It was the consequence of mismanaged policies and squandering of huge boom time oil revenues. At least the money was squandered on the populace in contrast to right wing dictatorships notorious for confiscating all wealth for their own self aggrandizement.

no.

Here’s a decent breakdown of the Oliver piece (which mirrors official capitalist propaganda) on Venezuela.

@seawulf575 .
Which socialist policies do you speak of? Exactly. And how, in your opinion, did they lead to such consequences?

Which type of governing would have worked best?

NO

Venezuela was a world-class nation where we got most of our oil several years back, when it was capitalist, Now it’s, well, a shithole. Maybe a Banana Republic. Anything goes. It is a crappy third-world socialist nation with an unstable, unpredictable, intimidating government.

The correct response should have been, “well, the Venezuelans DID it wrong. You can convert to socialism without hidden goings on and conspiracies in the government and destroying the infrastructure, micromanaging, overregulating and blindsiding the people”

Are the Scandinavian countries socialist? Their governments pay for a lot of things, like heath care and higher education. Their standard of living is also higher than in the U.S.

It was the dictator not the political leanings of the country that ran it into the ground. Trashing of Venezuela.
It was the drastic drop in oil prices and poor management by the government.

^I sure am glad that the US doesn’t have a dictatorship…

I don’t think so, unless you are using a very expansive definition of socialism.

I think there were several things that contributed:

- getting rid of the people’s congress and an independent judiciary

- throwing out non-Venezuelan corporations, seizing their capital, not paying their bills to corporations

- government subsidized oil which created a deficit

MrGrimm—do you actually see the U.S. as a dictatorship?

I suspect that you mean Trump. He’s the most opposed, paralyzed president in U.S. history, and is still getting accomplished what those who voted for him elected him to do.

I tell mostly younger people to try living under a read dictator or read about REAL world dictators. Venezuela is under a dictator. Russia is under a dictator, Try living under one of those.

I don’t think @MrGrimm888 is implying anything about the the money grabber with perchance of alienating the rest of the world and poor history of managing businesses.

Venezuela’s collapse wasn’t inevitable. It was brought about by the country’s over reliance on oil revenues. When the price of oil dropped sharply in 2014 the problems began.

Some of Chavez’s policies backfired. For example he tried to make basic goods more affordable for the poor but this led to companies going bust as it was no longer profitable for then to produce these items.

I don’t think we should conclude that Capitalism is good and Socialism is bad. It is possible for a country to be pragmatic and successfully combine elements of both. For example most European countries have a market economy together with a state run health service and most Europeans are quite happy with that.

@Yellowdog . More accurately, I see Trump as a wanna be/trying to be dictator. If you can’t see the crystal clear comparison, I am skeptical about your powers of observation.

As to his accomplishments.

The only thing that I am aware of that Trump has “got done,” is the America raping tax cut.

He hasn’t built his wall, and Mexico has stated they will NEVER pay for it. So that’s a failure.

Hasn’t drained the swamp, unless you mean firing his own people. Failure.

Hasn’t enforced term limits, in fact complimented the Chinese’s new life long ruler. Failure.

Hasn’t cut military spending, in fact raised it. Failure.

Hasn’t dissolved the ACA, and clearly cannot come up with a replacement plan. Failure.

Hasn’t deported the dreamers. Failure.

He has claimed responsibilityfor jobs, and economic growth that originated in the Obama era. Failure.

Hasn’t even touched on issues like abortions, or gay marriage, which are important to his base. Failure.

Hasn’t put Hillary in prison. Failure.

Oversaw a government shutdown. Failure.

I’m afraid I don’t share your hopelessly optimistic, and baseless view of Trump’s administration.

@LostInParadise In Denmark they pay 60% income tax (50,000+) as well as 8% Pension tax. The property tax is through the roof and sales tax is around 24%.

No thanks!

These were 2012 figures. https://home.kpmg.com/xx/en/home/insights/2011/12/Denmark-other-taxes-levies.html

I guess that’s why so many Danes are storming our borders to get a taste of the “good life.”

