International Socialism is worse for the economy than a world war

[ultramanhyata]

They are doing the literal opposite of what neoliberalism prescribes, as South Korea and Japan did before them.

I have actually seen classical liberals and anarcho-capitalists try to use the performance of China's economy over the last 20 years as proof of the power of competition and free markets. <Lmaoo>

 

[Rod1]

They are doing the literal opposite of what neoliberalism prescribes, as South Korea and Japan did before them.

Japan and South Korea are liberalized economies.

 

[Seano]

There is already easy public access to most of these drugs.

And seeing the havoc its caused, you'd like to make it easier? I can never get on board with that.

 

[Rod1]

And seeing the havoc its caused, you'd like to make it easier? I can never get on board with that.

Most of the havoc caused by drugs is due to their illegal nature and many of the solutions are hampered by the very same thing.

 

[Seano]

Most of the havoc caused by drugs is due to their illegal nature and many of the solutions are hampered by the very same thing.

What solutions?

Disagree, BTW. Most havoc caused by drugs is the addictive nature and effect it has on people.

 

[Rod1]

What solutions?

Treating drug addiction as a disease and public healthcare issue, put all that money wasted on drug enforcement into treating addicts.

Disagree, BTW. Most havoc caused by drugs is the addictive nature and effect it has on people.

Problems like addicts turning to crime to feed their habit is tied to the price of drugs

 

[gilbert_mma]

The argument that socialism is bad because look at Venezuela, is like saying capitalism sucks because look at Somalia. Arguably the most successful nations the last couple of decades has been the nordic european countries. These countries has the lowest income inequality, lowest crime rates, lowest corruption rates and among highest wealth for average citizens anywhere in the world. All these countries has been run by socialists for about a century.

 

[Seano]

Treating drug addiction as a disease and public healthcare issue, put all that money wasted on drug enforcement into treating addicts.

There are treatment centers and programs on every corner, pretty much. Its not hard to get help fighting addiction. People just don't want to because.... well, its an addiction.

Problems like addicts turning to crime to feed their habit is tied to the price of drugs

How would legalization solve that problem?

 

[grimballer]

Most of the havoc caused by drugs is due to their illegal nature and many of the solutions are hampered by the very same thing.

doubt issues cities like Sam Francisco, la n Seattle face would get better by legalizing drugs

it would most likely get worse

 

[superpunch]

Most of the havoc caused by drugs is due to their illegal nature and many of the solutions are hampered by the very same thing.

On the level of Mexico, you have an argument. I don't think the problem past maybe the first 10% of the level of your problem is your laws though. I think the problem for the remainder of the 90% of that extent is your weak government. In the US, the damage done to society with making drugs legal would outweigh the costs that come with making them illegal. I've been to San Francisco, Seattle, and other places in the US where drugs are quasi-legal (drug laws not enforced under a certain amount) and always left with the opinion that the things that come with making them illegal are worth it. People smoking hard drugs in public, injecting them, walking around like lunatics, open air drug markets, etc. That shit is terrible to the eyes and if the cost of keeping all that stuff underground is what we have now, it's worth it.

 

[Rod1]

There are treatment centers and programs on every corner, pretty much. Its not hard to get help fighting addiction. People just don't want to because.... well, its an addiction.

Treatment centers that cant wean people off drugs, because they are illegal.

How would legalization solve that problem?

Cheaper and safer drugs would mean the addict would spend more time drugging himself in his home rather than breaking into houses to pay off their expensive habit.

 

[Rod1]

On the level of Mexico, you have an argument. I don't think the problem is your laws though. I think the problem is your weak government. In the US, the damage done to society with making drugs legal would outweigh the costs that come with making them illegal.

Was society really that worse off when drugs were legal?

I've been to San Francisco, Seattle, and other places in the US where drugs are quasi-legal (drug laws not enforced under a certain amount) and always left with the opinion that the things that come with making them illegal are worth it. People smoking hard drugs in public, injecting them, walking around like lunatics, open air drug markets, etc. That shit is terrible and if the cost of keeping all that stuff underground is what we have now, it's worth it.

Drugs are illegal everywhere in America, if you want to compare you would need to do so to America before drugs were made illegal.

 

[panamaican]

Blaming socialism for that particular kind of corruption makes sense, because it is only possible in a context in which the government owns and operates the major industries. Chalking it up to generic corruption is a whitewash.

Then why didn't that particular kind of corruption show up under Chavez. Look at the graph. The only economic uptick takes place under Chavez. There's no economic gain prior to him or after him. Why not?

 

[Seano]

Treatment centers that cant wean people off drugs, because they are illegal.

Not sure what you mean. Thats what treatment centers do and they work for people who have the drive and desire to be clean.

Cheaper and safer drugs would mean the addict would spend more time drugging himself in his home rather than breaking into houses to pay off their expensive habit.

Drugs aren't addictive because they are illegal. You don't have more or less of a physical reaction to it if its legal or not. Why is a person going to stop committing crimes to feed that habit simply because of easier access? That makes no sense. Do you believe in the gov'ts ability to keep heroin costs low?

 

[panamaican]

Chavez was a better leader than Maduro but its not just that, it has to do with the drop in oil prices that happened in 2014. That drop occurred for a few reasons but the result was that it seriously hampered the Venezuelan economy which, under the system Chavez set up and bequeathed to Maduro, relied heavily on oil to the point that the drop in prices was enough to send the country into the crisis that its in today. This happened because the Venezuelan system did not responsibly nationalize its oil industry and ended up creating a system that was bound to fail once oil dropped below a certain price per barrel. Rod1 and MVelsor have already mentioned some of the specifics of that mismanagement ITT. Note that other petrostates didn't enter into anything close to the same kind of crisis Venezuela did after 2014 and that's no accident.

