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

[Forogil]

The political party in power does not completely redefine the entire socio-political-economic system of a nation. What would be helpful to having a meaningful discussion would be people actually knowing two things about the country they're talking about and not just randomly googling a nation, reading that "the Tories are conservative" and assuming that means England isn't socialist. Tell that to their NHS will ya?

NHS doesn't make England socialist.
And without googling I know the difference between the UK and England, and that prime minister Cameron is Tory and governs the UK (under the Queen, of course).

This is the reason I don't really "engage" in these "discussions". I spent 4 years studying numerous different nations, governmental systems, their histories and a wide variety of scholarly literature on the subject and I have to compete with people who think googling is akin to researching.

Not a very good education if you don't know the difference between socialism, social democracy, and social welfare system.
I don't need googling to do that - while you both seem unable to grasp the differences and unwilling to learn more.

Socialism doesn't call for nationalization. Socialism doesn't call for a planned economy (every nation plans it economy to some degree anyway). Socialism doesn't call for instituting price controls.

Where did you get that failed education?

And just a simple tip: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy , but more importantly listen to Socialist and Social Democratic persons and the programs of those parties and you will see the differences. Socialist parties might not call for taking control of the means of production today, but it is in their longer-term goals; while the social democratic parties might once had had it as a long-term goal that should be achieved through peaceful means, but no longer.

- - - Updated - - -

Just about every country they listed was ruled by a dictatorship or in a 3rd world country. Of course "socialism" isn't going to work with dictators and countries that base its economy on just oil and have the oil price fall way below what they need.

You are missing the reasons: it's hard to take control of the means of production without dictatorship - i.e. socialism without dictatorship is difficult, and countries don't develop economically well under socialism. That is true even for e.g. the reformist syndicalists (a form of socialists) who favor the workers taking over the factories - without the state and without revolution; but normally such worker-owned companies don't develop as well as capitalist companies; and they are a fringe group.

[Glnger]

NHS doesn't make England socialist.
And without googling I know the difference between the UK and England, and that prime minister Cameron is Tory and governs the UK (under the Queen, of course).


Not a very good education if you don't know the difference between socialism, social democracy, and social welfare system.
I don't need googling to do that - while you both seem unable to grasp the differences and unwilling to learn more.


Where did you get that failed education?

And just a simple tip: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy , but more importantly listen to Socialist and Social Democratic persons and the programs of those parties and you will see the differences. Socialist parties might not call for taking control of the means of production today, but it is in their longer-term goals; while the social democratic parties might once had had it as a long-term goal that should be achieved through peaceful means, but no longer.

NIKE has proven that they are very good at promoting NIKE. Corporatism like it has grown in the US isn't Democracy either, though.

but come on now, lets not act like paying minorities in China/Taiwan $0.45 an hour to make shoes is a drastically intuitive marketing scheme....The plantation slavers just paid $0.45 less an hour.

[Forogil]

It makes perfect sense. The economy was backed by a small number of commodities, and for the most part by a single commodity. That commodity crashed and the economy went south. Socialism is designed to help people who fall on hard times, but when everyone falls on hard times all at once, the sudden weight collapses the state budget. There's nothing about socialism that caused the initial collapse of the economy, since that came BEFORE the crash of the government.

No. Socialism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism, is about taking control of the means of production - the Venezuelan socialist, http://www.psuv.org.ve/ , did that; and squeezed the oil industry hard - both so that they got problems producing oil and so that the rest of the economy collapsed.

Then the oil price went down (as it usually does) - and the economy crashed, but even without decreasing oil prices their fiscal break-even is around 150$/barrel - i.e. the economy was in bad shape even with high oil prices.

Nobody in here, not a single person, has yet to explain the mechanism by which they think they know that socialism caused the economy to go south,

Almost every single person responding to you have repeatedly stated the mechanism by which socialism caused the fall of Venezuela - see text above once more.

