http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4359386.stm

i post on another board with a guy from venezuela, and he's pretty excited as he thinks chavez is a dick and he can't make any money despite being college educated

10/20/2005 5:03:18 PM

he goes and talks about workers being shareholders in the company they work for and says "fuck you" to the IMF...

and then he goes and says this insane shit

btw, i do know some venezuelans that like him

10/20/2005 5:07:18 PM

[old]

he said [shit just like] this months ago

[Edited on October 20, 2005 at 5:09 PM. Reason : `]

10/20/2005 5:09:24 PM

i wish i could just AIM "Ignore" this guy

10/20/2005 5:11:20 PM

Quote :

"The US throws stones to Latin America."

Those bastards! They could put out someones eye!

10/20/2005 5:14:31 PM

it is old, but...
i know we have plans to invade alot of places. We have these plans just in case we might need them one day. And those plans are updated every few years. Alot of powers do this.

10/20/2005 5:24:51 PM

I think Chavez is a pretty cool guy. The only reason the US doesn't like him is because he's a communist. If he was a capitalistic dictator we'd be throwing money and weapons at him left and right, like with pinochet.

10/20/2005 5:27:26 PM

Why would we want to do that? The soviet Union doesn't exist anymore. If these third world crap-holes go commie they're only hurting themselves.

Hell, as far as things go, the world can always use more reminders of why communism fails.

10/20/2005 5:48:47 PM

Well he wouldn't be off the mark in being paranoid. The US does have a pretty long history of overthrowing Latin American governments that she didn't particularly like. Lucky enough for Mr. Chavez though, our military is stretched, intel branches in dissorganized and civil government currently tied up in domestic affairs.

[Edited on October 20, 2005 at 6:06 PM. Reason : .]

10/20/2005 6:05:56 PM

the only way he'll ever get invaded is if some neocon nut gets elected in '08

10/20/2005 6:11:47 PM

Robertson for Prez '08!

10/20/2005 6:12:17 PM

Look, all he has to do is stop trying to piss off the world's sole superpower.

1. stop confiscating the property of US citizens and then not paying for it
2. No matter how hard they try to assasinate you just ignore it and proclaim "Capitalism is alright but Venezuela needs socialism for non-international reasons!"
3. Stop slapping international corporations with ex-post facto tax bills in violation of international laws YOU signed. If you weren't willing to accept 30% of the profits then you shouldn't have signed the contract.
4. Proclaim "Castro is an evil dictator I see socially for entirely non-supportive reasons."

If Chavez followed these steps he'd no longer have to worry about invasion. Hell, he might even get international aid money out of it too. He can use the money to purchase foreign holdings instead of siezing them in violation of international law.

[Edited on October 20, 2005 at 6:38 PM. Reason : f]

10/20/2005 6:36:58 PM

Quote :

"in violation of international law."

OMFG THE US TALKING ABOUT OTHER COUNTRIES VIOLATING INTERNATIONAL LAWS!!!

Quote :

"Look, all he has to do is stop trying to piss off the world's sole superpower. "

Fuck you.

10/20/2005 7:19:40 PM

no, actually, fuck you.

10/20/2005 8:25:07 PM

all right then, come fuck me.

i would give you $100,000 if you would take a flight out here and put it in my ass.

10/20/2005 8:31:50 PM

only way i'll do that is if i get to strap a big fucking bomb to myself and blow the shit out of half of your town

10/20/2005 8:33:57 PM

come and do it you pussy

what are you scared of?

fly here, buy a bomb, and blow yourself up

PUSSY

i would even give the $100,000 to your relatives if you did it

YOU COULD BLOW UP THE BOMB WHILE PUTTING IT IN MY ASS

OMG WE WOULD DIE TOGETHER WHILE MAKING LOVE

HOW ROMANTIC

10/20/2005 8:40:11 PM

10/20/2005 8:41:43 PM

remember there was all ready a CIA backed coup on him earlier in his regime

plus let's not forget that corporations are not individuals. they function within a country with the consent of the country. therefore loneshark has no leg to stand on.


Plus, Chavez is extremely popular in Venezuela.

10/20/2005 8:58:20 PM

Quote :

"If these third world crap-holes go commie they're only hurting themselves."

Yeah we should let friedman have a crack at it. Oh wait, he did, and he ruined them.

Quote :

"stop confiscating the property of US citizens and then not paying for it"

Are you refering to Heinz? Because I don't believe Heinz Inc. is a valid US citizen.

Quote :

"Stop slapping international corporations with ex-post facto tax bills in violation of international laws YOU signed."

He's the president, he can do whatever the hell he wants. I applaud him for not handing his country over to the IMF under threat of embargo.

10/20/2005 9:44:45 PM

I still do not understand the argument that people do not own corporations.

