Gucci socialism in venezuela

[RICHICOQUI]

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071214/venezuela_luxury_vs_socialism.html?.v=1

[RJMC]

I once saw a pro-chavez person eating in a wendy's,and he pull out his wallet and was full of the biggest bills of our current currency,and I mean a lot,I dont remenber what he asked but they didnt have it and the pro-chavez said something like "dam gringo franchise anoying us" and he picked up his burgers and sit on a table whit other red shirted mens

also in the independence day parades you see all the wife of the ministers carrying some expensive looking digital videocamera

aslo a lot of them owns big extension of lands and ranchs

and look at the photo here,I dont know nothing about watches but this watch dont look like a cheap one
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7124313.stm

[Mr.K]

Yeah ok, breaking news "Elite has access to luxury goods". Do the leaders of a country should look like peasants according to you?
As for the restaurant comment I can tell you that I know plenty of people who dislike people from the middle east, are against immigration yet go to the Lebanese restaurant on daily basis.

[RJMC]

Do the leaders of a country should look like peasants according to you?if are leaders who consider people whit luxury cars and such a "sign of evil capitalism" them maybe yes

chavez and followers are all ways going like in "witch hunting" the "richs",claiming that the oppositors are all millonaries being helped by the white house and megacorporations

[Mr.K]

if are leaders who consider people whit luxury cars and such a "sign of evil capitalism" them maybe yes

chavez and followers are all ways going like in "witch hunting" the "richs",claiming that the oppositors are all millonaries being helped by the white house and megacorporations
The "evelness"of capitalism is the disparity that it creates.
It's the means used for the aquisition of such goods (exploitation), that is "wrong" in the eyes of a socialist.
A luxury car itself, which is a propriety of the state is not considered evil, by a socialist regime.
And the opposition is obviously backed, don't be naive.

[Buckeye67]

The "evelness"of capitalism is the disparity that it creates.
It's the means used for the aquisition of such goods (exploitation), that is "wrong" in the eyes of a socialist.
A luxury car itself, which is a propriety of the state is not considered evil, by a socialist regime.
And the opposition is obviously backed, don't be naive.

I love how you can say that with a straight face.

[Mr.K]

I love how you can say that with a straight face.
Just as much as I love the seriousness in your avatar.p-)

[BloodyTalon]

The "evelness"of capitalism is the disparity that it creates.
It's the means used for the aquisition of such goods (exploitation), that is "wrong" in the eyes of a socialist.
A luxury car itself, which is a propriety of the state is not considered evil, by a socialist regime.
And the opposition is obviously backed, don't be naive.
So in your own words, you have no problem with a government that claims to be socialist using its resources on luxury items for officials such as cars, digital cameras, gucci bags, armani suits, jewelry, etc. is all right, even when the government is demanding that the populace remains austere and equal. But if a private citizen tries to acquire these things with his own money, it is evil...


My god; i hope you're just playing devil's advocate or we have a contender for the next DAOTW already.

[Buckeye67]

Just as much as I love the seriousness in your avatar.p-)

I think you just outsmarted yourself this time, Cindy. Not that that takes a great deal of effort.

[RJMC]

The "evelness"of capitalism is the disparity that it creates.
It's the means used for the aquisition of such goods (exploitation), that is "wrong" in the eyes of a socialist.
A luxury car itself, which is a propriety of the state is not considered evil, by a socialist regime.
And the opposition is obviously backed, don't be naive.

you are pro-chavez dont ya? if you do are them there is no reason to keep discussing

but the thing is that chavez have said coments like "those millonaires whit their bmw's will have it hard cuz bla bla bla" an more stuff like that so what do you think of the people doing the things they are against?

but as I said, if you like chavez just say it once

[angry cow]

Let's see which is stronger, Consumerism or Socialism?

The socialist upswing in South America is so closely tied to Chavez, without him its going to rapidly fall apart. I do believe that people like him and Bolivia's Evo Morales want to really help their people, but I think they have an unrealistic view of the way the world works. Hammering out the inequalities of liberal economics is the job of a well-functioning and responsive democracy, not a regime that restricts its press and fails to guarantee property rights.

[Mr.K]

So in your own words, you have no problem with a government that claims to be socialist using its resources on luxury items for officials such as cars, digital cameras, gucci bags, armani suits, jewelry, etc. is all right, even when the government is demanding that the populace remains austere and equal. But if a private citizen tries to acquire these things with his own money, it is evil...


My god; i hope you're just playing devil's advocate or we have a contender for the next DAOTW already.

I like to play the devil's advocate, demagogy is fun. You can nominate me for DAOTW it's a ritual that a true RUSSIASTRONG!!! Crew member must undergo.

I don't think the government demands anything, in any society there is the ruling class and the elite, and the rest.
What could be "evil" are the means used to acquire such goods from a private citizen, example: crime.


Consumerism wins by default, not because it's "better" but because it's accessible to any simpleton (masses), dreaming of a 42" flat screen tv is much more easier rather than having virtue.

[Flamming_Python]

Let's see which is stronger, Consumerism or Socialism?

The socialist upswing in South America is so closely tied to Chavez, without him its going to rapidly fall apart. I do believe that people like him and Bolivia's Evo Morales want to really help their people, but I think they have an unrealistic view of the way the world works. Hammering out the inequalities of liberal economics is the job of a well-functioning and responsive democracy, not a regime that restricts its press and fails to guarantee property rights.

In my opinion, the reason for the Socialist trend in South America is the same reason for the Capitalist trend in Eastern Europe. Nothing to do with leaders.

[angry cow]

By this do you mean as a backlash to the previously established system?

