Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ Pochantas can't draw flies in a honey factory.
WARREN PLAYS TO EMPTY HALL

What at Trump vs. Warren 2020 showdown would mean for the U.S. dollar

"A potential 2020 election showdown between President Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren would undoubtedly be touted as a clash of ideological extremes, but when it comes to economic policy, there is one area where there’s little daylight between the candidates."

Possibly true, but doubtful.

The real damage to the US dollar, is the damage to capitalism and productivity.

The reality with all exchange mediums... is all mediums only have value for what you can exchange them for. That's why we call them a medium of exchange.

Gold has no inherent value. The value of gold, is in what you can exchange it for.

Same is true of any other exchange medium.

As long as there is a massive amount of goods and services that you can exchange the US Dollar for, the dollar will have value.

Efforts by the government to weaken the dollar, will only be effective in one of two ways. Either they drastically reduce the productivity of the US, resulting in fewer goods and services being available, which results in the value of the dollar going down..... or they print money and cause inflation.

I don't see either of them doing that, but I do see Warren wiping out the economy.

Efforts by the government to weaken the dollar, will only be effective in one of two ways. Either they drastically reduce the productivity of the US, resulting in fewer goods and services being available, which results in the value of the dollar going down..... or they print money and cause inflation.

I don't see either of them doing that, but I do see Warren wiping out the economy.

What at Trump vs. Warren 2020 showdown would mean for the U.S. dollar

"But both Trump and Warren contend an overly strong dollar hurts U.S. competitiveness..."

"Trump has made his displeasure with the dollar’s persistent strength relative to other major currencies clear on Twitter and elsewhere, even prompting fears of a return to unilateral intervention in currency markets, despite assurances by White House officials that such actions were off the table.

"Warren, in outlining what she calls her 'plan for economic patriotism', wrote that the U.S. government 'should consider a number of tools and work with other countries harmed by currency misalignment to produce a currency value that’s better for our workers and our industries.'"

Which candidate likely has a better understanding of Macroeconomics?

George Conway on Twitter

/----/ So some former professor knows more about business than the billionaire who is also the most powerful man in the world. Yeah, Spanky.

So some former professor knows more about business than the billionaire who is also the most powerful man in the world. Yeah, Spanky

Trump owes all his "success" to an accident of birth:

"In Donald J. Trump’s version of how he got rich, he was the master dealmaker who parlayed an initial $1 million loan from his father into a $10 billion empire. It was his guts and gumption that overcame setbacks, and his father, Fred C. Trump, was simply a cheerleader.

"But an investigation by The New York Times shows that by age 3, Donald Trump was earning $200,000 a year in today’s dollars from his father’s empire.

"He was a millionaire by age 8.

"By the time he was 17, his father had given him part ownership of a 52-unit apartment building.

"Soon after he graduated from college, he was receiving the equivalent of $1 million a year from his father."

Chomsky, not so much.

4 Ways Fred Trump Made Donald Trump and His Siblings Rich

/——-/ Now tell us how Joe Bootlegger Kennedy made his kids rich - just to be fair of course.

 

[georgephillip]

“Bill Gates is a Parasite”

"'Bill Gates is a Parasite'"

"Noam Chomsky, interviewed by the BBC:

"'My success comes from my ability to embrace and expand the ideas of others.' — Bill Gates. He is a parasite. All he has to add to that is that he’s a parasite off the public sector.

"Because, in fact, almost everything that he does, whether it’s computers or the internet or anything else, are things that the ordinary person paid for.

"Think of the internet.

"That’s thirty years of development, inside the public sector, mostly out of the pentagon.

"All of the ideas, the technology, the hardware, the software, everything. Finally, just two or three years ago it’s given over to Bill Gates. And that’s called a victory of the market."

Bill has certainly made the most of an accident of birth.

Never quote Noam Chomsky. If there is any idiot that knows nothing, that's the man. Dude... he's a linguist. You are quoting a linguist, on an economics topic. Do you quote the mechanic at your oil change place, on his opinion of orthopedic surgeon topics? Do you go ask an accountant his opinion on quantum physics?

He has no economics training. He has never worked a full day in the real world. Never quote him. To me, someone quoting Noam Chomsky about economics, is like asking the Soviets the best options for Nuclear power in 1986.

If you have a question about languages, then go read what Noam Chomsky has to say. Otherwise, it's one ignorant person, quoting another ignorant person.

Never quote Noam Chomsky. If there is any idiot that knows nothing, that's the man. Dude... he's a linguist. You are quoting a linguist, on an economics topic. Do you quote the mechanic at your oil change place, on his opinion of orthopedic surgeon topics? Do you go ask an accountant his opinion on quantum physics?

Convince me you know more about economics than Chomsky does.

Profit over People - Wikipedia

I'll just cite your posts. That's my proof. That one you just posted...... that right there I would cite as evidence he's an idiot.

Look sir, I have no problem with discussing anything with you..... just Noam Chomsky is not source I'm going to respect. If you want to keep citing him, that's your choice, and I'll keep calling him an idiot, because he is.

