Socialist paradise Venezuela introduces food rationing

Bedtimebaby

KyussBishop wrote: »

The definitions of 'interference' and 'regulation' are intentionally left broad, so that free market supporters can make them mean whatever they like - and then complain when someone uses a meaning of them that they dislike.

That's how the free-market framing of debates works - try to force people to use their (non-dictionary/legal-standard) definition of words, and then complain that 'oh free-market-supporters everybody uses our definition and knows what that means', when that's not true).

Just by merely existing, government 'interferes' with markets - so 'interference' isn't an inherently bad thing, even if it's the negative connotations you're emphasizing.


If you want to talk about specific bad policies, grand, but speaking in generalities about 'interference' and 'regulations' - like they can only be bad, or have a disposition towards being bad - is just a way of trying to slant the debate in a particular direction.

What evidence do you have that they are intentionally left broad? This is all in your head, you're away with the fairies imagining peoples intentions. People use the the government intwrference to refer to thw government interfering with market forces. You have concocted a bizarre narrative in your head based entirely upon your imagination.

KyussBishop

Bedtimebaby wrote: »

What evidence do you have that they are intentionally left broad? This is all in your head, you're away with the fairies imagining peoples intentions. People use the the government intwrference to refer to thw government interfering with market forces. You have concocted a bizarre narrative in your head based entirely upon your imagination.

What's your other username again?

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

We can go even further back here too: And put into circulation by government in the first place.

And you can go back further to where it wasn't.

Bedtimebaby

Deposits aren't really money, they are promises to pay money back. Banks create promises. I can do that too by lending money too my friend.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

And you can go back further to where it wasn't.

Which by now is a fraction of a percent of the money supply, since that was so long ago.

Bedtimebaby

KyussBishop wrote: »

What's your other username again?

ThedestroyerofKBaspergicnonsense.

KyussBishop

Bedtimebaby wrote: »

ThedestroyerofKBaspergicnonsense.

Not jank? You post in a very similar fashion.

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

Which by now is a fraction of a percent of the money supply, since that was so long ago.

If you want to talk about % in circulation today don't forget most is from private banks. Nitpicking is boring. zzz.

Bedtimebaby

KyussBishop wrote: »

We can go even further back here too: And put into circulation by government in the first place.

Are you sure you aren't philologos, you post in a similar fashion.

Suryavarman

Grayson wrote: »

Glass–Steagall. It's removal led to all kinds of dodgy credit products being traded and led to the banking crises.

Glass-Steagall was only applicable in the US. And the only part of that law repealed was the part that seperated commercial and investment banks. Care to have another try?

humanji

Bedtimebaby and KyussBishop, how about you both give it a rest?

Grayson

Suryavarman wrote: »

Glass-Steagall was only applicable in the US. And the only part of that law repealed was the part that seperated commercial and investment banks. Care to have another try?

Did you read my other posts?

what do you think was responsible for the crash?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Globalization (both of trade interdependency, and of economic ideology).

The US is (was) the worlds economic trade powerhouse, running a gigantic trade deficit (allowed by holding the reserve currency), that sucked up the exports/trade-surplus of many other countries around the world, thus helping keep other countries at full economic capacity (Yanis Varoufakis labelled the US the 'Global Minotaur'), and making them interdependent on US economic activity.

When the US economy slowed down, their imports dropped, and much of the rest of the worlds exports dropped (causing unemployment and a slowdown in economic actvity) - couple this, with the international spread of neoliberal economic policies (centered in the US, and spread through the western world), many other countries also built up large unsustainable private debt bubbles, based on US neoliberal deregulation policy - and once their economic activity dropped in line with the US, these bubbles burst and the crisis spread.

You also have, in addition to this, the globalization of financial markets and multinational nature of finance/banking, and crisis in the US tipping over into international markets.

maryishere

As someone said not long ago on tv, we too would be introducing rationing and there would be riots in the streets if we were not borrowing 20 billion euro a year on top of the hundreds of billions already begged / borrowed / stolen.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jank

KyussBishop wrote: »

The definitions of 'interference' and 'regulation' are intentionally left broad

Tell me, would you classify state interference into the consumer food market in Venezuela positive or negative and if so why?

