Chavez moves on

**stroller** · 12-01-2007, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Yeah! Take from those who work hard and made something of themselves and give to the lazy masses! Way to go!

Are the rich hard-working, and the poor lazy???
Where on Kaosan rd exactly did you buy your Degree?

**Butterfly** · 12-01-2007, 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by blackgang

I do not see where nationalization has ever done anything good for any country

I think you are confusing state monopoly and nationalization

As for the baby bells, they are being absorbed again one by one by AT&T so at the end deregulation would have accomplished the same thing, concentration of assets in the hand of a few. The end results won't be pretty.

As for government control of TV and media, I agree, however as we have seen with Thaksin and Bush cabals, government sponsors can have much say in TV and news contents as the government itself. So what is accomplished here with the private sector ? absolutely nothing, except the illusion of everything.

Don't confuse a flashlight with the sun.

**Butterfly** · 12-01-2007, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Take from those who work hard and made something of themselves and give to the lazy masses! Way to go!

hardworking as playing golf all day versus struggling in a mine ?

**man with no head** · 12-01-2007, 09:56 PM

The government can control the media simply by denying access to news (documents, pools of reporters, etc).

I think the illusion of a fair, impartial, and open media is simply that: an illusion.

How many times have networks failed to show something because an advertiser exerted pressure or threatened not to advertise if a certain show was shown?

I still wonder (and it looks like nobody answered the question I posted) if state control of resources results in higher prices? Why don't the oil companies pay the billions instead to maintain the navy and army so that the oil keeps flowing?

**Marmite the Dog** · 12-01-2007, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by Butterfly

As for the baby bells, they are being absorbed again one by one by AT&T so at the end deregulation would have accomplished the same thing, concentration of assets in the hand of a few. The end results won't be pretty.

Which is probably an example of poor governance, more than privatisation being bad. This is one of the cases where the government should have control over what's happening within the private sector through anti-monopolisation regulations.

And Stroller, the government does put pressure on the media in Thailand about what they can and cannot report on.

**Marmite the Dog** · 12-01-2007, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Take from those who work hard and made something of themselves and give to the lazy masses! Way to go!

hardworking as playing golf all day versus struggling in a mine ?

Hopefully, if I work hard enough to achieve financial security I will reward myself by playing golf twice a week.

**Butterfly** · 12-01-2007, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Which is probably an example of poor governance, more than privatisation being bad

But they are closely related, one wouldn't happen without the other. Proper governance is impossible under privatization for obvious technical reasons. In theory, it would be great and it might happen in the short term after the privatization process when everybody is paying attention, but not in the long term when the attention is else where. This is when the abuses can start.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

where the government should have control over what's happening within the private sector through anti-monopolisation regulations.

Academically yes, in reality, it's not happening. Companies grow and make a lot of money and basically regulate the industry through corrupt politicians. One could argue that privatization is so successful that it becomes a power in itself and that power threatens directly the public because its objectives are in direct contradiction with the public.

**man with no head** · 12-01-2007, 10:11 PM

....which has evolved into a government run by corporations.

**stroller** · 12-01-2007, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

And Stroller, the government does put pressure on the media in Thailand about what they can and cannot report on.

Yes, my point was that the Thai gov doesn't own the media, it's political pressure which is different from a owner censuring. Gangbang quoted Thailand as an example of gov. owned media being censured because they are owned by the gov. - which is not so.

**Butterfly** · 12-01-2007, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Hopefully, if I work hard enough to achieve financial security I will reward myself by playing golf twice a week.

so what about the poor miner ? he also worked very hard ? does he get to play golf too ?

**Marmite the Dog** · 12-01-2007, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Academically yes, in reality, it's not happening. Companies grow and make a lot of money and basically regulate the industry through corrupt politicians. One could argue that privatization is so successful that it becomes a power in itself and that power threatens directly the public because its objectives are in direct contradiction with the public.

I guess I've was spoilt in the UK by having a reasonably uncorrupt government (most were small time corruptions), hence my distorted views. In that respect I sincerely believe that most countries in the world are not capable of good self governance, but that's a different topic for a different day.

**Marmite the Dog** · 12-01-2007, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Hopefully, if I work hard enough to achieve financial security I will reward myself by playing golf twice a week.

so what about the poor miner ? he also worked very hard ? does he get to play golf too ?

Survival of the fittest and all that...

**stroller** · 12-01-2007, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Survival of the fittest and all that...

That's a rather abstruse (or is it obtuse?) cop-out...

**Butterfly** · 12-01-2007, 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Survival of the fittest and all that...

so we should get back to the Jungle where we belong then ?

**blackgang** · 12-01-2007, 11:07 PM

And Stroller, the government does put pressure on the media in Thailand about what they can and cannot report on.

Exactly, they are always telling the news media not to report things, and during the coup they were all shut down except ch3 which is govt.

**blackgang** · 12-01-2007, 11:23 PM

Gangbang quoted Thailand as an example of gov. owned media being censured because they are owned by the gov. - which is not so.

I said
I still do not think that public utilities should be under govt domain, no more than the newspapers or radio, TV, phones or com.
When govt takes over then there is censure of news and events, which is taking place in Venezuela as well as Thailand, Phone and com services that are run just for the hell of it and you get what service they want you to have for the price they want to charge, like in Mexico and Thailand.

Thai Govt only own ch3 , none of the others but do tell them what to say.
I did not mean that the govt owned all media, but they do the public utilitys, phones and some internet providers, EGAT, and oil refinerys as far as I can find out.

**Marmite the Dog** · 13-01-2007, 12:33 AM

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Survival of the fittest and all that...

That's a rather abstruse (or is it obtuse?) cop-out...

