Widespread Blackouts in Venezuela Could Be New Normal, Experts Warn (theguardian.com) 247
Widespread electricity outages could become the new normal in Venezuela, experts have warned, as the country struggled to restore power after a massive blackout that left millions without power or access to the internet. From a report: The energy minister, Freddy Brito, said on Tuesday morning that power had been restored in Caracas and at least five states after the outage which the government blamed on an "electromagnetic attack" at hydroelectric dams in the south of the country. About 80% of Venezuela's grid is served by hydropower. But energy analysts were deeply suspicious of government claims, arguing instead that years of corruption and mismanagement have eroded Venezuela's energy capacity. "This blackout is the result of negligent mis-operation of the power grid," said Jose Aguilar, a Venezuelan energy and risk consultant based in the US. "These will keep happening and it will get worse before it gets better."
Other analysts express similar incredulity. "It's hard to believe that it was an electromagnetic attack, when you've seen years of theft and corruption in the energy sector," said Geoff Ramsey, an analyst at the Washington Office on Latin America. "This blackout shows government doesn't have the tools to return to normalcy." Some supporters of Nicolas Maduro have claimed that US sanctions aimed at Venezuela's oil industry have hampered his government's ability to keep the lights on, but many of those sanctions target individuals accused corruption.
Other analysts express similar incredulity. "It's hard to believe that it was an electromagnetic attack, when you've seen years of theft and corruption in the energy sector," said Geoff Ramsey, an analyst at the Washington Office on Latin America. "This blackout shows government doesn't have the tools to return to normalcy." Some supporters of Nicolas Maduro have claimed that US sanctions aimed at Venezuela's oil industry have hampered his government's ability to keep the lights on, but many of those sanctions target individuals accused corruption.
Socialism isn't the problem. "Crony" is. (Score:3, Insightful)
The Nordic countries have socialism. It works well for them.
Venezuela had crony socialism, where the wealth of the state was distributed to elites, with the poor getting enough "bread and circuses" to keep them quelled for a while. It did *not* work well for them in the end. The problem wasn't the "socialism" part, it was the "crony" part.
The USA has crony capitalism. This is more stable than crony socialism, but I suspect the endgame may be similar once the federal debt becomes too large to finance and they have to inflate it away.
Re:Socialism isn't the problem. "Crony" is. (Score:5, Interesting)
Its not that you owe money it who you owe money to. If you have mostly domestic debt financed in your own currency you are okay within limits. A debt to gdp ratio of 60 to 80% is fine. The US is too high at 105%, Japan is 220% but both are stable countries. Greece's problem is that their debt was denominated in Euro so they could not inflated their currency and was owned to foreign lenders.
Greece got caught with the bag (Score:2)
The real winners are the banks that started the entire process and got bail outs the world over. The losers are the working class who took a decade of "austerity" even as productivity continued
Re: (Score:2)
SirAstral, can I suggest that you go read a fucking economics book, before you start preaching how economics works?
Voss is completely correct in pointing out the difference between Japan/USA and Greece is that the former have control of their currency, while Greece doesn't. Since Greece can't control the value of the Euro, they can't inflate away debt like other countries which *do* control their currency, and so Greece suffered more than other countries.
Greece was also hamstrung by the fact that the Euro
Re: (Score:2)
I hate trying to put ignorant morons like you in your place. You are given valueable information and wisdom and the only response you have when receiving them is to waste it and toss it under foot and then get pissed off at me, for the sin of trying to hand you the truth in a gift box wrapped with a bow!
Voss was not just wrong, but dead wrong. How fast people recovered from The Great Depression is immaterial to this issue. The fact that they experienced a Great Depression is the point. You are trying to
Re: (Score:2)
Great Recession, not Great Depression.
You need to go back to school and take a class on reading and comprehension.
Uh, yeah.
Re: (Score:2)
Putting yourself at the mercy of Debtors, regardless of them being domestic or foreign is a recipe for disaster as proven by The Great Depression.
This is the important bit you are 'on purpose' failing to understand.
If you can print your own currency and the debt is in your currency. USA, Japan, China etc. You are never at the mercy of debtors. You can always print more or inflate away the debt.
Greece was at the mercy of their debtors, solely because they couldn't do those things.
You really shouldn't be talking about economics. Add it to your list.
