Venezuela's president admits economy has failed...kinda

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
Socialized healthcare isn't quite the same as an entire economy.
Captina Obvious, there you are! Can you please explain this to conservatives, or rather call them out when they choose to be willfully stupid in order to push their idiotic agenda?
They don't want socialized healthcare for the same reason they don't want a socialized economy. You [probably] don't like the fact that healthcare here is even part of the economy. You probably think it's just "wrong." Well, medical advancements that benefit humanity often happen here -- for a reason.

So...you didn't actually read the article? It openly points out flaws in how Chavez went about it and that Chavez himself was not a terribly great guy. Also, have to love how you cite this article from 5 fucking years ago, which surprisingly didn't have the things that have happened since that kinda alter how things have gone (like how the US opened up its fossil fuel production, in part to deliberately screw with other countries economically, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela being 3 key ones). Point is, that's hardly lionizing him, and it even actually specifically says that its a question that needs to be talked about with regards to governance. You can get screwed both directions (privatize or nationalized). The article ends pointing out exactly the stupidity in your post. That just mentioning Chavez is meant to nullify any and all discussion of socialism. That he's trotted out as a boogeyman by conservatives to end all discussion. Nevermind the lesson should be "don't let a fucking dictator run your country, regardless of what -ism you allege to follow", as that always leads to the worst fucking situation.
I'd rather not have an economy that can be completely destroyed by bad leadership making irresponsible decisions -- which shouldn't even be theirs to make. Call me crazy.
 
Last edited:

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
I'd say 2008 proved pretty solidly that we absolutely have that type of economy. It's what happens pretty much every time conservatives get enough control.
Oh, sure:
Ignore the obvious reality that it was the socialist-leaning practice of subsidizing housing and encouraging NINJA loans with promises to bail the lenders. Banks on their own don’t like losing money, you know. They require persuasion to take such risks and, boy, were they ever persuaded. It wasn’t just subsidies: it was guarantees that the government would step in if it proved foolhardy.

Ever wonder why the politicians pointed fingers and spit fire at the bankers... and yet the execs still escaped punishment with their golden parachutes and bonuses intact? They did their jobs and accepted the guarantees. Why should they suffer as if it was their fault? It wasn’t their decision to subsidize risky lending. With government guarantees, there was no risk and, thus, the same power that influenced the banks to cause this was impotent to punish them. Taxpayers were on the hook because it was our government’s own fault. They impotently scapegoated “the greedy bankers” in public to misdirect us and salvage some of the votes they gained by pushing these failed programs in the first place.

We have “that type of economy” because we have a government that often ignores the fundamental realities of entitlement programs (socialism, light) so that they can lure voters with more promises/entitlements. Even if the means of production are still privately controlled, every major step toward socialism has proved predictably disastrous, and the one you reference is exactly that.

The denials that led to it would be hilarious in hindsight if it weren’t so darn tragic.

The Bush admin pushed for tighter regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 17 times before the 2008 crisis happened, even before the House Financial Services Committee hearing on Sept. 10, 2003. You know: the one where HFSC Chairman Barney “fundamentally sound” Frank (D) convinced everyone that we needed to stay the course? Yeah. That one.

All Senate Banking Committee Democrats opposed the 2005 bill that all Republicans supported which would have prevented most (if not, all) of it by prohibiting GSEs from speculating on the bundled mortgage-based securities. John McCain co-sponsored it and publicly warned of the impressing crisis for years in advance. YEARS. It’s exactly these obvious predictions/concerns that Barney Frank was responding to when he denied reality to say that the fundamentals were “sound,” excusing several more years of driving that freight train at full speed ahead toward a brick wall.

The real cause is so black and white that it’s laughable that anyone still lays this at the feet of Republicans. Of course, they bear much of the blame for not forcing through regulations while they could. Guess that would have made them the evil bad guys that stopped this poor family from getting the loan they are entitled to for the housing they believe is a social “right.”

Yeah. This happens virtually everywhere you try to mess with the free market using government persuasion to incentivize risk. Not much solace, but it could have been worse if we doubled down: Mexico.