Obtuse.

I don't believe we are all equal. We should have equal rights, but it's what we do with those rights and what we do with ourselves that should be the criteria by which we succeed or fail.

If someone spends most of their working life cleaning toilets, then that's most likely because that's all their good for within their society. Likewise, if someone is successful, then fair play to them. I cannot see why they should have to share their success with the toilet cleaner. If they want to, then great, but it should be their choice not the government's.

So yes. Survival of the fittest. It's the basic law of life on Earth.

**man with no head** · 13-01-2007, 12:51 AM

Likewise the toilet cleaner should have the opportunity to petition the government for laws which can benefit him...unlike the sully bloke making billions per year who only need make a phone call to get any piece of legislation passed to benefit him without a worry.

**RDN** · 13-01-2007, 01:12 AM

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Survival of the fittest and all that...

That's a rather abstruse (or is it obtuse?) cop-out...

Obtuse.

I don't believe we are all equal. We should have equal rights, but it's what we do with those rights and what we do with ourselves that should be the criteria by which we succeed or fail.

If someone spends most of their working life cleaning toilets, then that's most likely because that's all their good for within their society. Likewise, if someone is successful, then fair play to them. I cannot see why they should have to share their success with the toilet cleaner. If they want to, then great, but it should be their choice not the government's.

So yes. Survival of the fittest. It's the basic law of life on Earth.

Couldn't have put it better myself. Everyone should have the same opportunity for education - it's what they do with that opportunity that determines what happens to them in the future.

**man with no head** · 13-01-2007, 02:57 AM

Not everyone has the same opportunity for and equal and fair education, however. The kid who graduates from the high school near me stands a better chance in life than the kid who graduates from the high school in the poor section of downtown Portland.

Wealthier districts = better teachers, more choice of classes and sports, and, subsequently can lead to better opportunities for college.

**stroller** · 13-01-2007, 03:58 AM

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

So yes. Survival of the fittest. It's the basic law of life on Earth.

You make it sound as if people's incomes were regulated by some generally accepted law of nature.

-but it clearly isn't.
The status of wealth created by inheritance, renumeration, trading, power and influence is a system created by humans, it's flexible and has been subject to change in history, at times more violently than others.

Venezuela is going through radical changes, the setup in South-America in general has been unsatisfactory for quite a while and it appears it is the time now for the next step in development, with whatever improvements and disadvantages go along with it.
When progression is hindered by outside forces and tyranny on a national level, change is likely to be dramatic and upsetting the existing order when it does happen.

Chavez is a catalyst, a man of the hour, far from perfect, but this is what it's at.

**El Gibbon** · 13-01-2007, 08:32 AM

Amidst all the conversation re. the pros and cons of socialization of resources I believe there is one factor that is being missed about Venezuela. (Iran fits this also.)

Most, as I recall, of Ven. oil is HEAVY crude. This poses a different set of problems for Chavez.

Heavy crude requires substantially more capital investment to process, and the maintenance of processing facilities is greatly increased over regular or light sweet crude. The maintenance and buildiing of refineries is technology not readily available within Ven.

It is much cheaper per barrel than light sweet. While the price of 'oil' is bandied about in the media it is NOT the price of heavy crude. Heavy crude is substantially lower than reg. or light sweet. This impacts Chavez' magnanamous free oil gifts to other developing countries.

The processing of heavy crude is not environmentally healthy. Heavy crude has lots of sulphur and other nasty ingredients that have to be dealt with.

This all leads me to believe that Chavez' populist policy, while well intentioned will run out of gas sooner rather than later. Then, what happens to the average Juan, in Ven.?

I believe that both Venezuela and Iran are NET importers of distilled petroleum products. BWDIK. Hey he gives cheap gas to the "poor" in New England and imports tankers at the same time. Great publicity, but what happens to Juan's lifesytle in Venezuala?

E. G.

**Butterfly** · 13-01-2007, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

If someone spends most of their working life cleaning toilets, then that's most likely because that's all their good for within their society. Likewise, if someone is successful, then fair play to them.

I remember when I was 20 and used to think that way. I was naive and all that and believed in that kind of crap. If you are very inexperienced or didn't learn anything from the business world, I can understand how your statement above make sense. Try working for a few years in real companies, big ones, and you will soon find out the reality of things. If it was that simple, we would all follow those principles. But it's not. The more capable can fail because the system don't let them a chance. Likewise, success stories often happens out of luck. Now tell me how has this anything to do with one abilities and capacities within society ? none.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

So yes. Survival of the fittest. It's the basic law of life on Earth.

This is the silliest and the most naive statement of all. I think you are trolling. Nobody short of a Nazi apologist can believe in that crap. Actually use that sentence and switch fittest with lucky and then it makes sense. How many leeches and weak were able to survive and make it big in this society. Too many to list. Hardly survival of the fittest.

**Little Chuchok** · 13-01-2007, 11:38 AM

I know abit off topic etc,but I know three guys that are very wealthy.Well, they are very wealthy in my book.The poorest of them prolly earns inexcess of USD3mil PA.

One has a degree,the other two left school at 16.They all work hard.No doubt about that either.

They all agree on one thing.They all had an element of luck in their success.Many Hong kong Chinese will tell you the same about sucessfull business people...Luck plays a big part.

**Butterfly** · 13-01-2007, 11:45 AM

anyone with experience in the business world will tell you that luck has a lot to do with success, not abilities. All the rich people who made it on their own will tell you that luck played a big part in their success, and rightly so.

Kind of sad actually as it limits our ability to shape our destiny.

Thread: Chavez moves on

Thread Tools

Display

Socialism, circumstances count

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions