Venezuela's president, Hugo Chávez, has halted the construction of a shopping mall in the capital and announced that the prime block of urban real estate should be expropriated after being shocked at the "monster" development.

In his Sunday address Chávez said he was heading through downtown Caracas when he was shocked by the sight of a huge, nearly-finished mall amid the high-rise offices and apartments. "They had already built a monster there," Chávez said. "I passed by there just recently and said, 'What is this? My God!'"

He ordered the local mayor to halt construction, and suggested the sprawling six-storey building might be put to better use as a hospital or university. The new Sambil mall was scheduled to open in the La Candelaria district early next year, packed with 273 shops, cinemas and offices. Chávez complained that it would add more traffic to an area that was already so crowded "not a soul fits".

"Stop it, Mr Mayor," Chávez said during his weekly broadcast on Sunday. "And we're going to review all of it. And we're going to expropriate that and turn it into a hospital - I don't know - a school, a university."

The newly-elected mayor of the district, Jorge Rodriguez, told the president he would get the job done, though how remains unclear. Neither he nor Chávez gave any details of possible compensation.

Victor Maldonado, leadzer of Caracas Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Services, said the sudden decision to freeze one of Caracas's biggest investments threatened 3,000 jobs and had led to a "rise in uncertainty" among businesspeople. Constructora Sambil, the company building the mall, was closed for the holidays, and phones at its offices went unanswered.

Chávez, who has nationalised Venezuela's largest phone company, electric utilities and oil projects, suggested the property was too valuable to be left to commerce. "How are we going to create socialism, turning over vital public spaces to Sambil?" he asked. Rodriguez said that downtown communities would be consulted on the most appropriate use for the building. "We're going to respect private property," he said.

Chávez has previously intervened in local issues, scolding local officials about waste collection, and ordering beer trucks to stop selling alcohol on the streets.

Steve Ellner, a political science professor at Venezuela's University of the East, said Chávez sometimes tried to impose decisions when he thought local institutions were not performing as they should.

"Chávez, I think, is correct to a certain extent in criticising this 'monster.' But that's not the way to do things," Ellner said. "Institutions are necessary, and I think that if this revolution is going to be successful in the long run they have to establish new institutions in order to avoid this kind of decision-making process."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/24/shopping-mall-hugo-chavez-venezuela

I would rather see hospitals and universities springing up instead of shopping malls. The construction workers employed to build the shopping mall can be compensated by being hired to workon the new project so that's no concern.

All this rhetoric about freedom and the free market has got to fucking end as a rebuttal to issues like this. If you'd rather *"someone had the freedom" to build a massive mall in place of something that could better the community you deserve any shitty circumstances you end up in. You planted the seeds.

*Rich conglomerates with hordes of cash.

This is actually relevant: The iphones most popular application is now the iFart. It's a little flash app that plays a variety of farting noises. It made the developer $80k in a few days.

Relevance? People are retarded. In the free market, the smartest make it to the top. The retarded elect other retards that go and fuck everything up. Now Venezuela will lose important investment dollars. of 200+ shops , entertainers, maintenance and cleaning crews, taxi drivers, bus drivers, advertisers, street performers, etc. will all lose jobs. For what? Because some conglomerate realized that all the people in the downtown area wanted a place to shop at and stimulate the economy and made a risky investment that he couldn't afford to lose on, or because some faggot politician SPECULATES that the people would rather have a hospital? I'm sure the developer that's being trusted with millions of dollars didn't say "gee, everyone here looks really sick and broke, this would make a great place for a mall nobody can shop at!" Now you're going to have a humongous hospital that will operate half-empty. A waste of money because the one guy that decided to build it had nothing to lose on in dumping millions of dollars on a project. If the mall created traffic, it would mean more work for street crews. If the mall were truly an obstruction, they could cancel the construction altogether.

Don't be so stupid. It's not set in concrete to be a hospital just something with some social utility.

id like to cut your head off with a 2x4

I would rather see hospitals and universities springing up instead of shopping malls. The construction workers employed to build the shopping mall can be compensated by being hired to workon the new project so that's no concern.

