• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Venezuelan seize General Motors factory

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Huber.

Adrninistrator
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
21,346
Reaction score
17,108
Points
123
Venezuelan authorities seize General Motors factory amid deepening turmoil

Venezuelan authorities seized the General Motors’ plant in the industrial hub of Valencia, amid a deepening economic crisis that has already roiled many U.S. companies.

GM vowed in a statement to "take all legal actions," saying the seizure is illegal and would cause irreparable damage to the company, its 2,678 workers, its 79 dealers and to its suppliers.

GM has been the market leader in leftist-led Venezuela for over 35 years.

VENEZUELA ILLEGALLY ISSUED 10,000 PASSPORTS TO SYRIANS, IRANIANS, REPORT SAYS

"Yesterday, GMV's (General Motors Venezolana) plant was unexpectedly taken by the public authorities, preventing normal operations. In addition, other assets of the company, such as vehicles, have been illegally taken from its facilities," the statement read.

If the government permits it, workers will get separation benefits "arising from the termination of employment relationships due to causes beyond the parties' control," the GM statement said.

Dealers will continue to service vehicles and provide parts, the company said.

US COMPANIES FLEEING VENEZUELA TO ESCAPE COUNTRY'S COLLAPSING ECONOMY

Venezuela's car industry has been in freefall, hit by a lack of raw materials stemming from complex currency controls and stagnant local production, and many plants are barely producing at all.

Venezuela's Information Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for information.

Venezuela's government has taken over factories in the past. In 2014 the government announced the "temporary" takeover of two plants belonging to U.S. cleaning products maker Clorox Co which had left the country.

GENERAL MILLS CLOSES DOWN VENEZUELA OPERATIONS DUE TO LOSSES, OTHERS MAY FOLLOW

The country's economic crisis has hurt many other U.S. companies, including food makers and pharmaceutical firms. Companies have been cutting operations in Venezuela as a result of runaway inflation and strict currency controls.

Last May, tire maker Bridgestone sold its business there after six decades of operating in the country. Bridgestone joined other foreign multinationals including Halliburton, Ford Motor and Procter & Gamble who have either slowed or abandoned their investments in Venezuela.

Reuters and AP contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/0...al-motors-factory-amid-deepening-turmoil.html









"These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?"

Socialism...not even once.
 
Venezuelan authorities seize General Motors factory amid deepening turmoil

Venezuelan authorities seized the General Motors’ plant in the industrial hub of Valencia, amid a deepening economic crisis that has already roiled many U.S. companies.

GM vowed in a statement to "take all legal actions," saying the seizure is illegal and would cause irreparable damage to the company, its 2,678 workers, its 79 dealers and to its suppliers.

GM has been the market leader in leftist-led Venezuela for over 35 years.

VENEZUELA ILLEGALLY ISSUED 10,000 PASSPORTS TO SYRIANS, IRANIANS, REPORT SAYS

"Yesterday, GMV's (General Motors Venezolana) plant was unexpectedly taken by the public authorities, preventing normal operations. In addition, other assets of the company, such as vehicles, have been illegally taken from its facilities," the statement read.

If the government permits it, workers will get separation benefits "arising from the termination of employment relationships due to causes beyond the parties' control," the GM statement said.

Dealers will continue to service vehicles and provide parts, the company said.

US COMPANIES FLEEING VENEZUELA TO ESCAPE COUNTRY'S COLLAPSING ECONOMY

Venezuela's car industry has been in freefall, hit by a lack of raw materials stemming from complex currency controls and stagnant local production, and many plants are barely producing at all.

Venezuela's Information Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for information.

Venezuela's government has taken over factories in the past. In 2014 the government announced the "temporary" takeover of two plants belonging to U.S. cleaning products maker Clorox Co which had left the country.

GENERAL MILLS CLOSES DOWN VENEZUELA OPERATIONS DUE TO LOSSES, OTHERS MAY FOLLOW

The country's economic crisis has hurt many other U.S. companies, including food makers and pharmaceutical firms. Companies have been cutting operations in Venezuela as a result of runaway inflation and strict currency controls.

