• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Venezuela Food Shortages

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: spittledip
Venezuela is better off now than it was before Chavez. Those same people who are experiencing the food shortage now would have had even less if he wasn't in power.


Less than nothing.....I guess that's better.......
 
Originally posted by: marincounty
All of you Chavez haters are missing a key point though. The per capita GDP of Venezuela ($5,026) is greater than that of some of our wonderful "democratic" allies.
Countries such as: Argentina, Panama, Grenada, Costa Rica, Romania, Brazil, Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Peru, Thailand, Columbia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Samoa, Philippines, Honduras, Nicaragua, India, etc......

India is often held up as a capitalist paradise, but somehow the socialist Venezuela has a per capita GDP SEVEN times that of India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

Chavez haters, please explain this.

per capita is a meaningless measurement when most of the wealth is locked up by very few in that country. You only have too look at the number of "poor" in that country to realize that it isn't distributed.

 
Originally posted by: marincounty
All of you Chavez haters are missing a key point though. The per capita GDP of Venezuela ($5,026) is greater than that of some of our wonderful "democratic" allies.
Countries such as: Argentina, Panama, Grenada, Costa Rica, Romania, Brazil, Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Peru, Thailand, Columbia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Samoa, Philippines, Honduras, Nicaragua, India, etc......

India is often held up as a capitalist paradise, but somehow the socialist Venezuela has a per capita GDP SEVEN times that of India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

Chavez haters, please explain this.

I noticed that doing a treaceroute of marincounty`s IP resulted in it resolving to venezuela...hmmmmm
 
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
GDP means nothing when 53% of the citizens are still living in poverty.

Which, of course, neatly avoids the whole question of how they got there in the first place, which was under the economic system previously used in Venezuela...

Socialism is a reaction to that, not the cause of it...

I don't know what the answer is, but blaming Chavez sure as hell isn't it...

Are you fvcking HIGH? He's been squandering Oil Money by going abroad and acting like a dildo, and he's destroyed good privately run companies (that provided jobs), because he's a douche. How in the fvck is he NOT to blame? Because he talks a good talk? Because he copied Silva's microloans strategy that was a ripoff from Vicente Fox?

Because he talks bad about Bush. That is all it takes to make someone a champion in their eyes. They would allow Saddam to stay in power, give Iran nukes, and let nutcases like Chavez ruin a country if only it makes Bush look bad.


When Chavez goes away I am pretty sure the body count will be very high. Yet, since Carter approved of his election he must be a swell guy.
 
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
GDP means nothing when 53% of the citizens are still living in poverty.

Which, of course, neatly avoids the whole question of how they got there in the first place, which was under the economic system previously used in Venezuela...

Socialism is a reaction to that, not the cause of it...

I don't know what the answer is, but blaming Chavez sure as hell isn't it...

Are you fvcking HIGH? He's been squandering Oil Money by going abroad and acting like a dildo, and he's destroyed good privately run companies (that provided jobs), because he's a douche. How in the fvck is he NOT to blame? Because he talks a good talk? Because he copied Silva's microloans strategy that was a ripoff from Vicente Fox?

Because he talks bad about Bush. That is all it takes to make someone a champion in their eyes. They would allow Saddam to stay in power, give Iran nukes, and let nutcases like Chavez ruin a country if only it makes Bush look bad.


When Chavez goes away I am pretty sure the body count will be very high. Yet, since Carter approved of his election he must be a swell guy.
So according to you if someone criticizes Bush for being a bad President they are Pro Chavez?

AFAIC Chavez is Venezualas problem, they voted him in, let them reap what they sow. That place was a sh!thole with Oil before he was elected, I don't think it's any better now, just different. I guess all the uproar over him being in power is from those who were profiting from Venezualan Oil before he took over. For most Americans they couldn't give a sh!t.

 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
GDP means nothing when 53% of the citizens are still living in poverty.

Which, of course, neatly avoids the whole question of how they got there in the first place, which was under the economic system previously used in Venezuela...

Socialism is a reaction to that, not the cause of it...

I don't know what the answer is, but blaming Chavez sure as hell isn't it...