A group of people got together and decided to share property, we call it a corporation, and suddenly you feel it is alright to steal from them because "corporations are not people." What the fuck does that matter? Corporations are not REAL, much less people. We made them up, they are merely a means of sharing property among individuals.

For example, four of us wish to travel to california. All the planes are grounded and the trains are wrecked. We cannot rent a car because none of us have a credit card. Our only option is to buy a car, but none of us can afford a car outright. So, we decide to form an association, drawing up a charter and everything, invest what money we have into it, and purchase a car under it. None of us own the car, we own shares in the car in proportion to how much we invested.

Now, when we get half way there, we are stopped at a road-block by the police and they sieze our car because the legislature said so. Is it not stealling just because the car was in the name of a non-entity?

Back to the original example, a percentage of that Heinz factory was OWNED by Mrs. Kerry. I realize you don't recognize property rights at all, but if for a mental exercise we assume you did what would make this form of ownership any less respectable than a car I purchased in full? Both are heaped in the ideals of contract, just one is more confusing for laymen.

10/20/2005 10:05:02 PM

Quote :

"I still do not understand the argument that people do not own corporations."

Stockholders do, but there's a certain risk involved. The corporation is a economically seperate entity from it's owners. If it goes under, tough cookies, you can't sue the CEO for stealing your money.

Quote :

"A group of people got together and decided to share property, we call it a corporation, and suddenly you feel it is alright to steal from them because "corporations are not people.""

They knew that risk going in. THEY were the ones who chose to set up their factory in that country, they knew that there was a great deal of risk involved in that the US government can't interviene.

Quote :

"Corporations are not REAL, much less people."

The law defines them as a seperate person.

Quote :

"For example, four of us wish to travel to california."

YES! A long, drawn out, and completely irrelevant hypothetical! That's what I want to see!

Quote :

"I realize you don't recognize property rights at all"

That's up to the government you decide to set your factory up under. In the US property rights are protected, but once you leave the US, you are at the mercy of the country you set your factory up in.

10/20/2005 10:17:18 PM

Great, you admit Heinz Inc not being a person was completely irrelevant. We both recognize that taking a factory from a corporation and taking someones car are comproble. So why did you mention it? I realize Heinz should have known better than to build anything in the third world, just as I hope you know better than to take your car down there, but that doesn't make it any less worthy of condemnation.

Which, BTW, leads me back to my original point. The fact that everything on my list you support Chavez in doing does not change the fact that some shit can get your ass assasinated. It comes with the territory, Chavez should have known better and he deserves whatever he gets. He can't sit there and act all surprised that the New World Order is trying to kill him when he has purposefully and with forethought made himself a target.

10/20/2005 10:28:32 PM

Quote :

"We both recognize that taking a factory from a corporation and taking someones car are comproble."

Nope, one is a US citizen and is protected by the US embassy and such.

Quote :

"I realize Heinz should have known better than to build anything in the third world"

They know better, they did it because they could get cheaper labor, the risk was part of the cost of going there. Should I foot the bill to remove the risk for companies to move jobs out of my country? Hell no. If they want the cheaper labor they'll just have to stomach the risk that comes with it.

Quote :

"the fact that some shit can get your ass assasinated"

I'd really love to see them try. I need a good laugh. The CIA/mafia's nearly comical efforts in trying to assinate Castro have been entertaining. And their efforts in finding a 6 and a half foot tall diabetic arab have been just plain sad.

They couldn't assinate a suicide bomber, you think they can get a fairly intellegent and well equiped man who sees it coming?

Quote :

"It comes with the territory, Chavez should have known better"

Chavez knows it, and that's why he's calling you out on it. It comes with the territory of being an international loan shark.

[Edited on October 20, 2005 at 11:51 PM. Reason : ]

10/20/2005 11:49:09 PM

As such he should stop making himself look like an ass. Have the self respect to take the attempts in stride and brush it off, don't run off to the UN and cry about it as if they were honestly trying to kill you and not just keep you on your toes.

Quote :

"Should I foot the bill to remove the risk for companies to move jobs out of my country?"

What bill? It doesn't cost much to condemn theft when you see it, of both cars and factories.

As for your little snipe, a car is not a person and has no protection at the US embassy. Or are you still trying to proclaim that my 10% ownership of a factory is somehow different in kind from my 100% ownership of an automobile? What fundamentally changes when my share of ownership transitions from 99% to 100% that suddenly makes confiscation = theft?

10/21/2005 12:05:44 AM

Quote :

"Have the self respect to take the attempts in stride and brush it off, don't run off to the UN and cry about it as if they were honestly trying to kill you and not just keep you on your toes."

It seems like a reasonable way to handle the situation. That's how I'd do it. I'd say "These dicks are trying to kill me, this is fucked up. You guys should stop farting on each other's faces and do something." Fidel took the higher road, but I don't seeing any reason for him not to call you out on what you are doing.

