Chavez and Big Oil

[orion]

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:

i have to say i disagree with you. i dont believe the market is a magical entitity. i think of the market simply as a space where people can do business.
[/quote]

It is simply a place where people do business. That requires a constant flow of information though. No marketplace- no information.

you said that investors decide what to invest in because of the probabilty that it will create a profit. investors are humans so humans control the market.

They control how to invest their money, what capital is created. They might be wrong though and lose money. They only control their own actions.

consumers influence the market by deciding what products they buy. consumers are humans so humans control
the market.

Yes, they actually control the market by constantly voting with their money. Very democratic process, in your rather broad definition of democratic.

however there is an unfair advantage in that all the capital and all the power lies with the great capitalists. so they realize they dont have to concern themselves with the needs of the people but rather what creates the greatest profit.

ONLY if they concern themselves with the needs of the people can they make a profit. Since when can Coca Cola make you buy their soft drinks?

Coca Cola cannot destroy its customers, its consumers can easily destroy them.

Who has the power in this relationship?

You are concentrating on a few rogue corporations who really do hire mercenaries and establish a “banana republic” (Chiquita, aka United Fruit Company) and forget that 90-99 corporations are small to middle sized outfits who are at the mercy of their customers.

They only exist if theyserve and serve well.

The customer is king.

and besides who decides how scarce capital is? why arent the people allowed to have access to this information? im sure you have heard of the fabricated scarcity of diamonds.

Reality decides how scarce capital is. There are only so many machines, computers, buildings, etc…

Diamonds are a case of an international cartel that controls a natural resource.

As I said, one of the few cases were a market fails, but who the fuck needs diamonds?

That is why nobody cares. There is no shortage of industrial diamonds.

what i am saying is eliminate the idea of profit. istead of using the probabilty of profit as an indicator why not use human needs.

Again the contradiction Human needs vs profit.

It does not work this way.

If you by chance happen to develop a product human people want so much they are willing to pay for, you make a profit. If they REALLY want it, you make a huge profit.

Profit is the tool that makes sure what people want, how much they want it and that that demand is satisfied asap.

The good thing is, we do not need a wise and benevolent ruler for this, just a moderately clever and ambitious guy with a calculator.

[quote]
i understand your argument but i see a flaw in it and it does not convince me. the flaw being that the market works as some sort of magical entity[/quote]

The thing is, the more complex life gets, the more people want someone and be it big government to look out for them.

Unfortunately the more complex life gets, the less a central planning station is able to do that.

Ultimately you need to break down decision making into ever smaller units, and they individual is the smallest decision making unit available.

You have 300 million US citizens and all of them have a unique order in their head how much they would pay for any existing product and they constantly give feedback to the market, even on products they do not even know they use.

Seen on a globalscale this is the largest live, on-line, economic information system ever, with constant real time fee back loops.

This might not be magic,but you better have an alternative in place before you try a different system.

[Headhunter]

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
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.

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?
[/quote]

What if you invent, say, the light bulb, and this would cause unemployment in all the factories making candles? The government has the power to shut you down ‘for the good of the community’.

Your views of economics are medieval, to say the least.

[gladiatorsteer]

[quote]orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:

i have to say i disagree with you. i dont believe the market is a magical entitity. i think of the market simply as a space where people can do business.

It is simply a place where people do business. That requires a constant flow of information though. No marketplace- no information.

you said that investors decide what to invest in because of the probabilty that it will create a profit. investors are humans so humans control the market.

They control how to invest their money, what capital is created. They might be wrong though and lose money. They only control their own actions.

consumers influence the market by deciding what products they buy. consumers are humans so humans control
the market.

Yes, they actually control the market by constantly voting with their money. Very democratic process, in your rather broad definition of democratic.

however there is an unfair advantage in that all the capital and all the power lies with the great capitalists. so they realize they dont have to concern themselves with the needs of the people but rather what creates the greatest profit.

ONLY if they concern themselves with the needs of the people can they make a profit. Since when can Coca Cola make you buy their soft drinks?

Coca Cola cannot destroy its customers, its consumers can easily destroy them.

