Socialist paradise Venezuela introduces food rationing

Yeah_Right

I was reading through this thread and I was getting worried about the lack of blame the US was receiving. Normally if something is going wrong in Latin America there is no shortage of people looking to blame the Evil Yanquis.

And in response to an earlier post about the US doing "full scale open invasions" invasions in South America, they only ever did one. Grenada in 1983 and that was only because the US military was sick of holidaying in Hawaii.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Clandestine wrote: »

All of those things can and have been provided for via private funds and not public money

Yes, but quality tends not to be as good and they tend not to be universally available because its not profitable for private funds to supply such a service.

Karl Stein

Clandestine wrote: »

All of those things can and have been provided for via private funds and not public money

Which is not to say they would have been in the places where collective action and public money already have.

Consider electricity supply. Truly competitive electricity supply would require multiple lines running parallel to one another over head and into homes with multiple companies competing for your custom.

That would be absurd and totally wasteful.

Clandestine

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Yes, but quality tends not to be as good and they tend not to be universally available because its not profitable for private funds to supply such a service.

Can you give any examples? Because I can't honestly think of many times when government planning has produced something better than a lone entrepreneur/business has. On top of that, services the government provides are wasteful and drain money from people who may not want the service in the first place.

Iwasfrozen

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Yes, but quality tends not to be as good and they tend not to be universally available because its not profitable for private funds to supply such a service.

In my experience privately run services are generally of a much better quality than public.

Clandestine

Sums it all up so well.

Ray Palmer

Blowfish wrote: »

The Venezuelan government nationalized (read stole) a lot of resources from private companies. Predictably enough, they then mismanaged them horribly, including using the governments energy company as a piggy bank to try and keep their exchange rate low.

It worked...for a bit, but the mismanagement (oil production is slowly dropping), distortion of the market (through price controls) and disincentive to invest (why invest in setting up a company if the government is just going to steal it from you through 'nationalisation'?) has caused to Venezuelan economy to weaken to the point that the official exchange rate (6.3 bolivars to the dollar) is an order of magnitude off (on the black market, it's 80-90 to the dollar). Anything imported is getting more and more expensive for the ordinary Venezuelan and now we've reached the point where food is getting too expensive for them.

Well put. What is funny is people here didn't understand that a similar issue would have happened here if the bond holders had been burnt. It didn't really matter whether the bonds were secured or not. Investment and employment in this country would have been devastating.

Mean while there are people actively stopping development of our natural resources for the future.

Karl Stein

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I was reading through this thread and I was getting worried about the lack of blame the US was receiving.

Oh you can be sure they're meddling somewhere in Venezuela.

See: Monroe Doctrine.
See: School of the Americas terrorist training centre
See: Overthrow of Guatemalan democracy on behalf of United Fruit.
See: Overthrow of Chilean democracy and mass murder.
See: CIA in Ecuador
See: CIA in the Dominican Republic
See: CIA in Bolivia
See: Kissinger Argentina
See: Nicaragua
See: El Salvador

It's funny how any leftist movement in countries is viewed as a threat to 'US interests', whatever the hell they might be. Oh, and if leftist governments with their silly socialism are doomed to fail then why not leave them off so that they can be used as examples of what not to do?

No, you see they must fail or at least be seen to fail because you can't have the uppity natives taking matters into their own hands.

After years of torture and bloodshed, the Somoza dictatorship was toppled on July 19,1979 by the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN). On July 20th, Sandinista soldiers entered Managua amid the fervent cheers and celebration of hundreds of thousands of Nicaraguans. For the first time in Nicaraguan history, newly elected Sandinista officials implemented successful social programs that fostered self-determination. These initiatives achieved international recognition and included gains in the areas of literacy, health care, education, childcare, unions and land reform.

As Nicaraguans worked towards greater self-sufficiency, the Reagan administration started funding the Contra War to undermine the Sandinista government in the early 1980's. This disastrous ten-year war cost 60,000 lives and destroyed the country's infrastructure and economy with estimated losses of U.S. $178 billion dollars.

www.stanford.edu

Iwasfrozen

Karl Stein wrote: »

It's funny how any leftist movement in countries is viewed as a threat to 'US interests', whatever the hell they might be. Oh, and if leftist governments with their silly socialism are doomed to fail then why not leave them off so that they can be used as examples of what not to do?