We have lead you to the well of knowledge time after time. Will you drink take a sip of the well, or continue with doublethink?

- - - Updated - - -

NIKE has proven that they are very good at promoting NIKE. Corporatism like it has grown in the US isn't Democracy either, though.

but come on now, lets not act like paying minorities in China/Taiwan $0.45 an hour to make shoes is a drastically intuitive marketing scheme....The plantation slavers just paid $0.45 less an hour.

You must have replied to the wrong message, since that has nothing to do with what I wrote, or socialism, or Venezuela.

[stomination]

You are missing the reasons: it's hard to take control of the means of production without dictatorship - i.e. socialism without dictatorship is difficult, and countries don't develop economically well under socialism. That is true even for e.g. the reformist syndicalists (a form of socialists) who favor the workers taking over the factories - without the state and without revolution; but normally such worker-owned companies don't develop as well as capitalist companies; and they are a fringe group.

It is also hard for a country like America to wind up like those countries due to it not having a dictatorship or basing its economy on just one thing selling high. Yet every decade Europe and America are going closer and closer to a more democratic socialist ideology. Just look at the programs these countries are pouring out.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Actually I did.

When you mismanage your funds and seize the assets of foreign investors under socialist notions/pretenses, then yes, it might play a factor in future growth rates, and consequently, a governments ability to keep an economy stable during busts.

Seizing assets is not an inherently socialist. It's been done under a multitude of regimes all with different stances on the political spectrum. This is an explanation that ventures into the fallacious line of thought that anything authoritarian is socialism. The government seized control and backed its economy on mostly a single commodity, which failed because of the market.

The government misstepped there yes, and was unable to take care of its citizens when the commodity it backed its economy on crashed. But I emphasize again, this is not socialism. It was a socialist government that did something that others have also done before. There are a multitude of developing countries across Africa and Asia that control their economy via a centralized government, they however do not run on a socialist policy, and their own assets crashed with the ripples from the American recession and from the oil crash. But nobody points to these, because it doesn't vilify socialism.

[Glnger]

No. Socialism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism, is about taking control of the means of production - the Venezuelan socialist, http://www.psuv.org.ve/ , did that; and squeezed the oil industry hard - both so that they got problems producing oil and so that the rest of the economy collapsed.

Then the oil price went down (as it usually does) - and the economy crashed, but even without decreasing oil prices their fiscal break-even is around 150$/barrel - i.e. the economy was in bad shape even with high oil prices.


Almost every single person responding to you have repeatedly stated the mechanism by which socialism caused the fall of Venezuela - see text above once more.

We have lead you to the well of knowledge time after time. Will you drink take a sip of the well, or continue with doublethink?

- - - Updated - - -


You must have replied to the wrong message, since that has nothing to do with what I wrote, or socialism, or Venezuela.

so we're to gather from your fountain of knowledge that since Venezuela (who had 90+% GDP in oil) is comparable to America who has less than 1%.
and therefore any socialist policies will fail here?

you didn't even make an argument now that I reread this, you just post something and let everyone know youre "outraged" by it

[Forogil]

It is also hard for a country like America to wind up like those countries due to it not having a dictatorship or basing its economy on just one thing selling high. Yet every decade Europe and America are going closer and closer to a more democratic socialist ideology. Just look at the programs these countries are pouring out.

No, they have social democrats - that have moved away from socialist tendencies they had in their past. The label "democratic socialists" for "social democrats" is not widely used, because many social democrats despise socialists and want to avoid that label.

[Glnger]

No, they have social democrats - that have moved away from socialist tendencies they had in their past. The label "democratic socialists" for "social democrats" is not widely used, because many social democrats despise socialists and want to avoid that label.

no, it's because the word "social" has been ruined in the minds of retards because of right wing propaganda

[Cthulhu 2020]

Almost every single person responding to you have repeatedly stated the mechanism by which socialism caused the fall of Venezuela - see text above once more.

