RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela

RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DarlingSavage -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/11/2010 5:28:17 AM)
Mussolini described fascism as corporate backed government.

vincentML -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/11/2010 5:34:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Its not an economic system, its a system of buying votes at the expense of the economy. The temptation to use it that way is far too strong, and our electorate and our politicians are too weak. OMFG!! And you think Capitalism does not involve buying votes at the expense of the under-represented? I am shocked, shocked to learn all of this is going on right here in Rick's Place. Play it again, Sam.

vincentML -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/11/2010 5:46:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarlingSavage Mussolini described fascism as corporate backed government. In reading his biography, I was surprised to learn that in the early 1930s Benito was publically admired by Frank Roosevelt and W. Churchill. They thought he had a splendid idea. He actually succeeded in establishing worker-management councils in an attempt to reduce friction between the two groups. This after a fifty year history of Labor wars in the USA and maybe UK (not sure of that) He was idolized by a Mr. A Hitler until all saw the dismal performance of the Italian troops in North Africa. I guess the poor and wretched of Sicily were not so convinced of the second coming of the Roman Empire, and so the once brilliant statesman became a characature and still hangs in the eyes of history besides his mistress Claretta by his heels from a lamp post in Milan.

Sanity -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/11/2010 5:47:22 AM)
Now you're putting words in my mouth vincent. Are your arguments so weak that you must go up against straw men of your own construction?

vincentML -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/11/2010 5:51:57 AM)
Apologies, Sanity. They are my words, not yours. True. But we are dealing with a comparison here and I do not see how you can overlook the corruption throughout the history of Capitalism. The term "Robber Barons" comes to mind.

Sanity -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/11/2010 6:01:52 AM)
A business, or businesses, can only cast so many votes. Even though they "buy" politicians the masses can and do throw the rascals out, and so it balances itself out in a proper republic. But when unscrupulous politicians begin effectively stealing from businesses to buy votes from the masses, and the masses go along with that, its the beginning of the end.

LadyEllen -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/11/2010 6:07:20 AM)
I am unsure what you are arguing here Sanity - that any politican who promises improved public services through tax increases on business is actually engaged in theft and bribery? And hence that no politician ought to have any form of fiscal policy lest it appear to be of the same ilk regardless of the circumstances and its aims? E

vincentML -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/11/2010 6:15:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity A business, or businesses, can only cast so many votes. Even though they "buy" politicians the masses can and do throw the rascals out, and so it balances itself out in a proper republic. But when unscrupulous politicians begin effectively stealing from businesses to buy votes from the masses, and the masses go along with that, its the beginning of the end. Sanity, the history and reality of Senatorial incumbancy is too much with us to believe the masses ever throw the rascals out. If the rascals leave it is because they were caught with their pants down in the Men's Room of the Senate cloakroom with a Page or some restroom in a Minneapolis airport. You underweight the power of the Corporate buck and the greediness of our politicians, I think. Off to breakfast.

Sanity -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/11/2010 6:48:51 AM)
If you are unsure of what I am arguing then you probably didn't read the OP. I suggest you go back and read it and then click on the link I provided at the bottom of that post and go read the full Reuters article. Read the related links provided by Reuters on their page as well, and think about them. Then read my posts here, and you should easily understand what I have written here in the context of that news very nicely. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen I am unsure what you are arguing here Sanity - that any politican who promises improved public services through tax increases on business is actually engaged in theft and bribery? And hence that no politician ought to have any form of fiscal policy lest it appear to be of the same ilk regardless of the circumstances and its aims? E

LadyEllen -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/11/2010 7:03:10 AM)
None the wiser Sanity? Nevertheless my question stands in its own right; if the principle you appear to be arguing is good then it should not be difficult to support it with explanation and it should be applicable whichever other factors are involved - ie Bush "bought votes" with his promises of tax cuts. E

Sanity -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/11/2010 7:12:08 AM)
Allowing someone to keep their own money isn't in any way bribery, E. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen None the wiser Sanity? Nevertheless my question stands in its own right; if the principle you appear to be arguing is good then it should not be difficult to support it with explanation and it should be applicable whichever other factors are involved - ie Bush "bought votes" with his promises of tax cuts. E

Mercnbeth -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/11/2010 7:22:34 AM)
It's good to see the much promised "transparency" promised by this Congress and Administration in action. You're absolutely correct Lady E; buying votes is a generally accepted practice in Washington. Until now however, it hasn't been defended by anyone outside the benefiting party. Having more ex-PAC special interest leaders now in powerful positions in Washington has eliminated any pretense. There are probably price tags now assigned for votes. There aways was, at least since McCain Feingod eliminated the last excuse for political integrity, an unspoken price tag; but now they are proud of being bought. Why not when people like you, for the sake of personal agenda, rationalize its positive outcome.

