BURNING COMRADES

VENEZUELA YES

Why so many Americans want socialism in their country?

Venezuela is in ruins. Speculative funds are eyeing Venezuelan bonds. Prices are so high anything foreign is too expensive for the average Venezuelan Joe. The black market is booming because prices are fixed by the government (something AMERICANS want); lol, like history didn't teach us anything (Germany 1918-1933, 1944-1946, Zimbabwe). Dumb mugs, we'll see them sink so low they will sell themselves to international funds to get back up.

cnbc.com/2016/05/19/why-these-2-bond-pros-are-investing-in-venezuela-despite-bumpy-ride.html

fortune.com/2016/05/20/coke-venezuela-suspends/

independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/venezuela-crisis-hamburgers-are-now-170-as-inflation-spins-further-out-of-control-a7042091.html

forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/05/22/what-venezuelas-food-rationing-tells-us-the-price-of-something-is-the-price-of-something/#49a3087e49ff

most people who read and like the ideas of socialism or communism have never experienced it. its as simple as that.

it wasn't real socialism

Tell me about real socialism, o Italian peer.

It's always amazing that so many people still believe in a socialist utopia when everywhere it's been tried it is a disaster. Karl Marx probably caused more suffering than anyone in history.

Marx was a clever idealist. Some of his ideas are actually quite good, like the essence of a man being his work and what he does, not what he 'is', something liberals forgot a lot of time ago.

maybe socialism will work next time

socialism is working great

I'm now #BurningforBernie. Isn't this Hillary's fault. Venezuela I mean

the cishet white imperialist patriarchy caused the downfall of Venezuela, not socialism
t. #Cruzmissile

They will find a way to blame the West, believe me.

I remember back in 2012 or something, my family friends (Cubans living in Florida) were explaining to us how Hugo Chavez is a hero and all Venezuelans are happy to have him as their leader because socialism is amazing, etc. They're also professors.

>like history didn't teach us anything (Germany 1918-1933
implying you actually know anything about what happened there except the
>muh govt caused hyperinflation by printing money lmao
meme

in all seriousness they already are
>muh US wants to destroy our socialist paradise

Probably PhDs in bullshit in a shit college in rural Florida. Being a professor now means nothing if you aren't from a top uni.

Boy, Econ student here, top uni in Italy. Thesis on Germany economic crisis 1944-1946 and Erhard reforms. Burn commie.

NO! NO! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
THAT'S NOT REAL SOCIALISM.
V-VENEZUELA IS CAPITALIST!
YES IT IS.
C-CA-CAPITALISM IS THE CAUSE OF VENEZUELA'S COLLAPSE.
CAPITALISM IS EVIL. EVIL!
SOCIALISM HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED. NEVER!

I'm not defending their economic decisions

But the IMF has done this is many countries in the past, especially in various parts of Asia.

Countries that refuse to take their loans get their economy fucked up worse than you can imagine, then the IMF walk in with a bail out and then they own them for life because they know they will never be able to pay it back fully with interest.

You are right, they will buy their souls. But their own decisions and their socialist isolationist oil based economy put them in this situation, not an IMF conspiracy.

>muh commie if anyone disagrees with you
>German economic crisis of 1944
>literally while losing WW2
But let's not talk about how German hyperinflation after WW1 happened after the reichsbank was privatized in 1922.

The price of sin. You should know, Satan.

Sorry it was much more complicated than
>muh war
in 1944-46 in Germany. You clearly don't know shit and you're reading Wikipedia right now. If you think the central bank should be publicly owned, you're a lost cause because direct political inference in monetary policy is doom incarnated. German hyperinflation was linked to non-payable WW1 reparations. Like banks like to destroy their own money with monetary policy. Dumb commie

>Completely ignores the part where the German central bank was private when hyperinflation happened.
>Completely ignores that historically government created currencies did much better than private ones (for example the american greenbacks)
>Like banks like to destroy their own money with monetary policy.
You are assuming that banks or any other private entity will act for its long term interests every time and not short term profit.
How is a publicly owned private bank communism anyways? Or are you just taught to believe that private banks are literally god and can do no wrong?