Who could afford the flight? ;)

Those countries, other than Sweden are high on the happiness meter which is somewhat surprising. That is changing because of forced diversity and uncontrolled immigration in Sweden but I haven’t read about the others.

Oh, and I don’t know what kind of wages are paid in Denmark. That information could make the tax situation less devastating. I wouldn’t think by much though.

And what many people miss is that Sweden was a very prosperous land with a lot of happy people before socialism took over. Since then, it has been declining.

That isn’t the way I heard it. Sweden was a very tough and hard scrabble place, which is why the upper MidWestern United States is just crawling with Swedes. It was the tough times that convinced Swedes that the way forward would require sharing and pooling resources. You won’t find many Swedes today longing for what passes for the American dream. And if you believe conditions are deteriorating for the Swedes under socialism, let me remind you that their situation is not NEARLY as bleak as our own. Just try to find a Swede or a Dane willing to swap places with us.

Back in the 19th century things were pretty horrible in Sweden and yes, many immigrated to the USA so they could have a chance at succeeding. Their economy was mainly agriculture based at that time. They had an industrial revolution starting in the late 19th century that turned the economy around so that by 1930’s they had one of the highest standards of living on the planet. But that was all entrepreneurial efforts and capitalism. The Socialists started around 1970. In the subsequent couple of decades, the economy tanked pretty hard. The cost of sustaining their socialistic dreams was too high. Even the founder of IKEA left the country because the government was trying to establish a game of seizing all corporate profits and giving them to the labor unions. The idea was to have a market economy without individual capitalists and entrepreneurs. In other words, no one to actually create stuff or to drive the growth, just people to suck it all down. In the past decade or so, the government has started undoing their idiocy. They are actually going through an effort to privatize many government supplied jobs. In other words, they are going back to capitalism. And it is helping their economy…again.

It would be more accurate to state that the government is regulating private enterprise in the overall service of the economy specifically to avoid the horrors afflicting us as a result of predatory capitalism.

And whatever adjustments the Swedes are making, their bad times were a joke compared to our own, and it is worthy to note that in their worst of times, the standard of living of the average Swede surpassed that of the average American in our best of times.

Then why don’t you move there? Go for it! Your standard of living would go way up and you wouldn’t have to worry about how the government and those capitalist pigs are screwing you.

Someone has to stay here and confront that pap you retrieve from those blogs designed for yokels such as yourself. MY standard of living is just fine here, thank you. And what makes you think the Swedes would welcome anyone from a place that would elect Trump President?

Well which is it? Is your standard of living good or bad? You claimed it was horrible, but now are saying it is good. You want to claim now that you couldn’t use the internet from Sweden? That only in this country can you reach out to others? What is it you are actually trying to say? As for Sweden taking you, maybe you could pass yourself off as a Muslim refugee. They’d take you in a heartbeat. But you never know unless you try. They might see you as the great catch you see yourself and bend over backward to allow you in.

You really don’t have a clue what you are saying, do you?

I’m saying that the standard of living is tumbling for all but the well off. For all you know, I might very well be one of the capitalist pigs to whom you refer. But all of this is beside the point. I was born here. This is where I belong.
where I belong.§

@seawulf575 , Why do you always make things personal? People have roots where they are born and know the language.

The Scandinavians have a high standard of living, less income inequality and low crime rates. Not too bad for socialism.

@LostInParadise I’m curious why you would say I am making things personal? Your excuse is that people have roots where they are born and they know the language. Yet @stanleybmanly consistently runs down the place I was born and where I have roots. Do you clock him for that? No, because he is on your liberal side. It seems very hypocritical of you to use that excuse to try putting me in my place when you won’t use it universally.
As for me making it personal with @stanleybmanly I just point out his circular logic and lack of fact. Maybe if he actually held to a side and dealt in reality I would leave him alone. But then he’d be a conservative, so I guess that is out.
Scandanavians have a high standard of living, less income inequality, and low crime rates. And Sweden is going under financially unless they move away from socialism and back towards capitalism, which is exactly what they are doing. What I will give them full marks for is that they aren’t trying to do radical change all at once. Radical change never works and just causes more troubles. Now all they have to do is stem that influx of refugees…..

