Millions of dollars has been raised from anonymous US donors to support British rightwing thinktanks

[danielpalos]

Tax cut economics is a danger to military operations.

/——/ The stock charts concur

if the economy is so Wonderful, why no pay raise for federal employees, or infrastructure bills passed?

/——/ Over paid fed bums don’t need any raises. Infrastructure bills are pork laden projects

tax cut economics is about the rich getting richer faster.

Give yours up.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage means even the poor can pay income taxes; let's put the law of large numbers to work for us.

 

[danielpalos]

the "chart reading skills of options guys".

/----/ If that's a joke no one is laughing except you.

lol. practice makes perfect; forex is open twenty-four hours.

More US troops have died because of Democrats than Republicans.

Tax cut economics is a danger to military operations.

What ?

We subscribe to Capitalism, nothing is "free" under Capitalism.

Why blame the poor.

 

[SavannahMann]

The cost of the trade is always an issue. Not just in dollars and jobs. But in baggage that comes with it. When the politicians you elect are no longer able, much less willing, to represent you because of dictates from another more powerful group, you have a problem. When you have nearly no influence as a nation over the direction of that larger more powerful group, you have a real problem. When that group can decide not only the business policies and laws your nation will follow, but social, and legal standards you must follow, the problem is enormous.

The truth about a restricted democracy, or Representative Republic is that it allows for small changed within the framework that everyone agrees to. The rights of the individual are laid out, and protected. The Government’s duties and responsibilities are laid out and the people expect the elected to act in a manner which is within those rules and limits.

The truth about the EU is that it is can never be a restricted Democracy, or a Representative Republic. What began as a economic association has become a social, and legal group that dictates to the Nations that are member, which really aren’t nations anymore.

Look at the economic recession we endured what, ten years ago? How many nations are even now still struggling because they could not enact any economic reforms or take economic actions? They did not print the money, and therefor had no say over the money that was in use. The British had control over their money, and the course they charted was different than the EU, and seems to have worked well enough. The course Greece or Italy or Spain, all of which are still suffering huge unemployment and lost billions of Euro’s in value was one of begging for assistance.

They were in effect like the States of America, instead of the equivalent of the United States as a nation. They answered to the EU. They obeyed the instructions from the EU, which where monetary policy and trade policy is settled, gives the power to the largest most powerful nations.

It turned the smaller nations into servents of the German and French economies and wishes. Enough people in Britain saw that to demand a change. Now the future is uncertain, because whenever you make a big change, it is always uncertain. But you are going for more independence, more freedom, and more say in the lives of yourself, your family, and your fellow Britain’s. Is the ability to trade with Germany and France really that awesome when British products aren’t bought with nearly the same zest as German products? Will the average German Car buyer walk past a Volkswagen built in Germany to buy a Nissan built in England? Will the French stop buying Peugeot or Citroen? Will Italy choose English brand names over Fiat?

It was never a good thing, and it isn’t a good thing today for Britain or anyone.

I agree to disagree. Our problem in the US, seems to be, right wing fantasy, not global trade. Tax cut economics are worthless if they don't cover spending. In my opinion, trade deficits should be addressed with infrastructure and subsidies; not trade wars.

In a way, I agree. Deficit spending is not a sustainable nor desirable long term plan. However, the reverse is also not desirable. Requiring both Social programs, and dictated tax policy. It is said that there are many ways to skin a cat, and there are many ways to achieve economic stability. First, of course, do not spend more than you make. A lesson that individuals, and governments, have struggled with forever.

Cooperation however, is not good either. Let’s take cars for a good example. In the 1970’s both Europe, and America, opened their markets to foreign cars. The Common Market in Europe. Britain had a number of car makers, and the cars they made were junk. Their market was flooded with not only Japanese, but European Cars. Instead of Rovers, the British people bought BMW, Mercedes, and later Audi’s as well as Volkswagens, and Fiat. One of the truly great cars of the era was the Mini from England.

Yet, the Mini suffered by comparison soon enough as the Volkswagen Golf and various European and later Japanese Hatchbacks began to flood the market. Britain through British Leyland came up with the Alegro. It was terrible.

The Mini was good, and other cars had the potential to be good, but they weren’t. They suffered and died as a result of competition from the market. Wait for it. The Americans faced the same problem. AMC went the way of the Dodo. But the other makers studied the Japanese, and the Europeans, and learned. They adapted. We saw an end to the giant highway cruisers. We saw the beginnings of some really good cars. The Chevy Luv Pick Up truck, the Ford Ranger, which in later years was just a Mazda Pick up with a different label, but we are moving forward. The Ford Explorer was a derivative of the Land Rover Discovery, itself a derivative of the Range Rover.

Car after car was updated, manufacturing techniques were updated, quality was improved. And competition provided us the consumers, a better product. It is happening even today.

Electric cars, the dream of Science Fiction writers and Futurologists were slow, had no range worth mentioning, and were ugly. They missed on all of the key checks that get a product selected by the product. Ugly is OK, the econobox hatch backs of the 1980’s prove it. If the car is reliable, cheap, and reasonably user friendly. We’ll sacrifice looks for expense in other words.

Today Electric Cars are starting to get mainstream. Why? Tesla kickstarted the whole thing. Now other makers are working on getting their share of Tesla’s lightning. Better range, faster recharge, and improved appearance. They’re still expensive, but it is improving.

Competition was able to achieve what the desires of the fantasy writers could not. Widespread acceptance of the electric car in a gas society.

Cooperation means limits. Let’s say that Spain comes up with the next Tesla. Only it’s cheap, reliable, and fast to recharge. They start to flood the market. Well, in the EU that wouldn’t be good. You see, other nations make similar vehicles, and their sales would suffer wouldn’t they? So limits on the Spanish car would insure that it’s fair for everyone. Fair for everyone is the exact opposite of competition, and does not stimulate advancements and progress and improvements. It stifles them.

Capitalists with their capital ventures. What if, Labor just wants to work? Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, means even venture capitalists can venture their capital and not leave Labor in a much worse off position than before; or, at least with recourse to an income in the manner of compensation for Capitalism's, Natural rate of unemployment. An automatic stabilizer for our economy, regardless of venture capitalists, venturing and not always winning.

For labor to work there has to be something for them to do, something profitable or at least productive. Make work never works well.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. Only socialism can find something for everyone to do.

