DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on April 19, 2016, 07:37:08 AM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wg7jztTKew
-
Bullshit!
-
Not at all.
-
capitalism kills more in this country
-
While socialism kills exponentially more globally
-
WE do not live globally, and lately capitalism is killing more. Saudi Arabia beheaded four people for sorcery in the last year.
-
Of course we do. You do live on this globe, do you not? Or do you have the ability to levitate, and not actually touch it? ::)
-
Let's go to another bastian of Socialism.....Venezuela. What has the embark of enterwining Socialsim thru-out its economic fabric accomplished?......The brink of economic collapse, is all (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/29/venezuela-is-on-the-brink-of-a-complete-collapse/)
And what was the single biggest anchor to this impending collapse?? Remember when Chavez took control of all the oil, putting it in the control of the Government?? Chávez turned the state-owned oil company from being professionally run to being barely run. People who knew what they were doing were replaced with people who were loyal to the regime, and profits came out but new investment didn't go in. That last part was particularly bad, because Venezuela's extra-heavy crude needs to be blended or refined — neither of which is cheap — before it can be sold. So Venezuela just hasn't been able to churn out as much oil as it used to without upgraded or even maintained infrastructure. Specifically, oil production fell 25 percent between 1999 and 2013. Their Socialist Government, at work
Even toilet paper is becoming a "luxury item"
-
Venezuela oil takeover is a comedy of errors and it's not just low production but a loss of a business commodity. Trust. The takeover make that country to the rest of the world not trustworthy fir anykind of help. The answr to heavy crude is get light crude to help process it which it's neighboring countries has but won't give out of fear they will get ripped off.
Drug cartels are more trustworthy than venezuela
-
I think that's a safe assumption, Kimba. Point being that Venezuela's economic death spiral took hold as soon as the Government decided to go full throttle socialism
-
Not sure socialism is the sole villian in that story. Many regime change had very similar situations and it's not because of socialism but the decision of those in charge. Socialism is a very easy target. I very much question such a conflicting system but I would never solely blame it . Laying blame is like watching khardashians and doesn't do much
-
Venezuela has always suffered from the same problem: near total dependence on oil. Under Chavez,the poor people got at least a share of the revenue. Before that, only a small bunch of rich people benefited.
Venezuela is being destroyed by the boom and bust cycle of capitalism. Chavez should have tried harder to develop agriculture in the llanosm where the best farmland that could produce many times the needs of the country is used to raise cattle for Mickeyburgers.
CAPITALISM is destroying Venezuela, The bust in crude oil prices from $160 to $3-0 a barrel is the obvious specific cause. When Maduro is out, the rightwingers that follow him will do even worse. But it won't be reported in the US press, because they will not be Socialists.
-
Sorry, facts demonstrate otherwise.....They were doing fine, before Chavez injected socialism into everything. It was at that point, that its economy went severely south
-
I would blame chavez more than socialism
-
They were not doing fine. You had no clue what was going on in Venezuela. It was not reported in the press.
Venezuela had a few very rich people, a tiny middle class and 80% of the people had almost nothing.
Chavez was elected by a landslide in a fair election.
Venezuela is in trouble because the price of oil collapsed.
-
Norway has huge oil reserves, and is largely a Socialist nation. There are no slums in Norway. No one starves, no one freezes.
Chavez had a much more difficult job than Norway did when they struck oil.
-
population.....as in Norway is a fraction of the population that Venezuela is. Demonstrates the larger the nation, the more destructive Socialism is to that nation
-
Not just the price of oil but they simply did not know how to run a system which they did not make properly. Confiscating a oil plant will not mean the original owners will help maintain it.
-
Norwegians are tidy and very organized. Venezuelans are typical Latinos, composed of the descendants of Black slaves, Indians, mestizos, sambos, cambujos and a lot of European and other refugees from everywhere.
The size of the country has very little to do with it.
