What went wrong?

(que?) I know your probably trolling but i'll reply in a serious way. in most of the developed world state-spending as a portion of GDP is very high and they are considered capitalism's true success stories.

I don't care that much about the big government vs. small government maymay but I can't help but notice that bigger governments tend to do a better job managing capital's contradictions then thread-bare states which mainly exist in the developing world

Neoliberals throw the classical distinction between productive capital and parasitic rentier interests out the window. Nothing says you need a huge government to limit or eliminate the excesses of landlords and other rentier interests but thats always how the meme is presented.

It is more reactionary then Smith or any of the other bourgeois economists writing centuries ago.

it's one of the very rare instances that even jason unruhe got it right. kinda.

pretty much they didn't keep up with the people and didn't take drastic enough action against capitalist sabotage of the economy

they should have abandoned parliamentarism sooner and prepared for a revolution by arming the people and give structure to a council/soviet republic instead of trying to reform the existing bourgeoise parliamental structure into their favor with that failed new constitution

long answer short:
social democracy

hush my mouth,
now that's quite something
maybe it's not too late after all?

Lack of proletariat movement
Capital flight
Protectionism
Price control

- Price controls (which lead to low domestic production and smuggling of goods to Colombia to sell for market rates. Which contributed towards hyper-inflation. Since you're having too much of the national currency floating around chasing too few goods.)
- CADIVI - The fixed currency exchange program (Food importers as well as middle-class/rich Venezuelans who needed US Dollars for travel or paying off foreign debts were able to buy US Dollars for cheap from the government from the CADIVI program. And then they would flip those US Dollars at the black market for enormous profit. This also contributed to hyper-inflation).
- Corruption (smugglers and black market currency exchange dealers would bribe government officials, police, military, etc. to ensure that they would look the other way. In many instances, government officials and the military wanted in on the smuggling and black market action.)

Nothing wrong happened. Massive increase in english literacy rates and computer access thanks to based chavistas. They're so comfortable that all they do is whine now on this forum.

Electing a president is the furthest thing from developing an independent proletarian movement possiblle

- Rent control doesn't work. Rent control lowers the landlord's incentive to make rooms in their household available for rent. Less rental units available = more homelessness.
- Tenants who are desperate for housing but can't find any due to the rental unit shortage will be willing to offer more money under the table to reluctant landlords to rent out their rooms. And hide this fact from the authorities.

It makes more sense for the government to distribute a shelter allowance to poor people who can't afford rent at market rates.

If I owned a house, I for one would not like the idea of inviting a stranger to come live with me. With all the bed bugs in my city. Once bed bugs infest your stuff, say bye bye to your stuff. And bed bug extermination is expensive in it's own right. Lowering the incentive for me to rent with rental control makes me even more reluctant to rent a unit.

Even if you can argue that rent control prices would be high enough to cover the financial losses of a bed bug infestation (it's actually a very expensive problem. You'd be surprised), no one wants to go through the sleepless nights, all that itching and the bite marks. Lots of poor people in Toronto just suck it up and deal with this bullshit because they have no choice. And many of the land lords (largely of South Asian descent) do nothing about the infestations in their rental units. Even though technically a landlord should be sued if they refuse to do something about bedbugs on their property.

Toronto is turning into a turd world shit hole. Bed bugs used to be non-existent because DDT killed all those fuckers. But after DDT got banned because it was found unsafe for humans and with all the international travel, the little blood-suckers are back.

Did you ever think that it could be coupled with higher property taxes so that there would be an incentive on large property owners to actually do something with their property or GTFO? Outright expropriation or abolition of land inheritance is also
an answer. Why would you want to increase incentive for a practice where people don't really earn what they produce and often owe what they have to past structural inequalities (sometimes pre-capitalist)?

Landlords hold monopoly rights by virtue of ownership of a piece of Earth, often attained by their parents or grandparents or even inherited from pre-capitalist times. You can't just poof more land into existence, therefore pressure should be put on landlords to use their lands and to offer their services competitively. Landlords don't naturally welcome competition, no businessman really does, but the side-effect of this is that even businessmen whose businesses are based on producing or selling commodities/services have to pay higher costs when the land issue isn't seriously tackled. In addition to that they have a captive market that has to eat, sleep or produce somewhere.

