Socialist paradise Venezuela introduces food rationing

jank

Karl Stein wrote: »

Twice now.



What makes me laugh is you guys say 'oh history is nuanced' and 'it's not so black and white' and then go right ahead and cite the 'REDS UNDER THE BED ' ladybird book view of the Cold War.

The only one going down the road of 'Reds under the bed' soundbites is you, nobody else has made that claim. However, if you want to believe the narrative that the US is totally at fault for everything that happened in the cold war where the other side were just minding their own business that is your prerogative. Amazing the lengths people go to to believe their own version of history without even entertaining the possibility that the world is not that black and white.

norrie rugger

i love how the the people here love to piss over social ideals.
It was the capital system that collapsed this country, followed by said capitalists looking for government aid to bail out. Then capitalist leaning people blame the poorer in society for draining the economy. Had Ireland not gone mental chasing fictional capitalist wealth our social funding would not be completely slashed.
But who cares about the sick, elderly or those unemployed thanks to recession?

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But then you have to ask yourself why should society help a person who is not willing to help himself? Why does society have an obligation to him, we don't owe him anything, he has no right to free healthcare.

Bringing in mandatory health insurance will make private insurance available for millions of people who previously couldn't afford it.

It's not perfect and some people will fall through the cracks but it's better than what we have.

It's better to have a system where people are left to die if they don't have money, than to have the system we have now, where people are not left to die if they don't have money?

What in utter fúck?

Think it through - that's an extreme form of Social Darwinism.

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's better to have a system where people are left to die if they don't have money, than to have the system we have now, where people are not left to die if they don't have money?

What in utter fúck?

Think it through - that's an extreme form of Social Darwinism.

Who said that? No I wouldn't be against some sort of basic form of government cover for people who were below the poverty line.

But we shouldn't turn our backs on a better system like mandatory insurance that would benefit millions because a very small minority can't afford it.

It's better to find a solution for that minority than discredit the whole idea.

Iwasfrozen

norrie rugger wrote: »

i love how the the people here love to piss over social ideals.
It was the capital system that collapsed this country, followed by said capitalists looking for government aid to bail out. Then capitalist leaning people blame the poorer in society for draining the economy. Had Ireland not gone mental chasing fictional capitalist wealth our social funding would not be completely slashed.
But who cares about the sick, elderly or those unemployed thanks to recession?

No, it was the socialisation of private debt that is the source of our problems. True capitalists would have let the banks go under.

KyussBishop

Karl Stein wrote: »

That's how some people get their kicks.

True true - but then, pretending to be joking or facetious, is also a way of pushing a certain point of view, while keeping the 'out' of pretending you're just joking or engaging in 'intelligent trolling'.

It's a good way to shift the overton window, and make reprehensible arguments (Social Darwinism) more socially acceptable - make people get used to hearing you troll/joke about it, and they all give you benefit of the doubt "ah they're just joking", until one day, you've repeated it so often so many times (with people now being used to it), except now you're suddenly 100% serious about it and not joking - you've shifted the overton window, and have gotten people to accept something horrible, as a legitimate argument.

That's why I pretty much never let people off, when they seem facetious/trolling - usually they aren't

Karl Stein

jank wrote: »

The only one going down the road of 'Reds under the bed' soundbites is you, nobody else has made that claim.

Lies. Jank is the one who tried to justify terrorism by saying:

Originally Posted by jank

one has to accept that fact that a cold war was ongoing

Does anyone with half a brain believe the US had to commit mass murder and suppress democracy because there were REDS UNDER THE BED?

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Who said that? No I wouldn't be against some sort of basic form of government cover for people who were below the poverty line.

But we shouldn't turn our backs on a better system like mandatory insurance that would benefit millions because a very small minority can't afford it.

It's better to find a solution for that minority than discredit the whole idea.

If you would be using government social supports, to subsidize a privatized health care system on behalf of those who can't afford it without welfare, then you've just eliminated all your moral arguments against having a public health system.

Your claims of greater 'efficiency' also fail, as they rest on mandatory privatizing of the profitable part of the population (those who can afford health insurance), and socializing the losses (those who can't afford it and need public subsidy).

Karl Stein

KyussBishop wrote: »

That's why I pretty much never let people off, when they seem facetious/trolling - usually they aren't

It's like arguing with religious fundamentalists. You don't want to argue with them but understand the public needs to hear someone challenge their dogma because it needs to be kept in check.

Nutters.

Iwasfrozen

Karl Stein wrote: »

It's like arguing with religious fundamentalists. You don't want to argue with them but understand the public needs to hear someone challenge their dogma because it needs to be kept in check.

Nutters.

Well as long as we have the omniscient Karl Stein to guide us the human race shall turely never falter.