Just pick another source, and I'll debate you on it. I have no problem with you personally, just Chomsky is a moron. I'm not going to debate the ramblings of a deranged lunatic.

He is a linguist. He's even a brilliant linguist. But he's a linguist. Chomsky, makes Ralph Nader, look like a thought leader, and moderate. Even Nader had to call out Chomsky.

Nader’s critical introduction to the subject begins at 46:34, and it’s worth hearing because it provides some contrast to Chomsky’s defense of the Bolivarian regime. Nader acknowledges the Trump administration’s regime change agenda and the inglorious history of America’s involvement in Latin America during the Cold War. However, he goes on to observe that “the cronyism, the corruption, the colossal mismanagement of Chavez and Maduro have been so deep that you can’t simply write it off as a consequence of foreign intervention.” Nader then reads a leftwing critic’s lengthy indictment of the regime’s mismanagement, including “[a] ten[fold increase in] the murder rate, total stagnation, abrupt decline in hospital infrastructure, before and especially during [the period] 2000 to the present.” This corruption and incompetence has left the country at the mercy of what the critic called the “neoliberal elite,” “foreign oil, mining, and timber companies,” and “IMF-style austerity measures that will seem like a picnic next to Maduro’s madness.”
​

Venezuela and the Half-Truths of Noam Chomsky - Quillette

He's an idiot. Defending Chavez and Maduro, while blaming capitalists, is ridiculous, and even Nader can't deny it.

Look sir, I have no problem with discussing anything with you..... just Noam Chomsky is not source I'm going to respect. If you want to keep citing him, that's your choice, and I'll keep calling him an idiot, because he is.

What has Chomsky ever said or done to convince you he is an idiot?

Noam Chomsky - Wikipedia

"One of the most cited scholars alive,[18] Chomsky has influenced a broad array of academic fields.

"He is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind.

"In addition to his continued scholarship, he remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, neoliberalism and contemporary state capitalism, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mainstream news media.

"His ideas have proven highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements, but have also drawn criticism, with some accusing Chomsky of anti-Americanism."

Just from what you posted should give you a clue.

He is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind.​

I agree with this.

"In addition to his continued scholarship, he remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, neoliberalism and contemporary state capitalism, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mainstream news media.

"His ideas have proven highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements, but have also drawn criticism, with some accusing Chomsky of anti-Americanism."
​

I agree with this as well.


But do you notice the difference between the two?

The first one, is research, study, science, and so on.

The second is critic, and influence.

The first refers to his academic study, which no one contends with. Everyone understands that he is a brilliant linguist, and knows tons about that topic, and connected topics.

But the second is just being influential, and critical.

Anyone can be an influencer. It does not take any intelligence whatsoever to influence people. Obama and Trump. There you go. Both highly influential, and yet Obama was ridiculous, and even said sub-prime loans were a good idea. And Trump, well you know Trump.

Yet both were influencers.

And he is a critic. It takes no intelligence whatsoever to be a critic. Anyone can stand around and say " You all suck". Take yourself. You have not posted an original thought on this thread yet. Yet you are critic. You cut and post from a dozen 10-year-old memes that are already obsolete, and constantly criticize everything the US has done to this day.

No original thought whatsoever, and yet I wager you are one of the most critical posters on the forum.

The last time I wasted my time listening to Chomsky, was about 8 years ago, when in an open forum, a kid from a university asked him why it seemed like those countries largely based on Capitalism (and he named a few) consistently out performed countries that seemed to be mostly based on Socialism (and named a few).

I then suffered through the ridiculous Orwellian "new speak" of Chomsky trying to explain to everyone that every single country that was socialist (even those that the government itself proclaimed to be socialists) were actually Capitalist and that's why they were failing.... and every country that was Capitalist, was actually socialist (even if they themselves proclaimed to be capitalist), and that's why they were succeeding.

Just listening to him, I could actually physically feel the stupidity oozing around me.

He is a total idiot. I'm sorry... he is.

The last time I wasted my time listening to Chomsky, was about 8 years ago, when in an open forum, a kid from a university asked him why it seemed like those countries largely based on Capitalism (and he named a few) consistently out performed countries that seemed to be mostly based on Socialism (and named a few).

Perhaps you lack the intelligence and education to properly interpret what Noam is trying to communicate?

Noam Chomsky - Wikipedia

"Capitalism and socialism[edit]

"In his youth, Chomsky developed a dislike of capitalism and the pursuit of material wealth.[191] At the same time, he developed a disdain for authoritarian socialism, as represented by the Marxist–Leninist policies of the Soviet Union.[192]

"Rather than accepting the common view among U.S. economists that a spectrum exists between total state ownership of the economy and total private ownership, he instead suggests that a spectrum should be understood between total democratic control of the economy and total autocratic control (whether state or private).[193]

"He argues that Western capitalist countries are not really democratic,[194] because, in his view, a truly democratic society is one in which all persons have a say in public economic policy.[195]

"He has stated his opposition to ruling elites, among them institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and GATT.[196]"

Do you support authoritarian capitalism or democratic socialism?