Capitalism isn’t sustainable. That’s why we have so few (compared to other economic powers) factories, and manufacturing jobs (in the US.) When a company gets big enough, it outsources everything it can, and starts dealing more with foreign banks. The country then loses out in jobs, and tax revenue. And the company’s products usually decline in quality.
If you could somehow remove greed from humanity, I would have a much higher opinion of capitalism…

If you could remove greed from humanity, communism would work. But it doesn’t. The only way to give all people a chance to make something of themselves is to set a playing field that allows creativity and rewards entrepreneurship. That isn’t Socialism and Communism.

There’s a lot that couldn’t be fixed by removing greed, in regards to communism. But I agree that it would improve any situation. I suppose I was saying that greed leads to extreme examples of entrepreneurship. Which ultimately hurt the country, at some point.

I am not a advocate of socialism, but I do like some socialist ideas. We (USA) have socialist concepts thoroughly woven into our country, and the way our government approaches certain issues/needs. Sometimes, it isn’t a great fit, in certain circumstances.

I feel that socialism gets a very oversimplified opinion from conservatives. It does have many positive traits. In large part, because it essentially shows an attempt by humanity to maintain a certain standard of living for ALL of the population of a country. Prevention of famine, and poverty, are pros. In some cases all citizens have a form of free health care.

I see nothing wrong with helping ALL of my countrymen have , at least, food, education, health care, and employment. Those are things that this country has the luxury of actually achieving.

The cons can be ignored. Just don’t use those parts.

I guess I am sick of hearing people say socialism, like it’s wholly negative. As with much on this Earth, it it is rounded. Like a good character in a novel.

The problem with socialism, as I see it, is that it rewards need and punishes ability. If you are working and doing a good job, more will be taken from you to help those that “need”. And the “need” grows faster than the ability. Fewer people try meaning there are fewer feeding the pig and more sucking from it. AND, it assumes the government knows best. I would challenge that assumption every day of the week.

I agree with some aspects of what you say. However, I will again point to a seemingly conservative notion that just because someone has enough to live, means that they will never strive for more. I am certain that there are some who would “game the system, ” as you like to say. The majority would be normal people though.

I’m talking about things like financial aid, and welfare in this country…

@seawulf575 so now that you’ve given us your views on the problems with socialism, might you now address the problems inherent with the capitalist model? In view of the miseries and “failure” of the Scandinavian model, do you view Sweden’s “coming to its senses” a reasonable solution? Should Sweden’s goal be the American model—a few billionaires scattered among every million homeless souls?

Then there’s your assertion that greed is the achilles heel of socialism. I would think greed the fatal flaw with capitalism.

^That’s what I was saying. Fatal flaw, is exactly the right term…

@stanleybmanly Greed is indeed a fatal flaw with capitalism. However, with capitalism, greed can also be a tool to be used. If you are making a product or providing a service and you aren’t giving the public what they want, you can take your business elsewhere. Markets open and close all the time. And even with big corporations, you have options to use competitors and you can give bad reviews that will highlight their negatives to influence others. But humans being what we are, we eventually give way to our sins. Profits or market share aren’t enough so shady, underhanded, or illegal things are done to get just a little more. The difference is that with capitalism, ingenuity, hard work, and commitment are rewarded, not punished.

^Again, I agree with much of what you said here. I don’t think “hard work, commitment,” are punished though.

Pure capitalism does not exist. Governments interfere by imposing tariffs, setting interest rates, collecting and spending taxes, and creating regulations.

Government works best in two areas – shared benefits and hidden costs.

We all benefit from having an educated and healthy workforce, so it makes sense to use tax dollars to provide education and insurance.

Pollution is a hidden cost that we all suffer from, so it makes sense to have the government demand pollution controls.

@LostInParadise Pure capitalism does not exist, that is true. In fact pure socialism doesn’t exist, nor does pure communism, nor democracy for that matter. And what you are saying is absolutely true about some government intervention being good. Environmental concerns are a great example. My big concern with the government doing things is that in all my years, I have never seen them do anything smartly or efficiently. Never. They always go way overboard or spend way too much or waste tons of money on cronies….all the things that drive me crazy. Not to mention, the government uses regulations and departments as weapons. You should never feel targeted by your government. You should always be able to draw a line from point A to point B and not have to go through the rest of the alphabet to get there.