Who has the power in this relationship?

You are concentrating on a few rogue corporations who really do hire mercenaries and establish a “banana republic” (Chiquita, aka United Fruit Company) and forget that 90-99 corporations are small to middle sized outfits who are at the mercy of their customers.

They only exist if theyserve and serve well.

The customer is king.

and besides who decides how scarce capital is? why arent the people allowed to have access to this information? im sure you have heard of the fabricated scarcity of diamonds.

Reality decides how scarce capital is. There are only so many machines, computers, buildings, etc…

Diamonds are a case of an international cartel that controls a natural resource.

As I said, one of the few cases were a market fails, but who the fuck needs diamonds?

That is why nobody cares. There is no shortage of industrial diamonds.

what i am saying is eliminate the idea of profit. istead of using the probabilty of profit as an indicator why not use human needs.

Again the contradiction Human needs vs profit.

It does not work this way.

If you by chance happen to develop a product human people want so much they are willing to pay for, you make a profit. If they REALLY want it, you make a huge profit.

Profit is the tool that makes sure what people want, how much they want it and that that demand is satisfied asap.

The good thing is, we do not need a wise and benevolent ruler for this, just a moderately clever and ambitious guy with a calculator.

i understand your argument but i see a flaw in it and it does not convince me. the flaw being that the market works as some sort of magical entity

The thing is, the more complex life gets, the more people want someone and be it big government to look out for them.

Unfortunately the more complex life gets, the less a central planning station is able to do that.

Ultimately you need to break down decision making into ever smaller units, and they individual is the smallest decision making unit available.

You have 300 million US citizens and all of them have a unique order in their head how much they would pay for any existing product and they constantly give feedback to the market, even on products they do not even know they use.

Seen on a globalscale this is the largest live, on-line, economic information system ever, with constant real time fee back loops.

This might not be magic,but you better have an alternative in place before you try a different system.[/quote]

i believe there is such a thing called manufacturing want. why is coca-cola so succesful? is it because they have the best product and customer service? not very likely. what is more likely is that they have a sophisticated marketing machine.

where does all of the information from the market come from? it comes from humans. it does not come from thin air. even in your example, capitalists think there maight be a demand for a certain good so they invest in it.but where is that possible demand coming from, it comes from people. so instead of the capitalists deciding where to invest let the people directly influence that decision.

lets take for example the useless ab machines sold on tv. if people had the power to control thier economy do you think they would invest in this product? no they wouldnt, they would take the capital invested in that product and use it on something the people actually needed.

[gladiatorsteer]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
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.

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?

What if you invent, say, the light bulb, and this would cause unemployment in all the factories making candles? The government has the power to shut you down ‘for the good of the community’.

Your views of economics are medieval, to say the least.

[/quote]

in this case we have to ask what is better for the community? im sure the consensus would be that light bulbs would be a benefit so i dont see why the people would choose to shut that industry down. the difference is that the candlemakers would have a voice in this decision.

[orion]

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:

i believe there is such a thing called manufacturing want. why is coca-cola so succesful? is it because they have the best product and customer service? not very likely. what is more likely is that they have a sophisticated marketing machine.

where does all of the information from the market come from? it comes from humans. it does not come from thin air. even in your example, capitalists think there maight be a demand for a certain good so they invest in it.but where is that possible demand coming from, it comes from people. so instead of the capitalists deciding where to invest let the people directly influence that decision.

lets take for example the useless ab machines sold on tv. if people had the power to control thier economy do you think they would invest in this product? no they wouldnt, they would take the capital invested in that product and use it on something the people actually needed.
[/quote]

Now you give people too much credit.

Some of them allready buy this shit, isn?t it wonderful that they only waste their own money instead of yours?

If they allready make stupid decisions on a small scale, why think they would act wiser on a large scale with much more complex problems?

Would you want an Ab-Master customer to hsve a say in your economic live?

Someone will allways influence the masses for his own good, today it is Coca Cola, in your brave new world it would be demagogues convincing people to build things they do not need.