KyussBishop

jank wrote: »

Tell me, would you classify state interference into the consumer food market in Venezuela positive or negative and if so why?

That's a non-sequitur, as I didn't generalize 'interference' as being good or bad. I'd think the state 'interference' of providing a legal system and infrastructure allowing that market to exist in the first place, is a rather good thing, even if other 'interference' will keep on harming the population if it is not fixed.

'Interference' is just 'government laws/regulations/policies', and free-marketeers try to restrict its use to 'government policies I disagree with'.

KyussBishop

Deeperbaby wrote: »

It is a non sequitur to say to that state interference providing a legal system and framework for markets to exist is a good thing.

Who is arguing that having a legal system is a bad thing?

It isn't a non-sequitur as the market wouldn't exist without that.

steddyeddy

jank wrote: »

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/us-venezuela-food-idUSBREA410PJ20140502





Just goes to show that time and again when the state interferes and tries to centrally manage an economy disaster awaits around the corner. Those old enough can remember images of long lines of people queing for basic food products in Russia and the old eastern block. Similar lines can now been seen in Venezuela in 2014. Needless to say things will get worse before it gets better but the end is nigh if history is to be any judge.

We have people queuing up for free food in Ireland. By that standard our society doesn't work.

maryishere

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

if we stopped borrowing tens of billions the government would be unable to pay the teachers and the guards and the dole and the nurses and there would be rioting on the streets. Venezuala has oil to back its economy, we have nothing except the ability to speak English fluently and our status as a tax haven for US multinationals.

jank

KyussBishop wrote: »

'Interference' is just 'government laws/regulations/policies', and free-marketeers try to restrict its use to 'government policies I disagree with'.

Nice dodge there as it is obvious that the current situation in Venezuela is neither necessary or desirable but can't have any criticism of the state now can we.

State interference into a countries food production and supply has lead to the largest famines and death in history.

jank

steddyeddy wrote: »

We have people queuing up for free food in Ireland. By that standard our society doesn't work.

You are better than that response.

There is a large difference to the above and the situation in Venezuela where you have your local grocery store like a Tesco or Supervalu empty and where the average consumer has to rely on government rationing and centralised control of the food retail market to feed its population.

KyussBishop

jank wrote: »

Nice dodge there as it is obvious that the current situation in Venezuela is neither necessary or desirable but can't have any criticism of the state now can we.

State interference into a countries food production and supply has lead to the largest famines and death in history.

I don't know why you even bothered to quote my post jank, because you seem to be debating with your own made up argument again here - if you want to argue with yourself, it might be a little clearer if you make one post as 'Socialist straw-man jank', where you argue in favour of state price controls on food (because I don't see anyone else arguing in favour of that), then you can reply to yourself as 'Free market defender jank', to rebut your own argument.

Seaneh

Fdeboer wrote: »

It is a non sequitur, no one is arguing that there should be absolutely no government or laws.

Interference in the free market is what people are referring to and unless you are braindead you should know that.

Who's re-reg are you?

Seaneh

Fdeboer wrote: »

Deeperbaby, can you actually not figure that out yourself. :rolleyes:

No clue who you are, just know you're clearly a re-reg doing a drive by whinge.

osarusan

Fdeboer wrote: »

Deeperbaby, can you actually not figure that out yourself. :rolleyes:

Why do you bother? Setting up a new email address (needing a proxy IP?) to register an account, just to come on here and troll?

F**king hell, have you nothing better to be doing?

Karl Stein

KyussBishop wrote: »

I don't know why you even bothered to quote my post jank

Indeed.

KyussBishop

Karl Stein wrote: »

Indeed.

Ya, arguing with himself all the time like that, kind of comes across as a form of argumentative masturbation - can dub it 'janking off'.

