# US regime change in Venezuela



## TheBigShort (2 Oct 2017)

_The Truth is Easy if you Follow the Money._

https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-re...n-is-pro-washington-not-pro-democracy/5601933

Alternative take on the economic crisis in Venezuela which aligns somewhat with my own view that this capitalist system as it is currently engineered, is a centralised command 'trickle-up' economy run by a cartel of bankers, aided and abetted by compliant governments and protected by the US Military Industrial complex.

"_The crisis in Venezuela is not one of socialism versus capitalism or dictatorship versus democracy – it is one of hegemony versus national sovereignty, of centralized unipolar power versus an increasingly multipolar world."_


----------



## dub_nerd (2 Oct 2017)

I believe globalresearch.ca is run by a nutcase, an extreme left wing conspiracy theorist. About as useful as the link to that Marxist economist you referenced on Russia Today on another thread. Just my opinion, of course, but people can do their own research and check other people's opinions online.


----------



## Sarenco (2 Oct 2017)

dub_nerd said:


> I believe globalresearch.ca is run by a nutcase, an extreme left wing conspiracy theorist.



Here's his Wikipedia entry-

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky


----------



## TheBigShort (2 Oct 2017)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/20/venezuela-revolt-truth-not-terror-campaign


----------



## TheBigShort (2 Oct 2017)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-existential-crisis-as-venezuela-payday-nears

"_While Venezuela’s finances have been teetering ever since oil fell below $100 a barrel three years ago, President Nicolas Maduro and his late predecessor, Hugo Chavez, have always made sure foreign bondholders got paid. But the government has struggled to make payments on time in the past year after disruptions in the chain of banks, trustees and other agents that gets cash to creditors, as well as increasing scrutiny of the nation’s financial transactions *amid sanctions imposed by the Trump administration."*_


----------



## TheBigShort (2 Oct 2017)

_On March 9, 2015, the United States president, Barack Obama, signed and issued a presidential order declaring Venezuela a threat to its national security and ordered sanctions against seven Venezuelan officials. _

_The move was widely denounced by other Latin American countries. The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States issued a statement criticizing Washington’s “unilateral coercive measures against International Law.”[69] The Secretary-General of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), Ernesto Samper, said that the body rejects “any attempt at internal or external interference that attempts to disrupt the democratic process in Venezuela.”[70]_

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States–Venezuela_relations


----------



## TheBigShort (2 Oct 2017)

dub_nerd said:


> I believe globalresearch.ca is run by a nutcase, an extreme left wing conspiracy theorist. About as useful as the link to that Marxist economist you referenced on Russia Today on another thread. Just my opinion, of course, but people can do their own research and check other people's opinions online.



Of course, that's the whole point, research.
The common narrative is that Venezuela is caught up in a socialist nightmare.
The reality is, the people have expressed a democratic will to live in a socialist economy and the US, not accepting that freedom of expression, is attempting to overthrow the democratic will of the people.
The US will not tolerate democratic outcomes in countries where there are large oil reserves, where the outcome is not to the advantage of corporate America.
It's the same the world over. Saudi Arabia is ok for its repressive regime, but democracy cannot be tolerated in Venezuela.

Nothing to do with socialism or capitalism or authoritarianism or democracies or theocracies. 
It is to do with a centralised command trickle-up banking cartel economy.


----------



## Sarenco (2 Oct 2017)

Hi BS

Having travelled in that part of the world, I think what has happened in Venezuela since 1999 is desperately sad.  

Given its massive oil resources and proximity to major markets, Venezuela should have a standard of living in line with Norway.  Instead, it is teetering on the brink of total economic collapse with the majority of its population living in desperate, grinding poverty.

Posting links to the rantings of your fellow conspiracy theorists and ideologues won't change that reality.


----------



## TheBigShort (2 Oct 2017)

Sarenco said:


> Hi BS
> 
> Having travelled in that part of the world, I think what has happened in Venezuela since 1999 is desperately sad.
> 
> ...



Thanks Sacrenco I appreciate the viewpoint. It is tragic what is happening now in Venezuela, but if economic sanctions were lifted, then the people there could benefit from its oil resources. 
It's nothing to do with conspiracy. It is to do with control of economic resources. If you have a resource like oil, you need to play to the US tune, plain and simple, or face the consequences.
That is the purpose of the military industrial complex, and not some fairy idea about bringing democracy to the world.


----------



## Early Riser (2 Oct 2017)

Sarenco said:


> Having travelled in that part of the world, I think what has happened in Venezuela since 1999 is desperately sad.
> 
> Given its massive oil resources and proximity to major markets, Venezuela should have a standard of living in line with Norway. Instead, it is teetering on the brink of total economic collapse with the majority of its population living in desperate, grinding poverty.



While what is happening in Venezuela in recent years is a terrible tragedy, it is also true that Chavez was popularly and freely elected in 1998 because the majority of the population were then living in grinding poverty with atrocious health and educational services. This was under a succession of corrupt (non-socialist) governments. At least Chavez did try to use the oil finances to try to improve both services and living conditions for those in poverty. Unfortunately his economic policies were built on sand.

I wouldn't have much confidence that if and when Maduro is ousted that the country will become another Norway. More likely that the old corrupt elites will go back to living off the hog again and the impoverished will remain impoverished. The ongoing tragedy will continue.

Oh , except that someone there will blame the impoverished for their impoverishment. Some things are the same the world over.


----------



## odyssey06 (2 Oct 2017)

Is the US the only outlet for oil in the world???

France, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Singapore, Norway, Australia... these are all very different socieities and all are allies of the US. If the US is trying to impose its way on the world it is not doing a good job. If Venezuela thinks it has it bad tell them to phone some Ukrainians.


----------



## galway_blow_in (2 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Of course, that's the whole point, research.
> The common narrative is that Venezuela is caught up in a socialist nightmare.
> The reality is, the people have expressed a democratic will to live in a socialist economy and the US, not accepting that freedom of expression, is attempting to overthrow the democratic will of the people.
> The US will not tolerate democratic outcomes in countries where there are large oil reserves, where the outcome is not to the advantage of corporate America.
> ...



i think you might very well be right when it comes to venezeula , from what ive read , prior to chavez coming to power , the majority of the wealth was not only held by a tiny elite but that same elite appared to have little if any loyalty to their country , when a country has such deep structural inequality , i do think the power of the state needs to be harnessed in order to bring about deep change , only my opinion but chavez was not the monster washington portrayed him as , they regularly called him a dictator when he was elected democratically several times over , the usa has always meddled in latin america despite no religous based terrorism existing there


----------



## TheBigShort (2 Oct 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> Is the US the only outlet for oil in the world???
> 
> France, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Singapore, Australia... these are all very different socieities and all are allies of the US. If the US is trying to impose its way on the world it is not doing a good job. If Venezuela thinks it has it bad tell them to phone some Ukrainians.