Are you fvcking HIGH? He's been squandering Oil Money by going abroad and acting like a dildo, and he's destroyed good privately run companies (that provided jobs), because he's a douche. How in the fvck is he NOT to blame? Because he talks a good talk? Because he copied Silva's microloans strategy that was a ripoff from Vicente Fox?

Because he talks bad about Bush. That is all it takes to make someone a champion in their eyes. They would allow Saddam to stay in power, give Iran nukes, and let nutcases like Chavez ruin a country if only it makes Bush look bad.


When Chavez goes away I am pretty sure the body count will be very high. Yet, since Carter approved of his election he must be a swell guy.
So according to you if someone criticizes Bush for being a bad President they are Pro Chavez?

AFAIC Chavez is Venezualas problem, they voted him in, let them reap what they sow. That place was a sh!thole with Oil before he was elected, I don't think it's any better now, just different. I guess all the uproar over him being in power is from those who were profiting from Venezualan Oil before he took over. For most Americans they couldn't give a sh!t.

Which is really too bad. I don't know what the answer to the social and economic problems are - I suppose in the long term that is what the Venezuelan people have to figure out for themselves. Let's hope for them it is a quick and largely bloodless one.

I am not holding my breath, though.
 
Originally posted by: marincounty
All of you Chavez haters are missing a key point though. The per capita GDP of Venezuela ($5,026) is greater than that of some of our wonderful "democratic" allies.
Countries such as: Argentina, Panama, Grenada, Costa Rica, Romania, Brazil, Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Peru, Thailand, Columbia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Samoa, Philippines, Honduras, Nicaragua, India, etc......

India is often held up as a capitalist paradise, but somehow the socialist Venezuela has a per capita GDP SEVEN times that of India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

Chavez haters, please explain this.

oil exports

 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
GDP means nothing when 53% of the citizens are still living in poverty.

Which, of course, neatly avoids the whole question of how they got there in the first place, which was under the economic system previously used in Venezuela...

Socialism is a reaction to that, not the cause of it...

I don't know what the answer is, but blaming Chavez sure as hell isn't it...

Poverty rates have increased under Chavez's socialist reign.
 
Originally posted by: spittledip
Um, he hasn't been in power very long. The govt before him stole land from the Amerindians and gave it to rich people and businesses from out-of-country. They trod the poor underfoot. They also fixed elections.

8 years is long enough.
 
Originally posted by: blckgrffn
I don't post on this much, but I find the last bit of this article scary. I know I wouldn't want to live in an 1984 world... (technically, the people selling stuff above government prices are breaking their laws - but they sound pretty bogus and out of touch with reality to me.)

Yahoo! article

Nat

what? under socialism? NO WAY!
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
GDP means nothing when 53% of the citizens are still living in poverty.

Which, of course, neatly avoids the whole question of how they got there in the first place, which was under the economic system previously used in Venezuela...

Socialism is a reaction to that, not the cause of it...

I don't know what the answer is, but blaming Chavez sure as hell isn't it...

Poverty rates have increased under Chavez's socialist reign.

Poverty rates have increased under Bush's Corporate reign so what's your point?
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
GDP means nothing when 53% of the citizens are still living in poverty.

Which, of course, neatly avoids the whole question of how they got there in the first place, which was under the economic system previously used in Venezuela...

Socialism is a reaction to that, not the cause of it...

I don't know what the answer is, but blaming Chavez sure as hell isn't it...

Poverty rates have increased under Chavez's socialist reign.

Poverty rates have increased under Bush's Corporate reign so what's your point?

Please explain how bush is responsible for this.
 
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: blckgrffn
I don't post on this much, but I find the last bit of this article scary. I know I wouldn't want to live in an 1984 world... (technically, the people selling stuff above government prices are breaking their laws - but they sound pretty bogus and out of touch with reality to me.)

Yahoo! article

Nat

what? under socialism? NO WAY!

I know, I know... I have been reading posts here about it, but that news story really slammed it home for me. I had thought that Chavez might have really been serious about making this work... but it doesn't seem he is bringing a lot of economic sense to the equation, making me dread how this is going to end up.
 
