4 ms·

"Every time I wrote that Chavez was in fact direly mismanaging the economy, diverting investment funds that were needed to maintain oil output into social spend

"Every time I wrote that Chavez was in fact direly mismanaging the economy, diverting investment funds that were needed to maintain oil output into social spending, I knew that I could look forward to receiving angry e-mails and comments accusing me of trying to sabotage his achievements for the benefit of my corporatist paymaster. " This says it all. I am from India and I believe its the governments job to help social security measures rather than helping corporate.

colechristensen 11y ago
The problem I have with your response is the implication that it is a binary choice. For a healthy economy and happy people you have to tend to both business and individuals pushing money and regulations this way and that so that both are successful. When both are successful you only need minimal resources to keep them that way. What you can be sure of is that both pure hands-off capitalism and 20th century communism lead to serious social ills. The societies doing best in the world seem to be social democracies which though experience have taken the best of the extreme ideals of previous centuries. It's much harder, though, to rally for careful deliberate moderation. People around the world try to make complex matters simple and take them to extremes because it's easy. Real progress, real improvements, real better futures require careful consideration and balance.
henrikschroder 11y ago
But in this case, the oil industry of Venezuela is completely state-owned, and the government was relying on profits from this to fund social programmes. This is not an inherently bad idea in itself, but if your government spending is directly dependent on a single commodity, fluctuations in its price will affect your entire population. Compare for example with Norway, which also made its oil industry completely state-owned, but is not in any way relying on oil profits to run the country.
- jestinjoy1 11y ago
  Thats correct. I dont know that much about Venezuela. Do we have records to show that its entirely funded from oil profits? What if a country doesnt have any other thing to make profits than oil. Same is the case for gulf countries.
  - kevin_thibedeau 11y ago
    They had other ways to make money but Chavez ran the capitalists out of town so he could bask in the glory of his socialist paradise.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > What if a country doesnt have any other thing to make profits than oil. Same is the case for gulf countries. Not sure if it has recovered since the 1990 war, but Kuwait was an example of a better long-range strategy if your main immediate source of income is oil -- you invest a large share of the profits from that in other things, while using some of the proceeds from both oil and the other investments on services for citizens. Its not as much short term benefit in citizen services, but its better for long-term stability (well, up until the fact that you have invested in a way that makes your returns better when oil prices are low gives you conflicting interests to your neighbor who hasn't invested in other things the way you have, forming one of the reasons they use their investment in one of the largest militaries in the region to invade, occupy, and ravage your country.)
epx 11y ago
Governments hardly ever do that. 99% of the .vn oil money went to Chavez supporters and sycophants, and 1% actuallly went to the people. And this 1% doubled as a way to earn, cheaply, support from left-wing, well-meaning people like you.
brc 11y ago
Social security measures can only be paid from earnings from individuals. A government usually cannot earn any money itself, and particularly so in places with history of corruption and cronyism. The governments job should be to maintain a peaceful society, protecting property rights and give people personal, economic and speech freedom. Those conditions lead to improvements in wealth,and at that point some of the he tax money can be diverted into safety net spending. Arguing for it from the top down 'it's the governments job to help social security measures' fails to give the credit for generation of the wealth in the first place. Failing to understand the difference - the governments don't have and don't make money - leads to a fundamental mistake of 'the government has all the money, why not give some to me?'.

colechristensen 11y ago

The problem I have with your response is the implication that it is a binary choice. For a healthy economy and happy people you have to tend to both business and individuals pushing money and regulations this way and that so that both are successful. When both are successful you only need minimal resources to keep them that way. What you can be sure of is that both pure hands-off capitalism and 20th century communism lead to serious social ills. The societies doing best in the world seem to be social democracies which though experience have taken the best of the extreme ideals of previous centuries. It's much harder, though, to rally for careful deliberate moderation. People around the world try to make complex matters simple and take them to extremes because it's easy. Real progress, real improvements, real better futures require careful consideration and balance.

henrikschroder 11y ago

But in this case, the oil industry of Venezuela is completely state-owned, and the government was relying on profits from this to fund social programmes. This is not an inherently bad idea in itself, but if your government spending is directly dependent on a single commodity, fluctuations in its price will affect your entire population. Compare for example with Norway, which also made its oil industry completely state-owned, but is not in any way relying on oil profits to run the country.

jestinjoy1 11y ago
Thats correct. I dont know that much about Venezuela. Do we have records to show that its entirely funded from oil profits? What if a country doesnt have any other thing to make profits than oil. Same is the case for gulf countries.
- kevin_thibedeau 11y ago
  They had other ways to make money but Chavez ran the capitalists out of town so he could bask in the glory of his socialist paradise.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > What if a country doesnt have any other thing to make profits than oil. Same is the case for gulf countries. Not sure if it has recovered since the 1990 war, but Kuwait was an example of a better long-range strategy if your main immediate source of income is oil -- you invest a large share of the profits from that in other things, while using some of the proceeds from both oil and the other investments on services for citizens. Its not as much short term benefit in citizen services, but its better for long-term stability (well, up until the fact that you have invested in a way that makes your returns better when oil prices are low gives you conflicting interests to your neighbor who hasn't invested in other things the way you have, forming one of the reasons they use their investment in one of the largest militaries in the region to invade, occupy, and ravage your country.)

epx 11y ago

Governments hardly ever do that. 99% of the .vn oil money went to Chavez supporters and sycophants, and 1% actuallly went to the people. And this 1% doubled as a way to earn, cheaply, support from left-wing, well-meaning people like you.

brc 11y ago

Social security measures can only be paid from earnings from individuals. A government usually cannot earn any money itself, and particularly so in places with history of corruption and cronyism. The governments job should be to maintain a peaceful society, protecting property rights and give people personal, economic and speech freedom. Those conditions lead to improvements in wealth,and at that point some of the he tax money can be diverted into safety net spending. Arguing for it from the top down 'it's the governments job to help social security measures' fails to give the credit for generation of the wealth in the first place. Failing to understand the difference - the governments don't have and don't make money - leads to a fundamental mistake of 'the government has all the money, why not give some to me?'.