Land tends to increase in value with an increase of economic activity in a given area or country, but often for reasons completely unrelated to the efforts of landlords themselves. Usually, what few improvements landlords offer are performed by other industries like construction etc. they only spend this money to attain a monopoly rent from the consumer. They only perform productive functions when as productive industries and users of the land they own the land directly. And even in this case, there is sometimes a monopoly profit that comes with having access to better quality land.

If what you say is true, why is Germany the number two export producer in the world while being a state with rent-control? Only about 30% of Germans actually own their homes, most are renters. And Germany has so many factors working against it like a small population, aging demographics, lack of ability to project military power, a large welfare state and relatively high wages. Its not the only factor in German success but it just demonstrates the neoliberal dogma about rent is clearly bunk.

Russia, China, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan were the fastest industrializers in the 20th century. They also all had land reform with no little compensation for the landlord classes.

I love how the answer to all economic questions in your posts amounts to let the market do whatever it wants and just have the government print money to give to the poor. That just subsidizes noncompetitive businesses even if it can improve workers well-being while saddling the state with a large tax load. And you imply I'm a lover of spooky "Big Government"

How states would actually do this when the neoliberal dogma is either "don't create your own money let banks do it!" or "if you do keep the supply scarce!" is a mystery.

It would be clearly better if private ownership of land was abolished, even from the perspective of the capitalist mode of production. The Singaporean state actually owns 85% of the land in the city and it is another success story neo-liberals never shut up about. Same with Hong Kong which finances its budget in large part from taxes on land and profit too.

The excellent for capitalist economists is that if you accept this you are clearly getting close to accepting socialism as a system of production. Some bourgeois economists were bold enough to accept it in the past (Smith, Ricardo, Keynes) but clearly did not grasp the implications.

*pr0blem@tic for capitalist economists

**little to no compensation

In Germany they had to kick out German families from their rentals to make room for Syrian and BBC refugees. That's what you get when you have rent control. Scarcity of rental units.

There needs to be some sort of market feedback. That invisible hand. If you set the rental price too low, some landlords will lose the incentive to rent. After all having other people live on your property is an inconvenience.

My dad was a landlord for a period of time. And he ended up selling his second house because he was sick of having to do maintenance on the property all the time and he just didn't feel the rent he was getting was worth the trouble. In fact one of his tenants fell on his property and she made him pay damages and this was the major factor behind his decision to sell. And this was without rent control.

My sister was also a landlord and she eventually stopped renting out her basement. It is an inconvenience. The $650/month or whatever she was getting wasn't worth it to her. And by limiting how much you can charge for rent, you're making it even more of an inconvenience than it already is for a landlord.

Didn't they suddenly add about a million refugees to their population? That was a political choice by Merkel and one I could see the German market having a hard time adjusting for even if there were no restrictions.

Not too long ago they were tearing down apartment blocks, because of their aging population and low birth rate as well depopulation in East Germany as more people left to pursue opportunities in West Germany.

I don't think either situation has much baring on whether rent control can work as rent control obviously didnt cause the refugee crisis or a low-birth rate.

Now, the case of your family is that of small-landlords who don't take home very large profits. It seems also like it was their home property and not some buildings they bought up a long time ago at a firesale auction.

Its a different level of the land-lord tenant relationship even if it does not fundamentally change it.

Large landlord/apartment leasers are in the business to make money. Some will exit completely if rent declines; others will decide that they should stay in despite low-revenue and put more capital into building and furnishing more buildings to make up for it. In other words, they will try to offset it by getting big, which is the natural tendency of capital anyway.

Small landlords like people who rent out their personal homes and basements are less of a concern.

If they stop renting that is their own business; most socialists do not care much for expropriating small-home owners anyway. It's possible to design the rent control laws to exempt them as long as they adhered to certain regulations but I am not sure I would advocate it.