Why not solve for that with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed? It is market friendly and conforms to the concept of natural rights.

How would unemployed Labor, be worse off with That form of social safety, instead of only having means tested welfare, which is much more expensive? Means testing can limit opportunities for advancement unlike compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

Capitalism is not perfect. Just as Democracy is not perfect. Yet, Socialism has created far more problems than it solves every single time it has been tried. Even the most successful implementation, China, has widespread problems when it was simple Socialism. China eliminated some of those problems by making it more capitalist, but the problems that China is having today, are of their own making. That is Socialism in the most advantageous situation imaginable. A people witha strong cultural tradition and pressure for conformity, and a strong work ethic again cultural. And even in that situation, Socialism failed until it was watered down with Capitalism.

What you are doing is calling Universal Basic Income Unemployment. They are two different things. Unemployment is for when you lost your job, and are seeking other employment. A safety net to catch someone before they smash into the rocks below.

What happens with the safety net is obvious from history, it becomes a hammock for a few, and then far too many until society is unable to hold the net up. Collapse is inevitable. That’s why President Clinton signed the Welfare Reform Act. The idea was one of the basic truths of our world.

If you give a man a fish, you’ve fed him for a day. If you teach him to fish, you’ve fed him for a lifetime. So why not teach people how to earn the money, and far more, than they would get on the Dole? Job training to give them a chance at a better life. Mike Rowe is famous, or notorious, for his jobs training and skilled labor advocacy. He’s right, skilled labor is often a superior way to achieve success. Take any skilled labor field, and you’ll find that the laborers tend to make more than the managers for the first several tiers of management.

I am a Heavy Equipment Operator. It did not take me four years to get started in this field. I was not saddled with crippling debt. I am able to make six digit salaries pretty much anywhere in the nation with my level of experience and expertise. Like all endeavors you don’t start out making quite that much, but you can with some work and experience.

Take Tow Truck operators. They start out small, and some don’t go past that. But some move all the way up to the highest paid operators of the most expensive equipment. They earn way more than me in many cases. But in our society where all that matters is what degree you have from what university they are not even considered successful.

Why? Arrogance, is part of it. But Labor does need a certain amount of Management to be successful. Without the man to design that Rotator Recovery Vehicle the Operator would not have machines to operate. Without the Engineer to figure out how to maximize the strength of cables and winches, the operator would not be able to recover the stalled or damaged vehicle. Without the CEO to gather the finances to buy the equipment the Operator wouldn’t have a job, much less something to operate.

Our problem is that we look down on labor, while elevating those with a degree upon pedestals that they are unworthy to stand upon. Merely because of the additional education. Most of which doesn’t improve anything. And is easily learned by even moderate minds who choose to read a book or two.

Skilled Labor tends to find employment easier if they have a job loss for any reason. They still have the skills. And those skills are still in demand.

 

[danielpalos]

I agree to disagree. Our problem in the US, seems to be, right wing fantasy, not global trade. Tax cut economics are worthless if they don't cover spending. In my opinion, trade deficits should be addressed with infrastructure and subsidies; not trade wars.

In a way, I agree. Deficit spending is not a sustainable nor desirable long term plan. However, the reverse is also not desirable. Requiring both Social programs, and dictated tax policy. It is said that there are many ways to skin a cat, and there are many ways to achieve economic stability. First, of course, do not spend more than you make. A lesson that individuals, and governments, have struggled with forever.

Cooperation however, is not good either. Let’s take cars for a good example. In the 1970’s both Europe, and America, opened their markets to foreign cars. The Common Market in Europe. Britain had a number of car makers, and the cars they made were junk. Their market was flooded with not only Japanese, but European Cars. Instead of Rovers, the British people bought BMW, Mercedes, and later Audi’s as well as Volkswagens, and Fiat. One of the truly great cars of the era was the Mini from England.

Yet, the Mini suffered by comparison soon enough as the Volkswagen Golf and various European and later Japanese Hatchbacks began to flood the market. Britain through British Leyland came up with the Alegro. It was terrible.

The Mini was good, and other cars had the potential to be good, but they weren’t. They suffered and died as a result of competition from the market. Wait for it. The Americans faced the same problem. AMC went the way of the Dodo. But the other makers studied the Japanese, and the Europeans, and learned. They adapted. We saw an end to the giant highway cruisers. We saw the beginnings of some really good cars. The Chevy Luv Pick Up truck, the Ford Ranger, which in later years was just a Mazda Pick up with a different label, but we are moving forward. The Ford Explorer was a derivative of the Land Rover Discovery, itself a derivative of the Range Rover.

Car after car was updated, manufacturing techniques were updated, quality was improved. And competition provided us the consumers, a better product. It is happening even today.

Electric cars, the dream of Science Fiction writers and Futurologists were slow, had no range worth mentioning, and were ugly. They missed on all of the key checks that get a product selected by the product. Ugly is OK, the econobox hatch backs of the 1980’s prove it. If the car is reliable, cheap, and reasonably user friendly. We’ll sacrifice looks for expense in other words.

Today Electric Cars are starting to get mainstream. Why? Tesla kickstarted the whole thing. Now other makers are working on getting their share of Tesla’s lightning. Better range, faster recharge, and improved appearance. They’re still expensive, but it is improving.

Competition was able to achieve what the desires of the fantasy writers could not. Widespread acceptance of the electric car in a gas society.

Cooperation means limits. Let’s say that Spain comes up with the next Tesla. Only it’s cheap, reliable, and fast to recharge. They start to flood the market. Well, in the EU that wouldn’t be good. You see, other nations make similar vehicles, and their sales would suffer wouldn’t they? So limits on the Spanish car would insure that it’s fair for everyone. Fair for everyone is the exact opposite of competition, and does not stimulate advancements and progress and improvements. It stifles them.

Capitalists with their capital ventures. What if, Labor just wants to work? Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, means even venture capitalists can venture their capital and not leave Labor in a much worse off position than before; or, at least with recourse to an income in the manner of compensation for Capitalism's, Natural rate of unemployment. An automatic stabilizer for our economy, regardless of venture capitalists, venturing and not always winning.

For labor to work there has to be something for them to do, something profitable or at least productive. Make work never works well.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. Only socialism can find something for everyone to do.