Oil is only bought and sold in US dollars. Iraq under Saddam tried to start trading in euros in 2001. 
He was subsequently blamed for funding Al'Qaeda and accused of WMD. We know the outcome of that.
Gaddaffi was chair of an African Union Congress that sought to bring about a new currency (like the Euro) backed by gold and used to trade oil. We know what happened to him.
Iran is also an oil provider and is consistently on the radar of the US because it doesn't play to the US tune. But Iran has allies with China and Russia. Russia is, you will hardly believe this, also in diplomatic dispute with the US. 
Ukraine has a US friendly government in place and has been making moves for EU membership. In doing so, the possibility of NATO bases in Crimea was a real possibility on the border of Russia. 
Crimea has an overwhelming Russian population and also a strategic naval base. That's why Russia made its move after the referendum.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century


----------



## odyssey06 (2 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Iran is also an oil provider and is consistently on the radar of the US because it doesn't play to the US tune. But Iran has allies with China and Russia. Russia is, you will hardly believe this, also in diplomatic dispute with the US.
> Ukraine has a US friendly government in place and has been making moves for EU membership. In doing so, the possibility of NATO bases in Crimea was a real possibility on the border of Russia.
> Crimea has an overwhelming Russian population and also a strategic naval base. That's why Russia made its move after the referendum.
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century



You would hardly believe it when Russia invades another sovereign state to annex a portion of it, and in the process violates a treaty it signed with the US less than 25 years ago that the US would be in diplomatic dispute with it.

Norway is an oil provider. Canada is an oil provider. Saudi Arabia is an oil provider. Iran is an oil provider. Russia is an oil provider.

So what??? It's almost as if you can be an oil provider and be an ally of the US, a friend of the US, neutral to the US, an antagonist to the US, or an enemy of the US.

Venezuela's problems are of its own making.


----------



## TheBigShort (2 Oct 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> You would hardly believe it when Russia invades another sovereign state to annex a portion of it, and in the process violates a treaty it signed with the US less than 25 years ago that the US would be in diplomatic dispute with it.



True, but it is not as simple as that. The 2014 revolution that deposed the existing government and installed a new government is under dispute as to its legitimacy (I'm not taking sides here). That revolution, under dispute, subsequently led to moves of Russia annexing Crimea.
We can go into the rights and wrongs of all this but it has to be considered, why is the US and NATO pushing to have military bases in key strategic regions that would antagonize Russia?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/01/russia-china-us-mlitary-national-security

Is it because Russia and China may move away from trading oil in the US dollar? I think it is.
North Korea is a pawn. As despicable as that regime is, the US is not interested in bringing democracy to that country. It is interested in establishing a US friendly regime, regardless of what ideology it has.



odyssey06 said:


> So what??? It's almost as if you can be an oil provider and be an ally of the US, a friend of the US, neutral to the US, an antagonist to t



Only if you try to to trade oil in anything but US dollars, and / or you try to anything as radical as using the proceeds of oil for the benefit of your own citizens and not allow the giant US banking and corporate elite control of the resources.
Then you  antagonize the US, then you attract the attention of its military industrial complex.


----------



## odyssey06 (3 Oct 2017)

The US response to Russia would be exactly the same regardless of whether it had oil or not.

The US wouldn't give a damn about N Korea if it wasn't being run by nut jobs who assassinate their own relatives and are building nuclear weapons. I am sure the US would prefer another S Korea but they would settle with any kind of sane Chinese puppet that didn't rock the boat. Regime change in N Korea will happen when the Chinese say so. I think it would be much better for the region and all Koreans if China did that sooner rather than later rather than allow this luanatic to start a region wide war.


----------



## TheBigShort (3 Oct 2017)

Lest there be any doubt. I'm not advocating the measures now being taken by the Maduro regime which amount to totalitarianism, not socialism.
It was mentioned by another poster that;



Sarenco said:


> Given its massive oil resources and proximity to major markets, Venezuela should have a standard of living in line with Norway.



Prior to the assent of Chavez through democratic means, an excerpt from Wiki

"Once back in the presidential palace, Caldera confronted the Venezuelan banking crisis of 1994. He re-imposed exchange controls, which Pérez's administration had lifted as part of a general financial liberalization (unaccompanied by effective regulation, which contributed to the banking crisis). The economy had suffered under the falling oil price, which led to a collapse in government revenues. The steel corporation Sidor was privatized, and the economy continued to plummet. Fulfilling an election promise, Caldera released Chávez and pardoned all the military and civilian conspirators during the Pérez regime. The economic crisis continued, and by the 1998 elections the traditional political parties had become extremely unpopular[_citation needed_]; an initial front-runner for the presidency in late 1997 was Irene Saez. Ultimately, Hugo Chávez Frías was elected President."

In other words, Venezuela, despite its vast oil resources was a basket case, with or without socialism.
So the people, through democratic means, voted to try socialism through the election of Chavez. This in turn led to US interference, sanctions, attempted coup etc.
Venezuela is a mess not because of socialism, but because of an economic war over the control of its resources between the sovereignty of the people expressed through democratic means versus the corporate interests backed by US government.


----------



## galway_blow_in (3 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Oil is only bought and sold in US dollars. Iraq under Saddam tried to start trading in euros in 2001.
> He was subsequently blamed for funding Al'Qaeda and accused of WMD. We know the outcome of that.
> Gaddaffi was chair of an African Union Congress that sought to bring about a new currency (like the Euro) backed by gold and used to trade oil. We know what happened to him.
> Iran is also an oil provider and is consistently on the radar of the US because it doesn't play to the US tune. But Iran has allies with China and Russia. Russia is, you will hardly believe this, also in diplomatic dispute with the US.
> ...



Russia has been shown incredible disrespect this past few decades, would the USA allow Canada or Mexico join a pact with the former Soviet union back in the day ?, pat Buchanan  ( a conservative) has written extensively on this


----------



## Andy836 (3 Oct 2017)

https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2017/10/03/2194217/how-did-venezuela-get-to-this-point/

TL;DR

He milked PDVSA dry, left nothing for reinvestment, refineries & drilling equipment breaking down, production volumes down, prices down, no other source of exports, no money for imports, disaster


----------



## Firefly (3 Oct 2017)

Firstly a word of thanks to the OP for this tread. It goes a long way to re-affirming my belief that socialism and socialist thinkers offer an inherently dangerous philosophy and ideology.

We have the usual excuses and there's probably more:

Straight out the bat we have a reference to a known conspiracy theorist. The opening line is hilarious "Alternative take on the economic crisis in Venezuela" - you got that right at least OP, it's alternative alright! When it's pointed out that globalresearch.ca is run by a nutjob and extreme left wing conspiracy theorist, the OP defends by saying "Of course, that's the whole point, research."  Nice "research"!

We have revisionism :
All this is Maduro's fault...Saint Chavez, the great leader did only good.

We have revisionism :
Things were dandy until the big, bad USA came along.

We have more justification:
Sure, wasn't Saint Chavez freely elected? Course he was, he was promising his people the sun, moon and stars and for a while we have able to give it to them. But as happens all socialists, he eventually run out of other people's money!

