Should the US support Venezuelan Rebels?

[Ron Paul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We should take careful notes for the next Clinton regime. Their rhetoric is nearly identical. Democratic majorities are going to increase in Congress, and they will pass laws that ensure they never lose power again. They will nationalize at least the health care and energy economies, bringing enormous shortages to both. Energy shortages, along with massively increased taxation and economic regulation, utilizing environmental hysteria as the wedge to leverage public opinion, will plunge the country into a Rooseveltian scale depression. They will follow the pattern of all socialist dictatorial regimes who destroy their national economies; find someone to blame. The formula will be the same as Roosevelt's, Mugabe's, Amin's, Chavez's, and a never ending list of despots. Blame the "speculators" and the capitalists (the Jews have also been a popular choice). Use the excuse to nationalize, monopolize, cartellize, and control, control, control, destroy, destroy, destroy.

And when the Fairness Doctrine goes back into place, there will be no outlet for alternative points of view in the US state controlled media, since talk radio will have been euthanized. The only outlet will be the internet, and how long will it be before the new one party socialist government will begin cracking down on internet criticism of government policies? I doubt we'll make Hillary's second term.

The wars will come; they will be manufactured somehow, to distract the populace from the disastrous policies of the regime, and in a ridiculous effort to destroy our way to prosperity. It's kind of a toss up whether or not the regime will spend its efforts slaughtering foreign or domestic civillian populations, or both.

Militant nationalism will come with militant socialism. National socialism has historically turned out . . . poorly.

I am in a pesimistic mood today.

[/ QUOTE ]

By your description above and that of most right-wing leaners, many of the countries below are "socialist" -- so all these countries are colossal failures of history, right? God forbid we ever turn into a third world pit like Sweden.

World Top 10 - Countries with High Standard of Living

Norway
Sweden
Canada
Belgium
Australia
United States
Iceland
Netherlands
Japan
Finland

[/ QUOTE ]

Relatively free markets still exist, allowing prices to be created. Central planner in socialized industries in socialized countries "cheat" off of those market prices in order to make economic calculations. Even though those prices are never quite correct, because local demands and scarcities of various resources of the factors of production and resources are different, they are better than nothing.

When those relatively free markets are lost in the United States, the world's price setter, the jig will be up. Planners in the socilized industries will not be able to cheat off of the prices in the US's market; economic calculation in socialized industries in countries throughout the world will become totally random.

Soviet economists used to have a joke about Kruschev's "We will bury you" comment. Yes, they said, we will bury you, but we will leave Hong Kong. We need the prices.

[Ron Paul]

[ QUOTE ]
By your description above and that of most right-wing leaners, many of the countries below are "socialist" -- so all these countries are colossal failures of history, right? God forbid we ever turn into a third world pit like Sweden.

World Top 10 - Countries with High Standard of Living

Norway
Sweden
Canada
Belgium
Australia
United States
Iceland
Netherlands
Japan
Finland

[/ QUOTE ]

Besides, socialism did not make these nations wealthy relative to the third world. Capitalism did. Deferred consumpion, increased savings, accumulation of capital leading to increased productivity, making it still easier to save and invest create the positive feedback loop that has lead to the high standard of living in the west. It has taken hundreds of years to accumulate the capital stock that supports the standards of living in these countries.

Socialism incentivizes consumption at the expense of savings. It disincentivizes investment. It targets blocks of accumulated capital for liquidation and plundering. Real wages, which can only increase with increased productivity, have foundered recently. We may already be in the epoch of capital consumption, the shrinking of the world's capital stock, and the associated loss of productivity, and lowered standards of living. Government will seize upon the effects of this to blame the problem on the cure (capitalism) and call the problem (government) the cure. The mounting interventions in the free market process will accelerate the collapse and society will undergo a period of decivilization.

Put that in your quatrain and smoke it.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
They will nationalize at least the health care and energy economies

[/ QUOTE ]

You are defining single payer as nationalization?? That's word games.

Nationalize energy, as in seizing the assets of big oil??? Care to make a wager on that? They won't even draft such a bill, much less pass it.

The Democrats get their money from big business. They were big behind the corporate programs of NAFTA and globalization. You do violence against language to put the Dems in the same class as, say, Chavez. Dems are from the capitalist tradition of FDR that avoids revolution through welfare payments. They differ from Republicans only in tactics. The GOP would avoid revolution via death camps.

Calling the Dems socialist is as nutty as the Spartacus League calling the Dems fascist. Doesn't that give you pause, genuine communists consider the Dems fascist servants of capital, not socialists?

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

Calling the Dems socialist is as nutty as the Spartacus League calling the Dems fascist. Doesn't that give you pause, genuine communists consider the Dems fascist servants of capital, not socialists?


[/ QUOTE ]

SL says the dems are fascist? That's a terrible analysis. Are you quoting them or paraphrasing them, b/c I'd be very surprised if their analysis were that terrible.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Calling the Dems socialist is as nutty as the Spartacus League calling the Dems fascist. Doesn't that give you pause, genuine communists consider the Dems fascist servants of capital, not socialists?


