But they don’t. That’s the problem. You may create a temporary situation where they eat today, but the net effect is that tomorrow they starve… Along with a bunch of others.
The motivation is fine, but the actual effect is that far more people end up suffering.
Well, it does harm because it effectively precludes the natural progression of the system.
It prevents sometime else from buying that factory and don’t something with it, and create new opportunities for workers. Now, in Venezuela, that’s clearly not going to happen, but that’s largely due to their government’s seizure of industry and private assets. No investor is going to put any money into that economy.
Even beyond that, having the government artificially support that factory means that it’s going to screw with competition with OTHER factories… it will make those other factories less viable in the market. It will compound the problem.
No dude, I’m not. You are simply unwilling to see the obvious at this point, because it conflicts with your pre existing ideology.
Facts are stubborn things. Pretending that Chavez doesn’t hold direct responsibility for the destruction of the Venezuelan economy flies in the face of all mainstream understanding of the situation.
Between the two of us, I’m not the one who is arguing for the fringe position here.
Given that this is the intent, I think we’re in violent agreement.
You are. If you think Venezuela’s economic problems are all the fault of Chavez, then you’re ignorant of Venezuela’s economic problems.
Chavez is responsible for much of the current state of the Venezuelan economy. Can I make it more explicit than that?
Then we agree.
Venezuela was certainly no Paradise before he took power… That’s how he came to power.
But his proposed solutions made it even worse.
The thing is, lots of Venezuelans disagree with you on that. I don’t doubt that on balance he made things worse, but I wasn’t the one starving under the last regime. There’s a reason he was elected, after all. It’s true that nationalizing industries didn’t solve Venezuela’s problems, but it’s equally true that the corrupt capitalism they practiced before didn’t solve them either. It’s a poor country with corrupt elites and a long tradition of despotism. The long-term misery of the place wasn’t caused by Socialism.
But EVERYONE is starving under this regime.
Their poverty rate is over 90% now.
He kicked the can down the road. Anyway there is a Venezuela thread.
What exactly is this topic supposed to be about now. The mainstream media, both sides, what about but only on the topics we’re all comfortable with? Is that the spiel? Because it’s the age of Trump, not just… Trump.
Lol, i thought this WAS the Venezuela thread.
Me too. Sorry!
Alas, if only Disqus allowed moderators to move posts from one thread to another.
Not exactly mainstream media.
An Arizona cop threatened to arrest a 12-year-old journalist. She wasn’t backing down.
What an awesome person. Following her on Twitter now!
That’s right. The proper place for the abortion debate is in the Venezuala thread.
So here we have a piece from CBS. Article starts off admirably enough by defining socialism and tracing it’s evolution to what much of Europe has today and how Democrats are moving closer to embracing it (to be sure it’s shallow but it’s main stream news so that’s expected.) But then the writer gets to the New Green Deal. She cites two sources - one “the top White House economic advisor” and a writer previously cited, a former socialist now calling himself a neoconservative and strongly critical of the broader, looser definition of socialism (essentially mixed economy or the more pejorative welfare state.)
Now I don’t know the economic impact of the GND and I wager no one does until it’s turned into legislation but this pieces just assumes the critics are correct and doesn’t even as an aside attempt to refute it. If you’re a low information voter, your conclusion can only be GND is bad.
It sounds tinfoily but what is the possible motivation for framing it like this other than for preserving the neoliberal status quo?
Well, let’s face it, even major media companies considered liberal are still owned by mostly very wealthy people. They like the prerogatives that their class affords them.
This is not an op-ed. “Careening off a liberal cliff.”
(I’m not a Sanders supporter here but this clearly illustrates the NYT “balance.”)