Venezuelan Update (Florida Maquis)

Musburger1

Musburger1

2,500+ Posts
Begins at the 4:00 mark. This is a brewing situation that probably want begin to make headlines here for several months.

 
Regime change is coming. Maduro is going to be gone. Socialism and it’s bastard son, tyranny, are exposed once again as a failure

Will you ever learn? Will libs?
 
iatrogenic said:
Regime change is coming. Maduro is going to be gone. Socialism and it’s bastard son, tyranny, are exposed once again as a failure

Will you ever learn? Will libs?
Click to expand...
The primary question here shouldn’t be whether or not socialism is a failure. The primary question should be what right does the US have to interfere with government after government and at what cost? Please focus on the primary question.
 
Musburger1 said:
The primary question here shouldn’t be whether or not socialism is a failure. The primary question should be what right does the US have to interfere with government after government and at what cost? Please focus on the primary question.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity, what socio-economic system and form of government do you prefer?
 
iatrogenic said:
Just out of curiosity, what socio-economic system and form of government do you prefer?
Click to expand...
All have weaknesses. No matter what system is in place, corruption must not be allowed to threaten the integrity of the system. Rule of law must be respected and enforced without exception to power and privilege. It’s apparent to me that the US has long passed a threshold where the rule of law no longer meets that criteria.

Capitalism has functioned quite well for the US in the 20th century. Even so, the system collapsed in 1929 and was on life support for the next decade. Roosevelt’s social programs and spending created the infrastructure which made the great economic of expansion of the 50s and 60s possible, the safety nets of social security, etc. But these programs were based on the premise that growth is infinite (it isn’t) and we see now they are unsustainable.

So I have no answer other than collapse and social unrest accelerate as rule of law disintegrates. And we’ve been moving streadily in that direction in my opinion.
 
You must have some preference despite them all having weaknesses. Which do you prefer?

Social programs didn't save anything in the capitalist system. They actually retard income growth and are antithetical to capitalism.
 
iatrogenic said:
You must have some preference despite them all having weaknesses. Which do you prefer?

Social programs didn't save anything in the capitalist system. They actually retard income growth and are antithetical to capitalism.
Click to expand...
The US growth following WWII is unprecedented in history.
Part of the expansion was due to the fact all of the world’s industrial competitors had been decimated. But much of the growth was due to public expenditure on the nation’s highway and public transportation network as well as the electrical grid, etc. This was socialism on a massive scale and it laid the framework for capitalism to do its thing in the decades which followed. The wealth inequalities that existed in the 20’s were wiped out and a great middle class the likes of which the world had never seen was created. Now, all of that has begun to reverse.
 
Musburger1 said:
The US growth following WWII is unprecedented in history.
Part of the expansion was due to the fact all of the world’s industrial competitors had been decimated. But much of the growth was due to public expenditure on the nation’s highway and public transportation network as well as the electrical grid, etc. This was socialism on a massive scale and it laid the framework for capitalism to do its thing in the decades which followed. The wealth inequalities that existed in the 20’s were wiped out and a great middle class the likes of which the world had never seen was created. Now, all of that has begun to reverse.
Click to expand...

It doesn't surprise me that you won't answer the question, but I'll address your other falsehoods.

Capitalism didn't create the great depression. Government monetary policy did.

Socialism did not drive American production. On the contrary, the plethora of New Deal government programs proclaimed to help the American worker were of short-term benefit and ultimately became a huge drag on the economy-and remain so.

The American economy was leading the world around the turn of the 19th century and early 20th century in steel production, coal production, automobile production, petroleum refining and electricity production. It had the highest standard of living and labor productivity. That did not come from government programs. It came from ingenuity, business education/legal structure, and technological advances.
 
Any answer other than free market capitalism gets a fail. Rule of law is a part of a liberal economy because it treats all as equal individuals. In collectivism a favored identity group rules over less fortunate identity groups and the legal system is set up that way.
 
iatrogenic said:
It doesn't surprise me that you won't answer the question, but I'll address your other falsehoods.

Capitalism didn't create the great depression. Government monetary policy did.

Socialism did not drive American production. On the contrary, the plethora of New Deal government programs proclaimed to help the American worker were of short-term benefit and ultimately became a huge drag on the economy-and remain so.

