TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Hugo...doing it again.
Pages (21): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 »

quote:

Face facts - there is no rational explanation as to why anyone would argue for policies that deteriorate society and against policies that combat that

I agree with this statement...which is why I can't understand how you argue for more government and against free markets. Government intervention/oppression causes poverty. Free markets have been proven to do the opposite. If you want prosperity for the people of Europe, just leave them alone for a while.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I agree with this statement...which is why I can't understand how you argue for more government and against free markets. Government intervention/oppression causes poverty. Free markets have been proven to do the opposite. If you want prosperity for the people of Europe, just leave them alone for a while.

How do you explain that America and the other right-wing economies of the west (like the UK) have high crime and high poverty, yet the western economis with the highest public spending (also higher income taxes) have less crime and less poverty?

I'm no expert on crime...There could be any number of cultural reasons for the difference besides public spending. You seem to think everything in the universe can be traced back to a government program...interesting philosophy you have there man.

As far as poverty goes..."Poor" people in America would probably be considered middle to upper-middle class in some of your beloved socialist utopias...lol There is no fatter group on the planet than poor Americans. I believe the US census did a study a few years back, and found the average "poor" family in America owns their own home, along with at least 2 cars, all necessary utilities/appliances, and several TVs with cable. And nearly 50% of those "poor" households had a computer with internet access as well..

I think the European definition of poor is somewhat different.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley "Karl"? You see that's where you fall flat on your arse in this and any argument concerning socialism.

defensive huh?

some of the terms you consistently use remind me of something i once read. whatever.

what, we're not to speak in metaphors under socialism?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I'm no expert on crime...There could be any number of cultural reasons for the difference besides public spending. You seem to think everything in the universe can be traced back to a government program...interesting philosophy you have there man. As far as poverty goes..."Poor" people in America would probably be considered middle to upper-middle class in some of your beloved socialist utopias...lol There is no fatter group on the planet than poor Americans. I believe the US census did a study a few years back, and found the average "poor" family in America owns their own home, along with at least 2 cars, all necessary utilities/appliances, and several TVs with cable. And nearly 50% of those "poor" households had a computer with internet access as well.. I think the European definition of poor is somewhat different.

I'm taking about levels of poverty. It's the same standard of judging the world over.

And everyone knows health foods are more expensive than MaccyD's!

Oh and I notice you seem to think indicators of "poor" can be traced back solely to material possessions - interesting philosophy you have there man!

quote:

Oh and I notice you seem to think indicators of "poor" can be traced back solely to material possessions - interesting philosophy you have there man!

pulled out the dictionary just for you smiley..

poor (pʊr) pronunciation
adj., poor·er, poor·est.

1. Having little or no wealth and few or no possessions.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo defensive huh? some of the terms you consistently use remind me of something i once read. whatever. what, we're not to speak in metaphors under socialism?

Nothing defensive whatsoever! But the fact you want to refer to me as "Karl" suggests you're basic your critique of socialist polices on communism (or more specifically, the way in which it has been implemented through history, rather than on the theory itself), which in turn suggests you have no understanding of my economical beliefs whatsoever and your arguments don't stand up as you are arguing against something I am not lending my support to, in order to argue against my points - bizarre

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt pulled out the dictionary just for you smiley.. poor (pʊr) pronunciation adj., poor·er, poor·est. 1. Having little or no wealth and few or no possessions.

Did you notice the word "and" in that definition?

And did you even notice that that is the definition of "poor" and not "poverty" that I am referring to?

'Poor' is one indicator of 'poverty' amongst other things

Jesus was the first socialist..... nice man...crucified...


carry on.....

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX Jesus was the first socialist..... nice man...crucified... carry on.....

