Venezuela's Crash: There's No Toilet Paper In Caracas

[Adam Jensen]

Emphasis added because there are way too many Conservatives that misunderstand this.

Fun/dangerous drinking game: turn on Fox news and take a shot every time someone misrepresents the Liberal point of view.

That's a dangerous drinking game on this forum.

[Forogil]

For what it's worth, the Maduro and Chavez before him are/were democratically elected leaders. There is no rule that says that a democratically elected leader cannot be authoritarian. Both enjoyed enormous public support for large parts of their tenures.

True - even if Chavez (as previously mentioned) was part of an attempted coup, it failed and he got elected several years later.

- - - Updated - - -

That's a dangerous drinking game on this forum.

But it would require watching Fox news; isn't that dangerous enough?

[lockedout]

Without the government acting as pest control you are always the statue. Always.

Might sound weird but some people are self sufficient.

[Orange Joe]

Yes they would.

But in todays world, the unemployed get more than those on minimum wage.

How do you propose to fix this?

Make it so minimum wage is more? Is that a really hard concept?

[Stormspellz]

Glad you asked; bad economic management and corruption will always occur to some extent. But by having the state seize ownership and control of the means of production as part of the socialism the effect is that the more or less economically competent management is replaced by cronies of the states - so the effect of the corruption and bad economic management is amplified

you can get the same level of corruption and backroom deals in any economic system, socialism doesn't amplify corruption any more then capitalism

[Accelerate]

I find it funny that people who DO NOT live in a socialist country, are trying to explain how venezuela's situation is not socialism fault.

If you would expierence the nightmare that it is in your own flesh instead of being confortably in your couch without having to worry about food you wouldn't be be defending it.

This person gets it, I am apparently the only Venezuelan posting in this thread, you all have absolutely no idea, no idea whatsoever of how bad is it.

Before you ask, I do have enough toilet paper thanks.

This is a Socialist regime, Vladimir Lenin once said the Goal of Socialism is Communism, so there you have it, y'all debating Bernie here, doesn't matter your stance towards his ideas they do not change the fact that Socialism has destroyed any hope for a future in this country. Venezuela before Chavez was never a Capitalist nation, it was more of a social democracy akin to what you refer to as "Socialist European Nations", it wasn't perfect, but it was better than this nightmare.

Keep debating about Bernie I guess, not like he's getting the nomination ever. #maga, but don't banalize what we're going through right now, I do not wish this fate to anyone here.

[Shadowferal]

This person gets it, I am apparently the only Venezuelan posting in this thread, you all have absolutely no idea, no idea whatsoever of how bad is it.

Yeah, and people posting from any Scandinavian country doesn't count since they don't support your little narrative that all socialism is bad...(And yet Norway is still noted for effectively having the best economic models in the world)

[Deleted]

Yes, printing currency, or through debt -bank loans and deposits being the bulk of it-.
Care to elaborate?.

Money in todays world is not created by government but by banks. These banks do not have any assets to back that money. They just print it and laon it to the government at interest. Which means for every unit of money created, there is more units of debt. This debt can never be repaid, since creating more money creates more debt.

Meaning every country under this system lives in usury. People work just so banks get money, which they created out of nothing. Usury is a form of slavery. And all you get in return from these thieves are their speculations and market crashes. Oh and banks have no army. I wonder why the USA, who likes to spread freedom all around the world, doesn't do anything against this though.

[s_bushido]

This person gets it, I am apparently the only Venezuelan posting in this thread, you all have absolutely no idea, no idea whatsoever of how bad is it.

People who live in America are absolutely convinced that our president isn't even a citizen. People who live in America are absolutely convinced that their government is going to come confiscate their guns and institute martial law any day now. Living in a place doesn't automatically mean you know jack shit.

[Sunseeker]

It's an opinion piece, not a news article. Learn the difference Calvin.

Who the fuck cares? You're acting like it's news. News flash: everyone has an opinion. You don't see me posting my educated commentary on the political situation here like it's some kind of word-of-god. But I've seen the way you and other conservatwits circlejerk around this stuff. Some guy on the internet says socialism is bad and you all immediately jump on it like god himself has spoken to these people.

Venezuela was heavily reliant on it's oil industry, in fact it produced almost nothing else. What is happening in Venezuela is exactly what happens in every country when demand and subsequently price drops. Diversified and advanced socialist economics (IE: Western Europe) are doing fine because the problem isn't socialism, the problem is an economy overly reliant on a single resource and its leaders failing to diversify. Numerous OPEC nations are diving into the deep end of the debt pool because they are overly reliant on a single resource whose demand has dropped and thus, it's price has fallen and they can no longer support their nation on it.

Whatever it's government was is beside the point. Capitalist, communist, socialist, all these nations will fail without a diversified economy the moment their particular resource drops in value.

[Bollocks]

Believes in capitalism, opposes globalization.

Republican logic.

