OMG Tech Giants so Leftist: Bolivarian news outlet TeleSUR again banned from Facebook without reason

[Possum Jenkins]

We are not talking about promises but policy.

In post #54 I made it clear that we are talking about promises.

Since this is a discussion of ideology, it makes sense to keep it in the realm of the theoretical. The WC is a series of recommendations so them recommending something that ALL candidates and parties agree with is meaningless to bring up.

Which has been my damn point the whole time.

1. Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;

Its crystal clear for anyone without an ideological bias.

1. Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;

I didn't ask for the dictionary definition, now did I?

I asked for WC's own definition. Which is easy to find:

Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus#Original_sense:_Williamson's_Ten_Points

Lookie, lookie. Nothing about easing bureaucracy but rather mention of "market entry" which logically will involve things like tariffs. Again, this has been my point all along.

Examples?

Venezuela , Turkey, Mexico, most of Latin America in the 80s and 2010s commodity crisis, Greece.

Those are names of countries. Give me specific numbers.

And ill retort with

Give me examples of direct government investment that produces profits without the use of the private market or state enforced monopolies.

Nice attempt at a save with the "without the use of the private market" part. Almost as pointless as if I asked you to name a private investment that doesn't utilize the state. These things are obviously intertwined. Impossible to have one without the other.

The list of profitable state investment is a mile long. Here's a nice breakdown. Notice how it's almost all rich countries leading the way.

http://uis.unesco.org/apps/visualisations/research-and-development-spending/

How many state managed companies in Latin America are not in the red?

Changing the subject for the 23,344th time, I see.

The WC recommends "privatizing of state enterprises" but there are tons of state enterprises that work out just fine, therefore this recommendation is wrong.

If it was something like "privatize state enterprises that hemorrhage money after a detailed analysis that takes into account long-term forecasts" then yeah, they may have a point.

What's more, private enterprises routinely get nationalized when their terrible inefficiency gets them in trouble. And the sluggish, horrid state somehow fixes them up. Incredible!

Examples of this: Rolls Royce, British Steel, British Leyland, British Aerospace just in the UK alone.

 

[Rod1]

In post #54 I made it clear that we are talking about promises.

Since this is a discussion of ideology, it makes sense to keep it in the realm of the theoretical. The WC is a series of recommendations so them recommending something that ALL candidates and parties agree with is meaningless to bring up.

Which has been my damn point the whole time.

Not when you also advice people fiscal discipline.

They are saying cut everything to save money to spend in education and healthcare.

I didn't ask for the dictionary definition, now did I?

I asked for WC's own definition. Which is easy to find:

Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus#Original_sense:_Williamson's_Ten_Points

Lookie, lookie. Nothing about easing bureaucracy but rather mention of "market entry" which logically will involve things like tariffs. Again, this has been my point all along.

Market entry IS the ease of doing business, its almost as if you are completely ignorant of the issue but with your head so deep entrenched in your bipolar Americocentric view of the world.

Those are names of countries. Give me specific numbers.

A longstanding characteristic of Turkey's economy is a low savings rate.[8] Since Recep Tayyip Erdoğan assumed control of the government, Turkey has been running huge and growing current account deficits, $33.1 billion in 2016 and $47.3 billion in 2017,[9] climbing to US$7.1 billion in the month of January 2018 with the rolling 12-month deficit rising to $51.6 billion,[10] one of the largest current account deficits in the world.[8] The economy has relied on capital inflows to fund private-sector excess, with Turkey’s banks and big firms borrowing heavily, often in foreign currencies.[8] Under these conditions, Turkey must find approximately $200 billion a year to fund its wide current account deficit and maturing debt, while being always at risk of inflows drying up; the state has gross foreign currency reserves of just $85 billion.[2]

The economic policy underlying these trends had increasingly been micro-managed by Erdoğan since 2008 and strongly so since 2013, with a focus on the construction industry, state-awarded contracts and stimulus measures, while neglecting education and research and development.[5] The motive for these policies have been described as Erdoğan losing faith in Western-style capitalism since the 2008 financial crisis by the secretary general of the main Turkish business association, TUSIAD.[5] Generally, Erdoğan has associated progress with gleaming high-rise buildings, gargantuan infrastructure show-pieces and elevated growth rates, not appreciating that Turkey’s growth model is too reliant on consumer spending and government-sponsored infrastructure and construction projects funded by speculative financial flows rather than on sustained private investment and exports.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_currency_and_debt_crisis,_2018

Nice attempt at a save with the "without the use of the private market" part. Almost as pointless as if I asked you to name a private investment that doesn't utilize the state. These things are obviously intertwined. Impossible to have one without the other.

The list of profitable state investment is a mile long. Here's a nice breakdown. Notice how it's almost all rich countries leading the way.

http://uis.unesco.org/apps/visualisations/research-and-development-spending/

Because you cant claim that Saudis pouring billions into western banks is an example of the success of socialism.

Sovereing wealth funds are administered privately.

Changing the subject for the 23,344th time, I see.

The WC recommends "privatizing of state enterprises" but there are tons of state enterprises that work out just fine, therefore this recommendation is wrong..