Last May, tire maker Bridgestone sold its business there after six decades of operating in the country. Bridgestone joined other foreign multinationals including Halliburton, Ford Motor and Procter & Gamble who have either slowed or abandoned their investments in Venezuela.

Reuters and AP contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/0...al-motors-factory-amid-deepening-turmoil.html









"These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?"


Will be interesting to see how the United States responds... I would argue the U.S. should put forward all economic measures possible to remedy the situation, regardless of the impact to the Venezuelans. Our responsibility is to protect U.S. interests.

Socialism...not even once.

Is Venezuela is the example of socialism you'd want to use?

Why not look at Canada, most of Europe, Japan or New Zealand?

Venezuela is 'socialist' in the sense that they have a history of revolutionary socialism that strongly embraces the concept of a centrally planned economy; i.e., centralized socialism, that is much closer to Marxism on the scale of 'socialism.'

So it's a bit misleading to think "see, socialism" when the term socialism is really rather broad and can refer to a number of different social and economic systems that are remarkably dissimilar from Venezuela.
 
I can see seizing the property of companies who shut down their plants but going in and seizing an Active plant that employed Venezuelans is just absurd.
 
As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents. _____George Orwell
 
As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents. _____George Orwell

I think you completely misunderstand Orwell's comment and his overall position on this issue based on the context of your post and use of the quote.

Orwell was a socialist himself, and advocated quite strongly for democratic socialism.

Let me give you the beginning of the chapter in which the quote is derived, so that you can understand Orwell's point in context, which I think, is amazingly different than what you think he meant:

"Meanwhile what about Socialism?

It hardly needs pointing out that at this moment we are in a very serious mess, so serious that even the dullest-witted people find it difficult to remain unaware of it. We are living in a world in which nobody is free, in which hardly anybody is secure, in which it is almost impossible to be honest and to remain alive.

For enormous blocks of the working class the conditions of life are such as I have described in the opening chapters of this book, and there is no chance of those conditions showing any fundamental improvement. The very best the English-working class can hope for is an occasional temporary decrease in unemployment when this or that industry is artificially stimulated by, for instance, rearmament. Even the middle classes, for the first time in their history, are feeling the pinch. They have not known actual hunger yet, but more and more of them find themselves floundering in a sort of deadly net of frustration in which it is harder and harder to persuade yourself that you are either happy, active, or useful.

Even the lucky ones at the top, the real bourgeoisie, are haunted periodically by a consciousness of the miseries below, and still more by fears of the menacing future. And this is merely a preliminary stage, in a country still rich with the loot of a hundred years. Presently there may be coining God knows what horrors — horrors of which, in this sheltered island, we have not even a traditional knowledge.

And all the while everyone who uses his brain knows that Socialism, as a world-system and wholeheartedly applied, is a way out.

It would at least ensure our getting enough to eat even if it deprived us of everything else. Indeed, from one point of view, Socialism is such elementary common sense that I am sometimes amazed that it has not established itself already.

The world is a raft sailing through space with, potentially, plenty of provisions for everybody; the idea that we must all cooperate and see to it that every-one does his fair share of the work and gets his fair share of the provisions seems so blatantly obvious that one would say that no one could possibly fail to accept it unless he had some corrupt motive for clinging to the present system.

Yet the fact that we have got to face is that Socialism is not establishing itself.

Instead of going forward, the cause of Socialism is visibly going back. At this moment Socialists almost everywhere are in retreat before the onslaught of Fascism, and events are moving at terrible speed.

As I write this the Spanish Fascist forces are bombarding Madrid, and it is quite likely that before the book is printed we shall have another Fascist country to add to the list, not to mention a Fascist control of the Mediterranean which may have the effect of delivering British foreign policy into the hands of Mussolini.

I do not, however, want here to discuss the wider political issues. What I am concerned with is the fact that Socialism is losing ground exactly where it ought to be gaining it. With so much in its favour — for every empty belly is an argument for Socialism — the idea of Socialism is less widely accepted than it was ten years ago. The average thinking person nowadays is not merely not a Socialist, he is actively hostile to Socialism. This must be due chiefly to mistaken methods of propaganda. It means that Socialism, in the form of which it is now presented to us, has about it something inherently distasteful — something that drives away the very people who ought to be nocking to its support.

