We say Venezuela's government is illegitimate and Maduro isn't President, but he's doing a pretty good impression of one so far(much better than the pretender Guaido), including commanding their armed forces. One can be a general without fighting for a legitimate government as well, commanding a large regular military unit is the defining characteristic. As far as citizenship, just saying you're renouncing it doesn't do the trick today, there's a specific process you have to go through(and some do for tax reasons) I don't know if the law was changed since the civil war, but just declaring yourself a rebel and non-citizen doesn't legally make it so today. There's a case in the news today the Trump admin trying to deny a woman ever was a citizen(born to a foreign diplomat) because they know just because she joined ISIS doesn't nullify her citizenship.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-isis-bride-hoda-muthana-court-bid-to-come-home-donald-trump-says-not-citizen/

that was great
I'm a big fan of monty python and I recognized the name but couldnt figure out who Palin was until they showed the monty python clip, had no idea he was a journalist now.
Ive always thought that NK has been unfairly demonized; they were victims of imperialism and the cold war, and sabre rattling aside they havent actually gotten into any wars beyond their own independence/civil war. The food shortages and poverty, I believe the western powers have a big hand in (much like in Cuba, Chile, Venezuela, and everywhere else capitalism was shunned). Not saying i'd model my ideal society on them, but i dont think they are as evil as they are made out to be..

Your video, Trump Threatens Military Action in Venezuela: A Closer Look, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Bob...do not try to teach anyone history, you simply don't know it. You are just wrong on nearly every point......again.

On 2 June 2010, (with oil at $80) President Chávez declared an "economic war" because of the increasing shortages in Venezuela.[1] The crisis intensified under the Maduro government, growing more severe as a result of low oil prices in early 2015,[12][19][20] and a drop in oil production from lack of maintenance and investment.[11] The government failed to cut spending in the face of falling oil revenues and has dealt with the crisis by denying its existence[21][22] and violently repressing opposition.[11] Political corruption, chronic shortages of food and medicine, closure of companies, unemployment, deterioration of productivity, authoritarianism, human rights violations, gross economic mismanagement and high dependence on oil have also contributed to the worsening crisis.

I hope they start with him. ;-)

So, he thinks Russia has no churches!?! He thinks Venezuela is religion free?! Lol. What a maroon.
"If" they ever get power? Like 2008, when thousands of Christians were hunted like animals and murdered in the streets and organized religion was outlawed in America?....oh, wait....

UnChristian "Christians" like him are why people are fleeing religions like rats on a sinking ship.
The church is a bastion of pedophiles, racists, misogynists, and charlatans. I, for one, would support legal prosecution and even execution of the leaders of these evil cabals and most vile perpetrators from them, just like I would active members and leaders of NAMBLA, and the forfeiture of all church assets like any other criminal organization would see, they have each destroyed far more than one life, it's not unreasonable to think they should pay with their own. Just think of the dent that could make in the national debt and the criminals that would remove from our communities.

Even I, however, don't advocate (anti) religious warfare, what he's suggesting. I believe our legal system, properly and fairly applied, could easily and righteously eradicate most organized religions if only people didn't turn a blind eye towards their undeniable institutionalised crimes and sins.

Also, shouldn't any Christian hope they would be martyred, isn't that a free ticket into heaven in their belief system? Didn't Jebus tell them to turn the other cheek, not to strike first?

Upvote for exposure, not agreement

@bobknight33, anything on the One America News Network is not news, so putting it in the news channel is bad channel assignment. It's at best uninformed biased opinion, and more often (like this one) it's misleading hyper partisan propaganda and faux outrage. Like Faux and infowars, it's just not news or journalism, it's "entertainment" dressed up as news. There was no honest history here, and no education, but she did spread fear and fail.

If this idiot actually listened to Oliver, he was pretty clear about why it wasn't simply socialism that destroyed Venezuela, in fact it was mostly reliance on oil for nearly all of the countries GDP that tanked them.