B-BU-BUT THAT WA-WASNT REEEAALLL COMMUNISM !

lol like regulation doesn't exist and central banks behave like hedge funds. You're lost. A politicians' central bank WILL with ALL certainty aim for short term objectives because governments behave like that, plain and simple, because politicans want voter consensus. Regulation of a private central bank is key. Look at the bank of England stupid commie.

Everything is Hilary's fault

What do you tell people when they say it was the rampant corruption and abuse of power, not socialism that is why Venezuela is in ruins?

The bank of England was nationalized in 1946.
Separation of power exists. A central bank in the case of the US would just need to be a 4th branch of government. Or are you arguing that the president/congress always have direct control of what the judicial branch does?

Boy. I was not referring to the Bank of England as private entity. The Bank of England is owned by a non-political entity that is free from political inference, that makes it an independent and regulated entity. You can't do your homework. Anyway, I don't know much about the Fed and its governance, I let you school me on that if you want to (can?) explain.

can someone memesplain the "t." meme to me?

By that same metric Jesus, Mohammed and company were worse.

It is not about what they did, it is people using as an excuse for their ploys.

We must not disregard what seems to be wrong, even understanding whit we label something as being wrong is important. All experimental sciences have theories that have been disproved latter on, this does not mean we should erase them from history, all though processes are valuable.

>Boy. I was not referring to the Bank of England as private entity. The Bank of England is owned by a non-political entity that is free from political inference, that makes it an independent and regulated entity.
Yes that is what I am referring to when saying that it would be like a 4th branch of government. It should be independent but owned by the government so it is not influenced by short term political goals or private interests trying to make profit by exploiting the public (for example by reducing the money supply when there is a lot of debt around). The goal of a central bank should be to achieve the best economic climate for everyone in the country, not to enrich some people or improve the popularity of some politician.
Give me a second to try and explain the fed.

The idea of a party siphoning value from a class to another in order to equate them inevitably leads to some amount of it being diverted somewhere else. Notably, the less transparent such party is, the more will be diverted.

That even if their argument was true, small government reduces corruption. The smaller the government, the more efficient and easier to control.
These is less waste.

The point here is not the private or public ownership, but the regulation. Regulation is what makes a central bank. I see we both agree that politcians are to be out of monetary policy. At this point, why not make the central bank private? Private ownership does not mean endless greed, regulation prevents that. Public ownership only means drain on public finances. All corporate costs of a central bank shouldn't be covered by the government, it does only enforce waste and abuse because 'muh gov pays that cost so let's sink in deficit'. If private, any entity becomes efficient because faces bankruptcy if not run properly.

The Fed is very shady because of how it is set up.
It's owners are the private banks that are part of the system. They own 100% of the stocks of the Fed. However those stocks do not give them ownership of the Fed and only pay 6% dividends. So in theory the Fed is completely independent as it is not controlled by the government and the stocks it creates do not give the banks control of the Fed. But I'm not sure that this works.
In my opinion the Fed benefits the banks greatly because it gives them below market interest loans and allows them to make more profit by the way of fractional reserve lending.
It's a system that benefits the banks way more than the regular people.

kek tell that to the average Malta.. 400K are living on this island and literally everything and everyone is corrupt.. even the son of the president was involved in various money laundering scandals..

They fed even gives nice offers to its discount window friends, like "hey we'll basically pay you to borrow money and use force of government if you don't, and then you can put it back on deposit with us and we'll pay you free interest!"

Because no matter how regulated something it people will always find a way to abuse it.
Central banks need to be run not for profit but to create good economic climate for everyone else. Having a privately owned central bank just has conflicting interests.
Central banks usually make profit anyways.