Re: (Score:3)
Travel to developing counties in South America and you will notice one thing. The buildings, especially those built more than 30 years ago, to be useful without electricity. For first world nations it is assumed that we always have power, and if we don't people jump off building and riot. Elsewhere, this is a recent development, and only prevalent in the cities. In small towns, commerce is done either by hand or with a mobi
Re: (Score:2)
yea, that kinda logic says your marriage is not a failure if you only cheat on your spouse just a little bit.
This is why you get rolling blackouts. your standards are so low you will accept socialism. If you roll over and just take it, you might as well just shut your pie hole.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also the US constantly sanctioning them (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Nordic countries have capitalist economies (in many ways, freer than in the United States), plus a big welfare system.
Venezuela nationalized most of their "critical" industries in the name of the people and then destroyed them by the government trying to run them politically, buying votes rather than seeking "profits". As a result, each industry collapsed within a couple of years of when it was taken over by the government.
Socialism is also known as killing the golden goose which keeps your government i
Re:Socialism isn't the problem. "Crony" is. (Score:4, Interesting)
That's a no, no (even using the NSDAP racial theories), no, and partially - Finland and Sweden have very little oil export while Norway have a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yep, but that is not the point here.
the point is to keep the citizens at each others throats so they can push their agenda's. The polarization is getting so bad that you can't say anything negative without being accused for being something you are not.
Trash talk Trump and you must be a lefty. Trash talk socialism then you must be pro-Trump.
These clowns have no idea they have long since lost 100% of their own arguments and that they are only perpetuating everything they are claiming to be fighting against
Re: (Score:2)
That has always been the point with Socialism.
Leaders keep their own poor and desperate for attention from government so they can swell their ranks with crumbs from the table while leaders get fatter and richer. They never hold them accountable so why shouldn't they abuse their serfs?
No matter how many times socialism has been tried and fails they will never figure it out. Socialists are textbook cases on why Democracy is not possible and why allowing everyone to vote is a recipe for disaster. The only t
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost as if...as if the memes about Glorious Future for The People is just hot air to gain control over everything so you can skim off the top as a kleptocracy. Those who buy into the surface meme might be called Useful Idiots because their fantasies empower the kleptocrats, who never had any ideas ultimately beyond power to get in the way of business to get paid.
US national threat (Score:2)
Socialism, once again, FAILS (Score:2)
Nice way of saying commie shithole. (Score:2)
But please, don't let the TRUTH stop us!
Good time to start a business (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Foxwash (Score:3, Insightful)
"Socialism" is not Venezuela's real problem. The real causes of their problems are two-fold:
First, overreliance on a single product: oil. Both socialism and capitalism can make this mistake. For example, the capitalist principle of Comparative Advantage tends to limit product variety. If potatoes are the best growing product in your country, you may end up growing mostly potatoes under Comparative Advantage. That's fine until a potato disease wipes most of them out. Nothing in capitalism forces a country to
Re:Dictatorship (Score:3)
The fact of the matter that many poorer and rural people in Venezuela support the current government, and that party has won majorities in all of the elections of the last 20 years or so.
You're just calling him a dictator cause you don't like his left-wing politics.
You're abusing language, deliberately, to tell a convenient lie, to justify an illegal coup.
Re:Dictatorship (Score:4, Interesting)
He's a dictator because he's a dictator. His predecessor forged the path.
1. Jails or disappears political opposition.
2. Shuts down opposition news papers
3. Requested and got the power to pass law by decree, for "emergency" reasons of course. This is the "dictate" part of "dictator".
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a dictatorship.
Re: Hilary and fake news etc (Score:2)
President Trump and his family members who he's put in official government positions also use private, unauthorized internet services for official government business.
https://theweek.com/speedreads/854972/house-democrats-vote-subpoena-ivanka-trumps-private-email-jared-kushners-whatsapp-messages
T
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Banking deregulation almost ruined ours, twice. Screwy politicians can ruin ANY system: capitalism, socialism, gerbilism, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
You presented no evidence. This is Slashdot, we expect evidence, not just slogans.
A capitalist bank crash can ruin economies also, just like 1929 crash and 2007 crash. Capitalism doesn't prevent mayhem.
I suppose you could argue "it would if they did it right", but that "works" for any theory.