I found it ironic that you utilized Smith's concept of the invisible hand since he railed against landlords as parasites on society.

That being said, about the matter of incentive, I already pointed out that the negative incentive of taxes and expropriation can be used to incentivize large land owners to put their lands to socially beneficial ends without passing on the costs to the rest of society by racking it for high rents.
Expropriated or land that falls into disuse can be bought by the government and turned into public housing which is by no means an endeavor doomed to failure.

Capitalist privatisation.

[Rated PG Parental Guidance]
Shilling for my own videos.

youtube.com/watch?v=HZ4W209fjWQ

Chavez stupidly focused the entire economy on oil production instead of diversifying and industrializing, like anyone with any sense of economic theory would have.

Good video

It wasn't supposed to go right in the beginning tbh fam. There's nothing proletarian or communist about Chavismo.

any captions/subtitles available?

Chapter III. Socialist and Communist Literature
1. Reactionary Socialism
A. Feudal Socialism
B. Petty-Bourgeois Socialism
C. German or “True” Socialism
2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism
3. Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism

can we, as in those who at least pretend to somewhat base views on marx work, stop using that retarded "that's not real socialism" maymay?

...

...

He literally said that those forms of "socialism" aren't proletarian but rather conservative forms of socialism based on morality and/or class domination (eg Bismarck's welfare state program).

I didn't actually claim in the video they weren't socialist because I knew this shit would happen.

You're not subtle tankie.

and this

kek how many times has that went great again?

also
That small bit of land needed for a factory would hardly be affected by any form of control
How would those factors influence landowners which are affected by rent control? They don't, you're just spouting bullshit.
?
those states which consist of a city and some pieces of land? No shit that it works there, the distances are so small that corruption should be immediatly noticable and a big gouvernment is not required at all.

I've already pointed out that the five great industrializers of the 20th century had land reform without little to no compensation.Compared to Guatemala? It's not even fucking close.

You're so classcucked your not even in the 19th century with the porky economists, your back somewhere in the 1500s sucking some aristocrat's cock. Your class cucked if your a bourgeois; god save your soul if your a prole.

This isn't that radical it was done back in Europe back in 1793 and contrary to historical revisionism the bourgeoisie didnt stop commemorating it or trying to push that agenda in a more peaceful form sometimes not
The point is to offer better access to land for producers and workers who need it to carry out their economic functions. That dips hit may use it better. No one is keeping your wanna be nobleman from making money just want him to channel that towards productive ends, if he can't make it racking his tenants he should enter a real industry.

Besides what does it matter where his money goes? Your solution to every social problem is to print money and give it to the poor, so why can't the state just print more money? Or assuming you don't think that explain who we actually should tax? I get the feeling its not the rich but actually the people who drive economies through their labor and consumption.

Factories and their supply chains can be surprisingly large. The rents landlords charge also have to be paid by his workers and the businesses around them.Bourgeois economists in the 19th century often referred to rent as a faux frais or a false cost because it isn't necessary from the point of view of production.

It's one reason China beats the hell out of Indonesia or Africa despite much lower wages there. Even Trump is calling for China to quit hosting their industry on rent-free properties. They also began dealing and haven't completely give up the game against landed interests back in 1949.

It's called nuance fam, I listed the factors Germany has going against it then I pointed out that rent-control is actually in their favor because it allows German workers to keep their costs of living relatively low and that keeps German industrialists competitive cause otherwise they'd pay more. Again its one factor not the only one.

Aside from the fact its been done in fascist states that hardly reached "complete equality" (Taiwan, South Korea) your turn of phrase "complete equality for productivity" is moronic.

If higher productivity can be had while also reducing inequality this is good for capital since it delays the day of reckoning and aids in managing its own contradictions. It is not too bad from the point of view of any rationally ordered society either to be more egalitarian and productive.

Translation: my neoliberal worldview has been blown the fuck out and I don't have an argument.

he died

[citation needed]

you and your family should be hanged from lamp posts tbh

muh if only america didn't meddle

My dad should be hung from a lamp post for renting out his second house instead of just letting it sit idle. And my sister should be hung from a lamp post for renting out her basement instead of letting it sit idle?