Housing, then health insurance... what major market disaster should we cause next while deluding ourselves that it has nothing to do with socialism?

To continue to deny that it was a crisis manufactured by government meddling in the free market for social welfare/votes is more than naive. It’s delusional. Blame “Republicans” all you want, but you need to show a cause and effect. “Republican President in 2008” is not a line of cause and effect. You present that as your understanding without even have a working theory of how that relates. There is typically an obvious and predictable line of causes and effects that ultimately ruin most any socialist program and you can trace it clear as day in the 2008 housing and financial collapse. It’s exactly the outcome any free-market economist would have predicted and exactly why proponents of the free market typically oppose such programs BEFORE they fail. We ignore this for obvious reasons. To our elected officials, they got what they wanted (votes) and now it’s someone else’s problem as long as they convince you that someone else is the bad guy. “...but you must want families to be HOMELESS, you heartless monster!” “It’s those GREEDY bankers expecting the taxpayers to bail them out because we let them get too big to fail!”
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,222
10,877
136
Oh, sure:
Ignore the obvious reality that it was the socialist-leaning practice of subsidizing housing and encouraging NINJA loans with promises to bail the lenders. Banks on their own don’t like losing money, you know. They require persuasion to take such risks and, boy, were they ever persuaded. It wasn’t just subsidies: it was guarantees that the government would step in if it proved foolhardy.

Ever wonder why the politicians pointed fingers and spit fire at the bankers... and yet the execs still escaped punishment with their golden parachutes and bonuses intact? They did their jobs and accepted the guarantees. Why should they suffer as if it was their fault? It wasn’t their decision to subsidize risky lending. With government guarantees, there was no risk and, thus, the same power that influenced the banks to cause this was impotent to punish them. Taxpayers were on the hook because it was our government’s own fault. They impotently scapegoated “the greedy bankers” in public to misdirect us and salvage some of the votes they gained by pushing these failed programs in the first place.

We have “that type of economy” because we have a government that often ignores the fundamental realities of entitlement programs (socialism, light) so that they can lure voters with more promises/entitlements. Even if the means of production are still privately controlled, every major step toward socialism has proved predictably disastrous, and the one you reference is exactly that.

The denials that led to it would be hilarious in hindsight if it weren’t so darn tragic.

The Bush admin pushed for tighter regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 17 times before the 2008 crisis happened, even before the House Financial Services Committee hearing on Sept. 10, 2003. You know: the one where HFSC Chairman Barney “fundamentally sound” Frank (D) convinced everyone that we needed to stay the course? Yeah. That one.

All Senate Banking Committee Democrats opposed the 2005 bill that all Republicans supported which would have prevented most (if not, all) of it by prohibiting GSEs from speculating on the bundled mortgage-based securities. John McCain co-sponsored it and publicly warned of the impressing crisis for years in advance. YEARS. It’s exactly these obvious predictions/concerns that Barney Frank was responding to when he denied reality to say that the fundamentals were “sound,” excusing several more years of driving that freight train at full speed ahead toward a brick wall.

The real cause is so black and white that it’s laughable that anyone still lays this at the feet of Republicans. Of course, they bear much of the blame for not forcing through regulations while they could. Guess that would have made them the evil bad guys that stopped this poor family from getting the loan they are entitled to for the housing they believe is a social “right.”

Yeah. This happens virtually everywhere you try to mess with the free market using government persuasion to incentivize risk. Not much solace, but it could have been worse if we doubled down: Mexico.

Housing, then health insurance... what major market disaster should we cause next while deluding ourselves that it has nothing to do with socialism?

