3 ms·

It is funny that people accuse the Venezuelan regime of being socialist, but then claim that the problem is that they didn't reshape the economy enough. In othe

It is funny that people accuse the Venezuelan regime of being socialist, but then claim that the problem is that they didn't reshape the economy enough. In other words, their failure was in not planning the economy as much as their critics want! No standard capitalist regime would be able to do that anyway so you have here a clearly bogus criticism.

MarkPNeyer 9y ago
> their failure was in not planning the economy as much as their critics want The argument for capitalism is that _no single entity can do this_ planning. It's not as if capitalist economies have a 'capitalist planner' who's better at planning that the socialist planner. Capitalist economies don't have one person - or agency - in charge of planning or shaping the economy. Bottom up, not top down.
- coliveira 9y ago
  Since most capitalist economies have never fully developed (especially in Latin America), this cannot be traced something that Venezuela did of not. It is, again, a bogus criticism.
scythe 9y ago
>but then claim that the problem is that they didn't reshape the economy enough. Another way to express this which lacks the apparent contradiction is: their socialist policies inhibited the natural tendency of the economy to reshape itself. However the real problem in Venezuela was not "socialism" per se nor a lack of diversification -- in fact several countries, particularly Brazil and Argentina, experienced problems when they tried to forcibly diversify their economies (Peronism/import substitution), whereas Chile went all in on copper, and while they've suffered downturns, their long-run growth has more than made up for it, making them today the richest country in Latin America. And precisely this pattern (comparative advantage) is how capitalism usually succeeds, and Chile today is diversifying at a natural/gradual pace. But in Venezuela the biggest problem was that Chavez appointed his friends to run the oil companies, and refused to cooperate with the previous administration and employees of the oil companies, which resulted in a lot of skilled people in Venezuela's oil industry taking their ball and going home. In other words, the problem was not that Chavez was a socialist but that he was a strongman who had no respect for democracy, the rule of law, or the desires of anyone but himself, which was also reflected in his later attempts to silence his critics in the media and to sabotage the Venezuelan Constitution and its legislature. I think this is why we've seen post-Chavez socialists like Mujica and Moreno taking a more measured approach to economic reforms and working with, rather than against, preexisting institutions.
padobson 9y ago
No standard capitalist regime would be able to do that anyway I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. If you're saying that no pro-capitalist government could have diversified Venezuela's economy, then I completely agree with you. If you're saying that nurturing a market economy in Venezuela would have failed to diversify it's economy, then I have to disagree. Markets tend to diversify on their own as entrepreneurs recognize new demand and respond to meet it. Because of the limitless variables that drive how this happens in different regions and industries in any given country, government administrators are not well suited to recognize and respond to such needs at a national level. Government should instead cultivate market economies that produce economic surplus, and then tax some percentage of that surplus to provide the social programs their citizens request.
- coliveira 9y ago
  This is unsupported by facts. China has a very tight control on areas that they want to develop or open to outside capital, and their growth has been stunning. On the other hand, undeveloped countries that have open their markets with little oversight have suffered tremendous economic problems, Mexico is a case in point. There is no correlation whatsoever between lax oversight of markets and robust economic growth, as most people tend to believe.
  - nopatternhere 9y ago
    Funny you use china as an example. China's greatest success have come in the areas with greatest economic freedom, where the government is least involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhen_Special_Economic_Zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhen_Special_Economic_Zone and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhen is a bit more informative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prefecture-level_cities_by_GDP_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prefecture-level_citie... Socialism only really works when government butts out, and lets industry self organise, and China is the glowing example. > There is no correlation whatsoever between lax oversight of markets and robust economic growth, as most people tend to believe. This is a complete firfy, and is arguing with a complete lack of understanding of what socialism is. "Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." In other words, we all decide together how to run things. Markets let people decide what they do themselves, e.g. self organising. The evidence self organisation works is vast and comprehensive. The evidence that no one group is smart enough to run an economy is vast as well, and success in managing an economy always rely on a significant portion being free markets.

MarkPNeyer 9y ago

> their failure was in not planning the economy as much as their critics want The argument for capitalism is that _no single entity can do this_ planning. It's not as if capitalist economies have a 'capitalist planner' who's better at planning that the socialist planner. Capitalist economies don't have one person - or agency - in charge of planning or shaping the economy. Bottom up, not top down.

coliveira 9y ago
Since most capitalist economies have never fully developed (especially in Latin America), this cannot be traced something that Venezuela did of not. It is, again, a bogus criticism.

scythe 9y ago

>but then claim that the problem is that they didn't reshape the economy enough. Another way to express this which lacks the apparent contradiction is: their socialist policies inhibited the natural tendency of the economy to reshape itself. However the real problem in Venezuela was not "socialism" per se nor a lack of diversification -- in fact several countries, particularly Brazil and Argentina, experienced problems when they tried to forcibly diversify their economies (Peronism/import substitution), whereas Chile went all in on copper, and while they've suffered downturns, their long-run growth has more than made up for it, making them today the richest country in Latin America. And precisely this pattern (comparative advantage) is how capitalism usually succeeds, and Chile today is diversifying at a natural/gradual pace. But in Venezuela the biggest problem was that Chavez appointed his friends to run the oil companies, and refused to cooperate with the previous administration and employees of the oil companies, which resulted in a lot of skilled people in Venezuela's oil industry taking their ball and going home. In other words, the problem was not that Chavez was a socialist but that he was a strongman who had no respect for democracy, the rule of law, or the desires of anyone but himself, which was also reflected in his later attempts to silence his critics in the media and to sabotage the Venezuelan Constitution and its legislature. I think this is why we've seen post-Chavez socialists like Mujica and Moreno taking a more measured approach to economic reforms and working with, rather than against, preexisting institutions.

padobson 9y ago

No standard capitalist regime would be able to do that anyway I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. If you're saying that no pro-capitalist government could have diversified Venezuela's economy, then I completely agree with you. If you're saying that nurturing a market economy in Venezuela would have failed to diversify it's economy, then I have to disagree. Markets tend to diversify on their own as entrepreneurs recognize new demand and respond to meet it. Because of the limitless variables that drive how this happens in different regions and industries in any given country, government administrators are not well suited to recognize and respond to such needs at a national level. Government should instead cultivate market economies that produce economic surplus, and then tax some percentage of that surplus to provide the social programs their citizens request.

coliveira 9y ago
This is unsupported by facts. China has a very tight control on areas that they want to develop or open to outside capital, and their growth has been stunning. On the other hand, undeveloped countries that have open their markets with little oversight have suffered tremendous economic problems, Mexico is a case in point. There is no correlation whatsoever between lax oversight of markets and robust economic growth, as most people tend to believe.
- nopatternhere 9y ago
  Funny you use china as an example. China's greatest success have come in the areas with greatest economic freedom, where the government is least involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhen_Special_Economic_Zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhen_Special_Economic_Zone and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhen is a bit more informative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prefecture-level_cities_by_GDP_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prefecture-level_citie... Socialism only really works when government butts out, and lets industry self organise, and China is the glowing example. > There is no correlation whatsoever between lax oversight of markets and robust economic growth, as most people tend to believe. This is a complete firfy, and is arguing with a complete lack of understanding of what socialism is. "Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." In other words, we all decide together how to run things. Markets let people decide what they do themselves, e.g. self organising. The evidence self organisation works is vast and comprehensive. The evidence that no one group is smart enough to run an economy is vast as well, and success in managing an economy always rely on a significant portion being free markets.