You idiots, listen to yourselves. If property owners don't rent their property, you know what that means? There are no homes for renters who can't afford to buy a house to live in.

My parents and sister are working-class. It's common for working-class home owners to rent out their basement or a room in their house. Houses used to be cheap so my parents had enough money to buy a second house. If they didn't put that money in real estate, they would have put that money in mutual funds instead (mix of stocks and government bonds).

Purchasing stock is parasitical as well. All it is is buying and selling of companies. Shareholders don't actually contribute anything to the company's bottom line in the secondary securities market. Only when they purchase an IPO. If you build up a lot of capital from working hard, where else are you supposed to invest that capital? In a savings account that doesn't even give you enough interest to keep up with inflation? The system of capitalism is built to encourage exploitation. I don't have any real estate but I myself have money in stocks and government bonds. Because my savings account gives me fuck all.

Don't hate on working-class people who are able to save some money and invest in something that tries to earn them passive income. Because passive income is pretty much the only way you're going to win in a capitalist world. That incentive is built right into the system. And real estate isn't even very passive. After all my dad sold his property because it was too much hassle. Investing in the stock market like I do is much more passive. I just look at my statements and charts and see the money rise or fall.

It was on RT back in like September or late August. They talked about the housing shortage in Germany during the European Migrant Crisis.

...

>I've already pointed out that the five great industrializers of the 20th century had land reform without little to no compensation.Compared to Guatemala? It's not even fucking close.

I propose a new term for the leftypol dictionary: cuckception. When a prole is so classcucked that they believe they argue for capitalism when they are actually arguing for feudalism.

Venezuela-poster cuckception confirmed

why do people whore "-ception" out like that?

Spain gives Leopoldo Lopez's father a warm welcome

abc.es/internacional/abci-padre-leopoldo-lopez-abucheado-militantes-podemos-asturias-201605181737_noticia.html

Because of a shitty Leo Cap movie where everything was a dream within a dream. It was meta and mind-boggling for the normies.

Housing is like any other commodity. Like food, clothing, household goods, transportation, medicine. If you lower the price, supply decreases.

Who do you think buys the apartments and houses that construction workers build? Landlords. Where do landlords get the money to pay for construction? By extracting rent from their tenants.

So what happens when you have rent control? Landlords have less capital to invest in the construction of new apartments and homes. Supply of housing goes down. Not to mention that housing quality goes down. You have less incentive to do regular maintenance.

Every economist worth his salt has already went over why rent control is bad for poor people.

Funny how you capitalists treat basic human needs as commodities.

Also, andy "economist" priest of the new relegion of profit should know why the crisis happens in capitalism.

Food gathering in stock, while the people are hungry.
Houses being taken by the banks and noone living in them.

Also, your "Bourgies are A-OK, cause they build the economy" BS is everything wrong with you people.

Go tip your fedora elsewhere.

what do you want him to do?

this

If you want affordable housing for the poor, here's an idea. Get the government to pay a construction contractor to build apartment buildings. And then rent the units out at subsidized rates to people within a certain distance from the poverty line. The poorer you are, the more of a subsidy you get.

The beneficiaries of subsidized housing will benefit. People above a certain distance from the poverty line pays the price via inflation or taxation.

You want to force the landlord directly to provide the subsidy. Just like you want the employer to provide the $15/hr minimum wage directly instead of providing a basic income. But price controls have a strange way of creating unintended consequences. If the minimum wage is $15/hr but I can't get a job anyway, don't you think I'd be willing to accept less money under the table?

Wouldn't it make more sense to just give people money directly if you really gave a shit about reducing poverty. Meanwhile the poverty line is at 80% in Venezuela. And women are sucking dick for money everywhere in Cuban tourist areas.

All you can do is use emotional appeals to attack the facts of how economics works.

Of course I think housing is a human right. Just like food, clothing, transportation, basic household items, medicare, etc. But you can meet those needs with a universal basic income or more generous welfare benefits without sabotaging the economy with price controls like the Soviet Union, Zimbabwe and Venezuela did.

