Socialist paradise Venezuela introduces food rationing

Seaneh

Because since the foundation of the state we've had a system where rural communities have been subsidised by the rest of the country in some form or other.

Remove this support and remove these communities and you have a different situation.

You can accuse people of being "economically illiterate" all you want but you are the one spouting nonsense "free market" rubbish which hasn't ever worked in the real world while deriding socialism, which does work when implemented properly, which we can clearly see from looking at the Nordic countries.

You're dogmatically pontificating about fantasy of social darwinists who can't see beyond their own bank balance which has never worked in real world application.

Be a realist and at least try to look beyond your narrow view how things should work and of what benefits yourself directly.

SupaNova2

Seaneh wrote: »

You're dogmatically pontificating about fantasy of social darwinists who can't see beyond their own bank balance which has never worked in real world application.

Be a realist and at least try to look beyond your narrow view how things should work and of what benefits yourself directly.

I am a realist and my view is broad. The privitization of postal and bus services would actually negatively affect my bank balance.

czx

Seaneh wrote: »

Using the US as a model for any economic system is one of the stupidest things any rational person could attempt to do.

It's not as if it has been one the richest countries in the world for the last 100 years or so...

jank

Wibbs wrote: »

How many billionaires sit at the heads of western governments?

Zero by my guess.

jank

Seaneh wrote: »

Then it shouldn't be hard to provide examples.

Google the Western Rail Corridor...

jank

KyussBishop wrote: »

Where's the money going to come from then, to produce the food? You think by cutting support to rural areas, they are magically going to keep producing the same amount of food? (EDIT: Anyway, belated bedtime for me)

Yes, How did humanity ever grow food without providing subsidised public services to rural communities.... :rolleyes:

Davarus Walrus

Seaneh wrote: »

Meanwhile in reality land, the happiest people in the world are living in socialist Denmark.

Isn't Denmark a Constitutional Monarchy with the largest party being the conservative-liberal Liberal party? A country that is an outstanding example of social democracy, but certainly isn't socialist.

I am pie

One thing which would be useful to take off the table in these interminable discussions about whose "model" is best would be the fallacy of Nordic socialism. In fact it's not particularly useful to lump all these countries into one homogenous group.

Sweden has embarked on a liberalisation program and maintained growth, being the least "socialist" of the group of countries, they still top the equality rankings however.

The success of scandinavian or Nordic government is based on equality, transparency and a blend of state involvement where appropriate (the energy sector) and private enterprise, it's a balance of capitalism, free enterprise, well implemented regulation and lack of corruption.

it most certainly is not "socialism implemented well" , it's a pragmatic mix of the morally appropriate distribution of wealth and resources whilst allowing sufficient freedom to invest and trade. Property rights are focused on ownership and contract enforcement which is not a socialist concept per se. Also products are not highly regulated with an emphasis on individula responsibility. Basically integrating socialist policies into a capitalist model has created a very strong system of government, but it is a blend or balance best referred to a social democracy.

I'd argue that it was possible to develop this blended system as nordic societies were fairly self contained throughout their early development, they did not suffer the imbalances imposed by colonisation where social and commercial structures where created with the objective of sucking wealth out of the country. The challenge will be how they maintain these models in the face of increasing immigration (Sweden in particular) and loosening of societal bonds which allow the delicate balance of capitalism and socialism to exist. In the case of Norway none of it would have been possible without natural resource wealth.

None of these cultures exist in latin america were european and US businesses exist to extract wealth, clumsy imbalances structures or systems of government were created to defend against this but the effect of the imbalance has been to choke or starve local economies of technology, raw materials (import restrictions) and infrastructure investment. Rather than handing production bacl to the latin american working classs production has been demolished to the extent that basic goods are unavailable.

I am pie

Yes, Socialist Denmark who involved Goldman Sachs in the part privatisation of the state energy company.

Karl Stein

I caught my Niece trying to divide up a pizza she had bought equally with her friends when I was baby sitting.

Turned out she wasn't my niece at all but was a communist dwarf spy.

