A Hamburger Now Costs $170 in Venezuela

[SassyIrishLass]

This has nothing to do with Socialism... it's about having a government that is clueless, and mostly because their economy is based almost exclusively on oil which is now at a historically low price point.

You're right about oil but it has everything to do with socialism

 

[Lewdog]

Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:

• China
• Denmark
• Finland
• Netherlands
• Canada
• Sweden
• Norway
• Ireland
• New Zealand
• Belgium

http://blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/

Rank
[6][7] Country Score Change Over
Prior Year GDP per capita Social support Healthy life expectancy Freedom to make life choices Generosity Trust
1

Denmark 7.526

-0.401
2

Switzerland 7.509

0.035
3

Iceland 7.501

0.000
4

Norway 7.498

0.082
5

Finland 7.413

-0.259
6

Canada 7.404

-0.041
7

Netherlands 7.339

-0.119
8

New Zealand 7.334

-0.097
9

Australia 7.313

0.002
10

Sweden 7.291

-0.017

World Happiness Report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First, notice Venezuela is NOT on either list. Secondly, notice so many countries that can be found on both lists? Coincidence? Nope.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Socialism - Where health care and college are "free," but a hamburger will cost you $170

Venezuela, where a hamburger is officially $170

Venezuela. Where a left wing Despot was elected because he bamboozled the people into believing he would take care of them by nationalizing industries and the banking system. Chavez was in office for what 15 years and in the end 80% of the population is living in abject poverty.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Is the hamburger made of beef or.....

Venezuelans Are Now Killing Cats, Dogs, and Birds For Food Because Socialism Can't Provide

Dystopia: Venezuelans Are Now Killing Cats, Dogs, and Birds For Food Because Socialism Can't Provide

Here kitty kitty kitty.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

It just keeps getting better in the Socialist Utopia

VENEZUELA: BREW BEER OR FACE JAIL

Venezuela’s president has given the country’s largest brewers an ultimatum to resume production or face a prison sentence for ‘sabotaging the country’.

The country’s largest brewer, Empresas Polar supplies 80% of the beer drunk in Venezuela, including the leading brand Polar Pilsen. Last month the company completely shut down production due to supply problems of its main raw materials.

President Nicolas Maduro has now threatened to take over the closed breweries, saying that the business owners risk being “put in handcuffs”.

He said he was also ordering action “to recover the production apparatus, which is being paralyzed by the bourgeoisie”.

Meanwhile, Polar said it could no longer access the US currency needed to import the malted barley for beer production, and had to close the last of its breweries. Access to foreign exchange is currently under the control of the country’s government.

https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2016/05/venezuela-brew-beer-or-face-jail/

 

[Iceweasel]

Public funding = subsidizing = socialism. Just like we subsidize big pharma, agribusiness, Walmart, bailed out Wall Street. Socialism, and you defend it; redistribution of wealth to the top. You're just ok with it when it travels that direction because you've been taught that's different. By the folks who want your money for nothing.

No, that's not what socialism means. Look it up. You are regurgitating liberal lies that are designed to make socialism more palatable to the unsuspecting masses. Once government can regulate everything the private sector is pretty much done for.

 

[rdean]

Socialism - Where health care and college are "free," but a hamburger will cost you $170

Venezuela, where a hamburger is officially $170

Must be Obama's fault.

 

[Fenton Lum]

That what I thought, partisanshit.

Despite the doubts, the unexpected nuclear test is yet another reminder of how the U.S.-led nuclear deal with North Korea, brokered under President Bill Clinton in 1994, failed.

The slow death of the nuclear deal with North Korea

Yes, exactly, see why that partisanshit is bad for ya?

Rumsfeld Company Sold Nuclear Weapon Equipment to North Korea
Rumsfeld Company Sold Nuclear Weapon Equipment to North Korea


The Two Face of Rumsfeld
2000: director of a company which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea
2002: declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil and a target for regime change
The two faces of Rumsfeld

A board member is neither a ownership nor a Directors position, Einstein.

