The Berniephobes are wrong

I'll be darned.

 

And we are.

 

Nice attempt at sugarcoating it, but it just won't work.

Sanctions didn't crash Venezuela's economy, nationalizing(AKA government seizing the means of production AKA socialism) Venezuela's oil industry is what led to the economic collapse.

Venezuela was reaping tidy profits from their oil production industry when it was being run by private(AKA capitalist) companies, but Venezuela's incompetent socialist leadership got greedy, so they seized control, threw the capitalists out, and then promptly ran their own oil industry into the ground through incompetence, and corruption.

I remember how people like Sean Penn, Oliver Stone, Bernie Sanders, etc... had no problem calling it SOCIALISM during the brief period when it appeared to be working for Venezuela, but now that the inevitable crash has come, and Venezuela is a dumpster fire, now the backpedalling happens, and it's suddenly a "mixed economy".

All the sugarcoating in the world isn't going to make the socialist turd that is Venezuela any sweeter.

 

The reduction in the price of oil clearly had an affect but sanctions begun by Obama is what is destroying Venezuela. In the first year of sanctions it is reckoned the US passively killed 40 thousand Venezuelans. By now it is bound to be a whole lot more and the US Venezuela President has been rejected by the people the US said he was leading. The US is acting against International Law. Something it can do at the moment due to the dollars position and it threatening to destroy any who do not do what it wants.

What was happening then was that there certainly were some people doing very well. In general they were white and moved between the US and Venezuela. They were in no way the majority. The majority lived without getting an education, with no medical help and scraping for food for themselves and their children in ramsack mud huts. Chavez changed that. He brought Venezuela's resources back to Venezuela. The people got medical help. The children got an education and everyone had sufficient to eat. Chavex was at worst as bad as the best which had been before - check on Venezuela's history. Why do you think it was impossible for the US to get a coup going either against Chavez or against Maduro. The Trump Regime chose a man trained in the US who belonged to a tiny fraction of the opposition who was the most violent - they were known for burning to death black people - seems the US always likes the most obscenely violent in its dealings with Latin America. He is no longer 'leader' of the Opposition. The Opposition sent him packing. The US is trying to destroy Venezuela for its resources and because it cannot stand anyone not supporting what it wants. If the US was not in a 'superior' position re its dollar and weapons it would find itself at the ICC. Now I remember they did try to get in but you would not let them. That is for the future.

You really are incredible. You believe people are greedy when they decide to take control of their own resources and stop their own people from suffering. Sorry no, that is how good government acts. People could argue Chavez and Maduro could have done better with its finances but that is a long term thing in Venezuela - that is none of the previous ones did either. Venezuela was doing very well till a couple of things brought them to their knees. One was the drop in oil which of course the US had a hand in and the other was the sanctions. The US is killing the most vulnerable in Venezuela. The UN is beginning to speak of US sanctions in terms of them being torture.

I have no idea what they called it. However I know it was a mixed economy and in that way similar to what the UK and most of Europe had prior to neo liberalism when we had a strong democracy. Social Democracy does have as its aim to move towards socialism. What that socialism is, is for the future to decide. The main difficulty with Capitalism is that Capitalism is not democratic so the intent would be to change that and to get rid of monopolies who have been gaining all the loot to the detriment of the MC and WC in America and other places. One strong idea is to encourage co-ops. For instance the Labour Party in the UK had the intent when a business was going to go for sale to give first option to the workers to buy it. The Government would lend them the money and they would own it and decide how it was run and how the money was spent for the time they were working in it. I believe Venezuela also had the intent of socialism but they have never got further than a mixed economy. The C0-Op idea was as far as the UK had got when Neo Liberalism destroyed everything. Now that neo liberalism can no longer provide for sufficient people a decent standard of living as well as what is needed to save the planet we will either move towards Corporate fascism or the left will take over - and that is the position in all the west.

 

You managed to miss the mark on every issue I raised.

The Fed already acts "under the auspices of the democratically elected government."

Economists have never believed government is "constrained in the same way that households are..." That is an absurd claim.

