Venezuela

[where]

Companies owning a foreign countries assets is a slippery slope to corruption, who’s to say a countries can’t provide improved infrastructure for their people by nationalizing their oil, except for the bankers that tank specific socialist countries, whats funny is they tolerate all these same behaviors in Argentina.

[misteraven]

3 minutes ago, where said:

Companies owning a foreign countries assets is a slippery slope to corruption, who’s to say a countries can’t provide improved infrastructure for their people by nationalizing their oil, except for the bankers that tank specific socialist countries, whats funny is they tolerate all these same behaviors in Argentina.

Would you mind elaborating on the point you’re making here? Bonus points if you don’t mind citing references as well. Not sure I understand what you’re saying here. 

[Mercer]

So my neighbors and I could have a huge swimming pool built behind our building if we just forcibly "nationalized" the life savings of the old lady at the end of the block.

 

She's actually really nice but, needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few right?

 

Isn't swimming a right?

[Mercer]

Whoa wait guys, the old lady and her friends won't give back the stuff we left in their houses, and now nobody will do business with us.

 

No, it's not consequences for theft, this is oppression comrades!

[where]

55 minutes ago, misteraven said:

Would you mind elaborating on the point you’re making here? Bonus points if you don’t mind citing references as well. Not sure I understand what you’re saying here. 

I’ll  elaborate but for now I’ll leave this here

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-repsol-argentina/spains-repsol-agrees-to-5-billion-settlement-with-argentina-over-ypf-idUSBREA1O1LJ20140225

 

[Hua Guofang]

Just been doing some reading, Chavez printed so much money that they drove the value down becoming over-indebted to the company that did the printing  because the paper became worth more than the money itself. 

 

Although, there is one thing that stands out that I wasn’t able to annunciations properly before: much of the failure was through market intervention, but much of that intervention was made not because they were socialists but because they were corrupt and fighting to retain power. There was of course huge ideological interventions, but that’s only one of the drivers. 

 

Im now interested to know if there are non-socialist states that have destroyed their economies due to intervention for power/control. 

[Mercer]

6 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

Just been doing some reading, Chavez printed so much money that they drove the value down becoming over-indebted to the company that did the printing  because the paper became worth more than the money itself. 

 

Although, there is one thing that stands out that I wasn’t able to annunciations properly before: much of the failure was through market intervention, but much of that intervention was made not because they were socialists but because they were corrupt and fighting to retain power. There was of course huge ideological interventions, but that’s only one of the drivers. 

 

Im now interested to know if there are non-socialist states that have destroyed their economies due to intervention for power/control. 

Yes, there are plenty of non socialist states that have destroyed their currency by printing too much. In fact, the average lifespan of any fiat currency before hyper inflation sets in is 50 years. This problem isn't exclusive to communists, or socialists. It can, and often does effect highly developed capitalists leaning countries.

 

That aside, you seem to be sort of defending Socialism, and pointing the blame more towards corruption. Why tho? You never explained your theory, or reasoning behind this and I'd like to know more. Are their anti corruption measures you feel aren't being utilized properly? I'd like to see you elaborate on this, or solutions. You never know, we might figure out a way to have a successful socialist country finally, after 150 years of Marxism's repeated failures.

 

I argue that most of the preventable harm is caused by truly well intentioned policy, not corruption. Corruption is an abuse of power, and the more power you give to government officials to steer an economy, the more potential there is for corruption. Removing that absolute power, removes a proportional amount of potential, and  means to corrupt. Moving away from a totalitarian state model, towards a free market naturally reduces the corruption problem on it's own.

 

A well intentioned price control on milk for example, can wipe out the dairy industry. I mean kids need milk right, why should some capitalist fat cat profit selling milk at outrageous prices, right? Let's make a law that a gallon of milk can cost no more than X amount of bolivars, but if the cost of  producing/delivering a gallon of milk exceeds the price you can charge for it legally, the dairy industry being wiped out isn't the fault of corruption. This is what happens to industry after industry. Next thing you know,  you're importing all your milk now from Brazil, most of it on the black market at way higher prices than where we started.