To continue to deny that it was a crisis manufactured by government meddling in the free market for social welfare/votes is more than naive. It’s delusional. Blame “Republicans” all you want, but you need to show a cause and effect. “Republican President in 2008” is not a line of cause and effect. You present that as your understanding without even have a working theory of how that relates. There is typically an obvious and predictable line of causes and effects that ultimately ruin most any socialist program and you can trace it clear as day in the 2008 housing and financial collapse. It’s exactly the outcome any free-market economist would have predicted and exactly why proponents of the free market typically oppose such programs BEFORE they fail. We ignore this for obvious reasons. To our elected officials, they got what they wanted (votes) and now it’s someone else’s problem as long as they convince you that someone else is the bad guy. “...but you must want families to be HOMELESS, you heartless monster!” “It’s those GREEDY bankers expecting the taxpayers to bail them out because we let them get too big to fail!”
Can you say revisionist history. Wish Legendkiller was still around to explain this and of course when he was sane.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,852
136
CZroe, I don't think you have a strong understanding of the financial crisis or what caused it.

First, there were not promised government bailouts and the idea that the entire financial sector was governing their individual institutions as if they would get a bailout if their bets went wrong is silliness. If you think there were guarantees, Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers would like to have a word with you, haha.

Second, the reason NINJA loans proliferated wasn't due to government guarantees it was due to securitization of mortgage products. The people making the loans could offload them to investors easily and therefore offload their risk for making them. The whole while these same investors had convinced themselves these securitized garbage mortgages were in fact AAA credit risks. Adding to this problem was that many of the largest investors in MBS products weren't regulated as normal banks, meaning the government had less ability to rein in their foolishness.

Posts like yours are what happens when ideology eats your brain. You just can't conceive of a way in which that crisis wasn't the government's fault so you invent an alternate history to convince yourself otherwise. The reality of it was that we had too little government regulation, not too much. It's sad that conservatives need to keep learning this lesson over and over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkswordsman17

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,222
10,877
136
They don't want socialized healthcare for the same reason they don't want a socialized economy. You don't like the fact that healthcare here is even part of the economy. You probably think it's just "wrong." Well, medical advancements that benefit humanity often happen here -- for a reason.


I'd rather not have an economy that can be completely destroyed by bad leadership making irresponsible decisions -- which shouldn't even be theirs to make. Call me crazy.
Yea, it would be a whole lot worse than some random speculator ruining your world.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,279
5,720
146
They don't want socialized healthcare for the same reason they don't want a socialized economy. You don't like the fact that healthcare here is even part of the economy. You probably think it's just "wrong." Well, medical advancements that benefit humanity often happen here -- for a reason.


I'd rather not have an economy that can be completely destroyed by bad leadership making irresponsible decisions -- which shouldn't even be theirs to make. Call me crazy.

What are you talking about? Where did I say I don't like the fact health care is part of the economy? How could you even remove something from being part of the economy? I mean, you do realize that the government is part of the economy, as the finances of the government are dependent on the overall finances of the country, right? Seriously, what the fuck? I really don't know why you two seem like you have to constantly argue the dumbest most asinine bullshit arguments, but hey, I guess why make a reasonable response when you can just spout nonsense, act like I said it, and then argue against it?

Uh...again, what the fuck? You're crazy because you think that's not already how things operate regardless of economic ideology. Plus, that you act like I argued something and are refuting it simply with that statement is just straight up horseshit, but for whatever reason that is far too common with you.

Oh, great, your "brother" had to make sure that you weren't here all alone spouting your ignorance. Just...holy shit at that wall of ignorance. Wow...that's so ignorant that there's not even a point to trying to discuss anything with either of you, you're so clearly just intent on arguing whatever you want to make. If you two can't offer anything more than that you should stick to trying to constantly proclaim your expertise on old video game stuff, at least there you seem to know what you're talking about so your condescending attitude isn't totally laughable like here where you showed that if wasn't for jack you'd only know shit about this topic.

I think I need to offer an apology. In my initial response to yours, I took your comment not as you indicating your self-inclusion as a willfully ignorant conservative, but rather I took it as, you innocently simplifying it for said people, hence the "duh, anyone with basic logic and basic understanding of what those words mean would know that" response from me. Clearly, I should have just realized the former and just ignored you, so sorry. Thank you for making it so abundantly clear that you are though. I will certainly take that into consideration going forward. You really don't need your brother to highlight that point so thoroughly though.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
That POS should be in jail for what he has done, I am still waiting for the socialist scum and filth to admit their ideology is crooked but they will never admit the truth. People have died because of socialism and idiots keep saying more socialism. Venezuela needs Capitalism.
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
I'm sorry what is this fairy tale of Republicans wanting more regulations and what are your sources?
Oh, there are many. Here’s a 2008 Post from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080919-15.html which attempts to sum it up:

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

2001

April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."