I suppose the Americans brought down the entirety of Comecon did they? It seems socialists are more than capable of proving their own failure.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Clandestine wrote: »

Can you give any examples? Because I can't honestly think of many times when government planning has produced something better than a lone entrepreneur/business has. On top of that, services the government provides are wasteful and drain money from people who may not want the service in the first place.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

In my experience privately run services are generally of a much better quality than public.

If a doctor is placed with the choice of treating a patient with a serious condition, but that the patient can not pay, should he procede?

If a route on privately-funded transport network is consistantly making a loss even though it is the only route the serves a community, should they shut it down and abandon the community invovled?

Is a privately dunded university going to take on the richest students, even if they are not as academically qualified, or will it take on the poorer more-qualifed student with a high probability of making a loss?

As you say, some governemnt services run at a loss - but in order to turn them into profit making enterprises, is it going to remain universally available?

Blowfish

Zebra3 wrote: »

Many governments nationalise resources because they were sold for next to nothing by corrupt governments in bygone days to foreign multinationals (usually with the strong support of their own government), so therefore they are merely taking back what was rightfully theirs.

Doing stuff like this is anything but 'merely taking back what was rightfully theirs'. The Venezuelan government has a history of taking over whatever businesses it feels like, including those which aren't linked with natural resources such as ferry company, banks and even their own citizens private homes and then compensating by far less than the value of the asset. It's government theft, plain and simple.

Davarus Walrus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I suppose the Americans brought down the entirety of Comecon did they? It seems socialists are more than capable of proving their own failure.

Economic and cultural stagnation, millions dead, and widespread corruption were much more likely stakeholders in the downfall of communist states. That doesn't fit in the worldview espoused by the last few 'keepin' it real' lefties you tend to find on message boards though.

It's always good to blame the US for things. Of course they had a hand to play in many conflicts, there was a geopolitical and economic cold war taking place after all, but automatically blaming them means they don't have to take a more nuanced and holistic view on these conflicts.

Iwasfrozen

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If a doctor is placed with the choice of treating a patient with a serious condition, but that the patient can not pay, should he procede?

Yes, the person's mandatory private health insurance will cover it far more efficiently than tax payers money.

If a route on privately-funded transport network is consistantly making a loss even though it is the only route the serves a community, should they shut it down and abandon the community invovled?

Yes, the route costs taxpayers money and generates only marginal economic gains. That money could generate more money in other areas.

Is a privately dunded university going to take on the richest students, even if they are not as academically qualified, or will it take on the poorer more-qualifed student with a high probability of making a loss?

The university takes on the best students and takes money upfront the student will have to finance their own education from bank loans.

As you say, some governemnt services run at a loss - but in order to turn them into profit making enterprises, is it going to remain universally available?

sometimes, sometimes that's unecessary.

Capt'n Midnight

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

(Following on from the quote above, how about capitalism without limited liability companies? Where companies are not 'incorporated' or turned into bodies/personages? Where the stockholders and owners of the company ARE liable? Are liable for their debts and doings? We'd have a lot less flagrant breaches of law and ethics if they were, like the Lloyds 'names' held to account for their actions, and financially collectively responsible. Imagine if the boards of banks had known that they would have had to repay any money lost though their doings - they would have been much more careful.)

Lloyds HQ is on the site of the old East India House.

The East India Company also had names.



The famine of 1770 wasn't caused by the East India Company but they did lots of things that worsened it resulting in about 10 million died. UK population at the time was about 6.4 million.

But since they had a monopoly on grain they were still able to export it and prevent local traders "hoarding" it, and got locals to plant cash crops instead of food. So things could have been worse for the shareholders.

And then they convinced parliament to impose a Tea Tax which triggered the American Revolution.


At one stage 10% of the seats in Parliament were controlled by people who bought then through rotten boroughs bought with East India profits.

jank

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Yes, but quality tends not to be as good and they tend not to be universally available because its not profitable for private funds to supply such a service.

Eh, what? Tell me, do you get better service in a state owned institution or a privately owned company. Usually the latter is better because they know you can go off and put your money into a competitors pocket. With a public entity there are no others options so one just has to suck it up.

Karl Stein

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

Economic and cultural stagnation, millions dead, and widespread corruption were much more likely stakeholders in the downfall of communist states.

Wasting time and resources on keeping NATO in check certainly helped. I agree though, Socialist dictatorships combined with trying to command an economy of that scale was always doomed to fail regardless. Wouldn't it be interesting to see how Cuba had fared if the US hadn't been vindictively throttling it for decades? What are they afraid of?