 

[georgephillip]

Yep. Not to mention nitpicking over stuff recently said by (an amazingly still sharp but nonetheless) ninety year old. And finding a token black guy for backup, LOL. All leftists though, discussing world affairs at a high level. Anything noticeably missing?

If I'm remembering correctly, Chomsky was at one time the most frequently quoted scholar in academic journals. He was the only living academic to be quoted often enough to make the all time top ten list of thinkers quoted in those journals, but, of course, conservatives know better.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yep. Not to mention nitpicking over stuff recently said by (an amazingly still sharp but nonetheless) ninety year old. And finding a token black guy for backup, LOL. All leftists though, discussing world affairs at a high level. Anything noticeably missing?

If I'm remembering correctly, Chomsky was at one time the most frequently quoted scholar in academic journals. He was the only living academic to be quoted often enough to make the all time top ten list of thinkers quoted in those journals, but, of course, conservatives know better.

To be fair, it's not really fair. They only run on gas.

That said, both liberal and conservative remain healthy, ubiquitous human qualities.

 

[dblack]

Yep. Not to mention nitpicking over stuff recently said by (an amazingly still sharp but nonetheless) ninety year old. And finding a token black guy for backup, LOL. All leftists though, discussing world affairs at a high level. Anything noticeably missing?

If I'm remembering correctly, Chomsky was at one time the most frequently quoted scholar in academic journals. He was the only living academic to be quoted often enough to make the all time top ten list of thinkers quoted in those journals, but, of course, conservatives know better.

To be fair, it's not really fair. They only run on gas.

 

[georgephillip]

Like every other human being on the planet Chomsky is wrong about some of his opinions; why would any rational person equate that to idiocy?

Because they were never really rational to begin with. I know, rhetorical
Easily triggered by critiques of capitalism? Yes.
Rational? No.

Just imagine the crow eating it took, the suffering involved, to actually laud and quote Nader in one's crazed attempt to put Chomsky in his place? LOL

I heard that show. The Ralph Nader radio hour is the best podcast bar none.
(Though Jimmy Dore is a close second. )

Because they were never really rational to begin with. I know, rhetorical
Easily triggered by critiques of capitalism? Yes.
Rational? No.

Some of my earliest conversations with conservatives took place over a half century ago.

That was back when liberals (some of them at least) still cared about individual rights.

That was back when liberals (some of them at least) still cared about individual rights.

By "liberal" you mean..?

Liberalism - Wikipedia

"Over time, the meaning of the word liberalism began to diverge in different parts of the world.

"According to the Encyclopædia Britannica: "'n the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal programme of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies'"

In America, liberalism is the opposite of individual liberty. It's complete government control of people based on their demographics. Individualism is discouraged, and liberty is legislated away.

In America, liberalism is the opposite of individual liberty. It's complete government control of people based on their demographics. Individualism is discouraged, and liberty is legislated away

Liberalism has many flavors:

Liberalism - Wikipedia

"The diversity of liberalism can be gleaned from the numerous adjectives that liberal thinkers and movements have attached to the very term 'liberalism', including classical, egalitarian, economic, social, welfare state, ethical, humanist, deontological, perfectionist, democratic and institutional, to name a few.[37]

"Despite these variations, liberal thought does exhibit a few definite and fundamental conceptions.

"At its very root, liberalism is a philosophy about the meaning of humanity and society."

What's "the meaning of humanity and society"?

 

[georgephillip]

What at Trump vs. Warren 2020 showdown would mean for the U.S. dollar

"A potential 2020 election showdown between President Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren would undoubtedly be touted as a clash of ideological extremes, but when it comes to economic policy, there is one area where there’s little daylight between the candidates."

Possibly true, but doubtful.

The real damage to the US dollar, is the damage to capitalism and productivity.

The reality with all exchange mediums... is all mediums only have value for what you can exchange them for. That's why we call them a medium of exchange.

Gold has no inherent value. The value of gold, is in what you can exchange it for.

Same is true of any other exchange medium.

As long as there is a massive amount of goods and services that you can exchange the US Dollar for, the dollar will have value.

Efforts by the government to weaken the dollar, will only be effective in one of two ways. Either they drastically reduce the productivity of the US, resulting in fewer goods and services being available, which results in the value of the dollar going down..... or they print money and cause inflation.

I don't see either of them doing that, but I do see Warren wiping out the economy.

Efforts by the government to weaken the dollar, will only be effective in one of two ways. Either they drastically reduce the productivity of the US, resulting in fewer goods and services being available, which results in the value of the dollar going down..... or they print money and cause inflation.

I don't see either of them doing that, but I do see Warren wiping out the economy.

What at Trump vs. Warren 2020 showdown would mean for the U.S. dollar

"But both Trump and Warren contend an overly strong dollar hurts U.S. competitiveness..."

"Trump has made his displeasure with the dollar’s persistent strength relative to other major currencies clear on Twitter and elsewhere, even prompting fears of a return to unilateral intervention in currency markets, despite assurances by White House officials that such actions were off the table.

"Warren, in outlining what she calls her 'plan for economic patriotism', wrote that the U.S. government 'should consider a number of tools and work with other countries harmed by currency misalignment to produce a currency value that’s better for our workers and our industries.'"

