Capitalism seen doing 'more harm than good' in global survey

[georgephillip]

Nothing is stopping it from selling its oil to other countries or from borrowing money from private banks aside from its own stupid decisions.

Except the power of the US dollar.

Explainer: U.S. sanctions and Venezuela's trade and oil industry partners

"The January sanctions prevented U.S. companies from dealing with PDVSA, and a clause that became effective in April blocked PDVSA from operating in the U.S. financial system.

"The asset freeze announced in early August threatens sanctions against any company deemed by Washington to be 'materially assisting' Venezuela’s government.

"While the January sanctions included similar language, U.S. national security adviser John Bolton last week said the new round gave companies a choice between doing business with Maduro or the United States.

"That has spooked PDVSA’s joint venture partners and customers, who are seeking clarity on the measure, sources said."

 

[gipper]

Capitalism seen doing 'more harm than good' in global survey
Capitalism seen doing 'more harm than good' in global survey

Nearly 1.1 billion fewer people are living in extreme poverty than in 1990.
In 2015, 736 million people lived on less than $1.90 a day, down from 1.85 billion in 1990.
Capitalism seen doing 'more harm than good' in global survey

So not only are there less people in extreme poverty but there are more
In 1990 there were 5,327,231,041 people... https://www.populationpyramid.net/world/1990/
In 2019 there were 7,713,468,205 people... https://www.populationpyramid.net/world/2019/

Facts are there are 1.1 billion fewer people in poverty even though there is 44% more people!

If you're defining "extreme poverty" as those living on less than $1.25 a day, capitalism still consigns millions of human to an early grave.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-died-because-of-capitalism

"'If we want to stick with a single international line, we might use the 'ethical poverty line' devised by Peter Edward of Newcastle University.

"He calculates that in order to achieve normal human life expectancy of just over 70 years, people need roughly 2.7 to 3.9 times the existing poverty line.

"In the past, that was $5 a day.

"Using the World banks new calculations, its about $7.40 a day.

"As it happens, this number is close to the average of national poverty lines in the global south.

"So, what would happen if we were to measure global poverty at this more accurate level? We would see that about 4.2 billion people live in poverty today. That’s more than four times what the World Bank would have us believe, and more than 60% of humanity.

"And the number has risen sharply since 1980, with nearly 1 billion people added to the ranks of the poor over the past 35 years.

https://www.quora.com/Did-capitalis...pitalist-socialist-or-communist-less-relevant

"The UN’s sustainable development goals, launched in September, are set to use the $1.90 line to measure poverty.

"Why do they persist with this implausibly low threshold?

"Because it’s the only one that shows any meaningful progress against poverty, and therefore lends a kind of happy justification to the existing economic order' (Hickel 2015)."

That's the cost of no capitalism, shit for brains. Those problems occur in countries that don't have capitalism, or that haven't had it for very long.

That's the cost of no capitalism, shit for brains. Those problems occur in countries that don't have capitalism, or that haven't had it for very long.

Care to name a few countries that capitalism doesn't affect?

It rules the world, but somehow dumb cons can’t see it.

Venezuela is a good example. Dumb cons think it’s economy is failing because of socialism. Somehow they fail to see the enormous impact of the Empire’s long running sanctions and covert efforts to harm the country economically.

The true sign of an idiot is claiming that Venezuela's problems aren't the result of socialism. It was swirling down the toilet long before the US placed any sanctions on it. Nothing is stopping it from selling its oil to other countries or from borrowing money from private banks aside from its own stupid decisions.

You aren’t informed. Stop listening to Rush. It makes you dumb.

 

[georgephillip]

They have to be mentally ill. They see all this human suffering yet they do next to nothing about, but they have the wealth that could help millions out of poverty.

Perhaps the word "ownership" sums up their pathology?

http://www.marjoriekelly.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Vol15No34TheCorporationasFeudalEstate.pdf

"In colonial times, an advice manual stressed that 'children are so much the goods, the possessions of their Parents, that they cannot without a kind of theft, give away themselves' without permission.

"Even in Two Treatises of Government by John Locke, considered a founding document of democracy, God is conceived of as the Great Property Owner.

"Locke wrote: For Men being all the Workmanship of one Omnipotent, and infinitely wise Maker; All the Servants of one Sovereign Master, sent into the World by his order and about his business, they are his Property, whose Workmanship they are..."

