Chavez steals millions from foreign companies.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Velociryx
And you think Chavez´ seizing of the oilfields will change the conditions of the poor people in Venezuela for better?

Only if you count Chavez and his croonies as being among "the poor."

-=Vel=-

(I would imagine that what would really help the poor in Ven., would be additional foriegn investment in basic infrastructure in the country. That has been made less likely by dear leader's own actions....I can't see how, long-term, this could be a good thing for the masses).

What foreign investment source gives a rat's ass about "basic infrastructure" that doesn't directly relate to export earnings in any country, let alone Venezuela? Hordes of leetle grubby brown people are economically irrelevant to foreign investors. All you need are enough to run the resource export economy, and the other 90% could die off, for all it matters.

[Arrian]

Hordes of leetle grubby brown people are economically irrelevant to foreign investors.

Unless said hordes are actively hostile. So long as they don't interefere w/business, they're irrelevant. Of course, the *smart* play, long-term, is to placate them by sharing the wealth a lil bit. But historically the rich haven't shared until after things get nasty.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


You wouldn't.

Fairness seems dictated by some ideal that anyone that actually HAS anything must have someone gotten it by nefarious means and therefore its just fine to take it

If they have as much as the oil companies then yes. It doesn't really matter how they got it though. They have it, and we need it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


Unless said hordes are actively hostile. So long as they don't interefere w/business, they're irrelevant. Of course, the *smart* play, long-term, is to placate them by sharing the wealth a lil bit. But historically the rich haven't shared until after things get nasty.

-Arrian

Beating the poor down always works better. The rich don't share their wealth. Wealth is always taken. How many rich people do you know who believe in significant wealth redistribution?

[Arrian]

Oh, Kid.

If you compare the present-day United States to the US of the 19th century, or present-day Britain to its former self, you will find that the current incarnations appear socialist. Why? Because back in the time of Marx, there really was such a thing as laisse-faire capitalism in the West. But, after many battles (some strictly political, some very real & bloody), things changed.

Commies/Socialists threatened to gain political power... either peaceable or possibly via violence. Slowly a compromise solution was found, whereby the workers were screwed over far less, thus helping to undercut the potential popularity of communism. The New Deal, remember? Notwithstanding the fact that our hybrid capitalist/socialist system is a long way from perfect, the most successful economies to date (US, Canada, Western Europe, ANZAC...) all use variations of it. What does that tell you?

Laisse-faire capitalism, mixed with rampant corruption is what you have in most third-world countries. What I was saying is that, unfortunately, the path to this mixed economy has been historically bloody. That's unfortunate, because I think that's the way forward.

-Arrian

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious



Beating the poor down always works better. The rich don't share their wealth. Wealth is always taken. How many rich people do you know who believe in significant wealth redistribution?

I used to be rich. Now I'm going to be doing a little redistribution. (legally).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
Commies/Socialists threatened to gain political power

We did gain power in a way, because our ideas won out. It wasn't the rich who placated us though. They tried to beat us down, but we didn't give up, and we were partially victorious.

[Velociryx]

No, the spin will be that Chavez was interfered with - the big bad USA and other evil capitalists messed up his utopian plan, so it's not his fault that it didn't work.

After all, remember that "they" tried to overthrow him already (the much-alleged, totally unproven "coup attempt").

Ohhhh yes! How could I forget! The infamous, "it would have worked except...." excuse! (also known as the "we wuz robbed" or "do-over!" gambit).

One of my all time favorites!



-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

How many rich people do you know who believe in significant wealth redistribution?

Translation: how many people do you know who would choose to harm themselves for the public good (and, furthermore, consider that the effects of "significant wealth redistribution" are debateable).

The answer to the question would be: very few people are like that. Most people choose what they perceive as being in their best interests, and to hell with everybody else. You gotta convince them, essentially, that it'll only hurt a little bit and that it really will buy them something. Or, alternatively, just kill them and take their stuff.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


I used to be rich.

What happened?! You're in the energy industry.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious


We did gain power in a way, because our ideas won out. It wasn't the rich who placated us though. They tried to beat us down, but we didn't give up, and we were partially victorious.

Dude, "the rich" were the people in power. The politicians, Republican and Democrat alike were (and are) rich. They passed the laws. Ergo, they placated "you." Yes, perserverance was key, 'cause the initial reaction tended to be to call in the army & shoot the strikers.

As to whose ideals won... like I said, it's a hybrid system we have.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


Translation: how many people do you know who would choose to harm themselves for the public good (and, furthermore, consider that the effects of "significant wealth redistribution" are debateable).

The answer to the question would be: very few people are like that. Most people choose what they perceive as being in their best interests, and to hell with everybody else. You gotta convince them, essentially, that it'll only hurt a little bit and that it really will buy them something. Or, alternatively, just kill them and take their stuff.

-Arrian

I guess my point is that we're not placated. We're not satisfied. We fought for what we got and we're going to fight for more.

[Arrian]

Really? Maybe so. Depending on the exact issue "you" pick to fight over, I might even be on your side.

But seriously, lefties political parties are marginalized here in the US, and there is very little real labor strife. That could change, but looking back over the last several decades I'd say that most people have been pretty well placated.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

What foreign investment source gives a rat's ass about "basic infrastructure" that doesn't directly relate to export earnings in any country, let alone Venezuela? Hordes of leetle grubby brown people are economically irrelevant to foreign investors. All you need are enough to run the resource export economy, and the other 90% could die off, for all it matters.

Depends on the investment source and the industry in question.

Even in the case of big oil money, there's still a need for supporting infrastructure. Roads, electiricty, running water at the job site, and it'd be easy enough for governments to make sure that there was some (or even a considerable) spillover effect into the communities surrounding such operations, simply by mandating it as a part of the contract. Just a price of doing business there.

That'd be a much better approach than the ham-handed "I'm taking your $hit, so hit the road" approach just displayed.

Or, if you wanna look at the other end of the spectrum, then programs like this one:

http://www.kiva.org/businesses.php?sub=inNeed

could easily be ported to S.A. (if there's not a comparable organization already), which does *exactly* as you described above.

Granted, it's orders of magnitude smaller than big oil money, but it IS another real-world example.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


Dude, "the rich" were the people in power. The politicians, Republican and Democrat alike were (and are) rich. They passed the laws. Ergo, they placated "you." Yes, perserverance was key, 'cause the initial reaction tended to be to call in the army & shoot the strikers.

As to whose ideals won... like I said, it's a hybrid system we have.

-Arrian

The Democrats took our ideas so they could be elected, otherwise we would have been elected. We lost in that way, but our ideas won out. I don't see any placation. I see that we won in a way and we still have more to go.