We have lead you to the well of knowledge time after time. Will you drink take a sip of the well, or continue with doublethink?

Those mental gymnastics that you guys are doing to try and blame this on socialism, tsk tsk. For shame. As said, the oil crash was the cause of this. Backing your economy on a single commodity is something that has screwed many countries recently, not just the socialist ones. Socialism is not the binding factor. The government basing its economy on this one commodity is what screwed Venezuela.

When another country does the same and fails but does not have socialism, what then do you blame? Mercantalism in mercantile based countries? Free trade in free trade based countries? There's one commonality here, and it's not socialism.

[Forogil]

so we're to gather from your fountain of knowledge that since Venezuela (who had 90+% GDP in oil) is comparable to America who has less than 1%.
and therefore any socialist policies will fail here?

Yes. Because Venezuela didn't start as a being that dependent on oil - they lost all other industries due to socialist economic mismanagement - the public is not very good at managing companies (even though the socialists of Venezuela are more inept than average), and then oil prices went down.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Yes. Because Venezuela didn't start as a being that dependent on oil - they lost all other industries due to socialist economic mismanagement - the public is not very good at managing companies (even though the socialists of Venezuela are more inept than average), and then oil prices went down.

The oil crash caused many private companies around the world to fail. That must mean private also fails at management of business. Claiming that public management is always doomed to failure is unbelievably narrow minded.

[Forogil]

Those mental gymnastics that you guys are doing to try and blame this on socialism, tsk tsk.

The mental gymnastics for not blaming socialist Venezuelas failure on socialist policies is just the normal doublethink of socialists.

- - - Updated - - -

no, it's because the word "social" has been ruined in the minds of retards because of right wing propaganda

The double-think of claiming that rw propaganda tainted "social", and this explains why "social democrats" avoid the label "democratic socialists" and prefer "social democrats" is truly astonishing.

- - - Updated - - -

The oil crash caused many private companies around the world to fail.

That is the world. No-one knows the future - some companies crash; some don't. That is why the state taking control isn't good - since it replaces the many by one, and thinks that it can plan to avoid the crash.

[Cthulhu 2020]

The mental gymnastics for not blaming socialist Venezuelas failure on socialist policies is just the normal doublethink of socialists.

- - - Updated - - -


The double-think of claiming that rw propaganda tainted "social" explain that "social democrats" avoid the label "democratic socialists" and prefer "social democrats" is truly astonishing.

Please just stop, you're embarrassing yourself. Many countries and businesses failed due to the oil commodity crash. That they failed is no more proof that capitalism failed than Venezuela's failure is proof that socialism failed.

The oil market crashed. The people who relied on it got fucked. The end.

[Thimagryn]

By that logic, Communism works because China is becoming a new economic world power. Believing otherwise must be the doublethink of capitalists, right?

[Cthulhu 2020]

That is the world. No-one knows the future - some companies crash; some don't. That is why the state taking control isn't good - since it replaces the many by one, and thinks that it can plan to avoid the crash.

You accuse others of double think, then make excuses for failed businesses as "We can't predict the future" meanwhile claiming failed public holdings means it will never work, even though many successfully accomplish it around the world.

You're just digging your hole deeper.

Again, the oil market crashed. People got fucked by it. The only double think here is you trying to claim that the public holdings of oil failing means that public will always fail, meanwhile making excuses for all the private businesses that toppled around the world because of it.

[Glnger]

Yes. Because Venezuela didn't start as a being that dependent on oil - they lost all other industries due to socialist economic mismanagement - the public is not very good at managing companies (even though the socialists of Venezuela are more inept than average), and then oil prices went down.

yes, if you go back in time before the combustion engine you'll find less of a draw on the oil needed to run combustion engines.... I'm no expert tho..

(expert enough to not be a dumbass though)

- - - Updated - - -

The mental gymnastics for not blaming socialist Venezuelas failure on socialist policies is just the normal doublethink of socialists.