Price controls lead to crazy distortions. But the effects of government spending are easy to understand. There are people who receive more in government benefits than lose to inflation. And people who lose more in inflation than they receive in government spending. Right now guess whose the net beneficiary of government spending in America? The bouegrois. The S&P 500 and rents are growing faster than wages, social security, welfare and disability. Way faster. If you give money to the poor instead of giving cheap loans to the bouegrois, this trend will reverse.

The problem with trying to mix Capitalism and Socialism. Capitalism doesn't work.

The monetary system doesn't work.
Sure, you can sustain it, by giving money, so that the people will consume and so on, but this cannot last for ever either.

You have to tax the rich to give to the poor. And the rich will just.. go elsewhere.

The problems is global capitalism MY GOTT!

I'm not concerned about the rich leaving. Because government debts are a spook anyway. There is no possibility of a country with a sovereign foreign policy to default. Argentina defaulted because they borrowed US dollars from the IMF and couldn't pay them back. Just say no to the IMF. Greece is going to default because they don't even have their own sovereign currency. They borrowed Euros from Brussels. And did what the IMF told them to do. Japan's public debt sits at 226% of their GDP and they are in no danger of default.

Greece has been borowing since the phoenix. (first currency of greek state). Even before that.

The "help" was essentialy a transaction of all previous loans, to euros.

It's about being to big to fail. Not "sovereing currency".

The subject is covered in Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). When the US government spends US Dollars, they create that money out of thin air. When the US government receives revenues in US dollars, that money is destroyed.

Pretty much every country, not just the United States (world reserve currency) can do this. If they have their own currency.

The limitation to all this is that when you import goods/services or exchange currency, the international community has to have faith in the value of your currency. The US Dollar is the world reserve currency. So the United States can get away with importing far more than they export. This is why American MMT proponents like Warren Mosler and Stephanie Kelton are total deficit hawks, trade deficit hawks, etc.

But a country like Venezuela has to be more fiscally responsible than the United States. Because if production in your country is low, the international community isn't going to have much faith in your currency. This is basically neo-colonialism in action. Because the United States can get away with things that developing countries can not.

test

abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/bridgestone-abandons-crisis-wracked-venezuela-62-years-39317136

Tire maker Bridgestone is selling its business in Venezuela after six decades in the country, the latest blue chip company to abandon the country as a result of runaway inflation and strict currency controls.

Bridgestone Americas says in a statement Monday that it is selling its Venezuela assets to Grupo Corimon, a local industrialist. It says the company will be called Alice Neumaticos de Venezuela. Bridgestone says the sale will have no financial impact because it already has written off its investments in the crisis-wracked country.

The Nashville-based company joins other foreign multinationals including Halliburton, Ford Motor and Procter & Gamble who have either slowed or abandoned their investments in Venezuela.

Lol even the "failed state" version of Venezuela under Maduro is better than it was under the neoliberal goons from which Hugo Chavez was able to democratically take power from. I mean this in terms of infant mortality, poverty, and other basic indicators of goodness

The Chavez government decided to invest heavily in petrol production in order to "sow the oil". Liberals often assume that this was incompetence alone, and leftists tend to agree. But if this wasn't done (i.e. if Chavez had invested broadly in the economy), then the US Imperialist machine would have had a much easier time crushing the Bolivarian revolution. The options in 2006 or so were "invest in oil and maybe survive" or "invest broadly and definitely get crushed". I hope they turn it around

The currency move seems stupid though, as did investing in fighter jets. Who on fucking earth do they suppose they'll use those fighter jets on?