Which candidate likely has a better understanding of Macroeconomics?

George Conway on Twitter

/----/ So some former professor knows more about business than the billionaire who is also the most powerful man in the world. Yeah, Spanky.

So some former professor knows more about business than the billionaire who is also the most powerful man in the world. Yeah, Spanky

Trump owes all his "success" to an accident of birth:

"In Donald J. Trump’s version of how he got rich, he was the master dealmaker who parlayed an initial $1 million loan from his father into a $10 billion empire. It was his guts and gumption that overcame setbacks, and his father, Fred C. Trump, was simply a cheerleader.

"But an investigation by The New York Times shows that by age 3, Donald Trump was earning $200,000 a year in today’s dollars from his father’s empire.

"He was a millionaire by age 8.

"By the time he was 17, his father had given him part ownership of a 52-unit apartment building.

"Soon after he graduated from college, he was receiving the equivalent of $1 million a year from his father."

Chomsky, not so much.

4 Ways Fred Trump Made Donald Trump and His Siblings Rich

/——-/ Now tell us how Joe Bootlegger Kennedy made his kids rich - just to be fair of course.

Now tell us how Joe Bootlegger Kennedy made his kids rich - just to be fair of course.

Why do you have trouble defending Trump's lies and crimes?

4 Ways Fred Trump Made Donald Trump and His Siblings Rich

"The biggest payday Donald Trump ever got from his father came long after Fred Trump’s death. It happened quietly, without the usual Trumpian news conference, on May 4, 2004, when Donald Trump and his siblings sold off the empire their father had spent 70 years assembling with the dream that it would never leave his family.

"Donald Trump’s cut: $177.3 million, or $236.2 million in today’s dollars."

 

[georgephillip]

Yep. Not to mention nitpicking over stuff recently said by (an amazingly still sharp but nonetheless) ninety year old. And finding a token black guy for backup, LOL. All leftists though, discussing world affairs at a high level. Anything noticeably missing?

If I'm remembering correctly, Chomsky was at one time the most frequently quoted scholar in academic journals. He was the only living academic to be quoted often enough to make the all time top ten list of thinkers quoted in those journals, but, of course, conservatives know better.

To be fair, it's not really fair. They only run on gas.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yep. Not to mention nitpicking over stuff recently said by (an amazingly still sharp but nonetheless) ninety year old. And finding a token black guy for backup, LOL. All leftists though, discussing world affairs at a high level. Anything noticeably missing?

If I'm remembering correctly, Chomsky was at one time the most frequently quoted scholar in academic journals. He was the only living academic to be quoted often enough to make the all time top ten list of thinkers quoted in those journals, but, of course, conservatives know better.

To be fair, it's not really fair. They only run on gas.

Good old Chumpsky.

 

[Third Party]

/----/ Pochantas can't draw flies in a honey factory.
WARREN PLAYS TO EMPTY HALL

What at Trump vs. Warren 2020 showdown would mean for the U.S. dollar

"A potential 2020 election showdown between President Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren would undoubtedly be touted as a clash of ideological extremes, but when it comes to economic policy, there is one area where there’s little daylight between the candidates."

Possibly true, but doubtful.

The real damage to the US dollar, is the damage to capitalism and productivity.

The reality with all exchange mediums... is all mediums only have value for what you can exchange them for. That's why we call them a medium of exchange.

Gold has no inherent value. The value of gold, is in what you can exchange it for.

Same is true of any other exchange medium.

As long as there is a massive amount of goods and services that you can exchange the US Dollar for, the dollar will have value.

Efforts by the government to weaken the dollar, will only be effective in one of two ways. Either they drastically reduce the productivity of the US, resulting in fewer goods and services being available, which results in the value of the dollar going down..... or they print money and cause inflation.

I don't see either of them doing that, but I do see Warren wiping out the economy.

Efforts by the government to weaken the dollar, will only be effective in one of two ways. Either they drastically reduce the productivity of the US, resulting in fewer goods and services being available, which results in the value of the dollar going down..... or they print money and cause inflation.

I don't see either of them doing that, but I do see Warren wiping out the economy.

What at Trump vs. Warren 2020 showdown would mean for the U.S. dollar

"But both Trump and Warren contend an overly strong dollar hurts U.S. competitiveness..."

"Trump has made his displeasure with the dollar’s persistent strength relative to other major currencies clear on Twitter and elsewhere, even prompting fears of a return to unilateral intervention in currency markets, despite assurances by White House officials that such actions were off the table.

"Warren, in outlining what she calls her 'plan for economic patriotism', wrote that the U.S. government 'should consider a number of tools and work with other countries harmed by currency misalignment to produce a currency value that’s better for our workers and our industries.'"

Which candidate likely has a better understanding of Macroeconomics?

George Conway on Twitter

/----/ So some former professor knows more about business than the billionaire who is also the most powerful man in the world. Yeah, Spanky.

So some former professor knows more about business than the billionaire who is also the most powerful man in the world. Yeah, Spanky

Trump owes all his "success" to an accident of birth:

"In Donald J. Trump’s version of how he got rich, he was the master dealmaker who parlayed an initial $1 million loan from his father into a $10 billion empire. It was his guts and gumption that overcame setbacks, and his father, Fred C. Trump, was simply a cheerleader.