[Hua Guofang]

Nope, you’ve jumped to a conclusion there. I’m not defending socialism, I’m testing your argument. My experience is around security, geopolitics, east Asia, etc., not political philosophy or economics.  You have a pretty clear and dogmatic position that Socialism is a failed system because of market intervention/Econ policy. 

 

I dont think that previous failure immediately implies faulty premise. If that was the case, nobody would be riding bikes or driving cars anymore. Secondly, i dont think things are as simple as you seem to suggest. I think countries such as Venezuela, pre-1990 PRC, etc Gail for multiple reasons, not the single issue of Econ ideology. So I’m asking whether bad economics is the single point of failure in Venezuela or if it’s more complex. If it’s more complex, then more questions need to be asked about the value of socialism. Secondly, if some of Venezuela’s non-Econ profs, such as Econ failure due to policies of control for political power, can be found in non-socialist nations then, again, the jury on the efficacy of socialism may still be out. 

 

I dont actually care about the final answer. But you seem to , and it’s that visceral reaction from you that intrigues me and encourages me to ask questions and challenge assertions. 

[Hua Guofang]

I fucking hate typing on phones

 

gail = fail

profs = probs

[Mercer]

5 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

Nope, you’ve jumped to a conclusion there. I’m not defending socialism, I’m testing your argument.

You're making general statements, and not giving your reasons why something other than economic intervention caused it, I'm asking what exactly you think happened, not if you agree, or disagree with my opinion.

 

5 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

 

My experience is around security, geopolitics, east Asia, etc., not political philosophy or economics.

Then why chime in repeatedly here? You must at the very least have some base philosophy, or economic theory to draw from, or you'd agree with mine.

 

5 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

 

You have a pretty clear and dogmatic position that Socialism is a failed system because of market intervention/Econ policy. 

True story^

5 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

 

I dont think that previous failure immediately implies faulty premise. If that was the case, nobody would be riding bikes or driving cars anymore.

Why not try monarchism one last time, maybe religious rule. What separates your opinion on socialism from either of these failed systems?

 

5 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

Secondly, i dont think things are as simple as you seem to suggest.

I'm not suggesting they are simple, if they were people would actually get this stuff and we could move on.

 

5 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

I think countries such as Venezuela, pre-1990 PRC, etc Gail for multiple reasons, not the single issue of Econ ideology.

Here's where it feels like you're trolling, present your opinion on this and stop skirting. Again, what is your theory?

 

5 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

So I’m asking whether bad economics is the single point of failure in Venezuela or if it’s more complex.

The economic failures in Venezuela are 100% caused by economic intervention and nothing else. I believe I've answered this question you're asking  in detail many times, it would be nice if you answered mine just once.

 

5 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

If it’s more complex, then more questions need to be asked about the value of socialism.

Please explain how it's more complex, I mean there's corruption everywhere, but you can still buy toilet paper without a suitcase full of money in most places, there must be more to it right?

 

5 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

Secondly, if some of Venezuela’s non-Econ profs, such as Econ failure due to policies of control for political power, can be found in non-socialist nations then, again, the jury on the efficacy of socialism may still be out. 

These issues are only found in other countries with heavy handed economic intervention, and not exclusive to just socialism.

 

5 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

I dont actually care about the final answer. But you seem to , and it’s that visceral reaction from you that intrigues me and encourages me to ask questions and challenge assertions. 

This is important to me, and don't feel bad about having an opinion on it. If you can outline my where I've been visceral towards any members of the forum on this subject please show me so I can adjust my wording in the future. I think you're either very unsure of your opinions merit, or just trolling and don't have any opinion on this either way, which may be why you keep hiding your reasoning, and won't lay out why you think Venezuela failed in your own words. Clearly you're one of the best written people on here, and I'm 100% sure nobody here will be offended if you have an opinion, theory on this.   

[Kults]

^ Its slightly better than "Ill explain later but here's a random link no one will click on" but just a wordier version of that.

[One Man Banned]