Re: (Score:2)
How much evidence do people need? How thin do Venezuelans have to get? I'm sick of you people trotting out the no true Scotsman defense every time (and it is ever time) socialism fails. The USSR failed. Every socialist economy in Eastern Europe failed. Cuba failed. North Korea failed. Venezuela failed. Socialism has resulted in starvation and misery every place it's been tried without exception. The only reason China is what it is today is Deng jettisoned the ideology along with Mao's little book.
Re: (Score:2)
There's plenty of oil rich countries which don't have starvation and power outages; some are even dictatorships. Some are even theocratic hellholes.
No, I'd wager the problem with Venezuela is much the same as the USSR had. A corrupt, self serving regime which saw the people as a vehicle to enrich themselves; 'socialism' or 'communism' may have been involved, but aren't sufficient to explain the corruption and economic disaster that has occurred.
To be fair I think we underestimate (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer the analysis that socialism fails because people are not economically free to respond via businesses to demand.
The vaunted "Nordic countries" leave their business largely free so they can be economically powerful, and the tax base comes from the people themselves.
In countries like the US, companies are hampered by taxes because people would prefer to not directly see the burden their policy desires put on the population. And there is no shortage of politicians ready to run in and declare companies
Re: (Score:3)
As for dictatorship, that may not be an explicit feature of Socialism, but it is both necessary for Socialism to function and an inevitable consequence of it's implementation. For the government to "own" the means of production requires
Re: (Score:2)
There was a simple reason for this - to bring about a change as drastic as movin
Re: (Score:3)
...south America has a history of foreign interference...
South American (Latin America generally actually) has a history of US interference. At least over the last 120 years or so.
The US has destroyed Latin American countries repeatedly because they didn't like the way the locals voted, and to ensure cheap bananas.
It is no wonder the Venezuelans won't let that US puppet Juan Guaido take over.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course that's the way you hear it. The whole line we're being fed is that Venezuela's government is going to fall over any moment, just like Cuba's government has been on it's last legs since 1959.
It may in fact be that the people of Venezuela are sick of constant American interference in their country, and have no interest in having Juan Guaido take over, just like the Cubans were very happy to see the back of the violent thug Batista that the US imposed on them.
I am sure Venez
Re: Foxwash (Score:3)
It may in fact be that the people of Venezuela are sick of constant American interference in their country, and have no interest in having Juan Guaido take over, just like the Cubans were very happy to see the back of the violent thug Batista that the US imposed on them.
That's a hilarious comparison. There are over a million Cuban exiles living in the USA, out of a current population of around 11 million. When one in 10 people are either forced out of the country or voluntarily flee as a result of a change in government, what kind of a nitwit concludes that the population is "very happy" with the result?
The same kind of nitwit who would insist that the Soviet people were very happy to stand in bread lines, I'm sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on the comments here I'm guessing none of that is taught in history class in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
and ideological tyrants huffing ivory tower vacuum aren't terribly interested in hearing about the highly illiberal fallout created from the practical application of their ideologies on us littlepeople. Socialist is a perfectly reasonable epithet.
Re: (Score:3)
This particular issue has nothing to do with Oil, or pretty much any other issue, except for a minor dependence on their broken economy (which ties to both the dictatorship and economic policies).
Electricity in Venezuela comes from pretty much one source. In the 20th Century the US built a massive hydroelectric Dam in Venezuela. That Hydroelectric Dam supplies like 95-98% of the electricity in the country (they have a small amount of additional generation, primarily diesel but used at industrial locations,
Re:Foxwash (Score:5, Insightful)
Venezuela's issue is a mismanaged socialist government which decided to "reject capitalism" and instead nationalize their major industries, which then failed. > Last time [slashdot.org], the power blackout cause was supposed to be cyberattacks... or wildfires... when in reality, it's incompetence by the government trying and failing to run things.
The whole oil prices thing is a false premise.
In terms of percent of GDP coming from oil, Venezuela was 8th, with 7-8% of their GDP from oil. The UAE and Kazakhstan are about 14%. Saudi Arabia is 21%. Oman is 25%. Iraq is 28%. Kuwait is 30%. Angola gets about 34% of their GDP from oil production. (Stats [mises.org] from the World Bank and The World Factbook)
None of those other countries even went into a recession when the oil prices dropped, so you can't attribute it to the oil price changes. In fact, oil prices are back up above average, but Venezuela still hasn't been producing and selling more oil.