"But an investigation by The New York Times shows that by age 3, Donald Trump was earning $200,000 a year in today’s dollars from his father’s empire.

"He was a millionaire by age 8.

"By the time he was 17, his father had given him part ownership of a 52-unit apartment building.

"Soon after he graduated from college, he was receiving the equivalent of $1 million a year from his father."

Chomsky, not so much.

4 Ways Fred Trump Made Donald Trump and His Siblings Rich

George Conway is a fat nobody-don't humor him with mentions

 

[Andylusion]

BULL CRAP.......

"There are more poor people in the US, than there are people in Venezuela......."

Right there, he lost me. "Poor people" in the US are filthy rich compared to those in Venezuela.

I don't see poor people living in refrigerator box.

I don't see poor people, wearing rotted out cloth, for clothing, and sifting through a garbage can to find moldy bread to eat.

This mindless idiot you posted a video of, has no idea what he is talking about.

Our poor people have the highest rates of obesity. In Venezuela, people are literally dying of starvation.

Videos like the one you posted, are proof that we live in a spoiled brat infested fantasy world. If you think we have 'poor' people in the US, you are so out of touch with reality, you need to have your head examined by a professional. You need to join a charity organization, and do a mission trip to Uganda, and find out what real poverty looks like.

 

[dblack]

Yep. Not to mention nitpicking over stuff recently said by (an amazingly still sharp but nonetheless) ninety year old. And finding a token black guy for backup, LOL. All leftists though, discussing world affairs at a high level. Anything noticeably missing?

If I'm remembering correctly, Chomsky was at one time the most frequently quoted scholar in academic journals. He was the only living academic to be quoted often enough to make the all time top ten list of thinkers quoted in those journals, but, of course, conservatives know better.

To be fair, it's not really fair. They only run on gas.

Whoa... so he's saying that the term "libertarian" means something different outside the US? Jeez, that kind of thing has never happened before. Thanks for the important info.

I also heard that "***" means something different in the UK. And a "fanny pack" is something altogether different. And why can't they pronounce aluminum properly?

 

[Andylusion]

Economists Use “Fuzzy Graphs” to Challenge Data on the Human Cost of Trump Sanctions on Venezuela

"In our paper, 'Sanctions as Collective Punishment: The Case of Venezuela,' we looked at some of the ways in which the sanctions on Venezuela imposed by the US government curtail access to essential and life-saving imports, and some of the data on impacts such as mortality. We concluded that US economic sanctions since August 2017 have likely caused a dire rise in mortality and a grave aggravation of Venezuela’s economic crisis"

So let's have a lesson in "Lies, damned lies, and statistics.".

Look at the chart you posted. It looks as though Colombian oil production closely matches Venezuelan production. That the two were following the same pattern.

But then notice the range. The Venezuelan oil production goes from 1200 barrels to 2400 barrels. The range is 1200. The Colombian range goes from 500 to 1000. A range of 500. So they screwed with the ranges to make the two graphs fit together.

Moreover, when you look at the actual decline in oil production, the real start of the decline was around 2003 to 2007.

Charting The Decline Of Venezuela's Oil Industry

During that time Chavez fired 19,000 oil workers, and replaced them with loyalists to his government. Loyal to Chavez, but not experienced in the oil industry.
In 2007 with the rise of prices, the oil companies operating in Venezuela, began increasing production. Instead of enjoying the added income, Chavez demanded more money from oil, and the companies refused. He then expropriated their assets by force.

Now understand why.... Venezuela's oil is heavy crude, which is super difficult to refine. Thus it requires tons and tons of capital investment. That's why the government of Venezuela invited foreign investment to begin with, because their oil is difficult to deal with, and extremely expensive to refine.

Chavez, expropriated their assets, which of course made all the companies abandon the investing in the country. (why would you invest, if the government just steals it?). Not only that, but Chavez diverted all that money to his social programs, which made him popular, but.... without capital investment, it was impossible to maintain oil production on extremely difficult heavy crud oil that Venezuela produces.

As a result oil production in the US, was increasing year over year, during the exact same time that Venezuela's production was falling year over year.

So looking at 2009 on... you can see that US production went up even though oil prices were falling. And equally Venezuela's production was going down.

Even if you could say that the sanctions hurt exports, which they clearly have.... that doesn't explain why production has fallen.
Even if you can't export the oil.... they could use that oil to keep the lights on in Venezuela. In a country that has nation wide black outs, certainly having a few diesel generators keeping the power on would be a wise use of the vast oil wealth in the country.

I mean after all, isn't it the left-wing that constantly complains that the US steals the resources of other countries? Well here's a case where the country can keep the resource for themselves. So why don't they produce more oil for their own use?

Again, because Chavez stole all the capital investment money, and spent it on social programs. So as the NPR reported, even their existing investments have fallen into disrepair.

The Fallout From A Seemingly Sweet Oil Deal For Venezuela's Neighbors

There are a several reasons for this. First, Venezuela oil industry is in turmoil. Venezuela's oil rigs, which had been producing nearly 3 million barrels of crude a day in 2014, are now producing just a fraction of that.