The post office is government run. It works pretty well…

The Social Security Administration is one of the most efficient enterprises, public or private in the history of the country.

Until there’s no more money…..

Agreed that the Post Office, Social Security Office, Drivers License agency, are rather efficient, but they’ve been around a while and have clear rules for their workers.

But sometimes, needy or deserving people fall through the cracks, and the workers cannot help you because they have their hands tied. Per regulation, no one can override it. I guess this is the definition of a boondoggle.

Say you are lucky enough to qualify for a motorized wheelchair but not an $800 battery to run it, and your disability money, though fairly generous, is not enough to get through the entire month even for your most basic expenses. How are you going to get the battery? And when your current battery is on the fritz and you need one, you can’t even get around to do any legwork.

. Or, say you need a certain medicine but the system says you can only get it when a certain person can approve, but in order to get that person’s approval you must request it earlier than allowed— and are therefore denied. After multiple requests to override this, the system labels you a drug seeker and are denied the medication altogether, and no one can fix it. Their hands are tied.

Even efficiently running programs and institutions have many, many glitches and snafus—usually government-imposed regulations and procedures.

A local practician who knows what they’re doing, and has no government interference, can get it done quickly and easily, if you are lucky enough to get one.

The Post Office runs at a loss every year. And it still cannot keep up with the likes of UPS or FedEx. Running at a loss is not cost effective. The Social Security Administration does a lot, but is doomed to failure with SS being a ponzi scheme. In my mind, to be considered efficient, it should be able to run at or below cost and be sustainable.

The Post Office runs a deficit SOLELY because it is mandated to service the dismal redlands where UPS and Fedex refuse to operate. The Post Office would go from deficit to profit through the simple expedient of dumping Sarah Palin’s Alaska. And Social Security will be viable for decades to come IF the Congress pays back the hundreds of billions of dollars “borrowed” from the program to fund other schemes. But it is important to understand just why noises are being made now

that both social security and the post office are “unaffordable”. They are unaffordable for the same reason healthcare, housing, college, public schools—all of the essentials that built and sustained this country are unaffordable, and grow ever more so daily. We are living through the crisis of capitalism solidly predicted by Marx. And that crisis, simply put, boils down to this: EVERYTHING MUST become unaffordable eventually if the acceleration of wealth directed to the top of the society is to be maintained. We are solidly discouraged in this country from viewing any issue as one of class, but this particular issue is solidly about CLASS and nothing else, and our survival hinges on recognition of this. Trump is one of those sirens announcing that “you’d better catch on soon”.

@stanleybmanly your grasp of reality is truly astounding. The Post Office runs at a deficit because it grossly inefficient, not because it is mandated to service the dismal redlands (I can only assume you mean the US except NY, MA, and CA). And UPS and FedEx deliver to all the same locations. Please, enlighten us to where these mystery areas are that the USPS is forced to work, but which UPS and FedEx refuse to go.
Your grasp on Social Security is closer to reality, but what you fail to see is that the reasoning you use (which is correct to a point) is the exact reason that socialism fails every time. It is the reason that shoots all the rest of your support for communism and socialism dead. The government “borrowed” from it to fund other schemes. That is exactly what I have been saying. The government is not fiscally responsible enough to manage a checking account, much less the budget of our nation. So to give them more control over more pieces of your life is just screwy. But that is what you want to do.

How about THIS for my grasp of reality? It is acknowledged world wide that The USPS is at the top of every category regarding mail service in comparison with other countries. The Post Offfice was established with the full intention of those founding fathers you worship to OPERATE AT A LOSS. Your ignorance really irritates me, so I will allow you to guess why it is that Ben Franklin understood that the country would BENEFIT from the post office running continuously in the red. And that is EXACTLY what I’m saying. All of those goobers like yourself, voting for Trump and bitching about the horrors of the post office lack the basic sense to understand that the one and probably only connection to the country with Possum Trot Arkansas cannot deliver a letter to the town for 49 cents.

