When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
it's not "subjective" I've given 2 sources now ( Bloomberg and Forbes) that say the exact same thing -firing the expertise and not re-investing , coupled with a crippling liability for their social programs :
a) wrecked their oil industry
b)wrecked their economy
so much for a managed ( socialist) economy! Capitalism directs money by market forces in an efficient manner.
Socialism is don by some artificial hand ( like Chavez and Maduro) - that is inefficient.
I'm not even going to talk about the lack of risk taking ( ventures) in a Socialist economy that retards wealth growth
No, you cherry pick and then when called on it, you cry and whine and posture.
The fact is that you don't know half of what you're posturing here, and that you switch between IDs to lend yourself credibility you've blown because of all the posturing.
I corrected myself when I found out I was wrong. You double down on being wrong, even when called out and even when you recognize it. Then you switch between IDs and thank your own posts so that you can make people think you have more support than you actually do.
A total poseur and phony baloney.
LOL! You promised 3%.we got 2.9% per year
In fact, 3% was the minimum you promised.
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
Earl (03-15-2019)
I don't give a rip what people think of me, especially unemployed trolls like yourself. When you have worked for 37 years, and watched the liberals claim their programs will help, we can talk about how much you know, you need a first job though! By the way they are still using the same ploy every election cycle, then do nothing until next election, when they do it again!
Earl (03-15-2019)
Earl (03-15-2019)
Graduating college doesn't necessarily equate to understanding the content. She has no clue when it comes to economics. None.
She is bat shit crazy regarding the topic.
https://www.businessinsider.com/econ...-theory-2019-3
Earl (03-15-2019)
Except she doesn't. Which is why her economic ideas are so bat shit crazy.
https://www.businessinsider.com/econ...-theory-2019-3
Earl (03-15-2019)
Yes it is.
Judging something as falling into "disrepair" sets your standard of "disrepair" as the subjective standard, and using Op-Eds as support doesn't help your case.
Furthermore, the global price per barrel didn't decline because of the state of Venezuela's oil production, like you're trying to pretend.
The global price per barrel declined because of increased production from OPEC member nations, of which Venezuela is one.
Venezuela could have invested every petro-dollar into new oil infrastructure and they still would face the same problems today because of the price per barrel
It's funny how Conservatives say they understand free markets and supply and demand, but rarely do they ever apply those to their shitty arguments.
You are arguing that if Venezuela had pumped money into their energy infrastructure instead of social programs for their people, that they wouldn't face what they['re facing today except that what they're facing today is the result of MORE oil production, not less. So spending petro-dollars to further isolate Venezuela's economy into petro would actually have made the situation worse because you'd be spending those oil revenues TO LOWER THEM OVERALL.
Increasing production decreases the price.
For some reason, you cannot grasp that.
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
all bullshit. I will always correct myself and live up to any errors. May be i won't with you though because I have complete disregard for you and your posts
.
I answered and debate if I want to, or ignore you at will. I owe you nothing, not any explanation, no corrections unless I feel like doing so.
I'd prefer you were not here with your constant dezinformatsiya , but i'll toy with you like a cat does with a mouse when it pleases me. or not
Earl (03-15-2019)
WRONG.
The global price per barrel did that.
Your dumb, half-assed, monkey-brained solution is to increase production in Venezuela which would have the effect of decreasing the price per barrel because of the increase to the global supply. And as you increase production, you decrease the price, which also decreases revenues from that price.
You're a fucking idiot for thinking that and you'd get an "F" in any Econ class where you made that dumb argument.
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
Wall Street Journal:
"Socialism? Yes, Be Afraid
The next Democratic president will come from a zombie army of anti-capitalists."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/sociali...id-11552518646
No it doesn't, but it's really funny to see how naive and gullible you are. It makes all the sense in the world that you'd back Trump.
I agree that basing your economy on one chief export is a mistake. But you're the ones who insist we do that, and you're the ones who insist Venezuela double down on oil production even though doing so will result in lower revenues because of a lower global price.
I'm convinced you aren't mature enough to understand that. You're just a hack who feels compelled to attack socialism because you secretly know that it's a far superior system to anything your lizard brain could come up with.
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
Bookmarks