Quote :

"What bill? It doesn't cost much to condemn theft when you see it, of both cars and factories."

So that will make everything better? The US government just needs to say "taking stuff is bad"? I don't think that's going to do anything. If anything was to actually get done it would involve flying the military down there, possibly even more expensive shit. Shit that I would have to pay for.

Quote :

"As for your little snipe, a car is not a person and has no protection at the US embassy."

The car has an owner, that car is not considered a legal entity.

Quote :

"Or are you still trying to proclaim that my 10% ownership of a factory is somehow different in kind from my 100% ownership of an automobile?"

Yep, it's a hell of a lot different. Your car can't make money.

Quote :

"What fundamentally changes when my share of ownership transitions from 99% to 100% that suddenly makes confiscation = theft?"

Venezuela isn't stealing bond certificates, it's taking a factory, a factory that has an owner. This owner is a corporation, this corporation is not a US citizen.

10/21/2005 12:31:59 AM

The US has no right to declare the rights of citizens in another country.

10/21/2005 2:45:13 AM

damn i thought kris and nutsmackr stoped posting

10/21/2005 3:33:05 AM

Quote :

"Venezuela isn't stealing bond certificates, it's taking a factory, a factory that has an owner. This owner is a corporation, this corporation is not a US citizen."

Have you ever met a corporation? Seriously, walked up and said "HI!" I don't think so, so why do you keep saying that the sole legal owner is an imaginary object? I've met many stock holders, they seem to think they own the property, collectively or otherwise.

So I'll ask you again, at what point does it cease to be my property? Did I forfeit it in your eyes the instant I signed over management of it to another party (CEO)? Because it is possible to own 100% of the shares in a company. Or is it because I don't own it outright, such as a house with a mortgage?

10/21/2005 8:43:46 AM

I swear, I wish our government would stop making such a fuss over this man. Chavez is nothing but the political equivalent of an Internet troll. He says crazy stuff and does stupid crap, but in the end he's mostly harmless and would probably lose power if we just ignored him. Instead, we're blowing him up to be some sort of great and dangerous threat to America.

Even if he hates us, he's still putting oil onto the international market and thus keeping oil prices at a reasonable rate for us. Hell, he's still selling large amounts of oil to us since we are the closest and most convenient market for him.

10/21/2005 10:13:49 AM

Quote :

"at what point does it cease to be my property? Did I forfeit it in your eyes the instant I signed over management of it to another party (CEO)?"

You forfeit complete ownership at the point where you use the corporation to shield you from financial risks to personal assets. If the corporation goes bankrupt and can't pay it debts, you can't be held responsible for those debts outside of the money you've invested in the corporation. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

10/21/2005 10:26:28 AM

^^ ding ding ding

he's the IRL salisburyboy

10/21/2005 11:11:40 AM

Quote :

"so why do you keep saying that the sole legal owner is an imaginary object"

Because legally, it is.

It's an entirely different situation is if a company is not incorporated, then it is private property of a citizen. This is basic economics here.

Quote :

"So I'll ask you again, at what point does it cease to be my property?"

When it became legally incorporated. You know longer pay taxes on it, the corporation pays its own taxes. It's property is also no longer your property, it is the corporation's. In essense when you incorporate, you sell the company to itself.

10/21/2005 11:39:15 AM

Quote :

"think Chavez is a pretty cool guy. The only reason the US doesn't like him is because he's a communist. If he was a capitalistic dictator we'd be throwing money and weapons at him left and right, like with pinochet."

because the fact that he wants to open oil trade with China and not the USA doesn't matter

10/21/2005 2:11:18 PM

I wouldn't honestly care that much about that, specifically.

As long as he sells his oil to a capitalist nation I'm fine with it. Japan, China, Brazil, it's all good.

10/21/2005 2:13:44 PM

Quote :

"As long as he sells his oil to a capitalist nation I'm fine with it. Japan, China, Brazil, it's all good."

ummmm...

10/21/2005 2:18:39 PM

oh shit...........PWNT

10/21/2005 2:20:25 PM

Quote :

"because the fact that he wants to open oil trade with China and not the USA doesn't matter"

No communist nation has ever really had qualms withtrading with capitalist nations, that's more of a US thing. We communists believe in international trade, we just don't much care for the international loan sharks like the IMF and such.

10/21/2005 2:26:28 PM

Quote :

"ummmm..."

hmmmm indeed... I recognize that China is still a dictatorship, but that doesn't make it any less of a capitalist entity. Sure, the banks are directly controlled and only certain sectors are really free, but the same can be said about many other capitalist nations.

So, I would call China an un-free capitalist dictatorship, but capitalist all the same.