vincentML -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/11/2010 7:36:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity A business, or businesses, can only cast so many votes. Even though they "buy" politicians the masses can and do throw the rascals out, and so it balances itself out in a proper republic. But when unscrupulous politicians begin effectively stealing from businesses to buy votes from the masses, and the masses go along with that, its the beginning of the end. Two things come to mind, Sanity. A business can only cast so many votes and "buy" so many politicians is only partly true in my mind. Businesses gather together in associations and pay lobbiests to gain access to politicians. I have no quarrel with their right to do so unless we wish to go back to the supreme court case which granted citizenship, or more properly "persons" rights to corporations. Not a venture I would wish to take at this time. Along with seeking access, however, comes the unstated offer of jobs for the pols and their family members. That is assuredly a cancer in the system. I do not have it handy but I would be willing to bet a little that any examination of senatorial tenure and family member affiliations would reveal the staggering implications of the problem. It is encouraging to see Dodd forced to resign and Lieberman's favorability ratings fall. However it is quite a while yet before Lieberman stands for re-election and I think he will rebuild his creds as the Chairman of Homeland Security Committee (I believe) I just read the Reuters article (confess: for the first time) The more drastic revaluation for non food and nonmedical items will not hurt Chavez with his base, I don't think. Probably will enhance his popularity with them. I further posit that much of the "smart" money long ago left Venezuela and was reinvested in Miami Real Estate at the height of the bubble. Now that's real devaluation. Those who are left to suffer are probably mid-management and independent shop keepers. Possibly not so many as to overcome the votes of the impoverished who will benefit from the extra spending. Seems it is a shrewd move by Chavez. I would say, rambling on without restraint here, that we should have learned a lesson from the Castro revolution and built bridges to the masses of Latinos through their churches and local leaders. The strategic pressure of Miami's Cubanito community was too much for our Pols to overcome. Consider the silliness of a fruitless 50 year trade sanction by us alone. Is that not ignorance? A third point to consider: why did Geo W the Minor intervene against the revolutionary ouster of Chavez a few years ago? I honestly don't know the background story but I suspect the Bushies were well aware of Chavez's popularity and were not willing to back the Oil oligarchy, evidently a losing horse at that time. Just my guess.

LadyEllen -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/11/2010 7:40:51 AM)
So its all my fault then, for observing that this stuff goes on whatever and however you want to dress it up, depending on affiliation? Sanity - a tax cut has the same effect as a tax credit does it not? Both work to redistribute funds from one place to another, both operate to take from one to give to another, total tax raised being equal? I hate to break it to you, but this is the general character of tax policies in that they vary according to priorities who should pay what and who or what should receive what. Now you might advance an argument that some policies have the wrong priorities in mind, notwithstanding that macro-economics is hardly a strong point for anyone here as it isnt even for alleged professors and assorted other experts in that field, but what you seem to be arguing is that tax policy must not be a part of politics in any way. Aside from the fact that tax policy is a key part of politics in general, being the instrument whereby policy priorities are realised, such an approach leaves what exactly as politics and who exactly to determine what tax should be raised and how spent? E

Mercnbeth -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/11/2010 8:10:50 AM)
quote: So its all my fault then, for observing that this stuff goes on whatever and however you want to dress it up, depending on affiliation? That's seems a bit paranoid to me - but if that's what you took from the post, who am I to debate your personal perspective? quote: Aside from the fact that tax policy is a key part of politics in general, being the instrument whereby policy priorities are realized, such an approach leaves what exactly as politics and who exactly to determine what tax should be raised and how spent? I can summarize what that "leaves" in one word - pragmatism. No political system, except perhaps the theoretical ones championed by academics who fit the stereotype; "those who can't do - teach", work for all the people all of the time. In times of 'plenty' social programs expand, entitlement programs are put it place to capture more people into the net of a nanny government. Never has one program succeeded, never has one social 'war'; poverty, prejudice, hunger, housing; ever been 'won'. Once a bureaucracy is established it has one goal - maintaining their existence. The initial focus and reason for existence - a billboard facade hiding waste and political agenda. Never has the net captured everyone - nor will it. It is a matter of allocating resources. When you have excessive resources you have the option of creating surplus or social engineering. For years, serving special interest considerations, social engineering has been the first choice of action. The only distinguishing factor between the parties are which special interests are served. Directly to your point; pragmatically you don't commit to spending more money on an agenda while you are bankrupt. Pragmatism works for businesses, but not used, or considered, in US politics. A good reason is that, unlike business, they can print more. A tax policy that includes consideration and accepts the basic , pragmatic realities of the world in general and people in particular, would work much better than whatever policy that is being used at present.

vincentML -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/11/2010 8:47:30 AM)
Returning the conversation for a moment to your concern in the OP that Venezuela's devaluation might serve as a lesson to the rest of the world, including the USA, let me point out that the $ has been devalued quite a bit based upon its purchasing power. Compared to $1.00 purchasing power of the 1980 buck, the 2008/09 buck has a purchasing power of $0.38. See the Wiki article here. There is a chart of interest below the graph of the CPI curve. I find two things of interest: the CPI really accelerated its rise after Nixon removed the Brenton Woods fix, and secondly the dollar purchasing value has fallen steadily since 1910. Not sure if that is mere correlation to the construction of the Federal Reserve in 1913. Just what exactly are we to learn or be warned of by Chavez' action in your estimation, Sanity?