I note she didn't disagree when he said that many other socialist countries are doing well, just harped on that this one bad example of dictatorial socialism proves socialism is a failure....I guess Somalia and Haiti doubly prove that capitalism is an utter failure then? *facepalm

from link:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/year-one-list-81-major-trump-achievements-11-obama-legacy-items-repealed/article/2644159

Below are the 12 categories and 81 wins cited by the White House.

Jobs and the economy

Passage of the tax reform bill providing $5.5 billion in cuts and repealing the Obamacare mandate.
Increase of the GDP above 3 percent.
Creation of 1.7 million new jobs, cutting unemployment to 4.1 percent.
Saw the Dow Jones reach record highs.
A rebound in economic confidence to a 17-year high.
A new executive order to boost apprenticeships.
A move to boost computer sciences in Education Department programs.
Prioritizing women-owned businesses for some $500 million in SBA loans.
Killing job-stifling regulations

Signed an Executive Order demanding that two regulations be killed for every new one creates. He beat that big and cut 16 rules and regulations for every one created, saving $8.1 billion.
Signed 15 congressional regulatory cuts.
Withdrew from the Obama-era Paris Climate Agreement, ending the threat of environmental regulations.
Signed an Executive Order cutting the time for infrastructure permit approvals.
Eliminated an Obama rule on streams that Trump felt unfairly targeted the coal industry.
Fair trade

Made good on his campaign promise to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Opened up the North American Free Trade Agreement for talks to better the deal for the U.S.
Worked to bring companies back to the U.S., and companies like Toyota, Mazda, Broadcom Limited, and Foxconn announced plans to open U.S. plants.
Worked to promote the sale of U.S products abroad.
Made enforcement of U.S. trade laws, especially those that involve national security, a priority.
Ended Obama’s deal with Cuba.
Boosting U.S. energy dominance

The Department of Interior, which has led the way in cutting regulations, opened plans to lease 77 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas drilling.
Trump traveled the world to promote the sale and use of U.S. energy.
Expanded energy infrastructure projects like the Keystone XL Pipeline snubbed by Obama.
Ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to kill Obama’s Clean Power Plan.
EPA is reconsidering Obama rules on methane emissions.
Protecting the U.S. homeland

Laid out new principles for reforming immigration and announced plan to end "chain migration," which lets one legal immigrant to bring in dozens of family members.
Made progress to build the border wall with Mexico.
Ended the Obama-era “catch and release” of illegal immigrants.
Boosted the arrests of illegals inside the U.S.
Doubled the number of counties participating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement charged with deporting illegals.
Removed 36 percent more criminal gang members than in fiscal 2016.
Started the end of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program.
Ditto for other amnesty programs like Deferred Action for Parents of Americans.
Cracking down on some 300 sanctuary cities that defy ICE but still get federal dollars.
Added some 100 new immigration judges.
Protecting communities

Justice announced grants of $98 million to fund 802 new cops.
Justice worked with Central American nations to arrest and charge 4,000 MS-13 members.
Homeland rounded up nearly 800 MS-13 members, an 83 percent one-year increase.
Signed three executive orders aimed at cracking down on international criminal organizations.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions created new National Public Safety Partnership, a cooperative initiative with cities to reduce violent crimes.
Accountability

Trump has nominated 73 federal judges and won his nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
Ordered ethical standards including a lobbying ban.
Called for a comprehensive plan to reorganize the executive branch.
Ordered an overhaul to modernize the digital government.
Called for a full audit of the Pentagon and its spending.
Combatting opioids

First, the president declared a Nationwide Public Health Emergency on opioids.
His Council of Economic Advisors played a role in determining that overdoses are underreported by as much as 24 percent.
The Department of Health and Human Services laid out a new five-point strategy to fight the crisis.
Justice announced it was scheduling fentanyl substances as a drug class under the Controlled Substances Act.
Justice started a fraud crackdown, arresting more than 400.
The administration added $500 million to fight the crisis.
On National Drug Take Back Day, the Drug Enforcement Agency collected 456 tons.