Yeah, for instance Somalia has no government

That sure helped reduce their corruption

Central banks do work for the banks, because banks are the engine of the economy. In fact central banks operate on the economy using the banks as a medium. Interest rates manipulation (therefore debt buying/selling; benchmark deposit/reserve interest manipulation) does not affect the economy directly but through the commercial and investment banks adjusting to these changes. Central banks 'aim' at financial stability, inflation stability, that are in fact the 'good for the regular people'.

it does in Cuba

Venezuela is to Latin America, what Sweden is to Europe.

A warning for others. Heed it or repeat it.

Abuse happens in both private and public sector. Public does not mean honest, it only means costs are covered by the taxpayer. It's not right. Entities should be able to pay for their costs (remember that covering costs efficiently DO NOT mean profit).

Central banks only fuck shit up if you consider the Austrian school of economics

or if it's run by brown shitskins

We are talking about normal countries here. Look at Hong Kong.

>Central banks 'aim' at financial stability, inflation stability, that are in fact the 'good for the regular people'.
Yes that is how it's supposed to work.
However if a central bank is privately owned who's interests do you think it will prioritize, its owners (banks) or the people. Pretty sure there was a major scandal involving the fed giving 19Trillion$ in very low interest loans to banks after 2008, don't exactly remember the details.
My point being, a central bank should have no interest in helping anyone in particular, it being politicians, banks, corporations, etc. or make profit. It's only interest should be to create economic stability.

Are you proposing we go back to gold or private bank notes as money?

Yeah. People should be able to choose the best exchange mediums, just like they choose the best goods and services.

>Burgers now $170
Good news for burger sellers tbhwy

The private/public ownership debate deals with the covering of corporate costs. It's a matter of accounting. Public ownership means the taxpayer pays for the costs. Private ownership means the entity covers its costs efficiently. If, as you say, the central bank makes revenue anyway, why does it need public ownership? Isn't it like an incentive to abuse like a wage raise to executives paid by taxpayers, masked as administration costs? A private entity can't do that because it has no taxpayer covering costs. Since regulation is the key that makes the central bank do what it should do because it faces fines and arrests, private ownership is the one best way.

> Entities should be able to pay for their costs (remember that covering costs efficiently DO NOT mean profit).
Not necessarily. Is the police supposed to make a profit? Is the military?
Sure there are abuses in both public and private sectors but if you want to have a private central bank you would need a lot of very specific constraints.
1. It would be a non profit (if it was a normal for profit corporation it would have conflicting interests).
2. It would need to be 100% owned by itself, no stock can be sold to anyone.
3. The people working there cannot take a job at a private bank after leaving or to own stock of any financial institutions. (to prevent shit that happens already in US politics >Politician passes some law benefiting corporation X, after leaving politics he receives a highly paid """consultant""" job at corporation X.
4. It would need to be easy to audit to check for any of the previous.
In my opinion it would just be simpler to just make it an independent public entity to eliminate points 1 and 2.

Police and military can't make revenue for they are a necessary drain to public finances. You can't do shit about it. But entities that are able to make revenue shouldn't be public, with a few exceptions. A central bank privately owned BUT totally constrained to do what the law tells it to do totally does not differ from a publicly owned central bank in its aim. It simply can't give shit to its owners. The difference only lies in corporate costs covered by taxpayer OR private revenue. Constraints have to be specific be it public or private because there's not that real difference: both public and private executives can abuse, but the taxpayer covering costs consists as incentive to abuse. And privately owned does not mean that the central bank has to be publicly traded (lo!), there are a lot of types of private entity under the law.

Let's just become anarchists while we're at it.
There are no historical cases of banks or people ever abusing the privilege of issuing money (US banking during gilded age, Caesar during the Roman Republic, etc)

I thought u guys were mexicans

> And privately owned does not mean that the central bank has to be publicly traded (lo!), there are a lot of types of private entity under the law.
I know just referring to how the Fed is privately owned at the moment.

