The only good thing that can be said about socialism and communism is that they can cure obesity. 

I wonder why Republicans throw Venezuela out as the 'Democrat's' when Republicans caused the issues by destabilizing the Government.

I wonder why the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway.... none of those countries are ever used as examples???

L. Cranston posted:

I wonder why Republicans throw Venezuela out as the 'Democrat's' when Republicans caused the issues by destabilizing the Government.

I wonder why the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway.... none of those countries are ever used as examples???

That's because those countries are corporatist just like the US. I might add that some in those countries take umbrage when Bernie Sanders calls them "socialist".

While speaking at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, the center-right Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said he was aware "that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism."

"Therefore," he said, "I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

Rasmussen acknowledged that "the Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens," but he also noted that it is "a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish."

https://www.investors.com/poli...alling-it-socialist/

So, basically, Republicans won't point to a 'Democratic Socialist' country because they're working? Providing a 'high level of security to its citizens' is Socialist. The previous Danish "President" was a Democratic Socialist, btw. Imagine that.

L. Cranston posted:

So, basically, Republicans won't point to a 'Democratic Socialist' country because they're working? Providing a 'high level of security to its citizens' is Socialist. The previous Danish "President" was a Democratic Socialist, btw. Imagine that.

Because they are not!

"Therefore," he said, "I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

BTW we in America do provide help to people struggling via SNAPS, tution assistance in some cases and housing.

If all men were saints, Socialism would be a great thing.  If all men were angels, Communism would be wonderful.  But few men are saints, and none are angels.

Every iteration of a Socialist economy has been a failure.  The history of that failure starts with the Soviet Union and continues with Venezuela.  The Peoples Republic of China adopted a quasi-capitalist economy because they finally realized Socialism does not work. 

In a Socialist economy, there is no incentive to be efficient and productive.  The workers are going to get what they are going to get - extra effort gets you nothing.  The non-workers get the same as the workers, so why should the workers work.  The only people that thrive are the political elites and they do so at the expense of the people. 

The only thing I might add is that most modern countries have a semi-socialist economic system where bureaucratic control of the means of production and property is considered enough. Increasing laws and regulations are enough to slowly cause economies to slowly degrade as was seen in Venezuela to a point where true socialism comes about. It seems that it is easy to vote oneself into socialist hell, but one usually has to shoot ones way out of it. The Brits almost went full socialist in the 70s, but they saved themselves with the election of PM Margaret Thatcher and the sacking of Labour Party MPs.

HIFLYER2 posted:

L. Cranston posted:

So, basically, Republicans won't point to a 'Democratic Socialist' country because they're working? Providing a 'high level of security to its citizens' is Socialist. The previous Danish "President" was a Democratic Socialist, btw. Imagine that.

Because they are not!

"Therefore," he said, "I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

BTW we in America do provide help to people struggling via SNAPS, tution assistance in some cases and housing.

To a point, Denmark and Norway are socialist.  They nationalized the North Sea oil and use that revenue to subsidize their welfare state.  Norway claims the oil revenue provides about 20 percent of the government's revenue.  However, that doesn't count the taxes paid by the company's employees, or the taxes paid by the companies that supply the goods and services to the oil company.  Counting that the support is closer to 30 percent of the revenue.  Oil is a wasting asset.  What happens when the oil runs out?  

Sweden used to be socialist -- taxes so high that they paid over 100 percent of annual income in taxes -- and left.  Sweden cut taxes significantly and encouraged private enterprise.  Sweden as no oil.  Private oil refineries, a major revenue source, refine oil from all over.  

"The government of Finland collapsed Friday due to the rising cost of universal health care and the prime minister's failure to enact reforms to the system.

Prime Minister Juha Sipila and the rest of the cabinet resigned after the governing coalition failed to pass reforms in parliament to the country's regional government and health services, the Wall Street Journal reports. Finland faces an aging population, with around 26 percent of its citizens expected to be over 65 by the year 2030, an increase of 5 percent from today."  So much for Finland.

https://freebeacon.com/politic...iversal-health-care/

Stanky posted:

The only thing I might add is that most modern countries have a semi-socialist economic system where bureaucratic control of the means of production and property is considered enough. Increasing laws and regulations are enough to slowly cause economies to slowly degrade as was seen in Venezuela to a point where true socialism comes about. It seems that it is easy to vote oneself into socialist hell, but one usually has to shoot ones way out of it. The Brits almost went full socialist in the 70s, but they saved themselves with the election of PM Margaret Thatcher and the sacking of Labour Party MPs.