 

[daveman]

I have never voted D for potus. Though I’m not proud of this, since both parties are pretty much the same. Actually I’m ashamed of some of the asshole Rs I’ve voted for.

I don’t vote any more but if Bernie gets the nomination, I might.

Bernie Sanders will not get the nomination, not possible. The DNC will not allow it, they know that both he and Elizabeth Warren are way too far to the left to be a serious candidate.

Bernie would have gotten it last time, but he sold out.

The DNC did not allow it in 2016 and they will not in 2020 either. As I said, and even you know it is true, he and Elizabeth are way to far to the left to be a serious candidate. He would be demolished by President Donald Trump in the debates and at the polls.

Oh, I agree. The DNC has made it quite clear the candidate they anoint will win the nomination, and what the Dem proles want simply doesn't matter.

 

[georgephillip]

The petrodollar rules. The oligarchy is prepared to kill untold numbers of people to continue it’s rule.

Apparently some believe the petrodollar supports the dollar's role as a global reserve currency, and if it ever loses that status, the cost of living and doing business in the US could double or triple?

 

[daveman]

I have never voted D for potus. Though I’m not proud of this, since both parties are pretty much the same. Actually I’m ashamed of some of the asshole Rs I’ve voted for.

I don’t vote any more but if Bernie gets the nomination, I might.

Bernie Sanders will not get the nomination, not possible. The DNC will not allow it, they know that both he and Elizabeth Warren are way too far to the left to be a serious candidate.

Bernie would have gotten it last time, but he sold out.

You mean Hillary, theDNC, and the MSM cheated him.

And he took his private plane ride and went home, never kicking up a fuss over the Dem corruption that put him out the door.

 

[daveman]

Capitalism seen doing 'more harm than good' in global survey
Capitalism seen doing 'more harm than good' in global survey

Nearly 1.1 billion fewer people are living in extreme poverty than in 1990.
In 2015, 736 million people lived on less than $1.90 a day, down from 1.85 billion in 1990.
Capitalism seen doing 'more harm than good' in global survey

So not only are there less people in extreme poverty but there are more
In 1990 there were 5,327,231,041 people... https://www.populationpyramid.net/world/1990/
In 2019 there were 7,713,468,205 people... https://www.populationpyramid.net/world/2019/

Facts are there are 1.1 billion fewer people in poverty even though there is 44% more people!

If you're defining "extreme poverty" as those living on less than $1.25 a day, capitalism still consigns millions of human to an early grave.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-died-because-of-capitalism

"'If we want to stick with a single international line, we might use the 'ethical poverty line' devised by Peter Edward of Newcastle University.

"He calculates that in order to achieve normal human life expectancy of just over 70 years, people need roughly 2.7 to 3.9 times the existing poverty line.

"In the past, that was $5 a day.

"Using the World banks new calculations, its about $7.40 a day.

"As it happens, this number is close to the average of national poverty lines in the global south.

"So, what would happen if we were to measure global poverty at this more accurate level? We would see that about 4.2 billion people live in poverty today. That’s more than four times what the World Bank would have us believe, and more than 60% of humanity.

"And the number has risen sharply since 1980, with nearly 1 billion people added to the ranks of the poor over the past 35 years.

https://www.quora.com/Did-capitalis...pitalist-socialist-or-communist-less-relevant

"The UN’s sustainable development goals, launched in September, are set to use the $1.90 line to measure poverty.

"Why do they persist with this implausibly low threshold?

"Because it’s the only one that shows any meaningful progress against poverty, and therefore lends a kind of happy justification to the existing economic order' (Hickel 2015)."

That's the cost of no capitalism, shit for brains. Those problems occur in countries that don't have capitalism, or that haven't had it for very long.

That's the cost of no capitalism, shit for brains. Those problems occur in countries that don't have capitalism, or that haven't had it for very long.

Care to name a few countries that capitalism doesn't affect?

Capitalism has a positive effect on every country where it's tried.

There are only two countries in the Western Hemisphere where poverty is increasing.

Belize...and the socialist paradise of Venezuela.

 

[daveman]

A person's life savings being confiscated by the government affects only a few people.

