TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#271626: Feb 16th 2019 at 12:43:39 PM

This is a not very richly sourced Op-ed.

This discussion only discusses 20% and does not say anything about any other percentage. So for all we know it might be preferred only because it's the minimum. And do we know whether that sample is representative?

This is from the White House during the time of the Falsehood Teller in Chief and they have been accused of cherry picking the few economists that support the Trump tax cuts while ignoring the others. That and if memory serves the empirical evidence of the Trump tax cuts indicates that the effect on wages borders on lacking clinical relevance. The graph is also too short to tell us anything. So I don't think it's solid and the competing evidence is considerable.

Even assuming that they all hold up: They are not the "voice of just about every economist" today no matter what. You need this sort of source for that claim.

Also, that is not a stringent activity on the popularity of far left candidates. There is also the risk of survivorship bias - in competitive districts the DNC is more likely to intervene to support moderate candidates, while in noncompetitive districts far left candidates can advance unopposed.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Kamiccolo Since: May, 2018
#271627: Feb 16th 2019 at 12:44:55 PM

All your data is about politicians, not policies.
We were talking about candidates, were we not?
Let’s take a recent example, Florida in 2018 voted to restore voting rights to felons (a left wing policy)
There is nothing inherently left wing about giving more people the right to vote, and "dude weed lmao" such a minor thing that really doesn't indicate support for any left-wing policy platform. In fact, both of those things are pretty consistent with libertarian values, which most people wouldn't call left, at least in the U.S.
This is a not very richly sourced Op-ed.
It's a piece written by a Standford economist.
This discussion only discusses 20% and does not say anything about any other percentage. So for all we know it might be preferred only because it's the minimum.
Read their comments. They're clearly aware that in the context the question is being asked, 20% would be a cut.

"Not until Europe adopts common fiscal policy. Corporate tax is more harmful to growth than other taxes. Tax competition helps keep it low."

"Effective rates already in range 20-30 (Ireland lower). Good to minimize incentives for tax avoidance."

"Yes but the implied loss of tax revenue should be compensated by either less distortionary taxes or by inefficient spending cuts."

"It may be difficult to make up for too large revenue losses."

And do we know whether that sample is representative?
Yes, it's a panel of some of the world's most respected economists from a variety of universities.
This is from the White House during the time of the Falsehood Teller in Chief and they have been accused of cherry picking the few economists that support the Trump tax cuts while ignoring the others.
Accusations that have been unsubstantiated. They are a panel of very successful and well-respected economists from top universities working for the government. They're as valid as any others.
Even assuming that they all hold up: They are not the "voice of just about every economist" today no matter what.
No poll exists surveying literally all of them, but there are several representative samples like the two I posted and many pieces which simply refer to this as if it was common knowledge. Because it generally is. Here's another piece from the Tax Foundation with extensive citations to economists (the author herself has an M.A. in economics, though that doesn't qualify her as one).
Also, that is not a stringent activity on the popularity of far left candidates. There is also the risk of survivorship bias - in competitive districts the DNC is more likely to intervene to support moderate candidates, while in noncompetitive districts far left candidates can advance unopposed.
Our Revolution candidates on average lost in every conceivable circumstance in primaries as well as general elections, so no. They're just not popular, which is consistent with exit poll data.

Edited by Kamiccolo on Feb 16th 2019 at 12:57:17 PM

SciFiSlasher from Absolutely none of your business. Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
#271628: Feb 16th 2019 at 12:45:59 PM

Kamala Harris’s Blackness Isn’t Up for Debate.

"Somehow the hated have to walk a tightrope, while those who hate do not."
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#271629: Feb 16th 2019 at 12:55:21 PM

Man, they're really scraping the bottom of the barrel for attacks.

Kamiccolo Since: May, 2018
#271630: Feb 16th 2019 at 1:00:08 PM

The economist and author Boyce Watkins, who is black, tweeted, “If #Kamala Harris went to an #HBCU, what do you think led her to marry a white man?”
Someone's gotta stop tossing those horseshoes around.

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#271631: Feb 16th 2019 at 1:05:58 PM

I choose to believe in Kamala Harris because she reminds me of Commissioner Barbara Gordon in the Lego Batman movie.

[pause]

Wait, I didn't mean to type that in public.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Feb 16th 2019 at 1:06:34 AM

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#271632: Feb 16th 2019 at 1:06:21 PM

It's the words of just about every economist working today.

I generally check links when I have the time, especially when someone makes a bold assertion, so let’s see how those links support your strong statement.