Central planning is the means of control in socialist/communist countries.  As if government bureaucrats can tell a farmer when and what he must plant.  In Venezuela, they cut down all the sugar cane and planted corn.  No one told the bureaucrats that corn likes its feet dry.  I've seen that same stupid trick from Cuba to Nicaragua.  The government rewarded its cronies and sycophants with positions in the oil industry -- firing the competent personnel.  Built one dam to provide most of their power.  Few years ago, there were several drought.  No water, no power. Too bad, they didn't have backup plants that burned oil or natural gas.  Besides more oil than the Saudis, Venezuela is the 8th ranked for NG.  Recently, the blackouts are more a failure to repair equipment.  

direstraits posted:

Stanky posted:

The only thing I might add is that most modern countries have a semi-socialist economic system where bureaucratic control of the means of production and property is considered enough. Increasing laws and regulations are enough to slowly cause economies to slowly degrade as was seen in Venezuela to a point where true socialism comes about. It seems that it is easy to vote oneself into socialist hell, but one usually has to shoot ones way out of it. The Brits almost went full socialist in the 70s, but they saved themselves with the election of PM Margaret Thatcher and the sacking of Labour Party MPs.

Central planning is the means of control in socialist/communist countries.  As if government bureaucrats can tell a farmer when and what he must plant.  In Venezuela, they cut down all the sugar cane and planted corn.  No one told the bureaucrats that corn likes its feet dry.  I've seen that same stupid trick from Cuba to Nicaragua.  The government rewarded its cronies and sycophants with positions in the oil industry -- firing the competent personnel.  Built one dam to provide most of their power.  Few years ago, there were several drought.  No water, no power. Too bad, they didn't have backup plants that burned oil or natural gas.  Besides more oil than the Saudis, Venezuela is the 8th ranked for NG.  Recently, the blackouts are more a failure to repair equipment.  

We see the same 'tricks' here in the US. Awarding positions to family and cronies, who are obviously clueless about how to run any government agency and firing competent personnel.

L. Cranston posted:

direstraits posted:

Stanky posted:

The only thing I might add is that most modern countries have a semi-socialist economic system where bureaucratic control of the means of production and property is considered enough. Increasing laws and regulations are enough to slowly cause economies to slowly degrade as was seen in Venezuela to a point where true socialism comes about. It seems that it is easy to vote oneself into socialist hell, but one usually has to shoot ones way out of it. The Brits almost went full socialist in the 70s, but they saved themselves with the election of PM Margaret Thatcher and the sacking of Labour Party MPs.

Central planning is the means of control in socialist/communist countries.  As if government bureaucrats can tell a farmer when and what he must plant.  In Venezuela, they cut down all the sugar cane and planted corn.  No one told the bureaucrats that corn likes its feet dry.  I've seen that same stupid trick from Cuba to Nicaragua.  The government rewarded its cronies and sycophants with positions in the oil industry -- firing the competent personnel.  Built one dam to provide most of their power.  Few years ago, there were several drought.  No water, no power. Too bad, they didn't have backup plants that burned oil or natural gas.  Besides more oil than the Saudis, Venezuela is the 8th ranked for NG.  Recently, the blackouts are more a failure to repair equipment.  

We see the same 'tricks' here in the US. Awarding positions to family and cronies, who are obviously clueless about how to run any government agency and firing competent personnel.

Yeah, like HRC as Secretary of State. 

Here's the difference.  Industry requires competence that results in (hate to use it again) efficiency and productivity.  In Socialist Venezuela, by nationalizing the oil industry and replacing those who possess the necessary talents with "cronies and sycophants", efficiency and productivity was lost.  The result was the lose of Venezuela's major source of revenue. 

OldSalt posted:

L. Cranston posted:

direstraits posted:

Stanky posted:

The only thing I might add is that most modern countries have a semi-socialist economic system where bureaucratic control of the means of production and property is considered enough. Increasing laws and regulations are enough to slowly cause economies to slowly degrade as was seen in Venezuela to a point where true socialism comes about. It seems that it is easy to vote oneself into socialist hell, but one usually has to shoot ones way out of it. The Brits almost went full socialist in the 70s, but they saved themselves with the election of PM Margaret Thatcher and the sacking of Labour Party MPs.

Central planning is the means of control in socialist/communist countries.  As if government bureaucrats can tell a farmer when and what he must plant.  In Venezuela, they cut down all the sugar cane and planted corn.  No one told the bureaucrats that corn likes its feet dry.  I've seen that same stupid trick from Cuba to Nicaragua.  The government rewarded its cronies and sycophants with positions in the oil industry -- firing the competent personnel.  Built one dam to provide most of their power.  Few years ago, there were several drought.  No water, no power. Too bad, they didn't have backup plants that burned oil or natural gas.  Besides more oil than the Saudis, Venezuela is the 8th ranked for NG.  Recently, the blackouts are more a failure to repair equipment.  

