize that to get government benefits they must work and pay taxes to pay for them. They must also realize that people need to work to pay those taxes. If those conditions are met a socialist system can be stable, however since all of those countries have growing debt levels we can see the system is far from stable even at best.

With the influx of refugees into these countries. There population are being inundate with people not capable of working and paying taxes and therefore the system will continue to fall out of balance. This problem arises in every country that does not have that homogeneous culture and work ethic. In these countries the system will break down even faster.

Socialism regardless of scale is not a sustainable system as long as people have the freedom to choose not to work, but if you want a totalitarian state that assigns everyone jobs then mind controls them to believe in the system you might get a successful state assuming the government is run by a super computer and not corrupt politicians.

First you again moved goal posts. Then you made a completely unfunded fact free speculation and sweeping generalization, then you dragged some race/xenophobic drivel into an argument about economics, and finally to cross your Ts you went into the conspiracy theory realm of evil socialist totalitarianism.

Mkay. I'm gonna step out right here.

[Elegiac]

When they spend their whole life suckling at the government teat, they never do.

I'm not sure there is a single person in this country who doesn't benefit from government investment in some way.

[Theinquisition]

When I said the nation, I meant the government. Morons seemed to think the Holy Grail of Oil would carry them forever and didn't even consider planning for shit like this. If they'd bothered building their own damn farms with investments, they wouldn't have their own people starving like they are now.

As to socialism, I'm of the opinion that a pure anything-ism economy is liable to fail, because the world is too complex and issues are too varied for them to work on their own, especially since we have not yet hit the point where robots in factories produce all our needs.

Right? I mean, I'd laugh as well if not for the countless people suffering because of it.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, no one wants a "pure" economic system whether it be socialism, capitalism, or communism.

Part of the problem with Ven. is that they were so hostile to other industries that they have almost no diversification.