Venezuela right-wing opposition wins control of National Assembly by a landslide

Conservatives want the supreme court to interpret the constitution a lot more literally than they do now.  It is hard to imagine that the founders of the nation and the writers of the constitution gave consideration to abortion when writing the constitution.  If so, the supreme court should say the constitution does not deal with this matter and refer the matter back to elected representatives for a potential amendment to the constitution.  That would be the proper way to do it.  Of course, pro-choice proponents are not too optimistic about the outcome of this course of action.  Roe vs. Wade is bad law whether you agree or disagree with abortion. 

RDP wrote:

Kropotkin:  You do know that oligarchs need the power of government to remain oligarchs right?  The bigger a company get (or any institution) the more inefficient it gets.  This creates opportunities for competitors.

If only there wasn't that elephant in the room. Your theories do not include genocide and ethnic cleansing. You know the actual reasons why American capitalists became so rich and powerful.

RDP wrote:

If so, the supreme court should say the constitution does not deal with this matter and refer the matter back to elected representatives for a potential amendment to the constitution.  

So what is the holdup? Roe v Wade has been around for almost two generations now. Don't you think it is about time you started a campaign to add an Amendment to the Constitution giving more rights to the fetus than the woman whose body it is in. Or do you understand that proposed Amendment would be doomed to failure?

The holdup?  No one is waiting for anything.  I said the supreme court should've sent it back to elected representatives.  They didn't.

"Underutilization of abortion is clearly one of the main problems afflicting Amerika in recent generations."  What in the world does that mean?

RDP wrote:

The holdup?  No one is waiting for anything.  I said the supreme court should've sent it back to elected representatives.  They didn't.

There you go acting like a right wing jerk always blaming someone else for your lack of action. Your Supreme Court can be overridden by an Amendment on the woman's rights issues that Roe v. Wade deals with.  Of course it's really hard to campaign saying you want to strip half the population of their Constitutional rights merely because of some people's religious views. 

Strange that someone like yourself who is worried about excessive concentration of power rails against Roe v. Wade but doesn't talk about Citizen's United. One is an issue of an individual's right to decide over what happens to ones body that you want overturned. The other is an issue of corporate rights that you are silent on. Citizens United is the greatest centralizing force your Supreme Court has ever unleashed on the democratic process.

So first you describe him as "one of the fathers of modern economic conservatism." then you see fit to edit him?

Which laws did FRIEDMAN say were best imposed at the state level?

What exactly is your massive beef with Citizens United?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_(organization)

Quote:

I quoted you the full quote.

I read it.  He pretty clearly suggests that municipal laws are better than state laws (which are better than federal laws).

If he made no exceptions then I assume there are no exceptions.

Anyway, while it's always fun to debate how many jurisdictions can fit on the head of a pin, any thoughts on Venezuela?  Me, I'm thinking that the fact that Maduro can step on his own dick with both feet is more interesting, but you seem to want this to be the "centralized vs. decentralized" thread.

Did you know that you can start your own thread?

I think about 90% of my posts are responses.  Don't blame me.

Quote:

I think about 90% of my posts are responses.

No they aren't.  You swing by about every ten days to say "Look, dogs are starving in Venezuela, so clearly Socialism can't work, and why won't babblers just admit this?????" or whatever.

RDP wrote:

What exactly is your massive beef with Citizens United?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_(organization)

Because a democracy cannot function when billionaires are allowed to spend as much money as they want to to get their sycophants elected. The power centralizes in the hands of the deep pocketed billionaires. Apparently you only worry about centralizing power in the hands of democratically elected governments not corporate board rooms.

Citizens united is a (right wing) political action committee.  Just like these 3 or 400  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_action_committees

RDP wrote:

Citizens united is a (right wing) political action committee.  Just like these 3 or 400  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_action_committees

You think allowing rich people to buy your elections is somehow a good thing. I will admit for democracies that level of overt corruption shows that the US is exceptional. I guess you just are too ideologically driven to understand that money buys power and that money in politics buys political power. Your Congress is bought and paid for by your oligarchs but if you love corporations as you appear to then you think they should rule. From that pro-corporate postion I can see where you get to, "what's the problem"? I guess what you can't admit is that you actually don't want a democracy you actually want an oligarchic form of government run by the richest people in your country.