[/ QUOTE ]

SL says the dems are fascist? That's a terrible analysis. Are you quoting them or paraphrasing them, b/c I'd be very surprised if their analysis were that terrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm being sloppy, using the sparts as a stand in for all Leninist nuts. Some extreme leftists do say that, I can't remember if the Sparts do or not. PL (Progressive Labor Party) I'm sure would say so.

The sparts might show some nuance, by saying the Dems are objective fascists because they help usher it in, while PL would stick to the short headline.

I never expected to be called on that in this forum!!

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By your description above and that of most right-wing leaners, many of the countries below are "socialist" -- so all these countries are colossal failures of history, right? God forbid we ever turn into a third world pit like Sweden.

World Top 10 - Countries with High Standard of Living

Norway
Sweden
Canada
Belgium
Australia
United States
Iceland
Netherlands
Japan
Finland

[/ QUOTE ]

Besides, socialism did not make these nations wealthy relative to the third world. Capitalism did. Deferred consumpion, increased savings, accumulation of capital leading to increased productivity, making it still easier to save and invest create the positive feedback loop that has lead to the high standard of living in the west. It has taken hundreds of years to accumulate the capital stock that supports the standards of living in these countries.

Socialism incentivizes consumption at the expense of savings. It disincentivizes investment. It targets blocks of accumulated capital for liquidation and plundering. Real wages, which can only increase with increased productivity, have foundered recently. We may already be in the epoch of capital consumption, the shrinking of the world's capital stock, and the associated loss of productivity, and lowered standards of living. Government will seize upon the effects of this to blame the problem on the cure (capitalism) and call the problem (government) the cure. The mounting interventions in the free market process will accelerate the collapse and society will undergo a period of decivilization.

Put that in your quatrain and smoke it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait... so because some of those countries have national health care, they will all become BUSTO, but the US can have a defense budget over 7x that of any other nation on earth, but it's still a mostly capitalist nation? Why can't you just admit that those countries are evidence that a national health care plan is not synonymous with a Soviet gulag state, but countries with national health care plans can and do prosper quite well. If given the choice, I'd prefer a govt that spent $200B on health care over one that spent $600B on national offense.. errr, defense.

[Ron Paul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They will nationalize at least the health care and energy economies

[/ QUOTE ]

You are defining single payer as nationalization?? That's word games.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it isn't. It is explicit nationalization of the health care insurance industry, which is de facto nationalization of the health care industry.

[ QUOTE ]
Nationalize energy, as in seizing the assets of big oil???

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they will probably only cartelize it. Like they did before.

[ QUOTE ]
Care to make a wager on that? They won't even draft such a bill, much less pass it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they will.

[ QUOTE ]
The Democrats get their money from big business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why they will cartelize the industry, because it hands over the keys to the industry to a ruling industrial class.

[ QUOTE ]
They were big behind the corporate programs of NAFTA and globalization. You do violence against language to put the Dems in the same class as, say, Chavez.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't. Their rhetoric, goals, and methods are almost identical. You could play Al Gore/Unabomber word games with the text of Chavez's and Hillary Clinton's speeches.

[ QUOTE ]
Dems are from the capitalist tradition of FDR that avoids revolution through welfare payments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. FDR was anti-capitalist. He oversaw the cartelization of the entire US economy, including the creation of over 700 different cartels. He was corporatist. His economic theories are basically indistinguishable from Mussolini's.

[ QUOTE ]
They differ from Republicans only in tactics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. They're all powermad socialists/corporatists/mercantilists/fascists, whatever you would like to call it.

[ QUOTE ]
The GOP would avoid revolution via death camps.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you think democrats wouldn't? Lol.

[ QUOTE ]
Calling the Dems socialist is as nutty as the Spartacus League calling the Dems fascist. Doesn't that give you pause, genuine communists consider the Dems fascist servants of capital, not socialists?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are different flavors of socialism. Not all industries are socialized to the same extent. That doesn't make socialism not socialism.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By your description above and that of most right-wing leaners, many of the countries below are "socialist" -- so all these countries are colossal failures of history, right? God forbid we ever turn into a third world pit like Sweden.

World Top 10 - Countries with High Standard of Living

Norway
Sweden
Canada
Belgium
Australia
United States
Iceland
Netherlands
Japan
Finland

[/ QUOTE ]

Besides, socialism did not make these nations wealthy relative to the third world. Capitalism did. Deferred consumpion, increased savings, accumulation of capital leading to increased productivity, making it still easier to save and invest create the positive feedback loop that has lead to the high standard of living in the west. It has taken hundreds of years to accumulate the capital stock that supports the standards of living in these countries.

Socialism incentivizes consumption at the expense of savings. It disincentivizes investment. It targets blocks of accumulated capital for liquidation and plundering. Real wages, which can only increase with increased productivity, have foundered recently. We may already be in the epoch of capital consumption, the shrinking of the world's capital stock, and the associated loss of productivity, and lowered standards of living. Government will seize upon the effects of this to blame the problem on the cure (capitalism) and call the problem (government) the cure. The mounting interventions in the free market process will accelerate the collapse and society will undergo a period of decivilization.

Put that in your quatrain and smoke it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait... so because some of those countries have national health care, they will all become BUSTO, but the US can have a defense budget over 7x that of any other nation on earth, but it's still a mostly capitalist nation? Why can't you just admit that those countries are evidence that a national health care plan is not synonymous with a Soviet gulag state, but countries with national health care plans can and do prosper quite well. If given the choice, I'd prefer a govt that spent $200B on health care over one that spent $600B on national offense.. errr, defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

the biggest disaster will be when the baby boomers are almost gone. Our Govt has a solid history of increasing program budgets wheather needed or not. Once the baby boomers hit the peak, the budget would be enormous.... go on another decade or two of annual increases (now serving fewer people) politics will come into play, and you will here about the draconian cuts in health care, even though the number of people served will be lessening. It will end up a f ing mess. This is the only constant when the US gobment gets involved. Budgets always go up, never down. Programs always expand, never contract.

Hooray Hellary Care

[Ron Paul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By your description above and that of most right-wing leaners, many of the countries below are "socialist" -- so all these countries are colossal failures of history, right? God forbid we ever turn into a third world pit like Sweden.

World Top 10 - Countries with High Standard of Living

Norway
Sweden
Canada
Belgium
Australia
United States
Iceland
Netherlands
Japan
Finland

[/ QUOTE ]

Besides, socialism did not make these nations wealthy relative to the third world. Capitalism did. Deferred consumpion, increased savings, accumulation of capital leading to increased productivity, making it still easier to save and invest create the positive feedback loop that has lead to the high standard of living in the west. It has taken hundreds of years to accumulate the capital stock that supports the standards of living in these countries.

Socialism incentivizes consumption at the expense of savings. It disincentivizes investment. It targets blocks of accumulated capital for liquidation and plundering. Real wages, which can only increase with increased productivity, have foundered recently. We may already be in the epoch of capital consumption, the shrinking of the world's capital stock, and the associated loss of productivity, and lowered standards of living. Government will seize upon the effects of this to blame the problem on the cure (capitalism) and call the problem (government) the cure. The mounting interventions in the free market process will accelerate the collapse and society will undergo a period of decivilization.

Put that in your quatrain and smoke it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait... so because some of those countries have national health care, they will all become BUSTO, but the US can have a defense budget over 7x that of any other nation on earth, but it's still a mostly capitalist nation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Purple monkey dishwasher?

Read what I wrote again. Do that until you actually understand it.

[ QUOTE ]
Why can't you just admit that those countries are evidence that a national health care plan is not synonymous with a Soviet gulag state,

[/ QUOTE ]

No; it's just synonymous with wait lists, poor teeth, and dying because your cancer metastasized while you waited for treatment.

[ QUOTE ]
but countries with national health care plans can and do prosper quite well.

[/ QUOTE ]

People with a growing cancer can appear to prosper quite well, too.

[ QUOTE ]
If given the choice, I'd prefer a govt that spent $200B on health care over one that spent $600B on national offense.. errr, defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd rather one that spent $0 on both.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The GOP would avoid revolution via death camps.

[/ QUOTE ]
And you think democrats wouldn't? Lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not until the welfare payments stop working. ;-)

[ QUOTE ]
explicit nationalization of the health care insurance industry...is de facto nationalization of the health care industry.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's playing loose with language. I could agree that it is seizing the commanding heights of the health care industry. Ideologues right or left tend to elide important differences.

[ QUOTE ]
Their rhetoric, goals, and methods are almost identical. You could play Al Gore/Unabomber word games with the text of Chavez's and Hillary Clinton's speeches.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this is definitional again. There is a resemblance between a Chavez world and a Hillary world because they both involve centralized, powerful bureaucracies. But power can be used for A, or B. But there is a huge difference between which constituencies they serve -- one uses power to serve A, another B. Chavez is a populist, and uses state power for going up against established interests. Hillary is the the established interests, and uses government to serve them.

BTW, when you talk about cartelization, are you considering private monopolistic bureaucracy (corporations), the present US government, and a socialist state, all variations of the same evil? They are all centralized power? Or is only state power the target of AC dismantlement?

Yes, there are similarities between centralized cartels and centralized government. But over private power centers, we citizens have desperately little influence. Over the governmental power center, we have the vote. One offers no chance of citizen input, the other offers at least a theoretical opportunity for democracy. Ginormous bureaucratic power centers are the rule, so lets put health care in the hands of the one we have a better chance of influencing.

News flash: there is going to be a state. You can either compete for control of it, or be controlled by it.

The great weakness of libertarianism (is that what you are?) is that it only distrusts government power, not business, even though both are forms of the centralized, bureaucratic power that is the bane of modern existence.