Why not solve for that with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed? It is market friendly and conforms to the concept of natural rights.

How would unemployed Labor, be worse off with That form of social safety, instead of only having means tested welfare, which is much more expensive? Means testing can limit opportunities for advancement unlike compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

Capitalism is not perfect. Just as Democracy is not perfect. Yet, Socialism has created far more problems than it solves every single time it has been tried. Even the most successful implementation, China, has widespread problems when it was simple Socialism. China eliminated some of those problems by making it more capitalist, but the problems that China is having today, are of their own making. That is Socialism in the most advantageous situation imaginable. A people witha strong cultural tradition and pressure for conformity, and a strong work ethic again cultural. And even in that situation, Socialism failed until it was watered down with Capitalism.

What you are doing is calling Universal Basic Income Unemployment. They are two different things. Unemployment is for when you lost your job, and are seeking other employment. A safety net to catch someone before they smash into the rocks below.

What happens with the safety net is obvious from history, it becomes a hammock for a few, and then far too many until society is unable to hold the net up. Collapse is inevitable. That’s why President Clinton signed the Welfare Reform Act. The idea was one of the basic truths of our world.

If you give a man a fish, you’ve fed him for a day. If you teach him to fish, you’ve fed him for a lifetime. So why not teach people how to earn the money, and far more, than they would get on the Dole? Job training to give them a chance at a better life. Mike Rowe is famous, or notorious, for his jobs training and skilled labor advocacy. He’s right, skilled labor is often a superior way to achieve success. Take any skilled labor field, and you’ll find that the laborers tend to make more than the managers for the first several tiers of management.

I am a Heavy Equipment Operator. It did not take me four years to get started in this field. I was not saddled with crippling debt. I am able to make six digit salaries pretty much anywhere in the nation with my level of experience and expertise. Like all endeavors you don’t start out making quite that much, but you can with some work and experience.

Take Tow Truck operators. They start out small, and some don’t go past that. But some move all the way up to the highest paid operators of the most expensive equipment. They earn way more than me in many cases. But in our society where all that matters is what degree you have from what university they are not even considered successful.

Why? Arrogance, is part of it. But Labor does need a certain amount of Management to be successful. Without the man to design that Rotator Recovery Vehicle the Operator would not have machines to operate. Without the Engineer to figure out how to maximize the strength of cables and winches, the operator would not be able to recover the stalled or damaged vehicle. Without the CEO to gather the finances to buy the equipment the Operator wouldn’t have a job, much less something to operate.

Our problem is that we look down on labor, while elevating those with a degree upon pedestals that they are unworthy to stand upon. Merely because of the additional education. Most of which doesn’t improve anything. And is easily learned by even moderate minds who choose to read a book or two.

Skilled Labor tends to find employment easier if they have a job loss for any reason. They still have the skills. And those skills are still in demand.

Socialism is unavoidable. You have to remember, Capitalism "died in 1929", and socialism has been bailing out Capitalism, ever since. Besides, socialism starts with a social contract, not right wing special pleading. Our Constitution defines and limits our form of socialism. The Proof is, we have a Mixed-Market economy. Part socialism and part capitalism. We have a Command Economy; Congress commands fiscal policy and the Fed commands monetary policy.

What you claim of socialism, is simply lousy management.

I am trying to simplify Government. Unemployment compensation is, compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment and should be used as a more effective social safety net. It is more cost effective than means tested welfare, could solve simple poverty, improve the efficiency of our economy, and lower our tax burden due to the law of large numbers--more people circulating capital and paying taxes for goods and services. A positive multiplier effect.

Your, right wing canard about teaching a man to fish is wasted in politics; the right wing has nothing but red herrrings, to show for it. And, why complain about the cost of social services, if you are unwilling to improve the efficiency of our economy, through simplification of Government.

 

[Cellblock2429]

In a way, I agree. Deficit spending is not a sustainable nor desirable long term plan. However, the reverse is also not desirable. Requiring both Social programs, and dictated tax policy. It is said that there are many ways to skin a cat, and there are many ways to achieve economic stability. First, of course, do not spend more than you make. A lesson that individuals, and governments, have struggled with forever.

Cooperation however, is not good either. Let’s take cars for a good example. In the 1970’s both Europe, and America, opened their markets to foreign cars. The Common Market in Europe. Britain had a number of car makers, and the cars they made were junk. Their market was flooded with not only Japanese, but European Cars. Instead of Rovers, the British people bought BMW, Mercedes, and later Audi’s as well as Volkswagens, and Fiat. One of the truly great cars of the era was the Mini from England.

Yet, the Mini suffered by comparison soon enough as the Volkswagen Golf and various European and later Japanese Hatchbacks began to flood the market. Britain through British Leyland came up with the Alegro. It was terrible.

The Mini was good, and other cars had the potential to be good, but they weren’t. They suffered and died as a result of competition from the market. Wait for it. The Americans faced the same problem. AMC went the way of the Dodo. But the other makers studied the Japanese, and the Europeans, and learned. They adapted. We saw an end to the giant highway cruisers. We saw the beginnings of some really good cars. The Chevy Luv Pick Up truck, the Ford Ranger, which in later years was just a Mazda Pick up with a different label, but we are moving forward. The Ford Explorer was a derivative of the Land Rover Discovery, itself a derivative of the Range Rover.

Car after car was updated, manufacturing techniques were updated, quality was improved. And competition provided us the consumers, a better product. It is happening even today.

Electric cars, the dream of Science Fiction writers and Futurologists were slow, had no range worth mentioning, and were ugly. They missed on all of the key checks that get a product selected by the product. Ugly is OK, the econobox hatch backs of the 1980’s prove it. If the car is reliable, cheap, and reasonably user friendly. We’ll sacrifice looks for expense in other words.

Today Electric Cars are starting to get mainstream. Why? Tesla kickstarted the whole thing. Now other makers are working on getting their share of Tesla’s lightning. Better range, faster recharge, and improved appearance. They’re still expensive, but it is improving.

Competition was able to achieve what the desires of the fantasy writers could not. Widespread acceptance of the electric car in a gas society.

Cooperation means limits. Let’s say that Spain comes up with the next Tesla. Only it’s cheap, reliable, and fast to recharge. They start to flood the market. Well, in the EU that wouldn’t be good. You see, other nations make similar vehicles, and their sales would suffer wouldn’t they? So limits on the Spanish car would insure that it’s fair for everyone. Fair for everyone is the exact opposite of competition, and does not stimulate advancements and progress and improvements. It stifles them.

