Arguing that socialism fails because Venezuela is as apt as saying capitalism fails because Chad. Any system fails with incompetent leadership or structure. And no I'm not advocating for a totally socialist state.
Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here
- Thread starter Kul
- Start date
- Status
@ said:
I specifically picked Venezuela because it is a perfect example of a country moving from a capitalist inspired haven, to a hell hole on the back of socialist policies.
So unless Chad was a successful socialist nation that developed into a shambles on the back of capitalist initiatives, then no, you can't make the same comparison.
Incompetent leadership plays a role regardless of the system, but the problem is that no-one can point to any successful socialist nation. One has never existed.
Venezuela was a capitalist haven? If you say so. Arguably it did better under Chavez at first.
The Scandinavian countries aren't successful socialist nations or will we go down the not a true Scotsman path?
The Scandinavian countries aren't successful socialist nations or will we go down the not a true Scotsman path?
@ said:
Venezuela had one of the highest GDPs in the world and a booming economy in the 1950's before the slide into socialism. Now they eat dogs because the supermakets don't stock actual food. Its a complicated country with a complicated past, but to ignore the devastating effects of socialism is absurd.
And no, the Scandanavian countries are not socialist. Not even close. They are free market economies with an extraordinarily high rate of taxation and social welfare spending.
1950s? What you mean when Jiminez nationalized vast sectors of the economy? That wasn't socialist according to you?
Luis Herrera Campins was a socialist? Must be news to him. What is absurd is a revisionist approach that pegs Venezuela's current issues on a political philosophy. The country is stuffed because politicians on both sides are corrupt.
Luis Herrera Campins was a socialist? Must be news to him. What is absurd is a revisionist approach that pegs Venezuela's current issues on a political philosophy. The country is stuffed because politicians on both sides are corrupt.
As I suspected your definition of socialism is entirely linked to how prosperous individual countries are. Nobody claims they are communist or totally socialist. Then again nobody aside from you believes Venezuela before Chavez was either
The Quote function is very tricky to use apparently …
The economic prosperity that peaked during the 1950's was the result of the free market policies of Gomez from the previous decades after WW1.
Jiminez started the rot , and it was a slow burn that led up to the steep decline we have recently seen.
I'm sure that you, as an expert on Venezuela, don't need an explanation that the nationalization of the country's most prosperous industries, devaluation of the currency, and state intervention in the labor market are a massive reason that the country fell from its lofty heights (and of course corruption and other factors play their role). Free market economics does not involve any of those interventions however, socialism does.
Now the topic of my comments were aimed at shooting down the demonisation of Capitalism, while the socialist inspired downfall of Venezuela was a small side note. Its not an overly important topis for me, but if you find it extremely stimulating, i'm happy to keep talking about it with you for as long as you can keep it interesting.
You suspected wrong.
My definition of Socialism is … the broadly accepted definition of Socialism.
A) Socialised ownership of means of production, and B)Socialised disbursement of property.
In Scandinavian countries the states do not own the means of production, the private sector overwhelmingly do. In Scandinavian countries the Government does not distribute property and wages, the private sector do.
The state intervention is only via the tax/welfare system.
Therefore, these are not Socialist Countries as you noted. Same as Australia is not a Military Dictatorship ... see how that works?
@ said:
The economic prosperity that peaked during the 1950's was the result of the free market policies of Gomez from the previous decades after WW1.
Jiminez started the rot , and it was a slow burn that led up to the steep decline we have recently seen.
I'm sure that you, as an expert on Venezuela, don't need an explanation that the nationalization of the country's most prosperous industries, devaluation of the currency, and state intervention in the labor market are a massive reason that the country fell from its lofty heights (and of course corruption and other factors play their role). Free market economics does not involve any of those interventions however, socialism does.
Now the topic of my comments were aimed at shooting down the demonisation of Capitalism, while the socialist inspired downfall of Venezuela was a small side note. Its not an overly important topis for me, but if you find it extremely stimulating, i'm happy to keep talking about it with you for as long as you can keep it interesting.
@ said:
You suspected wrong.
My definition of Socialism is … the broadly accepted definition of Socialism.
A) Socialised ownership of means of production, and B)Socialised disbursement of property.
In Scandinavian countries the states do not own the means of production, the private sector overwhelmingly do. In Scandinavian countries the Government does not distribute property and wages, the private sector do.
The state intervention is only via the tax/welfare system.
Therefore, these are not Socialist Countries as you noted. Same as Australia is not a Military Dictatorship ... see how that works?
Okay seeing as though you're returning to your condescending way of discussion I'll break off. As usual you change your definition as it suits your argument. One minute 1950s Venezuela is boom time, the next it's not.