Link one is the personal blog of a very conservative economist, John Cochrane. He argues that all taxes on corporations are passed along to the consumer anyway, so the corporate tax rate should be zero. He uses sales tax as an example, which makes no sense, as it is widely accepted that consumers pay sales tax, not businesses. That’s how sales tax works. But he uses this analogy to claim that corporations really pay no tax, because any tax on profits is passed to consumers in the form of higher prices, etc. He also believes in the following:

Cochrane is a critic of Keynesian policies such as the recent economic stimulus. He has no use for the Affordable Care Act, the Dodd-Frank financial sector reforms, or anti-poverty programs as they've developed since the 1960s. He appears to believe that Social Security and Medicare "entitlements" are unsustainable.

...

In Cochrane's world, social programs are a burden on the poor. Almost all taxation (of the wealthy) is "confiscatory." Arguments that inequality is politically and socially destabilizing are bunk: "Inequality was pretty bad on Thomas Jefferson's farm. But he started a revolution, not his slaves."

The premise of Cochrane's Hoover Institution talk was that "it is a mistake to accept the premise that inequality, per se, is a 'problem' needing to be 'solved,' and to craft 'alternate solutions.'"

...

Cochrane also airs a variation on the "undeserving poor" theme last sounded by Rep. Paul Ryan in his "opportunity grant" proposal: "A segment of America is stuck in widespread single motherhood, leading to terrible early-child experiences, awful education, substance abuse, and criminality," Cochrane declared. "70% of male black high school dropouts will end up in prison, hence essentially unemployable.... Less than half are even looking for legal work."

So, based on his other beliefs, I’m going to take his ideas about as seriously as I take Paul Ryan’s.

But you argued his ideas are part of a broad consensus, so let’s look at link number 2, which is a 14 page report issued by the Trump administration to support the tax reform bill. That’s not a reliable and credible source. I wouldn’t trust a Trump admin paper that claimed water is wet. Their reputation for cherry picking and misrepresenting data is well established.

And finally, link 3, which appears to be results from a December 2017 survey of less than 70 European economists conducted by IGM, or Initiative on Global Markets, a research center at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, asking about whether, all else remaining equal, the European corporate profits tax rate should be harmonized. The first question asked whether harmonizing corporate taxes in all European countries to be 20% would be positive. The majority agreed.

However, only 4% agreed that harmonizing and LOWERING the rate would be positive, while 16% were uncertain, 29% disagreed, and 4% strongly disagreed (the missing % did not respond).

So, these three links fail to support your aggressive assertion that “just about every economist working today” agrees with you that lowering corporate taxes is “basic economic knowledge,” and I do not appreciate your misrepresentation of sources or condescension to fellow tropers.

Edit: [nja] ‘d by [up] x6, but leaving this up because it took me almost half an hour to check those three links and I addressed some different issues.

[up]x5 The Tax Foundation is a conservative think tank founded by the chairman of General Motors and the President of Standard Oil in 1937. They’ve spent their entire history opposing corporate taxes.

Tax Foundation research is generally critical of tax increases, high business taxes, excise taxes, tax preferences for the housing industry, and use of tax credits (which the Foundation views as "picking winners and losers").

Edited by wisewillow on Feb 16th 2019 at 4:13:58 AM

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#271633: Feb 16th 2019 at 1:09:04 PM

Our Revolution is only one group and an op-ed by one Stanford economist and not a particularly prominent one or so it seems to me. Contrast that with climate science (OK, probably an extreme counterexample), where you can cite a number of scientists rather than just one or two. There are no comments that I can see, unless you mean the ones below which sound fairly cautionary. And the point about other percentages not being discussed stands.

I am iffy on that Tax Foundation thing as a) it ignores revenue implications or any other aspect of tax policy, b) the usefulness of the investment is little quantified and c) the sources cited don't seem to be particularly strong to me - in the sense that they don't appear to be prominent economists and that they don't seem to have a "methods" section anywhere - and d) even assuming that this foundation is a reliable source I am kind of iffy on all the self-citing there.

Also, just a personal preference, but I strongly prefer if you don't do a quote-reply post. It creates signal noise. Just say your piece.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#271634: Feb 16th 2019 at 1:13:05 PM

Not supported by voting data, unless you define "base" as "only middle class young white people."

You keep on talking about data while not actually providing any.

Because a cursory search on the matter clearly shows that the Democratic base has been moving to the Left strongly.

See how far they'll support that policy when it involves raising their own taxes. Refer back to the articles I posted about the voting patterns of tax hikes.

Your position is fundamentally unfalsifiable, you claim that the voting public is moderate or center-right and when people bring up evidence that contradicts your claim you just move the goal posts and say "sure they support things now but when you actually try it the people will reject it!", without any actual evidence.