We have more conspiracy:
If only those pesky Venezualan's traded their oil in dollars, the big, bad US would leave them alone!

We have denial:
This time it's Maduro who is a totalitarian. Other times / countries, it's Central Planning, a dictator or maybe even something else. The key point here is that it's not and never is the fault socialism!


I would have though that the country with the largest oil reserves in the world would have enough leverage with the largest consumer in the world. In fact, I would have thought they would be bestest mates.

If socialism was any good someone somewhere would have implemented it and others seeing how good it was would have implemented it. Guess what? It's a scam and nowhere has it worked and any countries that have tried it have failed. 

So there you have it people, Socialism....the road to serfdom indeed!


----------



## Andy836 (3 Oct 2017)

Firefly said:


> I would have though that the country with the largest oil reserves in the world would have enough leverage with the largest consumer in the world. In fact, I would have thought they would be bestest mates.
> 
> If socialism was any good someone somewhere would have implemented it and others seeing how good it was would have implemented it. Guess what? It's a scam and nowhere has it worked and any countries that have tried it have failed.
> 
> So there you have it people, Socialism....the road to serfdom indeed!



I wouldn't be so harsh. Just like Venezuala was overly dependent on oil receipts, Ireland is overly reliant on MNCs. If some shock drove MNC taxable profits overseas then Ireland would be in deep do-do. Venezuala suffered from operational leverage driven by expanded current account spending on its social programs - recurring costs - Ireland is in the same boat - very little of Irish expenditure can be curtailed in a downturn without huge political upheaval.


----------



## Firefly (3 Oct 2017)

Andy836 said:


> I wouldn't be so harsh. Just like Venezuala was overly dependent on oil


Oil took a dive but has recovered. And with the largest supplies there's no excuse..it's still the most important trading commodity. Don't think the Saudis ran out of toilet paper either...


----------



## TheBigShort (3 Oct 2017)

Andy836 said:


> Just like Venezuala was overly dependent on oil receipts, Ireland is overly reliant on MNCs



A very good point.


----------



## TheBigShort (3 Oct 2017)

Firefly said:


> Oil took a dive but has recovered. And with the largest supplies there's no excuse..it's still the most important trading commodity. Don't think the Saudis ran out of toilet paper either...



Not this time, but they came close last year.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-relationship-with-the-us-sours-a7333461.html


----------



## Andy836 (3 Oct 2017)

Firefly said:


> Oil took a dive but has recovered. And with the largest supplies there's no excuse..it's still the most important trading commodity. Don't think the Saudis ran out of toilet paper either...



Did you even read the link in my previous post?

Their oil infrastructure is crippled having been starved of investment under socialist govts. 
Venezulan breakeven is $50 to $70 - WTI is not $50 but they're not even getting that now as their are issues with their purities.
Saudi breakeven is approx $4. Saudi Aramco is probably the best capitalized company in the world - the Saudi govt has never come in and sacked 75% of the workforce. 
On top of this Venezuela's largest customer is now self sufficient with only a small number of US gulf refineries still running heavy crude from Venezuala (the largest being CITGO which is owned by PDVSA although their purchases have to be at market prices due to their credit agreements).


----------



## TheBigShort (3 Oct 2017)

It's quite the rant, but to some of your points



Firefly said:


> When it's pointed out that globalresearch.ca is run by a nutjob and extreme left wing conspiracy theorist, the OP defends by saying "Of course, that's the whole point, research." Nice "research"!



It was alleged that the author is a 'nutjob'. It suits you to swallow that line. I merely linked an article that he wrote that goes to the source of issue in Venezuela.
An economic war between the sovereignty of the people and who they choose to lead through democratic means, and corporate interests of the US, over the vast oil reserves.
Nothing to do with socialism or capitalism.



Firefly said:


> We have revisionism :
> All this is Maduro's fault...Saint Chavez, the great leader did only good.



You need to stick the facts as to what was posted and stop misrepresenting what was said.



Firefly said:


> We have revisionism :
> Things were dandy until the big, bad USA came along.



Again, you need to read the content of the posts. It would help if you took an objective view of the issue. A wiki entry posted up clearly points to Venezuela being an economic basket case long before Chavez arrived.



Firefly said:


> Sure, wasn't Saint Chavez freely elected?



I don't think he was a saint, but I think it is recognized that he was freely elected.



Firefly said:


> Course he was, he was promising his people the sun, moon and stars and for a while we have able to give it to them. But as happens all socialists, he eventually run out of other people's money!



Shock! Horror! Politician promises something and doesn't deliver, my word!
The idea of economic sanctions is to cripple a countries finances.





Firefly said:


> This time it's Maduro who is a totalitarian. Other times / countries, it's Central Planning, a dictator or maybe even something else. The key point here is that it's not and never is the fault socialism!



He is taking extreme measures to consolidate power. Amounting to a totalitarian regime, similar to say Saudi Arabia - minus God.



Firefly said:


> I would have though that the country with the largest oil reserves in the world would have enough leverage with the largest consumer in the world. In fact, I would have thought they would be bestest mates.



Used to be, while the resources of the country were being stripped bare and the ordinary working was being left impoverished.

I've attached another article published during the Chavez era which clearly points to an attempted coup by the US of the democratically elected government of Venezuela.

http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/media-falls-short-on-iraq-venezuela

Why would the US want to overthrow the democratically elected government of Venezuela, but not say, the totalitarian regime of Saudi Arabia?


----------



## Andy836 (3 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> A very good point.



Maybe but it doesn't support anything you said. 

The reason Venzuala is in the mess it is today is purely down to the Chavez & Modura govts stripping PDVSA's of all its cash flow and spending it on their social programs and nationalizing everything that moved. That is not the fault of the US or neoliberals etc


----------



## TheBigShort (3 Oct 2017)

Andy836 said:


> The reason Venzuala is in the mess it is today is purely down to the Chavez & Modura govts stripping PDVSA's of all its cash flow and spending it on their social programs and nationalizing everything that moved. That is not the fault of the US or neoliberals etc



Where did I say the incompetence of Chaovez or Modura was the fault of US or anyone else?
If we stick to the topic title, and the subsequent article linked to it, anyone can see that the topic is _not _about socialism nor capitalism. It is about an economic war between the sovereignty of the people and their elected representatives (who purport to be socialist but now are engineering a totalitarian regime) and the corporate interests of the US, backed by US covert (attempted coup) and overt (economic sanctions) actions of US (purporting to be democrats and free)
As much as it is easy to point out the deficits of so-called 'socialist' states like Venezuela, what isn't as apparent, to some at least, that the economic system we live in is neither capitalism nor democratic. It is a system of plunder and profit, destroying the environment, of perpetual and unsustainable debt, maintained by complicit governments and banking cartels and defended by US military industrial complex.


