More Socialist success in Venezuela. Emphasis on "a little”

[Frostbit]

Maduro announced during his annual address to the nation that pregnant women would receive a payment of 700,000 bolivars a month. It sounds like a lot, but Venezuela's runaway inflation means that sum is worth just $3.83 at the current exchange rate that millions of citizens follow closely.

Once the child is born, mothers will receive an additional 1 million bolivars, or $5.48.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/15/news/economy/venezuela-maduro-pregnant-women/index.html

[Newman]

Such a sad story. I don't expect to see in my lifetime a more dramatic example of leftist policies destroying a country, once the "Jewel of South America." It was as predictable as puddles after a rainstorm, even by dunderheads such as myself, and I remember well the mockery heaped on me for venturing such predictions.

Now some of the images and articles of the days when the left here was romancing Hugo Chavez seem to be eluding my Google searches. Results are pretty thin of Rep. Kennedy and his oil sharing partnership with Hugo Chavez, for example. Not zero, yet. But not the pages of happy throngs and so on, either.

A teacher in a school I was connected to wrote a skit for her students that became part of the school's winter presentation, which skit celebrated the generosity of Chavez toward Americans. The children held a banner-size check to us from Chavez and sang his praises. This was fast on the heels of Chavez's infamous appearance at the UN denouncing the US and our president (Bush) in particular. (The reception was NOT unanimously enthusiastic, I should add.)

So why does a lethal ideology like socialism keep re-emerging? Is it partly because leftists labor so hard to rewrite and/or erase its track record?

Maybe I should Google that.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

Such a sad story. I don't expect to see in my lifetime a more dramatic example of leftist policies destroying a country, once the "Jewel of South America." It was as predictable as puddles after a rainstorm, even by dunderheads such as myself, and I remember well the mockery heaped on me for venturing such predictions.

Now some of the images and articles of the days when the left here was romancing Hugo Chavez seem to be eluding my Google searches. Results are pretty thin of Rep. Kennedy and his oil sharing partnership with Hugo Chavez, for example. Not zero, yet. But not the pages of happy throngs and so on, either.

A teacher in a school I was connected to wrote a skit for her students that became part of the school's winter presentation, which skit celebrated the generosity of Chavez toward Americans. The children held a banner-size check to us from Chavez and sang his praises. This was fast on the heels of Chavez's infamous appearance at the UN denouncing the US and our president (Bush) in particular. (The reception was NOT unanimously enthusiastic, I should add.)

So why does a lethal ideology like socialism keep re-emerging? Is it partly because leftists labor so hard to rewrite and/or erase its track record?

Maybe I should Google that.

Perhaps because neither ideologies nor economic theories govern. People govern, and people are notoriously able to convince themselves that only they know how to do it right. What fool ever thought that a single economic theory made a good foundation for running a country? Our government is far from perfect, but it pretty much beats all the alternatives I've encountered. Our economic system is an ever-shifting balance of capitalism, socialism, and even a whiff of communism. Our system of government is a completely crazy and ever-shifting mix of representative democracy, oligarchy, bureaucracy, hereditary vs. upstart plutocracy, and government by committee (on acid). Socialism isn't the enemy; ideological purity of any sort is.

[Billy Jingo]

Perhaps because neither ideologies nor economic theories govern. People govern, and people are notoriously able to convince themselves that only they know how to do it right. What fool ever thought that a single economic theory made a good foundation for running a country? Our government is far from perfect, but it pretty much beats all the alternatives I've encountered. Our economic system is an ever-shifting balance of capitalism, socialism, and even a whiff of communism. Our system of government is a completely crazy and ever-shifting mix of representative democracy, oligarchy, bureaucracy, hereditary vs. upstart plutocracy, and government by committee (on acid). Socialism isn't the enemy; ideological purity of any sort is.

Really? That's surprising. I would think any government that exists without the consent of the governed automatically is questionable. Also, Western European nations, not to mention some Asian nations, have much better forms of government, in my opinion.

[Frostbit]

Really? That's surprising. I would think any government that exists without the consent of the governed automatically is questionable. Also, Western European nations, not to mention some Asian nations, have much better forms of government, in my opinion.

Then it surprises me that you would not rather raise your children there.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

Really? That's surprising. I would think any government that exists without the consent of the governed automatically is questionable. Also, Western European nations, not to mention some Asian nations, have much better forms of government, in my opinion.

And isn't it wonderful that you're entitled to that opinion?

[Billy Jingo]

And isn't it wonderful that you're entitled to that opinion?

Yes. Are you under the impression that I could not hold that opinion in Holland or Denmark?

[Celeste Chalfonte]

Yes. Are you under the impression that I could not hold that opinion in Holland or Denmark?

Nope. That was the functional equivalent of "Thank you for sharing."

[Newman]

Perhaps because neither ideologies nor economic theories govern. People govern, and people are notoriously able to convince themselves that only they know how to do it right. What fool ever thought that a single economic theory made a good foundation for running a country? Our government is far from perfect, but it pretty much beats all the alternatives I've encountered. Our economic system is an ever-shifting balance of capitalism, socialism, and even a whiff of communism. Our system of government is a completely crazy and ever-shifting mix of representative democracy, oligarchy, bureaucracy, hereditary vs. upstart plutocracy, and government by committee (on acid). Socialism isn't the enemy; ideological purity of any sort is.

A whiff of Winston in your post, but I differ at the end. Ideological purity may be an enemy as you say, but socialism is also an enemy. It need not be "pure" to be lethal.