Yes I suppose a very heavily regulated private central bank could work but it would need to be very carefully monitored because monetary power is something that can be very easily abused and consequences have been usually disastrous.

low quality bait

So between Venezuela, Sweden, and Germany, who has JUSTed the fastest

>tfw socialism and muh means of production

They're flooding my country. I've seen engineers selling bottles water on the street.

I'm glad the US deposed our local socialist in the 60s desu

Not him, but Venezuela is standard 100% Socialism. Venezuela's problem though wasn't the Socialism on itself but rather the bureaucracy and corruption created by the expansion of the state on several other areas and their export model was retarded and also was the use of the founds generated by their superplus generated by oil exports.

Venezuela would export oil and then buy themselves and distribute themselves food and medicine and other primary consumption items. The problem for them started to get worse when the prices of oils tanked so they had less money to buy commodities and other products and with the superplus generated by oil they would give the money to the people to consume instead of investing in education or infrastructre or industry to generate more income not related to the oil exports.

Venezuela is the perfect example of how socialism can fail miserably if the government expands without a clear idea or plan of how to redistribute the wealth.

I don't know if your post is ironic and is referring to the continuous decrease of the content of silver in the Roman coin, or not.

Kick them out. They were partying when socialism took power there. Let them enjoy it to the last bit.

Yes. And no I'm referring to how Caesar pushed Rome to the gold standard from silver because he had captured gold producing regions during his conquests and monetizing gold increased their profitability.

Isn't Medina an ally of Maduro tho?

Sweden and Germany is worse, they were once great nations, Venezuela was never great

>There are no historical cases of banks or people ever abusing the privilege of issuing money
Not the argie you are arguing with but are you being sarcastic? The money supply manipulation (and therefore the interest rates) the FED has been perpetuating since the 80's is one of the bases of the current situation and basically the over inflation of the financial markets and over exposure to derivatives and debt most financial institutions currently have. When people read the history from the 80's to 2020 and see with the benefit of hindsight to all this years it will be like people currently see the "raging 20's" and how it was "inevitable" to reach the crisis that ended it all, because for people that understand how shit works it is undeniable that the last 30 years have been terrible when it comes to common sense in the financial sector and the agencies that are suppose to work to control them to not get out of hand and harm the real economy.

I'm just hoping a pinochet comes in, throws the commies out of helicopters, and unfucks that country.

Yeah it means you're a faggot.

not gonna happen

their military is cucked because "muh caracazo"

Perfect time to get a Venezuelan waifu.

Sweden and Germany problems have nothing to do with their "socialist governments" or "leaning socialist governments" but rather their liberal values that basically push them to import niggers and muslims and give them money despite most of them only coming to get money from the tax payers and provide nothing of value and generate a part of society that will basically leach value from the rest pushing the decay of governments that have been working without problems until they took horde of immigrants.

Argiefag knows. Lack of regulation and subsequent control unleashes both private and public abuse. That's why you defaulted like three times?

Latinas instantly become short and fat at 35.

your point might be relevant if nazi germany didnt have one of the most miraculous economic turn arounds in history.

It was an ironic meme ok (examples were pretty major cases of abuse).

Our previous default was mostly because the government took on the debt of private sectors in the 70's, we ended up renegotiating the debt with most creditors except with the guys that basically sue us and demanded to be paid as well. Which is all the bullshit about our last default, which is still debt from the 70's/80's/90's.

Currently I think there is not that much debt to financial institutions outside of traditional bonds every country issues but since we don't have in control our inflation (thanks to the money supply manipulation of the last government) we still are in problems to get our economy going.

Our current government is currently doing the right things though. Though it is creating a recession (since they are basically extinguishing the money supply by elevating the interest rates) it is the right path to basically control the inflation and then generate a good environment for investors.

