Socialist paradise Venezuela introduces food rationing

Karl Stein · 08-05-2014 05:30PM

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

Cuba is free to trade with almost every country in the world.

Afaia if you land a cargo ship in Cuba you cannot go near the US for a number of months. That's hardly free to trade. That's just vindictive.

It would have failed regardless.

And what incredible experiment have you run to prove this, powerful one..

Iwasfrozen · 08-05-2014 05:34PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

1 - What makes you think the pateint can afford health insurance...?! In the US a lot of people can't afford it. Question stil lstands.

Everyone can afford it, those who can't just don't have their priorities in order.

2 - My poitn entirely, i.e. "not universally avialable".

No public transport is universally available...

3 - Again, makes my point: if the stdent can not get loans, he dfoes not go to university no matter how good he is.

There are ways around it, he could get a scholarship or he could have his parents guarantee his loan.

So you accept that the services are not as universally available and tough **** to the people who miss out...?

No service is ever going to be universally available, there has to be a balance be affordability and availability. Unless you want a motor tax office in every village...

Karl Stein · 08-05-2014 05:35PM

I just want to remind you that I'm responding for the benefit of the discussion and not because I think you deserve to be taken seriously.

jank wrote: »

anti-american

So being against toppling democratically elected governments, murdering tens of thousands of dissidents, installing dictators etc is anti-American? Lol.

jank wrote: »

That was not the point the poster was making, it was just making a reference to the fact that a cold war was taking place and both sides were fighting it out via proxy

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.

CT Forum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 08-05-2014 05:36PM

jank wrote: »

Eh, what? Tell me, do you get better service in a state owned institution or a privately owned company. Usually the latter is better because they know you can go off and put your money into a competitors pocket. With a public entity there are no others options so one just has to suck it up.

I said better and more universal - I never said more profitable. See responce above (and reply below) for specifics.

jank · 08-05-2014 05:37PM

Karl Stein wrote: »

And what incredible experiment have you run to prove this, powerful one..

Has a communist country ever not failed?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 08-05-2014 05:39PM

jank wrote: »

Has a communist country ever not failed?

it hasn't really been tested on enough coutries to actually give an informed answer. Generally, though, every one has failed for pretty much the same reason as the capitalit societies tend to fail: human greed and insecurity.

carpejugulum · 08-05-2014 05:40PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Were not doing much better

Can say only someone who knows nothing about anything and has never been anywhere.

jank · 08-05-2014 05:44PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

it hasn't really been tested on enough coutries to actually give an informed answer. Generally, though, every one has failed for pretty much the same reason as the capitalit societies tend to fail: human greed and insecurity.

*looks out window and sees capitalist society NOT failing*
Sorry but no.

It has been tried multiple times in various continents and results vary from economic stagnation to outright wide spread famine, death and genocide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

jank · 08-05-2014 05:47PM

Karl Stein wrote: »

I

So being against toppling democratically elected governments, murdering tens of thousands of dissidents, installing dictators etc is anti-American? Lol.

Having a one sided rose tinted view on history has the traits of being anti American. As I said its a bit more nuanced than that. I am not saying the American intervention in said countries did not happen they way it did but again its one side of the story and one has to accept that fact that a cold war was ongoing

KyussBishop · 08-05-2014 05:50PM

bluewolf wrote: »

I take you off ignore for one minute...

Why that's very nice of you :pac:

bluewolf wrote: »

...and this is what you're posting. Are you serious? Surely it would have taken less effort to read the thing than go off doing research to find out just how much you can poison the well?

You don't research the credibility of your sources?

That's the first thing I do no matter what the source. If you don't screen your sources, then you just open yourself up to believing lies from sources with a questionable history.

Pointing out conflicts of interest, is something that courts of law around the world take as a valid concern, on a regular basis - if you use them to point out someones questionable history, and not to rebut their arguments, then it's perfectly valid to raise (as any court would attest).

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't care if you don't agree with it, but it's an interesting history, and I've already said if any of it is wrong, let us know. Facts are facts no matter how much you hate campaign groups.
I think you'd argue the sky was green if someone in cato institute said it was blue

It's up to you to convince others, that the source you put forward is credible enough, for them to put the time into even looking at. That guy comes from three different propaganda institutes, known for completely fabricating 'facts'.

Iwasfrozen · 08-05-2014 05:53PM

For those who still extol the virtues of socialism here is the ease of doing business index which ranks companies by the strength of their property rights and how little regulation there is in the market.

Notice anything? the index would seem to be very strongly correlated with gdp per capita.

KyussBishop · 08-05-2014 05:59PM

Wibbs wrote: »

karma_ wrote: »

How about you put everyone on boards on ignore, that way you will never have to read an opinion you disagree with ever again.

That's a tad unfair TBH.

It's the modus operandi of a few Libertarian posters I find (but, to be fair, I don't apply any of this to bluewolf) - a few Libertarian posters are here to soapbox rather than debate, and when posters get particularly effective at highlighting the soapboxing (I've been at it so long, I've got my 'debunk Libertarianism in one sentence' trick :pac:), they get stuck on ignore.

I've got quite a lot of people on ignore myself though I should say - but I never actually ignore them, it's more my 'watch out for this poster' tag

Karl Stein · 08-05-2014 05:59PM

jank wrote: »

I am not saying the American intervention in said countries did not happen they way it did but again its one side of the story and one has to accept that fact that a cold war was ongoing

Twice now.

