Merged: Venezuela on the edge of ending....

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula

Yet when Chavez took office (1999) GDP per capita was around $4000, which under his reign then tripled to around $12000.

A huge increase in oil prices will do that to a country whose primary product is oil. Chavez can't really claim credit for that. And it has since dropped considerably.

Moreover, in any sensibly run country a soaring GDP would allow considerable infrastructure development, or at least maintenance. Venezuela's infrastructure is falling apart. They can't even keep the oil flowing. The country with the biggest proven reserves in the world, and their production is falling. How pathetic is that?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Are you in the business of making up statistics?

The statistics aren't made up (at least not by him). I can find multiple sources for it, such as:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator...D?locations=VE

It's the implication being drawn from the statistic, not the statistic itself, which is nonsense. Chavez was very, very bad for Venezuela's economy.

[applecorped]

Chavez still has fans here I see.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Are you in the business of making up statistics?

No.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=kU8H

[lupus_in_fabula]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The statistics aren't made up (at least not by him). I can find multiple sources for it, such as:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator...D?locations=VE

It's the implication being drawn from the statistic, not the statistic itself, which is nonsense. Chavez was very, very bad for Venezuela's economy.

Obviously one should be careful with such implications, but we also find other statistics in favour of improvements (absolute poverty, employment, schooling etc.). Considering the fact that the oil reserves are not a new phenomenon, one can only wonder how utterly pathetic the economic figures were even before Chavez. Yet of course, the common implication made here seems to be he made it far worse (not in evidence). But sure, a state like Norway would have managed the given rescources and economy far better.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula

Obviously one should be careful with such implications, but we also find other statistics in favour of improvements (absolute poverty, employment, schooling etc.).

And the Titanic's voyage was doing great for about 4 days.

Quote:

Considering the fact that the oil reserves are not a new phenomenon, one can only wonder how utterly pathetic the economic figures were even before Chavez.

GDP would have skyrocketed under anybody, given the oil price rise Chavez benefited from. But only an utter incompetent would let oil output fall under those conditions.

Quote:

Yet of course, the common implication made here seems to be he made it far worse (not in evidence).

It's very much in evidence. Have you not been paying any attention? Do you not understand what Chavez has done? Do you not comprehend the consequences of those actions?

Quote:

But sure, a state like Norway would have managed the given rescources and economy far better.

Almost anyone would have managed the given resources better. It's hard to imagine how you could manage them worse.

[lupus_in_fabula]

So you think the statistics are wrong?

[dann]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula

Yet when Chavez took office (1999) GDP per capita was around $4000, which under his reign then tripled to around $12000.

A huge increase in oil prices will do that to a country whose primary product is oil. Chavez can't really claim credit for that. And it has since dropped considerably.

That is the principle whenever right-wingers criticize Chavez and Maduro:
They can't take credit for the way they improved people's lives because that was all due to the increase in the price of oil. However, when oil prices drop, Chavez, Maduro and socialism are to blame, not the price of oil.
They should have handed over all the money earned from oil to the rich people - the same way their predecessors did. Then poor Venezuelans wouldn't have gotten used to regular meals in the first place, and Ziggurat, the prestige et al would have blamed the starvation of poor Venezuelans on the oil prices ...

[dann]

Originally Posted by applecorped

Chavez still has fans here I see.

No, not really. I just don't like the lies that are being told about Venezuela in this thread.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by dann

No, not really. I just don't like the lies that are being told about Venezuela in this thread.

You could always stop posting, I suppose.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by dann

That is the principle whenever right-wingers criticize Chavez and Maduro:
They can't take credit for the way they improved people's lives because that was all due to the increase in the price of oil.

A short-term improvement followed by catastrophy isn't a good thing. Overall, people's lives haven't been improved. They've been ruined.

Quote:

However, when oil prices drop, Chavez, Maduro and socialism are to blame, not the price of oil.

The price is still well above what it was when Chavez took office. So Venezuela should be doing better than it was when Chavez took office. But it isn't. It's much worse now.

And the drop in price isn't the cause of the drop in output.

Quote:

They should have handed over all the money earned from oil to the rich people

Straw man. But then, that's all you've got in defense of a kleptocratic tyrant.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula

So you think the statistics are wrong?

