5 ms·

The very conservative estimates put the readily recoverable amount at around 380 billion barrels. World oil consumption is 90 million barrels a day, or 32.85 b

The very conservative estimates put the readily recoverable amount at around 380 billion barrels. World oil consumption is 90 million barrels a day, or 32.85 billion barrels a year. That means that if Venezuela was the only place left for oil, we'd be looking at around 11 years until it runs out. In the real world, that means 234 years at current rates. Obviously, as oil runs dry, that means market forces push up the costs, and Venezuela becomes wealthier. I think that Venezuela nationalizing the oil fields was a good decision, and I support the principles of the Bolivarian revolution in theory, although I think Chavez has been incompetent at implementing them, although there have been important positives, especially when dealing with issues of severe poverty. I especially support the push for direct democracy, but of course, I think it should be further decoupled from the government. Most in the US are familiar with Chavez through his foreign policy, which is god damn awful. It's embarrassing at best, and in the case of his support for Gaddafi, unconscionable in the worst of times. It's unfortunate that this is the most outside Venezuela know about its politics. At the top economic level, there are other models to learn from, Rwanda's universal health care and internet investment, and China's infrastructure investment for instance, but I think a mix of a Lula-style approach and a Norwegian style social investment of oil money would be the best approach. Oh, to answer your question: Not for a very long time.

arethuza 16y ago
The Norwegian fund where they stash their oil revenues is staggering - it's worth $512 billion and owns 1% of equities globally, for a country with a population under 5 million!
- ashconnor 16y ago
  Venezuela should take a similar route. Didn't they learn from Britain as to what happens when you splurge your oil revenues in your own country.
  - varjag 16y ago
    "They"? You mean "he". It's the difference between Venezuela and Norway, and also the reason why it won't happen.
  - arethuza 16y ago
    That "splurge" was done by Margaret Thatcher's government in the 80s - which basically used the massive oil revenues to support the conversion of the UK from a dysfunctional socialistic state dominated by relations between large (often nationalized) industries and what was essentially an economy dominated by free enterprise with socialist support services. Although I hated her in the 80s I have to admit that Thatcher, along with Reagan, actually got quite a lot right.
    - ashconnor 16y ago
      Whether or not you think privatisation was a good thing. Spending huge oil revenues domestically caused massive inflation.
      - arethuza 16y ago
        I'm not sure that there is much correlation between the two - the really bad years for inflation were '73 to '83 and oil revenues didn't really take off until '82 or so: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article4884.html http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article4884.html http://safalra.com/other/historical-uk-inflation-price-conversion/ http://safalra.com/other/historical-uk-inflation-price-conve... I'm obviously not an economist, so you could well be right!
        ashconnor 16y ago
        I meant inflation of currency exchange, I should have stated that above.
        hollerith 16y ago
        Which is so bad as to cancel out any positive effect of the spending why?
        ashconnor 16y ago
        Because it effectively killed UK exports.
lionhearted 16y ago
I'd like to show you some graphs. I'm going to use link shorteners because they're very very long ugly urls. Homicides per 10,000 people, 1983 to 2003: http://bit.ly/hmivsb http://bit.ly/hmivsb http://bit.ly/gOATzm http://bit.ly/gOATzm Starting in 2004, the government prohibited release of the figures. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35766.htm#econ http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35766.htm#econ About 25% of the country lives in abject poverty, despite the fact that the country is doing over $10 billion in profits on $30 billion of revenues for oil. Before I analyze, let me lay my cards on the table here philosophically - I'm a classical liberal, but I'm kind of flexible in my positions - I think a diverse set of governments across the world is good, and then let people vote with their feet. Different structures work for different people - I wouldn't want to live in Norway's system, but I think Norway's system is awesome for most Norwegians. Now, let's talk about Venezuela. I think Venezuela is one of the most criminally misgoverned places on the whole planet. There's more violent deaths in Caracas in any given month than Baghdad. Baghdad, dude. This is my beef with the sort of government Venezuela has - I think it's very conducive to degenerating into rule-by-bandit, which is what they have. (I'm in Vietnam, which is also under rule-by-bandit) The biggest argument against Venezuela's sort of government isn't necessarily abstract philosophy - it's that it doesn't really work well in the real world. I think Venezuela is criminally misgoverned and in desperate need of change. You and I are probably very, very far apart in political philosophies, but I wanted to write this anyways. I'm kind of vaguely of the belief that capitalism + strong welfare state can work for some people, especially with a population that has similar goals and unified culture. There's downsides to it, but there's downsides to everything. But I'm pretty damn sure that the Venezuelan model leads to rule-by-bandit, leaving many people impoverished, and explosive growth in crime and violence and unrest. I don't know 100% what my goal here is with this comment - I guess just to put some numbers and views on the table. I think the Venezuelan model is a disaster for Venezuelans, and indeed, the whole world. I think everyone should work together against governments like Venezuela, North Korea, Libya, places like that, even if you'd like to live somewhere like Scandinavia. Venezuela ain't no Scandinavia.
- harry67676 16y ago
  It's the same in South Africa, that other glorious example of modern democracy that is also the rape capital of the planet. It's basically the left wing version of how right wingers support military despots, except in left wing movements that have gone off the rails the criminal underclasses thrive, as they are used as a paramilitary against their enemies. See Hobsbawm's works on social banditry for the history of this, also see Tom Wolfe's Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers. Of course, if you point this out to "progressives" they'll call you a racist, as successful revolutions against "the man" are considered sacred.