All this rhetoric about freedom and the free market has got to fucking end as a rebuttal to issues like this. If you'd rather *"someone had the freedom" to build a massive mall in place of something that could better the community you deserve any shitty circumstances you end up in. You planted the seeds.

*Rich conglomerates with hordes of cash.

Wow, no wonder that King told Chavez to shut up. He does some stupid shit. I suppose it's better to build a hospital and leave hundreds of business owners (and thereore possibly thousands of employees) in the lurch because you think something else is better for the community.

I don't know about you, but a leader who goes "oh that looks ugly" and orders the destruction of something someone else paid for sounds just as "evil" as these rich conglomerates you whine about. I've never seen a random rich guy dismantle someone's shit just for an aesthetic or on a whim.

Don't be so stupid. It's not set in concrete to be a hospital just something with some social utility.

A mall would have lots of "social utility". Think of all the new jobs it would create.

The socialism comment irritates me. I don't have a problem with voluntary socialism, so if you want socialism, do it on your own time and with your own money. Go set up a Kibbutz or something and invite all your friends. Leave the rest of us alone.

lol at some of the above posters.

Yeah, let's all just build huge malls with a shitload of useless stuff made by chinese slaves and enjoy the great western business model which is doing just awesome.

Chavez seems kinda too smart and has oil, how come the muricans haven't bombed him to shit already?

Yeah, let's all just build huge malls with a shitload of useless stuff made by chinese slaves and enjoy the great western business model which is doing just awesome.

It would be doing awesome, if our government would stop meddling.

Let the mall be built. If it is really almost finished it would be impractical to at this point decide to turn it into something else. I would agree with Toothlessjoe that structures like libraries, hospitals or schools have more social value, however it was investors that put money into building the mall. And if chavo wants to be a good socialist he should have no problem appropriating funds to build a hospital or whatever in a locations where it could benefit the most people.

Also how the hell does he not notace this thing being built? I don't think it happened overnight, and if it really was such a HUGE shopping mall how did he not know about it until it was almost finished? Mayhaps he planed to allow the building to be built on the investors dollar then "expropriate" to do with it what he will...

lol at some of the above posters.

Yeah, let's all just build huge malls with a shitload of useless stuff made by chinese slaves and enjoy the great western business model which is doing just awesome.

Chavez seems kinda too smart and has oil, how come the muricans haven't bombed him to shit already?

He's "too smart" but he didn't notice a fucking huge set of shops being built? Real smart of him.

hog headed hugo

Sans the social charity, that declaration by Chavez doesn't change shit about who he is: A belligerent fuck ramming his country into the ground.

He's "too smart" but he didn't notice a fucking huge set of shops being built? Real smart of him.

oh come on, that was obviously just a story of how he suddenly "discovered" it.

oh come on, that was obviously just a story of how he suddenly "discovered" it.

Indeedy.

Really though, if he can't see the value in a place that'll employ thousands of people and contain a bunch of businesses he's a moron.

A hospital would create jobs as well. They're going to need doctors and nurses, receptionists, bed pan cleaners, janitors, people to work in the cafeteria and gift shops, etc...

Granted, a hospital won't create as many jobs as a mall, but really, which one would you rather have in your neighborhood? Personally, I'd feel more comfortable knowing that I can receive medical care quickly if I need it, as opposed to knowing that I'll be one of the first ones there when American Eagle has a sale.

The iphones most popular application is now the iFart. It's a little flash app that plays a variety of farting noises. It made the developer $80k in a few days.

Relevance? People are retarded.

That's so.... profound...

A hospital would create jobs as well. They're going to need doctors and nurses, receptionists, bed pan cleaners, janitors, people to work in the cafeteria and gift shops, etc...

Granted, a hospital won't create as many jobs as a mall, but really, which one would you rather have in your neighborhood? Personally, I'd feel more comfortable knowing that I can receive medical care quickly if I need it, as opposed to knowing that I'll be one of the first ones there when American Eagle has a sale.