A few years ago this might have seemed unimportant. It seems only yesterday that Socialists, especially orthodox Marxists, were telling me with superior smiles that Socialism was going to arrive of its own accord by some mysterious process called ‘historic necessity’. Possibly that belief still lingers, but it has been shaken, to say the least of it. Hence the sudden attempts of Communists in various countries to ally themselves with democratic forces which they have been sabotaging for years past.

At a moment like this it is desperately necessary to discover just why Socialism has failed in its appeal. And it is no use writing off the current distaste for Socialism as the product of stupidity or corrupt motives. If you want to remove that distaste you have got to understand it, which means getting inside the mind of the ordinary objector to Socialism, or at least regarding his viewpoint sympathetically. No case is really answered until it has had a fair hearing. Therefore, rather paradoxically, in order to defend Socialism it is necessary to start by attacking it."


...

The tl;dr of this is in this quote by Orwell here:

"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it." -George Orwell

As I posted above, to Huber, it's important that people understand that socialism is complex. Most Americans have no idea what socialism actually means or entails, and that's unfortunate; particularly when so many rely on socialist programs here in America just to survive. Nonetheless, to many Americans, "socialism" is a boogeyman, a trigger-word used to dismissed leftist economic principles and ideals out of hand, without evaluation of the merit of those ideas.

Anyway, getting back to Orwell, the kind of 'socialism' that Orwell rails against is Marxist-Leninist authoritarianism (i.e., Leninism / Leninist Communism) which specifically places the mechanism of control and perpetuation of the state/party over human freedom and even over truth itself. He is specifically not talking about the kind of socialism that is broadly implemented throughout the world to great success; in fact, that's what Orwell is advocating as a solution to man's problems.

So again, using this article about Venezuela as a jumping point to attack "socialism" is more than a bit odd.

tl;dr
If you do value Orwell's opinion on the topic, please read his works on socialism. They might be eye-opening for you.
 
Last edited:
Venezuelan authorities seize General Motors factory amid deepening turmoil

Venezuelan authorities seized the General Motors’ plant in the industrial hub of Valencia, amid a deepening economic crisis that has already roiled many U.S. companies.

GM vowed in a statement to "take all legal actions," saying the seizure is illegal and would cause irreparable damage to the company, its 2,678 workers, its 79 dealers and to its suppliers.

GM has been the market leader in leftist-led Venezuela for over 35 years.

VENEZUELA ILLEGALLY ISSUED 10,000 PASSPORTS TO SYRIANS, IRANIANS, REPORT SAYS

"Yesterday, GMV's (General Motors Venezolana) plant was unexpectedly taken by the public authorities, preventing normal operations. In addition, other assets of the company, such as vehicles, have been illegally taken from its facilities," the statement read.

If the government permits it, workers will get separation benefits "arising from the termination of employment relationships due to causes beyond the parties' control," the GM statement said.

Dealers will continue to service vehicles and provide parts, the company said.

US COMPANIES FLEEING VENEZUELA TO ESCAPE COUNTRY'S COLLAPSING ECONOMY

Venezuela's car industry has been in freefall, hit by a lack of raw materials stemming from complex currency controls and stagnant local production, and many plants are barely producing at all.

Venezuela's Information Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for information.

Venezuela's government has taken over factories in the past. In 2014 the government announced the "temporary" takeover of two plants belonging to U.S. cleaning products maker Clorox Co which had left the country.

GENERAL MILLS CLOSES DOWN VENEZUELA OPERATIONS DUE TO LOSSES, OTHERS MAY FOLLOW

The country's economic crisis has hurt many other U.S. companies, including food makers and pharmaceutical firms. Companies have been cutting operations in Venezuela as a result of runaway inflation and strict currency controls.

Last May, tire maker Bridgestone sold its business there after six decades of operating in the country. Bridgestone joined other foreign multinationals including Halliburton, Ford Motor and Procter & Gamble who have either slowed or abandoned their investments in Venezuela.

Reuters and AP contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/0...al-motors-factory-amid-deepening-turmoil.html









"These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?"

Socialism...not even once.

Other peoples' money is just about gone....
 