From 1998 to 2018, oil production in Venezuela is down from 3.5 million barrels per day in December of 1997 vs 2 million in October of 2017.
So what happened in the last 20 years? From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
“After Hugo Chávez officially took office in February 1999, several policy changes involving the country’s oil industry were made to explicitly tie it to the state under his Bolivarian Revolution. Since then, PDVSA has not demonstrated any capability to bring new oil fields on stream since nationalizing heavy oil projects in the Orinoco Petroleum Belt formerly operated by international oil companies ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron and Total. Chávez’s policies damaged Venezuela’s oil industry due to lack of investment, corruption and cash shortages.”
Probably just a fluke, though, right? I mean, steel production in Venezuela increased from 3400 tons in 1998 to about 4600 tons in 2008. The steel industry was nationalized by the Venezuelan government in 2008 and production declined to under 1600 tons. Huh, definitely a pattern forming. Similar stories of lower production and losses in the other industries after they were taken over: aluminum, cement, gold, iron, farming, transportation, electricity, food production, banking, paper and the media.
The issues in Venezuela are directly a predictable (and predicted by economists) result of nationalizing their industries.
Without the government takeover, even if oil companies were only competent enough to continue production levels and not grow them (as they’ve done previously over time), Venezuela would have almost twice as much hard currency coming in from oil sales.
The number of private companies in Venezuela was 14K in 1998. In 2011 it was 9K. It's lower now, but it's difficult to get accurate stats about exactly how lower in the resulting chaos. Without private companies in the economy, the economy sinks.
So no, their problems aren’t just about oil prices. Their problems, including a big chunk of the oil revenue losses, are a direct result of the socialist government of Venezuela under Chavez and Maduro taking over large portions of the economy. The government bureaucrats don't know what they're doing in business and industry and their priority is pleasing political constituencies, not making the companies run well.
Re: Foxwash (Score:2)
The biggest mistake in this whole discussion though,
Re: (Score:2)
Your mistake is thinking that providing assistance to citizens in need is part of socialism. There are lots of market economies which also have a welfare state attached to them. Check the definition of socialism [google.com]. It's more about who owns and runs the economy. The size of the welfare state only comes into play when you consider how much control of the economy the government needs to have in order to extract the taxes to pay for the welfare state. It's indirect, at best.
Here's a nice chart from Forbes [forbes.com]. Check
Re: (Score:2)
Socialism, as actually practiced by the politicians who are it's proponents, is corruption. It's literally taking private industry/companies/resources and nationalizing them, transferring control to the government in the "name of the people", which has always turned out to mean transferring control to the cronies of the people running things.
This has always turned out badly.
If you're using a different definition of socialism than that loudly proclaimed by Chavez and Maduro (and the Soviets, who controlled I
Re: (Score:2)
Despite the name, you can't have crony capitalism without those "referees" you like being put in charge of the economy in detail. It's in the controlling the details that they are able to benefit their cronies. In other words, it's literally socialism which enables that sort of behavior, it's not something which arises in a market economy without government distorting the markets.
In terms of "run-away" monopolies, governments create many more monopolies than markets ever have. Without a government enforcing
Re: (Score:2)
Examples? Every actual monopoly [google.com] which exists in the United States right now is enforced by the government. Here's a handy history and economic analysis. [econlib.org]
As for trying things on a smaller country, it turns out the United States itself spent many decades without the heavy hand of government regulation of the economy. The experiment has already been run and it turned out great, thanks!
Consider educating yourself. Here's a good summary of how the government caused the Great Depression [themoneyillusion.com] by the leading economist on
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that Google, nor other Internet companies are actually a monopoly...
There's a reason I linked to the definition of the word in the post you were responding to, but let's make it even easier:
Google has great market share in the advertising & search engine markets, as well as others, but they aren't a monopoly. It's trivial to compete with them in those spaces. At any given time, many try. The dif
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between an actual monopoly and an almost monopoly is as simple as it is dramatic.
If a company unilaterally raises your cost for their product and you react by shifting your consumption to a competitor, then they aren't a monopoly.
Conversely, if a company unilaterally raises your cost for their product you consume and you react by consuming less of that type of product, then they're at least in part a monopoly, because you've just established that you don't have alternatives at the old price.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to hear how you have an economy controlled "by the people" not be controlled by the government.
Man: I *told* you! We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune! We're taking
turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week--
Arthur: (uninterested) Yes...