Karl Stein wrote: »

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.

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.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 08-05-2014 06:00PM

jank wrote: »

*looks out window and sees capitalist society NOT failing*
Sorry but no.

It has been tried multiple times in various continents and results vary from economic stagnation to outright wide spread famine, death and genocide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

I thought you said "fail" not "fall"?

If you want to know if a system has failed or not, don't look out your window - go outside and ask some of the most vulnerable people in a society.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 08-05-2014 06:01PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

For those who still extol the virtues of socialism here is the ease of doing business index which ranks companies by the strength of their property rights and how little regulation there is in the market.

Notice anything? the index would seem to be very strongly correlated with gdp per capita.

Why does a socialist system succeed or fail purely by "business"?

Zebra3 · 08-05-2014 06:02PM

jank wrote: »

Has a communist country ever not failed?

Has a capitalist country ever succeeded?

Iwasfrozen · 08-05-2014 06:04PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Why does a socialist system succeed or fail purely by "business"?

High gdp per capita tends to mean high levels of literacy and a long life expectancy but if that's not enough for you gdp per capita is also correlated with a high quality of life index.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 08-05-2014 06:05PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

High gdp per capita tends to mean high levels of literacy and a long life expectancy but if that's not enough for you gdp per capita is also correlated with a high quality of life index.

That's one of the thigns I meant: if people are happy, as I said earlier because the have better health care and educatino systems, this is not taken into account. There is more to whether or not a system succeeds than just how much money it makes.

Iwasfrozen · 08-05-2014 06:10PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That's one of the thigns I meant: if people are happy, as I said earlier because the have better health care and educatino systems, this is not taken into account. There is more to whether or not a system succeeds than just how much money it makes.

Privately funded healthcare does not mean no healthcare.

Why is there more to a system than the amount of money it makes? if the gdp per capita of Ireland was 10 million private healthcare would not be a problem.

The unavailability of public healthcare is not a problem in any society, the problem is an unavailability to pay for healthcare, be it public or private.

KyussBishop · 08-05-2014 06:14PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The unavailability of public healthcare is not a problem in any society, the problem is an unavailability to pay for healthcare, be it public or private.

Unless you solve the possibility of large-scale unemployment forever (something that regular economic crisis makes doubtful), this is always going to grind some people into a position where they can't afford that, right?

KyussBishop · 08-05-2014 06:16PM

Lets remember: We are in a mixed capitalist/socialist economy, as are most countries around the world. Every time someone claims 'capitalism' is exclusively responsible for the economic success of any respective country, they necessarily are ignoring the contribution that socialist policies played in providing that.

Bedtimebaby · 08-05-2014 06:18PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Why does a socialist system succeed or fail purely by "business"?

A socialist society will never come close to generating it's potential wealth. It takes no account of human nature. People will not put in all of their effort into becoming innovative, efficient and productive when the rewards aren't there. That's why there is such poverty in socialist countries, the individual is not rewarded properly.

Which company will be more productive, the one where the boss is investing his own money and can earn unlimited profits or the one where the boss earns a flat wage and uses state money to run the business?

The above is why so many people are starving in socialist countries.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 08-05-2014 06:19PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Privately funded healthcare does not mean no healthcare.

Why is there more to a system than the amount of money it makes? if the gdp per capita of Ireland was 10 million private healthcare would not be a problem.

The unavailability of public healthcare is not a problem in any society, the problem is an unavailability to pay for healthcare, be it public or private.

I never claimed it was unavailable? I have already mentioend the probably of inability to pay - some time ago - and then questioned you as to whether it should be made unavaiable to people who could neither afford it not health insurance.

Iwasfrozen · 08-05-2014 06:20PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Unless you solve the possibility of large-scale unemployment forever (something that regular economic crisis makes doubtful), this is always going to grind some people into a position where they can't afford that, right?

Not really, if you make health insurance mandatory the security loading needed by the company would be minimal.

Set a price ceiling to stop the companies porcketing the difference and you've improved things a good bit without any cost to the state.

Iwasfrozen · 08-05-2014 06:21PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I never claimed it was unavailable? I have already mentioend the probably of inability to pay - some time ago - and then questioned you as to whether it should be made unavaiable to people who could neither afford it not health insurance.

Everyone can afford health insurance.

Bedtimebaby · 08-05-2014 06:24PM

People are an economies biggest most important asset and resource, socialism retards them in the extreme.

KyussBishop · 08-05-2014 06:27PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Not really, if you make health insurance mandatory the security loading needed by the company would be minimal.

Set a price ceiling to stop the companies porcketing the difference and you've improved things a good bit without any cost to the state.

Private healthcare (mandatory health insurance or not) doesn't help people with very little or no money though, was my point.

Kermit.de.frog · 08-05-2014 06:28PM

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.

Isn't that the type of society people before profit want? All equal and all that. Sounds lovely but not workable.

Iwasfrozen · 08-05-2014 06:29PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Private healthcare (mandatory health insurance or not) doesn't help people with very little or no money though, was my point.

Everyone can afford health insurance. Especially if it's universal. Those that choose to spend their money on other stuff don't have their priorities straight.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 08-05-2014 06:30PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Everyone can afford health insurance.

Not in the US, apparently. Were also talking about s system where there's no such thing ad paid paternity leave and very limited holidays. How this s this show up on your life satisfaction statistics?

Socialist paradise Venezuela introduces food rationing

Comments