And? Playing both sides of the fence for profit, these guys, all of 'em.. I don't care who does it, you on the other hand do. You will defend "one" side from the same stuff you will decry the "other" side for.

Swiss have been playing both sides for centuries.
Here in the US we have ITAR which prohibits such things.

Bullshit, we play "both" sides all the time.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The slow death of the nuclear deal with North Korea

Yes, exactly, see why that partisanshit is bad for ya?

Rumsfeld Company Sold Nuclear Weapon Equipment to North Korea
Rumsfeld Company Sold Nuclear Weapon Equipment to North Korea


The Two Face of Rumsfeld
2000: director of a company which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea
2002: declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil and a target for regime change
The two faces of Rumsfeld

A board member is neither a ownership nor a Directors position, Einstein.

And? Playing both sides of the fence for profit, these guys, all of 'em.. I don't care who does it, you on the other hand do. You will defend "one" side from the same stuff you will decry the "other" side for.

Swiss have been playing both sides for centuries.
Here in the US we have ITAR which prohibits such things.

Bullshit, we play "both" sides all the time.

The slow death of the nuclear deal with North Korea

Yes, exactly, see why that partisanshit is bad for ya?

Rumsfeld Company Sold Nuclear Weapon Equipment to North Korea
Rumsfeld Company Sold Nuclear Weapon Equipment to North Korea


The Two Face of Rumsfeld
2000: director of a company which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea
2002: declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil and a target for regime change
The two faces of Rumsfeld

A board member is neither a ownership nor a Directors position, Einstein.

And? Playing both sides of the fence for profit, these guys, all of 'em.. I don't care who does it, you on the other hand do. You will defend "one" side from the same stuff you will decry the "other" side for.

Swiss have been playing both sides for centuries.
Here in the US we have ITAR which prohibits such things.

Bullshit, we play "both" sides all the time.

Feel free to back up your claim that America is selling weapons to North Korea.

 

[Weatherman2020]

It just keeps getting better in the Socialist Utopia

VENEZUELA: BREW BEER OR FACE JAIL

Venezuela’s president has given the country’s largest brewers an ultimatum to resume production or face a prison sentence for ‘sabotaging the country’.

The country’s largest brewer, Empresas Polar supplies 80% of the beer drunk in Venezuela, including the leading brand Polar Pilsen. Last month the company completely shut down production due to supply problems of its main raw materials.

President Nicolas Maduro has now threatened to take over the closed breweries, saying that the business owners risk being “put in handcuffs”.

He said he was also ordering action “to recover the production apparatus, which is being paralyzed by the bourgeoisie”.

Meanwhile, Polar said it could no longer access the US currency needed to import the malted barley for beer production, and had to close the last of its breweries. Access to foreign exchange is currently under the control of the country’s government.

Venezuela: brew beer or face jail

Typical leftists, they think the economy runs by decree.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Socialism works pretty well for Wall Street and corporate interests with well heeled lobbyists - not to mention professional sports teams owners.

Professional sports team owners? Can you explain?

They inevitably leverage taxpayer funding for their stadiums/palaces/private infrastructure. Internalized profit, externalized risk/expense onto the backs of the working class whether they attend sporting events or not.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Yes, exactly, see why that partisanshit is bad for ya?

Rumsfeld Company Sold Nuclear Weapon Equipment to North Korea
Rumsfeld Company Sold Nuclear Weapon Equipment to North Korea


The Two Face of Rumsfeld
2000: director of a company which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea
2002: declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil and a target for regime change
The two faces of Rumsfeld

A board member is neither a ownership nor a Directors position, Einstein.

And? Playing both sides of the fence for profit, these guys, all of 'em.. I don't care who does it, you on the other hand do. You will defend "one" side from the same stuff you will decry the "other" side for.

Swiss have been playing both sides for centuries.
Here in the US we have ITAR which prohibits such things.

Bullshit, we play "both" sides all the time.

Yes, exactly, see why that partisanshit is bad for ya?

Rumsfeld Company Sold Nuclear Weapon Equipment to North Korea
Rumsfeld Company Sold Nuclear Weapon Equipment to North Korea


The Two Face of Rumsfeld
2000: director of a company which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea
2002: declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil and a target for regime change
The two faces of Rumsfeld

A board member is neither a ownership nor a Directors position, Einstein.