A company being shut down due to malign government policies affects many.

Why do you think one is bad, but one is good?

Rabbit hole. If you want to address what I say, great. You don't get to make an argument up for me and then argue against that.

That is what you said. Chickenshit.

I never once mentioned shutting anything down (outside of bail outs and the socialist policies of the Fed).

You support Sanders. He WILL shut down companies through burdensome regulation. This is inarguable.

Of course it is.

Why do you want people unemployed?

Oh, that's right -- more unemployed people means more people dependent on government. The leftist standard of success.

 

[pknopp]

Rabbit hole. If you want to address what I say, great. You don't get to make an argument up for me and then argue against that.

That is what you said. Chickenshit.

I never once mentioned shutting anything down (outside of bail outs and the socialist policies of the Fed).

You support Sanders. He WILL shut down companies through burdensome regulation. This is inarguable.

Of course it is.

Why do you want people unemployed?

Oh, that's right -- more unemployed people means more people dependent on government. The leftist standard of success.

No clue what you are rambling about.

 

[daveman]

Capitalism seen doing 'more harm than good' in global survey
Capitalism seen doing 'more harm than good' in global survey

Nearly 1.1 billion fewer people are living in extreme poverty than in 1990.
In 2015, 736 million people lived on less than $1.90 a day, down from 1.85 billion in 1990.
Capitalism seen doing 'more harm than good' in global survey

So not only are there less people in extreme poverty but there are more
In 1990 there were 5,327,231,041 people... https://www.populationpyramid.net/world/1990/
In 2019 there were 7,713,468,205 people... https://www.populationpyramid.net/world/2019/

Facts are there are 1.1 billion fewer people in poverty even though there is 44% more people!

If you're defining "extreme poverty" as those living on less than $1.25 a day, capitalism still consigns millions of human to an early grave.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-died-because-of-capitalism

"'If we want to stick with a single international line, we might use the 'ethical poverty line' devised by Peter Edward of Newcastle University.

"He calculates that in order to achieve normal human life expectancy of just over 70 years, people need roughly 2.7 to 3.9 times the existing poverty line.

"In the past, that was $5 a day.

"Using the World banks new calculations, its about $7.40 a day.

"As it happens, this number is close to the average of national poverty lines in the global south.

"So, what would happen if we were to measure global poverty at this more accurate level? We would see that about 4.2 billion people live in poverty today. That’s more than four times what the World Bank would have us believe, and more than 60% of humanity.

"And the number has risen sharply since 1980, with nearly 1 billion people added to the ranks of the poor over the past 35 years.

https://www.quora.com/Did-capitalis...pitalist-socialist-or-communist-less-relevant

"The UN’s sustainable development goals, launched in September, are set to use the $1.90 line to measure poverty.

"Why do they persist with this implausibly low threshold?

"Because it’s the only one that shows any meaningful progress against poverty, and therefore lends a kind of happy justification to the existing economic order' (Hickel 2015)."

What’s truly amazing is the billionaires like Bezos, Buffet, FB Dork and others could easily put and end to this, but they don’t. They must be psychopaths.

What’s truly amazing is the billionaires like Bezos, Buffet, FB Dork and others could easily put and end to this, but they don’t. They must be psychopaths

They are surrounded by enablers telling them they are worth billion$ because of their genius and initiative in spite of the obvious fact they perform a small fraction of the daily labor required to produce their fortunes.

Capitalism provides the common law justifications for their greed, and their philanthropy provides a fig-leaf of morality.

I suspect it is a primal psychosis that will destroy the specie if not exterminated?

So remember, kids, capitalism killing people is bad -- but government killing people is okay.

 

[daveman]

That is what you said. Chickenshit.

I never once mentioned shutting anything down (outside of bail outs and the socialist policies of the Fed).

You support Sanders. He WILL shut down companies through burdensome regulation. This is inarguable.

Of course it is.

Why do you want people unemployed?

Oh, that's right -- more unemployed people means more people dependent on government. The leftist standard of success.

No clue what you are rambling about.

You support a candidate whose policies will inarguably put people out of work.

Why?

 

[pknopp]

I never once mentioned shutting anything down (outside of bail outs and the socialist policies of the Fed).

You support Sanders. He WILL shut down companies through burdensome regulation. This is inarguable.

