6 ms·
The fundamental issue is fairly simple. Chavez was pushing a sort of ethnic nationalism for the mestizo majority. But his supporters just didn't have the techn
by wmil 10y ago
The fundamental issue is fairly simple. Chavez was pushing a sort of ethnic nationalism for the mestizo majority. But his supporters just didn't have the technical skills to run an advanced economy.
Instead of trying to fix that his government kept appointing people with degrees in Marxist Studies. Bad decisions were chronically made and the country decayed.
The infrastructure will continue to decay unless the voters find technocrats they trust. Eventually buildings are going to start collapsing.
- zzleeper 10y agoChavez was more like the poison pill or the neck around the rope. The next question is how did Venezuela drove itself to a point where people elected him? They had a lot of money from oil, almost no taxes (or no taxes at all??), and still had a larger poverty rate that similar but oil-less countries of South America (that still had its own issues such as corruption, terrorism and drugs)
- lumberjack 10y agoNobody wants to go that far back in history and ask the questions you are asking because if they did they would not be able to arrive to the same conclusion about whatever it is they deem socialism.
- mc32 10y agoWell... He did make a few coup d'ètats precipitating a period of uncertainty which exacerbated a deteriorating economy, dissent and fomenting division, a string of ineffective leaders and voila, the "commandant" to the rescue!
- wildmusings 10y ago>Chavez was pushing a sort of ethnic nationalism for the mestizo majority. But his supporters just didn't have the technical skills to run an advanced economy. It has nothing to do with skills. Chavismo is a fundamentally broken agenda. Socialism (the real deal, not capitalist welfare states) does not work. Nationalizing industries does not work. Price controls do not work. Central planning does not work. The most skilled leader in the world couldn't make this program work. And no discussion of this monster is complete without mentioning the political prisoners, extrajudicial killings, and pro-government militias spreading terror just like the Brown Shirts. And look at the company they keep. Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Russia, China, and the various Chavez-imitators in Latin America. Chavez was an evil man.
- RodericDay 10y agoCentral planning clearly works fairly well internally for millions of corporations around the world (see: Theory of the firm, http://www.economist.com/node/17730360 http://www.economist.com/node/17730360). It will never be so simple as "privatize everything for best results". I wish the discussion here would elevate beyond this libertarian propaganda level.
- mirimir 10y agoI've heard it said that central planning in the Soviet Union would have worked with modern communication and information management systems. But on the other hand, planning for one corporation is far simpler than planning for an entire economy.
- marcoperaza 10y agoWhile people live under one government, there are millions of corporations. For every successful corporation, many more have gone out of business. Many of the successful ones today will be dead within a decade. When a corporation's governance structure doesn't work, it dies and frees up resources for other endeavors. Central planning has worked well for exactly zero countries around the world.
- sgift 10y ago> When a corporation's governance structure doesn't work, it dies and frees up resources for other endeavors. Yeah, sure. As if we didn't have "too big to fail" in the last years. Maybe a history book could refresh your memory.