And? Playing both sides of the fence for profit, these guys, all of 'em.. I don't care who does it, you on the other hand do. You will defend "one" side from the same stuff you will decry the "other" side for.

Swiss have been playing both sides for centuries.
Here in the US we have ITAR which prohibits such things.

Bullshit, we play "both" sides all the time.

Feel free to back up your claim that America is selling weapons to North Korea.

Yes, exactly, see why that partisanshit is bad for ya?

Rumsfeld Company Sold Nuclear Weapon Equipment to North Korea
Rumsfeld Company Sold Nuclear Weapon Equipment to North Korea


The Two Face of Rumsfeld
2000: director of a company which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea
2002: declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil and a target for regime change
The two faces of Rumsfeld

A board member is neither a ownership nor a Directors position, Einstein.

And? Playing both sides of the fence for profit, these guys, all of 'em.. I don't care who does it, you on the other hand do. You will defend "one" side from the same stuff you will decry the "other" side for.

Swiss have been playing both sides for centuries.
Here in the US we have ITAR which prohibits such things.

Bullshit, we play "both" sides all the time.

Yes, exactly, see why that partisanshit is bad for ya?

Rumsfeld Company Sold Nuclear Weapon Equipment to North Korea
Rumsfeld Company Sold Nuclear Weapon Equipment to North Korea


The Two Face of Rumsfeld
2000: director of a company which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea
2002: declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil and a target for regime change
The two faces of Rumsfeld

A board member is neither a ownership nor a Directors position, Einstein.

And? Playing both sides of the fence for profit, these guys, all of 'em.. I don't care who does it, you on the other hand do. You will defend "one" side from the same stuff you will decry the "other" side for.

Swiss have been playing both sides for centuries.
Here in the US we have ITAR which prohibits such things.

Bullshit, we play "both" sides all the time.

Feel free to back up your claim that America is selling weapons to North Korea.

Look pard, no one can "prove" anything to you because you're a "believer". This is like a religion with you. You "believe" which means you don't think or question. We've been playing both sides in the middle east and Afghanistan, for example, at least as far back as our toppling of the democratically elected govt of Iran. That's sure turned out swell. That fact that our ridiculous adventures there continually blow up in our faces would trigger reflection in a more enlightened population. Sadam. Osama. Both of those relationships came back to bite us in the arse. Our position with the Saudi’s is also very schizophrenic. We’re really quite naïve when it comes to what we as a society will swallow verbatim from a television or radio. I find it endlessly amusing that folks who claim to dislike and mistrust big govt are very often totally unable to question their own govt in any substantive manor. They just don’t like “one” of the “two” political parties.

 

[Fueri]

Fight for $150.00!

 

[Fenton Lum]

Public funding = subsidizing = socialism. Just like we subsidize big pharma, agribusiness, Walmart, bailed out Wall Street. Socialism, and you defend it; redistribution of wealth to the top. You're just ok with it when it travels that direction because you've been taught that's different. By the folks who want your money for nothing.

No, that's not what socialism means. Look it up. You are regurgitating liberal lies that are designed to make socialism more palatable to the unsuspecting masses. Once government can regulate everything the private sector is pretty much done for.

You always know when one of ya'll is backed into a corner when you fall back on the "liberals" schtick. Once concentrated wealth and corporate power can regulate everything the society and it's economic system are pretty much done for as well.

It is always about balance, and you're simply not, that's all.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Socialism works pretty well for Wall Street and corporate interests with well heeled lobbyists - not to mention professional sports teams owners.

Professional sports team owners? Can you explain?

They inevitably leverage taxpayer funding for their stadiums/palaces/private infrastructure. Internalized profit, externalized risk/expense onto the backs of the working class whether they attend sporting events or not.

I understand your point, and it's true that the tax payers get much of the cost. The fortunate part is that it is not done at a federal level, but at the local level. Socialism can be an effective form of government in smaller, more closely knit groups. The raw economic benefits may not be there, but it can be argued living in a city with major sports teams enhances the overall quality of life.

