Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The US does have the right to impose sanctions involving any transactions with people or firms in the United States. That's called "sovereignty."Possibly, Europe "or all the socialist Utopias..." don't want to run afoul of the world's reserve currency by helping Venezuela. Why do you suppose the US believes it has the unilateral right to economically sanction any sovereign nation that doesn't bow before the Washington Consensus?What's stopping Venezuela from going to Europe or all the socialist Utopias for these things? Isn't socialism supposed to be the superior economic system?They target the basis of Venezuela's economy in much the same way US sanctions have targeted Cuba with exactly the same motive: to destroy any alternative to the Washington Consensus.There are sanctions, but they are sanctions against individuals who are acting corruptly on the world market, at the expense of the Venezuelan people.
Venezuela-Related Sanctions
They target specific officials in the Venezuelan government, that are using the power of the government to screw over what little wealth is left in the country, and exporting it into hidden accounts out of the country.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IF10715.pdf
"Broader Economic Sanctions In addition to targeted sanctions against individuals, President Trump has imposed broader economic sanctions on Venezuela because of the government’s serious human rights abuses, antidemocratic actions, and responsibility for the deepening humanitarian crisis.
"In August 2017, President Trump issued E.O. 13808, which prohibits access to the U.S. financial markets by the Venezuelan government, including Venezuela’s state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., or PdVSA, with certain exceptions to minimize the impact on the Venezuelan people and U.S. economic interests.
"The sanctions seek to restrict the Venezuelan government’s access to U.S. debt and equity markets.
"Among the exceptions are transactions for new debt by CITGO, owned by PdVSA; transactions by U.S. owners of Venezuelan/PdVSA bonds on secondary markets; financing for agricultural and medical exports; and short-term financing to facilitate trade."
The fact that I put labor into it and that no one else has claimed it is what gives me the right.What gives you the right to take possession of the field?Common ownership is bullshit. If I plow a field and grow a crop of corn in it, what gives anyone else the right to share it?How does real estate affect the net worth of the rich?Well of course not doofus... We on the right have been saying this since before Ronald Reagan. Rich people do not end up suffering from socialist policies. They either end up in bed with the government, or they end up leaving. Rich from New York and California, leave for lower tax, less socialist states all the time. The rich in France left in droves. The rich in Russia moved to west Europe when Putin was cracking down.
The rich can run and hide (it is what they do best); however, they won't be taking all their private property with them.
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/...l-estate-tycoon-is-a-warning-from-history-950
There should be no private property, eh comrade?
"1. Simplified Version of Proudhon’s Argument
In Proudhon’s period, the animating assumption of essentially all works on property was that God created the earth and gave it to mankind in common to use.
"This was the long-standing Christian view, which was notably reflected in Thomist thought and even received a ringing endorsement from John Locke. The Christianist idea of the common ownership of all of the earth is Proudhon’s starting point."
Why Property Is Theft and Why It Matters
Peter Schiff: The Recession Is A Done DealPeter SchiffWho's your top pick for economic's expert?Do you see how a market that distributes goods and services based solely on the ability to pay will exclude a large percentage of workers from being unable to buy what they produce?
You are a troll, and you misrepresent Marx.
Marx never said anything that stupid - you are making shit up and attributing it to others.
E. Germain: The Marxist Theory of Imperialism and its Critics (1955)
Yeah, when I'm looking for an expert on economics, my favorite source is a Marxist lawyer.....DERP!
Peter Schiff-for-brains is a moron.Peter Schiff: The Recession Is A Done DealPeter SchiffWho's your top pick for economic's expert?You are a troll, and you misrepresent Marx.
Marx never said anything that stupid - you are making shit up and attributing it to others.
E. Germain: The Marxist Theory of Imperialism and its Critics (1955)
Yeah, when I'm looking for an expert on economics, my favorite source is a Marxist lawyer.....DERP!
Jan. 21, 2019 3:07 PM ET"
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4234555-peter-schiff-recession-done-deal
I don’t even have the energy to respond to everything wrong with this. I would take up an entire page responding to the first paragraph alone.Who’s Afraid of Socialism? | Open Media Boston
"Capitalism’s incompatibility with majority interests has been reaffirmed by the current economic crisis.
"Earlier, the most severe effects of capitalism had been offset, within the US, by the progressive reforms of the 1930s.
"But capital’s political power was less restrained in this country than it was in the other rich countries.
"Flush with military might and bolstered by a mass right-wing culture of arrogant self-righteousness, US capital launched a withering counterattack against the New Deal legacy, culminating in an almost three-decade orgy of anti-welfare legislation, imperialist aggression, privatization, and deregulation."
Unrestrained profit maximization results in concentrating an enormous amount of surplus capital which can find few safe investments.
"Free market" capitalists turn to highly speculative scams which generate financial bubbles as the real economy continues to be hollowed out and the working class is driven deeper into debt.
Socialism would turn to government for an alternative, but US government is Goldman Sachs regardless of which major party is in control.
Of course, dumbass and always will. The question is dumbass giveaway to the rich and screw the rest and the country GOP control, or intelligent Democratic control. Look at those stats, idiot....The main thing is, the government. must. control. every. god. damned. thing.
Why would you think democratic control of our economic decisions represents a bigger threat than oligarchic control of our economic decisions?So what?
The question is whether we want more socialism or less, whether state control over our economic decisions is a good thing and should be expanded, or a dangerous power that should be strictly limited.
Do you believe you have a right to your pre-tax income?Letting people keep more of their own money isn't a give away; however, welfare is a give away.