Hey Kropotkin:  How did Obama win?  Every decision he has made in the spectrum of economy vs. the environment has been in favour of the environment.  I doubt the oligarchs are advocating for more regulation and more tax.

RDP wrote:

National defense is rightly a federal matter. 

That is not responsive to the question. The question wasn't what you thought of the USA military budget, but what Friedman thought of it.

I take it that he didn't even mention it.

Venezuela bans country's most used banknote, the 100 Bolivar.

Quote:

Indeed, their latest stroke — based in part on a bizarre conspiracy theory — was to outlaw most of the nation's cash before getting around to introducing new banknotes. The surprise move, announced last Sunday, turned Venezuela into a largely cashless society just before Christmas, with people struggling to pay for goods with old banknotes that store owners no longer accept. Frustrated Venezuelans have blocked streets and looted stores in six cities this week, leading to 32 arrests.

So here's the plan:

1.  promptly, and with almost no warning, ban the use of the banknote that makes up over 70% of banknotes in circulation

2.  promise (but do not deliver) a replacement

3.  continue issuing the banned notes at ATMs

4.  watch as the "mafias" and other banknote hoarders have no choice but to accept their defeat

5.  Happy Holidays, everyone!

Genius!

As has been pointed out by many, the idea that anyone would hoard their wealth in a banknote that depreciates in value daily is hilarious.  Better that you pour all of your wealth into fresh milk, stored at room temperature.  Good grief.

ed'd to add:

Looks like they walked it back today.

It's a Festivus Miracle!

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Along with with the highest international records for inflation in existence today in a national economy and the largest number of deaths caused by homicides and criminal acts, this situation multiplies the human suffering, the poverty and desperation of citizens who cannot rely on the protection of the institutions which do not respond to the many emergencies that afflict the Venezuelan people and which reflect the characteristics of a failed state.

CNN?  WaPo?  ZeroHedge?  Nope.

Interesting op-ed piece. Of course it is merely the opinion of the author and the group he writes for.

Here is a short bio of their President. The NDP is a member of this "socialist" group. If only the Venezuelan government was as good as the Greek government was when the government debt crisis hit them. All Venezuela needs to do is call in the international financiers and pledge allegiance to the global neo-colonial system and all of the people's woes will disappear in a capitalist nirvana where the invisible hand makes life easy.

Quote:

George A. Papandreou, former Prime Minister of Greece, is President of the Socialist International, first elected in January 2006, and re-elected at the XXIV Congress. Luis Ayala (Chile) is the Secretary General, re-elected at the last Congress. The Vice-Presidents, who are also elected by the Congress, together with the President and the Secretary General, make up the Presidium of the International, the leadership of the organisation. 
George A. Papandreou, former Prime Minister of Greece, is President of the Socialist International, first elected in January 2006, and re-elected at the XXIV Congress. Luis Ayala (Chile) is the Secretary General, re-elected at the last Congress. The Vice-Presidents, who are also elected by the Congress, together with the President and the Secretary General, make up the Presidium of the International, the leadership of the organisation. 

On 6 October 2009, George Papandreou became the 182nd Prime Minister of Greece. He was the third member of the Papandreou family to serve as the country's prime minister, following his father Andreas and his grandfather Georgios Papandreou. He resigned on 11 November 2011 during the Greek government debt crisis to make way for a national unity government.

Here is how Greece is doing since its government embraced the neo-con solutions that a new right wing Venezuelan government would implement, at least in part.

Quote:

They are far from being alone. A year after debt-stricken Greece received its third financial rescue in the form of international funding worth €86bn, such survival techniques have become commonplace. For a middle class eviscerated by relentless rounds of cuts and tax rises – the price of the country’s ongoing struggle to avert bankruptcy – the draconian conditions attached to the latest bailout are invariably invoked in their defence. Measures ranging from the overhaul of the pension system to indirect duties – slapped on beer, fuel and almost everything in between – and a controversial increase in VAT are similarly cited by Greeks now reneging on loan repayments, property taxes and energy bills.

Against a backdrop of monumental debt – €320bn, or 180% of GDP, the accumulation of decades of profligacy – fatalism is fast replacing pessimism on the streets. “Our country is doomed,” sighs Savvas Tzironis, summing up the mood. “Everything goes from bad to worse.”