----------



## galway_blow_in (3 Oct 2017)

Firefly said:


> Oil took a dive but has recovered. And with the largest supplies there's no excuse..it's still the most important trading commodity. Don't think the Saudis ran out of toilet paper either...



oil is only slightly above $50 per barrel , it was over $100 for several years up until 2014


----------



## galway_blow_in (3 Oct 2017)

Andy836 said:


> Did you even read the link in my previous post?
> 
> Their oil infrastructure is crippled having been starved of investment under socialist govts.
> Venezulan breakeven is $50 to $70 - WTI is not $50 but they're not even getting that now as their are issues with their purities.
> ...



break even for the saudis is far higher than $4 ,  during the lows of early 2016 , the kingdom had to issue debt such was the pressure they were under with low oil prices

perhaps you are referring to the cost of extraction ?


----------



## Andy836 (3 Oct 2017)

galway_blow_in said:


> break even for the saudis is far higher than $4 ,  during the lows of early 2016 , the kingdom had to issue debt such was the pressure they were under with low oil prices
> 
> perhaps you are referring to the cost of extraction ?



Correct. They issued debt to fund their govt budget deficit, not to bridge extraction losses.


----------



## Sarenco (3 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Where did I say the incompetence of Chaovez or Modura was the fault of US or anyone else?



BS

Your original thesis was that the impoverishment of present day Venezuela was down to "a cartel of bankers, aided and abetted by compliant governments and protected by the US Military Industrial complex."

With respect, that is a complete fantasy.

Let's be clear what we are talking about here - a fertile country with vast natural resources where the bulk of the population are now malnourished and there has been a near complete break down in law and order.  A country with an economy and standard of living that surpassed that of many Western European countries fifty years ago that is now on the brink of a humanitarian crisis, due almost entirely to the grotesque maladministration of the Chavez/Modura regime.

Repeating (frankly ridiculous) slogans or citing conspiracy theorists and ideologues to support your thesis does not change reality.


----------



## TheBigShort (3 Oct 2017)

Sarenco said:


> BS
> 
> Your original thesis was that the impoverishment of present day Venezuela was down to "a cartel of bankers, aided and abetted by compliant governments and protected by the US Military Industrial complex."
> 
> ...



Of course that is a complete misrepresentation of everything said before.
Read the topic title and the associated links. I'm using Venezuela as a typical example of how the free market democratic capitalist system is a myth. I could have used Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc but that would be too easy.
It has nothing to do with socialism, Francois Hollande was a socialist, Syriza in Greece are socialist (and no they didn't collapse the Greek economy, a collaboration of banking cartels and right-wing governments did), the British and Irish Labour parties profess to be socialist. There are numerous organizations throughout Europe that profess to be socialist. I'm not aware of any professing to install totalitarian regimes. Are you?



Sarenco said:


> A country with an economy and standard of living that surpassed that of many Western European countries fifty years ago that is now on the brink of a humanitarian crisis, due almost entirely to the grotesque maladministration of the Chavez/Modura regime.



That is quite the bogus proclamation. The notion that a country with such a high standard of living would then in turn vote for something completely radical as the Chavez government is bogus.
What drives people to socialism is living in an impoverishment state and having no future or no stake in the society they live in. In a democratic socialist republic it is a re-balancing of economic wealth generated from the resources of the State through the workers labour.
You are ignoring, quite deliberately no doubt, that Venezuela was an economic basket case long before Chavez.
It's an economic war, plain and simple.


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2017)

Duplicate


----------



## galway_blow_in (4 Oct 2017)

Andy836 said:


> Correct. They issued debt to fund their govt budget deficit, not to bridge extraction losses.



Your still way off with that $ 4 breakeven oil price


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> What drives people to socialism is living in an impoverishment state and having no future or no stake in the society they live in.


 The same thing drives people to fascism and other forms of oppressive governments. The fallacy here is that the people who replace the bad guys must be the good guys. The reality is almost always that the people who replace the bad guys are the other bad guys.
Yes, the USA has waged an economic war on Venezuela and the reason for that is primarily the same as the reason they support the viscous, totalitarian oppressive regime in Saudi Arabia; they need to ensure that the dollar remains the world's reserve currency. That can only be done by ensuring that oil continues to be traded in dollars. The two major oil producers who talked about moving away from the dollar were Venezuela and Iraq. One was invaded and the other was the subject of a CIA backed attempted coup. So, the USA and it's sanctions are all about the economic interests of the USA. That shouldn't surprise anyone; as General DeGaulle said, countries do not have allies, just interests. Therefore the USA is no different to anyone else, us included. 
Now, on to why Venezuela has collapsed; in part it is due to sanctions and the pressure the USA exerts through the banks it influences but with the resources Venezuela has that should only be a minor inconvenience. Make no mistake; it is to a very large extent, the author of it's own destruction.


----------



## Sarenco (4 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Of course that is a complete misrepresentation of everything said before.



No BS, it's not.

I quoted you verbatim because I've noticed from other threads that you have a tendency to shift your position when challenged without acknowledging same.

Your original position was that Venezuela's difficulties, and I quote, were due to "a centralised command 'trickle-up' economy run by a cartel of bankers, aided and abetted by compliant governments and protected by the US Military Industrial complex."

Again, that is complete nonsense.  Venezuela's difficulties are almost entirely due to the maladministration of the Chavez/Modura regime.



TheBigShort said:


> That is quite the bogus proclamation.



No BS, it's not. 

It is a verifiable fact that fifty years ago Venezuela had an economy and standard of living that surpassed that of many Western European countries.

Was the election of Chavez preceded by a challenging economic decade?  Yes.

Was that challenging period even remotely similar to the current pitiful situation resulting from the regime of Chavez and Modura?  Not even close.

Let's be honest BS, this is yet another case where reality just doesn't match your agenda.  So, yet again, you are inventing another reality.


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> The same thing drives people to fascism and other forms of oppressive governments. The fallacy here is that the people who replace the bad guys must be the good guys. The reality is almost always that the people who replace the bad guys are the other bad guys.



It's quite amazing really, at no point in this thread or any other thread have I advocated the 'socialist' policies of Chavez or Madoru or Soviet Russia, NK, China etc. Central command economies, totalitarian systems etc are undemocratic and as has been pointed out ad nauseoum have failed.
The prevailing view therefore is that free, or open markets, in a capitalist system is the best way to progress societies and generate wealth etc - again no issue there. I have repeatedly advocated capitalism. The difference as I see it is that capitalism is an economic ideology, socialism is a political ideology. Capitalism is the best way to generate and create new wealth, socialism decides the best way to redistribute that wealth, through democratic means, which in turns offers the best platform to exploit and capitalise the resources of the earth is an ethically and environmentally sustainable way.
The problems arise in capitalism when undue or disproportionate levels of wealth created through the capitalist system is centralised and is under the control of too few people, or too few institutions. In the US, EU it's the central banks and the banking cartels protected by US military complex, NATO, with elections that serve as nothing more than window dressing - doesn't matter who you vote in, they all fall into line with the system. If they don't, their economies will suffer the fate of Venezuela, Cuba etc. 




