Venezuela news

[C-Mag]

I don't think command economies are robust at all.

I have at times been both dishonest and stupid, but I think it is interesting to talk about the specifics of Venezuela and the logic of nationalizing natural resources, and I think it is boring to argue: commies bad, freedom good, end of story.

Well, for me if someone says Commies are putting together an economy or running a country, I know it will end in nationalizing most everything, environmental destruction and people starving. So how is that not Commies bad ?

I formed my strongest opinions of Communism by talking with and getting to know former Communists.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I don't think command economies are robust at all.

I have at times been both dishonest and stupid, but I think it is interesting to talk about the specifics of Venezuela and the logic of nationalizing natural resources, and I think it is boring to argue: commies bad, freedom good, end of story.

Well, for me if someone says Commies are putting together an economy or running a country, I know it will end in nationalizing most everything, environmental destruction and people starving. So how is that not Commies bad ?

I formed my strongest opinions of Communism by talking with and getting to know former Communists.

I have no problems arguing that Commies are bad. But nobody here is suggesting that communists are good, so it is, at best, a red herring.

The issue at hand here seems to be if Venezuela could have done otherwise and survived a blow to the oil market. I think the simple answer is that, all else being equal, capitalism wouldn't have saved their economy.

The other argument in this thread seems to make a moral high ground of keeping people from starving, but it is hard to tell through all the schadenfreude and non sequiturs.

It is fine to argue that communist governments regularly collapse or evolve into state controlled markets, but it is also pretty clear to me that the thing that saves capitalist, market driven economies is often emergency socialization. Free markets, while being a sort of nebulous term that can mean almost anything to suit any argument, are no silver bullet. In the same way states aren't silver bullets that solve all problems.

[jbird4049]

Or how about while they had it they could have used it to start dairy farms to make milk, butter, cheese, etc, instead of importing it? And maybe started textile manufacturing plants, or any number of other things that would have created jobs for people, made your economy more self-sustainable, and maybe even had something else to export besides oil?

That isn't an argument against socialist economies, it is an argument about the amount of baskets in which one puts eggs.

Pretty dumb distinction, when you consider that socialism takes economic decisions and puts them all in one governmental basket.

That's the essential weakness of socialism. Every decision egg is in one decider basket. Free markets would never have let Venezuela's economy become so imbalanced, because some people would have chosen to produce things other than oil. By spreading out decisions, they create economic diversity.

It is called the resource curse. Almost all countries that come into a single very lucrative source of wealth like gold, silver, slaves, even rubber, cotton, coffee will have its political economy twisted into near monomaniacal focus on that. Spain had some nascent economic, and political, development similar to England, or France, but the massive amounts of gold and silver reverse. The manufacturing, trading and (I believe) farming all worse. Why do any productive work improving your business or farm when you could steal it from the Americas or suck up to the wealthy? Banking also poor between Spain declaring bankruptcy(too many loans to cover excessive spending on multiple wars) several times, banking was bad as you only loan to the wealthy landlords and the government, massive inflating (gold and silver remember) and nothing to invest in. Once the gold ran out, there was nothing to show for it.

A few countries like Norway have not. The Norwegians seem to put in a lot of work in preventing the curse.

[jbird4049]

That isn't an argument against socialist economies

History is the best argument against Socio-Commie economies.

Damn people, how many times do we have to watch this shit play out across the globe ? We've been watching this shit fail for 100 years, costing the lives of probably 100 million people in the last 100 years. I don't care what your college prof indoctrinated you with, think for yourself. Socio-Commie economies are likely to end in famine, mass death and environmental destruction.

And the British caused ~50 million deaths from famine during the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries in the name of free markets and property rights.

[C-Mag]

That isn't an argument against socialist economies

History is the best argument against Socio-Commie economies.

Damn people, how many times do we have to watch this shit play out across the globe ? We've been watching this shit fail for 100 years, costing the lives of probably 100 million people in the last 100 years. I don't care what your college prof indoctrinated you with, think for yourself. Socio-Commie economies are likely to end in famine, mass death and environmental destruction.

And the British caused ~50 million deaths from famine during the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries in the name of free markets and property rights.