Socialism works pretty well for Wall Street and corporate interests with well heeled lobbyists - not to mention professional sports teams owners.

Professional sports team owners? Can you explain?

They inevitably leverage taxpayer funding for their stadiums/palaces/private infrastructure. Internalized profit, externalized risk/expense onto the backs of the working class whether they attend sporting events or not.

 

[Iceweasel]

Public funding = subsidizing = socialism. Just like we subsidize big pharma, agribusiness, Walmart, bailed out Wall Street. Socialism, and you defend it; redistribution of wealth to the top. You're just ok with it when it travels that direction because you've been taught that's different. By the folks who want your money for nothing.

No, that's not what socialism means. Look it up. You are regurgitating liberal lies that are designed to make socialism more palatable to the unsuspecting masses. Once government can regulate everything the private sector is pretty much done for.

You always know when one of ya'll is backed into a corner when you fall back on the "liberals" schtick. Once concentrated wealth and corporate power can regulate everything the society and it's economic system are pretty much done for as well.

It is always about balance, and you're simply not, that's all.

An insult complaining about insults? I said look up the word socialism, did you? You'll discover you are ignorant. Nor did I say liberals but you rightly assumed it.

Another word you need to look up is facism, which is what you're pretending I'm for, I said no such thing. But the point is that government spending money isn't socialism. All countries would be socialist with that unique definition. Words, learn them.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Socialism works pretty well for Wall Street and corporate interests with well heeled lobbyists - not to mention professional sports teams owners.

Professional sports team owners? Can you explain?

They inevitably leverage taxpayer funding for their stadiums/palaces/private infrastructure. Internalized profit, externalized risk/expense onto the backs of the working class whether they attend sporting events or not.

I understand your point, and it's true that the tax payers get much of the cost. The fortunate part is that it is not done at a federal level, but at the local level. Socialism can be an effective form of government in smaller, more closely knit groups. The raw economic benefits may not be there, but it can be argued living in a city with major sports teams enhances the overall quality of life.

Socialism works pretty well for Wall Street and corporate interests with well heeled lobbyists - not to mention professional sports teams owners.

Professional sports team owners? Can you explain?

They inevitably leverage taxpayer funding for their stadiums/palaces/private infrastructure. Internalized profit, externalized risk/expense onto the backs of the working class whether they attend sporting events or not.

Socialism works pretty well for Wall Street and corporate interests with well heeled lobbyists - not to mention professional sports teams owners.

Professional sports team owners? Can you explain?

They inevitably leverage taxpayer funding for their stadiums/palaces/private infrastructure. Internalized profit, externalized risk/expense onto the backs of the working class whether they attend sporting events or not.

I understand your point, and it's true that the tax payers get much of the cost. The fortunate part is that it is not done at a federal level, but at the local level. Socialism can be an effective form of government in smaller, more closely knit groups. The raw economic benefits may not be there, but it can be argued living in a city with major sports teams enhances the overall quality of life.

Socialism works pretty well for Wall Street and corporate interests with well heeled lobbyists - not to mention professional sports teams owners.

Professional sports team owners? Can you explain?

They inevitably leverage taxpayer funding for their stadiums/palaces/private infrastructure. Internalized profit, externalized risk/expense onto the backs of the working class whether they attend sporting events or not.

I understand your point, and it's true that the tax payers get much of the cost. The fortunate part is that it is not done at a federal level, but at the local level. Socialism can be an effective form of government in smaller, more closely knit groups. The raw economic benefits may not be there, but it can be argued living in a city with major sports teams enhances the overall quality of life.

Yes, and I get that argument. But if you notice, that argument is only rolled out when the redistribution is moving up, never when moving down the food chain or laterally. And this still requires buy in to the trickle down fantasy. As a society we subsidize our "entrepreneurs" all the time telling ourselves that a) oh no, that's different than socialism, and b) small business owners blah blah blah. But it's concentrated wealth that is able to steer an ecnomic system into a direction that forces its costs of doing business onto the public, even if they don't partake in the product.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Public funding = subsidizing = socialism. Just like we subsidize big pharma, agribusiness, Walmart, bailed out Wall Street. Socialism, and you defend it; redistribution of wealth to the top. You're just ok with it when it travels that direction because you've been taught that's different. By the folks who want your money for nothing.