Do you know what happens to a package you ship Fed ex or UPS to anywhere in rural Alaska? Those companies hand it off to USPS. And this is also true for hundreds of thousands of outlying rural addresses in the lower 48. It was the post office operating at a loss which made life tolerable in isolated rural America. SOCIALISM built this country!

I’m not saying postal service is a bad thing. But you made rash statements and I asked you to back it up. You have failed to do that. Now your story changes. Originally the USPS was running at a loss because they were mandated to deliver to “the dismal redlands”. Now it is running at a loss because it was designed to run at a loss. Sad. You keep trying to push it as a partisan thing. You will never be able to keep up in a conversation when you do that. Our government is grossly inefficient. You, yourself, pointed out how our government screwed Social Security. That is a fine example. I pointed out it is an example of how governments do things and why giving the government more power is a horrible idea. You entirely dodged that part of the conversation. I’m sure you will eventually come back with some slam about Trump lovers or some other such nonsense. You don’t do yourself any favors with that rot.

I haven’t changed anything. Both statements are true. The U.S. post office is probably the most efficient postal operation in the world. It operates at a loss because it services everyone, regardless of where they live for better than reasonable fees. It was mandated to serve EVERYONE with the full understanding that it would run in the red. What is rash about that?

Think of what a great deal first class mail delivery is. There is no way that it can be covered by the cost of a stamp.

It could if you merely were sending mail between large population concentrations.

@Stanleybmanly “The Post Office runs a deficit SOLELY because it is mandated to service the dismal redlands where UPS and Fedex refuse to operate.” Those were your words. In other words, if it weren’t for “the dismal redlands where UPS and Fedex refuse to operate, the USPS would be profitable. That is what you said. I challenged you to name where those areas are since I can’t find any places UPS and FedEx won’t deliver that the USPS does. You dodged that question to go onto a rant for socialism. You even went into a foolish rant about how the USPS was designed to operate at a loss. It never was. In fact, the first post office was actually authorized by England, before the Revolutionary war. And it was authorized to charge what it needed to deliver the mail. When we declared independence, the actual USPS wasn’t started until about 20 years later. It was outlined in the Constitution and was based on the same model as the British organization. Stamps began to be sold to offset the cost of operation. Basically, everything you stated was wrong. I brought you back to the question. And now you are changing your story again. And you try hedging around the actual question: Where does the USPS deliver that UPS and/or FedEx don’t and how is that making the USPS operate in the red? Go ahead…dodge again. Try side-stepping. Go on a Trump rant. All your favorites. But for goodness sake, don’t admit you were wrong!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.@seawulf575 is off his med’s

@Tropical_Willie that was a useless comment. Do you actually have a real valid thought that might pertain to the discussion or are you just threatened whenever someone starts throwing facts onto the table?

You are not valid.

All right. This time you are right (almost). On May first 2017, UPS & Fedex initiated programs offering the option of delivery of letters and packages formerly diverted to the postal service in rural areas. UPS claims to to now cover 99% of the addresses served by the postal service. BUT for many of these addresses you will
pay through the nose fir surcharges, so the 2 companies maintained the option for customers to keep the handoff to the postal service to avoid their rural business drying up.

May 1st 2017. But the USPS was running at a loss for 11 years before that. So it really didn’t have anything to do with UPS or FedEx backing out of the rural letter delivery business. The real issue with the USPS is technology. The advent of the internet and e-trade, really killed snail mail. People were sending fewer letters (more email) and much of the package delivery was being passed to UPS and FedEx. People were paying bills on line so they weren’t mailing checks to various places. If anything, UPS and FedEx passing things to the USPS has helped offset some of the loss of revenue they could see. But let’s be honest: there aren’t a tremendous number of rural areas left in this country. Most people live within a few minutes of a town. Even when you get out to somewhere like Wyoming or Alaska, this holds true. There are a few outliers, but not a tremendous number. Not enough to drive the billion dollar deficits the USPS is posting.