Helping veterans

Signed the Veterans Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act to allow senior officials in the Department of Veterans Affairs to fire failing employees and establish safeguards to protect whistleblowers.
Signed the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act.
Signed the Harry W. Colmery Veterans Educational Assistance Act, to provide support.
Signed the VA Choice and Quality Employment Act of 2017 to authorize $2.1 billion in additional funds for the Veterans Choice Program.
Created a VA hotline.
Had the VA launch an online “Access and Quality Tool,” providing veterans with a way to access wait time and quality of care data.
With VA Secretary Dr. David Shulkin, announced three initiatives to expand access to healthcare for veterans using telehealth technology.
Promoting peace through strength

Directed the rebuilding of the military and ordered a new national strategy and nuclear posture review.
Worked to increase defense spending.
Empowered military leaders to “seize the initiative and win,” reducing the need for a White House sign off on every mission.
Directed the revival of the National Space Council to develop space war strategies.
Elevated U.S. Cyber Command into a major warfighting command.
Withdrew from the U.N. Global Compact on Migration, which Trump saw as a threat to borders.
Imposed a travel ban on nations that lack border and anti-terrorism security.
Saw ISIS lose virtually all of its territory.
Pushed for strong action against global outlaw North Korea and its development of nuclear weapons.
Announced a new Afghanistan strategy that strengthens support for U.S. forces at war with terrorism.
NATO increased support for the war in Afghanistan.
Approved a new Iran strategy plan focused on neutralizing the country’s influence in the region.
Ordered missile strikes against a Syrian airbase used in a chemical weapons attack.
Prevented subsequent chemical attacks by announcing a plan to detect them better and warned of future strikes if they were used.
Ordered new sanctions on the dictatorship in Venezuela.
Restoring confidence in and respect for America

Trump won the release of Americans held abroad, often using his personal relationships with world leaders.
Made good on a campaign promise to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Conducted a historic 12-day trip through Asia, winning new cooperative deals. On the trip, he attended three regional summits to promote American interests.
He traveled to the Middle East and Europe to build new relationships with leaders.
Traveled to Poland and on to Germany for the G-20 meeting where he pushed again for funding of women entrepreneurs.


see link above for more complete

Total BS answer.

WHAT shared beliefs? There is no color requirements or religious prerequisites to being on the right hand side of the political spectrum. I know the media and lefty fanbois try to paint it that way, but that is complete drivel.

Goals? What 'goals' do these white idiot racists have that black idiot racists or hispanic idiot racists don't ALSO have ? What makes one group's racism leftist and therefor tolerable/understandable/justifiable in the media and the other group's racism "right wing" and abhorrent? And yes, there ARE black and hispanic racist groups...

Nothing but political bullsh*t. Racism is racism and it ALL should be abhorrent.

At it's core today, the right-wing political ideal maintains that free markets and capitalism is the best economic system for a free people because it promotes the MOST interchange between classes of people (poor, rich, powerful, etc). As such, a true right wing government would be small and not so powerful in an individual's everyday life.

At it's core, the left-wing political ideal is that capitalism is not "fair" and that the Government should step in to make everyone "equal", trading away freedom to social engineer equality and redistribute wealth. Of course, this means the more power that can be consolidated into the government, the better and more "equal" we can all be. (Don't even get me started on how this path leads to the shores of Venezuela or every other failed socialist country before it)

Back on my point though, racism doesn't rely on free markets or capitalism. Racism CAN and I would argue DOES benefit from leftist ideas of social engineered equality though.

So if these white racists voted as a majority for Republicans this election cycle, I would suggest that they did NOT do it because the are "right wing" at all. I suggest they did it because the other side of the ticket represents nothing but more and more "social engineering" that would NOT benefit their preferred race. Further, I would suggest that had the "social engineering" over the time period of the last Presidency been skewed towards pro-white, that these same white racists would have voted Democrat.