The American economy was leading the world around the turn of the 19th century and early 20th century in steel production, coal production, automobile production, petroleum refining and electricity production. It had the highest standard of living and labor productivity. That did not come from government programs. It came from ingenuity, business education/legal structure, and technological advances.
Click to expand...
The reasons for the great success of the American economy since, say 1900 or so, is not simplistic. There are several reasons. Her are two:

1. Rule of law. Antitrust laws when enforced leveled the playing field and created competion and allowed entrepreneurship to flourish. This is not a natural feature of capitalism. Without the enforcement of antitrust laws you wind up with monopolies and cartels; basically like we have now in healthcare, finance, and media industries. As the cartels and monopolies grow, they gain influence over government and laws are written which enable them to solidify control and become stronger. A feedback cycle developed which damages the overall economy and results in wealth inequality. We are here.

2. Natural resources. Prior to the late 60’s, the US was energy self-reliant. Since then, that has not been the case. As a result, finance and imperialism have been the primary tools used to sustain growth. The first of these, finance, is dependent on deficit spending to ensure growth. Imperialism in the form of the military and control of instruments such as the World Bank are used to maintain dollar hegemony so that debt accumulation doesn’t result in implosion.

You want me to say that capitalism is the superior economic system. At present, China’s hybrid system has outperformed our system by a wide margin over the past 20 years with respect to annual growth and percentage of people lifted out of poverty. If you look at Russia’s authoritarian capitalism, based on where they were in 1999, they have been on an upward trajectory. They have low debt and an educated work force. They’ve had to deal with sanctions and an adversarial US regime since Putin began reforms. Russia’s economy is still more corrupt than the US, but the trajectory is positive there while the direction has been negative here. But Russia is energy self-sufficient and that is advantageous.

Much of the imperialist US policy is necessary because we aren’t energy self-sufficient, and without using US muscle the financial system collapses. But on the other hand, the US is resented because of the imperial policies and the costs of maintaining a global empire isn’t sustainable.

The end.
 
Musburger1 said:
1. Rule of law. Antitrust laws when enforced leveled the playing field and created competion and allowed entrepreneurship to flourish. This is not a natural feature of capitalism. Without the enforcement of antitrust laws you wind up with monopolies and cartels; basically like we have now in healthcare, finance, and media industries. As the cartels and monopolies grow, they gain influence over government and laws are written which enable them to solidify control and become stronger. A feedback cycle developed which damages the overall economy and results in wealth inequality. We are here.
Click to expand...

Rule of law yes. Antitrust laws-NO. The anti-trust laws are a sham and I can give you numerous examples. There are no healthcare, finance or media industry monopolies.

Musburger1 said:
2. Natural resources. Prior to the late 60’s, the US was energy self-reliant. Since then, that has not been the case. As a result, finance and imperialism have been the primary tools used to sustain growth. The first of these, finance, is dependent on deficit spending to ensure growth. Imperialism in the form of the military and control of instruments such as the World Bank are used to maintain dollar hegemony so that debt accumulation doesn’t result in implosion.
Click to expand...

We are energy self reliant. The dollar is strong because America is strong and stable, not because of the World Bank. Finance sustains growth by raising capital. Typically this is accomplish via investors buying stocks and bonds in corporations.

Musburger1 said:
You want me to say that capitalism is the superior economic system. At present, China’s hybrid system has outperformed our system by a wide margin over the past 20 years with respect to annual growth and percentage of people lifted out of poverty. If you look at Russia’s authoritarian capitalism, based on where they were in 1999, they have been on an upward trajectory. They have low debt and an educated work force. They’ve had to deal with sanctions and an adversarial US regime since Putin began reforms. Russia’s economy is still more correct than the US, but the trajectory is positive there while the direction has been negative here. But Russia is energy self-sufficient and that is advantageous.
Click to expand...

The only reason China has outperformed us IS BECAUSE they started acting like capitalists, and they started from the bottom of the ladder. They have fewer government owned business than ever before. Russia just flat out sucks as indicated by their standard of living and per capita GDP, which is around 60th in the World. Sorry comrade.

I'm not sure having a few possessions like Guam and Puerto Rico qualifies us a "global empire", but whatever. If you are talking military might, I'll refer you back to the strength of the U.S. Dollar and a little thing called freedom.
 
iatrogenic said:
Rule of law yes. Antitrust laws-NO. The anti-trust laws are a sham and I can give you numerous examples. There are no healthcare, finance or media industry monopolies.



We are energy self reliant. The dollar is strong because America is strong and stable, not because of the World Bank. Finance sustains growth by raising capital. Typically this is accomplish via investors buying stocks and bonds in corporations.



The only reason China has outperformed us IS BECAUSE they started acting like capitalists, and they started from the bottom of the ladder. They have fewer government owned business than ever before. Russia just flat out sucks as indicated by their standard of living and per capita GDP, which is around 60th in the World. Sorry comrade.