No, I don't think they're wrong. But they're not up to date (for example, my link stopped at 2014), and they don't come close to telling the whole picture.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by GlennB

While I don't doubt that Venezuelans are decamping to Buenos Aires (among other places) I don't believe for one millisecond that anybody has walked the whole way, or even most of it.

If you can buy food for that amount of walking you can save money by hopping on a bus and covering hundreds of kms in a day. Or you wash dishes in a hotel in Colombia for a few days then hop on a bus. "Travelling overland" is a more likely explanation, hyped up for dramatic effect?

They mostly travel hitch-hiking. The problem is lorry drivers currently are no longer lending a hand because their insurances warn them about the lack of cover in the event of an accident, so they have to walk some distances, mainly from the main routes to the town centres where they can beg in the streets.

Besides poor people is very caring and sympathetic in these lands. And don't think many of the migrants won't nick what they need.

I'm at the end of their trail. If I were at some point of their route I would certainly contribute to the olla popular (big communal pot) some good souls would have organized for them. It's common in my country when there are protest or charitable rallies that cover up to 4,000 km on foot.

I don't have any relation with Facebook or Twitter or anything like that, but there are probably charitable initiatives there (I'm not going to stoop to facebook my life in order to learn about them).

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The statistics aren't made up (at least not by him). I can find multiple sources for it, such as:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator...D?locations=VE

It's the implication being drawn from the statistic, not the statistic itself, which is nonsense. Chavez was very, very bad for Venezuela's economy.

Someone who propagates gossip isn't a gossip? The statistics from World Bank accepted without revision what the Venezuelan government told them. And that poster accepted those statistics without further investigation as they quench his/her epistemological hedonism.

It's all exactly like here 5 or 7 years ago with our government then, kindred spirits of Chavists: prices went up 10% per year (according to the government) and salaries went up 30% a year. The problem was that goods went up 30 to 35% in the supermarket during the same year.

If we are to look to less twisted statistics, we have to look at IMF's, who audits a bit all national figures and sieves the thickest crap. According to them, the GDP per capita went from 4120 u$d in 1999 to 7870 u$s in 2013. But that doesn't mean anything because it depended on an artificial foreign currency exchange rate with specific prohibitions to trade and invest.

The only real truth is in the economic growth, and that reality isn't so easy to hide. Here are the figures of real GDP growth, population growth and gdp per capita ppp growth during Chávez, according to the always vigilant IMF

year	economic growth	population growth	per capita growth	per capita index (base 1998=1000)
1999	-6	1.9	-7.9	921
2000	3.7	1.9	1.8	938
2001	3.4	1.9	1.5	952
2002	-8.9	1.8	-10.8	849
2003	-7.8	1.8	-9.7	767
2004	18.3	1.8	16.2	891
2005	10.3	1.7	8.5	966
2006	9.9	1.7	8.2	1046
2007	8.8	1.7	7.1	1120
2008	5.3	1.6	3.7	1161
2009	-3.2	1.6	-4.8	1105
2010	-1.5	1.6	-3.1	1071
2011	4.2	1.5	2.7	1100
2012	5.6	1.4	4.2	1146
2013	1.3	1.4	-0.1	1145

So, it didn't tripled but just grew 14.5% in 15 years (less than 1% a year, a typical European speed). And that taking into account that the IMF couldn't filter all the crap of the official statistics.

The awful truth is that Venezuela became a zero-sum economy and this pseudo-"socialism" just impoverished the middle classes to give some release to the working poor and everything to the non-working poor, looking for their support, hiding all this smelling pile of manure behind the smoke screen of a mythical class struggle as, in the end, the stupid inside and abroad will buy the red flags and red t-shirts as something real.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula

No.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=kU8H

OK, so you buy them pre-cooked.


See post above and stop propagating lies.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by dann

No, not really. I just don't like the lies that are being told about Venezuela in this thread.

Then single out every one of them and we'll discuss who is lying and who is enamoured of hedonistic romantic notions (hint: exactly the same people)

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Then single out every one of them and we'll discuss who is lying and who is enamoured of hedonistic romantic notions (hint: exactly the same people)

Vai devagar, meu.

I'm a hedonist and a romantic. But I'm not telling lies about Venezuela. Mistaken, maybe. Lying, no.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by applecorped

Chavez still has fans here I see.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Vai devagar, meu.

