Venezuela's Chavez threatens to cut oil to U.S.

[Praxius]

Just a question - are you currently a student?

No, and what would it matter?

If you are leading into something along the lines of trying to explain or tell me to go get some education on the matter as it is more complex then how I explained, then you are going to be wasting your time. (ie: Transitional Complications, various other countries opposed to the switch over, conflicts with trading differences, compromise with people currently existing with a load of profit and personal gain, etc.) ~ I've spent the last several years thinking about this topic and eventually as they say, "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."

You presented a question to me, I gave you the gist of my answer, as it too is more complex then what I posted above, yet so simple it boggles the mind as to why it hasn't been implimented yet.

Then again, I too also know the answer to that, and I also know that the majority of the global society is no where near the position to accept any other lifestyle then what we currently know, which is why I also did not go into much detail, because I'd just be wasting my time and yours as well. But regardless, there is an answer which exists. Society believes not to fix something that isn't broken and for a system which has been in place for centuries thus far, most would considder it as a system that works.... but it really doesn't. Capitalism is slowly killing itself when you observe historical trends as a whole.

It is more logical to wipe away a corrupted and flawed system for a new and evolved system which works to prevent the existing issues and complications.... rather then attempting to continually patch-work an existing system which can continually be loop-holed. And no matter what changes or modifications are made to capitalism today, its basic prinicples are still the same, which are also the root of the problem when you boil each problem down to the core.

 

[MikeyDB]

I agree with this analysis, and would suggest that this is how it's always been. The wealthy and powerful (virtually synonymous) have always instigated the darker angels of our nature when it comes to self-interest. From slavery to fraud and corruption as part of the "capitalist" program, the notion of "buy low and sell high" demands that some "value" in the mind of the consumer informs them that they'd be better off purchasing "this" vs. "that" brand of ...oh say tires for instance....

When the truth is known, it turns out that those sparkling new Goodyear Tires and those flashy Firestone tires and those impressive Bridgestone tires...are all manufactured at the same plant using the same equipment and variarions (perhaps) in chemistry and tread pattern are the only "difference".. Thus the "value" is the name and the artificiality of this system is its own worst enemy.

 

[Praxius]

I agree with this analysis, and would suggest that this is how it's always been. The wealthy and powerful (virtually synonymous) have always instigated the darker angels of our nature when it comes to self-interest. From slavery to fraud and corruption as part of the "capitalist" program, the notion of "buy low and sell high" demands that some "value" in the mind of the consumer informs them that they'd be better off purchasing "this" vs. "that" brand of ...oh say tires for instance....

When the truth is known, it turns out that those sparkling new Goodyear Tires and those flashy Firestone tires and those impressive Bridgestone tires...are all manufactured at the same plant using the same equipment and variarions (perhaps) in chemistry and tread pattern are the only "difference".. Thus the "value" is the name and the artificiality of this system is its own worst enemy.

Another example of this would be my ex's mother used to work in a juice bottling plant which bottled apple juice for three different brands..... all the same juice, all from the same plant, yet three brands and three different prices. Although it looks like competition, it all came back to the same place. It was an illusion of quality vs. economy, where you'd compare prices, brands, and what was the better bang for your buck, when if you just bought the cheapest one of the three, you'd still be getting the same product.

This way here the company still gets profit for the same product which has already been overpriced in all three brands, and they still connect to the consumer who wanted high quality based on brand/price, and the consumer who has a limited budget and has to go for the cheaper one.

Look at all three labels and you'd notice they all come from the same plant in New Minas, NS.

Here's a hint.... one is Allen's and the other is Graves. The third would be your local Our Compliments or PC/No Name Brand at your local Sobey's / Superstore.

Although I believe Sobey's / Superstore both get their juice from various plants around NS and Canada, if you live in Nova Scotia, all Graves and Allen's Juices come from the exact same plant and you'll notice both are different in price. Now if that's not corrupt and two-faced, I'm not sure what is. Technically not illegal, but it's still a pr*ck job if you ask me.

