2006-09-25
Chavez Giving Oil to USA's "Poor"
Charity is great: you give your posessions to other people. I endorse that. Forcing Nadir to give me money, that I generally oppose. The USA has something better than charity for "the poor": opportunity for people who make smart choices and work hard. That's why so many Venezualans immigrate here... and never leave. USA oil companies don't give oil away to "the poor." But they do something better: they reliably provide oil products universally at an optimal price, which means the lowest price that will permit them to continue this. The benefits of this system includes providing jobs and investment returns to people of all economic situations, including peole who make charatable contributions with the money that they've earned. Venezueala's economy is a mess, and it's no wonder given that its leader (perhaps an autocratic one) believes that the solution to "poor" people having the oil they need is to "give it to them." This mindset explains why there's so many poor people in Venezuela.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Your rant is disinformative and misleading.
Chavez isn't "giving" oil to the poor. He is "selling" it at a deep discount.
He also isn't an "autocratic" leader. He has been democratically elected three times and was brought back into office after a US-sponsored coup.
Meanwhile, George W. Bush and his cronies reap record profit from high oil prices while America's poor suffer. This is the difference between a "business-friendly" government and a "populist" or "people-friendly" government.
Venezuela has a lot of poor people, it is true. According to the CIA worldfactbook, the country has a 12.2% unemployment rate and 1998 estimates show that 47% of the country is below the poverty line. With so many poor people and so many out of work, it is necessary to help individuals survive.
Of course, Paul doesn't think it is the government's responsibility to help its people live. He believes, contrary to the evidence, that private industry will provide for individuals. This is despite the continued layoffs in the automotive industry and corporations cancelling employee benefits and pensions.
Paul thinks that any form of social safety net is the sign of an uncivilized society when in fact, the rest of the world looks at it as a way to reduce crime and help ease the suffering of the people. Other countries look at these things as the right thing to do.
It isn't as if they are providing everyone with Cadillac Escalades and million dollar homes. We're talking about the bare necessities. The US makes homelessness a crime, when it is merely a product of a society that doesn't care about its own.
In the US, the status quo is to care only about yourself, not your fellow human being. This is why people like Paul have no sympathy for poor people or for civilians in Iraq or Lebanon who have their homes bombed.
God forbid, if he is laid off from his cushy job at Ford, I would hate to think of what will happen to his growing family, especially since he will refuse any severance and will deny any claims to unemployment. These things would symbolize the degradation of socialism, and a good capitalist like Paul would never accept such charity.
Nadir: I oppose all the following claims that you attribute to me:
1. I do not oppose "any form of social safety net".
2. I do not believe that businesses do, or should, "provide for individuals." Businesses are merely organizations of people; when they are ogranizations of free people working to advance their own selves, they result in more people having more material wealth and security than any other form of human organization, including "dear leaders" "providing for people."
3. I do not lack sympathy for civillians in Iraq and Lebanon, as any readers of my comments on that subject would know. But neither do I believe that no wars produce net positive results. Do you lack sympathy for the hundreds of thousands of civillians who died in the US civil war? What about the civillians who died from Castro's revolution, which you support?
4. Capitalists provide and accept charity; in accord with this, so do libertarians. What we oppose are others forcing us to support charities. Some of us, like me, even support some tax-based social programs, though we believe that these have gotten out of hand. We believe that reducing these would reduce the amount of job losses you describe. The nations with the most govt-enforced "charities" have the highest rates of unemployment.
You accurately portrayed my view of good, proper government as lacking a "responsibility to help its people live." I think that people achieve the most wide-spread prosperity when they take that responsibility for themselves and their government merely performs such functions as enforcing contracts, protecting property, and settling disputs.
And I refute the following claims that you make:
1. Homelessness does not result from "people not caring." A majority of homeless people, I believe, are homeless because they don't care about themselves, and no amount of the rest of us "caring for them" will help.
2. Venezuela's rampant poverty and unemployment would improve if only the government provided more help. The example of the USA demonstrates that this is not the case.
3. Record oil company profits in the US occurs at the expense of worsening plight of poor people. To the contrary, the record oil company profits resulted in a subsequent massive and ongoing drop in oil prices, and a constant reliable supply of fuel, both directly to "poor" people, and to the businesses that generate opportunities for them.
"3. Record oil company profits in the US occurs at the expense of worsening plight of poor people. To the contrary, the record oil company profits resulted in a subsequent massive and ongoing drop in oil prices, and a constant reliable supply of fuel, both directly to "poor" people, and to the businesses that generate opportunities for them."
There was never a shortage of oil in production. This was confirmed by OPEC leaders. The oil prices flucated because of speculation on the commodities market. There was no shortage of supply, and prices were increased because of the demand of the summer driving season.
Had gasolin prices remained low, you would have seen an even greater demand and you would see fewer job cuts at the Big Three gas-guzzling automakers.
"Do you lack sympathy for the hundreds of thousands of civillians who died in the US civil war? What about the civillians who died from Castro's revolution, which you support?"
I have sympathy for all victims of war. I believe that war is never positive, and should only be waged as a last result.
Sometimes war is a necessary evil as in the Cuban revolution where it was fought to rid the nation of a despot, (We can debate Castro's despotic tendencies again later) or in the US Civil War where it results in the "legal" freedom of millions of people (though most remained de facto slaves).
Otherwise I am against wars of aggression as in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"A majority of homeless people, I believe, are homeless because they don't care about themselves, and no amount of the rest of us "caring for them" will help."
You believe wrong, in my view. Many homeless people are addicts, which is called an illness by health care professionals and criminal by the government. Others are mentally ill people who have been ejected from mental health facilities because of a lack of funding, which I would imagine, your capitalist behind supports.
Most people who find themselves without a home, however, are just down on there luck, and could benefit from job assistance and low income housing.
"A majority of homeless people, I believe, are homeless because they don't care about themselves, and no amount of the rest of us "caring for them" will help."
They have the most charities BECAUSE they have high unemployment. It isn't the other way around.
Most people don't say, I'm going to quit my job and go on welfare, except in the US where you're penalized for having a job if you're poor. Of course, with Clinton's failed welfare reform, poor people are forced to work several minimum wage jobs to maintain themselves at poverty levels instead of sinking lower.
And because welfare isn't provided as a safety net for those people, many drop off the roles and have to resort to the underground economy (which fuels the nation's growing prison labor industry) or they become homeless.
"2. Venezuela's rampant poverty and unemployment would improve if only the government provided more help. The example of the USA demonstrates that this is not the case."
Chavez is working to create work and redistribute wealth. That's more than I can say for Bush. The only jobs he is creating is temporary work at much lower wages.
Oh, and he is improving the economies of China and India...
Oh, and I hear the US Army is hiring...
Post a Comment