Purple said:


> Yes, the USA has waged an economic war on Venezuela and the reason for that is primarily the same as the reason they support the viscous, totalitarian oppressive regime in Saudi Arabia; they need to ensure that the dollar remains the world's reserve currency.



Agree, it's not democratic. It is a policy aligned to totalitarianism. 



Purple said:


> That can only be done by ensuring that oil continues to be traded in dollars.



Agree, it's not an open market.



Purple said:


> So, the USA and it's sanctions are all about the economic interests of the USA. That shouldn't surprise anyone; as General DeGaulle said, countries do not have allies, just interests. Therefore the USA is no different to anyone else, us included.



True, I agree entirely. It's all about self-interest. Problems arise when my self-interest conflicts with your self-interest. Democracy can, should resolve that, but not in itself, social policy is pivotal too. As such I am an advocate of a democratic socialist republic - the wealth of the state, generated from the resources of the state distributed in accordance to the needs of the state.
The current 'free' or open market capitalist system in its current format, a perpetual debt based system, is destined to fail again and again, centralising all wealth in the control of the few, leading to conflict and war. That's fine if you are sitting on the right side of it, call it 'market value', 'free trade', whatever...it is guaranteed to lead to conflict.



Purple said:


> Now, on to why Venezuela has collapsed; in part it is due to sanctions and the pressure the USA exerts through the banks it influences but with the resources Venezuela has that should only be a minor inconvenience. Make no mistake; it is to a very large extent, the author of it's own destruction.



The US has been traditionally Venezuela biggest trading partner. Some 24% of its GDP is attributable to trade with the US according to tradingeconomics.com. It's easy to see how the US can bring Venezuela economy to a grinding halt if it is not happy with the outcome of democratic elections or the policies implemented by that government. 
That is not to say a 'socialist' government cannot or do not implement policies that don't work, but that can be said of any form of government in any state.


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2017)

Sarenco said:


> I quoted you verbatim because I've noticed from other threads that you have a tendency to shift your position when challenged without acknowledging same.



Granted, when I spoke of _this _capitalist system I was not referring exclusively to Venezuela. The 'trickle-up' system applies to Ireland too. Venezuela is the case study, but granted, having re-read the OP I can see how you construed it to be exclusively about Venezuela.
The topic is about regime change. That is neither a democratic policy nor an ideology associated with an open market capitalist system.


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> True, I agree entirely. It's all about self-interest. Problems arise when my self-interest conflicts with your self-interest. Democracy can, should resolve that, but not in itself, social policy is pivotal too. As such I am an advocate of a democratic socialist republic - the wealth of the state, generated from the resources of the state distributed in accordance to the needs of the state.


How would a democratic socialist republic reduce the chances of exactly the same issues of self-interest occurring? 
How would a democratic socialist republic reduce the chances of the centralisation of wealth and it being under the control of too few people? History has shown us that a political elite is just as dangerous as a banking or business elite, maybe more so as their is no counter-balance. 

I think the problem with your proposition is that a democratic socialist republic will be inherently more ethical than what we currently have. I see no reason why that would be the case.

To me the solution is more international laws and courts so that disputes between countries can be arbitrated in the same way that disputes between citizens can be. The USA is the biggest block to that but they are certainly not alone. In that context the current rise of Nationalism is frightening as Nationalism inevitably leads to war. 

Again, we agree on the problem but differ on the solution and, with respect, I think your ideology is stopping you from seeing the root causes.


----------



## Firefly (4 Oct 2017)

Sarenco said:


> No BS, it's not.
> 
> I quoted you verbatim because I've noticed from other threads that you have a tendency to shift your position when challenged without acknowledging same.



Hi Sarenco,

Ever try squeezing water? 

Firefly.


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> How would a democratic socialist republic reduce the chances of exactly the same issues of self-interest occurring?



It won't reduce clashes of self-interest, but it can reduce the tensions that lead to eventually to conflict.
That is, it can provide a re-balancing of interests where the balance of those interests are skewed dispropotionately in the favour of one party over the other.



Purple said:


> How would a democratic socialist republic reduce the chances of the centralisation of wealth and it being under the control of too few people?



It can act as a mechanism to re-balance the interests of conflicting parties where one or more parties believes the interests of one or more parties are disproportionately skewed in favour of one or more parties over the others.
When Ryanair pilots protest their working conditions, it's not because they are greedy or resent the wealth being created by the company, it's because they believe their interests have been disproportionately devalued relative to the interests of other parties in the company.
In a totalitarian state they are told to accept their lot or leave. In a 'free' market capitalist system they are told that that is their 'market value'. Each is a source for conflict over the long-term.
In democratic socialism, the pilots have a stake in the company that makes it pivotal that their interests are addressed and protected, without adversely affecting the interests of other parties. In other words, it is in the self interest of Ryanair to address the self interest of pilots.

And btw, I'm only using the Ryanair situation as there is no trade union involved. The same applies to all trade union disputes, but to save the topic diverging off into the rights and wrongs of trade unions.


In a democratic socialist republic https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1003/909224-cabinet_maternity/



Purple said:


> To me the solution is more international laws and courts so that disputes between countries can be arbitrated in the same way that disputes between citizens can be. The USA is the biggest block to that but they are certainly not alone.



I agree too. That is why I am bemused when a particular crisis erupts the typical response is for look at 'Venezuela ', look at 'Castro', look at Gaddaffi, Sadam etc all the while ignoring the biggest block to international agreement, the US.
When Saudi Arabia falls, who will they blame then?


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2017)

Firefly said:


> Hi Sarenco,
> 
> Ever try squeezing water?
> 
> Firefly.



From the punter who has no position.


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> It won't reduce clashes of self-interest, but it can reduce the tensions that lead to eventually to conflict.
> That is, it can provide a re-balancing of interests where the balance of those interests are skewed dispropotionately in the favour of one party over the other.


I don't see how it changes anything on an international level.



TheBigShort said:


> It can act as a mechanism to re-balance the interests of conflicting parties where one or more parties believes the interests of one or more parties are disproportionately skewed in favour of one or more parties over the others.
> When Ryanair pilots protest their working conditions, it's not because they are greedy or resent the wealth being created by the company, it's because they believe their interests have been disproportionately devalued relative to the interests of other parties in the company.
> In a totalitarian state they are told to accept their lot or leave. In a 'free' market capitalist system they are told that that is their 'market value'. Each is a source for conflict over the long-term.
> In democratic socialism, the pilots have a stake in the company that makes it pivotal that their interests are addressed and protected, without adversely affecting the interests of other parties. In other words, it is in the self interest of Ryanair to address the self interest of pilots.


 Many large companies have employee share option schemes. It is often the case that Stakeholders have more influence than Shareholders. Again, I don't see how a socialist government, i.e. a government which controls more of the nations wealth, changes anything. 



TheBigShort said:


> I agree too. That is why I am bemused when a particular crisis erupts the typical response is for look at 'Venezuela ', look at 'Castro', look at Gaddaffi, Sadam etc all the while ignoring the biggest block to international agreement, the US.