I'm not sure having a few possessions like Guam and Puerto Rico qualifies us a "global empire", but whatever. If you are talking military might, I'll refer you back to the strength of the U.S. Dollar and a little thing called freedom.
Click to expand...
Your arguments are generally so rediculous it’s pointless to continue. But nonetheless, I proceed.

1. We are a net importer of energy and have been for decades. The shale revolution has not changed this fact. The US isn’t energy independent.

2. The dollar is strong because the demand for dollars has been systemic since the petro-dollar agreement made in the 70’s. The military bases around the globe are their primarily to ensure countries do not get off the band wagon. Guess what? China is steadily weaning itself off of the dollar as a system of exchange as is Russia.

3. The global empire is not necessarily composed of countries annexed by the US. It is an economic empire where governments are encouraged or coerced to follow US policies or face sanction, coups, or invasion. Isn’t that obvious even to you?

4. China has outperformed us because we our institutions have become self serving tools of large corporations and the military-industrial complex. The establishment has been corrupted and we now have a crony-capitalist system that consumes itself. China has been the benefactor.
We’ll have to see where Russia ends up. They have to deal with external enemies, embedded corruption that will take years to weed out, and many ethnic/religious factions internally. Putin is a good leader in many respects. But he only has a few years left and the Russian problems are many.
 
Rule of law yes. Antitrust laws-NO. The anti-trust laws are a sham and I can give you numerous examples. There are no healthcare, finance or media industry monopolies.
Click to expand...

It is actually Federal laws and agencies that have created, maybe not monopolies, but cartels and serious restriction to competition in healthcare, finance, education, etc.
 
It is important to define a "monopoly". A monopoly can only exist if it can keep others from competing. Monahorns is right in that they can only exist by force of government, but even that is limited from country to country.
 
iatrogenic said:
It is important to define a "monopoly". A monopoly can only exist if it can keep others from competing. Monahorns is right in that they can only exist by force of government, but even that is limited from country to country.
Click to expand...
When I mentioned a feedback loop, this is exactly what I meant. The corporation (or industry power players) basically purchase the government by bribes, contributions, etc. in order to receive the legislation/incentives which specifically benefit them. You are familiar with the revolving door policy where the same people cycle back in forth from government to industry and back to government, right? In time, you basically end up with a merger of state and industry aka fascism.

For example, you have a government bureaucracy such as the Food and Drug Administration that can become "captured" in the sense that the studies they conduct are funded by the corporations interested in a specific outcome. The scientists can be hand-picked in order to attain desired outcomes, or funding can be withheld if it is feared their findings don't come out as expected.

The SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) is in charge of policing the financial industry, but when the people in charge are drafted from Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan Chase (receiving huge bonuses when they leave the company) and then return back to the company after their stint at the agency, just who do you think they are representing?
 
Musburger1 said:
When I mentioned a feedback loop, this is exactly what I meant. The corporation (or industry power players) basically purchase the government by bribes, contributions, etc. in order to receive the legislation/incentives which specifically benefit them. You are familiar with the revolving door policy where the same people cycle back in forth from government to industry and back to government, right? In time, you basically end up with a merger of state and industry aka fascism.

For example, you have a government bureaucracy such as the Food and Drug Administration that can become "captured" in the sense that the studies they conduct are funded by the corporations interested in a specific outcome. The scientists can be hand-picked in order to attain desired outcomes, or funding can be withheld if it is feared their findings don't come out as expected.

The SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) is in charge of policing the financial industry, but when the people in charge are drafted from Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan Chase (receiving huge bonuses when they leave the company) and then return back to the company after their stint at the agency, just who do you think they are representing?
Click to expand...
You also spewed a ton of falsehoods such as the existence of numerous monopolies in the finance, media, and healthcare sectors. Name those monopolies for me.
 
I generally disagree with almost everything Musburger posts, but the semantics of "monopoly" versus "there's competition between the 4 companies that own all the media, 3 companies that run the healthcare game, and 4 banks that control most financial controls" seems kind of silly. We know what he meant.
 
iatrogenic, maybe not monopolies but very restricted competition and access into the market. It exists in the industries Musberger lists.
 
Monahorns said:
iatrogenic, maybe not monopolies but very restricted competition and access into the market. It exists in the industries Musberger lists.
Click to expand...
I am going to have to disagree. However, the term "restricted competition" is interesting, and we would need to define that term.
 
Restricted competition = creating government agencies, laws, standards, funding requirements, etc which keep competitors from entering markets. If you don't know that healthcare, cable, telephone, education, finance industries are heavily cartelize (i.e. restrict market competition for the benefit of "preferred" entities), you have some reading to do.
 
I appreciate the advice, but I think I made it clear that only government can create a monopoly. That is not capitalism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top