Maduro Asks OPEC For Help Against U.S. Sanctions

[ronwagn + 6,290]

16 minutes ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

Branding people as communist is retarded. I am not communist nor capitalist. If you wish, roughly I am a nationalist.

Communist is a retard who thinks all are equal. Capitalist is a crony who says that wealth alone matters and live like animals. I am neither if these craziness.

I stand by "kibbutz" styled nationalism where merit alone matters and division of labour is not just for money but for "purpose of life".

I guess you ran out of argument and hence deriding others

So you are a national socialist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz Much like the Kurdish? 

[Bhimsen Pachawry + 72]

4 hours ago, ronwagn said:

So you are a national socialist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz Much like the Kurdish? 

Socialism, capitalism, communism is just economic theory. I don't just exist to eat and die. It is the higher purpose of life which matters. So, I don't appreciate any of the economic breakdown of society.

I support the division in terms of - clergy, warrior, merchant and worker but in non-hereditary manner in a knowledge oriented society. Something similar to the older system of ancient Europe but without heredity.

Capitalist, communists, socialists are just animals existing only to die.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Oh ok, Bhimsen Pachawry.  I totally agree.  Maduro is a corrupt thief (obviously).  Consequently taking CITGO and PDSVA from him is not stealing.  It's justice.  

[TXPower + 643]

5 hours ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

Socialism, capitalism, communism is just economic theory. I don't just exist to eat and die. It is the higher purpose of life which matters. So, I don't appreciate any of the economic breakdown of society.

I support the division in terms of - clergy, warrior, merchant and worker but in non-hereditary manner in a knowledge oriented society. Something similar to the older system of ancient Europe but without heredity.

Capitalist, communists, socialists are just animals existing only to die.

Non-hereditary huh?  In terms of economics that is like seeing a unicorn or finding Bigfoot.  Wealth transfers wealth generationally just as easy and natural as poverty transfers poverty.  That’s not an economic reality, that’s reality.  It doesn’t require a caste system, feudal system or otherwise to make it so. 

Point is, economics shapes your politics and world view.  Folks trying to get enough food to survive see things differently than I do having been born in Texas, USA.

[Bhimsen Pachawry + 72]

21 minutes ago, TXPower said:

Non-hereditary huh?  In terms of economics that is like seeing a unicorn or finding Bigfoot.  Wealth transfers wealth generationally just as easy and natural as poverty transfers poverty.  That’s not an economic reality, that’s reality.  It doesn’t require a caste system, feudal system or otherwise to make it so. 

Point is, economics shapes your politics and world view.  Folks trying to get enough food to survive see things differently than I do having been born in Texas, USA.

 

You don't seem to understand my point- Natural resources can't be owned by people. Money like gold can be owned by people.

For example, the farmland is a natural resource. It has existed for millions of years and continue to exist for millions of years. How can you give $1 million dollar to buy some land which your heirs can use to grow food for millions of years. That is unacceptable. This is why wars happen to snatch the resources inherited by people without deserving them.

I am not saying that you can completely stop private ownership of natural resources, but it is important to legitimise collective ownership of natural resources. When things go too bad, wars/raids must be launched to set things right.

By holding ideals close to reality,one can reduce the amount of warfare and destruction that will come with deprivation or arbitrariness.

It is true that economics create worldview but that is because of lack of time and resources to acquire better knowledge rather than by economics itself. If a person is secured his livelihood, then he has as much freedom to think regardless of he is poor or rich. Only those who don't have food to eat or whose livelihood hangs on a thread have little choice.

PS- China has long practiced village ownership of land. India had system whereby the king owned all the land and only gave it on lease to people at his will.

So, such system can work. Today's world of private property is actually the latest invention, hardly lasting 200-300 years. Today's system is more impractical than collective ownership. Today's system relies on unsustainable practice of exploitation of non renewable resources which is bound to crash.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

That answer ^ had my head bouncing off the walls!  You state one thing; and then your very next statement counters what you just stated.  Wow, Bhimsen, you really ought to read what you write, you know, just to see if what you write makes any sense.

[TXPower + 643]

54 minutes ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

 

You don't seem to understand my point- Natural resources can't be owned by people. Money like gold can be owned by people.

For example, the farmland is a natural resource. It has existed for millions of years and continue to exist for millions of years. How can you give $1 million dollar to buy some land which your heirs can use to grow food for millions of years. That is unacceptable. This is why wars happen to snatch the resources inherited by people without deserving them.

