3 ms·

His interpretation of the Venezuelan crisis. He pointed to the price of oil driving the issue. Nowhere did he mention the crazy socialist/populist programs that

by Agustus 10y ago

His interpretation of the Venezuelan crisis. He pointed to the price of oil driving the issue. Nowhere did he mention the crazy socialist/populist programs that Chavez and his successor Maduro. The main problem in Venezuela is the erosion of property rights. Nowhere in the report was this mentioned.

anentropic 10y ago
I thought the main problems were less abstract, like not being able to buy toilet paper etc
- Agustus 10y ago
  This is the short term approach that John Oliver puts forward. This is not a year's development, this has been the result of 16 years of Chavez / Maduro policies.
marxidad 10y ago
What makes it a fact that the erosion of property rights is more so a driving issue that the price of oil?
- Agustus 10y ago
  I John Oliver'ed my response to avoid delving into this more, but here is the cause and effects of the Venezuela issue. 1. Chavez was elected in 1999 and utilized the OPEC cartel to decrease production and drive up the price. Utilizing the high prices, he gave away every socialist program that his increased oil prices could deliver. 2. When the socialist programs had to have more cash, Chavez muscled in on the oil producers and told them to find more revenue or else they would nationalize the oil rigs. Companies said there was no money unless operation and maintenance costs were foregone, and they would not undersign that so Chavez nationalized them (property right strike across the bow). This was done through the enabling law which ultimately what started the erosion of the rights. 3. As companies saw that profits could not be returned, they started to get the heck out of Dodge. Tariffs and other crazy price increasing measures were instituted until prices became very high. The government did the next property right erosion by controlling prices on goods. Black market took over to provide goods at real rates because the governments rates could not be met. 4. Any industry that was making a profit was derided in public speeches. 5. Foreign investors avoided investing in the housing market as they saw newly built properties nationalized. The government did not even pay the investors a compensatory fee! The oil is price is an aside contributor, but when you do not respect property rights, say goodbye to anyone wanting to invest in you.
pas 10y ago
I don't think his interpretation was total, complete or absolute. He basically refrained from commenting on it, and made very direct jokes on basic aspects of the situation, while introducing it via a proximate cause (oil price crashing led to instability - it's the lack of diversified economy that made them vulnerable, and it's usually caused by shortsighted natural resource expolitation, blablabla, but that's just correlated with the erosion of property rights, and not necessarily causally). I'm trying to decide if his omission is okay or not. Conservative (and I intend that as a swearword) hit-media present his lack of condemnation of "socialism" as a wrongdoing. Which certainly can be argued, that since he got airtime, he has some responsibility to educate, especially if he choose to talk about the topic. However, I don't think he is a politology scholar, so not using a word so misued as socialism is probably a smart thing on his part, and sticking to the criticism of the consequences of the policies themselves is also an okay-ish solution. I think shows what a dictatorship leads to is more important than condemning whatever ideology you think lead to it. After all, autorism always mutates the ideology it uses to justify itself, usually subverting all of the original ideas related to it in about 5 minutes after gaining power.
- Agustus 10y ago
  The socialistic / communistic populist rhetoric used by Chavez is what allowed him into office. The socialist / communist people who elected him created the monster that he became, so those who wanted the platform elected and in his mind instilled his beliefs as "the will of the people" that we hear so much from those who are marginally elected. No one ever wants to elect a dictator, however, the requirements of a socialist / communist leader lends itself much more to developing one when one utters: "It is the will of the people" to supersede the property rights of others.
  - pas 10y ago
    This is true of every ideology usurped so far by dictators. Kings usually just invoked divine rights, or the good old "my father was king and his father was king before him, so I shall be king after him too" as is tradition. Caesar was also a tribune of the people, yet he was ineligible, but he also used the "will of the people" as justification. The problem is, when someone has so much power to do this, ideologies don't matter anymore, and there's no argument that can best the "will of the people", because if the will of the people is wrong, then the people are wrong too, and since they are the majority, you're screwed with your logic (and rationality). I'm saying these, because it's important to note that communism as an abstract idea is not worse or better than any other form of government, such as feudalism, or fascism. Ideally all could work. Given an ample supply of good kings, incorruptible premier secretaries and supreme leaders, and so on. Naturally, the problems are foreseeable, so individual power should be limited. What better way to do that than to remove even the power of wealth generation? Bam! Instant communism, again. And this works with property rights too. Someone offers you a very good deal on a crate of gold, you buy it. It turns out it was stolen from a national bank. But reversing that transaction would violate your property rights. (How far you would have to go to make sure you're not buying contraband/bootlegged stuff? Anyone can make up an example where you have done enough yet a lot of people will suffer as a result of your gains.)

by Agustus 10y ago

anentropic 10y ago

I thought the main problems were less abstract, like not being able to buy toilet paper etc

Agustus 10y ago
This is the short term approach that John Oliver puts forward. This is not a year's development, this has been the result of 16 years of Chavez / Maduro policies.

marxidad 10y ago

What makes it a fact that the erosion of property rights is more so a driving issue that the price of oil?