 The USA is just the biggest boy in the playground, not the most aggressive or the most hostile. They just have the strongest punch.


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> In a democratic socialist republic https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1003/909224-cabinet_maternity/


I don't see this as a socialist issue, just un-costed populism. It is no different to buying off pensioners with increases to the OAP or buying off Public Servant with Benchmarking.


----------



## Sarenco (4 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> The topic is about regime change. That is neither a democratic policy nor an ideology associated with an open market capitalist system.



I see.

So the thread isn't about Venezuela at all.

It's about a global conspiracy of international bankers to usurp democratically elected governments.

Total fantasy.


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> Many large companies have employee share option schemes. It is often the case that Stakeholders have more influence than Shareholders. Again, I don't see how a socialist government, i.e. a government which controls more of the nations wealth, changes anything.



And again, a democratic socialist republic is not a state which controls the the nations wealth. It is a state that legislates and regulates for open trade in order to capitalise on resources in an ethically and environmentally sustainable way, and that the wealth generated from those resources are distributed in a fair and equal manner. That doesn't mean everyone gets an equal cut of the pie, just that they get their due worth. If pilots, or other workers are striking, it indicates a problem in re-distribution of wealth generated from their activities.


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> And again, a democratic socialist republic is not a state which controls the the nations wealth. It is a state that legislates and regulates for open trade in order to capitalise on resources in an ethically and environmentally sustainable way, and that the wealth generated from those resources are distributed in a fair and equal manner. That doesn't mean everyone gets an equal cut of the pie, just that they get their due worth. If pilots, or other workers are striking, it indicates a problem in re-distribution of wealth generated from their activities.


So what we have now, is that what you are talking about?


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2017)

Sarenco said:


> It's about a global conspiracy of international bankers to usurp democratically elected governments.



Governments that don't conform to the 'trickle-up' economic policy in the control of western banking cartel. Venezuela doesn't conform to it, Saudi Arabia does. Hence the completely opposite approaches by the US, etc, to each regime.


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Governments that don't conform to the 'trickle-up' economic policy in the control of western banking cartel. Venezuela doesn't conform to it, Saudi Arabia does. Hence the completely opposite approaches by the US, etc, to each regime.


I think you are seeing nefarious conspiracy where there is none. If it was true then Obama would never have been elected and Sanders would never have run for the Democratic ticket in the USA. People just aren't that clever.
What there is is greed and self interest, as expressed through the democratic process, which gives us Trump and his ilk on the right and Chavez and his ilk on the left.  

I do find it ironic that many of the USA's founding Fathers were fearful of bankers and capitalists with none other than Jefferson nearly starting a civil war in his opposition to the setting up of the Federal Reserve. He saw that it would lead to a concentration of wealth away from wealth producers and so would undermine the democratic process.


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> I don't see this as a socialist issue, just un-costed populism. It is no different to buying off pensioners with increases to the OAP or buying off Public Servant with Benchmarking.



If the 'responsible' people, who are working hard to build careers are not having enough children, and the 'irresponsible' people who can't afford to have children, shouldn't have children, where will all the kids come from?
What is happening here is a symptom of the perpetual debt based system that is centralising too much wealth into the control of too few. Those who work hard and develop careers are feeling it now. This is evident on the multiple threads on this site that focus on tax distribution to the less well off.
Instead they should focus more on the profit distribution to the well off.



Purple said:


> So what we have now, is that what you are talking about?



The political structures for democratic socialism are broadly in place, however, they are unduly dominated by people, in the absence of sufficient legislative and regulatory protections, are indoctrinated to the view that the market system is the only way to 'raise all boats'.
Paying off (as you call it) OAPs, public servants, unemployed, increasing tax credits, reduced VAT for hotels, 12.5% CT is nothing more than sticking plaster to avoiding the fundamental issues of our economy, that it the inevitable clash of interests between the centres of undue and disproportionate wealth and those who control it and those who cannot afford to keep the lights on.


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> I do find it ironic that many of the USA's founding Fathers were fearful of bankers and capitalists with none other than Jefferson nearly starting a civil war in his opposition to the setting up of the Federal Reserve. He saw that it would lead to a concentration of wealth away from wealth producers and so would undermine the democratic process.



Exactly the point! Who are the wealth producers? The elite bankers or, the plumber, the engineer, the farmer, the cook, the cleaner, the accountant, the electrician, the computer programmer, etc...etc..the worker.

The same people who can't afford a home, or to start a family.

Where did Jefferson think the concentration of wealth would go too? The poor and needy?

“I believe* that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies,”* Jefferson wrote. "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, *the banks and corporations that will grow up around (these banks) will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered...* The issuing power of currency shall be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”


----------



## Firefly (4 Oct 2017)

Given that there is a near humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, if this is all the fault of the big, bad US surely other, neighbouring countries would be doing their bit to help? Surely the international community would be vocal about it too. Unless of course, they are all in on it. 

Now that's a conspiracy theory!


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2017)

Firefly said:


> surely other, neighbouring countries would be doing their bit to help?



see post #6 to avoid repetition.


----------



## Sarenco (4 Oct 2017)

@Firefly

I think you are missing the point that the overwhelming majority of national governments are actually controlled by the Worshipful Company of The Elite Bankers, backed, of course, by the US Military Industrial Complex.

Or at least I think that's what BS is saying.


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Exactly the point! Who are the wealth producers? The elite bankers or, the plumber, the engineer, the farmer, the cook, the cleaner, the accountant, the electrician, the computer programmer, etc...etc..the worker.
> 
> The same people who can't afford a home, or to start a family.


The guys who work in the banks are workers as well. They live in communities and are no less ethical and moral than anyone else. That's where the grand conspiracy theory falls down, and where socialist moral elitism becomes sickening. 
Why are the bankers such a big issue for you but for you the 20% who live on the backs of working people are in no way responsible for their own upkeep?



TheBigShort said:


> Where did Jefferson think the concentration of wealth would go too? The poor and needy?
> 
> “I believe* that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies,”* Jefferson wrote. "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, *the banks and corporations that will grow up around (these banks) will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered...* The issuing power of currency shall be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”


Yes, that's what I was referring to. The thing is that the world has moved on and while I'm a big fan of Jefferson (his fingerprints are all over the Bill of Rights) he wasn't always right.


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> The political structures for democratic socialism are broadly in place, however, they are unduly dominated by people, in the absence of sufficient legislative and regulatory protections, are indoctrinated to the view that the market system is the only way to 'raise all boats'.


 So if we are not socialist it's because we are too stupid to understand we are being sold a lie? Can I add educational elitism to the moral elitism of the socialist mindset?



TheBigShort said:


> Paying off (as you call it) OAPs, public servants, unemployed, increasing tax credits, reduced VAT for hotels, 12.5% CT is nothing more than sticking plaster to avoiding the fundamental issues of our economy, that it the inevitable clash of interests between the centres of undue and disproportionate wealth and those who control it and those who cannot afford to keep the lights on.