Okay, we start with aggregate demand insufficient to bring us to full employment. Who makes the spending choices to increase demand? Do we end up with increased spending on government programs? Which programs? Do we spend more on education? Health care? Infrastructure? What happens when we reach full employment--do we cut back on program spending? Do you think people who believe spending on this or that program are prepared to see them cut? What about people who think the additional spending should be made by consumers?

And what happens when the time comes to increase taxes (or cut government spending)? Won't we see a struggle over the same issues we fight over now where some people want to increased government spending while others do not?

Economists have all along known how to manipulate the money supply, government spending, taxation, etc. to achieve political ends--fighting wars, increasing employment, and taking care of citizens.

MMT is a political solution most economists believe from experience is unlikely to work. They don't think pols will exercise fiscal policies that MMT requires.

 

So leftists will argue, a little socialism beckons more. A lot of Socialism, I'll say, beckons Communism after it fails.

 

We are awash in socialism. Medicare is the most popular healthcare insurance and 70% including 50% republicans want Medicare for all. The cost of healthcare under private insurance is ski rocketing more then most can pay. Single payer eliminates price gouging.

 

So....you seem to acknowledge your belief we need all out Socialism. Go ahead....say it. America is ready for Karl Marx!

 

Capitalism has supported and even put in power some of the most monstrous dictatorships and grabs of wealth, resources and political power in history.

Even the most vilified socialist regimes on this forum, which were state-capitalistic rather than true socialism, built enough economic and military capability to beat off the Nazi death machine and bring 800 million people out of abject poverty.

Nobody wants your guns. Some want to regulate fire arms to stop the slaughter in the streets:


"By the end of 2019, there were 417 mass shootings in the U.S., according to data from the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive (GVA), which tracks every mass shooting in the country. Thirty-one of those shootings were mass murders.

GVA defines a mass shooting as any incident in which at least four people are shot, excluding the shooter. The group also tracks mass murders as defined by the FBI — incidents in which at least four people are killed. The FBI does not have a formal definition of a mass shooting.

Earlier this month, presidential candidate and former US Vice-President Joe Biden used the seventh anniversary of the Sandy Hook school shooting to renew a call for tighter regulations. Mr Biden's plans include a ban on the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and mandatory background checks for all gun sales.

Another Democratic presidential hopeful, Elizabeth Warren, outlined plans earlier this year to reduce gun deaths by 80% with a mixture of legislation and executive action. Ms Warren has also called for stronger background checks, as well as the ability to revoke licences for gun dealers who break the law."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50936575

 

You said:

I did...they are the economists employed in the Fed and the treasury.

I did...they are f***wit mainstreamers to a man/woman...

We have abnormally low interest rates; meanwhile Trump is abusing Powell for keeping them TOO HIGH!!

The Fed's economists did what they thought they had to do after the GFC to avoid another Great Depression ie massive QE* …...which did stabilise the system, but which saw most of the recovery's gains go the top via asset price rises.

*QE itself was not the best policy, but those f***wit economists couldn't see a better way out of the crisis.

BS. The Fed is independent of the government. Ask Trump....who has been abusing Powell for, in Trump's opinion, keeping interest rates TOO HIGH!!...)

(Give me strength...) That belief is the very source of mainstream economists*' balanced budget/"deficits-are bad" mythology.

* and practically everyone on this board.

The people in the JG buffer pool, formerly unemployed, now employed.

Yes....on the JG 'buffer pool of workers' program.

The JG buffer pool program. Note: the buffer pool is variable, as opposed to (normally fixed) full-time public service jobs.

I already outlined how local councils identify and offer jobs to JG program workers, to satisfy local social/environmental needs.

No. We start with real full employment as a given. The JG is a public sector buffer pool of workers that varies inversely as private sector employment varies with the private sector business cycle. FYI, the real purpose of taxes is to restrain private sector spending if/when overheating begins to appear.

If a resource allocation choice needs to be made between eg, investment in the alcohol industry and investment in building pumped hydro storage, while maintaining full employment without inflation (ie causing excess demand on available resources), then that choice can be put the voters.

No they haven't. That's why we have recessions.

Increasing employment?
ANY involuntary unemployment is a failure of economic policy.

MMT is purely an economic solution, based on the currency-issuing capacity of a sovereign government... which mainstreamers refuse to consider BECAUSE their background is based in the classical economics branch of the profession, with no place for money creation in the public sector.

