4 ms·

Quoting someone else: "NY Times major piece on starvation in Venezuela. Carefully avoids mentioning socialism. All the problems are passive voice ("as the econ

Quoting someone else: "NY Times major piece on starvation in Venezuela. Carefully avoids mentioning socialism. All the problems are passive voice ("as the economy collapsed," "as hyperinflation appeared") or exogenous ("oil prices collapsed"). Walter Duranty lives."

toomuchtodo 9y ago
It was government corruption, not socialism that led to the current crisis. Socialistic Scandinavia countries that have sovereign wealth funds from their oil extraction prosper.
- spraak 9y ago
  Genuinely curious and not trying to troll: how successful would Scandinavian socialism be without oil?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - jalk 9y ago
    Norway's is the only Scandinavia country with substantial amounts oil. Taxation is largely what is funding the welfare state.
    - candiodari 9y ago
      That may be true, but all 3 countries are tiny with a large natural resource sector (so is Russia, incidentally, except on the "tiny" front). None depend on manufacturing or resources, despite all their European neighbors doing just that. Of course, sure, only 1 has a real oil sector. Like the middle eastern countries, though, Norway is somewhat guilty of sabotaging their own agricultural sector to appease political interests (ie. the greens), and compensating large amounts of importing from their immediate neighbors.
- X86BSD 9y ago
  That’s not quite accurate. They also have the US paying largely for their defense needs. That saves them a ton of money.
- tomohawk 9y ago
  All systems have corruption. However, when the government nationalizes food distribution and production, that corruption has a much larger impact.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    Mismanaging/squandering/embezzling your country’s oil revenues and a steep decline in said oil revenues without a sovereign wealth cushion was what caused this, not nationalizing food distribution or production. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_in_Venezuela_(2012%E2%80%93present) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_in_Venezuela_(2012%E2...
    - candiodari 9y ago
      Certainly the nationalizing seems to be part of it. Attacking the people producing said food for "hoarding" just to appease your socialist backers [1] [2], I must say, also seems less than helpful to my admittedly uninitiated brain. They've been at it for a decade. [1] https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/11478 https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/11478 [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/world/americas/17venezuela.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/world/americas/17venezuela...
- iyrkki_odyss 9y ago
  None of the scandinavian countries are socialistic.
nitwit005 9y ago
> The Venezuelan government has used food to keep the Socialists in power, critics say. Before recent elections, people living in government housing projects said they were visited by representatives of their local Socialist community councils — the government-aligned groups that organize the delivery of boxes of cheap food — and threatened with being cut off if they did not vote for the government. It does, however, directly badmouth the Socialists.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

toomuchtodo 9y ago

It was government corruption, not socialism that led to the current crisis. Socialistic Scandinavia countries that have sovereign wealth funds from their oil extraction prosper.

spraak 9y ago
Genuinely curious and not trying to troll: how successful would Scandinavian socialism be without oil?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jalk 9y ago
  Norway's is the only Scandinavia country with substantial amounts oil. Taxation is largely what is funding the welfare state.
  - candiodari 9y ago
    That may be true, but all 3 countries are tiny with a large natural resource sector (so is Russia, incidentally, except on the "tiny" front). None depend on manufacturing or resources, despite all their European neighbors doing just that. Of course, sure, only 1 has a real oil sector. Like the middle eastern countries, though, Norway is somewhat guilty of sabotaging their own agricultural sector to appease political interests (ie. the greens), and compensating large amounts of importing from their immediate neighbors.
X86BSD 9y ago
That’s not quite accurate. They also have the US paying largely for their defense needs. That saves them a ton of money.
tomohawk 9y ago
All systems have corruption. However, when the government nationalizes food distribution and production, that corruption has a much larger impact.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Mismanaging/squandering/embezzling your country’s oil revenues and a steep decline in said oil revenues without a sovereign wealth cushion was what caused this, not nationalizing food distribution or production. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_in_Venezuela_(2012%E2%80%93present) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_in_Venezuela_(2012%E2...
  - candiodari 9y ago
    Certainly the nationalizing seems to be part of it. Attacking the people producing said food for "hoarding" just to appease your socialist backers [1] [2], I must say, also seems less than helpful to my admittedly uninitiated brain. They've been at it for a decade. [1] https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/11478 https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/11478 [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/world/americas/17venezuela.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/world/americas/17venezuela...
iyrkki_odyss 9y ago
None of the scandinavian countries are socialistic.

nitwit005 9y ago

> The Venezuelan government has used food to keep the Socialists in power, critics say. Before recent elections, people living in government housing projects said they were visited by representatives of their local Socialist community councils — the government-aligned groups that organize the delivery of boxes of cheap food — and threatened with being cut off if they did not vote for the government. It does, however, directly badmouth the Socialists.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]