I do enjoy discussions even robust ones. I don't enjoy people who belittle and who won't bend at all. Worse are those with an inflated sense of their intelligence who hope that their inaccuracies go unnoticed. Many times you've been caught using inaccuracies or misrepresentations to suit your agenda. You show no sign of wanting to genuinely discuss things just a desire to present your view as fact and any dissent as being stupid.
For the first time in a longtime it's time to engage the foe button.
I do enjoy discussions even robust ones. I don't enjoy people who belittle and who won't bend at all. Worse are those with an inflated sense of their intelligence who hope that their inaccuracies go unnoticed. Many times you've been caught using inaccuracies or misrepresentations to suit your agenda. You show no sign of wanting to genuinely discuss things just a desire to present your view as fact and any dissent as being stupid.
For the first time in a longtime it's time to engage the foe button.
@ said:
You argue like a condescending jerk. I'd say most of the people reading this thread see him sitting pretty comfortably on the moral high ground. Even people that agreed with your basic views would probably be happy to see you shot down because of your obnoxious expression.
Tim Sheens
Well-known member
So after taking more than a decade to finally unshackle our economy from the structural deficit and majority of the subsequent national debt that Howard/Costello's previous cuts gave us, their equivalents have just forced through changes that are potentially more disastrous.
Really hard to believe that changes were passed today that will likely cover the period of this and the next two elected governments.
Really hard to believe that changes were passed today that will likely cover the period of this and the next two elected governments.
Strangely I've never heard any real debate or explanation about the tax cuts. It seems a little odd given the noise about projected increasing costs of healthcare, ageing population etc.
But when you scratch beneath the surface, it gets weird.
From 2025, the tax cuts are massively skewed to benefit those on high incomes. I did these calculations showing annual wage, tax cut and the tax cut as a % of income:
$25,000 $200 saving 0.8% of income
$50,000 $540 saving 1.08% of income
$100,000 $1125 saving 1.13% income
$150,000 $3375 saving 2.25% income
$200,000 $7225 saving 3.61% income
Seems really unfair. A 3.61% saving to someone on a lower income would make a big difference whereas Mr/Ms $200k will probably use it to further rort the tax system through negative gearing a useless unproductive asset (i.e an investment property).
Some of the politicians who claim they supported the legislation to help working class families are nothing short of disgraceful.
But when you scratch beneath the surface, it gets weird.
From 2025, the tax cuts are massively skewed to benefit those on high incomes. I did these calculations showing annual wage, tax cut and the tax cut as a % of income:
$25,000 $200 saving 0.8% of income
$50,000 $540 saving 1.08% of income
$100,000 $1125 saving 1.13% income
$150,000 $3375 saving 2.25% income
$200,000 $7225 saving 3.61% income
Seems really unfair. A 3.61% saving to someone on a lower income would make a big difference whereas Mr/Ms $200k will probably use it to further rort the tax system through negative gearing a useless unproductive asset (i.e an investment property).
Some of the politicians who claim they supported the legislation to help working class families are nothing short of disgraceful.
Byron_Bay_Fan
New member
I know a few rich people and they certainly don't need tax breaks, they would not know which pocket to put the extra in.
I don't believe in unhindered wealth that goes beyond for example the price of three median-priced houses. People like Zucker etc don't deserve their great wealth and eventually their strategy or invention would have been taken up other people if they did not.
I don't believe in unhindered wealth that goes beyond for example the price of three median-priced houses. People like Zucker etc don't deserve their great wealth and eventually their strategy or invention would have been taken up other people if they did not.
Byron_Bay_Fan
New member
If you compare executive rates of salary compared to the working class over a few decades you will find that the execs have jumped up dramatically, whereas as workers have had cost of living adjustments (probably those arranged for by Hawke Accord) and not much else. I can remember decades ago I think it was that no one was getting more than the prime minister whereas nowadays that is chicken feed.
@ said:
Negative gearing needs to change now. It should be grandfathered though, the housing market will implode if you abolish it altogether.
Tim Sheens
Well-known member
@ said:
Yeah agreed, particularly as many of those that are set to gain the most out of these tax cuts are already utilising this opening, along with generous superannuation concessions to minimise their liabilities. Governments should be about communities, not about assisting those in the Tooraks or Double Bays of our land, which is where the most benefit of these latest tax cuts will fall, rather than the residents of rural areas and outer suburbs that need the break.
I am not against people earning a decent income for their endeavour and labour, nor using the rules to obtain the best outcome for themselves, but those that are on the higher incomes are generally the ones making the decisions and rules that are framing the increasing disparity between the haves and have nots. The income gap between corporates and service employees has become obscene over the last three and a bit decades, whilst their tax liabilities have also fallen dramatically.
- Status
