Elections Argentina’s new Libertarian President Javier Milei

[b-hop]

It's not that difficult to understand why a planet with one superpower is a recipe for disaster. There's no balance.

Every evil empire in the history of the world, thought of itself as the good guys. You are no different. Just an npc doing what's expected.

Do you have any notion if America had any imperial desires, they could conquer easily all the western europe aftermath of the war and dividing it with the soviets?
Or Japan, instead we choose to not only help them financialy , but also protecting them and subsidise their economies. Not a single rational, who doesn't hate America can say we are the bad guys lol.

 

[b-hop]

Sure, so neither Nation was beyond that practice. Although its very sanitized here in the US. I cant speak for Russia. Ravaged the way people could only dream in America? So now the Native genocide here was somehow more humane? Come on. Natives were also looked at as a security threat, not merely an economic one.

Closer to 60k British troops, and that was just them.

Yes but you are using some arguments who are not on point. Both accepting german scientistics doesnt change the fact we were a free nation, were me and you can critizise the gourverment, and in the commies states u can't for exemple. Accepting germans, doesnt change the fundamental freedom philoposhies about the two systems. The same in comparaisons to genocide when one was in the sec XVI-VIII the other in plain XX with the 20 million holodomor to the Ukranian people by starvation caused by the soviets, no way comparable.

But i don't even want go there, just speaking in freedom, democracy and economic terms is like night and day, lol. Obviously the better system won the cold war.

 

[Sinister]

Yes but you are using some arguments who are not on point. Both accepting german scientistics doesnt change the fact we were a free nation, were me and you can critizise the gourverment, and in the commies states u can't for exemple. Accepting germans, doesnt change the fundamental freedom philoposhies about the two systems. The same in comparaisons to genocide when one was in the sec XVI-VIII the other in plain XX with the 20 million holodomor to the Ukranian people by starvation caused by the soviets, no way comparable.

But i don't even want go there, just speaking in freedom, democracy and economic terms is like night and day, lol. Obviously the better system won the cold war.

No, you are misconstruing communism with authoritarianism/totalitarianism. They are not synonymous. There are plenty of authoritarian capitalist Countries where people are not free. Plenty of dictatorships that are capitalist. Argentina is about to become one.

I don't think the argument can be made that the better system "won the Cold War" considering the Soviet Union was illegally disbanded.

 

[Sinister]

Enforcing the law with fines for exemple doesnt require a big gouverment with a lot of burocrats or bodies of justice, of course that's is not what they want.

Maybe so, but is less that the individual tax payer regardless who can pay up to a whooping 55% wich i dont agree also.

Enforcing the law requires a monopoly on violence. And yes, it requires thorough administration even on a local level. Go visit your local health department sometime and see how they operate, and what happens when they are weak. I'll give you a hint, people get very sick and die.

The marginal tax rate in Norway is 39%, in the US the higher tax brackets are 37%. Norwegians get much more in services for their money, and are better able to save money and start businesses.

 

[b-hop]

No, you are misconstruing communism with authoritarianism/totalitarianism. They are not synonymous. There are plenty of authoritarian capitalist Countries where people are not free. Plenty of dictatorships that are capitalist. Argentina is about to become one.

I don't think the argument can be made that the better system "won the Cold War" considering the Soviet Union was illegally disbanded.

i know plenty of capitalists countries who are free. I dont know a single one who was ever free in a communist or socialist doutrine.
Hmm because those countries didn't want to be part of it... polish, the baltics, basically everyone doesn't want to live under that communist dream. Is not illegal.

 

[blackheart]

Do you have any notion if America had any imperial desires, they could conquer easily all the western europe aftermath of the war and dividing it with the soviets?
Or Japan, instead we choose to not only help them financialy , but also protecting them and subsidise their economies. Not a single rational, who doesn't hate America can say we are the bad guys lol.