Funny you should say that. Didn't Trump university strongly advocate and teach leveraged use of "OPM" to buy property?

No idea what Trump University did or didn't teach. But people are free to invest in what they like - socialists who use the government to seize private property don't leave us with that choice.
 
Socialism and communism totally work.

I would agree with you about communism. But socialism can and does work, with numerous examples around the world...
 
I would agree with you about communism. But socialism can and does work, with numerous examples around the world...
I'm willing to listen. My sources dont entertain yhe idea and only show iconic representations of socialism.

Which type of socialism are you suggesting, and what are the differences between our country and in which countries it works ?

Ive only glanced over the objections, but i remember points about homogeneity and defense. And population, but i dont see why a theory wouldnt work since population and the economy are simultaneously scalable.

Also note, i think these countries are turning towards lower tax rates and capitalist principles right? And are the outcomes better for more people or are they exponentially better for fewer people (like aca)?
 
I'm willing to listen.

Sure.

My sources dont entertain yhe idea and only show iconic representations of socialism.

Not sure what you mean by this?

Which type of socialism are you suggesting, and what are the differences between our country and in which countries it works ?

To be clear up front: I am not a socialist. :chuckle:

I'm not advocating for socialism in the United States.

I'm a capitalist. In both a philosophical and practical sense.

However, that does not mean that I have core objections to socialism, to such an extent, that I would reject borrowing from the principles and practices of socialism used in various countries around the world.

However, with that said, if I were to be placed somewhere on the socialism scale, I would be most conducive to Social Democracy. This style of socialism is quite similar to what Bernie Sanders references when he calls himself a "Democratic Socialist" which, is actually a mischaracterization on his part since Democratic Socialism is another type of socialism which is quite further to the left.

To give you an idea of the difference between a social democrat and a democratic socialist; the social democrat could, in essence, be a weak capitalist; and by weak, meaning, not strictly adhering to free market principles in every scenario, allowing government intervention where it makes sense - such as in healthcare, education or in subsidization of the energy sector. Social democracy argues for egalitarianism through class stability and posits a mixed economy is the best avenue towards such ends.

By contrast, a democratic socialist would argue that society should own the means of production (which is really the core of Marxist economic theory in this regard). Thus, the public should own at least a segment of the core industries of the economy; i.e. central banks, production plants (steel/coal/oil), refineries, and potentially hospitals and schools.

Both the social democrat and the democratic socialist believe in "The Welfare State," which, in America is a de facto pejorative; however, in Europe it's absolutely not (whether left or right-wing). The concept of a welfare state is simply the protection of the population from destitution.

Since the New Deal, the United States has, in various forms, had a mechanism for exactly this and more. Public housing, Social Security (and disability), Medicaid, Medicare, SNAP, CHIP, means tested student funding, etc; all of these are forms of the American welfare state. Even programs that are widely enjoyed by millions of people who don't think they're using welfare programs are indeed part of the welfare state; like FHA loans for example, made possible by a federal loan-loss insurance program.

This is why I've stated that most people in America really do not understand the concept of socialism; and it's also why I've stated that I would be conducive to considering social democracy as a way forward for the United States.

I differ with these ideologies in that I would prefer everything be privately owned. For example, as many know, I'm for universal health care with as little to no out of pocket costs upfront as possible for the patient; but simultaneously, I want the entire system to be privately owned and operated with some small degree of profitability available for incentivization to drive advancement.

I'm for the privatization of socialist programs like Social Security and Medicare; contrary to most liberals and progressives.

I'm for "school choice" so long as it doesn't mean strangling public institutions that people need, or submitting to asinine conditions that allow public funds to go to schools that refuse to teach mandatory scientific curriculum.

I'm all for a market-driven economy, that embraces the best principles of capitalism and free enterprise.
But that does not mean that people should starve, or that we as a society should tolerate people going bankrupt due to personal illness, or that a family should ever spend a night on the street.

Hence my argument with respect to embracing specific tenants of social democracy to promote egalitarianism, equality, and social justice which, I argue, can be partially done by working to eliminate destitution, inequality, and the specific forms of unavoidable class struggle that stem from these problems. I would argue that in a more equitable and just society, that society also enjoy greater prosperity on the whole.