It's not always a question of one or the other, you can have it all if you live in a country that isn't run by a complete moron.

In this case all Chavez has achieved is discouraging further investment in his country. Who's going to risk/waste capital when some moron might steal your property and create "a hospital, a university, I don't know".

If anything, it's just propaganda.

Problem is, the man is a fool. His country is in severe pits. Oil is down, and their revenue and influence is down sharply. Secondly, their currency is teetering on worthlessness. And the man wants to reduce the prospects of foreign and domestic investment and spending?? Good luck winning the next elections...

Oh, silly me. He rigs them...

Sans the social charity, that declaration by Chavez doesn't change shit about who he is: A
belligerent fuck ramming his country into the ground.

Good luck winning the next elections...

Oh, silly me. He rigs them...

When you make statements like those you need to back them up with why/proof, otherwise they're jsut baseless assertions.


A hospital would create jobs as well. They're going to need doctors and nurses, receptionists, bed pan cleaners,
janitors, people to work in the cafeteria and gift shops, etc...

Granted, a hospital won't create as many jobs as a mall, but really, which one would you rather have in your
neighborhood? Personally, I'd feel more comfortable knowing that I can receive medical care quickly if I need it,
as opposed to knowing that I'll be one of the first ones there when American Eagle has a sale.



I would rather see hospitals and universities springing up instead of shopping malls.

Eggs and joe:

It's not about which one of them (referring to the hospital and the mall) you, or any citizen for that matter,
would prefer in their community; it's about the leader of a nation expropriating someone's private property (in
this case, the land on which the mall was going to be built). Of course, this is assuming that the source of this
piece of news is reliable. I kind of have a feeling it's not, due to the possible "spin" I somewhat detected:
"Neither he nor Chávez gave any details of possible compensation", and how they felt the need to mention that
Chávez said "we're going to expropriate that"


All this rhetoric about freedom and the free market has got to fucking end as a rebuttal to
issues like this. If you'd rather *"someone had the freedom" to build a massive mall in place of something that
could better the community you deserve any shitty circumstances you end up in. You planted the seeds.

1. Inflammatory language does not help your argument at all.
2. It's not about "freedom" to build malls. It's about that piece of property belonging to someone else (correct
me if I am wrong), and Chavez just big fat commandeered it, all without compensation to the owners, to boot. This
(assuming this is exactly what happened) is dictatorship. It's unacceptable.
3. You seem to think just because something might "better the community", that it should be given preference over something else, something that supposedly doesn't serve any immediate needs of the community. I kind of have to disagree. Communities are important and their needs should be catered to, however, this must happen without stifling business growth. There must exist (and if it doesnt, then it's our duty to find) some sort of happy medium between the needs of the community and business oppurtunities for business owners.


Relevance? People are retarded. In the free market, the smartest make it to the top.

Just to clarify: it's not just the smart that rise to the top. Those who lack in social conscience tends
to do so, too.


Now Venezuela will lose important investment dollars.

1. It might or might not be true.
2. You talk as if (foreign) investments are some sort of god-send to a nation. No they are not. Nations should
be able to make do reasonably well without the input of foreign investments.
3. Seriously, please stop thinking that money is so important.


of 200+ shops ,
entertainers, maintenance and cleaning crews, taxi drivers, bus drivers, advertisers, street performers, etc. will
all lose jobs. For what? Because some conglomerate realized that all the people in the downtown area wanted a place to shop at and stimulate the economy and made a risky investment that he couldn't afford to lose on, or
because some faggot politician SPECULATES that the people would rather have a hospital?

1. You are assuming the conglomerate/s were building the mall out of a desire to serve the populace (as evidenced by your saying "people wanted a place to shop"), not true. They just wanted to make money for themselves, is all.
And if this should serve the needs of the local populace, I can assure you it's coincidental.
2. You are assuming the conglomerates/capitalists were building the mall out of a desire to "stimulate the
economy". Again, not true. See above.
3. You have a very rosy view of the world.
4. Finally I just want to say that I actually believe what Chavez did was wrong (a sentiment you probably share), however I am sure for very different reasons from yours.