I think it's pretty obvious that ideas and notions of 'empire' changed pretty significantly after the two world wars. Empire no longer required military and colonial occupation, which the west had learned was extremely expensive and often failed. So empire became about economic control.

"Not a single rational who doesn't hate America can say we are the bad guys".

Weird man, because there a ton of extremely credentialed, intelligent, "rational" academics and scholars who say we are the bad guys. And they support their claims with mountains of data and scholarships. Do you have anything to support your claims beyond emotional appeals?

Since 1945 the United States has overthrown more than 50 foreign governments, most of them democracies, and have killed roughly 20 million people. Does that sound like the "good guys" to you?

 

[b-hop]

Enforcing the law requires a monopoly on violence. And yes, it requires thorough administration even on a local level. Go visit your local health department sometime and see how they operate, and what happens when they are weak. I'll give you a hint, people get very sick and die.

The marginal tax rate in Norway is 39%, in the US the higher tax brackets are 37%. Norwegians get much more in services for their money, and are better able to save money and start businesses.

More administration does more harm than good in my opinion. but it isnt a defined line i can see that. We could ve a better health care in general , but why do i have to pay for your poor choices in health terms? Like its the case in most times. And if you work if have an insurance, Switerzland and the dutchs also operate like this, the "socialists".

Wich should even less, regardless even in the nordic countries theyve less corporate taxes than we do .

 

[Sinister]

i know plenty of capitalists countries who are free. I dont know a single one who was ever free in a communist or socialist doutrine.
Hmm because those countries didn't want to be part of it... polish, the baltics, basically everyone doesn't want to live under that communist dream. Is not illegal.

Authoritarianism isn't a mandate of communism or socialism. That's WHY there are capitalist Countries who are also dictatorships. And it's weird to suggest people dont want to live under socialism or communism considering how many times Countries have democratically elected such leaders only to have us assassinate or coup them. Hell the closest thing we ever had to a socialist was elected 4 times in a row and scared the Republicans so bad they created term limits, because Freedom.

 

[b-hop]

I think it's pretty obvious that ideas and notions of 'empire' changed pretty significantly after the two world wars. Empire no longer required military and colonial occupation, which the west had learned was extremely expensive and often failed. So empire became about economic control.

"Not a single rational who doesn't hate America can say we are the bad guys".

Weird man, because there a ton of extremely credentialed, intelligent, "rational" academics and scholars who say we are the bad guys. And they support their claims with mountains of data and scholarships. Do you have anything to support your claims beyond emotional appeals?

Since 1945 the United States has overthrown more than 50 foreign governments, most of them democracies, and have killed roughly 20 million people. Does that sound like the "good guys" to you?

aH NO? So every european nation doesn't have a say or their matters? its the US who decides for them, their destiny? No, so its not an empire, is just the biggest country nothing more. The US accounted for more than 40% of global wealth before the war lol

Left wing academics... those don't have a lot of credentials. Do you have others than your hate for America supremacy?

 

[b-hop]

Authoritarianism isn't a mandate of communism or socialism. That's WHY there are capitalist Countries who are also dictatorships. And it's weird to suggest people dont want to live under socialism or communism considering how many times Countries have democratically elected such leaders only to have us assassinate or coup them. Hell the closest thing we ever had to a socialist was elected 4 times in a row and scared the Republicans so bad they created term limits, because Freedom.

But do you know an exemple of communist or socialist country that is or were free? Ok.
That is also why that every country who lived under the soviet control, is the most right winged ones in Europe. Experience gain by pain i guess.
Us we do a lot of people who take liberty in every sense, economic, politically, social, for granted, its sad, pax americana. peace makes people forgetting i guess.

 

[Sinister]

More administration does more harm than good in my opinion. but it isnt a defined line i can see that. We could ve a better health care in general , but why do i have to pay for your poor choices in health terms? Like its the case in most times. And if you work if have an insurance, Switerzland and the dutchs also operate like this, the "socialists".

Wich should even less, regardless even in the nordic countries theyve less corporate taxes than we do .

