US regime change in Venezuela
- Thread starter TheBigShort
- Start date
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
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.
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/
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
I don't see how it changes anything on an international level.
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.
The USA is just the biggest boy in the playground, not the most aggressive or the most hostile. They just have the strongest punch.
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.
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
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.
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.
Last edited:
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
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.”
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!
Now that's a conspiracy theory!
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
see post #6 to avoid repetition.
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?
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.
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?
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
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.
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?
You are diverging again. I have already outlined my views on capitalism, yet you choose to ignore that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Eh, 20% of people in this country live on welfare. Them's the facts.
No, our socialist governments have done it on their behalf.
Why not look at both?
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.
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.
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.