Watch out folks, they're in our midst.

jank

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

Isn't Denmark a Constitutional Monarchy with the largest party being the conservative-liberal Liberal party? A country that is an outstanding example of social democracy, but certainly isn't socialist.

Denmark have one of the strictest immigration laws in Europe according to Der Spiegel and a government report says that such laws has saved the Danish Tax payer 6.7Billion euros. Sounds more like UKIP than Socialist.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/putting-a-price-on-foreigners-strict-immigration-laws-save-denmark-billions-a-759716.html#spRedirectedFrom=www&referrrer=http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=799_1399736219

Or maybe they are happy cause they have a king?

Iwasfrozen

Seaneh wrote: »

When is is 0% full, it stops service the public interest and long as members of the public are using it, it should be provided to them. Maybe the frequency needs to be scaled back or the route slightly altered to make it more efficient but even if it never turns a profit and it's needed to service a community, it should run.
Maximum occupancy is ideal, but if the services is needed, even by a minority, then it should be provided and subsidised.

That's a waste of money, the same funds would have more social benefit if they were invested in something else.

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

That's the problem with Libertarians and free-market supporters: They spend too much time pontificating about theory, and less time looking at what actually happens in reality - there are plenty of historical examples of monpoly/oligopoly/cartels and such, so saying a variation of "but in theory that doesn't happen", doesn't apply to reality.

The whole problem with a lot of economic teaching and practice (the vast majority of it - this isn't limited to Libertarians), is that it is based upon pontificating about the psychology of people/organizations as 'rational agents', or that they all believe it's in their best interests to follow what economic theory says is the best way to run things; which is just batshít really.

Well do you have any examples of cartels that have lasted long term? Otherwise you're not really justified in calling it batshít.

Seaneh

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well do you have any examples of cartels that have lasted long term? Otherwise you're not really justified in calling it batshít.

The health care system in the US.

Cazzoenorme

Seaneh wrote: »

The health care system in the US.

Weren't the government responsible for that?

Iwasfrozen

Seaneh wrote: »

The health care system in the US.

Is not a cartel.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Really did you just ask that? And this years prize for economic illiteracy goes to KyussBishop.

Yes, like a true Libertarian - when it come to actually explaining how your plans will work out in reality, balk at and condescend towards people, who hold up the flaws in your argument, for being 'economically illiterate' not sharing your religious faith in Free Markets™.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

The economic illiteracy really has reached new heights. You are bending over backwards to defend an idea that absent subsidization people would move to cities in a manner that would leave nobody in rural areas to produce food.

Come on then, explain to us how - when we are surrounded by countries that subsidize their agricultural industry and thus exports - how our rural agricultural industry is going to fare, when they have to start jacking the price of their goods, beyond what it costs to import more from elsewhere?

What you want to do basically, is make our agricultural industry completely uncompetitive compared to our neighboring countries - that'll do our agri industry lots of good.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well do you have any examples of cartels that have lasted long term? Otherwise you're not really justified in calling it batshít.

Well you just had a wage-fixing cartel busted among the tech giants, going back more than a decade by the looks of it:
http://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-wage-fixing-cartel-involved-dozens-more-companies-over-one-million-employees/

For more examples, try Googling "monopoly examples", "cartel examples".

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

Well you just had a wage-fixing cartel busted among the tech giants, going back more than a decade by the looks of it:
http://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-wage-fixing-cartel-involved-dozens-more-companies-over-one-million-employees/

For more examples, try Googling "monopoly examples", "cartel examples".

Libertarians are against cartels like this, though there are differences of opinion on whether the state needs to investigate or whether or not the cartels are unstable enough to collapse themselves.

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

Come on then, explain to us how - when we are surrounded by countries that subsidize their agricultural industry and thus exports - how our rural agricultural industry is going to fare, when they have to start jacking the price of their goods, beyond what it costs to import more from elsewhere?

What you want to do basically, is make our agricultural industry completely uncompetitive compared to our neighboring countries - that'll do our agri industry lots of good.

Why should our tax money subsidise Irish agriculture when we can import it cheaper from somewhere else?

The EU puts punishingly high tariffs on non-EU imported agricultural products, pushing food prices to artificially inflated levels.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Libertarians are against cartels like this, though there are differences of opinion on whether the state needs to investigate or whether or not the cartels are unstable enough to collapse themselves.

