That weird silence from Democrats over Venezuela's massive rejection of socialism
- Thread starter OKSTATE1
- Start date
Interesting that two pages of commentary, about half of which responses are being made by pilt, a proudly avowed socialist, and not once does he respond to the original post, which was about the Venezuelan people finally having enough of the socialist dictatorship in that country and peacefully trying to oust it.
He has said the socialist dictator has been duly elected, has withstood a recall, and maintains power because he has perceived legitimacy.
But he has been strangely silent about the socialist cause of the peoples’ discontent.
Pilt, would you care to give a discourse on why socialism failed this time, enough dissatisfaction by the people, causing them to rebel as best they can?
He has said the socialist dictator has been duly elected, has withstood a recall, and maintains power because he has perceived legitimacy.
But he has been strangely silent about the socialist cause of the peoples’ discontent.
Pilt, would you care to give a discourse on why socialism failed this time, enough dissatisfaction by the people, causing them to rebel as best they can?
Hey now, it hasn't failed. Just give it some time and I promise Venezuela will look just like one of those socialist Nordic countries. Venezuela just needs to shed a bunch more of those freedom loving capitalist shitheaded citizens. Why would anyone think socialism wouldn't work this time? There are successful socialist countries literally all over the world. What countries don't have roads? I'll bet you can't name one.
It isn't true sociallist. It is a mixed economy welfare state.
On a serious note, they went all in on high oil prices staying high and that didn't work out.
They have huge reserves of the shittiest possible crude and if there is a worldwide glut they are the first to take a hit
OK, let me see if I get this straight: it wasn’t socialist policy that failed when the government nationalized the oil industry, it was the fall in oil prices that did it. Is that right? Why didn’t the fall in oil prices result in multi-thousand percent inflation anywhere else? Why only Venezuela? Do you give socialism any of the blame?
Reason one is Venezuelan crude is the worst. Reason two is mismanagement of the windfall. They spent it instead of saving for a rainy day, so when oil exports fell it killed their currency.
A competent and uncorrupt sociallist regime could have survived the situation. And equally incompetent and corrupt capitalist regime would have had issues as well but probably not as severe. See the Asian crisis of the late nineties, eurocrisis of the late 2000s, and any number of failed dollar pegs.
Give it up; big/middle/small/any oil bad, conveniently down there. No problemo with the d-bag running the country.
A competent and uncorrupt socialist regime is pretty much a contradiction in terms, wouldn’t you admit, since there has never been one?
Here’s the problem with socialism (well, one of many problems): when only one entity, in this case the government, makes a miscalculation the negative effect covers the entire population. In a free market, where ownership is widely dispersed the ones who make miscalculations cause negative effects on themselves only. Other entities who do not miscalculate continue on. The negative effects are limited.
One of the primary miscalculations socialists make (really it applies across the board to all statists) is they assume government officials will avoid the incompetence and corruption they see in private individuals. In essence they miscalculate human nature. It’s a deadly miscalculation as history shows quite clearly.
The economic mistake made by socialism is it destroys the only way for anyone to ascertain the scarcity of any product. It destroys the price system.
I ask that you read the post I made earlier, a two part history lesson of socialism. It’s not terribly long, and as a student of socialism you should find it of interest.
OK, I understand how hard it is to read something critical about a subject one has latched onto. I have the same hang up. But in a quest for the truth reading opposing viewpoints is required. Why would anyone want to believe something that is not true? So I get it that you don’t want to read those links. So try this one. I believe it is a very evenhanded appraisal. Read it and see what you think.
https://notesonliberty.com/2019/01/...e-a-reticent-socialist-and-political-liberal/
Last edited:
Sorry for the delay, Ponca Dan. got busy.
The same mistakes made by the Socialist Venezuelan regime, have been made countless times by central bankers. Don't forget, central bankers are central planners. (See Argentina)
I think the difference you see between successful Socialist regimes and Unsuccessful ones is strong institutions that are there to curb incompetence and corruption.
State ownership of the means of production destroys the price system? You are going to have to explain this one. I am pretty sure barrels of oil were still priced in Venezuela.
Dan, I enjoy bantering with you, but I am not going to do homework assignments.
No, Nordic countries have competent and uncorrupt management. And even slightly less corrupt and incompetent regimes in the USSR and PRC led their countries from fuedalism to industrialization to become economic powers.
This would be a good point, If we didn't have the GFC just 10 years ago.
The same mistakes made by the Socialist Venezuelan regime, have been made countless times by central bankers. Don't forget, central bankers are central planners. (See Argentina)
I think the difference you see between successful Socialist regimes and Unsuccessful ones is strong institutions that are there to curb incompetence and corruption.
State ownership of the means of production destroys the price system? You are going to have to explain this one. I am pretty sure barrels of oil were still priced in Venezuela.
Dan, I enjoy bantering with you, but I am not going to do homework assignments.