10/21/2005 2:30:55 PM

China is still communist, they are just in the process of restructuring their government to better move forward as a communist nation. They will become more and more socialized as things move forward.

10/21/2005 2:33:14 PM

Really? I was unaware much had changed in the Chinese government. Amending the constitution to formally recognize private property was a nice step but still was a largely legal/economic/societal change, not governmental.

I guess the first step in order to move forward as a communist nation is to have your citizens found a few million autonomous private enterprises.

[Edited on October 21, 2005 at 3:17 PM. Reason : .,.]

10/21/2005 3:15:43 PM

Their first step towards communism was made a long time ago, and it was lead in the wrong direction, Mao had good intentions, but in the end he didn't do what he wanted. Now they must backtrack so they can cut over to the right trail, and they will.

10/21/2005 3:31:40 PM

Oh, good, I'm glad they have a plan
I just hope they don't get all caught up in the "Not Starving" aspects of capitalism and refuse to move on.

Do you ever worry about maybe the Chinese becoming enamored by their current capitalist ways? What if they become independent consumers? Then, like Americans, the might begin to challenge the authority of their government, etc. etc.

[Edited on October 21, 2005 at 3:41 PM. Reason : query]

10/21/2005 3:37:44 PM

oh they took that wrong turn at albuquerque too...

10/21/2005 3:40:14 PM

yeah, it's not like there aren't any capitalist nations that starve when famine hits

10/21/2005 3:41:13 PM

Sorry, I changed my post to ask a question, I think you missed it.

Also, capitalism by itself only engenders efficiency, it does not engender equitable distribution of goods. You need a free market to do that.

As such, if you question is changed to "yeah, it's not like there aren't any <free people> that starve when famine hits" then the answer would be "Nope, never in history has a free market allowed people to starve. In all cases of widespread starvation there has been a governmental actor preventing the free market from functioning."

10/21/2005 3:45:56 PM

Quote :

"Also, capitalism by itself only engenders efficiency"

How do you figure that? Efficiency is one of my main problems with capitalism.

Quote :

" then the answer would be "Nope, never in history has a free market allowed people to starve."

I cite chile. Friedman's ideals ruled the country economically and the country fell into ruin. Before, when they had their democratically elected communist president, things were fine. It wasn't until the depostic dictator pinochet took over (thanks to US support) that the country began heading down.

Quote :

"In all cases of widespread starvation there has been a governmental actor preventing the free market from functioning.""

That would need a good bit of historical evidence behind it.

Quote :

"Sorry, I changed my post to ask a question, I think you missed it."

I didn't miss it, you posted it after me.

[Edited on October 21, 2005 at 4:15 PM. Reason : ]

10/21/2005 4:15:03 PM

I mispoke I guess, I should have said "I changed my post after you posted, as a result you missed it."

Quote :

"I cite chile. Friedman's ideals ruled the country economically and the country fell into ruin. Before, when they had their democratically elected communist president, things were fine. It wasn't until the depostic dictator pinochet took over (thanks to US support) that the country began heading down."

The historical evidence merely demonstrates that free markets prevent wide-spread starvation, I never said it could fix a fundamentally broken economy. On that subject, the best I can do is suggest that free markets are correlated with economic success, not causative, the evidence suggests that the degree of capital liberation is more conducive to economic success.

However, the evidence that individual liberation prevents rampant starvation is beyond question, never in history has a nation of free people engaged in (relatively) free trade suffered thusly. All the historical counter-examples suffered from oppressive and perverse governmental action. For example, during the Irish famine, British Corn Laws prevented the importation of cheap American wheat; export mandates forced the exportation of food stuffs from Ireland where the price was quite high to England where the price was relatively low.

[Edited on October 21, 2005 at 8:09 PM. Reason : .,.]

10/21/2005 8:09:29 PM

Quote :

"The historical evidence merely demonstrates that free markets prevent wide-spread starvation"

Quote :

"that free markets are correlated with economic success, not causative"

Those two statements contradict each other.

Additionally, Chile was fine before Friedman had his whack at it. Friedman fucked it up.

Quote :

" never in history has a nation of free people engaged in (relatively) free trade suffered thusly"

I just said chile is a clear case of this.

Just because you have examples of certain governments exacerbating famines in no way implies that without the government involvement that famines would not occur.

10/21/2005 8:20:19 PM

Ok, so you are saying Chile engaged in widespread liberalization of its citizens and then, shortly thereafter, a large portion of them starved to death? How many? If I remember correctly, nearly everyone that died during Pinochet died because of a bullet to the back of the head or being dropped out of a helicopter... doesn't sound very indvidually free to me.

BTW, there is a far cry between losing your job because of an economic downturn and dying of starvation. individual liberty prevents the latter, not necessary the former.

[Edited on October 21, 2005 at 8:31 PM. Reason : .,.]

10/21/2005 8:29:11 PM