Venezuela’s death spiral is getting worse

[Genx87]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...in-a-death-spiral-and-its-only-getting-worse/

That utopian economic system is working wonders again. But more seriously. When does the mass exodus begin and the country collapse like Syria? At some point this is going to get really fugly.

 

[fskimospy]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...in-a-death-spiral-and-its-only-getting-worse/

That utopian economic system is working wonders again. But more seriously. When does the mass exodus begin and the country collapse like Syria? At some point this is going to get really fugly.

Hard to see any Syria type collapse as at least from my limited understanding Venezuela doesn't have the same tribal/religious/ethnic cleavages that Syria does.

I could see some attempt to overthrow the government though. I imagine that would be a much shorter lived conflict however.

 

[realibrad]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...in-a-death-spiral-and-its-only-getting-worse/

That utopian economic system is working wonders again. But more seriously. When does the mass exodus begin and the country collapse like Syria? At some point this is going to get really fugly.

Talking to the Venezuelans that are around me, they don't see a problem with the system, just the people running it. They will overthrow the government, but wont change the policies. That is my guess.

 

[Genx87]

Talking to the Venezuelans that are around me, they don't see a problem with the system, just the people running it. They will overthrow the government, but wont change the policies. That is my guess.

Makes logical sense. An economic system that continuously produces the worst results is not the problem. Just the people running it. If what you say is true, VZ is in for a long tough road to recovery.

 

[Atreus21]

Makes logical sense. An economic system that continuously produces the worst results is not the problem. Just the people running it. If what you say is true, VZ is in for a long tough road to recovery.

Wisdom comes from suffering.

 

[realibrad]

Wisdom comes from suffering.

That is the sad truth. No matter how many times its tried, it fails. People always find a way to say that socialism was tried by the wrong people. That, or they say that countries that are mainly capitalist are socialist and they are okay so socialism can work.

 

[JSt0rm]

its almost as if a blend of socialism and capitalism is the best form. Those stupid liberals and wanting 100% socialism.

 

[fskimospy]

That is the sad truth. No matter how many times its tried, it fails. People always find a way to say that socialism was tried by the wrong people. That, or they say that countries that are mainly capitalist are socialist and they are okay so socialism can work.

I think they say that socialism is a continuum that has been clearly effective in some ways and clearly ineffective in others. People who say that socialism doesn't work because it failed to provide a decent standard of living in some situations are making the same mistake as those who say capitalism doesn't work because it has failed to provide a decent standard of living for people in some situations.

If there's one thing I wish people would get through their heads it would be that it is NEVER a question of socialism: yes/no. By that standard the answer is yes 100% of the time as all countries are socialist to some extent. The question is HOW MUCH socialism they want, and there's a very legitimate debate to be had about that. The whole 'socialism has failed' thing misses that pretty obvious point.

 

[Genx87]

I think they say that socialism is a continuum that has been clearly effective in some ways and clearly ineffective in others. People who say that socialism doesn't work because it failed to provide a decent standard of living in some situations are making the same mistake as those who say capitalism doesn't work because it has failed to provide a decent standard of living for people in some situations.

If there's one thing I wish people would get through their heads it would be that it is NEVER a question of socialism: yes/no. By that standard the answer is yes 100% of the time as all countries are socialist to some extent. The question is HOW MUCH socialism they want, and there's a very legitimate debate to be had about that. The whole 'socialism has failed' thing misses that pretty obvious point.

I think most can agree the level of Socialism in VZ, the former Soviet Union, most Eastern Bloc countries, Cuba, China before their transformation, and NK is too much right?

 

[JSt0rm]

I think most can agree the level of Socialism in VZ, the former Soviet Union, most Eastern Bloc countries, Cuba, China before their transformation, and NK is too much right?

of course. Success needs rewards. What we should be looking at is the level of socialism in norway. This is almost the perfect blend.

 

[yllus]

It's incredible that instead of lifting price controls they're now nationalizing even more of the food chain and having the Army carry out more functions. Literally 100% the opposite thing they should do.

 

[JSt0rm]

It's incredible that instead of lifting price controls they're now nationalizing even more of the food chain and having the Army carry out more functions. Literally 100% the opposite thing they should do.