That doesn't fit in the worldview espoused by the last few 'keepin' it real' lefties you tend to find on message boards though.

Ah 'lefties'. When all else fails just call any person who doesn't subscribe to the consensus narrative a 'leftie' in an attempt to stigmatise dissent.

It's always good to blame the US for things. Of course they had a hand to play in many conflicts, there was a geopolitical and economic cold war taking place after all,

Ah yes, the fabled global Communist Conspiracy - the now deceased ugly step-brother of the New World Order.

CT forum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Davarus Walrus

Karl Stein wrote: »

Wasting time and resources on keeping NATO in check certainly helped. I agree though, Socialist dictatorships combined with trying to command an economy of that scale was always doomed to fail regardless. Wouldn't it be interesting to see how Cuba had fared if the US hadn't been vindictively throttling it for decades? What are they afraid of?



Ah 'lefties'. When all else fails just call any person who doesn't subscribe to the consensus narrative a 'leftie' in an attempt to stigmatise dissent.



Ah yes, the fabled global Communist Conspiracy - the now deceased ugly step-brother of the New World Order.

CT forum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Cuba is free to trade with almost every country in the world. It would have failed regardless. It would have failed because it's ran by a corrupt elite who tried to maintain a failed economic ideology for their own benefit.
And no romanticised view of auld Che and Fidel can change that. A repugnant and morally unjust system of governance.

jank

Karl Stein wrote: »

Ah yes, the fabled global Communist Conspiracy - the now deceased ugly step-brother of the New World Order.

CT forum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Seriously? That was not the point the poster was making, it was just making a reference to the fact that a cold war was taking place and both sides were fighting it out via proxy something that is forgotten when people jump on the anti-american hobby horse. That is a fact not a conspiracy. History is more nuanced than people would like to admit.

Iwasfrozen

Karl Stein wrote: »

Ah 'lefties'. When all else fails just call any person who doesn't subscribe to the consensus narrative a 'leftie' in an attempt to stigmatise dissent.

A lefty is a person left of centre, nothing more.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes, the person's mandatory private health insurance will cover it far more efficiently than tax payers money.


Yes, the route costs taxpayers money and generates only marginal economic gains. That money could generate more money in other areas.


The university takes on the best students and takes money upfront the student will have to finance their own education from bank loans.


sometimes, sometimes that's unecessary.

1 - What makes you think the pateint can afford health insurance...?! In the US a lot of people can't afford it. Question stil lstands.

2 - My poitn entirely, i.e. "not universally avialable".

3 - Again, makes my point: if the stdent can not get loans, he dfoes not go to university no matter how good he is.

4 - Again, makes my point.

So you accept that the services are not as universally available and tough **** to the people who miss out...?

Karl Stein

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

Cuba is free to trade with almost every country in the world.

Afaia if you land a cargo ship in Cuba you cannot go near the US for a number of months. That's hardly free to trade. That's just vindictive.

It would have failed regardless.

And what incredible experiment have you run to prove this, powerful one..

Iwasfrozen

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

1 - What makes you think the pateint can afford health insurance...?! In the US a lot of people can't afford it. Question stil lstands.

Everyone can afford it, those who can't just don't have their priorities in order.

2 - My poitn entirely, i.e. "not universally avialable".

No public transport is universally available...

3 - Again, makes my point: if the stdent can not get loans, he dfoes not go to university no matter how good he is.

There are ways around it, he could get a scholarship or he could have his parents guarantee his loan.

So you accept that the services are not as universally available and tough **** to the people who miss out...?

No service is ever going to be universally available, there has to be a balance be affordability and availability. Unless you want a motor tax office in every village...

Karl Stein

I just want to remind you that I'm responding for the benefit of the discussion and not because I think you deserve to be taken seriously.

jank wrote: »

anti-american

So being against toppling democratically elected governments, murdering tens of thousands of dissidents, installing dictators etc is anti-American? Lol.

jank wrote: »

That was not the point the poster was making, it was just making a reference to the fact that a cold war was taking place and both sides were fighting it out via proxy

The global Communist Conspiracy was used as an excuse to crush nationalist/leftist movements all over the world even when it can be proven beyond all doubt that there was no Soviet influence whatsoever.