There are other poisonous ideologies, including communism and despotism. These are forms tried and tested, and proven to increase human misery.

But they keep coming back, and I think it's because they offer several appeals. They appeal to our desire for equity and fairness. More important, they offer to salve our impatience and impotence. They are ideologies that empower us to be effective now, while passion for justice runs hot.

What's the appeal of free market ideologies? Very little, frankly, except that it works. It produces wealth. It always does. But it takes many values and character traits that are difficult to acquire.

That's why it works best in extremis, when for whatever reason a government is not able to interfere.

It has occurred to me that just now Puerto Rico might offer a wonderful opportunity for us to allow our own Hong Kong to arise. Ah, well, I know it's a fantasy, that a grinding welfare state is what remains. I'll park my Milton Friedman reveries back on the shelf.

[scott]

Perhaps because neither ideologies nor economic theories govern. People govern, and people are notoriously able to convince themselves that only they know how to do it right. What fool ever thought that a single economic theory made a good foundation for running a country? Our government is far from perfect, but it pretty much beats all the alternatives I've encountered. Our economic system is an ever-shifting balance of capitalism, socialism, and even a whiff of communism. Our system of government is a completely crazy and ever-shifting mix of representative democracy, oligarchy, bureaucracy, hereditary vs. upstart plutocracy, and government by committee (on acid). Socialism isn't the enemy; ideological purity of any sort is.

You say that because you have a different definition of Socialism than most. You think some "promote the general welfare" is Socialist. It's not. There is certainly a component of "trust the government to take care of you" that seems good until it creeps into Socialism, like all those advocates for the "Public Option" that in reality want fully Socialized Healthcare.

[scott]

Really? That's surprising. I would think any government that exists without the consent of the governed automatically is questionable. Also, Western European nations, not to mention some Asian nations, have much better forms of government, in my opinion.

Since there is not enough of the "governed" who have risen up to change the current electoral system I'd say your premise is false.

If so many people want the Presidential election to be decided on the popular vote only why don't we have a majority that has ever voted for it? Why hasn't a Presidential candidate advocated for it and promised to concede if s/he wins the Electoral College but loses the popular vote?

2001 called to remind you that Gore still lost. Get over it.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

You say that because you have a different definition of Socialism than most. You think some "promote the general welfare" is Socialist. It's not. There is certainly a component of "trust the government to take care of you" that seems good until it creeps into Socialism, like all those advocates for the "Public Option" that in reality want fully Socialized Healthcare.

No, I'm using the standard definition: some version of "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." For example, municipal water departments. County hospitals. Public school systems. Practically from its inception, this country has operated at all levels as a hybrid of capitalism and socialism, just as it's a hybrid of democracy and bicameral parliamentarianism, with dashes of other forms.

As for healthcare, I don't see any great difference between the government getting between a doctor and patient and a massive corporation getting between them.

[80zephyr]

Since there is not enough of the "governed" who have risen up to change the current electoral system I'd say your premise is false.

If so many people want the Presidential election to be decided on the popular vote only why don't we have a majority that has ever voted for it? Why hasn't a Presidential candidate advocated for it and promised to concede if s/he wins the Electoral College but loses the popular vote?

2001 called to remind you that Gore still lost. Get over it.

He's a dumb ass. There probably has never been an election in America where the president that was elected was voted in by a majority. Since quite a few people don't vote, they never acquiesced to being led by anyone.

Mark

[80zephyr]

No, I'm using the standard definition: some version of "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." For example, municipal water departments. County hospitals. Public school systems. Practically from its inception, this country has operated at all levels as a hybrid of capitalism and socialism, just as it's a hybrid of democracy and bicameral parliamentarianism, with dashes of other forms.

As for healthcare, I don't see any great difference between the government getting between a doctor and patient and a massive corporation getting between them.

What about farmers and home builders? Why stop with healthcare? Aren't food and shelter just as important as healthcare?

BTW, the only real socialism in the Constitution that I know of is the postal service. And it wasn't too long ago that NOTHING that you listed was at the federal level.

Mark

[Celeste Chalfonte]

What about farmers and home builders? Why stop with healthcare? Aren't food and shelter just as important as healthcare?

BTW, the only real socialism in the Constitution that I know of is the postal service. And it wasn't too long ago that NOTHING that you listed was at the federal level.

The federal government is not the only government.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the country, not the only law. An act of government need not be expressly authorized by the Constitution; it need only avoid conflicting with it.

Farmers and home buyers (builders are not equivalent to health care users) do benefit from socialist programs such as FHA and VA loans, farm subsidies and price supports.

None of which has anything to do with integrating health insurance, Medicare and Medicaid on a sliding-scale premium basis, with the availability of supplemental programs comparable to Senior Advantage plans. Medicare operates much more cost-effectively than the average health insurance company, has far fewer denials of care. For die-hard free-marketeers, there could even be an option to prove you have the means to self-insure up to a certain level, although, to avoid people overestimating their ability to administer such a fund, there should probably be a bond required, as there is for other kinds of self-insurance.

The definition I quoted speaks of the community, not the federal government. For example, the community used to "own" medical insurance companies (non-profit mutual benefit plans). It was a good system. It was dismantled when the parent organizations, such as BC/BS, began allowing member plans to become for-profit corporations. The decline in health insurance benefits and drastic increases in price date from that decision. Deregulation contributed to the decision, making it easier to simply divest an entity of certain obligations merely by changing its form.