Solution to gas prices: Nationalization

Stablized the region, let me count the ways.

Stiffled the press.
Killed or jailed his opponents.
Spread fear through his police and military forces.

Wait, that's only within his own borders.

The worst economic forces that result from graft and corruption.

 

Well, that's sort of true, but the literal translation from the French is
"leave us alone".

How many governments in recent memory have actually done that? None to my
count. Some have been worse than others, but nobody's ever been "laissez
faire".

Probably the closest we've come in modern times to true "laissez faire" is
Hong Kong under John Cowperthwaite. No US president could ever be accused
of being "laissez faire".

 

Government-built cars. Hmmm. Let me see...

Yugo
Lada
Dacia
Trabant
Zaporozhets
FSO
Moskvich

Don't those names just stir your blood and awaken fond memories of
night cruises past the bright lights, loud music and pretty girls
in front of the Kremlin? Va-va-voom, Tovarishch!

 

Are you sure it isn't the other way round?

Perce

 

6 to one.... half dozen to...... Whatever the truth is, there is no
concern for the consumer just yet. What will it take I wonder. Has
some influential think tank of close advisor's decided that like a Pearl
Harbor incident would be good us, another crash like 29 would be good?

Probably not, why bother when screwing the citizens is going so well?

 

Better here, buy it, control it. Sell anything you want, like WMD's.

Good thing America was never involved in anything like *that*.

Have you read the Patriot Act? Do you know about Bush having wide
latitude on declaring martial law?

Perhaps he envy's Bush.

Indeed.

http://www.economichitman.com/

 

Since you wrote:

"You cannot artificially lower the price of a commodity without the
costs squirting out somewhere else. Ever wonder why Venezuela has always
been so poor?"

Why pretend you don't know what I was referring to?

 

Yes, Bush has the latitude. The difference is Hugo Chavez has effectively
exercised his latitude to instill martial law.

He hates Bush -- wait, that's just like you.

 

I'm afraid that, quite honestly, I'm not following your connection. Can
you elaborate for me? Not kidding here.

 

I'm *so* comforted. Far be it from the "Decider" to capitalize on
powers he's not given under the Constitution. Or as he has referred to
it "just a God Damned piece of paper."

The psychic is in. And priced right.

 

Laissez faire is often used to describe Reaganomics supply side theory,
"a rising tide lifts all boats," etc.,etc.. The evidence suggests
otherwise. It should say *some* boats.

As for "Venezuela always being so poor" *always* is a long time. Some
people claim that offers of help in the form of loans have been part of
the problem, that borrowing from the World Bank can turn out to be like
borrowing from the Mafia. And like with the Mafia, people can wind
up dead. Try the New York Times bestseller, Confessions of an Economic
Hit Man, it might change your perspective a tad on poverty in some South
American countries.

http://www.johnperkins.org/Article of Interest.htm

 

Thanks. You're right. Never ceases to amaze me.

 

You're fighting a losing argument. People don't want to believe that
their own government is capable of corruption, especially Americans.
We're the good guys, and propaganda is what they did in Nazi Germany.
It can't happen here.

 

America may not be perfect but it is orders of magnitude better than the
tropical gulag of Venezuela. Since Chavez has come into power, he has
systematically decimated the country's economy and future while
stockpiling short term political gains with favors and handouts to some.
The standard of living, never that great, has been falling overall.

When Chavez's goons got control of PDVSA, the state oil company, they
nearly have run the company into the ground as competent engineers were
disposed of. Anyone who did not pledge total allegiance to Chavez was
terminated, and I don't mean their job status. Land is being
nationalized (read: taken away without compensation) from struggling but
moderately successful farmers growing sugar cane and the like. The new
"co-ops" collectively farming the land have largely yielded crop
failures. The Wall St Journal had another article about how this is
decimating the land, the environment, AND the economy in the last few
weeks.

