The idea that people can just take their money and invest it where they please all whilly nilly like, pursuing evil things like "profit" and "success" and "progress."
When they really just ought to bend over and take it and shell out money to the poor as they should (you really should click this link and read it, it's a short piece).
What really gets the left's ire up is when free people in a free market have the audacity to take their money and MOVE IT OUT of a market because one of their ilk starts making it unprofitable to stay in that particular market.
One such an example is the French rockstar that decided to leave France and change his citizenship to Swiss to avoid about a 70% tax rate. The hell this poor boy caught.
Another one is the bevy of people bailing out of Venezuela's market when Hugo Dumbsh!t Chavez opened his mouth. Venezuelan markets tanked as the wealth producers and savvy foreign investors seeing him nationalize anything of any worth, bailed out on that nation.
Best follow the smart money.
5 comments:
shouldn't it be "when hugo opened his mouth"
Yes, grammatically and anal-rententively correct.
Whoa, whoa, whoa...
So, what you're trying to say here, and pardon me if I'm misunderstanding something, is that the history of government interference in the market as promulgated by those with the economic understanding of gerbils, since, let us say, Marx the Nincompoop, is actually WRONG?
*Claude Rains* I'm shocked, shocked!*/Claude Rains*
The problem, of course, is that you cannot explain this to a leftist, because they're so wedded to the idea that the solution is even MORE government, rather than less, because...well, I was going to say "God forbid", but that doesn't sit too well with the Left these days, so let's just say that the Left doesn't like the idea that anyone could do well financially without any interference from their master, the government.
The fact that this nation (the United States, in case we've forgotten) got along without a gigantic bloated bureaucratic nightmare of a government for well over a century seems to have escaped notice.
While it is obvious that everyone here cares only about those Venezuelans fortunate enough to own stocks, at least for appearances sake, you might want to choose another metric to prove Chavez has got it wrong... Trouble is, there are very few negative stats for your lot to latch on to in Venezuela - even the rich are doing startingly well under Chavez.
But what I would love is for you all to go down to the slums of Caracas or rural areas and tell the poor people who have gotten access health care, eye & dental care, job-training, higher-education, literacy, housing, small business and co-op ownership, and half-price food from this government that the State is NOT the answer to their problems. Not even the opposition parties in Venezuela dare tried that... they offered an even cheaper version of populism - just giving people checks. But without doctors willing to come to these areas, without a government that sees potential in these areas, without credit to build things, without actual new clinics and schools - money in the pocket does not mean a lot you find. But those messy details of the real world never much bother market theoreticians.
leftside,
shut the hell up and quit being so stupid.
The only reason they're doing decent is because of the price of oil.
As I recall my Venezuelan history (obviously better than you) Hugo took over in 1998 and standards of living DROPPED until the price of oil surged.
Once oil drops again, don't worry, the poor people in Caracas will be just as poor as they were previously.
The only difference is I actually care enough of the poor people in Caracas to suggest practical solutions to their long term standards of living. You just care about bitching and moaning and going on some crusade to make yourself feel better.
Such stupid posts will not be published. And trust me, I'm doing you a favor and saving you face.
Post a Comment