Chavez and Big Oil

orion · May 9, 2007, 9:18pm

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:

a “free market” as you would describe it could never exist becuase of capitalism. who ever has the most capital will do what they can to keep increasing their capital and this includes buying governments and creating laws that benefit them, this also includes creating monopolies.[/quote]

They have this tendency, yes, which is why people like me want as little government as possible.

In the models you seem to favor however, government and corporations move as one, ruled by one party.

What would be a catastrophe in capitalism is the default setting in socialism.

gladiatorsteer · May 9, 2007, 9:24pm

[quote]orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:

you forgot to mention that england was an imperialist nation and while it became wealthy it oppressed and exploited the people of its colonies.

it has not kept latin america out of extreme poverty, it has slowed its rate of development.

as far as china, i think it is pretty clear that they use protectionist policies in their economy

capitalism has created great wealth, but it is wealth that only a minority can benefit from.

you also forget to mention the millions of farmers and small businessmen who are continously going out of business due to unfair competition, as well as the people who loose access to water sources and medicine because of privatization, not to mention the contamination of communities by factories.

also, you cant deny that capitalism causes wars.

Capitalism is a method of producing things. It simply cannot start wars.

The rest is something you associate with capitalism though it also happened in very other economic system from feudalism to mercantilim to socialism, so why blame capitalism?

That capitalist economies tend to win violent encounters. due to the strenght of their economy is probably true, but not an argument against capitalism per se.[/quote]

capitalism is the private ownerships of the means of production where the means of production are used to create a profit.

why do we go to war? for land because the land will provide natural resources, labor force, and consumer markets necessary to produce a profit and increase the capital of the parties involved. we go to war because it will profit us, this system of generating profit is based on capitalism.

there has never been a socialist society only governments with slight socialist tendencies.

i am not saying capitalism is the root of all evil but it is easy to see what is wrong with it and the things that are a cause of it.

gladiatorsteer · May 9, 2007, 9:36pm

[quote]orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
i am referring to the people of venezuela. workers, students, women, the elderly

They don’t speak with one voice.

i agree, and before chavez they didnt have a voice at all.

i understand that everyone wont agree on everything but the important thing is that they be involved in the decision making process and they are the ones who should ultimately make the decisions.

So why did it allways lead to desaster when the Demos actually ruled?

Why do we have allmost allways representational democracies, i.e. republics instead of “true” democracies?

I`d say because most people are incompetent idiots, what is your opinion?[/quote]

if most people are incompetent idiots then what hope do we have for mankind? i dont think most people are idiots and i think that most people would be able to participate in politics and make educated decisions if they were given the chance.

perhaps this is the root of our disagreement

orion · May 9, 2007, 9:38pm

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:

capitalism is the private ownerships of the means of production where the means of production are used to create a profit.
[/quote]

Yes-Profit good, important market signal, tells you where to invest.

That is just not true though. At least not anymore. In highly developed countries war is so enormously expensive that it is simply bad business to start one.

If you look at the anti-capitalist ravings of the national socialists for example the British were denounced as “Kraemerseelen” that were unable to see the uplifting beauty of war because profit was more important to them.

[quote]
there has never been a socialist society only governments with slight socialist tendencies.

i am not saying capitalism is the root of all evil but it is easy to see what is wrong with it and the things that are a cause of it.[/quote]

There has never been a capitalist society either.

We do know however that socialist societies are an impossibility because they lack important market signals.

If you can work out how to simulate market prizes and profit in a socialist economy you might have something to work with, if not socialism remains a fairy tale.

gladiatorsteer · May 9, 2007, 9:39pm

[quote]orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:

a “free market” as you would describe it could never exist becuase of capitalism. who ever has the most capital will do what they can to keep increasing their capital and this includes buying governments and creating laws that benefit them, this also includes creating monopolies.

They have this tendency, yes, which is why people like me want as little government as possible.

In the models you seem to favor however, government and corporations move as one, ruled by one party.

What would be a catastrophe in capitalism is the default setting in socialism.[/quote]

the model that i favor would not have corporations. the means of production would be democratically owned by the workers and different industries would work with each other in order to create a democractically controlled economy.

just because capitalism would cease to exist it does not mean people’s wants and needs would cease to exist.

also, i do not see why parties would be necessary.

orion · May 9, 2007, 10:00pm

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
i am referring to the people of venezuela. workers, students, women, the elderly

They don’t speak with one voice.

i agree, and before chavez they didnt have a voice at all.

i understand that everyone wont agree on everything but the important thing is that they be involved in the decision making process and they are the ones who should ultimately make the decisions.

So why did it allways lead to desaster when the Demos actually ruled?

Why do we have allmost allways representational democracies, i.e. republics instead of “true” democracies?

