WheelchairDriver

Has a new government. A left wing socialist one. So my prediction:

He will try to make the poorest richer at the cost of other peoples and businesses money. Goverment will grow, and businesses wil be nationalised. Everything will go great and look rosy for 5 to 10 years.They they will run out of other peoples money, go into massive debt they cant pay. Then its venuzuala and 1001 excuses about crime, corruption, us trade issues, etc etc all over again till its bankrupt. It also does not have socialist venuzualas huge oil reserves. So he might be able to bankrupt them much faster. This is all obvious and happens every time. Yet people still vote for it. Its a frankly stupid world.

This is my second post in a long time. But Burgerman, I suspect you'll be cool with frankness and know I'm not trying to be an asshole. The Central American region just happens to have played a big part of my life for the last 20 years. Please pardon my west-of-the-Atlantic punctuation and spelling, too

This last election was especially interesting given the context of all those assassinations carried out against mostly left-of-center candidates by cartels acting either as industry surrogates or in their own interest of maintaining power in the existence of an extremely privatized power vacuum. López Obrador (aka AMLO) is pretty centrist, but North America is weird.

In Canada, you have the majority of people aligning pretty closely with the neoliberal candidate in our last election, popularly and accurately known as "Killary." They really want poorly co-opted SJW slogans plastered all over the place though, even if they don't really believe in them in a practical sense. Most folks are still OK with stealing land and such. And of course in the USA, people scream "communist" at any notion of socialized health care, any implications that poor people are members of the same species as middle- and upper-class humans, let alone publicly maintained roads, and at least since the George W and Obama admins, we've been shuttling toddlers into courtrooms without representation. We're even likely to gut the Americans with Disabilities Act. We're notably right of center. That's an objective fact. And fuller of cognitive dissonance than most places. Descriptions of any of our neighboring countries' politics are going to be slanted by the presence of this weirdness. Your best bet is local reporting, which in most places is very competently multilingual. After all, I don't look to the Los Angeles Times if I want to see what our imperial parents in the UK are up to. There's always something missing in those stories.

People usually want to attribute any and all deficiencies in quality of life in Mexico and Central America to "culture." The line of discussion is definitely accurately described as race baiting. They like to completely discard any discussion of predatory trade agreements, historical election meddling, outright war crimes, and in many cases a complete ceding of power to organized crime, who have repeatedly been proven to be in collusion with people who like to do things like drop carcinogens into ground water and disappear anybody who speaks up about it. In short, any expectations that someone read multiple history books written from local perspectives tend to offend people who believe that G7 countries work in everybody's best interest on the international stage.

There is a funny letter AMLO wrote to my current head of state. Funny because it's snarky in that classical diplomatic style of the early 1900s, full of optimism, and casual but obscured digs at his competence. Here's an adequately bootlicking news source on the letter that sums up some of it reasonably (keeping it in Spanish was part of the joke):

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-03/tit-for-tat-becomes-the-norm-as-u-s-china-dig-in-for-trade-war

And here's the original letter; I'm sure Google has a goofy translation most folks should be able to work through:

https://lopezobrador.org.mx/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Carta-firmada.pdf

Here comes the snark: Anybody ever tried to move their chronically weakening body around in a super happy libertarian paradise? It's loads of fun. Anybody notice that the USA spends more per capita on health care than any country, period, with sadder quality of life outcomes?

Here comes the snark: Anybody ever tried to move their chronically weakening body around in a super happy libertarian paradise? It's loads of fun. Anybody notice that the USA spends more per capita on health care than any country, period, with sadder quality of life outcomes?

Really? Our nationalised socialist NHS in the UK has people unable to get treatment, months to years wait to get operations, many treatments refused on the grounds of the cost, people dying on trollys in corridors days after they went into hospital with no treatment or beds in sight, and most people waiting half a day or longer in accident and emergency to see a doctor. And you think the US system, where WE go to get care and medical treatment when we cant get what we need here is worse?