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
GDP means nothing when 53% of the citizens are still living in poverty.

Which, of course, neatly avoids the whole question of how they got there in the first place, which was under the economic system previously used in Venezuela...

Socialism is a reaction to that, not the cause of it...

I don't know what the answer is, but blaming Chavez sure as hell isn't it...

Poverty rates have increased under Chavez's socialist reign.

Poverty rates have increased under Bush's Corporate reign so what's your point?

Please explain how bush is responsible for this.

lol, I think you missed the point.
 
Well as I predicted, Venezuela is sliding into the gutter. The only surprise to me is how fast it is occurring. I'm also sticking by my prediction that will see huge inflation sometime in the future when chavez starts to rely on the printing presses to support his economy.

This is how I think things should be done in like venezuela:
Oil actually screws a country up. It raises the value of the currency so that foreign industry doesn't want to invest in the country because the cost of labor is higher than in other countries without oil. The only thing to do is the give the oil profits directly to the citizens. It must not got directly to the government because doing so allows the government to become unaccountable. Also, oil resources should not be sold off to foreign companies but should also not be developed by a national oil corporation. Oil fields should be leased to private developers for a royalty fee. Efforts should be made to create value added products based on oil like plastics and chemicals.
 
Originally posted by: blckgrffn
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
GDP means nothing when 53% of the citizens are still living in poverty.

Which, of course, neatly avoids the whole question of how they got there in the first place, which was under the economic system previously used in Venezuela...

Socialism is a reaction to that, not the cause of it...

I don't know what the answer is, but blaming Chavez sure as hell isn't it...

Poverty rates have increased under Chavez's socialist reign.

Poverty rates have increased under Bush's Corporate reign so what's your point?

Please explain how bush is responsible for this.

lol, I think you missed the point.

Maybe I did. What is the point? Chavez's direct involvment in price control is messing up the economy. Presidents have a negligible impact on the economy.
 
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Maybe I did. What is the point? Chavez's direct involvment in price control is messing up the economy. Presidents have a negligible impact on the economy.

I agree that Chavez is meddling with things just one person shouldn't, and exercising much more direct control than our president can wield. It doesn't look too good.

Nat
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
GDP means nothing when 53% of the citizens are still living in poverty.

Which, of course, neatly avoids the whole question of how they got there in the first place, which was under the economic system previously used in Venezuela...

Socialism is a reaction to that, not the cause of it...

I don't know what the answer is, but blaming Chavez sure as hell isn't it...

Poverty rates have increased under Chavez's socialist reign.

Poverty rates have increased under Bush's Corporate reign so what's your point?


by such a small percent as to be nearly meaningless. Its 12.6% currently. A little more than 1% growth. The US poverty rate cannot be compared to most countries as many living below poverty live in 3+ bedroom homes....

What we consider poverty is near luxury in other countries.
 
That was quick...

It is kind of reminiscent of my childhood, when I'd wait in the Banana lines with my mom. Communism ftl.
 
Chavez is not a great leader, or not really even a good one. However, he is better than the people who were in before him. I would not want him running a country I was living in, but the truth is that at least he has tried to deal with poverty and the poor in a meaningful way unlike his predecessors and unlike the US. In the US we give out a little bits of money to leash people via dependency (democrats) rather than truly empower or equip them to take on life. The US could do so much more we have many more resources, but for some reason we don't.
 
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
GDP means nothing when 53% of the citizens are still living in poverty.

Which, of course, neatly avoids the whole question of how they got there in the first place, which was under the economic system previously used in Venezuela...

Socialism is a reaction to that, not the cause of it...

I don't know what the answer is, but blaming Chavez sure as hell isn't it...

Poverty rates have increased under Chavez's socialist reign.

Poverty rates have increased under Bush's Corporate reign so what's your point?

by such a small percent as to be nearly meaningless. Its 12.6% currently. A little more than 1% growth. The US poverty rate cannot be compared to most countries as many living below poverty live in 3+ bedroom homes....

What we consider poverty is near luxury in other countries.