I am not saying that you can completely stop private ownership of natural resources, but it is important to legitimise collective ownership of natural resources. When things go too bad, wars/raids must be launched to set things right.

By holding ideals close to reality,one can reduce the amount of warfare and destruction that will come with deprivation or arbitrariness.

It is true that economics create worldview but that is because of lack of time and resources to acquire better knowledge rather than by economics itself. If a person is secured his livelihood, then he has as much freedom to think regardless of he is poor or rich. Only those who don't have food to eat or whose livelihood hangs on a thread have little choice.

PS- China has long practiced village ownership of land. India had system whereby the king owned all the land and only gave it on lease to people at his will.

So, such system can work. Today's world of private property is actually the latest invention, hardly lasting 200-300 years. Today's system is more impractical than collective ownership. Today's system relies on unsustainable practice of exploitation of non renewable resources which is bound to crash.

Of course natural resources can and should be privately owned.  Private ownership is what gives gold its value.  You can’t eat gold, you can’t build a home out of gold or power it or your car if you own one, with gold.  You can only trade gold for these raw materials or finished products.  Individual effort and industry are rewarded with resources; gold or whatever agreed upon thing of value.  This in-turn leads to individual ownership of resources. 

Government/Collectivised people no matter how loosely or strongly organized rarely does a better job of managing resources and producing goods or providing equality or quality life.  And even the best of well-meaning monarchs can and do become Machiavellian.  

You have been drawn out to provide more disclosure of your political leanings, which by the evidence suggest their foundations are in socialist/communistic sympathies.   Collective ownership is a catch-phrase for socialism/communism. You may try and dress it up otherwise but it is what it is.

PS, using India and China as examples doesnt strengthen your position it weakens it.  Such examples, caste(still alive and well)and the other China, which went from warring chieftains until unification and then to the communist/fascist juggernaut it is today, controlling all aspects of its subjects lives right on up to matters of procreation.  Well, those aren’t compelling from an individual liberty, religious liberty or standard of living, quality of life standpoint. I can provide proofs of this in the context of human suffering at the hands of other humans/countrymen if you would like.

History has proven time and again that capitalism improves quality of life, enlightens, educates and provides for more upward mobility than any other Ism ever known to mankind.  Where capitalism is strong the other Isms flourish.  Where the other Isms are strong, typically all of the other aforementioned struggle.

I would be remiss to not point out that capitalism has weaknesses too, chief among them, greed, which has led to its own types of human suffering.  But then greed isn’t reserved to capitalism is it.   Given a choice the world over, repressed people with little hope and no resources always gravitate toward capitalist societies when they migrate because they know their chances of earning, building personal wealth and owning resources are increased the greatest in those places.

[Illurion + 894]

19 hours ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

Socialism, capitalism, communism is just economic theory.

Capitalist, communists, socialists are just animals existing only to die.

You have a very strange view of the world.........

Maybe YOU are an ANIMAL that is just EXISTING before you die,   

BUT PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE ME,  OR ANYONE ELSE IN YOUR FANTASY,  AS WE DO NOT CONSIDER OURSELVES TO BE ANIMALS.........

Edited February 25, 2019 by Illurion

[Illurion + 894]

6 hours ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

Natural resources can't be owned by people

Your statement is ridiculous..........

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Um.  China made its economic gains AFTER it gave up on the idea of collective ownership.  

[ronwagn + 6,290]

21 hours ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

Branding people as communist is retarded. I am not communist nor capitalist. If you wish, roughly I am a nationalist.

Communist is a retard who thinks all are equal. Capitalist is a crony who says that wealth alone matters and live like animals. I am neither if these craziness.

I stand by "kibbutz" styled nationalism where merit alone matters and division of labour is not just for money but for "purpose of life".

I guess you ran out of argument and hence deriding others

But, you actually do follow the communist line. Probably just a coincidence though. 

[Bhimsen Pachawry + 72]

3 hours ago, ronwagn said:

But, you actually do follow the communist line. Probably just a coincidence though. 

I consider USA to be a fanatic state. US has supported jihadis in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Arab region etc to spread their influence and cause major problems world over. So,I tend to consider USA as evil actor which wants to ruin everything.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 minutes ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

I consider USA to be a fanatic state. US has supported jihadis in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Arab region etc to spread their influence and cause major problems world over. So,I tend to consider USA as evil actor which wants to ruin everything.

Gee and I thought we were fighting Jihadis in all of those countries. You must have some secret sources.