Man: But all the decisions *of* that officer 'ave to be ratified at a
special bi-weekly meeting--
Arthur: (perturbed) Yes I see!
Man: By a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs--
Arthur: (mad) Be quiet!
Man: But by a two-thirds majority, in the case of more major--
Re: (Score:2)
Most progressives I know do NOT want 100% socialism.
I do. More specifically, I want 100% communism. Only problem is I don't know how to make it work. (Also, I don't know if I count as a progressive).
Re:To keep power, go socialist!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's illustrative to contrast Venezuela with Norway. Both depend on fossil fuel exports as a key part of their economy, and need that money for social programs.
Venezuela is socialist. It's socialism "done right" (in the sense of "purely"). Norway is a capitalist economy with lots of social programs.
What's the difference? Oilfield service companies from around the world feel economically comfortable working in Norway. They can choose to do business if the money is good, and keep the equipment serviced and the oil (and more importantly for Norway the natural gas) flowing.
By contrast, Venezuela nationalized that entire sector of the economy. The companies who has built and owned big chunks of infrastructure for oilfield service lost everything in country. No oilfield service companies from around the world feel economically comfortable working in Venezuela, and the only help they've gotten is from state actors.
So, the oilfield equipment in Venezuela stopped working in the years after is was nationalized, and when that money spigot gradually ran out, everything else went to shit. To the surprise of no one, highly skilled field tech weren't interested in being Venezuelan government employees.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Venezuela is socialist. It's socialism "done right" (in the sense of "purely").
You mean communism.
Norway is a capitalist economy with lots of social programs.
That's socialism. It's a spectrum. "Pure socialism" i.e. communism leads to failed states. Socialism done well can lead to prosperity.
Look at China. Under Mao, it was a disaster. [wikipedia.org] Loosening government control has resulted in massive economic growth. [wikipedia.org] Unfortunately, the government is still highly authoritarian. [wikipedia.org]
Most debate in the US focuses on socialism as a binary construct. It should focus on what level of socialism is appropriate, as the US already has some socialist programs. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Communism is "government owns all the businesses, everyone works for the government".
Socialism is "government owns the important or attractive businesses, but it's still legal to start your own in other areas". Like Venezuela.
No amount of social programs makes you any part socialist, despite all the political rhetoric to the contrary. No, Social Security is not Evil Socialism (TM).
A health care system where most doctors work for the government is a little socialist, to be sure. There is a spectrum, but i
Socialism is nothing of the sort (Score:2)
Capitalism just devolves into oligarchy. Every time. People ask me, should the gov't pick winners or losers? Wrong question. The gov't doesn't pick either. The government is the Umpire.
Try to imagine baseball without an Umpire. Whoever cheats best, wins. That's pure Capitalism in a nutshell.
Re: (Score:2)
Socialism is when gov't heavily regulates business
Massive accumulation of power by the government is the usual goal, to be sure. But it's rarely the sales pitch!
Capitalism just devolves into oligarchy. Every time. People ask me, should the gov't pick winners or losers? Wrong question. The gov't doesn't pick either. The government is the Umpire.
As long as the government isn't picking winners and losers, you have capitalism.
Try to imagine baseball without an Umpire. Whoever cheats best, wins. That's pure Capitalism in a nutshell.
Anarchy is not capitalism. "Anarcho-capitalist" is oxymoronic, not redundant. Capitalism cannot work without the rule of law, because then you obtain the control of the means of production through military might.
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism cannot work without the rule of law, because then you obtain the control of the means of production through military might.
Both you and the GP are making the same error. Anarchism means "no rulers", not "no rules". Under anarchism, instead of an "umpire" making and enforcing arbitrary laws (which somehow do not apply to the "umpire"), the rules take the form of natural law and apply to everyone. Enforcement is distributed rather than centralized.
Capitalism and anarchism are perfectly compatible. The same cannot be said of capitalism and tolerance for aggression in any form, including government.
A military takeover is a risk in
Re: (Score:2)
That idea of anarchism is like Marx's idea of Communism: neat idea for some other species, not an actual system under which humans would ever be found living (beyond the tribal scale).
Re: (Score:2)
Socialism is "government owns the important or attractive businesses, but it's still legal to start your own in other areas".
So... if and only if there exists at least one industry which only the government can participate in, the government is socialist?