It's just a statement of faith on your part that the Public cannot support "far-left" positions and if it appears that they are then clearly it must not be 'real' support.

I am highly unimpressed with your argument.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
Kamiccolo Since: May, 2018
#271635: Feb 16th 2019 at 1:18:41 PM

So, based on his other beliefs, I’m going to take his ideas about as seriously as I take Paul Ryan’s.
Ad hominem and false equivalence to the extreme. He has a PhD, unlike Paul Ryan, and is working with Standford. He is not wrong just because it disagrees with your political beliefs. He's definitely 100% right that social security and Medicare is unsustainable in its current form. He is not necessarily right about everything, but he is a valid source to cite when talking about the opinions of economists. I could have cited more, but then we'd be here all day, because the IGM Panel I actually did cite is the closest to a representative poll, and to cite more would require just throwing up a bunch more papers. I'm not sure what else you expected me to do.

Or I could cite some of my textbooks from university? If nothing else that would show what academic consensus is thought of as being appropriate to teach to students as fact. Though I'm only a BA.

Like this one, from 10 years ago, which extensively cites the literature on the subject, and notes "Economists stress that only individuals and not entities can bear tax burdens. Here's another article which surveyed six top economists and asked them to recommend policies, one of which was eliminating the corporate tax (and, interestingly, changing the income tax to a consumption tax- story for another day).

But you argued his ideas are part of a broad consensus, so let’s look at link number 2, which is a 14 page report issued by the Trump administration to support the tax reform bill. That’s not a reliable and credible source.
It's not a Trump report, but rather, the report of 20 or so economists working for the government. They were some of many examples I cited.
And finally, link 3, which appears to be results from a December 2017 survey of less than 70 European economists conducted by IGM, or Initiative on Global Markets, a research center at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, asking about whether, all else remaining equal, the European corporate profits tax rate should be harmonized. The first question asked whether harmonizing corporate taxes in all European countries to be 20% would be positive. The majority agreed.

However, only 4% agreed that harmonizing and LOWERING the rate would be positive, while 16% were uncertain, 29% disagreed, and 4% strongly disagreed (the missing % did not respond).

Because, like I said in the post, 20% is roughly the agreed-upon number. If you check the comments they're all well aware that 20% would be a net deduction.

You also mischaracterized their responses. The statement was, "AFTER every European country taxed corporate profits at a common rate of 20%, then reducing that common rate SUBSTANTIALLY below 20% would make the average European better off."

You keep on talking about data while not actually providing any. Because a cursory search on the matter clearly shows that the Democratic base has been moving to the Left strongly.
I provided extensive amounts of data. You simply chose to downplay or ignore it. It's quite annoying.

Your position is fundamentally unfalsifiable, you claim that the voting public is moderate or center-right and when people bring up evidence that contradicts your claim you just move the goal posts and say "sure they support things now but when you actually try it the people will reject it!", without any actual evidence.
This is a flat-out lie. I posted tons of voting data and exit polls to support my position. You have posted nothing except noise.
It's just a statement of faith on your part that the Public cannot support "far-left" positions and if it appears that they are then clearly it must not be 'real' support.
Again, wrong. My argument has always relied on solid voting data.

Far left candidates ran in the last elections, as I posted. They lost. Overwhelmingly. Meanwhile, moderates won. Overwhelmingly. Quite simple. They lost in 2016, they lost in 2018, and they're going to lose again in 2020. How much more must they lose before you take the data as representative?

Edited by Kamiccolo on Feb 16th 2019 at 1:44:36 AM

wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#271636: Feb 16th 2019 at 1:26:49 PM

Ad hominem and false equivalence to the extreme. He has a Ph D, unlike Paul Ryan, and is working with Standford. He is not wrong just because it disagrees with your political beliefs.

He’s not right just because he agrees with your political beliefs. I am skeptical of people, regardless of Ph D ownership, who appear to lack any actual understanding of people who are below the highest tax bracket, let alone who choose to degrade them. His classist and racist remarks undermine his credibility.

Imca (Veteran)
#271637: Feb 16th 2019 at 1:32:53 PM

Americans like policies to Obama’s left and politicians to his right, it’s fucking weird.

Not really, Amercians spent decades convincing every one Communism was Satan (Even going so far as to insert religion into your national anthem despite the constitution saying thats a no-no), and that Communism and Socialism are the same thing..... Now its to the point that "Socialist" might as well be a political slur in the US dispite people wanting socialist policies.