[Bhimsen Pachawry + 72]

14 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

That answer ^ had my head bouncing off the walls!  You state one thing; and then your very next statement counters what you just stated.  Wow, Bhimsen, you really ought to read what you write, you know, just to see if what you write makes any sense.

Can you explain the discrepancy. I will clarify. I have written consistently as far as I see. It is just that there may be some subtlety which you may have found hard to understand. Point it out please.

12 hours ago, TXPower said:

Of course natural resources can and should be privately owned.  Private ownership is what gives gold its value.  You can’t eat gold, you can’t build a home out of gold or power it or your car if you own one, with gold.  You can only trade gold for these raw materials or finished products.  Individual effort and industry are rewarded with resources; gold or whatever agreed upon thing of value.  This in-turn leads to individual ownership of resources. 

Government/Collectivised people no matter how loosely or strongly organized rarely does a better job of managing resources and producing goods or providing equality or quality life.  And even the best of well-meaning monarchs can and do become Machiavellian.  

You have been drawn out to provide more disclosure of your political leanings, which by the evidence suggest their foundations are in socialist/communistic sympathies.   Collective ownership is a catch-phrase for socialism/communism. You may try and dress it up otherwise but it is what it is.

PS, using India and China as examples doesnt strengthen your position it weakens it.  Such examples, caste(still alive and well)and the other China, which went from warring chieftains until unification and then to the communist/fascist juggernaut it is today, controlling all aspects of its subjects lives right on up to matters of procreation.  Well, those aren’t compelling from an individual liberty, religious liberty or standard of living, quality of life standpoint. I can provide proofs of this in the context of human suffering at the hands of other humans/countrymen if you would like.

History has proven time and again that capitalism improves quality of life, enlightens, educates and provides for more upward mobility than any other Ism ever known to mankind.  Where capitalism is strong the other Isms flourish.  Where the other Isms are strong, typically all of the other aforementioned struggle.

I would be remiss to not point out that capitalism has weaknesses too, chief among them, greed, which has led to its own types of human suffering.  But then greed isn’t reserved to capitalism is it.   Given a choice the world over, repressed people with little hope and no resources always gravitate toward capitalist societies when they migrate because they know their chances of earning, building personal wealth and owning resources are increased the greatest in those places.

No, you don't understand my point. Gold is not exactly resources of consumption. It is only notional resource and hence owning it is not bad. It is the production assets, especially production based on natural resources which need to be collectivised. It is exactly identical to what communists say.

But here is why I differ from communists - I say that the produce must be divided according to merit. In other words, the position in society must be based on 4 estate system based on merit without hereditary component.

In other words, I consider it compulsory to have inequality. I only intend to ensure that right person is given the right position according yo his individual ability. Unlike communism, my way of equality is only at birth but not during a person's lifetime. A person must have division of labour according to his personal caliber. If a genius has a retarded child, then the child must be placed in lower position, not given higher position just because of him having better access to his father's resources.

Every child must be given basic education and then selected purely based on merit for specialisation. So, even the son of a poor man can have opportunity to become scientist simply because the society educates the people rather than people getting educated by their parents or using parents wealth.

To avoid corruption, the society must be organised in the form of militias with weekly congregation system to have regular monitoring. This regular monitoring keeps corruption under check as detection becomes easier and accountability is increased.

5 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

Um.  China made its economic gains AFTER it gave up on the idea of collective ownership.  

No, China made progress due to government investment in capital and making people work hard to grow quickly 

[Bhimsen Pachawry + 72]

11 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Gee and I thought we were fighting Jihadis in all of those countries. You must have some secret sources.

No, USA made alliance with Arabs to sell petroleum in dollars. For this USA had to give something in return. USA instigated Arabs by saying that USSR is a threat to Islam. USA gave them examples of USSR banning Islam and deislamising vast region in central asia to prove it.

Once Arabs were convinced that USSR is a threat to Islam, USA offered to help Islam as a return favour for selling petroleum in dollars. USA then started funding Jihadis in Yugoslavia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Indonesia etc.

Whydo you think USA bombed the Serbs instead of muslims in Yugoslavia despite the fact that it was the jihadist attacks which started the war? This was because USA was in alliance with Arabs to do this. The Afghanistan mujahideen was also created by USA. The Kashmiri hurriyat was created by CIA.

USA only fights for oil control in middle east. Since USA petrodollar relies on middle east oil, it is USA interest to maintain stability in that region and good amount of control. It is purely to ensure that USA petrodollar is protected that USA acts in ME. Similarly, USA wants to now control Venezuela oil.