Venezuela is not communist (Score:2)
Venezuela pretty much done one major "communist" style policy. One I rather love. A bunch of wealthy land owners were sitting on prime farm land not doing anything with it. They'd told the gov't that the land was worthless to avoid paying property taxes. There were food shortages so the gov't bought the land under eminent domain to give to actual farmers. They paid the land owners exactly what they had
Re: (Score:2)
Norway is the answer to two hard questions:
* How do you sustainably support social programs far beyond your ability to tax (without running out of other people's money)? You have massive exports of stuff everyone wants.
* How do you "share the wealth" as a modern industrialized nation when blessed with wonderful natural resources? Spend a ton on social programs funded by selling it off.
Had the Norway model been used in Iraq, it might have lasted.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at China. Under Mao, it was a disaster. [wikipedia.org] Loosening government control has resulted in massive economic growth. [wikipedia.org] Unfortunately, the government is still highly authoritarian. [wikipedia.org]
And getting more so lately, precisely because of the incompatibility between authoritarianism and capitalism. And I think authoritarianism in China is doomed to fail, though the government will probably always be more powerful than most Westerners would be comfortable with.
Loosening control in China created an incredible economic boom precisely because it created a middle class. But middle classes -- as essential to serious, long-term economic growth as they are -- get used to having the economic freedo
Re: (Score:2)
Venezuela is socialist. It's socialism "done right" (in the sense of "purely").
What?? What part of Venezuela looks like it was done right to you? It's a crappy dictatorship run by a guy who has no clue how to administer a country. Compare it to Cuba, where they also have a dictator, but at least he knows how to keep the lights on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What you should really ask is: "How has Norway managed to escape the oil curse?" Though you won't like the answer [bbc.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oil production in Venezuelan collapsed right after it was nationalized by the socialist heroes of the people you mention. Steel was nationalized by them at a different time. It also then collapsed to 1/3 of previous production right afterwards. Same with a dozen other industries.
Stop ignoring the pattern. The economy collapsed as parts were nationalized, until now the government runs food production and people are literally being enslaved to farm, but many are still starving.
The price of oil is currently hi [macrotrends.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Stop ignoring the pattern. The economy collapsed as parts were nationalized
Uh huh. You appear to have entirely ignored the dates that I gave above, maybe you can give me some dates of your own: when was oil production nationalized, and when did the economy collapse? Spell it out for me, because most of your claims appear to be bullshit [wikipedia.org].
The one you got right is the fact that the price of oil increased from 1999. Leading to overspending based on that revenue, an overdependance on natural resources, leading to economic collapse when the price of oil dropped. That's classic oil cur
Re: (Score:2)
All you had to do was read the rest of the discussion [slashdot.org] to get dates, but there's a direct link for you.
Also, the wiki graph you linked to has numbers which don't match any other reputable site [forbes.com] I've been able to find [eia.gov] online [tradingeconomics.com]. Looks like self-reported numbers or something.
You're right that Chavez and Maduro hid some of the wealth decline from their economic policies by using oil money, which made it take longer than it otherwise would have. Your theory doesn't explain at all why production declined, though.
Re: (Score:2)
All you had to do was read the rest of the discussion [slashdot.org] to get dates, but there's a direct link for you.
No... The only dates you give in that link are for steel. Your claim was: "Oil production in Venezuelan collapsed right after it was nationalized by the socialist heroes of the people you mention." ::sigh:: Fine, I'll do it.
PDVSA was nationalized in 1976. Production had been steeply declining prior to that, and nationalizing the oil industry did nothing to change that. It turned around eventually. What you probably want is when Venezuela nationalized the Orinoco oil fields, that was 2007. Again, no chang
Re: (Score:2)
You're reading a whole lot into very little. Norway is the only oil-rich country to have ever escaped the oil curse [wikipedia.org], and Venezuela's economic problems are the entirely predictable result of an over-dependence on natural resources. It's got nothing to do with socialism. What you should really ask is: "How has Norway managed to escape the oil curse?" Though you won't like the answer [bbc.com].
Yes. Finally. A government saved and invested a great portion of the sale of its natural resources, rather than spent it with both hands like a drunken sailor in port for the first time in months.
This selfsame investment strategy favors individual humans; also, too, and additionally.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry about that, The 1% will always have a large amount of money. Folks like you will 100% ensure that it does.