In most countries in the world, the disabled like us dont have houses with flat screen 80 inch TVs, food, disabled adapted vehicles, air conditioning, care, powerchairs, iphones, and cable internet. How are the US doing worse?

Watch if only the first one. Socialism always fails. Its been tested to death. The experiment has been run. It ALWAYS ends badly. With millions starved or killed.

The more socialist a country is, the poorer it gets and the LESS the poor eventually have. The more capitalist a country is, the greater the wealth, and the bigger the gap between the super rich and the poor. But they still live better than under any other system since society ends up richer.


youtu.be/fNjtpksJD4s


youtu.be/CCIdm3cM6zQ


youtu.be/Jt6HU24Brh4


youtu.be/DS2bvTDIq-I

I mean the vids all sort of rely on that correlation = causation approach, and they are all given far outside the Latin American perspective. They throw out extremely important context. Frankly, they look at the global south as a collection of misbehaving serfs. They pretend like 40-hour work weeks in MEPDs are products of capitalist wisdom. The only reason the US is doing so well comparatively is because we steal, because we allow our multinationals to operate with impunity across the globe without any kind of local accountability, and under threat of economic sanction or outright war, they are hosted across the globe. The Latin American situation is not something that can be reduced to a quick Breitbart article, a quick explanation of left versus right. Honestly, any kind of consideration of "which is best" is going to be obscured by violent US interventionism.

Given how often the US has overthrown democratically elected heads of state via far right puppets who end up perpetuating war crimes in the last half century, so far, at least in Latin America, capitalism has been the one to yield these outcomes, that is, political instability and the prevalence of violence. Rios Montt. Pinochet. Peña Nieto (folks don't realize the cartel violence wasn't entirely an internal issue). Videla. The Pepes. Every Salvadoran government of the 1980s, and their US-funded and US-trained predilection for child soldiers. You had Nixon blatantly saying that the CIA should interfere with economies and drive them into ruin simply for symbolic Cold War victories. Clinton's buddy Kissinger is all over this business. As for Venezuela, Maduro is simply corrupt. Likely "following the money" will lead to a revelation that Maduro very much has abandoned any notion of populist idealism. Using Latin America as the battle ground for an ideological proxy war, completely undermining any notion of a right to self determination, has been one of the greatest moral failings of the international community. See if you can find somebody credible in the press in Latin America praising capitalism who isn't being paid or threatened by the USA or its surrogates. You can't, really. It's just not something people do.

Burgerman wrote:Here comes the snark: Anybody ever tried to move their chronically weakening body around in a super happy libertarian paradise? It's loads of fun. Anybody notice that the USA spends more per capita on health care than any country, period, with sadder quality of life outcomes?

Really? Our nationalised socialist NHS in the UK has people unable to get treatment, months to years wait to get operations, many treatments refused on the grounds of the cost, people dying on trollys in corridors days after they went into hospital with no treatment or beds in sight, and most people waiting half a day or longer in accident and emergency to see a doctor. And you think the US system, where WE go to get care and medical treatment when we cant get what we need here is worse?

In most countries in the world, the disabled like us dont have houses with flat screen 80 inch TVs, food, disabled adapted vehicles, air conditioning, care, powerchairs, iphones, and cable internet. How are the US doing worse?

Watch if only the first one. Socialism always fails. Its been tested to death. The experiment has been run. It ALWAYS ends badly. With millions starved or killed.

The more socialist a country is, the poorer it gets and the LESS the poor eventually have. The more capitalist a country is, the greater the wealth, and the bigger the gap between the super rich and the poor. But they still live better than under any other system since society ends up richer.


youtu.be/fNjtpksJD4s


youtu.be/CCIdm3cM6zQ


youtu.be/Jt6HU24Brh4


youtu.be/DS2bvTDIq-I

Forget socialism in south america for a moment.