Gasoline is cheap in Venezuela, but it burns very dirty and pollution
controls are non-existant. The nation will eventually pay a very stiff
price in other ways for its cheap gas that encourages high consumption.

You may not like America's current President, but I can guarantee you he
will not be in office in two years. Chavez will be in power for as long
as he feels like, unless there is a successful coup against him.

 

And therefore above suspicion with regard to corruption? Propaganda?

As always, truth is in the eye of the beholder and his favorite messenger:

There have been a number of articles recently (e.g. Christian Science
Monitor,[4] Andres Oppenheimer in the Miami Herald[5]) claiming that
poverty has actually increased under President Chavez, based on
government statistics. This is also wrong, because:

a) These data do not include the non-cash income of the poor --
including subsidized food and access to health care services. Since
there have been enormous changes in these areas, any comparison would
have to take these changes into account in order to accurately measure
the change in living standards of the poor. With subsidized food now
reaching 46 percent of the population, this one program alone could
easily push millions of people over the official poverty line that is
based on cash income only. Any comparison of poverty today with past
years that does not include these new benefits to the poor is
essentially meaningless.

State oil company PDVSA will control at least 60% of the projects, which
have been ceded by ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, BP, Statoil and
Total.

Mr Chavez told cheering workers that foreign oil companies had damaged
Venezuela's national interests and that reclaiming them represented an
historic victory.

Mr Chavez has also said he wants to pull Venezuela out of the
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Hmmm, Saddam switched to the Euro and wound up dead. Somebody just
might try to *kill* Chavez. Again.

Heh, we would *never* do anything like *that* but then there are more
subtle ways. Like converting the Dept of Justice into an extension of
the RNC. Did you watch any of the senate hearing today?

Got a pick for the Belmont Stakes? And is that Jeb I see standing in
the wings?

He seems quite popular right now and the CIA ain't what it used to be
down there but you never know. Perhaps a plane accident or.........,
South American leaders who refuse help from the World Bank or thumb
their noses at America seem to be accident prone.

 

I won't comment on their profits. But, every so often, a spokesman for one
oil company or another will be quoted on the news, explaining the reasons
for the most recent round of price hikes, and some of the reasons are
insulting to listen to. That's the problem for me.

I think the president could help by getting his comedy writers together and
coming up with a speech which explains why it's good for "the economy" when
gas prices continue to climb.

 

Heres another term for you: "red herring".

You can give any old name you like to things, but just any old name is not
always going to be accurate. Reagans' economic policies may be more
accurately described as "less mecantilist" than some of the other
presidents'. It was certainly not "laissez faire".

Another example of an inaccurate term affecting people's view of a subject:
When California and the Canadian province of Ontario altered their
regulatory framework for electricity, it was instantly dubbed
"deregulation", even though the market remained heavily regulated in a
slightly different manner than before. The term was inaccurately used, but
you'd never have known that from what you read in the papers.

The indisputable fact is that people are never richer as when their
governments leave them alone. The best things a government can do for its
population are
1) to recognize and support private property rights,
2) to provide a fair and honest dispute resolution system,
3) to obey its own rules,
4) and to otherwise go away.

 

Nothing. Off you go then.

 

That works when most of your oil is sold to others (USA) at a high
enough price to cover the give away.
Someone said Chavez inherited his oil industry, no he stole it off the
backs of international oil companies who built it.
In his defense he is using some of the excess oil profits to help his
people and those of friendly neighbors, but he is doing nothing for the
industry and productivity of his country.

He's just a dictator having a verbal battle with dictator Bush.

There's cheap gas in Iraq too. GO GET IT!

 

The rightwing's obsession with "faggot" and man-ass rears its ugly
head again (all puns intended). Come out of the closet and you'll be
a happier person.

Hey, what was that mail prostitute doing in the white house all those
times? At least Bubba got a blowjob from a woman. The Bushies and
most republicans are into far kinkier sex.
A