I'm a hedonist and a romantic. But I'm not telling lies about Venezuela. Mistaken, maybe. Lying, no.

Hedonistic, sure; romantic, the jury is still out. But, what has to do being an hedonist and a romantic with being enamoured of hedonistic romantic notions? (Hint: since Robespierre invented the notion of changing human nature just by sanctioning a new law about it, there have been an endless stream of people offering the formulas for freedom, prosperity and justice. Like one of my cousins used to say: "Here by this decree I declare the people of this country to be happy")

[aleCcowaN]

For those curious about how Venezuela continued to do after the demise of Chávez, this is the rest of the table (including IMF projections for this year and next)

year	economic growth	population growth	per capita growth	per capita index (base 1998=1000)
2013	1.3	1.4	-0.1	1145
2014	-3.9	1.3	-5.2	1085
2015	-6.2	1.2	-7.4	1005
2016	-16.5	1.0	-17.6	828
2017	-14	0.7	-14.8	706
2018	-15	0.2	-15.2	598
2019	-6	0.2	-6.2	561

You have to go to Germany and Japan in 1945 to find such an economic fall in a period of 6 years.

IMF data for you to peruse (select "list").

[aleCcowaN]

Select subtitles/close captions and then in Settings > Subtitles > Auto-translate (to the language of your choice)

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Put it another way: Saudi Arabia has oil and depends on oil wealth, and looks like Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, Yemen doesn't have oil wealth, and looks like Yemen. Venezuela has oil and depends on oil wealth, just like Saudi Arabia, but somehow manages to look like Yemen anyway. It's obvious that global oil prices aren't the problem.

Saudi Arabia certainly weathered declining oil prices better than Venezuela, but that doesn't mean they weren't affected,

Economy of Saudi Arabia

Quote:

Income drop

Despite possessing the largest petroleum reserves in the world, per capita income dropped from approximately $18,000 at the height of the oil boom (1981) to $7,000 in 2001, according to one estimate. As of 2013, per capita income in Saudi was "a fraction of that of smaller Persian gulf neighbors", even less than petroleum-poor Bahrain.

Unlike most developed countries where gross domestic product growth is a function of increases in productivity and inputs such as employment, in Saudi the fluctuation of oil prices is the most important factor in the growth or decline of domestic production. "Saudi reserves are steadily being depleted, and no significant new discoveries have been found to replace them," according to Middle East journalist Karen House. Saudi population grew sevenfold from 1960 to 2010, and petrol prices are subsidized and cost users less than equivalent quantities of bottled water.

Maybe they are not that different?

The main difference was Venezuela didn't have enough easy oil to turn on the taps and maintain income at the lower price. That could have been mitigated by spending more on oilfield infrastructure and diversification of the economy before the easy oil ran out, but even with those measures they would probably have been in trouble. Saudi Arabia is doing all those things but still has to face the final hurdle. If they are lucky then prices will hold during the transition, but if another World-wide recession occurs at the wrong time they could easily go the same way as Venezuela.

And before we start throwing stones, let's not forget,

Financial crisis of 2007–2008

Quote:

It began in 2007 with a crisis in the subprime mortgage market in the United States, and developed into a full-blown international banking crisis with the collapse of the investment bank Lehman Brothers on September 15, 2008. Excessive risk-taking by banks such as Lehman Brothers helped to magnify the financial impact globally. Massive bail-outs of financial institutions and other palliative monetary and fiscal policies were employed to prevent a possible collapse of the world financial system. The crisis was nonetheless followed by a global economic downturn, the Great Recession.

Who is really to blame for Venezuela's economic problems?

Quote:

The Brookings Institution reported in June 2009 that US consumption accounted for more than a third of the growth in global consumption between 2000 and 2007. "The US economy has been spending too much and borrowing too much for years and the rest of the world depended on the US consumer as a source of global demand." With a recession in the US and the increased savings rate of US consumers, declines in growth elsewhere have been dramatic.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

OK, so you buy them pre-cooked.


See post above and stop propagating lies.

No, IMF data (WEC database) show similar numbers. Obviously if we change the measure, numbers will be different.

