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

[JohnBrown1917]

It is.

So the Dutch empire is proof capitalism does not work then?


Good to know! Unless we are using double standards that is.

[Forogil]

Maybe not "normally", but it's not uncommon at all.

Ah, someone discovered wikipedia. I'm aware of this - that's why I wrote "normally", and mentioned that language is problematic a lot earlier in this thread, since it not only differs between countries - but also between languages.

Of note, non of the northern European countries have a "mislabeled" party, so maybe they feel strongly about it.

And more importantly - every time someone wants to show that Venezuela is a fluke and "socialism" works those are the parties that are used as examples; while they are very parties that don't use the label (and feel strongly about it).

They use the terms interchangeably except for when the distinction is relevant (which it rarely is).

It's relevant if there are actual socialists - like the ones in Venezuela.

People don't normally mention "Socialist Party of Albania" as a shining example. (Not meant as an attack of the proud ex-communists of Albania.)

[JohnBrown1917]

Ummm...that's not what I said.

I'm saying I wonder how your Democratic socialism will fair once unchecked migration has bled the coffers dry.

Most countries up here don't have unchecked Immigration, besides maybe Sweden? But they'll probably change it soon enough if they have not already. So again, how are Northern Euro countries proof that that economic system is a failure?

[Forogil]

So the Dutch empire is proof capitalism does not work then?

In what way do you mean it is a proof? That they lost large part of their empire in a war?

(Not that state capitalism is desirable; I just don't see the proof.)

[Theinquisition]

Most countries up here don't have unchecked Immigration, besides maybe Sweden? But they'll probably change it soon enough if they have not already. So again, how are Northern Euro countries proof that that economic system is a failure?

As I said, I would like to see how they do in 10 years. I'm not saying they have failed, although creating a Welfare economic system with a nation that is demographically homogenous is certainly an advantage.

[JohnBrown1917]

In what way do you mean it is a proof? That they lost large part of their empire in a war?

(Not that state capitalism is desirable; I just don't see the proof.)

The economic crash, for one.

I mean, if 1 country is enough to discredit any kind of socialism...

[Forogil]

The economic crash, for one.

Which economic crash?
Do you mean the severe Tulip crash - which occurred in the middle of Dutch golden age when the Dutch empire expanded? It was a dot-com-like bubble (always fun when people mention it during studies), but people didn't run out of toilet paper etc - just investors getting problem. And remember that Tulips grow in Holland.
Due you mean the depression in the 1930s? Why would you link that to the Dutch and the Dutch empire?
I hope you don't believe the Dutch disease is related to the Dutch empire.

[JohnBrown1917]

Which economic crash?
Do you mean the severe Tulip crash - which occurred in the middle of Dutch golden age when the Dutch empire expanded? It was a dot-com-like bubble (always fun when people mention it during studies), but people didn't run out of toilet paper etc - just investors getting problem. And remember that Tulips grow in Holland.
Due you mean the depression in the 1930s? Why would you link that to the Dutch and the Dutch empire?
I hope you don't believe the Dutch disease is related to the Dutch empire.

No, the crash happened at the end of the golden era, it wasn't just tulips that became worthless, it got to the point where they could not even afford the military any more.
Not to mention the huge divide between poor and rich, or entire missions that became worthless, or the whole slave trade that was started by them.



Its asinine to take just 1 country and immediately use it as an argument to say the entire system fails, by that logic no capitalistic or socialist ideas should be used at all.


By no means does this mean nothing in capitalism works, but both socialism and capitalism are shit if you only use the most extreme cases of countries using it. Even the US has socialistic ideas in its system..

[Knolan]

As someone who lives in a neighbor country, I can tell you that the socialists here were always saying that Venezuela was the dream nation when Chaves started moving more and more in power and started implementing socialist measures (like 10 years ago). Specially talking about the gas prices there (which were 10+ times cheaper than in my country).