It's just that with Capitalism it will be closer to actual 1% vs the 0.1% socialism will ensure.
Folks like you are easy to fool. All I have to do get you to sacrifice all of your liberty and authority to me is make you fear another human more than me. And sacrifice your liberty and possessions to me you will.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia, China, the USA, and possibly other countries, either could pull this off. If they can't, it's only because they've spent their military-R&D budget on other things. However, I very much doubt that they could pull it off without leaving tracks leading back to them.
So the U.S. can pull this off... except it can't. Duly noted.
Re: (Score:2)
What are the US pulling off, I'll bet you what they think they are getting away with is not what they are actually achieving. Here is what will happen, Venezuela looking to secure it's essential services will be forced to work much more closely with China, than it has a preference to. Essentially the US government is forcing Venezuela to contract out this stuff to investment from China and China looking for investment opportunities will be more than happy to revitalise Venezuela's energy infrastructure. The
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Can you even explain what an "electromagnetic attack" does
We attacked their electromagnetics; what's not to understand?? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you even explain what an "electromagnetic attack" does and how if affects things like high voltage transmission lines
Can America’s Power Grid Survive an Electromagnetic Attack?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]
Study Finds The Facts, Not Science Fiction, In An Electromagnetic Pulse Attack
https://www.wfae.org/post/stud... [wfae.org]
Re:Doing the same thing expecting a different resu (Score:4, Insightful)
Castro and his ilk showed us that under socialism, the powerful grow rich — and everyone else grows poor.
The powerful have been shpwn to grow richer under any sort of "ism" - that's why they're the powerful.
Re: (Score:2)
Castro and his ilk showed us that under socialism, the powerful grow rich — and everyone else grows poor.
While capitalism is the opposite - everyone else grows poor and the powerful grow rich instead. [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are loads of "Celebrities" praising Venezuela.
When you say "no we don't" it is clear you have a vast ignorance to wide that you would be classified as a sheeple.
There is a long history in news and media with multiple people singing praises to Venezuela.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
ha ha ha... google it for yourself lamer.
The information is so readily available you have to actively avoid a large portion of politics to not have seen it. You are either very young and without any relevant life experience or you have some other issues you need to work out before you discuss politics with random folks on the interwebs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, you have Americans who are pointing towards their political opponents and saying "Those people say we should be like Venezuela!"
Re: (Score:2)
The best you have is an editorial from eight years ago which makes a passing reference fo Venezuela, and a reference which the author has now specifically disavowed at that? Your argument is weak, and if you had anything stronger I'd have expected you to use it.
Sanders is pretty socialist by American standards, but there are degrees of socialism - not even Sanders wants to nationalise the oil industry. Most of his policies would really be considered moderate over in Europe, and Europe is certainly no social
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is outrageous (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about stealing the oil, it's about what currency it's priced in. The US dollar is unofficially backed by oil; if people start selling oil in euro or yuan it will affect the dollar.
Re: (Score:2)
the US has toppled several middle eastern regimes just for planning to sell oil in other currencies.
Exactly the point.
Re: (Score:2)
"There's been more than a hundred years to diversify the economy."
If the US and its allies weren't laying an economic siege on Venezuela, Venezuela would be doing ok, maybe not good, but still ok. That's Venezuela's main problem right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said the people of Venezuela would be doing ok without the US sanctions, they'd still have a lot of problems economically and politically but they'd be doing ok relative to how they're doing now.
International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
US Sanctions on Iran and Venezuela: Illegal and Destructive
https://therealnews.com/storie... [therealnews.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Why did Venezuela's oil production collapse in half right after the industry was nationalized? Why did the steel industry production collapse to 1/3 of it's previous output right after it was nationalized? These two events happened years apart, there's only one major thing which ties them together, that they were nationalized.
Oh, and the same pattern shows up in health, food, farming, gold, cement, glass, finance, telecom, transport, and yes, electricity. They nationalized it, then somehow they couldn't man
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell are you talking about, the USA is a net oil exporter for a while now, we don't need oil from Venezuela.
They did this to themselves, perfectly predictable and exactly as predicted. You can pretend, like all the other failures of socialism, "they didn't do it right", but that's just ignoring the facts. Socialism inevitably results in widespread corruption and totalitarian governments, which then kill the economy in perfectly predictable ways, time and again.