I don't have a problem with voluntary socialism, so if you want socialism, do it on your own time and with your
own money. Go set up a Kibbutz or something and invite all your friends. Leave the rest of us alone.

This isn't directed towards you per se Parallax (although it does have some relevance):

Americans seem to have an innate, irrational fear of socialism. They are close-minded and refuse to even
entertain some of the ideas like a thought exercise. This can be a lil frustrating for the rest of us.

Also, Parallax: I like your ideas on guns and think your heart is in the right place. However I must
(respectfully) urge you to try and have a coherent argument next time you post. Everytime I see your post it's all
full of emotions, how gun-grabbers can go to hell, how socialism sucks balls...you never give a reason why you
believe the things you do. Just a friendly suggestion.


It would be doing awesome, if our government would stop meddling.

Undue optimism/possibly unwarranted faith in the free market. Kindly back it up with why, if you don't mind.

In this case all Chavez has achieved is discouraging further investment in his country.


1. You talk as if (foreign) investments are some sort of god-send to a nation. No they are not. Nations should
be able to make do reasonably well without the input of foreign investments.
2. Seriously, please stop thinking that money is so important.

1. You talk as if (foreign) investments are some sort of god-send to a nation. No they are not. Nations should
be able to make do reasonably well without the input of foreign investments.
2. Seriously, please stop thinking that money is so important.

I didn't just mean foreign investment, but if you don't think foreign investments/trading is important then I sure hope you don't shop at wal-mart or anything similar. If you'd prefer your indigenous rich guys to just hoard/hide their money then stealing their investments is the right way to go. That's a good way to stagnate your country.

Money IS important, money lets you have a common unit of exchange which is NOT a usable resource. Having shops to go to means people will be more likely to move (or want to move) into an area. More shops = more spending and more tax revenue.

I didn't just mean foreign investment, but if you don't think foreign investments/trading is important then I sure hope you don't shop at wal-mart or anything similar.

1. I as a matter of matter, avoid shopping at wal-mart.
2. It's not even relevant.
3. As a matter of fact, I believe that nations should be able to sustain themselves reasonably well without the infusion of foreign investments. Furthermore, trades should only be done on a need-to-do basis (sorry this is something I just coined, what I meant to say was that trading should only be done when the nation absolutely requires it, such as oil).
4. If anything, foreign investments tend to have undesirable effects on the local economy. Such as wal-mart (as you brought up), who ruthlessly out-competes local shops and gets rich off of a nation's wealth. While it's true that these multi-national companies do bring jobs to the local economy, I can assure the aggregate social ills (not to mention financial ones) far out-weigh the good they do. Seriously, think about it. Do you honestly believe these shrewd business people invest their cold hard cash in some country, just so that they can "benefit" the locals? Give me a break. I can assure you they invest only after having calculated and made certain that they will make more money than what they initially put in.

You are extremely naive, no offense.


If you'd prefer your indigenous rich guys to just hoard/hide their money then stealing their investments is the right way to go. That's a good way to stagnate your country.

1. You spew so much bullshit in all sorts of directions and all at once too that I don't even know where to begin.
2. You are setting up a false dichotomy. It is not such that if a nation turns away foreign investments the "indigenous rich guys" now get to hoard wealth.
3. I never said anything about "stealing people's investments". What I am advocating is that nations should repudiate foreign investments, as in, don't even give them a chance to come into their countries. If foreign dollars aren't even in a nation to begin, then there is no issue of someone "stealing people's investments".
4. You are assuming without foreign investments nations will "stagnate". This is such bullshit that I am almost stunned into silence. Almost. What you are doing is spouting lines fed to you by the capitalists. I bet that if I were to ask you to come up with a mechanism of how nations come to stagnation without foreign investments you would stutter like a fool.
5. If it ever comes to such that a nation does indeed "stagnate" without foreign investments, it's because the nation has bigger problems to begin with, problems that are inherent onto the nation itself, which might or might not have anything to do with its economy/finances. In other words, just because foreign investments in some cases seemingly "rescue" a nation, it's probably only because they are "propping" it up by treating the symptom, not the cause.