OK, let's do the math.
The British Monarchy took 300 years to kill 50 M............ 50 M / 3 Centuries = 16 Million per 100 years
Communism killed 100 Million in 100 yeas....................100M/ 1 Centuries = 100 Million per 100 years

100 / 16 = 6.25

Communism is 6.25 times more likely to kill you.

[jbird4049]

Why are starvation and famine only moral problems when we can blame the commies.

If you starve on your own merit in a free market... well at least some socialist monster didn't try to subsidize you.

Also, you folks should try reading the whole post. I don't think command economies are a good idea and said as much. I don't think wealth destruction is limited to them though.

When was the last time anyone in a free market system saw mass starvation that wasn't the result of a war?

Since 1943 British India, none really. For example, serious famines in Africa that started due to local droughts, and continued due governments blocking or stealing food aid. There would have been more except aid was allowed to go through. Still large famines as in 90s Iraq and currently Yemen from military blockade.

[jbird4049]

History is the best argument against Socio-Commie economies.

Damn people, how many times do we have to watch this shit play out across the globe ? We've been watching this shit fail for 100 years, costing the lives of probably 100 million people in the last 100 years. I don't care what your college prof indoctrinated you with, think for yourself. Socio-Commie economies are likely to end in famine, mass death and environmental destruction.

And the British caused ~50 million deaths from famine during the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries in the name of free markets and property rights.

OK, let's do the math.
The British Monarchy took 300 years to kill 50 M............ 50 M / 3 Centuries = 16 Million per 100 years
Communism killed 100 Million in 100 yeas....................100M/ 1 Centuries = 100 Million per 100 years

100 / 16 = 6.25

Communism is 6.25 times more likely to kill you.

From the hip. Alright 50-70 million deaths from famines of similar causes under all European colonial rule during that time. All the deaths caused by the collapse of Chinese Empire which started with the two Opium Wars, and the Unequal Treaties leading to 135 years of conflict including Red China. Almost all the American military actions in Latin America (unless the CIA initiated on its own it was usually Business pushing), getting more meta the deliberate destruction of the Indian Subcontinent (sometimes more advanced like textiles, shipbuilding) manufacturing and farming then equal to the British by the British East India Company, 300 years of colonial rule leading to the Partition of India.

I'm capitalism and colonialism together be the former pushed the latter. In a free market capitalist system, it's often grow or die. Such businesses usually have the government's ear. The nice people with an army and navy. Trying to separate the two is impossible sometimes.

[jbird4049]

Why are starvation and famine only moral problems when we can blame the commies.

If you starve on your own merit in a free market... well at least some socialist monster didn't try to subsidize you.

Also, you folks should try reading the whole post. I don't think command economies are a good idea and said as much. I don't think wealth destruction is limited to them though.

When was the last time anyone in a free market system saw mass starvation that wasn't the result of a war?

What was the last free market system that existed without any state subsidized social safety net? I would bet that is a good place to start looking.

Dickensian England. He was describing the what we would call fairly strict libertarian policies. Before there was government supported safety net and afterwards there was. It wasn't very substantial but it was there.

[jbird4049]

I don't think command economies are robust at all.

I have at times been both dishonest and stupid, but I think it is interesting to talk about the specifics of Venezuela and the logic of nationalizing natural resources, and I think it is boring to argue: commies bad, freedom good, end of story.

Well, for me if someone says Commies are putting together an economy or running a country, I know it will end in nationalizing most everything, environmental destruction and people starving. So how is that not Commies bad ?

I formed my strongest opinions of Communism by talking with and getting to know former Communists.

Were do you think Communists got their dislike of free market capitalism?

At their worst, the results are indistinguishable.

[Zlaxer]

I don't think command economies are robust at all.

I have at times been both dishonest and stupid, but I think it is interesting to talk about the specifics of Venezuela and the logic of nationalizing natural resources, and I think it is boring to argue: commies bad, freedom good, end of story.

Well, for me if someone says Commies are putting together an economy or running a country, I know it will end in nationalizing most everything, environmental destruction and people starving. So how is that not Commies bad ?

I formed my strongest opinions of Communism by talking with and getting to know former Communists.

Were do you think Communists got their dislike of free market capitalism?

At their worst, the results are indistinguishable.

They adopted it after being oppressed by monarchs - Even Marks said communism would fail. Know your history.