2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004

February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

2008

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

Need more? Years before the collapse, John McCain had this to say regarding the 2005 bill that he co-sponsored:
If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole

Sorry, buddy, but Republicans calling for regulation is one of the easiest things to prove/believe because it actually happened. Of the housing committee, support was split along party lines: Repubs were unanimously in favor of it and Dems were unanimously against it.

This isn’t revisionist history. I didn’t recently stumble across some alternate history conspiracy theory. I heard it all when it was current, so I remembered it. If you were an adult since before the turn of the century then you should have been aware enough to remember the build up, the warnings, the false re-assurances, and all the drama... and you should not require me to dig it back up for you.

CZroe, I don't think you have a strong understanding of the financial crisis or what caused it.

First, there were not promised government bailouts and the idea that the entire financial sector was governing their individual institutions as if they would get a bailout if their bets went wrong is silliness. If you think there were guarantees, Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers would like to have a word with you, haha.
Not the entire financial sector. This started with GSEs. GSE = Government Sponsored Enterprise. Namely, FannieMae and Freddie Mac. Next, look up the Community Reinvestment Act, which mandated lenders to make substandard loans. If you are going to FORCE them to act against their own logic/self-preservation, then you better be ready to bail them out when it goes wrong.

Second, the reason NINJA loans proliferated wasn't due to government guarantees it was due to securitization of mortgage products. The people making the loans could offload them to investors easily and therefore offload their risk for making them. The whole while these same investors had convinced themselves these securitized garbage mortgages were in fact AAA credit risks. Adding to this problem was that many of the largest investors in MBS products weren't regulated as normal banks, meaning the government had less ability to rein in their foolishness.
...and just what made them “AAA credit risks?” Pressure and influence from GSE financial institutions and a government intent on incentivizing mortgages. Buying these mortgage debts to reduce risk to banks and encourage more home lending is what FannieMae was conceived and set up by the government to do. The housing market manipulation started a LONG time ago... under Roosevelt.

https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2010/10/01/The-Corruption-of-the-Rating-Agencies
Once upon a time, when a bank loaned someone money to buy a house, it held that mortgage until it was paid off. Thus the bank had a strong incentive to make sure that the borrower was credit-worthy. And in those days that wasn’t so hard, because banks normally lent only to individuals and businesses in its immediate vicinity with whom it probably had done business for many years. The banks knew very well who was a good credit risk and who wasn’t.

The problem was that a local bank with limited deposits only had so much money to lend. This made it hard even for those with good incomes and credit to get mortgages. Until the 1930s, mortgages were uncommon and people mostly paid cash when they bought a house, which obviously limited the potential for homeownership. The homeownership rate was well below 50 percent until after World War II, according to the Census Bureau.

But in the 1930s, the federal government began setting up agencies such as the Federal National Mortgage Association − popularly known as Fannie Mae − that would buy mortgages from local banks, thus replenishing the funds available to lend to other home buyers. This greatly increased liquidity in the housing market and helped fuel a vast expansion of homeownership after the war as people moved out of rental apartments in the cities in favor of houses in the suburbs. The homeownership rate jumped from 44 percent in 1940 to 55 percent in 1950 and 62 percent in 1960.
 
Last edited:

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
What are you talking about? Where did I say I don't like the fact health care is part of the economy? How could you even remove something from being part of the economy? I mean, you do realize that the government is part of the economy, as the finances of the government are dependent on the overall finances of the country, right? Seriously, what the fuck? I really don't know why you two seem like you have to constantly argue the dumbest most asinine bullshit arguments, but hey, I guess why make a reasonable response when you can just spout nonsense, act like I said it, and then argue against it?

Uh...again, what the fuck? You're crazy because you think that's not already how things operate regardless of economic ideology. Plus, that you act like I argued something and are refuting it simply with that statement is just straight up horseshit, but for whatever reason that is far too common with you.