Money IS important, money lets you have a common unit of exchange which is NOT a usable resource. Having shops to go to means people will be more likely to move (or want to move) into an area. More shops = more spending and more tax revenue.

You are right in that money is important. I guess I wasn't being clear. I meant to say that people like you (and zay), who are apparently heavily brainwashed by the capitalists, seem to assign greater importance to money than is warranted. I would highly recommend that you take some time and think about just what exactly the "right" amount of importance we, as nations, should attach to money. Tough one, yes?

Also, Parallax: I like your ideas on guns and think your heart is in the right place. However I must
(respectfully) urge you to try and have a coherent argument next time you post. Everytime I see your post it's all
full of emotions, how gun-grabbers can go to hell, how socialism sucks balls...you never give a reason why you
believe the things you do. Just a friendly suggestion.

My arguments are always coherent unless I'm trolling.

Voluntary socialism is OK. Involuntary socialism is not.

When you make statements like those you need to back them up with why/proof, otherwise they're jsut baseless assertions.

There are several things that point towards that man being hazardous to his country.

1. Economically speaking, he is fucking his country. They are losing foreign investment and capital, and the value of the Bolívar has decreased dramatically since that man has been in office. Also, many of the achievements of the man are not due to his policies, but rather due to oil prices. He's transformed what was once a diversified economy into a banana republic peddling oil.

2. In terms of foreign relations, the man is a disaster. Sure, he's not one to go down on the US, rather, he'll go down on the Russians. He's also belligerent. I need go no further than the crisis he instigated with Colombia a couple of months back.

Certainly not worse than Bush, but he's no great shakes.

Is wan the new star wars fan?


1. It might or might not be true.
2. You talk as if (foreign) investments are some sort of god-send to a nation. No they are not. Nations should
be able to make do reasonably well without the input of foreign investments.
3. Seriously, please stop thinking that money is so important.


"Nations" are artificial barriers that keep the rich countries rich and the poor countries poor. No matter which way you look at it, multinationals(foreign trade) VOLUNTARILY create more jobs than the IMF and world bank do or any nations' tax(forced redistribution) scheme do. Yes, foreign investments are very desirable. The poor people's own government keep them out of the market that's more than willing to expand to them.


1. You are assuming the conglomerate/s were building the mall out of a desire to serve the populace (as evidenced by your saying "people wanted a place to shop"), not true. They just wanted to make money for themselves, is all.

And if this should serve the needs of the local populace, I can assure you it's coincidental.

2. You are assuming the conglomerates/capitalists were building the mall out of a desire to "stimulate the
economy". Again, not true. See above.


They are serving the needs of the populace because nobody is going to invest(risk) millions in a shopping mall in a place where they think nobody will shop at.



3. You have a very rosy view of the world.
4. Finally I just want to say that I actually believe what Chavez did was wrong (a sentiment you probably share), however I am sure for very different reasons from yours.


State-imposed(gunpoint) morality leads to hostility. You really think the people that invested in that mall are going to say "wowee I sure was wrong for not giving my money away?"


This isn't directed towards you per se Parallax (although it does have some relevance):

Americans seem to have an innate, irrational fear of socialism. They are close-minded and refuse to even
entertain some of the ideas like a thought exercise. This can be a lil frustrating for the rest of us.

Parallax pointed out that socialism should be voluntary, not violent. Years of schooling have taught us to overlook the fact that taxes are taken by force. You don't pay up you go to jail. The social contract is imposed on us by accident of birth. Oddly enough though, churches these days can get people to voluntarily give them money. Religion provides people comfort for dealing with bullshit in the world. There should be some sort of secular charity that doesn't suck. It may not be in my lifetime, but I'm of the belief that one day a critical mass of people will realize that they can't repeat the same mistake generation after generation and expect different results. The concept of a humongous nation-state needs to go the way of feudalism and monarchies. I can't think of a politician with more marketing appeal than obama, yet already he's just repeating the same political bs. When people see that even the coolest president ever can't change the world, hopefully it'll get the snowball rolling. I'm not holding my breath though.