 

[MikeyDB]

Just imagine the tumult if Canadians and Americans had to forego purchasing clothing and technological tid-bits produced in sweatshops that feed the merchantile capitalist system!

As ITN has said..."What's your problem with "profit"!?

So long as it's not American children and women earning a dime a day pumping out crap for mindless consumers to buy...well I suppose then everything's just peachy!

 

[I think not]

Sure do.... the complete removal of currency/money/capitalism all together. If it's not there, then you can't steal it. If you can no longer seek money and personal profit to shape your way of life, then what is next to improve/focus apon?

Ok, I'm no economist but I'll give this a shot.

Money is only as valuable as people are willing to accept, just like peanuts. By removing money from society, you appear to be under the impression you will somehow remove greed and lust for power. You're attempting to quell human emotions by man made constructs. Good luck with that.

Should you be able to remove money from society, something else will take its place, say poka dotted peanuts. The only reason why poka dotted peanuts aren't used is because paper money is easier to transact. It's lighter, more compact and you can fit quite a bit of it in your pockets or purse, whereas using poka dotted peanuts, you would need bags to carry around.

Thousands of years ago people were using snail shells as a medium of exchange, yes they even went to war over them. So I'm not following what you're saying, today greed is translated into the acquisition of "money", in the past it was snail shells.

You mentioned you're not talking about communism, but just like communism you're attempting to surpress human nature.

MikeyDB: We've read your diatribe before, find something new worht reading for a change.

 

[Toro]

Capitalism is slowly killing itself when you observe historical trends as a whole.

The reason why I asked the question is because it is often asked by idealistic and Utopian minds that are usually first exposed to such ideas in university.

ITN is correct. You are mis-identifying human nature when you say "if you can't see it, you can't steal it" if you believe the cause of dark side of human nature is due to this socio-economic structure. For it has not mattered what socio-economic system there has been, people have done nasty things to one another since the dawn of time - the hundreds of millions dead killed by those in power who claimed to follow the ideals of those which you are promoting is a testament to this.

You say that you have spent many years thinking about this. Good for you. I commend you for doing so. It is a better use of your time than spending many years wondering who is going to win on American Idol. However, I too have spent many years not only studying economic history in college, and reading and thinking about it the past 15 or so years since, but also applying it to my career outside of an ivory tower.

I single out your above statement because I have seen it or a similar one many times before. I am not sure about the totality of your sentiments, but I am going to suggest that you are incorrect. Capitalism is not slowly killing itself. Instead, it is slowly adapting to society.

For capitalism has provided the greatest rise in living standards the world has ever seen.

And, for the most part, the poorest countries that have seen the greatest increases in living standards over the past two or three decades have been those that have implemented free enterprise solutions.

How ironic, given that this thread is about Hugo Chavez. Hugh is attempting to go against the grain of recent history. But Hugh and his new Bolivaran Revolution has seen the productive capacity of his oil fields fall by nearly a third during his tenure, even though oil prices have gone up by nearly 1000%, as he is diverting maintenance capital to social programs as well as having fired technical engineers at PdVSA and stacking the company with political hacks, In other words, he is slowly killing the goose that lays the golden egg. For it is oil and only oil that can keep Hugh and his now-fading Bolivaran Revolution afloat. Yet, in a year when oil prices hit all-time highs, realizations from PdVSA fell 5%. So much for banishing the evil "trans-national" oil companies! Well done, Hugo!

Unfortunately - or fortunately, depending on your perspective - Hugh will eventually be confined to the dustbin of history as just another Latin populist demagogue who believed in a Utopian, idealistic society but failed due to the realities of human nature.

 

[Colpy]

The simple fact of the matter is that Chavez needs American dollars much worse than America needs Venezuela's oil.

Mark my words:

It won't happen.