Close to half a million Greeks are believed to have migrated since the crisis begun, thanks to the searing effect of persistent unemployment (at just under 24%, the highest in Europe) and an economy that has shed more than a third of its total output over the past six years. The nation has been assigned some €326bn in bailout loans since May 2010 – the biggest rescue programme in global financial history. Yet the fear that it is locked in an economic death spiral was given further credence last week when Eurobank analysts announced that consumption and exports had also fallen, by 6.4% and 7.2%, in the second quarter of the year.

The duration and depth of the recession is such that the World Bank now compares it to the slumps seen in eastern European countries in the early 1990s. The poorest 20% of Greece’s 11 million people have suffered a 42% drop in disposable income since 2009.

“If we continue down this road, a fourth, even a fifth, bailout should be expected,” says Aristides Hatzis, associate professor of law and economics at Athens University. “I don’t see any progress. The economy is stagnant, the private sector devastated, the public administration underfunded and ineffective. And there is always the spectre of Grexit at the end of the tunnel.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/13/greek-economy-still-spi...

Mr. Magoo wrote:

But Venezuela is a very charged issue.  Many, including their government, continue to prefer to see all of their woes as the result of foreign imperialism, when it's really not.  There was just as much, if not MORE, foreign imperialism back when they were high off the hog.

So what do you think are the causes of Venezuela's woes?  

I think the problems they have are rooted in colonialism and racism and only secondarily in foreign imperialism. As Canadians we can only understand Venezuela if you think of the way we treat indigenous communities and then imagine that kind of treatment being extended to the majority of the population. The ruling class in Venezuela had centuries to show how great a job they could do. Now that their ancestors are on the verge of regaining power from the lower classes it will be interesting to see how many boats their economic policies will float. 

It is my view that colonialism has always relied on a local ruling class to do the dirty work of the European imperialists. When countries removed the shackles of imperial rule and became independent the struggle between the colonial overseer class and the impoverished majority is what was left. Of course like many countries with oil reserves Venezuela entered into a new type of imperial relationship after they became independent. Despite the vast oil wealth so far no government has been able to overcome the deep seated inequality that is directly descended from the colonial age.

I liked many of the things that Chavez did with the oil money during the boom prices. However it is clear that not enough fundamental change has occurred to sustain a economic model that goes beyond capitalism. I fear though that when the government changes the poorest people in the country will be made to suffer.  

Sorry for the confusion Magoo. I wasn't referring to the small minority of the population that is indigenous and lives in the remote regions. I was referring to the Mestizos as the impoverished descendants of the racist colonial culture.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

It is my view that colonialism has always relied on a local ruling class to do the dirty work of the European imperialists. When countries removed the shackles of imperial rule and became independent the struggle between the colonial overseer class and the impoverished majority is what was left. Of course like many countries with oil reserves Venezuela entered into a new type of imperial relationship after they became independent. Despite the vast oil wealth so far no government has been able to overcome the deep seated inequality that is directly descended from the colonial age.

I liked many of the things that Chavez did with the oil money during the boom prices. However it is clear that not enough fundamental change has occurred to sustain a economic model that goes beyond capitalism. I fear though that when the government changes the poorest people in the country will be made to suffer.  

For me this only strengthens the dynamic I believe that the colonial past overshadows and enables the present imperialism such that one is an extension of the others and related -- even though they can be distinguished from each other their role, impact, and power cannot be seperated.

I like the emphasis on this becuase this is the elephant in the room when it comes to every single international discussion you can have.

Quote:

I don't think in those terms.

I see.  But you literally said "I fear though..." so I was wondering whether you were referring to a change of government, or the current government changing policies.

Quote:

The fear is clearly related to what looks like the inevitable change of government that is coming. It is a fear that a new government lead by the main opposition will impose a neo-con agenda and will particularly target every good social program that the Chavez government instituted that have helped alleviate some of the misery of the underclasses.

Well, that's not going to happen for quite a while, if ever.

Notwithstanding an actual coup -- which seems unlikely when the military remains on the side of the government -- there won't be an opportunity for Venezuelans to elect a different party until 2019.  They're already past the deadline by which a recall referendum could be used to choose an entirely new President from a different party.  Even if such a referendum were to happen tomorrow, the only change that would happen would be that the VP would take over the Presidency (and Maduro recently appointed a new VP).