I`d say because most people are incompetent idiots, what is your opinion?

if most people are incompetent idiots then what hope do we have for mankind? i dont think most people are idiots and i think that most people would be able to participate in politics and make educated decisions if they were given the chance.

perhaps this is the root of our disagreement
[/quote]

They were not able to rule Athens, how could they rule the world?

orion · May 9, 2007, 10:06pm

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:

a “free market” as you would describe it could never exist becuase of capitalism. who ever has the most capital will do what they can to keep increasing their capital and this includes buying governments and creating laws that benefit them, this also includes creating monopolies.

They have this tendency, yes, which is why people like me want as little government as possible.

In the models you seem to favor however, government and corporations move as one, ruled by one party.

What would be a catastrophe in capitalism is the default setting in socialism.

the model that i favor would not have corporations. the means of production would be democratically owned by the workers and different industries would work with each other in order to create a democractically controlled economy.

just because capitalism would cease to exist it does not mean people’s wants and needs would cease to exist.

also, i do not see why parties would be necessary.[/quote]

How do you democratically own something?

How do you democratically control an economy?

And why are you so in love with a decision making tool, the democratic vote, when people as early as Aristoteles knew its flaws?

gladiatorsteer · May 9, 2007, 10:09pm

[quote]orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:

capitalism is the private ownerships of the means of production where the means of production are used to create a profit.

Yes-Profit good, important market signal, tells you where to invest.

why do we go to war? for land because the land will provide natural resources, labor force, and consumer markets necessary to produce a profit and increase the capital of the parties involved. we go to war because it will profit us, this system of generating profit is based on capitalism.

That is just not true though. At least not anymore. In highly developed countries war is so enormously expensive that it is simply bad business to start one.

If you look at the anti-capitalist ravings of the national socialists for example the British were denounced as “Kraemerseelen” that were unable to see the uplifting beauty of war because profit was more important to them.

there has never been a socialist society only governments with slight socialist tendencies.

i am not saying capitalism is the root of all evil but it is easy to see what is wrong with it and the things that are a cause of it.

There has never been a capitalist society either.

We do know however that socialist societies are an impossibility because they lack important market signals.

If you can work out how to simulate market prizes and profit in a socialist economy you might have something to work with, if not socialism remains a fairy tale. [/quote]

there has never been a completely “free market” capitalist society. but a capitalist society has existed, we live in it.

what is socialism? socialism is where the means of production are owned by the government provided that the government is directly controlled by the people.

i dont see why it would be impossible for the people to decide where to invest and what to produce. all they would have to do is look at what people need.

gladiatorsteer · May 9, 2007, 10:20pm

[quote]orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:

a “free market” as you would describe it could never exist becuase of capitalism. who ever has the most capital will do what they can to keep increasing their capital and this includes buying governments and creating laws that benefit them, this also includes creating monopolies.

They have this tendency, yes, which is why people like me want as little government as possible.

In the models you seem to favor however, government and corporations move as one, ruled by one party.

What would be a catastrophe in capitalism is the default setting in socialism.

the model that i favor would not have corporations. the means of production would be democratically owned by the workers and different industries would work with each other in order to create a democractically controlled economy.

just because capitalism would cease to exist it does not mean people’s wants and needs would cease to exist.

also, i do not see why parties would be necessary.

How do you democratically own something?

How do you democratically control an economy?

And why are you so in love with a decision making tool, the democratic vote, when people as early as Aristoteles knew its flaws?[/quote]

democratic ownership means just that. democracy means “people rule” so for example if people democratically own the place they work in then they make decisions democratically meaning as a collective, with the involvement of everyone and for the benefit of everyone.

why shouldnt people have influence in decisions that affect them? why should we subject ourselves to the will of an elite group?

again i have more faith in people than some of the ancient philosophers. i may be naive, i believe that a new social system is necessary in order correct some of the things that are wrong in our society.

orion · May 9, 2007, 10:30pm

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:

what is socialism? socialism is where the means of production are owned by the government provided that the government is directly controlled by the people.

i dont see why it would be impossible for the people to decide where to invest and what to produce. all they would have to do is look at what people need.[/quote]

They cannot because of the lack of market signals. They are flying completely blind.

You are talking about independently prizing hundreds of millions of goods and services that are constantly shifting aginst each other.

The market can do that, but no mortal being can.

orion · May 9, 2007, 10:37pm

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:

democratic ownership means just that. democracy means “people rule” so for example if people democratically own the place they work in then they make decisions democratically meaning as a collective, with the involvement of everyone and for the benefit of everyone.
[/quote]

But you can allready do that. If you want to live in a commune or a kibuzz, go ahead.

I don?t, so why force me into it?

Spot on. It is better to have thousands of masters you can choose from or just one, the government, even if controlled by the people.