Oh, great, your "brother" had to make sure that you weren't here all alone spouting your ignorance. Just...holy shit at that wall of ignorance. Wow...that's so ignorant that there's not even a point to trying to discuss anything with either of you, you're so clearly just intent on arguing whatever you want to make. If you two can't offer anything more than that you should stick to trying to constantly proclaim your expertise on old video game stuff, at least there you seem to know what you're talking about so your condescending attitude isn't totally laughable like here where you showed that if wasn't for jack you'd only know shit about this topic.

I think I need to offer an apology. In my initial response to yours, I took your comment not as you indicating your self-inclusion as a willfully ignorant conservative, but rather I took it as, you innocently simplifying it for said people, hence the "duh, anyone with basic logic and basic understanding of what those words mean would know that" response from me. Clearly, I should have just realized the former and just ignored you, so sorry. Thank you for making it so abundantly clear that you are though. I will certainly take that into consideration going forward. You really don't need your brother to highlight that point so thoroughly though.
He obviously means “part of the [private/capitalist] economy...”

...as opposed to government mandated/sponsored/subsidized/guaranteed “fundamental human right” healthcare.

I’m sure you understood that and just decided to harp on it as a distraction. Good job!
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Yes... and no.

Yes, Maduro is a problem for his people.
No, the death of their leader would only incite further bloodshed and chaos. There's no reason to believe it'd improve the situation.

I'm sure Maduro will turn it around anyday now with his program of trading votes for food packages.... Sounds completely realistic.... Fucking retard.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,852
136
Oh, there are many. Here’s a 2008 Post from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080919-15.html which attempts to sum it up:



Need more? Years before the collapse, John McCain had this to say regarding the 2005 bill that he co-sponsored:


Sorry, buddy, but Republicans calling for regulation is one of the easiest things to prove/believe because it actually happened. Of the housing committee, support was split along party lines: Repubs were unanimously in favor of it and Dems were unanimously against it.

This isn’t revisionist history. I didn’t recently stumble across some alternate history conspiracy theory. I heard it all when it was current, so I remembered it. If you were an adult since before the turn of the century then you should have been aware enough to remember the build up, the warnings, the false re-assurances, and all the drama... and you should not require me to dig it back up for you.


Not the entire financial sector. This started with GSEs. GSE = Government Sponsored Enterprise. Namely, FannieMae and Freddie Mac. Next, look up the Community Reinvestment Act, which mandated lenders to make substandard loans. If you are going to FORCE them to act against their own logic/self-preservation, then you better be ready to bail them out when it goes wrong.


...and just what made them “AAA credit risks?” Pressure and influence from GSE financial institutions and a government intent on incentivizing mortgages. Buying these mortgage debts to reduce risk to banks and encourage more home lending is what FannieMae was conceived and set up by the government to do. The housing market manipulation started a LONG time ago... under Roosevelt.

https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2010/10/01/The-Corruption-of-the-Rating-Agencies

You’re clearly ranting based on right wing news sources. First, most of the subprime lending happened from banks that weren’t subject to the CRA. Second, the vast majority of the securitization that crashed the market happened outside of the GSEs. Third, the GSEs were followers, not those that initiated it.

You just don’t know what you’re talking about and you’ve been duped by right wing media. It’s important for you to know that they think you’re stupid but I don’t. If you’re genuinely interested in learning more about the 2008 crisis I’m more than happy to provide you with material. You’re going to be unhappy if you’re committed to blaming the government though because that’s just not reality.
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
Socialized healthcare isn't quite the same as an entire economy.
- Ichinisan
Captina Obvious, there you are! Can you please explain this to conservatives, or rather call them out when they choose to be willfully stupid in order to push their idiotic agenda?
- darkswordsman17
They don't want socialized healthcare for the same reason they don't want a socialized economy. You [probably] don't like the fact that healthcare here is even part of the economy. You probably think it's just "wrong." Well, medical advancements that benefit humanity often happen here -- for a reason.