Capitalists with their capital ventures. What if, Labor just wants to work? Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, means even venture capitalists can venture their capital and not leave Labor in a much worse off position than before; or, at least with recourse to an income in the manner of compensation for Capitalism's, Natural rate of unemployment. An automatic stabilizer for our economy, regardless of venture capitalists, venturing and not always winning.

For labor to work there has to be something for them to do, something profitable or at least productive. Make work never works well.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. Only socialism can find something for everyone to do.

Why not solve for that with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed? It is market friendly and conforms to the concept of natural rights.

How would unemployed Labor, be worse off with That form of social safety, instead of only having means tested welfare, which is much more expensive? Means testing can limit opportunities for advancement unlike compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

Capitalism is not perfect. Just as Democracy is not perfect. Yet, Socialism has created far more problems than it solves every single time it has been tried. Even the most successful implementation, China, has widespread problems when it was simple Socialism. China eliminated some of those problems by making it more capitalist, but the problems that China is having today, are of their own making. That is Socialism in the most advantageous situation imaginable. A people witha strong cultural tradition and pressure for conformity, and a strong work ethic again cultural. And even in that situation, Socialism failed until it was watered down with Capitalism.

What you are doing is calling Universal Basic Income Unemployment. They are two different things. Unemployment is for when you lost your job, and are seeking other employment. A safety net to catch someone before they smash into the rocks below.

What happens with the safety net is obvious from history, it becomes a hammock for a few, and then far too many until society is unable to hold the net up. Collapse is inevitable. That’s why President Clinton signed the Welfare Reform Act. The idea was one of the basic truths of our world.

If you give a man a fish, you’ve fed him for a day. If you teach him to fish, you’ve fed him for a lifetime. So why not teach people how to earn the money, and far more, than they would get on the Dole? Job training to give them a chance at a better life. Mike Rowe is famous, or notorious, for his jobs training and skilled labor advocacy. He’s right, skilled labor is often a superior way to achieve success. Take any skilled labor field, and you’ll find that the laborers tend to make more than the managers for the first several tiers of management.

I am a Heavy Equipment Operator. It did not take me four years to get started in this field. I was not saddled with crippling debt. I am able to make six digit salaries pretty much anywhere in the nation with my level of experience and expertise. Like all endeavors you don’t start out making quite that much, but you can with some work and experience.

Take Tow Truck operators. They start out small, and some don’t go past that. But some move all the way up to the highest paid operators of the most expensive equipment. They earn way more than me in many cases. But in our society where all that matters is what degree you have from what university they are not even considered successful.

Why? Arrogance, is part of it. But Labor does need a certain amount of Management to be successful. Without the man to design that Rotator Recovery Vehicle the Operator would not have machines to operate. Without the Engineer to figure out how to maximize the strength of cables and winches, the operator would not be able to recover the stalled or damaged vehicle. Without the CEO to gather the finances to buy the equipment the Operator wouldn’t have a job, much less something to operate.

Our problem is that we look down on labor, while elevating those with a degree upon pedestals that they are unworthy to stand upon. Merely because of the additional education. Most of which doesn’t improve anything. And is easily learned by even moderate minds who choose to read a book or two.

Skilled Labor tends to find employment easier if they have a job loss for any reason. They still have the skills. And those skills are still in demand.

Socialism is unavoidable. You have to remember, Capitalism "died in 1929", and socialism has been bailing out Capitalism, ever since. Besides, socialism starts with a social contract, not right wing special pleading. Our Constitution defines and limits our form of socialism. The Proof is, we have a Mixed-Market economy. Part socialism and part capitalism. We have a Command Economy; Congress commands fiscal policy and the Fed commands monetary policy.

What you claim of socialism, is simply lousy management.

I am trying to simplify Government. Unemployment compensation is, compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment and should be used as a more effective social safety net. It is more cost effective than means tested welfare, could solve simple poverty, improve the efficiency of our economy, and lower our tax burden due to the law of large numbers--more people circulating capital and paying taxes for goods and services. A positive multiplier effect.

Your, right wing canard about teaching a man to fish is wasted in politics; the right wing has nothing but red herrrings, to show for it. And, why complain about the cost of social services, if you are unwilling to improve the efficiency of our economy, through simplification of Government.

/---/ "Capitalism "died in 1929", and socialism has been bailing out Capitalism, ever since."
You repost this gibberish every month or so and it's just as idiotic as ever before.

 

[danielpalos]

Capitalists with their capital ventures. What if, Labor just wants to work? Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, means even venture capitalists can venture their capital and not leave Labor in a much worse off position than before; or, at least with recourse to an income in the manner of compensation for Capitalism's, Natural rate of unemployment. An automatic stabilizer for our economy, regardless of venture capitalists, venturing and not always winning.

For labor to work there has to be something for them to do, something profitable or at least productive. Make work never works well.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. Only socialism can find something for everyone to do.

Why not solve for that with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed? It is market friendly and conforms to the concept of natural rights.

How would unemployed Labor, be worse off with That form of social safety, instead of only having means tested welfare, which is much more expensive? Means testing can limit opportunities for advancement unlike compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

Capitalism is not perfect. Just as Democracy is not perfect. Yet, Socialism has created far more problems than it solves every single time it has been tried. Even the most successful implementation, China, has widespread problems when it was simple Socialism. China eliminated some of those problems by making it more capitalist, but the problems that China is having today, are of their own making. That is Socialism in the most advantageous situation imaginable. A people witha strong cultural tradition and pressure for conformity, and a strong work ethic again cultural. And even in that situation, Socialism failed until it was watered down with Capitalism.

What you are doing is calling Universal Basic Income Unemployment. They are two different things. Unemployment is for when you lost your job, and are seeking other employment. A safety net to catch someone before they smash into the rocks below.

What happens with the safety net is obvious from history, it becomes a hammock for a few, and then far too many until society is unable to hold the net up. Collapse is inevitable. That’s why President Clinton signed the Welfare Reform Act. The idea was one of the basic truths of our world.