Throuout history, every single time EVERY country that ever tried socialist system/economics, the same shit happens. Every last time, to every last one. They always fail, ending in economic collapse, and mass suffering, lack of freedom, deaths, starvation, mass corruption, and poverty for all except a few corrupt rich. Its truly evil and destroys lives and countries and takes away all your freedoms.

And in every last case, throuout history the leftist/socialists involved, and the left supporters in the west and in the media, blame 1000 different factors, and never blame the only common obvious thing. The same thing you are doing. Because that then would attack their own belief systems ideology, their own idealism that they "know" is the best way. And they cant do that can they! Venuzuala was just another one to add to the pile. Its not fully collapsed yet. But It will. I predicted this collapse of venuzuala 10 years ago in the pub, when on the TV news, our idiot politician j. corbyn, did a TV speech shouting about how venuzuala was showing a BETTER way forward, a system that was "better for all not just the few", showing the world how socialism could work! He isnt mentioning that now. . Recently he was asked about the violence by the police/army in venuzuala. He never mentioned socialism once.

He corbyn obviously ignored all the collapsed ones, and millions dead, the mass suffering, and the collapse of everything past the berlin wall, china and its severe poverty 50 years ago eating dead babies for protein, with no power, food, roads, cars, medical services for most.

Even china finally figured out why everyone wanted to go to a severely overcrowded HK and underwent extreme suffering to get there. With no natural resources IT WAS FREE to trade as it wanted. And its massively overcrowded but rich because of its free capitalist trade. And so china experimented in some areas and adopted a capitalist free trade system while spitting feathers as it totally goes against their ideology. Sweden went from a very rich capitalist country with excellent standards of living for the poor too, to a very broke desperate one fast after trying socialism. They had to backtrack rapidly before complete collapse and did so quite successfully. So could venuzuala. Or mexico. In fact its got no choice.

It seems that no matter how many times this happens nobody learns or wants to admit it. After all, the socialist ideology seems so fair. It cant possibly be wrong can it.They teach how marvelous it is in edu establishments and most teachers are leftists. And they know they are right. Hence all the daft marxists and socialists coming out of college. Even though it is absolutely evil and never works! They make endless excuses for that and gloss over it. And I am making the same prediction about mexico if it truly embraces socialism. Collapse.

OK I can see myself going real vitriolic over this. I'm gonna bow out. Call it giving up or the strength of your position or whatever, but if regional history becomes irrelevant when discussing the decisions of entire countries of people, the conversation stops being helpful. I'm just going to keep admiring your technical skills/learning from them and trying to contribute technically as well.

Its not that its not relevant. But if they do go full retard, I mean full socialist as I think is planned? Then that is enough all on its own to wreck their future, voluntarily. At that point, in around a decade, it will have committed economic suicide. My prediction. Based on every other country that ever tried and theres been rather a lot. You think capitalist governments are corrupt? They may well be, but compared to the coruption that ends in millions dead and total corruption of socialist governments they are angels! The history or the rest of the south american countries with all their problems can only make it worse. Or faster. But socialist centrally planned economics is not credible, that experiment has been run for about a century, been tested to death. Literally.

Look at it this way - under capitalism everyone gets to decide what is best for them - as individuals - every second of every day in the marketplace. They choose what to buy, what to sell and at what price - each in the context of his own understanding and well being.

But under socialism people only get to decide what's good for them once every 5 years during elections - the rest of the time they have to abide by the command of some tiny tribunal or committee who makes those choices for them on behalf of their lives as represented within a larger group. The individual does not exist as a decision-maker.

So what I would like to know is this - how can the brain-power of a handful of people compensate for brain-power of a nation of individuals?

Socialism in the UK would entail substituting the hourly choices of 60 million people with the annual choices of just a few hundred bureaucrats.

How can that possibly work?

LC

Oh how you guys beat your chests about capitalism, socialism and what nation is what. Wake up LG there is no brain-power of a handful or brain-power of a nation; it's the control of corporations. We over here have NAFTA which is nothing more than corporate control and direction over government. Corporations don't want capitalism and don't allow capitalism in their business dealings. If corporations did allow capitalism to exist there would be no NAFTA.