Now, Arabs have got sick if USA and asked it to not buy oil in dollars citing USA lacking fiscal Prudence. So, USA is withdrawing from middle east, ramping up its oil production and going after Venezuela.

It was never about capitalism. USA was powerful because it used religion to gain control of vast amount of petroleum, about 50-60% of world petroleum reserves. Foe gains lasting just about 30-40 years, USA caused irreparable damage to several generation of people across the world.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

12 minutes ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

Can you explain the discrepancy. I will clarify. I have written consistently as far as I see. It is just that there may be some subtlety which you may have found hard to understand. Point it out please.

No, you don't understand my point. Gold is not exactly resources of consumption. It is only notional resource and hence owning it is not bad. It is the production assets, especially production based on natural resources which need to be collectivised. It is exactly identical to what communists say.

But here is why I differ from communists - I say that the produce must be divided according to merit. In other words, the position in society must be based on 4 estate system based on merit without hereditary component.

In other words, I consider it compulsory to have inequality. I only intend to ensure that right person is given the right position according yo his individual ability. Unlike communism, my way of equality is only at birth but not during a person's lifetime. A person must have division of labour according to his personal caliber. If a genius has a retarded child, then the child must be placed in lower position, not given higher position just because of him having better access to his father's resources.

Every child must be given basic education and then selected purely based on merit for specialisation. So, even the son of a poor man can have opportunity to become scientist simply because the society educates the people rather than people getting educated by their parents or using parents wealth.

To avoid corruption, the society must be organised in the form of militias with weekly congregation system to have regular monitoring. This regular monitoring keeps corruption under check as detection becomes easier and accountability is increased.

No, China made progress due to government investment in capital and making people work hard to grow quickly 

Apparently, government is supposed to solve all of society's problems.

Sorry, *less* government is usually better than *more* government.

And people are *not* animals.

Knock yourself out with your theories, but I sure do not subscribe to them.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

5 minutes ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

< snip long comment >

It was never about capitalism. USA was powerful because it used religion to gain control of vast amount of petroleum, about 50-60% of world petroleum reserves.

So was it the Christian religion or the Catholic religion that the USA used to gain control of 50-60% of world petroleum reserves? 

Because I forget which religion is the dominant religion that the USA uses for its world conquering activities.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

The latest on Brazilian help for Venezuela overthrowing Maduro. Venezuela is surrounded by freedom lovers willing to help it. 

https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2019/02/20/brazil-vows-defy-maduro-deliver-humanitarian-aid-venezuela/

Edited February 25, 2019 by ronwagn

[JohnF1956 + 4]

On 2/21/2019 at 9:22 AM, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

Unlike China, Venezuela doesn't have enough Natural resources other than oil. Even the oil is heavy oil which needs imported diluents. 

Venezuela has extensive mineral deposits besides oil and gas, as well as significant hydroelectric power installations and potential. Gold, diamonds, bauxite, iron ores (direct reduction iron ores: ca. 2% of world total).

[Bhimsen Pachawry + 72]

4 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

So was it the Christian religion or the Catholic religion that the USA used to gain control of 50-60% of world petroleum reserves? 

Because I forget which religion is the dominant religion that the USA uses for its world conquering activities.

USA used Islam by pitting them againat atheist USSR to control oil reserves. Muslims gave entire oil reserves to USA by agreeing to sell their oil only in dollars. By this, USA could simply print dollars and buy petroleum as long as USA adhered to fiscal prudence rules.

Islam controls most of the world oil reserves. As of now, 60% of world petroleum is under Muslim rule. In 1975, it was similar.

2 hours ago, JohnF1956 said:

Venezuela has extensive mineral deposits besides oil and gas, as well as significant hydroelectric power installations and potential. Gold, diamonds, bauxite, iron ores (direct reduction iron ores: ca. 2% of world total).

The resources are not extensive. Gold is a notional resource and not usable. The resources of iron, aluminum are usable. But they are not too large. Also, Venezuela has low population of 30 million. We can see that Venezuela is holding up well against USA sanctions despite being 10% as big in size & population.

Overall, Venezuela has decent amount of resources per capita but not enough overall.

[John Foote + 1,135]

On 2/23/2019 at 10:49 PM, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

Service sector unless those of scholars (older times were called clergy), it is nothing but useless. These involve people like prostitute, entertainment, sports etc which serve very little purpose.