Ive only glanced over the objections, but i remember points about homogeneity and defense.

The arguments about homogeneity (economically, I'm assuming is what you mean) are justified if and when we get to the point where we have policies that attempt to eliminate the wealthy from existence through tax policy. So for example, 90% effective tax rates. To me, this is quite difficult to justify. I find the not-so-arbitrary 50% threshold to be where I would think one's public obligation ends. This gets more complicated with state and local taxes; however, I think if/when the federal government were to take over greater responsibility for health care and education you would, in turn, see far lower state-wide costs. California is a prime example of a state that could massively lower taxes if the federal government implemented a real universal health care plan (that would eliminate the need for MediCal, which would massively lower California's annual liabilities)

As far as "defense," I'm not sure what's meant by that?

And population, but i dont see why a theory wouldnt work since population and the economy are simultaneously scalable.

Right, population and the economy largely scale with each other since both are codependent functions of the each other. So to suggest that a country could be too big to be socialist, doesn't really make much sense. A country might be too poor to be as socialist as it might wish to be; but it can't necessarily be too large (if measuring the economy's health and wealth includes factoring in economic and wealth disparity).

Also note, i think these countries are turning towards lower tax rates and capitalist principles right?

Lower taxes? Yes. But this is extremely complex.

Let's take France as an example. On the one hand you have business-friendly neoliberal pragmatists like former investment banker Macron in France who wants lower corporate tax rates to stimulate growth, and is also pro-austerity; but he is really much more of a social democrat than what an American might call a fiscally conservative traditional capitalist - at least, not openly anyway.

None of the French Presidential candidates openly embraces true free market capitalism; as it would essentially end their campaigns.

Marine Le Pen, who is a right-winger, has learned to embrace specific aspects of socialism without necessarily calling it that in order to grow the National Front party and compete; she's paradoxically moved to Macron's left on austerity, and Fillon's left on health care.

We could go through numerous European nations and we would come up with similar results where left and right-leaning politicians may want to tweak taxes and cut back on social programs (again, austerity) but there is tremendous pushback from the public with respect to these policies and politicians and political parties are starting to adapt - rejecting politicians advocating austerity in favor of those advocating more populist solutions (whether or not those solutions make sense, or rely on the scapegoating of immigrants and minorities; i.e. UKIP in Britain).

So with respect to 'Capitalistic principles?' No, not really. They are just naturally moving along the spectrum of socialism; moving from say social democracy to democratic socialism and back again. Sadly, at various points, ditching core principles of socialism like egalitarianism and progressivism along the way.

But actual free market capitalism? Not really, not if we mean that to suggest capitalism that isn't also a form of social democracy (i.e., mixed market socialism).

And are the outcomes better for more people or are they exponentially better for fewer people (like aca)?

Well first off, I don't think I'd agree with the assertion about the ACA; the ACA benefits millions; and I say that as someone who stands in opposition to the program. Also, it's important to note that the ACA is really what happens when you try to keep a program as 'capitalistic' as possible simply to avoid making a workable social(ist) program (i.e. Medicare for All).

But, to answer your question; socialism (social democracy) should generally lead to the best outcomes for the most people. In the most general sense, I think that's true. In times of economic downturns, socialism protects people far better than a capitalistic society would; in both a theoretical and practical sense. In times of economic prosperity, socialism still protects the middle class by spreading out costs and implementing progressive taxation to fund social programs that really everyone can use.

Democratic socialism, however, might lead to a an artificially retarded economic condition due to lack of competition and growth. This can result from overly centralized economic planning and/or the failure of central banks and lending institutions deeply tied to the government. Government (in-)stability also can strongly influence economic growth since government essentially controls the largest influence on the direction of the economy.

That isn't to say that democratic socialism doesn't or can't work. It can and it does. But that it's more prone to failure as a result of central planning that a social democracy would be given it's mixed-market approach.
 
Last edited:
Sure.



Not sure what you mean by this?



To be clear up front: I am not a socialist. :chuckle:

I'm not advocating for socialism in the United States.

I'm a capitalist. In both a philosophical and practical sense.