NAFTA is a TRADE AGREEMENT. Thats the opposite to free trade. Capitalism IS free trade. It does not need any agreements.
Any AGREEMENT adds rules, restrictions to free trade between individuals and businesses.

So under capitalism open free uncontrolled trade would be allowed. Which is good. Under whatever you have its not. NAFTA means rules and controls. Some trade agreements are there to stop any taxation or at least stop tarriffs (taxes = socialist) being added by governments. And thats good as long as they dont also add RULES that hinder anyone selling or buying anything from anyone they wish to trade with in any way.... Which they do. So you dont want trade agreements only trade!

Interesting how a long page recently posted the typical mainstream media paper the GUARDIAN on the collapse and problems in Venuzuala somehow managed to never use the words socialist or socialism once. Pretty amazing that isnt it. Since thats the root cause of all of their woes. Avoided like the plague.

Because all the BBC, mainstream media, and corbyn lovers are run by a bunch of marxist loving left and liberal elites. They choose to push the left agenda at any opportunity, and totally willfully ignore the obvious result time after time. They dont want to see the reality because it goes against their idealism. So here we have another page of over complex excuses that, as per usual, blames everything in the universe except the one common denominator that always causes socialist countries to end this way. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nk-of-ruin

sacharlie wrote:Oh how you guys beat your chests about capitalism, socialism and what nation is what. Wake up LG there is no brain-power of a handful or brain-power of a nation; it's the control of corporations. We over here have NAFTA which is nothing more than corporate control and direction over government. Corporations don't want capitalism and don't allow capitalism in their business dealings. If corporations did allow capitalism to exist there would be no NAFTA.

That's not capitalism - that's cronyism. Contrary to Trump and all the others seeking a trade "deal" free trade isn't a "deal" nor an "agreement" - it's a principle.
And it's not corporations that command the military, the police and the prisons - it's the government. If govt. couldn't offer favours - i.e. graft - there wouldn't be any cronyism. The solution to that is to limit government and its power to intervene in the market. This is the opposite of the remedy offered by socialists who wish to control business by increasing the government's ability to offer arbitrary penalties and favours - oil companies today, white-owned farms tomorrow. Then when consequences of their meddling causes chaos what do they blame? - "unregulated capitalism."

LC

Lord Chatterley wrote:

sacharlie wrote:Oh how you guys beat your chests about capitalism, socialism and what nation is what. Wake up LG there is no brain-power of a handful or brain-power of a nation; it's the control of corporations. We over here have NAFTA which is nothing more than corporate control and direction over government. Corporations don't want capitalism and don't allow capitalism in their business dealings. If corporations did allow capitalism to exist there would be no NAFTA.

That's not capitalism - that's cronyism.

LC

That's true!
What is also true is, that is as far as the corporations will ever allow you to end up with.

Capitalism does not work within any government.
A country, to exist, must have a government.
If you want capitalism you will have to buy an island and be content to twiddle you thumbs.

Capitalism does not work within any government.

A government has nothing to do with free trade, or capitalism. Its a group of people elected to look after our safety and out property, and our rights. And as soon as it goes further and starts growing bigger, meddling in anything else its no longer a capitalist government.

A country, to exist, must have a government.

Must it? If the voters decide this, then yes. As long as the government do as they are elected to do, and stop trying to control anything else, and do not ever interfere with property ownership or trade in goods, services, or labour, then they are a good capitalist government.

If you want capitalism you will have to buy an island and be content to twiddle you thumbs.

See above. Not true. You need a SMALL group of individuals to run the stuff that we all vote for, like services, border control, and to upkeep infrastructure, protect rights and safety and protect property. And to support the weakest in society. To control standards such as education, or fuel, or whatever. Even laws etc to protect innocent people from dangerous practices, goods, or nuts with guns for eg. It should keep its claws off the economy, and stop trying to redistribute wealth, because that always works against the prosperity of a country. And it should go no further.