And calling people names is not becoming. Charlie.

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

If you would be using government social supports, to subsidize a privatized health care system on behalf of those who can't afford it without welfare, then you've just eliminated all your moral arguments against having a public health system.

It's not a black and white argument. The choice is not between "all government" or "all private", that's a logical fallacy.

We are perfectly able to liberalize the market more than it is now while still keeping a minimal amount of public support.

Your claims of greater 'efficiency' also fail, as they rest on mandatory privatizing of the profitable part of the population (those who can afford health insurance), and socializing the losses (those who can't afford it and need public subsidy).

The losses are not incurred by the government, the losses are incurred by the insurance company if a client gets sick.

The beauty of the system is yearly fluctuations in the cost of providing healthcare (and thus risk) are absorbed by the private sector in exchange for a block payment by the public (or government in the case of those who genuinely can't pay).

KyussBishop

Karl Stein wrote: »

It's like arguing with religious fundamentalists. You don't want to argue with them but understand the public needs to hear someone challenge their dogma because it needs to be kept in check.

Nutters.

Ya pretty much Some also dog my own posts, where I present solutions to various economic problems, to try and prevent my views being discussed/spread (to prevent my views from shifting the 'overton window', by smearing them), so I kind of have to defend that too.

I think many of the Libertarians and other posters holding sympathetic views on Boards - the relatively innocuous/innocent ones, who actually believe in it - don't actually see that there are a handful of prominent/leading posters who rarely engage in actual argument, only the pretense of argument, who are blatantly soapboxing free market views and don't seem to believe a word of what they are saying.

So I also suspect that some of those posters are being used, and don't even know it (like being drawn into a cult) - I don't like the idea of that.

Karl Stein

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well as long as we have the omniscient Karl Stein to guide us the human race shall turely never falter.

You're outside the spectrum of people I'm interested in discussing these matters with.

You know this but continue to try to get my attention.

I feel sorry for you.

Iwasfrozen

Karl Stein wrote: »

You're outside the spectrum of people I'm interested in discussing these matters with.

You know this but continue to try to get my attention.

I feel sorry for you.

If you don't want to talk to me put me on ignore.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's not a black and white argument. The choice is not between "all government" or "all private", that's a logical fallacy.

We are perfectly able to liberalize the market more than it is now while still keeping a minimal amount of public support.


The losses are not incurred by the government, the losses are incurred by the insurance company if a client gets sick.

The beauty of the system is yearly fluctuations in the cost of providing healthcare (and thus risk) are absorbed by the private sector in exchange for a block payment by the public (or government in the case of those who genuinely can't pay).

I didn't say it was black and white - you've yet to explain how you will fit in the minority who won't be able to afford health insurance.

Like magic, privatization is supposed to simultaneously be more 'efficient(?!)', profitable, cost less and provide a better quality of service - when there is zero empirical evidence to substantiate any of this; yet there are huge holes in the plan, which leave the large problem of providing healthcare, to people who can't afford it.

jank

Karl Stein wrote: »

Lies. Jank is the one who tried to justify terrorism by saying:

Does anyone with half a brain believe the US had to commit mass murder and suppress democracy because there were REDS UNDER THE BED?

I am not justifying anything nor did I say that the US was correct on all matters of foreign policy during that period, far from it actually. Again though this happened in the context of a cold war. Do you deny that there was a cold war where two sides with ideologically different systems fought a war mostly by proxy. Your becoming the king of straw men, by refuting an argument that I or no one else is making.

Bedtimebaby

KyussBishop wrote: »

I didn't say it was black and white - you've yet to explain how you will fit in the minority who won't be able to afford health insurance.

Like magic, privatization is supposed to simultaneously be more 'efficient(?!)', profitable, cost less and provide a better quality of service - when there is zero empirical evidence to substantiate any of this; yet there are huge holes in the plan, which leave the large problem of providing healthcare, to people who can't afford it.

If you actually can't understand why private businesses are more efficient and productive than government run businesses you are braindead and don't und understand the basics of human nature.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Using both parents on bare minimum wage with two children, 1.11 months.

I was thinking more along lines of earnings, less rent, food, clothing and so on. As I said: not every family has a months disposable income at the end of the year. And no insurance company is going to take them on If, for example, the youngest kid has an illness that requires constant medical treatment throughout childhood, where the company will make a loss funding the medical expenses.

norrie rugger

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No, it was the socialisation of private debt that is the source of our problems. True capitalists would have let the banks go under.

that was my point. Capitalists are only capitalists as long as it's not their money that is at risk.
Once our capitalists were in trouble they somehow began believing in social intervention.