Much of the oil that they are extracting is now going straight on to tankers bound for Russia or China to pay off Venezuela's debts to those countries.​

So notice, existing oil rigs, that used to produce 3 million barrels a day, are not producing very little. Capitalist investment is vital in all industry. If you take away the profits..... the industry dies. This is why socialism the world over has failed.

However, it is true that US Sanctions do hinder the oil industry.

But you need to also understand exactly why the US did this. We have clear documented proof, that the state run oil company in Venezuela, is being used by those in power, to load up off shore banks accounts.

The money from the oil exports isn't going to feed people anyway. We already know this for a fact. The companies endless corruption, and Maduro cronies moving cash out of the country, has not been used to help the poor.

This idea that somehow if sanctions didn't exist, that money would flow to stock the shelves is ridiculous, especially given that food shortages started before the sanctions did.

 

[Andylusion]

Never quote Noam Chomsky. If there is any idiot that knows nothing, that's the man. Dude... he's a linguist. You are quoting a linguist, on an economics topic. Do you quote the mechanic at your oil change place, on his opinion of orthopedic surgeon topics? Do you go ask an accountant his opinion on quantum physics?

He has no economics training. He has never worked a full day in the real world. Never quote him. To me, someone quoting Noam Chomsky about economics, is like asking the Soviets the best options for Nuclear power in 1986.

If you have a question about languages, then go read what Noam Chomsky has to say. Otherwise, it's one ignorant person, quoting another ignorant person.

Never quote Noam Chomsky. If there is any idiot that knows nothing, that's the man. Dude... he's a linguist. You are quoting a linguist, on an economics topic. Do you quote the mechanic at your oil change place, on his opinion of orthopedic surgeon topics? Do you go ask an accountant his opinion on quantum physics?

Convince me you know more about economics than Chomsky does.

Profit over People - Wikipedia

I'll just cite your posts. That's my proof. That one you just posted...... that right there I would cite as evidence he's an idiot.

Look sir, I have no problem with discussing anything with you..... just Noam Chomsky is not source I'm going to respect. If you want to keep citing him, that's your choice, and I'll keep calling him an idiot, because he is.

Just pick another source, and I'll debate you on it. I have no problem with you personally, just Chomsky is a moron. I'm not going to debate the ramblings of a deranged lunatic.

He is a linguist. He's even a brilliant linguist. But he's a linguist. Chomsky, makes Ralph Nader, look like a thought leader, and moderate. Even Nader had to call out Chomsky.

Nader’s critical introduction to the subject begins at 46:34, and it’s worth hearing because it provides some contrast to Chomsky’s defense of the Bolivarian regime. Nader acknowledges the Trump administration’s regime change agenda and the inglorious history of America’s involvement in Latin America during the Cold War. However, he goes on to observe that “the cronyism, the corruption, the colossal mismanagement of Chavez and Maduro have been so deep that you can’t simply write it off as a consequence of foreign intervention.” Nader then reads a leftwing critic’s lengthy indictment of the regime’s mismanagement, including “[a] ten[fold increase in] the murder rate, total stagnation, abrupt decline in hospital infrastructure, before and especially during [the period] 2000 to the present.” This corruption and incompetence has left the country at the mercy of what the critic called the “neoliberal elite,” “foreign oil, mining, and timber companies,” and “IMF-style austerity measures that will seem like a picnic next to Maduro’s madness.”
​

Venezuela and the Half-Truths of Noam Chomsky - Quillette

He's an idiot. Defending Chavez and Maduro, while blaming capitalists, is ridiculous, and even Nader can't deny it.

Look sir, I have no problem with discussing anything with you..... just Noam Chomsky is not source I'm going to respect. If you want to keep citing him, that's your choice, and I'll keep calling him an idiot, because he is.

What has Chomsky ever said or done to convince you he is an idiot?

Noam Chomsky - Wikipedia

"One of the most cited scholars alive,[18] Chomsky has influenced a broad array of academic fields.

"He is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind.

"In addition to his continued scholarship, he remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, neoliberalism and contemporary state capitalism, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mainstream news media.

"His ideas have proven highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements, but have also drawn criticism, with some accusing Chomsky of anti-Americanism."

Just from what you posted should give you a clue.

He is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind.​

I agree with this.

"In addition to his continued scholarship, he remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, neoliberalism and contemporary state capitalism, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mainstream news media.

"His ideas have proven highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements, but have also drawn criticism, with some accusing Chomsky of anti-Americanism."
​

I agree with this as well.


But do you notice the difference between the two?

The first one, is research, study, science, and so on.

The second is critic, and influence.

The first refers to his academic study, which no one contends with. Everyone understands that he is a brilliant linguist, and knows tons about that topic, and connected topics.

But the second is just being influential, and critical.

Anyone can be an influencer. It does not take any intelligence whatsoever to influence people. Obama and Trump. There you go. Both highly influential, and yet Obama was ridiculous, and even said sub-prime loans were a good idea. And Trump, well you know Trump.

