Venezuela has a bread shortage. government decided bakers are problem. Arrests Bakers

[Cthulhu 2020]

Something I always find amusing about these threads.

>> Tens if not hundreds of capitalist nations have fallen on national crises in the last few decades, sometimes worse than Venezuela. Their economies and sometimes their entire governments crash and fail because the resources are hoarded by the rich.
>> Venezuela, as a socialist nation, is in the process of being a failed state, so obviously it's definitive proof that socialism will never work. Just please don't mention those other failed capitalist nations, kay? It ruins the conservative narrative if you do.

[breadisfunny]

Why don't they eat meat, fish and cheese cake?
I know they are unhealthy food, but ...

First world problem.

that joke flew right over your head.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not very funny, this is a serious matter.

well then i am here to end their woes.

[igualitarist]

Something I always find amusing about these threads.

>> Tens if not hundreds of capitalist nations have fallen on national crises in the last few decades, sometimes worse than Venezuela. Their economies and sometimes their entire governments crash and fail because the resources are hoarded by the rich.
>> Venezuela, as a socialist nation, is in the process of being a failed state, so obviously it's definitive proof that socialism will never work. Just please don't mention those other failed capitalist nations, kay? It ruins the conservative narrative if you do.

Well, there are many examples of sucesfull capitalist countries and not even a single example of sucesfull socialist country. Name a country that managed to overcome poverty under socialism and you will see what a mean.

And well, ill give you a tip: A country that produces big companies like Volvo, Ericsson, Eletrolux, Skype, Spotyfi and many other global competitors can't be considered a socialist country.

[The Stormbringer]

The State of Wyoming?

-Looks at reports of Wyoming's failed economy due to heavy reliance on 'Energy' economics-

Well played, sir or madam.

[Sunseeker]

-Looks at reports of Wyoming's failed economy due to heavy reliance on 'Energy' economics-

Well played, sir or madam.

The sad part is, I live here. The number of people who, when faced with pointed questions about what's wrong with our economy, their response is "If only Obummer hadn't ruined coal and oil!" or any infinite number of variants on "Oh woe is me, we put all our eggs in one basket, why can't everyone else change to make our bad investment decisions become good ones!?" Seriously. It's always someone else's fault. They can't even enjoy low gas prices because bawwwwww that means nobody is working in the oil field.

Yeah, um it's called portfolio diversification. Seriously. We also have a booming wind industry, we could be setting up all sorts of stuff to invest in that but then the answer is: but that'll just be a waste of time when the oil comes back!

This denialism of the economic reality of my state is actually what I'm referring to in my location info.

[Endus]

Well, there are many examples of sucesfull capitalist countries and not even a single example of sucesfull socialist country. Name a country that managed to overcome poverty under socialism and you will see what a mean.

And well, ill give you a tip: A country that produces big companies like Volvo, Ericsson, Eletrolux, Skype, Spotyfi and many other global competitors can't be considered a socialist country.

Those same countries, by the exact same measures you're using, also can't be called capitalist.

Because you're using a useless and silly measure where unless something is 100% purely X, it cannot be described by X in any way whatsoever. There's bacon on your hamburger? THAT CANNOT BE CALLED A HAMBURGER, it's totally a different thing because you added bacon, don't even suggest that there's still a lot of burger in there.

[The Stormbringer]

The sad part is, I live here. The number of people who, when faced with pointed questions about what's wrong with our economy, their response is "If only Obummer hadn't ruined coal and oil!" or any infinite number of variants on "Oh woe is me, we put all our eggs in one basket, why can't everyone else change to make our bad investment decisions become good ones!?" Seriously. It's always someone else's fault. They can't even enjoy low gas prices because bawwwwww that means nobody is working in the oil field.

Yeah, um it's called portfolio diversification. Seriously. We also have a booming wind industry, we could be setting up all sorts of stuff to invest in that but then the answer is: but that'll just be a waste of time when the oil comes back!

This denialism of the economic reality of my state is actually what I'm referring to in my location info.