The main problem is that socialists think that price control works... here is how it is in their minds:
1) Governments will enforce a 1 USD price tag on the toilet paper price.
2) The evil businessmen will have to abide and will reduce their clearly abusive profit margins.
End result: People will be happy with cheap toilet prices.

What really happens:
1) Government puts a 1 USD price tag on toilet paper.
2) Businessmen see that the cost of production is 1.20 USD.
3) Businessmen stop producing toilet paper, fires everyone who works for then and closes the factory.
End result: there is no longer any toilet paper in shelves and all people who worked in that industry no longer have a job.

I also love how every socialist in the world is now saying that the Venezuela crash is the fault of the drop in the Oil price.

[Austilias]

A lot of ressentiment on display.

[Forogil]

No, the crash happened at the end of the golden era, it wasn't just tulips that became worthless, it got to the point where they could not even afford the military any more.
Not to mention the huge divide between poor and rich, or entire missions that became worthless, or the whole slave trade that was started by them.

So, here are your claims:
1. The Tulip crash happened at the end of the golden era for the Dutch empire.
2. More than Tulips became worthless.
3. The Dutch could not afford the military, which assumedly was problematic.
4. The slave trade was started by them.
5. Entire missions became worthless
6. This shows a problem with capitalism

Let's go through them:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Golden_Age - puts the Dutch golden age at the entire 17th century, with a peace during the 2nd half - others see it ending in 1670. The Tulip crash happened in 1637 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania . So, wrong.
2. More than Tulips crashed: Yes, but the Tulip crash is the most well-known.
3. They were at the end of the 80-year war, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty...2.80.931640.29 - and ended up victors a few years later. I see nothing confirming that they didn't pay the military - and if they did it seemed the military worked better without pay. So, wrong.
4. The invention of slave-trade goes back a long time - it's even in the Bible "Both your male and female slaves, whom you may have, they shall be bought from the nations that are around you."; and Portugal/Spain started the trans-Atlantic one in the 15th and 16th century. So, wrong - and still unclear what the point was.
5. Possibly.
6. You claimed it is related to capitalism, which as as an idea wasn't made clear until Adam Smith (his Wealth of Nations is actually a good read) more than a century later - while the Tulip-mania stories were invented two centuries after the actual Tulip-mania; and likely false. Instead it seems the problem was limited to a small group of investors - and didn't cause a major crash for society, which means the crash didn't impact society severely. Since the Dutch managed to successfully win a war, and have a strong fleet afterwards it seems clear that the original stories of the crash are an exaggeration (even if the "efficient-market" explanation seems problematic).

Or basically - you failed to prove anything. (I'm still wondering why someone would pick tulip mania as the show-case for failed capitalism.)
-
Meanwhile the economy in Venezuela is still in complete chaos due to the socialist policies; i.e. taking over production and controlling prices.
But, I guess that possibly bankrupt tulip-traders and people unable to find food in the stores might be seen as the same.

[Vargulf the Happy Husky]

This is a stupid partisan opinion piece. The problem is central planning of economies with insufficient information. Not socialist ideology at its core - which works extremely well when incorporated into developed nations such as the US.

assuming of course that the leaders of that nation are corrupt greedy fucks. Oh, and every nation to succumb to communism has a corrupt greedy fuck that lead it.

Dat socialism is gweat doe!

[Forogil]

As someone who lives in a neighbor country, I can tell you that the socialists here were always saying that Venezuela was the dream nation when Chaves started moving more and more in power and started implementing socialist measures (like 10 years ago). Specially talking about the gas prices there (which were 10+ times cheaper than in my country).

Yes. The problem is that many in this thread hadn't heard about Venezuela before recently.
Thus they seem to have the idea that socialist Venezuela is a plot by Fox-news to discredit Sanders.

[dacoolist]

Toilet paper is the only reason I love the USA.. We have like 75 different brands of TP, we are talking super soft, super strong, super soft-strong, super super soft-strong, super super extra large roll soft-strong... you want to live in the USA, believe me.