If you give a man a fish, you’ve fed him for a day. If you teach him to fish, you’ve fed him for a lifetime. So why not teach people how to earn the money, and far more, than they would get on the Dole? Job training to give them a chance at a better life. Mike Rowe is famous, or notorious, for his jobs training and skilled labor advocacy. He’s right, skilled labor is often a superior way to achieve success. Take any skilled labor field, and you’ll find that the laborers tend to make more than the managers for the first several tiers of management.

I am a Heavy Equipment Operator. It did not take me four years to get started in this field. I was not saddled with crippling debt. I am able to make six digit salaries pretty much anywhere in the nation with my level of experience and expertise. Like all endeavors you don’t start out making quite that much, but you can with some work and experience.

Take Tow Truck operators. They start out small, and some don’t go past that. But some move all the way up to the highest paid operators of the most expensive equipment. They earn way more than me in many cases. But in our society where all that matters is what degree you have from what university they are not even considered successful.

Why? Arrogance, is part of it. But Labor does need a certain amount of Management to be successful. Without the man to design that Rotator Recovery Vehicle the Operator would not have machines to operate. Without the Engineer to figure out how to maximize the strength of cables and winches, the operator would not be able to recover the stalled or damaged vehicle. Without the CEO to gather the finances to buy the equipment the Operator wouldn’t have a job, much less something to operate.

Our problem is that we look down on labor, while elevating those with a degree upon pedestals that they are unworthy to stand upon. Merely because of the additional education. Most of which doesn’t improve anything. And is easily learned by even moderate minds who choose to read a book or two.

Skilled Labor tends to find employment easier if they have a job loss for any reason. They still have the skills. And those skills are still in demand.

Socialism is unavoidable. You have to remember, Capitalism "died in 1929", and socialism has been bailing out Capitalism, ever since. Besides, socialism starts with a social contract, not right wing special pleading. Our Constitution defines and limits our form of socialism. The Proof is, we have a Mixed-Market economy. Part socialism and part capitalism. We have a Command Economy; Congress commands fiscal policy and the Fed commands monetary policy.

What you claim of socialism, is simply lousy management.

I am trying to simplify Government. Unemployment compensation is, compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment and should be used as a more effective social safety net. It is more cost effective than means tested welfare, could solve simple poverty, improve the efficiency of our economy, and lower our tax burden due to the law of large numbers--more people circulating capital and paying taxes for goods and services. A positive multiplier effect.

Your, right wing canard about teaching a man to fish is wasted in politics; the right wing has nothing but red herrrings, to show for it. And, why complain about the cost of social services, if you are unwilling to improve the efficiency of our economy, through simplification of Government.

/---/ "Capitalism "died in 1929", and socialism has been bailing out Capitalism, ever since."
You repost this gibberish every month or so and it's just as idiotic as ever before.

Lousy management. Venezuela is a federal republic.

 

[Cellblock2429]

For labor to work there has to be something for them to do, something profitable or at least productive. Make work never works well.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. Only socialism can find something for everyone to do.

Why not solve for that with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed? It is market friendly and conforms to the concept of natural rights.

How would unemployed Labor, be worse off with That form of social safety, instead of only having means tested welfare, which is much more expensive? Means testing can limit opportunities for advancement unlike compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

Capitalism is not perfect. Just as Democracy is not perfect. Yet, Socialism has created far more problems than it solves every single time it has been tried. Even the most successful implementation, China, has widespread problems when it was simple Socialism. China eliminated some of those problems by making it more capitalist, but the problems that China is having today, are of their own making. That is Socialism in the most advantageous situation imaginable. A people witha strong cultural tradition and pressure for conformity, and a strong work ethic again cultural. And even in that situation, Socialism failed until it was watered down with Capitalism.

What you are doing is calling Universal Basic Income Unemployment. They are two different things. Unemployment is for when you lost your job, and are seeking other employment. A safety net to catch someone before they smash into the rocks below.

What happens with the safety net is obvious from history, it becomes a hammock for a few, and then far too many until society is unable to hold the net up. Collapse is inevitable. That’s why President Clinton signed the Welfare Reform Act. The idea was one of the basic truths of our world.

If you give a man a fish, you’ve fed him for a day. If you teach him to fish, you’ve fed him for a lifetime. So why not teach people how to earn the money, and far more, than they would get on the Dole? Job training to give them a chance at a better life. Mike Rowe is famous, or notorious, for his jobs training and skilled labor advocacy. He’s right, skilled labor is often a superior way to achieve success. Take any skilled labor field, and you’ll find that the laborers tend to make more than the managers for the first several tiers of management.

I am a Heavy Equipment Operator. It did not take me four years to get started in this field. I was not saddled with crippling debt. I am able to make six digit salaries pretty much anywhere in the nation with my level of experience and expertise. Like all endeavors you don’t start out making quite that much, but you can with some work and experience.

Take Tow Truck operators. They start out small, and some don’t go past that. But some move all the way up to the highest paid operators of the most expensive equipment. They earn way more than me in many cases. But in our society where all that matters is what degree you have from what university they are not even considered successful.

Why? Arrogance, is part of it. But Labor does need a certain amount of Management to be successful. Without the man to design that Rotator Recovery Vehicle the Operator would not have machines to operate. Without the Engineer to figure out how to maximize the strength of cables and winches, the operator would not be able to recover the stalled or damaged vehicle. Without the CEO to gather the finances to buy the equipment the Operator wouldn’t have a job, much less something to operate.

Our problem is that we look down on labor, while elevating those with a degree upon pedestals that they are unworthy to stand upon. Merely because of the additional education. Most of which doesn’t improve anything. And is easily learned by even moderate minds who choose to read a book or two.

Skilled Labor tends to find employment easier if they have a job loss for any reason. They still have the skills. And those skills are still in demand.

Socialism is unavoidable. You have to remember, Capitalism "died in 1929", and socialism has been bailing out Capitalism, ever since. Besides, socialism starts with a social contract, not right wing special pleading. Our Constitution defines and limits our form of socialism. The Proof is, we have a Mixed-Market economy. Part socialism and part capitalism. We have a Command Economy; Congress commands fiscal policy and the Fed commands monetary policy.

What you claim of socialism, is simply lousy management.

I am trying to simplify Government. Unemployment compensation is, compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment and should be used as a more effective social safety net. It is more cost effective than means tested welfare, could solve simple poverty, improve the efficiency of our economy, and lower our tax burden due to the law of large numbers--more people circulating capital and paying taxes for goods and services. A positive multiplier effect.