As my fellow sifters would most likely say
that the originator of this TeleSUR Television network s multi-state funded, pan–Latin American television network sponsored by the Commie governments of Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, and Bolivia that is headquartered in Caracas, Venezuela. and that this is no more than a hack job on our political process backed door-ed by Putin himself.

Podestia emails are private and reading them is illegal and and the validity can not be determined and hence this is just more BS so Putin can get Trump installed as POTUS. After all they are best friends.

Needs to be tagged a lies

Sweet Zombie Jesus.
*Fail and *lies at the very first sentence.
Venezuela is not considered by ANY realistic person as a Utopia or a 'holy Grail of socialism or communism', the only people who might say that are right wing nuts that want to burn their straw man. It is a third world dictatorship masquerading as communist socialism. I can't go any farther listening to sweater Jesus' uninformed opinion if he's starting out so incredibly wrong.

Venezuela's economy is almost 100% tied to the price of oil. When oil prices plunged, so did their economy, and it wasn't doing great when prices were high, thanks to poor infrastructure, limited 'customers' for their low quality oil, and ubiquitous corruption. It's really that simple.

@RedSky

First, if it were up to me, you could take over as Minister of Finance in this country tomorrow. Our differences seem miniscule compared to what horrendous policies our last three MoF have pushed. The one prior, ironically, was dubbed the most dangerous man in Europe by The Sun.

We're in agreement on almost everything you mentioned in your last comment, so I'll focus on what I perceive differently.

First, I'd differentiate between fiscal stimulus and fiscal spending, the former being a situational application of the latter. As you said, fiscal stimulus during an economic crisis tends to be inadequate with regards to our macroeconomic objectives. You can neither whip out plans for major investments at a whim nor can you mobilize the neccessary resources quickly enough to make a difference and still be reasonable efficient. Not to mention that it only affects certain parts of the economy (construction, mostly), leaving others completely in the wind. So I'm with you on that one, it's a terribly inefficient and ineffective approach.

Automatic stabilizers work magnificently in this regard, but they barely take any pressure from the lower wage groups, especially if unemployment benefits come with a metric ton of strings attached, as is the case in Germany. A basic income guarantee might work, but that's an entirely different discussion.

The problem I see with merely relying on reasonable automatic stabilizers in the form of payments is that they do put a floor into demand, but do very little to tackle the problem of persistent unemployment due to a lack of jobs. As useful as training and education are, the mere number of highly educated people forced to work mundane jobs tells me that, at best, it doesn't work, and at worst pushes a systemic problem onto the individual, leading to immense pressure. Not to mention the psychological effects of being unemployed when employment is tauted as a defining attribute of a proper person -- aka the demonization of the unemployed.

It's still somewhat decent in Australia, but in Europe... it's quite a horrible experience.

Anyway, my point is that I'd rather see a lot more fiscal spending (permanent!) in the shape of public sector jobs. A lot of work cannot be valued properly by the market; should be done without the expectation of a return of investment (hospitals, anyone?); occurs in sectors of natural monopolies -- all of that should be publicly run. A job guarantee, like your fellow countryman Bill Mitchell advocates quite clearly, might be an approach worth trying out. Economy in the shit? More people on the public payroll, at rather low (but living wage!) wages. Do it at the county/city level and you can create almost any kind of job. If the private sector wants those people instead, they'd have to offer better working conditions. No more blackmail through the fear of unemployment -- you can always take a public job, even if it is at a meagre pay.

I should probably have mentioned that I don't buy into the notion of a stable market. From where I am standing, it's inherently unstable, be it through monopolies/oligopolies, dodging of laws and regulations (Uber), impossibility to price-in externalities (environmental damage most of all) or plain, old cost-cutting leading to a system-wide depression of demand. I'm fine with interfering in the market wherever it fails to deliver on our macroeconomic objectives -- which at this point in time is almost everywhere, basically.