1.- The recommendation is cut whatever produces losses.

2.- Tear down barriers of entry.

3.- Doesnt blocks entry to private competition

4.- There is a societal need that the free market cant supply.

When those above are met then yes, it makes sense, as long as it doesnt blows a hole in the public finances.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Not when you also advice people fiscal discipline.

They are saying cut everything to save money to spend in education and healthcare.

Yes, but we're talking about the meaning of that one recommendation, not a combination of two.

To recommend that a country spend on healthcare, education, and infrastructure is something no one is going to be against. (Incidentally, "avoiding debt" is also something that's close to inarguable, it's just that the right places an extremely high premium on it while the left is more lax. No party has "I'll raise the debt!" as part of its platform)

Market entry IS the ease of doing business, its almost as if you are completely ignorant of the issue but with your head so deep entrenched in your bipolar Americocentric view of the world.

That's interesting because in the very ranking that you brought up, there's little to no mention of market entry, and lots of mention of easing of bureaucracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_doing_business_index

The only thing that could remotely be related to market entry is the "trading across borders" part and even that deals with "number of documents, cost and time necessary to import and export," you know, bureaucracy and efficiency. Again, that's been my point the whole time

A longstanding characteristic of Turkey's economy is a low savings rate.[8] Since Recep Tayyip Erdoğan assumed control of the government, Turkey has been running huge and growing current account deficits, $33.1 billion in 2016 and $47.3 billion in 2017,[9] climbing to US$7.1 billion in the month of January 2018 with the rolling 12-month deficit rising to $51.6 billion,[10] one of the largest current account deficits in the world.[8] The economy has relied on capital inflows to fund private-sector excess, with Turkey’s banks and big firms borrowing heavily, often in foreign currencies.[8] Under these conditions, Turkey must find approximately $200 billion a year to fund its wide current account deficit and maturing debt, while being always at risk of inflows drying up; the state has gross foreign currency reserves of just $85 billion.[2]

The economic policy underlying these trends had increasingly been micro-managed by Erdoğan since 2008 and strongly so since 2013, with a focus on the construction industry, state-awarded contracts and stimulus measures, while neglecting education and research and development.[5] The motive for these policies have been described as Erdoğan losing faith in Western-style capitalism since the 2008 financial crisis by the secretary general of the main Turkish business association, TUSIAD.[5] Generally, Erdoğan has associated progress with gleaming high-rise buildings, gargantuan infrastructure show-pieces and elevated growth rates, not appreciating that Turkey’s growth model is too reliant on consumer spending and government-sponsored infrastructure and construction projects funded by speculative financial flows rather than on sustained private investment and exports.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_currency_and_debt_crisis,_2018

Hmmmm, looks like Erdogan just wasn't doing it right

Because state spending sure did save the US pull out from the 2008 crisis.

1.- The recommendation is cut whatever produces losses.

2.- Tear down barriers of entry.

3.- Doesnt blocks entry to private competition

4.- There is a societal need that the free market cant supply.

When those above are met then yes, it makes sense, as long as it doesnt blows a hole in the public finances.

No, those are YOUR interpretations of it. The recommendation is clear: "privatization of state enterprises."

And that's part of the problem with the entire WC. It's so broad and vague that wildly different interpretations of it can be applied. You could even apply a social-democratic spin by emphasizing certain parts and ignoring. But in practice, it's been used by the right to do what it always does, give corporations more power, influence, and profit.

 

[Rod1]

Yes, but we're talking about the meaning of that one recommendation, not a combination of two.

To recommend that a country spend on healthcare, education, and infrastructure is something no one is going to be against. (Incidentally, "avoiding debt" is also something that's close to inarguable, it's just that the right places an extremely high premium on it while the left is more lax. No party has "I'll raise the debt!" as part of its platform)

Which is the same idiotic argument Republicans do when they claim to be the party of "fiscal responsibility" while punching massive holes into the budget. You cant separate revenue from spending, its the one and same.

If a personal trainer tells you "you need to start lifting weights and add 1000 calories in your diet to bulk up" and you decide to only add 1000 calories, you cant claim to be "bulking up" you are merely getting fat.

That's interesting because in the very ranking that you brought up, there's little to no mention of market entry, and lots of mention of easing of bureaucracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_doing_business_index

The only thing that could remotely be related to market entry is the "trading across borders" part and even that deals with "number of documents, cost and time necessary to import and export," you know, bureaucracy and efficiency. Again, that's been my point the whole time

"Regulations that impede competition or restrict competition" its superb specific and anyone with a working brain understand what it means.

Hmmmm, looks like Erdogan just wasn't doing it right

Because state spending sure did save the US pull out from the 2008 crisis.

The US didnt had an inflation problem or a debt crisis.

No, those are YOUR interpretations of it. The recommendation is clear: "privatization of state enterprises."

And that's part of the problem with the entire WC. It's so broad and vague that wildly different interpretations of it can be applied. You could even apply a social-democratic spin by emphasizing certain parts and ignoring. But in practice, it's been used by the right to do what it always does, give corporations more power, influence, and profit.