[dann]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Then single out every one of them and we'll discuss who is lying and who is enamoured of hedonistic romantic notions (hint: exactly the same people)

You already accused lupus_in_fabula of making up statistics. As you are well aware by now, although you may already have forgotten, he didn't. His post proved that Chavez, unlike the dictators you compared him with, actually distributed the wealth from the Venezuelan oil to Venezuelans instead of pocketing it for himself:

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula

Yet when Chavez took office (1999) GDP per capita was around $4000, which under his reign then tripled to around $12000.

dudalb's weird lie about (me and) Marx has already been exploded. That you never actually read any Marx even though you pretended to know his ideas was also revealed: You wouldn't lose your time reading Marx and then you went on to compare Capital to Mein Kampf, which you probably also never read. Very convincing!


ETA: I find it a little strange that you guys think that it's necessary to make up these lies. I don't think that anybody in this thread has claimed that the Chavistas invested the oil money wisely: The infrastructure is obviously not what it ought to be. I don't know (I really don't!) to what extent this has to do with sabotage, but why try to deny obvious truths like this?

Quote:

Huge investment in the social sector, government subsidies and price controls on staple foods, fuelled by revenues from Venezuela's oil industry, have been behind its achievements in narrowing the gap between the rich and poor.
Venezuela's economic woes: Sabotage or mismanagement? (BBC, Sep. 3, 2013)

And "narrowing the gap between the rich and poor" would never appear in your per-capita statistics.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Originally Posted by dann

ETA: I find it a little strange that you guys think that it's necessary to make up these lies. I don't think that anybody in this thread has claimed that the Chavistas invested the oil money wisely: The infrastructure is obviously not what it ought to be. I don't know (I really don't!) to what extent this has to do with sabotage, but why try to deny obvious truths like this?

Exactly. Looking at Venezuelan statistics from the 1970s onward, it's somewhat clear we're talking about a struggling state and economic mismanagement. For example, falling oil production is not a new phenomenon in Venezuelan history. But apparently only Chavez is the one emanating the smell of sulfur.

[applecorped]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Since my Spanish is not that good I'm going to assume he said he's a Goofy Goober

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Select subtitles/close captions and then in Settings > Subtitles > Auto-translate (to the language of your choice)

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Nicolas Maduro calls Venezuelan emigrants "slaves and beggars".

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

The main difference was Venezuela didn't have enough easy oil to turn on the taps and maintain income at the lower price.

No. Sure, Venezuela didn't have extra capacity that they could ramp up. But falling oil prices don't explain why production has been dropping, even while prices were rising. That's mismanagement. Venezuela's problems are primarily self-inflicted. Hyperinflation like Venezuela is experiencing never happens just because of external factors, it happens because of bad choices by government.

Quote:

Who is really to blame for Venezuela's economic problems?

Chavez first and foremost, and now Maduro. That's pretty well established.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by dann

You already accused lupus_in_fabula of making up statistics. As you are well aware by now, although you may already have forgotten, he didn't. His post proved that Chavez, unlike the dictators you compared him with, actually distributed the wealth from the Venezuelan oil to Venezuelans instead of pocketing it for himself:

First, as aleCcowaN demonstrated, those statistics are not reliable. Second, even had they been reliable, his statistics show nothing of the sort. Per capita GDP statistics tell you absolutely nothing about how income, wealth, or economic activity is distributed. Seriously, do you even understand what per capita GDP means?

[lupus_in_fabula]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

First, as aleCcowaN demonstrated, those statistics are not reliable.

No. Don't be silly. He used the same figures but chose the year 2013 instead of 2012. That's convenient because GDP per capita fell the year Chavez died (march 2013) quite substantially.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula

No. Don't be silly. He used the same figures but chose the year 2013 instead of 2012. That's convenient because GDP per capita fell the year Chavez died (march 2013) quite substantially.

No, his figures are markedly different from yours. And he gave both 2012 and 2013.

[Klimax]

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula

No. Don't be silly. He used the same figures but chose the year 2013 instead of 2012. That's convenient because GDP per capita fell the year Chavez died (march 2013) quite substantially.

You missed post #174.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Originally Posted by Klimax

You missed post #174.

Can't find his source. I use both Fred and IMF data.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Who is really to blame for Venezuela's economic problems?

You must be joking

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula

No, IMF data (WEC database) show similar numbers. Obviously if we change the measure, numbers will be different.

Why are you fetching statistical information originated in public institutions from sites other than the very ones of those institutions? What's your next source? A tweet from Trump?