Half of these companies are ones Libertarians espouse as great examples of capitalism - silicon valley is also about as close to Libertopia as you get, as it's chock full of companies/businesses run with Libertarian ideals in mind.

You think those wage-fixing companies where anywhere close to collapse? Check the article - it's a whole bunch of the biggest tech giants.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why should our tax money subsidise Irish agriculture when we can import it cheaper from somewhere else?

The EU puts punishingly high tariffs on non-EU imported agricultural products, pushing food prices to artificially inflated levels.

Subsidies make food cheaper for the average consumer - hence why we are not importing it all (which if we did, it would be from other countries using subsidies, which totally undermines your argument...).

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

Half of these companies are ones Libertarians espouse as great examples of capitalism - silicon valley is also about as close to Libertopia as you get, as it's chock full of companies/businesses run with Libertarian ideals in mind.

You think those wage-fixing companies where anywhere close to collapse? Check the article - it's a whole bunch of the biggest tech giants.

No one said the companies were close to collapse. I said some Libertarians believe government oversight is necessary to destroy cartels and some don't. There is no Libertarian hive mind to form a consensus on this.

Personally I believe judicial oversight and investigation independent of government is desirable for these cases.

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

Subsidies make food cheaper for the average consumer - hence why we are not importing it all (which if we did, it would be from other countries using subsidies, which totally undermines your argument...).

Under the EU CAP taxpayers subsidize farmer's income and place extremely high (18-28%) tariffs on the import of non EU foodstuffs.

If that wasn't enough they buy up millions of tonnes of surplus output every year at a guaranteed market price and put them in storage. (you may remember the free cheese going around a few years ago) then sell them wholesale at a loss to non EU nations.

This inflates prices to artificially high levels to benefit farmers but at the expense of the consumer.

Source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy

jank

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yes, like a true Libertarian - when it come to actually explaining how your plans will work out in reality, balk at and condescend towards people, who hold up the flaws in your argument, for being 'economically illiterate' not sharing your religious faith in Free Markets™.

Your not exactly amune to this yourself KB. Kettle black etc..

jank

KyussBishop wrote: »

Subsidies make food cheaper for the average consumer - hence why we are not importing it all (which if we did, it would be from other countries using subsidies, which totally undermines your argument...).

The Common Agriculture Policy is one of the biggest wastes of money and food that man has perpetuated on Society.

Davarus Walrus

jank wrote: »

The Common Agriculture Policy is one of the biggest wastes of money and food that man has perpetuated on Society.

Which is why the moderates from the centre right and left in Europe decided to get rid of most of it. And the new reforms aren't fantastic, but they are pragmatic; based on realities. And nay a libertarian or radical socialist was involved.

Which is always a good thing. Despite what online discourse would have you believe.

Iwasfrozen

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

Which is why the moderates from the centre right and left in Europe decided to get rid of most of it. And the new reforms aren't fantastic, but they are pragmatic; based on realities. And nay a libertarian or radical socialist was involved.

Which is always a good thing. Despite what online discourse would have you believe.

Based on what realities?

Davarus Walrus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Based on what realities?

Small farmers, areas where it isn't feasible to move people off the land into urban areas, supporting the growth of niche food producers, tourism. And while I'm not in Strasbourg, I'd like to think there's a body of thinkers who subscribe to ideologies which place some countenance with the idea of looking after people in areas that haven't seen all of the benefits of the EU project.

Iwasfrozen

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

Small farmers, areas where it isn't feasible to move people off the land into urban areas, supporting the growth of niche food producers, tourism. And while I'm not in Strasbourg, I'd like to think there's a body of thinkers who subscribe to ideologies which place some countenance with the idea of looking after people in areas that haven't seen all of the benefits of the EU project.

Ending subsidies for farmers /= forcing people to move to cities. Nor does it have anything to do with niche foods or tourism.

Aren't you troubled by the fact your taxes are being used to keep food prices artificially high?

Davarus Walrus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ending subsidies for farmers /= forcing people to move to cities. Nor does it have anything to do with niche foods or tourism.