Capitalism gives people what they want and thereby reveals their flaws, but they would remain flawed even if capitalism was gone.

You will have to learn to live with the fact that a lot of people are responsible for their own suffering.

[orion]

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:

in this case we have to ask what is better for the community? im sure the consensus would be that light bulbs would be a benefit so i dont see why the people would choose to shut that industry down. the difference is that the candlemakers would have a voice in this decision.

[/quote]

Why not let both be produced and the customer decide?

So everyone using light has a vote.

[gladiatorsteer]

[quote]orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:

i believe there is such a thing called manufacturing want. why is coca-cola so succesful? is it because they have the best product and customer service? not very likely. what is more likely is that they have a sophisticated marketing machine.

where does all of the information from the market come from? it comes from humans. it does not come from thin air. even in your example, capitalists think there maight be a demand for a certain good so they invest in it.but where is that possible demand coming from, it comes from people. so instead of the capitalists deciding where to invest let the people directly influence that decision.

lets take for example the useless ab machines sold on tv. if people had the power to control thier economy do you think they would invest in this product? no they wouldnt, they would take the capital invested in that product and use it on something the people actually needed.

Now you give people too much credit.

Some of them allready buy this shit, isn?t it wonderful that they only waste their own money instead of yours?

If they allready make stupid decisions on a small scale, why think they would act wiser on a large scale with much more complex problems?

Would you want an Ab-Master customer to hsve a say in your economic live?

Someone will allways influence the masses for his own good, today it is Coca Cola, in your brave new world it would be demagogues convincing people to build things they do not need.

Capitalism gives people what they want and thereby reveals their flaws, but they would remain flawed even if capitalism was gone.

You will have to learn to live with the fact that a lot of people are responsible for their own suffering.[/quote]

i guess we go back to the same argument and i do want to give people more credit than they get.

how could they buy these useless machines if they didnt exist? someone decided to sell these ab machines knowing that people can be deceived and coerced into buying useless products.

i agree people are flawed so why put them in an environment that amplifies the flaws. why not try to create an environment where cooperation and not competion is emphasized.

[gladiatorsteer]

[quote]orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:

in this case we have to ask what is better for the community? im sure the consensus would be that light bulbs would be a benefit so i dont see why the people would choose to shut that industry down. the difference is that the candlemakers would have a voice in this decision.

Why not let both be produced and the customer decide?

So everyone using light has a vote.[/quote]

obviously more is at stake in the production of light bulbs and candles than just jobs. you have to take into account the resources used in the production, the effect on the environment, etc.

so what you want to do is take the power away from the people who are affected by this process and give to a handfull of people who might not be affected by it at all except for the profit or loss.

[orion]

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:

i guess we go back to the same argument and i do want to give people more credit than they get.

how could they buy these useless machines if they didnt exist? someone decided to sell these ab machines knowing that people can be deceived and coerced into buying useless products.

i agree people are flawed so why put them in an environment that amplifies the flaws. why not try to create an environment where cooperation and not competion is emphasized.[/quote]

See, and now you know why your way of thinking ends up in tyranny.

Freedom is the freedom to be stupid, misguided and perverted or there is no freedom at all.

If you cannot misuse your freedom, because your choices are limited by another human being (using what, a gun? You`d need one for me.) you are not free at all.

Your idea of re-education, re-structuring the environment is the same constructivist, collectivist, etatist and totalitarian ideology like national- socialism or sowjet socialism.

You have a better opinion of human beings than me and yet you want to enslave them for their own good?

[orion]

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

in this case we have to ask what is better for the community? im sure the consensus would be that light bulbs would be a benefit so i dont see why the people would choose to shut that industry down. the difference is that the candlemakers would have a voice in this decision.

Why not let both be produced and the customer decide?

So everyone using light has a vote.

obviously more is at stake in the production of light bulbs and candles than just jobs. you have to take into account the resources used in the production, the effect on the environment, etc.
[/quote]

That is true. The prize tells us what uses less resources.

Market prizes are pretty useful.