GPD per capita current prices for Venezuela in 2013

World Bank ---> 12237u$s (no values since 2015 on)

International Monetary Fund ---> 7870u$s (3170u$s estimated for 2018)

Oh, yes! The values are so similar!

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula

Obviously if we change the measure, numbers will be different.

So you are going to select the numbers that allow you to lie your way away in this discussion, aren't you?

How comfortable it is to be ignorant (or feign ignorance) in order to argue the niceties of the Chavist fascist in socialist disguise regime. Let's remember your suggestion that GDP per capita tripled under Chávez.

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula

Yet when Chavez took office (1999) GDP per capita was around $4000, which under his reign then tripled to around $12000.

Such a puerile attempt to suggest through twisted statistics a smashing progress were stagnation reigns deserves a reply in proper style: "Liar, liar, pants on fire!"

[Hans]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Who is really to blame for Venezuela's economic problems?

Oh my those 'mericans' are hard core they crashed their own economy to get Chavez!

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by dann

Quote:

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN
Then single out every one of them and we'll discuss who is lying and who is enamoured of hedonistic romantic notions (hint: exactly the same people)

You already accused lupus_in_fabula of making up statistics. As you are well aware by now, although you may already have forgotten, he didn't. His post proved that Chavez, unlike the dictators you compared him with, actually distributed the wealth from the Venezuelan oil to Venezuelans instead of pocketing it for himself:

Quote:

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula
Yet when Chavez took office (1999) GDP per capita was around $4000, which under his reign then tripled to around $12000.

What do you think you'll achieve by doubling the bet on the same lie?

That case was already closed in the posts above. Try to get something fresh to say (preferably, not a lie or a romantic misrepresentation)

Originally Posted by dann

dudalb's weird lie about (me and) Marx has already been exploded. That you never actually read any Marx even though you pretended to know his ideas was also revealed: You wouldn't lose your time reading Marx and then you went on to compare Capital to Mein Kampf, which you probably also never read. Very convincing!

In sight of the divorce with reality you're talking about everywhere else. I won't ever bother in following your argumentation. Take from me what Rett Buttler said in the ending of Gone with the Wind.

The only data there is that you, probably, read a book. Very poor as argumentation.

Originally Posted by dann

ETA: I find it a little strange that you guys think that it's necessary to make up these lies. I don't think that anybody in this thread has claimed that the Chavistas invested the oil money wisely: The infrastructure is obviously not what it ought to be. I don't know (I really don't!) to what extent this has to do with sabotage, but why try to deny obvious truths like this?

You make up lies !!! Non wise investments!!! Sabotage!!!

You're so funny!!! Don't ever change !!!

Originally Posted by dann

And "narrowing the gap between the rich and poor" would never appear in your per-capita statistics.

Already explained by me above and conveniently ignored by you (You wouldn't understand it or you wouldn't know how to argue it).

I have to tell you, dann, that, in this business of being zurdo, you are extremely limited. Go and fetch someone with whom it's worth discussing so they can replace you in this thread. I have debated with zurdos all my life and I can spot the real deal from the endless 8-track tape (follow the link in case you're not as old as your ideas)

[lupus_in_fabula]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

So you are going to select the numbers that allow you to lie your way away in this discussion, aren't you?

It's really not that difficult to find comparable numbers to the World Bank's at the IMF database. Simply look at GDP per capita / current prices / U.S. dollars. That's the measure originally used in this discussion. Thus you'll find 11.3 in 2012 and then 7.9 in 2013.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula

Exactly. Looking at Venezuelan statistics from the 1970s onward, it's somewhat clear we're talking about a struggling state and economic mismanagement. For example, falling oil production is not a new phenomenon in Venezuelan history. But apparently only Chavez is the one emanating the smell of sulfur.

Then, bring those statistics here and back your words with proper explanations. And don't flee the thread.

I saw you are just lying your way away there. That's why I'm daring to parade here your ignorance both in Econometrics and Venezuela.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by applecorped

Since my Spanish is not that good I'm going to assume he said he's a Goofy Goober

It's the famous record where he tells how he was praying alone in a church -he's a very devout Christian - and the spirit of Chávez in the shape of a little bird (the famous pajarito) appeared before him to bless what he is doing and to encourage him to perfect la revolución (better known as el revoltijo -the jumble-)