Shit, son, that's painful. And you're absolutely right about the lack of portfolio diversification being the issue. Even Russia suffered from it to a degree when oil prices were falling, but they're big enough and stubborn enough (and different from most economies enough) to tank the loss. It seems, like Venezuela, Wyoming didn't take the opportunity when they were riding high on profits and surplus to invest in other areas in case their main cash cow crashed.

[Nadiru]

Shit, son, that's painful. And you're absolutely right about the lack of portfolio diversification being the issue. Even Russia suffered from it to a degree when oil prices were falling, but they're big enough and stubborn enough (and different from most economies enough) to tank the loss. It seems, like Venezuela, Wyoming didn't take the opportunity when they were riding high on profits and surplus to invest in other areas in case their main cash cow crashed.

On the other hand, what are they going to invest in? They're already heavily stigmatized for being a non-coastal state, and eco-tourism is only a moneymaker for tropical biomes because the tropics are nice to go to. Short of cocaine getting legalized and Wyoming setting the Rockies up for coca leaf production, Wyoming is economically marginal.

[Sunseeker]

Shit, son, that's painful. And you're absolutely right about the lack of portfolio diversification being the issue. Even Russia suffered from it to a degree when oil prices were falling, but they're big enough and stubborn enough (and different from most economies enough) to tank the loss. It seems, like Venezuela, Wyoming didn't take the opportunity when they were riding high on profits and surplus to invest in other areas in case their main cash cow crashed.

Yeah, I mean fortunately state law mandates we develop a rainy day fund and really there's not a lot for the state to spend money on, so on a state level it's not a huge deal, but locally the economy REALLY shrinks. It doesn't help that oil-field workers typically spend their money like morons on booze and women instead of buying homes and investing in the community.

[Deleted]

Or how socialism was the downfall of Venezuela rather than their ineptitude when it comes to investment and diversification of resources. Seriously, who the fuck things they can survive solely on ONE RESOURCE?

Umm, apparently... a socialist? Pol Pot also got the bright idea that Cambodia can drop everything else and just focus on cultivating rice. That didn't work out too well.

For some reason that particular ideology seems to attract colossal ineptitude, like a rotting carcass attracts carrion flies.

[igualitarist]

Those same countries, by the exact same measures you're using, also can't be called capitalist.

Because you're using a useless and silly measure where unless something is 100% purely X, it cannot be described by X in any way whatsoever. There's bacon on your hamburger? THAT CANNOT BE CALLED A HAMBURGER, it's totally a different thing because you added bacon, don't even suggest that there's still a lot of burger in there.

I am not talking about absolute concepts here, like you are trying to make it look.

I gave that hint in my last post because theres a misconception around this forum that scandinavian countries are socialists, when, in fact, they are market economies. Yeah, there are plenty of "socialist elements" sprinkled there, but the core of their economy is capitalist.

Come on, those contries are among the best places in the world to make business.

Venezuela, on the other hand, sprinkled so much socialism on its economy, that it became "dominant". And the moment this happens, is the moment the country starts to fall apart.

If a country has a market economy, it cannot be socialist. It can have socialist elements on it and thats fine. But just because a country isnt 100% free market, does not mean it isnt a capitalist country. This is like saying Cuba is capitalist because the government allows some small business there.

Here, in my country, we have free education (on every level), free healthcare, free money for the poor, many social programs and a constitution that grants equal rights to everyone. Does it make Brazil socialist ?? Absolutely no. But, if you adopt the criteria that scandinavian countries are socialist, then, we can say this shithole that i live in is a socialist country as well. Hell, you can even say that the whole world is socialist depending on how flexible is your rhetoric.

Thats why you cant say that a country is socialist, just because there are some care with the poor there.

You need to look at the core of their economies and if you look at the core of capitalism (private property protection, capital accumulation, voluntary exchange, price system market regulated, competitive markets), you will see that scandinavian countries (and all the developed world) are capitalist.