However, that does not mean that I have core objections to socialism, to such an extent, that I would reject borrowing from the principles and practices of socialism used in various countries around the world.

However, with that said, if I were to be placed somewhere on the socialism scale, I would be most conducive to Social Democracy. This style of socialism is quite similar to what Bernie Sanders references when he calls himself a "Democratic Socialist" which, is actually a mischaracterization on his part since Democratic Socialism is another type of socialism which is quite further to the left.

To give you an idea of the difference between a social democrat and a democratic socialist; the social democrat could, in essence, be a weak capitalist; and by weak, meaning, not strictly adhering to free market principles in every scenario, allowing government intervention where it makes sense - such as in healthcare, education or in subsidization of the energy sector. Social democracy argues for egalitarianism through class stability and posits a mixed economy is the best avenue towards such ends.

By contrast, a democratic socialist would argue that society should own the means of production (which is really the core of Marxist economic theory in this regard). Thus, the public should own at least a segment of the core industries of the economy; i.e. central banks, production plants (steel/coal/oil), refineries, and potentially hospitals and schools.

Both the social democrat and the democratic socialist believe in "The Welfare State," which, in America is a de facto pejorative; however, in Europe it's absolutely not (whether left or right-wing). The concept of a welfare state is simply the protection of the population from destitution.

Since the New Deal, the United States has, in various forms, had a mechanism for exactly this and more. Public housing, Social Security (and disability), Medicaid, Medicare, SNAP, CHIP, means tested student funding, etc; all of these are forms of the American welfare state. Even programs that are widely enjoyed by millions of people who don't think they're using welfare programs are indeed part of the welfare state; like FHA loans for example, made possible by a federal loan-loss insurance program.

This is why I've stated that most people in America really do not understand the concept of socialism; and it's also why I've stated that I would be conducive to considering social democracy as a way forward for the United States.

I differ with these ideologies in that I would prefer everything be privately owned. For example, as many know, I'm for universal health care with as little to no out of pocket costs upfront as possible for the patient; but simultaneously, I want the entire system to be privately owned and operated with some small degree of profitability available for incentivization to drive advancement.

I'm for the privatization of socialist programs like Social Security and Medicare; contrary to most liberals and progressives.

I'm for "school choice" so long as it doesn't mean strangling public institutions that people need, or submitting to asinine conditions that allow public funds to go to schools that refuse to teach mandatory scientific curriculum.

I'm all for a market-driven economy, that embraces the best principles of capitalism and free enterprise.
But that does not mean that people should starve, or that we as a society should tolerate people going bankrupt due to personal illness, or that a family should ever spend a night on the street.

Hence my argument with respect to embracing specific tenants of social democracy to promote egalitarianism, equality, and social justice which, I argue, can be partially done by working to eliminate destitution, inequality, and the specific forms of unavoidable class struggle that stem from these problems. I would argue that in a more equitable and just society, that society also enjoy greater prosperity on the whole.



The arguments about homogeneity (economically, I'm assuming is what you mean) are justified if and when we get to the point where we have policies that attempt to eliminate the wealthy from existence through tax policy. So for example, 90% effective tax rates. To me, this is quite difficult to justify. I find the not-so-arbitrary 50% threshold to be where I would think one's public obligation ends. This gets more complicated with state and local taxes; however, I think if/when the federal government were to take over greater responsibility for health care and education you would, in turn, see far lower state-wide costs. California is a prime example of a state that could massively lower taxes if the federal government implemented a real universal health care plan (that would eliminate the need for MediCal, which would massively lower California's annual liabilities)

As far as "defense," I'm not sure what's meant by that?



Right, population and the economy largely scale with each other since both are codependent functions of the each other. So to suggest that a country could be too big to be socialist, doesn't really make much sense. A country might be too poor to be as socialist as it might wish to be; but it can't necessarily be too large (if measuring the economy's health and wealth includes factoring in economic and wealth disparity).



Lower taxes? Yes. But this is extremely complex.

Let's take France as an example. On the one hand you have business-friendly neoliberal pragmatists like former investment banker Macron in France who wants lower corporate tax rates to stimulate growth, and is also pro-austerity; but he is really much more of a social democrat than what an American might call a fiscally conservative traditional capitalist - at least, not openly anyway.