KyussBishop

Does somebody hear something? edit: re-reg post now gone

MRnotlob606

ewww socialists get some disinfectant.

Valmont

steddyeddy wrote: »

We have people queuing up for free food in Ireland. By that standard our society doesn't work.

People want free stuff ergo society is broken? Have you ever graced an event with a complementary buffet?

Valmont

Wibbs wrote: »

When everything has a price then you rapidly get a two tier society. Well more like a three tier. Those who accumulate the most wealth, wage slaves who make up the majority and the poor. Exploitation from the top down is a near given. Further consolidation of wealth and therefore access to pretty basic needs ramps up.

How would exploitation from the top down be a given if the state has significantly less powers? Who would large corporations get to stack the deck in their favour? Who would pass laws protecting the wealthy? Who would create significant barriers to entry to prevent competition forcing companies to sell better and cheaper products and be nicer to their workers? Who would large companies lobby to fix the law in their favour?

Wealth only flows upwards if you insist on having a political class who do not have to follow the same moral precepts as the rest of us. Whether they be socialist, communist, nationalist, or 'state capitalist'. Exploitation from the top down is only a given if you insist on having a top to begin with.

KyussBishop

Valmont wrote: »

How would exploitation from the top down be a given if the state has significantly less powers? Who would large corporations get to stack the deck in their favour? Who would pass laws protecting the wealthy? Who would create significant barriers to entry to prevent competition forcing companies to sell better and cheaper products and be nicer to their workers? Who would large companies lobby to fix the law in their favour?

Wealth only flows upwards if you insist on having a political class who do not have to follow the same moral precepts as the rest of us. Whether they be socialist, communist, nationalist, or 'state capitalist'. Exploitation from the top down is only a given if you insist on having a top to begin with.

This line of argument only works, if (as Libertarians do) you completely deny the very possibility of a company gaining and holding a monopoly, or a group of companies forming a cartel.

These are things Libertarians vehemently deny, because it goes against their Free Market scriptures - just lazily brushing it away as "pff, governments fault".

When things go right, it's the divineness of God Free Markets, when things go wrong it's evil gubberment.


I mean that assumption is loaded right into your very questions, which automatically presume only the state can bring such conditions about; that's not going to convince anyone who isn't already converted.

Cazzoenorme

KyussBishop wrote: »

This line of argument only works, if (as Libertarians do) you completely deny the very possibility of a company gaining and holding a monopoly, or a group of companies forming a cartel.

These are things Libertarians vehemently deny, because it goes against their Free Market scriptures - just lazily brushing it away as "pff, governments fault".

When things go right, it's the divineness of God Free Markets, when things go wrong it's evil gubberment.


I mean that assumption is loaded right into your very questions, which automatically presume only the state can bring such conditions about; that's not going to convince anyone who isn't already converted.

Laws against unfair monopolies and cartels is one area the government should interfere. For the most part the government should stay on the sidelines.

Wibbs

Valmont wrote: »

How would exploitation from the top down be a given if the state has significantly less powers? Who would large corporations get to stack the deck in their favour? Who would pass laws protecting the wealthy? Who would create significant barriers to entry to prevent competition forcing companies to sell better and cheaper products and be nicer to their workers? Who would large companies lobby to fix the law in their favour?

The corporations themselves. Regulation is but one aspect of it, the courts would be another. Rather than some ideal of a load of companies vying for our goods, history tends to show a few big names that control the environment and those big names will do all sorts of things to prevent new entries into the market. New guy comes into the market hitting corporation A's revenue in an area so what can they do? 1) massively reduce the price of that area/item, even giving it away for free. Startup tends to die. 2) buys out startup and calls it Corporations A's idea. Problem solved. 3) Takes Startup to court on some charge or other. Deep pockets win. 4) Corporation A's advertising outlets "puts pressure" to not carry adverts for Startups products. Deep pockets win. 5) Corporation A insists that Startups products aren't carried in their usual outlets. Deep pockets win. No government involved there. If it is, then in the case of the US government deep pockets also pay for lobbyists and the ears of government. Anti monopoly and anti competition legislation helps in reducing these practices, but the "free" market standard bearers tend to be against such things.