When Chavez took over and instituted his "socialism" he was the darling of the white liberal left and as long as the oil money flowed due to the historic high prices he could do no wrong,

as soon as the oil prices dropped and the "socialist" policies he enacted began to crumble all around him our white liberal leftists threw him under the bus claiming he wasn't a true socialist like those lily white European countries they like to hold as an example of true socialism.

https://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/hugo_chavezs_economic_miracle/

Hugo Chavez’s economic miracle
The Venezuelan leader was often marginalized as a radical. But his brand of socialism achieved real economic gains[
-1prophet
So...you didn't actually read the article? It openly points out flaws in how Chavez went about it and that Chavez himself was not a terribly great guy. Also, have to love how you cite this article from 5 fucking years ago, which surprisingly didn't have the things that have happened since that kinda alter how things have gone (like how the US opened up its fossil fuel production, in part to deliberately screw with other countries economically, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela being 3 key ones). Point is, that's hardly lionizing him, and it even actually specifically says that its a question that needs to be talked about with regards to governance. You can get screwed both directions (privatize or nationalized). The article ends pointing out exactly the stupidity in your post. That just mentioning Chavez is meant to nullify any and all discussion of socialism. That he's trotted out as a boogeyman by conservatives to end all discussion. Nevermind the lesson should be "don't let a fucking dictator run your country, regardless of what -ism you allege to follow", as that always leads to the worst fucking situation.
- darkswordsman17
I'd rather not have an economy that can be completely destroyed by bad leadership making irresponsible decisions -- which shouldn't even be theirs to make. Call me crazy.
- Ichinisan
What are you talking about? Where did I say I don't like the fact health care is part of the economy? How could you even remove something from being part of the economy? I mean, you do realize that the government is part of the economy, as the finances of the government are dependent on the overall finances of the country, right? Seriously, what the fuck? I really don't know why you two seem like you have to constantly argue the dumbest most asinine bullshit arguments, but hey, I guess why make a reasonable response when you can just spout nonsense, act like I said it, and then argue against it?

Uh...again, what the fuck? You're crazy because you think that's not already how things operate regardless of economic ideology. Plus, that you act like I argued something and are refuting it simply with that statement is just straight up horseshit, but for whatever reason that is far too common with you.

Oh, great, your "brother" had to make sure that you weren't here all alone spouting your ignorance. Just...holy shit at that wall of ignorance. Wow...that's so ignorant that there's not even a point to trying to discuss anything with either of you, you're so clearly just intent on arguing whatever you want to make. If you two can't offer anything more than that you should stick to trying to constantly proclaim your expertise on old video game stuff, at least there you seem to know what you're talking about so your condescending attitude isn't totally laughable like here where you showed that if wasn't for jack you'd only know shit about this topic.

I think I need to offer an apology. In my initial response to yours, I took your comment not as you indicating your self-inclusion as a willfully ignorant conservative, but rather I took it as, you innocently simplifying it for said people, hence the "duh, anyone with basic logic and basic understanding of what those words mean would know that" response from me. Clearly, I should have just realized the former and just ignored you, so sorry. Thank you for making it so abundantly clear that you are though. I will certainly take that into consideration going forward. You really don't need your brother to highlight that point so thoroughly though.
- darkswordsman17

I'm sorry you found our previous interactions to be so irritating. I meant to say: "You [probably] don't like the fact that healthcare here is part of the economy." -- because some people feel that healthcare should be a human right or something.

I can't do anything about my brother pooping in this thread. He often revives inactive threads when he searches my post history.
 
Last edited:

1sikbITCH

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2001
4,194
574
126
Sigh, Venezuela took control of the means of production. They are an autocratic communist country. Not a European style socialist democracy.

Why is it neo-conservatives have problems telling the difference between European style socialism and autocratic communism???

I mean, I know the propaganda intentionally tries to conflate the two, but anyone with half a fucking brain can see the difference.

I guess the OP lacks that half Sigh...

They have no problem telling the difference. They hope Joe Six Pack can't tell.
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
This tweet didn’t age well

DkaZIgTU0AEhlhN.jpg