5 ms·

That's because Norway and Sweden respect private property to some extent, even with Norway's wealth tax (and additional taxes on oil extraction). The oil compan

That's because Norway and Sweden respect private property to some extent, even with Norway's wealth tax (and additional taxes on oil extraction). The oil companies are ultimately private in Norway. There's no doing it right if your end game is basically communism; but if you have a clear purpose for some prejudicial taxes, and ultimately respect some form of property rights, then it can sometimes work out for many decades, as it has in Norway (though I would argue that Norway's system, as it is today, is unsustainable as well, but not in a Venezuela kind of way).

kunimu 9y ago
Venezuela also respects private property, just to a somewhat lesser extent than other countries. It's important to note that the state's protection of such property is to be expected in this case, in which it is the government which acts as a capitalist itself on the global scale and on the internal scale (such as by employing wage labour). There are numerous examples of people and businesses which own private property and employ people in exchange for wages in Venezuela. The fact that such activity is highly taxed or limited is irrelevant to the point about private property being defended and respected. For it is private property which can ensure the cycle of M-C-M' which we see respected and the functioning of money as the general equivalent form of Value.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > The fact that such activity is highly taxed or limited is irrelevant to the point about private property being defended and respected. I'd agree with that, but with the exception of wealth (and possibly property) taxes. I might accept that real property must be rented from the state to accomplish certain goals, but I'm not so sure other property can be. In reality, if the rates are low enough, even a wealth tax is not a mortal threat to property, but it is still questionable (which is why it seems some Norwegian parties are looking to ditch it). Last time I said this, I was dragged into a bickering match, but: wealth taxes have many of the properties of rents, which sets them far apart from income, consumption, and excise taxes. Transactional taxes (income, consumption, excise, even inheritance [though I oppose this one for double taxation reasons]) pose no threat to property rights, they just ultimately change the true price of goods and services. Property and wealth taxes pose a threat to property rights, since they threaten the property directly. But that's not what people are talking about here anyway, they're talking about literal seizures of private property.
- sol_remmy 9y ago
  "Venezuela also respects private property, just to a somewhat lesser extent than other countries. " Your flat out wrong. Easy example: The government nationalized a GM vehicle factory within the country and then a few weeks later GM officially withdrew. Does that sound like Venezuela respects private property to you? A nationalization like that would never happen in Western Europe
  - DomreiRoam 9y ago
    Nationalization did happen in France around 1981.
    - adventured 9y ago
      The US also had limited price controls under Nixon. It too was extremely damaging and foolish when the US or France took such intervention measures, which you can see from the broader context / economic climate results: US economic disaster in the 1970s and French economic stagnation for decades.
    - mcv 9y ago
      Nationalisation also happened in Netherland in 2008: https://www.government.nl/topics/state-owned-enterprises/nationalisation-of-financial-institutions-abn-amro-asr-and-sns-reaal https://www.government.nl/topics/state-owned-enterprises/nat... Although in this case it's financial institutions on the verge on bankruptcy, and they were nationalised to save them, with the goal of eventually privatising them again. Nationalisation versus privatisation is a complex subject, and I think there are things that absolutely should be nationalised. Essential infrastructure where no real competition is possible, for example. Like railroads or mail. I suppose it can make sense for the countries oil reserves. But the important part is that whichever way you move on that scale, you do it in a responsible way and ensure that a fair price is paid for them.
      - DomreiRoam 9y ago
        It is a complex subject and I agree that in case of monopoly (natural or not) and in case of strategic sector we should make an honest evaluation of what serve best the Nation and the People. Also, if you nationalize it shouldn't mean that you don't compensate fairly the private owner.
- ameister14 9y ago
  >The fact that such activity is highly taxed or limited is irrelevant to the point about private property being defended and respected. I don't think that's what people are thinking of when they say something like Venezuela doesn't respect private property. They are thinking of the seizure of ranches and companies so they can be redistributed.
libertyEQ 9y ago
I wouldn't consider oil dropping from ~$100/barrel to ~$40/barrel a slight drop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Texas_Intermediate#/media/File:Crude_oil_spread.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Texas_Intermediate#/media...
- microcolonel 9y ago
  It's not such a big deal if you haven't built everything on extracting 100% of the net revenue of the oil industry. If your take were lower, it would not be as big a hit, and you could raise the take and split the difference. If your take is 100%, there's nowhere to go.
  - libertyEQ 9y ago
    You stated in your original comment that is was a, "slight drop." I actually agree with much of what you wrote, but let the argument stand on its own, please don't use non-factual content to (note: the Iranian oil coming back into the "open" market might have been related) overstate things. We can't normalize "truthful hyperbole."
- protomyth 9y ago
  Its even worse for Venezuela. Their oil is plentiful but not a very high grade which requires significantly more money to refine than say Saudi Arabia, Texas, or North Dakota. This means that in a low price environment they aren't taking a cut, they literally cannot make any profit. Further complicating the situation is their mismanagement and lack of technology purchases or even basic maintenance in the oil industry.

