Since we're sharing platitudes, another one that's relevant: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
This demonstrate a serious road block in addressing the rise of (authoritarian) socialist policies in developing economies is the fact that they usually start from honest good intentions. Such as diminishing class-systems and inequality. But like many attempts at centrally planning massive human activity, it's built on faulty assumptions that the system is sustainable in the long run.
Ultimately resulting in a slowly dwindling ponzi scheme. Only made worse when it happens in a petro-state like Venezuela where the scheme can last long enough with the appearance of success to persuade other nearby countries to buy into the illusion.
You assume that eliminating inequality is a good thing? People aren't equal in their abilities, talents and their moral judgement. I was born in a country made artificially equal, and it was one of the most depressing things about it: the fact that (unless you pursue a party career), no matter how good you are at what you do, you will be roughly at the same level as a lazy worthless alcoholic at a factory plant. This kind of failed state is a natural consequence of line of thinking that prompts you to say that erasing inequality is a good thing.
I said it was well intentioned not that it was right.
Since you asked, I believe in compensating ability via markets while providing basic income to all parties. Instead of trying to apply some kind of centralized reverse meritocracy to social support systems, or worse, via tax rebates and business development programs.
>Seems like they've ran out of other people's money indeed.
No, the nationalized oil wells are still owned by the Venezuelan people. What they ran out of is the era of high oil prices. Most of their economy hinges on oil prices. They're a lot like Detroit in that a single industry overdetermines their outcome.
On the plus side, Venezuela is nothing like Detroit in that there is no private capital flight leading a rush for the exits taking that industry with them.
Detroit: now THERE'S a case of running away with other people's money. And livelihoods. And clean water.
Of course, Bloomberg won't be spending a lot of time chest-beating about that.
Venezuela's oil production capacity collapsed after nationalization. It's not just prices.
The nationalization destroyed foreign investment, talent fled the country, and cronyism put incompetent people in charge of factories and industries they didn't understand.
It's dishonest to pretend this is only due to oil prices.
Congrats: you've echoed the same argument against people owning their resources that boardrooms have been using against populations since Iran in 1953. "They're far too dumb to survey, drill and pump their own oil." Yeah, no.
>In your eyes, "public ownership is ineffective" = "they're too dumb"? Yeah, no.
The former is corporate-speak annual-report, think-tank framing, the latter is paternalistic, cigars-on-the-golf-course framing, but both are identical messages: colonialist horseshit used -- for centuries now -- to justify looting and extraction from populations.
Adults should be able to see through this stuff by now.
It's probably not worth engaging with you, since your language suggests you are unwilling to even consider any new views, but
"public ownership is ineffective"
how does this have anything to do with colonialism? I think that public ownership is almost always inefficient compared to an effective market. I believe it is true in the first world, I believe it is true in the third world. don't try to contort it into racism.
Oh, don't worry about me. Worry instead about the dumb, ahistorical position you've staked out here.
1) You claimed VZ's oil industry was "incompetent" and that its "talent fled" leading to the people of VZ being "unable to understand" their industry. These were your exact words. But when I correctly summed up your argument with the paraphrase "they're too dumb," all of a sudden you back away from your own argument, as if it had shat itself.
That cheesy evasion on your part inclines adults to be MORE suspicious of your argument, not less.
2) Literally every argument for colonial extraction of resources from indigenous populations has, for centuries of history now, been made in exactly the manner you have made it: the locals aren't advanced enough to realize the value from their resources. Therefore we HAVE to mine the gold, drill the oil, harvest the fruit, etc. Thus, foreign "investment" is necessary.
This is capitalism at its most disgusting: dressed up in frilly underwear with "altruism" stitched across its ass. The argument is the definition of self-serving, and, as I've said, adults should be able to see through it by now. I can tell you the indigenous peoples of Iran, Chile, Nigeria, Canada, the US, Australia, Venezuala, ad infinitum, already do.
It's a massive distinction. I can refer to the CEO of a corporation as incompetent without commenting on the people that work for that corporation. The original poster was specifically referring to the people in charge [of the nationalized oil industry], not to the people of Venezuela[, the nominal owners of said industry]. Your conflation of the two completely misses their point and consequently derailed what could have been an otherwise interesting discussion.
This soup of loosely related keywords betrays your thought process: you don't seem to reason about this matter logically. Instead, you seem to conjure some fantasy images of inequality and injustice to rage against. This is great when creating fiction, but not so great in a rational debate.
How is Venezuela a new media target? They've been in the US news media rather frequently since at least 2005 or so (when I first noticed an uptick in Venezuela specific coverage, from primarily US-mainstream sources at that time like CNN).
Probably a bit before IIRC. Just after the CIA sponsored coup and kidnapping of the democratically elected leader.
Imagine the reversal. Venezuelan secret services kidnapped the US president to install a more friendly regime so they could profit more from the US natural resources.....
They still have a enormous amount of oil in the ground but not the government to use it wisely. Despite the disaster the country is with the resources in the ground it is still possible to turn the country around, but clearly not with the present leadership. Sadly South America doesn't have a good track record with coups actually improving things.