 See the thing is that the average working person is better off in countries which are more capitalist. They are also more free. 
Your ideal simply replaces the privately owned centers of undue and disproportionate wealth, which can be counterbalanced by the State, with a State which becomes the controller of disproportionate wealth (at which stage ownership becomes irrelevant) and that State isn't counterbalanced by anything. 
I can say unequivocally that I would emigrate if the Paul Murphy's of this would were in charge. If my children were thinking about emigrating when they get older I'd encourage it; this is not a country to work hard and build a good life in and it is only getting worse.

Since we are quoting Americans here's one from Rev. William J. H. Boetcker (wrongly attributed to Lincoln by some people); _"You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."_


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> The guys who work in the banks are workers as well. They live in communities and are no less ethical and moral than anyone else.



Oh c'mon, of course they are workers too.  I wasn't talking about bank clerks, investment traders, Wall st traders or hedge fund managers or whatever. Perhaps it is my fault for not being clear, but as with the Jefferson quote, it is the banking institutions, that are the problem. Of course those institutions are led by someone and at the top of their organisations there are decision makers whose job is to make the decisions to invest, generate and accumulate wealth etc.
I have no problem with anyone, including myself, making as much money as they possibly can. I do have a problem with somebody, including myself, making as much money as they possibly can by inducing a perpetuating debt based society. It is the banking institutions, compliant governments, protected by US military complex and NATO, that facilitates and sustains the perpetual debt based society.
The consequences for society is that wealth generated, through labour, is centralised into the hands of too few, inevitably leading to conflict in the medium to long-term. History is littered with examples of such. We are caught in that system now, and the same will occur unless there is a massive transfer of wealth from capital to labour. Either that, or large devaluations accompanied by debt write downs.

As we speak Trump, who I am no fan of, has indicated debt relief for the stricken island of Puerto Rico. I don't know all the details, but this is some way illustrative of a re-balancing of self interests. The Puerto Rican government borrows money to invest in infrastructure. It builds a bridge. A hurricane comes along and blows the bridge away. Typically, the Puerto Rican government would be left paying the bill for a natural disaster, to the investors.  Instead, if I understand what Trump is saying to investors, is 'the hurricane took the bridge away and it took your investment away too'.
I'm not sure how the money markets will react, but I suspect they won't be kind. Interesting to see if he gets his way.



Purple said:


> Why are the bankers such a big issue for you but for you the 20% who live on the backs of working people are in no way responsible for their own upkeep?



There is no 20% of people who live off the backs off working people. That is a fallacy. This site is full of examples of posters complaining about how much tax they pay. They complain, because like in the past, working people are not seeing just reward for their efforts. Most of them, like you, are looking down at the less well-off pointing at them, it's their fault, they won't work, they have babies they can't afford, they want a roof over their heads...etc...etc. As if somehow, the poor and less skilled have managed to coax you into handing over your hard earned cash.
In reality, you need to look to the top is society. You can of course admire those who reach the top of their field and admit they deserve their rewards. But no harm in asking, exactly how much they get, and for what exactly?



Purple said:


> See the thing is that the average working person is better off in countries which are more capitalist. They are also more free.



You are diverging again. I have already outlined my views on capitalism, yet you choose to ignore that.



Purple said:


> Your ideal simply replaces the privately owned centers of undue and disproportionate wealth, which can be counterbalanced by the State, with a State which becomes the controller of disproportionate wealth (at which stage ownership becomes irrelevant) and that State isn't counterbalanced by anything.



Diverging again, I have already outlined that the State is not the controller of wealth, but that wealth is controlled through legislative and regulatory frameworks derived from democratic socialism - a progressive tax system is an example of such.


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> I have no problem with anyone, including myself, making as much money as they possibly can. I do have a problem with somebody, including myself, making as much money as they possibly can by inducing a perpetuating debt based society.


Capitalism and Credit are not the same thing. I think we both agree with that. We don't need Socialism to reign in credit we just need limits on credit and a slow unwinding of the perpetual reliance of States on borrowed cash. 



TheBigShort said:


> It is the banking institutions, compliant governments, protected by US military complex and NATO, that facilitates and sustains the perpetual debt based society.


 See that's where it (the conspiracy) breaks down; the US Military Complex is funded by the US government through taxes. It is not funded by private credit. They have no dog in the fight. 



TheBigShort said:


> We are caught in that system now, and the same will occur unless there is a massive transfer of wealth from capital to labour.


 See my previous comments on multiple threads about how international taxation systems need to be changed to tackle this. It doesn't require socialism though, far from it. 



TheBigShort said:


> There is no 20% of people who live off the backs off working people. That is a fallacy.


 Eh, 20% of people in this country live on welfare. Them's the facts. 



TheBigShort said:


> As if somehow, the poor and less skilled have managed to coax you into handing over your hard earned cash.


 No, our socialist governments have done it on their behalf. 



TheBigShort said:


> n reality, you need to look to the top is society. You can of course admire those who reach the top of their field and admit they deserve their rewards. But no harm in asking, exactly how much they get, and for what exactly?


 Why not look at both? 



TheBigShort said:


> You are diverging again. I have already outlined my views on capitalism, yet you choose to ignore that.


 What am I ignoring? In one breath you are correctly distinguishing that capitalism is an economic model and socialism is a political model (or doctrine) but in the next you are conflating the two. 



TheBigShort said:


> Diverging again, I have already outlined that the State is not the controller of wealth, but that wealth is controlled through legislative and regulatory frameworks derived from democratic socialism - a progressive tax system is an example of such.


 How can the State not control the wealth but at the same time be the controller of the wealth through legislative and regulatory frameworks derived from democratic socialism? It either takes and spends the money or it doesn't. I don't like the idea of the tyranny of unbridled capitalism being replaced by the tyranny of the unbridled State. Nothing and nobody will waste money, and therefore hurt people, like the State.


----------



## Andy836 (4 Oct 2017)

galway_blow_in said:


> Your still way off with that $ 4 breakeven oil price



http://graphics.wsj.com/oil-barrel-breakdown/

Saudi production costs of ~$3 / barrel. Total including capex & transportation is ~$9 

Happy for you to provide an alternative figure.


----------



## Firefly (4 Oct 2017)

Just adding another excuse, re Venezuela....it's a "so called socialist" state...sure, tisn't socialist at all at all!


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> Capitalism and Credit are not the same thing. I think we both agree with that. We don't need Socialism to reign in credit we just need limits on credit and a slow unwinding of the perpetual reliance of States on borrowed cash.



Agreed, credit and capitalism are not the same. But how do you impose limits on credit? Through regulation? Derived from social policy? 



Purple said:


> See that's where it (the conspiracy) breaks down; the US Military Complex is funded by the US government through taxes. It is not funded by private credit. They have no dog in the fight.



Yes, true. But in reality its a country that can't agree a common health care policy, or regulate for gun ownership, yet 50% of tax dollars goes to military? How did that happen? Who votes for that? 
Unless of course it has nothing to do with democracy, and all to do with banking cartel, complicit government, in the interests of sustaining (of what they perceive) are the US global interests.
Nothing to do with socialism, nothing to do with democracy, nothing to do with capitalism (in its truest sense).