Ironically I agree! If you look at the messages in the Bible, they very closely resebmle socialism - yet for some reason the god squad in America seem to be extreme right wing capitalists! Maybe they should actually read the Bible sometime!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Ironically I agree! If you look at the messages in the Bible, they very closely resebmle socialism - yet for some reason the god squad in America seem to be extreme right wing capitalists! Maybe they should actually read the Bible sometime!

true.... and I am sure this could be a whole new thread, but also the man did state, Render unto Ceasar that is Ceasar's and unto god that is god's... so there is your whole separation of church and state....taxs and so forth... I don't think its capitalism's fault; divisions in the dogma, have allowed the man's message to get misconstrued and that started way before this nation was even formed...and every one knows just where cluster fock started up at... Mr European Union... ha ha

so your "god squad" comment is kind off...

i am just saying ya..... but..... lol

Well Jesus fed 5,000 people with a fish and a loaf of bread - if he wasn't a socialist he'd have eaten it all himself!!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Well Jesus fed 5,000 people with a fish and a loaf of bread - if he wasn't a socialist he'd have eaten it all himself!!

it was all done with mirrors and fancy wire work...

and and it was Five loaves--and two fish; you heathen!! ha ha ha

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley You're all falling for the same trap as you did earlier on in the thread - equating economic systems for dictatorship - it simply does not work like that.

No Georgie, that is not what is being argued. You're creating a straw man here. The argument is that dictatorships generally can be associated with poor economic conditions, but not the other way around. If it were math, I believe you would be violating the transitive property.

For example, my argument might be: All Brits are socialists, Georgie is a Brit, therefore Georgie is a socialist.

Your argument would be like: Georgie is a socialist, therefore Georgie is British. While that may be true, the logic is flawed. While it may be true that you are British.

Similarly, the argument I have been making (and I believe others have been making) is that Dictatorships (or socialism if you prefer that argument, though I'm not trying to equate the two) do not foster strong economies. Venezuela is a dictatorship (or again, feel free to use socialism if you prefer), therefore Venezuela's economy sucks and will continue to suck.

The argument you seem to believe we are making is that: Venezuela's economy sucks, therefore it is indicative that a dictator is in charge. This is a ludicrous and structurally flawed position.

To reiterate: Current poor economic conditions in Venezuela are reflective and resultant of poor leadership by a dictator. However, a nation with a struggling economy does not directly imply that there must be a dictator in charge.

Please tell me you understand the difference.

Lastly, can you just name a few economies that have flourished under dictatorial rule? France under Napoleon perhaps? I guarantee you the weight of the evidence lends itself much more heavily to the argument I'm posing.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka The argument you seem to believe we are making is that: Venezuela's economy sucks, therefore it is indicative that a dictator is in charge. This is a ludicrous and structurally flawed position.

Erm no I am arguing exactly the opposite of that - that poor economies do not equal dictatorship. The very fact that you bring the economic performance into the equation of a debate on whether or not Venezuela is a dictatorship suggested to me that you were using it as an indicator of dictatorship - I was pointing out this is an incorrect assumption. However, you now seem to be saying that poor economic performance is not an indicator of dictatorship, so what exactly is the point of bringing it up in the first place?

You make the statement that Venezuela is a dictatorship, and therefore because of that it has a poor economy. But if you're not arguing that the poor economic performance of Venezuela is an indicator of dictatorship then mentioning it is irrelevant.

You've made the statement Venezuela is a dictatorship - you need to back that up with evidence (and as we now both agree, economic performance is not evidence)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Erm no I am arguing exactly the opposite of that - that poor economies do not equal dictatorship. The very fact that you bring the economic performance into the equation of a debate on whether or not Venezuela is a dictatorship suggested to me that you were using it as an indicator of dictatorship - I was pointing out this is an incorrect assumption. However, you now seem to be saying that poor economic performance is not an indicator of dictatorship, so what exactly is the point of bringing it up in the first place?

Sorry--should've said something to the effect of, "The argument I believe you are accusing us of making is that poor economies = dictatorship...." which is something I do not believe, but something I think you think we believe. That was convoluted.

quote:

You've made the statement Venezuela is a dictatorship - you need to back that up with evidence (and as we now both agree, economic performance is not evidence)

The evidence is in the articles as well as what is there for the whole world to see. Hugo has nationalized much of the economy, i.e. taken it under government control and he IS the government. Furthermore, he has taken steps to try to insure that he will be "president" for life. He has consolidated all control and decision making power under one roof--his. Are you trying to claim that those are not qualities that reflect dictatorial rule? You'd be nuts.