I enjoy bantering with you, too, pilt. I'm sorry you regard reading short links as homework assignments. I thought this was a subject in which you take great interest. As regards your puzzlement about how socialism disregards the pricing system which leads to economic chaos (as has happened with every socialist economy in history) Nobel economist Friedrich Hayek has written volumes on the subject. I am much too ignorant to be able to provide you with an edited version. If you are interested in understanding the logical ineptitude of socialism you might read his book The Fatal Conceit, The Errors of Socialism. It's not very long, maybe a couple of hundred pages, and his writing style sometimes requires digging through (some of his sentences seem to go on forever), but his analysis of socialism is philosophically and historically accurate. Be forewarned, however: Hayek is responsible for turning countless people from socialism to liberalism. If you don't want to face the temptation you might avoid this book.
Dan, reading links takes away from our banter. It is very hard to respond to a reading assignment, but it is easy to respond to you paraphrasing or summarize the points made in your links. The exception here is if you need to link to an article to establish a fact, like what the unemployment rate in Poland is, for example.
I understand Hayek's theory on the matter, but that is abstract Socialism (and his critique also applies to economies based on monetarists such as Friedman which includes some of the most libertarian/market based economies in the world). My question to you is how specifically Venezuela disregarded the price system, and how that led to their predicament. My contention is that their barrels of oil were extremely subject to market pricing and they made their decisions based on the scarcity that $110 barrels of oil implied.
Ahh Dan, please don't throw me into the briar patch.
“I think the difference you see between successful Socialist regimes and Unsuccessful ones is strong institutions that are there to curb incompetence and corruption”
Do you have a simple example of the strong institutions? I’d like to learn more about it, for now I agree with Dan that human nature is miscalculated/ignored and tends to ruin govt ideas that sound great on paper. Thanks.
Do you have a simple example of the strong institutions? I’d like to learn more about it, for now I agree with Dan that human nature is miscalculated/ignored and tends to ruin govt ideas that sound great on paper. Thanks.
Mr. Boyle, a very good example of a strong institution is the folketrygdfondet in Norway
https://www.folketrygdfondet.no/get...e/Ownership reports/Ownership report 2016.pdf
Dan also believes that anarchy and unchecked free market capitalism with no regulation has no unintended consequences.
That's what you call a hail mary with no evidence to support it.
Honestly, I think this was a grown-ups discussion, why don't you back in the play room and entertain your cousins?
Hayek and Friedman disagreed on several things, but one thing they were both adamant about was the inherent philosophical inconsistencies of socialism that render it impossible for it to deliver on its promise.
I know next to nothing about the inner workings of the international oil industry. Therefore I am unable to answer your question as to specifics. Yes, their oil was subject to market price fluctuations, and yet the government agents in charge somehow misread those fluctuations, which lead to economic disaster. As a rule government agents make decisions based on the political climate, not the economic one. Do you not find it strange that Venezuela is the only country to suffer such massive setbacks when the price of oil dropped? Why were market oriented countries able to withstand the price drops, but the socialist one could not? I think the answer lies somewhere in the idea that Venezuelan government agents ignored prices in favor of political favors that need to be meted out. Venezuela's dictator had made massive promises of free stuff to the people, and felt he could not go back on those promises no matter what were to economic consequences. Authoritarian regimes, of which socialist countries undeniably belong, have that tendency, which is one of the things Hayek points out.
Interestingly I read or saw a video awhile back that explained how the Nordic countries rejected socialism as they watched their standard of living go down. They maintained much of the welfare state, but nationalized only those countries that were severely subject to international competition, which requires them to keep a sharp eye on the price structure, which the article (or video) went to pains to explain is one of the most crucial shortcomings of socialism.
Sure sure, but Hayek is right to say that there is no philosophical difference between Monetarist Economics and Socialism, both involve central planners setting prices. Hayek is just wrong to think that A) It is impossible to make such a system work and B) A system without some sort of central planning is superior.
So the argument that socialism doesn't work because it destroys market prices, doesn't really apply here.
Yes, hence my point about incompetence and corruption.
Venezuela produces the world's marginal barrel.
What market economy has oil as 95% of its exports and 25% of its GDP? (Also what market economy produces the world's marginal barrel of oil)
If that were the case, Ponca Dan, what indicators could we look to to verify that claim?
Weird that a dictator would be so beholden to political promises
I disagree that Socialist regimes are necessarily Authoritarian.
Ponca Dan, The state of Norway owns 60% of Norwegian wealth and percentage has persistently crept up over time. I believe the video you reference is mistaken. https://www.peoplespolicyproject.or...-government-owns-most-of-the-countrys-wealth/
Venezuelan state ownership is roughly only 30%.
Maybe the Venezuelan economy is too mixed?
Norway is not a “socialist nation”
Also Scandinavians perform better in America then they do in their home nations.
https://bongino.com/the-high-cost-of-scandinavian-socialism/
Ponca Dan, you should address this head on:
If Venezuela proves that Socialism doesn't work, then what does Norway a more Socialist country than Venezuela prove?
Pilt, we’ll just disagree. Socialism, as are all forms of collectivism, by its very nature is authoritarian. It could not survive otherwise.