Wealth only flows upwards if you insist on having a political class who do not have to follow the same moral precepts as the rest of us. Whether they be socialist, communist, nationalist, or 'state capitalist'. Exploitation from the top down is only a given if you insist on having a top to begin with.

Are people this naive? How are you going to remove the "top"? Year zero time? Some Atlas shrugged nonsense made flesh? Like the poor a "top" will likely always be with us, but that danger is more likely in certain political setups including the free market idea. Indeed in the case of the free market foot soldiers they're happy and willing to "vote" such a top in. Who are nearly always richer in western nations? The political class or the corporation class? How many billionaires sit at the heads of western governments?

Wibbs

Another new reg? Man this Libertarian stuff is like discussing Israel, the fervent are all too ready to step up to defend their "ism".

Plus it begs the question, where does the line stop on evil gubberment and regulation. So unfair monopolies and cartels are out, but then the free market aint so free is it? What about other regulations? Environmental for example. Well a load of US Libertarians seem to be a tad on the fence on that one with quite the number backing the anti global warming stuff. What about food and medicine safety regulations, or do we leave that to the "free market" to decide? Snakeoil is back in fashion folks. Well I suppose a person could sue, but then we're again back to deep pockets winning.

Iwasfrozen

Wibbs wrote: »

Anti monopoly and anti competition legislation helps in reducing these practices, but the "free" market standard bearers tend to be against such things.

On the contrary Libertarians are by nature dead set against monopolies and cartels.

Some argue for state intervention in this area and some don't however.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

On the contrary Libertarians are by nature dead set against monopolies and cartels.

Some argue for state intervention in this area and some don't however.

They claim to be against that, yet a lot of them oppose state intervention in that area - just out of reflex.

The problem then, is that those that oppose the state there, tend to have unwavering faith in Free Markets™ ability to self-regulate - that nobody will get away with committing fraud, and that there will be a utopian state of 'spontaneous harmony' - which is about as stupid/unrealistic, as expecting the surface of the ocean to be perfectly flat and undisturbed by waves.

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

They claim to be against that, yet a lot of them oppose state intervention in that area - just out of reflex.

Some do, some don't there is no libertarian hive mind.

KyussBishop wrote:

The problem then, is that those that oppose the state there, tend to have unwavering faith in Free Markets™ ability to self-regulate - that nobody will get away with committing fraud, and that there will be a utopian state of 'spontaneous harmony' - which is about as stupid/unrealistic, as expecting the surface of the ocean to be perfectly flat and undisturbed by waves.

Well logically speaking how can a cartel exist in the long term? It can't, cartels are self-destructive because it is always in the interests of one or more of the companies to break the cartel and in the absence of legally binding contracts to enforce the cartel the agreements are by their nature unstable and self destructive.

Pfft, seatbelts. They kill more people than they save.

whatstherush

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The regulation of the smoking of the drug tobacco in public spaces made life safer and healthier for the 70% of the population who didn't smoke at the time.

Wibbs

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Because the free market profit/loss system can hedge its bets on the balance sheets with a product that turns out to be unsafe. So if a fix, or withdrawal of a product loses more money than paying off the odd lawsuit(if they lose in the first place) they're likely to not withdraw or fix the product. An objective oversight is required.

Wasn't there an example of this with a US car company who had an unsafe car, knew about this, but didn't fix it as their beancounters worked out the odd payout was cheaper than a recall and a fix? I think that's happened more than once.

Now sure the customer can decide to not buy the product, however without independent oversight that's not so easy. The media? Paper won't refuse ink especially if a big advertiser is paying for your ink, digital or chemical. If magazine A's biggest advertiser is Company B, how likely is a "tell all expose" on Company B? That would be unlikely then.

