Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
President Hugo CHAVEZ's continued efforts to increase the government's control of the economy by nationalizing firms in the agribusiness, financial, construction, oil, and steel sectors have hurt the private investment environment, reduced productive capacity, and slowed non-petroleum exports. In the first half of 2010 Venezuela faced the prospect of lengthy nationwide blackouts when its main hydroelectric power plant - which provides more than 35% of the country's electricity - nearly shut down. In May, 2010, CHAVEZ closed the unofficial foreign exchange market - the "parallel" market - in an effort to stem inflation and slow the currency's depreciation. In June 2010, the government created the "Transaction System for Foreign Currency Denominated Securities" (SITME) to replace the "parallel" market. In December 2010, CHAVEZ eliminated the dual exchange rate system and unified the exchange rate at 4.3 bolivars per dollar. In January 2011, CHAVEZ announced the second devaluation of the bolivar within twelve months. In December 2010, the National Assembly passed a package of five organic laws designed to complete the transformation of the Venezuelan economy in line with CHAVEZ's vision of 21st century socialism.
2.8% note: 21.5 million rural population live below the official "absolute poverty" line (approximately $90 per year); an additional 35.5 million rural population live above that level but below the official "low income" line (approximately $125 per year) (2007)
6.1% (September 2009 est.)
country comparison to the world: 57 6.3% (December 2008 est.) note: official data for urban areas only; including migrants may boost total unemployment to 9%; substantial unemployment and underemployment in rural areas
Really? I'm curious as to why you think it's incorrect. It is the dictionary after all, and it's been known for being correct.
Well you can look at it's 2a and 2b definitions of socialism for a start. It says:
2a. A system of group living where there is no private property.
2b. A system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned by the state.
1. Private property is NOT prohibited under socialism.
2. Under socialism, the means of production are owned by the people not the "state". When the means of production are owned and controlled by the state it is communism not socialism.
Well you can look at it's 2a and 2b definitions of socialism for a start. It says:
2a. A system of group living where there is no private property.
2b. A system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned by the state.
1. Private property is NOT prohibited under socialism.
2. Under socialism, the means of production are owned by the people not the "state". When the means of production are owned and controlled by the state it is communism not socialism.
No. Pure communism has no private property and the means of production aren't in control of anyone or the state. Socialism is where the means of production are in control of the state which isn't "the people" unless you're talking about America. Other constitutions aren't quite like ours.
Private property might not be "prohibited" under socialism but it certainly makes no difference if you have private property which the state can seize at any time if you don't pay up. The US government can do that through eminent domain, unpaid taxes or through "needs of the business."
As Reagan said:
Quote:
Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land." The President tells us he's now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we've only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we've sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan.
Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the—or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.
No. Pure communism has no private property and the means of production aren't in control of anyone or the state. Socialism is where the means of production are in control of the state which isn't "the people".......
With all this Occupy Wall Street protesting going on, it seems that these people are advocating a more socialist government. But, has socialism ever worked over the long term, to the point that it would be better than capitalist U.S. policy? Can someone give me examples of successful socialist countries that have lasted for the LONG TERM and/or will likely last for the LONG TERM? Should the U.S. envy other socialist countries? Does it really work better as these Occupy Wall Street people believe it would? Honestly, it seems like the Tea Party of the left.
Enlighten me.
Define socialism.... If you mean state control of most or all companies, well then no.
But if you mean subsidization of many services, well yes. Look at any northern European country. Free higher education, free medical treatment, and generous job protection and pay make for a successful country.
The good old days? Hardly. We have thousands of jobs readily available, but no one that can take them. We have a severely undereducated popular working lower than livable wages attempting, attempting to raise families, go to school, and keep their homes.
And you want to further tear out the little support some of these families receive? We have jobs. We need educated people, and the failure of our government to step up and promote "socialist" policies like a livable minimum wage, basic health care, strong unions, affordable education--all the things that can help make our people great once again--is deplorable. We can have "the good old days" as you call them, simply be reinvesting into the 99% of people who need the help. Want to know why high-tax rates work? It forces these corporations to reinvest their revenue into their company, instead of lining the pockets of people with money.
Like MTAtech said, if a growing (and strong) middle class is socialism, then viva la socialism.
No. Not necessarily. I wouldn't cut anything. I would raise your taxes, because you are a Dem, and make you pay for the social programs you want. I would expect a report on all those undereducated people who were unable to find work because of their being undereducated, and are now getting the education they wanted, and who are now ready to get back to work. You can call off the Occupiers and tell them they can now get that education they always wanted.
Also I would cut the corporate tax rate to create jobs so that you all can get back to work. And I would add a surtax to go towards paying off the debt. I'm tempted to tax you more because you caused more of it. Also I would ban unions from the public sector, because it is the tax payer's money and government workers are overpaid already.
On the other hand, I might give everyone a raise. As long as it is your money I'm spending, I don't have a problem with that.
I've realised that trying to educate some people is a lost cause.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is the dictionary after all, and it's been known for being correct.
