Venezuela: how the socialist paradise turned into debt and hyperinflation hell

[Joresh]

Chavez reduced poverty from 24% to 8% plus improvements on health and education. It failed because oil prices went down and corruption.

This is just verifiably false.

The INE listed the venezuallian poverty rate at 32% in 2013 and the UN Economic Commission for Latin America listed it at 24% in 2012. Regardless of which report you believe this is well above the (incorrect) 8% that you give

Sources:
http://www.cepal.org/en/pressrelease...-latin-america

http://www.ine.gov.ve/index.php?opti...104&Itemid=45#

[Army Dreamer]

Venezuela: how the socialist paradise turned into debt and hyperinflation hell

It always does. But some people just refuse to learn from the history.

[Theinquisition]

Crony-Capitalism only occurs when business interests are able to use government power to enact legislation that neuters market forces. The banks were told by government to start dealing in bad debt and rescued by government when the bubble burst. Had we relied on market forces, the bad debt would not have been passed about in the first place, and in the event that it had, the banks would have paid the consequences for their folly.

The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), commonly known as Fannie Mae, and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), better known as Freddie Mac, from which the entire sub-prime crisis stemmed, are both Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE). All you Ouccpy Wallstreet retards should have been occupying Washington the entire time. Don't blame the markets for the government's mess.

I've been trying to explain this concept to Batman for the last year, good luck.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

That is, until capitalism creates companies so big due to lack of regulation that they get rid of the laws of free market and dictate regulations. Its happening now.

Which is why we have anti-trust and anti-corruption laws designed around maintaining a more competitive environment. All of which I support.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Crony-Capitalism only occurs when business interests are able to use government power to enact legislation that neuters market forces. The banks were told by government to start dealing in bad debt and rescued by government when the bubble burst. Had we relied on market forces, the bad debt would not have been passed about in the first place, and in the event that it had, the banks would have paid the consequences for their folly.

The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), commonly known as Fannie Mae, and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), better known as Freddie Mac, from which the entire sub-prime crisis stemmed, are both Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE). All you Ouccpy Wallstreet retards should have been occupying Washington the entire time. Don't blame the markets for the government's mess.

Having the government bail you out using taxpayer dollars is pretty much raw crony capitalism. It isn't just using government to stifle competition, it's also using government to encourages and/or force your product on people. The fact that people lost those homes and the wealthy bought them at foreclosure prices to rent them later only solidifies that it's about as far from socialism as you can get, as socialism would have been measures to allow people to keep those homes.

You can label it however you like doesn't change what it was. Glass-Steagall ensured that banks didn't make risky loans. It was there to stop risky banking practices that everyone knew would cause booms and busts, and it was repealed anyway by a nigh unanimous vote from both parties. It was a deregulation of banks, and whether or not there was a bubble that burst, the banks won either way. They either profited enormously from the sudden influx of loans, or the government bailed them out.

So at the end of the day, the people who won were the banks and those with money to buy foreclosed houses that they could then later rent out to those who could no longer afford to buy, and now needed to rent.

Cronyism in its purest form.

- - - Updated - - -

I've been trying to explain this concept to Batman for the last year, good luck.

It might have been socialism if the Glass-Steagall repeal came with provisions to help people keep their houses. It's about as far away from socialism as you can get, seeing as how it's based on buying real estate, not being given real estate. Always funny when people think things that involve encouraged or forced participation in a market is socialism and not cronyism. People still got evicted from their homes, people still were in massive debt, economic velocity slowed down, and the funniest part is we know people not having money to spend (low economic velocity) is largely what caused the 2007 crisis, and some people still pretend Keynesian theory isn't valid.

[PC2]

No, it's just incompetence, not socialism.

If a country does badly under capitalism is it also because of human incompetence, not capitalism?

[igualitarist]

I love how socialism supporters live in a constant state of denial. Venezuelan government has every characteristic of a socialist government, and still, they say socialism is not the one to blame.

Here in Brazil we were moving to the same direction Venezuela is right now, but thanks to our instituitions, the president has been removed from the office. The left is yelling a coup promoted by fascists happened here, but their totalitarism forbid them to see everything happened according to our constituition and to our supreme court.

The same process was happening in Argentina, but they managed to remove Kirchner from the power in the last elections.

So, the left is falling in south america like mosquitoes, and Maduro knows he's the next.

For those who want to know what's happening in latin america, i recommend reading about the "Foro de São Paulo". A political organization organized by Fidel Castro, Lula and Chavez, back in the 90's. The final goal of this organization is recovering in latin america what was lost in estern europe.

[Theinquisition]

Having the government bail you out using taxpayer dollars is pretty much raw crony capitalism. It isn't just using government to stifle competition, it's also using government to encourages and/or force your product on people. The fact that people lost those homes and the wealthy bought them at foreclosure prices to rent them later only solidifies that it's about as far from socialism as you can get, as socialism would have been measures to allow people to keep those homes.