Because they dumb. Who cares. They need to lift price controls AND make sure everyone is fed. Starving people will do violent things.

 

[fskimospy]

I think most can agree the level of Socialism in VZ, the former Soviet Union, most Eastern Bloc countries, Cuba, China before their transformation, and NK is too much right?

Oh absolutely. I mean the results speak for themselves. Although China in its current iteration I still can't decide what the hell it is now.

 

[JSt0rm]

Chinese people are smart. They were able to force a round peg into a square hole.

 

[Kwatt]

Socialism and Capitalism both have the same problem. People! Once the upper levels of gov. start looking out for themselves rather than what is best overall they begin to fail.

They will both end badly and usually bloody. Either can be brought back from the edge if enough leaders cooperate.

.

 

[glenn1]

of course. Success needs rewards. What we should be looking at is the level of socialism in norway. This is almost the perfect blend.

So how do countries without the same shitload of oil resources implement the Norwegian 'perfect blend' successfully? Isn't that like saying we should all use the Trump business model to get rich while conveniently ignoring the inheritance and bankruptcy laws that made that possible?

 

[agent00f]

Chinese people are smart. They were able to force a round peg into a square hole.

It's easy to mislead simpletons into ideological wordplay (A= good, B= bad), when in practice desirable results come from solid decision-making. China & peers are successful due to creating & following an economic plan that leads from agrarian to high tech society. Doing so rapidly requires substantial centralized control, not unlike any major corp.

Also it's always funny when it's largely the american & russian elite who propagate that the soviet system has much to do with communism or even socialism, when it's run far more like any capitalist enterprise.

 

[nickqt]

So how do countries without the same shitload of oil resources implement the Norwegian 'perfect blend' successfully? Isn't that like saying we should all use the Trump business model to get rich while conveniently ignoring the inheritance and bankruptcy laws that made that possible?

You're criticizing every single economic system that demands that the government and market not interact and adapt given the country using that economic system, which is not a criticism of capitalism, socialism, or dual-use systems that most successful countries use.

 

[nickqt]

So how do countries without the same shitload of oil resources implement the Norwegian 'perfect blend' successfully? Isn't that like saying we should all use the Trump business model to get rich while conveniently ignoring the inheritance and bankruptcy laws that made that possible?

You're criticizing every single economic system that demands that the government and market not interact and adapt given the country using that economic system, which is not a criticism of capitalism, socialism, or dual-use systems that most successful countries use.

Double post because slow acting forums.

 

[glenn1]

You're criticizing every single economic system that demands that the government and market not interact and adapt given the country using that economic system, which is not a criticism of capitalism, socialism, or dual-use systems that most successful countries use.

No, I'm saying that Norway's success has a lot more to do with its natural oil wealth than the economic system it uses to distribute that wealth. Adopting socialist policies wasn't the cause of its success, it was one of many economic models which could have succeeded given the circumstances. So could have laissez faire capitalism.

Norway and Venezuela are actually good examples that factors other than economic system are key to having a successful nation. Sure, Venezuela has oil wealth like Norway (although lesser quality oil and less) but otherwise lots of things working against them. Weak notions of 'rule of law.' Government policies directly intended to hurt one class of people to (ostensibly) benefit another. Tons of corruption and waste in government. A government whose first instinct is to blame and demonize rather than seek solutions which benefit all. A government that tries to buy popularity and support with crippling levels of subsidies and price controls.

 

[dullard]

Makes logical sense. An economic system that continuously produces the worst results is not the problem. Just the people running it. If what you say is true, VZ is in for a long tough road to recovery.

In this case, the people running it were doing spectacularly stupid things. Basically they destroyed every part of their economy except for oil, then the price of oil fell. That is really, really bad planning. That doesn't mean that their form of government is bad however. I'm not defending their government system as I believe that it uses too much socialism, but your argument is also pretty lackluster.

I would say too much socialism is bad. But so is too little socialism. There are definite places where government ownership is the best. For example, I really hope that no one here wants the US to go to capitalism for the US army. (Lots of independently controlled small armies is not doing so well for the middle east!) Or for a more mundane example, is it really a good idea to have dozens of water treatment plants built for each town for true capitalistic competition (at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars per resident, or more)? Like fskimospy said, the true debate should be how much socialism is right and where to apply it.

