Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:
Discounts for people over a certain age, or for active or retired military, seem to survive the US Constitution OK. Does the constitution have anything about those being special categories? Or are you saying that it's Democrats who offer those already, and it's a slippery slope from there?
BlutoSays wrote:
That has nothing to do with pricing based on income. Your premise is rejected.
Since the June 2022 G7 meeting, plans had been circulating to cap the price of Russian energy commodities as initially suggested by U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and E.U. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, in order to lower price levels for Western nations and deprive Russia of its profits. After G7 finance ministers expressed their intention to implement a price cap, a Kremlin spokesman responded, "companies that impose a price cap will not be among the recipients of Russian oil." Energy analysts have also expressed skepticism that a price cap would be realistic because the coalition is "not broad enough"; OPEC+ called the plan "absurd". Likely the U.S. and the E.U. will attempt to follow through with the plan by limiting Russia's access to Western insurance services.[72]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%8 ... rgy_crisis
BlutoSays wrote:
That was tried in Cuba. All you get are black markets, underground economies, people fleeing those locales and feudalism.
wat0n wrote:Income isn't a protected class.
Also, some businesses already do that and would complain if they couldn't. Anything that allows them to price discriminate is going to be something they support.
BlutoSays wrote:
Continue the embargo on Cuba, point at them and laugh.
ckaihatsu wrote:
Well that's not helping any -- it's just more of your *geographic nationalism*, or boundaries for the sake of boundaries. Right-wing *pork*, like Trump's semi-wall.
late wrote:
Capitalism would do Cuba a world of good.
Bluto prefers cruelty...
ckaihatsu wrote:
It's not the 'lack of capitalism' -- it's the *embargo*, remember -- ? That's *political*, not economic.
Both you and BS are obviously fine with punishing the *people* of Cuba, for the sake of sanctioning the *government* there.
late wrote:
If we drop the restrictions, Americans can invest. It's political and economic.
How do you manage to be wrong so often? It's a 50/50 proposition, and you do a lot worse than that.
Criticism of embargo laws and rules
United Nations
Since 1992, the UN General Assembly has passed a nonbinding resolution every year, except for 2020, condemning the ongoing impact of the embargo and declaring it in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law. There was no voting on this issue in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.[84][85] Israel is the only country that routinely joins the U.S. in voting against the resolution[86]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ted_States
ckaihatsu wrote:It's not the 'lack of capitalism' -- it's the *embargo*, remember -- ? That's *political*, not economic.
Both you and BS are obviously fine with punishing the *people* of Cuba, for the sake of sanctioning the *government* there.
Robert Urbanek wrote:
If Cuba has so many friends in the UN and the world, why isn't it prospering from trade with those countries?
Post–Cold War relations
In the post–Cold War environment Cuban support for guerrilla warfare in Latin America has largely subsided, though the Cuban government continued to provide political assistance and support for left leaning groups and parties in the developing Western Hemisphere.
When Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev visited Cuba in 1989, the ideological relationship between Havana and Moscow was strained by Gorbachev's implementation of economic and political reforms in the USSR. "We are witnessing sad things in other socialist countries, very sad things", lamented Castro in November 1989, in reference to the changes that were sweeping such communist allies as the Soviet Union, East Germany, Hungary, and Poland.[22] The subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 had an immediate and devastating effect on Cuba.
Cuba today works with a growing bloc of Latin American politicians opposed to the "Washington consensus", the American-led doctrine that free trade, open markets, and privatization will lift poor third world countries out of economic stagnation. The Cuban government condemned neoliberalism as a destructive force in the developing world, creating an alliance with Presidents Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia in opposing such policies.[23][24][25][26]
Currently, Cuba has diplomatically friendly relationships with Presidents Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, with Maduro as perhaps the country's staunchest ally in the post-Soviet era. Cuba has sent thousands of teachers and medical personnel to Venezuela to assist Maduro's socialist oriented economic programs. Maduro, in turn provides Cuba with lower priced petroleum. Cuba's debt for oil to Venezuela is believed to be on the order of one billion US dollars.[27]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_r ... _relations
Robert Urbanek wrote:If Cuba has so many friends in the UN and the world, why isn't it prospering from trade with those countries?
MadMonk wrote:Every country on earth has voted repeatedly at the UN, that all sanctions be lifted on Cuba since the fall of the Soviet Bloc, with the exception of the US and Israel. Even companies that wanted to invest in Cuba from the 90s forward, received pressure from the US State Department not to make investments in Cuba. The top agenda remained; using economic pressure to cause regime change, and to get compensation for American companies who lost money when the Cuban government nationalized foreign-owned assets without payment.
The American government acted wrong in the 60s when most of this started. It has finally begun seeing the light and continuing this policy is not only evil and vindictive, but also stupid and short-sighted.
The Cuban Embargo Was a Failure From the Beginning
MadMonk wrote:
The Cold War caused the United States to create a Cuban policy detrimental to all involved. It has lasted for sixty years. Before great power competition against China gets out of hand, and another sixty years of this failed policy elapses, it’s time for the United States to end its embargo on Cuba and regain some soft-power influence in the Western Hemisphere in the process.
Another goal that was blocked by British force was Cuba. Again, the founding fathers regarded the taking over of Cuba as essential to the survival of the infant empire. But the British fleet was in the way, and they were too powerful, just as the Russians blocked John F. Kennedy’s invasion. However, they understood that sooner or later it would come. The great grand strategist John Quincy Adams, the sort-of intellectual father of manifest destiny, pointed out in the 1820s that we just have to wait. He said that Cuba will sooner or later fall into our hands by the laws of political gravitation, just as an apple falls from the tree. What he meant is that over time the United States would become more powerful, Britain would become weaker, and the deterrent would be overcome, which in fact finally happened.
https://chomsky.info/20080424/
Robert Urbanek wrote:One could see how such “Marxist” pricing could become more pervasive, particularly on internet purchases. Conceivably, if you had a history of purchasing luxury goods or even browsing on high-end retail sites, a logarithm might determine you are an affluent buyer and automatically set a higher price on goods that other people would pay less for.
Should we have legislation to preemptively ban such a practice or are you okay with the concept that rich people should pay more for products?
- By wat0n
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/6/text-of-t[…]
Or maybe it's an inanity because commercial media […]
I have been stopped trying to cross parade routes[…]
- By RealPolitic