That's a personal belief of yours, that pretty much denies the history of mankind. I don't contribute economically to your first two sectors, but clearly many do. Including the owner of a famous football club, so double bonus points there. Prefer playing sports to paying to watch others. But again, clearly I am in the minority. 

It would be nice if we could engineer things efficiently, but that is not the nature of our species. We humans are a confusing mammal, I grant you that. 

[John Foote + 1,135]

On 2/23/2019 at 2:14 PM, ronwagn said:

Republican spending is mainly for defense. We need to get a lot more bang for our buck and avoid stupid wars. It seems that we wasted a lot of money in the Middle East due to our "Military Industrial Complex". 

What the liberals and socialists are proposing is absolute insanity.

There is really no room for new programs unless something else is cut. Republicans have a much better handle on what spending is essential. Good border security is essential. 

Our discretionary budget has become bloated on the DOD. Foolish to think it is oriented for the soldier and the likely war, and I wish was. Either we are the absolute dumbest people on the planet, or we spend to much on it. In actual budgets, the difference between dem and rep budgets on defense are minimal. The B1 bomber, Star Wars, and the neutron bomb are the only major exceptions I can think of. The Navy figured the game years ago, but a DOD contractor in every district. 

I haven't wasted my time on what the young congresswoman for New York has proposed. It's like arguing against unicorns. Silly because it won't happen. Come October 2020 we'll see what things are really looking like.

There isn't even room for the existing programs. We don't need more nukes, subs, F-35s, and on and on. Look at the capabilities of our enemies. Russia isn't really much, and China's weapon is economic. And take care of your vets. We promised it, now go fund it. And yes, a huge part of the DOD budget is wages, pensions, and VA benefits. We tend to discount that cost of war.

I am all for controlling who is in the country. VISA on demand for many, as it is today, is the huge hole in the system, not the great deserts of the Southwest. A giant wall is a waste of money. Wall in a few areas, absolutely, not all over. Lived in plenty of countries that control who works quite well. National IDs, IDs for residents, and you can't hardly function without one. I wonder how the gun lobby would feel about getting biometrics on every one? 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 2/20/2019 at 11:11 AM, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

About USA helping Russia, USA simply wanted to avoid bolshevik revolution and hence helped Russia. But USA was dead against USSR after the revolution. Only when forced to side with USSR due to WW2 where UK & USSR were against Germany, USA again joined the war on USSR side.

 

Fascinating.  How is it that the human mind can do this time warp and end up with such a distorted view of history?  

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, John Foote said:

Our discretionary budget has become bloated on the DOD. Foolish to think it is oriented for the soldier and the likely war, and I wish was. Either we are the absolute dumbest people on the planet, or we spend to much on it. In actual budgets, the difference between dem and rep budgets on defense are minimal. The B1 bomber, Star Wars, and the neutron bomb are the only major exceptions I can think of. The Navy figured the game years ago, but a DOD contractor in every district. 

I haven't wasted my time on what the young congresswoman for New York has proposed. It's like arguing against unicorns. Silly because it won't happen. Come October 2020 we'll see what things are really looking like.

There isn't even room for the existing programs. We don't need more nukes, subs, F-35s, and on and on. Look at the capabilities of our enemies. Russia isn't really much, and China's weapon is economic. And take care of your vets. We promised it, now go fund it. And yes, a huge part of the DOD budget is wages, pensions, and VA benefits. We tend to discount that cost of war.

I am all for controlling who is in the country. VISA on demand for many, as it is today, is the huge hole in the system, not the great deserts of the Southwest. A giant wall is a waste of money. Wall in a few areas, absolutely, not all over. Lived in plenty of countries that control who works quite well. National IDs, IDs for residents, and you can't hardly function without one. I wonder how the gun lobby would feel about getting biometrics on every one? 

I think we can agree that a wall is not necessary for ALL portions of the border, but it is for most. It is a real money saver overall though. We spend far more on supporting illegal aliens then a wall would cost. I agree that your other means of controlling illegals are essential. That includes a national identity card. I am fervently for the Second Amendment. I would like to see a good poll about what other gun owners think. I doubt it is much different than anyone else, but I could be wrong. There is always a first time. 😀

[Rodent + 1,424]

20 hours ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

 So,I tend to consider USA as evil actor which wants to ruin everything.

The US is not a single sentient being, and as such cannot "want" anything. 

But essentially yes, we Americans are overzealous world ruiners.