Henrick Ibsen the national dramatist, wrote his major works on the obligations of the individual to the community to the people and vice versa. Hedda Gabler, Enemy of the People, etc. It is a country that has been mostly Christian for 900 years that voluntarily changed the name iof the capital from Christianstad back to Oslo so as not to offend the few who were not Christians.
-
The size of the country has very little to do with it.
Of course you're going to claim that...it goes against the template. Problem is history and facts are not on your side, with both China & Russia demonstrating how their economies have deteriorated under Socialist rule...Russia in particular. Venezuela is proving to be no different. But cudos on the racist/bigoted references regarding Venezuelans
-
Henrick Ibsen the national dramatist, wrote his major works on the obligations of the individual to the community to the people and vice versa...
What was his take on a military draft?
-
You will have to look up what Ibsen thought about the draft.
Venezuelans are not Norwegians. That is not a racist statement.
Norwegians have inhabited the same territory since the end of the Ice Age. Their culture is uniform.
Venezuelans have a mixed culture that has never been integrated.
Until Venezuela finds a formula to turn city slumdwellers into farmers or the oil runs out, the country will face the same problems from overdependency on oil,
No country has ever actually done this, Cambodia tried to turn an urbanizing society into a bucolic one with horrible results.
Costa Rica managed to keep its country people on the farm by providing services to them like potable water, roads, schools and electricity.
The governments prior to Chavez were military dictatorships followed by elitist oligarchies, none of which did much of anything for the majority of the people who are all poor..
The people who now propose to run the country have nothing in common except opposition to Chavez. I predict they will be even worse than Chavez, at least for a while, Being "against" is not a viable system.
-
What do we want to happen?
When most American city dwellers make enough money they move as far out of town as they can afford to.
But to prevent any thing like a large farming community from developing we give tax breaks to corporate ownership of land and death taxes to prevent legacy farming.
As though the secret agenda of the US government was collectivization.
-
Factory farms are not Socialist.
Most American do NOT move as far away from cities as they can.
-
Can't talk about farms but city and suburbs are a mixed bag for people. I hate what's going on in s.f. But if had a choice I would move back. It's just much easier to get work in a city but the cost is what has me live in the burbs. Where I live Ill only get low wage jobs which i have doubts on advancement training. I can commute to the city and receive much higher pay but I did retire for medical reasons.
-
Factory farms are not Socialist.
Perhaps they are not the same philosophically, but the final result is indistinguishable. (I am getting good use of spell check.) Most American do NOT move as far away from cities as they can.
You are not explaining the existence of suburbs very well. In our big cities the burbs reach across three or four surrounding counties.
-
Most Americans do not live in distant suburbs. '
The ones who do are generally fleeing high home prices and higher taxes ( which are a product of the home prices), not "urban jungles".
-
Most Americans live in cities......that's why they're called cities ::) That doesn't make them all wanting to stay, no more than rural folks wanting to move to the city. There's eb & flow both ways, City folk that dream of making it to the suburbs, if not country, and country folk doing whatever they can to make it to the city. That's just common sense
People "fleeing" from one to the other have a myraid of reasons, and those fleeing from urban jungles are generally not doing so because of home prices. In fact, the suburbs generally have much higher home prices. Most fleeing urban jungles like downtown Los Angeles or Detroit, are doing so to get out of what makes them urban jungles....taxes, crime, pollution, congestion, etc.
And on the flip side, you have rural/country folk who yearn to "flee" to the city for the bright lights, job opportunity, variety of activity, social expansion, etc. Doesn't make "the City" the end all be all to America. It just is
-
San jose families leave because the students are too competitive. San francisco families leave because of cost and Too much nimbyism. Oakland just not a friendly place.
At this moment home prices are effecting everything. Businessess cannot pay people enough work with them and will be alot more noticeable in the near future .
-
In Miami, corrupt Latinos from other countries are buying up the real estate to hide their money, jacking up the prices of homes to where Americans and legal residents cannot afford them.