Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Socialist paradise Venezuela introduces food rationing

Options
1…101112131416»

Comments

  • Options
    #452
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    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.
    Fair enough we can agree the food subsidy pushes down food prices at a cost to taxpayers.

    Removing the tariffs and price floor however would push down prices at no cost to the taxpayer.
    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?
    Don't forget price floors on food are regressive as poor people spend a higher percentage of their income on food then rich people.


  • Options
    #453
    Cazzoenorme
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 137 ✭✭Cazzoenorme


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    :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.

    Do you care about the vulnerable in society having to pay more for food while the extra expense lines the pockets of business owners?


  • Options
    #454
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    SupaNova2 wrote: »
    I wouldn't worry if it was my child, all voluntary transactions valid in a marketplace.

    That's how it starts. Kids get ideas about fairness and sharing and then bring it into their adult lives and end up being evil and working for the government. Whereas the good kids, the ones who run up to their bedrooms with their sweets and gobble them all up, for fear of being asked for one, become the virtuous capitalists.

    Stamp it out young. Expose commie dwarf spies.


  • Options
    #455
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Cazzoenorme wrote: »
    Do you care about the vulnerable in society having to pay more for food while the extra expense lines the pockets of business owners?

    Don't pretend libertarians care about the vulnerable in society, couldn't be farther from the truth to be absolutely frank.

    All I ever see from libertarians every time they post is about economic libertarianism, they care about money and little else. The moment libertarians show they care half as much about social liberties is the moment I will pay attention to them.


  • Options
    #456
    Blowfish
    Registered Users Posts: 5,112 ✭✭✭Blowfish


    karma_ wrote: »
    Don't pretend libertarians care about the vulnerable in society, couldn't be farther from the truth to be absolutely frank.

    All I ever see from libertarians every time they post is about economic libertarianism, they care about money and little else. The moment libertarians show they care half as much about social liberties is the moment I will pay attention to them.
    The reason you see that is because most people agree with the social end of libertarianism, but a lot don't with economic libertarianism hence will debate it here and elsewhere far more.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #457
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Blowfish wrote: »
    The reason you see that is because most people agree with the social end of libertarianism, but a lot don't with economic libertarianism hence will debate it here and elsewhere far more.

    Well I guess that explains why I've seen them rabidly defending sweatshops and child labour in the far east then.

    'Work will set you free' - Where have I seen that before?


  • Options
    #458
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Blowfish wrote: »
    The reason you see that is because most people agree with the social end of libertarianism, but a lot don't with economic libertarianism hence will debate it here and elsewhere far more.

    Not to mention a number of libs think that everyone, poor included, would be better off with it.


  • Options
    #459
    SupaNova2
    Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭SupaNova2


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    That's how it starts. Kids get ideas about fairness and sharing and then bring it into their adult lives and end up being evil and working for the government. Whereas the good kids, the ones who run up to their bedrooms with their sweets and gobble them all up, for fear of being asked for one, become the virtuous capitalists.

    Stamp it out young. Expose commie dwarf spies.

    More ramble. I shared my sweets as a kid, really, and I still happily share stuff today. I'm happy to have my kids share.


  • Options
    #460
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Not to mention a number of libs think that everyone, poor included, would be better off with it.

    Ahh yes protecting the poor by removing protection. Show me the logic.


  • Options
    #461
    Cazzoenorme
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 137 ✭✭Cazzoenorme


    karma_ wrote: »
    Don't pretend libertarians care about the vulnerable in society, couldn't be farther from the truth to be absolutely frank.

    All I ever see from libertarians every time they post is about economic libertarianism, they care about money and little else. The moment libertarians show they care half as much about social liberties is the moment I will pay attention to them.

    Do you you not understand how government intereference with subsidies, tariffs, excessive redistribution of wealth through taxes etc can reduce total wealth in an economy?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #462
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Cazzoenorme wrote: »
    Do you you not understand how government intereference with subsidies, tariffs, excessive redistribution of wealth through taxes etc can reduce total wealth in an economy?

    Ahh that's right, I forgot it's 'only' libertarians who understand that stuff, everyone else is a fool because they just don't get it.


  • Options
    #463
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Cazzoenorme wrote: »
    Do you care about the vulnerable in society having to pay more for food while the extra expense lines the pockets of business owners?
    You're really bad at troll attempts.


  • Options
    #464
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    As per usual, the thread has descended into a full-on 'libertarian' circle jerk.

    Enjoy.


  • Options
    #465
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Not to mention a number of libs think that everyone, poor included, would be better off with it.
    The problem being, that this is entirely a semi-religious faith, which isn't based in any facts - and there doesn't seem to be any concept among Libertarians, of vetting empirical evidence for methodoligical/bias problems (or of even just googling around a bit to check it's not false, or has countering studies).

    It's like many think evidence is "just a matter of opinion" or something - and really, it's so easy to see the way some of the free market type posters, use logical fallacies as a guide for how to argue - I mean, just take the OP: Almost every single argument of his is a blindingly obvious straw-man.


  • Options
    #466
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    karma_ wrote: »
    Don't pretend libertarians care about the vulnerable in society, couldn't be farther from the truth to be absolutely frank.

    All I ever see from libertarians every time they post is about economic libertarianism, they care about money and little else. The moment libertarians show they care half as much about social liberties is the moment I will pay attention to them.
    Of course libertarians care about the vulnerable in society, everyone does.

    Tariffs on the imports of food and price floors disproportionately hurt the less well off because they spend a higher percentage of their income on groceries than rich people.


  • Options
    #467
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Of course libertarians care about the vulnerable in society, everyone does.