Healthcare is all the rage these days, thanks to the primaries. I'd take the publicly-run NHS over the privately-run abomination in the US any day of the week. And that's after all the cuts and privatizations of the last two decades that did a horrible number on the NHS. Fuck ATOS, while we're at it.

Same for the railroad: the pre-privatization Bundesbahn in Germany was something to be proud of and an immeasurable boost of both the economy and the general standard of living.

In the mid/long run, the effects of automation and climate change-induced migration will put an end to the idea of full employment, but for the time being, there's still plenty of work to be done, plenty of idle resources to be employed, and just nobody to finance it. So why not finance it through the printing press until capacity is reached?

As for the Venezuela comparison: I don't think it fits in this case. Neither does Weimar Germany, which is paraded around quite regularly. Both Venezuela and Weimar Germany had massive supply-side problems. They didn't have the production capacity nor the resources to meet the demand they created by spending money into circulation. If an economy runs at or above its capacity, any additional spending, wherever it comes from, will cause inflation. But both Europe and the US are operating faaar below capacity in any measurable metric. You mentioned LRAS yourself. I think most estimates of it, as well as most estimates of NAIRU, are off quite significantly so as to not take the pressure off the wage slaves in the lowest income sector. You need mass unemployment to keep them in line.

As you said, the participation rate is woefully low, so there's ample space. And I'd rather overshoot and cause a short spike in inflation than remain below potential and leave millions to unneccessary misery.

Given the high level of private debt, there will be no increase in spending on that front. Corporations don't feel the need to invest, since demand is down and their own vaults are filled to the brim with cash. So if the private sector intends to net save, you either have to run a current account surplus (aka leech demand from other countries) or a fiscal deficit. Doesn't work any other way, sectoral balances always sum up to zero, by definition. If we want to reduce the dangerous levels of private debt, the government needs to run a deficit. If we don't want to further increase the federal debt, the central bank has to hand the cash over directly, without the issuance of debt through the treasury.

As for the independant central bank: you can only be independant from either the government or the private sector, not both. Actually, you can't even be truly independant from either, given that people are still involved, and people have ideologies and financial ties.

Still, if an "independant" central bank is what you prefer, Adair Turner's new book "Between Debt and the Devil" might be worth a read. He's a proponent of 100% reserve banking, and argues for the occasional use of the printing press -- though controlled by an inflation-targeting central bank. According to him, QE is pointless and in order to bring nominal demand up to the level we want, we should have a fiscal stimulus financed by central bank money. The central bank controls the amount, the government decides on what to spend it on.

Not how I would do it, but given his expertise as head of the Financial Services Authority, it's quite refreshing to hear these things from someone like him.

@radx @enoch @eric3579

For one thing, give the executive or legislative power over the printing press in a crisis and they will not willingly give that power up and end up abusing it. For another, if you're simply printing money to spend then you depreciate and inflate your currency commensurately, at least in the long term. Relying heavily on this is the kind of thing that Venezuela does. There's a reason that governments instead take on their fiscal spending as debt. On that I would say, I've also become much more skeptical of fiscal stimulus in general but particularly in corrections or recessions. I'm okay with automatic stabilizers (unemployment benefits, the largely limitless kind with strings attached we have here in Australia) but not so much direct fiscal stimulus.

The fundamental issue to me is large, even extremely large fiscal spending will not affect business confidence levels of economic conditions. There is some fiscal multiplier effects (the multiple of the effect on national income over the spending injection by the government) but the worse economic conditions are, the lower this will be. Also, yes with say infrastructure spending, you're creating immediate jobs. Problem is these are in no way permanent jobs and simply pushes the can down the road on them finding new employment. Better to provide unemployment benefits and training to get them into a more permanent job faster.