Again - not socialism. How is socialism responsible for the subsequent drop in oil prices or U.S. sanctions? Mismanagement is, again, not socialism.

Over and over again, you lay out these factors that impacted the decline of Venezuela after Chavez. Yet not once is the cause "socialism", the cause is corruption, mismanagement, changes in the economic value of their exports, etc. All things that exist in every form of government to one degree or another.

So let me ask a different question - why didn't Venezuela thrive before Chavez? "Socialism" is why they failed afterwards...but what was the problem before that?

 

[superpunch]

Was society really that worse off when drugs were legal?

I wasn't alive then. I don't know. However, the things I'm interested in accomplishing with drug laws can't be measured in statistics or empirically. So, you won't see the positive effects of drug laws in any numbers from that time period because they can't be captured in numbers. I'm only interested in subjective accomplishments.

I don't really care about the disease stats, crime stats, etc. Those empirical things either don't effect me (disease stats) or bother me less (crime stats) than the things that come with legalization (drugs visible everywhere and no longer underground). I realize that drug laws, unless you're willing to go full Singapore on them, only put things out of sight, out of mind; that's all I want. I don't want to see people using drugs, selling drugs, and people under the effects of drugs when I'm walking around the city. I want our cities to be a place where I can walk around comfortably with my future children. I don't want to have to move to the suburbs and have them only be around boring suburban stuff to do that. Legalizing drugs makes that not possible.

I have nothing against drugs. I don't care if people use them in private. I don't care what anyone does in private. The only thing is I don't see how to stop drugs from being visible in public without drug laws. Public intoxication laws and the like aren't strong enough or enforceable enough to stop that. That leaves, unfortunately, drug laws as the only tool I know of that's strong enough and enforceable enough to get that job done.

Drugs are illegal everywhere in America, if you want to compare you would need to do so to America before drugs were made illegal.

Well tell that to the guys walking around openly smoking and injecting downtown in front of tourist spots and police without a care in the world in those liberal cities.. They don't arrest for anything under a certain amount in those cities because the DA won't prosecute. Drug users know that and just carry that amount. The laws on paper are often just paper in these places. Drugs are de facto legal in these places.

 

[panamaican]

Because things dont happen magically overnight? if i quit my job into a spending spree on credit i can claim that my economy is "booming" once i run out of credit however the hard times will come.

Things don't happen magically overnight - then explain why Venezuela suddenly tripled their GDP in 10 years? Then collapsed again in 5 years right after that? Are you looking at your graph?

Explain that massive spike in the middle from 1998-2014 that happens to coincide with Chavez and then disappears under Maduro and sanctions? How is it that "Socialism" lets Chavez thrive but immediately fails under Maduro?

And then explain why there was no growth before Chavez and that Venezuela's "failing" returns them to the same pre-Chavez state?

 

[The Diplomat]

Fuck no. Marijuana, OK. But no way could I get behind easy public access to meth, crack and heroin. Seen too many people destroyed by that shit.

Yeah, I had the same debate with him awhile back. I'm pro pot, less pharmaceutical. His point was it would combat the cartel, which in theory makes sense, but in actuality is a nation of junkies. The best way to combat the cartel is for their govt and govt employees to stop being corrupt, man up and take them out at the source without fear of a friend turning them in. Until that changes, it wont happen.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Then why didn't that particular kind of corruption show up under Chavez. Look at the graph. The only economic uptick takes place under Chavez. There's no economic gain prior to him or after him. Why not?

There's a few reasons for this. One can be credited to Chavez and that's the fact that he sought to strengthen OPEC which at the time was irrelevant. He organized only the second ever meeting of the heads of state of OPEC countries and the first in 25 years so that they could coordinate quotas to keep prices from falling.

But some were unrelated, such as the War on Terror which disrupted Iraqi production and the growth of China which fed growth in commodity producing countries that traded with it including Venezuela. These were more significant IMO.

Again - not socialism. How is socialism responsible for the subsequent drop in oil prices or U.S. sanctions? Mismanagement is, again, not socialism.

Over and over again, you lay out these factors that impacted the decline of Venezuela after Chavez. Yet not once is the cause "socialism", the cause is corruption, mismanagement, changes in the economic value of their exports, etc. All things that exist in every form of government to one degree or another.

So let me ask a different question - why didn't Venezuela thrive before Chavez? "Socialism" is why they failed afterwards...but what was the problem before that?

The part that you seem to be missing is the fact that mismanagement by the government only mattered because the oil industry was nationalized under Chavez. You do realize that nationalizing industries is a quintessential socialist policy right?

Not only that he also funneled a lot of the revenues of the nationalized oil industry into social spending so that he could win election after election. Which has its benefits and likely is not unrelated to the growth in the Venezuelan economy since it would uplift the lower classes which has benefits to the economy. The problem is it was way too much and wasn't sustainable so when oil fell below a certain price the whole system started to crack. It also led to inflation of which Venezuela has one of the highest rates in the world.

 

[panamaican]

The GDP chart i posted isnt adjusted for inflation, the fall is far below pre-Chavez levels.

Also

Chavez didnt really boosted production on anything on the contrary he destroyed plenty of industries, the Venezuelan "boom" was tied to oil prices and foreign investment/loans that vanished the moment they saw Venezuela was a lost case.

Go back to the 1980s. Not to Chavez but to before him.

Interesting, economy grows under Socialist leader 1. Fails before him. Fails after him with Socialist Leader 2. Why was Socialist Leader 1 successful when no one before him was and no one after him was either?

Huh? What do you know - the changing price of oil seems to line up pretty well with the booms and busts of Venezuela. Maybe, just maybe, it's not socialism that grew or shrunk the economy but macroeconomic pressures. And blaming it on "socialism" is just lazy thinking.