For example:

Capitalism is favored in Eastern Europe because of years of abuse at the hands of a socialist economy.

Socialism is favored in South America because of years of abuse at the hands of a capitalist economy.

That makes sense too. Of course realistically both places will eventually have to find a balance or else they will forever swing from one side to the other as each "revolution" eventually ends in disappointment. The most unfortunate example of the too capitalist to too socialist see saw can be seen in Africa.

[KoTeMoRe]

Not really, Capitalism in Eastern Europe is favored because it's an easy way to hide the failings of these governments, and back down any possible debate about the state of the nation. In eastern Europe Capitalism splitted the "anti-communist" movements as usually the former rulers bought off the collapsed economy. Luxury, Saakashvili comes to mind...35 million for a blitz electoral campaign and I love his x5.

Socialism in LatAm has deeper roots especially among native communities.


So many words, so few sense.

[daily666]

Not really, Capitalism in Eastern Europe is favored because it's an easy way to hide the failings of these governments, and back down any possible debate about the state of the nation. In eastern Europe Capitalism splitted the "anti-communist" movements as usually the former rulers bought off the collapsed economy. Luxury, Saakashvili comes to mind...35 million for a blitz electoral campaign and I love his x5.

Socialism in LatAm has deeper roots especially among native communities.


So many words, so few sense.


Now, what on earth are you talking about? Capitalism in Eastern Europe is favoured because socialsm went bankrupt. Yes, it's that simple. By being not it touch with reality.

So the question is why it went bankrupt? Because capitalism is based on competition. And competition is always good to the end consumer- every human being. Socialism in it's communist legacy wants all people to be equal, to have equal wealth, money etc. The problem is humans are

Oh, and years of good capitalism in Chile created the strongest economy in Southern America.

[KoTeMoRe]

Now, what on earth are you talking about? Capitalism in Eastern Europe is favoured because socialsm went bankrupt. Yes, it's that simple. By being not it touch with reality.

So the question is why it went bankrupt? Because capitalism is based on competition. And competition is always good to the end consumer- every human being. Socialism in it's communist legacy wants all people to be equal, to have equal wealth, money etc. The problem is humans are

Oh, and years of good capitalism in Chile created the strongest economy in Southern America.


1. Capitalism=/=Market economy. Your dear leaders favored a crush course on capitalism without a proper introduction on market economy in order to keep the levers of power. Capitalism is based on unequal exchange, a market economy in a more consensual relationship. I'd like to introduce you to Braudel's analysis.

2. Communism does not mean equal wealth, read again.

[Wall]

Capitalism is based on unequal exchange
What? What is unequal exchange? If i buy something, i give money (or something else), and receive what i want to buy. Simple.
If i dont receive what i want, it is robbery...

[daily666]

1. Capitalism=/=Market economy. Your dear leaders favored a crush course on capitalism without a proper introduction on market economy in order to keep the levers of power. Capitalism is based on unequal exchange, a market economy in a more consensual relationship. I'd like to introduce you to Braudel's analysis.

Yeah, a course on capitalism that's a certainly a bad thing. Lithuania has an 8% GDP growth per year, Poland 7%, other EE countries keep up. How would you like to indroduce the communist/socialist market economy to capitalism, Mr. Friedman?

Don't send me to a French historian on Capitalism.

[KoTeMoRe]

What? What is unequal exchange? If i buy something, i give money (or something else), and receive what i want to buy. Simple.
If i dont receive what i want, it is robbery...

Retail wise.
You don't pay the true price of the article, you pay a set price that reflects the scheme set up by the selling company to gain profit as soon as possible.

What is the real GDP of the said countries, oh I forgot, maybe I should Introduce you as well on recession, inflation, unemployment, polarisation.

Oh I forgot you're a monetarist, nice one.

Pinochet built one of the strongest LatAm Economies? Sure Like China built theirs, on general fraud and power abuse. That's what I was saying. We're cool.

[Wall]

Retail wise.
You don't pay the true price of the article, you pay a set price that reflects the scheme set up by the selling company to gain profit as soon as possible.

Yes? And i dont have problem with that. It is fair so long, when we (selling company and me) are doing it voluntary.

[KoTeMoRe]

Yes? And i dont have problem with that. It is fair so long, when we (selling company and me) are doing it voluntary.

No it is not fair, it is unavoidable, and even acceptable but definitively not equal or fair, that leads to the whole polarisation issue.

It's like anal *** in a way.p-) Doeing it with lube will not change the fact it will hurt you until you get used to it.

[Calanen]

It's like anal *** in a way.p-) Doeing it with lube will not change the fact it will hurt you until you get used to it.


I guess I'll have to take your word on that.

[KoTeMoRe]

I guess I'll have to take your word on that.

I have one well sound answer sir , but to lack of courage and high probability of infraction points being awarded to me, I'll keep that one personal.:roll:

Mhh wait, Ignore list, check.

Thank you for your contribution.

[daily666]

It's like anal *** in a way.p-) Doeing it with lube will not change the fact it will hurt you until you get used to it.


Here we go... You know something more about that?

[Wall]

No it is not fair, it is unavoidable, and even acceptable but definitively not equal or fair, that leads to the whole polarisation issue.

What? So long as we do it voluntary, it is fair. Simple.
I'm not person who thinks that someone is robbing me. Im buying something: and i get that what i want. You have problem with that?



It's like anal *** in a way.p-) Doeing it with lube will not change the fact it will hurt you until you get used to it.
In fact, when i buy something, and if it is good product/service, i enjoy about it.

[KoTeMoRe]

Here we go... You know something more about that?

Why? Polish maybe?