popeye1250 -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/11/2010 9:24:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex capitalism was the thing that did it. Assuming Capitalism is/was a form of economic self-expression then it certainly played a fair old role. Together with Protestantism and Humanism these ideas of self-expression enabled people to do a bit for themselves rather than look to the catholic church (dark ages). Mind you - if Capitalism was originally conceived as a grab for self-expression then there's been some sort of perversion of that ideal - buying and selling any old rubbish isn't necessarily self-expression. NG, true, "The Protestant work ethic" is one of the things that helped build the U.S. and you didn't have to be "Protestant" to to use it. Through hard work and reliance on "self" instead of "government" or "the church" people could build a happier more fullfilling life. One only need look at all the "Catholic" countries south of our border to see that. Immigration is "to" what are "Protestant countries." And I'm a "recovering Catholic."

LadyEllen -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/11/2010 9:28:44 AM)
Sorry Mercnbeth, you seem to be picking a non argument (not for the first time) and running with it. For what its worth, I do not agree with social welfare spending as a worthwhile end in itself nor as a means to "buy votes", as it would appear it is characterised here over and over in discussions of the subject. I see it as simply one tool; alongside laws and regulations, to make a country a fairer place - not in some socialist utopian vision, but in terms of enabling the most people possible to improve their lives through their own efforts in the real world, with a safety net to catch them should they fall in that effort. It is utterly pragmatic, but with the sense to include the means for advancement for all that means everyone truly has a shot at making it, and can go for it without risking utter destruction should they fail, so that the entire system may advance. This I see as the very essence of the Liberal position (in the sense of the UK party that held that name), as opposed to the "sink or swim", "devil take the hindmost" position of those to the right and the "everyone must be equal, or made to be equal" position of those to the left, the former of which leads to unconscionable unfairness and the latter to unconscionable mediocrity. Now, what was it you wanted to argue about next? E

Mercnbeth -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/11/2010 9:57:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Mercnbeth, you seem to be picking a non argument (not for the first time) and running with it. I'll never understand how answering an question is considered "picking a non argument". quote: to make a country a fairer place The "good intent" excuse doesn't change the result. The more attempts to socially engineer a country to make it a "fairer place"; the less fair it becomes. All social engineering programs have a goal of making one group 'more equal' than the other. It's an attempt to manipulate the odds. There are no results that point to success. There are exceptional examples, brought out commonly to justify the effort. However, when a 'cost to success' ratio is analyzed this current day result is typical; the $2.3 billion is expected to help create about 17,000 jobs. That works out to roughly $135,000 per job�and remember, a 'job' is defined as one year of employment. (To be fair, private-sector clean-energy job-creation may not be a lot cheaper. The White House estimates the new tax credits will spur an additional $5.4 billion in private investment, creating 41,000 jobs at a cost of $131,000 a head.) quote: Now, what was it you wanted to argue about next? Well, I'd like to start a topic about how people don't answer questions, and instead try to distract from the very subject of their original point. It seems that when they don't like the answers the questions point to, they resort to attempted insult, head-bobbing to a similarly inclined opinion they can't articulate, or simply don't respond at all. However, I'll defer to whatever you'd like to bring up. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Just what exactly are we to learn or be warned of by Chavez' action in your estimation, Nothing on a broad scale since Venezuela has very little in its political make up, global policy, worldwide military presence, or domestic agenda, to compare to the US. However it does point to a specific lesson - Nationalization of industry doesn't work. The Chavez regime points to the inefficiency of government bureaucracy; only a government can mismanage oil production and distribution. It didn't work in the US with the nationalization of Chrysler and GM - but I don't believe the lesson was learned or clear for the general public, Congress, or the current Administration.

DarlingSavage -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/11/2010 11:41:40 AM)
quote: In reading his biography, I was surprised to learn that in the early 1930s Benito was publically admired by Frank Roosevelt and W. Churchill. They thought he had a splendid idea. He actually succeeded in establishing worker-management councils in an attempt to reduce friction between the two groups. This after a fifty year history of Labor wars in the USA and maybe UK (not sure of that) He was idolized by a Mr. A Hitler until all saw the dismal performance of the Italian troops in North Africa. I guess the poor and wretched of Sicily were not so convinced of the second coming of the Roman Empire, and so the once brilliant statesman became a characature and still hangs in the eyes of history besides his mistress Claretta by his heels from a lamp post in Milan. I did not know this. However, in "What is Fascism, 1932" it states that: Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage.... But here they are, Mussolini and Claretta. [image]http://cecaust.com.au/images/mussolini-hanging.jpg[/image]

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875