[Forogil]

Yeah, and people posting from any Scandinavian country doesn't count since they don't support your little narrative that all socialism is bad...(And yet Norway is still noted for effectively having the best economic models in the world)

Once more: Nordic countries have (or have had) social democrats in power - not socialists.

And Norway doesn't have the best economic model - unless you include having large oil reserves as part of their economic model, but that would be difficult to replicate for every country. (However, Norway saved oil money, Venezuela spent it; so clearly better economic handling than e.g. Venezuela.)

Added: And Norway have had a mix of Labour (a social democratic worker's party), Christian Democrats, and Conservatives in power the last decades. Norway has a Socialist Left Party it's a small party and they have progressed towards social democratic / democratic socialism.

- - - Updated - - -

People who live in America are absolutely convinced that our president isn't even a citizen. People who live in America are absolutely convinced that their government is going to come confiscate their guns and institute martial law any day now. Living in a place doesn't automatically mean you know jack shit.

Except in many cases it does, and you provided no counter-explanation. The simple facts are still that Venezuela is a socialist country (and was praised as such a few years ago - by socialists in other countries, not by social democrats) - and has now crashed totally due to economic mismanagement.

- - - Updated - - -

Keep debating about Bernie I guess, not like he's getting the nomination ever. #maga, but don't banalize what we're going through right now, I do not wish this fate to anyone here.

I don't want anyone to have that fate either, from what I heard from Venezuelans before the crash it was already bad - and now the state has just collapsed. I can only hope that Maduro gets replaced this year - but even that seems unlikely.

- - - Updated - - -

you can get the same level of corruption and backroom deals in any economic system, socialism doesn't amplify corruption any more then capitalism

You can get the same levels - but you normally don't as I explained, and then the effect gets amplified as I explained as well.

[Thimagryn]

Yes, Venezuela has crashed because of its socialism. Can't have anything to do with the corrupted government, no, it can't be. HAS to be the economic system.

[Forogil]

But in todays world, the unemployed get more than those on minimum wage.

How do you propose to fix this?

As others have said increase minimum wage/decrease unemployment benefits would be a solution if you want to fix it.

However, what many fail to ask is the important question: is it a problem?

The reason some unemployed gets more (usually for a few years; not for life) is to ease the transition between jobs (so you don't have to leave the home immediately), and ensure that people don't jump on any job, but one that they are actually a god fit for - and those benefits are normally earned while working.

If those higher benefits achieve those goals in an efficient way, then keep doing that - if it doesn't then analyze why and fix the problem - by reducing time and/or benefits - and possibly increasing minimum wage; or figure out if there is some fraud and fix that.

Changing the benefits without that analysis is stupid populism - plain and simple.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I see that Tony has once again completely ignored what always happens in these situations.

1. System is set up so that socialism can protect those who go under.

2. Economy is set up to largely work in the interests of the upper echelon, with the success of the rest being a matter of convenience.

3. Commodity in a market crashes in price, suddenly leaving an enormous portion of the population jobless.

4. As a result, other markets around it crash.

5. All of a sudden, tons of people all at once have to go on welfare, causing a flood of requests that the government can neither keep up with nor afford.

6. Various levels of fall out from this occur, but for the most part citizens are economically stranded.

This is why anti-socialists in general come off as looking incredibly stupid, they don't even know why a market crashes and are so quick to hop on board the "Socialism did it!" bandwagon, when economies have been crashing for over a century due to unregulated markets. Why is it that countries with some of the STRONGEST socialist programs and heaviest regulations that guard against commodity crashes seem so immune to these crashes? Why is it that countries with such weak regulations seem so prone to them? Why do right wingers just always seem to get economics wrong?

- - - Updated - - -

Believes in capitalism, opposes globalization.

Republican logic.

Free market only works if you imprison it.

[Theinquisition]

Who the fuck cares? You're acting like it's news. News flash: everyone has an opinion. You don't see me posting my educated commentary on the political situation here like it's some kind of word-of-god. But I've seen the way you and other conservatwits circlejerk around this stuff. Some guy on the internet says socialism is bad and you all immediately jump on it like god himself has spoken to these people.

Venezuela was heavily reliant on it's oil industry, in fact it produced almost nothing else. What is happening in Venezuela is exactly what happens in every country when demand and subsequently price drops. Diversified and advanced socialist economics (IE: Western Europe) are doing fine because the problem isn't socialism, the problem is an economy overly reliant on a single resource and its leaders failing to diversify. Numerous OPEC nations are diving into the deep end of the debt pool because they are overly reliant on a single resource whose demand has dropped and thus, it's price has fallen and they can no longer support their nation on it.

Whatever it's government was is beside the point. Capitalist, communist, socialist, all these nations will fail without a diversified economy the moment their particular resource drops in value.

Oh okay I get it.

You leftie types can post all the horse shit "if only Bernie was president" and "conservatives are evil" articles you want, and it's okay because you believe it, but someone else posts an opinion piece that you dislike and your wittle sensibilities are offended?