So come election time all you have to do is bring up that the candidate that supports the positions they want is supporting socialist positions (normaly with code words) and it becomes a matter of "I ain't voting for no f*cking commie"

Paired with good old fashioned racism of wanting socialist positions for ones self, but not wanting there tax money to go to "Lazy (insert choice of slur here)", and the politicians on the right side of the spectrum being more then willing to play into that racism.

And you get the perfect breeding ground for elected officials not matching up with the kinds of policies people want.

Edited by Imca on Feb 16th 2019 at 1:34:09 AM

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#271638: Feb 16th 2019 at 1:35:54 PM

Obama's actions did more for Kentucky than any President since Roosevelt.

He gets not a lick of credit.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#271639: Feb 16th 2019 at 1:38:54 PM

Not really, Amercians spent decades convincing every one Communism was Satan (Even going so far as to insert religion into your national anthem despite the constitution saying thats a no-no), and that Communism and Socialism are the same thing..... Now its to the point that "Socialist" might as well be a political slur in the US dispite people wanting socialist policies.

So come election time all you have to do is bring up that the candidate that supports the positions they want is supporting socialist positions (normaly with code words) and it becomes a matter of "I ain't voting for no f*cking commie"

Paired with good old fashioned racism of wanting socialist positions for ones self, but not wanting there tax money to go to "Lazy (insert choice of slur here)", and the politicians on the right side of the spectrum being more then willing to play into that racism.

And you get the perfect breeding ground for elected officials not matching up with the kinds of policies people want.

I will point out that the "communists" never actually called themselves communists. The USSR was run by a socialist party, as was Maoist China, and all the other authoritarian Marxist-Leninist states.

I'm not saying that modern US 'socialists' (they are for the most part Social Democrats not Socialists) want to create the Soviet Union, they don't. It's just that there are a variety of socialist ideologies and the ones that produced the Soviet Union were one of them.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
Kamiccolo Since: May, 2018
#271640: Feb 16th 2019 at 1:43:00 PM

Many U.S. "social democrats" are simply socialists trying to look more appealing because the U.S. population as a whole, again, doesn't support socialism (though attempts by socialists to muddy the waters has lead to some confusion of what "socialism" actually is). Similar to how much of the far right would institute overtly authoritarian policies if they could, despite ostensibly being for "small government." See, for example, Bernie Sanders praising the economic system of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in 2011 and saying that the U.S. should learn from them.

Before it collapsed, of course.

Edited by Kamiccolo on Feb 16th 2019 at 1:45:47 AM

Imca (Veteran)
#271641: Feb 16th 2019 at 1:45:54 PM

[up][up] Fair enough, but the basic point that the red scare has at least for the foreseeable future tainted the perception of any thing with even the slightest hint of socalisim remains.

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#271642: Feb 16th 2019 at 1:46:32 PM

Many U.S. "social democrats" are simply socialists trying to look more appealing because the U.S. population as a whole, again, doesn't support socialism. Similar to how much of the far right would institute overtly authoritarian policies if they could. See, for example, Bernie Sanders praising the economic system of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in 2011 and saying that the U.S. should learn from them.

Before it collapsed, of course.

Ridiculous. This is literally Mc Carthian logic, and it's as inane now as it was then.

I see no reason to believe that the policies they're pushing are similar to Marxist-Leninists like Chavez or Lenin.

Not to mention that you're acting as if Venezuela or other Vanguardist Socialist ideologies are the only forms of socialism that exist, if you want to oppose something you should at-least ''try'' to understand it.

Fair enough, but the basic point that the red scare has at least for the foreseeable future tainted the perception of any thing with even the slightest hint of socalisim remains.

Eh, you're right that it has been like that but as the electorate moves away from the Cold War the stigma against 'socialism' will and has faded. That's how Sanders can run on self-proclaimed socialism while not being non-viable.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Feb 16th 2019 at 4:48:12 AM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#271643: Feb 16th 2019 at 1:48:02 PM

Kamiccolo, could you describe your actual beliefs in simplest terms, because besides being really aggressive I'm finding you kind of all over the place.

AzurePaladin She/Her Pronouns from Forest of Magic Since: Apr, 2018 Relationship Status: Mu
She/Her Pronouns
#271644: Feb 16th 2019 at 1:48:04 PM

[up]x5 That may be true, but the Socialist and Communist Parties in America were distinct entities. Your point is correct though.

[up]x4 Hahaha no.

Believe me, as a Leftist, when I say that most US Social Democrats are actually Social Democrats. Note that you don't see a whole lot of calls for nationalizations and the such.

Also see [up][up]

Edited by AzurePaladin on Feb 16th 2019 at 4:50:53 AM

The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#271645: Feb 16th 2019 at 1:50:16 PM

[up][up] I'm also finding it difficult to take kamiccolo's points at face value, since multiple other posters are able to easily and repeatedly note logical issues with and refute their points and/or sources.