You can label it however you like doesn't change what it was. Glass-Steagall ensured that banks didn't make risky loans. It was there to stop risky banking practices that everyone knew would cause booms and busts, and it was repealed anyway by a nigh unanimous vote from both parties. It was a deregulation of banks, and whether or not there was a bubble that burst, the banks won either way. They either profited enormously from the sudden influx of loans, or the government bailed them out.

So at the end of the day, the people who won were the banks and those with money to buy foreclosed houses that they could then later rent out to those who could no longer afford to buy, and now needed to rent.

Cronyism in its purest form.

- - - Updated - - -



It might have been socialism if the Glass-Steagall repeal came with provisions to help people keep their houses. It's about as far away from socialism as you can get, seeing as how it's based on buying real estate, not being given real estate. Always funny when people think things that involve encouraged or forced participation in a market is socialism and not cronyism. People still got evicted from their homes, people still were in massive debt, economic velocity slowed down, and the funniest part is we know people not having money to spend (low economic velocity) is largely what caused the 2007 crisis, and some people still pretend Keynesian theory isn't valid.

Keynesian theory is only valid when it is applied correctly, we don't pay down debt during times of boom.

- - - Updated - - -

If a country does badly under capitalism is it also because of human incompetence, not capitalism?

lol, gonna make some Bernie bros head explode with that one.

[Deleted]

I love how socialism supporters live in a constant state of denial.

They aren't going to listen.

They will just keep claiming that socialism/communism wasn't implemented properly.

Why can't they implement it properly in the countries they have destroyed? Just start again there.

But then they will claim that in order to create a perfect socialist society, all forms of capitalism have to be destroyed everywhere.

Etc.

Don't waste your time arguing with them. Convince everyone else instead.

[Endus]

I'm actually curious now. Did your socialist theory class ever cover a single historical example of a communal society larger than....... oh let's be generous here........ 5 million people, that collectively owned the means of production without the supervision of an authoritarian state?

I'm not sure why you think that's even a relevant question. There are multitudes of economic systems that have never been implemented, but that doesn't argue that they couldn't be, in any way. By that argument, literally no new system could ever emerge at any point through history, and we know that's a false claim.

I think it's mainly because these discussions always end up failing because one party is talking about pure socialism, see Venezuela, and the other one talks about social capitalism, see central, Northern Europe and North America.

There's no such thing as "pure socialism". It's a nonsense term. Every practical application of any ideology makes certain compromises, at the least. And in the case of Venezuela, there's a lot going on, politically, that has nothing to do with socialism.

Socialism is economics, not politics.

I generally loathe all forms of intellectual purism. That being said, this forum is so reliably left-leaning that it is almost impossible to speak in terms of the degree to which we embrace socialist vs capitalist policies. Rather we are forced into the ludicrous position of defending Capitalism in it's entirety, which is an incredibly tiresome place from which to start the discussion.

You're literally complaining about how unfair the argument is when it's turned against capitalist theory. The unfairness of the argument is the point.

Also, if you think everyone's biased far to the left of you, maybe you should take some time to realize that perhaps you're the one with extreme views, not everyone else.

Ironically, Endus (who gets the most flak for being an authoritarian) might be the outlier because he's pretty much a left-libertarian, unless every post he's made in the past several years has been completely out of character.

It's pretty much entirely because they can't separate my personal political outlook from my role here as a moderator. I enforce the website's rules, so I must be an authoritarian. Which is a pretty damned silly thing to argue. I don't even make up the rules, here; I just apply them. And this is a private website, not a government operation.

I love how socialism supporters live in a constant state of denial. Venezuelan government has every characteristic of a socialist government, and still, they say socialism is not the one to blame.

Because every time you bring up a flaw in what you see in Venezuela, it's not the result of their economic system, but the authoritarian government.

- - - Updated - - -

They aren't going to listen.

They will just keep claiming that socialism/communism wasn't implemented properly.

Why can't they implement it properly in the countries they have destroyed? Just start again there.

I'd argue that it's because authoritarianism and socialism are antithetical, which creates internal conflicts that inevitably bring about that collapse. Socialism is fundamentally about the welfare of the people, and authoritarianism is about controlling those people. If you believe in liberty, those two are in conflict.

But then they will claim that in order to create a perfect socialist society, all forms of capitalism have to be destroyed everywhere.

Nobody has argued this, here. You're inventing a boogeyman.

[Theinquisition]

I'm not sure why you think that's even a relevant question. There are multitudes of economic systems that have never been implemented, but that doesn't argue that they couldn't be, in any way. By that argument, literally no new system could ever emerge at any point through history, and we know that's a false claim.



There's no such thing as "pure socialism". It's a nonsense term. Every practical application of any ideology makes certain compromises, at the least. And in the case of Venezuela, there's a lot going on, politically, that has nothing to do with socialism.

Socialism is economics, not politics.



You're literally complaining about how unfair the argument is when it's turned against capitalist theory. The unfairness of the argument is the point.

Also, if you think everyone's biased far to the left of you, maybe you should take some time to realize that perhaps you're the one with extreme views, not everyone else.