We see the same 'tricks' here in the US. Awarding positions to family and cronies, who are obviously clueless about how to run any government agency and firing competent personnel.

Yeah, like HRC as Secretary of State. 

Here's the difference.  Industry requires competence that results in (hate to use it again) efficiency and productivity.  In Socialist Venezuela, by nationalizing the oil industry and replacing those who possess the necessary talents with "cronies and sycophants", efficiency and productivity was lost.  The result was the lose of Venezuela's major source of revenue. 

Capitalism survives by selling people what they need and/or want.  Government central planning says, "this is what you're getting." 

I might add that Venezuela should have done as the old Soviet Union did and at least allow a little capitalism for the farms. If the Soviets had not allowed people access to a few percent of the farmland to grow whatever the farmer could sell for a profit, the Soviets would have all starved to death.

Hedrick Smith wrote in The Russians (1976) that, according to Soviet statistics, one fourth of the value of agricultural production in 1973 was produced on the private plots peasants were allowed (2% of the whole arable land).^[18] In the 1980s, 3% of the land was in private plots which produced more than a quarter of the total agricultural output.^[19] i.e. private plots produced somewhere around 1600% and 1100% as much as common ownership plots in 1973 and 1980. Soviet figures claimed that the Soviets produced 20–25% as much as the U.S. per farmer in the 1980s.^[20]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...t_Union#cite_note-18}

Stanky posted:

I might add that Venezuela should have done as the old Soviet Union did and at least allow a little capitalism for the farms. If the Soviets had not allowed people access to a few percent of the farmland to grow whatever the farmer could sell for a profit, the Soviets would have all starved to death.

Hedrick Smith wrote in The Russians (1976) that, according to Soviet statistics, one fourth of the value of agricultural production in 1973 was produced on the private plots peasants were allowed (2% of the whole arable land).^[18] In the 1980s, 3% of the land was in private plots which produced more than a quarter of the total agricultural output.^[19] i.e. private plots produced somewhere around 1600% and 1100% as much as common ownership plots in 1973 and 1980. Soviet figures claimed that the Soviets produced 20–25% as much as the U.S. per farmer in the 1980s.^[20]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...t_Union#cite_note-18}

Before the Bolsheviks, czarist Russia was a major exporter of wheat. In southwestern Russia, there were numerous food riots in Rostov-on-Don towards the end of the Soviet Union.  A few years ago, private farmers purchased John Deere equipment. Now, the area produces so much, they may export.  

OldSalt posted:

L. Cranston posted:

direstraits posted:

Stanky posted:

The only thing I might add is that most modern countries have a semi-socialist economic system where bureaucratic control of the means of production and property is considered enough. Increasing laws and regulations are enough to slowly cause economies to slowly degrade as was seen in Venezuela to a point where true socialism comes about. It seems that it is easy to vote oneself into socialist hell, but one usually has to shoot ones way out of it. The Brits almost went full socialist in the 70s, but they saved themselves with the election of PM Margaret Thatcher and the sacking of Labour Party MPs.

Central planning is the means of control in socialist/communist countries.  As if government bureaucrats can tell a farmer when and what he must plant.  In Venezuela, they cut down all the sugar cane and planted corn.  No one told the bureaucrats that corn likes its feet dry.  I've seen that same stupid trick from Cuba to Nicaragua.  The government rewarded its cronies and sycophants with positions in the oil industry -- firing the competent personnel.  Built one dam to provide most of their power.  Few years ago, there were several drought.  No water, no power. Too bad, they didn't have backup plants that burned oil or natural gas.  Besides more oil than the Saudis, Venezuela is the 8th ranked for NG.  Recently, the blackouts are more a failure to repair equipment.  

We see the same 'tricks' here in the US. Awarding positions to family and cronies, who are obviously clueless about how to run any government agency and firing competent personnel.

Yeah, like HRC as Secretary of State. 

Here's the difference.  Industry requires competence that results in (hate to use it again) efficiency and productivity.  In Socialist Venezuela, by nationalizing the oil industry and replacing those who possess the necessary talents with "cronies and sycophants", efficiency and productivity was lost.  The result was the lose of Venezuela's major source of revenue. 

Destabilization of the Venezuelan Government is the major source of problems. Republicans can own that one, too.

L. Cranston posted:

Destabilization of the Venezuelan Government is the major source of problems. Republicans can own that one, too.

Are you talking about the sanctions against Venezuela's government officials and supporters?  That started in 2015 under the Obama administration.

https://obamawhitehouse.archiv...uela-executive-order

That's not L Cra's fault, his taste for foot grows daily   yum

Jack Hammer posted:

That's not L Cra's fault, his taste for foot grows daily   yum

Both feet in mouth with head up duffle bag.  Quite a contortionist.