And as for the economic performance of Venezuela...

It depends on what you use as economic indicators, especially considering the different economic system Chavez is trying to introduce. What makes a good indicator for our economic systems might not give you a good idea about Venezuela. For example, the economic indicators that say whether or not our economies are performing well relate almost entirely to the performance of businesses. We don't even have accurate figures for average wages people are earning!

For me, the main concerns are unemployment, education levels and poverty (living standards). Anything doesn't really matter (altho in our societies, the performance of businesses effect these factors, but perhaps not so in more socialist societies)

Unemployment in Venezuela currently stands around 8.9% (dec 2006 estimate) which most people would say is too high. But in South America, only Peru, Bolivia and Argentina have lower unemployment rates, so regionally, Venezuela's unemployment rate is pretty impressive.

Literacy in Venezuela is currently 93%. Only Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay have higher literacy rates, so even tho 93% might seem low, regionally it is pretty good (4th out of 9 countries)

Interestingly, the country in the region with the best economic performance is supposedly Brazil, the next India no less! Yet Brazil's unemployment is 9.6% and the literacy rate is only 88.6% (only Bolivia has a lower rate). So is Brazil a dictatorship as well?

Poverty is a huge problem in Venezuela. The latest figures from 2005 show poverty at 37.9% which still places Venezuela 5th in the region (the economic powerhouse of Brazil has 31% poverty). Interestingly, before Chavez took over in 1999, poverty levels stood at 50-55% (and you're trying to tell me the opposition is a better option than Chavez?!?!) Following Chavez's victory in the elections, poverty levels dropped to around 40% (but shot up, along with unemployment rates around 2002) The two biggest policies of Chavez is to lower poverty and increase education. This is what all the oil money is being spent on that has effected other economic indicators such as inflation and currency value. But education and poverty reduction is a great thing and it's working. Poverty levels are dropping (indeed they are currently lowest levels in Venezuela for a decade - perhaps ever) and the poor now have access to education the opposition prevented them from having access to (again, you're trying to tell me Venezuelans would be better off with the opposition?!?!)

This type of economics is alien to Americans. Every economic indicator in our societies ignores the people in favour of business performances - Chavez's system places the people first and therefore our economic indicators probably don't paint a great picture of the economic performance of a centrally planned economy...

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Sorry--should've said something to the effect of, "The argument I believe you are accusing us of making is that poor economies = dictatorship...." which is something I do not believe, but something I think you think we believe. That was convoluted.

Yes I did think that's what you thought, but if it isn't then I don't see the relevance in mentioning economic performance in the first place

quote:

The evidence is in the articles as well as what is there for the whole world to see. Hugo has nationalized much of the economy, i.e. taken it under government control and he IS the government. Furthermore, he has taken steps to try to insure that he will be "president" for life. He has consolidated all control and decision making power under one roof--his. Are you trying to claim that those are not qualities that reflect dictatorial rule? You'd be nuts.

He is not trying to change the law so he can be "president for life" - that is how those lacking in intelligence/ulterior motives are twisting the information. He is trying to change the law so he can be ELECTED as many times as the people see fit. And when Chavez wins elections with a landslide election of course the pattern will be followed in the National Parliament. But what you fail to mention (you probably don't even know) is that the opposition BOYCOTTED the elections, which is why it is full of pro-Chavez supporters - yet you suck up the lies and bullshit presented to you by your national government and media to falsely suggest Chavez "placed" them there like a dictator - they were elected by the people - keep ignoring these little facts, it just makes your arguments harder and harder to take seriously

So, who is nuts? You or me?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Ironically I agree! If you look at the messages in the Bible, they very closely resebmle socialism - yet for some reason the god squad in America seem to be extreme right wing capitalists! Maybe they should actually read the Bible sometime!

I'm pretty the Bible put tax collectors on a lower level than prostitutes.

Smiley, I really think you really have a misperception of Americans. We are all for all for 'socialism' on a personal and family level. When it comes to voluntary charity and helping your friends and family in need, well that is just the human thing to do. This may surprise you, but I don't make a ton of money ($20k). Even so, I try to give around $1000 away every year to a few charities in my city. I know these charities do awesome work helping out those who truly need it (people who have lost their homes to fire, taking care of children from abusive households, etc). I think everyone should at least give SOMETHING they earn to a good cause. That type of behavior should definately be encouraged..

