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.
I'm sure this well work as well as it did everywhere else it has been tried since the Ancient Roman Empire. Gotta hand it to you Lefties you guys are forever trying.
Quote:
Argentina has ordered a price freeze on food products to last until April 1. The price freeze applies to the largest food retailers, which account for seventy percent of the market. It follows a day after the IMF censured Argentina for its manipulated statistics, most importantly its gross underreporting of the inflation rate. Customers have been urged to keep cash register receipts as proof if the largest retailers violate the freeze order.
The results are predictable. Market demand will spill over to small retailers who cannot satisfy the demand for food products. Their prices will rise, and there will be two quite different prices of the same food products. Customers of large retailers will stand in line hoping to buy at the frozen price. There is no assurance that there will be anything to buy when they get to the front of the line. Outside Wal-Mart, Carrefour, Coto, Jumbo, and Disco stores, black market sellers will offer customers goods at much higher prices. Police will either tolerate them or try to dislodge them, only to see them come back later to continue their business.
I'm sure this well work as well as it did everywhere else it has been tried since the Ancient Roman Empire. Gotta hand it to you Lefties you guys are forever trying.
Have you guys forgotten, or are you too young to remember and didn't pay attention in history class, that we had a price freeze here in the U.S., imposed by a conservative Republican president?
Have you guys forgotten, or are you too young to remember and didn't pay attention in history class, that we had a price freeze here in the U.S., imposed by a conservative Republican president?
LMAO...hey conservatives? Cat gotcha tongue?
I guess they forgot that Nixon was a real person and not a figment of American imagination.
Have you guys forgotten, or are you too young to remember and didn't pay attention in history class, that we had a price freeze here in the U.S., imposed by a conservative Republican president?
Nixon was anything but a conservative.
FDR froze wages, bringing in the era of health insurance in lieu of wages.
FDR unconstitutionally took thousands of Japanese American citizens and placed them in camps.
FDR put many. many small companies out of business due to price controls.
Pick and choose as you may.....lefties actually act unconstitutionally far more frequently than conservatives.
Argentina adopted a policy of "neoliberalism" about 30 years ago. Why don't you go look THAT up? Just because a phrase has the word "liberal" in it, it doesn't mean that it's comparable to the democratic party's policies in this country.
Here's the definition of neoliberal aka wikipedia:
"Neoliberalism is a political philosophy whose advocates support economic liberalization, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation, decreasing the size of the public sector and increasing the role of the private sector in modern society."
So...Argentina completely deregulated industry, privatized many government services, took out any trade protections, etc...and here they are. I was in Argentina decades ago and it was a mess then. It's still a mess now, and they're having to take fairly drastic measures to try to stabilize it.
That's why we have a mixed economy (capitalism with some regulation and protections) in this country--a position most American conservatives support.
When you find a republican president who ever reached these same levels of unconstitutionality, let me know.
Bush.
George W. Bush is following in the footsteps of his predecessors, but may have left more tracks. For starters, invading another country on false pretenses is grounds for impeachment. Also, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution essentially says that the people have the right to be secure against unreasonable government searches and seizures and that no search warrants shall be issued without probable cause that a crime has been committed. And the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires that warrants for national security wiretaps be authorized by the secret FISA court. The law says that it is a crime for government officials to conduct electronic surveillance outside the exclusive purviews of that law or the criminal wiretap statute. President Bush’s authorization of the monitoring of Americans’ e-mails and phone calls by the National Security Agency (NSA) without even the minimal protection of FISA court warrants is clearly unconstitutional and illegal. Executive searches without judicial review violate the unique checks and balances that the nation’s founders created in the U.S. government and are a considerable threat to American liberty. Furthermore, surveillance of Americans by the NSA, an intelligence service rather than a law enforcement agency, is a regression to the practices of the Vietnam-era, when intelligence agencies were misused to spy on anti-war protesters—another impeachable violation of peoples’ constitutional rights by LBJ and Nixon.
President Bush defiantly admits initiating such flagrant domestic spying but contends that the Congress implicitly authorized such activities when it approved the use of force against al Qaeda and that such actions fit within his constitutional powers as commander-in-chief. But the founders never intended core principles of the Constitution to be suspended during wartime. In fact, they realized that it was in times of war and crisis that constitutional protections of the people were most at risk of usurpation by politicians, who purport to defend American freedom while actually undermining it.
The Bush administration’s FBI has also expanded its use of national security letters to examine the personal records of tens of thousands of Americans who are not suspected of being involved in terrorism or even illegal acts.
Apparently the president is also taking us back to the Vietnam era by monitoring anti-war protesters. Information on peaceful anti-war demonstrations has apparently found its way into Pentagon databases on possible threats to U.S. security.
Finally, the president’s policies on detainees in the “war on terror” probably qualify as impeachable offenses. The Bush administration decided that the “war on terror” exempted it from an unambiguous criminal law and international conventions (which are also the law of the land) preventing torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners. An American president permitting torture is both disgraceful and ineffective in getting good information from those held. Furthermore, the administration concocted the fictitious category of “enemy combatants” to deprive detainees of the legal protections of either the U.S. courts or “prisoner-of-war” status. The administration then tried to detain these enemy combatants, some of them American citizens, indefinitely without trial, access to counsel, or the right to have courts to review their cases.
All of these actions are part of President Bush’s attempt to expand the power of presidency during wartime—as if the imperial presidency hadn’t been expanded enough by his recent predecessors. President Bush usually gets the Attorney General or the White House Counsel to agree with his usurpation of congressional and judicial powers, but, of course, who in the executive is going to disagree with their boss? According to the Washington Post, the Bush administration describes the president’s war making power under the Constitution as “plenary”—meaning absolute. The founders would roll over in their graves at this interpretation of a document that was actually designed to limit the presidential war power, resulting from their revulsion at the way European monarchs easily took their countries to war and foisted the costs—in blood and treasure—on their people. Conservative Bob Barr, a former Congressman from Georgia who was quoted in the Post, said it best: “The American people are going to have to say, ‘Enough of this business of justifying everything as necessary for the war on terror.’ Either the Constitution and the laws of this country mean something or they don’t. It is truly frightening what is going on in this country.”
Argentina adopted a policy of "neoliberalism" about 30 years ago. Why don't you go look THAT up? Just because a phrase has the word "liberal" in it, it doesn't mean that it's comparable to the democratic party's policies in this country.
Here's the definition of neoliberal aka wikipedia:
"Neoliberalism is a political philosophy whose advocates support economic liberalization, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation, decreasing the size of the public sector and increasing the role of the private sector in modern society."
So...Argentina completely deregulated industry, privatized many government services, took out any trade protections, etc...and here they are. I was in Argentina decades ago and it was a mess then. It's still a mess now, and they're having to take fairly drastic measures to try to stabilize it.
That's why we have a mixed economy (capitalism with some regulation and protections) in this country--a position most American conservatives support.
Lol ask the farmers in Argentina if there is a free market. Look that up.
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.