Of course it is.

Why do you want people unemployed?

Oh, that's right -- more unemployed people means more people dependent on government. The leftist standard of success.

No clue what you are rambling about.

You support a candidate whose policies will inarguably put people out of work.

Why?

If you say so. It's your argument, not mine. I have no need to discuss it.

 

[Markle]

You don’t see it then. Let me try again. They buy off the politicians and regulators who in turn protect them from competition. It’s a racket the Mafia can only dream of.

If you think this is good, you aren’t thinking. Shit for brains.

Specifically, who are the monopolies and how are they being protected?

Big Pharma, Big Oil, MIC - war profiteers, Big Tech, Big Banks. Yes?

You misunderstood me. I said monopolies. Each of those categories has dozens of competitors in competition with each other. Please try again.

You used the term monopolies. Why?

You said they were protected from competition. If a business has no competition, it is a monopoly.

 

[georgephillip]

So remember, kids, capitalism killing people is bad -- but government killing people is okay.

Governments kill on behalf of capitalism, right?

Charged with war crimes and stuck in the brig, a Navy SEAL vows to fight on

 

[Markle]

Venezuela is a good example. Dumb cons think it’s economy is failing because of socialism. Somehow they fail to see the enormous impact of the Empire’s long running sanctions and covert efforts to harm the country economically.

I don't believe that Venezuela ever nationalized its banks.
I do believe John Bolton best explained the reasons behind the conflict:

"John Bolton doesn’t serve up any mush about 'democracy ' or 'human rights' in selling the U.S. war against Venezuela.

"Trump’s national security advisor told the Fox Business Network on Jan. 24 the real reason for the hostilities:

"'It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela.'

"In other words, it’s all about oil profits."

John Bolton and the Monroe Doctrine

The petrodollar rules. The oligarchy is prepared to kill untold numbers of people to continue it’s rule.

Who is this oligarchy of which you speak?

 

[Markle]

You support Sanders. He WILL shut down companies through burdensome regulation. This is inarguable.

Of course it is.

Why do you want people unemployed?

Oh, that's right -- more unemployed people means more people dependent on government. The leftist standard of success.

No clue what you are rambling about.

You support a candidate whose policies will inarguably put people out of work.

Why?

If you say so. It's your argument, not mine. I have no need to discuss it.

Good to see you step up and actually agree.

Why do you believe that putting people out of work, and into government dependence, is a good thing?

 

[pknopp]

Of course it is.

Why do you want people unemployed?

Oh, that's right -- more unemployed people means more people dependent on government. The leftist standard of success.

No clue what you are rambling about.

You support a candidate whose policies will inarguably put people out of work.

Why?

If you say so. It's your argument, not mine. I have no need to discuss it.

Good to see you step up and actually agree.

Why do you believe that putting people out of work, and into government dependence, is a good thing?

No idea what you are talking about. Again, it's your argument, not mine.

 

[daveman]

You support Sanders. He WILL shut down companies through burdensome regulation. This is inarguable.

Of course it is.

Why do you want people unemployed?

Oh, that's right -- more unemployed people means more people dependent on government. The leftist standard of success.

No clue what you are rambling about.

You support a candidate whose policies will inarguably put people out of work.

Why?

If you say so. It's your argument, not mine. I have no need to discuss it.

You mean you have no way of explaining the dichotomy.

Dismissed.

 

[pknopp]

Of course it is.

Why do you want people unemployed?

Oh, that's right -- more unemployed people means more people dependent on government. The leftist standard of success.

No clue what you are rambling about.

You support a candidate whose policies will inarguably put people out of work.

Why?

If you say so. It's your argument, not mine. I have no need to discuss it.

You mean you have no way of explaining the dichotomy.

Dismissed.

I have no need to explain your fantasies.

 

[daveman]

Why do you want people unemployed?

Oh, that's right -- more unemployed people means more people dependent on government. The leftist standard of success.

No clue what you are rambling about.

You support a candidate whose policies will inarguably put people out of work.

Why?

If you say so. It's your argument, not mine. I have no need to discuss it.

You mean you have no way of explaining the dichotomy.

Dismissed.

I have no need to explain your fantasies.

The only fantasy here is your belief that Sanders would be anything less than a disaster as President.