The design of airliners could be argued is another example and continues to be. Aviation safety was driven much more by outside, mostly government agencies than by the builders and the airlines. Airlines hate adding weight cos that hits the bottom line, so if it's safe and heavy, well then... Crashes you would think would hit the bottom line, but a brief trawl through air travel history and few enough airlines, especially large airlines went bust because of a crash or two. People have short memories and you can always spin blame onto someone else and so long as the bottom line remains steady... How long were DC10's running and they had some right serious issues with mangled death as the result.

Food? Who banned DDT? The companies making it? Who banned excess mercury? The companies who were producing food with too much? Who banned potential carcinogens in food? The companies adding it? Who inspects restaurants and public kitchens? The owners? Eh... no. So let's get rid of government regulation in such areas, who will take up the slack? The free market? Are you serious?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So you'd be happy with drugs and other therapies being brought to market with only one company's internal say so as far as their efficacy and risk was concerned?

Also, what about the many people who have become unhealthy and obese by eating according to flawed governmental food pyramids that were produced under pressure from agricultural lobby groups?

Remove government out of that entirely PB. What would be left? Advertising. Pretty much. It would just remove another barrier to free market, bottom line thinking. One of the reasons those lobby groups were pushing for vegetable oils and corn sugar and the like was because that stuff is cheaper and yields more profits. In a free market that would be... well the bottom line and the media would tout it as healthy. As it is people are now eating "low fat" laced with sugar that would stun an elephant and who is promoting this guff in adverts on telly and whatnot? The government? Eh... no. What you're actually describing is an example of where government/societal oversight fails in its appointed task, not the concept of government/societal oversight itself. However the free market by its very nature will look to the balance sheet every time. Naturally, that's it's job. The tobacco industry another good example and look where some of their money went latterly. Yep into "food".

Wibbs

The joke is in many respects I would be a "libertarian" with a small L. You want to take drugs, knock yourself out, you wanna love who you want to love, my blessings for ya, you don't want to lose half your wages for gombeen man white elephants, damn straight. However, I see those as aspects of societal fairness. Putting a monetary value on health, education, security, even housing and that's where I start drawing up lines. Yea it's great if we're all doing great and discussing our latest acquisition of expensive tat and we're alright Jack, but the last thing society needs as an ism is a codified notion of being more self centered, more selfish. I have held onto too much of that "there but for the grace of godism" in me.

Like I said earlier on I see the growth of human society as a rise to more fairness, the fairness that nature read in tooth and claw never adhered to. Humans were and are different, right from the get go. This short naked ape, toothless and clawless and weak. Who'd have bet on us? An unearthed skeleton from 1.9 million years ago showed a woman who ate too much carnivore liver and was dying from vitamin A poisoning. Slowly and in great pain. She lived on for over a month. Someone fed her and cared for her. On the balance sheet of survival and "worth" she was a dead loss, just one of life's unfair things, but someone or a group of someone's decided no, fcuk that, we'll take care of her, we'll share our resources even if we know it's futile. To us today those we call Homo Erectus would be "apemen", but they and that's what made us human, that's why one day we might make it to the stars and we'll do it as part of a group. A society should always be measured by how it treats its lesser people, not how it treats its greater. The latter will always treat themselves well. And fair enough.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

Wibbs wrote: »

On the balance sheet of survival and "worth" she was a dead loss, just one of life's unfair things, but someone or a group of someone's decided no, fcuk that, we'll take care of her, we'll share our resources even if we know it's futile. To us today those we call Homo Erectus would be "apemen", but they and that's what made us human, that's why one day we might make it to the stars and we'll do it as part of a group. A society should always be measured by how it treats its lesser people, not how it treats its greater. The latter will always treat themselves well. And fair enough.

Why do you say she was worthless? She had knowledge the tribe would obviously want to record in some way before she died and they'd need to keep for alive as long as possible to do that.

Now I'm not saying these pre-history apes were thinking this way consciously but it could be argued the desire to care for others is an evolutionary trait hard wired into our genetic code to help with our survival.