Purple said:


> Eh, 20% of people in this country live on welfare. Them's the facts.



According to your other posts only 30% of taxpayers are net contributors, so perhaps it's 70%?
The 20% you speak of, are not living off the backs of working people. Many of them are working people themselves. Simply the income they earn is (deemed) insufficient to provide for necessities like shelter and food. 



Purple said:


> No, our socialist governments have done it on their behalf.



Well earlier you were worried about Paul Murphy and his ilk getting into power. 
It would appear from that statement that you recognize there are different strands of socialism?
I mean why worry about Paul Murphy if the socialists are already in power?



Purple said:


> Why not look at both?



Absolutely. Who wants to open a thread on Apple's €15 billion tax bill? If there is one open I missed it. Or the EU calling out Amazon too? Or the Panama files?


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> How can the State not control the wealth but at the same time be the controller of the wealth through legislative and regulatory frameworks derived from democratic socialism? It either takes and spends the money or it doesn't.



Sorry, perhaps I misinterpreted. I am distinguishing between a 'socialist' state that dictates what, when, where, and how much we produce, and a socialist republic (power to the people and all that!) through democratic means.


----------



## Firefly (4 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> So what we have now, is that what you are talking about?



So we have....

Highly paid public servants
Highly valuable public servant pensions
Highly paid OAP pensioners
Highly paid dole
Medical cards for 1/3 of people
Low/Middle earners paying diddly squat income tax-wise

Have we slept-walked into a socialist republic? 
Are we proof that socialism does in fact work? 
Can we bottle and patent the recipe?

How are you feeling today Comrade Purple?

Firefly.


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> But in reality its a country that can't agree a common health care policy, or regulate for gun ownership, yet 50% of tax dollars goes to military?



Eh, it's 16%.



TheBigShort said:


> Who wants to open a thread on Apple's €15 billion tax bill?


 There is a long one. I'm surprised you missed it.


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Sorry, perhaps I misinterpreted. I am distinguishing between a 'socialist' state that dictates what, when, where, and how much we produce, and a socialist republic (power to the people and all that!) through democratic means.


 That's just a democratic republic.


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2017)

Firefly said:


> How are you feeling today Comrade Purple?


Like we've already gone way too far to the left and in doing so locked in a cycle of poverty, low opportunity, reduced social advancement and a State sector with a deep rooted culture of hostile defensiveness, inefficiency and mediocrity which lets down the citizens of this country, particularly those who need help the most. 

Like my children would be better off leaving.

Depressed and angry.


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> Eh, it's 16%.



I'm still going with the 50% of tax dollars, but I stand to be corrected.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States



Purple said:


> There is a long one. I'm surprised you missed it



I did actually, but my bad  , no doubt it will resurrect given it is back in the news?



Purple said:


> That's just a democratic republic.



So after all this time, I'm...um...I'm...not a socialist?


----------



## Protocol (4 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> Eh, 20% of people in this country live on welfare. Them's the facts.



Just to be clear, approx 50% of the population are recipients or beneficiaries of weekly welfare payments.


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2017)

Protocol said:


> Just to be clear, approx 50% of the population are recipients or beneficiaries of weekly welfare payments.



According to Purple only 30% of tax payers are net contributors?


----------



## Protocol (4 Oct 2017)

I don't know about that, but I do know the figures for welfare recipients and beneficiaries.


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2017)

Protocol said:


> Just to be clear, approx 50% of the population are recipients or beneficiaries of weekly welfare payments.



And to be even clearer, most of them are working, paying taxes too.


----------



## Protocol (4 Oct 2017)

Most of them pay indirect taxes, yes.

Some of them pay direct taxes.

Not many are working, as many of them are retired, or else on means-tested payments.


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2017)

Protocol said:


> approx 50% of the population are recipients or beneficiaries of weekly welfare payments.





Protocol said:


> Not many are working, as many of them are retired, or else on means-tested payments.



That's ok, but I wouldn't label pensioners as 'living off the backs of working people', as mentioned above. Not by you, but by another poster. 
If we agree that, then the figure reduces significantly.


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2017)

Firefly said:


> Have we slept-walked into a socialist republic?



Cant you tell ?


----------



## Purple (5 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> I'm still going with the 50% of tax dollars, but I stand to be corrected.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States


I was wrong. It looks like it's less than 16%, coming in at just under 14.5%.
You are talking about the discretionary federal budget but don't worry, getting that sort of thing wrong proves that you are in fact a socialist   



TheBigShort said:


> So after all this time, I'm...um...I'm...not a socialist?


 See above.



TheBigShort said:


> According to Purple only 30% of tax payers are net contributors?


 According to detailed figures posted on this site.



TheBigShort said:


> That's ok, but I wouldn't label pensioners as 'living off the backs of working people', as mentioned above.


 What about that thin end of the wedge which never works and scams the system; when they retire they get a pension. Do they stop living off other people once they retire? I know the high and mighty become immune to any accountability and are beyond the law once they retire so I suppose it's only fair if the same thing applies to welfare cheats.


----------



## Firefly (5 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> Like we've already gone way too far to the left and in doing so locked in a cycle of poverty, low opportunity, reduced social advancement and a State sector with a deep rooted culture of hostile defensiveness, inefficiency and mediocrity which lets down the citizens of this country, particularly those who need help the most.
> 
> Like my children would be better off leaving.
> 
> Depressed and angry.



I hear you. The priority in our house is to raise educated and skilled children. I fully expect one or all of them to emigrate and I would probably encourage it. We may well retire somewhere decent too.


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> I was wrong. It looks like it's less than 16%, coming in at just under 14.5%.



Fair enough I will give you that one. It's still a humongous amount relative to any other country. I can only assume that such levels of spending on military means that they have plans to use it.



Purple said:


> What about that thin end of the wedge which never works and scams the system; when they retire they get a pension. Do they stop living off other people once they retire? I know the high and mighty become immune to any accountability and are beyond the law once they retire so I suppose it's only fair if the same thing applies to welfare cheats.



Welfare cheats are the thin end of the wedge. So pensioners who never worked are also the thin end of the wedge.
Most people work, occasionally becoming unemployed, but in the main, most people work.


----------



## Protocol (5 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Most people work, occasionally becoming unemployed, but in the main, most people work.



Our employment rate is well below other countries rates.


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Oct 2017)

Wrong topic


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Oct 2017)

Duplicate


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Oct 2017)

Protocol said:


> Our employment rate is well below other countries rates.



?So? That is a current figure yes? I was referring to over a lifetime. Over a lifetime, most people work.
According to a paper referenced in another topic, even lifetime poor spend large % - on average - of time at work.


----------



## TheBigShort (8 Jun 2018)

Getting back on track. A rebuke of John Olivers Venezuela assessment

https://youtu.be/_fV-C1Ag5sI


----------