Yet both were influencers.

And he is a critic. It takes no intelligence whatsoever to be a critic. Anyone can stand around and say " You all suck". Take yourself. You have not posted an original thought on this thread yet. Yet you are critic. You cut and post from a dozen 10-year-old memes that are already obsolete, and constantly criticize everything the US has done to this day.

No original thought whatsoever, and yet I wager you are one of the most critical posters on the forum.

The last time I wasted my time listening to Chomsky, was about 8 years ago, when in an open forum, a kid from a university asked him why it seemed like those countries largely based on Capitalism (and he named a few) consistently out performed countries that seemed to be mostly based on Socialism (and named a few).

I then suffered through the ridiculous Orwellian "new speak" of Chomsky trying to explain to everyone that every single country that was socialist (even those that the government itself proclaimed to be socialists) were actually Capitalist and that's why they were failing.... and every country that was Capitalist, was actually socialist (even if they themselves proclaimed to be capitalist), and that's why they were succeeding.

Just listening to him, I could actually physically feel the stupidity oozing around me.

He is a total idiot. I'm sorry... he is.

The last time I wasted my time listening to Chomsky, was about 8 years ago, when in an open forum, a kid from a university asked him why it seemed like those countries largely based on Capitalism (and he named a few) consistently out performed countries that seemed to be mostly based on Socialism (and named a few).

Perhaps you lack the intelligence and education to properly interpret what Noam is trying to communicate?

Noam Chomsky - Wikipedia

"Capitalism and socialism[edit]

"In his youth, Chomsky developed a dislike of capitalism and the pursuit of material wealth.[191] At the same time, he developed a disdain for authoritarian socialism, as represented by the Marxist–Leninist policies of the Soviet Union.[192]

"Rather than accepting the common view among U.S. economists that a spectrum exists between total state ownership of the economy and total private ownership, he instead suggests that a spectrum should be understood between total democratic control of the economy and total autocratic control (whether state or private).[193]

"He argues that Western capitalist countries are not really democratic,[194] because, in his view, a truly democratic society is one in which all persons have a say in public economic policy.[195]

"He has stated his opposition to ruling elites, among them institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and GATT.[196]"

Do you support authoritarian capitalism or democratic socialism?

Or perhaps he's just dumb, and I'm not stupid enough to fall for his idiocy.
Thankfully others can fall for it, or no one would ever spew the name Chomsky on a forum somewhere.

 

[Andylusion]

Yep. Not to mention nitpicking over stuff recently said by (an amazingly still sharp but nonetheless) ninety year old. And finding a token black guy for backup, LOL. All leftists though, discussing world affairs at a high level. Anything noticeably missing?

If I'm remembering correctly, Chomsky was at one time the most frequently quoted scholar in academic journals. He was the only living academic to be quoted often enough to make the all time top ten list of thinkers quoted in those journals, but, of course, conservatives know better.

Not an argument. Sorry, but just quoting someone, doesn't mean anything. People still quote Fredrick Nietzsche, and the guy was a raving lunatic that spent decades in an asylum.

The number one thing that academics do best, is pat each other on the back. This is well known too. You review my paper, and give me a glowing review, and I'll review your paper and give it a glowing review. Then we can go around telling the world how great we are. Happens all the time in academia.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Does it, Andy? Really?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Because they were never really rational to begin with. I know, rhetorical
Easily triggered by critiques of capitalism? Yes.
Rational? No.

Just imagine the crow eating it took, the suffering involved, to actually laud and quote Nader in one's crazed attempt to put Chomsky in his place? LOL

I heard that show. The Ralph Nader radio hour is the best podcast bar none.
(Though Jimmy Dore is a close second. )

Because they were never really rational to begin with. I know, rhetorical
Easily triggered by critiques of capitalism? Yes.
Rational? No.

Some of my earliest conversations with conservatives took place over a half century ago.

That was back when liberals (some of them at least) still cared about individual rights.

That was back when liberals (some of them at least) still cared about individual rights.

By "liberal" you mean..?

Liberalism - Wikipedia

"Over time, the meaning of the word liberalism began to diverge in different parts of the world.

"According to the Encyclopædia Britannica: "'n the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal programme of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies'"

In America, liberalism is the opposite of individual liberty. It's complete government control of people based on their demographics. Individualism is discouraged, and liberty is legislated away.

In America, liberalism is the opposite of individual liberty. It's complete government control of people based on their demographics. Individualism is discouraged, and liberty is legislated away

Liberalism has many flavors:

Liberalism - Wikipedia

"The diversity of liberalism can be gleaned from the numerous adjectives that liberal thinkers and movements have attached to the very term 'liberalism', including classical, egalitarian, economic, social, welfare state, ethical, humanist, deontological, perfectionist, democratic and institutional, to name a few.[37]

"Despite these variations, liberal thought does exhibit a few definite and fundamental conceptions.

"At its very root, liberalism is a philosophy about the meaning of humanity and society."

What's "the meaning of humanity and society"?

/——/ Liberalism is all about a cradle to grave nanny state with few liberties and ever increasing taxation to restrict mobility and disposable income. Liberalism is evil.