Anyone trying to turn this into an all or nothing debate is way oversimplifying things and leads to disastrous all or nothing conclusions.

 

[Genx87]

In this case, the people running it were doing spectacularly stupid things. Basically they destroyed every part of their economy except for oil, then the price of oil fell. That is really, really bad planning. That doesn't mean that their form of government is bad however. I'm not defending their government system as I believe that it uses too much socialism, but your argument is also pretty lackluster.

I would say too much socialism is bad. But so is too little socialism. There are definite places where government ownership is the best. For example, I really hope that no one here wants the US to go to capitalism for the US army. (Lots of independently controlled small armies is not doing so well for the middle east!) Or for a more mundane example, is it really a good idea to have dozens of water treatment plants built for each town for true capitalistic competition (at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars per resident, or more)? Like fskimospy said, the true debate should be how much socialism is right and where to apply it.

Anyone trying to turn this into an all or nothing debate is way oversimplifying things and leads to disastrous all or nothing conclusions.

It sounds like you are defending their form of govt even if you claim you are not. So to your point and debate, does VZ have too much socialism or not?

 

[dullard]

It sounds like you are defending their form of govt even if you claim you are not. So to your point and debate, does VZ have too much socialism or not?

I answered that in my post: "I believe that it uses too much socialism".

But because one country has made bad decisions is not a good argument that socialism is bad. India has one of the most capitalistic economies in the world and we wouldn't use their poverty to prove that capitalism is bad. Your line of argument is a bad line. Plus, it isn't the argument that we should be having. We should be having a discussion about how MUCH socialism is optimal.

The whole "one government form is good and others are bad" argument is so childish and hasn't gotten the world any better in the last century of fighting wars over it. Forcing different government types doesn't work (how well has instilling democracy done in Africa and the Middle East?) Lets move on to the next step and instead focus on how to make each government type closer to the optimum rather than bicker about whether one form is better than another.

 

[Genx87]

I answered that in my post: "I believe that it uses too much socialism".

But because one country has made bad decisions is not a good argument that socialism is bad. India has one of the most capitalistic economies in the world and we wouldn't use their poverty to prove that capitalism is bad. Your line of argument is a bad line. Plus, it isn't the argument that we should be having. We should be having a discussion about how MUCH socialism is optimal.

The whole "one government form is good and others are bad" argument is so childish and hasn't gotten the world any better in the last century of fighting wars over it. Forcing different government types doesn't work (how well has instilling democracy done in Africa and the Middle East?) Lets move on to the next step and instead focus on how to make each government type closer to the optimum rather than bicker about whether one form is better than another.

But it isnt one country. Lets go down the list of countries that have gone down this road in the past century.

Soviet Union
Eastern Bloc
China before their move to open markets\capitalism
North Korea
Cuba

Why is it so many socialist countries make the same bad decisions?

What I find interesting is how hard it is for people to admit govts based on socialism have produced some of the worst outcomes over the past 100 or so years. Nobody is talking about forcing govt types onto other people. We are talking about another example of the socialist revolution producing horrible outcomes. The people running these countries change, the same basic ideology remains the same.

India has one of the croniest economies in the world btw. Bribes and corruption or good luck getting permits to build anything. You can blame that on capitalism if it makes you feel better. But in all reality it is another example in a long list of out of control govt.

 

[dullard]

But it isnt one country. Lets go down the list of countries that have gone down this road in the past century.

Soviet Union
Eastern Bloc
China before their move to open markets\capitalism
North Korea
Cuba

Why is it so many socialist countries make the same bad decisions?

Many of those were under world-wide economic sanctions. You leave off the more socialistic countries that are doing well (almost anything in Scandinavia). And finally you give one example of where I think we should be putting our emphasis (China which is socialistic but converting much of the way to capitalism).

Yes, socialism has done very poorly in some cases. It has done fairly well in others. What we should be doing is trying to get the best of capitalism into the socialistic countries and vise-versa.