The Solicialist Utopia of Venezuela has Issues...
Comments
-
Never heard of it but I believe you. I would trust most anything over the NYTTierbsHsotBoobs said: -
What the hell fantasyland are you living in? The govt has nationalized industry after industry, and the govt and local mafia pretty much shake down and run over any local business owner until they are run out of business. One of many examples...Mad_Son said:
Hope that helps.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36359120
Worse than Syria
Venezuela is the fourth worst country in the world in which to try to run a company, according to the World Bank's 2016 Doing Business report.
The organisation found that only South Sudan (civil war), Libya (civil war) and Eritrea (military dictatorship) were judged to be even more difficult. So, according to the World Bank, it is easier to run a business in Syria than it is to do so in Venezuela.
-
Big black cock is your source?HoustonHusky said:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36359120
Worse than Syria
Venezuela is the fourth worst country in the world in which to try to run a company, according to the World Bank's 2016 Doing Business report.
The organisation found that only South Sudan (civil war), Libya (civil war) and Eritrea (military dictatorship) were judged to be even more difficult. So, according to the World Bank, it is easier to run a business in Syria than it is to do so in Venezuela. -
That's your other browser window.2001400ex said: -
Wut?HoustonHusky said: -
I already said Venezuela is a shitty place to do business... the nationalization though tends to be foreign enterprises which is less relevant for a native starting a business. Even when the government nationalizes a company it still has been paying generally fair prices for them.HoustonHusky said:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36359120
Worse than Syria
Venezuela is the fourth worst country in the world in which to try to run a company, according to the World Bank's 2016 Doing Business report.
The organisation found that only South Sudan (civil war), Libya (civil war) and Eritrea (military dictatorship) were judged to be even more difficult. So, according to the World Bank, it is easier to run a business in Syria than it is to do so in Venezuela.
Now the corruption is another story. I have already addressed the way oil funds are managed in an earlier post and cited that as a short coming for Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.
Basically, your issue is with Chavez which you conflate to all socialism which you then say is why Venezuela is failing when really it all comes back to their dependence on oil which some have tried to make the spurious claim that socialism leads to a non-diverse economy. In the unique case of Venezuela you can try to make the claim that the government has lead to a lack of diversification, but again that takes you back to Chavez... -
Also, this may interest you as a related topic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nationalizations_by_country -
Ty is a loser.RaceBannon said:
The NY Times wins.
Why do you hate winners? -
That's a whole lot of stupid. You said it was shitty and then said people can make a buck. Its easier to do that in fucking Civil War-torn Syria right now. The economy itself is shrinking by double digits for the 3rd year in a row. Effin a...Mad_Son said:
Now the corruption is another story. I have already addressed the way oil funds are managed in an earlier post and cited that as a short coming for Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.
Basically, your issue is with Chavez which you conflate to all socialism which you then say is why Venezuela is failing when really it all comes back to their dependence on oil which some have tried to make the spurious claim that socialism leads to a non-diverse economy. In the unique case of Venezuela you can try to make the claim that the government has lead to a lack of diversification, but again that takes you back to Chavez...
And no, you are wrong. Chavez nationalized the milk production (he seized millions of acres and farms deemed "unproductive" or without "proper titles"...most of the food production, the cement production, etc. What did it lead to? Less overall food, less overall supplies, etc.
http://www.euromonitor.com/dairy-in-venezuela/report
etc. etc.
The govt took over the industries, the govt then mismanaged the industry, the industry suffered as resources shifted to try and make things outside of the govt management. Its a worldwide story that's happened again and again...look at the Soviet Union (btw...love your "link"...effin Wikipedia). You have to love entries like:
1918 All manufacturing enterprises, many retailing enterprises, any private enterprises, the whole bank system, agrarian sector, others.
Its only one bullet point so it can't be much...
And yes, nationalization happens all over and probably always will. Its the cash grab of the political class to cover up for piss-poor govt policy. Worked well for the former Eastern Bloc... You think all the China overbuilt manufacturing facilities that were built by govt guidance and losing money (thinking they are going to make it up in volume...) make any long-term sense? I love how they are shutting down a bunch of them for a couple weeks just so the G20 conference won't be distracted by the air pollution (and yet morons like Thomas Friedman think we should be more like them). You think all the nationalizations in Argentina made any sense?
Effin A... -
Sure he was. He armed the guys that became ISIS instead of blowing the shit out of them ourselves. Now he isn't blowing the shit out of them. Proxy wars are not in our control. 'ol Gadhafi was pretty quite after Ronnie dropped bombs on his house. Why did we go there? Just so happens Soros's huge oil company was in country and needed to get out.dhdawg said: -
HoustonHusky said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization -
Mad_Son said:
-
ttu_85 said:
Just because A is B and B is not good does not mean that A failed because of B. A failed because of C in this case.