Undue optimism/possibly unwarranted faith in the free market. Kindly back it up with why, if you don't mind.

free market isn't about robber barons and mr scrooge and whatnot. Whenever one person wants something that someone else has, there is a market. how you attain those things is a process of our ethics. Governments(to their credit, with good intentions) often twist these ethics to take things by force.

Well put, Zay. But when you say that nations need to go the way of monarchies and fiefs, were you alluding to a one-world government as a solution?

Excuse me, double post...

Well put, Zay. But when you say that nations need to go the way of monarchies and fiefs, were you alluding to a one-world government as a solution?

Collective ownership of the means of production is a better endeavour than a one-world government.

Collective ownership of the means of production is a better endeavour than a one-world government.

Then go start a commune. Leave the rest of us alone.

Collective ownership of the means of production is a better endeavour than a one-world government.

Then go start a commune. Leave the rest of us alone.

Well, both systems work well, if properly balanced.

Complete collective ownership more than often transpires to control by the central elite. And unhinged free market capitalism tends to derange into monopoly, so in effect, both extremes are similar, and equally dangerous.

For example, the Israelis have a way of living called Kibbutzim. It's basically a commune, and they're very efficient and industrious. However, the Israeli government doesn't go overboard by decreeing Kibbutzim as the only permissible economic system.

A balance of free market and Marxist economics works well together. But seriously, you can't force people to adopt stringent Marxist economic models.Again, take Israel for example.

Well put, Zay. But when you say that nations need to go the way of monarchies and fiefs, were you alluding to a one-world government as a solution?

A bunch of competing insurance companies, contract-defending agencies, and private security companies is all that a well-informed and intelligent, morally objective population needs.

A bunch of competing insurance companies, contract-defending agencies, and private security companies is all that a well-informed and intelligent, morally objective population needs.

Without a government to prevent monopolies, could these industries and services not become too powerful?

Other than that, it sounds like fantastic dream. I fear it may just be a wet dream, however. :rolleyes:

Then go start a commune. Leave the rest of us alone.

It's be hard to do that when the whole world runs according free market principles :rolleyes:.

It's be hard to do that when the whole world runs according free market principles :rolleyes:.

Well, as I said, some Israelis are doing just fine running their Kibbutzim.

"Nations" are artificial barriers that keep the rich countries rich and the poor countries poor.

1. So what they are "artificial" (though I think you probably meant to say "man-made", not "artificial"...just to split hair)? If I am not mistaken, you were implying that this is somehow bad? If this is true, kindly explain your reasoning why just because something is artificial/man-made, it makes it bad?
2. Kindly explain how nations are "barriers"? "Barriers" in what sense? Do you mean that nations "impede" certain things/actitivities?
3. If number 2 is true, please prove that A. nations impede (certain actitivities); and B. demonstrate to us that this is bad.
4. Kindly explain the mechanism of how nations keep rich countries rich and the poor countries poor.
5. I believe you were implying that it is bad when rich countries stay rich and poor countries stay poor. If this is true, please explain why you think so. In other words, why do you think/imply rich countries have an obligation to help poor countries become prosperous.



No matter which way you look at it, multinationals(foreign trade) VOLUNTARILY create more jobs than the IMF and world bank do or any nations' tax(forced redistribution) scheme do.

