Is socialism to blame for Venezuela's plight?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Youtuber Stefan Molyneux says the US and other countries will eventually become Venezuela if they embrace Bernie Sanders style economics.

[I’m not Stu]

Socialism is to blame for this.

[Intell]

of course not.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Of course

[Sumner 1868]

No, Venezuela shows the flaw with basing economies on a single resource.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

lol

[Grand Wizard Lizard of the Klan]

No, Venezuela shows the flaw with basing economies on a single resource.

This.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Stefan Molyneux

not an argument

[Person Man]

Being like Wyoming or North Dakota is!

[mencken]

The mental gymnastics of those that vote no astound me.

[Zioneer]

No, its being reliant on one particular, economically volatile resource, and having incompetent strongman-style socialism.

Other countries that have "socialism" of a sort (at least to American eyes) are more competent with their economies; Sweden, Norway, even Germany or France.

And Stefan Molyneux is a cultish hack who became an alt-right Trumpist as soon as he felt his audience was slipping away from his wacky anarcho-capitalist views.

[NeverAgain]

No, Venezuela shows the flaw with basing economies on a single resource.

Basically this. As many countries, like Norway (more spookeh socialist than Venezuela, I might add) and Saudi Arabia saved their oil money, Venezuela spent and spent. Now this became a significant problem when the oil boom subsided and money became significantly tight. But their money problems were not unsolvable.

What the Government decided to do to pay their debts was to print more money, thinking that that will instantly solve all their problems. As we know from the German example, it didn't. They soon reached record inflation, and panicked. In late 2015 they implemented price controls, to combat the rising costs. Big mistake. Many stores and businesses, being forced to basically have a government mandated lost of profit, shut down. I am talking grocery stores, hotels, and most especially, the utility companies.

The utility companies started only turning on your lights if you paid these inflated prices. Not many people did, and therefore they have consistant rolling blackouts country-wide. In hospitals, some doctors have to do surgery with their phone flashlight. One doctor that was there said it was worse a war zone, except in a war zone people assumed this would be over at some point.

So, anyways, no. This wasn't "socialism" that killed the country. It was a based on having a government rely almost soley on oil for their government revenue. It was a pattern of spending, not saving. And it's real problem is that the government won't do the hard stuff now and fix the problem. Instead doing the stupid thing to try and put a band aid on a gaping wound.

[Cashew]

No, Venezuela shows the flaw with basing economies on a single resource.

This.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

No, it's mostly awful economic  choices, bad international allies, demagoguery and corruption  (and Maduro being a moron isn't helping)

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The problems would probably be at least marginally easier to fix with freer markets, yes, but it wasn't socialism as such that precipitated the crisis.

[mencken]

No, Venezuela shows the flaw with basing economies on a single resource.

Basically this. As many countries, like Norway (more spookeh socialist than Venezuela, I might add) and Saudi Arabia saved their oil money, Venezuela spent and spent.

Gee, I wonder what sort of economic system might encourage short-term consumption as opposed to long-term investment? This could not possibly by the tragedy of the commons at work, could it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All that you have described are classic symptoms of socialism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"The patient did not die of cancer, she died of pneumonia"

[mencken]

No, its being reliant on one particular, economically volatile resource, and having incompetent strongman-style socialism.

Other countries that have "socialism" of a sort (at least to American eyes) are more competent with their economies; Sweden, Norway, even Germany or France.

And Stefan Molyneux is a cultish hack who became an alt-right Trumpist as soon as he felt his audience was slipping away from his wacky anarcho-capitalist views.

Interesting that supposedly "socialist" countries have lower corporate tax rates than the United States.

Also amusing that the "socialist" model countries all have precious little diversity compared to the United States. Why not actually use an apples-to-apples comparison?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I find it interesting, in the context of Venezuela's various failures at resource distribution, that you've found an article by Garrett Hardin, noted advocate of deliberately denying food aid to areas suffering catastrophic famines as a means of population control, to use as part of your argument here.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Socialism can denote all manner of creeds and policies, especially in the Third World. I.e. if we declare the policies of Chavez and his idiot successor to be 'socialism' and we hold their policies to be responsible for the disaster that is contemporary Venezuela this does not actually help us much in apportioning blame; all it tells us is that the disastrous policies in question were described as 'socialism' by those implementing them. Foreign observers of Latin America in particular are often apt to be overwhelmed by its colourful political cultures to the point where they only notice the aesthetics of politics when they really ought to know better. Venezuela was never another Soviet Union in any sense; its claimed successes were the result of the oil bonanza, its undeniable present state of catastrophe is principally the fault of an inability to understand that said bonanza would not last forever combined with heavy does of the sadly typical Third World economic incompetence, the basic patterns of which are often remarkably akin no matter the claimed ideological label of the regime. A vague but deeply held conviction amongst Venezuela's governing elite that the market is bad has further contributed to the unfolding horror show, but this (I'm sorry) more of a peasant prejudice than something that can be honestly labeled an ideology. Chavez was not Castro and even Castro was rather less interested in the principles of Marxism-Leninism than the average Warsaw Pact meatpuppet...

[Murica!]

If I see "Tragedy of the Commons" one more time from some sh**thead who claims to "know basic economics" I'm going to have a meltdown.

[mencken]

I find it interesting, in the context of Venezuela's various failures at resource distribution, that you've found an article by Garrett Hardin, noted advocate of deliberately denying food aid to areas suffering catastrophic famines as a means of population control, to use as part of your argument here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger

If I see "Tragedy of the Commons" one more time from some sh**thead who claims to "know basic economics" I'm going to have a meltdown.

In that event, signs will light up guiding you to the nearest safe space.

[SATW]

yes

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I find it interesting, in the context of Venezuela's various failures at resource distribution, that you've found an article by Garrett Hardin, noted advocate of deliberately denying food aid to areas suffering catastrophic famines as a means of population control, to use as part of your argument here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger

No, not really, considering that this formulation of the tragedy of the commons gets pushed really hard throughout Hardin's body of work, that it's milked for all it's worth to support a lot of the more obviously repellent conclusions that Hardin and other assorted neo-Malthusians and neo-eugenicists reach, and that other thinkers, including people who unlike Hardin actually are historians and/or economists, have strenuously criticized it on moral as well as intellectual grounds--and, further, considering the tendency of both boilerplate libertarians and the sorts of people who adopt screen names like 'mencken' to be perfectly fine with policies that 'pick winners and losers', sometimes quite overtly and, uh, harshly, as long as they aren't seen to be lifting a finger to help the 'undeserving' or unfortunate...

[Murica!]

I find it interesting, in the context of Venezuela's various failures at resource distribution, that you've found an article by Garrett Hardin, noted advocate of deliberately denying food aid to areas suffering catastrophic famines as a means of population control, to use as part of your argument here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger

If I see "Tragedy of the Commons" one more time from some sh**thead who claims to "know basic economics" I'm going to have a meltdown.

In that event, signs will light up guiding you to the nearest safe space.

The "Tragedy of the Commons" has been proven false even by it's writer, it pisses me off that you rightists continue to use it.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I find it interesting, in the context of Venezuela's various failures at resource distribution, that you've found an article by Garrett Hardin, noted advocate of deliberately denying food aid to areas suffering catastrophic famines as a means of population control, to use as part of your argument here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger

If I see "Tragedy of the Commons" one more time from some sh**thead who claims to "know basic economics" I'm going to have a meltdown.

In that event, signs will light up guiding you to the nearest safe space.

The "Tragedy of the Commons" has been proven false even by it's writer, it pisses me off that you rightists continue to use it.

Especially curious as it's easily solved by simply deciding on rules about how to use the commons.