Agustus 10y ago
I John Oliver'ed my response to avoid delving into this more, but here is the cause and effects of the Venezuela issue. 1. Chavez was elected in 1999 and utilized the OPEC cartel to decrease production and drive up the price. Utilizing the high prices, he gave away every socialist program that his increased oil prices could deliver. 2. When the socialist programs had to have more cash, Chavez muscled in on the oil producers and told them to find more revenue or else they would nationalize the oil rigs. Companies said there was no money unless operation and maintenance costs were foregone, and they would not undersign that so Chavez nationalized them (property right strike across the bow). This was done through the enabling law which ultimately what started the erosion of the rights. 3. As companies saw that profits could not be returned, they started to get the heck out of Dodge. Tariffs and other crazy price increasing measures were instituted until prices became very high. The government did the next property right erosion by controlling prices on goods. Black market took over to provide goods at real rates because the governments rates could not be met. 4. Any industry that was making a profit was derided in public speeches. 5. Foreign investors avoided investing in the housing market as they saw newly built properties nationalized. The government did not even pay the investors a compensatory fee! The oil is price is an aside contributor, but when you do not respect property rights, say goodbye to anyone wanting to invest in you.

pas 10y ago

I don't think his interpretation was total, complete or absolute. He basically refrained from commenting on it, and made very direct jokes on basic aspects of the situation, while introducing it via a proximate cause (oil price crashing led to instability - it's the lack of diversified economy that made them vulnerable, and it's usually caused by shortsighted natural resource expolitation, blablabla, but that's just correlated with the erosion of property rights, and not necessarily causally). I'm trying to decide if his omission is okay or not. Conservative (and I intend that as a swearword) hit-media present his lack of condemnation of "socialism" as a wrongdoing. Which certainly can be argued, that since he got airtime, he has some responsibility to educate, especially if he choose to talk about the topic. However, I don't think he is a politology scholar, so not using a word so misued as socialism is probably a smart thing on his part, and sticking to the criticism of the consequences of the policies themselves is also an okay-ish solution. I think shows what a dictatorship leads to is more important than condemning whatever ideology you think lead to it. After all, autorism always mutates the ideology it uses to justify itself, usually subverting all of the original ideas related to it in about 5 minutes after gaining power.

Agustus 10y ago
The socialistic / communistic populist rhetoric used by Chavez is what allowed him into office. The socialist / communist people who elected him created the monster that he became, so those who wanted the platform elected and in his mind instilled his beliefs as "the will of the people" that we hear so much from those who are marginally elected. No one ever wants to elect a dictator, however, the requirements of a socialist / communist leader lends itself much more to developing one when one utters: "It is the will of the people" to supersede the property rights of others.
- pas 10y ago
  This is true of every ideology usurped so far by dictators. Kings usually just invoked divine rights, or the good old "my father was king and his father was king before him, so I shall be king after him too" as is tradition. Caesar was also a tribune of the people, yet he was ineligible, but he also used the "will of the people" as justification. The problem is, when someone has so much power to do this, ideologies don't matter anymore, and there's no argument that can best the "will of the people", because if the will of the people is wrong, then the people are wrong too, and since they are the majority, you're screwed with your logic (and rationality). I'm saying these, because it's important to note that communism as an abstract idea is not worse or better than any other form of government, such as feudalism, or fascism. Ideally all could work. Given an ample supply of good kings, incorruptible premier secretaries and supreme leaders, and so on. Naturally, the problems are foreseeable, so individual power should be limited. What better way to do that than to remove even the power of wealth generation? Bam! Instant communism, again. And this works with property rights too. Someone offers you a very good deal on a crate of gold, you buy it. It turns out it was stolen from a national bank. But reversing that transaction would violate your property rights. (How far you would have to go to make sure you're not buying contraband/bootlegged stuff? Anyone can make up an example where you have done enough yet a lot of people will suffer as a result of your gains.)