- - - Updated - - -


The double-think of claiming that rw propaganda tainted "social", and this explains why "social democrats" avoid the label "democratic socialists" and prefer "social democrats" is truly astonishing.

- - - Updated - - -


That is the world. No-one knows the future - some companies crash; some don't. That is why the state taking control isn't good - since it replaces the many by one, and thinks that it can plan to avoid the crash.

no, dude. I was suggesting that dumb people have a hard time using big words, and you proved me right. that took all of 5 seconds thank you, I am impatient.

- - - Updated - - -

The mental gymnastics for not blaming socialist Venezuelas failure on socialist policies is just the normal doublethink of socialists.

- - - Updated - - -


The double-think of claiming that rw propaganda tainted "social", and this explains why "social democrats" avoid the label "democratic socialists" and prefer "social democrats" is truly astonishing.

- - - Updated - - -


That is the world. No-one knows the future - some companies crash; some don't. That is why the state taking control isn't good - since it replaces the many by one, and thinks that it can plan to avoid the crash.

how about I just stand for the rights of people and property and you do.... whatever it is you're doing.

[Deleted]

this is a shitty situation!

/hadtobedone

[THE Bigzoman]

Seizing assets is not an inherently socialist. It's been done under a multitude of regimes all with different stances on the political spectrum. This is an explanation that ventures into the fallacious line of thought that anything authoritarian is socialism. The government seized control and backed its economy on mostly a single commodity, which failed because of the market.

The government misstepped there yes, and was unable to take care of its citizens when the commodity it backed its economy on crashed. But I emphasize again, this is not socialism. It was a socialist government that did something that others have also done before. There are a multitude of developing countries across Africa and Asia that control their economy via a centralized government, they however do not run on a socialist policy, and their own assets crashed with the ripples from the American recession and from the oil crash. But nobody points to these, because it doesn't vilify socialism.

Seizing asset isn't inherently socialist.

Well no shit.

Doing so under socialist notions and pretenses is

[Gref]

this is a shitty situation!

/hadtobedone

They are in some deepshit?

/hadtobedone?

[Theinquisition]

da

do you know what else is a contractual agreement? medicare, retirement, medicade......do you care about MY contract agreements? doesn't seem like it.

always good to see someone working in the system that makes shit money trying to shit on other people who (only in your imagination) who make slightly less money.

Tony: the guy with a 1 inch dick making fun of guys who he only thinks have a slightly smaller one...
GET EM` TIGER!
way to punch down. with enough deflection no one will ever know how truly empty you are

A true sign of a warrior.

and remember, fuckface. you're the one that doesn't want to increase the minimum wages... yet the first thing you do is attack how much I make..... nah. you're a true piece of shit, guy. genuinely.

Infracted - minor flaming

1. Define shit money. I'm in the six figures. While im not Rich, im certainly not poor and its through my own hard work, good decision making, and...well..good old fashioned good luck

2. You made the insinuation that my contractual agreements that somehow I was mooching. Your opinion doesn't matter to me, but even if it did. I work. I get paid. Thats all it comes down to with military service.

3.I'm pretty comfortable with my penis size. It's kind of disturbing that you are talking about it.

4. The only thing im empty of is two things. Empathy for your opinion, and beer. the second one is being remedied right now.

5. I could care less how much you make. You insinuated that because I receive a VA pension for injuries suffered while in the service, that I was mooching and that my sole income is my VA pension, which it is not.

I must admit, i am genuinely satisfied that I rattled your cage, thank you for that.

- - - Updated - - -

The oil crash caused many private companies around the world to fail. That must mean private also fails at management of business. Claiming that public management is always doomed to failure is unbelievably narrow minded.

Those private failures haven't sunk an entire nations economy. Venezuela's seizure and mismanagement of their businesses has. This is, in my opinion, the biggest danger of a heavily socialist economy. Gov't bureaucrats pretending to be entrepreneurs and business leaders, and when they fail, its not them that suffers, its everyone else.