Does this single issue not BTFO MMT?

yes, he democratically took power… after his failed coup 6-7 years before that. he's no saint.

why didn't he use the oil money to get equipment to manufacture shit in the country? obviously, he spent money on a lot of things, but when you really look at them, you notice that he did a half assed job at many things

is leftypol against coups now? quit being such a fucking pussy. The right tried to coup him back. Coups happen all the fucking time, and they are amoral as guns or politeness

Yeah the fighter jets were a waste of money, as was a lot of shit. He still spent the money better than the "free market" that invested heavily in nothing. The workers councils were also mostly stupid wastes of time, similar to Qaddafi's shit in Libya

Basically socialism when ever it's been attempted then

Yeah, there are some people here that call everything a coup and are scared shitless of coups.

I'm just wondering how the coup will happen (it will probably happen, because the opposition really wants Maduro gone, and he's doing everything that he can to stay in power) and how a coup in 2016, in a country with widespread internet access and a lot of smartphones, would go. How much time would it take for people to notice that there's a coup going on, compared to the 2002 coup?

any retard with money could improve that, you don't need chavez to improve in something that is getting better in all countries around you.

marx literally said these types of socialism aren't "real" socialism

It doesn't BTFO MMT. It's just a weakness in their theory. Warren Mosler basically argues that "imports are good because that means there are more goods/services available in your country" and "exports are actually bad because that means good/services are leaving your country."

That might be true if you are the United States where you export only 69c worth for every $1 in imports you buy. Because the US Dollar is the World Reserve Currency. But if the international market lost faith in the US Dollar, Americans would be forced to import less and/or export more. And America's consumption/GDP ratio would be a lot lower than what it is now.

In a less imperialist nation like Canada for example, we export 96c for every $1 in imports and our consumption/GDP ratio is like less than 60%. In America it's 70+%.

MMT can work in non-imperialist nations if you have balanced trade. If you give me $1 worth of stuff and I only give you back 69c worth of stuff, you'd have to be a sucker to do that trade. But the countries who are in a trade surplus with the United States are willing to do the trade because they have faith in the value of the US Dollar. So America is special… for now. I don't know if that's going to last. Eventually China is going to want to cash in their US dollars.

At any rate, fear mongering about the national debt is bullshit. The real problem is the trade deficit.

Whereas here in Canada, fearmongering about the public debt is absurd. Because Canada has relatively balanced trade. The debt just represents government spending minus taxes plus interest. And government spending is money created out of thin air, it's not borrowed. Unless you borrow foreign currency, which you should never do.

Also the entire government deficit has went into porky's pockets anyway. Wages, welfare benefits, etc. have not kept pace with inflation. But the S&P 500 and TSX60 have beat inflation several times over. So who owes whom? The government basically stole our money and handed it over the bourgeoisie. We're the actual creditors here if anything.

What went wrong is that the left bought the anti-imperialist rhetoric. Chavez was a strongman crank, and a tool, who tricked everyone with socialist rhetoric that he never fulfilled. The PSUV is corrupt, inefficient in running the oil sector and government, and even works with some business elites in violation of their supposed principles. They didn't keep their promises on participatory democracy, and actually instituted top down anti-democratic institutions to control civil society. Most importantly they were riding high on oil prices, the only important Venezuelan export is oil, and then those crashed and their economy went to shit.

This is what happens when you try and build socialism in a state with one commodity, basically no industrial production sector, and with 70%+ of the population being uneducated, unskilled lumpenproles. You need a developed proletariat to have viable socialism.

This was yet another nationalist banana republic regime built by a strong man, not socialist in any real sense.

I'll explain what I mean when I say that the bourgeois are responsible for the government deficit.

When you go to a bank for a loan, the richer you are, the more banks are willing to give you favorable interest rates and loan you more money.

You know what the bourgeois do?
- They take a big short-term loan at low interest rates (the shorter the term, the more favorable the interest rate).
- The government runs a deficit to finance loans like this.
- Bourgeois buy stocks with that loan
- ???
- PROFIT
- Pay the bank
- Take out another loan
- Rinse and Repeat
UNTIL
- Market Crash
- Ask for Bailout b/c "too big to fail"
TOP KEK

This is every single US government deficit since Alan Greenspan's reign as Fed Chairman in the 80s. Well that and the military. But at least the military expenditure serves a productive purpose. America needs a strong military in case China or Russia wants to fuck with us or something.