None of the French Presidential candidates openly embraces true free market capitalism; as it would essentially end their campaigns.

Marine Le Pen, who is a right-winger, has learned to embrace specific aspects of socialism without necessarily calling it that in order to grow the National Front party and compete; she's paradoxically moved to Macron's left on austerity, and Fillon's left on health care.

We could go through numerous European nations and we would come up with similar results where left and right-leaning politicians may want to tweak taxes and cut back on social programs (again, austerity) but there is tremendous pushback from the public with respect to these policies and politicians and political parties are starting to adapt - rejecting politicians advocating austerity in favor of those advocating more populist solutions (whether or not those solutions make sense, or rely on the scapegoating of immigrants and minorities; i.e. UKIP in Britain).

So with respect to 'Capitalistic principles?' No, not really. They are just naturally moving along the spectrum of socialism; moving from say social democracy to democratic socialism and back again. Sadly, at various points, ditching core principles of socialism like egalitarianism and progressivism along the way.

But actual free market capitalism? Not really, not if we mean that to suggest capitalism that isn't also a form of social democracy (i.e., mixed market socialism).



Well first off, I don't think I'd agree with the assertion about the ACA; the ACA benefits millions; and I say that as someone who stands in opposition to the program. Also, it's important to note that the ACA is really what happens when you try to keep a program as 'capitalistic' as possible simply to avoid making a workable social(ist) program (i.e. Medicare for All).

But, to answer your question; socialism (social democracy) should generally lead to the best outcomes for the most people. In the most general sense, I think that's true. In times of economic downturns, socialism protects people far better than a capitalistic society would; in both a theoretical and practical sense. In times of economic prosperity, socialism still protects the middle class by spreading out costs and implementing progressive taxation to fund social programs that really everyone can use.

Democratic socialism, however, might lead to a an artificially retarded economic condition due to lack of competition and growth. This can result from overly centralized economic planning and/or the failure of central banks and lending institutions deeply tied to the government. Government (in-)stability also can strongly influence economic growth since government essentially controls the largest influence on the direction of the economy.

That isn't to say that democratic socialism doesn't or can't work. It can and it does. But that it's more prone to failure as a result of central planning that a social democracy would be given it's mixed-market approach.
Out and about, and sick, will get to the rest later.

The bit about defense: some of these countries are basically using our military, right? I imagine not having a gargantuan defense budget changes economies.

Iconic: just unidimensional. When someone draws a house, they draw a square with square windows. Researching more is filling out the shingles, getting the chips in the paint right.

What are your opinions on minimum wage?

ACA- the trade off is were ruining healthcare for a lot of people to be able to cover people with pre-existing conditions right? Im just under the impression that with these systems were largely penalizing a few to make little benefit to the many it intends to help. Redistributing walmarts ceos salary adds like a nickel per hour to its workers. Taxing the 1% at 100% is barely going to be a blip.
 
I don't think the GM plant seizure has anything to do with socialism and more so with Government shortsighted policies that have Crippled its Economy.While attempting to blame those manufacturers for those issues instead of the policies causing those issues.

Chavez rise to power was by fighting the corruption However corrupt politicians have been replace by corruption military,

They are facing an economic war similar to the one Nixon and Kissinger implemented on Chili to remove its leader in the seventies.

You also have those former corrupt politician attempting to sabotage the government financially supported by the United States.

It is just a bad situation all around.

This campaign for full privatization of the Venezuela economy might backfire and force the Venezuelan government to eliminate all privatization from its economy.. something the government initially had no intention of doing.
 
Out and about, and sick, will get to the rest later.

Sure.

The bit about defense: some of these countries are basically using our military, right?

Not really. That's.. really a symbiotic relationship that's mutually beneficial to both the Europeans and the Americans.

NATO allowed the United States to maintain cultural, and socioeconomic influence over Western Europe by preserving it knowing full well the Soviet Union would undoubtedly conquer the continent without the threat of American (nuclear) intervention. This allowed the U.S. to prevent the spread of communism beyond the Iron Curtain, while simultaneously helping to rebuild much of Europe.

Since the end of the Cold War, the European Union has largely responsible for keeping the peace throughout Western Europe.