arethuza 16y ago

The Norwegian fund where they stash their oil revenues is staggering - it's worth $512 billion and owns 1% of equities globally, for a country with a population under 5 million!

ashconnor 16y ago
Venezuela should take a similar route. Didn't they learn from Britain as to what happens when you splurge your oil revenues in your own country.
- varjag 16y ago
  "They"? You mean "he". It's the difference between Venezuela and Norway, and also the reason why it won't happen.
- arethuza 16y ago
  That "splurge" was done by Margaret Thatcher's government in the 80s - which basically used the massive oil revenues to support the conversion of the UK from a dysfunctional socialistic state dominated by relations between large (often nationalized) industries and what was essentially an economy dominated by free enterprise with socialist support services. Although I hated her in the 80s I have to admit that Thatcher, along with Reagan, actually got quite a lot right.
  - ashconnor 16y ago
    Whether or not you think privatisation was a good thing. Spending huge oil revenues domestically caused massive inflation.
    - arethuza 16y ago
      I'm not sure that there is much correlation between the two - the really bad years for inflation were '73 to '83 and oil revenues didn't really take off until '82 or so: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article4884.html http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article4884.html http://safalra.com/other/historical-uk-inflation-price-conversion/ http://safalra.com/other/historical-uk-inflation-price-conve... I'm obviously not an economist, so you could well be right!
      - ashconnor 16y ago
        I meant inflation of currency exchange, I should have stated that above.
        hollerith 16y ago
        Which is so bad as to cancel out any positive effect of the spending why?
        ashconnor 16y ago
        Because it effectively killed UK exports.

lionhearted 16y ago

I'd like to show you some graphs. I'm going to use link shorteners because they're very very long ugly urls. Homicides per 10,000 people, 1983 to 2003: http://bit.ly/hmivsb http://bit.ly/hmivsb http://bit.ly/gOATzm http://bit.ly/gOATzm Starting in 2004, the government prohibited release of the figures. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35766.htm#econ http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35766.htm#econ About 25% of the country lives in abject poverty, despite the fact that the country is doing over $10 billion in profits on $30 billion of revenues for oil. Before I analyze, let me lay my cards on the table here philosophically - I'm a classical liberal, but I'm kind of flexible in my positions - I think a diverse set of governments across the world is good, and then let people vote with their feet. Different structures work for different people - I wouldn't want to live in Norway's system, but I think Norway's system is awesome for most Norwegians. Now, let's talk about Venezuela. I think Venezuela is one of the most criminally misgoverned places on the whole planet. There's more violent deaths in Caracas in any given month than Baghdad. Baghdad, dude. This is my beef with the sort of government Venezuela has - I think it's very conducive to degenerating into rule-by-bandit, which is what they have. (I'm in Vietnam, which is also under rule-by-bandit) The biggest argument against Venezuela's sort of government isn't necessarily abstract philosophy - it's that it doesn't really work well in the real world. I think Venezuela is criminally misgoverned and in desperate need of change. You and I are probably very, very far apart in political philosophies, but I wanted to write this anyways. I'm kind of vaguely of the belief that capitalism + strong welfare state can work for some people, especially with a population that has similar goals and unified culture. There's downsides to it, but there's downsides to everything. But I'm pretty damn sure that the Venezuelan model leads to rule-by-bandit, leaving many people impoverished, and explosive growth in crime and violence and unrest. I don't know 100% what my goal here is with this comment - I guess just to put some numbers and views on the table. I think the Venezuelan model is a disaster for Venezuelans, and indeed, the whole world. I think everyone should work together against governments like Venezuela, North Korea, Libya, places like that, even if you'd like to live somewhere like Scandinavia. Venezuela ain't no Scandinavia.

harry67676 16y ago
It's the same in South Africa, that other glorious example of modern democracy that is also the rape capital of the planet. It's basically the left wing version of how right wingers support military despots, except in left wing movements that have gone off the rails the criminal underclasses thrive, as they are used as a paramilitary against their enemies. See Hobsbawm's works on social banditry for the history of this, also see Tom Wolfe's Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers. Of course, if you point this out to "progressives" they'll call you a racist, as successful revolutions against "the man" are considered sacred.