Bedtimebaby

norrie rugger wrote: »

that was my point. Capitalists are only capitalists as long as it's not their money that is at risk.
Once our capitalists were in trouble they somehow began believing in social intervention.

People look out for their own interests, is that only dawning on you now?

893bet

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Were not doing much better and were a capitalist paradise. top 1% have 10% of the wealth.

Would communism be better?

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

oon enough you would have two maybe three health insurance conglomerates. In an ideal, and idealistic world they would compete to drop costs, but let's get real, they'd be far more likely to share a no names, nudge nudge gentlemans agreements to keep all happy.

2 or 3 before price-fixing starts? That's a bit optimistic to be honest. Think there's 6 big energy companies in the UK and even at that level of fragmentation they're at it.

Ideology has far less to do with outcomes than the morals of those in charge and in the processes. The Tories are seeking to "privatise" services in the NHS which is going to end up costing more, result in gaps in services while profits go to their buddies. PFIs in the UK are particularly fun as well, have a state body borrow money to be paid back by the company they give it to who operate whatever the scheme is at a profit. Makes sense. State oil companies that steal the profits don't end up benefiting society at large, surprise surprise.

Renegade Mechanic

Mabye if it didnt cost about a single quid to fill your ancient American land yacht, central govt. would have more expendable income..

Karl Stein

jank wrote: »

Do you deny that there was a cold war where two sides with ideologically different systems fought a war mostly by proxy.

Three times.

Originally Posted by Karl Stein
The global Communist Conspiracy was used as an excuse to crush nationalist/leftist movements all over the world even when it can be proven beyond all doubt that there was no Soviet influence whatsoever.

mad muffin

jank wrote: »

If there ever was a government program I would support it would be a 'cultural' exchange program whereby the biggest moaners and whingers are flown to places like Venezuela or Cambodia or India or mulitple places in Africa and see what real poverty actually looks like. They will all go home with a sense of perspective and thank their lucky stars that they were born in a country that has given them so much...

Fućk that. Just because some countries are worse off doesn't mean we need to accept our fate.

We work hard, we pay our taxes yet the gombeens up in Leinster House bend us over the table daily to show us how grateful we should be.

Legs.Eleven

"Can't stand it most of our lives....living in a Socialist Paradise".

PopePalpatine

mad muffin wrote: »

Fućk that. Just because some countries are worse off doesn't mean we need to accept our fate.

We work hard, we pay our taxes yet the gombeens up in Leinster House bend us over the table daily to show us how grateful we should be.

Especially when it's the cock of big business.

mad muffin

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Especially when it's the cock of big business.

Yes they lay out the red carpet for big business. And scream.

Come use us, because otherwise there's no reason for you to choose Ireland. So we'll let you use us.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

....because the state locke was against so resembles our own.

Davarus Walrus

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Locke's writings are considered interesting, and indeed pertinent, to many people. One certainly doesn't have to subscribe to the libertarian dogma to appreciate it. Those of us who espouse economic freedom within a social democratic society really tend to be tarnished with the libertarian brush. It's an ideology as dangerous and unworkable as radical socialism.
One can be pro enterprise, innovation and risk-taking without rushing towards the event horizon of what that means for an overall society.

Karl Stein

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The high priest arrives. I was wondering when you'd be PM'd by your minions.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Karl Stein

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's near impossible to have a discussion on any economic issue without it descending into a 'libertarian' circle-jerk.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

Karl Stein wrote: »

The high priest arrives. I was wondering when you'd be PM'd by your minions.

They aren't minions, they are free associates who felt it was in their self interest.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not to mention all the threads we don't post in... or at least don't get a chance to before certain people arrive.

Hey AH, I love icecream. Do you like icecream?
OMG THIS IS WHY I HATE LIBERTARIANS. I HATE THEM.


Hey AH, what are your feelings on holidays?
LIBERTARIANS. HAIRY JAPANESE BASTARDS.

Nodin

bluewolf wrote: »

Not to mention all the threads we don't post in... or at least don't get a chance to before certain people arrive.

Hey AH, I love icecream. Do you like icecream?
OMG THIS IS WHY I HATE LIBERTARIANS. I HATE THEM.


Hey AH, what are your feelings on holidays?
LIBERTARIANS. HAIRY JAPANESE BASTARDS.

You're hairy and Japanese? That's an odd combination.

Davarus Walrus

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

Locke's writings are considered interesting, and indeed pertinent, to many people. One certainly doesn't have to subscribe to the libertarian dogma to appreciate it. Those of us who espouse economic freedom within a social democratic society really tend to be tarnished with the libertarian brush. It's an ideology as dangerous and unworkable as radical socialism.
One can be pro enterprise, innovation and risk-taking without rushing towards the event horizon of what that means for an overall society.

