6 ms·

>For Venezuelans who remember ’89, the party system was the enemy, and Chávez was the hero, because things got better under him first of all. The price of oil w

>For Venezuelans who remember ’89, the party system was the enemy, and Chávez was the hero, because things got better under him first of all. The price of oil went up. He started opening free clinics, and primary education, and universal health care, and subsidized food, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, but he acted as if there was enough money to sustain all this. In fairness, he acted as if Venezuela wasn't going to become the bystander in a proxy fight between Saudi Arabia and US shale oil & renewable energy. Venezuelan exports have always been largely oil based so whomever was in power, the plunge in oil price was going to cause disaster and a crisis of legitimacy.

troisx 9y ago
I'd say that Chavez and his family doing more to enrich themselves than plan for the country's future when oil prices inevitably dropped played a large part.
- jim-jim-jim 9y ago
  You can say what you want. Doesn't change the fact that Chavez helped bring many of Venezuela's poor towards something approaching a dignified standard of living.
  - tbihl 9y ago
    And brought all of Venezuela toward the eventual disaster under Maduro that was the necessary result of his policies.
  - gozur88 9y ago
    Sure, by stealing money from the people who have it and giving it to poor people, for a short time you make the lot of the poor better. Now where there were few jobs there are none, and crime has gone from a big problem to a terrible problem. Soon there will be war. These are not policies that benefit the poor.
    - crdoconnor 9y ago
      >Sure, by stealing money from the people who have it and giving it to poor people Largely by redirecting money from oil exports to anti-poverty programs. Before he took power that money was mostly siphoned off abroad and by the upper classes. Do you really think the country would have fared much better if this practice continued?
      - gozur88 9y ago
        The economy was growing under Chavez's predecessors. Yes, it would have fared much, much better. What he did with oil is less important than what he did to the rest of the economy. Chavez was lucky, in a way, because he died right about the time math caught up with his economic policies.
        crdoconnor 9y ago
        Actually the economy suffered a massive contraction in the 80s when - surprise! - oil prices plunged. This is partly what led Chavez into power - mostly because while the country technically returned to growth - wages did not go up and unemployment did not go down. Same cause last time as this time but last time was "all the fault of capitalism" and this one was "all the fault of socialism".
    - jim-jim-jim 9y ago
      Capitalism is theft. It's mathematically impossible for the holder of capital to generate profit if he pays workers wages equal to the value their labor produces. Somebody has to be shortchanged somewhere along the line. The rich in Venezuela should be thankful they only have to deal with mild social democratic wealth redistribution policies.
      - apk-d 9y ago
        Everything except capitalism is theft. In a free market every good exchange is voluntary - made because both parties have decided they're slightly better off with it (else, they wouldn't participate). Therefore, everything but a free market implies deals that are non-voluntary for at least one of the parties.
gozur88 9y ago
But before Chavez the economy was considerably more diverse. His policies turned a vulnerability into a ticking time bomb.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  It really wasn't. It moved from maybe 80% to 90% of exports. They were already in the full throes of Dutch disease when Chavez took power. Saudi Arabia has failed just as badly at diversifying their economy for pretty much the exact same reason.
  - gozur88 9y ago
    Exports only tell part of the story. Much of what a country consumes is produced locally, so just looking at exports ignores the collapse of industries like construction and agriculture.
stmfreak 9y ago
Everybody loves a big spender. Spending like there is no tomorrow is how you appease children--not how you should run a household, let alone a business or country.

troisx 9y ago

I'd say that Chavez and his family doing more to enrich themselves than plan for the country's future when oil prices inevitably dropped played a large part.

jim-jim-jim 9y ago
You can say what you want. Doesn't change the fact that Chavez helped bring many of Venezuela's poor towards something approaching a dignified standard of living.
- tbihl 9y ago
  And brought all of Venezuela toward the eventual disaster under Maduro that was the necessary result of his policies.
- gozur88 9y ago
  Sure, by stealing money from the people who have it and giving it to poor people, for a short time you make the lot of the poor better. Now where there were few jobs there are none, and crime has gone from a big problem to a terrible problem. Soon there will be war. These are not policies that benefit the poor.
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    >Sure, by stealing money from the people who have it and giving it to poor people Largely by redirecting money from oil exports to anti-poverty programs. Before he took power that money was mostly siphoned off abroad and by the upper classes. Do you really think the country would have fared much better if this practice continued?
    - gozur88 9y ago
      The economy was growing under Chavez's predecessors. Yes, it would have fared much, much better. What he did with oil is less important than what he did to the rest of the economy. Chavez was lucky, in a way, because he died right about the time math caught up with his economic policies.
      - crdoconnor 9y ago
        Actually the economy suffered a massive contraction in the 80s when - surprise! - oil prices plunged. This is partly what led Chavez into power - mostly because while the country technically returned to growth - wages did not go up and unemployment did not go down. Same cause last time as this time but last time was "all the fault of capitalism" and this one was "all the fault of socialism".
  - jim-jim-jim 9y ago
    Capitalism is theft. It's mathematically impossible for the holder of capital to generate profit if he pays workers wages equal to the value their labor produces. Somebody has to be shortchanged somewhere along the line. The rich in Venezuela should be thankful they only have to deal with mild social democratic wealth redistribution policies.
    - apk-d 9y ago
      Everything except capitalism is theft. In a free market every good exchange is voluntary - made because both parties have decided they're slightly better off with it (else, they wouldn't participate). Therefore, everything but a free market implies deals that are non-voluntary for at least one of the parties.

gozur88 9y ago

But before Chavez the economy was considerably more diverse. His policies turned a vulnerability into a ticking time bomb.

crdoconnor 9y ago
It really wasn't. It moved from maybe 80% to 90% of exports. They were already in the full throes of Dutch disease when Chavez took power. Saudi Arabia has failed just as badly at diversifying their economy for pretty much the exact same reason.
- gozur88 9y ago
  Exports only tell part of the story. Much of what a country consumes is produced locally, so just looking at exports ignores the collapse of industries like construction and agriculture.

stmfreak 9y ago

Everybody loves a big spender. Spending like there is no tomorrow is how you appease children--not how you should run a household, let alone a business or country.