CT Forum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jank wrote: »

Eh, what? Tell me, do you get better service in a state owned institution or a privately owned company. Usually the latter is better because they know you can go off and put your money into a competitors pocket. With a public entity there are no others options so one just has to suck it up.

I said better and more universal - I never said more profitable. See responce above (and reply below) for specifics.

jank

Karl Stein wrote: »

And what incredible experiment have you run to prove this, powerful one..

Has a communist country ever not failed?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jank wrote: »

Has a communist country ever not failed?

it hasn't really been tested on enough coutries to actually give an informed answer. Generally, though, every one has failed for pretty much the same reason as the capitalit societies tend to fail: human greed and insecurity.

carpejugulum

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Were not doing much better

Can say only someone who knows nothing about anything and has never been anywhere.

jank

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

it hasn't really been tested on enough coutries to actually give an informed answer. Generally, though, every one has failed for pretty much the same reason as the capitalit societies tend to fail: human greed and insecurity.

*looks out window and sees capitalist society NOT failing*
Sorry but no.

It has been tried multiple times in various continents and results vary from economic stagnation to outright wide spread famine, death and genocide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

jank

Karl Stein wrote: »

I



So being against toppling democratically elected governments, murdering tens of thousands of dissidents, installing dictators etc is anti-American? Lol.

Having a one sided rose tinted view on history has the traits of being anti American. As I said its a bit more nuanced than that. I am not saying the American intervention in said countries did not happen they way it did but again its one side of the story and one has to accept that fact that a cold war was ongoing

KyussBishop

bluewolf wrote: »

I take you off ignore for one minute...

Why that's very nice of you :pac:

bluewolf wrote: »

...and this is what you're posting. Are you serious? Surely it would have taken less effort to read the thing than go off doing research to find out just how much you can poison the well?

You don't research the credibility of your sources? That's the first thing I do no matter what the source. If you don't screen your sources, then you just open yourself up to believing lies from sources with a questionable history.

Pointing out conflicts of interest, is something that courts of law around the world take as a valid concern, on a regular basis - if you use them to point out someones questionable history, and not to rebut their arguments, then it's perfectly valid to raise (as any court would attest).

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't care if you don't agree with it, but it's an interesting history, and I've already said if any of it is wrong, let us know. Facts are facts no matter how much you hate campaign groups.
I think you'd argue the sky was green if someone in cato institute said it was blue

It's up to you to convince others, that the source you put forward is credible enough, for them to put the time into even looking at. That guy comes from three different propaganda institutes, known for completely fabricating 'facts'.

Iwasfrozen

For those who still extol the virtues of socialism here is the ease of doing business index which ranks companies by the strength of their property rights and how little regulation there is in the market.

Notice anything? the index would seem to be very strongly correlated with gdp per capita.

KyussBishop

Wibbs wrote: »

karma_ wrote: »

How about you put everyone on boards on ignore, that way you will never have to read an opinion you disagree with ever again.

That's a tad unfair TBH.

It's the modus operandi of a few Libertarian posters I find (but, to be fair, I don't apply any of this to bluewolf) - a few Libertarian posters are here to soapbox rather than debate, and when posters get particularly effective at highlighting the soapboxing (I've been at it so long, I've got my 'debunk Libertarianism in one sentence' trick :pac:), they get stuck on ignore.

I've got quite a lot of people on ignore myself though I should say - but I never actually ignore them, it's more my 'watch out for this poster' tag

Karl Stein

jank wrote: »

I am not saying the American intervention in said countries did not happen they way it did but again its one side of the story and one has to accept that fact that a cold war was ongoing

Twice now.

Karl Stein wrote: »

The global Communist Conspiracy was used as an excuse to crush nationalist/leftist movements all over the world even when it can be proven beyond all doubt that there was no Soviet influence whatsoever.

What makes me laugh is you guys say 'oh history is nuanced' and 'it's not so black and white' and then go right ahead and cite the 'REDS UNDER THE BED ' ladybird book view of the Cold War.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jank wrote: »

*looks out window and sees capitalist society NOT failing*
Sorry but no.

It has been tried multiple times in various continents and results vary from economic stagnation to outright wide spread famine, death and genocide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

I thought you said "fail" not "fall"?

If you want to know if a system has failed or not, don't look out your window - go outside and ask some of the most vulnerable people in a society.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

For those who still extol the virtues of socialism here is the ease of doing business index which ranks companies by the strength of their property rights and how little regulation there is in the market.