Yeah it's not really fair on the in betweeners either. I think IWF was trying to talk about some kind of compromise between the two for healthcare and still getting the snigger snigger ayn rand snigger shtick.

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

You're hairy and Japanese? That's an odd combination.

Don't tell anyone

bnt

The big news here (in my opinion) is the 56% inflation rate. They increased the minimum wage by 30% last week, but that's still no match for inflation.

The article has a lot of useful detail about the cause of the crisis - a drop in oil production combined with government interference in foreign exchange markets - and the results. Businesses have to raise prices to cover that increase, increasing inflation further, or they have to shed staff, leading to more unemployment. To get an idea of how devalued the currency is, and how far off the government's calculations are: the official exchange rate is 6.3 Bolivars to the $US, but that actual market rate is 50 to 1 $US: off by a factor of 8.

Is there good news? Well, if you want a cheap holiday, your Euros will go a long way ... :eek:

I am pie

I am pie wrote: »

Anyone misguided enough to think Ireland isn't much better than Venezuela should pay a visit to Caracas whereupon reality would kick them square in the face.

Perspective is a scarce quality.

Wish i could afford a holiday

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Black Oil

Even though libertarianism has become somewhat mainstream, I think it has a PR problem that's partly its own doing. Outside of defence, Snowden, privacy rights and the economic sphere (the promised land), I can't say I've noticed much drilling down into policy details. Surely we should all be interested in trying to reform regulation rather than simply driving a train through it. I'm happy to learn more about the auld libertarianism, though (particularly re special education, disability, etc).

Karl Stein

The Black Oil wrote: »

I'm happy to learn more about the auld libertarianism,

Mises Institute channel on youtube.com. Jeffrey Tucker's lectures are the least heady.

though (particularly re special education, disability, etc).

They would say that services should be supplied by private providers/insurance and if people couldn't pay they would be provided by charities.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

PopePalpatine

I would consider myself a civil libertarian, especially when it comes to the Internet.

However, I can't get behind fiscal libertarianism. Getting rid of safety nets like unemployment/disability benefits just to wipe out benefits fraud is throwing a lot of babies out with the bathwater. When you consider that approximately 60% of bankruptcies in the USA are due to inability to pay medical bills, there should be some basic healthcare for all citizens regardless of inability to pay. Back in June 2012, just before I was due to sit my Leaving Certificate exams, I had a case of appendicitis. My mother was unemployed, and my Dad had to move to London to find a job so my family could keep our heads above water. My mother and I had a medical card, so I was able to get the necessary surgery. That was an emergency situation, and I have my doubts that a private charity would have provided that surgery so quickly (or the necessary funds for it) - especially if its Board of Directors was full of friends of Fianna Failure.

As for deregulation, there are some companies that I don't trust without an independent oversight, or regulations to make sure they don't fuck over the average consumer (case in point: net neutrality).

KyussBishop

The Black Oil wrote: »

Even though libertarianism has become somewhat mainstream, I think it has a PR problem that's partly its own doing. Outside of defence, Snowden, privacy rights and the economic sphere (the promised land), I can't say I've noticed much drilling down into policy details. Surely we should all be interested in trying to reform regulation rather than simply driving a train through it. I'm happy to learn more about the auld libertarianism, though (particularly re special education, disability, etc).

That's pretty much where it falls down - the appeal of Libertarianism is the great-sounding ideals/principles, and the soundbytes used to rally around them - but you won't find a complete description of a Libertarian political/economic system, that won't have holes poked into it easier than wet toilet paper.

This is why Libertarian tomes (and well...arguments in general), often rely on huge obfuscated texts, and semantic tricks (redefining taxes as 'stealing' and other nonsense) - if there wasn't an effort to hide all the flaws with obfuscation, nobody would ever believe it.

It (and 'free market' views in general) are a set of nice sounding myths/parables, making big promises, that never turn out as promised in reality, or have some ridiculous caveat ("oh, well we forgot about all those poor people who can't afford 'x' - it's working very nice otherwise though and it's their fault anyway, lets just forget about them!").

Seaneh

If anyone wants to hear just some of the failings of Libertarian ideals (and that all they are, ideals, they could never work in reality, which is why they haven't), this talk by Noam Chomsky is a good place to start.

Davarus Walrus

Seaneh wrote: »

If anyone wants to hear just some of the failings of Libertarian ideals (and that all they are, ideals, they could never work in reality, which is why they haven't), this talk by Noam Chomsky is a good place to start.

Again, all these conversations tend to gravitate towards those on the loony left and the gibbering right. Extremists spouting out their tired ideologies. Most people are classically right wing when it comes to economics. Work, graft, initiative, risk and profit. It tends to work. It also works within a society where we have pragmatic views on what we all need to be, and do.