So with that said, the Europeans would put to someone arguing that they need our military presence, that such a need no longer exists.

I imagine not having a gargantuan defense budget changes economies.

Of course; but does the United States really need to spend what it does on the DoD?

discretionary_spending_pie%2C_2015_enacted.png


By comparison, the United States spends 54% of it's discretionary income on "defense;" which accounts for roughly 3.8% of annual GDP (2013). By contrast, France spends 2.2%, the U.K. spends 2.3%, and Germany spends 1.4%.

There also exists the argument where one must ask, does increased defense spending increase the likelihood of hostile engagements (to perpetuate the use and expenditure of the production of these weapons manufacturing contracts)? Which, further begs the question; when was the United States last in a true state of peace, with no hostile action abroad?

Iconic: just unidimensional. When someone draws a house, they draw a square with square windows. Researching more is filling out the shingles, getting the chips in the paint right.

Got it.

What are your opinions on minimum wage?

I support an increase in the minimum wage to retroactively match it against inflation going back to the 1970s. That would give you a ~$12.50 minimum wage.

I am somewhat opposed to a living wage as the minimum wage; however, I am open to the argument.

I am changing my stance, I think, gradually over time, on the issue of a universal basic income (socialism, indeed). I say this because as someone who was once vehemently opposed to the idea; I do think that we are rapidly moving to the point where a great many millions of Americans will simply be unable to find work - almost entirely due to automation and offshoring.

I think that, otherwise, we're facing the globalist alternative of depressed wages, living standards and living conditions due to a dissipation of wealth among working people and the destruction of the middle class.

ACA- the trade off is were ruining healthcare for a lot of people to be able to cover people with pre-existing conditions right?

A lot of people forget that in 2007/2008, we were on this track of massive increases prior to the ACA. The ACA was implemented not solely because of people with preexisting conditions, but in a failed attempt to control costs. Democrats always envisioned the ACA being revisited in 8-12 years in order to be completed or fixed; with many arguing that the ACA should include a "trigger mechanism" to ensure prices could be controlled. Such a trigger would act as an incentive to insurance companies in various states to keep costs low, because the alternative would be the automatic activation of a Medicare buy-in, a "Public Option" in any state where costs exceeded a specific threshold.

But the real "trade off" with respect to the ACA is not between the healthy and those with pre-existing conditions. The trade-off was instead between corporate Democrats and those who weren't beholden to insurance companies. This is self-evident in that, even today, the Republicans and many Democrats will not even entertain passing a public option for the ACA. That would lower costs overnight and it would be wildly popular with the American people. And yet, it is forbidden.

So the choice or trade-off here is a false one; choose between one corporate friendly program or another one that is slightly less corporate friendly.

Im just under the impression that with these systems were largely penalizing a few to make little benefit to the many it intends to help.

The ACA can be the difference between life and death for many people, so I would not argue that it is of little benefit. That wouldn't be an accurate characterization, and again, I am opposed to the program.

With that said; all Americans who are in the lower 97% of income brackets are being penalized by being denied access to a real universal health care plan that would save tens of thousands of American lives each and every single year.

Think about that for a second.

Redistributing walmarts ceos salary adds like a nickel per hour to its workers.

Right, agreed. But alternatively, a reasonable across the board progressive tax increase could mean kids don't need to get smothered in college debt in order to get an education.

Taxing the 1% at 100% is barely going to be a blip.

Right; that's why you wouldn't tax the 1% at 100% or anything close to it. You can get a great deal of this revenue simply by restructuring the way our economy works..

Let's leave the 1% alone for just a moment and focus on the other 99%. Looking at single-payer health care for example, you don't need more total expenditure on health care in order to implement a single-payer system; you actually end up with trillions of fewer dollars spent, overall, on health care as a result of such an implementation. So instead of paying $1k/month for medical coverage to a private insurance company, you pay $500/month to purchase Medicare. Yes your taxes go way up, but your net income and net benefit also go up as a result.

This is an important distinction to make between our current capitalistic system and socialistic systems throughout other Western democracies that are massively outperforming the United States with respect to the economics of health care (and education, among other things)
 
Last edited:

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top