Tesla Employee Writes of Low Wages, Poor Morale

So your argument is that pre-socialism, Venezuela was a great place to live for some people, and post-socialism Venezuela is a great place to live for no one, where instead of just some people being cripplingly poor, everyone is! I'm sure they are loving their superior healthcare, with rolling blackouts causing fatalities across the country in hospitals that can no longer maintain generator power.
No, that's not my argument. The new socialist leaders are in the same position as the old wealthy people but this time they provide education and healthcare. So it hasn't change in the economical structure but it is much better that now they have superior healthcare and education. All this news that catch your attention have been happening before the new regime, its just that capitalist propaganda wasn't interested in expanding their failures. Like they don't give you too much information about a place that is actually doing way worst than Venezuela, Mexico. Where people get killed in the streets randomly and no place you go to is secure (for citizens) unless you are in the wealthy class. The chances of getting killed in the super capitalist Mexico are way higher than in Venezuela. The access to education and healthcare are way lower than Venezuela but they are sill a capitalist country.
 
Dude, trying to defend Venezuala's brand of socialism isn't going to win you any battles. There ARE examples of successful socialist countries....Venezuela is not one of them.
 
Dude, trying to defend Venezuala's brand of socialism isn't going to win you any battles. There ARE examples of successful socialist countries....Venezuela is not one of them.
Read my comments. I never tried to defend their brand of socialism. I replied to comment saying that socialism had turn the country into shit. That is bullshit. Socialism did not turn the country into shit. Suggesting that the socialist system is responsible for the disaster in Venezuela is like suggesting that capitalism is responsible for the disaster in countries like Haiti and Mexico which have capitalist system. What I am saying is don't use Venezuela as an example of why socialism is a failure if you read my original argument and what I replied to.
 
Like they don't give you too much information about a place that is actually doing way worst than Venezuela, Mexico. Where people get killed in the streets randomly and no place you go to is secure (for citizens) unless you are in the wealthy class. The chances of getting killed in the super capitalist Mexico are way higher than in Venezuela.
The party that ruled Mexico from 1929 till 2000 (PRI) is a leftist party member of Communist International, continuing the reforms of the socialist Mexican revolution.

For decades Mexico had one of the most highly regulated markets in the world, and isn't that much better today (entire energy sector is still government owned and run and even the price of basic goods like books and milk are fixed by the government), so I'm not sure where you are getting this information that Mexico is hyper-capitalist. They have massive welfare programs like IMSS and the ISSSTE, its just that they have run out of money for most programs, with massive corruption ensuing.

I do agree that Mexico sucks and is full of criminality, and we should build a wall for our safety and economic benefit, but that's another topic. :)
 
The party that ruled Mexico from 1929 till 2000 (PRI) is a leftist party member of Communist International, continuing the reforms of the socialist Mexican revolution.

For decades Mexico had one of the most highly regulated markets in the world, and isn't that much better today (entire energy sector is still government owned and run and even the price of basic goods like books and milk are fixed by the government), so I'm not sure where you are getting this information that Mexico is hyper-capitalist. They have massive welfare programs like IMSS and the ISSSTE.

I do agree that Mexico sucks and is full of criminality, and we should build a wall for our safety and economic benefit, but that's another topic. :)
What do you mean? How does any of the stuff you mention relate to mexico being a capitalist system? U.S. has welfare programs, the treasury department gave low interest loans to its own corporations. Many states have one energy corporation with a legal monopoly over the market in order to have stability in their energy distribution. Yes so called capitalist system do the same thing that mexico does and that doesn't make them any less capitalist. How does any of this stuff you mention contradicts my argument? They are capitalist country and their criminality is not due to the capitalist system being flawed. Just like Venezuela they are a very poor country and is not due to the socialist system being flawed.

That is all I am arguing. Don't use one specific situation to make a generalization about how effective a political and economical structure is that is all my replies are arguing.
 
Ducman69 Are you saying that US economic sanctions, support of anti government groups and general politics of hostility have nothing to do with the state of their economy? Chile #2?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rysen
like this
Dude, trying to defend Venezuala's brand of socialism isn't going to win you any battles. There ARE examples of successful socialist countries....Venezuela is not one of them.

Before you guys get too gung ho on the topic, just take into consideration that all of those example are about 1/10 the population of America. Policies that work at a small business may not be feasible at a large corporation. It doesn't mean the policies are inherently bad, they just do not scale well when taking into account massive variability of those involved.
 