Also large bouts of spending (again to use infrastructure as an example) tends to be hugely wasteful. Good projects require appraisals, consultation and careful planning. The notion of handfuls of 'shovel ready' projects is a political myth. You can instead span it out but then you don't get the mooted fiscal boost. In fact I would argue infrastructure spending is never appropriate as fiscal stimulus. It should be in a constant, planned process of improvement irrespective of business cycles or downturns. The US stimulus under Obama was largely long term spending projects like this as giveaways to the states. There is little evidence it eased the recovery or altered behaviour though. Many states simply enacted the same civic projects they would have otherwise and used this money instead of issuing debt like they would have otherwise - effectively they saved on interest.

So what are the alternatives then? The government here in Australia also heavily spent on roads, home subsidies and schools but notably also gave all income earners a cash deposit of AUD $300-950. The latter is probably the closest you can get to a pure fiscal stimulus - immediately cash to spend, injected not into banks than might save it but given particularly to low / medium income earners most likely to spend it. Again what we saw is that it hardly altered consumer / household behaviour. Many saved it, many spent it on large one off purchases (e.g. TVs, in which case most of that value was transferred overseas). So we gave a dollop of cash as stimulus to the global economy of which Australia is a drop in the ocean. Basically my attitude is, if you maintain good infrastructure, effective education systems, adequate but efficient regulation, reasonable tax rates, and importantly competitive markets, the best way to get through a crisis is to let the market stabilize by itself. Provide assistance and retraining to workers who lose their jobs by all means, but don't expect government spending to be some kind of savior.

I agree on the inflation aspect of your post. There were certainly no shortage of self-declared monetarists buying up gold in anticipation of high inflation, but as you say dollops of cash in the economy are meaningless if they are idle and the economy under capacity. The question now with unemployment in the US at 5.5% whether capacity is finally pushing LRAS levels. Probably not, participation rate is low and falling, and the unemployment rate is woefully underrepresenting forced part timers. Also as you mention the dip in oil will temper prices on the input cost side. The Fed certainly seems to think so and has started tightening rates but as so much commentary in the investing world is saying, this may turn out to be a mistake and they may end up having to reverse course.

I got Venezuela and Nebraska, that's about it for me.

Apparently this is from the protests in Venezuela. "Reporte Confidencial" in the top right.

1) Northern Europe is the closest comparison income wise to the US besides Japan which is culturally very different. I don't think it's unreasonable to aggregate these countries in comparing. There isn't going to be a perfect example, but Russia is very far from it.

Your argument about the death penalty is a null point because what you're proposing is impractical and thus not worth debating.

2) & 3) Greenland has a GDP per capita of 22K and is a highly idiosyncratic example given its population density. I think that's pretty much self evident. If Greenland is your best example I think I've proven my point.

I have no doubt that greater surveillance and enforcement will reduce crime rates. I'm not disputing that. Technology will naturally improve this through the likes of ever improving facial recognition. But I don't think a UK style CCTV policing system would be affordable given that the US is less densely populated in cities. As for enforcement, I don't think there's been a lack of money thrown in that direction. The issue, as this video points out, is more that if it was targeted at violent rather than drug offenders the overall benefit to society would be greater. There I would not disagree.

4)

Germany and the Netherlands are other examples where it has worked:

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/11/14/some-european-prisons-are-shrinking-and-closing-what-can-america-learn

What you're proposing (visa vi death penalty) is something no democratic country has accepted (or will, I think). What I propose is at least accepted by to a large extent by many European developed countries. The US may shift eventually if it is recognised the current policies have been consistently failing.

5)

Yes there are many reasons why Venezuela is not a fair example. I think you make my point. Surveillance and enforcement are both necessary to reduce crime. Of course if you pick countries distinctly lacking in them then it supports your case.

But I'm arguing about which would be better given the baseline of current US policy. I think you would agree that both surveillance and enforcement are of a much higher standard in the US, with largely meritocratic and corruption free police forces. If that's the case then other developed countries, with roughly similar incomes and therefore tax revenues to afford comparable police force standards are a good reference. Venezuela is not.