It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Venezuela Is Officially Out of Food!

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I didn't realize Sanders was looking to control Americas means of production.




posted on May, 18 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: DBCowboy

I didn't realize Sanders was looking to control Americas means of production.


Literally? You're right.

Sanders will have to destroy the US before he looks anywhere else.

I apologize for the error.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

It's that whole socialism that isn't socialism thing again.

It's only socialism if it's currently prosperous.

And white.




posted on May, 18 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
so socialism is a big hit in scandinavia, so that means it's great ?


Most Scandinavian countries rank highly in economic freedom. They're not really soocialist.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: TheBandit795

It's a lot more complicated than just "blame socialism". But "socialism" is part of the problem.


Explain it then.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther


hahaha

You're right. The people are starving, economy collapsed, infrastructure in ruins. It really wasn't socialism. It must have been something else because socialism is great!



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: DBCowboy

I didn't realize Sanders was looking to control Americas means of production.


Apologies. Did you mean America as in USA?

And that Sanders wasn't trying to control the means of production?

Really.

Blanket socialized medicine in the US would be controlling the means of production.
Providing free schooling is controlling the means of production.
Limiting how much CEO's can keep is controlling wages, controlling profits, which is controlling the means of production.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   
The problem for Venezuela is the same as it has been for a century. Corruption and over dependence on oil exports. The Socialist did exactly what the Capitalist did before them. They overspent based on oil prices that then crashed and lead them into a spiral of debt. Before it was the 1980's oil glut it lead to a debt crisis, 100% inflation and riots. The Capitalist Government fell and the Socialist took over, with oil prices high they began spending this time on the poor and not the rich like before. Still same result, oil prices fall, debt crisis, 100% inflation and riots.

Capitalist or Socialist makes no difference if your going to do the same thing over and over again. Plus toss in lots of corruption and it does not matter who is in charge, your still going to end up the same way. Lets hope whomever takes over next tries to diversify that economy. Other wise we will be seeing this happen again.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBandit795

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: TheBandit795

It's a lot more complicated than just "blame socialism". But "socialism" is part of the problem.


Explain it then.


First off, I mentioned the currency controls. Venezuela has refused to bow-down to the US dollar and big banks. This has caused many issues with importers because it limits the currency they can use to purchase goods from exporters. That limits supplies being brought-in.

There is also an issue with goods being taken out of the country to be sold for higher prices, limiting supplies even more.

Add to that the IMF projections that the Venezuelan currency is/was expected to hit something like 500-700% inflation, and even less people are going to be willing to deal with Venezuela.

Where "socialism" screwed-up here is that they seized idle farmland and land from big farm operations, with the intent of giving poor people the land so they could produce food/livestock/etc...giving the land "back to the people". But they didn't follow through on their end. They did not help these poor people combat issues like water supplies, equipment, training, etc.

They should have done a lot more to help, or completely managed food production operations and hired the poor to work the farms.
edit on 18-5-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: TheKestrel04

Feel the Bern!



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad




Capitalist or Socialist makes no difference if your going to do the same thing over and over again. Plus toss in lots of corruption and it does not matter who is in charge, your still going to end up the same way. Lets hope whomever takes over next tries to diversify that economy. Other wise we will be seeing this happen again.



Actually, there is a great difference. People are dependent on the state, not on a corporation. If a corporation fails, there are others to choose from. if a state fails, there isn't much else in terms of choices.

As has been the case such as in the Russia, black markets will have to fill in where the government cannot.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBandit795

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
so socialism is a big hit in scandinavia, so that means it's great ?


Most Scandinavian countries rank highly in economic freedom. They're not really soocialist.


those darn scandinavians messing up all the fun !



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

Yes, yes, an interesting conclusion. I'm sure you factored in the other elephant in the room -- namely, "corruption," right?

I mean, Iceland actually jailed some of their bankers.

Venezuela elected theirs.

No worries. I'm sure there is no correlation. A history of vigorously prosecuting corruption, versus a history of openly tolerating it are exactly the same thing. There's no way that could be a factor, right?



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

That would be reassuring if six corporations didn't control 85% of all media, five corporations didn't control 90% of all healthcare, and three corporations didn't hold 80% of all home mortgages, and one corporation didn't completely control Wall Street, finance and banking.

As it is, your ideas are about 60 years too late. Most of us don't even have a choice of who we can get broadband from, and 75% can't turn on the radio without hearing a branded station controlled by a single corporate entity.

I used to go back and forth, you know. It's the government! It's the corporations! Etc.

And then I woke up to an era of unprecedented consolidations and I realized: government is basically just the PR arm of a single group, controlled by the same 300 board members. The illusion that the corps are at war with the government is the basis for nearly all of our problems. That isn't likely to change in the near term.

Sadly, we have always been at war with Eurasia.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: DBCowboy

I didn't realize Sanders was looking to control Americas means of production.


No. But he is looking to do that with health care and college education. So that's two fairly large sectors of the economy right there. Health care alone is roughly 6%.

And most of the things that are currently state owned and controlled in Venezuela were not planned to be that way when the socialists started out there, either. But when each crisis came up, the popular solution was to quickly confiscate the industry in question so they leader could quickly redistribute the goods ... like Christmas at whatever season it happened to be.

That's part of the problem now.

It's hard to entice foreign investment when the prospective investors know you have little respect for property.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

First off, I mentioned to currency controls. Venezuela has refused to bow-down to the US dollar and big banks. This has caused many issues with importers because it limits the currency they can use to purchase goods from exporters. That limits supplies being brought-in.


That's because of the skyrocketing price for products after the government has nationalized industries and/or imposed quotas on production and/or imposed higher taxes on income for that production; destroying local production in the process.

Because of an increasingly limited supply of products and because of the Venezuelan government continuously printing money, the price for said products increased drastically causing Venezuelans to try all kinds of ways to get U.S. Dollars, including attempting to use credit cards here in Aruba to get them.




Add to that the IMF projections that the Venezuelan currency is/was expected to hit something like 500-700% inflation, and even less people are going to be willing to deal with Venezuela.


Like I said, the massive inflation is a direct result of those socialist policies they have implemented over the years.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: syrinx high priest

Most Scandinavian countries rank highly in economic freedom. They're not really soocialist.


those darn scandinavians messing up all the fun !

Yeah, messing up the fun for those who want to believe they're socialist countries. They're more capitalist than the U.S.A..



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: 0zzymand0s




That would be reassuring if six corporations didn't control 85% of all media, five corporations didn't control 90% of all healthcare, and three corporations didn't hold 80% of all home mortgages, and one corporation didn't completely control Wall Street, finance and banking.

As it is, your ideas are about 60 years too late. Most of us don't even have a choice of who we can get broadband from, and 75% can't turn on the radio without hearing a branded station controlled by a single corporate entity.

I used to go back and forth, you know. It's the government! It's the corporations! Etc.

And then I woke up to an era of unprecedented consolidations and I realized: government is basically just the PR arm of a single group, controlled by the same 300 board members. The illusion that the corps are at war with the government is the basis for nearly all of our problems. That isn't likely to change in the near term.


Innovation overcomes these obstacles. Noticing the problem is only the first step. When apathy is the second step things will remain the same. Innovation, on the other hand, changes everything.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBandit795

Of course they are. They simply don't believe a person should need to use "gofundme" in order to pay their medical bills.

It's a fairly revolutionary concept, to be sure.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

How are we going to innovate our way out of the Federal Reserve? By trading positive thoughts instead of American dollars?



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join