Your, right wing canard about teaching a man to fish is wasted in politics; the right wing has nothing but red herrrings, to show for it. And, why complain about the cost of social services, if you are unwilling to improve the efficiency of our economy, through simplification of Government.

/---/ "Capitalism "died in 1929", and socialism has been bailing out Capitalism, ever since."
You repost this gibberish every month or so and it's just as idiotic as ever before.

Lousy management. Venezuela is a federal republic.

/----/ "Lousy management. Venezuela is a federal republic."
Well, I guess a poor excuse for failure is better than none at all.

 

[danielpalos]

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. Only socialism can find something for everyone to do.

Why not solve for that with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed? It is market friendly and conforms to the concept of natural rights.

How would unemployed Labor, be worse off with That form of social safety, instead of only having means tested welfare, which is much more expensive? Means testing can limit opportunities for advancement unlike compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

Capitalism is not perfect. Just as Democracy is not perfect. Yet, Socialism has created far more problems than it solves every single time it has been tried. Even the most successful implementation, China, has widespread problems when it was simple Socialism. China eliminated some of those problems by making it more capitalist, but the problems that China is having today, are of their own making. That is Socialism in the most advantageous situation imaginable. A people witha strong cultural tradition and pressure for conformity, and a strong work ethic again cultural. And even in that situation, Socialism failed until it was watered down with Capitalism.

What you are doing is calling Universal Basic Income Unemployment. They are two different things. Unemployment is for when you lost your job, and are seeking other employment. A safety net to catch someone before they smash into the rocks below.

What happens with the safety net is obvious from history, it becomes a hammock for a few, and then far too many until society is unable to hold the net up. Collapse is inevitable. That’s why President Clinton signed the Welfare Reform Act. The idea was one of the basic truths of our world.

If you give a man a fish, you’ve fed him for a day. If you teach him to fish, you’ve fed him for a lifetime. So why not teach people how to earn the money, and far more, than they would get on the Dole? Job training to give them a chance at a better life. Mike Rowe is famous, or notorious, for his jobs training and skilled labor advocacy. He’s right, skilled labor is often a superior way to achieve success. Take any skilled labor field, and you’ll find that the laborers tend to make more than the managers for the first several tiers of management.

I am a Heavy Equipment Operator. It did not take me four years to get started in this field. I was not saddled with crippling debt. I am able to make six digit salaries pretty much anywhere in the nation with my level of experience and expertise. Like all endeavors you don’t start out making quite that much, but you can with some work and experience.

Take Tow Truck operators. They start out small, and some don’t go past that. But some move all the way up to the highest paid operators of the most expensive equipment. They earn way more than me in many cases. But in our society where all that matters is what degree you have from what university they are not even considered successful.

Why? Arrogance, is part of it. But Labor does need a certain amount of Management to be successful. Without the man to design that Rotator Recovery Vehicle the Operator would not have machines to operate. Without the Engineer to figure out how to maximize the strength of cables and winches, the operator would not be able to recover the stalled or damaged vehicle. Without the CEO to gather the finances to buy the equipment the Operator wouldn’t have a job, much less something to operate.

Our problem is that we look down on labor, while elevating those with a degree upon pedestals that they are unworthy to stand upon. Merely because of the additional education. Most of which doesn’t improve anything. And is easily learned by even moderate minds who choose to read a book or two.

Skilled Labor tends to find employment easier if they have a job loss for any reason. They still have the skills. And those skills are still in demand.

Socialism is unavoidable. You have to remember, Capitalism "died in 1929", and socialism has been bailing out Capitalism, ever since. Besides, socialism starts with a social contract, not right wing special pleading. Our Constitution defines and limits our form of socialism. The Proof is, we have a Mixed-Market economy. Part socialism and part capitalism. We have a Command Economy; Congress commands fiscal policy and the Fed commands monetary policy.

What you claim of socialism, is simply lousy management.

I am trying to simplify Government. Unemployment compensation is, compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment and should be used as a more effective social safety net. It is more cost effective than means tested welfare, could solve simple poverty, improve the efficiency of our economy, and lower our tax burden due to the law of large numbers--more people circulating capital and paying taxes for goods and services. A positive multiplier effect.

Your, right wing canard about teaching a man to fish is wasted in politics; the right wing has nothing but red herrrings, to show for it. And, why complain about the cost of social services, if you are unwilling to improve the efficiency of our economy, through simplification of Government.

/---/ "Capitalism "died in 1929", and socialism has been bailing out Capitalism, ever since."
You repost this gibberish every month or so and it's just as idiotic as ever before.

Lousy management. Venezuela is a federal republic.

/----/ "Lousy management. Venezuela is a federal republic."
Well, I guess a poor excuse for failure is better than none at all.

It is a federal republic. What a difference a Constitution makes.

 

[SavannahMann]

Capitalism is not perfect. Just as Democracy is not perfect. Yet, Socialism has created far more problems than it solves every single time it has been tried. Even the most successful implementation, China, has widespread problems when it was simple Socialism. China eliminated some of those problems by making it more capitalist, but the problems that China is having today, are of their own making. That is Socialism in the most advantageous situation imaginable. A people witha strong cultural tradition and pressure for conformity, and a strong work ethic again cultural. And even in that situation, Socialism failed until it was watered down with Capitalism.

What you are doing is calling Universal Basic Income Unemployment. They are two different things. Unemployment is for when you lost your job, and are seeking other employment. A safety net to catch someone before they smash into the rocks below.

What happens with the safety net is obvious from history, it becomes a hammock for a few, and then far too many until society is unable to hold the net up. Collapse is inevitable. That’s why President Clinton signed the Welfare Reform Act. The idea was one of the basic truths of our world.

If you give a man a fish, you’ve fed him for a day. If you teach him to fish, you’ve fed him for a lifetime. So why not teach people how to earn the money, and far more, than they would get on the Dole? Job training to give them a chance at a better life. Mike Rowe is famous, or notorious, for his jobs training and skilled labor advocacy. He’s right, skilled labor is often a superior way to achieve success. Take any skilled labor field, and you’ll find that the laborers tend to make more than the managers for the first several tiers of management.