I am not sure why this is so hard for you all to grasp. It is like any post other than "I love America! SOLDIERS!!! CAPITALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" is somehow sacrilege to the majority of the people here. Just because I don't wear that on my sleeve and call a spade a spade doesn't mean I am trying to show support for SOCIALISM or TERRORISM or CANADA.
Step back for a second and logically try to understand my point without getting defensive for capitalism. Venezuela is a socialism that failed because it's economy is entirely dependent on oil and oil is not doing well. Maybe it would have failed on its own in time by virtue of being a socialism but that is not what happened here. Looking at a variety of oil-heavy economies, including other socialist welfare states, we see that economic diversity is a key factor in their success right now. Venezuela has been poorly managed under Chavez (which is not even considering Maduro) but that is a specific case that has lead to their downfall now, not an intrinsic property of socialism. Being a socialism likely helped enable Venezuela's economy to become so focused on one commodity but again, that is very specific to Venezuela and the failing is due to being focused on one commodity. -
@Mad_Son is struggling worse than Sledog and Hondo in this thread.
-
Please elaborate. Basically I've posted facts, which Houston actually responded to with facts, but all they did was talk about how bad Venezuela is, not actually point to the cause of the failure. Everyone else has just sort of arm-waived.TierbsHsotBoobs said:@Mad_Son is struggling worse than Sledog and Hondo in this thread.
-
Mad_Son said:
-
You can call it whatever you like, but when the national government starts taking over industries and running them long-term they run them into the ground, as the goals of the govt are not the same as the goals of the company (i.e. a simplistic example being milk in Venezuela...private milk farmers and companies made milk and sold it at a profit, incentivizing more production of milk year over year and keeping the people fed. The govt took it over and priced milk less than the cost to produce it to "help" the people, and I'm sure it did short-term but long term fewer people dairy farmed and the milk production went way down.) Hell...look here at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Whenever govts run companies, they end up misallocating capital far worse than (almost) any incompetently run private company could as the goals of the govt are far different than the goals of a company in an industry...there are historical and current examples all over the world of this. In Venezuela, no other industries existed because there was no incentive to diversify (due to the govt running/controlling them either directly through ownership or indirectly through cost controls/other extreme regulations). In China, you see the opposite where the govt is throwing away money hand over fist trying to diversify into areas they have no clue how to run/do, causing all sorts of other problems (and eventually they are going to have a lot of issues).
And if you are now trying to argue true socialism somehow doesn't involve govt ownership of industries have at it...you are just going to have to re-write a lot of history.
-
Nice rant. But I have a question. Who in America is trying to nationalize businesses?HoustonHusky said:You can call it whatever you like, but when the national government starts taking over industries and running them long-term they run them into the ground, as the goals of the govt are not the same as the goals of the company (i.e. a simplistic example being milk in Venezuela...private milk farmers and companies made milk and sold it at a profit, incentivizing more production of milk year over year and keeping the people fed. The govt took it over and priced milk less than the cost to produce it to "help" the people, and I'm sure it did short-term but long term fewer people dairy farmed and the milk production went way down.) Hell...look here at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Whenever govts run companies, they end up misallocating capital far worse than (almost) any incompetently run private company could as the goals of the govt are far different than the goals of a company in an industry...there are historical and current examples all over the world of this. In Venezuela, no other industries existed because there was no incentive to diversify (due to the govt running/controlling them either directly through ownership or indirectly through cost controls/other extreme regulations). In China, you see the opposite where the govt is throwing away money hand over fist trying to diversify into areas they have no clue how to run/do, causing all sorts of other problems (and eventually they are going to have a lot of issues).
And if you are now trying to argue true socialism somehow doesn't involve govt ownership of industries have at it...you are just going to have to re-write a lot of history. -
"Democratic Socialism" doesn't nationalize businesses. It's worse. It nationalizes you and me. Fuck that shit.2001400ex said: -
So the thing is, I agree with most of what you've said there. I don't want to get into a discussion of what true socialism means. Just as counter examples you look at say USPS and that is a well run government business, Statoil does fine too in Norway. The issue is as you have noted the goals of private enterprise being different than a state run entity. The government's business shouldn't be running business, but as implied the concept of socialism is broad and seems to be a big sticking point here. Empirically there are a lot of socialisms doing fine now, but the purely oil-centric welfare states are having problems. I don't see this discussion really moving beyond the central points of you showing there are a lot of examples where socialism is bad and me arguing that socialism as a generality is not the culprit of Venezuela's downfall, even if Chavez did use some socialist principles to make the Venezuelan economy less diverse.HoustonHusky said:You can call it whatever you like, but when the national government starts taking over industries and running them long-term they run them into the ground, as the goals of the govt are not the same as the goals of the company (i.e. a simplistic example being milk in Venezuela...private milk farmers and companies made milk and sold it at a profit, incentivizing more production of milk year over year and keeping the people fed. The govt took it over and priced milk less than the cost to produce it to "help" the people, and I'm sure it did short-term but long term fewer people dairy farmed and the milk production went way down.) Hell...look here at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Whenever govts run companies, they end up misallocating capital far worse than (almost) any incompetently run private company could as the goals of the govt are far different than the goals of a company in an industry...there are historical and current examples all over the world of this. In Venezuela, no other industries existed because there was no incentive to diversify (due to the govt running/controlling them either directly through ownership or indirectly through cost controls/other extreme regulations). In China, you see the opposite where the govt is throwing away money hand over fist trying to diversify into areas they have no clue how to run/do, causing all sorts of other problems (and eventually they are going to have a lot of issues).