[quote]
again i have more faith in people than some of the ancient philosophers. i may be naive, i believe that a new social system is necessary in order correct some of the things that are wrong in our society.[/quote]

Homo homini lupus, that is what is wrong with society. Ain`t no -ism that can change that.

Headhunter · May 9, 2007, 10:43pm

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
why do you call venezuelans brainless and incompetent? you have no proof to back your statement. by making such a statement you prove that you yourself are brainless.

Venezuela has been independent for some time. Why didn’t THEY develop the oil fields?

To savages, the oil is a nusiance that gets into the water supply for they’re goats. It is only an industrial society that has a use for petroleum. An industrial society requires free markets — why develop an oil field if the local savage-in-charge confiscates it?

Now, no one will invest in Venezuela. They won’t risk it. The poor people will starve. I’m very sad for them. However, if they thought they could get rich by robbing their betters using this bandit Chavez, they will soon learn the difference between production and theft.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

i agree, which is why you should learn history.

venezuela has been economically dependent for a very long time. now it is trying to gain economic independence

did you not read my post where i said that do to economic imperialism venezuela was not allowed to become an industrialized nation

robbing their betters? who says fareigners are better than venezuelans? you are a racist and have discredited yourself. [/quote]

I do read your posts entirely and I have considered your argument. Grant me the same courtesy.

Let’s take a look at a little background. Suppose you had a job but were incapable of doing that job. So, you hire someone who is capable of doing this job.

Why did the Venezuelans hire the imperialist Yankee dogs to develop the oil field? Why not do it themselves? Could it be that they were…incompetent?

Now, after developing the fields, the companies are told to get lost. They did the job the Venezuelans COULD NOT DO and are robbed for their efforts.

I am prejudiced against criminals and bandits. Consider it a ‘weakness’, if you will. But theft IS theft, and it will not be the bandit Chavez who suffers. The people of Venezuela hired this thug to rob their betters: what will they do, when they run out of victims to rob? Suffer. That is Justice.

Headhunter · May 9, 2007, 10:50pm

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
in recent news: hugo chavez declared that the minimum wage in venezuela will be increased by 20% and he also plans on shortening the work week from 44 hrs to 36 hrs by 2010.

hugo chavez also severed ties with the IMF and world bank. before chavez became president, IMF policies in venezuela outlawed minimum wage increases.[/quote]

The money to pay for the raises is stolen loot from the oil companies who produced it. What happens when it runs out? What happens when investors around the world begin to shun Venezuela?

Human beings can relate to each other in one of two ways: “Blood, whips, and guns…or dollars. Take your choice. There is NO other. And your time is running out.” (Atlas Shrugged)

gladiatorsteer · May 9, 2007, 10:53pm

[quote]orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:

what is socialism? socialism is where the means of production are owned by the government provided that the government is directly controlled by the people.

i dont see why it would be impossible for the people to decide where to invest and what to produce. all they would have to do is look at what people need.

They cannot because of the lack of market signals. They are flying completely blind.

You are talking about independently prizing hundreds of millions of goods and services that are constantly shifting aginst each other.

The market can do that, but no mortal being can.
[/quote]

are you saying that the market is some sort of magical entity? is it not put into work andcontrolled by mortal men?

what kind of market signals are you talking about?

gladiatorsteer · May 9, 2007, 11:02pm

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
why do you call venezuelans brainless and incompetent? you have no proof to back your statement. by making such a statement you prove that you yourself are brainless.

Venezuela has been independent for some time. Why didn’t THEY develop the oil fields?

To savages, the oil is a nusiance that gets into the water supply for they’re goats. It is only an industrial society that has a use for petroleum. An industrial society requires free markets — why develop an oil field if the local savage-in-charge confiscates it?

Now, no one will invest in Venezuela. They won’t risk it. The poor people will starve. I’m very sad for them. However, if they thought they could get rich by robbing their betters using this bandit Chavez, they will soon learn the difference between production and theft.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

i agree, which is why you should learn history.

venezuela has been economically dependent for a very long time. now it is trying to gain economic independence

did you not read my post where i said that do to economic imperialism venezuela was not allowed to become an industrialized nation

robbing their betters? who says fareigners are better than venezuelans? you are a racist and have discredited yourself.

I do read your posts entirely and I have considered your argument. Grant me the same courtesy.

Let’s take a look at a little background. Suppose you had a job but were incapable of doing that job. So, you hire someone who is capable of doing this job.

Why did the Venezuelans hire the imperialist Yankee dogs to develop the oil field? Why not do it themselves? Could it be that they were…incompetent?

Now, after developing the fields, the companies are told to get lost. They did the job the Venezuelans COULD NOT DO and are robbed for their efforts.

I am prejudiced against criminals and bandits. Consider it a ‘weakness’, if you will. But theft IS theft, and it will not be the bandit Chavez who suffers. The people of Venezuela hired this thug to rob their betters: what will they do, when they run out of victims to rob? Suffer. That is Justice.

[/quote]

again, venezuelans did not hire anyone. it was a small group of people in government that profited from the oil and that allowed big oil companies to exploit venezuelas wealth. and it is not like they had a choice becuase if they would have resisted the U.S. oil companies you can be sure the the U.S. would have put someone else in power.

please dont assume that the people of venezuela made any deal or got any money from U.S. oil companies. the only ones that benefited where venezuelan elite who were in the oil business.

without the oil the investors have nothing, so why not workout a fair deal with the people of venezuela? because corporations do not care about the people of other countries, they care about profits.

Headhunter · May 9, 2007, 11:05pm

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:

what is socialism? socialism is where the means of production are owned by the government provided that the government is directly controlled by the people.

i dont see why it would be impossible for the people to decide where to invest and what to produce. all they would have to do is look at what people need.[/quote]

You want to give those who control military force a monopoly on how an economy functions? What happens if someone disgrees with what that government does economically?

Human beings, by nature, work to satisfy their own desires. If these conflict with the desires of those who have a monopoly on the use of military force, guess who wins?

You are essentially advocating allowing the use of force against individuals.

gladiatorsteer · May 9, 2007, 11:19pm

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
in recent news: hugo chavez declared that the minimum wage in venezuela will be increased by 20% and he also plans on shortening the work week from 44 hrs to 36 hrs by 2010.

hugo chavez also severed ties with the IMF and world bank. before chavez became president, IMF policies in venezuela outlawed minimum wage increases.

The money to pay for the raises is stolen loot from the oil companies who produced it. What happens when it runs out? What happens when investors around the world begin to shun Venezuela?

Human beings can relate to each other in one of two ways: “Blood, whips, and guns…or dollars. Take your choice. There is NO other. And your time is running out.” (Atlas Shrugged)

[/quote]

i believe this is the second time the minimum wage has been raised. the first time it was increased using the tax money from U.S. corporations who were suddenly forced to pay taxes (which they were supposed to be paying all along but were illegaly evading). the two major companies involved were coca-cola and mcdonalds.

if you believe in that quote then i must say that i hope something happens to you one day that changes your mind.

why not have a relationship of cooperation.

orion · May 9, 2007, 11:22pm

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:

what is socialism? socialism is where the means of production are owned by the government provided that the government is directly controlled by the people.

i dont see why it would be impossible for the people to decide where to invest and what to produce. all they would have to do is look at what people need.

They cannot because of the lack of market signals. They are flying completely blind.

You are talking about independently prizing hundreds of millions of goods and services that are constantly shifting aginst each other.

The market can do that, but no mortal being can.

are you saying that the market is some sort of magical entity? is it not put into work andcontrolled by mortal men?

what kind of market signals are you talking about?[/quote]

Yes I am saying market is a magical entity and I am dead serious about it.

I am talking about market prizes and profit.

if someone privately owns the means of production he can give you a prize. You know if that natural resource, machine, land or service can be part of your product because you can calculate your products prize based on these prizes.

Then you produce and see if people want it enough to pay your prize plus a little profit.

So in essence you are starting an experiment to see if your special mix of scarce resources is wanted/needed by the customers or not.

If they want it enough, you make a profit. If the profit is high there is obviously a high demand, a lot of money can be made so you are going to pour money in that product until the profit is roughly the same as that of competing ways of investing your money.

So, prizes help to allocate scarce resources, profits help to allocate scarce capital.

The market can only work its magic though if millions of little capitalists, and that includes workers too, try to get as much for their property/work as possible and are on the other hand restrained in their demands by competition.

That way all those prizes are continuously “made”, influenced by ever changing relative scarcity and ever changing demand and all those prizes influence all other prizes.

This is something a central planning organization is not capable of.

You only get a good approximation of economic reality if everyone works together, looking out for their own good and so maximising public welfare.

gladiatorsteer · May 9, 2007, 11:29pm

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:

what is socialism? socialism is where the means of production are owned by the government provided that the government is directly controlled by the people.

i dont see why it would be impossible for the people to decide where to invest and what to produce. all they would have to do is look at what people need.

You want to give those who control military force a monopoly on how an economy functions? What happens if someone disgrees with what that government does economically?

Human beings, by nature, work to satisfy their own desires. If these conflict with the desires of those who have a monopoly on the use of military force, guess who wins?

You are essentially advocating allowing the use of force against individuals.

[/quote]

you just described U.S. foreign policy(monopoly of military force). and im am against this.

what i am for is giving control to the people. control over government, the economy, the military(if a military is necessary)

since we are part of a community, doesnt the betterment of the community benefit us as well?

gladiatorsteer · May 9, 2007, 11:43pm