But to help others by confiscating wealth at the point of a gun...well that is decidedly UN-Christian in my book. When you use government power, you are using force and violence...and I'm pretty sure Jesus hated those things.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I'm pretty the Bible put tax collectors on a lower level than prostitutes. Smiley, I really think you really have a misperception of Americans. We are all for all for 'socialism' on a personal and family level. When it comes to voluntary charity and helping your friends and family in need, well that is just the human thing to do. This may surprise you, but I don't make a ton of money ($20k). Even so, I try to give around $1000 away every year to a few charities in my city. I know these charities do awesome work helping out those who truly need it (people who have lost their homes to fire, taking care of children from abusive households, etc). I think everyone should at least give SOMETHING they earn to a good cause. That type of behavior should definately be encouraged.. But to help others by confiscating wealth at the point of a gun...well that is decidedly UN-Christian in my book. When you use government power, you are using force and violence...and I'm pretty sure Jesus hated those things.

I can see where you're comin from and giving to charity is fine, but charities simply do not have the power or the means to help an entire population.

In Europe, where socialist principles are held dearly as part of our culture, we* believe that every citizen has a birth right to health care, education and other social benefits that only a government can provide on a large scale. Of course, government spending has its problems, and it's hard to pay for everything the citizens demand as their right (and most governments don't actually like paying for it!) but at the end of the day, I believe there are certain things every person, no matter how rich or poor, should have the right to, and those policies can only be implemented for everyone by a government, not a charity...


*obviously not everyone! conservatives, who represent the rich, usually argue that people should have to pay their own way for stuff like education and health, so businesses don't have to pay as much tax - but that's easy for them to say when they represent the well off!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley So, who is nuts? You or me?

you.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka you.

Here is what you implied in your previous post:

1) Chavez is changing the law to become indefinite, unchallenged ruler

2) Chavez placed, undemocratically, his supporters in the legislative

Both accusations are incorrect, aren't they?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Here is what you implied in your previous post: 1) Chavez is changing the law to become indefinite, unchallenged ruler 2) Chavez placed, undemocratically, his supporters in the legislative Both accusations are incorrect, aren't they?

I don't believe I implied all of that. What I said is that he has nationalized many industries (confiscating and destroying billions in wealth in the process), has been consolidating power, and has recently tried to pass a law (I did not say illegally or undemocratically, though the democracy down their is suspect as the poor majority has essentially been bought off, as explained by the article I posted) which would make him de facto ruler for life. Do you seriously believe that if said law passes that he won't orchestrate a way to ensure that he wins every single election? He models himself after Castro for God's sake. It is no secret what's going on down there. This is not an issue of the media construing things one way or another, it's right there for anyone with open eyes to see.

I'm not even sure what your position is on anything that is being argued here other than you appear to be a Chavez apologist.

quote:

Ironically I agree! If you look at the messages in the Bible, they very closely resebmle socialism - yet for some reason the god squad in America seem to be extreme right wing capitalists! Maybe they should actually read the Bible sometime!

This country has always been fervently capitalist. The religious demographic for the top 1% net income earners is not different from any other group. I wouldn't slap on a belief in god to being rich. Most god believers are not rich, and in fact, religious charities have provided assistance to millions of people in food, shelter, and other social services. Independent of any government assistance, because as you know, separation of church and state prevents government from funding religious based charities.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Nothing defensive whatsoever! But the fact you want to refer to me as "Karl" suggests you're basic your critique of socialist polices on communism (or more specifically, the way in which it has been implemented through history, rather than on the theory itself), which in turn suggests you have no understanding of my economical beliefs whatsoever and your arguments don't stand up as you are arguing against something I am not lending my support to, in order to argue against my points - bizarre

defensive because you sound like you are completely denying any intrinsic connection between Marx and the modern Socialist movement! not only is that bizzare warrant of any and all defensive accusations that would be blasphemous.

i'm beginning to think you're the one brainwashed into having certain feelings about socialism.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.