Lol.

At least the second piece of your diatribe has some relevance.


If a government decided to control the means in which a economy functions by limiting its options to diversify through authoritarian control, it's difficult to just blame falling oil prices for its total and complete economic collapse.

That's part of the problem with a authoritarian socialist regime that relies on boogeyman to excuse it's failings (namely us).

I see the same braying from members of the far left that scream for the same type of argument while saying "ITS NOT THE SAME"

While amusing, it does get old.

[VCrash]

I see that Tony has once again completely ignored what always happens in these situations.

1. System is set up so that socialism can protect those who go under.

2. Economy is set up to largely work in the interests of the upper echelon, with the success of the rest being a matter of convenience.

3. Commodity in a market crashes in price, suddenly leaving an enormous portion of the population jobless.

4. As a result, other markets around it crash.

5. All of a sudden, tons of people all at once have to go on welfare, causing a flood of requests that the government can neither keep up with nor afford.

6. Various levels of fall out from this occur, but for the most part citizens are economically stranded.

This is why anti-socialists in general come off as looking incredibly stupid, they don't even know why a market crashes and are so quick to hop on board the "Socialism did it!" bandwagon, when economies have been crashing for over a century due to unregulated markets. Why is it that countries with some of the STRONGEST socialist programs and heaviest regulations that guard against commodity crashes seem so immune to these crashes? Why is it that countries with such weak regulations seem so prone to them? Why do right wingers just always seem to get economics wrong?

- - - Updated - - -



Free market only works if you imprison it.

Socialism didn't CAUSE the market crash.

Socialism caused the people to suffer UNDER a market crash.

The failure of Socialism was and is to protect the people from real World market forces.

Socialism works in a simulation only. In theory only. It's too weak to become the dominant ideaology in this World.

[Forogil]

Why is it that countries with some of the STRONGEST socialist programs and heaviest regulations that guard against commodity crashes seem so immune to these crashes? Why is it that countries with such weak regulations seem so prone to them? Why do right wingers just always seem to get economics wrong?

Well, left-wingers have the same problem. Basically as soon as people see ideology as more important than pragmatism they have to contort lies to hide the truth, and will favor simple-minded easy solution instead of complicated real-world solutions.

That's also why Venezuela is no longer seen as socialist paradise by socialists - and instead social democrats are seen as socialists (which is really wrong both for real social democrats and for real socialists). That some Americans - possibly including Bernie Sanders - don't understand the difference is a also problem. I blame the American educational system for that failure.

And what country do you believe has the strongest socialist program and heaviest regulations and is immune to crashes?

[Theinquisition]

Yes, Venezuela has crashed because of its socialism. Can't have anything to do with the corrupted government, no, it can't be. HAS to be the economic system.

Well authoritarian socialism certainly set the stage for the collapse.

- - - Updated - - -

I see that Tony has once again completely ignored what always happens in these situations.

1. System is set up so that socialism can protect those who go under.

2. Economy is set up to largely work in the interests of the upper echelon, with the success of the rest being a matter of convenience.

3. Commodity in a market crashes in price, suddenly leaving an enormous portion of the population jobless.

4. As a result, other markets around it crash.

5. All of a sudden, tons of people all at once have to go on welfare, causing a flood of requests that the government can neither keep up with nor afford.

6. Various levels of fall out from this occur, but for the most part citizens are economically stranded.

This is why anti-socialists in general come off as looking incredibly stupid, they don't even know why a market crashes and are so quick to hop on board the "Socialism did it!" bandwagon, when economies have been crashing for over a century due to unregulated markets. Why is it that countries with some of the STRONGEST socialist programs and heaviest regulations that guard against commodity crashes seem so immune to these crashes? Why is it that countries with such weak regulations seem so prone to them? Why do right wingers just always seem to get economics wrong?

- - - Updated - - -



Free market only works if you imprison it.

Number 2 is key.

Govt was given enough power that they could make that happen. Govts under a socialist style economic system are typically empowered enough to allow cronyism to run rampant through govt enablement.

Venezuela is a fine example of why I'm not a fan of giving govts more and more power. Bernie is just a older less entertaining version of maduro

[Sargerasraider]

Snip

I love how you, and those who agree with you, totally ignore that this same story has occurred again and again.

Giving the government enough power to nationalize business and plan the economy absolutely encourages corruption and cronyism. Entrusting a few people to plan the economy will cause the country to fail when those people fail.

Yes, countries with a largely capitalist system (including almost ALL of Europe) have recessions and even depressions from time to time. You do not frequently see this kind of disaster that you now see in Venezuela and other countries which have given a good try at real socialism.

I'm sure that you think that if we just had that system here, we'd have absolute angels in control. I'm sure that, even if given power, they would be totally immune to corruption as they nationalize industry. I'm sure they would be excellent at planning the economy. Einstein's insanity quote comes to mind.