And if you are now trying to argue true socialism somehow doesn't involve govt ownership of industries have at it...you are just going to have to re-write a lot of history. -
Hmmmmm, BHO siezed GM. Ordered the firing of the presidents of GM and Chrysler. Where is siezing private companies in the constitution? You tell me who's trying to nationalize business.2001400ex said: -
I think you are still distracted by your other browser...try and keep up with the actual discussion if you are going to comment on this thread.2001400ex said: -
@Mad_Son wrote: Empirically there are a lot of socialisms doing fine now, but the purely oil-centric welfare states are having problems.
I would beg to disagree. The socialist countries "doing fine" are more dependent upon population growth to sustain themselves than even the U.S., which has a similar problem. Our sustainability depends on constant growth and expansion of the workers contributing to the overall revenue pot. Europe's over-reliance on immigration, which itself burdens the system when a foreign worker brings along his wife and kids and puts them on the dole, also threatens the existence of certain countries and cultures, as the greater the immigration numbers, the less assimilation that occurs into the "old" society, as opposed to the greater latitude and expansion of the state's resource allocations to the newly arrived groups. And the newly arrived groups are the ones having all the kids.
Almost every socialist system that is today doing "fine" is living on borrowed time and was built upon a cohesive, rather homogeneous population demographic that is rapidly changing, faster than those countries and societies can keep up. It's ironic that Socialism is touted as the "answer" to runaway capitalism (that will destroy itself), when every socialist country depends upon the same "growth" model as capitalism to survive. -
Western Euro socialism is built on American capitalism that fuels our military industrial complex that keeps the Euros safe from themselves. It can't last forever. It's also true that Europe needs the migration they have encouraged but they fucked up by not assimilating the immigrants. A mistake we are starting to follow here.
Trump wants to cut off the Euro defense drain so we can get our own socialism in here. And be able to afford it. Along with infrastructure rebuilding.
In hindsight he probably should have challenged Hillary in the Democrat primaries and beat her there, then stomp all over JEB! -
But you are mischaracterizing socialism and companies owned by govt. As your example, Statoil is a company majority owned by the Norway govt, but its a company competing in a global marketplace with a bunch of other companies (and yes its had its fair share of corruption...Petrobras is a shining example of the problems with this kind of set-up). Because Norway owns a majority of Statoil doesn't mean some other Norwegian couldn't start up another oil company, or for that matter diversify the economy there and start up a computer company, a consulting company, or something else.Mad_Son said:
You are comparing apples and oranges. Socialism by definition means the govt (I.e. the "people") regulate/control the markets itself. True socialism controls the markets for pretty much everything, either directly (i.e. price controls, etc.) or indirectly through control of all of the companies in the markets. And it never works long-term. -
Mad_Son said:
Socialism is a share the wealth concept that can be implemented in a number of different ways but it has a flaw, The 80/20 rule. For example 80% of innovation comes from only 20% of the population, or 80% of revenues come from only 20% of the customers, or 80% of tax revenues come from 20% of the pop etc, etc. They teach this in business school and science for a reason. It explains a great deal about nature, economics, business, and human nature. Socialism is idealistic idiocy that collapses when set against this law and its human nature component.
Do you really think the productive class wants share the fruits of their risk and labor evenly ? and over time ?. Do you think they are cool with taking risk just to have their gains, should they have them, jacked by a share it all gov. Hell no. But you keep on living the idiots dream buddy people have since the mid 1800's and it hasn't done much compared to capitalism. -
Who owns GM and Chrysler right now? Under what bill did the government at one point have some influence/ownership in them? What would have happened to both if the government didn't step in?Sledog said:
A lot of people are in a dream world on this thread. -
Abundance?TierbsHsotBoobs said:@Mad_Son is struggling worse than Sledog and Hondo in this thread.
That is the troika of ignorance. And economic idiots dream team. -
The government illegally siezed a private company. The union owns them now. Oh yeah they donated lots of money to BHO. They would have gone bankrupt and broken the stranglehold of some of the Union contract sections that kept a group of employees that don't work receiving their salaries that was almost as large as the actual workforce.2001400ex said:
A lot of people are in a dream world on this thread.
Oh but they donated a lot of money. Bond holders got ten cents on the dollar. -
Um. No.Sledog said:
Oh but they donated a lot of money. Bond holders got ten cents on the dollar.
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/gm/ownership-summary