No, that's not what socialism means. Look it up. You are regurgitating liberal lies that are designed to make socialism more palatable to the unsuspecting masses. Once government can regulate everything the private sector is pretty much done for.

You always know when one of ya'll is backed into a corner when you fall back on the "liberals" schtick. Once concentrated wealth and corporate power can regulate everything the society and it's economic system are pretty much done for as well.

It is always about balance, and you're simply not, that's all.

An insult complaining about insults? I said look up the word socialism, did you? You'll discover you are ignorant. Nor did I say liberals but you rightly assumed it.

Another word you need to look up is facism, which is what you're pretending I'm for, I said no such thing. But the point is that government spending money isn't socialism. All countries would be socialist with that unique definition. Words, learn them.

I don't follow you, on purpose, don't want to be like you. Words aren't the problem, we just disagree. Now you don't mind govt spending, good for you.

 

[Iceweasel]

Public funding = subsidizing = socialism. Just like we subsidize big pharma, agribusiness, Walmart, bailed out Wall Street. Socialism, and you defend it; redistribution of wealth to the top. You're just ok with it when it travels that direction because you've been taught that's different. By the folks who want your money for nothing.

No, that's not what socialism means. Look it up. You are regurgitating liberal lies that are designed to make socialism more palatable to the unsuspecting masses. Once government can regulate everything the private sector is pretty much done for.

You always know when one of ya'll is backed into a corner when you fall back on the "liberals" schtick. Once concentrated wealth and corporate power can regulate everything the society and it's economic system are pretty much done for as well.

It is always about balance, and you're simply not, that's all.

An insult complaining about insults? I said look up the word socialism, did you? You'll discover you are ignorant. Nor did I say liberals but you rightly assumed it.

Another word you need to look up is facism, which is what you're pretending I'm for, I said no such thing. But the point is that government spending money isn't socialism. All countries would be socialist with that unique definition. Words, learn them.

I don't follow you, on purpose, don't want to be like you. Words aren't the problem, we just disagree. Now you don't mind govt spending, good for you.

You don't want to be like yourself?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Socialism works pretty well for Wall Street and corporate interests with well heeled lobbyists - not to mention professional sports teams owners.

Professional sports team owners? Can you explain?

They inevitably leverage taxpayer funding for their stadiums/palaces/private infrastructure. Internalized profit, externalized risk/expense onto the backs of the working class whether they attend sporting events or not.

I understand your point, and it's true that the tax payers get much of the cost. The fortunate part is that it is not done at a federal level, but at the local level. Socialism can be an effective form of government in smaller, more closely knit groups. The raw economic benefits may not be there, but it can be argued living in a city with major sports teams enhances the overall quality of life.

Socialism works pretty well for Wall Street and corporate interests with well heeled lobbyists - not to mention professional sports teams owners.

Professional sports team owners? Can you explain?

They inevitably leverage taxpayer funding for their stadiums/palaces/private infrastructure. Internalized profit, externalized risk/expense onto the backs of the working class whether they attend sporting events or not.

Socialism works pretty well for Wall Street and corporate interests with well heeled lobbyists - not to mention professional sports teams owners.

Professional sports team owners? Can you explain?

They inevitably leverage taxpayer funding for their stadiums/palaces/private infrastructure. Internalized profit, externalized risk/expense onto the backs of the working class whether they attend sporting events or not.

I understand your point, and it's true that the tax payers get much of the cost. The fortunate part is that it is not done at a federal level, but at the local level. Socialism can be an effective form of government in smaller, more closely knit groups. The raw economic benefits may not be there, but it can be argued living in a city with major sports teams enhances the overall quality of life.

Socialism works pretty well for Wall Street and corporate interests with well heeled lobbyists - not to mention professional sports teams owners.