Hundreds of books have been written about it.I don’t even have the energy to respond to everything wrong with this. I would take up an entire page responding to the first paragraph alone.Who’s Afraid of Socialism? | Open Media Boston
"Capitalism’s incompatibility with majority interests has been reaffirmed by the current economic crisis.
"Earlier, the most severe effects of capitalism had been offset, within the US, by the progressive reforms of the 1930s.
"But capital’s political power was less restrained in this country than it was in the other rich countries.
"Flush with military might and bolstered by a mass right-wing culture of arrogant self-righteousness, US capital launched a withering counterattack against the New Deal legacy, culminating in an almost three-decade orgy of anti-welfare legislation, imperialist aggression, privatization, and deregulation."
Unrestrained profit maximization results in concentrating an enormous amount of surplus capital which can find few safe investments.
"Free market" capitalists turn to highly speculative scams which generate financial bubbles as the real economy continues to be hollowed out and the working class is driven deeper into debt.
Socialism would turn to government for an alternative, but US government is Goldman Sachs regardless of which major party is in control.
It's a moral right. What gives anyone else the right to it?Do you believe you have a right to your pre-tax income?Letting people keep more of their own money isn't a give away; however, welfare is a give away.
If so, is is a legal or a moral right?
Because there is a profound difference between economic power and political power and each must be limited to ensure freedom. Economic power is limited by the prohibition on coercion. Political power is limited by the Constitution. Socialism seeks to combine the two and remove the limitations. That's why it's so dangerous and why it so often leads to totalitarian government.Why would you think democratic control of our economic decisions represents a bigger threat than oligarchic control of our economic decisions?So what?
The question is whether we want more socialism or less, whether state control over our economic decisions is a good thing and should be expanded, or a dangerous power that should be strictly limited.
Anyone who believes democracy is a good way to make decisions is a certifiable moron. The term "oligarchy" is virtually meaningless.Why would you think democratic control of our economic decisions represents a bigger threat than oligarchic control of our economic decisions?So what?
The question is whether we want more socialism or less, whether state control over our economic decisions is a good thing and should be expanded, or a dangerous power that should be strictly limited.
Group of 30 :: Consultative Group on International Economic and Monetary Affairs, Inc.
"The Group of Thirty aims to deepen understanding of international economic and financial issues, and to explore the international repercussions of decisions taken in the public and private sectors. The Group is characterized by its knowledge of the past and broad-minded, forward thinking."
Unfortunately the Constitution hasn't worked.Because there is a profound difference between economic power and political power and each must be limited to ensure freedom. Economic power is limited by the prohibition on coercion. Political power is limited by the Constitution. Socialism seeks to combine the two and remove the limitations. That's why it's so dangerous and why it so often leads to totalitarian government.Why would you think democratic control of our economic decisions represents a bigger threat than oligarchic control of our economic decisions?So what?
The question is whether we want more socialism or less, whether state control over our economic decisions is a good thing and should be expanded, or a dangerous power that should be strictly limited.
If you believe you have a moral right to your pre-tax income then you must believe an amoral market (at best) distributes incomes in a completely just manner.It's a moral right. What gives anyone else the right to it?Do you believe you have a right to your pre-tax income?Letting people keep more of their own money isn't a give away; however, welfare is a give away.
If so, is is a legal or a moral right?
As long as coercion isn't involved, then how is it unjust? You opinion on how much people should earn is purely idiosyncratic. It has no basis in fact.If you believe you have a moral right to your pre-tax income then you must believe an amoral market (at best) distributes incomes in a completely just manner.It's a moral right. What gives anyone else the right to it?Do you believe you have a right to your pre-tax income?Letting people keep more of their own money isn't a give away; however, welfare is a give away.
If so, is is a legal or a moral right?
So a cancer researcher earns more than some high-frequency parasite on Wall Street or a prissy New York real estate speculator, right?
Totalitarian means it is not democratic. or coming from the Democratic party either.Of course, dumbass and always will. The question is dumbass giveaway to the rich and screw the rest and the country GOP control, or intelligent Democratic control. Look at those stats, idiot....The main thing is, the government. must. control. every. god. damned. thing.
Nope. Totalitarian government is very bad thing, regardless of whether it's Democratic or not.
(See how I disagreed with you without name-calling and insults. You should try it!)
No it doesn't. Democracy is not freedom.Totalitarian means it is not democratic. or coming from the Democratic party either.Of course, dumbass and always will. The question is dumbass giveaway to the rich and screw the rest and the country GOP control, or intelligent Democratic control. Look at those stats, idiot....The main thing is, the government. must. control. every. god. damned. thing.
Nope. Totalitarian government is very bad thing, regardless of whether it's Democratic or not.
(See how I disagreed with you without name-calling and insults. You should try it!)
Ludwig von Mises.Who's your top pick for economic's expert?Do you see how a market that distributes goods and services based solely on the ability to pay will exclude a large percentage of workers from being unable to buy what they produce?
You are a troll, and you misrepresent Marx.
Marx never said anything that stupid - you are making shit up and attributing it to others.
E. Germain: The Marxist Theory of Imperialism and its Critics (1955)
Yeah, when I'm looking for an expert on economics, my favorite source is a Marxist lawyer.....DERP!
Marx was never proved wrong. Marx's dialectic materialist philosophy still offers a viable way of critiquing our world. It is the process by which we can comprehend our situation and have an understanding for how to solve it. It is by this understanding that we know how utterly ignorant you are to think socialism is fair capitalism or that such a thing can even exist. What planet are you living on?
Totalitarian means it is not democratic. or coming from the Democratic party either.