Hope for everyone's sake, it doesn't get that bad. If I wanted to live in Russia or China I would move. Capitalism drives innovation. Why do you think everything is stolen from the US and reproduced in China.
Yeah, and capitalism is what brought us into space, invented the computer, the internet, oh wait, no, it didn't; those were all just harnessed by capitalism after the fact. It turns out if you just fund a lot of research projects, you get tons of innovation also. Capitalism spurs innovation only when it's profitable to do so. It does an absolutely miserable job at anything that's not profitable, but still very helpful to society. Modern capitalism also doesn't factor in externalities much at all either, it's all pass the buck. It's essentially designed to eventually burn out. Also I like how people commonly mix up capitalism with democracy. You think there's not rampant capitalism going on in China?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rysen
like this
Yeah, and capitalism is what brought us into space, invented the computer, the internet, oh wait, no, it didn't; those were all just harnessed by capitalism after the fact. It turns out if you just fund a lot of research projects, you get tons of innovation also. Capitalism spurs innovation only when it's profitable to do so. It does an absolutely miserable job at anything that's not profitable, but still very helpful to society. Modern capitalism also doesn't factor in externalities much at all either, it's all pass the buck. It's essentially designed to eventually burn out. Also I like how people commonly mix up capitalism with democracy. You think there's not rampant capitalism going on in China?
Democracy? Are you suggesting that the U.S. is a democracy? You mean like how the U.S. has a president that was not elected by the majority of the people?
 
Before you guys get too gung ho on the topic, just take into consideration that all of those example are about 1/10 the population of America. Policies that work at a small business may not be feasible at a large corporation. It doesn't mean the policies are inherently bad, they just do not scale well when taking into account massive variability of those involved.

Sorry I was wrong. Finland, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, etc are more about 1/30th the population of the US.
 
Democracy? Are you suggesting that the U.S. is a democracy? You mean like how the U.S. has a president that was not elected by the majority of the people?

That's not true, the current president won the popular vote in every single member state that that person won. And of those member states, the majority of them voted for the current president. Is there some other form of democracy that doesn't work that way? That would be kind of weird.
 
That's not true, the current president won the popular vote in every single member state that that person won. And of those member states, the majority of them voted for the current president. Is there some other form of democracy that doesn't work that way? That would be kind of weird.
France is one notable country where the powerful position of president is elected directly by popular vote. But in many other countries, like Canada, the head of government ends up being the leader of the party that wins the most separate contests, similar or even less "democratic" compared to the US.
 
That's not true, the current president won the popular vote in every single member state that that person won. And of those member states, the majority of them voted for the current president. Is there some other form of democracy that doesn't work that way? That would be kind of weird.

Some people just don't get it. The Electoral College is genius. All states are important. Otherwise who would ever pay any attention to NH, VT. Hawaii, and a host of other low population states. Everything would be dictated from the views of NY and California. And who the hell wants that.
 
That's not true, the current president won the popular vote in every single member state that that person won. And of those member states, the majority of them voted for the current president. Is there some other form of democracy that doesn't work that way? That would be kind of weird.
It's actually uncommon for presidents to be voted in this way. Most are elected though a direct election, the US, India and Pakistan are the only ones i know that use such an indirect method for a president. There are other small counties but i can't remember that use it as well but really this is mostly because of post WWII US nation building encouraged it. After awhile most counties got rid of the electoral college in favor for 2 round direct election voting.

Prime minsters are elected though the majority party because it's not part of the constitution in most cases that a head of state exists so a working government is done after the election with an international election between the parties usually electing a member of the largest party. Prime minsters can be complicated though as they are semi heads of states not an actual head of state like a president so their powers can be similar or not really similar to a president. Prime ministers and Presidents aren't the same although they often occupy a similar space of foreign affairs, prime minsters for the most part don't have the same power in the state as a president does.

Some people just don't get it. The Electoral College is genius. All states are important. Otherwise who would ever pay any attention to NH, VT. Hawaii, and a host of other low population states. Everything would be dictated from the views of NY and California. And who the hell wants that.
You do know that nearly all states are ignored and only swing states are paid attention to; Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Nevada, New Hamshipre, North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Colorado. That's only 1/5th of the states all other states are pretty much ignored for presidential elections because they are considered safe. Pretty much means 4/5ths of the US is ignored during a presidential election.

This actually isn't an issue with the electoral college but with winner take all, if states adopt a proportional voting that would change. It would also reveal that most states for the most part are purple because republicans and democrats exist in all the states.
 
You do know that nearly all states are ignored and only swing states are paid attention to; Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Nevada, New Hamshipre, North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Colorado. That's only 1/5th of the states all other states are pretty much ignored for presidential elections because they are considered safe. Pretty much means 4/5ths of the US is ignored during a presidential election.

The "ignored" you are talking about is not nearly as substantial as the "ignored" he is concerned about.
 
France is one notable country where the powerful position of president is elected directly by popular vote. But in many other countries, like Canada, the head of government ends up being the leader of the party that wins the most separate contests, similar or even less "democratic" compared to the US.

Yes, but again, France is 1/5 the population and 1/7 the surface area. There are issues of scale associated with this country....ESPECIALLY when you take into consideration the freedom that is bestowed upon America. That freedom guarantees that people spread across the nation will not be on the same page. When you encourage people to think on their own, there are certain....burdens....that come with that.

EDIT: Geez, I can barely even remember what we were even talking about in here. I'll simmer down now.
 
Back
Top