My main problem with the government is that it should support more not people per se (in the form of gibs and subsidizes) but rather public institutions, currently our bills for electricity and natural gas when through the roof (since they were heavily subsidized by the government and both providers of the services are private companies, not public companies) and currently we have public universities and voluntary fire stations and the like being unable to pay for their electricity bills.

We are basically suffering the pains of money supply extinction, I just wonder if the people will be clever enough to not vote the left on the parliamentary elections of next year because the recovery didn't happen soon enough.

You know how I know this place knows nothing about economics?

People think Venezuela is Socialism and Bernie voters are as well instead of social democrats which is as capitalist as it gets.

NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!
TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!
:DDDDDDDDDDDDDD

> Venezuela is as capitalist as it gets

Are you a complete moron?

What is capitalist about price and currency control, and nationalizations?

Fuck off

We got one here

Okay, I really gotta ask.
How did the flag of Portugal get involved with the WE WUZ shit?
I am portuguese, and I never heard that shit around here. Even the niggers that came here don't spout that shit.

You're not backing your point.
Hence, you're a faggot.

Age of Empires II: African Kingdoms includes Portugal for some bizarre reason

What in the name of fuck.
We colonized a great of it, and aprently our sailors were the first to go around it, but seriously?
Man, gotta hand it to Sup Forums those guys are literall meme-making-machines.

/thread

That is actually a case of study most people ALWAYS dismiss. Like in every economy course I have taken or the like, they don't like to talk about why Hitler had the popular support of his people because he basically got them out of one of the worse economic depression Germany was ever on (and basically pushed towards that situation by the international jew and their dogs institution nations). The anti defamation league released an attack against an US institution that praised Hitler's economic policies and call them basically for supporting anti antisemitism.

yep, that's why.

German-descent Argie spotted. I bet 10 dollars your surname sounds like 'Mengele'.

cubans are literal slaves in their government's nation-wide plantation

kek

Cuba survived only by being subdized by the USSR and then by Venezuela

Having both sources of money disappeared, they are opening up to the ebil gabbitalists XD

And there is a problem with that? I mean people should give credit where credit is due. Personally I think the economic and social policies of Germany during the Third Reich where perfect for the German people. We could discuss their economic or social policies in detail but I would guess you will just scream "antisemitism!" even if I would concede that the Holocuento did happen and that there was animosity towards jews in the Nazi party (the real question here is WHY, and believe me there were a lot of reason to hate the jews in Germany in 1930-1938.)

I did not say Venezuela is as capitalist as it gets, I said social democrats are.

Venezuela is only hijacked by a Socialist party and while many attempts were made it, never worked out.

Its more of a semi-autarky command economy with some Capitalist/Socialist aspects to protect its assets at all costs but nothing you can really pinpoint on Socialism or Capitalism.

Far-Right Fascist mind you.

Hitler wasn't responsible for Germany's economic turnaround, Gottfried Feder and later Hjalmar Schacht were the economists that accomplished it.

The ideas are nothing more than an elaborate rationalization of theft.

Sure they benefited Germans. Hitler's aim was enslaving the Slavs, seizing all the Jews' assets and making Germany a paradise country all paid by the Slav slaves and inferior races. That's actually a nice perspective for a German of the 20's with no more savings because inflation made them valueless paper. But you know there's something wrong with enslaving all the Slavs and seize all the goodies of the Jews. You can't deny it.

Yeah I know, I am not saying that "HITLER" did it but he certainly knew who to listen to for advise. If history have thought us that it doesn't matter how brutal of a dictator you are if you play by the international banking cartel rules you get a free card to do what you want (look at modern Saudi Arabia) and the moment you DARE to challenge them or get out of line, get ready for MOTHERFUCKER FREEDOM, like it happen in Libya recently or Syria and Iraq in the past.

Damn dutchie define your socialism, you're triggering my OC disorder. Faggot.

Glad I lived long enough to see the Venezuelan government collapse.

I hated Chavez from day one.