The mainstream economists determine what pols think....who mostly don't have a clue.

Hence the question always is: "How can we pay for it" or "do we have the money to pay for it", rather than: "do we have the resources to make it happen".

 

Yup. Democratic socialism is fine. We have what’s called a democracy where people vote for policies and a govt that will carry them out. Most people want it, so we should have it.
Haha, Karl Marx......run out of isms ?

 

You know Joe Stalin slaughtered more people than Hitler did. I guess you would believe like the rest "true socialism" has not yet existed because the "right people" haven't tried it yet. Ask any elite in Washington....they'll tell you they're the right ones.
Liberty comes at a cost. Why do we have a second ammendment? Primarily to protect against the excess of government. If the second amendment was put in there just to protect sporting rifles I suppose it would protect our right to have bowling balls as well. Socialism is an excess of government. Anytime you deny the rights of others to own and maintain property by giving it to others that don't work for it, you have an excess.

 

So you think overturning the Constitutional right to own and maintain property is fine as long as the majority agree? Ha! That is why we have an electoral college. That is why we are a Representative Democracy or a Republic. When two wolves and a sheep vote for what we're having for dinner is not happening in America as long as there is a generation still alive that has a sense of our Founding. You and Karl need to find some new land.

 

Yes, but not the way Bernie is doing it. He's your standard, insulated, privileged First Worlder - who doesn't understand human nature (or doesn't believe it is what it is) anywhere near well enough to factor it into any model he may try to implement.

 

Democracy and capitalism DO co-exist - rather beautifully. It's that very marriage which created the peaceful and rich European nations some Americans admire so much (but which are now sadly dying as a result of unbridled immigration). It's what gave YOU the freedom and wealth to sit around complaining about it.

PS: It's not those who fear state 'collectivism' that you need to worry about, it's those who DON'T fear it. The only reason they don't fear it is because they're completely delusional about what it will mean.

 

Except that they only worked '30 years ago'. As soon as those nations opened their borders to anyone who felt like calling themselves a refugee, the carefully balanced and universally agreed upon society they'd built, was undermined by vastly different cultural expectations and work ethics, and the subsequent loss of the community cohesion essential to universal agreement.

 

Yeah you think! An all powerful centralized controll of economy leads to this!!

 

To be fair, it wasn't the communism which killed people.

Communism is simply an economic model.

 

crank has commented on your reference to communism; communism like capitalism is simply an economic model.

It's the results in both which are 'evil'; denial of special reward for distinct effort in the former, and denial of universal above poverty participation in the later, even though everyone has something to contribute.

Bernie in the modern US can eliminate both these evils, to create an economy that works for all.

Your reference to Nazism, in the context of this thread , is as despicable (although likely just ideologically blind) as those fools on MSNBC

https://deadline.com/2020/02/msnbc-...ders-nazi-germany-invasion-france-1202866277/

"Chris Matthews Slammed For Comparing Bernie Sanders Win To Nazi Invasion Of France"

Bernie is a Jew with relatives who perished in the Holocaust....

 

I don't think anyone but you knows who you're addressing here, BW.

 

my post #244 is addressed to yabberefugee. post #242.

And I will add this bit which you missed (because I edited #244 after you read it) (Re communism and capitalism)
It's the results (as they have eventuated in practice) in both which are 'evil'; denial of special reward for distinct effort in the former, and denial of universal above poverty participation in the latter, even though everyone has something to contribute, and everyone wants to contribute given fair reward...you know, incentive and reward for effort you keep banging on about.

(I will keep pressing this last point even though you keep denying it. Involuntary unemployment proves it, google the U6 measure of unemployment).

 

Amazing the lengths the right will go to keep making excuses to pay way more then they have to while watching tens if thousands die. You’re running out of isms. Communism ? Remember that when you look forward to your Medicare coverage. By your definition, all republicans are commies too.

Heck, 70% of the nation is.

 

Wow.......you meany universal healthcare will allow the government to take everyone’s property ? You better tell that to every other democracy in the world that has universal healthcare. They’re under the illusion they’re still free.

 

Does Canada know they are communist ?

 

It was centralized control of the economy that left the people powerless....just like Bernie likes!