Aren't you troubled by the fact your taxes are being used to keep food prices artificially high?

Not really. Like I don't lose sleep over inefficiencies in how my taxes are spent in the provision of social welfare, policing and rural sustainability. I'd rather it was better spent. That's pragmatism. Most of us have that virtue.

I'd rather that than rushing towards flyblown ideologies on the far left and the far right of economic thought which won't resolve anything though. Apart from scratching the itch of extremists blinded by the comfort blanket of their ideology.

Iwasfrozen

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

Not really. Like I don't lose sleep over inefficiencies in how my taxes are spent in the provision of social welfare, policing and rural sustainability. I'd rather it was better spent. That's pragmatism. Most of us have that virtue.

I'd rather that than rushing towards flyblown ideologies on the far left and the far right of economic thought which won't resolve anything though. Apart from scratching the itch of extremists blinded by the comfort blanket of their ideology.

Well I don't lose sleep over it either but you must admit it's not exactly an optimal use of our resources.

I don't really understand what you're arguing here, are you saying that since Libertarianism is an extremist ideology (I think that's what you're saying) we shouldn't we shouldn't challenge government waste?

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Under the EU CAP taxpayers subsidize farmer's income and place extremely high (18-28%) tariffs on the import of non EU foodstuffs.

If that wasn't enough they buy up millions of tonnes of surplus output every year at a guaranteed market price and put them in storage. (you may remember the free cheese going around a few years ago) then sell them wholesale at a loss to non EU nations.

This inflates prices to artificially high levels to benefit farmers but at the expense of the consumer.

Source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy

I'm not arguing in favour of CAP.

KyussBishop

jank wrote: »

Your not exactly amune to this yourself KB. Kettle black etc..

There's a difference between supplementing your argument, with a little ridicule when a poster is taking the piss (such as, by almost exclusively making up arguments nobody made, and rebutting them in place of peoples real arguments), or using ridicule to make an intelligible point - compared to just using condescension/ridicule minus an actual argument/point.

Davarus Walrus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well I don't lose sleep over it either but you must admit it's not exactly an optimal use of our resources.

I don't really understand what you're arguing here, are you saying that since Libertarianism is an extremist ideology (I think that's what you're saying) we shouldn't we shouldn't challenge government waste?

It's much simpler than that. Inefficiencies exist in almost every aspect of the personal and business aspects of life. We should always seen to derive better use of what we pay for. That's not a viewpoint considered extremist. While realising that nothing trend towards the optimal.

It's more a bit of a tiredness at the tendency of discussion here to deviate towards positions taken by libertarians and lefties. It's really tends to extinguish all forms of moderate opinion. It's rather boring as well.

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'm not arguing in favour of CAP.

CAP is just one example of how government interference in the market is detrimental to society as a whole in favour of one small group, in this case farmers.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ending subsidies for farmers /= forcing people to move to cities. Nor does it have anything to do with niche foods or tourism.

Aren't you troubled by the fact your taxes are being used to keep food prices artificially high?

No, subsidies keep food prices low - subsidies are not the part of CAP which inflate prices.

Iwasfrozen

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

It's much simpler than that. Inefficiencies exist in almost every aspect of the personal and business aspects of life. We should always seen to derive better use of what we pay for. That's not a viewpoint considered extremist. While realising that nothing trend towards the optimal.

It's more a bit of a tiredness at the tendency of discussion here to deviate towards positions taken by libertarians and lefties. It's really tends to extinguish all forms of moderate opinion. It's rather boring as well.

Well yes but the problem is "moderate" and "extremist" are subjective terms, the most hard core socialist or Libertarian sees him(or her)self as being moderate and everyone else as being extremist.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

CAP is just one example of how government interference in the market is detrimental to society as a whole in favour of one small group, in this case farmers.

I never said government interference can't be bad? It's both good (legal system, laws) and bad (misdirected subsidies, badly places taxes/tarrifs, etc.), depending on the policies being talked about.

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

No, subsidies keep food prices low.

I would love to hear your reasoning on this.