You already pay for people's poor decisions. They're called police, fire departments, road services, sanitation, health inspection, etc. All of these handle sh*tty decisions people make and having Government employ them using public funding saves far more money than you paying per use. Single-payer health care would save money in the exact same way. What you're arguing for seems to be merely the suffering of people lesser than you.

Our corporate tax rate is currently 21.7%. They do not have less than we do.

 

[blackheart]

aH NO? So every european nation doesn't have a say or their matters? its the US who decides for them, their destiny? No, so its not an empire, is just the biggest country nothing more. The US accounted for more than 40% of global wealth before the war lol

Left wing academics... those don't have a lot of credentials. Do you have others than your hate for America supremacy?

You didn't counter anything that I said. I'll wait.

 

[b-hop]

You already pay for people's poor decisions. They're called police, fire departments, road services, sanitation, health inspection, etc. All of these handle sh*tty decisions people make and having Government employ them using public funding saves far more money than you paying per use. Single-payer health care would save money in the exact same way. What you're arguing for seems to be merely the suffering of people lesser than you.

Our corporate tax rate is currently 21.7%. They do not have less than we do.

Well with that , i agree with you about many points. Its true we end up to pay more to repar some issues than we could by preventing them in the first place.
I also think we could reform public services in a much better and efficient way, and for exemple if you spoke some things should be more important than business like health, and preveting money motivation driven policies for those pharmaceuticals companies i also would agree,
the FInancial sector is another one, were regulations are very necesserary for exemple. But our fiscal policy should be much closer to what the founding fathers wanted, for them taxes were considered a sin.

 

[Sinister]

But do you know an exemple of communist or socialist country that is or were free? Ok.
That is also why that every country who lived under the soviet control, is the most right winged ones in Europe. Experience gain by pain i guess.
Us we do a lot of people who take liberty in every sense, economic, politically, social, for granted, its sad, pax americana. peace makes people forgetting i guess.

Russia is currently right wing. They have corporate oligarchs. In fact they ALWAYS did, which is why I said earlier they werent a good example of communism. Their communism was a facade, a notion to pacify the working class while the oligarchs enriched themselves. And capitalism is often used in the EXACT same way. I could argue there were socialist Countries who were democratic and "free"...the problem is they get plagued by interventionism of outside interests. I dont take liberty for free, the right wing capitalists here are currently praising Hungary. Yeah no thanks on living like Hungarians are.

 

[b-hop]

You didn't counter anything that I said. I'll wait.

Who can i counter when you "invent" empires? An empire controls others policies, we dont control any policy about any state. Probably we over thrown many, but is not an actual empire.

 

[Sinister]

Well with that , i agree with you about many points. Its true we end up to pay more to repar some issues than we could by preventing them in the first place.
I also think we could reform public services in a much better and efficient way, and for exemple if you spoke some things should be more important than business like health, and preveting money motivation driven policies for those pharmaceuticals companies i also would agree,
the FInancial sector is another one, were regulations are very necesserary for exemple. But our fiscal policy should be much closer to what the founding fathers wanted, for them taxes were considered a sin.

The founding fathers did NOT consider taxes a sin. They considered taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION a sin. I'm sorry but this is just plain old false:

"And Jefferson was openly pro-progressive taxation. As he said in a 1785 letter to James Madison, “Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”

Thomas Paine also was a vocal advocate of progressive taxation. George Washington installed the first tax in the New World, the whiskey tax and said this of taxes:

"To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate."

 

[Rod1]

No, you are misconstruing communism with authoritarianism/totalitarianism. They are not synonymous

They definitively are, you can't have a socialized economy under a democracy.

That's WHY there are capitalist Countries who are also dictatorships.

If we go by "it has markets ergo capitalism" even North Korea is capitalist.

There is no country on earth where there is a "dictatorship of the bourgeois" and all experiments that tried to make a "Free market dictatorship" imploded as markets do not like authoritarianism very much.