[quote]
so what you want to do is take the power away from the people who are affected by this process and give to a handfull of people who might not be affected by it at all except for the profit or loss.[/quote]

No, I want to give the power to the people who need and use light, the customers,

They are the ones really affected.

The candle makers have no right to live of off the public if the time of the candle is gone.

The light bulb producers will only make a higher profit than the candle makers because the consumers, the little people, the proletariate will suddenly be able to afford cheap, clean light.

[Gkhan]

What would be interesting is if the US one day decided to nationalize all of the things foreign investors own in this country because they are rich from oil and auto manufacturing profits.

Imagine the outrage if we nationalized companies and properties owned by Dubai, the UAE, the Saudis, or Japan for instance.

[Lando034]

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
Lando034 wrote:
Lixy,

How much do you know about the FARC? Or the fact that Chavez supports the FARC with arms and supplies?  Or the fact that a preponderance of the drugs from Columbia goes through Venezuela now? Ask the neighboring nations what they think of Chavez and his attempts to corrupt the democratic process in their elections.  Also, Chavez?s form of government requires the huge influx of oil money to stay afloat, just like one of his closest allies, Iran.  Neither nation would last six months without the state owned oil profits being used to subside the wages of the populace.  Neither country is putting any money into infrastructure or any other source of income once they are out of oil. 

Also, don?t think for a second that Chavez hasn?t invaded another country for any other reason than he doesn?t have the resources to do so. He has imprisoned/killed/fired any person in the military that has any training from the US military? which was most of the officers. In their place he had put his cronies that use the position to become famously rich? completely rendering his military incompetent. At the same time, ALL his neighbors are busy arming themselves to the teeth AND accepting training from US military forces. He would get crushed at his first overt military action, so he is reduced to funding/giving refuge to the FARC.

As for his approved rating; Saddam had similar ratings, for similar reasons, before he was removed from power. My final point on is this: When was the last time you spend a serious amount of time in a third world country, especially one controlled by a dictator? Or are all your comments made from the cocoon of the EU?

i have heard about the FARC and they are a marxist revolutionary group. however i have not heard of Chavez funding them although i would not be surprised. i do know that the U.S. funds the columbian government and trains the paramilitary forces that control the drug trade.

i do not agree with some of the methods used by the FARC but i do believe they are fighting for the the masses.
[/quote]

Not true.

Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia

[Zeppelin795]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:

You must have him confused with Bush.

Fantastically moronic non-answer - but surprising? No.

Answer this: if you hate the leader of the country and decide to go protest him right outside the executive home he lives in…

…where will you get into the most trouble: US or Venezuela?

We always hear the wacky Left damn the US for giving support to brutal autocrats - so why is the Left doing the same thing?

Let’s see - on one hand, a hyperbolic fiction that a leader is an authoritarian-in-the-making, with no government to check him, and on the other, a real one. Yet curiously, the Left - full of really, really smart people - actually cry into their pillows about the fiction and whistle past the real one.

Let’s get a betting pool going: when the Presidential term limit occurs and says “you have to go home and not be President anymore”, let’s put money on who leaves the office, observant to the law.

Money on Bush? Money on Chavez?[/quote]

Oh…ah… was that a question he asked of me? And you call me a moron!

Plenty of peaceful protestors do get arrested in this country. You may not be fully aware of the circumstances but of course they don’t want you to be.

A brutal autocrat? If so then why do the people keep voting him in office through landslide victories? Maybe they are just masochists.

You act as if Bush leaves office that it somehow legitimizes “our democracy” or even makes a real difference.

However, Chavez is making a difference for the poor uneducated masses of his country by using oil profits to fund public projects instead of making the rich more so, ala Bush!

[Zeppelin795]

[quote]pat36 wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
pat36 wrote:
who invited them in? the people of venezuela sure didnt. and you are right the small group of corrupt leaders did get paid a lot of money but the people of venezuela never saw it.

Uh, the people of Venezuela were free until Chavez got there and started stealing from them.

Are you actually putting forth the notion that Chavez is not corrupt? What color is the sky in your world?[/quote]

That’s not a Grateful Dead avatar is it?