Notice anything? the index would seem to be very strongly correlated with gdp per capita.

Why does a socialist system succeed or fail purely by "business"?

Zebra3

jank wrote: »

Has a communist country ever not failed?

Has a capitalist country ever succeeded?

Iwasfrozen

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Why does a socialist system succeed or fail purely by "business"?

High gdp per capita tends to mean high levels of literacy and a long life expectancy but if that's not enough for you gdp per capita is also correlated with a high quality of life index.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

High gdp per capita tends to mean high levels of literacy and a long life expectancy but if that's not enough for you gdp per capita is also correlated with a high quality of life index.

That's one of the thigns I meant: if people are happy, as I said earlier because the have better health care and educatino systems, this is not taken into account. There is more to whether or not a system succeeds than just how much money it makes.

Iwasfrozen

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That's one of the thigns I meant: if people are happy, as I said earlier because the have better health care and educatino systems, this is not taken into account. There is more to whether or not a system succeeds than just how much money it makes.

Privately funded healthcare does not mean no healthcare.

Why is there more to a system than the amount of money it makes? if the gdp per capita of Ireland was 10 million private healthcare would not be a problem.

The unavailability of public healthcare is not a problem in any society, the problem is an unavailability to pay for healthcare, be it public or private.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The unavailability of public healthcare is not a problem in any society, the problem is an unavailability to pay for healthcare, be it public or private.

Unless you solve the possibility of large-scale unemployment forever (something that regular economic crisis makes doubtful), this is always going to grind some people into a position where they can't afford that, right?

KyussBishop

Lets remember: We are in a mixed capitalist/socialist economy, as are most countries around the world. Every time someone claims 'capitalism' is exclusively responsible for the economic success of any respective country, they necessarily are ignoring the contribution that socialist policies played in providing that.

Bedtimebaby

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Why does a socialist system succeed or fail purely by "business"?

A socialist society will never come close to generating it's potential wealth. It takes no account of human nature. People will not put in all of their effort into becoming innovative, efficient and productive when the rewards aren't there. That's why there is such poverty in socialist countries, the individual is not rewarded properly.

Which company will be more productive, the one where the boss is investing his own money and can earn unlimited profits or the one where the boss earns a flat wage and uses state money to run the business?

The above is why so many people are starving in socialist countries.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Privately funded healthcare does not mean no healthcare.

Why is there more to a system than the amount of money it makes? if the gdp per capita of Ireland was 10 million private healthcare would not be a problem.

The unavailability of public healthcare is not a problem in any society, the problem is an unavailability to pay for healthcare, be it public or private.

I never claimed it was unavailable? I have already mentioend the probably of inability to pay - some time ago - and then questioned you as to whether it should be made unavaiable to people who could neither afford it not health insurance.

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

Unless you solve the possibility of large-scale unemployment forever (something that regular economic crisis makes doubtful), this is always going to grind some people into a position where they can't afford that, right?

Not really, if you make health insurance mandatory the security loading needed by the company would be minimal.

Set a price ceiling to stop the companies porcketing the difference and you've improved things a good bit without any cost to the state.

Iwasfrozen

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I never claimed it was unavailable? I have already mentioend the probably of inability to pay - some time ago - and then questioned you as to whether it should be made unavaiable to people who could neither afford it not health insurance.

Everyone can afford health insurance.

Bedtimebaby

People are an economies biggest most important asset and resource, socialism retards them in the extreme.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Not really, if you make health insurance mandatory the security loading needed by the company would be minimal.

Set a price ceiling to stop the companies porcketing the difference and you've improved things a good bit without any cost to the state.

Private healthcare (mandatory health insurance or not) doesn't help people with very little or no money though, was my point.

Kermit.de.frog

I am pie wrote: »

Anyone misguided enough to think Ireland isn't much better than Venezuela should pay a visit to Caracas whereupon reality would kick them square in the face.

Perspective is a scarce quality.

Isn't that the type of society people before profit want? All equal and all that. Sounds lovely but not workable.

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

Private healthcare (mandatory health insurance or not) doesn't help people with very little or no money though, was my point.

Everyone can afford health insurance. Especially if it's universal. Those that choose to spend their money on other stuff don't have their priorities straight.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Everyone can afford health insurance.

Not in the US, apparently. Were also talking about s system where there's no such thing ad paid paternity leave and very limited holidays. How this s this show up on your life satisfaction statistics?