Nice diversion, try sticking to apples and apples please.

How can poverty be increasing in such a "booming" economy as you and your heroes proclaim?
 
Originally posted by: spittledip
Chavez is not a great leader, or not really even a good one. However, he is better than the people who were in before him. I would not want him running a country I was living in, but the truth is that at least he has tried to deal with poverty and the poor in a meaningful way unlike his predecessors and unlike the US. In the US we give out a little bits of money to leash people via dependency (democrats) rather than truly empower or equip them to take on life. The US could do so much more we have many more resources, but for some reason we don't.


That's a rather uneducated comment on the poverty issue - Clinton's wellfare reform has significant positive results in few years ( 57% dropoff in welfare rolls, sharp decreases in child povery rates etc. ).

Chavez apprach is idiotic at best, especially if he he doesn't subsidize the gov't preset prices. Plus nationalizing foreign-owned companies is a BAD move, as this will result in the biggest capital flight since Russia's default. Just sit back and watch the Venezuelan economy come apart.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
GDP means nothing when 53% of the citizens are still living in poverty.

Which, of course, neatly avoids the whole question of how they got there in the first place, which was under the economic system previously used in Venezuela...

Socialism is a reaction to that, not the cause of it...

I don't know what the answer is, but blaming Chavez sure as hell isn't it...

Poverty rates have increased under Chavez's socialist reign.

Poverty rates have increased under Bush's Corporate reign so what's your point?

by such a small percent as to be nearly meaningless. Its 12.6% currently. A little more than 1% growth. The US poverty rate cannot be compared to most countries as many living below poverty live in 3+ bedroom homes....

What we consider poverty is near luxury in other countries.

Nice diversion, try sticking to apples and apples please.

How can poverty be increasing in such a "booming" economy as you and your heroes proclaim?

Why dont you compare population growth to the poverty rate growth?

If population explodes by 50% and yet the poverty percentage only increases by 1%, thats amazing. It means you have more people and more people geetting rich.

To simply say "poverty grew by 1%" is hardly a comparison that our President is a failure.

Now, as an aside, I wont argue he isnt a failure, but I certainly wouldnt use a ridiculously low 1% increase in poverty as the reason.
 
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: spittledip
Chavez is not a great leader, or not really even a good one. However, he is better than the people who were in before him. I would not want him running a country I was living in, but the truth is that at least he has tried to deal with poverty and the poor in a meaningful way unlike his predecessors and unlike the US. In the US we give out a little bits of money to leash people via dependency (democrats) rather than truly empower or equip them to take on life. The US could do so much more we have many more resources, but for some reason we don't.
That's a rather uneducated comment on the poverty issue - Clinton's welfare reform has significant positive results in few years ( 57% dropoff in welfare rolls, sharp decreases in child poverty rates etc. ).
An even more interesting aspect of President Clinton's welfare reform was that it began to cut people off from state-provided cash and in general made the requirements for the program far stricter.

One 'Reform' That Worked
TANF set new rules. It eliminated the automatic entitlement to benefits. To qualify, mothers had to look for work, take job training or both (states set exact requirements). There was a general five-year lifetime limit on receiving benefits.

In a new book, "Work Over Welfare," Brookings Institution senior fellow Ron Haskins?a top Republican congressional staffer during the welfare debate?cites much evidence of success. Welfare caseloads have plunged. From August 1996 to June 2005, the number of people on welfare dropped from 12.2 million to 4.5 million. About 60 percent of mothers who left welfare got work. Their incomes generally rose. Many qualified for the federal Earned Income Tax Credit, which subsidizes low-income workers. Finally, there were intangible benefits: work connections, self-respect.

One lesson is that what people do for themselves often overshadows what government does for them. Since 1991, for example, the teen birthrate has dropped by a third. The mothers least capable of supporting children have had fewer of them. Welfare reform didn't single handedly cause this. But it reinforced a broader shift in the social climate?one emphasizing personal responsibility over victimhood.
We actually see Chavez moving in precisely the opposite direction from this program that has measurably attained great success.
 
Back
Top