It's pretty much entirely because they can't separate my personal political outlook from my role here as a moderator. I enforce the website's rules, so I must be an authoritarian. Which is a pretty damned silly thing to argue. I don't even make up the rules, here; I just apply them. And this is a private website, not a government operation.



Because every time you bring up a flaw in what you see in Venezuela, it's not the result of their economic system, but the authoritarian government.

don't get it twisted endus, you know damn well, as everyone else her eon this forum knows, that you don't apply the rules equally, and REALLY stretch interpretations to infract people when you disagree with their point of view. that's why over 1/3 of the infractions you have hit me with have been overturned.

[Deleted]

Nobody has argued this, here. You're inventing a boogeyman.

No I have just debated with more extremists than you have.

The form of socialism that you yourself probably want is still a soft tyranny. The only difference is people are free to leave, or change the system if they can gather enough support.

Now I can respect your point of view, but don't pretend that socialism doesn't have an horrendous track record.

I mean, can you find extremely principled people who won't favor their political allies and won't ignore their political enemies?

Good luck with that.

[Endus]

No I have just debated with more extremists than you have.

The form of socialism that you yourself probably want is still a soft tyranny. The only difference is people are free to leave, or change the system if they can gather enough support.

Nope. Completely wrong. Try reading up on market socialism, sometime.

Like I said; you're inventing a boogeyman.

[Cthulhu 2020]

If a country does badly under capitalism is it also because of human incompetence, not capitalism?

People use capitalism and socialism as if they're two distinct systems that a country can "be", when in reality "socialist" countries combine elements of socialist marxism and capitalism to create a healthy mix of the two. The only real distinction I've seen that separates capitalist countries from their socialist EU counterparts are the US lacking socialized medicine and post secondary education, and third world African countries with no taxes, little government, no roads, no clean water, no law enforcement, and pretty much none of the modern day socialist luxuries US citizens take for granted in their daily lives that are paid for courtesy of tax payers and taxes existing.

It's why we don't take the "taxes are theft" lunatics seriously, because while nobody enjoys taxes, at least some of us realize their necessity in modern first world society.

[Deleted]

Nope. Completely wrong. Try reading up on market socialism, sometime.

Like I said; you're inventing a boogeyman.

How about you live in your socialist society and we live in our much more free market society.

As long as you don't violate anyone's free will, I wish you the best of luck.

Because I know how this story ends.

[Endus]

How about you live in your socialist society and we live in our much more free market society.

There's no such thing as a "free market society". Free markets are fundamentally impractical and cannot exist in the real world. Plus, market activity has nothing to do with capitalism. You can have capitalism without markets, and socialists with markets. Market action as a principle far predates capitalist theory.

Capitalism and socialism are about who owns/profits from the means of production, not the existence of markets, however free or not they may be.

[pkdrdoom]

If by redistribution they meant the government stole all the money and gave "peanuts" to the poor for free once in a while to distract them from what they were doing... then sure they "redistributed" people's wealth.

Keep in mind two things.

First that Social Democracy (like in some Nordic European countries) isn't the same as Socialism (bullsh1t utopia).

And the second thing is that Venezuela has a Dictatorship disguised as a democracy.

They say they base their government in "Socialism of the 21st century" which is nothing more than a propaganda "feel good" sentiment for the extremely poor that have nothing to lose but hopes and the ignorant that wanted a change... while in reality it was a masquerade to impose a very lucrative dictatorship.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soci...e_21st_century

Do not confuse this with what Bernie Sanders advocates for.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

I'm not sure why you think that's even a relevant question. There are multitudes of economic systems that have never been implemented, but that doesn't argue that they couldn't be, in any way. By that argument, literally no new system could ever emerge at any point through history, and we know that's a false claim.

Sure, but until a non-authoritarian socialist society of significant size manifests itself, it will remain a much harder proposition to defend than to attack. Your argument exists in the metaphysical whereas mine rests in the historical. You have ideas, I have evidence.

Also, if you think everyone's biased far to the left of you, maybe you should take some time to realize that perhaps you're the one with extreme views, not everyone else.

Okay, I'm extreme, so what? The bandwagon argument is a faulty argument. While using logical fallacies does not necessarily mean your position is untrue, it does mean the devices you are using to convince yourself and others of those truths are lacking in intellectual rigor and discipline.

[Endus]

Sure, but until a non-authoritarian socialist society of significant size manifests itself, it will remain a much harder proposition to defend than to attack. Your argument exists in the metaphysical whereas mine rests in the historical. You have ideas, I have evidence.

All your evidence points to how poor authoritarianism is, as a political construct, not socialism, as an economic one.

[Tradewind]

How about you live in your socialist society and we live in our much more free market society.

As long as you don't violate anyone's free will, I wish you the best of luck.

Because I know how this story ends.

How come even the Heritage Foundation doesn't list the US in the top 10 of economic freedoms?

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

11th behind the UK at 10 and Canada at 6, both decidedly market socialist nations. That's just weird.

20th according to the CATO/IEA, behind Chile and Mauritius.

Doesn't make a lot of sense if it's "much more free..."