 

[georgephillip]

Yep. Not to mention nitpicking over stuff recently said by (an amazingly still sharp but nonetheless) ninety year old. And finding a token black guy for backup, LOL. All leftists though, discussing world affairs at a high level. Anything noticeably missing?

If I'm remembering correctly, Chomsky was at one time the most frequently quoted scholar in academic journals. He was the only living academic to be quoted often enough to make the all time top ten list of thinkers quoted in those journals, but, of course, conservatives know better.

To be fair, it's not really fair. They only run on gas.

Good old Chumpsky.

 

[georgephillip]

What at Trump vs. Warren 2020 showdown would mean for the U.S. dollar

"A potential 2020 election showdown between President Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren would undoubtedly be touted as a clash of ideological extremes, but when it comes to economic policy, there is one area where there’s little daylight between the candidates."

Possibly true, but doubtful.

The real damage to the US dollar, is the damage to capitalism and productivity.

The reality with all exchange mediums... is all mediums only have value for what you can exchange them for. That's why we call them a medium of exchange.

Gold has no inherent value. The value of gold, is in what you can exchange it for.

Same is true of any other exchange medium.

As long as there is a massive amount of goods and services that you can exchange the US Dollar for, the dollar will have value.

Efforts by the government to weaken the dollar, will only be effective in one of two ways. Either they drastically reduce the productivity of the US, resulting in fewer goods and services being available, which results in the value of the dollar going down..... or they print money and cause inflation.

I don't see either of them doing that, but I do see Warren wiping out the economy.

Efforts by the government to weaken the dollar, will only be effective in one of two ways. Either they drastically reduce the productivity of the US, resulting in fewer goods and services being available, which results in the value of the dollar going down..... or they print money and cause inflation.

I don't see either of them doing that, but I do see Warren wiping out the economy.

What at Trump vs. Warren 2020 showdown would mean for the U.S. dollar

"But both Trump and Warren contend an overly strong dollar hurts U.S. competitiveness..."

"Trump has made his displeasure with the dollar’s persistent strength relative to other major currencies clear on Twitter and elsewhere, even prompting fears of a return to unilateral intervention in currency markets, despite assurances by White House officials that such actions were off the table.

"Warren, in outlining what she calls her 'plan for economic patriotism', wrote that the U.S. government 'should consider a number of tools and work with other countries harmed by currency misalignment to produce a currency value that’s better for our workers and our industries.'"

Which candidate likely has a better understanding of Macroeconomics?

George Conway on Twitter

/----/ So some former professor knows more about business than the billionaire who is also the most powerful man in the world. Yeah, Spanky.

So some former professor knows more about business than the billionaire who is also the most powerful man in the world. Yeah, Spanky

Trump owes all his "success" to an accident of birth:

"In Donald J. Trump’s version of how he got rich, he was the master dealmaker who parlayed an initial $1 million loan from his father into a $10 billion empire. It was his guts and gumption that overcame setbacks, and his father, Fred C. Trump, was simply a cheerleader.

"But an investigation by The New York Times shows that by age 3, Donald Trump was earning $200,000 a year in today’s dollars from his father’s empire.

"He was a millionaire by age 8.

"By the time he was 17, his father had given him part ownership of a 52-unit apartment building.

"Soon after he graduated from college, he was receiving the equivalent of $1 million a year from his father."

Chomsky, not so much.

4 Ways Fred Trump Made Donald Trump and His Siblings Rich

George Conway is a fat nobody-don't humor him with mentions

George Conway is a fat nobody-don't humor him with mentions

Impeach him too.

Giuliani Associate Says He Gave Demand for Biden Inquiry to Ukrainians

"Not long before the Ukrainian president was inaugurated in May, an associate of Rudolph W. Giuliani’s journeyed to Kiev to deliver a warning to the country’s new leadership, a lawyer for the associate said.

"The associate, Lev Parnas, told a representative of the incoming government that it had to announce an investigation into Mr. Trump’s political rival, Joseph R. Biden Jr., and his son, or else Vice President Mike Pence would not attend the swearing-in of the new president, and the United States would freeze aid, the lawyer said."

Too much winning?

 

[georgephillip]

BULL CRAP.......

"There are more poor people in the US, than there are people in Venezuela......."

Right there, he lost me. "Poor people" in the US are filthy rich compared to those in Venezuela.

I don't see poor people living in refrigerator box.

I don't see poor people, wearing rotted out cloth, for clothing, and sifting through a garbage can to find moldy bread to eat.

This mindless idiot you posted a video of, has no idea what he is talking about.

Our poor people have the highest rates of obesity. In Venezuela, people are literally dying of starvation.

Videos like the one you posted, are proof that we live in a spoiled brat infested fantasy world. If you think we have 'poor' people in the US, you are so out of touch with reality, you need to have your head examined by a professional. You need to join a charity organization, and do a mission trip to Uganda, and find out what real poverty looks like.

Right there, he lost me. "Poor people" in the US are filthy rich compared to those in Venezuela.

I don't see poor people living in refrigerator box.

Step outside your bubble

How did scores of homeless come to live at the Convention Center?