kunimu 9y ago

Venezuela also respects private property, just to a somewhat lesser extent than other countries. It's important to note that the state's protection of such property is to be expected in this case, in which it is the government which acts as a capitalist itself on the global scale and on the internal scale (such as by employing wage labour). There are numerous examples of people and businesses which own private property and employ people in exchange for wages in Venezuela. The fact that such activity is highly taxed or limited is irrelevant to the point about private property being defended and respected. For it is private property which can ensure the cycle of M-C-M' which we see respected and the functioning of money as the general equivalent form of Value.

microcolonel 9y ago
> The fact that such activity is highly taxed or limited is irrelevant to the point about private property being defended and respected. I'd agree with that, but with the exception of wealth (and possibly property) taxes. I might accept that real property must be rented from the state to accomplish certain goals, but I'm not so sure other property can be. In reality, if the rates are low enough, even a wealth tax is not a mortal threat to property, but it is still questionable (which is why it seems some Norwegian parties are looking to ditch it). Last time I said this, I was dragged into a bickering match, but: wealth taxes have many of the properties of rents, which sets them far apart from income, consumption, and excise taxes. Transactional taxes (income, consumption, excise, even inheritance [though I oppose this one for double taxation reasons]) pose no threat to property rights, they just ultimately change the true price of goods and services. Property and wealth taxes pose a threat to property rights, since they threaten the property directly. But that's not what people are talking about here anyway, they're talking about literal seizures of private property.
sol_remmy 9y ago
"Venezuela also respects private property, just to a somewhat lesser extent than other countries. " Your flat out wrong. Easy example: The government nationalized a GM vehicle factory within the country and then a few weeks later GM officially withdrew. Does that sound like Venezuela respects private property to you? A nationalization like that would never happen in Western Europe
- DomreiRoam 9y ago
  Nationalization did happen in France around 1981.
  - adventured 9y ago
    The US also had limited price controls under Nixon. It too was extremely damaging and foolish when the US or France took such intervention measures, which you can see from the broader context / economic climate results: US economic disaster in the 1970s and French economic stagnation for decades.
  - mcv 9y ago
    Nationalisation also happened in Netherland in 2008: https://www.government.nl/topics/state-owned-enterprises/nationalisation-of-financial-institutions-abn-amro-asr-and-sns-reaal https://www.government.nl/topics/state-owned-enterprises/nat... Although in this case it's financial institutions on the verge on bankruptcy, and they were nationalised to save them, with the goal of eventually privatising them again. Nationalisation versus privatisation is a complex subject, and I think there are things that absolutely should be nationalised. Essential infrastructure where no real competition is possible, for example. Like railroads or mail. I suppose it can make sense for the countries oil reserves. But the important part is that whichever way you move on that scale, you do it in a responsible way and ensure that a fair price is paid for them.
    - DomreiRoam 9y ago
      It is a complex subject and I agree that in case of monopoly (natural or not) and in case of strategic sector we should make an honest evaluation of what serve best the Nation and the People. Also, if you nationalize it shouldn't mean that you don't compensate fairly the private owner.
ameister14 9y ago
>The fact that such activity is highly taxed or limited is irrelevant to the point about private property being defended and respected. I don't think that's what people are thinking of when they say something like Venezuela doesn't respect private property. They are thinking of the seizure of ranches and companies so they can be redistributed.

libertyEQ 9y ago

I wouldn't consider oil dropping from ~$100/barrel to ~$40/barrel a slight drop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Texas_Intermediate#/media/File:Crude_oil_spread.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Texas_Intermediate#/media...

microcolonel 9y ago
It's not such a big deal if you haven't built everything on extracting 100% of the net revenue of the oil industry. If your take were lower, it would not be as big a hit, and you could raise the take and split the difference. If your take is 100%, there's nowhere to go.
- libertyEQ 9y ago
  You stated in your original comment that is was a, "slight drop." I actually agree with much of what you wrote, but let the argument stand on its own, please don't use non-factual content to (note: the Iranian oil coming back into the "open" market might have been related) overstate things. We can't normalize "truthful hyperbole."
protomyth 9y ago
Its even worse for Venezuela. Their oil is plentiful but not a very high grade which requires significantly more money to refine than say Saudi Arabia, Texas, or North Dakota. This means that in a low price environment they aren't taking a cut, they literally cannot make any profit. Further complicating the situation is their mismanagement and lack of technology purchases or even basic maintenance in the oil industry.