Pinochet being the prime example, after 1982 crisis when it was clear the military sucks at running a country they went with "market dictatorship", similar to Kuomintang in Taiwan.

Central planning of the economy necessitates authoritarianism and liberal market economies hate central planning with a passion.

Tbe closest we have to a Plutocracy is America and you can't say America is a dictatorship. And for all the flaws of the "uber rich" corporations don't seem to be happy with Trump fascistic slide.

 

[Sinister]

They definitively are, you can't have a socialized economy under a democracy.


If we go by "it has markets ergo capitalism" even North Korea is capitalist.

There is no country on earth where there is a "dictatorship of the bourgeois" and all experiments that tried to make a "Free market dictatorship" imploded as markets do not like authoritarianism very much.

Pinochet being the prime example, after 1982 crisis when it was clear the military sucks at running a country they went with "market dictatorship", similar to Kuomintang in Taiwan.

Central planning of the economy necessitates authoritarianism and liberal market economies hate central planning with a passion.

Tbe closest we have to a Plutocracy is America and you can't say America is a dictatorship. And for all the flaws of the "uber rich" corporations don't seem to be happy with Trump fascistic slide.

They definitely are not. You can have a socialized economy under a democracy, all it takes is people voting for people who espouse the economic model and the people are aware of it.

If it has private ownership of means of production, it is capitalist. Markets are an aspect of that. And there definitely can be planned economy that doesnt require authoritarianism, which would be decentralized planned economy, which often manifests in a mixed economy. There's also parecon. Both of which encourage democratic engagement.

The US is the closest thing to a plutocracy, but there are plenty of oligarchies where control of the Government (and economy) are dictated by wealth, religion, or a combination of both. I cant say America is a dictatorship, yet. But there was a sincere effort to turn it into one, funded by the donor class. And yes some of them are unhappy with Trump, what else is new? Giving power to an unhinged megalomaniac because you think it's more profitable has consequences. What should alarm us is that Trump's presidency was essentially negotiated by players in the same way Reagan's was. The kinds of people working very hard to sew discontent with democracy, leading to the rejection of it.

 

[Rod1]

They definitely are not. You can have a socialized economy under a democracy, all it takes is people voting for people who espouse the economic model and the people are aware of it.

I may be an skeptical man of science, but i would need to see evidence of it working, because so far we have a 100% success rate in terms of full socialist experiments turning into dystopian autocracies.

f it has private ownership of means of production, it is capitalist. Markets are an aspect of that. And there definitely can be planned economy that doesnt require authoritarianism, which would be decentralized planned economy,

Ok, so if its not socialism then its capitalism.

That means capitalism can range from brutal dictatorships to democracies like Nordic countries.

Socialism only has one outcome which is brutal dictatorship.

which often manifests in a mixed economy. There's also parecon. Both of which encourage democratic engagement.

Funny how you use the term "mixed economy" a few sentences after claiming that anything that has private ownership is capitalism.

but there are plenty of oligarchies where control of the Government (and economy) are dictated by wealth,

Power generates wealth, not the other way around, in autocracies its the military and the intelligence services that decide everything, not capital, capital is subservient to government.

That's why in Russia oligarchs get thrown out of windows, in China they get stripped of their wealth and shamed, meanwhile party members, military and intelligence don't suffer the same fate even when nominally at least they are not wealthy.

 

[Rod1]

Giving power to an unhinged megalomaniac because you think it's more profitable has consequences. What should alarm us is that Trump's presidency was essentially negotiated by players in the same way Reagan's was. The kinds of people working very hard to sew discontent with democracy, leading to the rejection of it.

Trump presidency was the result of American right wing becoming braindead thanks to social media, Trump was outspent by Hillary and Trump won the Republican primaries in spite of donors who wanted Jeb Bush.

Wealthy Republicans would rather have a more market friendly candidate that will follow orthodoxy, not a moron like Trump.