1. So what multinationals create jobs? Are you implying that the local economy/local businesses can't do the same?
2. So what they create jobs "voluntarily"? Was there ever a time when people were forced into creating jobs involuntarily? Also, no offense but you don't sound like you even know what you believe in. "OMG multinationals create jobs, now, I am gonna post on the boards and tell people they not only do so, but VOLUNTARILY, too!!!" Seriously. What were you trying to say? Do you realize to me you made very very very little sense?
3. So what these multinationals create more jobs than IMF and world bank and a nation's tax scheme? Is this even relevant? You might as well have just said, "multinationals create more jobs than WAN, and this should be sufficient proof that they are intrinsically worthy, right?" My fucking god. What the hell was your point, if at all?
4. I think what you probably meant to say was that multinationals create more jobs than a nation's local economy/local businesses. If this is true, you have to prove that such is the case. Furthermore, you need to prove that the aggregate social and financial ills brought about by the multinationals outweigh the economic gains they bring to a nation (this is the most important thing, and I am 99% sure you will not be able to prove it)
5. Suppose for a second that multinationals did do more good than harm (a highly hypothetical situation). So what? That doesn't change the fact that nations are autonomous entities with a right to self-determination, in other words, nations should be free to say no to the investments of multinationals, just because they choose to do so, for whatever reasons they might or might not want to disclose to the rest of the world.
6. You seem to think multinationals do more good than harm. I believe otherwise and can back it up. Multinational corporations effectively and ruthlessly out compete local businesses, turning people who otherwise could have been independent business owners into financially dependent wage earners, and furthermore, siphon off a nation's wealth. Also, multinationals, being international in origin, can often get away with not obey the local legislation, as such they don't have to account for themselves and their (not infrequently) unethical, not to mention unlawful behaviors.
7. I would highly recommend that you look deep within yourself and ask yourself whether you meant all this stuff you just said because you truly believe them with conviction, or are you just spouting them because they sound good to you superficially so you just accept them as truths without examining them.


Yes, foreign investments are very desirable.

1. They are desirable to you, not to some of us.
2. Kindly explain how you arrived at this conclusion if you don't mind. I wish to gain more insight into your mentality.


The poor people's own government keep them out of the market that's more than willing to expand to them.

1. Define "the poor people's own government".
2. Prove the so-called poor people's own government keep them out of the market.
3. You seem to be implying that it is intrinsically good when businesses expand a market to more people. Kindly give your rationale for why you believe so. I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, I just want to know why you think the things you do.


They are serving the needs of the populace because nobody is going to invest(risk) millions in a shopping mall in a place where they think nobody will shop at.

1. Who is/are this "they" that think nobody will shop there.
2. Why would they build a shopping mall where they think nobody will shop?
3. You see how little sense you were making back there?
4. You are asserting that nobody (local) is willing to invest/risk large amount of money on a risky business venture, and this is where multinationals come in and "rescue" everyone, if I am not mistaken? If this is true, you couldn't be more wrong. I can assure you that if a viable business opportunity does transpire, it will be immediately snatched up by an astute business man, and normally this is a local person. However, for whatever reason this scenario doesn't sit well with you, and you feel the need to replace this local business person with a multinational corp.
5. I could be wrong but I think you think that businesses do the things they do out of a desire to help others/bring good to the community (as examplified by your diction: "serving the needs of the populace"). This is not true. Businesses do the things they do for one reason only: to turn a profit. Of course, they can't run around telling us/the public that, so they hire speech writers to come up with all sorts of lofty phrases with which to frame their true intentions in an attempt to make us go along with what they want. Example. They want to build a shopping mall so they can sell things to us and make money. But they are not gonna tell us that. Instead, they say, "after much research we have come to the conclusion that people living in this particular urban area are in need of a shopping centre, so, being the socially responsible, well-intentioned business men that we are, we have no choice but to oblige the local population and take from our pockets the funds to build a mall with, seeing as after all we want nothing but what's good for the community"

I will finish tearing apart the rest of your post later. My ass is sore.

Let the mall be built. If it is really almost finished it would be impractical to at this point decide to turn it into something else.

ditto.

EDIT: the mall is being built in the city center as well, keep it there. It's not bad there...

I will finish tearing apart the rest of your post later. My ass is sore.

Don't bother, I won't give a shit unless you rewrite and summarize the whole thing into a concise edition where you stop telling me to look "deep within" myself and you stop asking me state the obvious. Mixing in some good questions with countless stupid questions is not my thing, for I am neither going to answer them all, or successfully decide and filter which ones will give sufficient answer without you asking me to explain the obvious in subsequent answer.