Food prices aren't low, they're unaturally high because of the tariffs placed on non-EU imports and floor price imposed on buyers.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I would love to hear your reasoning on this.

Food prices aren't low, they're unaturally high because of the tariffs placed on non-EU imports and floor price imposed on buyers.

Tariffs are not subsidies. You subsidize a farmer to produce a certain crop, and the farmer automatically earns more, and can afford to competitively sell at a lower price, than he could otherwise - saving consumers money (especially since taxes for the subsidy are progressive).

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

Tariffs are not subsidies. You subsidize a farmer to produce a certain crop, and the farmer automatically earns more, and can afford to competitively sell at a lower price, than he could otherwise - saving consumers money (especially since taxes for the subsidy are progressive).

But the prices can't go lower because of a price floor installed by the EU.

Remove the tariffs and the price floor and even farm subsidies (unless raised significantly) won't help farmers compete against Argentinian and American imports.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But the prices can't go lower because of a price floor installed by the EU.

Remove the tariffs and the price floor and even farm subsidies (unless raised significantly) won't help farmers compete against Argentinian and American imports.

The price floor doesn't change anything - subsidies still push prices down, even if they bottom out at the price floor; since you know CAP so well, I'm finding it hard to believe you're not aware of this already...

If you're taking a devils-advocate position, to string this out as long as possible, then state that (it's something you've directly admitted doing before); it's an utter waste of time arguing with someone who does that, because it's literally just arguing for the sake of it, with no value to the debate at all.

It's one thing to state to another poster that this is what you're doing, and for them to play along, but to not inform them and have just a pretense of argument, is just a waste of time.

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

The price floor doesn't change anything - subsidies still push prices down, even if they bottom out at the price floor; since you know CAP so well, I'm finding it hard to believe you're not aware of this already...

The price floor in order to be effective is kept at a level above the normal market rate it otherwise would be.

http://www.econ.kuleuven.be/public/n09078/CAP.pdf

A very basic break-down of the impact of the floor and who benefits/loses is given from slides 14-26, (really only like 6 slides there's a lot of duplication)

If you're taking a devils-advocate position, to string this out as long as possible, then state that

Nope. I ain't.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The price floor in order to be effective is kept at a level above the normal market rate it otherwise would be.

http://www.econ.kuleuven.be/public/n09078/CAP.pdf

A very basic break-down of the impact of the floor and who benefits/loses is given from slides 14-26, (really only like 6 slides there's a lot of duplication)



Nope. I ain't.

I didn't argue otherwise - I said the subsidy still pushes the price down to the price floor - the question/debate, is whether subsidies put a downward pressure on prices, not whether or not that is undone by something else.

I don't care about the price floor. I'm not defending it.

Cazzoenorme

KyussBishop wrote: »

I didn't argue otherwise - I said the subsidy still pushes the price down to the price floor - the question/debate, is whether subsidies put a downward pressure on prices, not whether or not that is undone by something else.

I don't care about the price floor. I'm not defending it.

You don't care about the price floor?

Do you not care that the "vulnerable" in society suffer as they have to pay more for food?

SupaNova2

Karl Stein wrote: »

I caught my Niece trying to divide up a pizza she had bought equally with her friends when I was baby sitting.

Turned out she wasn't my niece at all but was a communist dwarf spy.

Watch out folks, they're in our midst.

I wouldn't worry if it was my child, all voluntary transactions valid in a marketplace. If your niece was a communist dwarf spy she would have confiscated the pizza from someone else to divvy up with her young comrades.

jank

SupaNova2 wrote: »

I wouldn't worry if it was my child, all voluntary transactions valid in a marketplace. If your niece was a communist dwarf spy she would have confiscated the pizza from someone else to divvy up with her young comrades.

In communism there is no Pizza.

KyussBishop

Cazzoenorme wrote: »

You don't care about the price floor?

Do you not care that the "vulnerable" in society suffer as they have to pay more for food?

:rolleyes: Give up the pathetic attempts to straw-man me into a position I didn't argue. "I don't care about the price floor" = "As far as this argument is concerned, I don't care about the price floor".

I haven't got an opinion on the price floor - I'm debating subsidies with Iwasfrozen, not the price floor.