Burgerman wrote:

Capitalism does not work within any government.

A government has nothing to do with free trade, or capitalism. Its a group of people elected to look after our safety and out property, and our rights. And as soon as it goes further and starts growing bigger, meddling in anything else its no longer a capitalist government.

A country, to exist, must have a government.

Must it? If the voters decide this, then yes. As long as the government do as they are elected to do, and stop trying to control anything else, and do not ever interfere with property ownership or trade in goods, services, or labour, then they are a good capitalist government.

If you want capitalism you will have to buy an island and be content to twiddle you thumbs.

See above. Not true. You need a SMALL group of individuals to run the stuff that we all vote for, like services, border control, and to upkeep infrastructure, protect rights and safety and protect property. And to support the weakest in society. To control standards such as education, or fuel, or whatever. Even laws etc to protect innocent people from dangerous practices, goods, or nuts with guns for eg. It should keep its claws off the economy, and stop trying to redistribute wealth, because that always works against the prosperity of a country. And it should go no further.

Go back and read your past posts.What I wrote is a sumation of your past posts overy the years. Then here you come along with this post and want to backtrack. An example of your past posts would be just 2 posts above where you state: taxes=socialism. From that I read capitalism is NO TAXES and with NO TAXES there is no government.

Yes and I also said at least 30 times that CAPITALISM just means free trade. Its not a form of government. So its impossible to have an idealistic 100% capitalism. Although a government like our conservative party does it best to cut taxes and help businesses and individuals = more capitalism. And the other parties do the opposite. Its a system of trade that works AND THATS ALL IT IS. Its not a form of government and says nothing about anything else.

And it works better the less goverment interfere with it. So as I have endlessely repeated, to cloth ears, more capitalism = richer. Less capitalism = poorer. In any goverment in any country.

I also said over and over that every rich country is a mix of Socialist (taking from the rich and giving to the needy) and running the ESSENTIALS that the voter wanted. And a capitalist economy, which means the goverment interfere with trade or property ownership as little as possible. As soon as a socialist idiot like our marxist jeremy corbyn gets in, in the UK, and its happened over and over, the make goverment bigger, employ armies of civil servants, tax business heavily and the rich, nationalise railways and other businesses, increase min wage and the national debt goes through the roof over the next 4 to 8 years and the unemployment goes up to huge numbers. Leaving huge debt and major problems. Then just before WE become venuzuala the other lot get into power. And spend the next 20 years trying to undo the damage.

Even communist china which is a very socialist government now embraces much MORE capitalism (free trade, low taxation, low controls and regulations, property ownership, no central planning etc), and has got very rich. It took 50 years to go from the poorest country to the 2nd richest one. Now almost everything you buy was made in china or made with chinese parts.

The problem arrises as governments grow, and start trying to micromanage and tax everything to death, and start with the stupid wealth re-distribution by overly taxing business, rich, etc. Because thats heading the way of poorer... Roll on venuzuala.

People would fund the govt voluntarily if it stuck to its proper purpose of protecting individual rights via the courts, the military and the police.

As for the rest - transport, education, banking, energy, housing etc., etc., - let the market supply our needs.

Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so. The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly £200 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8 per cent. of the national income. The state intervened to prevent the citizen from eating adulterated food or contracting certain infectious diseases. It imposed safety rules in factories, and prevented women, and adult males in some industries, from working excessive hours. The state saw to it that children received education up to the age of 13. Since 1 January 1909, it provided a meagre pension for the needy over the age of 70. Since 1911, it helped to insure certain classes of workers against sickness and unemployment. This tendency towards more state action was increasing. Expenditure on the social services had roughly doubled since the Liberals took office in 1905. Still, broadly speaking, the state acted only to help those who could not help themselves. It left the adult citizen alone." - A.J.P.Taylor.