Professional sports team owners? Can you explain?

They inevitably leverage taxpayer funding for their stadiums/palaces/private infrastructure. Internalized profit, externalized risk/expense onto the backs of the working class whether they attend sporting events or not.

I understand your point, and it's true that the tax payers get much of the cost. The fortunate part is that it is not done at a federal level, but at the local level. Socialism can be an effective form of government in smaller, more closely knit groups. The raw economic benefits may not be there, but it can be argued living in a city with major sports teams enhances the overall quality of life.

Yes, and I get that argument. But if you notice, that argument is only rolled out when the redistribution is moving up, never when moving down the food chain or laterally. And this still requires buy in to the trickle down fantasy. As a society we subsidize our "entrepreneurs" all the time telling ourselves that a) oh no, that's different than socialism, and b) small business owners blah blah blah. But it's concentrated wealth that is able to steer an ecnomic system into a direction that forces its costs of doing business onto the public, even if they don't partake in the product.

The economy is a onion with many different levels. Ultimately, whether it's building a stadium or a bridge, there is some quotient attributed to the public good. However I tend to trust those interested in a profit more than a government bureaucracy, because I know their motive and they are true to it. Look how much money has been wasted at the federal level in subsidizing alternative energy, and in the end there was nothing left. At least at the local level there is a real asset (stadium,football team, etc). I am a free market guy for the most part, but I generally don't apply the same scrutiny to a small, local government subsidy as I do those at the federal level.

Socialism works pretty well for Wall Street and corporate interests with well heeled lobbyists - not to mention professional sports teams owners.

Professional sports team owners? Can you explain?

They inevitably leverage taxpayer funding for their stadiums/palaces/private infrastructure. Internalized profit, externalized risk/expense onto the backs of the working class whether they attend sporting events or not.

I understand your point, and it's true that the tax payers get much of the cost. The fortunate part is that it is not done at a federal level, but at the local level. Socialism can be an effective form of government in smaller, more closely knit groups. The raw economic benefits may not be there, but it can be argued living in a city with major sports teams enhances the overall quality of life.

Socialism works pretty well for Wall Street and corporate interests with well heeled lobbyists - not to mention professional sports teams owners.

Professional sports team owners? Can you explain?

They inevitably leverage taxpayer funding for their stadiums/palaces/private infrastructure. Internalized profit, externalized risk/expense onto the backs of the working class whether they attend sporting events or not.

Socialism works pretty well for Wall Street and corporate interests with well heeled lobbyists - not to mention professional sports teams owners.

Professional sports team owners? Can you explain?

They inevitably leverage taxpayer funding for their stadiums/palaces/private infrastructure. Internalized profit, externalized risk/expense onto the backs of the working class whether they attend sporting events or not.

I understand your point, and it's true that the tax payers get much of the cost. The fortunate part is that it is not done at a federal level, but at the local level. Socialism can be an effective form of government in smaller, more closely knit groups. The raw economic benefits may not be there, but it can be argued living in a city with major sports teams enhances the overall quality of life.

Socialism works pretty well for Wall Street and corporate interests with well heeled lobbyists - not to mention professional sports teams owners.

Professional sports team owners? Can you explain?

They inevitably leverage taxpayer funding for their stadiums/palaces/private infrastructure. Internalized profit, externalized risk/expense onto the backs of the working class whether they attend sporting events or not.

I understand your point, and it's true that the tax payers get much of the cost. The fortunate part is that it is not done at a federal level, but at the local level. Socialism can be an effective form of government in smaller, more closely knit groups. The raw economic benefits may not be there, but it can be argued living in a city with major sports teams enhances the overall quality of life.

Yes, and I get that argument. But if you notice, that argument is only rolled out when the redistribution is moving up, never when moving down the food chain or laterally. And this still requires buy in to the trickle down fantasy. As a society we subsidize our "entrepreneurs" all the time telling ourselves that a) oh no, that's different than socialism, and b) small business owners blah blah blah. But it's concentrated wealth that is able to steer an ecnomic system into a direction that forces its costs of doing business onto the public, even if they don't partake in the product.