Edited by sgamer82 on Feb 16th 2019 at 2:50:48 AM

Kamiccolo Since: May, 2018
#271646: Feb 16th 2019 at 1:50:27 PM

I see no reason to believe that the policies they're pushing are similar to Marxist-Leninists like Chavez or Lenin.
Many of the "social Democrats" in the West literally said that their country's policies should be more like Chavez. This is a matter of public record and happened only a few years ago. I'm somewhat baffled that you would even try to deny it.

Sanders in 2011: "These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?"

[up][up] I'm also finding it difficult to take kamiccolo's points at face value, since multiple other posters are able to easily and repeatedly refute their points and/or sources.
No sources are ever posted in rebuttal, they simply deny data and then rapidly change the subject. For example, the complains about U.S. corporate taxes being too low (they're objectively among the world's lowest), or the claims that the U.S. public supports far left policies (they objectively do not, far left politicians got crushed in the last round of elections). Simply refusing to acknowledge defeat isn't the same as victory.

[up][up][up][up]Neoliberalism.

Edited by Kamiccolo on Feb 16th 2019 at 1:53:40 AM

AzurePaladin She/Her Pronouns from Forest of Magic Since: Apr, 2018 Relationship Status: Mu
She/Her Pronouns
#271647: Feb 16th 2019 at 1:53:29 PM

[up] Okay, and yet places like Bolivia haven't collapsed the same way as Venezuela. Nor has Cuba, which is even more hardline. In fact, Venezuela seems to be largely unique in this regard.

And this is why 'But Venezuela' is an aggravatingly pointless tactic. Venezuela is more complicated then 'If Socialism then Bad' you have issues like the erosion of Democracy, Cronyism, and Nationalism.

Sanders praising Venezuela may make an interesting point in how some American Leftists see other movements around the world, and it may also be a pointer into how the world changes. After all, you may find that something you once supported has turned sour. That's where reflecting and maybe apologizing are important.

Edited by AzurePaladin on Feb 16th 2019 at 4:56:12 AM

The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer
HailMuffins Since: May, 2016 Relationship Status: Shipping fictional characters
#271648: Feb 16th 2019 at 1:55:00 PM

Not to mention pure incompetence.

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#271649: Feb 16th 2019 at 1:55:36 PM

Many of the "social Democrats" in the West literally said that their country's policies should be more like Chavez. This is a matter of public record and happened only a few years ago. I'm somewhat baffled that you would even try to deny it. Sanders in 2011: "These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?"

Congratulations you've shown that Sanders has said something stupid, that does not qualify as many social democrats especially considering how many of the US' social democrats have been relatively recently elected like AOC.

Also, it's worth pointing out that Venezuela used to have a much more positive reputation amongst US leftists before it went to hell, it's not like you'll any major social democrats praising it now.

Your case is extremely weak.

Neoliberalism.

Eww, it's incredible that you think in 2019 that mass privatization and deregulation and other "market focused" policies are good things.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Feb 16th 2019 at 4:56:44 AM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
Kamiccolo Since: May, 2018
#271650: Feb 16th 2019 at 1:58:50 PM

[up] Okay, and yet places like Bolivia haven't collapsed the same way as Venezuela. Nor has Cuba, which is even more hardline.
Bolivia's doing pretty badly. It's fairly poor and has slow growth relative to other economies starting at a similar (poor) base. It just hasn't gone catastrophic yet.

Cuba got tens of billions in donations from the Soviet Union (its GDP contracted 30% after the USSR collapsed), was historically always richer than its neighbors even prior to socialism (and has heavily stagnated relative to them since implementing it), and has been liberalizing at a fast pace for the last couple of decades.

Venezuela is more complicated then 'If Socialism then Bad'
It really isn't, no. This perception is the result of attempts to muddle the water by socialists. Venezuela's downfall is directly attributable to socialist policies. The food shortage was the result of the land redistribution. The fall in oil production is the result of the nationalization of foreign oil company assets. The inflation is the result of mass money printing to pay for social programs. The destruction of productive industries the result of socialist labor laws. And the chronic shortage of imported goods the result of price controls and the official currency peg.
Also, it's worth pointing out that Venezuela used to have a much more positive reputation amongst US leftists before it went to hell, it's not like you'll any major social democrats praising it now.
But this is exactly what I was saying? You're agreeing with me. They praised it right up until the point it collapsed. They want the policies but deny the results.
Eww,
This isn't very mature.

Edited by Kamiccolo on Feb 16th 2019 at 2:02:01 AM


Total posts: 417,856
Top