They arent broad and vague and you can find why these recommendations are being given if you read more about it, i tried to make it superb easy for someone like you to understand.

Privatization is also a boogeyman word that gets thrown around too much, in the end ANY country with a healthy current account balance will get loans approved its not like it was "privatize or no loans" it was merely a recommendation because most state run industries in Latin America run massive deficits and losses or generate an undue level of comparative disadvantage for the country economy as a whole.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Which is the same idiotic argument Republicans do when they claim to be the party of "fiscal responsibility" while punching massive holes into the budget. You cant separate revenue from spending, its the one and same.

If a personal trainer tells you "you need to start lifting weights and add 1000 calories in your diet to bulk up" and you decide to only add 1000 calories, you cant claim to be "bulking up" you are merely getting fat.

Then it's idiotic that that one recommendation is there by itself, agreed.

I think it's there in order to make

"Regulations that impede competition or restrict competition" its superb specific and anyone with a working brain understand what it means.

Changing the subject for the 32,555th time.

Remember, we're talking about the Ease of Business Index. You just quoted the Washington Consensus. Your cantinfleo caused you to get the two mixed up.

The US didnt had an inflation problem or a debt crisis.

Ok?

Your link says Erdogan implemented these measures as a result of the 2008 crisis. And they didn't work. On the other hand, the US implemented massive state spending to get out of the crisis and it worked much better (they got out much faster than Europe).

Privatization is also a boogeyman word that gets thrown around too much, in the end ANY country with a healthy current account balance will get loans approved its not like it was "privatize or no loans" it was merely a recommendation because most state run industries in Latin America run massive deficits and losses or generate an undue level of comparative disadvantage for the country economy as a whole.

Privatize or no loans is exactly what the IMF required.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41635256?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260183368_The_IMF_and_Neoliberal_Reform_in_Latin_America

https://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0711/p04s01-woam.html

There are varying degrees of compliance, but the requirements are clear.

 

[Rod1]

Then it's idiotic that that one recommendation is there by itself, agreed.

The recommendation is that you need to divert funds from white elephants and state companies towards education and healthcare.

"Eat more vegetables, cut down fats and red meat" vs "Eat more burgers since they have lettuce and tomatoes it counts as a salad".

Changing the subject for the 32,555th time.

Remember, we're talking about the Ease of Business Index. You just quoted the Washington Consensus. Your cantinfleo caused you to get the two mixed up.

Because its the same thing.

Once you start delving into the methodology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_doing_business_index#Methodology

And under each thing being measured.

Ok?

Your link says Erdogan implemented these measures as a result of the 2008 crisis. And they didn't work. On the other hand, the US implemented massive state spending to get out of the crisis and it worked much better (they got out much faster than Europe).

One is a recession the other is an inflationary crisis.

Not all economic crisis are the same.

Privatize or no loans is exactly what the IMF required.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41635256?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260183368_The_IMF_and_Neoliberal_Reform_in_Latin_America

https://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0711/p04s01-woam.html

There are varying degrees of compliance, but the requirements are clear.

Except this is utter BS? Mexico got IMF loans all the time despite not only having a massive state oil industry but also an effective ban on private actors in it. Its massive electricity network is also government owned and operated.

Chile has CADELCO, Brazil has Petrobras, Argentina has FAdeA and Aerolineas Argentinas, Venezuela has PDVSA, etc, etc.

In the end the IMF like all other lenders are looking at a payback so the most important thing they ask is for is fiscal discipline.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

The recommendation is that you need to divert funds from white elephants and state companies towards education and healthcare.

"Eat more vegetables, cut down fats and red meat" vs "Eat more burgers since they have lettuce and tomatoes it counts as a salad".

Still dumb because there are tons of state corporations that are doing well.

Because its the same thing.

Once you start delving into the methodology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_doing_business_index#Methodology

And under each thing being measured.

WTF? No it's not.

In fact, when they do mention "regulation" it's to point out the things that it does NOT cover

• Doing Business does not consider the strengths and weakness neither of the global financial system, nor the financial system of every country. It also doesn’t consider the state of the finances of the government of every country.
• Doing Business does not cover all the regulation, or all the regulatory requirements. Other types of regulation such as financial market, environment, or intellectual property regulations that are relevant for the private sector are not considered.

One is a recession the other is an inflationary crisis.

Not all economic crisis are the same.

Subject change #55,699 for you.

The subject is state spending producing debt. You showed a link of Turkey goofing it up, I countered with a crapton of links of countries that did it right.

Except this is utter BS? Mexico got IMF loans all the time despite not only having a massive state oil industry but also an effective ban on private actors in it. Its massive electricity network is also government owned and operated.

Chile has CADELCO, Brazil has Petrobras, Argentina has FAdeA and Aerolineas Argentinas, Venezuela has PDVSA, etc, etc.

In the end the IMF like all other lenders are looking at a payback so the most important thing they ask is for is fiscal discipline.

Wow, all those academics writing in peer-reviewed journals just saying "utter BS" huh?

Notice that I said there are "varying degrees of compliance." Also note that I never said or implied that the IMF required the complete absence of state companies.