3 ms·

>In your eyes, "public ownership is ineffective" = "they're too dumb"? Yeah, no. The former is corporate-speak annual-report, think-tank framing, the latter is

>In your eyes, "public ownership is ineffective" = "they're too dumb"? Yeah, no. The former is corporate-speak annual-report, think-tank framing, the latter is paternalistic, cigars-on-the-golf-course framing, but both are identical messages: colonialist horseshit used -- for centuries now -- to justify looting and extraction from populations. Adults should be able to see through this stuff by now.

bpodgursky 11y ago
It's probably not worth engaging with you, since your language suggests you are unwilling to even consider any new views, but "public ownership is ineffective" how does this have anything to do with colonialism? I think that public ownership is almost always inefficient compared to an effective market. I believe it is true in the first world, I believe it is true in the third world. don't try to contort it into racism.
- harrumph 11y ago
  >It's probably not worth engaging with you Oh, don't worry about me. Worry instead about the dumb, ahistorical position you've staked out here. 1) You claimed VZ's oil industry was "incompetent" and that its "talent fled" leading to the people of VZ being "unable to understand" their industry. These were your exact words. But when I correctly summed up your argument with the paraphrase "they're too dumb," all of a sudden you back away from your own argument, as if it had shat itself. That cheesy evasion on your part inclines adults to be MORE suspicious of your argument, not less. 2) Literally every argument for colonial extraction of resources from indigenous populations has, for centuries of history now, been made in exactly the manner you have made it: the locals aren't advanced enough to realize the value from their resources. Therefore we HAVE to mine the gold, drill the oil, harvest the fruit, etc. Thus, foreign "investment" is necessary. This is capitalism at its most disgusting: dressed up in frilly underwear with "altruism" stitched across its ass. The argument is the definition of self-serving, and, as I've said, adults should be able to see through it by now. I can tell you the indigenous peoples of Iran, Chile, Nigeria, Canada, the US, Australia, Venezuala, ad infinitum, already do.
  - Jtsummers 11y ago
    > cronyism put incompetent people in charge of factories and industries they didn't understand. GP's words. > leading to the people of VZ being "unable to understand" their industry Your words. Those do not mean the same thing. GP is referring to the cronies in charge when they say "people". Not the people of Venezuela.
    - harrumph 11y ago
      >GP is referring to the cronies in charge when they say "people". Not the people of Venezuela. Distinction without difference fallacy.
      - Jtsummers 11y ago
        It's a massive distinction. I can refer to the CEO of a corporation as incompetent without commenting on the people that work for that corporation. The original poster was specifically referring to the people in charge [of the nationalized oil industry], not to the people of Venezuela[, the nominal owners of said industry]. Your conflation of the two completely misses their point and consequently derailed what could have been an otherwise interesting discussion.
        harrumph 11y ago
        >It's a massive distinction. I'm sure that is your wish, but we can all read.
golergka 11y ago
This soup of loosely related keywords betrays your thought process: you don't seem to reason about this matter logically. Instead, you seem to conjure some fantasy images of inequality and injustice to rage against. This is great when creating fiction, but not so great in a rational debate.
- harrumph 11y ago
  >This soup of loosely related keywords betrays your thought process Yeah, I'd change the subject too if I had nothing.

bpodgursky 11y ago

It's probably not worth engaging with you, since your language suggests you are unwilling to even consider any new views, but "public ownership is ineffective" how does this have anything to do with colonialism? I think that public ownership is almost always inefficient compared to an effective market. I believe it is true in the first world, I believe it is true in the third world. don't try to contort it into racism.

harrumph 11y ago
>It's probably not worth engaging with you Oh, don't worry about me. Worry instead about the dumb, ahistorical position you've staked out here. 1) You claimed VZ's oil industry was "incompetent" and that its "talent fled" leading to the people of VZ being "unable to understand" their industry. These were your exact words. But when I correctly summed up your argument with the paraphrase "they're too dumb," all of a sudden you back away from your own argument, as if it had shat itself. That cheesy evasion on your part inclines adults to be MORE suspicious of your argument, not less. 2) Literally every argument for colonial extraction of resources from indigenous populations has, for centuries of history now, been made in exactly the manner you have made it: the locals aren't advanced enough to realize the value from their resources. Therefore we HAVE to mine the gold, drill the oil, harvest the fruit, etc. Thus, foreign "investment" is necessary. This is capitalism at its most disgusting: dressed up in frilly underwear with "altruism" stitched across its ass. The argument is the definition of self-serving, and, as I've said, adults should be able to see through it by now. I can tell you the indigenous peoples of Iran, Chile, Nigeria, Canada, the US, Australia, Venezuala, ad infinitum, already do.
- Jtsummers 11y ago
  > cronyism put incompetent people in charge of factories and industries they didn't understand. GP's words. > leading to the people of VZ being "unable to understand" their industry Your words. Those do not mean the same thing. GP is referring to the cronies in charge when they say "people". Not the people of Venezuela.
  - harrumph 11y ago
    >GP is referring to the cronies in charge when they say "people". Not the people of Venezuela. Distinction without difference fallacy.
    - Jtsummers 11y ago
      It's a massive distinction. I can refer to the CEO of a corporation as incompetent without commenting on the people that work for that corporation. The original poster was specifically referring to the people in charge [of the nationalized oil industry], not to the people of Venezuela[, the nominal owners of said industry]. Your conflation of the two completely misses their point and consequently derailed what could have been an otherwise interesting discussion.
      - harrumph 11y ago
        >It's a massive distinction. I'm sure that is your wish, but we can all read.

golergka 11y ago

This soup of loosely related keywords betrays your thought process: you don't seem to reason about this matter logically. Instead, you seem to conjure some fantasy images of inequality and injustice to rage against. This is great when creating fiction, but not so great in a rational debate.

harrumph 11y ago
>This soup of loosely related keywords betrays your thought process Yeah, I'd change the subject too if I had nothing.