The only country where the possession of oil hasn't been more of a curse than a bless is arguably Norway.
Venezuela's economic situation is more of a product of having oil than it is a product of the so-called socialism of the previous government.
Free money from extractive industries has normally served to let whatever government keep power through handouts to the populace.
Saudi Arabia, as another example, may not be an economic disaster but the regime broadly is a disaster for the foreign workers it abusively employs and the nearby areas it exports its reactionary ideology to.
You're right. It's been widely observed that oil and many other valuable natural resources are actually bad for countries unless they already have good governance.
If you think socialism is cool and awesome just poorly implemented, come to Venezuela and live here a year and hopefully you will hate Chavez/Maduro and his death legacy.
41 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 83.4 ms ] threadThis demonstrate a serious road block in addressing the rise of (authoritarian) socialist policies in developing economies is the fact that they usually start from honest good intentions. Such as diminishing class-systems and inequality. But like many attempts at centrally planning massive human activity, it's built on faulty assumptions that the system is sustainable in the long run.
Ultimately resulting in a slowly dwindling ponzi scheme. Only made worse when it happens in a petro-state like Venezuela where the scheme can last long enough with the appearance of success to persuade other nearby countries to buy into the illusion.
Since you asked, I believe in compensating ability via markets while providing basic income to all parties. Instead of trying to apply some kind of centralized reverse meritocracy to social support systems, or worse, via tax rebates and business development programs.
No, the nationalized oil wells are still owned by the Venezuelan people. What they ran out of is the era of high oil prices. Most of their economy hinges on oil prices. They're a lot like Detroit in that a single industry overdetermines their outcome.
On the plus side, Venezuela is nothing like Detroit in that there is no private capital flight leading a rush for the exits taking that industry with them.
Detroit: now THERE'S a case of running away with other people's money. And livelihoods. And clean water.
Of course, Bloomberg won't be spending a lot of time chest-beating about that.
The nationalization destroyed foreign investment, talent fled the country, and cronyism put incompetent people in charge of factories and industries they didn't understand.
It's dishonest to pretend this is only due to oil prices.
The former is corporate-speak annual-report, think-tank framing, the latter is paternalistic, cigars-on-the-golf-course framing, but both are identical messages: colonialist horseshit used -- for centuries now -- to justify looting and extraction from populations.
Adults should be able to see through this stuff by now.
"public ownership is ineffective"
how does this have anything to do with colonialism? I think that public ownership is almost always inefficient compared to an effective market. I believe it is true in the first world, I believe it is true in the third world. don't try to contort it into racism.
Oh, don't worry about me. Worry instead about the dumb, ahistorical position you've staked out here.
1) You claimed VZ's oil industry was "incompetent" and that its "talent fled" leading to the people of VZ being "unable to understand" their industry. These were your exact words. But when I correctly summed up your argument with the paraphrase "they're too dumb," all of a sudden you back away from your own argument, as if it had shat itself.
That cheesy evasion on your part inclines adults to be MORE suspicious of your argument, not less.
2) Literally every argument for colonial extraction of resources from indigenous populations has, for centuries of history now, been made in exactly the manner you have made it: the locals aren't advanced enough to realize the value from their resources. Therefore we HAVE to mine the gold, drill the oil, harvest the fruit, etc. Thus, foreign "investment" is necessary.
This is capitalism at its most disgusting: dressed up in frilly underwear with "altruism" stitched across its ass. The argument is the definition of self-serving, and, as I've said, adults should be able to see through it by now. I can tell you the indigenous peoples of Iran, Chile, Nigeria, Canada, the US, Australia, Venezuala, ad infinitum, already do.
GP's words.
> leading to the people of VZ being "unable to understand" their industry
Your words.
Those do not mean the same thing.
GP is referring to the cronies in charge when they say "people". Not the people of Venezuela.
Distinction without difference fallacy.
I'm sure that is your wish, but we can all read.
Yeah, I'd change the subject too if I had nothing.
Edit in case it wasn't clear: because that's the mechanism by which other people's money was brought into the system.
Your answer will probably be determined by your preexisting political leaning.
Ideological boilerplate has no place on HN. Please stop posting it. We've asked you this before, but you've continued to do it. That's a problem.
A comment like this has two effects: it genericizes the discussion and inflames it. Those are bad things on HN, and the combination worse still.
Imagine the reversal. Venezuelan secret services kidnapped the US president to install a more friendly regime so they could profit more from the US natural resources.....
- Turkey (it could use another one about now, if the military wasn't neutered)
- Thailand (providing stability currently)
- Egypt (removed Muslim Brotherhood)
Venezuela's economic situation is more of a product of having oil than it is a product of the so-called socialism of the previous government.
Free money from extractive industries has normally served to let whatever government keep power through handouts to the populace.
Saudi Arabia, as another example, may not be an economic disaster but the regime broadly is a disaster for the foreign workers it abusively employs and the nearby areas it exports its reactionary ideology to.
They're not failed states, they're disasters for the world as whole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
If want to read more about go to http://www.caracaschronicles.com/