I am a Heavy Equipment Operator. It did not take me four years to get started in this field. I was not saddled with crippling debt. I am able to make six digit salaries pretty much anywhere in the nation with my level of experience and expertise. Like all endeavors you don’t start out making quite that much, but you can with some work and experience.

Take Tow Truck operators. They start out small, and some don’t go past that. But some move all the way up to the highest paid operators of the most expensive equipment. They earn way more than me in many cases. But in our society where all that matters is what degree you have from what university they are not even considered successful.

Why? Arrogance, is part of it. But Labor does need a certain amount of Management to be successful. Without the man to design that Rotator Recovery Vehicle the Operator would not have machines to operate. Without the Engineer to figure out how to maximize the strength of cables and winches, the operator would not be able to recover the stalled or damaged vehicle. Without the CEO to gather the finances to buy the equipment the Operator wouldn’t have a job, much less something to operate.

Our problem is that we look down on labor, while elevating those with a degree upon pedestals that they are unworthy to stand upon. Merely because of the additional education. Most of which doesn’t improve anything. And is easily learned by even moderate minds who choose to read a book or two.

Skilled Labor tends to find employment easier if they have a job loss for any reason. They still have the skills. And those skills are still in demand.

Socialism is unavoidable. You have to remember, Capitalism "died in 1929", and socialism has been bailing out Capitalism, ever since. Besides, socialism starts with a social contract, not right wing special pleading. Our Constitution defines and limits our form of socialism. The Proof is, we have a Mixed-Market economy. Part socialism and part capitalism. We have a Command Economy; Congress commands fiscal policy and the Fed commands monetary policy.

What you claim of socialism, is simply lousy management.

I am trying to simplify Government. Unemployment compensation is, compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment and should be used as a more effective social safety net. It is more cost effective than means tested welfare, could solve simple poverty, improve the efficiency of our economy, and lower our tax burden due to the law of large numbers--more people circulating capital and paying taxes for goods and services. A positive multiplier effect.

Your, right wing canard about teaching a man to fish is wasted in politics; the right wing has nothing but red herrrings, to show for it. And, why complain about the cost of social services, if you are unwilling to improve the efficiency of our economy, through simplification of Government.

/---/ "Capitalism "died in 1929", and socialism has been bailing out Capitalism, ever since."
You repost this gibberish every month or so and it's just as idiotic as ever before.

Lousy management. Venezuela is a federal republic.

/----/ "Lousy management. Venezuela is a federal republic."
Well, I guess a poor excuse for failure is better than none at all.

It is a federal republic. What a difference a Constitution makes.

And what part of a Federal Republic allows for the Nationalization of the Oil Industry, Grocery Industry, Radio, and TV, newspapers. Etc.?

Every action that has been taken in Venezuela is right out of the Socialist Playbook. Every action including the reduction of political parties approved for office to one. China calls itself the People’s Republic of China. That doesn’t mean they are a Representative Republic though. North Korea calls itself the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Not exactly truth in advertising though is it.

It is said actions speak louder than words, and the actions of Venezuela are speaking in extreme volume. For those who would listen.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The disclosure leaves the thinktanks facing questions as to whether wealthy Americans have undue influence in British politics, particularly over the form Brexit takes.


US groups raise millions to support rightwing UK thinktanks

Why do Americans care if Britain is in the EU or not?

Same reason many people in other nations care if the US is in NAFTA or the UN or not

potentially better products at lower cost?

From Those Who Invented a Boat Called "Junk"

That delusion is the Chink in the FreeTraders' armor.

We can't compete on Labor with the less developed world. We have a First World economy; it is not inexpensive.

Treason Is Not a Property Right

Outsourcing to sweatshops must be outlawed. Besides, our Greedheads could have used cheap foreign labor for the past two hundred years; the only thing that changed was that bootlicking economic sissies started to let them. And if you care about a matter of life and death, our modern but untraditional slavishness to that unAmerican class is why we let richkids get out of fighting in our wars, which is capital treason.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

In a way, I agree. Deficit spending is not a sustainable nor desirable long term plan. However, the reverse is also not desirable. Requiring both Social programs, and dictated tax policy. It is said that there are many ways to skin a cat, and there are many ways to achieve economic stability. First, of course, do not spend more than you make. A lesson that individuals, and governments, have struggled with forever.

Cooperation however, is not good either. Let’s take cars for a good example. In the 1970’s both Europe, and America, opened their markets to foreign cars. The Common Market in Europe. Britain had a number of car makers, and the cars they made were junk. Their market was flooded with not only Japanese, but European Cars. Instead of Rovers, the British people bought BMW, Mercedes, and later Audi’s as well as Volkswagens, and Fiat. One of the truly great cars of the era was the Mini from England.

Yet, the Mini suffered by comparison soon enough as the Volkswagen Golf and various European and later Japanese Hatchbacks began to flood the market. Britain through British Leyland came up with the Alegro. It was terrible.

The Mini was good, and other cars had the potential to be good, but they weren’t. They suffered and died as a result of competition from the market. Wait for it. The Americans faced the same problem. AMC went the way of the Dodo. But the other makers studied the Japanese, and the Europeans, and learned. They adapted. We saw an end to the giant highway cruisers. We saw the beginnings of some really good cars. The Chevy Luv Pick Up truck, the Ford Ranger, which in later years was just a Mazda Pick up with a different label, but we are moving forward. The Ford Explorer was a derivative of the Land Rover Discovery, itself a derivative of the Range Rover.

Car after car was updated, manufacturing techniques were updated, quality was improved. And competition provided us the consumers, a better product. It is happening even today.

Electric cars, the dream of Science Fiction writers and Futurologists were slow, had no range worth mentioning, and were ugly. They missed on all of the key checks that get a product selected by the product. Ugly is OK, the econobox hatch backs of the 1980’s prove it. If the car is reliable, cheap, and reasonably user friendly. We’ll sacrifice looks for expense in other words.

Today Electric Cars are starting to get mainstream. Why? Tesla kickstarted the whole thing. Now other makers are working on getting their share of Tesla’s lightning. Better range, faster recharge, and improved appearance. They’re still expensive, but it is improving.

Competition was able to achieve what the desires of the fantasy writers could not. Widespread acceptance of the electric car in a gas society.