    Tariffs on the imports of food and price floors disproportionately hurt the less well off because they spend a higher percentage of their income on groceries than rich people.
    No Libertarians just have a one-dimensional view of every economic issue: Tarrifs aren't about 'protecting the vulnerable', they are more often about trade protectionism (protecting local industry).

    Not saying I agree with tarrifs either way either - it's notably disingenuous the way you frame your argument, by ignoring the real purpose of tarrifs, and spin it into a simplistic/troll-like "do you want to hurt the poor?" emotional argument.

    It absolutely comes across like you're deliberately playing dumb, in a kind of 'devils-advocate' position.


  • Options
    #468
    SupaNova2
    Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭SupaNova2


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Not saying I agree with tarrifs either way either - it's notably disingenuous the way you frame your argument, by ignoring the real purpose of tarrifs, and spin it into a simplistic/troll-like "do you want to hurt the poor?" emotional argument.

    *Cough* :pac:


  • Options
    #469
    Cazzoenorme
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 137 ✭✭Cazzoenorme


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    You're really bad at troll attempts.

    Nice tactic for avoiding the corner you've backed yourself into.


  • Options
    #470
    Cazzoenorme
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 137 ✭✭Cazzoenorme


    karma_ wrote: »
    Ahh that's right, I forgot it's 'only' libertarians who understand that stuff, everyone else is a fool because they just don't get it.

    Honestly, do you understand how those interventions in the free market reduce total wealth or do you disagree that total wealth id reduced?


  • Options
    #471
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    No Libertarians just have a one-dimensional view of every economic issue: Tarrifs aren't about 'protecting the vulnerable', they are more often about trade protectionism (protecting local industry).
    Tariffs are used to make imports from abroad less competitive with home grown products, the intention is no doubt to protect national industry but the effect is to push up the price consumers pay.

    This kind of economic nationalism to the determent of consumers has no place in 21st century society.
    Not saying I agree with tarrifs either way either - it's notably disingenuous the way you frame your argument, by ignoring the real purpose of tarrifs, and spin it into a simplistic/troll-like "do you want to hurt the poor?" emotional argument.
    Where have I ignored the purpose of tariffs? I don't deny the intention of tariffs are to grow national industry but I don't believe national industry has the right to grow at the expense of consumers.
    It absolutely comes across like you're deliberately playing dumb, in a kind of 'devils-advocate' position.
    This is getting boring, I've told you already were I stand on these issues.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #472
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    SupaNova2 wrote: »
    *Cough* :pac:
    Got a cold?


  • Options
    #473
    SupaNova2
    Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭SupaNova2


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Got a cold?

    KyussBishopitus


  • Options
    #474
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    I think libertarians should buy themselves an island somewhere and all move to it and see just how long their economic paradise lasts. Personally I'd give it no more than three days.


  • Options
    #475
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    karma_ wrote: »
    I think libertarians should buy themselves an island somewhere and all move to it and see just how long their economic paradise lasts. Personally I'd give it no more than three days.

    Why? Or is that just prejudice speaking?


  • Options
    #476
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Tariffs are used to make imports from abroad less competitive with home grown products, the intention is no doubt to protect national industry but the effect is to push up the price consumers pay.

    This kind of economic nationalism to the determent of consumers has no place in 21st century society.

    Where have I ignored the purpose of tariffs? I don't deny the intention of tariffs are to grow national industry but I don't believe national industry has the right to grow at the expense of consumers.

    This is getting boring, I've told you already were I stand on these issues.
    Again you're pushing the simplistic one-dimensional view of tariffs: Minimizing the price of a good, is not the intention of tariff's, and minimizing the price of a good is not the be-all-end-all of economic policy; tariffs exist for reasons other than reducing the price of a good.

    You're just deliberately maximizing whatever weak negative political connotations you can find about tariff's, and minimizing the connotations which show tariffs meeting their actual goal.

    In general, it's the price of a good as a percentage of peoples income that matters, not just the raw price of a good on its own - your argument pushes wages down, which is just as likely to make the price of a good grow as a proportion of income.

    What you're arguing for really, is unrestricted globalization i.e. religious faith in free-markets, but on an international scale - different set of arguments, same faith-based beliefs - ones which can be debunked by learning a bit about fallacies of composition (since policies are always portrayed as helping one individual country, when on the whole, they often make things worse for the world overall).


  • Options
    #477
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Why? Or is that just prejudice speaking?

    No prejudice, just the sheer lunacy behind the ideology. Infact I'm going to revise my estimate - if it lasted beyond three meals I'd be astonished.


  • Options
    #478
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    As per usual, the thread has descended into a full-on 'libertarian' circle jerk.

    Enjoy.


    Actually this thread was about the Socialist paradise Venezuela but we have had not much discussion on it because certain elements decided to attack capitalism and free markets therefore it has turned into the usual; libertarians defending their own position rather then people actually examining the core faults of the current Venezuelan centralised system of government and subsepquent food rationing


  • Options
    #479
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    I mean, just take the OP: Almost every single argument of his is a blindingly obvious straw-man.


    So food rationing has some other explanation other than subsides, centralised planning and corruption? Oh please do tell...


  • Options
    #480
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    jank wrote: »
    So food rationing has some other explanation other than subsides, centralised planning and corruption? Oh please do tell...
    Oh, 'Original Poster' rather than 'Original Post' - your arguments in general, not the first post.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #481
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    First it was food rationing, now it was a sneaky devaluation that no one was told about.
    http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/the-61-devaluation-venezuela-told-no-one-about-20141008-10rqd9.html

    Looks like the Socialists will be out on their ear any time now by the looks of it.


Advertisement