Only after the moment socialism becomes dominant, we cay say a country is socialist. And well, be it a coincidence or not, thats the point of no return for the countries that choose to go that far. And, no matter if you like it, or not, history have shown us that the outcome is ALWAYS tragic.

[Osmeric]

The issue with socialist countries arises when the market is too suppressed. Without good price signals, economic allocation becomes impossible and the economy struggles or collapses.

However, the market can still work even with lots of intervention, so it's not like even just a little socialism is fatal.

[Misuteri]

matt damon!!

Took 279 replies for the obligatory.



Matt Damon!

[Endus]

If a country has a market economy, it cannot be socialist.

Market Socialism says hi, and by the way, that's wrong. Just by way of obvious example.

This is what I mean by people not understand what socialism and capitalism are. If you either of them require or oppose market economies, then you don't understand the terms.

[igualitarist]

The issue with socialist countries arises when the market is too suppressed. Without good price signals, economic allocation becomes impossible and the economy struggles or collapses.

However, the market can still work even with lots of intervention, so it's not like even just a little socialism is fatal.

It works, but with the handsbrake pulled.

This means less jobs being generated, less consumption, and less taxes.

On the other hand, it means more people depending on the government, which means bigger governments spendings, which will become a debt in the future.

So, excessive markets regulation is good for the government (which can accumulate more and more power) and for the banks (which will gain a lot with loans for the governments).

And its bad for the people, because there will not be enough jobs being generated, and the taxes will most likely increase to sustain a never ending welfare (with more and more dependents), in the context of a economy running with a handbrake on.

But i agree that some regulation is needed, it just can't be the word that fix everything, like socialists tend to believe.

[NED funded]

There's more than one type of socialism, different levels of socialism.

Bernie Sanders "socialism" is more akin to Scandinavia, not Venezuela. Or the even worse example, the USSR.

I'm not sure scandinavia can count as socialism. But whatever you are right, socialism
on small dosis like salt can be good.

[igualitarist]

Market Socialism says hi, and by the way, that's wrong. Just by way of obvious example.

This is what I mean by people not understand what socialism and capitalism are. If you either of them require or oppose market economies, then you don't understand the terms.

This is basically another form socialism.

Its market oriented, but surpress all the other elements of capitalism, like private property protection, capital accumulation, voluntary exchange, and competitive markets.

In the end, it will fail because a market economy needs those elements to work properly.

So, it can be market oriented, but it won't be a market economy IN FACT.

You can't be a jack-of-all-trades and still be a master of everything.

[Endus]

This is basically another form socialism.

That's the point. And also not a surprise, since the name for it is "market socialism".

Its market oriented, but surpress all the other elements of capitalism, like private property protection, capital accumulation, voluntary exchange, and competitive markets.

In the end, it will fail because a market economy needs those elements to work properly.

You have literally no grounds for any of that.

So, it can be market oriented, but it won't be a market economy IN FACT.

And that's straight-up false.

[Glorious Leader]

So, excessive markets regulation is good for the government (which can accumulate more and more power) and for the banks (which will gain a lot with loans for the governments).

Regulation is so good for the banks theyve spent 30 years lobbying against it, arguing for "free markets" which in drove the largest economic downturn since the depression.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure scandinavia can count as socialism.

Of course not. All success must be claimed for the ideology you back. All failure goes to some boogie man. I guess the failure of market reforms in chile was socialism as well?

[NED funded]

Regulation is so good for the banks theyve spent 30 years lobbying against it, arguing for "free markets" which in drove the largest economic downturn since the depression.

- - - Updated - - -



Of course not. All success must be claimed for the ideology you back. All failure goes to some boogie man. I guess the failure of market reforms in chile was socialism as well?

Literally all the definitions I've been provided states that for socialism to exist it needs democratic ownership. Having a strong safety net doesn't suddenly make it socialist and is neither against capitalism. Also really?
- Market reforms in Chile worked, people forget that by the 80s we had a global recession.
- Chile after the recession continued with the market reforms, albeit less radical.