Cooperation means limits. Let’s say that Spain comes up with the next Tesla. Only it’s cheap, reliable, and fast to recharge. They start to flood the market. Well, in the EU that wouldn’t be good. You see, other nations make similar vehicles, and their sales would suffer wouldn’t they? So limits on the Spanish car would insure that it’s fair for everyone. Fair for everyone is the exact opposite of competition, and does not stimulate advancements and progress and improvements. It stifles them.

Capitalists with their capital ventures. What if, Labor just wants to work? Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, means even venture capitalists can venture their capital and not leave Labor in a much worse off position than before; or, at least with recourse to an income in the manner of compensation for Capitalism's, Natural rate of unemployment. An automatic stabilizer for our economy, regardless of venture capitalists, venturing and not always winning.

For labor to work there has to be something for them to do, something profitable or at least productive. Make work never works well.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. Only socialism can find something for everyone to do.

Why not solve for that with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed? It is market friendly and conforms to the concept of natural rights.

How would unemployed Labor, be worse off with That form of social safety, instead of only having means tested welfare, which is much more expensive? Means testing can limit opportunities for advancement unlike compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

Capitalism is not perfect. Just as Democracy is not perfect. Yet, Socialism has created far more problems than it solves every single time it has been tried. Even the most successful implementation, China, has widespread problems when it was simple Socialism. China eliminated some of those problems by making it more capitalist, but the problems that China is having today, are of their own making. That is Socialism in the most advantageous situation imaginable. A people witha strong cultural tradition and pressure for conformity, and a strong work ethic again cultural. And even in that situation, Socialism failed until it was watered down with Capitalism.

What you are doing is calling Universal Basic Income Unemployment. They are two different things. Unemployment is for when you lost your job, and are seeking other employment. A safety net to catch someone before they smash into the rocks below.

What happens with the safety net is obvious from history, it becomes a hammock for a few, and then far too many until society is unable to hold the net up. Collapse is inevitable. That’s why President Clinton signed the Welfare Reform Act. The idea was one of the basic truths of our world.

If you give a man a fish, you’ve fed him for a day. If you teach him to fish, you’ve fed him for a lifetime. So why not teach people how to earn the money, and far more, than they would get on the Dole? Job training to give them a chance at a better life. Mike Rowe is famous, or notorious, for his jobs training and skilled labor advocacy. He’s right, skilled labor is often a superior way to achieve success. Take any skilled labor field, and you’ll find that the laborers tend to make more than the managers for the first several tiers of management.

I am a Heavy Equipment Operator. It did not take me four years to get started in this field. I was not saddled with crippling debt. I am able to make six digit salaries pretty much anywhere in the nation with my level of experience and expertise. Like all endeavors you don’t start out making quite that much, but you can with some work and experience.

Take Tow Truck operators. They start out small, and some don’t go past that. But some move all the way up to the highest paid operators of the most expensive equipment. They earn way more than me in many cases. But in our society where all that matters is what degree you have from what university they are not even considered successful.

Why? Arrogance, is part of it. But Labor does need a certain amount of Management to be successful. Without the man to design that Rotator Recovery Vehicle the Operator would not have machines to operate. Without the Engineer to figure out how to maximize the strength of cables and winches, the operator would not be able to recover the stalled or damaged vehicle. Without the CEO to gather the finances to buy the equipment the Operator wouldn’t have a job, much less something to operate.

Our problem is that we look down on labor, while elevating those with a degree upon pedestals that they are unworthy to stand upon. Merely because of the additional education. Most of which doesn’t improve anything. And is easily learned by even moderate minds who choose to read a book or two.

Skilled Labor tends to find employment easier if they have a job loss for any reason. They still have the skills. And those skills are still in demand.

Your right-wing canard about teaching a man to fish is wasted in politics; the right wing has nothing but red herrings, to show for it. And why complain about the cost of social services, if you are unwilling to improve the efficiency of our economy, through simplification of Government?

Lazy People Let Their Masters Do Their Thinking for Them

If you teach a man to fish, he'll starve to death before he learns how. Unpaid training is a non-starter. The rich know that this unnecessary and sadistic deprivation destroys a person; that's why they give their sons an adult allowance in college.

The designated pundits paid to opine on education are not allowed to mention that critical factor, which puts inferior people in superior positions and is the main reason our economy has deteriorated over the decades. Common sense would tell you that if students aren't highly paid, graduates aren't worth anything. You get what you pay for, so you get nothing out of this insult to intelligence.

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism is unavoidable. You have to remember, Capitalism "died in 1929", and socialism has been bailing out Capitalism, ever since. Besides, socialism starts with a social contract, not right wing special pleading. Our Constitution defines and limits our form of socialism. The Proof is, we have a Mixed-Market economy. Part socialism and part capitalism. We have a Command Economy; Congress commands fiscal policy and the Fed commands monetary policy.

What you claim of socialism, is simply lousy management.

I am trying to simplify Government. Unemployment compensation is, compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment and should be used as a more effective social safety net. It is more cost effective than means tested welfare, could solve simple poverty, improve the efficiency of our economy, and lower our tax burden due to the law of large numbers--more people circulating capital and paying taxes for goods and services. A positive multiplier effect.

Your, right wing canard about teaching a man to fish is wasted in politics; the right wing has nothing but red herrrings, to show for it. And, why complain about the cost of social services, if you are unwilling to improve the efficiency of our economy, through simplification of Government.

/---/ "Capitalism "died in 1929", and socialism has been bailing out Capitalism, ever since."
You repost this gibberish every month or so and it's just as idiotic as ever before.

Lousy management. Venezuela is a federal republic.

/----/ "Lousy management. Venezuela is a federal republic."
Well, I guess a poor excuse for failure is better than none at all.

It is a federal republic. What a difference a Constitution makes.

And what part of a Federal Republic allows for the Nationalization of the Oil Industry, Grocery Industry, Radio, and TV, newspapers. Etc.?

Every action that has been taken in Venezuela is right out of the Socialist Playbook. Every action including the reduction of political parties approved for office to one. China calls itself the People’s Republic of China. That doesn’t mean they are a Representative Republic though. North Korea calls itself the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Not exactly truth in advertising though is it.

It is said actions speak louder than words, and the actions of Venezuela are speaking in extreme volume. For those who would listen.

"an act of the legislature, ostensibly for the common defense."